Making Sense of and Responding to the Good and Bad Within Psychology: Common Grace and Antithesis as Tools for Psychology

In the capstone class for the psychology major at Calvin University, students read and discuss a case study in which a Christian clinical psychologist is challenged by his client, Robert. Clinton McLemore describes Robert as “timid,” “riddled with self-doubts,” “frightened by intimacy,” and “limited in his social skills” (1982, 70). McLemore meets with Robert for over a year, observing gradual progress. One day, however, Robert returns to therapy, seemingly cured. His breakthrough: a one-night stand.

McLemore acknowledges “mixed feelings” (1982, 71) about Robert’s experience, recognizing the good it seemed to have done. He also acknowledges that though Robert is aware of McLemore’s faith, he is disinterested in religion and would have found McLemore “toxic” had he “stressed Christian norms of sexual conduct” (1982, 72). McLemore then points to the crux of his struggle with this situation: “The core issue is whether breaking [God’s] Law can ever yield good. Can it, upon occasion, facilitate health?” (1982, 72–73).

After reading this case study, students are asked whether McLemore should have responded differently. Many disagree with Robert’s actions but recognize professional boundaries, defaulting to norms in the field and avoiding imposing their values on a client. Others note that Robert’s actions have only helped, therefore his actions should be recognized as good. Still others note they may not be the best fit for Robert and may need to refer him to another therapist.

These types of challenges are persistent for students heading into therapy careers. Contemporary psychotherapy is influenced by early leaders in psychological study such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and B. F. Skinner. Yet these scholars expressed ideas that contrast sharply with Christian belief. Freud argued religion was an illusion or wish fulfillment (Freud 1989), Jung argued that God was a needed archetype for psychological function (Jung 1979), and Skinner argued that religion persisted only because of its effectiveness in shaping behavior (Skinner 1974). Similarly, contemporary psychologists and anthropologists may reduce religion to a byproduct of evolution (e.g. Boyer 2001) that was adaptive for our ancestors, but is no longer needed and may be dismissed (e.g. Norenzayan 2013). Here again, psychologists are confronted with a similar dilemma: on the one hand, they may disagree with these scholars; on the other hand, they may recognize how their ideas influenced—and continue to influence—the field of psychology, often for good.

Further, not only will therapists work with clients holding differing values and select therapeutic modalities built on differing belief systems, they must also (1) recommend resources to clients, (2) collaborate with colleagues, and (3) work within systems, all of which may hold or promote values that differ from their own. This challenge for psychologists is something we may all encounter. As we work in various careers, we may find ourselves like Daniel in Babylon. What do we do? How do we make sense of and respond to the good and bad within psychological vocations? How do we, like Daniel, work with those who hold different values while still pursuing shalom?

The purpose of this essay is to present two Neocalvinist theological concepts—common grace and antithesis—as tools for psychologists as they adopt the posture of witnesses, ambassadors, or missionaries^[1] engaging contemporary psychological culture, such that they aren’t locked into a singular posture (e.g. always adopting the norms of the field or always rejecting clients or modalities whose values differ from their own) but may gesture (i.e., appropriate, discerning interactions and responses) toward culture appropriately (Crouch 2023, 90–94).^[2] These two concepts—common grace and antithesis—help us to both recognize “the true, the good, and the beautiful” in the world (Bavinck 1989, 51) and the variety of ways these true, good, and beautiful things become distorted by sin (Wolters 2005). This essay begins by reviewing how common grace and antithesis help us make sense of the good and bad of human behavior and then considers how both concepts, when used together, help us respond to situations such as those noted above.

Common Grace

Over the last thirty years, many psychologists have shifted away from a focus on human deficits and disorders and toward a focus on strengths and well-being. This shift toward what’s become known as “positive psychology” has highlighted the many helpful, caring activities of the human species. For instance, many moral psychologists argue that much of our benevolent activity results from shared moral intuitions that encourage humans to approve of care, fairness, loyalty, and respect toward authority figures and frown upon behaviors that violate these norms (Graham et al. 2009). Evolutionary and social psychologists regard humans as remarkably prosocial, arguing we are unique in the degree to which we cooperate and help others—particularly non-kin. Virtue scientists recognize how virtues such as gratitude are key features of human flourishing, contributing to mental health and improving well-being. These psychological frameworks may helpfully identify and name the true, the good, and the beautiful in the world and we may share Kuyper’s sentiment that at times “The world turns out to be better than expected” (Kuyper 2020, 10).

