About a year ago I was asked to submit a book review to a journal entitled, “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.” It covers a manuscript written by a well-known Christian academic psychologist (Dr. Justin Barrett) which is designed to serve as a primer on what academic psychology has to offer the theologian and the theoretically-inclined pastor. Below is my critique of Barrett’s work:

TheoPsych: A Psychological Primer for Theologians

by Justin L. Barrett. Blueprint 1543, 2022. 176 pages. Paperback; $19.15. Also, free download at: https://blueprint1543.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TheoPsych-PDF.pdf ISBN: 979-8985852004

It is not often that one finds a book about construction written by a psychologist. However, Justin Barrett’s TheoPsych is just that. The author imagines the theologian as a master palace builder in need of a collection of specialized materials and knowledgeable artisans to do specific modular work for the larger project. TheoPsych serves as a “specs sheet” for the potential contributions psychological science can bring to the project. The manuscript is designed not only to serve the interested contemporary theologian who already desires this input, but even more so, it seeks to convince the suspicious or disinterested theologian of the usefulness of the discipline. As such, “bridge builder” seems an equally fitting metaphor. In any event, intellectual efforts which suggest a unity of truth come freighted with hope for this reader because of the potential they hold to generate cross-disciplinary clarity.

Descriptively, the book features five chapters, the first of which argues for the theologian’s need of psychological science, distinguishes it from the more general and potentially misleading term, “psychology,” and seeks to help the inquisitive theologian identify the types of issues where the psychological sciences will be useful. Here, as in other parts of the text, Barrett gives form to the points being made by posing insightful example questions. For instance, “Why does it often seem so hard for people to grasp and hold onto the idea of Grace?” (p. 13).[1]

Chapter 2 further defines the psychological sciences by way of a quick trip through the history of experimental psychology, notes the mindset of the scientific psychologist (i.e., curious and skeptical), describes the demographically relevant features of this community of scholars, and briefly catalogs the various types of materials produced by its professionals. Additional care is taken to delineate the organizational structure of empirical papers and to clarify important discipline-specific terms such as evidence, hypotheses, effects, and effect sizes.

The third and largest chapter of the book maps out the many areas and sub-disciplines the field has to offer. These include the biological basis for behavior, social psychology, personality psychology, cognitive psychology and cognitive science (it’s more interdisciplinary cousin), developmental psychology, and a few others. The relative bulk of this chapter reflects space allotted within each area to draw out particular lines of research relevant for use in interdisciplinary collaboration. As in other sections, Barrett never strays too far from the book’s stated aim, to serve the integrative needs of the interested theologian.

Interestingly, it is not until the penultimate chapter that issues related to emerging new paradigms and overarching themes are brought to the foreground. It opens with a description of the recent emergence of positive psychology and the current emphasis placed on cognitive anthropology and cultural evolution. These areas are followed by a section on evolutionary and comparative psychology. The chapter concludes with religion itself as a topic of study as viewed from four different vantage points: psychology, cognitive science, evolutionary studies, and neuroscience.

The last and briefest chapter addresses the thorny issue of methodological naturalism, noting its necessity to avoid supernatural explanations but also lamenting its inability to settle issues regarding the relationship between human behavior and overarching metaphysical questions. This chapter also speaks to the issue of reductionism, arguing that psychological scientists oftentimes attack their topics of interest reductively. While acknowledging that many then blithely imply ontological reductionism in their interpretations, nonetheless Barrett suggests that “…most good psychologists do not forget the whole.” (p. 140) The book concludes with one more call for theologians to incorporate the findings of psychological science into their work.

Evaluatively, the book has much to offer, including a very expeditious yet effective pathway forged through this broad and corrugated discipline. Additionally, the chosen areas of elaboration seem appropriate and properly suggestive of potential cross-disciplinary alignment. Complementing the helpful exemplar questions peppered throughout the summary sections are several text boxes highlighting examples of existing cross disciplinary activity. For instance, one side-bar discussion features the work of theologian Christopher Woznicki, who argues that concepts in cognitive psychology can be used to better give an account of the theological notion of perichoresis (pp. 81-82). Most importantly, the author’s genuine desire to stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration readily seeps through the pages. Barrett has built a strong and winsome case suggesting theologians willing to interact with the psychological sciences will be well-served in doing so.

