Center for Integrative Studies

By Mark A. Segraves, Ph.D.

Introduction
During the last one hundred years, the church has experienced exponential growth in tandem with a return to first century doctrine and practice. This includes but is not limited to the necessity of repentance, baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, the importance of living a separated life, the belief that God still performs miracles and that the gifts of the Spirit are for the church today.Around the world, contemporary testimonies of the miraculous power of God are common. People suffering with incurable diseases have been healed. Blind eyes have been given sight. Deaf ears have been opened. Even death has demonstrated its inadequacy in the face of the power of God as the dead have been brought back to life. Perhaps more than ever, believers are looking at impossible obstacles through eyes of faith and the miracles that result are almost too numerous to count.

At times, however, believers have exercised their faith, proclaimed the power of God, and spoken the word of deliverance only to stand in perplexity waiting for a miracle that never comes. If the faith of the believer is fueled only by a perpetual demonstration of the power of God, the believer may experience a sense of doubt or a loss of hope. A stronger faith may survive the question and relegate the absence of the miracle to the sovereign and unknowable will of God. In either case, the person in need remains in need.Such a person is frequently directed to wait on God, keep trusting in God, and continue to serve the Lord faithfully through the application of spiritual disciplines (e.g., prayer, fasting, Bible-reading, church attendance, giving, etc.). Clichés are often offered, such as: “It will happen in God’s good time” or “Just hold on to the horns of the altar until God gives you what you need.” Tragically, some believers automatically interpret the lack of an answer to prayer as evidence that faith is somehow insufficient or hidden sin exists. Like Job, the person in need ends up in a vicious cycle of shame and guilt as he or she attempts to discern the motivation for God’s silence.

A question naturally grows out of such a situation: How does a believer cope when God seems silent? Another question, perhaps even more baffling and painful than the first, reflects the reality of the fallen world around us and the influence of the fallen nature on even the most devout believer. Perhaps the question is better understood if described rather than stated. A Christian couple divorces. A Christian teenager overdoses. A pastor commits adultery. A Christian man, married for eight years, confesses to a secret lifestyle of homosexuality. A pastor’s wife is hospitalized with symptoms of what the psychiatrist calls a mental illness. These true-to-life scenarios are only a small sample of the many that could be offered here– tragic descriptions of heart-breaking scripts played out by wounded actors.Similar to the first question, some believers respond to these scenarios with questions about the quality of faith in the lives of the fallen or the presence of sin in those victimized by the sinful choices of others. Like the disciples, these believers wonder who sinned in an effort to determine the cause of such harsh “punishment.” In the mean time, the hurting–whether the offended or the offender–are often left without answers, support, or hope. When someone does offer help, it may only be the regurgitation of trivial maxims or, at worst, the reenactment of a comforter of Job. Again, the question naturally arises: How does a believer cope when nothing seems to work? Many sincere Christians in these situations have applied every Scriptural principle they can think of and prayed every prayer their wounded spirit can utter. But the divorce goes through. The overdosed teenager dies. The pastor is not restored and loses church and family. The homosexual man comes out of the closet and walks out of the house never to be heard from again. The pastor’s wife is consigned to a long-lasting regimen of psychotropic medication.

In an effort to provide sufficient support and effective ministry, some pastors have offered these hurting people pastoral counseling or referred them to qualified Christian counselors or psychologists. In cases where no Christian counselor or psychologist is available, some pastors have suggested utilizing counselors or psychologists who may be of a different religious persuasion or have no religious faith at all. Other pastors have felt that utilizing professional counseling or psychological resources–whether the professional is a Christian or not–is in direct opposition to the principles of Scripture. In this case, the pastor may continue to encourage the application of scriptural principles and the faithful practice of spiritual disciplines or, with no further recourse available, give up hope of seeing positive change.Some pastors and believers–seeing the continuance of negative symptoms and the futility of giving up hope–have made an effort to develop a “biblical” approach to counseling, hoping to avoid any connection to the field of secular counseling and psychology. From a different perspective, some religious denominations have begun to wrestle with the perceived tension between psychology and theology. As a result, scholars–psychologists and theologians–have attempted to formulate an integration of the two.

A Tale of Two Perspectives
Before a discussion is possible concerning the viability of integrating psychology and theology, it is helpful to look at some historical issues. Hundreds of years before Christianity became a dominant force in the world, men like Zarathustra (Zoroaster), Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), and Confucius wrestled with concepts like the mind, the soul, and behavior (Brennan, 1998). The conclusions drawn were not wholeheartedly accepted, but did provide a makeshift foundation for the embryonic psychology that developed in ancient Greece. Because these men were religious in some form (e.g., Zoroaster was a priest, worshippers of Buddha meet in temples, contemporary believers in the philosophies of Confucius meet in “churches,” etc.), it is not surprising that the philosophies that developed were affected to some extent by faith or religion. In fact, one of the most consistent things observed across the spectrum of human existence is the creation of or worship of some kind of higher power. Brennan (1998) refers to the Egyptian supermarket of gods, where you had a choice of higher powers from the sun to house cats.

