Keywords

The relationship between psychology and Christianity has often been fraught with tension, antagonism, and mutual suspicion (Hodge et al., 2020a), but that does not have to be the case. Indeed, Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963/2010) famously asserted:

Science investigates; religion interprets… The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism. (p. 4)

As this quote illustrates, people have specific beliefs and worldviews about how psychology and Christianity may, or may not, work together. Yet there is substantial overlap in the goals and values of positive psychology (PP) and the goals and values of Christianity, leading to a rise in scholarly attention on their potential intersections. Two notable examples of this trend include a recent special issue of the Journal of Positive Psychology entitled “Christian Positive Psychology” (Johnson, 2017) and a recent book The Science of Virtue: Why Positive Psychology Matters to the Church (McMinn, 2017). The current chapter explores these intersections as well.

Given the prevalence of Christianity globally and the current trends in the geographic distribution of Christianity, we hope to contribute to the growing literature that critiques the foundational assumption that PP is value-neutral (Prinzing, 2021) and that advances the argument that religious/spiritual (R/S) thought can provide a foundation, or worldview, from which to base future empirical study in PP (Hill & Hall, 2018). (See Table 10.1 for a summary of reasons why PP and Christianity could and should work together.) To accomplish this goal, we first (a) provide a brief overview of the geographic distribution and demographic composition of Christians around the world and (b) highlight how a changing religious landscape will likely affect collaborative efforts between PP and Christianity over time. We then review fundamental beliefs and values among Christians that may influence how Christians utilize empirical findings from the field of PP. We conclude the chapter by discussing how Christian beliefs, traditions, and doctrines may influence one’s understanding of well-being, health, and virtue.

Table 10.1 Reasons Why Positive Psychology (PP) and Christianity Could and Should Work Together
Full size table

Geographic Distribution and Demographic Composition of Christians Around the World

The global landscape of Christianity is rapidly changing. As of 2010, there were an estimated 2.18 billion people globally who identified as Christian (approximately one-third of the population at the time), making it the largest world religion, compared to Islam (23% of the world’s population), Hinduism (15%), Buddhism (7%), Judaism (0.2%), folk religions (6%), and other religions (1%). Recent projections suggest the world’s Christian population will continue to increase, albeit modestly, through 2060, with much of the growth occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa (Pew Research Center, 2017).

Regarding current trends of the geographic distribution of Christians, recent projections estimate that a shift in balance will take place within the next 30–40 years. Christians in the Sub-Saharan Africa regions will likely increase and bypass the proportion of Christians in the Western society. This shift in balance is largely due to both an aging Christian population and a growing rate of individuals deidentifying from religion in the West (Pew Research Center, 2017).

Because of the changing geographic landscape of Christianity, it is important to consider how these shifts are likely to affect collaborative efforts between PP and Christianity. Religion, culture, and society are highly intertwined, resulting in differences in how religion is practiced and understood in different geographic locations (Cohen et al., 2016). Not only can religion influence society (e.g., Christianity’s influence on U.S. culture; Cohen & Hill, 2007), but society can also influence religious practice (e.g., the influence of U.S. culture on American Christianity; Cohen et al., 2005). Additionally, research has suggested that conceptualizations of happiness vary across time and culture (Oishi et al., 2013), so it is quite possible that religious beliefs, values, and traditions contribute to this evolving view of what constitutes a “good life.” The interconnections between Christian worldviews and localized cultures may set the stage for researchers to consider how different PP constructs may be perceived by different groups. Thus, it is important to keep in mind how geographical, cultural, and national contexts may influence religious practices and specific beliefs, all of which can impact the dynamics between PP and Christianity, as these trends will likely continue to shift over time.

