Christian Presuppositions and Fundamental Psychological Issues
As we attempt to look at psychology through the eyes of the Bible, our first task is to
identify the presuppositions of a Christian (Seventh-day Adventist) world view. As Blamires
(1963) so clearly stated, the Christian mind sees everything differently because of these
presuppositions.
Christian (SDA) Presuppositions
Since an entire paper in this series has been devoted to the Christian worldview, I will
only briefly review the Christian (SDA) presuppositions, which seem most important for the
interface with psychology. We need to have them fresh in our minds so we can examine the
fundamental psychological principles through Christian eyes. I am indebted to Pascoe (1980) for
inspiration for this section.
God is central to all truth. All truth comes from God, the Creator (Gen 1:1; Ex 20:2; Ps
24:1-2). God's truth comes through revelation (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21) and is discovered
through serious inquiry into His Word (Heb 11:6; John 5:39). God's truth is authoritative (2 Tim
3:16). It is truth because God is truth (John 1:14;14:6;1 John 5:20). The Christian accepts the
reality of God through faith (John 1:12; 1 Cor 1:20-21; Heb 11:1,2,6). No absolute,
incontrovertible proof can be offered for the existence of God. God is, always has been, and
always will be (Isa 46:9-11; John 5:26; Heb 13:8; Rev 1:8). The Christian believes that truth
exists and it can be discovered through God's Word (Ps 119:142; John 17:17). Truth is essential.
Truth gives focus to human life; it provides an anchor in a chaotic world (Ps 119:105,130; John
8:31,32).
Jesus Christ is the truth (John 14:6) to which all Biblical truths are connected. He is
the primary focus of God's revelation of truth to humankind (John 5:39,46). Jesus is the answer
to the sin problem (John 3:16; Rom 5:18-21). He provides redemption and the power for change
(2 Cor 5:17). Through Christ, we can better understand our present life, and we can look
forward to eternal life (John 6:35,47; 7:38).
God supernaturally intervenes in human history. All human history must be viewed
in light of the supernatural intervention of God (Dan 2:28). He existed before the creation of the
world and will always exist (Ps 90:2; Col 1:17; Heb 13:8; Rev 1:8). God sustains the world
(Acts 17:25,28;Col 1:17) and He also intervenes supernaturally in the lives of individuals (Dan
2:-27; Acts 9:4-18; 12:6-11), often through the work of the Holy Spirit and angels (Acts 2:4; 13:
4;16:6,7; Ps 91:11,12; Heb 1:14). God will intervene to put an end to the sin problem and to
restore this world to its original perfection (Rev 7:17; 21:1-4).
Human beings were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26,27). Man and woman
were created with individuality, power and freedom to think and to act (Gen 1:26-28; Deut
30:19; Ps 8:6; Eph 2:10). They are not machines set in motion and left to function
mechanistically. Human beings were created different from animals (Gen 1:26-28; Ps 8:6-8;
Matt 10:29-31), with the ability to communicate with God (Gen 3:8-13; 18:16-32; Ex 33:11;
Matt 6:5-13; Acts 27:23-25). They were also created in God's image, free, with an indivisible
unity of body, mind, and spirit (Gen 1:26; 1 Thess 5:23; Rom 12:1,2; Matt 10:28; 1 Cor 7:24).
They were created completely dependent upon God for life and breath and everything else (Gen
2:7; Acts 17:25,26,28). Human beings were created to live in community as the body of Christ
(Gen 1:26-28; Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 12). Three aspects of humanity–creation, fall, redemption–must
be considered to achieve our complete personhood in Christ. For the Christian, all true identity
comes from the person's relationship with God (John 15:4-6). Only in that relationship can we
attain perfection through Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:13; James 1:4). Without God, the self is
incomplete.
Human beings chose to rebel against God. Humans were created perfect moral beings,
capable of choosing between good and evil (Gen 2:16,17). Adam and Eve, when tempted by
Satan, chose to disbelieve and disobey God (Gen 3:1-13), thus breaking their relationship with
God and changing their perfect nature to one with a bent toward evil (Rom 5:12; Rom 3:23).
They brought the curse of death upon themselves and their descendants (Gen 3; Rom 6:23).
