A Momentous Evening Forum with ABC

Posted on June 1, 2009

[The following is a post from SCP Director, Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary). Dr. Johnson provides us with several thoughts from his recent interaction at an Association of Biblical Counselors conference.]

 

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of participating in a forum the opening night of the 2009 conference of the Association of Biblical Counselors (ABC; www.christiancounseling.com ), in Fort Worth, TX, along with David Powlison, Steve Viars, and Robert Kellemen. All of them are significant leaders in the biblical counseling movement: In his role as the editor of the Journal of Biblical Counseling, David Powlison has made an incalculable contribution. Steve Viars is the pastor of Faith Baptist Church, Lafayette, IN, a church with a nouthetic counseling center for over 30 years, and he is a past president of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (www.nanc.org). Robert Kellemen has written a couple of very distinctive biblical counseling books (Soul Physicians and Spiritual Friends), and he is the director of the Biblical Counseling and Spiritual Formation Network of the American Association of Christian Counselors (www.aacc.net). For a psychologist like me to be on the same stage with biblical counselors like them made this an important and symbolic event. (Full disclosure: I happily teach in a biblical counseling program). So I am very thankful to ABC and its leadership for inviting me to come.

 

From its origins in the work of Jay Adams, nouthetic counseling and the biblical counseling which has developed since have tended to be very skeptical of contemporary psychology—because of its basis in naturalistic and humanistic assumptions—as well as the efforts of integrationist Christians who seek to combine their faith with that psychology.

 

One of the challenges of advocates of Christian psychology (CP) has been to explain what exactly CP is and how it differs from the integration model, since some nouthetic and biblical counselors have assumed that CP is simply another example of integration. (For example, see the review of my book, Foundations for Soul Care, in a recent issue of the Journal of Modern Ministry.)  Indeed, John MacArthur (1994, p. 10) has written that the term Christian psychology is an oxymoron. (Full disclosure: In Christian psychology integration is done as one of its intellectual strategies[following the Apostles John and Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Edwards, et al], in order to benefit from the creation grace/common grace insights given by God to scientists of all stripes, in their attempt to develop a genuinely Christian psychology, in areas where Christian faith makes a difference. However, they reject integration as their paradigm of practice, because the model of integration accepts the assumptions of modern psychology regarding the definition and boundaries of psychology, and this blunts the foundational worldview criticism of modern psychology that Christians need to make—something biblical counseling leaders have been concerned about since biblical counseling began.)

 

So it came as a wonderful surprise to receive an invitation to participate in a forum at ABC’s conference For the first hour and a half, the four of us took turns answering questions about our counseling philosophy, the strengths and weaknesses of biblical counseling currently, and our view of psychology. The second hour and a half began with the reading of a case study of a couple in a difficult marriage, followed by our analysis of the problems and how best to address them. The questions were fair and the case study was well written. We had a friendly conversation that emphasized our common commitments to Scripture and the God of Scripture. I understand that a DVD of the forum will be available from ABC in the near future.

 

I was very encouraged that evening. David Powlison was typically adroit: wise and winsome; highly principled yet nuanced. Bob Kellemen impressed me again with his willingness to push biblical counseling in some new directions (e.g., to seek greater ethnic diversity). And I was stirred to hear of the many various ways that Steve Viars’ church is attempting to minister to the needs of the larger Lafayette, IN community. I also appreciated his wondering aloud whether some biblical counselors ought to obtain professional licensure to broaden their impact in their communities.

 

The first question from the audience noted that the members of the panel had significant differences that were not being addressed and that ought to be. Next week I want to expand on my response that night.

 

MacArther, Jr., J. F. (1994). Rediscovering Biblical counseling. In J. F. MacArthur, Jr., &

W. A. Mack (Eds.), Introduction to Biblical counseling (pp. 3-20). Waco, TX:

Word.

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.

Shame and Guilt Cultures: Pros and Cons

Posted on September 16, 2008

[This post is written by Dr. Wolfram Soldan, member of this Society, and colleague of Kathrin Halder, of IGNIS, Germany.]

In practical psychology, there exist two terms: guilt culture (common in the west industrialised countries) and shame culture (known in the east and more original cultures). The comparison of these two terms has its origin in the 40s and 50s of the last century, either it is attributed to the US – American cultur anthropologist Ruth Benedict, or to the Oxford philologist Eric Robertson Dodds (wikipedia). Since then the comparison of shame and guilt culture plays a role in Christian missiology.

I question whether this differentiation has an empirical base. Since these ideas came up in western humanities, the guilt culture has an advantage in comparison to shame culture, because here more personal responsibility will be assumed. Furthermore, in my opinion, individual differences exist in both shame-prone and guilt-prone character traits.

