Science in Christian Perspective


Psychology and Christianity: A Substantial Integration
Counseling and Testing Center
University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824

From: JASA 27 (June 1975): 60-66.

An expanded version of this paper was presented at the 1974 Convention of the Christian Association for Papeholoeial Studies and was published in the Journal of Psychology and Theology 2, 116-124 (1974).

The assumption is made that God's revelation in the Bible is complementary to His revelation in nature, and that psychology is complementary to theology and science and other areas of investigation. An attempt is then made to see how the Bible, nature, psychology, and science in general stand in relation to truth and how psychology conducts its individual inquiry into that truth. First, it is shown how platonic thinking causes scientific psychology to lead to nothingbutism and ratomorphism, humanistic psychology to the illusion of communication and mysticism with nobody there, and both to existential despair. Second, a levels of inquiry model is proposed, with several variations. Third, a conduct of inquiry model is presented whereby psychology can combine with and supplement Christianity with each retaining its integrity at its own level of inquiry. Dogmatizers, dichotomizers, and synthesizers are discussed, along with their implications, and it is concluded that unity of inquiry is possible only within the wholeness of truth. Given the premise that we can know truly without knowing exhaustively, we can indeed accomplish a substantial integration of psychology and Christianity.

The Psychologist

He takes the saints to pieces, And labels all the parts,
He tabulates the secrets Of loyal loving hearts.
He probes their selfless passion And shows exactly why
The martyr goes out singing, To stiffer and to die.
The beatific vision That brings them to their knees
He smilingly reduces To infant phantasies.
The Freudian unconscious Quite easily explains
The splendour of their sorrows, The pageant of their pains.
The manifold temptations, Wherewith the flesh can vex
The saintly soul, are samples of Oedipus complex.
The subtle sex perversion, His eagle glance can tell,
That makes their joyous heaven The horror of their hell.
His reasoning is perfect,
His proofs as plain as paint, lie has but one small weakness,
He cannot make a saint.1

What is a saint? As a Christian psychologist, I want to know, to fully understand. On the one hand, psychology can take me only so far; on the other, religious writings and my own Christian experience also provide something less than a full understanding of what it is to be a saint.

The logical strategy would be to combine in some way the best of both worlds. But if I simply take what man can do (psychology) and tack onto it what God can do (Christianity), I will have constructed a false dichtotomy. It would be similar to the boundary-line mentally referred to by Jacques Ellil:

One drew a boundary line between two efficaeies, that of human means and that of prayer, which latter was set in motion at the point at which the human means stopped, or else it added its efficacy to the efficacy of those means. The famous saying of Amboise Pare, 'I bandage, God heals,' illustrates that attitude very well.2

Genuine prayer is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with its, a permission granted by God, a reality dependent upon Him alone, according to Ellul. This is exactly the point I wish to make about psychology. Psychology is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with us, a permission granted by God, and a reality dependent upon God alone.

To achieve a significant integration, psychology and Christianity must come together in a way that includes wholeness of truth and in a way that promotes unity and mutuality, not dualism. The goal should be mutual enrichment: a calling not for less science, but more and more than science.

My strategy in this paper is to recognize that Christianity is represented most clearly by the Bible, which is at a different level of inquiry than psychology. Whereas God's revelation in the Bible is complementary to His revelation in nature, psychology is complementary to theology and science and other areas of investigation. (John R. W. Stott represents God's special revelation in Scripture as verbalized and His general revelation in nature as visualized; and His special revelation in Christ as both - "the Word made flesh.")3 My goal is to see how the Bible, nature (including people), psychology, and science in general stand in relation to truth, and how psychology conducts its individual inquiry into that truth.

In order to begin, we must expand on the "I bandage, God heals" mentality cited above. Psychology can help us to understand and appreciate how God works more fully, but only if we leave false boundaries of fact vs. faith aside and resist the temptation to utilize psychology as "proof" either for or against God. Francis Schaeffer severely criticizes our historic opting for Plato, which encouraged using psychology as proof for God or for some equivalent: "The resurrection and ascension prove there is no reason to make a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the material. That is a totally nonbiblical concept. The material and the spiritual are not opposed."4 Had God wanted us to know of a totally spiritual resurrection, He would have raised Christ as a formless, bodyless spirit - but Christ appeared, ate food, and was touched. The New Testament does not get caught up by Plato's immortality1 of the soul, but speaks of the resurrection and ascension of the body, the totality, the gestalt.

