Journal of Religion and Health
120
Constructive Collaborators: Religion and Psychology
HUNTER
H. W O O D
Threatened by the disappearance of o l d securities a n d a c c u s t o m e d circumstances, a person m a y freeze with terror and seek to cling desperately to whatever small certainties seem to remain. A n o t h e r person, however, m a y welcome the n e w freedom that looser ties afford. T h i s second posture seems to be in the ascendancy in m a n y of today's theological efforts. O p p o r t u n i t i e s and invitations to theologians to enter a dialogical giveand-take with other specialists seem h a p p i l y n o w to be on the u p s w i n g ; thus it is that theologians are q u e s t i o n i n g a n d being q u e s t i o n e d by historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, as well as by a g o o d m a n y others w h o have more practical and less theoretical c o m m i t m e n t s . There is still a substantial strain of n e o - o r t h o d o x a n d evangelical separatism that resists a n d resents this exchange a m o n g theologians a n d others (as a m o n g equals), because it is inevitable that whenever such exchange takes place seriously, theological p r o p o s i t i o n s that are a s s u m e d to be certainties m u s t be s u b m i t t e d to outside p r o b i n g with the f r e q u e n t result that they become less certain than they were formerly t h o u g h t to be. Yet m a n y w h o are trained in theology k n o w , even if they fear such dialogue, feeling stretched a n d p i n n e d by it, that to retreat from it is to die a surer, if s o m e w h a t slower, death than to risk j o i n i n g it. The REv. HUNTERH. WOOD,an ordained Episcopal minister of Alexandria, Virginia, is a candidate for the D. Min. degree at Wesley Theological Seminary and is currently in a second year of advanced clinical pastoral training in Washington, D. C.
Constructive Collaborators
121
One of the highly instructive dialogues for theology n o w in progress is that conducted on a n u m b e r of fronts between psychology and theology. From the outset one needs to understand and to remember that these two disciplines tend to ask rather different questions about religious experience and expression. T h e o l o g y tends to ask, for example, "Is God real? In what sense? What implications about h u m a n nature and behavior follow therefrom?" Psychology is m u c h less interested in the truth about God's essence and objective reality and m u c h more intrigued with the function that God and religious f a i t h play within the h u m a n psychic structure. E v e n t h o s e psychologists friendly to religion generally insist that their j u d g m e n t s about the reality of G o d from an ontological viewpoint are less informed and less professional than those of t h e theologians. And yet, given this limitation and difference in orientation, both psychologists and theologians have found the dialogue between them useful, and both have reaped benefits from the necessary efforts. It may appear to some observers that the flow of benefit is largely one-way - - f r o m psychology to t h e o l o g y - - a n d it is true that the impact of psychology probably has been clearer and more dramatic on theology than vice versa. Certainly Paul Tillich is very persuasive w h e n he argues that such an impact has h a p p e n e d and has altered substantially a n u m b e r of theological views, a But at the same time it is true that theology has had a great deal to do with shaping the culture of the West in w h i c h psychology has been bred, and its effects on psychology have therefore been significant, t h o u g h perhaps not so obvious. My i n t e n t is to deal first with this side of the interchange--the effect of theology on p s y c h o l o g y - - t h e n to look at the other side, the contributions to theology offered by psychology, reserving the last section for a brief illustration of m e t h o d and concluding summary. T h o m a s Oden, in his trenchant essay discussing some of the elements c o m m o n to both psychology and theology, points o u t that the ontological basis of complete acceptance of patient by therapist has been for centuries the basic underlying proclamation, if not the constant practice, of the Christian Church. z Fred Berthold, in his critique of the neo-orthodox
122
Journal of Religion and Health
model of m a n as sinner, stands on m u c h the same ground, by recalling that the foundational message of the Gospel is that of God's love for m e n - - n o t His c o n d e m n a t i o n of themP Charles Stinnette offers the further point that complete acceptance of m a n by God is n o t at all at odds with His c o n d e m n i n g j u d g m e n t of sin, but instead affirms it by the very idea of acceptance or forgiveness. T h e A t o n e m e n t w o u l d not be a remarkable thing, Stinnette concludes, were it n o t for the fact that m a n needs to be accepted unconditionally. He is not, as he is, acceptable on his own terms. 4 And so psychology (via psychotherapy) may well have reminded theology of its o w n first premises--premises that have sometimes receded into the b a c k g r o u n d and been allowed to t a r n i s h - - b u t Freud in his hostility to the d o m i n a n t religion of his culture founded a m o v e m e n t and a praxis that has at its center one of the principles that have likewise always been central to the Gospel: h u m a n value, despite h u m a n failure and brokenness. A second contribution that theology may be said to have offered to psychology, especially in its more existential wing, is a fuller n o t i o n of h u m a n freedom. So typical of our present era, and so central to the stereotype of psychoanalysis held by the majority, is the n o t i o n that h u m a n freedom consists chiefly in the removal of restriction, t h e a b o l i t i o n of restraining boundaries. No current observer of the American culture could dispute that revolt against confining limits is indeed one of the distinguishing characteristics of our time. Certainly t h e ability to conduct this kind of revolt successfully is a part of what freedom is; but o n e w o u l d not want to limit the idea of freedom strictly to this. There is, after all, m u c h more. Psychotherapy has added a second step to the n o t i o n of h u m a n freedom--the idea of insight--the idea that freedom also consists in k n o w i n g accurately what the specific confining forces are. But neither theology nor existentialism has permitted the n o t i o n of freedom to terminate simply with these two components. T h e o l o g y has always pointed to a third component: the i n t r i g u i n g and often confusing matter of commitment. Complete h u m a n freedom also consists in a selfgiving, a c o m m i t m e n t of self to someone or s o m e t h i n g outside oneself
Constructive Collaborators
123
(once the psychic decks have been cleared Sufficiently to p e r m i t a m a t u r e selection of person or object). " . . . whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel's will save it." There is t h r o u g h o u t both Testaments the strong theme that G o d is both Creator and Judge and that His h u m a n creatures are therefore the stewards of blessings that never belong fully to them, but deserve an acc o u n t i n g to the true and ultimate Owner. T h e sense of being questioned about the style and extent of one's stewardship f r o m outside oneself has therefore been a p r o m i n e n t theme in religion from earliest times. This theme is curiously like Viktor Frankl's existentialist conclusion, drawn from observing h u m a n life being eked out of the rawest, most desolate and despairing circumstances of the Auschwitz camp. Frankl, o u t of a grueling situation where life h u n g by the most tenuous of threads, came eventually to the conviction that the most life-giving p o i n t of view that a person can develop is the recognition that he is questioned about his life from outside h i m s e l f - - q u e s t i o n e d about his goals and conduct, questioned in such a way that he comes to k n o w eventually that he owes a great deal to life, rather than the more usual way of t h i n k i n g that life is r o b e blamed and hated for the painful experience it has become. 5 Being questioned m i g h t suggest t o some p e o p l e a Questioner, but Frankl to my knowledge has never insisted on a n y t h i n g that blatantly theistic. In affirming this much, however, he has helped to bring at least one w i n g of psychology to the place where theology has long b e e n - - t h e place of k n o w i n g for certain that full life and full freedom consist not only in abolishing enclosing confines or just in new insights about one's hidden sides, but also in being questioned, in h a v i n g s o m e t h i n g demanded, and in finding one's joy and his life's fulfillment in acceding to that demand. Third, it o u g h t to be noted that psychology and psychoanalysis, which in their d o m i n a n t mainstreams have seemed fairly c o m m i t t e d to a mechanistic notion of man, are offered a q u i t e different view of man's essential nature by theology--a view that holds that n o t all h u m a n behavior can be predicted or is inevitably determined prior to its actual occurrence.
