The Glory of God Composed of Form and Splendor – part 2

Posted on December 28, 2009

[Eric Johnson is our guest blogger for December. Eric is the Director of the Society for Christian Psychology and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is his fourth post].

Last week I began a discussion based on a distinction borrowed from the great 20th century Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, that glory is composed of both form and splendor. I will assume the reader has read that introduction as we explore this week the implications of that momentous distinction.

In art, physical form has to do with spatial arrangement of the features, say, of a statue. A beautiful statue looks good. But we are interested in psychological or spiritual form-something invisible-and therefore not something we can see with the physical eye, but something we arrive at by means of inference and wisdom.

God is the source and measure of glory; indeed, glory is the biblical term for the beauty of God. God’s glory is the “sum of his attributes,” his greatness and goodness, his meaningfulness. God is the essence of perfect, infinite form and splendor. So God’s form is the perfect configuration of psychological and spiritual features: God knows everything (including absolute self-awareness); always thinks clearly; is completely content,  but has emotional richness that corresponds to the rest of reality perfectly (including true empathy); acts determinedly and wisely; and (in the Trinity) consists of strong, loving persons-in-communion.

Last week we defined splendor as the depth dimension of a form, its inner radiance that “shines out” from the form. God is also the essence of perfect, infinite splendor, so he is the deepest of beings: he loves that which is lovely-himself supremely and all creatures, especially insofar as they resemble him-and he hates that which is ugly-sin; he regards all things in proportion to their true value with respect to himself; he always acts according to his preeminent values; and he “sees through” mere appearance and promotes depth in those made in his image.

Being the Son of God in human form, Jesus Christ is the perfect human representation of God’s form and splendor. The Gospels are important because they provide narrative descriptions of his glory, “glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). Jesus Christ shows the human race flawless human form and consummate depth of splendor. Being increasingly conformed to Christ (in his form and splendor) is the goal of human life (Ro 8:29; 2Co 3:18).

So it is God’s intention that humans made in his image are created to realize the greatest form and splendor of which they are capable as finite creatures. Having good form means having healthy thinking and emotions, well-functioning memory, the ability to freely act so as to realize one’s realistic goals, and good relationships. Modern psychology has explored many of these features.

Having a high degree of splendor means being deep, rather than superficial, being focused on the important things in life: supernatural reality more than natural, people more than things, being and doing good more than simply looking good; but also having regard for the weak, hurting, broken, and sinners, and all creatures in proportion to their actual value before God, yet hating sin. Obviously modern psychology has not focused much on splendor.

This doxological focus (doxa = glory, Gk) makes human development central to God’s purposes. Children obviously manifest God’s glory, but it is good to develop into increasingly well-formed creatures with greater splendor. Because of their limited formal capacities, children necessarily act with less splendor than adults, because adults can do what they do intentionally for the glory of God; children cannot, at least not as fully as adults.

Glory of course is not the possession of anyone except God. To be human is only to be a means of God’s glory; by grace God permits humans to participate in his glory. The more well-formed our souls and the more splendorous their form, the greater glory we are capable of receiving from God in worship, love, and gratitude and expressing in our voices, lives, and relationships.

This glory framework gives Christians a different way of viewing psychopathology.  Sin is the worst kind of psychopathology because it radically compromises our ability to participate in God’s glory. Sin’s essence is anti-glory.  Part of sin’s effects was the damage of the soul’s form evident in distorted thinking, inappropriate emotions, and personality disorders, so this kind of damage should be of concern to Christian counseling, since it can inhibit our ability to participate in God’s glory. However, sin’s effects are most evident in the compromise of splendor. The more sinful we are, the less devoted to God we are and the more focused we are on this creation as an end in itself (so it becomes an idol), so those who live lives distracted by the superficial (fame, fashion, power, possessions) lack splendor. Low levels of splendor, then, is a greater problem than poor form in Christian counseling. Interestingly, having damaged form leads to increased suffering, but suffering promotes our deepening and so our splendor.

Christ came to earth and died and was raised to heal our form and deepen our splendor. Some healing in our form is possible in this life, but its complete healing is reserved for heaven. However, in light of the foregoing, we might expect more healing on earth in our capacity for splendor, as we grow through suffering in worship, wisdom, faith, hope, and love. Christian psychotherapy and counseling is doxological as it participates in the glory of Christ’s salvation by helping to bring healing to the human form and increase human splendor through the resources of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

Modernism and Its Impact on Spirituality

Posted on February 2, 2009

[This is the final post for January by Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary). He concludes his thoughts on the study of spirituality and the difficulties inherent in speaking of the topic from a generic faith standpoint.]

