Psychological Science and Christian Faith: Insights and Enrichments from Constructive
Dialogue
In Psychological Science and Christian Faith, we have another excellent addition to the
literature addressing the relationship of psychology to the Christian faith. Malcolm Jeeves,
Emeritus Professor at the University of St. Andrews, and Thomas Ludwig, recently retired
professor at Hope College (with one chapter by David G. Myers, also of Hope College), offer an
exploration of what the subtitle states are “insights and enrichments from constructive dialogue”
between science and Christian faith.
Drawing from recent research, the authors describe findings in psychology “that emerge from a
cordial working relationship between psychology and theology.” In describing the fruits of this
working relationship, the authors seek to “show the inaccuracy and inadequacy of the conflict
motif and the dangers of premature concordism.” In contrast to these mistaken approaches,
Jeeves and Ludwig advocate what in previous publications they have described by various terms
as a “levels of explanation” approach or “complementary perspectives” strategy. Rather than
articulate and defend a distinct model for the relationship of science and faith, Jeeves and
Ludwig boldly assert the time has come to end efforts aimed toward the “integration” of
psychology and theology or the attempt to construct a distinctive “Christian psychology.” For
Jeeves and Ludwig, Christian psychologists who seek an “integration of psychology and
theology” or the development of a “Christian psychology” represent scholarship outside the
mainstream of psychological science. As a result, the important findings of innovative research
are often ignored, misrepresented, or at worst falsely rejected by committed Christians. Jeeves
and Ludwig seek to remedy that tendency to neglect basic research in psychology with this
volume.
To accomplish this goal, the authors offer a text with essentially two parts. In the first section,
they engage the broader question of what might be a “constructive relationship” between
psychological science and Christian faith through a review of historical examples, terminology,
and current approaches representing a range of options for relating psychology and Christianity.
The contemporary dialogue partners here are drawn largely from the widely discussed text
Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, in which David G. Myers represented the “Levels of
Explanation” approach.1 Although neither Jeeves nor Ludwig were chief authors in the Five
Views text, the “Levels of Explanation” approach advocated by David Myers is clearly congruent
with, and often cited as similar to, the approach defended by Jeeves and Ludwig in
Psychological Science and Christian Faith. As such, the reader is invited into a debate with a
history familiar to most Christian psychologists who have followed the “integration” literature
over the past several decades. Readers unfamiliar with this ongoing discussion would do well to
consult the Five Views text to understand more fully the particulars of the approaches under
critique by Jeeves and Ludwig.
In Psychological Science and Christian Faith, Jeeves and Ludwig go beyond the “dialogue”
between various models in which each approach may have equal standing. Rather than continued
dialogue, Jeeves and Ludwig assert it is time to end discussions around the theme of
“integration” as well as the effort to develop a “Christian” psychology. For Jeeves and Ludwig,
these approaches offer little benefit to progress in psychological science and may be ultimately
counterproductive detours to the constructive exchange of “insights” and “mutual enrichments”
between psychology and theology. Jeeves and Ludwig highlight examples from the history of
science that demonstrate two persistent errors: the false claim of a persistent and enduring
conflict between psychology and Christianity and the tendency to develop false “concordisms” in
which scientific concepts and research are merged with Christian belief or cited as evidence for
the absolute truth of Christian doctrine. Jeeves and Ludwig point to church opposition to Galileo
as an example of false conflict and to the endorsement of phrenology by Christians as an
example of false concordism.
Of particular interest is the reference at the beginning of chapter 5 to the “Differences Between
the U.S. and U.K. Approaches to Integration.” Jeeves and Ludwig point to the important role
cultural and historical differences play in how the relationship between science and faith is
conceived in theory and practice. This is an important theme which merits greater attention and
deeper analysis than the passing reference it receives in the text. Jeeves and Ludwig, in
proposing a “cordial” relationship between psychology and theology, may reflect the ideals of an
academic culture in which vigorous discussion can occur within an atmosphere of respect and
collegiality. The reader may be left to wonder whether the close historical connections between
Christianity and British culture may offer the possibility of a comfortable alliance between
Christianity and science not as achievable in the United States, not to mention cultures largely
outside the orbit of Western Christianity.
This may be asking something beyond the scope of the book since its focus is largely upon the
Christian academic community in the Anglo-American setting. However, there remains a
significant opportunity for exploration of what the “integration of psychology and theology
might mean outside the Anglo-American cultural orbit.” For example, the experience of
American Christians living in a culture that historically has erected a “wall of separation”
between religion and public institutions, including academia, sets a much greater likelihood of
separation between religion and mainstream academic culture. If evangelical Christians in the
U.S. represent a minority within academic culture and therefore experience themselves as
“outsiders,” it is not surprising that the same language used to describe relationships between
majority and minority sub-cultures emerges in Christian academic settings. In the U.S.,
subcultures typically struggle with whether to “integrate” with the dominant culture or remain
largely separate in order to preserve their distinctive identities. Evangelical scholars in the U.S.
may find greater difficulty in establishing mutually enriching relationships of the “cordial” sort
proposed by Jeeves and Ludwig.
