Theories of Spirituality

Following this past weekend's conference, I thought it would be nice to review some of prominent theories in the psychology of religion. These theories have to do with how we can conceptualize religion and spirituality. As they developed in the realm of psychology, some of them may strike religious believers as being unusual or atheistic. I will discuss the implications of them as I currently understand them.

Attribution theory - generally, this theory has to do with how we attribute causes to events. We might explain events internally, by our own action, or externally, by the action of an outside agent. In relation to religion, attribution theory suggests that humans judge the cause of some actions to be a higher power, which they might term God. The way we attribute the causes of events can be referred to as our locus of control. We can infer causation to self, powerful others, luck, or God (among other sources). While this may sound scientific or reductionistic, I find that this is an important element of faith. Religion and spirituality give believers a new lens to see the world and to interpret what is happening around them.

Motivational theory - One of the earliest studies of religion was by Gordon Allport on the relationship between religion and prejudice. Studies had found a small but significant positive relationship between religious importance and prejudice, such that religious individuals were more prejudiced. Allport posited that this relationship had to do with how one orients oneself to religion. He found that in individuals with an intrinsic orientation towards religion, this relationship reversed and was significantly negatively related to prejudice. People who were oriented toward religion for personal happiness or as a social group as their primary motivations showed a positive association with prejudice. Thus, the motivations for why one pursues religion matter. This was the first study to show that religiousness was more than just an identity but actually had components that were important to understand. I appreciate the concept of intrinsic religiousness because it captures true faith rather than just an identity.

Religious coping - The study of religious coping has recently exploded - and for good reason. This is the most promising area of religious research currently being investigated. Religious coping refers to how we use our faith to deal with problems. Ken Pargament suggests three coping styles: collaborative, deferring, and self-directing. Each of these has to do with how we rely on God in the midst of our problems, do we collaborate with God, do we let God make all the decisions, or do we take the reins for ourselves? In fact, a collaborative style has been shown to be the most healthy, physically and mentally, which is consistent with most religions. (A fourth coping style is surrender - but I have not read Pargament's research on this concept). Religious coping has been shown to be very predictive of spiritual well-being and is therefore a key component of religion.

Multivariate Theory - This is the theory that I have been using and which integrates the above perspectives. Additionally, it holds that religious beliefs are an important part of religion. This theory argues that what we believe affects the reasons we turn to religion (religious motivation), our reasons for being religious affect how we use our religion (religious coping), and that beliefs, motivations, and coping styles compose the structure of our religious life such that our experience of religion (i.e. closeness to God, spiritual well-being, morality, etc.) are founded on these variables.

Attachment theory - the final theory that I am aware of is attachment theory. This theory is based on the belief that our cognitive conception of God, as well as experience of God, has to do with how we connect with God. If we have a secure and trusting attachment with God, we will see God as loving and feel that we are safe in his hands. However, if we see God as abandoning or as restrictive, we will react in other ways. While this is a compelling theory, the empirical evidence for its validity is lacking. However, I anticipate that further research will show that this, too, is an important part of religious life. Certainly, how we interact with God is an important part of our spiritual lives.

Hope these theories enliven your understanding of the psychology of religion. Feel free to ask questions about any of the above.

Psychology of Religion

Over the weekend, I attended the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion conference in Denver, CO. It was great getting to meet some of the major figures in the Psychology of Religion. In fact, I was able to go out to dinner with a large group who were celebrating the legacy of Bernard Spilka, who developed an application of the Attribution theory to the study of religion. Many pictures were taken and hopefully I will be able to access some of them in the near future.

Flow States and Everyday Spirituality

In my previous post, I wrote about flow states and spiritual disciplines but here I want to expand on how flow states could be related to everyday spirituality. I encourage you to read the previous post first to get a better feel for what I am writing about here. But, to summarize, a flow state is an "optimal experience" where one feels highly challenged and highly competent to meet those challenges. An example would be expert rock climbers when climbing a difficult face, they feel a sense of "flow" in what they are doing.