Human beings are involved in a constant struggle between good and evil. Because
of Adam and Eve's choice, Satan dominates the world at this point in human history (Gen 3:16-
19,22; Rom 1:28-32; 1 John 5:19). All of us are guilty of choosing evil (Rom 3:10-18). We are
naturally inclined that way (Rom 7:14-24; 8:7-8). Only Christ can rescue us from Satan's grasp
(Rom 7:24,25; 8:1; Gal 1:3-5; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 John 5:18). The Christian's moral order centers in
God, not humanity. The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and Jesus' two "greatest
commandments" (Matt. 22:37-40)–not human reasoning–should form the basis for moral and
ethical decisions and everyday living.
The knowledge of God provides purpose and meaning for life. Without a knowledge
of God and His Word, life on planet earth becomes purposeless, meaningless, and disheartening
(John 12:46; 15:5-7). With God there is purpose and meaning to life (John 8:12; 17:13;Rom 5:2;
8:28; 1 Pet 1:8). Events are moving toward God's climactic intervention to eliminate evil (2 Cor
4:17-18; 1 Cor 15:24-26,53,54; 2 Pet 3:7; Rev 21:3-5) and restore perfection (2 Pet 3:13,14; Rev
21:3-5). Death is only a brief interlude between now and the resurrection (Eccl 9:5; Job 19:25-
27; John 11:11-43; 1 Cor 15:42-44, 51-54; 1 Thess 4:15-17; Rev 20:6) when Christ comes to
take His loved ones home (John 14:2-3). Trials and suffering have purpose in the life of the
Christian (1 Pet 4:12-16; James 1:2-4)–they lead us to know God better (Rom 8:17,28). They are
a part of the process of restoring God's image in us (Job 5:17;23:10; 2 Cor 4:17,18). As part of
God's great plan for the redemption of this fallen world, our lives have purpose and meaning as
we share God's love with everyone in our sphere (Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Acts 1:7-8).
These presuppositions undergird the Christian's thinking about everything in the world.
How do they affect what we think about psychology?
Fundamental Psychological Issues
Almost thirty years ago, Wertheimer (1972) proposed eight fundamental psychological
issues which every theory must address. Each is central to understanding how a psychological
theory views human beings. Each foundational issue may be viewed as a continuum or as two
opposing ends, with theories aligning themselves anywhere on the continuum or ends.
Psychological theories describe their views of human beings and how they develop and change,
while the Christian presuppositions describe how God views human beings, as understood
through His Word. As we examine the eight fundamental psychological issues in the light of the
Christian presuppositions, we will better understand the task of the Christian psychologist who
wishes to integrate her professional and religious knowledge.
The Individual as Master or Victim of Fate
The individual is viewed as purposive and active in searching for goals and creating
personal meaning in life (free will) OR the individual is seen as the behavioral product of
accidental forces and experiences, which shape existence through chance (determinism). When
approached from the Christian presuppositions, this one seems quite clear. God created human
beings with free will--the ability to think, to make choices, to search for goals, and create
meaning in life (Gen 1:26,27). Certainly God did not intend human beings to be victims of fate.
Rather He intended them to master circumstances and make wise choices.
The original behavioral approach (à la Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner), which clearly states
that human beings are, indeed, shaped by the conditioning they have experienced, seems to be
predicated on the belief that human beings can best be described as mechanistic. They have little
free choice and are the product of the conditioning they have experienced. More recent learning
theorists (Bandura, for example) have attempted to bridge the gap by introducing elements of
individual choice into the conditioning paradigm.
The Bible seems to be full of illustrations of the behavioral approach (Deut 6 & 7; Ex
20:5; Gal 6:7), just as it is also full of free will and choice (Josh 24:15; John 7:17). Could it be
that the human beings God created are both subject to being conditioned and able to exercise free
will and choice? If we do not get hung up on the issue that humans are solely mechanistic, in
order to accept some behavioral principles, we can accept the whole view. Human beings were
created to exercise free will and personal choice (Gen 1:27). That is their primary mode, we
might say. But present day human beings are also subject to the laws governing conditioning.
We can acknowledge this without believing that they are solely mechanistic in nature.
Is this conditioning effect a product of sin? Was it present before the fall? I do not
know. I do know that it is present today and can be of great use in child rearing, changing habit
patterns, and many other aspects of life. Behavioral principles are the reason we tell people
participating in the Breathe Free program to avoid their favorite chair where they smoked before
and to go for a walk after dinner instead of sitting down to relax. It's a principle of classical
conditioning.
