Sunday, December 17, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Perception - The Theistic Origin Theory of Gestalt Psychological Perception
Seeing as it is so late as I write this, I know that I will not be satisfied one bit with how this very tough issue is explained, so I will surely have an update to this post quite soon.
Let's start with the Psychology:
Gestalt psychology, technically speaking, is a theory of mind and brain that proposes that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies. The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves.
In layman's terms, this is best explained by the old adage conerning all things "Gestalt": the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
What this means is that the human mind tends to organize everything we perceive into "wholes" rather than "parts," which means it will fill in gaps when necessary to bring about some sort of "wholeness" or continuity within what we percieve.
Long story short, the mind perceives more than is actually there.
Now, for the Bible:
-- "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).
-- "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45)
-- "Jesus said to him, 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.'" (John 14:9)
Now for the theory:
Being a Christian, I believe God created man very purposefully, so every psychological aspect of humans has intent behind it on both a practical and spiritual level. Thus, I'd like to provide a Theistic Origin Theory for Gestalt Psychological Perception. In other words, I'd like to provide a theory as to the origin of this type of perception in mankind, and that origin is from God (the Theistic being). So . . . why did God create us with these Gestalt tendencies?
As one can see from the three Scriptures above, I have taken just three ways in which God communicates Himself, His will, and His attributes. These Scriptures plainly talk of God showing Himself through things that the sum of their parts do not equal God. Nature (Creation), words on a page (the Scriptures), and a human being (Jesus) do not equal God when each is added to eachother, much less when each is taken individually. But, nonetheless, the Bible says this is so. Why can it be? Gestalt Psychological Perception.
My theory is this: God created us to perceive things greater than what we've been given so that He may be able to communicate to humans and reveal himself supernaturally to them in ways that were seemingly natural. That's why we can perceive there is a God just by looking at nature; the fingerprint of God on this world is greater than the sum of it parts. That's why God can speak to us anew through 1,500 year old words written on a page we may have seen a million times over; the whole that the Scripture wishes to convey is greater than the sum of its parts. That's why, God the Father can be fully revealed perfectly in an incarnated form as a human; the whole of who Jesus is, is greater than the sum of his parts.
We know this to be true, so let's rejoice in it; that God created us to have full ability and capacity to perceive and know Him, even in the most "common" of things.
I will add more Scripture as I come by it. Those three were just the ones that came to mind this second, but I will find more.
On our next episode: either
(a) Psychopathology - who's fault is it?
(b) Sleep theology - why do we sleep?
(c) Toilet Theology - why do we poo? (probably not this one)
I hope you get a laugh out of that,
--paul<><
Let's start with the Psychology:
Gestalt psychology, technically speaking, is a theory of mind and brain that proposes that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies. The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves.
In layman's terms, this is best explained by the old adage conerning all things "Gestalt": the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
What this means is that the human mind tends to organize everything we perceive into "wholes" rather than "parts," which means it will fill in gaps when necessary to bring about some sort of "wholeness" or continuity within what we percieve.
Long story short, the mind perceives more than is actually there.
Now, for the Bible:
-- "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).
-- "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45)
-- "Jesus said to him, 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.'" (John 14:9)
Now for the theory:
Being a Christian, I believe God created man very purposefully, so every psychological aspect of humans has intent behind it on both a practical and spiritual level. Thus, I'd like to provide a Theistic Origin Theory for Gestalt Psychological Perception. In other words, I'd like to provide a theory as to the origin of this type of perception in mankind, and that origin is from God (the Theistic being). So . . . why did God create us with these Gestalt tendencies?
As one can see from the three Scriptures above, I have taken just three ways in which God communicates Himself, His will, and His attributes. These Scriptures plainly talk of God showing Himself through things that the sum of their parts do not equal God. Nature (Creation), words on a page (the Scriptures), and a human being (Jesus) do not equal God when each is added to eachother, much less when each is taken individually. But, nonetheless, the Bible says this is so. Why can it be? Gestalt Psychological Perception.
My theory is this: God created us to perceive things greater than what we've been given so that He may be able to communicate to humans and reveal himself supernaturally to them in ways that were seemingly natural. That's why we can perceive there is a God just by looking at nature; the fingerprint of God on this world is greater than the sum of it parts. That's why God can speak to us anew through 1,500 year old words written on a page we may have seen a million times over; the whole that the Scripture wishes to convey is greater than the sum of its parts. That's why, God the Father can be fully revealed perfectly in an incarnated form as a human; the whole of who Jesus is, is greater than the sum of his parts.
We know this to be true, so let's rejoice in it; that God created us to have full ability and capacity to perceive and know Him, even in the most "common" of things.
I will add more Scripture as I come by it. Those three were just the ones that came to mind this second, but I will find more.
On our next episode: either
(a) Psychopathology - who's fault is it?
(b) Sleep theology - why do we sleep?
(c) Toilet Theology - why do we poo? (probably not this one)
I hope you get a laugh out of that,
--paul<><
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The Historical Foundation of it All UPDATED
I'm so sorry for the delay in getting this post written. With school, life, and preparation for a trip to Scotland, things sort of got away from me. In fact, I'm currently typing this up on a delayed plane bound for Newark, hoping and praying that I am able to make my connecting flight to Glasgow, Scotland. I figured I could pass the time by typing this up.