In western psychological perspective, shame and (feelings of) guilt play a mixed role (positive and negative), whereas shame receives the unappreciative role. While healthy shame is only sometimes picked out as a central theme, in most cases shame means the repressing responsibility and inhibiting (positive) change.

Feelings of guilt are defined as negatively as shame. And yet they also are depicted as emotional feelings that point to personal responsibility for the suffering of other people (in sense of empathy). In this case feelings of guilt depict objective guilt or responsibility and so support positive changes in character.

The bible does not have a separate term for feelings of guilt. They are simply a part of the semantic field of guilt/sin. Shame and dishonor, on the other hand play a mixed role. Like feelings of guilt in (modern) psychology, they can contribute to either hardening or repentence.

If we focus on the semantic field of sin-guilt-shame in a biblical holistic way (instead of only viewing from the western psychological point of view) we can see that both guilt culture and shame culture carry important aspects of truth. The former points out individual responsibility for sin and the latter the relational reality including the whole person´s character affected by sin.

In conclusion, observe the following positive and negative charateristics of shame and guilt determination without the influene of western psychology:

Guilt-proneness (cultural and/or individual): I am guilty. I have acted in the wrong way. I have adopted a wrong attitude.

+ Sense of own responsibility: I am able and I have to change something.
- That´s only my affair – There is no need for (heavenly) grace.
Description: repentence/change is more probable but may be more superficial.

Shame-proneness: I have become shamefaced. My self-perception has become damaged. I lost my face.

+ Feeling or sense of relational and existential depth of own failure and the dependence of an authority and human or godly grace.
- One´s own responsibility gets out of focus. Feeling of powerlessness can increase defense (mechanisms) and hinder positive changes.
Description repentence / change is more improbable but if it occures, more holistic. (simulated behavior are more likely?)

Considering both shame- and guilt-proneness in their different profiles of resources and problems, we can use them in practical counseling to help our clients more specifically. Shame-prone clients need sensitive and patient encouragement to face their own guilt and responsibility. Guilt-prone clients more easily notice their own responsibility, but they need help to discover the existential helplesness facing their own sin.

Sources:

www.schlauweb.de/Schamkultur – 14k
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scham-_und_Schuldkultur – 29k

http://www.russlanddeutschemissionologie.de/resources/15

Boxes and Labels, Part 1

Posted on August 4, 2008

[This is the first post for August 2008 by guest blogger Dr. Sam Williams. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Counseling at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC and member of this Society. ]

It is interesting how often my own critical railings loop around and end up in my own front yard. I was recently taken to task by my friend Mike McGuire for using the terms “integrationism” and “biblical counseling” as a moniker for two of the more prominent types of Christian Counseling. (You can read more about that in the pending issue of Edification, the new journal for the Society for Christian Psychology.)

As a southwestern hippie (Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego), my own soul resonates reflexively with the “Don’t fence me in!” mentality. My default nature hates boxes and labels. I’m the kid on Christmas morning that tears boxes up to get at what’s inside – not the one who carefully detaches the ribbons and tape, gently removes the wrapping, and opens the box tidily to preserve it for future use. I don’t mean to tout that as a virtue – just as the way it is. As a Christian, semper reformandum is easier for me than the solas.

As I review my own course as a Christian psychologist, movement and transition are as prominent, and sometimes more so, than particular commitments. My transitions have been from pagan to Christian, and then within that worldview from perspectivalist to integrationist to biblical counselor to Christian psychology with biblical counseling as the preferred counseling mode.

I thought I would move the discussion toward two correlated topics:

1) Our journeys (sorry, I hate that word too…) as psychologists and counselors trying to practice/minister in such a way that our understanding of persons/problems/change becomes more accurate and our care for others more effective. How have you arrived at the point that you’re at now and what do you see God doing now as he chisels and molds your clay feet?

2) What about the boxes??? Should we do away with them? Are they helpful…or merely necessary evils? Do they create more problems than they solve? What label would you choose for yourself?

David Powlison once proposed two acronyms as a way around the liability of labels: VITEX (for Christian counseling models that believe that secular psychology makes vital external contributions) and COMPIN (for Christian counseling models that believe the Bible contains comprehensive or sufficient internal resources).

Others have proposed spectrums to describe the variety of Christian counseling models and counselors. Are the labels Christian Integration, Biblical Counseling, Christian Psychology legitimate and fair-minded ways to denominate what you’re up to? If so, how do they help?

