Artistic integrations: Theological foundations for case-level integration in contemporary Christian counseling

Trinity Journal, Fall 2002 by Greggo, Stephen P

It has been argued that a prime space for learning integration is "in the cracks" or, in other words, from committed professors who share personal convictions in informal conversations and relational contacts.3 Two empirical investigations suggest that relational attachments to faculty facilitate student learning in the area of integration.4 The. assumption that students eventually absorb a functional integration system via faculty exposure over time must be reevaluated for at least two reasons. First, more graduates are now being trained at the master's degree level and thus spend less time with faculty than doctoral students. Second, current student educational experiences are not compact or consistent due to parttime student status, distance education models, increased use of adjunct faculty, and coursework split between programs. Thus, what once were "cracks" may now be "canyons" as student have less noncourse related time with mentoring faculty.5

III. ONGOING INTEGRATION MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Another significant challenge is the imprecise and often inconsistent definitions of "integration" in regards to the disciplines of psychology and theology. Most definitions reject the common sense image of integration as the ultimate merger of these two disciplines. The term refers broadly to the interaction or interface between psychology and theology.6 The definition is refined in numerous ways depending upon the specific approach adopted for relating the disciplines.7 Brian Eck describes three main integration paradigms. The Non-Integrative Paradigm includes approaches that dismiss completely one or the other of these disciplines as potentially damaging to the integrity or the authority of the other. Such anti-integration paradigms do not attempt to explain how to unite the data of these two disciplines, but they are usually quite clear on what to do with the data from the dismissed discipline. The Manipulative Paradigm does recognize material from both disciplines, but one or the other of the disciplines filters the "pollution" from the other. The Non-Manipulative Paradigm allows data from both disciplines to be investigated and merged with built-in checks and balances to regulate the relationship. In his extensive review of the literature, Eck defines no less than twenty-seven variant integration models that can be classified under these three general headings.8

Scanning the integration literature, there is a recent edited text that presents four views summarized directly by their contemporary proponents: the integration position of Gary Collins; a levels of integration approach by David Meyers; a Christian psychology perspective by Robert C. Roberts; and the biblical counseling viewpoint of David Powlison.9 This exchange captures well the growing sophistication of integration positions and may replace as a text the standard classic and seminal work by Carter and Narramore. These authors offered four integration classifications: Against; Of, Parallels; and Integrates.10 Although these four categories have been well accepted, it was clear to most that the nuances of emphasis called for more categories. A noteworthy early effort by a relatively unknown psychologist portrayed seven separate integration systems to relate these disciplines: Reductionis; Tandem; Disjunctive; Corrective; Collapsed; Abstraction; and Constructive." As critical thought and consolidation have expanded in this field, there appears to be a growing recognition that the variety in perspectives is due in part to the wide-ranging subject matter, methodology, and application of these two disciplines.