Thirty
years ago, I began the journey of a Christian liberal arts approach to
life. After deciding between pastoral
ministry and psychiatry, clinical psychology was the discipline where our very
good God was pleased to have me serve.
My formal study of psychology began my sophomore year in college and has
continued to this day. Experiencing life through a biblically informed
Christian worldview is more about who I am than what I do. So I appreciate the opportunity to write this
article and hope you benefit in some way from reading it.
I
am grateful for the dedication of those involved in the work of a Christian
psychology project. Recent benchmarks
are reflected in works that articulate various views on and models of theology,
Christian thought, and psychology (see examples of Johnson, 2010, 2007;
Entwistle, 2010). Last year while
teaching a graduate course addressing the relationship of theology and
psychology, I had a realization that I am just now attempting to put into
words…please bear with me if this “wanders” a bit.
I
believe self-disclosure is a foundational aspect of the nature of God. I am increasingly convinced that this is as
foundational to His essence, nature, and function as transcendence and
immanence. The Triune God makes Himself
known! Imagine the implications for a
moment if this were not true. Because of
His self-revelation, God sovereignly chose to disclose through special
revelation and through general revelation.
We see this first in Genesis when God spoke the world into existence. This profound truth is also affirmed in
Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood
through what has been made, so that they are without excuse
(emphasis added).” A primary issue for
Christian psychology is understanding and articulating the relationship between
special and general revelation as means of God’s self-revelation.
Because
of His triunity, it is vital to understand the nature of the relationships
among and between the Persons of the Trinity.
I have come to understand that the interrelationships of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit within the Godhead are characterized by submission and authority
in the relational context of love where power is generated and
expressed. We tend to understand
submission and authority in relational contexts of power where love is
generated and expressed. In other words,
I think we have this skewed. This is one
reason I believe we have not progressed as well as we should in application to
our understanding of the Trinity and of the marriage relationship. An example from theology of a result of this
distortion is subordinationism (only hierarchical relationships within the
Godhead) on the one hand, and modalism (one god in 3 modes) on the other. An example from marriage is radical
complementarianism (male headship only, differences emphasized) and radical
egalitarianism (equality only, similarities emphasized). Biblically, authority flows out of being
rightly submitted (cf. Philippians 2:5-11).
But properly exercised authority also involves being open to the
influence of others (cf. Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer in John 17 where the
Father is receptive to Jesus’ prayers and Mark 1:10-12 where Jesus is open to
the Holy Spirit’s activity). Love rather
than power is the relational context.
This
is where it came to me recently. A core
issue in Christian psychology is the relationship between special and general
revelation and how submission and authority are involved. Which means of revelation, special or
general, should have influence over the other and to what extent? Much of the discussion and debate involves
the use of “power” language involving issues related to submission and
authority. Further, I realized that the process
of our communication bore striking resemblance to how we express and apply our
beliefs about the marriage relationship.
I have believed for some time that we need more “models of integration”
about as much as we need more models of marriage, although these can be
helpful. Instead, it is time for a
different paradigm. Perhaps this will
develop as we continue to remember that God in His self-revelation chose to use
both special and general revelation to make Himself clearly known. There was full harmony and parsimony between
the “data sets” of special and general revelation prior to sin. And once sin’s effects have been completely
removed, this will be true once more. I
wonder how we will experience the relationship of special and general
revelation in that day.
References
Entwistle, D.N.
(2010). Integrative approaches to
psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical
foundations, and models of integration (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR:
Cascade Books.
Johnson, E.L.
(Ed.) (2010). Psychology and
Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.). Downers
Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Johnson, E.L.
(2007). Foundations for soul care: A
Christian psychology proposal. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP
Academic.
David
E. Jenkins
Associate
Professor of Counseling
Center
for Counseling and Family Studies
Liberty University
No comments:
Post a Comment