Organizational/Denominational Structure, Beliefs, and Religious Practices

It is important to emphasize that Christianity is not monolithic. Therefore, it is difficult to describe how Christians (as a whole) might interact with PP. A common strategy used to distinguish groups of Christians is to look at denominational differences based on organizational structures, beliefs, and practices. In 2010, over half of the 2.18 billion Christians around the world belonged to the Roman Catholic church, 36.5% to Protestant churches, 11.9% to Orthodox churches, and 1.3% to denominations that did not fit within these categories (e.g., Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness; Pew Research Center, 2011). Currently, there are over 300 Christian denominations in the United States alone, and this number is constantly changing (Rhodes, 2015). Despite the nearly impossible task of concisely distinguishing Christian denominations from one another, we highlight important theological differences (both between and within Christian denominations and leaders) that might influence how Christians approach PP.

Denominational and Individual Differences

A recent project surveyed Christian ministry leaders to explore factors that may influence Christian leaders’ views on integrating psychological research and practice into Christian church ministry. First, Hodge et al. (2020a) explored broad denominational differences by collapsing all denominations into three groups: (a) Roman Catholic, (b) Mainline Protestant (i.e., denominations that are associated with the National Council of Churches and have historic roots and influence in American society; Hadaway & Marler, 2006), and (c) Evangelical Protestant (i.e., an umbrella group of Protestant churches that affirm the doctrine of regeneration, emphasize evangelism, and affirm the authority and historicity of the Bible; FitzGerald, 2017). Hodge et al. (2020a, b) found differences between denominational groups when it came to the prevalence of social/community concerns, perceived barriers between psychology and church ministry, and perceived compatibility between psychology and church ministry. Mainline Protestant and Catholic leaders identified fewer barriers and more compatibility than Evangelical Protestants. Mainline Protestant leaders identified more social/community concerns than Evangelical Protestant leaders. However, many denominational differences disappeared when controlling for other factors (e.g., political conservatism, intratextual fundamentalism).

Second, to explore these findings further within the same sample of Christian leaders, McLaughlin et al. (in press) utilized a person-centered analytical approach and found three subgroups of Christian church leaders, based on differences in theological worldviews: (a) theologically conservative leaders, (b) theologically moderate leaders, and (c) theologically progressive leaders. In several areas of ministry, theologically moderate and theologically progressive leaders demonstrated a greater motivation to draw on psychological science than did theologically conservative leaders. Of note, theologically moderate and theologically progressive pastors were interspersed across the broad denominational groups used in Hodge et al. (2020a; i.e., Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Catholic). Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of individual differences when exploring theological beliefs among Christians, rather than assuming homogeneity across Christian traditions.

Important Dimensions That Distinguish Christians

Worthington (1988) identified three important value dimensions by which highly committed adherents in the Abrahamic traditions evaluate and develop their values, beliefs, and doctrines: (a) authority of human leaders, (b) authority of Scripture or doctrine, and (c) religious group norms. Where people locate themselves on these value dimensions vary by denomination and individual. However, their stance on these dimensions likely informs the crucial beliefs, values, and doctrines that are central to them.

Authority of Human Leaders

The authority of human leaders relates to one’s viewpoint regarding which people or institutions should be esteemed as having authority over one’s life. This assumes that religious people, namely Christians, might follow the lead of authority. When considering collaborative efforts between PP and Christianity, it is important to understand how Christians view human spiritual authority. The social standing of a psychologist—even a Christian psychologist—might not hold much authority in some Christian groups if group members are skeptical of the natural and social sciences or give greater authority to religious leaders (e.g., a pastor or the Pope). The psychologist’s viewpoints may be disregarded if they run contrary to those of religious leaders.

For collaboration, psychologists could align with church leaders and help church leaders understand and share psychological findings (and their potential impact) in their church. To be effective, this type of collaboration will likely need to involve considerable humility and openness on the part of both psychologists and Christian leaders, as they honor the expertise and authority each holds within their spheres of work and influence.

Authority of Scripture or Doctrine

Authority of Scripture or doctrine is especially relevant to Christian worldviews. Many Christian groups purport that the Bible, and occasionally other Christian literature, depending on the tradition, has special value and authority over and above other sources of information (see Hood et al., 2005, for a review on intratextuality and its relationship to fundamentalism). Thus, many groups (including Christian-identifying counselors and clinicians; see McMinn et al., 2010) view psychology and the natural sciences as separate belief systems from Christianity, and they may debate how much epistemological authority to attribute to theology or science.

