Contemporary Issues and Christian Models of Integration: Into the Modern/Postmodern Age

Abstract

Model building in Christian psychology has gradually become increasingly outdated and unsophisticated over the past decade, particularly in light of postmodern challenges to the limitations of received modern scientific perspectives and social practices. The present article draws from Rychlak's (1993) “complementarity” model, Sperry's (1993) “bidirectional determinism” concept, and Engel's (1977) biopsychosocial formulation to develop a multiperspectival, holistic framework drawing on the strengths of both modern and postmodern approaches. The proposed model includes inferences from both top down and bottom up formulations, as well as potential for interactions between or among any of the various “groundings” for psychological theories. Such a model seems more faithful to both biblical and scientific perspectives, and thus may provide a more accurate and comprehensive view of persons to facilitate more effective research and treatment. A clinical example is provided with DSM-IV descriptive and criterion referents.

Learning Clinical Integration: A Case Study Approach

“…Critical in the early years of interdisciplinary dialogue, this discussion is ongoing as new voices continue to legitimize the necessity of a robust engagement between faith and psychology. In wave 2, the models wave , writers develop models that explicitly describe how the two disciplines (usually broadly defined Christianity and broadly defined psychology) can interact in peaceful if not complementary ways (e.g., Entwistle, 2015; Faw, 1998; Ingram, 1995; Malony & Vande Kemp, 1984; Johnson, 2010). Wave 3, the empirical wave , might also fall under the category of the psychology of religion, which is similar to the Levels of Explanation View (Meyers, 2010) or the Correlational View (Carter & Narramore, 1979).…”

Healthy Religiosity and Salutary Faith: Clarification of Concepts from the Perspectives of Psychology, Psychiatry and of Theology

“…For high-quality health it is essential to add a fourth dimension (Leetun, 1996), namely an orientation regarding adherence to consistent self-transcendent values which give meaning to life; in other words, a philosophy of life or, more specifically, a religion (Allport, 1964;Rümke, 1947). In the literature such an additional dimension is characterised by such terms as Th eos (Ingram, 1995), theological-existential (Bouwer, 1998), transcendental (Boulding, 1956, cited in Hutschemaekers & Neijmeijer, 1998 and spiritual (Meadow, 1986;Coan, 1977;Ellison, 1983). We shall return to the question of which is the most appropriate term.…”

The Practice of Integration with Postmodern Therapies: Exploring the Use of Ingram's (1995) Model with Emotionally Focused Therapy

“…Christians who counsel utilize many models to integrate psychology and theology (Enwistle, 2004;Johnson & Jones, 2010). Indeed, the literature on integration reveals four key areas of focus: the development of frameworks for theoretical integration (e.g., Farnsworth 1982;Ingram, 1995), identifying and discussing relevant theological themes that apply to the work of therapy (e.g., Anderson & Guernsey, 1985;Beck & Demarest, 2005), presenting and evaluating secular counseling theory (Tan, 2011;Yarhouse & Sells, 2009), and the practice of integration in the therapy room (e.g., Eck, 2002;McMinn & Campbell, 2007). One dimension of the practice of integration that remains unexplored is how speci c models of Christian integration may be applied with reference to speci c therapeutic approaches.…”

“…One dimension of the practice of integration that remains unexplored is how speci c models of Christian integration may be applied with reference to speci c therapeutic approaches. is article seeks to address this gap by engaging Ingram's (1995) model of theological integration to examine Emotionally-Focused Couple's erapy (EFCT). Rychlak (1993) argued for a model of complementarity in the eld of psychology based on four "grounds" upon which theories of psychology are derived: Physikos (non-biotic universe), Bios (biology), Socius (social conditions), and Logos (realm of meaning-making).…”

“…Rychlak (1993) argued for a model of complementarity in the eld of psychology based on four "grounds" upon which theories of psychology are derived: Physikos (non-biotic universe), Bios (biology), Socius (social conditions), and Logos (realm of meaning-making). Ingram (1995) expanded on this model in two signi cant ways: by adding a h ground, eos (realm of spirituality), and by allowing for interaction between groundings. Ingram thus proposed a multiple ground interactive three-dimensional model (see Figure 1) which avoids the problems of linearity and conceptual dependence inherent in hierarchical models.…”