Rather than being surprised by the good we see in the world, Reformed theology helps us anticipate it. Reformed scholars have recognized the existence of God’s common grace: “God’s general favor that sustains the creation order despite sin” (Brock and Sutanto 2023, 213). Kuyper argues that common grace is evident “wherever civic virtue, a sense of domesticity, natural love, the practice of human virtue, the improvement of the public conscience, integrity, mutual loyalty among people, and a feeling for piety leaven life” (Kuyper 2020, 181).^[3] The 1924 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America similarly affirmed “God’s work in (1) the bestowal of natural gifts, (2) the restraining of human sin in human affairs, and (3) the ability of unbelievers to perform acts of civic good” (Brock and Sutanto 2023, 214).

Our response to these good things should be both recognition of God’s grace and gratitude because “each instance of common grace…is a specifically directed move by a sovereign God to promote goals to which he is committed” (Mouw 2011, 69). To deny such things “would not only be in conflict with experience but would also entail a denial of God’s gifts and hence constitute ingratitude toward him” (Bavinck 1989, 51).^[4] The concept of common grace may be useful for psychologists as they recognize those things that promote flourishing in the world. Each one of these good things is a gift from God and evidence of the Spirit’s presence and active involvement (i.e., evidence of God’s work as he “[adorns] and [invests] with admirable gifts”; Calvin 1997, 2.2.15). With an understanding of God’s common grace, psychologists can better discern what they should inherit, adopt, and enact as they recognize what is true, good, and beautiful in the world. Such recognition also enables Christians to engage their fields with discernment—building bridges, collaborating, and working alongside others—rather than requiring them to withdraw into Christian enclaves.

Antithesis

Though psychology often points us to our benevolent and prosocial activities, it may also help us identify our malevolent and antisocial behaviors. Humans regularly engage in intentional harm (Bushman 2019); model this aggression, passing it on to children (e.g. Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment; Bandura et al. 1961); and witness or participate in acts of aggression through media (e.g. violent movies or video games), leading to further aggression (Bushman 2019). We engage in prejudice and discrimination, disadvantaging various groups (Dovidio and Jones 2019). As psychological science highlights dysfunctional or harmful behavior, we may instinctively recognize such patterns as problematic and seek to address them.

This destructive presence of sin leads Christians to notice that God calls us to a way of living that is often at odds with common behaviors in the world. The Kuyperian tradition has characterized this as an “antithesis” between God’s righteous and good will for human flourishing and the damaging ways of being that flow out of human sin. Just as common grace is active in the world, so is antithesis, which represents “the basic opposition…between the patterns of human life and thought in its fallenness and that which God intends for the life and thought of the redeemed community” (Mouw 2011, 61). While common grace highlights the good gifts God shares with his image-bearing creatures, antithesis highlights the divide between God-honoring and God-dishonoring belief and behavior. As we recognize the true, the good, and the beautiful in the world, we also witness good creational structures become misdirected. As Wolters writes:

Anything in creation can be directed either toward or away from God—that is, directed either in obedience or disobedience to his law…. To the degree that these realities fail to live up to God’s creational design for them, they are misdirected, abnormal, distorted. To the degree that they still conform to God’s design, they are in the grip of a countervailing force that curbs or counteracts the distortion. Direction therefore always involves two tendencies moving either for or against God. (Wolters 2005, 59)

Christian discipleship involves the pursuit of what God intends for the redeemed community and gives us courage to address evil, injustice, and sin.^[5] The concept of antithesis is useful to psychologists as they recognize what must be redirected or rejected in their field. Various practices, theories, and modalities within their work may contain much good, but other elements may run counter to Christian values and must therefore be challenged.

How Do We Respond?

How then should we respond to the good and bad of human behavior, given these two theological concepts—common grace and antithesis? Together these ideas help us adopt the posture of witnesses, ambassadors, or missionaries to contemporary psychological culture, such that we aren’t locked into a single posture toward the world but may gesture toward culture appropriately.

The Need for Both Theological Tools

Though both common grace and antithesis are useful for cultural discernment, one without the other may result in an inappropriate response. For instance, one response could be an over-adoption of cultural norms or syncretism (representing an overemphasis or singular emphasis on common grace). Such a response may default to norms in the field or focus primarily or singularly on superficial psychological outcomes (i.e., anything that helps psychologically is recognized as good). In the case of the McLemore article, Robert’s behavior may be encouraged because it resulted in improved psychological well-being. In the case of influential scholars (e.g. Freud, Jung, Skinner, Boyer, or Norenzayan), their ideas may be adopted without critique because many psychologists use their ideas or because their ideas result in well-being for clients.

