Part 3: Four Models (#3 Christian Psychology)
Part 1: “What is a Christian Counselor?”
Part 2: “Four Models of Christian Counseling (Levels of Explanation & Integration)”
Part 3: “Four Models…” (#3 Christian Psychology)
Part 4: “Four Models…” (#4 Biblical Counseling | Strengths)
Part 5: “Four Models…” (#5 Biblical Counseling | Weaknesses)
PART 3: FOUR MODELS OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELING (CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY)
In Part 1, we showed that “Christian Counseling” can mean very much, or very little, depending on the counselor. Counselors radically differ in the way they try to hold three things together: Theology (our understanding of God), Psychology (the way we answer questions related to humanity, abnormality, health, and how people change) and Ecclesiology (the role or lack of role we give the church in helping people change).
In Part 2, we looked at the way these beliefs show up in two counseling models: #1) Levels of Explanation & #2) Integration, including how these tend to show up in counseling practice or church.
Today, we’ll look at #3: Christian Psychology. Once again, we’ll look at strengths & weaknesses of this model.
**Tim Keller’s article Four Models of Counseling in Pastoral Ministry (available here) masterfully summarizes these tensions and positions, especially as they relate to churches.
All four models might be shown in this visual spectrum:
MODEL #3: CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY
“Let’s construct a psychology that comes uniquely from Scripture, and let’s be open to using psychological methods that don’t conflict with our theology.”
Christian psychology (CP) is a relatively new movement, but includes many influential voices such as Dan Allender, Neil Anderson, Larry Crabb, Eric L. Johnson, Diane Langberg, Tremper Longman II and more. Importantly, this model uses the Bible in attempts to construct a complete Christian understanding of people (“psychology”): who/what we are, what is wrong with us, how we heal, how we change, what is our purpose, etc. Using the term “psychology” in a broad, general sense, (meaning any study, insight, or reflections regarding the human condition), CP looks at the authors of the Bible and the early church writers as “psychologists” who worked from God-to-man to define soul-care.
In theory, CP offers a strong Biblical critique of psychology and its theories, while also holding a willingness to use certain psychological methods, if (and only if) they seem to consistently fit our Christian commitments and worldview: “Using the Bible and works from Christian writers of the past, psychologically-informed Christians seek to glean principles for understanding human nature and then systematize these findings into a comprehensive system of psychology.”
How does this differ from Integration?
At first glance, Christian psychology does not seem to be distinct from integration, but there are three key differences. First, Christian psychologists seek to form their system of Christian psychology primarily from the Bible and works from church history, with only minimal reference to systems of modern, secular psychology.
Second, Christian psychologists are more sensitive to the anti-Christian worldviews and methodologies of modern psychological research and thus are less likely to utilize this research compared to integrationists. Christian psychologists prefer to do their own research based on a distinctly Christian psychology and methodology, while integrationists believe that much of secular psychology can be ‘redeemed’ for Christian counseling purposes.
Third, Christian psychology differs from integration in respect to the goal of the system. While Christian psychology strives to develop a singular, unified system of psychology, integrationists question the possibility of this goal.
This chart is helpful in showing these differences:
Palmer, 2017, “Christian Psychology: An Introduction & Biblical Analysis”
Lastly, it’s important to note where CP is conducted, which is sometimes alongside or in churches, but usually done in counseling settings (clinics, private practice, groups) where the group or counselor states these commitments before and at the outset of therapy.
STRENGTHS:
1) Seeing God’s word the primary source of knowledge. CP shows that, if one believes in special revelation (knowledge from God) from the Scriptures, then that would be the starting point for understanding who we are, what’s wrong, what is health, etc.
2) Christian psychologists strive to develop empirical research for counseling that comes from a distinctly Christian worldview. They actually do research. This is because CP points out the impossibility of truly objective, value-free research (of others), and so have begged the question, “Where is the research that begins with a Christian worldview?” P.J. Watson and R.J. Morris are examples of those who have developed a body of research toward this end. So, in order to develop a Christian “best practice” and to be able to compete with secular studies (with inherently different worldview assumptions), CP continues to seek a model of observation (or science) that is uniquely Christian.
