What the...?

Please tell me there's another definition of "Christian" with which I am not familiar?

Four gods for Americans?

The already well-distributed finding from the Baylor survey found four gods that Americans' worship seems decidedly misleading to me.

The authors factor analyzed 29 items that revealed 2 dimensions. Factor analysis is a way of mathematically determining items that "hang together." In personality research, for example, it's been determined that descriptors such as "gregarious" and "assertive" hang together in a broad factor that's been called Extraversion. In the same way, these 29 items were factor analyzed such that 2 groups were clearly evident. Eight items hung well together and were given the name "Belief in God's Engagement" by the authors (p. 26). Six other items hung together well and were given the title "Belief in God's Anger."

In my personality example, I said that certain words descriptive of people tend to hang together to create factors. From this evidence it is posited that there actually exist 5 basic personality factors of human beings. The Lexical Hypothesis states that certain personality factors exist and that words for those characteristics have been invented to describe them. So, by factor analyzing what terms are ascribed to different individuals, one can see that certain terms tend to hang together. Bob tends to be both gregarious and assertive, Jim tends to be neither gregarious nor assertive. Only rarely is a person gregarious and not assertive, because these descriptors correlate well with each other.

Now lets take a look at the original 29 items (actually, I was only able to find 26 items that seemed to ask what God is like, so I must have missed something):
Set 1:
Even if you might not believe in God, based on your personal understanding, what do you think God is like?
1. A cosmic force in the universe
2. Removed from worldly affairs
3. Removed from my personal affairs
4. Concerned with the well-being of the world
5. Concerned with my personal well-being
6. Angered by human sin
7. Angered by my sins
8. Directly involved in worldly affairs
9. Directly involved in my affairs
10. A “He”

How well do you feel that each of the following words describe God?
11. Absolute
12. Critical
13. Distant
14. Ever-present
15. Fatherly
16. Forgiving
17. Friendly
18. Just
19. Kind
20. Kingly
21. Loving
22. Motherly
23. Punishing
24. Severe
25. Wrathful
26. Yielding

Now, since the raw data has not been released yet, I can only speculate as to which 8 items made up the God's Engagment scale and which 6 items made up the God's Wrath scale, but I bet I could guess, and I bet you could too. Remember that an item can load on a factor negatively, that is "Forgiving" could be on the God' Wrath scale, but loaded in a negative direction such that it counted in reverse - people who scored high on the Wrath scale being less likely to endorse "Forgiving" for example.

I can't see how two factors wouldn't emerge from these questions. Synonyms (and antonyms, negatively loaded) will very often load on a single factor, even if you are describing a dog rather than a god: wrathful, punishing, severe...

My problem with this part is that, if you were trying to ascertain how people conceive of God, you would want more items to cover more attributes. I see omnipotence in these items, but not omniscience for example. Where is Wise or All-Knowing. What about Sustaining? It seems to me that these items were assembled based on a hypothesis that Americans differ as to the level of Wrath and Engagement that they espouse in god. It's fine to have a hypothesis, in fact, it is necessary to ensure that you cover the domain with your items (i.e. to ensure that you have enough items about Wrath so that they can hang together meaningfully). But the way that this has been reported, you would think that this pattern emerged from a huge list of attributes. No, indeed, it appears that some people think that God is more engaged and some people think he is less engaged. Great. So long as it is clear that the test was trying to measure Engagment, not that it magically appeared.

Next, the authors put the two dimensions on a graph and divided each in half, creating 4 quadrants. They called the high-wrath, high-engagement group, "Authoritarian God"; the low-wrath, low-engagement group, "Distant God"; the high-wrath, low-engagement group, "Critical God"; and the low-wrath, high-engagement group, "Benevolent God." Now this would be just dandy if the data points tended to concentrate in these four quadrants, and perhaps they do. Cluster analysis of some sort could tell us if this is in fact true. In other words, do people tend to cluster in a zones of low wrath and high wrath with few in the middle? A quick look at a distribution table would tell us if the variable is bi-modally distributed, which would lend some credence to a "4 gods" argument, though it still only covers those 2 dimensions (add omniscience and perhaps we would be told that we live in an 8 god America). If, on the other hand, the data is more normally distributed, then a median split probably isn't appropriate (i.e. every body above 10 gets classified as belonging to a Wrathful God category while people who score below 10 we will call the non-Wrathful category even if most people score between 8 and 12 and very few people score a 2 or a 18).

