Integrating the Christian Faith into the Science of Counseling - Assignment Example

Running Head: Integrated Counseling Integrating the Christian Faith into the Science of Counseling of University Abstract Since time immemorial, the conflict between religion and science has been fed by brilliant minds unabashed. In the modern period, this disagreement persists without a sign of cessation. Hence, theories and assumptions with respect to counseling prompted both scientific and Christian counselors to defend their stance regarding the subject matter. This paper will then explore and analyze the various theories, particularly the Level of Integration View and the Biblical Counseling View, to provide a comprehensive view of the history and direction of the interaction between theology and psychology. Moreover, renowned counselors of the modern period, namely, Gray Collins and Robert Roberts will be also discussed in order to provide a balance view of psychotherapy in the past, present and future. I. Introduction Since any theory of counseling founded in a religious tradition conveys a specific stance on the relationship between theology and psychology, it is valuable to be sensitive of a number of the alternatives with regard to the latter as a framework for the development of the former. Because Freud’s negative response of all spiritual organizations as a collective neurosis with the prospect of a hallucination, there has been a hindrance between psychology and religion; and as psychology asserted its importance to become a dignified science through denouncing its origins in either philosophy or religion, together with processes such as introspection, contemplation, intuition and religion has been described beyond of its limitations except as a discipline of study. Psychology aimed to become a natural science patterned after the hard science of physics. Consequently, in some respects, it has turned out to be not as much of a human or social science (Olson, 1997). With the omission of a small population of psychologists, extremely few in academic psychology have defied to come up with an applied psychology from any of humanity’s glorious religions, regardless of the reality that almost every world religion integrates not merely a metaphysic and an ethic, but a study of human life and culture as well. It is the latter that acknowledges the spiritual aspect of human existence as the dimension of meaning and values, knowledge, bravery and empathy, anonymity, and worshipful wonder. To abandon the spiritual aspect of life is to be less than complete; it is as well as bad science, for it equals to a rebuff of what it means to be completely human (Burke, 2005). Humans experience life in a spiritual realm in addition to bio-psychosocial dimensions. The refusal of any religiously based psychology is supposed justified partially since integrating religious agreements, particularly those deficient in a quantifiable definition, would transgress the scientific codes of verifiability or truthfulness. These knowledge principles, drawn from a specific philosophy of science referred to as logical positivism maintain that only those claims that can be validated true or false as supported by the scientific method are genuine (ibid). In other words, by principle any argument that cannot be substantiated or debunked by empirical testing cannot be recognized as a scientific argument. On the contrary, there are scholars who believe that it is probable to develop a religious-scientific psychology, yet the very permutation of terms, religious-scientific, will appear like an oxymoron to those whose foremost adherence and character are bonded to a single discipline against the other. However, in theory it is likely to establish a religious assumption of counseling in such a way that it results in theories that can be verified empirically (Sisemore, 2007). For instance, consider the widespread hypothesis that the spiritual experiences of contrition or remorse and forgiveness have healing benefits. Stated more accurately, such a hypothesis could be phrased in the ‘if-then’ concept of causal linkages that are in principle provable and debunk able. The theoretical character of contrition and forgiveness can be provided with an operational meaning, so both variables, namely independent and dependent can be identified in a quantifiable means, and the forecasted causal relationships assessed empirically. If one will try to analyze this, this widespread hypothesis will appear to be validated directly through the individual experiences of a large number of religious people, through the recorded benefits of both “pastoral counseling and the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation” (Olson, 1997, 30) and in some way through some method research in psychotherapy, specifically those researches demonstrating productive effects of the counselor’s approval of the client (ibid). At the present period, the debate between the combination and separation of psychology and religion is ongoing. Two of the sternest rivals in the debate are those theorists advocating the ‘Levels of Integration View’ and those supporting the ‘Biblical Counseling View’. The former being opposed to the application of the Christian faith to counseling whereas the latter as being in favor of the marriage between Christianity and counseling. Furthermore, adding to the heat of this debate are the two most brilliant counselors of the contemporary period, Gray Collins and John Roberts. In the proceeding sections of the paper, these perspectives and the assumptions of these two renowned counselors will be analyzed in an in-depth fashion. II. The Level of Integration View There are two fundamental versions of this separatist perspective, namely, dualistic and reductionist approaches. In the dualistic approach, the two disciplines, religion and psychology, are separate but equal. Moreover, according to this