i24
Journal of Religion and Health
Behaviorism and the influence of the unconscious are simply two very respectable views of man; they are n o t by any means the entire range of alternatives. It is of some significance, I daresay, that such c o m m a n d i n g figures in the history of American psychology as Rollo May and Carl Rogers have both received theological educations. T h e fact that psychology and psychotherapy are having to include these persons as well as their followers under their umbrella and into their accounts is evidence e n o u g h that theology has offered a substantial alternative to mechanistic orientations in psychology. These m e n assure us that clinicians' purviews cannot be restricted entirely to textbook~-syndromes; and, as May p u t s it, t h e therapist's consistent tendency to do so is more revealing of his o w n anxiety than it is of devotion to the patient or even to pure therapy. Fourth, in the catalogue of contributions received from theology, psychologists m i g h t note the p h e n o m e n o n of the return to the positive uses of guilt seen in the writings of some o u t s t a n d i n g psychologists. Rollo May, a favorite of mine, writes of the impossibility of valuelessness by any therapist, desPite the great analytic ideal of some years ago to the contrary. 6 Hobart Mowrer, whose principal research work in psychology, curiously enough, has been done largely in learning theory, is very emphatic about the need for standards and the positive uses of guilt in therapy, v My own experience as a patient inclines me very positively toward an endorsement of guilt skillfully used and separated from the highly destructive elements usually present in it. A n t o n Boisen, that highly unusual figure in the history of mental health, emphasized long before it was p o p u l a r the constructive and necessary presence of g u i l t / Guilt in Christian tradition has always been regarded as the prime catalyst in accomplishing rnetanoia or turning, repentance, change. Finally, in our consideration of the contributions theology has offered to the dialogue, I w o u l d add the concept (or perhaps a concept) of what normative h u m a n wholeness is. Occasionally, it is noted that psychology is focused on the realm of psychopathology and therefore it cannot propose an adequate model of person w h o is most fully and successfully
Constructive Collaborators
125
human. Abraham Maslow had a reputation for an attempt at such a normative description of man, but he would have been a m o n g the first to say that his attempt is just t h a t - - a provisional effort, pending more study and investigation and definitely not one he regarded as in any sense final) For better or worse, theology proposes quite a variety of definite norms descriptive of the essence of h u m a n being, beginning its statement with the person and life-style of Jesus Christ and with the positive, if discouragingly broad, notion of man created in God's image. I am indebted to the Rev. Charles A. Perry for some of his work in the problem of the "Images of Man," and I cite for my purpose here (simply to illustrate the kind of s t a t e m e n t theology tends to make about normative man) Perry's delineation of Jesus, the True Man, who was marked by a radical obedience, a quality of otherness (being in this world but not of it), an authority of his person and teaching over men, a love, a righteousness, a freedom, a hope. All these were characteristics that mark him as the ideal norm of h u m a n manhood. Theology holds u p such an ideal or model of m a n h o o d for such use as psychology can make of it. l~ In any of these " c o n t r i b u t i o n s " from theology it m i g h t be contended that psychology would have, or in fact did, come u p o n them in time on its own, and that for that reason they do not constitute real contributions from theology. T h e most that could be claimed m i g h t b e a coincidence and prior recognition by religion of the need for these concerns. I do not think the point worth m u c h argument; it would be simply to join a useless competition over who got where first, and theology over the years has done enough of that, it seems to me. On the other side, however, there can hardly be any question whatever that psychology and psychiatry have made substantial impacts (not to say, inroads) on existing theological patterns and thought, and for that, in the era of increasing openness that seems now to exist, most people could only be grateful. There is, for example, the whole area of the doctrine of man, recently so entirely under the sway of neo-orthodox thought, which has been so emphatic about the depraved inner core and nature of man. From a therapeutic standpoint, on the one hand, the
126
Journal of Religion and Health
healability and improvability of people do not seem any longer m u c h of a question. W i t h o u t a doubt, such healing h a p p e n s and happens dram a t i c a l l y - n o t of course in every case, a n d hardly noticeably in s o m e - but in others the change is truly remarkable and is highly reminiscent of the way in which people have used the word conversion. T h e truly scandalous affirmation, to some schools of theological thought, made about such instances by psychologists is that the source of healing seems to be located w i t h i n the person. T h u s psychiatry has offered in the dialogue a clarity, a difference, and an o p t i m i s m to the reality that theologians have termed the doctrine of man. Some of the assertions about neurosis made by therapists and psychologists s o u n d strikingly s i m i l a r to some of the things theologians over the years have been saying about the self-centered and intractable quality of h u m a n sinfulness. First is the statement that its origins can be observed in some of the earliest events of life--long before conscious m e m o r y m i n one c o m m e n t a t o r back to the first days in the cradle, n and in yet another even to passage d o w n the birth canal, az Second, it is said that it is at any given m o m e n t entirely beyond the present ability of the sufferer to remove t h r o u g h his o w n solo struggling efforts. Indeed, this inability is precisely what leads h i m to the therapist. T h i r d is the assertion that the person will not be healed until he himself consents to take an active part in the healing process. No therapist can in good conscience allow the patient to believe that healing will take place apart from the patient's deep personal commitm e n t to being healed. Therefore, in this real sense the patient m u s t be held responsible for his neurosis. Even d u r i n g the therapy process as he seeks to blame everyone except himself for his pain and general state of being, twisting and t u r n i n g and j u m p i n g like a fish at the end of a flyline, he must not be allowed finally to disengage the hook. For if that happens, the patient will never come face to face with his therapist (the fisherman) or himself; and the pain and h u m i l i a t i o n of h a v i n g to do this are not dissimilar to the k i n d and intensity of feelings that lay, for example, in the heart of the Prodigal Son w h e n finally circumstances forced h i m to face himself. T h e more usual m e t a p h o r of the therapist is per-
Constructive Collaborators
127
