CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

COMMENTARIES ON TIMOTHY A. SISEMORE’S “ACCEPTANCE AND COMMITMENT THERAPY”
“truth” of an event—truth from a holistic Christian
perspective—can, or should, be divorced from objective
reality.
But perhaps a functional a-ontologism makes
sense in certain fields of natural science (e.g., organic
chemistry or atomic physics). On this view, you could
be a Christian with a full slate of ontological beliefs,
but you set aside the central or controversial ones
when working in the laboratory. I have deep reservations
with this strategy, though I realize it has many
proponents among Christians in the natural sciences
(e.g., McDonald and Tro, 2009; for a dissenting
voice, see Plantinga, 1996). The problem here is that
Sisemore is commending this methodological agnosticism
in the field of Christian psychology. But as one
theologian explains,
Every discipline presupposes some doctrine of
the human. In some disciplines that doctrine is
very much on the surface and potential conflict
between the Christian and others will be more
to the fore. One might suggest that there is a
principle of proximity to the anthropological. In
the discipline of logic where the human is not the
object of inquiry conflicts may be minimal. But
in a discipline like psychology such conflict may
be inescapable. (Cole, 2005, p.5)
Precisely because psychology shares many of the
same concerns as Christian theology, the viability of
methodological naturalism—or functional contextualism—is
far less promising.
The Question of Using Scripture
My second question relates to the role of Scripture
in Sisemore’s analysis. In his translation of Relational
Frame Theory (RFT), for instance, we are told that
RFT has “great explanatory value for how we develop
our thought patterns. … [and] how to change these,”
but neither Scripture nor Christian theology “offers
a theory of learning and relationships of thoughts
that compares to RFT” (p. 9). RFT offers content
that will potentially benefit Christian theology. But
how does one appropriate that content legitimately,
i.e., biblically? To his credit, Sisemore recognizes the
biblical exhortation to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor
2:16), but he goes on to say: “the Bible does not give
specifics of how we are to develop it” (p. 9). It’s open
season, as it were—the Bible is silent, so RFT can fill
in the gap.
But that conclusion is debatable. The Bible has
much to say on discerning the mind of Christ. We are
to ask the Father for heavenly wisdom (i.e., Christ’s
wisdom), for he is a generous, benevolent God (James
1:5). We pray for it; we pray without ceasing (1 Thess
5:27). Indeed, as we feed on God’s Word, we are
developing nothing less than the mind of Christ (e.g.,
Matt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16-17). And, we are not limited
28
to proof-texts, for the entire Bible, its warp and
woof, testifies to the mind of Christ (cf. Luke 24:27).
Given these “specifics” from Genesis to Revelation,
it is strange to imply that the Bible is silent on how
to develop the mind of Christ. Sisemore, no doubt,
agrees with all this and he might respond that such
biblical texts still need more tangible, concrete expression.
True enough, but that opens up an even deeper
question for Sisemore’s use of Scripture.
Consider his evaluation of self-as-context. The
“conceptualized self” is our normal way of construing
personal identity, one that may be problematically
“fused” to earlier experiences. Instead, ACT proposes
the idea of the self “as a context for experiencing life,”
a means of defusing those troubling relational frames
(p. 9). What I find interesting is Sisemore’s appeal
to Romans 7 and Matthew 6 as biblical warrant for
self-as-context (p. 10). I’m doubtful because the
biblical material that he cites here, and elsewhere,
underdetermines psychological theory. I suspect that a
large number of psychological theories are consistent
with the passages he references (especially when those
passages are taken as isolated proof-texts). But those
theories can’t all be true. Where does that leave us?
How do we plausibly “use” Scripture in assessing any
psychological theory? The connection between Scripture
and Sisemore’s psychological analysis seems tenuous.
My worry is that the approach exemplified here is
superficial; we need a more sophisticated engagement
with the Bible. Perhaps Sisemore can offer us some
criteria for discerning helpful vs. less helpful ways of
using Scripture.
The Question of Scientific Criteria
My last question concerns the role of scientific criteria
in translation. Sisemore’s article highlights afresh the
problem of scientific legitimacy that has bedeviled
Christian dialogue on psychology. How should Christian
psychologists faithfully engage secular psychological
theories? That’s a big question, so let me focus on
one slice of the problem.
I was struck by how Sisemore is beholden to the
necessity for empirical testing and evidence-based
results; thus, he writes, “empirical testing is needed to
demonstrate that a Christian accommodative ACT is
scientifically effective and its use in counseling warranted”
(p. 14). Sisemore is merely representative; his
instincts reflect the best practices of other practitioners
in the field (e.g., see typical articles in the Journal
of Psychology and Christianity or Journal of Psychology
and Theology).
On the one hand, these appear to be laudatory
moves. Christian psychology and counseling are like
the Wild West; it is the time of the Judges, everyone
doing what is right in his own eyes. Such “lawlessness”
is true across the board—for integrationists, biblical
counselors, etc. Do any of these approaches work as
Christian Psychology