Similarly, we later opted for Freud and continued radically to distort the biblical view. We simply bought the material half of the platonic dichotomy and used psychology as proof against God or any God-substitute. How tragic! In neither way, following either Plato or Freud, have we fully understood an answer to that question: what is a saint?

Platonic Thinking

As a Christian psychologist, I am continuously confronting a modern thought pattern that I call "platonic thinking." This is the precipitous forcing of what we perceive into dichotomous polarities. In psychology, it has led to "nnthingbutism" and "ratomorphism" (for those who opt for Freud this includes behaviorism), to an illusion of communication and "mysticism with nobody there" for those who opt for Plato, and ultimately to existential despair for both camps. Of course I could have begun this section with, "In my professional life as a psychologist and in my personal life as a Christian . . .", but that would in itself have been a forcing of my life into a dichotomy and a glaring example of platonic thinking.

Psychology is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with us, a permission granted by God, and a reality dependent upon God alone.

Psychologists for the most part are fond of announcing from time to time that man is nothing but this or nothing but that. To think of man in any other way is nonrational and epiphenomcnal; to behaviorists, words like freedom and dignity are merely explanatory fictions and "mental way stations".

A large number of psychologists are also prone to argue through analogy with animals, i.e., attaching the same label to human and rat behaviors which look similar, and then claiming that the human behaviors have been explained. This overemphasis upon observable and quantifiable information relegates other ways of viewing the human condition to the nonrational area of human thought. The assumption is made that the human behavior need not be further "explained", particularly if the animal behavior arises from obvious and well-documented causation. The effect is a diminishing sense of wonder and mystery. Questions about either half of the analogy tend to cease, and if they don't, the result is simply an infinite regression of analogies.

Rationally, these psychologists leave each of us existing at the center of a personal universe where nothing happens-the scenery "outside" changes and people pass by, and that is all. There are no beginnings, there is no exit, and the only relationship that can be established is that of being in the way. None of us has any right to exist; each of us is a zero. We deny any claims on its from the outside and deny the necessity for making decisions. We deny that meaning is personal, that it is worth finding, or that it is even possible to find. This existential despair, drawing on the works of Jean Paul Sartre and Viktor Frank], is the ultimate result of platonic thinking.

Existential despair is also inevitable for those psychologists relegated to the nonrational pole of the platonic dichotomy. These humanistic psychologists have created what Francis Schaeffer calls an "illusion of eomrnunieation"-using undefined words with strong connotations, such as love and will, thereby provoking highly motivated reactions simply because such words are deeply rooted in tradition. The use of these connotation words is always in the nonrational area, a process which Sehaeffer calls "mysticism with nobody there". "And having no absolutes, modem man has no categories. One can think of the movie Blow-Up: 'murder without guilt; love without meaning.' One cannot have real answers without categories, and these men can have no categories, beyond pragmatic, technological ones."' No absolutes-no categories-no definitions. Being thus separated from definition, connotaton words are divorced from possible verification by reason, and there is no certainty that there is anything beyond the words themselves. "We need to understand, therefore, that it is an act of desperation to make this separation, in which all hope is removed from the realm of rationality. It is a real act of despair, which is not changed merely by using [humanistic] words."6

Our conclusion should not be that psychology should be eliminated from the scientific enterprise, but that platonic thinking should be eliminated from our modern thought pattern.

Levels of Inquiry

Francis Schaeffer has very graphically analyzed the evolution of human thought, showing how modern thought has grown from polluted roots far back in the late Middle Ages. At that time God and nature, the original grounds of all knowledge, were set against each other in a dichotomous fashion:


God was thereby arbitrarily taken out of the foundational level of inquiry, just as reason has gradually been relegated out of the transcendental area of human thought:

                                          grace     freedom    faith           non-rational 7
                                         ----- > --------->  --------->  -------------
                                         nature    nature       rationality      rational 

In terms of the discussion of platonic thinking above, the characterization of the present state of affairs becomes:

                                                      non-rational (connotation words)
                                                        rational (defined words)

It then becomes obvious that the dilemma for psychology is much the same as for theology: any attempt to experience oneself in a nonmachine-like way necessarily entails a nonratiorial 'leap upstairs". God is dead.