haps not fisherman but midwife, w h o plays all admittedly indispensable role in the birth of a new person, but w h o herself cannot bear even the major part of the work of giving birth. In therapy, as in obstetrics, the major work remains the primary burden a n d function of the patient. T h u s it is that w h e n one considers the subject of sinfulness and alienation, it often parallels neurosis in people in these i m p o r t a n t respects: a) its frequent observable origin at the b e g i n n i n g periods of life, b) its great powers over the sufferer w h o by himself is helpless, and c) the person's responsibility for it, despite his present helplessness to combat it without outside assistance. A second significant development that has been made available to theology because of its engagement with psychology and psychiatry is a ret h i n k i n g and redefinition of the very nature of sin. Fred Berthold of Dartmouth holds u p for questioning the Christian model of m a n as sinner, because he finds the insights of Freudian psychology to pose enticing alternative descriptions of the ways in which p e o p l e become entangled in dynamics that mar their essential h u m a n i t y , 13 Similarly, A b r a h a m Maslow's orientation to personality development was one that holds that deviation is due not so m u c h to prideful rebellion and a flesh-versusspirit internal warfare as to deficiencies and deprivations that have inhibited normal personality development. 14 Maslow w o u l d have insisted that "sin" is not so m u c h conscious, deliberate, fist-shaking defiance and refusal to enter the fullness of One's h u m a n destiny as an inability to traverse the n o r m a l steps of healthy development because the necessary components of that development have s o m e h o w or other not been present. If theologians are committed to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of sin, not o n l y for the purposes of general lamentation, but also to illustrate man's predicament clearly to himself, these thoughts of Berthold and Maslow o u g h t to be received with some enthusiasm. I myself feel that sin in myself and in others whose cases I k n o w s o m e t h i n g about participates in both m o d e l s - - t h e prideful rebellion, internal warfare model and the dep r i v a t i o n , deficiency model. My belief is simply that both models are useful in understanding "sin," and that the deprivation model is a spe-
128
Journal of Religion and Health
cial contribution that psychology has made available to theology for its consideration. A third contribution made to theology by psychology is a healthy dose of realism about the time and energy required to effect p e r m a n e n t and substantial changes in family and individual psychic structures. Religious people are inclined to emphasize and be impressed by histories and tales of striking personal change (conversion). Psychology knows a great deal about the i m p e r m a n e n c e of some of these apparent changes, as well as the ease with which sublimations a n d displacements to other objects can happen, leaving the basic personality unchanged. T h e o l o g y can use more of this hard c o m m o n sense about the possibilities and likelihoods of personal transformation. Some years ago, Bishop James Pike in A Time for Christian Candor suggested that theology could be vastly simplified and u p d a t e d if the doctrine of the Trinity could be d r o p p e d as an official f o r m u l a t i o n of the church. ~5 L i k e m a n y another, I was sympathetic with his wish to drop useless relics from the past, but I could not agree that the idea of the Trinity was one of them. T h a t was because the idea of t h e Trinity serves t o protect Christian faith from b e c o m i n g overly emphatic either about sheer Transcendance (no Holy Spirit) or about sheer I m m a n e n c e (no overarching and distinct Father). Christian faith m u s t be protected from both extremes; that is why it needs to remain Trinitarian. I have found that psychology very enlighteningly offers s o m e t h i n g on both sides of this duality. On the one hand, psychology has understood and emphasized that the road to personal maturity lies inevitably t h r o u g h a certain a m o u n t of healthy frustration of infantile wishes and demands. There is a strand of pietistic and evangelical belief that affirms that God is always very near and that consequently anticipates His full and constant and demonstrable attention to any petitionary utterance on the part of the true believer. There is a kind of exclusivism to this view of God, which is not unlike the attitude of small children clustering a r o u n d a school teacher, each one anxiously h o p i n g that he has a more highly exalted status in
Constructive Collaborators
129
her eyes than that of any other of his classmates: Total reliance on G o d - on His initiative, His justification--is usually the highest virtue articulated by people in this w i n g of Christianity, a n d persons of this persuasion have a way of not being very selective about what they p u t on God's conscience and what they expect H i m to do for t h e m a n d their friends. Almost any mystification, any puzzlement, any heart's desire will do. There are certain theologians w h o seem to be saying that this sort of intimacy with God is n o longer m u c h of a possibility (and perhaps neither is it very useful in terms of emotional and religious maturation). I have in mind, when saying this, both Bonhoeffer, w h o is famous for his conjecture that God is calling this generation of people to live as t h o u g h He did not exist, and also Bishop J o h n Robinson, w h o avers that the "God of the gaps" is no longer a proper: u n d e r s t a n d i n g of God for this age. Here at least one finds two well-known thinkers m a k i n g contact with an insight that has been k n o w n to m a n y therapists for some time: that to make a response to every m a n i p u l a t i v e c o m m e n t and inquiry and petition of the patient is to prevent the frustration of infantile dependency--a frustration that is a very necessary c o m p o n e n t in the patient's healing and maturati6n. W i t h o u t such frustration, he will not progress, but instead will remain jelled in the midst of all his troubles. Impatience w i t h God's inaction and hiddenness is as old as the Bible, but it is because of this kind of aloofness that God is indeed God. In this light, then, psychology aids us to an appreciation of God the Father--the Holy, Transcendant Other. But psychology also understands that there is another side of love-the mothering, nurturing, u n c o n d i t i o n e d d i m e n s i o n of love that is represented in terms of God's nearness. It was Erich F r o m m in psychology who first spelled out for me the totality of love by dividing it into typical father and typical m o t h e r love. F r o m m styled father-type love as being d e m a n d i n g and conditional, whereas mother-type love he construed as just the o p p o s i t e - - u n c o n d i t i o n a l , c o n s t a n t l y a v a i l a b l e whether deserved o r not. 16 One is reminded on this score of Francis T h o m p s o n ' s " H o u n d of Heaven" or of C. S. Lewis' description of his o w n experience of being
130
Journal of Religion and Health