This month I have been suggesting that a Christian psychology approach to spirituality will differ considerably from the faith-neutral, generic spirituality that is promoted in contemporary therapy (what Richards & Bergin call “ecumenical spirituality.”) In my final blog this month, I would like to explain what has contributed to my skeptical interpretation about mainstream generic spirituality, in spite of my hearty appreciation for its accomplishments. My interpretation is shaped by the “Great Tradition” of classical Christianity, as well as elements of a postmodern critique of modernism. Modernism strives for a generic rationality, based on “faith-neutral” reason and the experimental method, leading to conclusions that all rational people supposedly can agree on. Modern psychology and therapy have been products of and contributors to this movement. Postmodernist and recent Christian philosophers (like MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Wolterstorff, & Plantinga) have attempted to critique and deconstruct this quest for a universal, generic system of thought. I would summarize their work as suggesting that modern thought is compromised by a lack of awareness of its own hidden biases, which in its exorcising of the influence of communal and religious perspectives in the interest of objectivity in knowledge and a generic kind of unity, unwittingly divorced facts from values, knowledge from love, observations from worldview assumptions, and in the process created a new ideological tyranny. But humans actually don’t think that way—they can’t think that way. Universal, objective, unbiased human thought, uncontaminated by basic beliefs or assumptions about the world—the viewpoint from nowhere in particular—was a false ideal. So rather than striving for this chimera, many Christian philosophers (and some psychologists) are advocating that everyone be more worldview sensitive, honest, and transparent.

 

Spirituality, in particular, similarly cannot be properly understood generically. True spirituality, whether Buddhist, Muslim, New Age, or Christian, is always situated within a rich and thick sociocultural context. Yet most writing in this area in psychology (implicitly) assumes a universal, faith-neutral posture for discussing religion and spirituality—the viewpoint from nowhere in particular.

 

At the same time, I don’t want to be misunderstood. There is an important place for generalizations and for describing similarities across communities. Of course. This is one of the tasks of science. Moreover, it is important to respect one another and the views of communities that differ from one’s own in trans-communal conversations. Consequently, we need to aim at creating a pluralistic place of discourse where members of different worldview communities can talk with each other and describe generic features of the community-constituted phenomena of interest. My point is that modernism is mistaken in thinking that its form of discourse has arrived at that place. Modernism does not promote genuinely pluralist discourse, but only discourse that conforms to its standards of universality and faith-neutral objectivity. But in order to develop a truly pluralistic place of discourse, it requires listening to the objections of members of those communities that complain of feeling disenfranchised…like the “Great Tradition” Christian community.

 

So I am alleging that a modernist agenda is still dictating autocratically the rules of discourse and practice in the field in spirituality. One way to verify the arrival of a more genuinely pluralist public square in therapy will be how open the field is to the “freedom of speech” of non-modernist counselors and therapists. I await the day when across-the-board advocacy for religious diversity among counselors and therapists, and a recognition of their rights to practice according to their deeply held values—lovingly, responsibly, and sensibly—is permitted.

 

The bottom line issue for Christian psychology is one of justice and fairness. Therapists and therapy educators and supervisors need to become more aware of their implicit worldview assumptions and more transparent about them and also recognize that those who sensitively and carefully advocate a specific spirituality are fundamentally no different from those who choose to advocate for an ecumenical (or even a denominational) spirituality that is shaped entirely by the client or counselee, or for that matter, no spirituality at all (a belief stance loaded with value assumptions that goes almost entirely unchecked in the contemporary therapy system controlled by modernism). Sensitively and wisely sharing one’s ultimate assumptions of reality with one’s counselee is always going on in therapy. It’s just that it is done implicitly in modernist frameworks, and it would be better for everyone if everyone were more aware of it and were allowed, even encouraged, to be more explicit about it.

The Politics of Spirituality

Posted on January 27, 2009

[Manager's note: Dr. Johnson continues his weekly blog posts on the topic of Spirituality and Christian soul care.]

 

One of the respondents to last week’s blog (Paul Martin) helped me realize that I was too simplistic in my remarks, so this week I would like to expand on the distinction I made between Christian spirituality and what I called the “faith-neutral generic spirituality” that is being advocated by some in contemporary psychology. It was suggested that there is no such thing as faith-neutral generic spirituality being advocated today.

 

In A Spiritual Strategy for Counseling and Psychotherapy, a classic in the field published by the American Psychological Association, Richards & Bergin (1997) helpfully distinguish between what they call “ecumenical spirituality” and “denominational spirituality” (p. 238). The latter involves content that makes it appropriate only for persons who belong to a particular religions tradition. The former contains no “theological content or meaning that would identify the intervention with a specific religious tradition.” The content of this spirituality is “general, flexible, and as universal as possible so that they can be accepted and used with clients from a variety of religious and spiritual traditions” (p. 239). That’s what I was referring to as “faith-neutral generic spirituality,” and still seems to me to be the primary approach advocated in most texts on the subject. Distinctively Christian spirituality fits better in the category “denominational spirituality.” However, even here, contemporary literature tends to focus on the diversity of clients’ religious orientations (Richards & Bergin, 1997; 2000)—and does not promote the same kind of openness and diversity regarding the therapist’s religious orientation and worldview assumptions.

