Science in Christian Perspective




From: JASA 15 (June 1963): 53-59.

Biblical theology and contemporary psychotherapy stand in complementary relationship to each other. They converge in their mutual concern with the whole person, and the relationship between persons. The tendency of the empiricist to fragment man for study has been counteracted by the recognition that man functions as an organized unit with spiritual and psychological dimensions as well as the physical. Thus both psychotherapy and Biblical theology have much to contribute to an understanding of man, and each contributes to the other. The scriptures, for example, are enriched in meaning when approached with psychological understanding. It is important that the psychotherapist be open to the assets of Biblical theology and that the Christian be open to the assets of psychotherapy.

I want to congratulate those who conceived a program whose major focus is upon modern psychology and its relation to the Christian faith. In bringing the two disciplines of Biblical theology and psychotherapy together, we are looking at one of the critical areas of hope in our time. Despite the vast accumulations of non-human and non-value information through the physical sciences, we still recognize that the clue to the future is in this great "terra incognita" which is human personality and human motivation.

Complementary Relationship

This topic is an ambitious one; I address myself to it with some misgivings. The topic stands at the point of intersection of two disciplines which are separated by centuries. Biblical theology is the most ancient source of wisdom about persons which has profoundly affected Western culture. Contemporary psychotherapy is probably the newest wisdom to be brought to bear upon the complexities of human behavior. Each of these disciplines represents a vast area of possibility which no scholar in an age of exploding horizons can hope to investigate completely in a lifetime. By argument "a fortiori," an address of brief duration can at best be only suggestive. I will be well compensated if I can contribute any insights which will be helpful toward the acceptance of a complementary relationship between Biblical theology and the insights of contemporary psychotherapy.

Is it too much to hope that one discipline would shed light upon the other? Is the contemporary psychotherapist so closed to the value dimensions which come out of Biblical theology that he will deliberately exclude them? Is the contemporary Biblical theologian so prejudiced against contemporary psychotherapeutic insights that psychotherapy can contribute no wisdom to the expansion of his understanding of the Bible or of the human dilemna?

In this address I want to use psychotherapy as a broad term covering the psychological, clinical, and counseling therapies as they are used in social service, the pastoral ministry, and the healing arts. We limit our consideration to psychotherapy as related to problems other than those having a basis in gross organic pathology. We have no concern to isolate a particular emphasis or psychological school, or to settle debates between analysts, Rogerians, directive counselors, logotherapists, hypnotherapists, chemotherapists, or other emphases. We want to address ourselves to the broad understanding of psychotherapy.

Our purpose is to suggest that Christian Biblical theology and psychotherapy are valid and separate wisdoms with areas of proximate insight and concern. The axes of these two disciplines converge in the person. All human existence has psychological and theological implications. The concern is for wholeness and holiness.

Traditionally, there have been four disciplines which have been concerned with the welfare of man and the shaping of his personality. Education has directed its service to the minds of men, psychology to his emotions, medicine traditionally to his bodily ills or health, and theology to his soul. Of these disciplines, all but theology have disregarded the axiological aspects of human need. Theology, on the other hand, tended to abstract the soul of man from the totality of his being as if a soul were something atomized and separate from the rest of the person. There is now a general admission that man cannot be so clearly and precisely dissected. All the dimensions of man's being are seen as inextricably involved in interaction. Static and mechanistic views of personality have given way to dynamic and interactional theories.

Psychosomatic medicine has emerged as a legitimate child of an inter-disciplinary rapprochement. With the recognition on the part of clinicians that it is possible

*Paper presented at the Seventeenth Annual Convention of the American Scientific Affiliation held at St. Paul, Minn., Aug., 1962.

**Dr. Forrester is President of Gordon College and Divinity School, Beverly Farms, Mass.

for the minister to bring some resources to bear on the total well-being of the patient, hospital chaplaincies are on the increase. In most seminaries today, ministers-intraining are required to take clinical courses.

During the opening decades of this century, Biblical theologians resisted with great emotion and much eloquence the reductionist and mechanistic interpretations of personality which characterized some of the psychological "schools." Some of this resistance rose from a sort of intuition rather than by actual perceptive procedures, but war was declared on both sides.