Christian psychologists have written extensively on efforts to integrate psychology and Christianity (e.g., Johnson, 2010; Neff & McMinn, 2020). For example, in Johnson’s (2010) book on five views of psychology and Christian integration, some Christian integrationists draw a distinct line between biblical authority and psychology, prioritizing the notion that Scripture is sufficient to address psychological concerns (i.e., the Biblical Counseling view), whereas others see psychology and theology explaining different levels of truth (i.e., truth can be discovered from scientific disciplines such as psychology that may not be readily observable in Christian tradition and doctrine; the Levels-of-Explanation view). Of course, there are individual differences in how Christians (both Christian psychologists and lay people alike) approach psychological science, but it is fair to assume that beliefs on the authority and sufficiency of the Bible are often important in informing how Christians view psychology.

Regarding collaborative efforts between PP and Christianity, if epistemic authority is ascribed to theology, positive psychologists may be reticent to engage in collaborative efforts where their work must be subservient to the other party’s theology. On the other hand, if epistemic authority is ascribed to psychology, then theologians may perceive Scripture as being distorted by the current science of the time (Porter, 2010). Regardless of where one potential collaboration partner stands on their view of the authority of Scripture, collaboration is possible when the other party’s view of the authority of the Bible is understood, valued, and respected.

Religious Group Norms

Religious group norms involve one’s loyalty to members of their group (e.g., the church, denomination, congregation) and exclusion of people outside of one’s self-referential group. Worthington (1988) has provided an example of this value dimension when describing how neo-orthodox churches emphasized ecumenism (i.e., promoting unity among Christian churches) in the twentieth century, which ran contrary to the practice of drawing specific denominational lines based on doctrine, ecclesiastical authority, and scriptural authority.

Regarding collaborative efforts, one might consider how Christian group norms may help or hinder a Christian from engaging in PP interventions and research (Rye et al., 2013). Religious individuals are more likely to consult with their religious leader than a psychologist or medical doctor (Chalfant et al., 1990), and clergy have been called the “gatekeepers” to the professional practice of psychology (Gorsuch & Meylink, 1988). Some Christians may have very little desire to engage in PP practice unless they perceive that the PP contribution is consistent with the norms of their religious-identity group.

Furthermore, a Christian may be intrigued by aspects of PP or want to explore PP interventions, yet they might not feel comfortable engaging in these practices, due to the perception that the “secular” intervention would conflict with group norms. For example, a Christian with higher levels of religious commitment or fundamentalism may feel uncomfortable with certain mindfulness-meditation practices (Williams et al., in press). Therefore, it is important to be conscious of a Christian client’s assumptions underlying therapeutic interventions and to assess Christian clients’ level of trust in their psychotherapist’s ability to adapt these interventions to match the client’s R/S beliefs respectfully and adequately.

Notably, PP researchers have recognized the hesitancy of some Christians in approaching psychological science, and these researchers have begun to explore how PP interventions could be implemented in Christian settings. There is a growing body of research suggesting that targeted PP interventions can be beneficial for Christian communities, including interventions promoting gratitude (Uhder et al., 2017), wisdom (McLaughlin et al., 2018), humility (Cuthbert et al., 2018), grace (Bufford et al., 2018), and forgiveness (Toussaint et al., 2020). Thus, in their work, PP researchers and practitioners could recognize the strong influence of Christian beliefs and group norms and identify ways to work with potential Christian groups and clients in a culturally humble and clinically sensitive way. This does not mean the scientific approach has to change but rather that the researcher or clinician may take into consideration how the participants or clients might respond to the intervention, based on their unique Christian beliefs and practices.

