In this post, I share an essay I wrote for a psychology class (PSYC 323, Learning and Memory) during my final semester at the University of St. Thomas. This is about the integration of psychology and Christian faith, and I have a deep personal interest in this subject as a practicing Christian and as someone who seeks to help heal the world as a future licensed counselor.

Exploring the Complementarity of Psychology and Christian Faith: A Defense of How Cognitive Psychology and Christian Theology Complement One Another, in Light of the Human Person 

Part I – Explanation for Choosing This Topic

Even though I am just an undergraduate college student, I have formulated a deep love for understanding the human mind and all of its many complexities. In hoping to express why I chose this topic for this essay, an important part of my identity is the fact that I am a very recent Roman Catholic convert. This essentially means that I believe in God, Jesus Christ as His Son, and the Holy Spirit. I had a deep and personal religious experience that utterly changed my life; now, the love of God permeates everything that I do. On a personal level, knowing God has given me the strength to heal my greatest hurts and face myself because of what my faith in Him has done for my heart. In fact, my experiences with God are the reason why my love for psychology has been transformed in a way that I never could have previously imagined. My desire to become a Licensed Mental Health Counselor (LMHC) is intimately connected to my faith, interests, experiences, and desire to give out healing to the world. I have felt isolated in this rather secular social science, but as I have said, growing closer to God has reinforced to me the sheer beauty and complexity of the human mind. Given my love and passion, I know that I will not become solely a counselor for Christians, because instead, I wish to care for all individuals who are in need of quality mental health treatment. He has truly transformed my life and He has led me to healing in ways that I simply wish were possible for every single person. 

In addition to my personal experiences and love for psychology, I believe that the bridge between science and faith is part of the foundation for my beliefs. In this essay, I will specifically make the case for why the Christian schema, when freely developed, is adaptive in the mind of the believer. Ian Barbour is a philosopher and a theologian whom I’ve taken inspiration from for why I think psychology and my faith are compatible. He wrote a book called Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues that highlights the many interactions that science and faith can have, but ultimately how they can be a bridge to one another. I find it to be a reduction of what it means to be human to reduce God to a product of the human mind. If my experiences of God are simply “apophenia” (pattern recognition where there is no pattern), illusions created by my brain structures interacting with one another, or a product of the way evolution affected our ancestors… then this is a reduction of me as a person. Solely focusing on psychological explanations for reality, everything that I am could consistently be reduced to my mind and the way it functions. Psychology is amazing, but I truly think humans are more than their minds. My Christian schema connects me to a beautiful truth: “Humans are made in the image of God; and God became a human through the person of Christ,” which goes just one step higher than where humanistic belief alone could take me. Regardless of your mental or physical ability, identity, or belief system, I believe that you—as a human—are a beautiful connection of your mind, your body, and your soul—all of which are created by God. These are all beliefs that are missing from the secular world of psychology. 

Part II – Understanding Schema Theory 

Because it is an immense part of cognitive psychology, it is important to elaborate on what Schema Theory is in the first place. Schema Theory was actually introduced by a British psychologist named Sir Frederic Bartlett in 1932. His work centered around how the brain organizes information into a framework. According to an article by Claus-Christian Carbon, “[Frederic’s] key assumption of previous knowledge affecting the processing of new stimuli was illustrated in the famous ‘portraite d’homme’ series” (Carbon et al, 2012). In this study, “Sequenced reproductions of ambiguous stimuli showed progressive object-likeness. As Bartlett pointed out, activation of specific schemata, for instance ‘the face schema’, biases memory retrieval towards such schemata” (Carbon et al, 2012). And at the end of the study, the author states, “A close analysis of the original findings raises questions about the replicability of Bartlett’s findings, qualifying the ‘portrait d’homme’ series more or less as an illustrative example of the main idea of reconstructive memory” (Carbon et al, 2012). In the 1950s, psychologist Jean Piaget then made popular the idea of the human mind having a schema (pl. schemata)—also known as frameworks regarding how we view the world. As a quick example, think of an apple tree. You are probably imagining first a tree, which has a brown trunk as its foundation with green leaves that grow from branches all at the top, and possibly hang down around the tree in a way that is distinctive of most trees. In a way, the top of a tree may resemble a cloud. Lastly, you may see red apples growing from these branches. In the aforementioned example, depending on individual variations in their schema, you may imagine the apple tree as small or large, with a skinny trunk or a large trunk, or the apples themselves may be red or green. For someone who is an expert in the study of trees, their mental image of a tree may be very complex—that specific person may think of many different types of trees when it comes to their schema. While it’s a topic that is a bit disconnected from this essay, I would be curious to know how schema theory works in individuals with aphantasia, which is a condition that stops someone from forming mental images. 

