Just recently, I got an interesting comment in response to my new blog on “Psychotheology.” Here, I wish to engage with that comment and provide some thoughts on the matter. Marc said the following, separated into the following outline by myself for help in responding:

(1) The only place something like this would ever be taught is in a seminary school or a private christian college.
(2) I am not a religious person, but I understand how religious thinking encompases every facet of your life, this just isn’t the way to attain higher learning in a non biased place such as a public university.
(3) The psychology of religion is taught, but you can’t create a branch like the one you’re talking about, it has inherently far too many biases. A private christian school will obviously ignore these biases.
(4) If you ever do complete your book I will not read it as I already disagree with the basic premise (and don’t give me that “you’re being closed minded” crap, you wouldn’t read a book on the psychology of man’s relationship to the God Thor because you would think it was just as rediculous)
(5) but in any case I wish you the best of luck in your research and getting such a thing published.

In response to point (1), my original primary intention was not for the topic to necessarily be a course to be taught, just more of a philosophical treatise people could approach, discuss, ponder, engage with, argue with, burn, or accept as truth – whatever they so desired. But, now that you mention it, one of my passions is teaching and this would certainly be fun to teach. Of course, this works on the assumption that I am able to figure out a systematic enough of an approach that this could be done at all. If I am led to teach in the university setting, though, I don/t think I would go to a christian school or seminary. Seminaries already have courses such as “Religion as Applied to Psychology,” and “Biblical Counseling.” The only difference with mine is that I hope Psychotheology would be used more as an apologetic (defense of God) approach. I was actually thinking about this today. It seems when it comes to the discussion of God, there are three grounds on which the battle is fought: scientific (the world out there), philosophical (the world up there), and psychological (the world in us). Extensive attention has been given in the past 15 years or so to the scientific realm (one can reference the links to the side, anything by Lee Stroebel or Josh McDowell, or just ask me and I will answer it to the best of my ability). Specific attention has also been given to the philosophical realm by masterpieces such as C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity,” or the works of Soren Kierkegaard (whom I disagree with on many theological points, but nonetheless defends Christianity philosophically). I believe there has been a neglect in the area of psychological defenses of God, which I hope to attempt to fill. This defense has historically been left not to psychologists, but rather to theologians and mystics such as St. Augustine and Karl Rahner who either base all their views on subjective personal experience or by tailoring the psychological views of other famous psychologists to “fit” Christianity. I hope to wipe the slate clean of these and just start with the human mind.

2 – My first response is to wonder if there is such a thing as a “non-biased” university anywhere, secular or Christian. I know personally that my university is very, very secular, humanistic, and liberal in every way, shape, and form. In the religious studies department alone, such attention is given to “diversity” that if you add together biblical studies along with all general religion classes (such as World Religions, Ethics and Religion, and Psychology and the Religious Experience), that total would be less than than the classes dedicated to any ONE other religious studies concentration. In other words, there are more classes dedicated wholly to just Eastern Religions than there is to all Biblical Studies classes and General Religion classes COMBINED. Also, on staff, in the entire department, there are only TWO professing Christian professors actually teaching Biblical courses of any kind. The rest are taught by non-Christians. This wouldn’t be a problem except these two professors ONLY teach Christian courses. You dont find Chirstians teaching other religions as you do find other religions teaching Christianity.
Also, I do not consider myself a “religious” person either. Religion is the social construct comprised of rules, regualtions, punishments; it’s the “establishment.” I am not a part of that. I am part of the “family” that is comprised of all believers. To me, “the church” is not supposed to be a building, but a group of believing Christians, wherever they may be. Religion says, “I obey what God wants, therefore I am accepted by God.” I say (and the Bible says), “I am accepted by God, therefore I desire to obey.” Very different.
On your last point, I remember the president of the Honors Program at this University speaking to us Honors students upon my first week at University. He said the primary difference between lower education and higher education was that “lower education strives regurgitation of knowledge by the student, whereas higher education strives for creation of knowledge by the student.” That is what I am doing. Taking my life experience, knowledge (both biblical and secular), and observations and trying to create knowledge and fill a void that exists. That is higher education.

3 – The fact that ther are so many types of seminaries and “private christian schools” shows how they do not ignore these biases. That is why I put out in the open every perspective I am coming from so everyone can view my words knowing my inherent biases, and thus take them as is, not fearing any hidden agendas. Also, any introductory psych course will show you that the enitre field of psychology is reigned by bias and preference. Justr a simple matter as how one views the nature of man will affect every component of one’s psycholgical theory including therapy, training, and communication style (one need only compare Freud to Carl Rogers). No field is completely void of biases, be it science, philosophy, art, medicine, or advertising; but beside that point, when did one’s preconcieved slant suddenly mean that what one said suddenly lost all authority. If we only sought out the words of those who were free of bias we would be a very knowledgeless people – the type that would use the word “knowledgeless” for example. I strive to not put the Bible through the filter of my bias, rather, I put my bias thourgh the filter of my Bible. Believing the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, means that if I make my bias the same as the bias that the Creator of the Universe onbiovusly has, I am on pretty authoritative and sound footing.

4 – First off, as I said in response to the priginal commment, I never use the whole “you have a close mind” cop out. I’d rather actually deal with whatever the real issue is at hand and potentially get messy. And actually, I have read up on the psychology of man’s relationship to ancient gods. I actually think Thor may have been one of the examples. It was from the perspective of explainign different views on the source of religious faith, be it in God or Zeus or Thor. It showed me that all through history man has had this inherent urge to worship one outside of himself. Now, most would see this as a crutch. People are afraid to die, so they believe in an afterlife; people are afraid of a purely random universe so they construct a big guy who can control everything. But, I ask you this: assuming that a Creator-God does exist that desires to have inimate personal fellowship with humans, how would you expect the psychologies of humans to be any different? If a God did exist, would man no longer ponder an afterlife? Would man suddenly not be most fulfilled when in union with the Creator of the Universe? Would he not desire, want, and need to lean on something (or Someone) more trustworthy, consistent, and strong than themselves? To put it in the words of C.S. Lewis: “How would one know the universe was meaningless if it really had no meaning?” Just like “how would we know that there was darkenss, without some knowledge of the existence of light?” Also, the Bible says that we are crippled and dead in our sin before an Almighty God. If I am crippled, I’m going to want a crutch to lean on. Lastly, maybe – just maybe – someone’s disbelief may be just as much of a psychological crutch to them as they think my belief in God is.

5 – Thank you, and Marc, if you do read this, I’m sorry I turned such a simple comment into such an extensive “treatise” of sorts. I can assure you, I realyl didn’t “snap” or get mad and angry at the words you spoke. They were very thougth provoking and provided a good outline to present some thoughts that had been running thorugh my head. I would love to know any thoughts, refutations, insults, mockeries, witicisms, or sincerities you may have toward what little you know of me, my blogs, my thoughts, or my faith. I would love to try and answer anything you write to the best of my ability, even if it is from the motive of pure interest, with no debate required. If you don’t mind, I’ll be praying for you and also, I’m sorry for any hurt you may have endured at the hands of Christians, Christianity, or the Church. I assure you, that is not the way true Christianity is supposed to be, and I wish to offer the idea to you that the
truth of a faith can stand independently of the actions of its supposed followers.

God Bless
–paul<