Creation, Fall, Redemption and the Naturalistic Fallacy

In Christian colleges that have developed from Reformed denominations you will often hear the words:  Creation, Fall, Redemption.  This is the general framework that guides our studies.  God created the earth and it was good.  The physical creation was good and the societal, psychological, spiritual aspects of life were also good.  Then Adam and Eve sinned and the earth was cursed and filled with brokenness.  But God sent his Son.  He died for our sins and started the whole creation – human beings and all – back toward the good and the unbroken.  He redeemed and is redeeming his world. 
 

Opportunities to reflect on creation, fall, and redemption often arise in the field of social psychology.  Social psychology looks at how an individual affects and is affected by others.  The topics in social psychology include romantic relationships, prejudice, persuasion, conflict, and conformity.  Psychologists have unearthed some well-supported findings on these topics.  One finding is that men everywhere are more likely than women to be found in socially dominant roles; things like CEOs, politicians, and religious leaders.  Women, on the other hand, are overly-represented in more help-giving roles; things like nursing, education, and counseling.  So is this role distinction an intentional part of God’s creation?  Or does it exist because of the fall?  Or is it part of God’s ongoing redemptive work?  Another well-supported finding is social facilitation:  we do easier tasks better when we are around other people.  You can get a better work-out when you jog with a friend.  You can lick 200 envelopes faster if you’re not alone.  So is social facilitation part of God’s creation?  Part of the fall?  Or part of God’s ongoing redemptive work?  It is tempting to say that because it is universal, well-supported, and scientifically sound that it must be part of God’s creation.  It’s easy to say that something exists because God made it that way. 
 

I think this temptation stems from our acquaintance with other sciences.  When you learn about the biological processes of photosynthesis you know that because it is universal, well supported, and scientifically sound that God probably created it that way.  Yet we must be careful not to fall into a naturalistic fallacy.  We mustn’t say; “that which is, is good.”  Just because you find something everywhere does not mean that it is God’s original creational intention.  For example, researchers in the biological sciences have discovered that skin cancer is naturally occurring and can be found everywhere.  Does that mean that God included cancer in his creation?  On the sixth day, did he survey all he had made, and did his eyes fall on skin cancer, and did he say, “It is very good”?    
 

Now consider an example from psychology.  One of the most well-supported findings in social psychology is the self-serving bias.  We think highly of ourselves to an unreasonable degree.  When something good happens it is because we brought it about, when something bad happens it is because of factors beyond our control.  When we get an “A” it is because we studied hard.  When we get an “F” it is because the teacher is too hard.  Psychologists have found time and time again that most people have a self-serving bias.  So is this part of God’s creation?  Part of the fall?  Or part of God’s ongoing redemptive work?  Did God create us to always take credit for the good and never take responsibility for the bad?
 

Our world is so entirely affected by the fall that it can sometimes be difficult to pull apart what exists because it was part of God’s plan for the world, what exists because of the fall, and what exists because of God’s grace to us after the fall.  Understanding Gods good and perfect will for our world is no easier than understanding God’s will for our own personal lives.  We must be careful and prayerful when we consider these things.  We must not assume that because we have discovered a scientific fact or law that it is thereby God’s law.  It could be the law of sin working in our own members. 
 

 Jessica B. Clevering, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity Christian College

Loving the Deviant of the Group

The following blog entry was adapted from a chapel speech given by Dr. Clevering on October 30, 2013

One of the great things about finding a major in college is that you get insight into the Bible from a whole new perspective.  A history major might learn more about ancient Mesopotamia and therefore have a better understanding of the culture and customs of the people surrounding Israel.  An English major might learn about syntax and parallelism and have a better appreciating of the poetry of the psalms.  And a psychology major may have insights into Jesus’ social interactions.

One passage which I feel I understand better as a psychologist is Luke 19:1-10.  This is the story of Jesus meeting Zaccheus, the tax collector, and going to eat with him.    

To understand the psychology in this story we also need to understand the historical setting of the story.  Zaccheus was Jewish.  And he collected taxes from the Jews on behalf of the Romans.  If that weren’t bad enough, the taxcollectors in those days were allowed to charge people whatever they wanted so long as the Romans got their portion.  That meant the tax collectors got to line their own pockets with a lot of extra cash.  So we can’t think of these tax collectors as just an ancient version of the IRS.  Tax collectors were pretty shady characters and they fraternized with the enemy.  In fact, because of their interactions with the Roman gentiles they were considered to be unclean by their fellow Jewish countrymen. 