Now can Christians achieve this type of experience in their everyday lives? I might argue that the Apostle Paul, who was able to bear numerous trials and still remain connected to the faith, is an example that one can. But I believe the trick is to achieve the proper amount of "spiritual competency" to meet the challenges of everyday life.

Now, first of all, let me say that I believe that all believers have the Holy Spirit working inside of them and are capable of doing everything that God requires of them. So I'm not saying that spiritual competency is just a skill-base or something that we can develop apart from God. But I also believe that all Christians need to rely on numerous resources that they are not inherently able to do as soon as they become Christians.

One might call this concept "religious coping" - using religious resources to cope with problems (the term has limitations - true faith does not use strategies just to get through life, it embodies faithful devotion that has a secondary effect of being able to overcome difficulties). Religious coping is not bestowed through conversion but is taught in sermons, books, etc. and modeled through relationships in the church. Religious coping involves both external forms of coping (seeking support of a pastor, listening to and participating in religious music, etc.) and internal forms (surrendering will over to God, prayer, etc.). These are the resources that will enable a believer to feel competent to meet the challenges in their lives.

But one important point needs to be made. Some Christians (I might even say most American Christians) do not experience "high challenge" that requires them to feel a state of flow. Their lives do not involve the threat of extreme poverty, violence, or political control. These Christians likely do not experience recurrent times of "high challenge" that can facilitate the awesome experience of flow. But there is hope here. By challenging themselves (and I can say this to myself - by challenging myself) to grow in ways that are uncomfortable, by giving generously, sharing one's faith, and giving voice to the powerless, Christians can have the opportunity to experience the pleasure of being in a state of optimal experience. By giving of themselves, they can receive the blessing of fulfillment.

Flow States and Spiritual Disciplines

I have been doing some reading on the concept of flow lately and wanted to see if I could relate this popular concept to spiritual disciplines. Flow states, or optimal experiences, are thought to arise when situations are highly challenging and when the individual feels like they have the capacity to meet those challenges. There is a balance of high difficulty and high ability (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007).

When we engage in spiritual disciplines, we are engaging in an activity that might have variable levels of challenge. While reading the Bible may seem like a straightforward task to some, trying to grasp deeper spiritual meaning of any given passage might be more difficult. If someone tries to simply read the Bible for simple answers (or to check off their to-do list for the day), but is actually quite capable of deeper reflection, they will likely not experience flow. On the other hand, if someone tries to really dive into the Word, looking for deep truth, but is not trained on how to do so, that can inevitably end up being frustrating.

To achieve a flow state when engaging in a spiritual practice means taking on the activity with challenging goals appropriate for that person and with the skills to meet those goals for that time.

A new Christian, for example, might take prayer as a time to simply talk with God openly and honestly while submitting to God's will in their requests. A mature Christian, on the other hand, might look at prayer as a chance to speak with God with Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication (ACTS) to achieve greater personal devotion and submission in all they do.

Why would flow states be important to consider when we practice spiritual disciplines? Well, I believe that spiritual disciplines are more likely to be adhered to when we enjoy doing them. That means that asking people to engage in such behaviors means assessing how capable they are at engaging in the behavior while providing them further skills to grow in their practice of spiritual disciplines. As people grow more capable of practicing spiritual disciplines, they must be further challenged and provided further resources to meet those challenges.

Live Forever or Die Tomorrow?

I read a short passage from "Zorba the Greek" by Nikos Kazantzakis that has provoked some thought for me. In it, Zorba comes along an old man who is planting a tree. He questions the old man about why he would plant a tree when he will never see it produce fruit. The old man responds, "I live as if I am going to live forever." Zorba enjoys this thought, as he mutters to himself, "I live as if I will die tomorrow."