perspective, the substance and emphasis of these two disciplines do not have an obvious intersection or have nothing in common. Their methods of gaining knowledge are much unrelated that there are no points of interaction or comparison. Since their objectives, processes and medium of communication are so contradictory, there is no basis for discussion between them. And because they are absolutely separated, disagreement or conflict between them is also pointless. Simultaneously, neither discipline can craft any positive contributions to the other. Psychology and theology are perceives as independent or sovereign disciplines, entirely independent of each other. A theologian is to be focused upon with the theories pertaining to the omnipotence of God, whereas a psychologist is to be concerned on the restricted to the theories of the psyche (Walker, 2006). This separation emerged historically in part as a consequence of the aspiration for some peaceful coexistence between science and religion typically. As obvious in the Church’s first responses to the scientific discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and Freud, religion has occasionally impede the development of science since the sixteenth century of the intellectual past of the Western world. Through separating the two, science could continue without disruption, and religion could avoid any possible threats to its world paradigm and assertions to truth, whether about nature, God, or human beings (ibid). A contemporary justification for separating psychology and theology is the perspective that these two disciplines offer independent and equally special point of views. Both can provide enlightenment upon human experience, but they hold non-overlapping continuum of justifications. For instance, a psychological framework may give a phenomenological explanation and causal observation of experience, whereas a theological framework provides a spiritual, ethical, or meaningful scrutiny. On the other hand, while both deal with the nature of being, psychology put emphasis on the experience of being, philosophy the orientation of being, and theology the purpose or meaning of being. In these insightful frameworks it is contended that a thorough depiction of an occurrence at one level of reason does not rule out the strength of description at another level of reason, thus contact between them is achievable, but useless. Nevertheless, whereas reasonable insights of these various perspectives may argue that diverse views on the truth are necessary, based on the differences stressed between theological and scientific explanations, it is mutually probable to assert their separation, or to communicate the two stages hierarchically (Olson, 1997). This dualistic association between psychology and theology has been questionable at best. It is fundamentally as insufficient as ‘separate but equal’ has been in race linkages. And parallel to its relevance in human associations, oftentimes this stance has masked another perspective, namely, that of being separate and unequal. The latter framework is clear specifically in reductionistic approaches to linking psychology and religion. From this point of view, the influence of one is believed to be greater than the influence of the other. Unfortunately, the mere relationship feasible is competition or conflict as each defies prevailing or overpowering the other. If one discipline takes into account the other seriously, it is above all as a potential threat (ibid). Basically they hang about independent of each other, yet interacting in a highly competitive manner otherwise in a hostile way. While the first stance is dualistic, this second is reductionist framework of a monistic nature. Either religious occurrences are condensed to psychological phenomena or all psychological methods are diminished to religious occurrence. Two instances of the former are when psychologists lessen ethical decisions to the preference of instrumental techniques for addressing one’s psychological needs, as if there were non-existing ethical realm in decisions at all, and when God turns out to be psychological phenomena such as the self epitome, as a number of people have misunderstood. A model of theological reductionism is the perspective that all inorganic kinds of mental disorders are implications of sin and fundamentally or specially religious or ethical dilemmas (Burke, 2005). In both instances, a phenomenon described in one dimension is redefined in another by some form of reduction. Whether the relationship between clinical psychology and theology is understood as disparate and equal, or divided but unequal, the suggestions for their separation are normally founded in their points of divergence. III. Biblical Counseling View It is generally agreed that the overall person makes up of various dimensions, which are the physical, cognitive, emotional, social and spiritual. Recognized definitions are present for each component, with the omission of the spiritual realm. One may argue that the spiritual aspect of humanity is not clear-cut since one cannot measure quantitatively the spiritual or substantiate that it is real. Yet much has been thought and written about psychological approaches although they are not tangible or quantifiable. Hence, the argument that mental health experts must not take into account the spiritual due to dearth in evidence or concreteness is a doubtful statement (Olson, 1997). Possibly, the spiritual dimension is abandoned because a great number of researchers are anxious to address this aspect, either for worry of violating professional ethics or because spirituality remained to be acknowledged as parallel with religion and as such is still mainly the territory of religion. Some scholars concur that although spiritual dimensions is appreciated as an essential and valued aspect of the overall individual, its orientation makes it complex to