 

The issue that I was trying to address was the stance that explicitly Christian psychologists should take today. Currently, the vast majority of the literature in psychotherapy and counseling that addresses spirituality forbid the counselor/therapist from being an advocate of any “denominational” position. Rather, the professional counselor/therapist is required to accept and work within the counselee’s religious values (1997, p. 135). Of course, therapy professionals need to be sensitive and discerning regarding any values issues, particularly those working in public mental health settings. But the current “regulations” regarding what therapists can say or do go beyond the rules for normal human discourse in a pluralist culture like ours, and they potentially inhibit the sensitive, discerning expression of some values of some therapists. But there really are two people in therapy, and there are good therapeutic and humane reasons to regard therapy generally as a genuine dialogue involving two persons, neither of whom should have “denominational prohibitions.” This is particularly grievous when secularists or ecumenical spirituality advocates do not have the same kinds of worldview strictures placed on their discourse. Why are the denominational spiritual values of therapists treated in this way? I would argue that it is not merely a concern to protect vulnerable clients (something that should concern all professionals), but primarily the powerful, pervasive, but implicit values of modernism that controls the discourse in the field. My last blog this month will unpack this challenge.

 

References

 

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spirituality strategy for counseling and

psychotherapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

 

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (2000). Handbook of psychotherapy and religious

diversity. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

 

Christian Spirituality vs. Generic Spirituality

Posted on January 19, 2009

[This is the 2nd post from Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary; Director of this Society) for January 2009. This month he is blogging about soul care and spirituality in counseling.]

 

Over the past two decades, spirituality has become increasingly recognized in contemporary psychotherapy and counseling to be a valuable resource for some persons in their journey toward wholeness. Given the historical hostility towards religion during the previous 80 years in these fields, this change in perspective is nothing short of revolutionary. Since this change began, the American Psychological Association and many other mainstream psychology publishers have published dozens of books on the role of spirituality in therapy.

 

Christian psychologists rejoice in these developments. They have created an opening in training and counseling contexts for Christians to advocate and use spiritual techniques and make reference to spiritual teachings in therapy. All this is central to a Christian psychology approach to therapy. However, from our standpoint, there is a serious limitation to the contemporary advocacy of spirituality: it permits the advocacy of a generic type of spirituality, but not one that promotes a particular faith perspective. Counselors currently may ask questions about “religion” and “spirituality” in general, encourage counselees to explore their own faith tradition, and perhaps even promote the use of spiritual practices, but they are not allowed to advocate for a particular faith.

 

But such restrictions perpetuate a modernist kind of unreality regarding these topics, since most people do not believe in generic religion or spirituality—most believe in a specific religion and spirituality that has certain tenets that distinguish it from others.

 

Moreover, just as it is unethical to force counselees to accept the beliefs of their counselors, it is also unethical to force counselors to be inauthentic regarding their own soul-healing beliefs. Christians believe that an honest, sincere faith in Christ is the best way for one to grow in psychological wellbeing. Secularists and adherents of a generic-faith spirituality have their own views on such matters, but they (and notably, Buddhists) should not be the only ones who are permitted to counsel within their worldview understanding of psychological wellbeing. Modernism has been remarkably successful in persuading its adherents that the sharing of all other worldview beliefs are off-limits in therapy and that only its worldview beliefs are legitimate and only its assumptions should control how therapy is done—and this continues to affect contemporary thinking about spirituality. But justice requires that Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, as well as Christian therapists be given the same freedoms that modern, “generic-faith” therapists have to discern what is best to share to promote their clients’ wellbeing. Of course, there is the genuine concern that some “evangelists” would manipulate vulnerable counselees.[1] Training in sensitive, appropriate sharing must begin in graduate school, and Christians will have to be very clear about their respect for the rights of their clients to choose for themselves what they need. But the mature, well-trained Christian counselors I know have no desire to promote superficial “conversions” anyway, since they believe their counselees are made in the image of God so they genuinely need to freely determine for themselves their ultimate beliefs—this is the only kind of Christianity worth promoting. Besides, therapists who are resistant to this Christian understanding will lose clients.

 

But when working with Christian counselees, there can be no objection to counselors advocating for the use of the Christian spiritual disciplines (prayer, Bible reading, the reading of spiritual books, meditation, fasting, healthy church involvement, and so on), and they should be able to talk freely about the tremendous psychospiritual resources of the Christian faith, including God’s beauty; Christ’s life, death, and resurrection; identity in Christ; the blessings of salvation; heaven; and so on; to explore their rich therapeutic potential with their counselees.

 

So, while Christian psychologists are delighted about the new openness to spirituality in our day, I think we ought to avoid its generic versions, and promote instead a distinctively Christian spirituality, the features of which we will discuss next week.


[1] But even that cuts both ways. Tapes I’ve seen of Carl Rogers show a very sophisticated and subtle form of humanistic evangelism, and surely he’s not alone.

Designed by Business Broker