ANALYSIS: The New Christian Counselorby Brian Campbell, 2016

Here is information relevant to the Analysis section of your book review of The New Christian Counselor. Please pay special attention to Slide 6 and the model “Christ the Transformer of Culture,” also called the “allies” paradigm.

Analysis (15 points)

In this section (approximately 1 page) consider the Module/Week 2 lecture discussion on the models of integration (you may also consult the “Comparing the 5 Views Christians Take to Psychology” PowerPoint or the “The Integration of Psychology and Christianity” document for this section) and explain how you would describe the integration approach of Hawkins & Clinton. What model of integration do you think their approach represents? Would Hawkins & Clinton identify psychological issues apart from spiritual issues, or are they all the same? How important is psychological theory and research in the Hawkins & Clinton approach?

Slide 1 of 6

Welcome to part three of this week’s lecture. This

time, we are going to focus on five models for

interdisciplinary integration. Now before we actually

speak about the models themselves, I want to give

you a brief overview of the theoretical construct of

how all of these integrated models were built.

Slide 2 of 6

In his book entitled, “Christ and Culture,” H. Richard

Niebuhr presented five different views of the way in

which Christ is at work in the cultures of the world.

These views represent different beginning points for

understanding how the living Spirit of Christ is at work and how we can better understand the nature of the

authority of Christ and his impact on culture. The first in this typology is Christ AGAINST culture, which really is an

“either-or” view, meaning we are either of the world or not of the world. We are either with Christ or against

Christ. This will represent the enemy’s view of integration. A second type is Christ OF culture, where Christ is

viewed as assimilated into the culture. Whatever is the cultural expression of the work of Christ is the reality of

Christ to that culture. Next we have the Christ ABOVE culture, that is an “above-and” approach, in which you can

have this private devotion to Christ, and at the same time be a very worldly person in another compartment of

your life. Fourth, we have the Christ AND culture paradox: two kingdoms striving to be predominant, which is

another version of compartmentalized faith. Lastly, we have Christ the TRANSFORMER of culture, where true

conversion and real change is possible.

Slide 3 of 6

There is a long-standing struggle between Christians

and those coming from a worldview of science that

goes back hundreds of years. This is the first

paradigm: Christ against culture; the notion that

people are either of the world or not of the world.

Adherents line up on either side of the room to

champion either the perspective of psychology and

the secular worldview, or the perspective of

Christianity. On this slide there is a table that

compares the thinking between these two

perspectives. On the secular side we list the father of

modern psychology, Sigmund Freud, who saw religion as being the same thing as a neurosis. He felt that individual

and organized religion were not realities in and of themselves, but really an inappropriate way of coping with

problems, a neurosis. Then we have Albert Ellis, a more recent psychologist who went from being very negative

towards any form of religion to eventually holding the position that religion is okay as long as we don’t get too

carried away with it. Now his sense was that religion becomes a neurosis or illness when people are too devoted

to God so that it becomes an over-compensation, or a way to hide from their problems. The belief behind this

viewpoint is the basic assumption that scientific thinking and religious commitment are simply not compatible. So

they focus strictly on the personality or on the care of the psyche of the person, and they reject and seek to

eradicate the influence of the Christian faith in counseling and the practice of psychology. In the other column we

find Christian believers, such as Jay Adams, the father of nouthetic counseling. As mentioned in an earlier lecture,

this is a form of counseling that relies exclusively on the Bible for guidance with clients. Adams does not think of

his way as “therapy,” but prefers the term Biblical counseling. Martin and Deidra Bobgan are two writers who also

support the Christian point of view and have coined the term “psychoheresy,” referring to a psychological

worldview that they see as a competing with Christianity. John MacArthur is a third Christian believer who speaks

of the rival Gospel of psychology, or a “neo-gnosticism.” For these thinkers, Christian counseling should be limited

to the care of the soul. They believe that God’s Word is sufficient for all our needs and that psychology in all of its

forms should be rejected and eradicated from Christian practice. For each side holding a Christ against Culture

point of view, you can see that they do not leave much room for integration, do they? So we want to be careful in

how we do Christian counseling that uses psychological principles, and how we can get past this sort of

philosophical impasse.

