Editors' introduction to the special issue.

Worthington, Everett L. ; Hall, Todd W.

It has been 40 years since the initiation of the Journal of Psychology and Theology. A lot has happened in those years. The cognitive revolution came and receded in psychology and neuropsychology was hardly a burst of neuronal energy. Questionnaires were the usual fare for assessment. EEGs were a few electrodes on the skull and evoked potentials were rudimentary. There were no fMRIs or PET scans. Cognitive neuroscience was in its beginnings. Psychotherapy tended to emphasize the rational (rational-emotive therapy, cognitive-behavioral, and behavioral self-control were the rage) or psychodynamic (with the short-term treatments just beginning). Experimental psychology has slid toward the emotional and non-rational since then. We are positive that 40 years ago, no one was thinking about positive psychology. Managed mental health care was not yet created, and psychotherapists in private practice (there were a lot of solo practitioners then) made almost as much per hour as psychotherapists make now with less overhead because clients usually paid cash and then they submitted for reimbursement from their insurance company. The integration of psychology and theology was underway and basic interdisciplinary conversations were the stuff of integration.

The country was still in Vietnam, and Nixon was still in the White House. The cold war was hotly contested. The USA had landed on the moon only a few years before. Television was three networks, and transistor radios were popular. Phones had rotary dials. Computers the size of the PCs or Macs most people own today required a building (a large one) to house. And punch cards ran the programs, at about one run per day.

The world has changed. Integration also has changed. In fact, integration is much more diverse now than the virtual mono-approach of 40 years ago. We begin this two-issue collection of brief reflections on the status of integration as psychologists do--with a review of the literature. Julia Grimm and her colleagues review the literature since 1985 to give a snapshot of the disciplinary progress in integration.

The two co-editors of these two special issues (Worthington and Hall) consulted an advisory board and nominated potential authors of articles. As an advisory board, we tried to be inclusive of different viewpoints and voices--across theoretical approaches, disciplines (e.g., philosophy, theology, and psychology and those who work at the boundaries), work settings, personal characteristics, and experience in the field (from the level of beginning professor to seasoned scholar). We could not invite anything near to the number of wise commentators we wished to due to space limitations. We do hope, however, that we have sampled broadly across the field.

Alan Tjeltveit gives us a historical look at the field to kick off the commentaries. Theologian LeRon Shults offers a needed perspective of the disintegrating forces that force us to change and grow. Those forces are anxiety provoking, but are necessary for healthy growth. Psychologist Eric Johnson adds to the dialogical perspective by noting how people want to hold onto comfortable ways of construing integration, yet dialogue that is constructive will encourage different voices--minority voices as well as majority voices--that interact respectfully. Philosopher Stephen Evans voices another slant in his article that pleads for wholeness. He notes that integration is about integrity and its opposite is about compartmentalization. So, he challenges the field to think of integrity within our lives and beyond the two disciplines of psychology and theology. Philosopher Robert C. Roberts analyzes a summary of psychology by psychologist Paul Vitz. Vitz's summary is taken to task for a variety of reasons--but most center around some scientists' modern view that science is about the present and the now and denigrates the wisdom from the past. Roberts challenges us to integrate across time as well as disciplinary content.

Psychologist Glen Moriarty applies the analytic tool of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) to look at the variety of social systems involved in integration. He concludes that we need to make our integration systems more diverse, global, and acceptable to the prevailing psychological power structure. Theologian, ordained and practicing Clergy, and Psychologist Fraser Watts brings an international perspective to the table. From England, integration involves different issues than in the United States. Integration tends to be more about integrating religion and science (including the physical and social sciences), things that are objective (which theology claims) with things that are subjective or more open to interpretation (including psychology), and to a lesser extent psychology and theology (although those disciplines are considered). Psychologist Peter Hill notes how the integration of psychology and theology involves paradox rather than some closed-ended solution. He encourages us to embrace the paradox and remain in dialogue if we are to build the field of dreams of some integration of the two disciplines. Psychologists Maureen Miner and Martin Dowson bring an Australian perspective to the discussion. They employ attachment theory to analyze relationships. In doing so, they provide a relational perspective on integration.

Social and clinical psychologist and trained Spiritual Director Julie Exline brings together perspectives from several disciplines. She takes a personal approach to analyze and make suggestions for self-reflection about integration and our personal roles in it. Gary Moon, psychologist who serves as Directors of the Martin Family Institute and Dallas Willard Center for Spiritual Formation at Westmont College and also the Renovare International institute for Christian Spiritual Formation, reflects on the history of the relations between psychology and theology. In some ways power differentials have kept them apart, he opines. Then he suggests that the plot to the play is changing and expresses a hopeful sense that perhaps through dialogue more progress will be made. Psychologist Steven Sandage and Professor of New Testament Jeannine Brown collaborate on an essay that looks at both professional and disciplinary integration, but--picking up the theme that an earlier collaboration by LeRon Shults and Steven Sandage made fruitful--they suggest a relational integration.

Overall, we have been blessed to assemble for your enjoyment quite a stimulating interchange. We think that this issue and its continuation in the following issue of the Journal will form the basis of conversations about integration for years and perhaps decades to come.

Everett L. Worthington, Jr. Virginia Commonwealth University

Todd W. Hall Rosemead School of Psychology, Biota University