Applying my own terminology to Schaeffcr's "upper and lower stories", as he calls them, I come up with the following:

                                                                      Bible |  humanities
                                                                    - ------|-------------
                                                                     nature | Science

In this model, the Bible and humanities (including theology and Humanistic Psychology) comprise the upper story, and nature and Science (including Scientific Psychology) comprise the lower story.

Now if we rotate the above model to the left 90 degrees, we end up with a model that I regard as an accurate representation of reality rather than of the thoughts about that reality as depicted by Schaeffer:

                                                               humanities |  Science
                                                                       Bible |  nature

My contention is that rationality exists in each of the quadrants; there is no rational-nonrational split in the real world. This model is our first step in eliminating platonic thinking from our modern thought pattern and promoting an integration of psychology and Christianity based on unity and not on dualism.

The second step is to recognize that we have a model of two different levels of inquiry. This is necessary because the problem still exists after step one that one area of rationality can defeat or "disprove" another, e.g., the traditional Bible-Science dichotomy. The danger is expressed well by Viktor Frank]:

As soon as we have interpreted religion as being merely a product psychodynamics, in the sense of unconscious motivating forces, we have missed the point and last sight of the authentic phenomenon. Through such a misconception, the psychology of religion often becomes psychology as religion, in that psychology is sometimes worshipped and made an explanation for everything.8

The fact that there are two levels of inquiry is well stated by Richard Bube:

Science is not regarded as complementary to the Bible. The created natural world is regarded as complementary to the revealed world of the Bible . . . . It we recognize that we have trustworthy revelation from God both in the natural world and in the Bible, can we not then cease from pursuing these false dichotomies: science or Scripture, evolution or creation, natural or God caused...9

Psychology should not be eliminated from the scientific enterprise, but platonic thinking should be eliminated
from our modern thought pattern.

Similiarly, John R. W. Stott views natural law not as ". . . an alternative to divine action, but {as] a useful way of referring to it", of thinking God's thoughts after Him.10 More specifically,

Any theory of evolution-as a biological theory and not as a philosophical position-seeks to explain how plants an animal got to be the way they are. Biblical creation explains Who did it and why He did it; it does not explain how . . . . The Bible does not disprove evolution as biological theory; it does deny philosophical evolutionary materialism. Neither can biological theory be used to invalidate Scripture, although it may cast doubt on some of the traditional (and often unjustified) interpretations of Scripture.11

Translated into the levels of inquiry model I am proposing, we have:

                                                                              Who; why

Another way of expressing the levels of inquiry is given by Rollo May:

If science does not give the content of . . . values, this is not because science has not progressed far enough as vet. It is, rather because the content of values and the testing which science does are on two different levels. As Albert Einstein put it, the scientific method 'can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other; the aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, . . . Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be12

This can be presented as:

                                                            what is 
                                                      what should be


                                                        descriptive (what is) 
                                 prescriptive (what must be and what must have been) 

And with a little alteration, it becomes:

                                                       what men can do 
                                                    what men should do

While representing levels of inquiry, this last variation of the model also represents boundary conditions for our inquiry. As graphically portrayed by Schaeffer's Pollution and the Death of Man, Christians operate under both what men can and should do; "modern man", however, is limited only by what technology limits him to. Whatever is, is right. Purposes and genuine ends drop out of sight, and efficiency and mere results become the central concern.13

Regardless of how we choose to conceptualize the two levels of inquiry, it is important that we keep in mind two things about the Bible/nature level. First, it is prescientific, not in -the sense of being less sophisticated than science, unscientific, or even antiscientific, nor of merely preceding scientific inquiry, but because it is not bound by particular methods of inquiry. Second, it may he combined with and supplemented by the humanities/Science level, but not subdued, confirmed, nor altered by it.

Conduct of Inquiry

How can psychology, as an attestation of living with God and a reality solely dependent upon God, combine with and supplement Christianity, the experience of living with God and a reality based on God's revelation through Scripture and nature? How can this be done so that each retains its integrity at its own level of inquiry?

