|
Article Excerpt
During the past two-and-a-half decades, an array of practical theologians, pastoral counselors, therapists, psychologist and psychology professors who are self-professed Christians have attempted to answer these two methodological questions, "What is the relationship between psychology and theology? How does the construal of this relationship impact ministerial and therapeutic practice?" (1) In this article, I contribute to the ongoing discussion by (1) summarizing a typology of interdisciplinary models, (2) delineating a "transformational model," and (3) demonstrating the use of this model in relating grief-work and a theology of the cross. In regard to the latter, I place Alice Miller's Drama of the Gifted Child in conversation with Karl Barth's understanding of the cross of Jesus Christ and Frank Lake's Clinical Theology.
**********
Richard R. Osmer (2005) identifies three categories of interdisciplinary models-correlational, transversal, and transformational--that have emerged in recent discussions among practical theologians, and I would add self-professing Christian clinicians and professors of psychology. This section introduces these three models and notes their distinct construal of both the nature of academic disciplines and the task of theology.
Correlational models relate theology and psychology (and other social sciences) as equal contributors to interdisciplinary conversation. Theological and social scientific theories exert mutual influence on one another. They exist in a symmetrical relationship. Three variations of the correlational models of inter-disciplinarity can be seen, though not exclusively, in Paul Tillich, Don Browning, and Matthew Lamb.
Tillich's (1981) correlation is uni-directional. Interpretations of culture from disciplines such as psychology pose questions to theology, and in turn, theology answers with concepts plausible to the modern person. At times, Tillich's interdisciplinary conversation collapses theology into psychology, while at other times, it creates a tertium quid, literally "a third thing," a hybrid concept that is neither strictly psychological nor theological. Don Browning (1996) and Matthew Lamb (1982) draw upon David Tracy (1975) to extend Tillich's method of correlation. Don Browning's "revised" correlation (1996) is bi-directional. That is, theology and non-theological disciplines pose questions and answers to one another. All disciplines are hermeneutical and thus need to be subjected to the same analytical criteria (i.e., validity claims). (2) Matthew Lamb sets forth a "revised praxis" correlational model. In this model, the emancipatory praxis of social movements and communities is correlated with the praxis of communities of faith in hopes that both will work collaboratively toward the humanization of life.
In contradistinction to these correlational models and the transformational models discussed below, Wentzel van Huyssteen (1999) argues for a transversal model of interdisciplinarity. According to van Huyssteen, academic disciplines, by very nature, exist in transverse relationships. To transverse is to lie across, intersect, meet at a particular point and then diverge. Thus academic disciplines can be imaged as the childhood game of pick-up sticks, where in sticks lie across one another in all directions. Like the sticks, disciplines transverse one another; they are interdisciplinary by nature. Interdisciplinary dialogue is unavoidable. Its aim is the establishment of "intersubjective agreements," which emerge from the persuasive reasoning of all dialogue partners, including persons of different academic backgrounds and religious affiliations.
Osmer identifies Hans Frei (1992), James Loder (1998) and Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger (1995) as utilizing a "transformational" model of interdisci-plinarity. Frei's approach can be depicted as an "ad hoc" correlational model. By "ad hoc," he means that theology cannot be systematically correlated with any other academic discipline, though particular psychological concepts, for instance, may be analogies for particular theological concepts. Here Frei follows Karl Barth's insistence on the unique task, subject matter, and linguistic conventions of theology. Theology may discover common causes with other disciplines, and even accompany them, but only from within its own domain, in light of its own concerns.
Grounded in these theological convictions, Hunsinger and Loder, independently of one another, construct an asymmetrical model of inter-disciplinarity. This model is based upon the logic of the Incarnation, as interpreted by the Council of Chalcedon (451) and imaginatively used by Barth as a pattern of thought to relate a host of conceptual relationships--e.g., healing and salvation, divine and human agency, faith and works, confession and conversation. This model conceptualizes academic disciplines in a stratified hierarchy, which differentiates disciplines in terms of their levels of complexity and comprehensiveness. Each discipline interprets phenomena according to its own internally generated objectives, methods, and linguistic conventions. Of the academic disciplines, theology is the most comprehensive in that it alone addresses questions about the identity of God and the ultimate telos of human existence. Theology, however, has no ontological superiority over any other disciplines. It is a human, finite and often flawed endeavor.
TRANSFORMATIONAL INTERDISCI-PLINARITY: THE GHALCEDONIAN PATTERN
Having located the Chalcedonian, or asymmetrical, model of interdisciplinarity within a larger typology, this section of the article delineates its specific parameters as presented by Hunsinger. It concludes by seeking to answer how this model might generally be transformational.
Terms of the Pattern
The Chalcedonian pattern of thought relates theology and its non-theological dialogue partners "without separation or division" (inseparable unity), "without confusion or change" (indissoluble differentiation), and "with asymmetrical ordering" (indestructible order). (3)
"Without separation" means that psychological and theological interpretations pertain to any given pastoral situation. (4) Not only can human existence be understood accurately from within these disciplines but also the psychological and theological issues in a person's life interpenetrate and reciprocally influence one another. Psychosocial changes may lead to profound spiritual shifts and vice versa.
"Without confusion" indicates that the relevant disciplines are "logically diverse; they have different aims, subject matters, methods, and linguistic conventions" (Hunsinger, 1995, p. 6). (5) The language and concepts of psychology and theology each maintain their own integrity. Reductionistic interpretations are eschewed. Theological concepts and...
|