Well, on our last episode, we discussed the theological foundations of psychotheology. Today's post will discuss the history of psychotheology. This could get kind of long. Part of the reason this has taken so long to write is that I haven't quite been sure of the perspective to take with this. Do I speak more of the history of psychological perspectives on theology, or do I speak more about the theological perspectives on psychology? I have decided to do a bird's-eye sweeping survey of the topic at hand, so as not to bog anyone down by meaningless details such as the idiosyncratic views of individual psychologists or theologians, or the development of views. In other words, I'm hoping to make this brief; if I do not, I'm sorry. Okay, here we go . . .
Psychological Views on Theism
Basically, the reigning view of psychology on religion (especially Christianity) is what one would expect: "religion" as a whole is what is used by individuals to help them get through life and relieve the natural tensions that human beings have by their very nature. We fear dying, so we believe in an afterlife. We can't accept the faults of our fathers who claim to be our superiors, so we create a perfect father figure who is worthy of the homage he desires. We don't like the behaviors of a group on the fringes of society, so we make their behaviors "wrong" under the mantle of religion to justify our wiping them out or ostracizing them. We desperately feel like doing right, but we fell like we must have an organized system where we get something back for doing what is right, so we create a structure around our morality so that we can feel better about ourselves. Does it sound like I'm getting it right?
This is why most research done on religion is on the topic of "religious coping," or, the process by which people use religion to get through the pains of life.
Many psychologists, especially the most influential ones through history have said that religion must be replaced by a more "rational" system of abstract coping. Psychology has spent much of its existence attempting to fill this hole, much to the apparent degradation of psychological health and well being in America and the world.
Theological Views on Psychology
When it comes to this topic, there are two main schools of thought: the Integrationists and the Non-Integrationists. The Non-Integrationists are generally the more conservative Christians who believe that all "Christian Psychology" is an attempt to take the opinions and views of secular, unsaved, unredeemed, non-Christian people, and conform Christianity to them. They believe that Christians must come up with an independent particularly Christian perspective and system of psychological thought completely separate from the views of secular psychologists. The Integrationists, on the other hand, believe that all truth is God's truth, so a Biblical view of Psychology can accept the findings of Non-Christian psychologists as true for human behavior, Christian and non-Christian.
I am a Biblical Integrationist. I believe that truth is truth no matter what human happened to observe it first. But, I do believe that all truths (if they are in fact true) will be 100% in line with what the Bible says. Now, before certain cries of dissent arise, I must say one thing about the Bible: The Holy Bible is 100% the very literal Word of God as written through the filter of human perspective, emotion, and life. This means that the Bible is absolutely to be taken literally for all theological issues having to do with the nature of God and man and means for salvation, but in the process of the writing of the book, certain approximations, hyperbole, metaphor were used (e.g. The Bible describes the sun rising and setting; we know this is not the case. We move about the sun, not vice versa.) Thus, I do not mean to say that the Bible must explicitly say “Freudian Psychoanalysis is wrong” in order for me to think that, but if the picture of human nature that the Bible paints is different from that which Freud has painted, then I am under good authority to cast off Freud as a crock. I do this understanding my own fallibility, though, always being willing to read and research more and more and be shown wrong. If that be the case, as has happened on many occasion in my life, I take that not as a failing of the Bible, but as a failing of my understanding of it. Some will say this is a cop out. I say that the Bible has proven itself far more trustworthy in my life than I have ever shown myself to be, so I'll put all my eggs in that basket.
Conclusions
Needless to say, Religion and Psychology have not had the best of relationships historically. They both have spent most of their times wanting to cast off the other and replace it as the reigning worldview on the nature of man.
So, can these seemingly opposing forces coexist peacefully and perhaps actually enhance the experience and knowledge of the other? I think so. For several reasons:
(1) At their most basic level, all the sciences merely describe the observations made of processes and phenomena preexisitng in the world and in man. It is the "what," if you will. Theology helps provide the orgins thereof and the purpose for which these were done. At its most basic form, it is the "why." These are very simplified, I know, as there are genuine advancements, creations, and inventions that aren't necessarily already preexisting (though one could argue they do, but in the mind of God; but that's for another time).
(2)This explanation sort of jumps in the deep end of the pool. Just please try and follow. Being a Christian doesn't mean that I need to believe that all other religions and worldviews are all wrong; rather, where said religions/worldviews disagree with Christianity, I believe them to be wrong, and Christianity to be right. It is in this sense that a very important philosophical idea is brought forth. Most every religion/worldview has something "godly" and/or "right" to offer. I believe this is because all humans are designed with essentially the same basic needs, to be fulfilled and answered by God chiefly. Furthermore, I believe this God has designed us to desire and seek our fulfillment of those things designed to be satisfied by Him and only Him. That being said, the various religions/worldviews seek to fulfll the same ends as Christianity. The only difference lies in the fact that Christianity proclaims it is the chief structure thorugh which God has revealed His desired path to Him for man. Thus, all other religions/worldviews may have good/right ideas, but they as whole systems are in a sense "out of focus" with the truth. Christianity is every revealed trut in perfect focus in how it should be. Those other "goods" and "rights" expressed elsewhere are merely shadows of the truth, with Chritianity being the object the light is shining upon. Psychology reveals truths and knowledge about humans beings that are revealed most perfectly in focus by Christianity. They are complimentary, or at least can be.
(3) Think of the search for understanding of man and his processes as a picture slowly being painted, analyzed, and interpretted. Both psychology and theology can and do take turns playing artist in forming the picture, with the other performing as art historian, if you will, explaining the underlying sources, meanings, inspirations, and intentions inherent in the work. They play off eachother.
(4) The view of man put forth in the Bible is exactly what both studies and expereince have shown to be true.