Now, there certainly were interesting things related to people's membership in each of these four quadrants and the study was very well performed, but it seems to have been reported on poorly. Indeed, the study was more interested in how belonging to one of these categories affected other beliefs and behaviors, such as Church attendance, prayer, attitudes toward abortion, and political opinions. The study does make a strong case that where one lies on the continuum of belief regarding God's morality and God's activity does indeed affect ones behavior.

I have a great deal more to say about the initial results, so stay tuned.

The Codebook for the Survey from the Association of Religion Data Archives

The Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion

American Piety in the 21st Century: Selected Findings from the Baylor Religion Survey - this is the 74 page initial report on the findings - PDF

Lutheran Carnival #32

The newest installment of Lutheran Carnival is up at Outer Rim Territories, blog of seminarian and fine fellow Christopher Gillespie.

Specialists in Applied Sanctification?

The founder of the organization at which I did my internship described Christian mental health professionals as “specialists in applied sanctification.” I think this is a good example of the kind of error in thinking about the occupation that causes folks like Ryan from What Did Jesus Do to reject psychology outright, and makes others quite nervous about what we do.

It seems that a proper understanding of the two kinds of righteousness is absolutely essential here. Our fallen human nature and concupiscence means that we can never, ever, ever, ever, satisfy any of the first table of the law, even for a moment without the gift of faith. This is Christian Righteousness which is only possible with the free, completely unmerited gift of Christ's Righteousness. But, if I'm reading him correctly, Luther was willing to grant that non-believers, having the law written on their hearts, are able to do things which are civilly righteous at least some of the time. Indeed, while the will is entirely bound and cannot fear or trust in God, nor prepare itself in any way for faith, the will is free (truly and not just an illusion) in matters of Civil Righteousness. According to Luther this means being a good friend, working hard, being a faithful spouse, not murder, not steal, etc. (Augsburg Confession: Article XVIII). Let's posit for a second that non-believers are even able, lacking the Holy Spirit, to satisfy all of the second table of the law, even in their hearts (in other words, not murdering and not hating others in their hearts either, etc.) based on the general providence of God. Now, I don't think that this is the case for a second, but for arguments sake, let us posit it. Even if we were to concede this, lacking the Holy Spirit, damnation is entirely deserved on the basis of the first table alone, in fact, it is the first table that drives the rest. I love that the Short Catechism begins the explanations of all the commandments with a reference to the first commandment, "We should fear and love God that ..." and then goes on to explain that stealing is forbidden, etc. I don't believe that it is possible to satisfy the second table (especially internally as Christ taught on the Mount) without the Holy Spirit, and for this I praise God. It would be far too easy to convince myself that on the basis of my obedience to the second table, that I do indeed fear and love God, when I do not.

Now, while we are in the mood to posit things that are entirely impossible, let us posit that counseling/psychotherapy is able to help someone to improve themselves in accordance to the law such that they cease to violate any of the second table of the law. Some (especially behavioral) psychologists were convinced that eventually we would know the developmental features that play into different adult problems and provide a perfect environment that would enable optimal development. Additionally, in adulthood psychotherapy is provided to iron out any other irrational beliefs and personality flaws that the person might have. So as an adult, this hypothetical person has no desire to steal from others, being in touch with the feelings of others and being unwilling to subject others to pain. Lets assume that this is true for all of the commandments which refer to our dealings with other human beings.

