Epistemological approaches to inner healing and integration.

Hunter, Linda A.

While pastoral care has been expounded upon at least since the birth of the church, psychology as a discipline unto itself is only a few hundred years old at best. Historically, ministry or pastoral care has been "based chiefly on reflection and deduction from principles derived from Scripture and pastoral experience, whereas modern psychologies, while also indebted to reflection and theorizing, are grounded more in behavioral science investigation characterized by inductive, empirical study" (Yarhouse, Butman, & McRay, 2005, p. 16). This disparity in approaches often creates tension when the two horizons attempt to meet and explore areas of integration, and much of the tension appears to arise from differing epistemological postures.

Ministry (Pastoral Care) Approaches

The view on sin and its role in human behaviors is one such example of the differing epistemological approaches between pastoral care and psychology. McMinn (2001) suggested that biblical counselors oftentimes look to the role of sin as the root cause of behavioral problems while "Christian psychologists have tended to emphasize faulty learning patterns, unhealthy relationships during formative years and incorrect thinking as the source of the problems" (p. 13).

Pastoral counselors that subscribe to Scripture as the sole source of knowledge for understanding human behavior often advocate that addressing sin nature and the subsequent externalizing behaviors is not only necessary but is solely sufficient in guiding clients to a state of healthy mindedness (Adams, 1973; Sanford, 1947).

Some take the position that Scripture answers every psychological question, more or less in the manner of a counseling handbook. They think that each particular kind of problem with which twentieth-century clients come to therapy is directly addressed by Scripture, so the counselor need only find the texts (instructions) that are applicable to the client's presenting problem and then induce the client to follow the instructions. (Maier & Monroe, 2001, p. 279)

One of the most vocal opponents to the integration of religion and psychology is Adams (1970, 1973) and one might argue that he adamantly adheres to a view of Scripture being necessary and sufficient for all counseling needs. To this end, in The Christian Counselors Manual (1973), Adams asserted that "the scriptures are the primary and normative source from which the Christian counselor's presuppositions and principles must be drawn" (p. 21). While this is an axiom with which most Christians would agree, Adams suggested that Scripture is the sole epistemological source necessary for counseling. His apologetic for Biblical counseling based solely on Scripture follows: a) there is no unique problem that has not been mentioned plainly in the Scriptures; b) there is a Biblical solution to every problem; c) God has revealed, through the Scriptures, all things needed to "engage in all good works" by "thoroughly equipping" them for every exigency of life; and, therefore, d) those who function as counselors in the shepherding ministry of Christ possess all that they need to carry on the ministry of shepherding (pp. 23-24). However, Adams does allow that one's experiences as well as the "dynamics of his own sinful heart" also informs the counselor's approach (p. 21).

Powlison holds that "the phenomena encountered in counseling--in life--are phenomena that can only be completely understood vis-a-vis God" (Welch & Powlison, 1997, p. 304). Applauding the Calvinist approach of the Bible being the light or "redemptive lens through which we see everything: politics, art, relationships, war, economics, engineering, and psychology" (p. 305), Powlison advanced this metaphor another step in suggesting that his model of Biblical counseling recognizes not only the light of the Scriptures but the "darkness and distortedness of secular therapy and personality theory" (p. 305) as well. Powlison further asserts that unfortunately the Christian counselor is oftentimes quick to turn to other ways of knowing when the Bible does not readily lend explicit solutions: "many Christian counselors move toward secular psychotherapeutic models when Scripture seems silent to them" (p. 312). For Powlison (2000)

 the more important a piece of psychological
 knowledge is for living,
 the more it will be common property
 to all sorts of people and disciplines
 ... [and] the closer it will come to
 describing things that theologians,
 poets, and commonsense also know,
 discuss, and debate. (p. 200)

However, Powlison believes "heartily in 'integration' if it means (re)thinking Christianly about those important contemporary phenomena, questions, and practices that arise from psychological research, theories, or therapies" (personal communication, November 30, 2005).

Others in the ministry such as Sanford (1947, 1958), Payne (1981, 1989, 1991), and Smith (1996a, 1996b, 2005a, 2005b) appear to share similar views in that their epistemology is informed primarily via Scripture as well and is the sine-qua-non for effective counseling or inner healing. While not discounting knowledge gleaned from psychology outright, these individuals lean heavily on Scripture to the extent that when healing does not occur they entertain possibilities such as unconfessed sin and lack of repentance as the root cause for continued suffering rather than looking outside the Scripture for the additional insight that might be gleaned from that which the discipline of psychology offers.