To be sure, there are other important values and beliefs held by Christians. However, the aforementioned beliefs provide a strong foundation for improving discussion regarding the intersection of PP and Christianity. It is important for psychologists to be aware of the values and beliefs held by their Christian clients, in order to understand better how their Christian clients might perceive their presenting problems or the purpose of a PP intervention. On the other hand, it is important for Christian church leaders to tolerate some level of metaphysical or worldview difference with positive psychologists, in order to see how PP research or interventions might be used or adapted to help their communities experience greater well-being and flourishing.

Christian Understanding of Well-Being, Health, and Virtue

To this point, we have not directly highlighted the overlap between PP and Christianity, although we have alluded to this overlap (given the relatively high volume of scholarly literature on the subject). In the following section, we outline how PP and Christianity share overlapping interests regarding well-being, health, and virtue, but we also identify differences in how the two fields approach these subjects (see Table 10.2 for an overview). Given that PP is value-laden (Prinzing, 2021), we also use the following section to explore how Christian values might be utilized to (a) provide a framework for future empirical inquiry into PP constructs and (b) serve as a motivator to encourage more individuals to engage with PP research and practice. In other words, Christianity provides a framework that informs adherents about what values and virtues are worth pursuing, but it does not necessarily describe how to achieve these goals. On the other hand, PP provides an empirical base for how to develop virtues and character strengths, but it may not directly address why pursuing virtues and well-being is important or meaningful.

Table 10.2 Comparison of Well-Being, Health, and Virtue in Positive Psychology (PP) and Christianity
Full size table

To begin, when it comes to pursuing ultimate human flourishing or well-being, what Christians consider important may look different from how PP measures and assesses well-being. For example, PP typically examines well-being on two fronts: (a) a hedonic pathway towards well-being (i.e., pursuing pleasure and escaping pain) and (b) a eudaimonic pathway towards well-being (i.e., development of virtues that lead to the good life; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Christianity is most strongly aligned with a eudaimonic pathway, such that pursuing a virtuous life is thought to help a Christian become more Christ-like (Nelson & Slife, 2017), by having the in-dwelling Christ formed more into their character (traditional Christian character formation).

A major difference in how positive psychologists view eudaimonic well-being compared to Christians is the motivation behind why an individual would pursue virtuous living. PP research and practice tend to examine virtues independently (e.g., examining gratitude distinctly from humility). The end goal for the positive psychologist may be understanding and promoting internal and relational benefits of virtues. This runs contrary to dominant Christian thinking that conceptualizes virtues as interrelated and simultaneously developing (e.g., increases in gratitude accompany increases in humility and vice versa), with the ultimate goals of virtue development being that one is better able to worship God and to love God and others (Nelson & Slife, 2017).

Additionally, some Christians may also believe that virtues are gifts that develop within one’s connection to God—perhaps through God’s agency—rather than being developed through sheer willpower or in response to one’s individual agency. For example, the “fruit of the spirit” listed in Galatians 5: 22–23 (e.g., love, patience, self-control) map directly onto virtues that are widely studied in PP. One common Christian interpretation of this passage suggests that Christians naturally produce these virtues as their Christian faith grows and they become more like Christ. (The flip-side of this perspective would be a Christian interpretation that non-Christians are either unlikely or unable to produce these fruits [virtues] due to their presumed lack of connection with God.) An alternate perspective is that God initiates the pursuit of virtue, but human agency is needed to build the virtue (James 1: 4, 12, 21–27; Eph 4: 22–24). Therefore, depending on their understanding of God’s role in strengthening virtue development, Christians may differ in what they believe about how non-Christians may develop virtues or benefit from behaving virtuously.

However, more nuanced views about how non-Christians (people outside of a relationship with God) may grow in virtues and receive benefits from acting virtuously are possible. Even so, it is important to consider how a Christian’s view on virtue development might differ, depending on how they view the locus of control for virtue development. This may lead to differing views on whether positive change in a person’s life occurs through divine intervention (e.g., God providing a believer the ability to exercise self-control when it comes to substance use) or whether these changes can be boiled down to agentic self-regulatory processes and outcomes. Christians may attribute positive physical and mental health changes to God, whereas positive psychologists, using empirical methods, are bound by the rules of psychological science and cannot introduce non-naturalistic explanatory causes of behavior change (e.g., positive psychologists are unable to measure the amount God’s assistance in helping an individual develop virtues). It may promote more fruitful collaboration if psychologists and Christian leaders might increasingly view the cultivation of virtue as a mystery of collaboration between both divine influence and human engagement (e.g., grace; Bufford et al., 2018).