As a tax collector, Zaccheus is what we would call an in-group deviant.  In-group deviants are in your in-group.  They have an association with you.  When you use the pronoun “we” it includes them.  They belong to one of the groups you belong to.  Other people make a connection between you and them.  But they are different, and weird, and just not normal.  They don’t go along with the group norms.  They are an embarrassment.  The term deviant refers to the fact that they deviate from what is expected.  They deviate from how everyone thinks they should behave.  Deviants don’t do what they’re supposed to do and don’t think how they’re supposed to think. 

Zaccheus was an in-group deviant.  He was Jewish, he lived among his fellow Jews and counted himself as a belonging to the Jewish people.  And yet he collected taxes for the Romans.  He associated with gentiles and took money from his own people.  So nobody liked him.   

Studies show that people tend to dislike an in-group deviant even more than someone from a rival group.  One interesting study was conducted at a university which was known for being a party school.  It was not cool to be studious at this university.  The students at this university were asked to rate how much they would like to be friends with several types of people.  One type was someone at their own school who spent a lot of time studying.  Another type was someone from a rival school who spent a lot of time studying.  The people at that university said they would rather be friends with the studious person from the rival school than someone from their own school who was studious.  In other words, it is easier to love a Roman than someone from your own group who collects taxes for the Romans. 

This is why Jesus’ behavior is so fascinating.  In the book of Matthew Jesus verbally commanded us to love our enemies.  That is really hard.  But we can often get away with thinking we do this.  After all, an enemy is an abstract concept.  Enemies are not in your in-group.  They aren’t your people.  You don’t feel a connection to them.  You don’t come into contact with them often so it’s easy to love them in theory.  But then in the story of Zaccheus, Jesus commands us by example to love our in-group deviants.  This is so much harder. 

Just think how easy it is to talk about accepting each other’s differences and how hard it is to love that guy who always sits with you in the cafeteria making awkward comments and asking you to explain all your jokes.  How easy it is to accept the guy in the cool car driving by you on the road and how hard it is to love your clueless upper-class roommate who has no idea what it really means to work hard for something.  How easy it is to attend a civil discourse presenting both sides of a political debate and how hard it is to love your best friend from high school who insists on posting the most ridiculous, biased, political nonsense on facebook.  How easy it is to volunteer at an agency working with people recovering from addictions and how hard it is to love and forgive the person in your own family struggling with addiction.  How easy it is to have an international-style worship service and how hard it is to love that member of your church who let slip a racist comment the other day. 

Those people just don’t get it.  They are so embarrassing.  They are so frustrating.  They are so hard to love. 

The passage ends with Zaccheus having a change of heart – He gave half of his possessions to the poor.  Jesus then declares “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:9-10) Jesus reminds everyone that Zaccheus is a son of Abraham.  He reminds everyone of who Zaccheus belongs to.  We must seek the ability to love our in-group deviants because they belong to us and we belong to them. 

An apologetic for a Christian practice of mindfulness

In April of 2013 the psychology department of Trinity Christian College hosted it's annual conference. The conference, entitled Psychology Renewed, focused on the concept of mindfulness. The following post reflects one of the presentations at the conference. 


If I told Christian people that I was writing a blog on mindfulness I can imagine the looks I would get. Some would be purely quizzical – others, queasy. Mindfulness sounds too “out there”, too wishy-washy, too new-age, too Buddhist. However, if you look at how mindfulness is defined and discussed in many psychological circles it is possible to see mindfulness as a practice of certain orthodox Christian attitudes.

First, mindfulness involves holding a non-judgmental attitude toward one’s thoughts and experience (Carmody, 2009).

A Christian practicing this aspect of mindfulness is accepting the forgiveness of their thoughts. Many scripture passages speak of God knowing the hearts of men. Psalm 139:1-4 says that God knows our actions when we sleep, when we sit, and when we go out, but he also knows our thoughts and knows the words on our mouths before we say them. Not only does God know our interior life but he knows that we can sin in our interior life as Matthew 5:28 explains about committing adultery in the heart.

It is important to remember that Christ died for all our sins, those of the heart and mind as well as those of behavior. Many Christians get caught up in works-righteousness, trying to be perfect before God to the point of trying to perfect their own thought-life. Guilt is then suffered over bad thoughts and pride is committed over good thoughts. A Christian practicing mindfulness can recognize that some thoughts are just thoughts and those thoughts that are sinful are nailed to the cross at Calvary and hold dominion no more. Christ forgives us and forgives our thought life. An acceptance of this fact looks a lot like mindful non-judgment.

Second, mindfulness involves being in the present moment (Carmody, 2009).

