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.

Belgic Confession Article II

“We know God by two means: First, by the creation, preservation and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: God’s eternal power and divinity.”
Belgic Confession, article II

I love this part of the Belgic Confession, especially after finishing J. V. Fesko‘s book Reforming Apologetics. To think of all creatures, great and small, as things that make us ponder God has increasingly become a foundation for how I understand the role attachment theory in clinical psychology can play in pointing people to the existence of God. Perhaps that is why studies show that therapy models based on attachment seem to work with anyone, regardless of culture.

I don’t pretend to believe that any secular theory will convey God’s undeserved mercy toward sinners through Christ, but I do now understand how a Christian of the Reformed tradition can defend the use of common knowledge to serve humanity in this era of common grace as well as combine this common knowledge (the book of nature” as theologians call it) with the only means by which anyone comes to faith in Jesus – hearing the gospel in Scripture.

I look forward to post more about this in more detail in the future.

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.

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.

Theological & Psychological Overlap

Sometimes I think well-meaning Christians overreact to psychological insights on the human condition, as if psychology is a tyrant looking for every opportunity to crush non-scientific opponents. Sometimes that concern by followers of Christ is quite justified. Freud, after all, did call religious belief an illusion that was only important for the uneducated in society. But there are plenty of other psychologically minded theorists, educators and clinicians with no such bias against religion.

I’ve started reading through Michael Horton’s systematic theology for the average person, “Pilgrim Theology.” It is written for the layman in an easy to understand style. I appreciate that. In his section on the goodness, love and mercy of God on page 87, I found an important similarity between the Christian understanding of God that I believe attachment theorists also refer to in their study of relationships as necessary for life among the human species. Here is the quote from Horton’s book that got me thinking:

We have seen that God now only has life, as we do, but is life; similarly, God not only loves, he is love (1 John 3:1; 4:8, 16). It is natural for us as interdependent creatures to love those who return love, but God loves without any compulsion or necessity. In fact, God “hates the wicked and the one who loves violence” (Ps. 11:5). “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man” (Ps. 5:5-6). Yet God’s uniqueness means that he is free even to love his enemies, whom he is perfectly free (and just) to hate (Mt. 5:44-45; Jn 3:16; 16:27; Rom 5:8). We do not determine the meaning of love from our own experience and then apply it to God, but define love according to God’s works: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
Michael Horton – Pilgrim Theology (p. 87)

Christians who read the Bible enough usually come to understand that God is unlike us in his love because there is no selfishness or deceit in God. God can be trusted and God is reliable. People may feel that God isn’t reliable, but that is usually because either we don’t understand what God is doing or we don’t like what God is doing so we claim that God is unfair. But in Horton’s short section on God’s attribute of love, I see that Horton is summarizing the Bible’s promise that God is found by those whom God wills to find him. God is there to love those who are his and destroy those who are his enemies. God’s love helps his creatures, us, see that God is the ultimate attachment figure for his people.

When Sue Johnson, writes about how to put attachment theory to work in clinical situations with individuals, couples or families, I think she is describing a foundational theory behind counseling and a solid model to practice that is quite complementary to orthodox Christianity. Here is how Johnson describes attachment theory in her 2019 book Attachment Theory in Practice:

Attachment is fundamentally an interpersonal theory that places the individual in the context of his or her closest relationships with others; it views mankind as not only essentially social but also as Homo vinculum – the one who bonds. Bonding with others is viewed as the most intrinsic essential survival strategy for human beings.
Sue Johnson – Attachment Theory in Practice (p. 6)

We are, more than anything else, social animals fixated on our connection with others.
Sue Johnson – Attachment Theory in Practice (p. 5)

When I read about attachment theory, I see a fallible and useful science that seeks to understand the human need for relationship so that clinicians like myself can better help people who are disconnected repair their relationships. Calling humans “social animals fixated on our connection with others” is a great way to describe Christians who know they need God and the church to function. We’re fixated on feeling safe and secure. When we can’t get that security, attachment theory explain why we act so crazy.