(5) Lastly, to pretty much put in different words once more what the last three points have said (which essentially have all been the same thing), the two are perfectly complimentary to eachother with the animocity rising from the individual adherents to each views ratehr than the ideas themselves. For example, in psychology, every therapist generally chooses between two different therapy perspectives: the interpersonal-relational perspective, or the therapist-client perspective. one sees the patient as basically healthy needing understanding and relationship to stop there bad habits, while the other views the patient as a sick individual that the great and wise therapist must bring them out of; no actual personal relationship should be established, as it will tarnisht he therpay. SO whic one is right? Well, studies show what is the best way, and the Bible shows this as well. Proverbs 20:5 says, "The purpose in a man's heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out."
I just want to end this post with a preemptive rebuttal to the most common refutation I have heard and will hear: You can't mix a hard science like psychology with an abstract spiritually abstract and nebulous thing like theology. I have three simple points:
(1) Many, perhaps most will argue over psychology's "hard science"-ness, but for the sake of argument, I will lean towards the side of psychology as science more than psychology as philosophy.
(2) Unlike every other branch of science out there (all just as compatible with biblical Christianity, I might add, but that's another time), psychology is unique in that no matter the biological factors behind it all, the fact still remains that nearly all of those factors actually exhbit themselves in abstract, nebulous, and (do I dare say it?) spiritual forms. Cognition, emotion, spirituality, coping, love, relationship, pathology, and pain certainly are manifested in very real, but very abstract forms and terms that go beyond mere chemical reactions. It is in this that theology can primarily reside, though it has some to say about human chemical balances, imbalances, and healing thereof.
(3) The view of man put forth in the Bible is exactly what both studies and expereince have shown to be true.
God bless and please send questions I can answer; it's so tiring trying to anticipate all that people will try and say because, contrary to much psychological belief, human beings can't be predicted.
Just a little psychohumor there. Enjoy.
--paul
Well, on our last episode, we discussed the theological foundations of psychotheology. Today's post will discuss the history of psychotheology. This could get kind of long. Part of the reason this has taken so long to write is that I haven't quite been sure of the perspective to take with this. Do I speak more of the history of psychological perspectives on theology, or do I speak more about the theological perspectives on psychology? I have decided to do a bird's-eye sweeping survey of the topic at hand, so as not to bog anyone down by meaningless details such as the idiosyncratic views of individual psychologists or theologians, or the development of views. In other words, I'm hoping to make this brief; if I do not, I'm sorry. Okay, here we go . . .
Psychological Views on Theism
Basically, the reigning view of psychology on religion (especially Christianity) is what one would expect: "religion" as a whole is what is used by individuals to help them get through life and relieve the natural tensions that human beings have by their very nature. We fear dying, so we believe in an afterlife. We can't accept the faults of our fathers who claim to be our superiors, so we create a perfect father figure who is worthy of the homage he desires. We don't like the behaviors of a group on the fringes of society, so we make their behaviors "wrong" under the mantle of religion to justify our wiping them out or ostracizing them. We desperately feel like doing right, but we fell like we must have an organized system where we get something back for doing what is right, so we create a structure around our morality so that we can feel better about ourselves. Does it sound like I'm getting it right?
This is why most research done on religion is on the topic of "religious coping," or, the process by which people use religion to get through the pains of life.
Many psychologists, especially the most influential ones through history have said that religion must be replaced by a more "rational" system of abstract coping. Psychology has spent much of its existence attempting to fill this hole, much to the apparent degradation of psychological health and well being in America and the world.
Theological Views on Psychology
When it comes to this topic, there are two main schools of thought: the Integrationists and the Non-Integrationists. The Non-Integrationists are generally the more conservative Christians who believe that all "Christian Psychology" is an attempt to take the opinions and views of secular, unsaved, unredeemed, non-Christian people, and conform Christianity to them. They believe that Christians must come up with an independent particularly Christian perspective and system of psychological thought completely separate from the views of secular psychologists. The Integrationists, on the other hand, believe that all truth is God's truth, so a Biblical view of Psychology can accept the findings of Non-Christian psychologists as true for human behavior, Christian and non-Christian.
I am a Biblical Integrationist. I believe that truth is truth no matter what human happened to observe it first. But, I do believe that all truths (if they are in fact true) will be 100% in line with what the Bible says. Now, before certain cries of dissent arise, I must say one thing about the Bible: The Holy Bible is 100% the very literal Word of God as written through the filter of human perspective, emotion, and life. This means that the Bible is absolutely to be taken literally for all theological issues having to do with the nature of God and man and means for salvation, but in the process of the writing of the book, certain approximations, hyperbole, metaphor were used (e.g. The Bible describes the sun rising and setting; we know this is not the case. We move about the sun, not vice versa.) Thus, I do not mean to say that the Bible must explicitly say “Freudian Psychoanalysis is wrong” in order for me to think that, but if the picture of human nature that the Bible paints is different from that which Freud has painted, then I am under good authority to cast off Freud as a crock. I do this understanding my own fallibility, though, always being willing to read and research more and more and be shown wrong. If that be the case, as has happened on many occasion in my life, I take that not as a failing of the Bible, but as a failing of my understanding of it. Some will say this is a cop out. I say that the Bible has proven itself far more trustworthy in my life than I have ever shown myself to be, so I'll put all my eggs in that basket.
Conclusions
Needless to say, Religion and Psychology have not had the best of relationships historically. They both have spent most of their times wanting to cast off the other and replace it as the reigning worldview on the nature of man.
