We Believe

Freud, Jung, and The Bible

History teaches us that Freud and Jung were friends, or at least had some sort of relationship. Jung eventually jettisoned some of Freud’s theories, and began to embrace his own set of ideas which he called analytical. Both of these men believed in the idea that the unconscious mind was the gateway to understanding how the mind worked. However, Jung used a more multilayered idea of the unconscious mind than did Freud. 

A very interesting difference between the two men relates to religion. Freud believed religion was just a way to escape reality, and not true on any level. Freud was kind of Marxists in his stance about religion. He felt it was mainly for the simpleminded. Freud placed his faith completely in the unconscious mind’s ability to cure neurosis. Jung, however, believed there was a place for religion in the individuation of the individual. He also believed it was important to communication between different people groups. Jung believed that although religions differed, archetypes remained static. Jung was not Christian, and may have even been more involved with occult type practices. Whatever the case he still saw use for religion that Freud did not see.

Freud and Jung disagreed what made up the unconscious. Freud defined it as a group of ideas, experiences, and concepts that a person would refuse to deal with, and that would ultimately lead to some form of neuroses. Jung took this idea a step further in stating that people also had a collective version of this same issue that was common to all people. A distinction that really comes into play here is the motivation. Freud believed it was repressed of expressed sexuality. Jung, rightly in my opinion, believed that sex was only one of many of the driving forces of human behavior. Jung believed that people are motivated mostly by their need to achieve individuation, or put more simply to feel whole or complete. The bible tells us that this desire can only can only be realized through Jesus Christ, “The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy; I (Jesus) come that they might have life, and might have it abundantly” (John 10:10, NASB). This passage tells us that self-acceptance (individuation) is only possible through placing our faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Freud believed that the only way to achieve self-acceptance was for a person to uncover and open the unconscious mind and discover happiness on their own through therapy. Jung, however believed that the regulation of emotions hindered the unconscious mind’s movement toward individuation. 

Within therapy Freud wanted to pound the unconscious into releasing repressed feelings. Jung thought the goal of therapy was to help someone understand the role of the unconscious, and help the patient better guide how it worked.

Part 2

In reading both chapters 8 and 9 by Jones & Butman, I really do not have any issues with their stance on any of the material addressed by the authors. In the big picture, I did find one standout passage, “According to Alderians, social interest is the highest intrinsic value” (Jones, 1991). This idea seems to permeate several areas of thought within psychology. On the surface it seems laudable, but the natural consequences of life lived this way can lead to monumental misunderstanding of the basis of Christianity. Jesus, quoting the first commandment, “And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38, NASB). This should be the source of highest intrinsic value for Christians. Amazingly enough all life begins here, and unless it begins here no amount of social interest will ever produce meaning and purpose in our lives.

Reference

Stanton Jones and Richard Butman, Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 235.

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."

The role of theology in the discovery of psychology

Most Christians over the last two thousand years have believed that human beings were specially created in God's image. And being created in the image of God, believed that through human reason it was possible to discern truth about all areas of God's creation. God's creation is understood to have order and purpose. As human beings, we have a natural inclination to want to investigate that created order.

From the early Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus, to the early church fathers like Tertullian and Augustine, and later church leaders like Thomas Aquinas all dealt with the idea of the inner-self, and its relation to society and to a higher power. They were all concerned with soul-care. However, interest in a type of psychological idea continued to grow throughout the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation. "Calvin reflected deeply on sin, grace, knowledge, faith and the nature of the Christian Life" (Johnson, p.13).

The first person recorded to have used the word "psychology" was Soren Kierkegaard. He wrote about, "the nature of personhood, sin, anxiety and despair, the unconscious (before Freud was even born!), subjectivity, and human and spiritual development from a deeply Christian perspective" (Johnson, p. 14). He became the father of a modern approach to psychological theory.

The danger of picking exclusively faith-based and/or scientific explanations of behavior

To exclusively use faith-based or scientific explanations to explain behavior would leave us with an incomplete view of humanity. A strict scientific explanation might be exemplified by genetic determinism. Just because our mother or father was an alcoholic, and we have an alcohol abuse problem, using a genetically determined explanation would indicate that we could never be freed from the hold of alcohol on our life. However, the opposite extreme is just as unsatisfying when a thorough explanation is required. From a faith-based perspective, one might infer the "devil made me do it" when dealing with destructive behaviors. The problem with this type of exclusivity is that it makes no room for a possible physical cause for the abhorrent behavior. Naturalistic explanations alone are woefully inadequate as well. Naturalism would have us to believe that we are "born this way." However, a simple bump on the head could be the catalyst for a depressive mood disorder due to brain damage.

