Thoughts precede actions.
Our thoughts regarding “who we are” have the power to determine our behavior. Typically, we try to act in ways that are consistent with our vision of “who we are.”
If we believe we are spiritual beings that join Christ in the afterlife, we act in a manner consistent with gospel teachings; we do not join a satanic cult. When our actions do not match our self-identity and/or our social identity, we tend to be seen as unpredictable or confused, maybe even dangerous and untrustworthy.
In most instances, the mismatch between identity and actions are subtle. Internal contradictions escape notice, as we consciously or unconsciously sculpt incompatible thoughts into seamless narratives. We employ creative storytelling and twisted logic to skirt the discomfort of conflicting thoughts. Unfortunately, artifacts of such illogical inner scripts slip into our words and actions. Our integrity suffers a thousand small cracks.
This is especially true when we mix two disciplines built on conflicting foundational views of the nature of man, such as psychology and religion. When we mix “apples and oranges” our thoughts become conflicted. We suffer inner turmoil and fail to recognize its source.
In this example, we find that psychology, since the late 19th century, has been based on the premise that man is solely and entirely a biological organism. The most vibrant and active sub-discipline in the profession today is evolutionary psychology, which formalizes the view developed in the late 1800’s—that all thoughts, emotions, aspirations, views, and qualities are epiphenomena of biological processes. They all arise out of a neurochemical soup. This view denies the existence of the soul.
The Christian faith, in contrast, contends man is a spiritual being. Men and women of faith believe they will experience an afterlife as a soul. At the core of our faith is a belief in the resurrection of Christ and an acceptance of his promise of eternal life, spelled out in the Nicene Creed.
When we closely inspect the premises of modern psychology and the premises of religion, we discover two conflicting sets of fundamental principles that cannot be reconciled. One view or the other reflects the actual nature of reality, but not both.
However, we rarely inspect the root premises. We remain unaware of the profound contradiction. Our attention becomes stuck far above the ground in the branches, leaves, and fruit of a particular tree of thought. Nonetheless, no matter how far up the branches one travels the nature of the roots at the foundation determines the nature of the fruit harvested.
In our ongoing attempt to alleviate the discomfort of contradictory thoughts we may attempt to “integrate” opposing disciplines, but the result is rarely satisfactory as, no matter how hard we try, we cannot integrate the foundations: either we are forever constrained by the limits of our biology or, as spiritual beings, we transcend biology to experience an afterlife.
Attempts to overlook the differences result in unworkable hybrids. In many cases, psychologists claim they are not hostile to religion, defining it as a harmless delusion that possesses positive evolutionary value. They embrace religious “myths” while discrediting their veracity. They argue that belief in “myth” does not require mental health treatment as long as moderation in belief is observed and the religious person recognizes religion’s inherently mythical nature. In other words, it is relatively harmless for us to imagine things that are not factual but that make us feel good.
At the same time, some within the faith community echo the narrative and advocate evolutionary or integral Christianity, retaining some aspects of the faith while downgrading supernatural tenets to the status of helpful myths. In many cases, psychologists working within faith groups promote this narrative. The resulting changes place increased emphasis on social programs and alliances with social science initiatives. It is not uncommon, for example, to find advertisements in church bulletins placed by mental health advocacy groups funded by pharmaceutical companies promoting psychological or psychiatric services, especially for children.
The tension caused by the two trees of thought, each with different roots, can be seen at the cultural as well as individual level. In his article “Europe’s Crisis of Culture” Pope Benedict XVI discusses the decline of faith in the face of Enlightenment rationality, a movement best represented by psychologists’ opinions regarding the nature of man. The Pope describes the outcome:
…the splendor of being an image of God no longer shines over man, which is what confers on him his dignity and inviolability, and he is left only to the power of his own human capacities.”
It is easy to imagine Pope Benedict stepping back to view the entire tree and noticing the contradiction:
…it is necessary to say that in Europe a culture has developed that constitutes the absolutely most radical contradiction not only of Christianity but of the religious and moral traditions of humanity.”
The culture of psychology dictates the narrative regarding “who we are.“ Benedict clearly sees the Enlightenment narrative typical of the psychology profession:
Next to this [Enlightenment] culture, then, different religious cultures can coexist with their respective rights, on the condition and to the degree in which they respect the criteria of Enlightenment culture and are subordinated to it.”
This sentiment, translated loosely into the imagined words of a psychologist, might read as follows: “Your faith satisfies deep psychological needs, therefore, hold on to your beliefs, but at the same time recognize those beliefs are myths designed (by evolution) to make you feel good. Do not expect others to believe in the veracity of the myths but, as long as you remain moderate in your beliefs, realizing they cannot be verified by science, you will be judged well-adjusted.” In other words, as long as your religious culture is subservient to the Enlightenment culture of materialistic psychology, go ahead and believe what you want.
The preceding characterization is overly broad: the message is more often implied rather than stated. And yet the message cannot be other than as paraphrased above, as the roots of modern psychological thought dictate that one must dismiss the idea that man is a spiritual being who experiences an afterlife.
This conflict between psychology and religion, arising from the clash between their respective fundamental premises, reaches a pinnacle when a priest trains as a psychologist. He is forced to justify two contradictory systems of thought in his mind and in his ministry.
Ordinarily, the psychologist priest remains in the branches, far above the ground, attempting to weave an internal narrative that integrates the two disciplines. As a result, he risks appearing confused or lukewarm in his faith. Criticism of “sixties” priests steeped in pop psychology may actually be an unwitting response by observers to such unresolved internal conflict.
There is also a potential risk that the secularization taking place in Europe will be repeated in the minds of individual priest psychologists. The priest trying to reconcile the opposing principles, which are at war in his mind, ends up entangled in the struggle: basic tenets of faith are constantly under siege and subject to doubt.
This inner conflict manifests in subtle ways. For example, it may result in a priest becoming uncomfortable when he is called upon to visit the terminally ill or to preside over funerals. If his certainty of belief in the afterlife has been rocked by the tenets of psychology, which argue there is no afterlife, he may find it difficult to profess such beliefs while working with parishioners undergoing difficult end-of-life transitions.
Rarely does the hyphenate priest realize that resolution of the conflict, internal and external, demands a thorough investigation of the root premises of the disciplines. Fundamental principles must be inspected. The priest must investigate the nature of the nutrition that rises from the roots into the trunk, into the branches, and ultimately into the fruit. Will a tree of thought rooted in the materialistic premises of psychology bear fruit of wisdom? Will the fruit prove healthy for the faithful or will it make them ill?
When we inspect foundations, we find irreconcilable differences. We face a choice: we must choose one discipline or the other. We must prune the growth from one tree so it does not strangle the other. And we must separate the two contradictory disciplines so our faith may grow strong.
When conflict unsettles our thoughts about “who we are” in our most essential nature, we can expect conflict to spread to our actions and our relationships. In order to resolve the conflict, we must seek to maintain clarity regarding our fundamental premises and principles. We must maintain healthy roots.
This is a powerful message and one that everyone of faith would be wise to ponder seriously.
Article that asks if we are exporting our cultural view of mental illness to other cultures, along with the drugs we sell to address those “illnesses.”
http://christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8585