3) CP acknowledges the bias/presuppositions that counselors carry, and the inability for the counselor to escape them. Rather than continue forward in the self-deception of objective science, they endeavor to form a psychological system that is presuppositionally Christian (and therefore consistent with the worldview/theology of the counselor).
4) The ability to incorporate helpful psychological insights, instead of having a narrow, inflexible way to appraise psychology and counseling orientations.
5) Christian psychology is doing this distinctively Christian work in the field of counseling and the counseling office. These are areas that previously could only be occupied/informed by pure psychological & secular systems.
WEAKNESSES/CRITIQUES:
1) Instances of poor Bible reading/study. CP has been criticized for having a psychology that “reads into the Biblical text” instead of a true exposition and starting point of the Scriptures themselves. In short, they often show that they are more apt to adopt secular psychologies and “Christianize” them (sprinkle on some Jesus), rather than having a true appraisal or willingness to reject them. In short, their reading of the Scripture is, in practice, soft or even sometimes backwards.
2) Christian Psychology strives to be so ecumenical, that it often lacks a unified vision of Christian healing. The stated goal of CP is to form or “recover” a unique, truly Christian psychology by studying the Scriptures, but at the same time, also striving to be pluralistic and diverse. A good example of this is the mission statement for the Society of Christian Psychology, which states:
“A Christian vision of human nature is shaped primarily by the Christian Scriptures, as well as Christianity’s intellectual and ecclesial traditions. However, a Christian psychology will also be critically informed by other relevant sources of psychological truth, particularly its own reflection, research, and practice, but also the psychological work of other traditions (e.g., secular psychology), philosophy, human experience, and the other human sciences. While God’s understanding of human nature is the goal of a Christian psychology, given human finitude and the existence of distinct Christian traditions, the Society welcomes those working from any perspective within the historic Christian Church.”
Let’s take a moment to think about a Catholic and a Protestant, who are friends & colleagues. Both fall into this wide category of “traditions within a historic church.” Although they may truly enjoy one another in a friendship or over a lunch discussion, their practical theology of salvation or change are radically different. Could they achieve a singular, consistent model of counseling together?
3) Too much charity toward psychology? Lastly, the Biblical Counseling community feels that this model still places too high a value on psychological insights and methods. They wish Christians would agree to reject psychology as an “elitist, humanistic” institution, whose commitments are fundamentally anti-Christian.
SETTINGS:
How this might look in a church: The church owns and emphasizes clear theological commitments from the Bible about our sin problem, salvation, how God offers healing (through spiritual resources such as Scripture, Holy Spirit, prayer, etc.), & also a theology of how we change; With these commitments, there are forms of care/counseling that attempt to practice them; The use of counselors, but with high standards for uniformity of practices to be based on and evaluated by Scripture; Programs that care for members which are as (or more) theological as they are psychological; ideally, it would also have very careful grid through which “recommended counselors" or therapies are evaluated.
How this might look in a counseling setting: CP is more often practiced in counseling settings, as it most often comprises a group of counseling professionals who are seeking to form their practice around the Bible. In theory, CP should look nearly the same as in a church (clear, developed models based on Scripture); a high emphasis on the local church as an essential spiritual resource and context for ongoing change; a clear statement of the use of God’s voice as the basis for counseling at the outset of therapy.
WHERE DOES NEW GROUND COUNSELING FIT?
In short, New Ground is actively trying to amplify and embody the strengths of CP, while avoiding these common weaknesses. We have a high view of Scripture and it’s use in therapy, but we don’t want to be lazy with its application. We begin with presuppositions from Scripture and see it as ethical to do so (it is our therapeutic orientation and model), instead of pretending that we can somehow have both psychological & theological starting points without disparity. At the same time, we value clinical care and psychological insights that fit (and don’t conflict) with our strong theological convictions. Although we believe in a careful theological appraisal of all therapies, we don’t assume a posture of anger or demonization toward them (as has historically been the posture of many Christian authors and Biblical Counselors). At the same time, we deeply value the movement of Biblical counseling and its efforts to rely deeply and completely on God’s voice from the Scriptures. More will become clear in our next post, when we briefly review model #4) Biblical Counseling.