When at the turn of the century Dr. Starbuck began empirical investigations of religious conversion in the context of a culture affected by the "great awakening," he was unable to publish his book in the highly sensitized United States, so he thought it better to have it published in Great Britain. J. B. Watson, who is called the father of behaviorism, predicted that religiously supported morality would give way within fifty years to an expedient morality or an empirical ethic. The totality of human behavior could, from his point of view and from that of his colleagues, be reduced to conditioned reflex responses. Now we admit, after vast experimentation, that sensory motor concepts are of themselves too penurious to account for the complexities of human personality and for man's value structures and motivations.

Freud developed his pan-sexual concept as basic in understanding human motivation. He classified religion as the "universal neurosis." In his Civilization and Its Discontent published in English in 1930, he uttered his classic and blanket indictment of Christianity in these words:

The whole thing is so patently infantile, so incongruous with reality that to one whose attitude to humanity is
friendly, it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of
life. (3)

It must be remembered that psychology began as philosophy. Its method was introspection and discourse. It dealt with material available to consciousness. Then came the application of new insights derived from clinical situations, especially those insights involving the unconscious. The new concepts brought with them certain assets and certain inherent liabilities. Let me suggest three liabilities of which we have now become aware.

The first of these liabilities is the tendency to absolutize the scientific methodology, which has the effect of focusing an exclusive attention on all the quantifiable aspects of human behavior. Simultaneously, the nonobjective, non-quantifiable value-dimensions of experience are discounted or avoided, and even the unifying core of human experience which we call the individual self is diminished to zero in psychological consideration, or it remains an embarrassment.

Religious behavior was not, therefore, a concern of the psychological approaches which were empirically developed. In psychotherapy, religion was no longer considered as a real factor in the patient. It was neither an asset nor a liability. It was just not significant.

Dr. Robert B. MacLeod, professor of psychology at Cornell University, made the following observation about this diminution of interest in religion:

Since psychology became an empirical science, there has been little interest in the psychological analysis of religious phenomena. One can count almost on the fingers of one hand the really significant studies that have appeared. For the most part the psychology of religion has been concerned either with peripheral aspects of religion, the peculiarities or curiosities of religious behavior, or with a more or less moralistic evaluation of the variable in character development- Chapters on religion are more likely to be found in books of the psychology of the abnormal, social psychology, mental hygiene, and psychological development or educational psychology. One looks in vain for such discussion in the standard works on the experimental psychology of the normal human adult. Why this neglect of such an obviously important field of research? (4, p. 10)

Ile answer is at least in part that an approach to all the complexities of human personality which assumes the only real world to be the world of observable phenomena, has a tendency to fragment men and then to concentrate only on the part of him which is amenable to methodology. It is fallacious to extend conclusions from the sectional analysis of behavioral phenomena to the whole complex of individual motivation.

In extenuation of this situation, one might say that "die price that is paid for any spectacular advance in human understanding, whether in science or in any other branch of human learning, is a narrowing of consciousness, a deliberate exclusion of alternative modes of experience and thought. One has, as it were, to squint and dose the other eye in order to look down the microscope" (1, p. 6). That is to say that while we have concentrated on the empirically derived information, we have tended to be unaware of any other dimension. While we have been obsessed with the empirical, we have lost specific focus on the value dimension. Knowledge and wisdom, it has been said in our time, have separated. Yet this wisdom whose price is far above rubies which should concern us.

The second liability in empirical procedure is that many of the personality theorists have reached conclusions about healthy behavior which were drawn from their observation of psychopathological behavior. Some of these conclusions are valid, but, quite apart from the fallacious logical danger, there is a practical danger.

The higher forms of human achievement tend to be seen in terms of rather turgid origins. Through the process of reaction formation, of transformation and sublimation, the lower drives became the motivating force for even the highest levels of human achievement. Environment was the modifying factor; but in this procedure, the creative self was lost and a healthy self was not evaluated.

The third liability is that there developed, paradoxically, a concentration upon the individual as a passive and hence irresponsible resultant of past experiences and hereditary and environmental factors. That is to say, the discretionary function, if any, of the individual was lost to view. This is actually scientific determinism in which the human freedom of choice is lost, in which right and wrong become blurred, in which any insistence on the Ten Commandments is irrelevant at best or, at worst, conducive to emotional illness.

In the past decade a healthy awareness of these liabilities has appeared among theoretical and applied psychologists, and in the therapeutic field. Men such as Gordon Allport, Angyall, Baruk, Caruso, Frankl, the late Carl Gustav Jung, Maslow, Mowrer, Goldstein, May, Tournier, Ernest White, and many others have swung the focus of inquiry to the non-pathological, selfactualizing individual. These investigators may have taken the first steps toward delivering us from these liabilities. Indeed, one of the interesting symbols in discussion in our time is that of the "higher unconscious" as distinct from Freud's and Jung's lower unconscious or subconscious. But the "person" is being recovered to view.