So, can these seemingly opposing forces coexist peacefully and perhaps actually enhance the experience and knowledge of the other? I think so. For several reasons:
(1) At their most basic level, all the sciences merely describe the observations made of processes and phenomena preexisitng in the world and in man. It is the "what," if you will. Theology helps provide the orgins thereof and the purpose for which these were done. At its most basic form, it is the "why." These are very simplified, I know, as there are genuine advancements, creations, and inventions that aren't necessarily already preexisting (though one could argue they do, but in the mind of God; but that's for another time).
(2)This explanation sort of jumps in the deep end of the pool. Just please try and follow. Being a Christian doesn't mean that I need to believe that all other religions and worldviews are all wrong; rather, where said religions/worldviews disagree with Christianity, I believe them to be wrong, and Christianity to be right. It is in this sense that a very important philosophical idea is brought forth. Most every religion/worldview has something "godly" and/or "right" to offer. I believe this is because all humans are designed with essentially the same basic needs, to be fulfilled and answered by God chiefly. Furthermore, I believe this God has designed us to desire and seek our fulfillment of those things designed to be satisfied by Him and only Him. That being said, the various religions/worldviews seek to fulfll the same ends as Christianity. The only difference lies in the fact that Christianity proclaims it is the chief structure thorugh which God has revealed His desired path to Him for man. Thus, all other religions/worldviews may have good/right ideas, but they as whole systems are in a sense "out of focus" with the truth. Christianity is every revealed trut in perfect focus in how it should be. Those other "goods" and "rights" expressed elsewhere are merely shadows of the truth, with Chritianity being the object the light is shining upon. Psychology reveals truths and knowledge about humans beings that are revealed most perfectly in focus by Christianity. They are complimentary, or at least can be.
(3) Think of the search for understanding of man and his processes as a picture slowly being painted, analyzed, and interpretted. Both psychology and theology can and do take turns playing artist in forming the picture, with the other performing as art historian, if you will, explaining the underlying sources, meanings, inspirations, and intentions inherent in the work. They play off eachother.
(4) The view of man put forth in the Bible is exactly what both studies and expereince have shown to be true.
(5) Lastly, to pretty much put in different words once more what the last three points have said (which essentially have all been the same thing), the two are perfectly complimentary to eachother with the animocity rising from the individual adherents to each views ratehr than the ideas themselves. For example, in psychology, every therapist generally chooses between two different therapy perspectives: the interpersonal-relational perspective, or the therapist-client perspective. one sees the patient as basically healthy needing understanding and relationship to stop there bad habits, while the other views the patient as a sick individual that the great and wise therapist must bring them out of; no actual personal relationship should be established, as it will tarnisht he therpay. SO whic one is right? Well, studies show what is the best way, and the Bible shows this as well. Proverbs 20:5 says, "The purpose in a man's heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out."
I just want to end this post with a preemptive rebuttal to the most common refutation I have heard and will hear: You can't mix a hard science like psychology with an abstract spiritually abstract and nebulous thing like theology. I have three simple points:
(1) Many, perhaps most will argue over psychology's "hard science"-ness, but for the sake of argument, I will lean towards the side of psychology as science more than psychology as philosophy.
(2) Unlike every other branch of science out there (all just as compatible with biblical Christianity, I might add, but that's another time), psychology is unique in that no matter the biological factors behind it all, the fact still remains that nearly all of those factors actually exhbit themselves in abstract, nebulous, and (do I dare say it?) spiritual forms. Cognition, emotion, spirituality, coping, love, relationship, pathology, and pain certainly are manifested in very real, but very abstract forms and terms that go beyond mere chemical reactions. It is in this that theology can primarily reside, though it has some to say about human chemical balances, imbalances, and healing thereof.
(3) The view of man put forth in the Bible is exactly what both studies and expereince have shown to be true.
God bless and please send questions I can answer; it's so tiring trying to anticipate all that people will try and say because, contrary to much psychological belief, human beings can't be predicted.
Just a little psychohumor there. Enjoy.
--paul
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
The Theological Foundation of it All
Here I plan on giving the primary theological basis upon which psychotheology is derived. This one verse is not wholly comprehensive and does not carry in it every attribute of the nature of God, but it will perhaps play the biggest part for our discussions here.
"God is love"
-- 1 John 4:8 & 16
This biblical assertion, unbeknownst by pop culture today is not a characterizing statement about the nature of a trait of God. This view superimposes the subjective love ideal of man onto an eternal wholly "other" being that our minds cannot comprehend in the first place. Rather, this statement is a call for humans to redefine the cultural love ideal based on the objective reality that is God as revealed by His Spirit in His Word.
This one statement is so crucial to the entire idea of who God is, how He works, how He relates to us, and how we realte to Him. It is in this statement that the Bible, the Gospel, and our Future Glory are fully realized. Let's explore:
As stated above, the statement does not say to man, "whatever your conceptualization is of love, that is what your conceptualization of God must be." It is natural for humans to do this regardless of the verse itself. It's how we were built. Study after study reveal that one's conceptualization of God is based primarily on the examples of love modeled to them by their parents. One's parents model love (or lack thereof), and through the intrinsic created mechanism of association between God and love, they link the two. They end up defining love and creating their expectation(s) of it based upon what their parents do or do not do.
Socio-cultural factors play a large part in this mechanism as well, as this association helps forms the necessary heuristics (mental shortcuts) humans require to survive. This makes the created mechanism not only of emotional and spiritual relevance, but also practical importance as it is also functional. God has built humans very specifically and my hope is that in this blog, I can show that no part is for one purpose, and no part is for no purpose. This includes your desires, your drives, your needs, and all the psychologically functional mechanisms we use to live life. All these have spiritual implications as well as practical ones.
