I have found myself amused, curious, and at times troubled by my friends' responses to this article.
That article is found here an article entitled "Church of Christ Practice Harms Girls Long Term, Suggests 2018 Study."
Several things occur to me: there are gender differences, there are generation differences, and there are theological differences. Then, there are others. For instance, how some of us who are older and male who resonate with concerns for the younger women of our denomination. Count me there.
Another thing that hits me about this conversation is the notion of sin, shalom, and justice. I think we are unjust when our practices situated within the absence of shalom create even more dissonance for us shalom-seekers. If we create more pain, suffering, and dissonance in any of our people, we are guilty of injustices. I want my life to count toward re-creating shalom, and not for marginalizing anyone for whom Jesus died.
Back in the day, I taught a painful course on the integration of psychology and theology. No need to dredge up all of that last semester course. We attempted to look at the assumptions made by theology, science, psychology, and marital/family therapy. Lively discussions we did have. One thing that I recall quite vividly is that all disciplines use metaphor to make sense out of things. Also that levels of data are to be engaged with similar levels of data in the other disciplines. That is too complicated for now. Suffice it to say that that text and theology are not the same thing as the elements of whatever are not the same thing as science.
Good theology and good psychology (at theory and practice levels) should naturally interface well. Poor psychology and good theology will conflict. Good psychology and poor theology will conflict. Poor theology and poor theology may either match or conflict. I think it is left to those of us who care about these things to give equal credence to all angles of the issues. After all, theology is a human-made discipline as is psychology or marital/familytheory/therapy. So, I will continue to critique my theological assumptions as well as my assumptions about science and psychology as science (or not), and I will read the book upon this short article is based. And I will not assign blame to my friends who wind up in different places from me. But, at the end of the day, I want a healthier world for my grandchildren, all of them inclusive of their genders and roles in the church and the world.
Another thing that hits me about this conversation is the notion of sin, shalom, and justice. I think we are unjust when our practices situated within the absence of shalom create even more dissonance for us shalom-seekers. If we create more pain, suffering, and dissonance in any of our people, we are guilty of injustices. I want my life to count toward re-creating shalom, and not for marginalizing anyone for whom Jesus died.
Back in the day, I taught a painful course on the integration of psychology and theology. No need to dredge up all of that last semester course. We attempted to look at the assumptions made by theology, science, psychology, and marital/family therapy. Lively discussions we did have. One thing that I recall quite vividly is that all disciplines use metaphor to make sense out of things. Also that levels of data are to be engaged with similar levels of data in the other disciplines. That is too complicated for now. Suffice it to say that that text and theology are not the same thing as the elements of whatever are not the same thing as science.
Good theology and good psychology (at theory and practice levels) should naturally interface well. Poor psychology and good theology will conflict. Good psychology and poor theology will conflict. Poor theology and poor theology may either match or conflict. I think it is left to those of us who care about these things to give equal credence to all angles of the issues. After all, theology is a human-made discipline as is psychology or marital/familytheory/therapy. So, I will continue to critique my theological assumptions as well as my assumptions about science and psychology as science (or not), and I will read the book upon this short article is based. And I will not assign blame to my friends who wind up in different places from me. But, at the end of the day, I want a healthier world for my grandchildren, all of them inclusive of their genders and roles in the church and the world.
