Psychology returns to love ... of God and neighbor-as-self: introduction to the special issue.

A variety of methods are being employed to develop psychologies of the love of God and neighbor-as-self: standard psychological methods and theories, combining those with theology to contextualize love, using religious experience and convictions to formulate research questions and hypotheses, drawing on Christian psychologies of love that date back to Augustine, critiquing the conceptual, ethical, and metaphysical assumptions of contemporary psychologies of love from philosophical and theological perspectives, and forms of methodological pluralism (e.g., those that embrace quantitative, qualitative, ethical, and theological methods, with the results of different methods alternately critiquing and contributing to one another). Psychologists and others can use this broad range of approaches to develop psychologies of various other psychologically rich concepts central to religious traditions.

**********

Loving God and loving our neighbors-as-our-selves are Biblical commands. Accordingly, they have to do with matters that are spiritual, ethical, and theological. However, those forms of love--involving human behavior, emotions, cognitions, motivation, intentions, virtue, narratives, relationships, identity, biology, neuroscience, and more--are also profoundly psychological.

Psychologists, including Christian psychologists, are now beginning to think and write about--and investigate--the psychological phenomena of love of God and love of neighbor-as-self, phenomena that should, Jesus asserted, be of the greatest importance in our lives. This special issue documents some of those investigations and will, I hope, further the development of psychologies of love, especially those that are deeply and profoundly informed both by Christian faith, theology, ethics, and spirituality and by empirical research and traditional academic psychological theory.

That psychologists, and especially Christian psychologists, are only now beginning to address love is very strange. In my contribution to this issue (Tjeltveit, 2006, pp. 8-22), "Psychology's Love-Hate Relationship With Love," I explore psychologists' considerable ambivalence about love, an ambivalence that is, in part, responsible for the curious paucity of psychological investigations of love. A primary reason for psychologists' avoidance of the topic, I suggest, is the softness of the topic, which appears to render it ill-suited for scientific investigation.

As several contributions to this issue make evident, however, empirical research can contribute to our understanding of even so soft a topic as love of God and love of neighbor-as-self. Drawing deeply on the now-extensive empirical research on forgiveness, Worthington, Sharp, Lerner, and Sharp (2006, pp. 32-42) explore how psychological processes, especially motives and emotions, can contribute to (the particularly challenging) forms of forgiveness that embody love for the enemy. In "Interpersonal Forgiveness as an Example of Loving One's Enemies" they draw psychological connections between love and forgiveness, linking what theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (1952) also coupled:

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we
are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the
standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore
we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. (p. 63)

In his "Communion and Complaint: Attachment, Object-relations, and Triangular Love Perspectives on Relationship With God," Beck (2006a, pp. 43-52) reports the results of a study investigating the relationships among research participant responses to three standard psychological approaches to measuring love--adapted to measure love of God rather than some other form of love--with results that are both interesting and promising. (Ardelt, 2003; Levin, 2001, 2002; Richards et al., 2005; and Underwood & Teresi, 2002, have also recently developed empirical measures of love.) Theological considerations are addressed in Beck's (2006a) introduction and appear to have played some role in the formulation of his research questions, as they could validly do in the formulation of other researchers' questions and hypotheses. In his second contribution, "Spiritual Pollution: The Dilemma of Sociomoral Disgust and the Ethic of Love," Beck (2006b, pp. 53-65) draws fruitfully on the emerging empirical--theoretical understanding of the psychology of disgust, plus research from cognitive science and linguistics on the metaphorical nature of human cognition. The authors of those three articles all do what other empirical researchers wanting to investigate love are likely to do--build on existing bodies of psychological research and extend that research to love.

In drawing on, and obviously valuing, contemporary psychological theory and empirical research, those authors make contributions that are in many regards indistinguishable from those found in most academic psychological journals, and could easily be published there. In different ways, however, they go beyond what is found in mainstream psychology, drawing connections between their work and theology. Beck (2006b) addresses why the standard advice to "hate the sin but love the sinner," which sounds so good in theory, can be so difficult in practice. He discusses the tensions between a Christian life centered on purity and one centered on love, and encourages careful thought--informed by what we are learning about how human beings function psychologically--about the metaphors of righteousness and unrighteousness that we employ in the church, and about how we balance and contextualize those metaphors in relationship to the full range of Biblical metaphors. Psychological research thus raises issues that invite theological reflection, and, in some instances, challenge particular theological perspectives. In their "Interpersonal Forgiveness as an Example of Loving One's Enemies," Worthington et al. (2006, pp. 32-42) discuss psychological findings in relationship to God: Psychological processes are identified as means through which God can transform people and make possible genuinely loving forgiveness of an enemy. They also discuss Biblical teachings about love, forgiveness, and sin. That is, they draw not only on scientific psychology, but on theology as well, as they formulate an understanding of love, or at least as they attempt to formulate a comprehensive understanding of love in the scholarly setting of this journal, rather than an understanding of love that is (or claims to be) based on science alone and excludes ethics and theology.

