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.

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.

The Psychology of the Eucharist

A week ago, I returned from a 5 week vacation in Europe. It was a combination of a study abroad program, church mission trip, and holiday as I traveled in Italy, Estonia, and England. The class I took in Orvieto, Italy was entitled "Medieval Spirituality and Art" and I would like to discuss a few of the things I learned, particularly about the Eucharist, a.k.a. The Lord's Supper, a.k.a. Communion.

Taking Eucharist in Orvieto is a special experience because it was in that relatively obscure city that the doctrine of transubstantiation was firmly established as a doctrine of the Catholic church. In the 13th Century a priest was performing the Eucharist when the bread mysteriously dripped blood as he blessed it. The Duomo (main cathedral) of Orvieto was built shortly after to house this miraculous cloth. The Corpus Christi celebration was established by the pope after the duomo was built to honor the Catholic belief in transubstantiation.

I should begin by pointing out the points of disagreement I had going into this trip about Catholic views on the Eucharist. First of all, I did not believe (and still do not) that the bread and wine became the actual body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation. I also disagreed with how Catholics excluded Protestants from taking Communion. And I did not share the belief that the Eucharist should be a daily event, taken in the Mass, but should be a special event. I point these out because I want to convey that I am examining Catholic beliefs and practices as an outsider.

So, as an outsider, I would like to share the insights I gained regarding the Catholic Eucharist and why my complaints were softened in many ways. But first I want to ask you a question: what is the central focus of a Protestant church's design? The podium. The spoken word is the central focus. For Catholics the podium is offset, preaching is secondary. At the very center of the Catholic church is the altar table where the Eucharist is situated. That is to say, the actual body of Christ is the central focus. I point this out because I want to convey a sense of the importance of the Eucharist to Catholic spirituality.

Now I believe the best place to begin is with the doctrine of transubstantiation. As a Baptist, I have never received a push to believe that "Communion" was about eating the actual body and blood of Christ. I've always believed it had symbolic content; that the elements were meant to remind us of the death and resurrection of Christ, his atonement for our sins, and our call to be resurrected with him. So the doctrine of transubstantiation has always superfluous, because I felt like I had enough respect for Communion by treating it as a spiritual connection with Christ.

But I began to wonder, might there be a benefit in believing that the elements are Christ's actual body and blood? Well, perhaps the most obvious benefit is the feeling that there is a constant presence of the miraculous. It is a remarkable thing to believe that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ every time you attend Mass. In fact, pious Medieval peasants would often rush from one cathedral to the next within their city (there were usually several), knowing the exact timing of the liturgies, so that they could witness the blessing of the elements, where they are believed to turn into the actual body of Christ. Now I can understand that kind of piety. It would certainly mean something to me if I were to witness what I believed to be a miracle everyday. In fact, I think I would gain a deeper sense of God's presence within my community, as a result.

But a sense of the miraculous was not all that there was to gain. The Catholics, as you probably know, hold the Virgin Mother in high regard. I, however, did not realize there was a connection between the Eucharist and Mary until this class. For just as Mary held Jesus in her insides (her womb), we could hold Christ in our insides (our stomachs). There would be a shared experience between us and the woman who gave Christ birth and nursed him, who knew him intimately as both human and divine. They would gain a sense of closeness with Christ through their connection with Mary and through their physical closeness with his body. I could go into why they held Mary in such high regard, but that is a longer post than I can write here.

Now I have always objected to the exclusion of Protestants from taking Eucharist. In fact, I did not take the Eucharist in Italy and was saddened that I could not (they never said I could not but it was common knowledge). But I always thought that it was a matter of pride - that the Catholics thought they had it right while Protestants had it wrong. But I now see it differently. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. Now as a Protestant I may believe in Christ, just as they do, but I do not believe in transubstantiation. So when I took Eucharist, I would treat the elements differently than they would. So Catholics exclude those who do not believe in transubstantiation because we could potentially profane the elements by our lack of faith. (We witnessed nuns run out of the cathedral with the chalice and return with a new cup of wine because a bug apparently landed in the wine!) Now that sort of reverence is something I can respect, even while disagreeing with the outcome.

I write all this in the hope that your view on the Lord's Supper might be expanded. My assumption is that the majority of my readership are Protestant. But I hope that, regardless of your religious affiliation, you gain more clarity on your own views of the Lord's Supper and what can be gained through this sacrament of faith in action. May you all be blessed by the presence of Christ in your lives and through the fellowship that comes through his life, death, and resurrection.

Motivational Preaching

I have been taking a course in Motivational Interviewing this past quarter. Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a "client-centered, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence." That basically means that it's a way to make people want change through compassionate and informed communication. Rather than giving people reasons why they should change, MI focuses on eliciting change talk from the client that will ultimately lead to action. It has been used effectively as a therapeutic intervention in several areas, most notably in substance abuse, but I see possibilities for its application in preaching.