D. M. MacKay tells the story of two people sitting on the edge of a cliff, looking out to sea one evening. After a while they saw a light flashing on and off at sea, and one of the people, a physicist, remarked that given a little time he could give a full account of the wavelength, emission rate, frequency, and various other characteristics of the light. His friend, however, became increasingly agitated, since he vaguely remembered having learned something about the Morse code. He had become quite aware that the light flashes were communicating a message. In fact, they were saying that the piece of cliff on which the physicist and his friend were sitting was beginning to crumble and would shortly slide into the sea.14 The physicist could have provided an exhaustive description of the physical phenomenon occurring at the light source, but this alone would have left out another extremely important aspect of the phenomenon, namely its meaning. The implication is that two inquiries into the same phenomenon can maintain their integrity and still supplement each other in a fruitful way.

When truth is fragmented, with each of several camps claiming to possess all of the "truth" in some general sense, inquiry becomes a sham.

In the quadrant model I have proposed above, integrative movement should be possible vertically and diagonally across levels of inquiry and horizontally within levels of inquiry. There is only one big if: if it is done in terms of approach and not in terms of some present answer. Each individual approach does need to be clarified, however. Integration is obviously contaminated by the easy application of preset answers, among which is modern-day scientism. People who practice this mentality, I call dogmatizers. Much more subtle is the violation of integration accomplished by two misguided approaches, represented by people I call dichotomizers and synthesizers.

Scientism, simply stated, is ". . . the unscientific attitude of making science the ultimate source and goal of knowledge and life."5 This is the kind of unthinking dogmatism condemned by Abraham Kaplan as bias: dictating the problem and prejudging the solution.16 It can also be what Milton Rokeach refers to as a closed mind: intolerance of amhiguity.17 This is the distinct inability to live with dilemmas and a seeking to "wrap up" issues rather than pursuing them at both levels of inquiry. If the dogmatizer were to adopt an open mind, he would not have to fear ending up with an empty one.
I have discussed dichotomizing at some length above, but the dichotomizer presents a little different twist. In the words of Richard Bube.

Science is a human interpretation of data derived from sense contacts with [the] created natural world. Its complementary category in Christian faith is not the Bible (which corresponds to the created world the data) but rather theology, which is the interpretation by men of the revealed word of the Bible in the light of the Bible and their experience. Cod made the world, and Cod gave the Bible. Men make Science and men make theology.18

This clearly prevents the false dichotomy of Science vs. Scripture, as referred to above, but it is in terms only of answer, not approach. Whereas the dogmatizer is thereby limited, our approach toward integration is also severely limited, because of the creation of a diagonal, a horizontal, and a vertical dichotomy. Given our levels of inquiry model,

                                                              humanities  | Science
                                                                      Bible  |  nature

our approach becomes very narrow if Science and the Bible cannot mingle, if Science is rigidly defined as method as opposed to way of thought, and biblical revelation is simply data to he interpreted. Perhaps Science should not actually interpret the Bible, but how will they ever combine with and supplement each other if they are kept so rigidly apart? If both were considered as levels of inquiry, with both providing supplementary answers -
                                                                      Who; why

there would be no problem.
The horizontal dichotomy consists of not allowing the humanities and Science to mingle, by restricting the former to interpretation of biblical revelation and the latter to interpretation of natural revelation. This may be the more natural pattern, but it is simply not reasonable to assume that Scientific Psychology cannot speak to the Bible and Humanistic Psychology cannot dialogue with nature, with each remaining with integrity at its own level of inquiry.

Vertically, we have the man-made and the Godmade. That does not give much of an impression of psychology as a living with God, as a reality solely dependent upon God, does it?