Now the question becomes this, is this sanctification? No. Even if it were possible to eliminate sinful behavior in regard to others, this is not sanctification, as proven by the thought experiment above that non-believers are able to improve in this Civil Righteousness. Choose your favorite extremely moral non-believing group in the real world as an example. There are groups that are so Civilly Righteous that it puts Christians to shame and seduces Christians to believe lies because of the quality of the behavior of their adherants. This is what I meant several posts ago when I said that sanctification is not committing fewer sins. Rather, sanctification is growing in the fear and love of God, which is done entirely by the Holy Spirit and not of ourselves. Of course, this will lead to fewer civil violations because we will be motivated by our love of God to love our neighbors as well.

The problem with counseling in the hands of well-meaning Christians, is that it becomes understood as contributing to Sanctification. This is completely and utterly false. First, counselors are not the Holy Spirit and therefore have no power to make anything holy. Second, it misunderstands sanctification as pertaining to the second table of the law, or worse, involving warm feelings toward God/Jesus which is defined as the "love of God" which I believe to be manufacturable. I can help you to have warm feelings about a pole or a rock using principles of modeling and learning. Warm feelings toward my internal picture of God (made in my image) does not equate to fear and love of the God who is as He knows himself to be (thanks to Lewis via Screwtape for this language).

As always, I am (or hope that I am) entirely open to correction/reproof from my betters. Please let me know what you think.

Interesting Study

A University of Toronto study found that there is a link between physical washing and feelings of moral guilt. Read the short news brief for yourself here.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Perhaps any really vivid metaphor, especially one with such a long history, gets encoded in the brain as physical reality.
2. Perhaps this is an example of an expectancy effect. For example, why do people fall down when they get shot, even by a small caliber round lacking "stopping power"? Because that's what you're supposed to do. (This example I took from the book Stiff by Mary Roach)
3. Perhaps this is an innate desire for the waters of baptism, imprinted in our natures, but sought in ordinary water rather than in the water attached to the Word.

Again, my prime frustration with science reporting - thanks for the lead author, but what journal was this published in so that I can find and read it for myself? Does that really take up that much space?

My Logo and Why I've Been Anonymous

To honor the Terrible Swede's request, I want to explain the logo you see at upper right, where most people have their face (My all-time favorite is Josh's icon).

The reason that I chose to identify as Kletos Sumboulos ("Called to be a Counselor") on this blog and not have a picture is that I was seeing clients under someone else's license. There are psychologists and counselors that have web pages and blogs of their own, and they use their real names, but I don't have a license and need to protect my supervisor's. My real name is Michael Benoit (pronounced Ben-wah). Everything else is true, in other words, I'm not doing the alter-ego thing. I've had clients look up information about me in the past, so I know how incredibly easy it is. Most counselors strive to not let anything about their personal lives or beliefs be know to a client, because it may interfere with what you are trying to accomplish in session. Some go as far as removing wedding rings to not give clues to marital status or sexual orientation. In a Christian counseling center, people are rather overt about religion. Most of the offices at the organization I worked for look like an aisle at a Christian book store. I didn't want people to find my blog and identify me as their counselor because my religious views are very different with that of my former organization. Trust me, I have shot directly from the hip on a few occasions, for instance, challenging a client who has never been baptized but was attending Lutheran services with his girlfriend (I pray he wasn't/isn't taking the sacrament). I routinely told people about my doctrinal commitments when asked or it was a matter of full-disclosure. I also made a Luther Rose clock that all my clients were well aware of (the only one in the room), and of course, my "Most Certainly Brew" mug and Luther's wedding ring were rather dramatic reminders of my commitments. Anyway, my blog has been anonymous this last year because of my work.

The logo I created incorporates elements of my professional identity but by no means all of it. First, the required letter psi for Psychology. The American Psychological Association uses a stylized psi for their logo. The Christian Association for Psychological Studies uses the cross as the descending line on the psi to create their logo. I personally object to this symbol because, while the cross is higher than the psi in the logo, they are connected. This feels too much to identify the two. I have intentionally put the psi into the lower half of my logo for this reason.