chased by God over a lifetime, in w h i c h he characterizes "the hardness of G o d as kinder than the softness of men. ''17 Paul Tillich is especially relevant here w h e n he writes of the way in w h i c h psychiatry has significantly altered and shaped m o d e r n Christian thought: One can say that psychotherapy has replaced the emphasis on the demanding yet remote God by an emphasis on his self-giving nearness. It is in this modifiication of the image of a threatening father . . . by elements of the embracing and supporting mother . . . that psychotherapy has helped to reintroduce the female element into the idea of God. TM One further, and at this time rather speculative, note o n the subject of God's nearness a n d distance: Peter H o m a n s , c h a i r m a n of the Religion and Personality D e p a r t m e n t in the University of Chicago Divinity School, conjectures that just as Rorschach responses can often indicate w h e t h e r a person tends to be self-punitive or self-accepting, by calculating his tendency to give distance or vista responses (as opposed to close or nearin responses) w h e n presented with Rorschach s t i m u l i m s o also the way that a person sees God (far removed, w h o l l y other, a n d therefore judgmental versus near, ever i m m a n e n t l y present, a n d therefore accepting) may also indicate the way a person is inclined to regard a n d treat h i m self. 19 T h u s we find o n a n u m b e r of counts some psychological clues to the wisdom of the T r i n i t a r i a n usage in Christianity, a n d we discover in some interesting ways that theology receives the a g r e e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t of p s y c h o l o g y - - a discovery of some interest in these days of p r o f o u n d theological q u e s t i o n i n g and reshaping. Finally, increasing attention is n o w being paid to J u n g i a n t h o u g h t in various critical writings. I a m not qualified to write at length a b o u t the g r o u n d held in c o m m o n by J u n g i a n depth psychology and the depth theology, say of Paul Tillich. Suffice it to say that one of the items primarily at issue here for the theologian appears to be the validity and content of Revelation, and that the rather confident a n d d i s d a i n i n g positivism of a few years ago, w h i c h denied the likelihood or even possibility of valid n o n e m p i r i c a l knowledge, has now in some quarters become
Constructive Collaborators
131
quite suspect, i n c l u d i n g the positivism of the analysts of religious language w h o h o l d in their most extreme positions that the absence of an empirical referent for the word God invalidates all language about H i m . These, then, are some of the m u t u a l interactions that seem to exist between psychology and theology. T h e y seem to be rather significant--especially as we contemplate the great themes of h u m a n existence that stand at the crossroads of these two disciplines--themes such as anxiety, guilt, death, change, w i l l - - t o n a m e some of them. Both psychology and theology will treat these themes differently; yet it is impossible, I believe, to insist that either a p p r o a c h is u n i m p o r t a n t or that it represents a duplication of the other. Approaches from both disciplines have added enormously to an appreciation of these p h e n o m e n a in their complexity. By way of illustration of this in the case of one of the above themes, consider the rather different interests and treatments accorded the phen o m e n o n of anxiety by both psychology and theology. From behaviorist and psychoanalytic psychology we k n o w m u c h about the sources of anxiety in motivational f r u s t r a t i o n - - h o w frustration breeds anger, a n d how this anger is frequently driven u n d e r g r o u n d and out of awareness by a host of mechanisms, so that it cannot be k n o w n for what it is. O u t of this process is often produced unbearable anxiety, which is regarded generally in psychology to be a s y m p t o m and therefore an indication of necessary treatment. Theology, by contrast, not so concerned with pathological anxiety, is very aware of normal h u m a n anxiety that comes from an appreciation of our natural limitations a n d a warring against them, a refusal to accept them. It knows well also t h e anxiety that exists because of the necessary testing for limits that needs to go on before any real self-discovery is accomplished. T h e middle g r o u n d between what we have it in us to become a n d w h a t we have become at any given m o m e n t is a prime g r o u n d for the breeding and emergence of anxiety. In short, anxiety in motivating a m o u n t s is both a p r o b l e m to be solved (especially in its paralyzing intensities) and also one of the essential conditions of self-knowledge; as such, it constitutes a theme great e n o u g h for helpful attention and intervention from both disciplines.
132
Journal of Religion and Health
Perhaps we find ourselves n o w a t the p o i n t where both these disciplines can constructively inform and criticize one another to their m u tual benefit. Peter H o m a n s has written impressively of the blocks that in the past have stood in the way of a more helpful engagement of these two fields by each other, but which in time may be broken down. ~0 When and as that happens, the most creative and constructive m i n d s in both fields can come together in a m u t u a l and relatively nondefensive search for the enlargement of the g r o u n d that is c o m m o n to both. Karl Barth has somewhere said that Christianity m u s t be distinguished from mere religion, because religion is simply the h u m a n search for God, whereas Christianity is God's search for man, and therefore must be regarded as the end of aI1 religion. Given Barth's dismal anthropology, man's search for God could not be expected to yield m u c h in the way of valid h u m a n knowledge, but with a somewhat broader and more optimistic view of h u m a n capabilities, we m i g h t expect that man's search for God, p u r s u e d jointly by the disciplines of psychology and religion, w o u l d produce more awareness of God than Barth w o u l d have been disposed to grant. At the least, perhaps some undiscovered listening points m i g h t be turned up, and that w o u l d a m o u n t to s o m e t h i n g of a start in the same direction.
References 1. Tiliich, P., "The Impact of Pastoral Psychology on Theological Thought." In Hofmann, H:, ed., The Ministry and Mental Health. New York, Association Press, 1960, pp. 13-19. 2. Oden, T., Kerygma and Counseling. Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1966, pp. 20-26. 3. Berthold, F., "Theology and Self-Understanding." In Homans, P., ed., The Dialogue Between Theology and Psychology. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 30-32. 4. Stinnette, C., "Reflection and Transformation." In Homans, op. cit., p. 89. 5. Frankl, V. E., Man's Search for Meaning. New York, Washington Square Press, 1959, p. 172. 6. May, R., Psychology and the Human Dilemma. Princeto n, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1967, pp. 212-213. 7. Mowrer, O. H., The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion. Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961.
Constructive Collaborators
133
8. Boisen, A. R., Out of the Depths. New York, Harper, 1960, pp. 198-200. 9. Maslow, A. H., Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962, pp. 3-8. 10. Perry, C. A., "Images of Man." Unpublished lectures delivered at the University of Virginia, Fall, 1966. 11. France, M., The Paradox of Guilt. Philadelphia, United Church Press, 1967, pp. 25-29. 12. Lake, F., Clinical Theology. London, Darton Longman ~ Todd, 1966, pp. xx, 478, 1061-1063. 13. Berthold, op. cit., pp. 22-30. 14. Maslow, op. cit., pp. 67-96. 15. Pike, J. A., A Time ]or Christian Candor. New York, Harper & Row, 1964, pp. 120-130. 16. Fromm, E., Thedrt of Loving. New York, Harper, 1956. 17. Lewis, C. S, Surprised by Joy. London, Collins--Fontana Books, 1955, p. 183. 18. Tillich, o#. cit., p. 15. 19. Homans, P., "Toward a Psychology of Religion." In Homans, ed., op. cit., pp. 78-80. 20. Ibid.