define. Moreover, it is difficult to confirm the subparts or limitations of any definition. Many contributors to the works acknowledge the predicaments linked with the definition of spirituality as an ingredient of health. Majority of mental health practitioners recognize the ancient separation of church and state and the dilemmas and mistaken beliefs that transpire with respect to the recognition of the spiritual aspect of individuality (ibid). In America during the twentieth century, religion and psychotherapy were commonly approved of as separate and dissimilar disciplines. Sigmund Freud’s view of religion as simply a hallucination greatly influenced the detachment of religion from mental health traditions. In spite of the influence of religious scholars, the scientific worldview surfaced as the prevailing protocol in the mental health profession. As the twentieth century closes, a number of mental health professionals witnessed a mounting interest in spirituality as a transition in the pendulum away from firmly empirical science. There appears to be a growing interest in reintroducing mental health practice to the integration of religion and spirituality (Sisemore, 2007). Mental health practitioners and institutions of higher education are seeking for resources to assist them to analyze, explore and design the spiritual and religious aspects of psychotherapy. Many people agree that numerous definitions and understandings are present with regard to the concepts religion and spirituality. For some, they could be defined in association to spiritual or climactic experiences that every one may have at any stage in his or her lifetime. Spirituality can also be perceived as the greatest level of any path of improvement. For instance, emotional progress articulated as universal sympathy and patience is normally the highest stage of emotional development, just as the capability to view sets of relationships among conflicting world paradigms is a topmost level of articulation of mental improvement. Spirituality may be described as its own progress. Probably a combination of three would be fitting for objectives of applying techniques for catering to spiritual and religious concerns in counseling. Even though a number of authors agree that there have been numerous deviances in definition or characterization of the concepts religion and spirituality, it is useful to concur on a definition or characterization if an application is to be successful. Most agree that the concepts religion and spirituality have manifold definitions and relevance (ibid). Even though spirituality may be undertaken and conveyed through religion, which is known as an organized structure of faith, worship, collective traditions and laid down rituals, spiritual concerns that emerge in counseling may or mat not be related with a religious value and belief system. Just as the mental health experts have acknowledged the significance of inquiring about racial affinity and ethnicity and other dimensions of culture, they should habitually analyze the spiritual aspects of client’s lives (Burke, 2005). It is important to shed light on whether spiritual convictions are based in profoundly held faiths of simply abided by meaninglessly. Critics have expressed apprehension that mental health professionals who integrate a spiritual aspect into their clinical activities may be probable to transgress ethical principles through enforcing their values on clients. Nevertheless, no professional ethical principles disallow a clinician from talking about the religious practices or using the spiritual values of their clients as fragment of the therapeutic course. Rather, ethical norms motivate members to value the individual differences in conviction and value orientation (Walker, 2006). The clinician, who integrates the spiritual or religious realms, if that therapist is properly trained, is no more probable to transgress a client’s value independence than any other therapist. Obviously, compassion and tolerance for the diversity of religious and spiritual practices, in addition to the multicultural domains, are ethical conducts anticipated of every mental health professional. To behave or act otherwise obviously infringe the ethical standards of their profession (ibid). IV. Gray Collin’s View of Counseling The mainstream of Christian counselors in the contemporary period is not satisfied to depend singularly on the Word of God. Numerous Christian counselors have aimed to combine their theories with the Bible in anticipation of ‘integration’. At the midpoint of majority of these attempts are the fundamental theological and philosophical pillars, specifically, the unity of truth. This is frequently articulated by the saying, “all truth is God’s truth” (Collins, 1988, 140). Gray Collins is a certified psychologist and counselor. He was previously the chairman of a unit of counseling as well as a university lecturer of psychology. He claims that, “there will be no conflict or contradiction between truth as revealed in the Bible and truth as revealed in nature” (Collins, 1981, 15). It is too premature to respond determinedly if psychology and Christianity can be put together. From then very start, Collins is beginning with an imperfect system that assumes that Bible represents human needs, but as well as that God has also permitted men such as Freud and Jung to unearth psychological realities about human behavior and counseling that are by no means acknowledged in Scripture but that are reliable with the Scripture and will be valuable to people confronting the dilemmas of modern existence. It is a fact that Christians can gain advantage from other secular disciplines, yet it would be ridiculous to refer to Christian natural sciences because they do not address with the concerns that Christianity does, particularly, the soul and spiritual dimension of humanity. Collin’s argument is only acceptable if the