So much more can be built upon that one truth, but it will at a later date, I assure you. I could base an entire blog on that one verse and its ramifications for humans, but here I feel it is prudent to use this merely as a foundation and launching pad to use for further future study. So, the foundation I want you to remember is this:
If saying "God is love" is meant to effect how we view love, it follows that this new view of love must be based upon God, his attributes, ways, and words. This means not only can we see how God loves and use that to see how we love, but, we can also see how God loves relationally and see how that effects how we view our relationships. Here are some basic tenets from which most of the rest of this blog will forever be based upon. This list is not comprehensive, it just contains the bigger ones:
-- If God is love, and we are not God, then we in and of ourselves don't know love or have love. This helps define love positionally. (1 John 4:8)
-- We are built to want and need this love we don't have. This helps define love eperientially. (Proverbs 19:22)
-- If God's ultimate manifestation of His love was not only in sending His son, but also in giving us the possible relationship in that, then, God 's love is further testified to by the nature of Christ's relationship with his Church (believers). This helps define love relationally. (1 John 4:10)
-- The love of God not only satisfies the angst of knowing we are not God and thus have not love (1 Corinthians 2:9), but it also creates a future hope and faith the rest of the satisfied Christian life is based upon, making God's revelation of love not only preeminent to but also greater than those other "Christian things" it produces (1 Corinthians 13:13) This defines love functionally and effectually.
Basically, theologically speaking, psychotheology is the study of God's image in man. God said in Genesis "Let us make man in our own image." Now, theologians have argued for centuries as to what extent this "image" goes. Some say it is the "self-determination of man" that is the main attribute of God's image in us. Others say the fact that we have a "spiritual side" is chracteristic of God's image in us. Still others say it is our reason. I believe "the image of God" in us stands for the standard to which we are designed to desire to live. Long story short, God's image in us tells us that the more we are like God (inasmuch as general attributes, desires, and outworkings thereof) the more we are who we are made to be and the more mentally and emotionally functional, healthy, and efficient we will be. If the "being like God" thing messes you up, then just substitute with "being like God in flesh, Jesus"; it is said he is our example for human living but he is also God, and Lord, though. We can't forget that.
So, in conclusion, the more we love like God, speak like God (using His words), desire what God desires, behave like Jesus, and draw near to him in order to do this, we will be more "psychotheologically" healthy and stable.
Next post: The Historical/Psychological Foundations of Psychotheolgy
As always, God Bless,
--Paul<><
"God is love"
-- 1 John 4:8 & 16
This biblical assertion, unbeknownst by pop culture today is not a characterizing statement about the nature of a trait of God. This view superimposes the subjective love ideal of man onto an eternal wholly "other" being that our minds cannot comprehend in the first place. Rather, this statement is a call for humans to redefine the cultural love ideal based on the objective reality that is God as revealed by His Spirit in His Word.
This one statement is so crucial to the entire idea of who God is, how He works, how He relates to us, and how we realte to Him. It is in this statement that the Bible, the Gospel, and our Future Glory are fully realized. Let's explore:
As stated above, the statement does not say to man, "whatever your conceptualization is of love, that is what your conceptualization of God must be." It is natural for humans to do this regardless of the verse itself. It's how we were built. Study after study reveal that one's conceptualization of God is based primarily on the examples of love modeled to them by their parents. One's parents model love (or lack thereof), and through the intrinsic created mechanism of association between God and love, they link the two. They end up defining love and creating their expectation(s) of it based upon what their parents do or do not do.
Socio-cultural factors play a large part in this mechanism as well, as this association helps forms the necessary heuristics (mental shortcuts) humans require to survive. This makes the created mechanism not only of emotional and spiritual relevance, but also practical importance as it is also functional. God has built humans very specifically and my hope is that in this blog, I can show that no part is for one purpose, and no part is for no purpose. This includes your desires, your drives, your needs, and all the psychologically functional mechanisms we use to live life. All these have spiritual implications as well as practical ones.
So much more can be built upon that one truth, but it will at a later date, I assure you. I could base an entire blog on that one verse and its ramifications for humans, but here I feel it is prudent to use this merely as a foundation and launching pad to use for further future study. So, the foundation I want you to remember is this:
If saying "God is love" is meant to effect how we view love, it follows that this new view of love must be based upon God, his attributes, ways, and words. This means not only can we see how God loves and use that to see how we love, but, we can also see how God loves relationally and see how that effects how we view our relationships. Here are some basic tenets from which most of the rest of this blog will forever be based upon. This list is not comprehensive, it just contains the bigger ones:
-- If God is love, and we are not God, then we in and of ourselves don't know love or have love. This helps define love positionally. (1 John 4:8)
-- We are built to want and need this love we don't have. This helps define love eperientially. (Proverbs 19:22)
-- If God's ultimate manifestation of His love was not only in sending His son, but also in giving us the possible relationship in that, then, God 's love is further testified to by the nature of Christ's relationship with his Church (believers). This helps define love relationally. (1 John 4:10)
-- The love of God not only satisfies the angst of knowing we are not God and thus have not love (1 Corinthians 2:9), but it also creates a future hope and faith the rest of the satisfied Christian life is based upon, making God's revelation of love not only preeminent to but also greater than those other "Christian things" it produces (1 Corinthians 13:13) This defines love functionally and effectually.