Psychology Words: Unconditional Positive Regard

Posted on July 28, 2008

[This is the last post for this month by guest blogger Dr. Bryan Maier (Biblical Seminary). He has been exploring questions stimulated by some of the classic therapeutic theories. In particular, Dr. Maier wishes that readers would be prompted to think how the Scriptures speak to concepts traditionally raised in theories courses. As in past posts, Dr. Maier raises a variety of questions for the reader to consider.]

I hope that my attempt to interact with Scripture and psychological theories has been thought provoking for you. If you want more of these type of discussions, I would encourage you to join us at our annual conference this September in Chicago (see this webpage for details). We will enjoy several keynote speakers and breakout sessions helping us to think through the role of hermeneutics in the building of a Christian Psychology. I will be presenting a paper on the Psalms of Lament.

For my final essay from psychological theories, I would like to look at the concept of unconditional positive regard from person centered therapy. The idea is that if we love (defined according to Rogers and our ethical standards) our clients well, they will in turn learn to love themselves which will embolden them to take healthy risks in their relationships and have less dysfunction. Upon hearing this, many Christian counselors either resonate immediately by attempting to utilize the power of love (especially the love of Christ), OR they reflexively label Rogers theories as narcissistic idolatry that distracts from truly loving God and loving others.

One of the key questions of course, is what does love mean, especially in the clinical setting. Rogers took an optimistic view of humans and assumed that every one of us has within us the desire to change in a more positive direction. The role of the therapist is find that desire and to help release its power. On the other hand, one of my colleagues often says that the task of counseling is convincing someone who wants to buy a car that what they really need is a horse. If this is love, it must be some kind of “tough love”. So we need to reflect on what love means.

Whatever love means, could it be as powerful as Rogers claims? If it is true that Jesus famous words “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:19, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:28-29) presuppose a pretty robust love of self (the passages don’t seem to make sense any other way), then it seems that there is a call to love others. But does this love make any difference in the lives of our clients? Can we love someone into changing? Can God? If so, what does this love look like? Is it the unconditional positive regard that Rogers speaks of? 1 John 4:19 claims that our love for others is based on God’s love for us, “We love because he first loved us”. Is our job as counselors to give our clients a taste of that love every time we meet? If so, how do we assess or measure the degree that we love? Is it solely a matter of content (we are telling them the right things) or is there an affective component? Can we love a client but not really like them, or vise versa?

Psychology Words: Human Maturation and its Goal

Posted on June 23, 2008

[moderator's note: this post is written by our director, Dr. Eric Johnson of Southern Seminary, and continues his theme of reviewing and reinterpreting key words in the field of psychology.]

Every well-developed psychology should have some model of human maturity, which should include some concept for the process of change and some idea of the goal towards which human maturation is heading. Maslow’s model of both has been widely adopted within modern psychology. It uses the term self-actualization for the maturation process and self-actualizing person as its goal. Should Christians adopt this terminology, or should we use some distinctively Christian terms to label the Christian process and goal?

From a Christian standpoint, there are a number of problems with Maslow’s humanistic notions on human maturation.

1. As understood by Maslow, self-actualization has to be interpreted literally. The self actualizes itself, exclusively. God is not intrinsic to the process Maslow is describing.
2. That is one reason why, according to Maslow (1954, pp. 7, 221), believers in dogmatic religions (like Judaism and Christianity) were unable to attain this level. Christians should assume Maslow understand his concept well and accept his interpretation of it.
3. In the Christianity scheme, the natural self is fallen, so Christian maturation requires the death of the self, in order to attain a new resurrected self (Ro 6:1-11). This is antithetical to Maslow’s model.

Sanctification is the term used in theology for Christian maturation. However, in every conceivable way, Jesus Christ is the real focal point for Christian maturation, so maybe there is a better term.

1. Christ is the image of God, the fulfillment of human nature, and therefore the exemplar of Christian maturity.
2. It is solely because of his life, death, and resurrection that Christians are able to mature Christianly.
3. He sent the Holy Spirit who alone gives us the capacity to mature Christianly and Christ now intercedes for us on the journey.
4. Therefore, the process of Christian maturation is sometimes called conformity to Christ (Php 3:10; Ro 8:29) or Christiformity, and the image of Christ is considered the goal of Christian maturation (Ro 8:29), which has been called Christlikeness.
5. The highest activity of the Christian is love. Christian maturation is intrinsically relational, and is not exclusively oriented around the individual self.

To be faithful to its distinctive orientation, Christian psychology needs terms that capture how central Christ is to the Christian maturational process and goal and how it is a fundamentally relational system, and not ultimately individualistic.