Now while we point at some of the disadvantages, we must affirm that there has remained from the empirical and clinical approaches to human behavior a great precipitate of assets. Freud, for example, out of his therapeutic enterprise, made an important distinction between the conscious and unconscious determinants of human behavior, a distinction which cannot be discounted. He made us aware of the disguised meanings behind much of the symbolic currency of our communication. He clued us in on the significance of dream material. He emphasized the importance of the emotional development of children in relation to the neuroses of adult life. Whatever we say critically of Freud, we must admit that his theories are still influential in contemporary therapeutic practice and theory.

The behaviorists pointed the way to the insight that some neuroses represent learned patterns of response. When this point of view predominates in therapeutic considerations, the procedure is to "unlearn" the individual and then to "recondition" him in terms of more adequate responses. There is an indication here that the cortical assets are brought into operation to a greater degree, and there are those who follow in the pattern of Dollard and Miller in making good therapeutic use of the educative process.

Then there are the field theories of Lewin and others which lifted the individual from his isolation and studied him in the dynamic context of his "living space" within the vectors of force which converged upon him. From such investigations psycho-socio-dynamic theories of behavior emerged.

The Gestaltists put an emphasis upon the innate propensity in man to perceive whole forms and thus to pass in his perception from the amorphous to the definitive. In achieving insight, so the Gestaltists discovered, there was an accompaniment of anxiety reduction.

Important as these and other hypotheses are, they are too parsimonious to account for all the rich complexity of human responses. Nevertheless, we now have an empirically eclectic possibility which has value in psychotherapy. It is at this level that we begin to discover an exciting correlation between many of the contemporary psychotherapeutic insights and those insights which have been known from Biblical wisdom.

In this maturing process of the psychotherapeutic discipline, personality has, to some extent, been recovered as an active entity in a total and dynamic interactional situation. Religious experience has come into better perspective. Any complete and objective psychological account of human behavior cannot perpetually avoid so universal a phenomenon as religious behavior. However, if religious behavior is only a phenomenon of human experience to be recorded and classified by a human observer who pre-judges its interior meaning to the individual, no satisfactory explanatory concepts or hypotheses are likely to be developed.

There are practical difficulties inherent in the highly individualized and subjective nature of religious experience which make controlled experiments difficult or impossible and hence leave the most likely theoretical constructs without empirical validation. The most probable explanatory concepts are those that can adequately accommodate the meanings which motivate the person observed and classified as behaving "religiously." To say this, however, implies a radical modification of methodology. Brown and Ghiselli in their book Scien tific Method in P~ychology (2) suggest that such a modification of methodology must be determined by three underlying factors: first, the nature of the subject to be studied; second, the nature of the specific problem to be solved; and third, the stage of inquiry at which we have arrived.

From the perspectives of evangelical and Biblical understandings we are forced to question the epistemological presuppositions which are tacitly assumed in the empirical methodology. The all-pervasive scope of the scientific approaches in Western culture assumes that information about the totality of existence may be acquired only by empirical investigation. For the purpose of such investigation then, all the dimensions of existence-if all existence is to be included-must be subsumed under but one category, namely, observable, quantifiable phenomena.

From the Christian standpoint, there are three dimensions of existence: (1) the dimension of things animate or things inanimate, (2) the distinct Biblical dimension of persons, and (3) the manifest dimension of God. The empirical procedures are adequate to ascertain truth about the universe of things; insofar as people can be objectified (i.e., considered as objects) and quantified, these methods can be applied to behavior. However, 1~persons," in terms of the "self" which is intuitively grasped as the unifying center of behavioral phenomena in both the intra-personal and interpersonal senses, evade this kind of methodology. And again, since God as the Creator stands over against all phenomena, He is not discoverable as quantum. "Canst thou, by searching, find out God?" (John 11:7).* Paul wrote also that "the world failed to find Him by its wisdom." (I Cor. 1:21) *.

Let us look at persons. There is no debate about the appropriateness of the empirical method for the discovery of the physical universe, but there is a debate about the uncritical use of such a method with respect to persons. It is important that we be clear on this debate. We can understand people in two ways: objectively and scientifically, or subjectively and intuitively. Some languages betray this insight. The German equivalent of the English verb "to know" is not one word but two: "wissen" or "kennen." In French these are "savoir" and "connaitre." Spanish also has two words. Only in English is there but one.