One thing I have noticed is that sermons can often be confrontational in nature. On a surface level, this type of preaching doesn't promote seem to produce defensive resistance in the attendees. That's due in part because there is diffusion of responsibility throughout the congregation. However, that is not to say that those sermons aren't producing some resistance among those listening. Now resistance can sometimes be obvious: excuse-making, avoidance of responsibility, blaming, etc. But, more often in a church setting, resistance can take the form of over-enthusiastic "acceptance" of the message, followed by a lack of action. Psychologically the individual is assenting to the position but they are not "owning" the belief.

I would like to suggest that preaching might become more effective if motivational interviewing techniques were employed more often. Now this includes: acknowledgment by the pastor of benefits of staying the same, acknowledgment by the pastor of the difficulties of change, envisioning what the future would be like if they became more holy, asking the congregation to quietly consider how important change is and how confident they are they can change on scales of 0-10 (then pointing out that anything more than 0 is a good place to be). Another technique could involve the pastor and the congregation getting into a debate, where the pastor gives the reasons why he should continue living a sinful lifestyle while the congregation can yell out reasons why he should be holy. All of these can gently move the congregation towards greater ownership of the reasons for change. It would make sermons more interactive, and I think that's a good thing (in some cases).

Now of course this only addresses motivation to change, which is only half of motivational interviewing. The second half is developing a change plan while acknowledging the individual's autonomy and their right to forego change. The pastor can suggest a plan of change that works for most people but then admit that each individual must decide whether change is even the right thing for them. This empowering act allows the person to feel like they aren't being persuaded to change but that it really can be their own decision. While this is only a perfunctory start to the integration of motivational interviewing and homiletics, I think that they make a good pair. What do you think?

Psychiatrists Don't Tend to be Religious

Psychiatry was found to be the least religious type of physician, according to a study published by Live Science. Why do religious people stray from religion? Perhaps it is because the history of psychoanalysis. But I think that this is just another reminder that psychology needs the input of Christianity to be more relevant to the general population.

Demons

If you hang around Christians long enough, you will eventually hear about demons and evil spirits. Many Christians believe in spiritual warfare - that there are demons trying to lead us astray from God and angels who are fighting on our side. But in psychology you don't hear much about that. How can many people perceive demonic activity while psychology makes no mention of it?

I believe that sometimes people can call the same thing different names. This happens when people have different experiences, different languages, and different worldviews. So Christians often say that they are tempted by the devil while psychologists might say that we are tempted because people enjoy breaking the rules. The devil is external, the delight in breaking rules is internal.

But sometimes I wonder if we are not describing the same thing. How does a demon tempt us except through making our neurons fire in a certain pattern in our brain? Otherwise we would not even be thinking tempting thoughts. We now know that our experiences of the world occur through our body, so any demonic work would need to impose on our body to change our experiences. Hence why I think we may be calling the same phenomenon by different names.

A further similarity arises in how we effectively combat such problems. Those who believe in spiritual warfare pray to God for help in the midst of the challenge. Those who believe that it is only psychological learn to change their thinking patterns. In both, the solution is to focus on doing something (praying or thinking about something else) instead of focusing on the temptation.

I believe that we need to find solutions that allow us to stay in the presence of God. But for those who believe that demons are an artifact of ancient superstitions, therapists can help them find relief in other ways. Christian therapists ought to integrate faith into their counseling regardless of whether their clients believe in demons or maladaptive thoughts or anything else. Therapists can use the client's framework to help the client change because they are just using different words for the same experiences.

Fundamentalism

As a neo-evangelical that has emerged out of fundamentalism, I have come to see that certain views that I once thought were inescapably Christian are actually the result of reactionary trends in populist views that have emerged neither from Scripture nor church tradition, but rather from a desire to concretize the abstract and dynamic nature of faith. First let me unpack that a little bit with some definitions. By neo-evangelical, I mean that I see myself as holding to the core elements of Christian faith, including but not limited to the belief in the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation through faith and not works, and the induction into a community of believers referred to as the church. By fundamentalist I mean those individuals who have ascribed to an approach towards faith that is dogmatic and uninformed, choosing to retreat to individualistic and propositional belief statements rather than engage in the changing contexts of their cultural surroundings.

Like I said in the opening statement, I came out of a fundamentalist background. Although I do not see my church nor my parents as fundamentalist, I had such a fear of uncertainty that I embraced a worldview that saw the Bible as inerrant, evolution as false, liberals as evil, and my own mind as the best manager of truth. I had been discouraged from incorporating scientific findings into my worldview because they were in contrast with Biblical witness, and therefore wrong.