Alternatively, another uncritical or theologically deficient response could be a complete rejection of culture (representing an overemphasis or singular emphasis on antithesis). In such cases, when values differ, we may reject individuals or ideas, condemning and—in the case of clients with whom we disagree—referring them to another therapist. This approach might result in a Christian therapist referring McLemore’s client, Robert, to another psychotherapist because he doesn’t share the same values or in complete rejection of the ideas of scholars influencing contemporary psychology, necessitating an entirely new approach to psychology.

In both cases—undiscerning adoption or complete rejection—either the good or bad within these behaviors or beliefs is recognized, but the responses fail to consider both the good and bad that may be present.

How We Respond with Both Tools

Taken together, an understanding of both common grace and antithesis helps us recognize both the true, the good, and the beautiful and the areas in which we’re called to live distinctly by discerning truth from falsehood. We can appreciate the goodness in creation that leads to the benevolent, prosocial actions often witnessed from non-Christians, while also recognizing how the instincts and intuitions that lead to such actions are limited and misdirected.

With both tools in hand, we may consider McLemore’s experience with Robert and be grateful for the good that happened (i.e., Robert’s social anxiety decreased) but also question his behavior. McLemore (1982, 71) notes that Robert’s experience “resembled a group of clinical procedures, known as desensitization” and resulted in improved psychological well-being, and we may hope that the positive effects of this experience would persist. At the same time, we may recognize the objectification that occurred (i.e., using the woman from the one-night stand as a means to his self-centered end) and the potential for harm resulting from this interaction (e.g. trading a covenantal relationship for a transactional one, which may undermine society’s health; Sacks 2020). This is not an imposition of religious values and convictions on clients in ways that violate professional boundaries. Instead, we could raise questions that encourage Robert to reflect on how his sex life can uphold the human dignity of others. In conversation with Robert, we might consider the values that undergird his experience, and whether his actions are or should be congruent with his espoused values. Did the woman come away from the experience feeling the same as he did? Does the abrupt end of the relationship point her to the truth of her immense value?

Similarly, in the case of engagement with scholars who influence contemporary psychology, we may gratefully recognize and celebrate the patterns and processes these leaders identified while redirecting and confronting those ideas that are incorrect or unsupported. For instance, the writings of Freud, Jung, and Skinner are foundational to the field of psychology, and without many of their insights, the growth and development of psychology and the therapies that followed may not have resulted. At the same, some of their ideas—particularly many relating to religious belief—may conflict with the teachings of Scripture and Christian belief and practice. Christian psychotherapists may embrace the good in their theories, while setting aside the bad.

Finally, lest we only look outward, common grace and antithesis may also help us recognize both the true, the good, and the beautiful of our own words and actions and—like Kuyper, who “was honest enough about himself to know that the antithesis was still a presence in his own inner being” (Mouw 2011, 63)—our own fallenness. Discernment is certainly required as we work with clients or engage culture, but we must also humbly exercise discernment as we consider our own work and life. We must take up these tools with humility and help each other grow in humility as we use them.

Conclusion

Returning to the example of Daniel in Babylon, we might adopt a similar posture. Throughout his time in Babylon, Daniel adopted certain wisdom teachings of the Babylonians, cultural practices (such as receiving the name of a Babylonian god), and accepted a role in the political system of Babylon. At the same time, he rejected the worship of pagan gods and refused to accept the dietary regiment of the king’s palace. Here we may observe a model of bringing together both the recognition of common grace and the recognition of antithesis. Following Daniel, we may engage in a “dialogue of love” (Sinclair 1990, 15, quoting José Míguez Bonino) with psychology, embracing its good structure and redirecting harmful and sinful practice.

Together, common grace and antithesis represent theological tools for psychologists to examine and study both God’s common gifts to humanity through psychological guilds and those good things that must be redirected. Such theological knowledge does not necessarily simplify the process of discernment—a great deal of careful thought may still be required—but together these ideas do help us anticipate both the true, good, and beautiful things we see in the world and the need at times to pursue the path of redirection. And such anticipation encourages us to continue our witness and service within culture, avoiding both complete acceptance of all ideas and initiatives presented to us and a complete rejection of them.