I also believe very firmly in the exercise of free will and individual choice. Interestingly,
sometimes-behavioral principles can be used to make choices easier. God is committed to
choice and free will. It is His modus operandi. But He also used behavioral principles in His
dealing with human beings. Can we be wise and use both to help people choose God's way?
Human Nature as Good or Evil
Simply stated, psychological theories view the moral nature of human beings as
inherently good, or evil, or neutral (as in tabula rasa). Those who view human beings as evil
believe people are born thoroughly depraved, egocentric and inalterably evil. They constantly
pursue their own selfish needs. The child has inborn antisocial impulses that adults must teach
him to curb. Those holding the "good" view, believe human beings are born noble, naturally
attracted to the good, creative, compassionate, and generous. Moral development occurs quite
naturally, if the child is shielded from the evil in society and draws from his own inner resources
of goodness. Then there are those who use none of these words, but describe human beings as a
tabula rasa, or blank slate, at birth, neither good nor evil. Each person becomes what life writes
on his or her slate, or what their environment causes them to become.
Psychological theories also speak of an actional nature. People are active, passive, or
interactive in relationship to their world. They perceive the environment as having an effect on
humans and their moral natures. The active theorists believe that people reach out to influence
their world, while the passive theorists describe people as being acted on by their world. The
interactionists believe that people interact with the world–their world influences them and they in
turn influence their world.
The moral and actional natures combine to describe human nature. None of the major
theoretical schools of thought agree on both the moral and actional nature of human beings.
Psychoanalytic theory (Freud) views human nature as evil and passive, while the behaviorists
(Skinner) view it as neutral and passive. Cognitive theorists (Piaget and Kohlberg) view human
nature as good and interactive. Social learning theorists (Bandura) believe human nature is
neutral and active, while the humanists (Maslow, Rogers) view human nature as good and active.
Again, we do not have an exact match between the Christian (SDA) presuppositions and
a particular theory's view of human nature. My graduate students in character development have
generally concluded that we believe human nature is some combination of good and evil and it is
probably interactive with its environment.
They appear to be in good company. I quote from Seventh-day Adventists Believe...
E
"Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to
think and to do.... When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him
and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they
became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They
are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil" (1988, p. 78).
E
Later in the same book, another comment appears: "In spite of the Fall, there remains a sense of
human dignity. Although marred, the divine likeness was not completely obliterated. Though
fallen, corrupt, sinful, man is still God's representative on earth" p. 93.
I am especially fond of the clarifying statement about the nature of human beings on
page 29 of Education:
"As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some
ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for
goodness, exists in every heart. But against these principles there is struggling an antagonistic
power. The result of the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is manifest in every
man's experience. There is in his nature a bent to evil, a force which, unaided, he cannot resist.
To withstand this force, to attain that ideal which in his inmost soul he accepts as alone worthy,
he can find help in but one power. That power is Christ" (1903).
E
These statements do not agree with the descriptions of either good or evil moral nature as
described by psychological theory. The perfection, fall, restoration sequence is not present in
psychological theory, nor is the image of God. The humanists and the cognitive theorists seem
to give the most dignity to human beings, while the psychoanalysts believe them to be totally
depraved, with no hint of or desire for goodness. No theory describes restoration in the biblical
sense.
This is a crucial area for the interface between the Bible and Psychology. The Christian
psychologist must be very careful here, especially as he or she works with people to effect
change in their lives. What the psychologist believes about the moral and actional nature of
human beings vastly influences the manner in which he or she approaches therapy.
I have heard Seventh-day Adventist counseling and clinical psychologists state their
position thus: "I am a Christian who is a psychologist, not a Christian psychologist." In effect,
they are separating psychology from theology, living their lives on two separate tracks–their
professional life and their religious life. A prospective teacher once told me, in response to my
question about his views on the integration of psychology and religion, "I don't see where they
interface. One is religion, the other is psychology. They don't have anything to do with each
other." I respectfully disagreed. Psychology and religion both describe the moral and actional
nature of human beings. If we consider that the nature of human beings is a foundational issue
for selecting counseling methods and for child rearing practices, then religion and psychology
have a great deal to do with each other.
Parts vs. Whole
Psychological theories tend to fall into either the parts or the whole camp. The parts, or
andsummative, approaches try to understand any phenomenon by looking at the sum of its
known parts. The parts do not interact or influence each other. They are simply analyzed
separately. The whole, or transsummative, approaches believe that the whole is something
different from the sum of its parts. The parts interact and influence each other, creating a new
whole. The parts have influenced each other to make the whole. Music provides a enlightening
example. The "Moonlight Sonata" is much more than the sum of the notes on the pages. The
total effect includes the way the notes are influenced by rhythm, harmony, and expression to
create a whole musical experience.