The most substantial drawback has to do with what has been left out, namely, the soft underbelly of the discipline. For instance, there was no mention of the replication crisis now plaguing the psychological sciences.[2] Readers should be aware that there are challenging measurement issues that sit at the foundation of all scientific pursuits, especially those that aspire to contend with concepts such as anxiety, emotion, personality, and attachment.

Furthermore, although the book offers many helpful definitions, two critical ones were found missing. One is the construct of religion. The default post-enlightenment understanding is far from clear and directive when made the focus of study.[3] The other is science itself. In addition to enduring definitional challenges regarding both the term as a method and as a body of knowledge, there are also important sociological aspects of the concept that merit mentioning. That is, science as a community; a community that can succumb to the same “groupish” tendencies found in all social networks.

A more complete historical account would serve to support the “science as community” omission noted above. Perhaps outsiders should be made aware that the history of psychology is more than a clean hand-off from Wundt to Watson to the modern psychological scientist. Freud, for instance, was dogmatic in claiming his system of psychoanalysis was anchored in the natural sciences.[4] But there were also the Functionalists and the Gestaltists – the “physics-minded” Gestaltists offering a non-reductionistic paradigm, by the way. Readers should know that psychological science has been governed by many paradigms over the past 150 years, each of them being considered properly scientific by their advocates.

There is also no mention of some rather dubious attempts by psychological scientists in the past to directly address (i.e., correct) theological concepts,[5] including offerings of updated understanding of Jesus in light of modern psychology.[6] In one sense there may be good reason for their omission. These bygone works reside firmly in history’s dustbin, and unlike these previous efforts, TheoPsych is not trying to “do” theology, rather it is merely offering its services passively. Nonetheless, an acknowledgment of and distinction between this history and the current project might serve to allay any misgivings a historically informed reader might have, especially when sections of TheoPsych could be interpreted as being somewhat assertive (e.g., Various Sciences of “Religion,” pp. 126 – 135). Greater lengths should be taken to avoid any impression that this is the work of a missionary from the land of facts sent to enlighten the backward residents of faith.

Finally, there is the issue of the current paradigm. The most popular option is evolutionary psychology. This approach is noted in the book and the promise of interesting connections being forged with biology, cultural studies, and anthropology is properly identified as clearly worthy of continued exploration. However, this is the third attempt to tie the science of human behavior to biological evolution; the first two (eugenics and sociobiology) having left a rather embarrassing legacy.[7] Evolutionary psychology has several major problems, and they are not particularly helped when partnered with the evolution of culture. [8]

In summary, this book would better serve collaborative efforts if the picture presented within was not so nice and tidy. In the long run, brutally transparent portrayals will be needed from all collaborators if there is to be hope for building cross-disciplinary theoretical structures that bring us closer to truth. Despite these criticisms, TheoPsych is unquestionably an impressive and important offering, one that is well-positioned to advance the essential work of cultivating interdisciplinary syntheses. Now, if only more folks in the social sciences would care to understand what theology has to offer them…

Nesselroade, Jr. K. P. (2023, Sept). [Book Review]. TheoPsych: A Psychological Science Primer for Theologians. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 75, 2, pp. 145-147.

[1] For example, Adam S. Hodge, Joshua N. Hook, Don E. Davis, Daryl R. Van Tongeren, Rodger K. Bufford, Rodney L. Bassett & Mark R. McMinn (2022). “Experiencing Grace: A Review of the Empirical Literature,” The Journal of Positive Psychology, 17:3, 375-388, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2020.1858943 . Also, see Pargament, K. I., & Exline, J. J. (2021). Working with Spiritual Struggles in Psychotherapy: From Research to Practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Working-with-Spiritual-Struggles-in-Psychotherapy/Pargament-Exline/9781462524310/contents

[2] Ioannidis JP. “Why most published research findings are false.” PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Epub 2005 Aug 30. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2022 Aug 25;19(8):e1004085. PMID: 16060722; PMCID: PMC1182327.

[3] Harrison, P. (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

[4] Freud, S. (1940). Some Elementary Lessons in Psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey (ed.) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press.

[5] Cattell, R. B. (1987). Beyondism: Religion from Science. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

[6] Hall, G. S. (1917). Jesus, the Christ, in the Light of Psychology. New York, NY: Doubleday, Page.

[7] Lombardo, P. A. (2022). Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

[8] Gantt, E. E., & Williams, R. N. (2020). “The Triumph of the Will: Evolutionary Psychology and the Conceptual Incoherence of Enhancement,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 62(5). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022167819899009