Page 173 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 3

Forum

to take...“ I wonder whether my difficulty to personally nication has to be translated into the natural laws under
agree with it (which is, to integrate it in my own personal which He usually operates.
conceptualization of psychotherapy) comes from a lan-
guage ambiguity due to my own limit or a factual dis- Regarding the four requirements of a strongly theistic
agreement with the authors. In other words, I can easily psychotherapy summarised by the authors, I would ea-
agree with the necessity of considering the possible or po- sily agree with all of them, given the basic presumption
tential activity of God in any circumstance, on the other of an active and prominent God, except for the third: we
hand I would find it difficult to agree with the necessity cannot use God as a kind of tool, but only give Him fair
of seeing God‘s direct involvement in any circumstance. recognition of His actual own initiatives and actions.
Forgiveness can work out because He has already writ-
Similarly, a bit earlier the authors just explained their view ten the specific schema/law of forgiveness in our hearts;
about God being one of several necessary conditions; if in a particular circumstance He freely gives us also His
personally I find it difficult to understand the role played amazing Grace,that forgiveness would be multiplying its
by God as a „necessary condition“, unless we accept that effect, prompting maybe deep and critical life change. So,
God is always present but often he would stand by our in my understanding, peripheral aspects can be effective
own decisions without interfering, and then events would even in a secular model, even if not reaching their full real
flow by the order of natural laws and free will. In other potential; otherwise, the danger or the temptation could
words, I would personally believe in Him being always be to shift to a worldview where we possibly can control
present, not in Him always taking active initiative and di- God, or call on Him like a standardised technique.
rect intervention; I suppose the authors might reply that
„not intervening directly or not intervening at all“ is still I would think a strongly theistic approach would have
a kind of option of active response by God, and therefore to be very articulated and sophisticated, because its aim
He could still be considered a necessary condition; in this would be ambitious and somehow challenging. Including
case I would agree with their general statement. into a theoretical model God‘s role, which is always or
usually a completely invisible dimension to all current
I agree with the authors pinpointing that explicit strong prominent psychological models, it obviously needs a
theistic articles should recognise God‘s centrality in their competent and persuasive illustration. We need a sound
assumptions, and generally in their style of discussion and convincing theoretical framework starting from the
and process of thoughts. Otherwise a lack of consistency anthropology of man and following with the concept of
would come to spoil researcher‘s good intentions and re- health, wellbeing and healing. The anthropological ba-
sources. In my personal and professional view at present, sic assumption should make clear the nature of man as
God can be named and maybe we could go even further a unity of Body, Mind and Soul. From this assumption a
saying He could, or He should, be central in our research theoretical model should develop accordingly. I believe
and in our scientific communications. The same could that as mental health professionals we should primarily
eventually apply in the case of clinicians or other applied address the mind as well as doctors should focus on the
professions. body and spiritual leaders/directors would focus on the
But we should always clearly recognise and mention in soul. But similarly we should come to the point of ack-
details the laws of nature by which and through which nowledging and facilitating this triune nature of man,
God has supposedly intervened in the process; unless a addressing the body and the soul within the boundaries
supernatural event has apparently taken place, and there- of our socially and professionally defined role. Failing as
fore it needs suitable tools and strategies to observe it and Christians to reach this goal until today seems a clear and
understand it, in order to give it a plausible explanation. deadly limit in our coherence and consistency with our
own faith beliefs.
This would allow us, Christian researchers and professi-
onals, to keep our legitimate place in the wide academia, A last comment about the use of the terms weak theism
without incurring in the risk of being labelled „self-refe- and strong theism. I think „relevant theism“ and „not re-
rential“ or bizarre, imaginative people. That is, we should levant theism“ would be better terms for the purpose of
always allow an atheist to recognise the objective univer- the discussed article.
sal and eternal laws of nature by which, in our own un-
derstanding, God has ordinarily intervened in our clients‘
lives and change mechanisms, unless the supernatural has
occurred, and then it would be another level and field of
understanding. God is usually gentle and respectful with
people ignoring and rejecting Him, so why should we
force atheists to compulsory acknowledge His operations
in our world and in our clients‘ lives? I agree with the
authors about the requirement of the centrality of God
in any strong theistic communication, but that has to be
done according to the authentic „policy and procedures“
that the same God has usually shown to us. That commu-

173