Page 175 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 3

Forum

Preaching to the choir:

Theisms, non-theisms, and

the challenges of pluralism

P. J. Watson

Anyone committed to Christian Psychology will surely is less and less heard at the margins of an increasingly
applaud Slife, Stevenson, and Wendt (2010) for their ad- naturalistic psychology and pluralistic society. Preaching
vocacy of “strong theism.” Strong theism formally rejects to the choir may have a critical role to play. We may need
the ontological naturalism that so often remains the hid- people like Slife et al. to remind us to take heart and to
den ideological force that drives contemporary psycholo- have the courage of our convictions.
gy. Postmodern arguments make it clear that all intellec-
tual frameworks invariably reflect the “interests” of some At the same time, however, Slife et al. clearly want to
perspective, and thus cannot avoid the ideological influ- have an impact beyond the “choir.” They ask, for example,
ences of seeing issues from a very specific angle of analy- “Why not allow strong theism to take its place in the mar-
sis. Ontological naturalism is an often unacknowledged ket of potential ideas and strategies” (p. 173). Missing is
ideology that biases psychological knowledge in ways these arguments is any explanation of how strong theism
compatible with its worldview. Since the “bias” of ideo- will be able to compete in this marketplace of ideas. In-
logy is unavoidable in psychology, “objectivity” requires deed, a failure to anticipate the arguments and reactions
an explicit awareness of the epistemological implications of those outside the “choir” may weaken this attempt to
of this fact. Slife et al., therefore, argue that strongly thei- define a strong theism. Three among many possible ex-
stic Christian psychologists, like all psychologists, should amples will illustrate the point.
forthrightly confess their foundational ideological com-
mitments. For Christian psychologists, those commit- First, in offering their example of a strong theistic ap-
ments, of course, will not be to ontological naturalism, proach to therapy, Slife et al. state, “Of course, its mere
but rather to God of the Bible. In short, strong theism possibility says nothing about its effectiveness. Still, for
argues for the development of an explicitly Christian Psy- a strong theist, the explicit inclusion of God in the for-
chology. mulation and practice of therapy cannot help but facili-
tate effectiveness” (p. 169). Later, they add, “Again, this
Such a Christian Psychology would rest upon four as- article does not speak to the efficacy or ethical issues that
sumptions (Slife et al., 2010, p. 168). First, “God’s activity may surround this distinction; our interest is clarification
would not be limited a priori…., but would be potentially only both at the conceptual and practical levels” (p. 172).
unlimited any place and time” (their emphasis). This as- The “inclusion of God” within the “formulation” will of
sumption necessitates a rejection of a deism that limits course make sense to the “choir,” but those psychologists
the actions of God in time and of a dualism that dismisses who do not belong to the “choir” will suspect hidden tau-
God to a separate spiritual sphere with no “place” in dai- tological assumptions. For them, the essential suggestion
ly life. Second, “God’s activity would be a core and per- may seem to be that people who already believe in God
meating constituent of the worldview and assumptions will believe in God. And their obvious counterargument
that guide psychotherapy research and practice.” Third, a will be that people who do not already believe in God will
strong theism would reject “peripheral aspects of theism” not believe in God. Moreover, the claim that this argu-
as a foundation for a truly Christian Psychology. In other ment is merely a “clarification” at “conceptual and practi-
words, weak theism is not a viable option. Finally, “God’s cal levels” and “does not speak to the efficacy or ethical
activity would be clearly reflected in the therapy at all le- issues that may surround this distinction” will be suspect.
vels of theory, method, and practice.” Outside the choir, and probably inside the choir as well,
efficacy and practical issues will be central to conceptual
A key question in evaluating this defense of strong theism and practical concerns.
is this: “Who will be convinced by such arguments?” The
likely answer is that Slife et al. (2010) appear mainly to be Second, strong theism explicitly rejects dualisms. For ex-
preaching to the choir. In the United States, “preaching ample, “With dualism, God’s current activity is limited
to the choir” is an idiomatic expression meaning that an to the spiritual realm, presumably being inactive or su-
individual is trying to convince someone about an issue perfluous in the natural realm” (pp. 165-166). The “choir”
with which he or she already agrees. In other words, a would surely agree that such a dualistic vision should
“preacher” is trying to convert the already converted be rejected. God’s current activity presumably is always
members of the congregation who sing in the “choir.” centrally important in the so-called natural realm. But do
Such an exercise may seem pointless, but it need not be. not Slife et al. encourage a different kind of dualism? Is
Christian Psychologists may sometimes feel disheartened there not a hidden commitment to a therapeutic dualism
because they seem to belong to such a small “choir” that in which strong theism is set off against everything else?

175