A human being, created by God, is much more than the sum of its parts–eyes, ears, cells,
heart, mind, etc. The parts create the whole as they influence each other and interact to make the
living being, created in the image of God . The parts are understandable only as they contribute
to the whole.
Truth is not decided by putting together smaller pieces to make the whole. Truth is more
than the smaller pieces–it is the whole. The whole actually gives meaning to its component
parts.
Likewise, God's view of human beings includes the totality of their experience (Ps 139; 1
Thess 5:23), all that they are, have been, and can become. An isolated experience does not
define the person, in God's eyes. Christ calls us to wholeness and unity in love (1 Cor 1:10; Phil
1:27; 2:2; Eph 4:1-6, 1 Cor 13). We grow in completeness in our relationship to Christ. God's
Word very clearly indicates that we must bring the totality of ourselves into this relationship
(Deut 6:5). If we keep parts of ourselves outside of the relationship, we cannot experience the
transsummative nature of being one with Christ. We restrict our personhood. The redemptive
relationship helps us mature in wholeness (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:12-16).
God is also interested in the small parts of his human subjects. He knows infinite details
about each person–when they were conceived (Ps 22:9-11), the hairs on their head (Matt 10:30),
their thoughts (Ps 139:2), and their architectural preference for a heavenly home (John 14:2,3)–
more than any human can ever know. But the details do not define the person. God's redeeming
grace brings about the transformation of the parts into the whole, a creature made in God's
image.
Mind vs. Body
This issue is so central to psychology that theorists can be classified according to the
emphasis they place on the study of the mind or the study of the body. Is human behavior
explained by the mental events inside the person or by the underlying neurophysiological events?
Psychology has dealt with this issue in various ways. Materialistic views look at the body and
use objective measures. Idealistic views tend to be phenomenal and use subjective methods,
such as introspection. Parallelistic views hold that mental and bodily processes occur in parallel
fashion, but do not necessarily influence each other, while the interactionist view believes that
the body influences the mind, and the mind influences the body.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that each human being is an indivisible union of the
body, soul, and spirit, which "function in close cooperation, revealing an intensely sympathetic
relationship between a person's spiritual, mental and physical faculties. Deficiencies in one area
will hamper the other two" (Seventh-day Adventists Believe... 1988, p. 84).
The current emphasis in psychology on the study of the brain and on cognitive
psychology may eventually pose a serious threat to the Christian psychologist and the integration
process. Cognitive psychology is interdisciplinary, including neuropsychology, computational
cognition, neural networks, evolutionary psychology, and contemporary approaches to
consciousness. The literature combining these areas suggests that the complexities of the human
mind and human experiences can be explained by purely physiological processes, using
rational/empirical methods. These views are based on an evolutionary axiom: The purpose of
the evolution of human beings is the urge to survive, to reproduce the species. In contrast, the
Christian axiom might state that one important reason for the creation of the mind involves our
relationship with God, who speaks to us through our minds.
"Cognitive science promises a purely natural explanation for the origin, development,
organization and construction of all the complexities of human minds and consciousness,
ultimately resting only on physical law" (Brand, 1997, p. 238). This would include conscience
and moral decisions. If this becomes reality, then the Christian psychologist must decide
between the more complex biblical explanations of the mind or the law of parsimony urged by
scientific endeavor.
Subjectivity vs. Objectivity
Some psychologists study people from a subjective viewpoint using cognitive,
introspective, experiential, and phenomenological methods. Others use purely objective
methods–the study of observable, external behavior. Thought processes are not considered
appropriate for study because they cannot be observed externally.
The Holy Scriptures suggests that the internal matters more to God than the external (1
Sam 16:7; Prov. 23:7). Our thoughts and motives are primary, although our actions are not
discounted (Mark 12:43,44; Matt 25:31-46). The right actions for the wrong internal reasons
become wrong actions, too. The whole picture becomes wrong. Right actions for the right
reasons–help the hungry because you are helping Me (Matt 15:1-9; 25:45)–are God's way toward
wholeness. The Christian strives to know the mind of God, to think His thoughts and to translate
those thoughts into every day actions (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 2:6-8).