A Christian practicing this aspect of mindfulness realizes that God created us so to live one moment of our lives at a time. Christians who dwell on the past find it difficult to mature and grow and work toward the kingdom of God. Christians who focus on the future may forget to acknowledge who holds the future. God gives us one moment at a time and if we constantly think about our lists, our schedules, and all the things we have to do we run the risk of not fully honoring and respecting God, his creatures, or his creation. For example, when talking with a friend we honor that person as a creature of God by listening attentively, asking questions, and showing we care rather than thinking of the errands we need to run that day. When sitting at a child’s soccer game and the sun shines brilliantly in the sky and the birds are calling to each other in the trees we honor God’s creation by sitting still and enjoying it rather than immediately responding to emails on our smart phones. By living in the present moment we honor God, who, existing outside of time, also lives in an eternal present. This too is a practice of mindfulness.

Last, mindfulness involves giving up control (Mace, 2008).

A Christian practicing this aspect of mindfulness recognizes that we are not in control but God is. Many Christians feel burdened by responsibilities; they feel responsible to bring others to Christ, to raise a family with Christian principles, to be good examples at their workplaces, and to be engaged in their communities. It is important to recognize that the outcomes of these activities do not depend on us. We are not ultimately in control. God is not our co-pilot; he is our pilot. We must always hand over the reins, submit ourselves to God, recognize that it is Christ who lives and works through us, act as servants of God, and repeat the words of Jesus: “not as I will, but as you will.” Acknowledging God’s sovereignty can be a form of mindfulness.

Mindfulness is essentially a practice. For Christians who want a discipline for practicing these spiritual truths they should not be deterred by the wishy-washy sounding name and Buddhist associations of mindfulness. In fact, I think we could all do with a little more Christian mindfulness.

References

Carmody, J. (2009). Evolving conceptions of mindfulness in clinical settings.

Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 270-280. Doi:10.1891/0889-3891.23.3.270

Mace, C. (2008). Mindfulness and mental health: Therapy, theory and science. New York, NY:Routledge/Taylor& Francis Group. 

Jessica Clevering, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity Christian College

Free will, the Holy Spirit, and the best predictor of future behavior

When I assign a compare/contrast essay to my Introduction to Psychology students I usually get certain responses. I ask the students to pick a perspective that has influenced the field of psychology (e.g. biological, behaviorist, cognitivist, humanist) and compare it to a Christian perspective. Students will often choose the behaviorist or biological perspective and rightly point out that these perspectives are very deterministic in nature while a Christian perspective supports the existence of human free will. Some students will also insightfully note that materialist worldviews like behaviorism ignore the possibility of the Holy Spirit acting in people’s lives to instigate change. 

My students are right, but sometimes I worry about them. As Christians we hear stories of dramatic conversions. We hear of people who were addicted to drugs and lived on the streets but who have turned their life around through Christ’s power. We talk about Chuck Colson who became a Christian and completely changed his life after being involved in the Watergate scandal. We read of the apostle Paul who went from persecuting Christians to preaching the gospel. These are powerful stories. They show that hearts can change, that God is mighty, and that no one’s future is determined by nature or nurture. However, there is a reason we treasure these miraculous events. It is because they are extraordinary. Extra-ordinary. Not ordinary. Usually change is very, very difficult. 

This is where my concern for my students comes in. It is somewhat of a psychological truism that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If I want to predict if a man will smoke a cigarette tomorrow the most important information I can get is not his age, not his attitude toward cigarettes, not even his faith in God, but whether or not he smoked a cigarette today. If I want to predict a woman’s attendance to a particular class session the most valuable information I can get is not her attitude toward class, not her Meyers-Briggs personality type, but her prior attendance record. 

While it is true that people can change, and that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of mankind, it would be unwise for us to ignore all of the useful insights that psychologists have gained while working under biological and behaviorist perspectives. Just because we reject the worldview of materialist perspectives like behaviorism we should not reject the research that came out of those perspectives. There is a lot to learn by studying brains, genes, learned behaviors, and early childhood experiences. We must not ignore the effects of neurotransmitters, the influence of inherited traits, or the power of learned behaviors. 

If we fail to take to heart the lessons learned from these perspectives through the over-emphasis of free will and change we run the risk of making bad decisions. As my dedicated students work hard to reject the anti-Christian ideas in some psychological theories I can’t help but fast-forward in my imagination to their futures. What if student X finds herself in an abusive relationship? Will she stick with him and believe that with enough love he will change? Or will she remember that nature, nurture, and learned behaviors are strong forces, highly resistant to change? What if student Y bends to the temptation to view internet pornography a handful of times? Will he remind himself of human free will and tell himself he can stop at any time? Or will he understand that such images are acting as powerful reinforcers and he is leading himself into a habit that has all the hallmarks of an addictive behavior?

God can change hearts and He can change minds and He can do these things in radical ways, but sometimes God allows us to struggle through the character-building life-lessons of slow and difficult change. As we struggle we can use the information God gave us through studies in psychological science. I always hope my students are enabled to do just that. 

Jessica Clevering, PhD., Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity Christian College