120
Constructive Collaborators: Religion and Psychology
HUNTER
H. W O O D
Threatened by the disappearance of o l d securities a n d a c c u s t o m e d circumstances, a person m a y freeze with terror and seek to cling desperately to whatever small certainties seem to remain. A n o t h e r person, however, m a y welcome the n e w freedom that looser ties afford. T h i s second posture seems to be in the ascendancy in m a n y of today's theological efforts. O p p o r t u n i t i e s and invitations to theologians to enter a dialogical giveand-take with other specialists seem h a p p i l y n o w to be on the u p s w i n g ; thus it is that theologians are q u e s t i o n i n g a n d being q u e s t i o n e d by historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, as well as by a g o o d m a n y others w h o have more practical and less theoretical c o m m i t m e n t s . There is still a substantial strain of n e o - o r t h o d o x a n d evangelical separatism that resists a n d resents this exchange a m o n g theologians a n d others (as a m o n g equals), because it is inevitable that whenever such exchange takes place seriously, theological p r o p o s i t i o n s that are a s s u m e d to be certainties m u s t be s u b m i t t e d to outside p r o b i n g with the f r e q u e n t result that they become less certain than they were formerly t h o u g h t to be. Yet m a n y w h o are trained in theology k n o w , even if they fear such dialogue, feeling stretched a n d p i n n e d by it, that to retreat from it is to die a surer, if s o m e w h a t slower, death than to risk j o i n i n g it. The REv. HUNTERH. WOOD,an ordained Episcopal minister of Alexandria, Virginia, is a candidate for the D. Min. degree at Wesley Theological Seminary and is currently in a second year of advanced clinical pastoral training in Washington, D. C.
Constructive Collaborators
121
One of the highly instructive dialogues for theology n o w in progress is that conducted on a n u m b e r of fronts between psychology and theology. From the outset one needs to understand and to remember that these two disciplines tend to ask rather different questions about religious experience and expression. T h e o l o g y tends to ask, for example, "Is God real? In what sense? What implications about h u m a n nature and behavior follow therefrom?" Psychology is m u c h less interested in the truth about God's essence and objective reality and m u c h more intrigued with the function that God and religious f a i t h play within the h u m a n psychic structure. E v e n t h o s e psychologists friendly to religion generally insist that their j u d g m e n t s about the reality of G o d from an ontological viewpoint are less informed and less professional than those of t h e theologians. And yet, given this limitation and difference in orientation, both psychologists and theologians have found the dialogue between them useful, and both have reaped benefits from the necessary efforts. It may appear to some observers that the flow of benefit is largely one-way - - f r o m psychology to t h e o l o g y - - a n d it is true that the impact of psychology probably has been clearer and more dramatic on theology than vice versa. Certainly Paul Tillich is very persuasive w h e n he argues that such an impact has h a p p e n e d and has altered substantially a n u m b e r of theological views, a But at the same time it is true that theology has had a great deal to do with shaping the culture of the West in w h i c h psychology has been bred, and its effects on psychology have therefore been significant, t h o u g h perhaps not so obvious. My i n t e n t is to deal first with this side of the interchange--the effect of theology on p s y c h o l o g y - - t h e n to look at the other side, the contributions to theology offered by psychology, reserving the last section for a brief illustration of m e t h o d and concluding summary. T h o m a s Oden, in his trenchant essay discussing some of the elements c o m m o n to both psychology and theology, points o u t that the ontological basis of complete acceptance of patient by therapist has been for centuries the basic underlying proclamation, if not the constant practice, of the Christian Church. z Fred Berthold, in his critique of the neo-orthodox
122
Journal of Religion and Health
model of m a n as sinner, stands on m u c h the same ground, by recalling that the foundational message of the Gospel is that of God's love for m e n - - n o t His c o n d e m n a t i o n of themP Charles Stinnette offers the further point that complete acceptance of m a n by God is n o t at all at odds with His c o n d e m n i n g j u d g m e n t of sin, but instead affirms it by the very idea of acceptance or forgiveness. T h e A t o n e m e n t w o u l d not be a remarkable thing, Stinnette concludes, were it n o t for the fact that m a n needs to be accepted unconditionally. He is not, as he is, acceptable on his own terms. 4 And so psychology (via psychotherapy) may well have reminded theology of its o w n first premises--premises that have sometimes receded into the b a c k g r o u n d and been allowed to t a r n i s h - - b u t Freud in his hostility to the d o m i n a n t religion of his culture founded a m o v e m e n t and a praxis that has at its center one of the principles that have likewise always been central to the Gospel: h u m a n value, despite h u m a n failure and brokenness. A second contribution that theology may be said to have offered to psychology, especially in its more existential wing, is a fuller n o t i o n of h u m a n freedom. So typical of our present era, and so central to the stereotype of psychoanalysis held by the majority, is the n o t i o n that h u m a n freedom consists chiefly in the removal of restriction, t h e a b o l i t i o n of restraining boundaries. No current observer of the American culture could dispute that revolt against confining limits is indeed one of the distinguishing characteristics of our time. Certainly t h e ability to conduct this kind of revolt successfully is a part of what freedom is; but o n e w o u l d not want to limit the idea of freedom strictly to this. There is, after all, m u c h more. Psychotherapy has added a second step to the n o t i o n of h u m a n freedom--the idea of insight--the idea that freedom also consists in k n o w i n g accurately what the specific confining forces are. But neither theology nor existentialism has permitted the n o t i o n of freedom to terminate simply with these two components. T h e o l o g y has always pointed to a third component: the i n t r i g u i n g and often confusing matter of commitment. Complete h u m a n freedom also consists in a selfgiving, a c o m m i t m e n t of self to someone or s o m e t h i n g outside oneself
Constructive Collaborators
123
(once the psychic decks have been cleared Sufficiently to p e r m i t a m a t u r e selection of person or object). " . . . whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel's will save it." There is t h r o u g h o u t both Testaments the strong theme that G o d is both Creator and Judge and that His h u m a n creatures are therefore the stewards of blessings that never belong fully to them, but deserve an acc o u n t i n g to the true and ultimate Owner. T h e sense of being questioned about the style and extent of one's stewardship f r o m outside oneself has therefore been a p r o m i n e n t theme in religion from earliest times. This theme is curiously like Viktor Frankl's existentialist conclusion, drawn from observing h u m a n life being eked out of the rawest, most desolate and despairing circumstances of the Auschwitz camp. Frankl, o u t of a grueling situation where life h u n g by the most tenuous of threads, came eventually to the conviction that the most life-giving p o i n t of view that a person can develop is the recognition that he is questioned about his life from outside h i m s e l f - - q u e s t i o n e d about his goals and conduct, questioned in such a way that he comes to k n o w eventually that he owes a great deal to life, rather than the more usual way of t h i n k i n g that life is r o b e blamed and hated for the painful experience it has become. 5 Being questioned m i g h t suggest t o some p e o p l e a Questioner, but Frankl to my knowledge has never insisted on a n y t h i n g that blatantly theistic. In affirming this much, however, he has helped to bring at least one w i n g of psychology to the place where theology has long b e e n - - t h e place of k n o w i n g for certain that full life and full freedom consist not only in abolishing enclosing confines or just in new insights about one's hidden sides, but also in being questioned, in h a v i n g s o m e t h i n g demanded, and in finding one's joy and his life's fulfillment in acceding to that demand. Third, it o u g h t to be noted that psychology and psychoanalysis, which in their d o m i n a n t mainstreams have seemed fairly c o m m i t t e d to a mechanistic notion of man, are offered a q u i t e different view of man's essential nature by theology--a view that holds that n o t all h u m a n behavior can be predicted or is inevitably determined prior to its actual occurrence.