What a contrast in perspectives. But which leads us to a full and prosperous life? Haven't we all heard that we should live as if we will die tomorrow? Isn't that the lesson we feel we must take away any time we attend a funeral? Sure, living as if we could die tomorrow has some benefits. We may treasure our relationships more and give to worthy causes. Yet, what about the constant fear? I am not sure I want to live a life worrying that the value of my life depends on having everything in order when I die.

The old man suggests another way. Now, living as if we will never die has some dangers. If we live in ignorance of death, we run the risk of taking unnecessary risks to our health. We all know we should visit the doctor, wear our seatbelts, and avoid dangerous activities. But what if believing we will never die could mean more than that? What if living forever meant that we devoted ourselves to larger causes, tasks that may take a long time to complete?

The Christian believes they will live forever, through the grace of God. The faithful do not live in fear of death but in hope for the redemption of all creation. They do not sit back and watch but participate in this work of salvation.

What are your perspectives?

Truth and Beliefs

Truth is the accurate and complete perception of reality, including and transcending a variety of perspectives and beliefs. Truth is not a constructed reality but simply exists, without relation to subjectivity. Yet subjective knowledge, including beliefs, can have a varying reflection upon truth. The psychology of religion typically gives little mention to beliefs and, when it does, relegates belief to "merely" subjective experience, without attending to whether beliefs are true (Vergote, 1993).

Cognitive psychology has taken a greater interest in this question by looking at how beliefs develop and change. The research in that field has pointed out that beliefs can be formed independent of rational discourse and accurate perception that would be consistent with a search for truth (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992; Gilbert, 1991; Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977; Ladowsky-Brooks & Alcock, 2007). Instead, beliefs are formed through mechanisms that can introduce error, such as repetition, reputation of the source, and consistency with prior memories. Although this provides a quick and efficient means of information gathering, the drawback is that beliefs are not always representative of truth (Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992). In fact, people are directly affected by all sources of information, whether they be factually true or false, and the inherent process is to accept all information as true before comparing to prior experiences and evaluating the source (Gilbert, 1991). Beliefs are therefore subjective rather than objective.

Does this mean that beliefs can never be true or that truth does not matter for beliefs? On the contrary, the truth of beliefs becomes of the utmost importance when a false belief causes an unwanted problem. Cognitive-behavioral therapy addresses the emotional consequences of false beliefs by teaching the client to rationally judge their beliefs, rather than allowing false beliefs to continue to have a destructive effect on their lives. The need for such therapy reflects how difficult it can be for people to become aware of and challenge their false beliefs. While psychology cannot determine whether beliefs about transcendent realities, such as God, are true, there is the possibility that the factors that contribute to these beliefs can be unveiled and evaluated.

What does all this have to do with religion? Well, religion is fundamentally about beliefs (Froese & Bader, 2007). These beliefs are presumed to be true. Yet if beliefs can be formed in a manner that allows for error, how can we be sure of our religious beliefs? Sociological research has shown us that beliefs about God are shaped by socioeconomic status, suggesting that beliefs are merely constructed out of experiences that have little to do with a personal knowledge of God (Froese & Bader, 2007). However, religion has retained its explanatory power as a belief system despite thousands of years of hard experiences that have tested the limits of these beliefs. Although theology has changed alongside the times, the shortcomings of these new perspectives generally become evident in time. In other words, theology's truth can be tested with experience. Cognitive-behavioral therapy has been effective because the flawed thinking of depressed or anxious individuals has proven to be too weak for rational evaluation. Religion has not yet experienced an equivalent rational retort.

Religion evaluates truth in a variety of ways: through scripture, reason, religious tradition, personal experience, with some even integrating science (Brown, 2004). By these methods, religion tests beliefs for truth. These are all methods for evaluating religious beliefs that can help discern truth for the religious individual. Religion therefore has a more stringent test of the truth of beliefs that most other institutions and individuals.

