Page 24 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 5

Empirical steps toward a Christian Psychology

of Babel. This is where an empirical Christian le, can use empirical methods to explore whe-
Psychology may have an important role to play. ther understandings of the Christian standard
In a pluralistic and competitive cultural context, are faithfully expressed and faithfully heard in
the task of the Church will be to faithfully un- Church life. Most simply and ideally, this re-
derstand and express its standard in ways that search will offer empirically “interesting” de-
that are “interesting” within and across rationa- monstrations within and across rationalities
lities. A model of rationality in the Babel of con- that Christian beliefs and practices have expec-
temporary social life will need to include three ted positive consequences for communal life.
basic levels of functioning (Watson, 2011). An influential psychotherapeutic perspective
may argue, for instance, that Christian beliefs
Standard about sin are wholly neurotic and must be eli-
At the “top” of any system of rationality will be minated (Ellis, 1980). Christian psychologists,
the current understanding of its own standard. nevertheless, can use standard research pro-
For Christian rationality, that understanding cedures to measure Christian beliefs about sin
will, of course, be some reading of the Christian and also about the grace of God that Christians
vision of God as presented in the Bible. will see as the solution to the problem of sin.
Such research can demonstrate that the outside
Perspectives therapeutic perspective lacks empirical validi-
Then, at its lowest level, a Christian system of ty because beliefs about sin and grace can pre-
rationality will need to understand notewor- dict more adjusted psychological functioning
thy perspectives that can influence its ability to and that the Christian standard, therefore, is
faithfully express the meaning of its standard being faithfully expressed and heard within the
in the social life of Babel. Three broad types Church (Watson, 2010).
of perspectives will be relevant. The first will Problems, nevertheless, can appear within
involve those outside perspectives that have Church perspectives themselves. Attempts to
a potential to affect the Church. A specifically faithfully express the Christian standard can
Christian Psychology will be especially inte- struggle in response to perceived threats from
rested in prominent arguments in the essenti- outside rationalities. The expressing and hea-
ally modernist disciplines of psychology and ring of Christian meanings within the Church
other social sciences. These outside social sci- could become defensive as a consequence. The
entific perspectives can be threatening as they result could be an increasingly ghettoized Chri-
essentially attempt to colonize religious belief stian perspective that tries to wall out outside
systems by explaining them away in terms that threats in a presumed faithfulness to the stan-
are compatible with their own “natural” stan- dard. This walling out process may, neverthe-
dards. Freud’s (1961/1927) dismissal of religion less, interfere with the “interests” of Christian
as an illusion may be the most famous illustra- rationality, not only within the Church itself,
tion. But, outside social scientific perspectives but also across other outside rationalities. Re-
might also have implications that can usefully cent research in Christian Psychology, for ex-
clarify and support Christian rationality. Re- ample, has devised procedures that empirically
search into self-control as an adaptive psycho- differentiate between Religious Fundamentalist
logical process not explicitly related to religious and Biblical Foundationalist Christian perspec-
commitments (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, tives. Both seem to reflect sincere Christian
2004), for instance, can be confirmed through commitments, but evidence suggests that Reli-
empirical research to be supportive and thus gious Fundamentalism embraces faith while re-
clarifying of Christian rationality (Watson & jecting intellect whereas Biblical Foundationa-
Morris, 2008). lism finds ways to embrace both (e.g., Watson,
Chen, & Hood, 2011; Watson, Chen, & Morris,
A second type of perspective will involve those 2014). Rejection of the intellect seems ill suited
that operate within a Christian system of ratio- to defend the “interests” of Christian rationa-
nality itself. Christian Psychology, for examp- lity, especially in the context of a Babel so po-

024