Much is made today by Christian integrationists about the doctrine of common grace. A Christian integrationist is someone who believes that Christian counseling must use the insights and discoveries of psychology and psychiatry in order to be effective. Therefore, the truth of Scripture and the insights and discoveries made by psychologists and psychological scientists should all be utilized for the benefit of the counselee.
This methodology is rooted in a particular view of common grace, and the argument proceeds as follows. God has richly blessed this creation with common grace. One element of common grace is our innate ability to study and learn true things about the creation, regardless of our religious commitments. The scientific discoveries of psychology, therefore, should be embraced by Christian counselors as a gift of common grace in our effort to effectively counsel people. To reject these insights of modern psychology would be to reject God’s good gifts and limit our ability to help hurting people.
Due to the widespread belief among Christians that psychology is necessary for the counseling task and the integrationist’s reliance on common grace as a theological warrant for their methodology, we must take up this question in some detail as we consider the realms of common grace. Is integrationism justified by its appeal to common grace? Do integrationists demonstrate an adequate understanding of this doctrine as it has been defined theologically?
We can certainly agree with several of the assertions made in the integrationist’s argument. God has richly blessed the creation with common grace. And yes, due to this common grace, we can learn true things about the creation, regardless of whether we are Christians or working self-consciously from a biblical worldview. Most discoveries today are made by those who have no commitment to Jesus Christ or the truth of Scripture. But the last assertion that Christians must embrace the discoveries of psychology as a gift of common grace is misguided.
The Limits of Common Grace
First, the assertion that we must utilize the findings of secular psychology is misguided because it fails to recognize the limits of common grace. It is often the case that secular psychologists will make correct observations about the world in which we live (although it is not guaranteed that all their observations will always be correct, see below). This ability to observe true things about the created order by believer and unbeliever alike is a result of God’s common grace, and it should not be despised by the Christian. It should go without saying that secular psychologists can and do make correct observations about people and their behaviors, and we have no reason to reject these observations inasmuch as they are accurate.[1] Secular counseling may even provide what David Powlison calls, “common grace goods”—restraining a suicide, bringing some relational peace to a marriage, helping someone get sober. But, he quickly adds, these goods do not penetrate to the person’s deepest problem.[2] Nor are these goods, I might add, the sole property of the secular counselor. They belong to the biblical counselor as well.
The point is that common grace only provides God’s image-bearers the capacity for shared observations. But once a person takes those observations and begins to interpret them—offering reasons for why a particular troublesome behavior is occurring and how to remedy such behavior—they are now utilizing their worldview. Our worldview consists of the underlying convictions about reality that enable us to make sense of our observations. For the secular psychologist, their underlying worldview will be shaped by modern psychological theory and their commitment to a materialist anthropology. The Christian’s worldview is shaped by the truths of Scripture and the conviction that we are both body and an immaterial soul.
For the secular psychologist, their underlying worldview will be shaped by modern psychological theory. The Christian’s worldview is shaped by the truths of Scripture.
Our observations are often the same because these occur within the realm of common grace, and these observations are least affected by the noetic effects of sin (we will consider the noetic effects of sin below).[3] Interpretations depend on foundational beliefs and therefore transcend the realm of common grace. Because of the difference in these foundational beliefs, the secular psychologist and the Christian will offer profoundly diverse explanations for why such behavior is occurring and what should be done about it.
The Noetic Effects of Sin
Second, we must bear in mind that we are all affected by the noetic effects of sin. The word “noetic” refers to the mind. Sin’s devastation has been comprehensive—there is no part of the human person that remains untainted by sin’s defilement, our minds included (Eph 2:1-3; 4:18). It is naïve, therefore, to assume that unbelievers working in the area of soul-care (psychology literally means the “study of the soul”), unillumined by the Spirit and untethered from Scripture will provide accurate interpretations of our deepest ailments. Indeed, Scripture informs us that unbelievers veer away from truth precisely at the level of life’s most important concerns: worship, our purpose as human life, the pursuit of happiness, relationships, sexuality, and so on (e.g., Rom 1:18-32).[4] In truth, it is nigh impossible to consistently distinguish carefully between our observations and interpretations. At every moment, what we behold is shaped by our deepest theological commitments.[5]
Conclusion
One cannot appeal to common grace, therefore, as a theological warrant to prioritize the discoveries and insights of modern secular psychology. Common grace doesn’t refer to everything one might experience in this life. To know whether something is a blessing of common grace, one must judge it according to the special grace of God’s revelation in Scripture. We agree with the integrationist that God has given us many good gifts in this world, including the keen observations of unbelieving counselors. But, as Heath Lambert notes, we must use Scripture in order to determine if something is a blessing of common grace or a result of the noetic effects of sin. [6]
NOTES
[1]For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fifth Edition (DSM-5) offers a plethora of observations about specific problematic behaviors. I rarely disagree with these observations as such. The disagreement occurs when the interpretation is made by providing a summarizing label for these behaviors (i.e., ADHD), or explaining the deepest reason why these behaviors are occurring, or suggesting a remedy for the behavior.
[2]David Powlison, “The Biblical Counseling View,” in Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (2010), 259.
[3]Lambert, A Theology of Biblical Counseling, 76. Nevertheless, Lambert notes that despite the many things that both believers and unbelievers alike can know about the created order, the noetic effects of sin make it such that we can’t guarantee that the observations made my unbelieving psychologists will be accurate.
[4]See Lambert, Theology, 72.
[5]Lambert, Theology, 77.
[6]See Lambert, Theology, 74.