Part III – Understanding the Christian Religious Schema 

As a Christian, I will list some of the most fundamental beliefs: Belief in a higher power known as God who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient; Belief that God’s will is fully sovereign over everything that occurs in the universe; Understanding that oneself has a soul and that we were made for a different life; Belief in Jesus Christ as God incarnate and the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity; Belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that this act was wholly loving and merciful in the fact that God is now united to us in our suffering; He is not a distant being watching from afar. He was here, on the Cross; All of these beliefs unite believers into the Mystical Body of Christ, also known as the Church; and The Church is a community of other believers who sanctify, love, and help one another grow in their relationship with God and their journey, ultimately, to everlasting life in communion with Him. 

With all of this being stated about what Christians generally believe, a psychological article titled, Religiosity and Resilience: Cognitive Reappraisal and Coping Self-Efficacy Mediate the Link between Religious Coping and Well-Being by Dolcos and others provides a great explanation as to the adaptive benefits of possessing the Christian faith. This was a study of 203 people, and it, “Examined connections among these aspects, using self-reported measures of religious coping, habitual use of specific coping strategies (positive reappraisal), and perceived confidence in using coping strategies, as well as questionnaires assessing symptoms of distress (anxiety and depression)” (Dolcos et al, 2021, p. 2893). In the study, religion is generalized to all religions; it feels permissible for me to correlate these findings to the fundamental Christian beliefs I outlined. According to another study (Vasile, 2013) cited in this one, it’s estimated that over 80% of the world’s current population is associated with some sort of religion. Regarding the results, the researchers state, “Results point to a mediating role of reappraisal and coping self-efficacy as part of mechanisms that provide a protecting role of religious coping against emotional distress. These results provide novel evidence further validating millennia-old traditional coping practices and shed light on psychological factors influencing adaptive behaviors that promote increased resilience, reduce symptoms of distress, and maintain emotional well-being” (Dolcos et al, 2021, p. 2983). 

Another wonderful psychological article that extends schema theory to a broader subject of how psychology and Christianity can be reconciled is Schema Theory and the Psychology-Christianity Dialogue: New Theoretical Applications by Dr. John Buri. In it, he states that there can be three approaches to the integration of Christianity and Psychology. All of them will be listed in this paragraph. The first approach is titled, “The Development of a Christian Psychology.” In this section, Buri states, “As Farnsworth (1981) put it, this sort of Conformability Model reinterprets psychological findings or reconstructs the discipline of psychology from the perspective of theological findings… it means that psychological inquiry and/or conclusions are filtered through a general Christian perspective for detailed set of [theologically-derived] ‘control beliefs’ (p. 4). In other words, proponents of the development of Christian psychologies contend that if psychology is to be integrated with Christianity, then the activities within the discipline of psychology must be regulated and directed by Christian thought” (Buri, 1990, p.9). The second section is, “The Psychological Study of Religious Sentiments.” Buri writes, “Efforts in this area to comprehend and to explain the ‘what, whys, and hows’ of religious beliefs, behaviors, and experiences have evolved on two separate tracks… first through empirical methods, and secondly through non-empirical psychological theories, principles, and conceptualizations to explain religious phenomena.” At the end of this section, he adds, “The Christian Gospel offers a distinctive interpretation of life, and if this unique interpretation of the human condition is to be elevated for all to see (and ultimately respond to), it cannot be obscured in a fog of psychological thought forms” (Buri, 1990, p. 17.) Last but not least, the third section is, “Psychological Principles and Methods in Religious Contexts. In this third section, it’s clear that there are many reasons for a growing interest in pastoral counseling within Christian churches, and Buri outlines six of them (this is my paraphrase): “A) Pastors see a much-needed solution to psychological problems; B) many Christians are coming to see that psychological findings assist Christians; C) in order to reach modern men and women some would argue that the gospel message may be made more socially relevant by clothing it in the garb of psychological concepts; D) some psychological answers give people comfort in the midst of “the irrelevant esoteric theological stuffiness of the Christian gospel; E) people have stopped believing that the Christian gospel can ameliorate suffering; and F) several individuals have reasoned that Christianity is good and valuable, and so is psychology, so the integration of these systems will naturally obtain something better and more valuable” (Buri, 1990, pp. 17-18). 

Continuing from the same article, Schema Theory and the Psychology-Christianity Dialogue: New Theoretical Applications, Buri does offer an alternative approach for consideration in the matter of Christianity’s integration with psychology, which I find to be very profound given the discussion we have had around cognitive schemata. He writes, “It seems that many individuals have been impelled to unite the relatively disparate disciplines of psychology and Christianity, either through a Christianizing of psychology or through a psychologizing of Christianity. Either approach has a tendency to minimize the unique significance of the capitulated discipline, and furthermore, both approached contribute to an already pervasive therapeutic view of reality. It seems that a more veritable relationship between psychology and Christianity might be achieved if we were to forsake our apparent obsession with the integration of these disciplines, and instead, we were to acknowledge the singular contributions offered by each toward a greater understanding of the human condition… Such an approach would allow Christian men and women to both learn from psychology as well as contribute to psychology, but always within the parameters of a truly faith-filled mindset in which the Christian gospel and the transcendent hand of God are habitually apprehended” (Buri, 1990, p. 27). 