* * *
Basically, theologically speaking, psychotheology is the study of God's image in man. God said in Genesis "Let us make man in our own image." Now, theologians have argued for centuries as to what extent this "image" goes. Some say it is the "self-determination of man" that is the main attribute of God's image in us. Others say the fact that we have a "spiritual side" is chracteristic of God's image in us. Still others say it is our reason. I believe "the image of God" in us stands for the standard to which we are designed to desire to live. Long story short, God's image in us tells us that the more we are like God (inasmuch as general attributes, desires, and outworkings thereof) the more we are who we are made to be and the more mentally and emotionally functional, healthy, and efficient we will be. If the "being like God" thing messes you up, then just substitute with "being like God in flesh, Jesus"; it is said he is our example for human living but he is also God, and Lord, though. We can't forget that.
So, in conclusion, the more we love like God, speak like God (using His words), desire what God desires, behave like Jesus, and draw near to him in order to do this, we will be more "psychotheologically" healthy and stable.
Next post: The Historical/Psychological Foundations of Psychotheolgy
As always, God Bless,
--Paul<><
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Introduction to Paul Burkhart
I hope in this post to provide a framework to anyone that may read this as to the preconceived notions, dispositions, belief systems, and worldviews I am speaking from, as these are the necessary filters through which everything I say will pass through. I plan on using standardized categorizations to accomplish this so hopefully anyone that stumbles upon this blog will be able to get the proper perspective of me, no matter there preconceived notions. Before I get to that, though, I'll briefly be personal.
I am currently a student at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA. After this (of course, all this is God willing), I plan on pursuing a Masters of Psychology and/or Masters of Divinity. Other options are Masters in either Counseling or Marital and Family Therapy from a Seminary. Then, the plan is to return to VCU to earn my Doctorate of Counsleing Psychology. After that, I hope to take a stint as a missionary for a few years. Upon return, I'd like to start a corporation dealing with providing all facets of society with Psychological Services. This corporation will take a three-pronged approach to affecting society and culture in positive ways. The first is a contracting branch where different places will contract out our psychologists and therapists to provide various services such as crisis counseling in schools, managerial training for corporate managers, rehab programs for prison systems and so on and so forth. The second branch will be the counseling branch. This will be held at every central office with clear, easy to find pricing that will be low, and carry certain concessions for those with certain financial burdens. I want to make healthy psychological counseling available to all people, no matter race, class, social status, religion, or economic state. The offices will have individual, couples, family, and group therapy always available. The last branch will be a training hospital to help deal with more psychopathology and train p and coming psychologists in the skills necessary. This branch will hopefully be associated with nearby universities for internship opportunities and be a way that we could find promising therapists to bring into our company. This is my personal dream; on to the standardized big worded categorizations of myself . . .
When it comes to the "thinking perspectives", most people fall into one of three categories: philosopher, scholar, and scientist. Scientists need to prove things out in front of them in more concrete ways to draw conclusions. Scholars research what has been said and done before them in order to draw conclusions. Philosophers look at the world and through thinking and making connections draw conclusions. I am a philosopher-scholar. Philosopher, primarily as the bulk of this blog is dedicated to the conclusions I have seen, drawn out, applied, and seen connected in the world around me between the Bible and the human experience. Though this is my primary role, I am also a scholar to a certain extent. I have done (and continue to do) extensive research in the areas pertaining to psychotheology, first and foremost the "theology" part. I love the Bible, the Word of God, and know it has the answer to every human need and it has objectively expressed to us why we have those needs, what fulfills them, and how they get that way. In short, I feel I am a scholar of the Bible (in the ongoing verb sense, not "positionally" as if I am an expert) and have only become this way not from analyzing the Bible, but letting it analyze me. I also read other books. Many, many other books. These books help integrate the Word of God into the world around me in certain ways that helps in forming my ideas on psychotheology.
My philosophical perspective is Biblical Pragmatism. The easiest way to describe pragmatism is the view that "hey, whatever works, works." For example: What psychological perspective is correct? Which ever one "works"in therapy and explains the greatest amount of human behavior. Now, the "biblical" part comes in the fact that I have seen and I believe the Bible testifies to the fact that it is what "works" in this world. My pragmatism always seems to support my Bible. That is not my standard, it is just reality. I don't use my experience to validate the Bible; I use the Bible to validate my experiences. And you know what? That "works." Every psychological thing that I have seen that "works" I see is supported and validated in the Bible. I then use this to look and see what more the Bible says in the context of this specific truth and helps broaden the scope of the psychological truth I initially observed. Be it a new application, the reason why it works, a broader scope, or narrower focus, the Bible continues to astonish me as it shows me how to be a counselor and how people work.
Psychologically, I am a cognitive-behaviorist. I'll just say this now to get it out of the way. I believe most everything concerning the beliefs of Freud is fiction. It is only seen as "literature" in the psychological world, not fact. Before approaching this blog, remove all you may think you know about Freud; it will be of little use, application, or help to you at any point tin your life. More specifically, I consider myself a student of Dr. William Glasser and his theoretical perspective known as "Choice Theory," and its therapy component "Reality Therapy" as my choice perspectives, for more info on these topics, Google them or read a paper I wrote on Choice Theory compared to the most popular Marital Therapy used today. you can read that paper by clicking here.
Theologically, I historically come from a Southern Baptist background, but more recently, my theological doctrines have shifted somewhat. I consider myself a Reformed Evangelical Conservative-Charismatic Protestant. More specifically, I am a 5-point Calvinist, post-millenialist, old-earth theologian and believer in the present full workings of the Holy Spirit and that Salvation is given freely by God through faith alone in only Jesus and not of works. For more on these things, Google them, check out the links on the sidebar, or just read the Book of Romans. Better yet, just read your Bible. For those who know of John Piper's ministry I consider myself a strong Christian Hedonist. For those that haven't heard of John Piper, either find out what that phrase means on his website (www.desiringgod.org), or don't get hung up on it, just pass right by it.
