Positive Theology Informing Christian Positive Psychology

[C. Eric Jones, Ph.D., is the Director of Undergraduate Psychology and Associate Professor of Psychology at the Regent University School of Undergraduate Studies. Eric is our blogger for the month of June, and this is his fourth post.]

The past three blogs have discussed theology informing a Christian positive psychology. However, this week another dimension is added to the discussion. In the winter volume of the "Journal of Psychology and Christianity" Dr. Ellen Charry presents what she terms positive theology. A main message of the article is not all theology is helpful in creating Christian positive psychology due to an emphasis by some theologians on the more negative aspects of the human condition. The point here is not that a negative emphasis is wrong, but, just as in psychology, a more positive view of a concept brings to light different facets of the human person and experience. More on this in a moment.

One of my oversimplified take home messages from Charry's writing is that it is quite important to carefully think through to which particular theological writing one attends when attempting to base positive psychology on an explicitly theological foundation. In other words, just as in any scholarly writing one must review numerous perspectives on a topic before settling upon the proper beginning for a discussion. You might be asking yourself, why bring this point to my attention? Surely we all know not to run with the first idea that strikes us, right? Recognizing various disciplines are represented by the readers of this site, let me say my answer applies to all, but is particularly important for those of us in the field of psychology. In short, it is important to bring attention to the idea of careful assessment of theological perspectives because so many of us in psychology have no formal training in theology or related fields. The danger then is to use what limited theological understanding we already have and miss potentially rich creations because we did not dig deeply enough at the beginning. However, even theologians are not exempt from ignoring theology that is promising for establishing a Christian positive psychology. Though theologians may be aware of more perspectives concerning a single construct, they may be biased against certain useful perspectives and therefore the result may be the same. Whether out of ignorance or bias we may individually miss helpful ideas, suggesting collaboration as a hedge against these missteps.

I will not summarize Charry's article here, but her treatment of the sacraments' value in extending a Christian positive psychology is a fine example of the thinking in which we all should engage in this pursuit. She models for us how to compare various interpretations and choose ideas complementary to the building out of a Christian positive psychology. Above I mentioned adding another dimension to this week's discussion and in Charry's comparison of theological interpretations we see that new dimension. Not only do we see theology informing psychology, as in the previous weeks, but we also see psychology informing theology, although in a very general sense. She sees the need of positive psychology to bring a balance to the more pathology based side of the field as applying to theology also. Specifically, Charry states

"So too, the hope of positive theology is not to replace defect-based theology but to supply theological conversation about human strengths and abilities on which insights into defects (in theology's case, sin) may be put to constructive use and not be debilitating. It is the suggestion of thinking positively that is of interest here."

Just as in psychology when the focus of a study or theory is a deficiency of some sort, the weight of that deficiency can seem out of balance with what we know of human ability. In a similar way theology can at times emphasize the pathology associated with a concept to an extreme or at least to the exclusion in the same discussion of the more positive aspects of that concept. We would do well to consider Charry's framing of the idea.

"Theological psychology must address the perennial challenge of balancing talk of divine distress at human failing to promote realistic self-reflection...with talk of divine compassion that inspires genuine love for and trust in God not only as judge but also as friendly companion."

In closing allow me to offer three suggestions related to a Christian positive psychology. First, I hope you will think about how to collaborate with those in different fields, with different strengths, or with different perspectives in order to build a robust Christian positive psychology. Second, I hope you will share with us how specific theological perspectives may better inform a Christian positive psychology compared to other perspectives on the same concepts. Last, I hope you will consider attending the Society for Christian Psychology's conference on Christian Positive Psychology this October at Regent University (see Conference link on this site). In addition to Dr. Ellen Charry, an impressive list of speakers will present engaging and thoughtful topics and it will be a wonderful time to share with others interested in establishing healthy, positive living according to Christian precepts. Having followed positive psychology since its inception I can honestly say I am thrilled to see such a strong lineup of speakers address Christianity informing positive psychology. Please join us for a superb conference offering an excellent academic atmosphere and warm and satisfying fellowship.