i24
Journal of Religion and Health
Behaviorism and the influence of the unconscious are simply two very respectable views of man; they are n o t by any means the entire range of alternatives. It is of some significance, I daresay, that such c o m m a n d i n g figures in the history of American psychology as Rollo May and Carl Rogers have both received theological educations. T h e fact that psychology and psychotherapy are having to include these persons as well as their followers under their umbrella and into their accounts is evidence e n o u g h that theology has offered a substantial alternative to mechanistic orientations in psychology. These m e n assure us that clinicians' purviews cannot be restricted entirely to textbook~-syndromes; and, as May p u t s it, t h e therapist's consistent tendency to do so is more revealing of his o w n anxiety than it is of devotion to the patient or even to pure therapy. Fourth, in the catalogue of contributions received from theology, psychologists m i g h t note the p h e n o m e n o n of the return to the positive uses of guilt seen in the writings of some o u t s t a n d i n g psychologists. Rollo May, a favorite of mine, writes of the impossibility of valuelessness by any therapist, desPite the great analytic ideal of some years ago to the contrary. 6 Hobart Mowrer, whose principal research work in psychology, curiously enough, has been done largely in learning theory, is very emphatic about the need for standards and the positive uses of guilt in therapy, v My own experience as a patient inclines me very positively toward an endorsement of guilt skillfully used and separated from the highly destructive elements usually present in it. A n t o n Boisen, that highly unusual figure in the history of mental health, emphasized long before it was p o p u l a r the constructive and necessary presence of g u i l t / Guilt in Christian tradition has always been regarded as the prime catalyst in accomplishing rnetanoia or turning, repentance, change. Finally, in our consideration of the contributions theology has offered to the dialogue, I w o u l d add the concept (or perhaps a concept) of what normative h u m a n wholeness is. Occasionally, it is noted that psychology is focused on the realm of psychopathology and therefore it cannot propose an adequate model of person w h o is most fully and successfully
Constructive Collaborators
125
human. Abraham Maslow had a reputation for an attempt at such a normative description of man, but he would have been a m o n g the first to say that his attempt is just t h a t - - a provisional effort, pending more study and investigation and definitely not one he regarded as in any sense final) For better or worse, theology proposes quite a variety of definite norms descriptive of the essence of h u m a n being, beginning its statement with the person and life-style of Jesus Christ and with the positive, if discouragingly broad, notion of man created in God's image. I am indebted to the Rev. Charles A. Perry for some of his work in the problem of the "Images of Man," and I cite for my purpose here (simply to illustrate the kind of s t a t e m e n t theology tends to make about normative man) Perry's delineation of Jesus, the True Man, who was marked by a radical obedience, a quality of otherness (being in this world but not of it), an authority of his person and teaching over men, a love, a righteousness, a freedom, a hope. All these were characteristics that mark him as the ideal norm of h u m a n manhood. Theology holds u p such an ideal or model of m a n h o o d for such use as psychology can make of it. l~ In any of these " c o n t r i b u t i o n s " from theology it m i g h t be contended that psychology would have, or in fact did, come u p o n them in time on its own, and that for that reason they do not constitute real contributions from theology. T h e most that could be claimed m i g h t b e a coincidence and prior recognition by religion of the need for these concerns. I do not think the point worth m u c h argument; it would be simply to join a useless competition over who got where first, and theology over the years has done enough of that, it seems to me. On the other side, however, there can hardly be any question whatever that psychology and psychiatry have made substantial impacts (not to say, inroads) on existing theological patterns and thought, and for that, in the era of increasing openness that seems now to exist, most people could only be grateful. There is, for example, the whole area of the doctrine of man, recently so entirely under the sway of neo-orthodox thought, which has been so emphatic about the depraved inner core and nature of man. From a therapeutic standpoint, on the one hand, the
126
Journal of Religion and Health
healability and improvability of people do not seem any longer m u c h of a question. W i t h o u t a doubt, such healing h a p p e n s and happens dram a t i c a l l y - n o t of course in every case, a n d hardly noticeably in s o m e - but in others the change is truly remarkable and is highly reminiscent of the way in which people have used the word conversion. T h e truly scandalous affirmation, to some schools of theological thought, made about such instances by psychologists is that the source of healing seems to be located w i t h i n the person. T h u s psychiatry has offered in the dialogue a clarity, a difference, and an o p t i m i s m to the reality that theologians have termed the doctrine of man. Some of the assertions about neurosis made by therapists and psychologists s o u n d strikingly s i m i l a r to some of the things theologians over the years have been saying about the self-centered and intractable quality of h u m a n sinfulness. First is the statement that its origins can be observed in some of the earliest events of life--long before conscious m e m o r y m i n one c o m m e n t a t o r back to the first days in the cradle, n and in yet another even to passage d o w n the birth canal, az Second, it is said that it is at any given m o m e n t entirely beyond the present ability of the sufferer to remove t h r o u g h his o w n solo struggling efforts. Indeed, this inability is precisely what leads h i m to the therapist. T h i r d is the assertion that the person will not be healed until he himself consents to take an active part in the healing process. No therapist can in good conscience allow the patient to believe that healing will take place apart from the patient's deep personal commitm e n t to being healed. Therefore, in this real sense the patient m u s t be held responsible for his neurosis. Even d u r i n g the therapy process as he seeks to blame everyone except himself for his pain and general state of being, twisting and t u r n i n g and j u m p i n g like a fish at the end of a flyline, he must not be allowed finally to disengage the hook. For if that happens, the patient will never come face to face with his therapist (the fisherman) or himself; and the pain and h u m i l i a t i o n of h a v i n g to do this are not dissimilar to the k i n d and intensity of feelings that lay, for example, in the heart of the Prodigal Son w h e n finally circumstances forced h i m to face himself. T h e more usual m e t a p h o r of the therapist is per-
Constructive Collaborators
127
