Category: Integration

Assurance

I was reading the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 18.3 this week and I found myself reflecting on the similarity between A Christian’s assurance of salvation and the attachment science’s concept secure attachment. Here’s what the Modern English Version of the most relevant portion of 18.3 says:

“because [the Christian] is enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given to him by God, he may—without any extraordinary revelation—attain this assurance by a proper use of the ordinary means. It is therefore the duty of everyone to be very diligent in making certain that God has called and chosen him. By such diligence his heart may grow in peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties which obedience to God requires—the proper fruits of this assurance.

Within the Reformed Christian tradition, the assurance of salvation is a core doctrine. When I study the WCF I do so reading the confession along with Chad Van Dixhoorn’s commentary Confessing the Faith: A reader’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Van Dixhoorn notes on p.231, in contrast to the Reformed tradition, “some people and some traditions worry that if we are sure about our salvation, we will live carelessly – that we will ‘continue in sin so that grace may abound’ (Rom. 6:1-2),” where as with believers who embrace assurance of salvation, “the truth is that children of God are stronger and more cheerful in their obedience when they delight in the love of their Father.”

Van Dixhoorn goes on to quote two Puritans, Thomas Brooks and Thomas Watson to reinforce the logic of assurance of salvation as a biblical doctrine that properly enhances security for believers rather than excuses antinominianism. Here are the quotes from p. 232 of his book:

“As the old Puritan Thomas Brooks once said, ‘the being in a state of grace will yield a man heaven hereafter, but ether seeing of himself in this state will yield him both a heaven here and a heaven hereafter’. Or as Thomas Watson explained, ‘it puts a man in heaven before his time’. What these two friends of assembly members had to say was probably learned by considering what the Apostle John wanted his readers to see: if we have fellowship with christ, then we find ourselves walking ‘in the light, as he is in the light’; we discoed that ‘we have fellowship with one another’; and we rejoice for evermore that ‘ the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin’ (1 John 1:6,7).

This seems very close to what we in mental health call secure attachment with an available other – parent, spouse or spiritual being. Secure attachment is simply the idea that humans are wired to seek safe and reliable bonds with other humans, so much so, that without adequately secure bonds in relationships, humans begin to decline and develop symptoms consistent with mental disorders like depression and anxiety.

The primary difference as I see between assurance of salvation and secure attachment is that the latter does not guarantee union with Christ, but the former, as far as WCF 18.3 seems to suggest, is the duty of the believer to pursue and know with certainty his or her secure bond with God. I think that is how a Christian can could use psychological language to convey that he or she appropriately and rightly draws from one’s faith in God, union with Christ, and fellowship with the Holy Spirit in daily living. I see secure attachment as a most fully experienced by those who have faith in Christ, but thankfully, also is one of God’s common grace mechanisms available to all people simply because it is biologically wired into all people.

Rollo May on Human Beings

Rollo May published the first book on counseling in the United States. It is called The Art of Counseling. I got the Revised Edition while I was a graduate student in clinical psychology. From time to time I revisit this classic work. It is existentially profound, yet also simple in its approach.

As I’ve been focusing on how Reformed Theologians describe the meaning behind the biblical concept of the imago dei from Genesis 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them,” I started thinking about how someone like Rollo May would think about what is foundational about being human. Here is how May begins his book The Art of Counseling, Revised Edition:

“What is a human being? Here our constructive discussion must begin, for the effectiveness of counseling with human beings depends upon our understanding of what those human beings really are. A man is more than his body, more than his job, more than his social position, and a woman is more than a mother, more than her attractiveness, or her work. These are but aspects through which they express themselves. The totality of this expression is the external mirror of that inner structure which we call, somewhat vaguely, ‘personality.’

….For the sake of clarity let us state our conclusion before we begin; namely, that personality is characterized by freedom, individuality, social integration, and religious tension. These are the four principles, as the following discussion will indicate, that are essential to human personality. To make a more complete definition, it could be stated that personality is an actualization of the life process in a free individual who is socially integrated and is aware of spirit.”

Rollo May, (p.13-14)

In a future post I will probably compare Rollo May’s four principles for counselors to ideas from orthodox Christianity that are based in the imago dei and God’s intention for his image bearers, before and after the fall.