Fundamentalism represents the most widespread religious understanding among Christians. There is no one criterion for fundamentalism but in general it is the placing of faith and science in conflict against one another. Now, while I cannot explore the fallacies of fundamentalism, Biblically and logically, in this blog for lack of time and expertise, I do want to begin a discussion on what the repercussions are. Because I think a fundamentalist mindset can lead to a number of unhealthy approaches to living.

The first is that science is only to be trusted if it agrees with preconceived notions of Christianity. Despite the clear evidence that these notions have been wrong in the past (e.g. Galileo), people continue to trust their gut instinct (sometimes coined as the Holy Spirit) to determine what is true or not. Such an approach is grounded in pride and results in the person becoming unwilling to take on the perspectives of others. This devotion to one's own belief above love of neighbor causes rifts in relationships with others.

The second is that the Bible is looked at as a source of truth statements. While in reality the Bible is written primarily as a narrative of the story of the people of God, fundamentalists see the Bible as being an instruction book for living. While the Bible does inform us as to how we ought to live, this is done through stories of people struggling and failing and invites us to enter that story.

The third is believing in the dualism of mind (or spirit or soul) and body. Believing that people have a soul is common. And while I don't discourage people to hold such beliefs, I do discourage holding to the complete worldview that such beliefs encourage. Such a worldview would discount the impact of mental illness, including imbalances in neurochemicals, because the mind or soul is the ultimate cause of all action. In other words, mental illness would be seen as a weak soul or lack of faith. Rather than fully considering our embodied nature, which limits our free will, dualists pretend that all lifestyles and ways of thinking can be transcended by the soul through the Holy Spirit.

While there is much more to say I will stop there. I hope that Christians recognize fundamentalism for what it is - an unbiblical approach to truth and faith - and begin to incorporate true faith, which has room for doubting and uncertainty.

Great Website on Faith and Psychology

In case you haven't clicked the link here on my blog, if you are interested in psychology and Christianity then you really should check out http://www.mindandsoul.info There are resources for people suffering from mental illness, as well as clergy and those in the helping profession. Also, check out Rob Waller's blog here - he is a psychiatrist who has regularly posted comments on my blog.

Knowledge without Deeds is Dead

As my research project develops, one of the issues that comes to the forefront is that there is a divide between theoretical research and actual practice. Tens of thousands of psychological articles are published every year but perhaps only about 1 in 100 actually impact practice in some shape or form. It seems that researchers in psychology are spending all their time delving deeper and deeper into understanding an issue without every taking the time to work out how it could affect actual practice. Although we can get into trouble by making recommendations without proper theory to base it on, psychologists simply can't neglect this part of research.

Entitlement

I've been learning a new way of thinking that I have found very useful. I now see my desires and wishes as feelings of entitlement. In other words, I am recognizing that I feel entitled to whatever it is I desire: food, sex, laziness, money, ease of living, freedom from challenge, or whatever. The reason I feel entitled is because those things, apart from everything else in the world, are very good. And there is no reason why I should not do those things apart from the consequences they bring. Since I believe I am entitled to a joyful and happy life, I would thus have every right to enjoy every pleasure. Yet, I refrain from these actions for one reason: they have consequences. And it is the consequences, not the actions themselves, that bear on whether or not I should do something.

Recognizing that has been helpful because I no longer need to tell myself: "Doing that is BAD!" Instead, I simply review my past experiences and make a decision whether or not would be wise.
From that perspective I no longer need to make a judgment on whether or not any individual action is good or bad but rather whether or not good or bad will come of it for me. The best life for me is therefore nuanced and idiographic because each circumstance must be weighed by my own knowledge of how that experience will effect me. This takes a great amount of self-knowledge, which I may not always have, but it also prepares me to watch my future reactions so that I learn about myself.

As I see it, God made all things and, therefore, all things are good in themselves. But by the very nature of our decision to do evil with what is good, we corrupt what is good (I will spare you Genesis 3 and other Biblical accounts). The fact is that I have tendencies to do evil. By realizing what those tendencies are I can adjust my behavior so that love and goodness becomes the new rule of how I live, rather than any judgment on particular actions.

For example, I can make the decision not to eat a certain comfort food when I feel like I desperately need something to make me feel better. While at other times I know I can eat this food, I realize that refraining at that time is necessary because I know that eating to satisfy desires other than hunger can turn a snowball into an avalanche. In that very moment, I feel entitled to feel better by eating that food but I surrender my entitlement for my own good.

So what does entitlement have to do with all of this? Well, the truth is that I need to recognize my inner world in order to understand how to best meet my own needs. By labeling my desires as feelings of entitlement, I am accepting my desires, thereby preparing myself to explore my feelings and discover my true needs. The concept of entitlement may not be the best way of thinking about desires for everyone but it seems to work for me.