haps not fisherman but midwife, w h o plays all admittedly indispensable role in the birth of a new person, but w h o herself cannot bear even the major part of the work of giving birth. In therapy, as in obstetrics, the major work remains the primary burden a n d function of the patient. T h u s it is that w h e n one considers the subject of sinfulness and alienation, it often parallels neurosis in people in these i m p o r t a n t respects: a) its frequent observable origin at the b e g i n n i n g periods of life, b) its great powers over the sufferer w h o by himself is helpless, and c) the person's responsibility for it, despite his present helplessness to combat it without outside assistance. A second significant development that has been made available to theology because of its engagement with psychology and psychiatry is a ret h i n k i n g and redefinition of the very nature of sin. Fred Berthold of Dartmouth holds u p for questioning the Christian model of m a n as sinner, because he finds the insights of Freudian psychology to pose enticing alternative descriptions of the ways in which p e o p l e become entangled in dynamics that mar their essential h u m a n i t y , 13 Similarly, A b r a h a m Maslow's orientation to personality development was one that holds that deviation is due not so m u c h to prideful rebellion and a flesh-versusspirit internal warfare as to deficiencies and deprivations that have inhibited normal personality development. 14 Maslow w o u l d have insisted that "sin" is not so m u c h conscious, deliberate, fist-shaking defiance and refusal to enter the fullness of One's h u m a n destiny as an inability to traverse the n o r m a l steps of healthy development because the necessary components of that development have s o m e h o w or other not been present. If theologians are committed to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of sin, not o n l y for the purposes of general lamentation, but also to illustrate man's predicament clearly to himself, these thoughts of Berthold and Maslow o u g h t to be received with some enthusiasm. I myself feel that sin in myself and in others whose cases I k n o w s o m e t h i n g about participates in both m o d e l s - - t h e prideful rebellion, internal warfare model and the dep r i v a t i o n , deficiency model. My belief is simply that both models are useful in understanding "sin," and that the deprivation model is a spe-
128
Journal of Religion and Health
cial contribution that psychology has made available to theology for its consideration. A third contribution made to theology by psychology is a healthy dose of realism about the time and energy required to effect p e r m a n e n t and substantial changes in family and individual psychic structures. Religious people are inclined to emphasize and be impressed by histories and tales of striking personal change (conversion). Psychology knows a great deal about the i m p e r m a n e n c e of some of these apparent changes, as well as the ease with which sublimations a n d displacements to other objects can happen, leaving the basic personality unchanged. T h e o l o g y can use more of this hard c o m m o n sense about the possibilities and likelihoods of personal transformation. Some years ago, Bishop James Pike in A Time for Christian Candor suggested that theology could be vastly simplified and u p d a t e d if the doctrine of the Trinity could be d r o p p e d as an official f o r m u l a t i o n of the church. ~5 L i k e m a n y another, I was sympathetic with his wish to drop useless relics from the past, but I could not agree that the idea of the Trinity was one of them. T h a t was because the idea of t h e Trinity serves t o protect Christian faith from b e c o m i n g overly emphatic either about sheer Transcendance (no Holy Spirit) or about sheer I m m a n e n c e (no overarching and distinct Father). Christian faith m u s t be protected from both extremes; that is why it needs to remain Trinitarian. I have found that psychology very enlighteningly offers s o m e t h i n g on both sides of this duality. On the one hand, psychology has understood and emphasized that the road to personal maturity lies inevitably t h r o u g h a certain a m o u n t of healthy frustration of infantile wishes and demands. There is a strand of pietistic and evangelical belief that affirms that God is always very near and that consequently anticipates His full and constant and demonstrable attention to any petitionary utterance on the part of the true believer. There is a kind of exclusivism to this view of God, which is not unlike the attitude of small children clustering a r o u n d a school teacher, each one anxiously h o p i n g that he has a more highly exalted status in
Constructive Collaborators
129
her eyes than that of any other of his classmates: Total reliance on G o d - on His initiative, His justification--is usually the highest virtue articulated by people in this w i n g of Christianity, a n d persons of this persuasion have a way of not being very selective about what they p u t on God's conscience and what they expect H i m to do for t h e m a n d their friends. Almost any mystification, any puzzlement, any heart's desire will do. There are certain theologians w h o seem to be saying that this sort of intimacy with God is n o longer m u c h of a possibility (and perhaps neither is it very useful in terms of emotional and religious maturation). I have in mind, when saying this, both Bonhoeffer, w h o is famous for his conjecture that God is calling this generation of people to live as t h o u g h He did not exist, and also Bishop J o h n Robinson, w h o avers that the "God of the gaps" is no longer a proper: u n d e r s t a n d i n g of God for this age. Here at least one finds two well-known thinkers m a k i n g contact with an insight that has been k n o w n to m a n y therapists for some time: that to make a response to every m a n i p u l a t i v e c o m m e n t and inquiry and petition of the patient is to prevent the frustration of infantile dependency--a frustration that is a very necessary c o m p o n e n t in the patient's healing and maturati6n. W i t h o u t such frustration, he will not progress, but instead will remain jelled in the midst of all his troubles. Impatience w i t h God's inaction and hiddenness is as old as the Bible, but it is because of this kind of aloofness that God is indeed God. In this light, then, psychology aids us to an appreciation of God the Father--the Holy, Transcendant Other. But psychology also understands that there is another side of love-the mothering, nurturing, u n c o n d i t i o n e d d i m e n s i o n of love that is represented in terms of God's nearness. It was Erich F r o m m in psychology who first spelled out for me the totality of love by dividing it into typical father and typical m o t h e r love. F r o m m styled father-type love as being d e m a n d i n g and conditional, whereas mother-type love he construed as just the o p p o s i t e - - u n c o n d i t i o n a l , c o n s t a n t l y a v a i l a b l e whether deserved o r not. 16 One is reminded on this score of Francis T h o m p s o n ' s " H o u n d of Heaven" or of C. S. Lewis' description of his o w n experience of being
130
Journal of Religion and Health