Image of God and Attachment

I recently picked up Sue Johnson’s couples therapy book for Christians. It’s called Created for Connection. In the introduction Sue makes an interesting statement about the purpose of romantic love that reminded me of what I’ve been reading in various systematic theologies of the meaning of the phrase “image of God” or in latin “imago dei.” She writes:

“Emotional bonding is a wired-in survival code designed to keep loved ones close so that they will be there when we are in need. In order to truly thrive, we all need someone to depend on, a loved one who can offer reliable emotional connection and comfort. This partnership is the natural antidote to humanity’s greatest pain: being alone in the face of the uncertainty of life.”

Sue Johnson, (p. 6)

I see a striking similarity between how attachment theorists describe the core of both human identity and survival strategies as interpersonal in nature and how Michael Horton describes being “made in the image of God” according to Genesis 1:26 in his book Pilgrim Theology. He writes:

“God created us as covenant servants, and we will see the close connection between covenant and the ‘image of God’ below….The image of God (imago dei) is not something in us that is semi divine but something between us and God that constitutes a covenantal relationship. ‘The whole being, the whole human person and not just ‘something’ in us is the image of God,’ notes Bavinck. ‘Thus, a human being does not bear or have the image of God but is the image of God.'”

Michael Horton, (p.123)

Horton goes on to focus on the interpersonal aspect of image bearing that makes humans different from all other creatures. For Horton, “What defines human personhood, on this account, is not so much what happens within the self (i.e. the relation and ranking of faculties), or in the cycles of nature, but what happens between persons (God and human beings) in history” (p. 124). I like this focus because it seems to parallel what attachment theories are also getting at, that a primary thing about humans is their nature as relational beings. It is not a perfect comparison, and I definitely see that. The imago dei also includes much more than defining humans as relational, but it is not less than that. Horton concludes his explanation of the interpersonal aspect of the imago dei by saying, “This covenantal relationship is not something added to human nature, but is essential to it. To exist as human beings is not to be a ‘thinking thing,’ a disembodied and unrelated ego, but is already to be enmeshed in a web of relationships: a society” (p.124).

The other aspect of the imago dei that Horton and another favorite theologian of mine, R.C. Sproul, point out is the consequence of being created as a covenantal creature of God. They both point out that being made in God image also means we were intended to represent God as his vice-regents on earth to the rest of creation. Sproul puts it this way in his systematic theology Everyone’s a Theologian:

“Of all the creatures in the world, human beings are given a unique responsibility, and wit that responsibility is a corresponding ability. Part of the uniqueness of the human race is the mission we have received from God to be His representatives to the rest of creation, to reflect the very character of God….I am convinced that what we find in the image is a unique ability to mirror the character of God such that the rest o the world should be able to look at humans and say, ‘That gives us an idea of what God is like.'”

R. C. Sproul, (p.103)

I find it helpful to be reminded of God’s intention with mankind, even if our fallenness through Adam’s rebellion and sin has corrupted our imaging nature. In a society so confused about issues of identity and personhood, returning to the imago dei for guidance is so important. It reminds me of how Sue Johnson described a letter she received from a Catholic priest she met while in college. She writes how Father Storey responded to her work on attachment theory by writing her a letter ” describing his bond with God and how his closeness to Christ was his home and safe haven. He urged me to remember that Christians have always referred to God as an attachment figure, as the ‘Heavenly Father'” (p.7).

Justification and a Secure Base?

Michelangelo – Creation of Adam

Chapter 13 of Michael Horton’s systematic theology Pilgrim Theology starts by comparing the Roman Catholic and evangelical understandings of justification. In the appendix Horton defines justification as the Christian doctrine where the elect are “declared righteous even while they are in themselves unrighteous. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them.” So basically, justification is the legal means by which sinful people who are rescued by God gain a status as righteous instead of what we’re born with, which is the status of condemned. Protestants and Catholics disagree about how one is made righteous, or justified before God (In fact, that a main reason behind the reformation).

Horton writes, “Whereas Rome maintains that God’s justifying verdict is a future reward for our faithful cooperation, evangelical faith teaches that this verdict is the present gift that motivates our faithful response. We do not work for a secure future, but from a secure present” (p.303).

As I read this, I immediately had to stop because it reminded me so strongly of how attachment theorists describe the innate human need to find security and safe haven in relationships. According to attachment theorists, when humans cannot find that they become dis-regulated and develop what are commonly called mental disorders.

Susan Johnson describes three of the 10 core tenants of attachment theory and science this way:

“Predictable physical and/or emotional connection with an attachment figure, often a parent, sibling, longtime close friend, mate, or spiritual figure, calms the nervous system and shapes a physical and mental sense of a safe haven where comfort and reassurance can be reliably obtained and emotional balance can be restored or enhanced. The responsiveness of others, especially when we are young, tunes the nervous system to be less sensitive to threat and creates expectations of a relatively safe and manageable world….