Bible is not adequate for “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (ibid). Collins takes on the principle that since physicians can cure ill bodies, and then the Christian psychologist can heal ill minds. Nevertheless, one has to question as to whether or not one can even liken the mind with component of the body. Collins accepts as true that there is plentiful evidence that all human dilemmas have three dimensions, namely, “physical, psychological and spiritual” (Collins, 1988, 114). As Collins supposed, the psychological fragment of man is his mind, which he espouses to be greater than mere physical component. Nevertheless, when the Bible applies the word “yuchv” (ibid) it is to connote to the soul which is devoid of corporeality. Any counseling framework of behavior that Collins attempts to associate to psychological components is highly prejudiced on his part. It is his disputation that behavioral and emotional disorders are also psychological dilemmas and by no means spiritual difficulties (ibid). V. Robert Roberts’ Counseling Perspectives As catalyst of God’s work, Christian preachers are in the mission of encouraging people’s entirety or wholeness and such is greatly grounded on the psychological aspect of humanity. It is a conception or transformation of people’s sentiments or emotions, their conducts, and their relationships. Each of this can be clearly defined through asserting that ministry is largely character shaping or character improvement. The term ‘character’ seems more of an area of ethics rather than psychology; yet fine character is as well as wholeness, personal health. And the dividing line between personality and character is never defined (Roberts, 2007). Scholars of ethics nowadays are much more concerned to psychology and psychology is beginning to be acknowledged as a discipline with an influentially ethical domain. Robert C. Roberts, a renowned professor of ethics claims that, “Psychotherapeutic literature shows that the effectiveness of therapy is independent of the kind of therapy employed. Therefore, Christian caregivers have strong reason to plumb the rich psychological resources of the Christian tradition rather than using twentieth-century therapies with other than Christian ideologies of personhood” (Roberts, 2007, 42). Furthermore, according to Roberts, pastors who have relied on psychotherapy practices for assistance have presumed that, as movements within empirical psychology, these frameworks are successful, clinically tested and validated techniques of promoting individual wholeness. The psychotherapists have unearthed realities about the human psyche, akin to the chemists who unveiled the chemical configurations of entities, and have designed strategies of intervention that operate on the realities they have found out. Therapy is a kind of machinery of the human soul, or if not so a machinery, at least a professional craftsmanship of the soul. As such, therapies are definite growth on the non-scientific methodologies of the erstwhile pastors. To abandon them would be foolish and immature to the true calling of the vocation of counseling, and wicked cultivation of accessible resources (ibid). VI. Conclusion The debate whether to incorporate Christian faith into counseling have been as old as the emergence of human rationality. As have been discussed, because of these disagreements theories and approaches to counseling have branched out to two disciplines, one is pure scientific counseling and the other one as fused religion and psychology. The two arguments are both logical and determined in their presentation of justifications that would bolster their stance. However, if one looks at the current trend of psychotherapy, it is high time to adopt the second view, which is the Biblical counseling. Collins and Roberts’ are quite correct in their contentions that human beings are not merely physical entities that could be subjected to scientific methodologies and observation but also emotional and spiritual beings that are intangible and profound in nature. Therefore, as they argue, treating mental disorders should not only focus on the physical nature of the problem but as well as those aspects that are non-quantifiable but still are essential to one’s existence. It appears that in the modern period, the philosophical and ethical considerations in counseling espoused by Collins and Roberts are gaining much popularity and application. Since these two contemporary counselors do not disregard the effectiveness of using scientific techniques along with the Christian faith, there arguments appeared to be well-balanced thus strong in its rationales. Since counseling is obviously a profession that requires compassion and sensitivity, the hard rules laid out by empirical knowledge should be applied to the actual treatment of a mental disorder; whereas, the softer principle offered by humanities such as theology or philosophy should be applied to forge a strong connection between the client and their counselors for the healing to seep in the deepest recesses of humans’ pristine inner self. References Burke, M. T. et al. (2005). Religious and Spiritual Issues in Counseling: Applications Across Diverse Populations. New York: Brunner-Routledge . Collins, G. (1988). Can You Trust Psychology? Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. Collins, G. (1981). Psychology and Theology. Nashville: Abingdon. Olson, R. P. (1997). The Reconciled Life: A Critical Theory of Counseling. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Roberts, R. C. (2007). Psychotherapy and Christian Ministry. Word & World , 42-43. Sisemore, T. A. (2007). Christian Faith and the New Ethics of Addressing Spirituality in Counseling. Journal of Psychology and Theology , 248+. Walker, D. F. et al. (2006). Therapists Integration of Religion and Spirituality in Counseling: A Meta-Analysis . Counseling and Values , 69+. Read More