Past vs. Present
How much does past experience account for present behavior? Explaining the meaning
of a psychological event can place strong emphasis on what a person has learned and how he or
she was conditioned, or on ahistorical insight as an avenue to understanding the event. Present
oriented views emphasize freedom of choice in the immediate situation. Past oriented views are
mostly concerned with the person's history of reinforcement and learning.
It seems to me that the Bible supports the present oriented view more than the past
oriented one (Isa 1:18; Acts 17:30). Grace can wipe out all the evil of the past and give the
person a new beginning without the tendencies of the past, although the scars of past experiences
may remain. God looks at the person as he is now, not as he was in the past (Acts 3:17-20; Rom
5:9; 1 Cor 12:27). Although God does consider the person's past–where she was born–when
deciding what would be best for her future, He also wipes away that past–"neither do I condemn
you"–and focuses on the future–"go and sin no more" (John 8:11).
Nature vs. Nurture
Contemporary psychology does not ignore the influence of either nature or nurture on the
person. The debate consists in the extent to which an individual's behavior is determined by his
genetic makeup or his past learning experiences. Are people's lives determined by their genes, or
do they have some say about the matter through how they deal with life's experiences?
I believe God's Word stresses the importance of nurture–any tendency to evil can be
overcome through the grace of Christ. Our individual genes are not an excuse for wrongdoing.
Certainly we are creatures with a genetic makeup, made this way by the Creator. But we are
more than pawns of genes–we have choices to make (Josh 24:14,15) and Divine assistance
available at any moment to help us live with our genes and our human tendency to sin (Heb
2:17,18; 4:14-16).
Simplicity vs. Complexity
Psychological theories tend to focus on simplicity or complexity--a few general laws that
are easy to understand, or many complex explanations for psychological events. The simple
explanations focus on sensation, learning, perception and motivation, while the more complex
explanations look at psychopathology, affect, and the unconscious.
Again, we might explain God's view as a combination of simplicity and complexity.
Certainly, salvation has a simple directive–believe and be saved (John 3:16; Mark 16:16; Acts
16:31). But explaining how the person came to believe or disbelieve is certainly complex.
Overall, the Bible probably leans toward the complexity of human beings, considering their
genetic makeup, life experiences, cultural background, sin tendency, and the influence of the
Holy Spirit and God's grace on their ultimate choices.
Our examination of the Christian presuppositions and the fundamental areas of
psychology has highlighted some of the issues the Christian psychologist must face as she tries
to integrate her professional training with God's Word. How does this work out when evaluating
learning theories, therapy models, parenting styles, personality theories, or moral development
stages? Theory is fine, but what happens in a real-life helping situation? How do the Bible and
psychology combine in the work of the Christian psychologist?
The Bible and Psychological Theory and Practice
In this section I will look at a few selected areas of psychological theory and practice and
briefly discuss how the Bible might inform each area. Within the limits of this essay, it is not
possible to examine any area in depth. Rather, I will briefly summarize some important issues
and make suggestions for further thought and exploration.
Counseling and Clinical Psychology
As mentioned earlier, counseling and clinical psychologists have written the most about
the integration of faith and practice, so it seems appropriate to begin with this area. I would like
to suggest that the Christian psychologist must be aware of at least four different questions
impinging on the practice of psychotherapy: (1) How might the Christian presuppositions inform
the choice of a therapeutic model? (2) What might a comprehensive Christian counseling
approach include? (3) How is it possible to select therapeutic modalities responsibly and be true
to the Christian presuppositions? (4) What is the role of the Christian psychotherapist in a
spiritual venue? I am greatly indebted to Jones and Butman (1991) for their insights on all four
of these questions.
The first responsibility of the Christian psychologist is to acquire a Biblical view of the
nature of human beings and how God intervenes to help people in trouble. Having done this, the
Christian psychologist must next examine each proposed psychotherapy model, comparing its
philosophical assumptions and its models of personality, health, abnormality, and psychotherapy
with the Christian presuppositions and God's total view of human beings.
This step requires a great deal of clear thinking and evaluating of each aspect of a therapy
model. Ideally, this evaluative process would occur at the graduate school level, but most
Christian psychologists are not trained in programs with a Christian world view. Those who are
have a distinct advantage in this process, although some Christian schools are more intentional
than others about helping their students work through this evaluative process. Most
psychologists come to grips with their psychotherapy model after they have confronted the
realities of practice. Their previous experience of evaluating models could be very useful at this
point.
