Christian Psychology
35
for exchanging ideas and collaboration on common
projects, bringing particular TPs together in confer-
ences, journals, and perhaps eventually a TP division in
APA, and also offering something of a united front over
against naturalism, which currently so dominates the
field.
As one working on the next “lower” rung on the
conceptual hierarchy (Christian psychology being a
kind of theistic psychology), I hope my concerns do not
sound ungrateful. As I hope I made clear earlier in this
response, I am very appreciative of the work you two
(and others) have done, advancing a rationally defen-
sible TP position in the public square of contemporary
psychology that no particular TP could currently get
away with, but that will create a space for such TPs
in the years to come. Consequently, at the end of my
response, I want to express my thanks for the work you
are doing to help make all worldviews fundamentally
equal before the law (of scientific discourse rules), with
the hoped-for result that the worldview of naturalism
will not forever be given implicit preferential treatment
in contemporary psychology.
Eric L. Johnson
is Lawrence and Charlotte Hoover
Professor of Pastoral Care at The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary. He edited
Psychology and Chris-
tianity: Five Views
and wrote
Foundations for Soul Care:
A Christian Psychology Proposal,
and he is the director of
the Society for Christian Psychology. Correspondence
concerning this comment should be addressed to Eric
L. Johnson, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
2825 Lexington Road Louisville, KY 40280. Email:
References
Basseches, M. (1984).
Dialectical thinking and adult
development.
New York: Ablex.
Frame, J. (1987).
The doctrine of the knowledge of God.
Phillipsburg: P & R.
Goetz, S., & Taliaferro, C. (2008).
Naturalism.
Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Kegan, R. (1982).
The evolving self: Problem and process
in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kierkegaard, S. (1980).
The sickness unto death.
Princ-
eton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003).
Philosophical
foundations for a Christian worldview.
Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Nagel, T. (2012).
Mind & cosmos: Why the materialist,
neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost cer-
tainly false.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Nash. R. (1992).
Worldviews in conflict.
Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.
Poythress, V. (2001).
Symphonic theology: The validity of
multiple perspectives in theology.
Phillipsburg: P & R.
Richards, F. A., & Commons, M. L. (1984). System-
atic, meta-systematic, and cross-paradigmatic
reasoning: A case for stages of reasoning beyond
formal operations. In C. Armon, M. L. Commons,
& F. A. Richards (Eds),
Beyond formal operations:
Adolescent and adult cognitive development
(pp. 92-
119). New York: Praeger.
Sire, J. W. (2009).
The universe next door: a basic
worldview catalog
(5th ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity.
Van Til, C. (1972).
Common grace and the gospel.
Phil-
lipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
What’s in a Name? Theology, science and theistic
psychology
James M. Nelson
Valparaiso University
The relationship between theology and psychology has
been an issue of conversation for many years. Most re-
cently, proposals for a theistic psychology have provided
a focus for this debate, provoking a strong response
from authors like Daniel Helminiak (e.g, 2010). In this
issue, Jeff Reber and Brent Slife offer a critique of Hel-
miniak’s work by responding to the perceived natural-
ism and dualism in his worldview. In this article I will
examine the worldview issue from a slightly different
perspective to see if a rejection of theistic psychology is
warranted.
A key aspect of describing worldview is to under-
stand the logico-structural integration in the system,
or “the ways in which the assumptions of a world-view
are interrelated” and the effects of these relationships
(Kearney, 1984, p. 52). In the two papers under discus-
sion, a fundamental point of difference revolves around
assumptions about the nature of science and theology
as well as their relationship. In particular, Helminiak
argues that there needs to be a relationship of separation
between the two concepts lest we threaten the “under-
pinnings of Western civilization” (p. 50), a very strong
claim. His position seems to be similar to the old “two
books” philosophy of Francis Bacon (2001, p. 220).
This article will look at his claim in a couple
of ways. First, we will attempt to understand what
Helminiak means by the terms “theology” and “science”
to see if this supports his claim of separation. Second,
we will look at a specific statement he makes about the
relationship between theological and scientific points of
view to see if it provides persuasive support for his rejec-
tion of theistic psychology.
The meaning of “theology”
Although a clear understanding of what is meant
by theology is essential to his discussion, Helminiak
nowhere defines the term, apparently assuming that its
meaning is obvious. Perhaps he is assuming a typical
meaning for the term as found in Western thought. In