chased by God over a lifetime, in w h i c h he characterizes "the hardness of G o d as kinder than the softness of men. ''17 Paul Tillich is especially relevant here w h e n he writes of the way in w h i c h psychiatry has significantly altered and shaped m o d e r n Christian thought: One can say that psychotherapy has replaced the emphasis on the demanding yet remote God by an emphasis on his self-giving nearness. It is in this modifiication of the image of a threatening father . . . by elements of the embracing and supporting mother . . . that psychotherapy has helped to reintroduce the female element into the idea of God. TM One further, and at this time rather speculative, note o n the subject of God's nearness a n d distance: Peter H o m a n s , c h a i r m a n of the Religion and Personality D e p a r t m e n t in the University of Chicago Divinity School, conjectures that just as Rorschach responses can often indicate w h e t h e r a person tends to be self-punitive or self-accepting, by calculating his tendency to give distance or vista responses (as opposed to close or nearin responses) w h e n presented with Rorschach s t i m u l i m s o also the way that a person sees God (far removed, w h o l l y other, a n d therefore judgmental versus near, ever i m m a n e n t l y present, a n d therefore accepting) may also indicate the way a person is inclined to regard a n d treat h i m self. 19 T h u s we find o n a n u m b e r of counts some psychological clues to the wisdom of the T r i n i t a r i a n usage in Christianity, a n d we discover in some interesting ways that theology receives the a g r e e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t of p s y c h o l o g y - - a discovery of some interest in these days of p r o f o u n d theological q u e s t i o n i n g and reshaping. Finally, increasing attention is n o w being paid to J u n g i a n t h o u g h t in various critical writings. I a m not qualified to write at length a b o u t the g r o u n d held in c o m m o n by J u n g i a n depth psychology and the depth theology, say of Paul Tillich. Suffice it to say that one of the items primarily at issue here for the theologian appears to be the validity and content of Revelation, and that the rather confident a n d d i s d a i n i n g positivism of a few years ago, w h i c h denied the likelihood or even possibility of valid n o n e m p i r i c a l knowledge, has now in some quarters become
Constructive Collaborators
131
quite suspect, i n c l u d i n g the positivism of the analysts of religious language w h o h o l d in their most extreme positions that the absence of an empirical referent for the word God invalidates all language about H i m . These, then, are some of the m u t u a l interactions that seem to exist between psychology and theology. T h e y seem to be rather significant--especially as we contemplate the great themes of h u m a n existence that stand at the crossroads of these two disciplines--themes such as anxiety, guilt, death, change, w i l l - - t o n a m e some of them. Both psychology and theology will treat these themes differently; yet it is impossible, I believe, to insist that either a p p r o a c h is u n i m p o r t a n t or that it represents a duplication of the other. Approaches from both disciplines have added enormously to an appreciation of these p h e n o m e n a in their complexity. By way of illustration of this in the case of one of the above themes, consider the rather different interests and treatments accorded the phen o m e n o n of anxiety by both psychology and theology. From behaviorist and psychoanalytic psychology we k n o w m u c h about the sources of anxiety in motivational f r u s t r a t i o n - - h o w frustration breeds anger, a n d how this anger is frequently driven u n d e r g r o u n d and out of awareness by a host of mechanisms, so that it cannot be k n o w n for what it is. O u t of this process is often produced unbearable anxiety, which is regarded generally in psychology to be a s y m p t o m and therefore an indication of necessary treatment. Theology, by contrast, not so concerned with pathological anxiety, is very aware of normal h u m a n anxiety that comes from an appreciation of our natural limitations a n d a warring against them, a refusal to accept them. It knows well also t h e anxiety that exists because of the necessary testing for limits that needs to go on before any real self-discovery is accomplished. T h e middle g r o u n d between what we have it in us to become a n d w h a t we have become at any given m o m e n t is a prime g r o u n d for the breeding and emergence of anxiety. In short, anxiety in motivating a m o u n t s is both a p r o b l e m to be solved (especially in its paralyzing intensities) and also one of the essential conditions of self-knowledge; as such, it constitutes a theme great e n o u g h for helpful attention and intervention from both disciplines.
132
Journal of Religion and Health
Perhaps we find ourselves n o w a t the p o i n t where both these disciplines can constructively inform and criticize one another to their m u tual benefit. Peter H o m a n s has written impressively of the blocks that in the past have stood in the way of a more helpful engagement of these two fields by each other, but which in time may be broken down. ~0 When and as that happens, the most creative and constructive m i n d s in both fields can come together in a m u t u a l and relatively nondefensive search for the enlargement of the g r o u n d that is c o m m o n to both. Karl Barth has somewhere said that Christianity m u s t be distinguished from mere religion, because religion is simply the h u m a n search for God, whereas Christianity is God's search for man, and therefore must be regarded as the end of aI1 religion. Given Barth's dismal anthropology, man's search for God could not be expected to yield m u c h in the way of valid h u m a n knowledge, but with a somewhat broader and more optimistic view of h u m a n capabilities, we m i g h t expect that man's search for God, p u r s u e d jointly by the disciplines of psychology and religion, w o u l d produce more awareness of God than Barth w o u l d have been disposed to grant. At the least, perhaps some undiscovered listening points m i g h t be turned up, and that w o u l d a m o u n t to s o m e t h i n g of a start in the same direction.
References 1. Tiliich, P., "The Impact of Pastoral Psychology on Theological Thought." In Hofmann, H:, ed., The Ministry and Mental Health. New York, Association Press, 1960, pp. 13-19. 2. Oden, T., Kerygma and Counseling. Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1966, pp. 20-26. 3. Berthold, F., "Theology and Self-Understanding." In Homans, P., ed., The Dialogue Between Theology and Psychology. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968, pp. 30-32. 4. Stinnette, C., "Reflection and Transformation." In Homans, op. cit., p. 89. 5. Frankl, V. E., Man's Search for Meaning. New York, Washington Square Press, 1959, p. 172. 6. May, R., Psychology and the Human Dilemma. Princeto n, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1967, pp. 212-213. 7. Mowrer, O. H., The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion. Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961.
Constructive Collaborators
133
8. Boisen, A. R., Out of the Depths. New York, Harper, 1960, pp. 198-200. 9. Maslow, A. H., Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962, pp. 3-8. 10. Perry, C. A., "Images of Man." Unpublished lectures delivered at the University of Virginia, Fall, 1966. 11. France, M., The Paradox of Guilt. Philadelphia, United Church Press, 1967, pp. 25-29. 12. Lake, F., Clinical Theology. London, Darton Longman ~ Todd, 1966, pp. xx, 478, 1061-1063. 13. Berthold, op. cit., pp. 22-30. 14. Maslow, op. cit., pp. 67-96. 15. Pike, J. A., A Time ]or Christian Candor. New York, Harper & Row, 1964, pp. 120-130. 16. Fromm, E., Thedrt of Loving. New York, Harper, 1956. 17. Lewis, C. S, Surprised by Joy. London, Collins--Fontana Books, 1955, p. 183. 18. Tillich, o#. cit., p. 15. 19. Homans, P., "Toward a Psychology of Religion." In Homans, ed., op. cit., pp. 78-80. 20. Ibid.