I find that Johnson’s EFT model accomplishes that goal more often than any other model I’ve been exposed to and I can’t hope but think that is partly because it focuses on the same thing Horton focuses on in his this one section I referenced in the beginning of his book – the doctrine of God as loving and just at the same time. That makes for a trustworthy creator; one whom fallen creatures saved by grace can rely on forever.

Promises to Trust

As I’ read through Joel Beeke’s book Parenting By God’s Promises, I am struck by the emphasis on security in God’s faithfulness as a foundation for parents to stand upon when raising their children. Beeke is a Reformed Presbyterian, so his emphasis upon God’s promises to bless children of faithful parents with faith is grounded in Beeke’s theology. But even if one is a Baptist in his or her views, I wonder if Beeke’s argument is still helpful. Beeke is basically arguing that the God of the Bible has always saved a people for himself out of undeserving humanity by primarily working through families.

He writes, “Because our children are born to believing parents who are confessing members of the visible church, they are holy (i.e. set part), although depraved by nature (p.17).” Beeke is very careful throughout this part of the book to not over promise to parents about God’s faithfulness. He is quite honest that he knows not all children of believers will become believers. But they are raised in the faith, exposed to God’s promises and expectations, and encouraged to confront the truth about their depravity and sin as well as Christ’s offer of salvation to those who belong to Him. For Beeke that is evidence of a graciousness from God that not all people receive.

When I think about attachment theory, I see a lot of overlap here. My thoughts, as I read this portion of the book, went immediately to the idea of secure attachment. Those who know the most about God and His promises, expectations, explanations for our world and our situations, often seem the most secure in their spiritual connection to God. I find that the people whom I know in the church that enjoy scripture, enjoy the community of faith and commit their lives to the things of God, most often behave in times of crisis like one securely attached to someone who does not let them down. If you pick up any book on attachment theory and read about how securely attached people think and act, it’s going to sound a lot like the stories of the faithful in the Bible.

So that’s where my mind went today as I worked my way through Beeke’s book and reflected on what I’m also reading in Sue Johnson’s new book for therapists – Attachment Theory in Practice.

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.

Regular Miracles

“‘Expect a miracle!’ That’s good counsel if there is a promise in Scripture to back it up. The problem today is that many Christians are not looking for God’s miraculous activity where he has promised it, namely, through his ordinary means of grace. Through these means, he has pledged to raise us from spiritual death, to forgive sins, to assure us of God’s favor, and to conform us to Christ’s image.”
Michael Horton in his book Ordinary, p. 139-140

I love the quote above by Michael Horton. I did not grow up in a church that highlighted God’s means of grace (baptism, communion) as particularly important, let alone repeated manifestations of the miraculous. I’m so thankful for being introduced to Reformed Theology. It has taught me so much these last few years about what is truly meaningful and worth paying attention to and thanking God for, when it comes to Christian spirituality.

Parenting Books

I hate reading parenting books, almost as much as I hate reading books for couples that aren’t founded in attachment theory. It is some combination of the anecdotes, the oversupply of tips and the minimal research validity that bothers me. Sometimes I find that a book is 300 pages and could be easily summed up in two. Among Christian parenting books, I find this irritation is almost guaranteed every time.

That is why I am shocked, happy and, maybe more than anything, received to report that I am 5 chapters into Joel R. Beeke‘s book Parenting By God’s Promises. I love it! I’m not sure if it’s a book for every parent, in part because it’s Reformed, Covenantal, and Presbyterian. But I’m finding that I can already trust it to lean on when my own distress as a parent is triggered. That’s exactly how I’ve come to believe EFT is the best model for couples therapy, because therapists can trust it when everything seems to be going wrong in their sessions.

Instead of trying to summarize the book, I would suggest that anyone interested in it should just go to Joel’s Amazon.com page and view the “author update” video. He explains himself everything you need to know about the book. I’m sure I’ll be writing some posts about what I’m learning and re-learning from this book.