The second symbol is the beehive. According to Reverend Peterson's comment, the bee or beehive symbolized Christian work historically. My training is in Counseling Psychology which is distinct from Clinical Psychology in both history and focus. While Clinical Psych focuses on pathology, Counseling Psych ostensibly focuses on health and strengths. Because of this reason and because of the development of Counseling Psych from the career guidance movement after the first World War, vocational psychology has always been a significant chunk of what Counseling Psychologists do in research and practice. My advisor is a big name in the Society for Vocational Psychology and I have chosen to focus my own research on Voc Psych. I have been consciously trying to see what the beautiful doctrine of vocation means for the science of vocational psychology and vice versa. See my post, Toward a Lutheran Psychology of Work.

Finally, we have a modified Luther Rose with Simul Justus et Peccator inscribed around the outside. I posted about how I used this as a therapeutic device in a previous post.

By the way, I'm 1/4 Swede, my mother's father was a full Swede (Carlson) and would routinely curse in Swedish. He would say something that sounded like "shish-kalla-poiken" which apparently translated to "shut up, lad."

My Logo and Why I've Been Anonymous

To honor the Terrible Swede's request, I want to explain the logo you see at upper right, where most people have their face (My all-time favorite is Josh's icon).

The reason that I chose to identify as Kletos Sumboulos ("Called to be a Counselor") on this blog and not have a picture is that I was seeing clients under someone else's license. There are psychologists and counselors that have web pages and blogs of their own, and they use their real names, but I don't have a license and need to protect my supervisor's. My real name is Michael Benoit (pronounced Ben-wah). Everything else is true, in other words, I'm not doing the alter-ego thing. I've had clients look up information about me in the past, so I know how incredibly easy it is. Most counselors strive to not let anything about their personal lives or beliefs be know to a client, because it may interfere with what you are trying to accomplish in session. Some go as far as removing wedding rings to not give clues to marital status or sexual orientation. In a Christian counseling center, people are rather overt about religion. Most of the offices at the organization I worked for look like an aisle at a Christian book store. I didn't want people to find my blog and identify me as their counselor because my religious views are very different with that of my former organization. Trust me, I have shot directly from the hip on a few occasions, for instance, challenging a client who has never been baptized but was attending Lutheran services with his girlfriend (I pray he wasn't/isn't taking the sacrament). I routinely told people about my doctrinal commitments when asked or it was a matter of full-disclosure. I also made a Luther Rose clock that all my clients were well aware of (the only one in the room), and of course, my "Most Certainly Brew" mug and Luther's wedding ring were rather dramatic reminders of my commitments. Anyway, my blog has been anonymous this last year because of my work.

The logo I created incorporates elements of my professional identity but by no means all of it. First, the required letter psi for Psychology. The American Psychological Association uses a stylized psi for their logo. The Christian Association for Psychological Studies uses the cross as the descending line on the psi to create their logo. I personally object to this symbol because, while the cross is higher than the psi in the logo, they are connected. This feels too much to identify the two. I have intentionally put the psi into the lower half of my logo for this reason.

The second symbol is the beehive. According to Reverend Peterson's comment, the bee or beehive symbolized Christian work historically. My training is in Counseling Psychology which is distinct from Clinical Psychology in both history and focus. While Clinical Psych focuses on pathology, Counseling Psych ostensibly focuses on health and strengths. Because of this reason and because of the development of Counseling Psych from the career guidance movement after the first World War, vocational psychology has always been a significant chunk of what Counseling Psychologists do in research and practice. My advisor is a big name in the Society for Vocational Psychology and I have chosen to focus my own research on Voc Psych. I have been consciously trying to see what the beautiful doctrine of vocation means for the science of vocational psychology and vice versa. See my post, Toward a Lutheran Psychology of Work.

Finally, we have a modified Luther Rose with Simul Justus et Peccator inscribed around the outside. I posted about how I used this as a therapeutic device in a previous post.

By the way, I'm 1/4 Swede, my mother's father was a full Swede (Carlson) and would routinely curse in Swedish. He would say something that sounded like "shish-kalla-poiken" which apparently translated to "shut up, lad."