Page 55 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 22

if the conceptual and ethical force of the mo- philosophy was her handmaiden. That’s
dern boundaries of theology and psychology in- because the concerns of theology and
evitably pull the insights and findings back into philosophy were recognized to pertain to all
their respec�ve, rigidly bounded discipline, and the disciplines, for God was related to all that
everyone goes back to business as usual. he created (especially human beings, made in
We know the answer, but I have to ask anyway: his image) and the careful reflec�on of
(
could the inclusion of sta�s�cs and philosophy was universally valuable for all
neuroscience within modern psychology’s disciplinary inquiry. In addi�on, they shared the
disciplinary boundary (i.e., self-understanding), same sources of knowledge and literatures,
but not theology and philosophy, have anything and a lot of the same methods and prac�ces.
to do with WV assump�ons?) So, while these two disciplines were
dis�nguished, we might call them
This outcome is so completely accepted, no metadisciplines, for their subject ma�er was
one feels the need to comment on it, giving founda�onal for and relevant to all other
integra�ve ac�vity a certain Sisyphus-like academic work (especially in what we now call
quality; yet such ar�cles and books con�nue to the Geisteswissenscha�en, [the human
be wri�en. I think this is because the Spirit is sciences]). Allowing theology and philosophy
the source of this energy. But it also helps such preeminence in the curriculum helped to
explain why, a�er 50 years of such wri�ng, guarantee the unity of what was then the uni-
there’s s�ll not a recognizable body of versity.
integrated literature. The integra�on project
would seem to be an inherently unstable affair, Then came the Scien�fic Revolu�on, in which
con�nually undermining itself, perhaps Chris�ans were usually leaders, wan�ng to
burdened by an internal contradic�on: the glorify God in the study of his crea�on.
modern assump�on that theology and However, as more and more of God’s crea�on
psychology are unrelated, autonomous was studied, the focus became smaller and
disciplines and the spiritual sense that they smaller, and knowledge became fragmented,
somehow belong together. disciplinary boundaries ossified, and Western
understanding compartmentalized. Gradually,
What if integra�on in its current form is a the theological unity of the medieval university
Chris�an child of modernity, and the disappeared, perhaps replaced by a singular
impermanent state of its ac�vity is due to its devo�on to mathema�cs and the natural
being beholden to two conflic�ng sets of WV sciences. In the 1800’s, the accomplishments,
assump�ons? And what if, further, pres�ge, and influence of science and
psychologists in the Chris�an community felt technology soared to previously unimaginable
the conceptual and ethical force of worldview heights, while belief in God and the super-
differences at least as strongly as that of natural began to wane, and this led, at the turn
disciplinary differences (and maybe more of the last century, to the “secular revolu�on”
strongly). Perhaps, then, the Chris�an (Smith, 2003). It was no coincidence that
psychological community together could start modern psychology was founded then, as the
revisioning and reimagining psychology and methods of the natural sciences began to be
theology (and philosophy too) according to applied to the human sciences with great
Chris�an worldview assump�ons alone. success. Since then, theology itself was
secularized – turned into “religious studies” –
To be�er appreciate this possibility, a li�le as it seemed to compete with philosophy to
history might be helpful. become the most marginal discipline on
campus.
In the High Middle Ages, things, of course, were
very different. That was when the first Secular psychology, on the other hand, along
universi�es were being founded, and theology with business, has come to dominate
was considered the queen of the sciences and undergraduate schools, including Chris�an,

55