Sproul on Reconciliation

I recently picked up a copy of R.C. Sproul’s book The Hunger for Significance: Seeing the image of God in Man. I bought it in preparation for attending Ligonier Ministry’s national conference. Unfortunately, as with most conferences and events in March, it was cancelled and the lectures were moved online. I was thankful to still listen to the speakers, even if not all of the scheduled topics happened.

But this book by Sproul, which I didn’t even know about until right before the conference, is a pleasant surprise. I’m partway through chapter 2 and am stuck by how Sproul talks about the word reconciliation. On page 63 he writes:

Reconciliation means bringing people together in peace – people who were once estranged from each other. Estrangement is the one indispensable ingredient for reconciliation, for without it no reconciliation is needed. Estrangement is the shattering blow that makes reconciliation necessary if peace is to be achieved and love restored.
R.C. Sproul

I don’t think I’ve thought of it that way, that estrangement is the thing reconciliation addresses in relationships. Sproul goes on to say that Christ’s mission as “made necessary by human estrangement” (p.64). Humanity’s alienation exists on three levels, he writes:

In the first instance, man is alienated from God. I note second instance, man is alienated from his fellow man. In the third instance, man is alienated from himself.
R.C. Sproul

I’ve read a number of existential psychologists and psychotherapists who say basically the same thing. Even many attachment theorists and therapists would see something similar about the human condition and the seriousness of estrangement’s impact in relationships. I think there’s a lot of common ground between Reformed theologians and some schools of psychology when it comes to exploring alienation, reconciliation, the imago dei and human nature.

Bowlby on Parenting

I’m just a few pages into John Bowlby’s book A Secure Base. Here’s a nice quote on his view of parenting:

“This brings me to a central feature of my concept of parenting – the provision by both parents of a secure base from which a child or an adolescent can make sorts into the outside world and to which he can return knowing for sure that he will be welcomed when he gets there, nourished physically and emotionally, comforted if distressed, reassured if frightened. In essence this role is one of being available, ready to respond when called upon to encourage and perhaps assist, but intervene actively only when clearly necessary. In tase respects it is a role similar to that of the officer commanding a military base from which an expeditionary force sets out and to which hit can retreat, should it meet with a setback. Much of the time the role of the base is a waiting one but it is not the less vital for that. For it is only when the officer commanding the expeditionary force is confident his base is secure that he dare press forward and take risks.” – John Bowlby (p.11)

I like Bowlby’s comparison to a secure base of operations from which an expedition head out. Some of my clients in the military have mentioned that this makes good sense to them as well.

Common Grace & Imaging God

I’m just finishing up reading Michael Horton’s book “Where in the World is the Church?” and I’m one chapter into Berkouwer’s book Man: The Image of God. I love how Berkouwer quotes so many respected theologians as he makes his argument for how to understand the meaning and implications of the Imago Dei. I can’t say yet if I think Berkouwer agrees with Horton, but I can say that Horton connects two concepts (common grace and imaging God) when he discusses how Christians should view their vocation and work.

Here’s how Horton connects these two concepts at the end of the book on p. 199:

“But as God gave wisdom to Daniel to understand secular literature and philosophy, so He graciously gives His common grace to all men and women bearing His image. It is not saving knowledge or saving wisdom, but it is a gift of the Holy Spirit nonetheless. Apart from this work of the Spirit in creation and providence, the world would be ugly, tyrannical, unjust, and unhappy – with absolutely no insight, education, laughter, pleasure, delight, or singing.
By seeking the interests of our clients or constituents and not using our job or office as a bully-pulpit for our faith, we will win the respect of outsiders – and this, according to the apostle Paul, is a noble goal. By pursuing excellence in art and music, if that is our calling, and not using our crafts merely as a means of preaching, teaching, evangelizing, o rebuking, we bring a smile to the face of the God who created beauty and pleasure as acceptable in its own right.”
Michael Horton

I think that’s a great encouragement for laypersons like myself who need to be reminded from time to time that God is pleased by our work in this common grace era.

Perspective

In the book “Where in the World is the Church?,” Michael Horton writes:

“God adds to the comfort of saving grace the blessing of common grace. As we have already seen, common grace is God’s temporal restraint of both human wickedness and His own wrath that must eventually set things straight. In this present evil age, ‘He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous,’ and requires us to have the same mind. (Matthew 5:45).
This means that if God, being righteous, can endure the evil of our own hearts as His children, much less the rebellion of unbelievers, then surely we, being unrighteous, must bear the unbelief and wickedness of our neighbors and co-workers. This does not mean that we never raise our voices against unbelief and vice, but it does mean that God’s common grace is sufficient for building a common civilization and working together side by side wit those who do not share our beliefs, convictions, attitudes, or worldview.”
Michael Horton, (P. 147)

I found this portion of his book so encouraging. I certainly hope that I remain open to all the good common grace ideas that people come up with in my profession. I have no problem throwing out bad ideas; I think sometimes it’s harder to remain open to good and workable ideas.

What is Love

In the 1990’s when I was in high school, What is Love, was a song by Haddaway, but today I’m thinking about the definition I just read from psychologist Sue Johnson’s book Created for Connection. She writes on page 22:

We now know that love is, in actuality, the most compelling survival mechanism of the human species….because love drives us to boondoggled emotionally with a precious few others who offer us safe haven from the storms of life. Love is our bulwark, designed to provide emotional protection so we can cope with the ups and downs of existence. As Mozart noted, “Love guards the heart from the abyss.” We are relational beings. God created us for relationship with Himself and with others. We are created for connection. This drive to emotionally attach – to find someone to whom we can turn and say “Hold me tight” – is write into our mind, sou, and spirit. It is as basic to life, health, and happiness as the drives for food, shelter, and sex.”

I really like that explanation of what is love. I would go so far as to say that I think that Attachment theory, which is what Sue is talking about, is as close to being a “good and necessary inference deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1.6) from the realm of psychology as I think of. As a Reformed Christian, that’s where my mind went as I read Sue’s description of love; I kept thinking of how the Biblical text describes love in a very complementary way. I’m going to process this some more and hopefully write more thoughts soon about love from these two perspectives.

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?

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.

J. V. Fesko on Light of Nature

I’m halfway through J.V. Fesko’s new book Reforming Apologetics and it is inspiring quite a few thoughts on why psychological knowledge is important for followers of Christ. As I work through that in future posts, I did want to post a link to a recent lecture by Dr. Fesko summarizing his book.

Dr. J. V. Fesko on Apologetics and the Light of Nature

I’m new to studying apologetics, so for me this was fascinating. I hope you like it too.

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.