References
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Psychology Words: Narcissism

Posted on June 16, 2008

[Moderator note: This is the third post for June 2008 from our Director, Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary)]

The term “narcissism” deserves careful analysis from a Christian standpoint. In popular culture, it means a trait of self-centeredness and has negative connotations. However, contributors to object relations theory and self psychology have suggested that humans are born with narcissism, and if children are properly affirmed and challenged, they will grow up with healthy narcissism, that helps them meet their needs and realize their goals, while relating lovingly to others and respecting their needs and goals as well. Problems arise, they suggest, when children are not properly affirmed and challenged, leading them, in extreme cases, to develop narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is characterized by an inappropriate sense of self-importance and superiority over others, yet a strong need to be appreciated by others, and a pronounced sensitivity to criticism, all of which illustrates an ongoing effort to repair oneself from earlier relational deprivation.

The following are a few reasons why I think Christians should avoid using the word narcissism in a positive sense, as in “healthy narcissism.”

1) Narcissism was derived from the myth of Narcissus. He was a good-looking lad who fell in love with his image in a pool, became fixated with it, and fell into the pool and drowned. So the origins of the term suggest something unhealthy.
2) Sin is the biblical word for the native self-centeredness with which all humans are born. So narcissism would seem to be a good psychological word for this aspect of sin.
3) Christians have also historically recognized (e.g., Augustine, Jonathan Edwards) that God loves himself supremely. However, his self-love is Trinitarian, consisting of the mutual love of the trinity, so God’s self-love is intrinsically relational. For these and other reasons, we would never say that God is narcissistic in his self-love. Such Christians also concluded that God designed humans with a legitimate self-regard or self-love, similar to the self-preservation instinct of animals, and considered this to be part of the image of God, picturing the self-love that characterizes God, particularly as it develops into neighbor love. However, humans are to love God supremely (like God loves himself) and themselves and others secondarily (like God loves his creation).
4) Sin, however, has distorted and perversely radicalized our created self-love, resulting in a universal narcissism that promotes self above all else and therefore resists God’s supremacy.
5) Improper parenting can aggravate these conditions, resulting in NPD.
6) But the “healthy narcissism” found in “normal” humans, who live as the center of their universe and neglect their Creator, is ultimately no better, no healthier from a Christian standpoint.
7) Therefore, we ought to clearly distinguish sin’s distorted self-love from God’s design for humans. One way to do so would be to use the term narcissism only for that which is always unhealthy and antithetical to the theocentric orientation for which God designed humans, reserving it for the inappropriate self-centeredness of humans that flows from sin, including its distortions in NPD as well as the motivational orientation of apparently “healthy” humans who seek to live independently of God, using other terms—like self-regard or legitimate self-love—for good, God-created motives.

Psychology Words: Wisdom

Posted on June 8, 2008

by Eric Johnson, Director of the SCP. This is his second post for the month of June. Dr. Johnson teaches at Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY and is the author of a recent text, Foundations for Soul Care, available from InterVarsity Press.

This month we are considering how words function in a human science like psychology, where one’s interpretations are often necessarily shaped by one’s worldview beliefs. This week we shall consider two levels at which words (and concepts) operate: a generic level, where different worldview communities can share a general definition of a concept, and a community-specific level, where the same topic is viewed within one worldview community. Let us consider the subject of wisdom. Over the past 20 years, wisdom has been the focus of increasing interest in psychology, especially in positive psychology. Of special note is the Berlin wisdom paradigm, in which wisdom is defined as “an expertise in the conduct and meaning of life” (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, p. 124). This is a fine, broad definition for the general category of wisdom, under which every worldview community’s understanding of wisdom could presumably fit.

However, most well-developed worldview communities will have a distinct understanding of wise conduct and the meaning of life. A Christian psychology, for example, will define the meaning of life in theocentric terms, emphasizing some features over others. So a definition of Christian wisdom might be that it consists of excellent knowledge and love of the triune God, of others, and of oneself in Christ, formed in Christian community through grace-based, skilled practice, that enables one to work at overcoming evil and suffering in oneself, others, and the world.

This Christian definition is more wordy, but it is just as psychological as is the more generic definition. Neither the general concept nor the community-specific concept is more scientific than the other; they simply refer to different levels of the concept—one is broader in its application, the other applies only to a specific community with certain worldview beliefs that shape its understanding of wisdom. But both kinds of definition are necessarily part of a comprehensive, pluralistic psychology that aims at describing the wisdom of all human beings. And a Christian psychology can affirm them both.

The mistake of modernism (and modern psychology) has been to think that only the general (universal?) kind of definition was scientific—implicitly supposing that psychological concepts that only applied to one community would not be scientific. But that bias was due to positivist assumptions, and was a result of insufficient awareness of how worldview beliefs shape the human sciences. From a postmodern standpoint, such assumptions are no longer valid.

Reference
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 122-136.

Designed by Business Broker