Page 16 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 4

Comment

to „Characteristics of a Christian
Psychology“

Paul C. Vitz

Wolfram Soldan’s paper represents an important and wel- right and Worthington types of approach? And further,
come contribution to the topic of a Christian conception does Soldan’s model give still better results, whatever that
of psychology. We at the Institute for the Psychological might mean.
Sciences (IPS) have read it with interest, and find that
the differences between our approach and Soldan’s are We now turn to the IPS model (The IPS Group, 2013; an
relatively small and are far outweighed by our points of earlier version, Brugger, 2009) and to other contributions
agreement. To clarify our response to Soldan, we first re- of Soldan. Very briefly summarized, the IPS structural
spond to his general Christian approach, second to his model states that the human person is:
treatment of forgiveness and third we compare his con- (1) a unity, to be treated holistically;
ception of a Christian psychology with the integrative (2) an embodied (body/soul) reality whose bodily nature
model developed over the last decade here at the IPS. is foundational;
(3) interpersonally relational, being made in the image of
To begin Soldan makes it clear that a Christian psycho- an interpersonal God (the Trinity), and made for love of
logy, although sharing some assumptions with existing God and love of others;
secular approaches, must in many respects be contras- (4) rational, ordered towards truth and often capable of
ted with them and this contrast identifies differences in knowing it; and
epistemology, worldview and anthropology. We strongly (5) volitional and free, and therefore capable of moral
agree with Soldan and encourage Christian psychologists action, although this freedom is diminished by various
everywhere to clarify and enlarge on these differences causes including sin and illness.
without overlooking the similarities. (For a sample of
American perspectives on this problem see Bergin, 1991; We find explicit within Soldan’s paper considerable ag-
Browning and Cooper, 2004; Johnson, 2007; McMinn & reement with the IPS model, particularly in principles (1)
Campbell, 2007; Vitz, 2011, 2009) unity, and (3) relationality. We applaud Soldan’s insistence
on a holistic treatment of the human person, and of those
With respect to forgiveness Soldan makes the claim that concerns that give life meaning. We likewise endorse his
before one can genuinely forgive another, a person must observation that a Christian psychology can fully appre-
first accept God’s forgiveness/mercy. This requires that ciate the extent to which human persons are relational,
God, the existence of evil and a person’s own offenses be- since we are made in the image of a loving, triune God.
fore God, as well as the harmful behavior of others be Further, we find in his work a clear implicit agreement
acknowledged as part of the forgiveness paradigm. Sol- with the principles of (4) rationality, and (5) volition,
dan also identifies different dimensions of harmful beha- as expressed in Soldan’s assertions that the Christian is
vior (sin) and the importance of showing mercy rather intended to investigate and come to know the objective
than empathy. The scriptural arguments for the Chris- world and divine revelation, and to live by revealed mo-
tian and psychological importance of such concepts, lie ral precepts. As far as we can ascertain, Soldan did not
at the center of Soldan’s innovative model. (Apparently explicitly address the bodily nature of the human person,
Soldan’s emphasis would be consistent with a recent cri- but an emphasis on body keeps a Christian psychology
tique of self-forgiveness, Vitz and Meade, 2011). The un- in touch with the large, growing, neuroscience literature
derstanding of forgiveness here at IPS has been based on and prevents it from becoming too spiritual. The body
Enright’s approach, with some influences coming from also maintainsan appropriatefocus onthe Christiandoc-
Worthington as well. Soldan proposes major changes trine of the Incarnation.
and additions but they are described in a somewhat com-
plex manner. At present we at IPS are not resolved with In additionto thestructural model, the IPShas developed
respect to Soldan’s position but will be giving it much a narrative, theological model of the person, with which
further thought. we think that Soldan would likewise be in agreement. In
this narrative model, again very briefly, the person is (1)
For now we suggest, however, that there may be a form created in the image of God, thus every person has in-
of forgiveness that is possible without the explicit Chris- trinsic dignity and value, (2) fallen through sin, much of
tian framework of Soldan, and that such forgiveness which shows up in psychological suffering and pathology
forms a substrate upon which Soldan’s presentation can and, (3) redeemed through Christ, and called to a life of
build. Regardless, a major question is: How does one holiness. We believe these three principles are uncontro-
account for the documented positive effects of the En- versial to most Christians, regardless of denomination.

16 16