Into this mix came the philosophers of ancient Greece, with their varying orientations toward psychological activity (e.g., naturalistic, biological, mathematical, eclectic, humanistic, etc.). When Christianity, mainly in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, became a force to be reckoned with in the early centuries of historical Christianity, these orientations were deemed unfit for a church constructed on the premise of faith. In order to make the transition from philosophy to religion more effective, the church began to incorporate those components of philosophy that could fit within the framework of its dogmas. Brennan (1998) gives a good example of this when he shows how the Hebrew doctrine of monotheism (the belief in one God) may have been intermingled with the Greek tradition of polytheism (the belief in many gods) and resulted in the concept of the Trinity (the belief that one God exists in three persons).

For many years, the Papacy maintained an overwhelming sense of power and control over its members and even a major segment of society. This power was sufficient until men started asking the questions that had interested them for centuries. When this happened, the power of the Papacy was decreased and the quest for scientific thought was revived. To stifle this movement, a series of crusades was launched in an attempt to restore power to the Papacy. The result, however, was the exact antithesis. Through the influence of Muslim scholars, who had preserved the writings and philosophies of the ancients, the Christian world was shaken and the power of the Papacy was never the same. Even when the influential Augustine attempted to promote his philosophy of the evils of the body and its senses, Thomas Aquinas resurrected the naturalistic and biological orientations as he showed the validity of using sensory experiences coupled with intellectual knowledge as the basis for the search for truth (Brennan, 1998b). Aquinas, a theologian of the church, introduced these concepts of elementary psychological thought into faith-based religion and his work forms the basis for the philosophical direction the study of psychology has taken since that time.

The ancient conflict between theology and philosophy and its offspring, psychology, has continued into more recent years. It is mirrored in the friction that exists between religion and science. For example, Sigmund Freud said, “Of the three powers which may dispute the basic position of science, religion alone is to be taken seriously as an enemy” (Freud, 1933/1965). Because of positions like this, some psychotherapists or psychoanalysts have chosen to ignore or at least minimize the concept of spirituality or religious experience as it impacts the lives of their clients. However, in more recent years, the discussion has been resurrected as a valid and even necessary issue. The concept of integrating spirituality, religion or theology with psychology has become so prominent a concern to many psychotherapists, the American Psychological Association decided to publish a variety of books related to spirituality, counseling, and psychotherapy (e.g., Richards & Bergin, 1997).

The substantive lack of integrative studies during past centuries is an indication of the result of an ancient line being drawn in the sand of philosophy. On one side stands the church, demanding that its religious mores, doctrines and experiences be accepted and practiced by faith alone. On the other stands science, with its demand for strict adherence to principles of scientific observation as the basis for the acquisition of knowledge. This face-off has produced radical conclusions on both sides of the line. Some Christian believers have attempted to sever any form of secular counseling and psychology from spirituality or religious experience (e.g., Adams, 1986). Freud’s opinion of religion in relationship to science—specifically, psychology—has already been cited (Freud, 1933/1965).

The effect of the demands of the Papacy upon its constituents to adhere to a system of regulations and behaviors by faith alone is still felt throughout Christendom. Members of churches feel a tremendous sense of guilt and shame if they find themselves seeking scientific proof for something previously accepted by faith alone. This dilemma brings us to an issue worth wrestling with. Just as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas attempted to move people from the positions postulated by Plato and Augustine (Brennan, 1998), we are left with the task of developing a more complete science of psychology without contradicting Scripture, while we attempt, at the same time, to respect and even understand the framework of faith and religious experience many parishioners bring to the table.

The Perilous Journey
Even though the power of the organized church had been reduced in many areas by the seventeenth century, it still maintained control over certain parts of society, specifically, southern Europe (Brennan, 1998). An evidence of that control could be seen in the universities, where scientific exploration and reformulation were controlled by either the church or the government. Because of factors like this, independent societies of scholars were created for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge. When the existing government threatened the emerging freedom of scientific inquiry, the societies were there to promote such freedom. When the universities were slow to move toward the development of new scientific knowledge because of the power of theology faculty members or the university’s conservative policies, the societies were there to push the boundaries and explore new territory (Brennan, 1998).

The two major traits consistent within all learned societies was their desire for freedom from influence by the church and government and their passion of developing new scientific knowledge in the face of the sometimes lackadaisical scholarship found in the universities (Brennan, 1998).

The Scholarly Societies Project reports that “from their earliest beginnings, scholarly societies played a major role in bringing scholars together in meetings where they could discuss and exchange ideas” (Parrott, 2000). This forum, created by the advent of the societies, produced an environment conducive to the development of scientific thought and, at the same time, began to lay the foundation for a standard of quality to be achieved. Even though the universities of the seventeenth century had many dynamic scholars, the societies were responsible for the majority of scholarly journals to be written during the period (Parrott, 2000).