This emotional balance promotes the development of a grounded, positive, and integrated sense of self and the ability or organize inner experience into a coherent whole….

A felt sense of being able to depend on a loved one creates a secure base – a platform from which to move out into the world, take risks, and explore and develop a sense of competence and autonomy. Thise effective dependency is a source of strength and resilience, while the denial of attachment needs and pseudo self-sufficiency are liabilities.”

Susan Johnson, Attachment Theory in Practice (p.7)

It strikes me as quite interesting to think about the way our nervous system functions, as needing a secure base and safe haven in order to function well in this challenging world. Another way to put it is how St. Augustine did in his autobiography Confessions, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

I think Horton is reminding me that when we talk about justification and sanctification, for the Christian, we are talking about a status change before God (justification) and the experience of that status in our lives (sanctification) as a secure base and safe haven for life. I think much of attachment theory is a common grace secular way of talking about temporal need that all humans have because we are image bearers of God. Attachment science can help us understand how our biology is designed to help us respond best to our fallen world by clinging to the eternal truth in scripture of certain security for those who belong to God, those who cling to Christ by faith.

Why Reflect Theologically as a Therapist

Theology is part of our work because we are Christians who counsel. According to Grenz and Olson, we step into theological arenas whenever we discuss questions of ultimacy. This includes questions about God, ultimate meaning and life’s purpose. While few clients seek out licensed professional counselors, marriage and family therapists, social workers, or psychologists to discuss their questions about God (pastoral counselors may see this more often), many clients’ concerns revolve around issues of meaning and purpose.

Virginia Todd Holeman in Theology for Better Counseling

I most definitely am a Christian who counsels. In the quote above Virginia Holeman is referring to theologians Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson in their book Who Needs Theology? I think Holeman has a very good point. Theological reflection and competence as a clinician better prepares one to assist any client who is working through issues about meaning and purpose. Anyone who’s ever worked with a grieving client knows that theology is everywhere in the office as we heal from loss. But even beyond grief, I find the client existential concerns often demand that I return to Rollo May or Irvin Yalom for direction in the therapeutic task. For a Christian, I think such work is clearly theological and now I am finding good reason to seek direction from Reformed natural theology as well.

I’m beginning to think that the theological reflection of classic Reformed Theologians on what are called “common notions” in natural theology is where I will find more help in serving my clients who are working with me to address concerns of meaning and purpose. (If I really thought about it, meaning and purpose is common among most of my clients, ever). When a Reformed theologian like J. V. Fesko or Francis Turretin speak of common notions, they are talking about the innate natural knowledge of God that all people possess. This knowledge fleshes itself out in general morality, restraining of sin and God’s creation as proving his divine existence and eternal power (Rom. 1:20). If common notions were a realm, I think much of modern psychology lives and operates in it as a discipline dedicated to helping people adjust better to the challenges and struggles of life.

At this point in my study of natural theology and its common notions, I think that my theological reflection will include remind myself that scripture itself encourages followers of Christ to engage with their community about issues addressing common notions. Everyone is dealing with the consequences of sin, moral violation and the desire for safety and security.

In a future post I hope to dive more deeply into the two primary scriptural texts that Reformed theologians reference when defending the use of common notions, Romans 1:19-20 and Romans 2:14-15.

The Book of Nature

Psalm 8 is a favorite of mine, especially verses 3 & 4: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (ESV)

This entire Psalm reminded me of the book by J.V. Fesko entitled Reforming Apologetics. Fesko believes that the “book of nature” is an important apologetic for Christians to use when defending their faith. The reason I mention this is because I am just now learning what that term along with it’s synonyms like “natural theology,” “natural law,” “the light of nature,” and “common notions” all mean. I am far from an expert on apologetics.

As I’ve been reading through the first chapters of Fesko’s book, my mind keeps going back to Reformed ideas about common grace and then to where the helping professions of psychology fit into God’s patience with and care for mankind. I think Fesko would define the book of nature or the light of nature as the innate and acquired knowledge of God that all humans possess because they are made in the image of God, their creator. Human reason, one’s conscience, and observations of the created world are what comprise this book of nature. To study innate and acquired knowledge of God would be to study natural theology. For the Reformed, this knowledge is not as clear or as the knowledge found is scripture, but the book of nature is complementary to it.