Dwight Bain - One of the Good Guys

Dwight Bain is quite an interesting person. This summary will continue to focus on Bain and his life-coach style of counseling. The article used for this paper is titled "Dangers of Media Riptides, Positive steps to protect kids from negative media exposure." This article represents good information and provides for a good analogy for how to handle sinful behavior within the family.

            Bain (2008), in this article, discusses how parents might manage the deluge of media from all directions that are part of our daily life. He begins by offering ways to handle dangerous situations. Bain then offers some background information concerning the prevalence of intrusive media today, and he closes the article with some practical ways to address the situation.

            In discussing how to handle offensive media when it involves the family, and more specifically children, Bain uses three options. First, stay away from media, and try to keep others away as well. Second, pretend dangerous media does not exist. Finally, learn how to control offensive, and even non-offensive media within the household. In Romans Paul writes about how we become enslaved to whatever we let control our lives,

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:16-18 (NASB)

There is a similarity to Bain's idea of avoiding media altogether, and keeping the children away from it as well. While this is a noble idea as well as a logical idea, it is not always an easy idea to follow. Most people are prone to look for an easier way to handle tough situations than to remain firm their conviction to consciously not engage in behavior that could lead to sin. This is where pretending the dangers (sin in our life) does not exist model quickly becomes the odds on favorite. Pretending sin is not present is, in my opinion, the reason for so much of the depraved behavior that goes on among teens today. Their parents simply turn a blind eye, or as I have heard some say, "they are just being kids and are going to behave like this not matter what we say." This point of view is so very sad indeed. Avoidance is rarely an appropriate response to any life-challenge. Proactive response to issues in life, more often than not, produce positive results. Therefore, becoming familiar with and learning to control the sin inducing stimulus is probably the best way to handle issues that can introduce sin into our lives. Jesus said, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16, NASB). This means we have a responsibility to be proactive and know what types of things in our lives can cause us to sin, and this relates specifically to the issue of the article which is how we should handle the overwhelming influx of media in our lives.

            This article can be extremely valuable to new parents, long-term parents, and grandparents in helping them understand how media can creep into our lives and take control. It can also help them understand how to become proactive in their approach to handling the media blitz. Like Bain, I love what the writer of Proverbs tells us to do when we are possibly entering territory that might present things that could cause us to stumble, "Do not enter the path of the wicked and do not proceed in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not pass by it; turn away from it and pass on" (Proverbs 4:14-15, NASB). If an activity is not conducive to spiritual or relational growth, avoid it entirely. Specifically, in relation to children,  we have a responsibility to shield them from issues that can induce sinful behavior, " He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently" (Proverbs 13:24, NASB). This is not a mandate to beat the kids. The verse also contains the idea (in the original language) that disciplining a child is a good thing, and it is also not something a parent does post behavioral problem. If a child desires to engage in activity that can lead to sinful behavior, using proper disciple to shape way the child desires is an entirely Biblical response. Bain (2008) says parents should choose what media reaches their children, and he is 100% Biblically correct.

            To sum everything up I believe this section of scripture can act as the capstone of what Bain is teaching in his article, " Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil" (Ephesians 6:10-11, NASB). As parents, even just as adults, we should be proactive in our approach to ward off those things that enter into our lives and can cause us to stumble. The Apostle Paul says to put on the armor of God and be ready for trouble to come because it is inevitable. Not being prepared will only lead to grief and regret. So, as Bain writes, take positive action to avoid negative behavior and become, with God's help, the controller of temptations.

References

Bain, D. (2008, December 18). Relationships. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Self Growth:

                http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Protecting_Kids_from_Dangerous_Media.html

"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."