Slide 4 of 6

On the opposite extreme we have those who hold a

“Christ of Culture” perspective, in which they see

Christian belief as being completely and totally

assimilated into the culture. They see themselves as

living in a parallel universe. One author speaks of

people with the Christ of Culture point of view as

being “spies or colonialists” in their view of

integration. These spies would be those who have a

psychological worldview and predominately use

material from their psychological or scientific

practice, then “cherry-pick” material from the Bible and from Christian faith that they find useful. So a “spy” can

have this worldview and use biblical material without ever believing the Christian faith or the teachings of Jesus.

For example, before the advent of psychology, Thomas Jefferson created and later published what was known as

the “Jefferson Bible,” in which he kept those sayings of Jesus that he considered to be useful and got rid of the rest

of the Bible that he did not understand or like. He was a “spy” in terms of cherry-picking material from the Bible

for his own use. Carl Yume and Eric Fromm would be two more good examples of those from the scientific world

who have borrowed from Biblical principles for psychological purposes. Norman Vincent Peale would be a

Christian leader who provides a good example for this worldview when he created his bestselling book “The Power

of Positive Thinking.” He took excerpts from Christian teaching and applied them psychologically as a way of

helping an individual, but without great concern for the larger context of the use of those materials. From the

“Spies” paradigm, experience is the starting point and there really is not a serious consideration of the whole

picture or taking account the context of various data points along the way. Now the companions to the “Spies” are

the “colonialists.” These are Christians who use psychological principles in the context of biblical counseling while

thinking in terms of God’s Word as the lens for God’s book of works, and borrow from psychology to make the

points they wish to make. Welsh and Powlison, considered to be “new” nouthetic thinkers, would be good

examples of this type. This means that when helping people with their counseling problems, their understanding is

based on the Bible, but then they apply psychological principles as a way of describing the needs of clients. The

criticism of these folks is that they deal with the temptation to use psychological findings without scientific

research methods but are making an assumption that their point of view is always right.

Slide 5 of 6

“Christ and Culture in Paradox: Two Kingdoms “is a

model in which there is a sharp segregation between

science and faith, or a “compartmentalized

approach.” They see the Christian faith as having a

distinct relationship to psychological processes but

not so much interactive or dynamically involved with

the psychological ways of understanding the needs

of people. Instead there is a sharp separation of

people into their spiritual component and into their

psychological component. It is here that you find

language such as “faith is a private matter.”

Regarding “Christ ABOVE culture,” very often in this neutral paradigm there is a lack of effort made for the holistic

treatment of individuals. Gordon Allport is a good example of this kind of psychological neutrality in which they

are not hostile to religion but take an instrumental view of it all.

Slide 6 of 6

Now the fifth model is Christ, the TRANSFORMER of

Culture, which we can also call the “Allies Paradigm.”

This group looks for an alliance between psychology

and those who are coming from the Christian

perspective with the goal of transforming individuals

through the power of Christ, the transformer of

cultures. These individuals believe that the truth of

God is found in both God’s Word and in God’s Works.

For “Allies,” the conflicts between psychology and

Christianity are not differences between the two

worldviews or disciplines, but problems arising when

practitioners fail to approach opposing or different ideas with openness and diligence, desiring unity, and seeking

genuine integration. They believe that open interaction between different perspectives is the only way to do the

best we can for our clients. They also understand that true integration is a disciplined enterprise involving

elements of diagnosis, of interventions that we must address in the counseling relationship, and both the

interpersonal and the interdisciplinary identity of the counselor. This concludes the lectures for this week. Take

time to review the slides again, and make notes on what you’ve learned involving integration.