The point of all of this is that there is a rich Christian history of using what is common among Christians and non-Christians to point to God, to encourage healthy living and noble pursuits. As Fesko puts it in his introduction, “Common notions are a vital part of God’s natural revelation and thus fundamental to good theology. Believers and unbelievers have multiple points of contact, but among them are their shared common notions – the divinely inscribed innate natural knowledge of God” (p.7).

I look forward to working through more of my thoughts about common notions and the book of nature as it applies to mental health and appropriately using the wisdom God makes available to all people in a way that conforms to the wisdom that God’s people possess in Scripture. Fesko may be giving me a lens through which to better recognize the overlap as well as the points of discontinuity.

Ordinary is Good

I finished Michael Horton‘s book Ordinary today, so I wanted to share a short reflection on the final chapter in the book. The chapter begins with the statement that “everyone is driven in the present by an expectation of the future.” Horton then presents the view of life from the non-Christian perspective, “According to the spirit of our age, we came from nowhere and are going nowhere, but in between we can make something of ourselves.”

Horton’s perspective resonated with me. I see this sort of fatalistic, meaningless sense of life in many clients and most in my experience are quite anxious when they acknowledge the spirit of our age. Rollo May writes quite a lot about this sort of existential anxiety, so that’s where my mind when as I read Horton’s description of how people deal with going “nowhere” after death.

I interact with people every day in my work who are focused almost exclusively on the now. In fact, one could argue that much of my work as a therapist is very much about improving the present. I would say that what I’m doing with most clients is helping them to focus on improving the present in service of reconciling with their past and also better preparing them for the future. I know for certain that the changes my clients make, especially the couples, echo into future generations and impact anyone they are or become close with. At the same time, I’m not usually addressing spiritual concerns as directly as pastoral counselors or pastors, even with my clients who are followers of Christ. I often say, “people don’t show up in my office until things are very, very bad.” Usually I’m referring to their relationships with important others, so when I read Horton’s description of the common attitude toward life as in between life and death, “make something of ourselves,” I think of making meaningful healthy relationships. I know that many people aren’t thinking of relationships when they think of making something out of their life, but most of us who use attachment theory in therapy would argue that secure relationships are the highest priority for all humans and that is by design.

Horton contrasts the spirit of our age with two common types of gospel perversions “prosperity gospels” among Christians, neither of which is all that satisfying to its adherents. I find his description of these two options, even among believers, just as meaningful. He writes on page 205:

“There are two kinds of prosperity gospels. One promises personal health, wealth and happiness. Another promises social transformation. In both versions, the results are up to us. We bring God’s kingdom to earth, either to ourselves or to society, by following certain spiritual laws or moral and political agendas. Both forget that salvation comes from above, as a gift of God. Both forget that because we are baptized into Christ, the pattern of our lives is suffering leading to glory in that cataclysmic revolution that Christ will bring when he returns. Both miss the point that our lives and the world as they are now and are not as good as it gets. We do not have our best life or world now.”

Michael Horton – Ordinary

I find this quite comforting. But I also find the pilgrim perspective on life comforting. So maybe I’m prone to preferring Horton’s critique of “health and wealth narcissism” and his critique of “next big thing transformationalism.” Part of why I became a therapist is because I found working for positive change in the lives of a smaller number individuals much more fulfilling than working for change on a grander scale. I wanted to go deeper with people and I knew that meant less time for grand endeavors, especially if I wanted to preserve my marriage and have any meaningful role in raising my kids. At the same time, I don’t have a problem with others serving the common good in more systemic ways; in fact, I’m relieved that others have are good at that and find fulfillment in such work. At the same time, I also recognize I am somewhat biased against big things. I think this bias has only increased the longer I work primarily as a therapist. I’m moved by the struggle of families and individuals who have experienced their world and relationships fall apart and are suffering as a result.

I think that’s where attachment theory and Horton’s recommendations for Christians come together. Horton is making the case that some models of church unintentionally minimize or dismiss very effective means of connecting believers with God and with God’s people. If you’re a Christian and communion and baptism don’t mean that much to you, then I think you need to learn about those two means of grace so that they do mean much, much more to you. Those two sacraments along with the ministry of the Word (preaching) and meeting together with the community of faith are what Horton argues in his book are essential for Christian growth and fulfillment.

That is why I would say that reading Michael Horton’s book Ordinary has certainly helped me to more greatly respect the power and appreciate the depth of the ordinary means of grace that Christ has given his church. It has also reinforced my appreciation of attachment theory as so valuable in my vocation. There is so much encouragement and renewal in the ordinary activities of the church and the secure bond with God and his people that can be experienced there. I only wish it hadn’t taken me so long to realize that myself.