Francis Galton

Summary of “Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development”

After reading the entire work, I settled in and re-examined the section titled Early Sentiments. A very brief summary of this section would read, nurture can explain behavior within differing people groups. Behavior can also differ within the classes of people that make up the larger groups. But nurture has very little influence on the differences between individuals of the same class. Galton relies on Darwin’s ideas to explain the individual differences including the idea that, “Conscience is now known to be partly transmitted by inheritance in the way and under the conditions clearly explained by Mr. Darwin.” (Galton, 1907)

Galton’s definition of the word “religion” in this writing is quite fascinating,

“The word religion may fairly be applied to any group of sentiments or persuasions that are strong enough to bind us to do that which we intellectually may acknowledge to be our duty, and the possession of some form of religion in this larger sense of the word is of the utmost importance to moral stability. The sentiments must be strong enough to make us ashamed at the mere thought of committing, and distressed during the act of committing any untruth, or any uncharitable act, or of neglecting what we feel to be right, in order to indulge in laziness or gratify some passing desire.” (Galton, 1907)

Following this section, Galton introduces examples of how animals are conditioned to learn behaviors that seem to be passed down from generation to generation. He also briefly states his position on inherited behaviors with examples consisting of children of criminals. Galton seems to be all over the map in this short portion of the larger writing. He does land close to lucidity when discussing Dante’s writings and referring to paintings from the same time.

He suggests that,

“Revenge and torture had been so commonly practised by rulers that they seemed to be appropriate attributes of every high authority, and the artists of those days saw no incongruity in supposing that a supremely powerful master, however beneficent he might be, would make the freest use of them.” (Galton, 1907)

I believe he could have been making reference to Giotto’s Last Judgment owing to the gruesom way Giotto depicts hell in this painting.

Galton’s emphasis in Early Sentiments revolves around nurture being the source of religious thoughts, terror, aversion, and, “in giving a fallacious sense of their being natural instincts.” (Galton, 1907)

Reaction to “Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development”

At first glance what Galton says seems to be reasonable. On some levels it probably is reasonable, but like most of the people influenced by Darwin, his reasonable arguments take ideas in untenable directions.

Galton’s definition of religion does not just end with the utilitarian view; he continues to make the following claim about the content of the religious belief, “it seems reasonable to believe that the particular dogma is comparatively of little importance.” (Galton, 1907)

This statement is very interesting when one considers what he is saying is that as long as someone is taught religion, it does not matter what is taught. The main issue is that content makes all the difference. I will try to briefly explain my thoughts.

The Bible provides us with an interesting discussion between Pontius Pilate and Jesus. Chapter eighteen in John’s Gospel tells of how Jesus is brought to Pilate because the high priests wanted him executed given that Jesus claimed to be equal with God. The conversation between Jesus and Pilate closes with this exchange,

“ ³³Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"

³⁴Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?"

³⁵Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?"

³⁶Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

³⁷Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

³⁸Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"
(NASB 1995)

Jesus’ answer is restrained and bold. The most basic of all problems that we, as finite created beings, face is exposed in this short exchange. What we find here in this passage is that there is no scarcity of truth for us to know, but more often people fall short because of the insincerity of their search. Jesus teaches that truth proceeds from the inside out, or put another way, intent is prior to content.

Does dogma matter? According to Jesus, it makes all the difference in the world. 

Works Cited

Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Devlopment. Retrieved 3 2, 2010, from Gutenberg Project: http://gutenburg.net/1/1/5/6/11562

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

t

Edward B. Titchener

Summary of On “Psychology As the Behaviorist Views It”

Joseph B. Watson’s idea of Behaviorism can be defined as a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things that organisms do, including acting, thinking, and feeling can be regarded as behaviors. “Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences between publicly observable processes (such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as thinking and feeling).” (Fraley 2001)

Apparently Watson’s mentor, James Rowland Angell, was not happy with the fact that Watson had espoused the idea of Wundt’s experimental method being not scientific. Therefore Angell wrote to Titchener about the need to bring Watson down a few rungs on the ladder of his success. Titchener subsequently wrote this paper in reference to Watson’s behaviorist point of view. In this paper Titchener hammered home a vigorous case against Watson’s misuse of the word “science,” and how behaviorist theories, although beginning with science, ignore certain facts in order to maintain their positions. He goes on to point out the deficiency of only looking at the peripheral (physical actions) without examining the central (internal) effects of behavior. Watson leans heavily on blending sciences to form what Titchener calls “technology.” Titchener defines psychology as science and not a synthesis of many different sciences. He goes on to state that behaviorism is, by nature, biological. Titchener says,
“Either the behaviorist is just biologist; and in that case he has no nearer relation to psychology than have his coworkers who are content to call themselves biologists: or the behaviorist sees expression where the biologist sees ultimate fact; and in that case he may equally well be called psychobiologist, seeing that the phenomena expressed or reported by the organic changes which he studies cannot be anything else than psychical.” (Titchener, 1914)