Begging to differ with this unitary epistemological position, Jones and Butman (1991) held that "while the Bible provides us with life's most important and ultimate answers as well as the starting points for knowledge of human condition, it is not an all-sufficient guide for the discipline of counseling" (p. 27). Those in ministry that approach counseling holding this axiom to be true subscribe to the belief that general revelation is indeed a valued "way of knowing" worthy of careful consideration; however, one must always remember that general knowledge neither trumps special revelation nor heals ones relationship with God (Jones, 2001).

In their discussion of integration and psychopathology, Yarhouse, Butman, and McRay (2005) held that while the "Scriptures do offer instruction about the nature of our human condition before God and before one another" (p. 18), it does not lend itself well to instruction and guidance for modern psychopathologies. However, "these truths [Scriptures] have tremendous bearing on our understanding of issues related to psychopathology, and these teachings lay a foundation for the development of the church's understanding and approach to human suffering and eventual categorizations of these experiences" (p. 18). Therefore, Scripture should be a rich and valued foundation on which Christian integrative therapeutic approaches are built.

Professional Psychology/Selected Integration approaches

By virtue of the integrative tasks, Christians in psychology attempt to balance empirical findings relevant to their profession and at the same time hold true to the Scriptural maxims and interpretations. Hill (2005) suggested that currently Christian psychologists experience marginalization from both the disciplines of psychology and religion. Most common to Christian theology is

 the high view of Scripture [which]
 argues that scripture is authoritative
 because it holds regulatory force (i.e.,
 it regulates my belief system and is
 thus a primary if not solely sufficient
 source of my "control beliefs") resulting
 from its inerrancy as a product of
 divine inspiration found in its human
 authors. (p. 99)

Many Christian theologians would find this to be a necessary and sufficient epistemology, and further some theologians in the counseling ministry have no desire for empirical validation (Smith, personal communication, March 11, 2004) looking only to the Scriptures for answers when healing is not forthcoming (MacNutt, 1999; Payne, 1981, 1989, 1991; Sanford, 1947, 1958). Christian psychologists, however, are continually challenged to "maintain the authority of scripture yet remain committed to a discipline that utilizes a radically different epistemology" (Hill, 2005, p. 98). Currently intent on research and subsequently providing empirically supported treatment plans for their clients, the field of psychology often seeks statistical data that demonstrates efficacy for a particular theoretical approach with certain clients with specific issues at hand. Not negating or contradicting the high view of scripture, which implies that some people approaching Scripture assume that it has clear and direct answers to specific concerns, Hill offers "authority as explanatory power ... [that] will supplement the [high view of Scripture] and act in concert with it" (p. 99). Arguing for a syncretistic epistemology informed by both theology and psychology, Hill holds that while Scripture is necessary and sufficient for matters of moral behavior, it is less than clear and sufficient in explanatory value for "basic cognitive and affective psychological processes--but nonetheless, it [Scripture] might have something to add to our understanding of the processes" (p. 100).

Hathaway (2005) also addresses epistemological approaches pertaining to integration of theology and religion offering three normative approaches: "Bible as encyclopedia of revealed truths, Bible as a source of theological truths and values, and Bible as divine speech received by providentially situated readers" (p. 89). Hathaway stated with the first approach that "some traditional accounts of Scripture depict it as a reserve of objectively accessible atomistic facts given to us by God" (p. 90). The "Bible as a source of theological truths and values" (p. 89) would suggest that Scripture "might inform our axiological and theological commitments (in some demarcated sense) but it would be silent in the face of the multitude of empirical questions that psychology has explored about human nature" (p. 91).

With the third approach of the "Bible as divine speech received by providentially situated readers" (p. 89), Hathaway (2005) holds that one "would attempt to understand the speech-act performed by God through the text recognizing that God knew well and good the particular ways that each person and group encountering the text would respond to it" (p. 92). Hathaway further delineates an integrative epistemological synchronism that both acknowledges and appreciates the tensions often encountered when approaching new empirical findings through the lens of the infallible Word of God. Making a case for hermeneutical realism, Hathaway states that if robust empirical findings result in contradiction of one's understanding of the Scripture then one must "reexamine their exegetical assumptions and techniques ... and if they retain a belief in that they are reading the text correctly, they will not be able to simply dismiss the implication of the text in favor of contingent psychological finding" (p. 93).