I know this is long and very few will actually read it, but for the few that do, I thank you; and I hope, and pray, that it was an enlightening and fruitful journey through the necessary drudgery of presenting myself as open and honest and laid bare so everyone will know what is coming.
Next post, we will actually start getting into the meat of it all. I must warn you: some days may just be a little ditty, others may be an entire psychotheological treatise, I don't know. Just stick with me, as it is going to be good . . .
In Him always,
--Paul<>
I am currently a student at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA. After this (of course, all this is God willing), I plan on pursuing a Masters of Psychology and/or Masters of Divinity. Other options are Masters in either Counseling or Marital and Family Therapy from a Seminary. Then, the plan is to return to VCU to earn my Doctorate of Counsleing Psychology. After that, I hope to take a stint as a missionary for a few years. Upon return, I'd like to start a corporation dealing with providing all facets of society with Psychological Services. This corporation will take a three-pronged approach to affecting society and culture in positive ways. The first is a contracting branch where different places will contract out our psychologists and therapists to provide various services such as crisis counseling in schools, managerial training for corporate managers, rehab programs for prison systems and so on and so forth. The second branch will be the counseling branch. This will be held at every central office with clear, easy to find pricing that will be low, and carry certain concessions for those with certain financial burdens. I want to make healthy psychological counseling available to all people, no matter race, class, social status, religion, or economic state. The offices will have individual, couples, family, and group therapy always available. The last branch will be a training hospital to help deal with more psychopathology and train p and coming psychologists in the skills necessary. This branch will hopefully be associated with nearby universities for internship opportunities and be a way that we could find promising therapists to bring into our company. This is my personal dream; on to the standardized big worded categorizations of myself . . .
When it comes to the "thinking perspectives", most people fall into one of three categories: philosopher, scholar, and scientist. Scientists need to prove things out in front of them in more concrete ways to draw conclusions. Scholars research what has been said and done before them in order to draw conclusions. Philosophers look at the world and through thinking and making connections draw conclusions. I am a philosopher-scholar. Philosopher, primarily as the bulk of this blog is dedicated to the conclusions I have seen, drawn out, applied, and seen connected in the world around me between the Bible and the human experience. Though this is my primary role, I am also a scholar to a certain extent. I have done (and continue to do) extensive research in the areas pertaining to psychotheology, first and foremost the "theology" part. I love the Bible, the Word of God, and know it has the answer to every human need and it has objectively expressed to us why we have those needs, what fulfills them, and how they get that way. In short, I feel I am a scholar of the Bible (in the ongoing verb sense, not "positionally" as if I am an expert) and have only become this way not from analyzing the Bible, but letting it analyze me. I also read other books. Many, many other books. These books help integrate the Word of God into the world around me in certain ways that helps in forming my ideas on psychotheology.
My philosophical perspective is Biblical Pragmatism. The easiest way to describe pragmatism is the view that "hey, whatever works, works." For example: What psychological perspective is correct? Which ever one "works"in therapy and explains the greatest amount of human behavior. Now, the "biblical" part comes in the fact that I have seen and I believe the Bible testifies to the fact that it is what "works" in this world. My pragmatism always seems to support my Bible. That is not my standard, it is just reality. I don't use my experience to validate the Bible; I use the Bible to validate my experiences. And you know what? That "works." Every psychological thing that I have seen that "works" I see is supported and validated in the Bible. I then use this to look and see what more the Bible says in the context of this specific truth and helps broaden the scope of the psychological truth I initially observed. Be it a new application, the reason why it works, a broader scope, or narrower focus, the Bible continues to astonish me as it shows me how to be a counselor and how people work.
Psychologically, I am a cognitive-behaviorist. I'll just say this now to get it out of the way. I believe most everything concerning the beliefs of Freud is fiction. It is only seen as "literature" in the psychological world, not fact. Before approaching this blog, remove all you may think you know about Freud; it will be of little use, application, or help to you at any point tin your life. More specifically, I consider myself a student of Dr. William Glasser and his theoretical perspective known as "Choice Theory," and its therapy component "Reality Therapy" as my choice perspectives, for more info on these topics, Google them or read a paper I wrote on Choice Theory compared to the most popular Marital Therapy used today. you can read that paper by clicking here.
Theologically, I historically come from a Southern Baptist background, but more recently, my theological doctrines have shifted somewhat. I consider myself a Reformed Evangelical Conservative-Charismatic Protestant. More specifically, I am a 5-point Calvinist, post-millenialist, old-earth theologian and believer in the present full workings of the Holy Spirit and that Salvation is given freely by God through faith alone in only Jesus and not of works. For more on these things, Google them, check out the links on the sidebar, or just read the Book of Romans. Better yet, just read your Bible. For those who know of John Piper's ministry I consider myself a strong Christian Hedonist. For those that haven't heard of John Piper, either find out what that phrase means on his website (www.desiringgod.org), or don't get hung up on it, just pass right by it.
I know this is long and very few will actually read it, but for the few that do, I thank you; and I hope, and pray, that it was an enlightening and fruitful journey through the necessary drudgery of presenting myself as open and honest and laid bare so everyone will know what is coming.
Next post, we will actually start getting into the meat of it all. I must warn you: some days may just be a little ditty, others may be an entire psychotheological treatise, I don't know. Just stick with me, as it is going to be good . . .
In Him always,
--Paul<>
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Introduction to Biblical Psychology
Okay, so this site has been up for a while with no update whatsoever. Well, here it is. In this post, I desire to provide a brief introduction to what I want from this blog.
