Christian Psychology
34
One of the merits of a hermeneutic approach is
precisely its undermining of the hard subject-object
dualism that has so compromised modern thought, in-
cluding modern psychology. And I am just as concerned
as the authors with the way that that dualism has served
to marginalize values, ethics, religion, and spirituality in
the modern era. However, when fighting against dual-
isms one must always beware of the corollary danger of
reacting so strongly to one side of the spectrum—in this
case, hard subject-object dualism (and, we should prob-
ably add, objectivism) that one unwittingly takes a posi-
tion on the opposite side—in this case, leading to an
“idealist” or “subjectivist” or “postmodern” epistemol-
ogy—
at least to some extent
—that is excessively “unified”
(the One is “Being-in-the-World”), and that therefore
has difficulty doing justice to the universal, “common
sense,” soft subject-object distinction, accepted even by
young children, and grounded in the ontological differ-
ence between a thinking subject and the object about
which he or she is thinking. According to the neo-
Piagetian, Robert Kegan (1982), human development
is a series of increasingly complex objectivizations, one
of the more complex being the ability to think and talk
about systems of thoughts, for example, worldviews.
But in such discourse, worldviews are still (immaterial)
objects of thought.
Theists are right to reject the one-sided objectivism
of modern psychology, but there is no reason to also
reject the intentional, subject-object structure of hu-
man consciousness—as well as, presumably, the divine
consciousness—and “common sense” notions like “ob-
jectivity” and “subjectivity.” We can use such concepts
without being seduced by them. I would like to see TP
get the widest, fairest hearing possible. However, by
linking TP with a more subjectivist, (albeit moderate)
postmodern epistemology Reber & Slife risk alarming
those situated on the “objectivist” side of the spectrum,
and thus make conversation with them more difficult
than necessary.
In contrast to a post-Heideggerian epistemological
framework, theistic psychologists might consider basing
their work more substantially on classic Christian the-
istic, realist epistemology, as found for example in the
works of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, Edwards,
Kierkegaard, and more recently, Plantinga, Alston, and
Wolterstorff, among others. In addition, a few Chris-
tian theologians—Cornelius Van Til (1972), Poythress
(2001), and Frame (1987)—have developed models of
complex reasoning, focusing on “limiting concepts,”
or titled “symphonic theology” or “perspectivalism,”
respectively. They base their models on the nature of the
ontological Trinity, whose essence is paradoxical—one
God in Three Persons—who is absolute subjectivity and
absolute objectivity simultaneously, and therefore the
ground of both. The latter Christian epistemological
models resemble empirically-validated postformal (or
dialectical or metasystemic) models of understanding
(Basseches, 1984; Kegan, 1982; Richards & Commons,
1984), that are likewise characterized by vigorously em-
bracing both sides of a conceptual dialectic or paradox
(like objectivity-subjectivity).
Finally, I think TP proponents will need to con-
sider carefully exactly what kind of role TP will be able
to play in the field of psychology for the long-term.
Personally, I am skeptical about the extent to which TP
can
itself
have a substantial impact on the field, because
it is essentially a conceptual abstraction. The noun
theism
and the adjective
theistic
are labels that are ap-
plied to a set of entities and not to any particular entity
itself. There are not very many adherents of “theism in
general;” rather, most theists are adherents of specific
theisms: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism,
and so on. This, at least in part, explains why TP avoids
making specific claims regarding the nature of God, or
other theological matters with psychological import,
like sin and redemption, or based its arguments on any
particular theistic community’s view of things. This is
inevitable, given that theism is a generic label of a class
of particular theisms. Consequently, the scope of the
TP project would seem to have some intrinsic limits
that need to be appreciated, if its greatest potential to
impact the field is to be realized. I would argue that its
usefulness will likely be more rhetorical, theoretical, and
organizational, than empirical, existential, and practical.
First, TP’s value presently is primarily critical and
conceptual, raising questions at the worldview level,
exposing the totalizing claims of modern psychology,
challenging the hold that naturalism currently has on
the field, and ultimately advocating that the field of
psychology, in its quest to study all human beings, be-
come open to taking into account the worldviews of all
human beings in their research. If successful, this would
lead, hopefully, to contemporary psychology’s replace-
ment of the quest for universal knowledge about human
beings that all humans can affirm with an acceptance
that the human sciences are necessarily pluralist—at
least, to some extent, in those areas of psychology where
worldview makes a significant difference (e.g., motiva-
tion, psychopathology, psychotherapy, positive psychol-
ogy). At the same time, I recognize that TP is able to do
some important kinds of research at the generic concep-
tual level of “theism,” just like psychology of
religion
is
able to, and I look forward to the result of such studies.
In the future, however, I think TP’s most substan-
tive impact on the field will be measured best by the
extent to which individual theistic worldview commu-
nities develop their own specific versions of psychology
(research, theory-building, and practice)—a Christian
psychology, an Islamic psychology, a Mormon psychol-
ogy, and so on—based on theistic psychologists working
explicitly within their own particular theistic frame-
work. Then, as these particular TPs develop, TP would
serve as the general category under which all particular
TPs are organized. TP would then provide a forum
