Page 56 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 22
P. 56
and their influence pervades social media and However, SG does not recognize a transcendent
the public imagina�on. However, according to source of the good; the good is, therefore,
the materialis�c WV that undergirds modern impersonal and ul�mately meaningless; and SG
psychology, human beings are nothing more is generated by humans, but not obligatory;
than compara�vely highly evolved, complex whereas CG iden�fies the Source as a person;
organisms, that have to create their own therefore, considers the good an interpersonal
meaning, beyond reproduc�on and species gi�; and may express thanks to the Giver – and
survival, in order to find some personal sense of even the gra�tude itself is a gi�. So, their
significance. Chris�ans should, of course, conceptual similari�es are rela�vely superficial,
celebrate the surprising emergence and compared with the deep and profound
wonderful discoveries of modern posi�ve metaphysical differences they respec�vely
psychology and learn what we can from them. suppose.
But we also need to remind ourselves (and any
others who might be interested) that a As a result, I wonder if the WV assump�ons of
Chris�an WV has a much richer and more secular psychology and the Chris�an theology
fulfilling view of human beings (made in God’s that Haack and I share are so fundamentally
image, loved by God, given meaning by God) different that the Chris�an community in
and that Chris�an psychologists, like Augus�ne, psychology would be be�er off abandoning the
Aquinas, Pascal, and Kierkegaard, had modern assump�on that theology and
developed a remarkable understanding of psychology are unrelated, autonomous
virtue-forma�on that was inten�onally disciplines, and retrieve (and slightly modify)
rejected by the founders of modern the medieval assump�ons that theology is the
psychology, and it took over 100 years to queen of the disciplines, including psychology –
recover from its early objec�vist bias against and Chris�an philosophy every discipline’s
studying the virtues. handmaiden – both of them undergirding,
fueling, and guiding psychology’s theory-
To put the point clearly, the biggest problem building, research, and prac�ce. I wonder,
hindering the comparison and contrast of further, if it would be helpful to see integra�ve
Chris�an theology and modern psychology is ac�vity as a necessary, developmental step in a
not the challenge of finding commonali�es larger, longer, communal process with a goal or
between their respec�ve insights and findings telos unimaginable to modernity: the
– it’s that they’re based on fundamentally construc�on of one discipline (at least for the
different and incompa�ble WVs. Making Chris�an community), a Chris�an psychology,
ma�ers worse, WVs are taken-for-granted enriched by the contribu�ons of modern
beliefs that underlie our interpreta�ons of psychology, but based only on a Chris�an WV,
specific objects of study, and they’re rela�vely and especially beholden to the dis�nc�ve
li�le talked about in modern psychology or psychological resources of the Chris�an
understood. So, what seems like a simple tradi�on, including the Bible, Chris�an
comparison between two similar concepts experience, spiritual forma�on, pastoral care,
(e.g., Secular Gra�tude [SG] and Chris�an Chris�an theology, and Chris�an philosophy.
Gra�tude [CG]), if one assumes a common And perhaps that’s also the main goal of this e-
frame of reference, is actually quite journal?
problema�c, because their differences far
outweigh their similari�es, if one factors in the
fundamentally different frames-of-reference
supplied by the WVs used to interpret them.
For example, both forms of gra�tude 1) References
acknowledge a good for which the recipient is Smith, C. (Ed.). (2003). The secular revolu�on. University of
thankful, and 2) benefit the grateful one. California Press.
56
