Page 57 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 1

Christian Psychology

Comment on Romuald Jawor-
ski “Personal and impersonal

religiousness: A psychological
model and its empirical verifica-
tion”

by Toni Terho

Speaking about such a big theme as Romuald Jaworski’s ty? These questions pave the way to the main problem in
article is always intriguing. Could it be possible to find at psychology of religion or religious science versus Chris-
least some answers to the questions “what is spiritual ma- tianity: if Christianity is the “Ultimate Truth”, how do we
turity” or “how can we facilitate personal development”? treat other religions?
As a Christian I think we should try to find the answers,
especially when we believe the words of Lord Jesus:”I am While writing this comment, I am fully aware of the big-
the way, and the truth, and the life”. The article and work gest “crime” among the scientific community. This crime
by Romuald is an attempt to find the answers. is to give up naturalism. By naturalism I mean the de-
nial of (Christian) God. On the other hand, if EMCAPP
Romuald is dealing with issues of personality, maturity is consistent with its name and vision, this awful crime
and religion or religiousness. The writer introduces the could be done. EMCAPP could be a forum to consider
model of personal religiousness and the scale (SPR) that “alternative” psychology. This alternative psychology
tests the model. The main position of the model and fin- would be based on Christian world view. It would be in-
dings are that there are two types of religiousness: perso- teresting to find out how different psychological results or
nal (the human being has an interpersonal contact with theories could then be. Of course the idea is not to invent
God) and impersonal (the human being treats God in- the wheel again, but to reveal the fundamental assump-
strumentally). Romuald introduces the differences bet- tions that lie behind psychology and the whole scientific
ween these two types according to the model and empi- thinking and consider their effects. Perhaps in Jaworsky’s
rical results. The differences but also the importance to case this could mean something like this: the im/perso-
differentiate the two types of religiousness becomes even nal religiousness model is based more or less on Christi-
more obvious when other personal factors and scales are an thinking and made for Christian purposes. It does not
tested along with the SPR. The model of im/personal re- work on e.g. Buddhist context, because Buddhism does
ligiousness is an important tool which should be used not see God as personal entity. In general, the positive
when talking about negative or positive effects of reli- side of “christening” the model could be that it is consis-
giousness. tent with the world view behind it, and this world view is
clearly stated, whereas the negative aspect is that it cannot
An obvious question rose while reading the text. The be accepted by the (naturalistic) scientific community.
personal religiousness type of (Christian) person is an
ideal on Christian ministry or Christian counselling / This article by Romuald Jaworski invites us to reflect.
psychotherapy field. Can this model be used as a tool for Hopefully EMCAPP could be a place for reflection, even
selecting “the right” persons to these positions? But on in an alternative way.
the other hand, does this model too much lead our un-
derstanding of what is “the right”? Depending on our
theology or world view, what kind of characteristics do
we value the most? Let me give one example from the
list of characteristics of the subject. Is activity or passivity
the “right” character of the subject (towards God)? In the
end, can a human being – a created being, not a Creator
himself – be active when he/she is in contact with God?
Or is it actually God only, who is active in this relation-
ship? My guess is that the “right” character might vary
with theology.
Toni Terho, M. Th.
To me it was not quite obvious, how the im/personal re- Finland
ligiousness model was developed in the first place: who Vice-president of
has constructed it, how widely it is used, where do the un- ACC Finland, a
derlining assumptions or characteristics of religiousness Board member of
come from etc.? Is it a “general” model in the sense that ACC Europe and
it is suitable for all forms of religion or just Christiani- EMCAPP

57