Paul Tournier, the Swiss physician who has become involved in psychotherapy and in some theological articulation, suggests in his magnificent and timely insight that in knowing persons we must pass from information to communion. You can only know about persons from the empirical methods. You know persons in relational interaction involving the conative levels of being.

The total discovery of the person, then, is dependent upon the uncovering of one person to another in interpersonal communication; and this uncovering is on a different level from our empirical investigations, although the two would not necessarily be in contradiction to each other. So we can have explanatory theories about people, but we can only know them in personal interaction.

Now consider the third dimension of existence, God. If in the Biblical sense He is noumenal (spirit) and not phenomenal (thing), we can only know God in the sense of personal interaction. In His mighty redemptive act in Jesus Christ He has made Himself available for human communion, human fellowship, human knowledge, and human relationship (Phil. 2:5-11). The word truth used in the New Testament one hundred times is the antonym of die word conceal. "Truth" means what is revealed, so when the word is used in the statement "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," it is not the empirical truth, it is not the discursive truth which is denoted. It is the truth of the revelation of God made available through a Person to persons in Jesus Christ.

There is a shift toward a wider epistemological tolerance emerging from the clinical areas of psychotherapy rather than from the experimental areas of psychology. Winkler argues that in any adequate theory of personality, man must be seen as "a person in the philosophic and theologic sense who relates as an individual to the transcendental reality. He can also fail and thereby produce something that could be labelled. ,existential neurosis' " (6, p. 288).

The effect of this obvious shift is to bring the insights of contemporary psychotherapy into a more proximate relationship with Biblical insights. Both Biblical and psychotherapeutic concerns are focused upon man as a whole person. Specifically, they are related in some way to man's needs, his motivations, his life and health, his sickness and death, his conduct, his intrapersonal and his interpersonal relationships, his loves, his hates, his guilts, his anxieties, his value structures. The Bible and contemporary psychotherapy speak to us about these needs in proximate ways.

The Bible communicates a wisdom from God which is available to man for his redemption. Contemporary psychotherapy gives us a wisdom from men which is available for the alleviation of emotional disease. We believe there is no contradiction between these wisdoms. They are not identical; but proximate and complementary patterns have appeared which can be appropriated for human wholeness and human holiness.

To sustain this thesis, we turn to the Bible with psychological understanding, and we find that the Bible comes alive with deeper meanings. The Biblical insights antedate contemporary psychotherapeutic insights by many centuries. The stories of the Bible illustrate die whole gamut of the human drama. Turn to the Old Testament and look at the story of the Garden of Eden and you find a full theistic anthropology. We usually search the Bible for its theology and the Bible does speak to us of God and of God's way with men, but we should also be aware of the Bible's anthropology.

Both psychotherapy and Biblical theology must ask the question, "What is man?" The ideas which have most profoundly affected history have stemmed from a specific view of man. For example, Darwin suggested a completely different anthropological understanding of man with respect to his origins than had been current. Freud made new anthropological assumptions. Karl Marx had an anthropology. In American education, John Dewey had an influential point of view because he started with a reconstructed anthropology.

The secular psychotherapist has an embarrassing number of anthropological emphases from which t

choose. Dr. Orville Walters has pointed out that there is no mature science of man. He says in "Metaphysics, Religion and Psychotherapy" that "there are only doctrines of man among psychotherapists" (5, p. 250).

The Biblical understanding of man is clearly written in Genesis. "God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over die cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:26, 27).

In the second chapter of Genesis there is some elaboration in the seventh verse: "Then the Lord God

*From The New Englisb Bible. The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1961. Reprinted by permission.

formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." There are other elaborations of this basic statement in the Pauline epistles, in the third and eighth chapters of Romans. At least this can be said from the story: man participated in two realms, in a spiritual order and in the world of nature. So man is Biblically construed in his innocence not as a body having a soul, but as a spiritual being in the likeness of God, clothed in a body. (Also see II Peter 1:14.) In the Bible, man is an essential self in the likeness of God, having a phenomenal manifestation or expression which participates in the biological world and in the world of nature.

If man is a "living soul," then he must be a becoming being. He must in the process of existence be going somewhere. In the pristine situation, what are the alternatives? Man cannot become God; he cannot become a beast or a thing; he might become himself in the fullness of understanding, in the fellowship that was known with God, but man in his freedom made a choice. Man used his freedom to revolt.