My goal is to use this blog to help formulate a systematic biblical integrated model of what I call "psychotheology": the study of God through the way he has formed the psychologies of human beings.
My hope is that this blog can later help give me a systematic approach to this topic that can then be turned into a book for later publication. As stated in the subtitle of this blog, the psychotheology of human beings will be studied in five broad categories: General psychology of humans, behavior, relationships, psychopathology, and psychological counseling. These will be studied using three perspectives.
The first is the internal perspective. From this view I hope to provide insites on the psychological make up of human beings independent of those entities without it and focus on the entities within it. From here philosophical topics may include: the source of right and wrong in the hearts and minds of humans, the desire for satiability and satisfaction, and how humans view themselves. Specifically psychological topics may include: psychopathology (orgins, duration, factors involved, treatment), Perception, Cognitive worldviews, self-"esteem", development, morality. In short, this will be studying how the human mind itself works.
Second is the human-relational perspective. As the name implies, its focus will be human psychology as expressed through interaction with other humans. Topics may include: Attraction, male-female psychology, aggression, marriage, divorce, societal roles, and race relations. From this perspective, the scope may perhaps be broadened to include some sociological analyses including politics, ethics, policing, welfare, warfare, and biblical opinions of afforementioned topics.
Lastly, but certainly not least is the deific-relational perspective. (By the way, on a side note; all of the little "names" and titles I am giving to these various topics and ideas, are open to change. I am opening this blog to all comments not only for commonets on my thougts, but even on the system used to present them, including the names.) As the name imlies, this will study psychotheology in the interaction of God and man. This will be explored through topics such as: conversion, sustained conversion (who does it, is it possible to lose), perception of God, worship, subsequent worldview changes after a conversion, self-fulfillment, view of self in light of God, loci of control, and prayer.
I hope to come up with a color-coded system where I can provide the topic to be discussed in the color of the category it falls in. The categories are the five found in the subtitle mentioned above:
-- General psychology of humans
-- Behavior
-- Relationships
-- Psychopathology
-- Psychological counseling
Each on of these will have a different color. For example, let's say the color for "Relationships" was blue. If I wanted to talk about divorce and its effects, the title of my post would be
Dicorce: ramifications and implications
I hope this piques the interests of those who venture here by accident or on purpose. I also hope this will be a long and fruitful journey that changes my life and the lives of others and will lead to healthier, happier, more God-glorifying living. Lastly, I hope this can be a place where beelievers and non-believers in the God of Christainity can come and share ideas, comments, concerns, argurments, or questions.
God has been forming these ideas in my mind for a long while now, and this is the forum He has led me to so as to express them effectively and efficiently.
On our next episode: I will give a brief summary of myself. What I have to say, the perspectives I come from saying it (both theological and psychological), why I think I have the right to say it, and why you should listen.
God bless.
--Paul<>
My goal is to use this blog to help formulate a systematic biblical integrated model of what I call "psychotheology": the study of God through the way he has formed the psychologies of human beings.
My hope is that this blog can later help give me a systematic approach to this topic that can then be turned into a book for later publication. As stated in the subtitle of this blog, the psychotheology of human beings will be studied in five broad categories: General psychology of humans, behavior, relationships, psychopathology, and psychological counseling. These will be studied using three perspectives.
The first is the internal perspective. From this view I hope to provide insites on the psychological make up of human beings independent of those entities without it and focus on the entities within it. From here philosophical topics may include: the source of right and wrong in the hearts and minds of humans, the desire for satiability and satisfaction, and how humans view themselves. Specifically psychological topics may include: psychopathology (orgins, duration, factors involved, treatment), Perception, Cognitive worldviews, self-"esteem", development, morality. In short, this will be studying how the human mind itself works.
Second is the human-relational perspective. As the name implies, its focus will be human psychology as expressed through interaction with other humans. Topics may include: Attraction, male-female psychology, aggression, marriage, divorce, societal roles, and race relations. From this perspective, the scope may perhaps be broadened to include some sociological analyses including politics, ethics, policing, welfare, warfare, and biblical opinions of afforementioned topics.
Lastly, but certainly not least is the deific-relational perspective. (By the way, on a side note; all of the little "names" and titles I am giving to these various topics and ideas, are open to change. I am opening this blog to all comments not only for commonets on my thougts, but even on the system used to present them, including the names.) As the name imlies, this will study psychotheology in the interaction of God and man. This will be explored through topics such as: conversion, sustained conversion (who does it, is it possible to lose), perception of God, worship, subsequent worldview changes after a conversion, self-fulfillment, view of self in light of God, loci of control, and prayer.
I hope to come up with a color-coded system where I can provide the topic to be discussed in the color of the category it falls in. The categories are the five found in the subtitle mentioned above:
-- General psychology of humans
-- Behavior
-- Relationships
-- Psychopathology
-- Psychological counseling
Each on of these will have a different color. For example, let's say the color for "Relationships" was blue. If I wanted to talk about divorce and its effects, the title of my post would be
Dicorce: ramifications and implications
I hope this piques the interests of those who venture here by accident or on purpose. I also hope this will be a long and fruitful journey that changes my life and the lives of others and will lead to healthier, happier, more God-glorifying living. Lastly, I hope this can be a place where beelievers and non-believers in the God of Christainity can come and share ideas, comments, concerns, argurments, or questions.
God has been forming these ideas in my mind for a long while now, and this is the forum He has led me to so as to express them effectively and efficiently.
On our next episode: I will give a brief summary of myself. What I have to say, the perspectives I come from saying it (both theological and psychological), why I think I have the right to say it, and why you should listen.
God bless.
--Paul<>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)