Jones and Butman (1991) have done just such an appraisal of psychotherapy models.
Each major model is carefully and thoroughly compared with the Christian presuppositions. At
the end, they conclude that "none of the theories can be rejected out of hand, but none can be
wholeheartedly endorsed by the Christian counselor" p. 380. Each theory is lacking when
compared with God's view of personhood, but some come closer than others to the Biblical
viewpoint. One of my graduate students (Leader, 1994) summarized Jones' and Butman's 417
pages of appraisal in a succinct and informative 14-page chart, which is very useful for a quick,
look at the most important issues.
While God's Word has a great deal to say about personhood, it does not propose a
specific psychology, as we speak of it today. We need the specificity of a comprehensive model
of psychology in order to best help hurting people. What would such a model include, if there
were one? Jones and Butman (1991, p. 397-8) suggest the following:
A deep appreciation of the value of being human and of individual human beings;
A vision of our need for a love relationship with our Creator, attainable only through the
forgiveness offered through the death of Jesus Christ;
An understanding of the essential place of the work of the Holy Spirit in ultimate healing;
An understanding of our fundamentally relational natures and need for love and
acceptance, including the importance of family and community for us all;
A balance of emphasis on thinking, feeling and behaving, as each has a clear and
important place in human life;
An appreciation of the power of sin and evil;
An understanding of the influence of a spiritual world on day-to-day human functioning;
A respect for human freedom and agency, yet one which recognizes limitations to human
choice s well;
An appreciation of habit, skill and learning;
A balanced attention to within-the-person and external-to-the person influences on human
action;
A vision of life that suggests there can be meaning to suffering and that we are called to
pursue something more than our personal gratification;
A respect for individuals that is grounded in God's love for each person, yet without a
worshiping of the individual disconnected from others;
A commitment to holism in understanding the person, but with a sufficiently developed
set of specific postulates about molecular processes in personality to guide actual intervention
and the change processes;
A respect for our intrinsically moral natures and the value of obedience to appropriate authority,
pre-eminently to God and his Word;
A respect for physical and nonphysical aspects of existence;
An appreciation but not a deification of rationality, balanced with an equally appreciative
understanding of our 'transrational' aesthetic, symbolic and story-telling natures;
A recognition of our need to worship and be committed to the one who transcends all that
we can know or imagine; and
A love for Christ's body, the church, and a commitment to furthering the church's work in this
world.
E
Such a model does not exist, may never exist. So the Christian psychologist is faced with the
task of evaluating the existing models and constructing a working model which will include the
most important imperatives of Biblical thoughts about personhood and the change process.
Psychological eclecticism holds promise for this endeavor. Eclecticism was defined in
1958 by English and English as the "selection and orderly combination of compatible features
from diverse sources, sometimes from otherwise incompatible theories and systems; the effort to
find elements in all doctrines and theories and to combine them into a harmonious whole" (p.
168).
Until the eighties, psychologists viewed eclecticism negatively--a sloppy and
undisciplined approach to therapy. However, research has not affirmed that any one theoretical
approach is best for helping people change in all situations. Some approaches have been
affirmed for specific disorders, but not for all. This has been humbling to proponents of
particular theories. In the process of all this emphasis on the research outcomes of different
therapies, eclecticism has become much more respectable. By the late eighties one-third to one-
half of all practitioners identified themselves as eclectic in orientation (Norcross & Prochaska,
1988). The Christian psychologist can now pick and choose with respectability.
Pragmatic eclecticism proposes to pick and choose by what is "best for the client" with no
regard for theoretical orientation. This is the approach most often endorsed by practitioners.
However, it has some significant problems. It provides very little direction for the therapist.
Well designed research studies which confirm the "best approach" are still relatively scarce,
while very few clients present with one discrete problem, as in research studies. Most
practitioners cannot be competent in all theoretical approaches.
Metatheoretical or transtheoretical eclecticism seems to be the approach most often
endorsed by researchers and authors. This approach tries to "get behind the theory" and looks for
theories or practices common to many approaches, such as common stages in therapy or the
verbal and nonverbal counseling responses which all approaches use. Most of this work has
focused on the relationship between therapist and client as an explanation for the effectiveness of
various theoretical approaches. Certainly this rings true for the Christian therapist. We believe
in the centrality of relationships, with God and with people.
