The Impact of Psychological Research on Christian Beliefs and Practices - a source of challenges, insights and reminders

(1) Two illustrative examples from long established specialist fields:

(a) Social/personality psychologists views of (i) action and faith and (ii) behaviour and attitudes

I am sure you will realise that any attempt to study religion by psychologists or anyone else, immediately raises the question of how to define religion? And more specifically it’s Christian expression. In the past church attendance was the commonest index of interest in religion. However, since many people who take little or no part in institutional religion nevertheless still describe themselves as religious, it is evident that such a definition is inadequate and for research purposes one needs a more subtle measure of religiosity. In the 1950s researchers proposed a distinction between `intrinsic' and `extrinsic' religious attitudes. An ‘intrinsic’ attitude is characterised by, for example, religion being an end in itself (not instrumental); an ‘extrinsic’ attitude finds churchgoing as supporting non-religious ends, such as providing comfort and social support. This distinction was taken up by other researchers who began to refer to “committed” religion versus “consensual” religion. These were attempts to fractionate religiosity in a rather more subtle way and to begin to do justice to the widely different manifestations of the religious quest.

The need to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic beliefs was underlined when correlational studies in the USA showed clearly that those who were more involved in religion also tended to be more neurotic, more racially prejudiced, more anti-semitic, and more anti-black. When, however an attempt was made to distinguish between those who held intrinsic beliefs versus those who held extrinsic beliefs it turned out that the intrinsic believers were regular church goers and also tended to be less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less anti-black and less neurotic. These findings also called for a rethink of the general assumption that our beliefs and attitudes determine our actions. If social psychology has taught us anything over last thirty years, it is that the reverse is also true. We are as likely to act ourselves into a way of thinking, as to think ourselves into a way of acting. The way the social psychologist puts it is to say that it is now a fundamental rule of social psychology that behaviour and attitude generate one another in an endless spiral, like chicken and egg. This principle, as we all realise, affirms the biblical understanding of action and faith, or what Bonhoeffer called obedience and belief.

Much as conventional wisdom has insisted that our attitudes determine our behaviour, Christian thinking has at times, unduly emphasised faith as the sole cause of action. What this research has shown is that it as important to remember the complementary view that faith is a consequence of action. In both the Old and New Testaments we are told that full knowledge of God comes through actively doing the Word. Faith is nurtured by obedience. Faith grows as we act on what little faith we have. Faith, said John Calvin, "Is born of obedience". "The proof of Christianity really consists in `following'" declared Kiekergaard. Karl Barth agreed: "Only the doer of the word is its real hearer". The outworking of this in the life of the church is all too obvious. Those churches that make their members active participants and not mere spectators are the ones that seem to be growing all the time. In this as in everything else the principle has its limits. It is possible to become so preoccupied with doing things that there's no time left quietly to receive God's word or God's gracious direction of our lives. It is clear that here biblical and psychological perspectives join together in reminding us that faith is like love. If we hord it, it will shrivell. If we use it, exercise it, and express it, we will have it more abundantly. God comes through actively doing the Word. Faith is nurtured by obedience.

(b) Perceptual/cognitive psychologists views on interpreting our experience and the power of pre-suppositions.

(1) Over many decades research in visual perception has demonstrated how what we perceive depends upon where our attention is focused, what is our prior experience, and what are our expectations. What is true of perception applies to experience generally, including what we label as religious experience. When you view the heavens you may or may not see them as declaring God's glory. To report religious experience is to assign to sense experience a spiritual significance. It is to interpret phenomena with an awareness of the presence of God. What Jesus said and did was interpreted differently by different onlookers and continues to be so today. We shall see later how different pre-suppositions lead equally competent scientists to give different interpretations after reviewing the same field of research. No surprises here for the psychologist studying perceptual processes.

(2) In some instances pre-suppositions take the form of the values we bring to any situation. In 1985, there was a considerable stir within psychology when Allen Bergin published a paper in the American Psychologial Association's clinical psychology journal setting out his Judeo- Christian values and contrasting them with the values assumed or declared by other psychotherapists. As the co-editor of the influential Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behaviour Change his paper provoked a vigorous response. Psychotherapists of whatever persuasion generally agreed that their values were important and should be acknowledged more openly. Some, however, complained that religious dogmatism and inhibitions are anything but healthy, and claimed that their clinical- humanistic values were more fully humanizing. To this Bergin responded that indeed religion is diverse and not always benevolent, and yes, as a religious person he strongly supported the human values of love, freedom of choice, and honesty. His point, however, remained, values do permeate psychotherapy and should be openly declared. Bergin's point was amplified specifically two years later when Paul Vitz exposed the anti-religious assumptions of some secular psychologies. These, he said, included atheism or agnosticism, naturalism, reductionism, individualism, relativism, subjectivism and gnosticism. Vitz point was taken up more recently by Dawes in his widely acclaimed book House of Cards. Commenting on the intrusion of non-psychological influences into psychotherapy, Dawes argued that such influences are well illustrated by the contemporary influence of the New Age movement. Noting its great emphasis on self-esteem, Dawes writes that according to the movement's proponents, "we all suffer from deficiencies in self-esteem, and the deficiencies are responsible for our problems, definitely not vice versa". In view of the contemporary importance of these New Age influences it’s worth quoting Dawes at greater length on this issue. He goes on: "Poor self-esteem is often cited as the root cause for everything from failing to learn in elementary schools, to failure in business, to over achievement, to divorce or even to `sexual co-dependency'". He later comments: "Let me state categorically that there is no scientific evidence that people who have deep insecurities and self -doubts have nothing to contribute to the world. The most casual reading of biographies indicates that many admirable people, like Abraham Lincoln, often suffered from deep insecurities and self -doubts, and that many less admirable people suffered no self -doubts whatsoever, at least until they were caught or disgraced".

(c) Some reactions to past challenges

If the first reaction of religious people to these challenges to some of their cherished beliefs was to seek to deny them, a more considered view, on further reflection, was to realise that they might provide new insights into the nature and function of religious beliefs and practices. Seen in this way they might provide a catalyst for a re-examination of both our beliefs and practices. Could it be, for example, that our beliefs were being subtly adjusted more to meet our felt needs than to face up to the claims of a sovereign God? Perhaps it was time to re-examine the biblical basis of some of our beliefs. Indeed, to believe in a god of our own creating and to give that god the characteristics that would prove most comforting, could be seen as yet another form of the idolatry of which we are warned so often throughout scripture. The result, at times, has become that the gospel of grace, mercy, and peace, becomes marketed as the idolatrous, counterfeit gospel of health, happiness, and prosperity, as portrayed by some tele-evangelists. I shall return to these issues later but I want now to move on and ask whether developments in psychology in the second half of the last century provided any fresh challenges to our traditional understanding of religious beliefs and practices. I shall limit myself to those within the Christian tradition since those are the ones with which I am most familiar.