These learned societies provide the foundation for current organizations like the American Psychological Association. In fact, while separated by more than three hundred years, there are still many similarities. The purpose of the current societies (e.g., APA, APS, etc.) is to promote the advancement of scientific thought, while providing a scholarly standard all contributors must adhere to. Unlike the early societies, the APA and other groups have academic freedom to explore and develop ideas under the watchful eye of their leaders and constituency, within the less-restricting parameters of local government. Nonetheless, in some ways the church still maintains—and rightfully so—a careful attitude about anything that may contradict sound doctrine or minimize the importance of faith. Some in the church feel like science stands in opposition to faith or religion. Likewise, some in the church feel like psychology stands in opposition to theology. However, there is a growing number of Christian scholars, pastors, and lay people—this author included—who disagree with these absolute statements.

Theology and Psychology: Is Integration Possible?
My background includes a BA in Bible and Theology from Christian Life College, an institution endorsed by the United Pentecostal Church, International. After briefly attending Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO), I earned the Master of Arts in marriage and family therapy through Western Seminary (Portland, OR/San Jose, CA). This particular degree required a substantial number of courses in theology. I am currently completing the dissertation for the PhD in clinical psychology from Capella University (Minneapolis, MN). My purpose in describing this history is not intended to be self-aggrandizing. Rather, it is intended to add meaning to the various reactions I have encountered during the past few years. For example, while communicating with a licensed minister about my decision to enter the PhD program I was told that I was on the “devil’s pathway” and that I would lose my ministry and eventually walk away from God. Another licensed minister—a person I had never met or conversed with—conveyed to one of my close friends that he considered me to be a reprobate because of my decision. I found all of this interesting, because the statements were not based on a personal knowledge of my spiritual condition. On the other hand, other licensed ministers have expressed to me their appreciation and relief that someone was actually pursuing formal training in this area because the needs of the people they ministered to seem so overwhelming. Like some other denominations or organizations, Oneness Pentecostals are just beginning to wrestle with these concepts. The primary question remains unanswered. Can Oneness theology interface with psychology to the point of biblically-sound integration?

Various models of integration have been proposed by various Christian scholars (e.g., Crabb, Minirth, Meier, Narramore, etc.), and a few of the models have merit. One of the most important concepts in any discussion of integration is that all truth is God’s truth. This simply means that some things not found in Scripture are true. One of the most oft-cited examples is a mathematical problem. 2 + 2 = 4. This statement is not found in Scripture, but it is still true and, by extension, does not contradict the Word of God. To truly grasp this concept, it is necessary to understand the difference between general and special revelation. General revelation refers to God’s disclosure of Himself through the created universe (e.g., Psalm 19:1-3). When God does something outside of the laws of nature in order to reveal Himself, we call it special revelation (e.g., written Scripture, the Incarnation, etc.). The Bible is a special revelation with an intended purpose – to convey the message of the grand drama of redemption and to lead us to Christ. At the same time, the Bible does not address certain issues (e.g., is it right or wrong to utilize psychotropic medication to alleviate negative symptoms like hallucinations). Over the last couple of centuries scientific discoveries have led to cures for various diseases, medical procedures that lengthen life and promote healthy living, and the alleviation of certain levels of pain. Whether the scientist acknowledges God as the source or not, these discoveries are based on principles or laws God instilled in the created world. Many Christians have no problem utilizing medical science to lengthen life and alleviate pain, but this attitude is not always the same in relation to psychological theory and practice.

In spite of this, some Oneness Pentecostals—including myself—are interested in attempting to develop a biblically-sound model of integration. In the future, I will attempt to present a more thorough discussion related to integration, but for now, let me share with you several concepts I believe will be necessary if such a model is ever to be practical or accepted in Oneness Pentecostal circles.

First, psychological theory must not contradict Scripture. If the theoretical underpinnings of a psychological school of thought contradict Scripture, the theory must be altered. If no viable alteration is possible, the theory must be discarded.

Second, psychological practice must not contradict Scripture. Where theory provides a reason, practice provides a method. Any method utilized in treating or helping hurting people must be consistent with Scripture.

Third, human beings must be looked at holistically. It is not enough to view a human being as a soul. Man is more than a soul. Even the Apostle Paul saw the importance of wholeness in every facet of human existence (I Thessalonians 5:23).

Fourth, integration must not be a “Christianizing” of secular psychology. For example, taking Freud’s theory of personality (the id, the ego, and the superego) and equating it to the Christian concepts of the sinful nature, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the conscience is overly simplistic and reductionistic.

These four concepts are elementary building blocks in the monumental challenge of developing an integrative model, but it is a challenge I believe Oneness Pentecostalism is ready to face. My sincere hope is that any attempt at integration will be built on a foundation of much prayer, faithfulness to the Word of God, and quality of scholarly inquiry that brings glory to God.

References
Adams, Jay E. (1986). Competent to counsel. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House

Brennan, James F. (1998). Readings in the history and systems of psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brennan, James F. (1998b). Readings in the history and systems of psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Freud, S. (1933/1965). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Richards, P. Scott & Allen E. Bergin. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.