Collaborative efforts that hold space for this dialectic may be helpful in increasing well-being and health outcomes in a wider ministerial context as well. For example, Pennington and Hackney (2017) have made a convincing case that Judeo-Christian texts, namely the Bible, are deeply embedded with themes that pertain to people who are seeking happiness and well-being through their approach to God. Pennington and Hackney (2017) suggest that, in the Bible, God provides moral commands that temporarily function to reduce levels of hedonic well-being in order to help humans experience life to the full (i.e., eudaimonic well-being). Thus, viewing Christianity as primarily a restriction on one’s behavior to achieve a place of right-standing with God is limited. A Christian PP framework is helpful for providing a theological rationale for why striving to live a virtuous life (e.g., practicing self-regulation) is worthwhile for Christians.

Furthermore, McMinn (2017) has suggested that the church needs PP to (a) build a stronger bridge between science and Christianity and (b) provide practical application to Christian philosophy and teaching. Constructs of PP (e.g., well-being, forgiveness) map well onto Christian language and ideals (e.g., God’s forgiveness, biblical insistence on unilateral human forgiveness). This fact is no coincidence, as early theoretical development of PP considered world religions’ prescriptions for the good and virtuous life (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). For Christians, finding ways to connect science with their Christian beliefs is likely important in making sense of the world and discerning sources of truth. PP perspectives that utilize scientific approaches to developing virtues and behaviors in pursuit of well-being could be useful for Christians as they consider more deeply how they strive toward spiritual development and ideals of Christian living.

PP and Christianity can also have different viewpoints on the origin and practice of virtue (Beck & Haugen, 2013). For example, Titus (2017) has illustrated how contemporary PP seeks to describe character strengths and virtue under the assumption that positive human nature promotes one to act morally. On the other hand, a Christian approach to PP, through the writings of Thomas Aquinas, provides a multidimensional conceptualization of virtue, where a person’s disposition, behavior, and reasoning for behaving virtuously are all taken into consideration. The actual list of character strengths and virtues may not be that different in PP compared to Christianity. Christian-based reasoning for why a Christian should act virtuously is deeply rooted in the belief that Christians should care for themselves, others, and God. PP-based reasoning is rooted in helping people live and flourish, rather than merely exist (Keyes & Haidt, 2003).

Furthermore, the beliefs held by Christianity may encourage people to engage virtuously in a way that PP may unintentionally, or intentionally, ignore. Roberts (2017) has outlined how a person’s perception of virtue may be altered by their religious beliefs, which could lead to higher motivation for behaving virtuously, compared to contemporary PP theories. It is here that Christianity has much to offer the field of PP, by providing motivation for pursuing a virtuous lifestyle beyond the goal of being a moral, ethical, and happy person. Research has generally supported the notion that there is a positive relationship between general religion/spirituality and virtues such as forgiveness (Davis et al., 2013), humility (Davis et al., 2017), and gratitude (Tsang et al., 2012). However, the relationships are often complex, and someone’s motivation to be virtuous may not actually result in the person actually behaving virtuously. Even so, it appears that identifying Christian motivations to live virtuous lives would help positive psychologists find ways to motivate Christian clients to pursue virtue development and well-being.