The synthesizer is a person who, following Hegel, believes only in dialectical synthesis. There is a thesis; it has an antithesis. Neither is true or false. 'Truth' . . . lies only in a synthesis. And even that synthesis is not true forever, for tomorrow there will arise another thesis different from today's and out of the combination of these will come 'truth' for tomorrow. But in no ease will any of these 'truths' be absolute.19

Here we have a clear example of the platonic thinking discussed above. That is quite an obstacle to integration itself, but it leads further to two more obstacles for any approach toward integration.
First is the obstacle of the psychological crutch. If two views are mutually exclusive, they can never be brought into synthesis. One is not a little right and the other a little right and a synthesis more right than either. One is right and one is wrong. "If you say less than this, then you reduce Christianity [used in his example] to a psychological crutch, a glorified aspirin."20

Second is psychological manipulation. Without antithesis, we no longer have Science as Science nor do we have Scripture as Scripture. We end up with both Science and Scripture being used and manipulated for other purposes. For instance if we choose a certain scientific solution to a biblical dilemma, not because it has anything to do with a scientific approach but because it leads to the psychological answer we want, at that point Science dies, Scripture dies, and all we are left with is psychological manipulation. (This basic idea, with somewhat different terminology, derives directly from Francis Schaeffer's Pollution and the Death of Man.)

With an emphasis on approach, without being a dogmatizer, dichotomizer, or synthesizer, and without

creating a psychological crutch or psychological manipulation, I would like to draw a picture of the conduct of psychological inquiry. The following model, drawing heavily on the work of Joseph Royce,21 utilizes two approaches: clinical (humanistic); experimental (scientific.) It should he noted that the levels of inquiry is embedded in the conduct of inquiry model and that all possible interactions-diagonal, horizontal, and vertical-are possible within the unity of the Bible/nature circle.

As a further note of clarification, signs point to one-time relationships while symbols point to one-to-many relationships, where there are a variety of meanings. Whereas signs are verified by the well-known scientific validities (content, construct, etc.), symbols are verified by existential validity, which is much less wellknown. Since language is symbolic, the verbahzed propositional revelation of Scripture can be included as verifiable by existential validation. This includes the historic, space-time, biblical statements of "brute fact" which, while being open to scientific verification, also most have meaning in present existential, moment-by-moment experience.22

To be existentially validated, a symbol must: (a) point beyond itself; (b) participate in that to which it points; (c) open up levels of reality which are otherwise closed; (d) unlock hitherto unknown dimensions of human experience. Further, a symbol must not be invented but must be discovered and allowed to grow and die experientially as well as logically. The overall, crucial requirement for the existential validation of a symbol is a transformation in the quality of existence, not merely subjective certainty.

With an uncontaminated conduct of inquiry across the levels of inquiry, each of which maintains its own proper integrity, psychology and Christianity can become integrated in a way that promotes unity and mutuality and includes wholeness of truth. It must be emphasized, however, that this will not be a perfect integration, but that it will be substantial-real and
evident, which is consistent with Schaeffer's use of substantial". In a word, it will he a substantial integration.  

The key to understanding the wholeness of truth and ultimately to realizing a substantial integration is that we can
know truly without knowing exhaustively.

Wholeness of Truth

Unity of inquiry is possible only within the wholeness of truth. But when truth is fragmented, with each of several camps claiming to possess all of the "truth" in some general sense, inquiry becomes a sham.

The whole idea of unity is well expressed by Francis Schaeffer:

There may be a difference between the methodology by which we gain knowledge from what God tells us in the Bible and the methodology by which we gain it from scientific study, but this does not lead to a dichotomy as to the facts. In practice it may not always be possible to correlate the two studies because of the special situation involved, yet if both studies can be adequately pursued, there will be no final conflict. For example, the Tower of Babel: whether we come at it from biblical knowledge given by God or by scientific study, either way when we are done with our study, the Tower of Babel was either there or it was not there . Science by its natural limitations cannot know all we know from God in the Bible, but in those cases where science can know, both sources of knowledge arrive at the same point, even if the knowledge is expressed in different terms. And it is important to keep in mind that there is a great difference between saying the same thing in two different symbol systems and actually saying two different exclusive things but hiding the difference with the two symbol systems. What the Bible teaches where it touches history and the cosmos and what science teaches where it touches the same areas do not stand in a discontinuity.23

When the wholeness of truth is substituted with exclusive truth at or within one of the levels, the unity or continuity of the conduct of inquiry across and within levels of inquiry is broken. Diverse sources of knowledge arrive at the same point, however, only if truth is assumed to he operative at and within both levels of inquiry.