Reaction to On “Psychology As the Behaviorist Views It”
If I were to toss my hat into this fray, I would have to side with Titchener. Behaviorism embraces the view that all theories should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences between publicly observable actions and privately observable things such as thinking and feeling. So my conclusion might be the same as that of Titchener using his definition science. Restated in my terms, I believe that the problems of science are observational and analytical to the extent we can exhaust our knowledge and capabilities.
There are always going to be things just past the line we reach in any given field. New discoveries in science prove this every day. Where I would probably differ with Titchener would be in the last half of my definition stated above. I believe when we think we cannot know more than what can be observed through experimental science, and we see the limits of science to be an impassable line, we need to remember that in order to draw the impassable line we must first cross it. I believe it is only possible to cross the line when we have a full understanding of who God is, and who we are.
While I appreciate Titchener’s dogmatic view of science, I appreciate the fact that God tells us there is so much more than we could ever imagine.





Bibliography
Fraley, L. (2001). Stategic Interdisciplinary Relations between a Natural Science Community and a Psychological Community. The Behavior Analyst Today , 2 (4), 209-324.
Titchener, E. B. (1914). On "Psychology As The Behaviorist Views It". Retrieved 3 1, 2010, from Classics in the History of Psychology: http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Titchener/watson.htm




t

Turn Around

Are You Committed to Success?

Here Are Some Things You Need To Do: 

1. Have one main source of income but, at the same time, keep working on ways of developing additional sources of income. Over time, this will allow you move away from spending all your time on your “regular” job, so you can generate a passive stream of income.

2. Read broadly. This doesn’t necessarily heavy or serious books. Reading blogs and magazines can generate ideas and turn you into someone who knows something about a lot of things.

3. Have a few close friends and many other business and personal contacts. That provides you with support and people who can help you, and open doors for you.

4. Possess specialist knowledge in a couple of areas, and also know a little about many other things. This helps you understand the developing trends so you can use and adapt your knowledge more effectively.

5. Be willing to experiment. It’s good to know what tends to work for you, but you need to branch out and experiment as well. That will help you avoid being stuck in a rut.

6. Add new experiences into your life. It keeps you adaptable, open to new thinking, energetic, and full of life. 

t

Mere Christianity

"Anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I’m not going to go and make you tidy in the school room every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she gives up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible."—Mere Christianity


*

We Believe

Humanity

“Very often the true Bible-believing Christian, in his emphasis on two humanities — one lost, one saved — one still standing in rebellion against God, the other having returned to God through Christ — has given a picture of exclusiveness which is ugly.
 

   There are two humanities. That is true. Some men made in the image of God still stand in rebellion against him; some, by the grace of God, have cast themselves upon God’s solution.
 

   Nonetheless, there is in another very important sense only one humanity. All men derive from one origin. By creation all men bear the image of God. In this sense all men are of one flesh, one blood.
 

   Hence, the exclusiveness of the two humanities is undergirded by the unity of all men. And Christians are not to love their believing brothers to the exclusion of their non-believing fellowmen. That is ugly. We are to have the example of the Good Samaritan consciously in mind at all times”    
 Francis Schaeffer



*

What is THE MARK?

 At the close of his ministry, Jesus looks forward to his death on the cross, the open tomb and the ascension. Knowing that he is about to leave, Jesus prepares his disciples for what is to come. It is here that he makes clear what will be the distinguishing mark of the Christian:

33[Dear] little children, I am to be with you only a little longer. You will look for Me and, as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: you are not able to come where I am going.

    34I give you a new commandment: that you should love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too should love one another.

    35By this shall all [men] know that you are My disciples, if you love one another [if you keep on showing love among yourselves].

This passage reveals the mark that Jesus gives to label a Christian not just in one era or in one locality but at all times and all places until Jesus returns.

Notice that what he says here is a command which includes a condition:

”A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

An if is involved
If you obey, you will wear the badge Christ gave
It is possible to be a Christian without showing the mark, but if we expect non-Christians to know that we are Christians, we must show the mark.

t

To My Wife:

Thank you for a life

That I'd call happy

Overlooking all that we've been through

When it comes to love

I've been lucky

Everything I am I owe to you


t