Lastly, there is a tradition within PP in which Christian thought has had a significant impact on the study of virtue. In the introduction of his book, McMinn (2017) outlined that many of the leading researchers on forgiveness identify as Christian, as do some of the major leaders studying gratitude and humility. These researchers identify values within the Christian faith and find strategies that may encourage many people—both inside and outside of the Christian faith—to pursue well-being and positive relationships through the development of virtue and character strengths. Another clear example of this strong collaborative relationship between PP and Christianity is the recent empirical research that has strengthened psychology’s theoretical and empirical understanding of grace. Using theological underpinnings of grace from numerous religious backgrounds, but largely drawing from Judeo-Christian traditions, Emmons et al. (2017) provided a definition of grace that considers the role of social obligation (i.e., being unobligated to offer acceptance to an undeserving person) as a distinguishing factor that separates grace from other virtues (e.g., forgiveness, compassion). By this definition, God is the ultimate giver of grace, as there is no obligation for God to provide acceptance to people.

In a recent narrative review surveying the extant empirical literature on grace (k = 61), Hodge et al. (2020b) found that grace is often used interchangeably with general spirituality, divine intervention, and other related virtues (e.g., forgiveness likelihood) in psychological research on grace (which has largely been conducted by Christian psychologists). Grace is foundational to the Christian religion. Yet many Christians and Christian psychologists may struggle to determine what makes grace unique from other prosocial attitudes and behaviors, perhaps diluting their understanding of the cognitive and emotional impact grace might have in a person’s life. This is where PP can help Christianity. PP can help (a) demonstrate empirically how Christian virtues may impact an individual’s sense of well-being and (b) explore how Christian virtues may differentially promote the development of other virtues.

An Example of Fruitful Collaboration

Perhaps the best way to illustrate how PP and Christianity could work together to benefit one another is through an example. Forgiveness is a popular virtue within PP, and it is also a central aspect of the Christian faith. PP has found a strong relationship between forgiveness and health/well-being (Worthington et al., 2007). However, some people may perceive that unforgiveness is an effective coping mechanism in certain situations, even though unforgiveness may lead to subsequent stress and anxiety. In certain situations, positive psychologists may struggle to help motivate people to engage in PP’s forgiveness interventions, whereas Christianity provides direct commands for a person to forgive routinely (Matthew 18: 21–22).

On the other hand, some Christians may struggle with forgiveness and seek additional resources on how to forgive, or they may feel like they have truly made a decision to forgive (i.e., decisional forgiveness), but they are confused about why they still experience negative emotions regarding the offense (i.e., they have not experienced emotional forgiveness). In the PP field, there are many models of forgiveness that have a strong empirical foundation (e.g., REACH Forgiveness, Forgive for Good; Toussaint et al., 2020), and these resources could help Christians pursue, and perhaps better understand, the virtues they feel God wants them to pursue. Here, PP and Christianity could work well together in that Christianity could provide a framework to understand why individuals may be motivated to engage in virtue development and pursue well-being (at least for nearly 1/3 of the world’s population), and PP could utilize Christian tradition and a Christian understanding of virtue to identify and explore other mechanisms of virtue development that might be impactful for the PP field as a whole.

Conclusion

PP and Christianity have many shared goals, and recent scholarly efforts have demonstrated how the two fields might become better friends and collaborators. The global landscape and organizational/denominational structure of Christianity is steadily changing, and these changes bring new challenges and opportunities to enhance efforts of collaboration. In light of this, we have sought to convey a message to both psychologists and Christian leaders. The world continues to become more interconnected and diverse, and it is important for positive psychologists to be sensitive to and to learn about the beliefs and perspectives of both Christian clientele and potential partners for collaboration. Perhaps with better communication and humility, PP research and practice will be enhanced by interacting with Christian traditions, practices, institutions, and beliefs. Similarly, we encourage Christian ministry leaders and lay individuals to be open to new insights from PP regarding virtue development and human flourishing. Worldview differences will continue to arise and be a challenge. Not everyone will come to value integrating PP into theology or Christian living. But, if one decides such integration is warranted, there are numerous ways for psychological concepts to be integrated into Christian living and ministry. Thus, there is ample reason for PP and Christianity to continue striving toward positive collaboration, acknowledging that both fields can benefit substantially from one another (McMinn, 2017).