A handy way to avoid the exclusive truth, dogmatizer mentality is to go hack to the levels of inquiry model and substitute into the quadrants the kind(s) of truth actually operating at each level. Using Schaeffer's terminology, 24 we get:

                                                      experiential | exhaustive 
                                                                truth | truth
                                                                  true truth

We can get an idea of the sorts of things that comprise experiential truth by consulting the left half of the conduct of psychological inquiry model. The right half, of course, comprises exhaustive truth. True truth is simply revelational truth, or with specific reference to the Bible, propositional truth.

The key to understanding the wholeness of truth and ultimately to realizing a substantial integration is that we can know truly without knowing exhaustively. In other words, we can know truly without verification, simply by rational faith, or we can know just as truly through experiential (clinical approach; existential validity) and/or exhaustive (experimental approach; scientific validity) inquiry. Exhaustive truth does not yield totally described, comprehensive knowledge, for which we need a combination of truths within and across the levels of inquiry. And it is particularly important to realize that we can know truly and can therefore substantially integrate psychology and Christianity even though we do not know exhaustively.

God is acting equally in all places and at all times upholding His creation. He certainly is not a "stopgap" nor a "machine-minder",25 nor is He merely playing "peekaboo"26 with us. With regard to the stopgap theory, there is a real trap. If we blindly say that what we do not know about the natural world is simply explainable by God, as science becomes more and more exhaustive in its discovery of truth, the gap decreases, and our God becomes smaller. So what I am talking about is a rational faith inquiry into truth, not "blind faith", which is no better than the nonrational leap upstairs mentioned above.

Included in God's activity is psychology. I stated above that in my view "psychology is a part of living with God, an attestation of God with us, a permission granted by God, and a reality dependent upon God alone." This is the initial assumption upon which integration of psychology and Christianity rests. Such dependence on God is not, however, a resignation, a collapse, a neglect of responsibility, but rather an assertion of freedom from social conditioning, enslavement, and limitations, a "combat of total involvement" -every hit in the way Jacques Ellul talks about prayer.27 With this attitude, wholeness of truth and unity of inquiry can he maintained, and psychology can remain as psychology and Christianity can remain as Christianity. And yet the two can come together. We can indeed accomplish a substantial integration.


1Kcnnedy, C. A. S. Cited in W. E. Sangster, The Path to Perfection. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1943. P. 186.
2Ellul, J. Prayer and Modern Man. New York: Seabury, 1970. P. 77.
3Stott, J. B. W. Your Mind Matters. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1972.
4Schaeffer, F. A. Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House,
1970. P. 56. 
5Schaeffer, op. cit., p. 27.
6Schacffer, F. A. Escape from Reason. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1968. P. 53.
7Schaetfer, op. cit.
8Frankl, V. E. Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy. Now York: Washington Square, 1963. P.
9Bube, B. H. Towards a Christian View of Science. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1971, 23 (1), 3, 4.
10Stott, J. B. W. Christ the Controversialist. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1970. P. 59.
11Bullock, W. L. Symposium: The Relationship Between The Bible and Science. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1969, 21 (4), 106.
12May, R. Psychology and the Human Dilemma. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1967. P. 213.
13Ellul, I. The Technological Society, New York: Alfred A. Kuopf, 1904.
14MacKay, D. M. Cited in MA. Jeeves, The Scientific Enterprise and Christian Faith. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter
Varsity, 1969.
l5LaPointe, F. H. Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenological Critique of Psychology. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 1972, 2 (2), 245.
16Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964.
l7Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
18Bube, op. cit, p. 3.
19Schaeffer, F. A. The Church at the End of the 20th Century. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1970. P. 84.
20Schaeffcr, F. A. Death in the City. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1969. P. 131.
21Rnyee, J. B. Cited in J. Havens (Ed.) Psychology and Religion: A Contemporary Dialogue. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1968.
22Schaeffer, F, A. Genesis in Space and Time. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 1972.
23Schaeffer, op. cit.. pp. 165, 166.
24Schaeffer, op. cit.
25Stott, op cit.
27lBakan, D. On Method: Toward A Reconstruction of Psychological Investigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967.
27E1lu1, op. cit.