Begg, I., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446-458.
Brown, W. (2004). Resonance: A Model for Relating Science, Psychology, and Faith. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 110-120.
Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
Ladowsky-Brooks, R., & Alcock, J. (2007). Semantic-episodic interactions in the neuropsychology of disbelief. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 12, 97-111.
Preston, J., & Epley, N. (2005). Explanations Versus Applications: The Explanatory Power of Valuable Beliefs. Psychological Science, 16, 826-832.
Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
Vergote, A. (1993). What the psychology of religion is and what it is not. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 73-86.

Christian Camps and Our Youth

I'm writing up my master's thesis right now and thought I would share a few of my findings. I'll try not to get into the details and really paint the broad picture of what I found. My thesis is on two main topics: understanding the changes that occur when youth attend Christian camps and understanding the mechanisms and interconnections of adolescent spirituality. I might decide to blog on the second topic but for now I will stick to what effect attendance at a Christian camp had on adolescent spirituality.

First off, I should note my methods. We gave questionnaires to campers at two Christian camps (confidentiality prevents me from saying which ones), half receiving the questionnaire at the beginning and half at the end. We looked at the differences in spirituality between these two groups, inferring that any significant differences were the effect of the camp. We looked at God concept, religious motivation, religious coping, and spiritual well-being.

What did we find? Well, first off, I should note that we found that the kids attending these camps were already very religious. They attended church about once a week, they rated their religion as being "Very important" and nearly all rated their belief that Jesus is the Son of God as a 5 on a 5 point scale (what researchers call a ceiling effect). This is important to note because camps often focus more on conversions than on spiritual growth. But with a very religious camp, this might not be appropriate. Of course, some camps might have a greater representation of the less religious than we found at these camps.

What changes did we find? Campers changed their God concept so that they believed more in a Christian God concept (God is loving, kind, and not distant). Although campers were religious at the onset, their God concepts moved towards being more Christian, and this change was statistically significant, despite the "ceiling effect." We also found that campers had higher religious and existential well-being at the end of the camp. We weren't too surprised by higher religious well-being, which has to do with a sense that God loves them, but an increase in existential well-being, which has to do with a positive orientation towards life in general, was a bit more surprising. This means that the mechanisms targeting spiritual development at camps, the speakers, small groups, games, and free time, lead to an improved outlook on life as a whole. Our conclusion: the camps are doing a good job.

What changes didn't we find? Well, we didn't find any significant changes in belief in Jesus Christ. The reason: they had such high belief at the onset. The fact that some people still did not have a 5 out of 5 rating reflects doubt rather than unbelief, and there have been some studies that suggest doubt and questioning can be a positive aspect of spiritual development. We also didn't find any change in 7 variables of religious coping, or how campers use religious resources, such as prayer, clergy support, and listening to religious music, for example, to deal with problems in their lives. This is the area where we see the most room for growth for camps. Instead of trying to persuade campers about the truthfulness of the gospel and their need for salvation, camps can address the practical aspects of religious life, as the problems in our lives really do define who we are.

We also found that campers were increasing in extrinsic personal reasons for pursuing religion, rather than intrinsic reasons. That means they were increasing their religiousness because of what they got out of it, rather than because they found more to enjoy within religion. This finding may seem to be negative, but we suggest that this may simply be a stage that must be entered in order to progress towards a more intrinsic faith. Adolescents who find a lot of external reasons for becoming religious may be more likely to stick around religion and have positive feelings about faith in general. However, there is always the alternative explanation that these Christian camps are so much about fun that they distract campers from intrinsic faith. But we do not think that this is the case (as the campers are clearly changing positively in God concept and spiritual well-being).

To sum up, Christian camps change beliefs and increase external reasons for being religiously involved. They also increase religious and existential well-being. They do not seem to increase intrinsic reasons for pursuing religion (enjoyment of being religious for its own sake) and don't seem to change how campers use their religion in everyday life (but maybe this occurs when they get home, it just takes time to implement these changes). Of course, campers may change on variables that we didn't study and it's important to remember that, as well. Hope this clarifies the positive role that Christian camps can have on the spiritual life of youth in the course of a week.