The second part of Psychological Science and Christian Faith aims to address areas of
psychological research suffering from “regrettable omissions” in contemporary reflection on the
psychology and Christianity relationship. Three areas of psychological research are explicitly
mentioned: neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology. These themes
represent research domains from which the authors are knowledgeable contributors and can
therefore identify relevant insights and mutual enrichments for Chris- tian faith. Other chapters
focus on human motivation and social psychological issues, but seem less connected to the
central themes identified by the authors. Curiously, and without explanation, David G. Myers
offers a chapter on social psychological research. In addition to this chapter, Myers is frequently
quoted at various points in the book, but is not listed as a co-author.
In offering a corrective to the omission of specific research in psychology, the authors survey a
variety of topics with the goal of demonstrating their relevance to our understand- ing of human
behavior, mental processes, and possible implications for Christian theology. For example, in
chapter 7, the authors describe recent research demonstrating the influence of brain activity on
our understanding of spirituality. Spirituality from the perspective of neuropsychology must be
understood as embodied and “embrained.” Consequently, theological accounts of the “spiritual”
must recognize the material basis of the soul and the unity of human personhood. In a
particularly poignant passage, “impaired spirituality” is described in the context of neurological
disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and epilepsy. Subsequent chapters
review important research findings on a diversity of topics including conversion, morality,
human uniqueness, motivation, and faith. These discussions are excellent and informative
summaries in keeping with the “complementary perspectives” approach, offering insights for
theological reflection rather than conflict- eliciting critique. The assessment of both the
psychological research and theological implications is transactional, in the contemporary sense
that no final judgements regarding truth are offered. Instead the authors are careful to point to the
ongoing evolution of both psychological and theological inquiry.
Each of the chapters, while raising significant issues based on psychological research, stops short
of encroachment across disciplinary boundaries or endorsement of specific theological positions.
In keeping with their basic framework, Jeeves and Ludwig seek to avoid falling prey to the error
of promoting new “concordisms.” The authors maintain a firm respect for disciplinary
sovereignty between psychology and theology. The strength of the “complementary
perspectives” approach lies in its commitment to freedom and independence of both psychology
and theology. By adhering to a disciplinary version of Robert Frost’s adage that “good fences
make good neighbors,” Jeeves and Ludwig are able to highlight insights and enrichments from
research in neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, and thereby
encourage productive dialogue across the fences set by disciplinary boundaries.
There is much to recommend in this book, and it clearly fulfills much of what the authors
intended. Yet, despite its wide-ranging and articulate exposition of the historical context and
ongoing value of the “complementary perspectives” approach and its insightful accounts of
research topics omitted in other approaches to psychology and Christian faith, the book does
have its shortcomings. What might be its chief limitation is the somewhat “whiggish” tone (to
borrow an expression from Herbert Butterfield) adopted by the authors. At various points, Jeeves
and Ludwig seem all too ready to dismiss real conflicts between psychology and theology as
false narratives or myths. Attempts to resolve legitimate tensions between developments in
psychology and Christian faith are deemed misguided “concordisms.” Opposing viewpoints
seem to be marginalized as simply outside the mainstream or lacking in relevance to the
prevailing scientific establishment. The authors seem quite willing to maintain an uncritical
acceptance of the “progressive” march toward ever better versions of reality traditionally
ascribed to scientific research in older, and now largely discredited, positivistic accounts of
science. The past tensions arising between psychology and theology, or more broadly between
science and religion, might seem unnecessary or misguided to the authors from the perspective
of the present, but they likely have meaning and authenticity in the historical context in which
they emerge.
This same point can be made regarding the diversity of models emerging in the context of
American culture with its highly diverse and polarized academic landscape. The cultural factors
briefly alluded to by the authors point to the unacknowledged possibility that the variety of
strategies for relating psychology and Christianity may be authentic responses to real tensions in
the contemporary settings inhabited by particular Christian scholars. While it may be possible in
the context of British culture to engage in a “cordial relationship” between psychology and
Christian faith, things may not be quite as simple in other cultural settings. Like actual military
wars which seem in retrospect to be unnecessary wastes of life and resources, the conflicts and
tensions between psychology and Christian faith—while unnecessary in the abstract—are real
and critically important within the historical contexts and communities when and where they
occur. Rather than seeking to end discussion utilizing conceptual frameworks such as
“integration” and “Christian psychology,” Jeeves and Ludwig might do well to pursue insights
and mutual enrichments found through constructive dialogue across ideological, cultural, and
communal differences among committed Christians.
This objection however is not intended to diminish the valuable contribution contained in the
book. Psychological Science and Christian Faith offers an expanded account of the long-
standing collaboration of Jeeves, Myers, and now Ludwig in defense of traditional “mainstream”
psychology and its compatibility with aspects of Christian faith. As such, it will appeal to readers
seeking to understand recent developments within psychological science and possible
implications for theological reflection. On this basis, the book is a valuable—if not outstanding
—addition to the effort to encourage committed Christians to participate actively in
psychological research as a legitimate avenue of service to the human community and as a
worthy calling from God.
Cite this article
Michael DeVries, “Psychological Science and Christian Faith: Insights and Enrichments from
Constructive Dialogue”, Christian Scholar’s Review, 48:4 , 417–419
Footnotes
1. Eric L. Johnson, Psychology and Christianity: Five Views, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2010).