There are three psychologically significant things which follow. Guilt leads to self-defeating deceptiveness, and deception leads to ruptured relationship. In the third chapter of Genesis, the guilty pair are deceptive. They are guilty, defensive, self-conscious, and resort to a pattern of disguise. They knew that they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. They had to dissolve their embarrassment by hiding themselves from one another and then telling themselves the whole thing never happened. They heard the voice of the Lord God, who was walking in the Garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. God became an embarrassment to them, so they denied Him communication.

As you read the story further, you find Adam projecting the blame on Eve. He could not find selfacceptance, so he projected his guilt on Eve. Eve projected both her own and Adam's on the serpent. The effect is a great "aloneness."

In the seventh chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, there is an interesting statement on "projection" which is psychologically axiomatic. In fact~ it can be diagnostic in its value. "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with that judgment wherewith ye judge another, ye shall likewise also be judged" (Mat. 7:1, 2). One of the best clues to the inner dynamics of the difficulties of a human being who is judgmental or projective in his technique is found in the content of his judgment. Very often what is projected on someone else is his own greatest inner problem, the problem he is not facing realistically.

Biblical insights and psychotherapy proximate one another at the point of the importance of relationship.

For theology, man alone without God is lost. For psychology and the psychotherapeutic understandings, man who is sick withdraws from relationship. The sick people one meets in the hospital are so often people who are out of communication with other people and they are called "regressed" persons.

For the therapist, these relationships are seen as interpersonal and intrapersonal. For the Biblical theologian, the first and great commandment has three dimensions that are spelled out in Mat. 22:37-39 and Deut. 6:5. The young attorney asked our Lord Jesus Christ, "Which is the great commandment?" Our Lord said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." There are three relationships in this articulation of the fundamental commandment. Inappropriate relations. lead to anxiety, and inadequate attempts to cover these relations lead to guilts, and thus the spiral to illness is initiated. The Bible, as well as contemporary psychotherapy, points strongly at relationship as the focus of an area of great importance in health and well being. Limitation is the condition of adequate relationship. God, if we allow Him to exist, and our neighbor, if we recognize his existence, are the signs of our finitude and our limitations. There is no one who has unlimited freedom. Paul Sartre says that man is the chronic enemy of his fellow man, and we could add, also of himself.

The Bible is clear. In Ecclesiastes 7:20, we read, "Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not." Psalm 143:2 puts it, "No living man is acquitted before thee." In Proverbs 20:9 we read, "Who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin?" And Isaiah sums it up in the 6th verse of the 53rd chapter, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way." We have operated as if God did not exist. We have operated as if our neighbor had a lesser value than we, as if his rights were to be restricted by our presence. In this way of living is the fundamental tragedy in which we all participate.

In some ways psychotherapy touches upon this point. The late Dr. Gregory Zilboorg, a friend of the interdisciplinary activity of our time, wrote of Freud in these words: "Without knowing it, Freud soon discovered he was studying the psychological reactions of man in the state of sin. He was at once confronted with the anxiety, the sense of guilt, and the sexual' conflicts which burdened his mental patients. He discovered that there is no man living who is not burdened with what he called 'the precipitate of the Oedipus complex,' man's perennial sense of guilt" (7, p. 334).

Here is an interesting proximation on the part of a contemporary psychotherapist, one who is now gone, but one who spoke for his colleagues in some areas. Something is basically wrong; and that which is basically wrong is in the area of relationships involving hostility, guilt and anxiety.

Psychological Insights in the Old Testament

There are psychological insights in the Old Testament. Have you ever read the 32nd Psalm from a clinical standpoint? This Psalm begins with a statement of felicity. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." This person has dealt with his guilts so he is "blessed." This is the euphoric state.

Then follows the analysis, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity . . . " He has no sense of guilt in the presence of God . . . . .. and in whose spirit there is no guile." He is not deceiving God, and he is not deceiving himself. Behind much functional disturbance is other-deception, self-deception and, from a theological standpoint, deception of God. Emotionally sick people do not deal in the currency of reality. Many persons who come to the psychotherapist want to be rid of their symptoms, but they do not want to deal with the reality that is the condition of their healing. This man has had therapy in a sense. He is blessed. He has come to accept reality about himself and God.