Section IV – Hard Conversations: Christian Religious Trauma 

This may be hard to talk about, but as a Christian, I think I need to recognize the way this religion can and does harm people. I will always hold space for people who have been hurt by any form of Christian doctrine, teaching, or individual in their church or community. In a research article by Alison Downie from 2022, titled Christian Shame and Religious Trauma, an analysis of Christian trauma is presented. In defining these terms, she states, “Terms related to religious trauma, such as spiritual or religious abuse and spiritual violence, appear in related studies. I use the term religious trauma for two reasons. Firstly, though definitions of and methodologies for studying religion are multiple and contested, in this context, the modifier religious is less definitionally fraught than the term spiritual, though contestation and overlap are inescapable. Spiritual harm may occur in any social context, from a workplace to a hospital to a community center. The modifier “spiritual” draws attention to an anthropological view of the human as inherently spiritual in some way and, therefore, potentially vulnerable to harm in that capacity by virtue of being human. In contrast, the term religious trauma is more circumscribed as a functional, descriptive term. Religious trauma occurs within a religious context. Secondly, the term religious trauma clearly situates itself within interdisciplinary trauma studies. The term asserts that a specific form of trauma merits study as tied to a lived experience of a given religion, whether or not this experience also includes abuse or violence” (Downie, 2022, pp. 1-2). From the same article by Downie, religious trauma affects the nervous system and causes a whole host of negative symptoms. She states, “As trauma researcher Bessel A. Van der Kolk (2014) puts it, ‘After trauma the world is experienced with a different nervous system’ (p. 53). Stone argues that religious trauma produces symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (p. 326). These are generally recognized as including ’intrusive memories, hyperarousal, hypervigilance, anxiety, depression, numbness, dissociation, compulsion to reenact, restriction of range of affect, and sleep disturbances (Panchuk 2018, p. 509). Religious trauma creates a very maladaptive schema. I understand why people leave religion after such immense trauma! 

Speaking of religious trauma, something I want to add that is relevant to the conversation is the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control. According to the Freedom of Mind Resource Center, “Steven Hassan developed the BITE Model to describe cults’ specific methods to recruit and maintain control over people. “BITE” stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control. The BITE model should be used within the Influence Continuum Model to help determine authoritarian control. Not every group or relationship uses every one of these. Some are universal such as deception (Information control), indoctrinating people to distrust critics and former members, or installing phobias to make people afraid of questioning or leaving” (Freedom of Mind, 2024). People should always feel to leave any sort of environment that is oppressing them, monitoring their relationships or personal life, causing them to endure active religious trauma, or just a negative environment for them in general. Authoritarian control is a form of abuse… that can lead to even more forms of abuse… and it can happen in any sort of environment where you are subjected—intentionally or unintentionally—to a power imbalance. Fortunately, for healing religious trauma, CBT has been proven to be effective in research from Last and others (2023).

Part V – The Christian Schema at Work in My Life 

To conclude everything, I am simply making the case that living with a healthy, supportive, and loving Christian schema is very adaptive in one’s life as presented through research. As I shared in the first few paragraphs, I feel great peace in my worldview not because it has psychological benefits, but because the very foundation of my philosophical beliefs about the universe are consistent with my emotional experiences! What Jesus spoke about is legitimately consistent with my life experiences. God’s love and teachings do not contradict anything that I am experiencing—in fact, I believe that His existence explains everything that I have gone through with a very intimate and profound wholeness. I believe in the efficacy of scientific knowledge and evidence-based counseling practices! My experiences with God are the reason why my love for psychology has gone deeper and further substantiates my desire to become a Licensed Mental Health Counselor (LMHC). I have felt isolated in this rather secular social science, but growing closer to my faith has reinforced its beauty to me. I will not become a Christian Counselor, because instead, I wish to care for all individuals who are in need of quality mental health treatment.

References 
Buri, J. (1990). Schema Theory and the Psychology-Christianity Dialogue: New Theoretical Applications. Eric Institute of Education Sciences. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED322425

Carbon, C. C., & Albrecht, S. (2012). Bartlett's schema theory: the unreplicated "portrait d'homme" series from 1932. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 65(11), 2258–2270. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.696121

Dolcos, F., Hohl, K., Hu, Y., & Dolcos, S. (2021). Religiosity and Resilience: Cognitive Reappraisal and Coping Self-Efficacy Mediate the Link between Religious Coping and Well-Being. Journal of religion and health, 60(4), 2892–2905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-020-01160-y

Downie, A. (2022). "Christian Shame and Religious Trauma.” Religions, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13100925

Freedom of Mind Resource Center. (2024). Bite Model of Authoritarian Control.

Last, B. S., Johnson, C., Dallard, N., Fernandez-Marcote, S., Zinny, A., Jackson, K., Cliggitt, L., Rudd, B. N., Mills, C., & Beidas, R. S. (2023). Implementing trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy in Philadelphia: A 10-year evaluation. Implementation Research and Practice, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231199467

– Research Essay by Samantha Arden Lockheart

Date // 20. May 2024

@LockheartArdenPublishing