A representative of this third approach might be found in Tan (2005) who is both a licensed clinical psychologist and an ordained pastor and presents with an epistemological approach that integrates understanding both the Scripture and psychological findings. He states that while "it is crucial for me to depend on the Holy Spirit and His anointing in studying the biblical texts or Scriptures" he is not hesitant in "citing relevant research to support and expand on biblical truths" (p. 50). Careful to use "sound exegesis and biblical interpretation" (p. 50), Tan also draws from core psychological concepts to assist others in viewing "human beings from a more comprehensive perspective" (p. 51).

McMinn (1996) holds an integrationist position similar to that of Tan (2005) in that he believes one must appreciate what theology and psychology offers for the Christian counselor. Further, in a position similar to that of Hathaway's (2005) hermeneutic realism, McMinn asserts that "orthodox Christian theology keeps counselors grounded in the midst of a profession easily swayed by new theories, fads, and sensationalistic claims" (p. 9).

Hill (2005) argues that the "boundary between psychology and theology is one where scriptural authority cannot be simply declared, but must also be demonstrated, for at this boundary the two disciplines have much constructively to say to each other" (p. 110). While this has not been an exhaustive discussion of epistemological approaches, a limited overview has been offered as a backdrop for the forthcoming discussion on use of prayer, inner-healing and other religiously based interventions in a licensed setting.

References

Adams, J. E. (1970). Competent to counsel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House.

Adams, J. E. (1973). The Christian counselor's manual. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker House.

Hathaway, W. L. (2005). Scripture and psychological science: Integrative challenges & callings. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 89-97.

Hill, P. C. (2005). Living on the boundary: Scriptural authority and psychology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 98-112.

Jones, S. L. (2001). An apologetic apologia for the integration of psychology & theology. In M. R. McMinn & T. R. Phillips (Eds.), Care for the soul (pp. 62-77). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Jones, S. L. & Butman, R. E. (1991). Modern psychopathologies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

MacNutt, F. (1999). Healing. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Marie.

Maier, B. N. & Monroe, P. G. (2001). Biblical hermeneutics & Christian psychology. In M. R. McMinn & T. R. Phillips (Eds.), Care for the soul (pp. 276-293). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

McMinn, M. R. (1996). Psychology, theology, and spirituality in Christian counseling. Forest, VA: American Association of Christian Counselors.

McMinn, M. R. (2001). Introduction: Psychology, theology & care for the soul. In M. R. McMinn & T. R. Phillips (Eds.), Care for the soul (pp. 9-22). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Payne, L. (1981). The broken image: Restoring personal wholeness through healing prayer. Westchester, IL: Good News.

Payne, L. (1989). Healing presence. Westchester, IL: Good News.

Payne, L. (1991). Restoring the Christian soul through healing prayer. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Powlison, D. (2000). A biblical counseling view. In E. L. Johnson & S. L. Jones (Eds.), Psychology & Christianity (pp. 196-225). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Sanford, A. (1947). The healing light (rev. ed.). New York: Ballantine.

Sanford, A. (1958). Behold your God. Saint Paul, MN: Macalester Park.

Smith, E. M. (1996a). Beyond tolerable recovery. Campbellsville, KY: Alathia.

Smith, E. M. (1996b). Genuine recovery: Orientation and overview of the basic principles of Theophostic ministry. Campbellsville, KY: Alathia.

Smith, E. M. (2005a). Healing life's hurts through Theophostic Prayer Ministry. Campbellsville, KY: New Creation.

Smith, E. M. (2005b). Theophostic Prayer Ministry: Basic training manual. Campbellsville, KY: New Creation.

Tan, S.-Y. (2005). Psychology collaborating with the church: A pastor-psychologist's perspective and personal experience. In M. R. McMinn & A. W. Dominguez (Eds.), Psychology and the Church (pp. 4955). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Welch, E. & Powlison, D. (1997). "Every common bush afire with God": The scripture's constitutive role for counseling. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 303-322.

Yarhouse, M. A., Butman, R. E., & McRay, B. W. (2005). Modern psychopathologies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Linda A. Hunter

Nebraska Mental Health Centers

Linda A. Hunter, Psy.D., received her doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology from Regent University. She is a provisional licensed psychologist completing her clinical psychology residency at Nebraska Mental Health Centers in Lincoln, Nebraska. Her research interest continues to be ethical concerns in integration of religiously based interventions and psychotherapy in clinical practice.

Please address correspondence regarding this article to Linda A. Hunter, Psy.D., Nebraska Mental Health Centers, 4545 S. 86th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68526. Email lhunter@nmhc-clinics.com