Continuing with Psalm 32, "when I kept silence ... 11 What is this? The clinical picture is one of suppression. ". . . my bones waxed old . . ." Is this clinical and neurotic fatigue? ". . . through my roaring all the day long." Is this compulsive hostility expressed verbally? "For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me . . ." Here is a sleepless person. ". . . and my moisture is turned into the drouth of summer," a symptom of anxiety in the inability to salivate. Then comes the cathartic and therapeutic process: "I acknowledge my sin unto thee and my iniquity have I not hid; I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." Then he gives his testimony which reveals both psychological and theological elements.

In Psalm 19:12 is the question: "Who can understand his errors?" This question is immediately followed by the perceptive statement, "Cleanse thou me from secret faults." This verse suggests an understanding, which antedates Freud, of those dynamic factors which lie below the level of consciousness and which lead to compulsive behavior. Paul senses this also in the conflict of Romans 7. Phillips puts it this way: "My own behavior baffles me" (Rom. 7:14).

A few years ago there came into my office in Los Angeles a man who was a very fine citizen and a deacon in his church. He was distraught; he was the very pic ture of a distraught person. He said, "Pastor, I am in great distress. After eighteen years of happy marriage, something terrible has happened. This morning I got into an altercation with my wife. I didn't think it was serious, either in substance or intensity, and before I knew it, I had struck her in the face-a thing I had never done, and she fell to the ground. "Now," he said, "we've made it all up, but I need help. I don't understand myself. This was not me." Here was a clinical picture which makes contemporary the question of the Psalmist-"Who can understand his errors?"

The man's great need was somewhere below the level of his awareness. He felt that in some way God could help him, so he sought the help of a clergyman. These are the reaches of the human dilemma which the Spirit of God can find. The Bible speaks its wisdom in ways which are complementary to contemporary psychotherapy on questions of the training of children and adolescents, on questions of marriage, of middle-age, of old age. The Bible comes to us with a new word, "love." The psychiatrist speaks of love and spells it out as well: self-acceptance, no condemnation, acceptance of others, loving out of sufficiency rather than compulsively or neurotically out of need. Menninger says that love is the medicine which the world needs.

We have suggested that there are two valid wisdoms which proximate one another, but which are neither contradictory nor identical. Psychotherapy seeks to bring insight to anxious and disturbed persons for more effective relationships in the context of society. Biblical theology seeks to interpret the life of God in Jesus Christ in the fives of men for their total and ultimate redemption. If there are intrinsic values in the psychotherapeutic and in the Biblical approaches, we suggest that an effective therapist will be open to the assets of Biblical religion and  conversely, the Christian will be open to the assets of psychotherapy.

There is a danger that some people will make of psychotherapy a kind of cult and that others will make of the ministry a kind of psychological manipulative device. The fact is that in human personality the biopsychosocio-spiritual vectors intersect one another in ongoing human existence. For the Christian the wisdom of the clinic will stand under the judgment of the ultimate wisdom of the Gospel. There are no secular means by which a temporal man can find life in the bosom of the eternal. There is a wisdom from Him who makes the whole person become the holy person. It is the wisdom of the Cross by which men are forgiven and lifted from alienation to fellowship, from self-condemnation or divine condemnation to reconciliation, from anxiety to peace, from death to life eternal. It is the preaching of the Cross-to the "religious," still a stumbling block; to the Greek, the intellectual empiricist, mere foolishness, but to those who are open to its totality of insight, "the power of God and the wisdom of God."

So we are saved. Let us be open to the valid insights that come by the empirical, the clinical, and the psychotherapeutic methodologies. Let us recognize our need of these, and let us recognize also from the Biblical theological perspectives that man reaches his ultimate fulfillment as he finds an ultimate relationship to the eternal God and discovers a transcendental purpose in his relationship with Him.

1. Black, Max, "The Sciences and the Arts: Harmony or Discord?" in The Growth of Knowledge: The New Threat to Education? Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1961.
2. Brown, C. W. & Ghiselli, E. B., Scientific Method in Psychology. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1955.
3. Freud, Sigmund, Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Hogarth Press, 1930. 6.
4. MacLeod, Robert B., Religious Perspectives of College Teaching-In Experimental Psychology. New Haven: The Edward W. Hazen Foundation, n.d.

5. Walters, Orville S., "Metaphysics, Religion, and Psychotherapy" 1. couns. Psychol., Vol. 5, No. 4, 1958, pp. 243-252.
6. Winkler, W. T., In Fromm-Reichmann, F., & Moreno, J. L. (Eds.), Progress in Psychotherapy N. Y.: Grune & Stratton, 1956.
7. Zilboorg, Gregory, Mind, Medicine, and Man. N. Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1943.