Psychology is a
science. As such, a typical psychology
course (i.e., learning and memory, cognitive psychology) will review the
classic and contemporary empirical research relevant to the area of
investigation followed by an examination of the theories spawned by that
research. There is one area of study in
psychology that does not fit well with the empirical research to theory
organization. Psychotherapy. The reason it does not fit well with a
research-theory approach is due to the lack of empirical research to support
many of the existing theories. There are 54 divisions of the American Psychological
Association (APA) and only three of those divisions address the central theme
of psychotherapy--clinical psychology, counseling psychology, and psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, it is psychotherapy,
the least scientific sub-field of psychology, which addresses issues most
relevant to a Christian psychology. The APA is aware of this inconsistency and is
attempting to remedy it by identifying empirical research that supports
theories of psychotherapy. In his Manifesto for a Science of Clinical
Psychology, McFall (1991) stated, “we must make a greater effort to
differentiate between scientific and pseudoscientific clinical psychology and
to hasten the day when the former replaces the later” (p. 76). In an attempt to improve the credibility of
psychotherapeutic systems, Division 12 (clinical psychology) of the APA has
spent the past two decades collecting research regarding what it refers to as
empirically supported treatments (EST’s).
While there was early identification of research supporting a few
cognitive and behavioral treatments for a handful of obscure psychological
issues, within the past few years solid empirical support for both cognitive
and behavioral therapies has been identified for the treatment of more
mainstream issues.
The
APA website’s frequently asked questions section acknowledges that many
well-known forms of psychotherapy (i.e., psychodynamic, existential,
person-centered, reality, etc.) are not listed as EST’s. This concern is specifically addressed in a
report (Chambless, 1993) adopted by the Division 12 Board of the APA which
states, “In light of the large number of APA members who practice psychodynamic
psychotherapy, in the interest of the profession and the public, we conclude
that it is crucial that more efficacy evidence on the outcome of psychodynamic
therapies for specific disorders be obtained if this clinically verified
treatment is to survive in today’s market” (p. 2). A decade later, in an update (Woody et al.,
2005) on EST’s, it was found that “many widely used treatments have yet to be
rigorously tested” (p. 5) and that most professional programs in counseling and
psychology do not include training in the current list of EST’s. The conclusion drawn is that graduate
programs in counseling and clinical psychology have a long way to go before
they will accurately represent the scientific basis of the discipline of
psychology (p. 11).
The
existence of empirical support, or lack thereof, for any psychological theory
should be of interest concern to
Christian practitioners. The objective
data produced by empirical research provides the validity for subsequent
theories. Without supporting research, a
theory is nothing more than a philosophy.
As such, Christians practicing psychotherapeutic models lacking
empirical support should critically examine their approach. Those practicing cognitive and behavioral
models should review the available research in an attempt to increase their
effectiveness.
While
objective, empirical data validates a theory and lessens its inherent dangers
to Christian practitioners, some guidelines are necessary. Allow me to make a few personal observations
regarding the way Christians should approach psychological data. First, the
objective data produced through scientific psychological research is typically
consistent with Biblical teaching, if interpreted through the lens of Scripture. God created humans and humans are the
subjects that psychology attempts to understand. Inasmuch as Scripture specifies the nature of
the relationships of interest, it will be consistent with the empirical data
gleaned from psychological research.
Second, there are two forms of error that are always present in experimental
scientific research. Systematic error is
a result of the imperfect methodologies and affects the accuracy of the
research. Random error is a result of
the uniqueness of the subjects being studied and affects the precision of
research results. To integrate the
infallible Word of God and the science of psychology, with its inherent error,
is like mixing oil and vinegar; you mix them together and it won’t be long till
they separate again.
This has led us
to conclude that developing a distinctly Christian psychology is preferable to
an integrative approach. Furthermore, it
is reasonable to conclude that psychological research should not be used to
support Scripture, though Scripture can support psychological research. It is better to view psychological research
as data that has the potential to augment our understanding of Scripture. Third, due to varying worldviews, both the
subjective interpretation of data in general psychology and the theories of psychotherapy
as a whole, may or may not be consistent with Biblical teaching. As I stated in a previous article, psychology
is not an enemy of Christianity, but some psychologists are. Finally, God’s Word is not only sufficient;
it is necessary in defining the current state of a human soul and providing
direction for the redefinition of that soul.
Put another way, once sin entered into the world and infected the soul
of man, God did not leave us in a state of limbo for thousands of years waiting
for the birth of Wilhelm Wundt or Sigmund Freud, the fathers of psychology and
psychiatry respectively, to save us.
Every man has a
soul, and general psychology provides insights that may guide us as we strive
to live effectively. However, if we
truly want to develop the spiritual and earthly components of our souls and
become what God originally intended us to be, we must seek direction from the
Creator Himself. Jesus came, not to take
the life one has or remediate the life one has but to give abundantly more
life, spiritual life, life that overflows (see John 10:10). Only God’s Word can accurately define what
one is and provide what is necessary to redefine one to become what God created
her or him to be.
References
McFall, R.M. (1991). Manifesto for a science
of clinical psychology. The clinical Psychologist, 44(6), 75-88.
Chambless, D.L. (1993, October). Task force on
promotion and dissemination of psychological procedures: a report adopted by
the division 12 board. American Psychological Association. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/divisions/div12/est/chamble2.pdf
Woody, S.R., Weisz, J., & McLean, C.
(2005). Empirically supported treatments: 10 years later. The Clinical
Psychologist, 58(4), 5-11.
Jay Kidwell, PhD
Professor of Psychology
Cincinnati
Christian University
No comments:
Post a Comment