Theoretical integrationism (or pluralism) begins with one theory as a foundation and
reaches out to one or two other models which can be assimilated into the major model to help
enrich and expand its approach. The best known "success story" of this approach is cognitive-
behavioral therapy, a well accepted and frequently used model. A further "marriage" of
cognitive-behavioral and Adlerian therapy has been suggested and there might be merits to this
combination for the Christian psychologist. But it would not be complete and probably would
need enhancing from aspects of several other models.
The final step in this process involves examining the role of the psychologist as a
committed Seventh-day Adventist. How might this impact on the vocation of psychology?
I would like to suggest that psychologists have an opportunity to help people deal with
inner issues of great concern and that the line between religion/spirituality and
personality/emotions is often rather blurry. In many ways the psychologist deals with sensitive
issues similar to those addressed in pastoral counseling, but with the added complication that
some clients have no overt interest in religion. The practicing psychologist must function as a
competent professional who does not "force" his viewpoint on clients, but rather is sensitive to
the client's needs, while working within the framework of his or her Christian presuppositions.
This is a delicate balance, but an achievable one, as demonstrated daily by many Seventh-day
Adventist practitioners who complement the work of the church, rather than offering an
alternative.
The psychologist who takes her Christian vocation seriously will want to examine how
she models God to her clients, for she is in a god-like position to many of them. This is a serious
responsibility, which cannot be ignored. Careful study of God's characteristics and how these
play out in His relationships with human beings will bring to focus many aspects of God's
character which sound like "good therapy": gentle, patient, compassionate, healer, nurturer,
reconciler, and servant, for starters. Jones and Butman (1991) provide an excellent discussion of
these issues.
How does a Seventh-day Adventist psychologist's commitment to take the gospel to all
the world impact on his practice of psychology? The therapy hour is obviously not an
evangelistic campaign, but it is a sharing of the god-like characteristics of the committed
Christian with a hurting person. No ethical psychologist would impose his religion on a
vulnerable client. His respect for the client directs him to be open about the therapeutic methods
he proposes to use and to always offer the client informed choices.
The therapist-client relationship is a delicate balance. The responsibility for this
relationship rests squarely with the professional. He will evaluate every nuance of each
therapeutic encounter and will always be tuned in to discover a seeker for truth. If he senses that
his client wants to learn more about the Seventh-day Adventist church–as in Bible studies–and
the therapeutic relationship still needs to continue, he could refer his client to a minister or active
layperson for actual Bible studies. This does not rule out using the Bible and prayer as
appropriate during therapy, nor does it rule out leading a person to Christ for forgiveness and
salvation. But an extended series of Bible studies might bring about conflicts between the
therapeutic relationship and the proselyter role. If therapy has concluded, the psychologist might
feel free to give Bible studies himself.
Every committed Christian yearns to bring the Good News to people who do not know
Jesus Christ. The psychologist has many opportunities to find people with such needs. She can
bring the Good News to many people, if handled discretely and within the context of responsible
therapy (Wilson, 1984).
Obviously, the questions I have attempted to address in a limited way in this section
provide a great challenge for the student of psychology and the Seventh-day Adventist
practitioner. Much serious thinking needs to be done. Even though there may never be a
"Seventh-day Adventist therapy"–and it might not even be desirable to have one–colleges and
universities where psychology is taught have a responsibility to help their students gain a
thorough understanding of the Biblical foundations for thinking about and helping persons.
Furthermore, their students need to be skilled in evaluating and integrating therapy models. As
these students move on to graduate school in secular universities, this knowledge will serve them
well.
Graduate programs in psychology sponsored by SDA universities should provide their
students with many opportunities to evaluate and integrate therapy models, basing their work on
the Biblical model for understanding human beings within the context of their fallen natures and
the restoration process. Graduate students need to be challenged to think through their
approaches to therapy and how they are going to deal with the issues brought up by their
Christian beliefs which are not addressed by any of the therapy models. This challenge will not
occur if professors have not addressed these issues themselves and are not committed to this
process.
Which brings me to the careful selection and mentoring of professors of psychology who
teach in the Adventist system. Most will have received their training from secular institutions
and, in my hiring experience, have not given much thought to these issues. They will need much
mentoring from senior faculty who are known for their solid thinking along Biblical lines. In my
experience young professors who have trained in institutions with a Christian world view are
much more open to this process.
Therapy is not the only area where an integration of psychology and the Bible can
successfully occur. Moral character development, another area of interest, is actually closely
related to therapy as many clients bring moral character issues with them.