The other four articles in this issue raise a variety of questions about the sufficiency of a psychology of love that can be produced solely by the methods of standard contemporary academic psychology. Christian assumptions about love, of a variety of sorts, are taken seriously, including assumptions that can validly critique and expand how psychologists understand love and the psychology of love. Some contend that theology makes normative claims pertinent to a psychology of love that appropriately and rightly shape our understanding of love. While none of the authors in this issue oppose scientific methods, and indeed, most appear to value those methods, some are less sanguine than others about the contributions that standard psychological approaches are likely to make to a comprehensive psychology of love of God and love of neighbor-as-self. Taking seriously Christian concepts of love, assumptions about human beings, and ethical theories, some of these authors contend, produces broader, deeper, more adequate understandings of love, understandings that are in accord both with the data produced by psychological scientists and with Christian understandings of human beings.

The full range of models of integrating psychology and theology discussed in Johnson and Jones (1998) can be used to understand love of God and love of neighbor-as-self. Christians concerned with developing a psychology that is in harmony with their theology need not look solely to the contemporary academic discipline. Charry (2005) observes that "classical Christianity is thoroughly psychological" (p. 2). And she claims that theology "is already psychological, quite apart from any question of its relation to the modern secular discipline" (p. 2). As evidence, she discusses Augustine, the "father of Christian psychology" (p. 1), who addressed love and whose psychology was organized in relation to love (see also Dell'Olio, 2003; Johnson, 1998). Given that history, psychology cannot, for the first time, turn to love, but only return to a topic theologians have long been addressing. The task of integration becomes, then, not that of integrating psychology and theology, but of critically integrating classical Christian psychologies of love with contemporary academic psychologies.

The contributions to this special issue cannot, however, be neatly categorized into Johnson and Jones' (1998) four models. The authors' predominant focus is on love, not models. Furthermore, some hold models that affirm that a variety of methods can legitimately be employed to develop a psychology of love (e.g., empirical studies, Biblical exegesis, philosophical reflection, ethical analyses), yet in a particular study use only one method. What may be found in this issue, then, is not an explication of varying models of integration, but different emphases, a variety of approaches to understanding love.

The authors of three articles, as noted above, engage in integrative work that tends to take the results of contemporary psychological research at face value and connects that psychology with theology in various ways. Other articles in this issue critique and expand psychological understandings of love in ways that are informed by Christian theology.

Something like love is addressed by contemporary psychologists using a variety of terms--altruism, prosocial behavior, helping behavior, attachment, empathy, caring, compassion, and so forth. That psychological terms are not always neutral and objective can be seen in the history of altruism, a term coined by Comte (Batson, 1991), the 19th century founder of positivism. Although positivism is now known for its emphasis on empiricism, Comte aspired to found a positive (hence the movement's name) moral and quasi-religious movement. He thought, Leahey (2000) notes, that "with the triumph of science,... religion would disappear ... and would be replaced by a rational, naturalistic Religion of Humanity that would worship the only real creative power in the universe, Homo Sapiens" (p. 207). As a concept to help Christians understand love of God and love of neighbor-as-self, altruism thus did not begin promisingly.

In his "To Be Loved and To Love," Clough (2006, pp. 23-31) discusses some of the shortcomings--from the perspective of a Christian view of love--of the love-related terms contemporary psychologists use. He does so as part of his effort to constructively delineate the richness and multidimensionality of the Christian understanding of love, and to draw out implications of that understanding for psychotherapy and the process of growth. Olthuis (2006, pp. 67-77) similarly articulates a model of human beings in relationship to God's love, then articulates a corresponding relational model for therapy (therapist with client, hence the title, "With-ing: A Psychotherapy of Love"), a model that is inextricably tied to love. Although he finds much to appreciate in contemporary relational psychotherapeutic theories, a Christian relational model, Olthuis suggests, plumbs far more deeply the miracle of love.

Beginning with Christian assumptions about love may, I (2006, pp. 8-22) suggest, impact significantly on the psychologies of love we develop and on the methods we employ in doing so. If we assume God exists, acts in history, died on the cross to exemplify love and to enable us to love more deeply and rightly, and cultivates love (a fruit of the Holy Spirit) in us, the psychologies of love that we develop based on those assumptions may be decidedly different from those developed from a theory that assumes either that there is no God or that any considerations about God's possible interaction with human beings must be excluded from our psychologies of love. In addition, I suggest that other Christian assumptions--that love involves emotions, intentions, narratives, genuine human freedom (agency), and ethics or morality (the command or obligation to love is real, as are the virtue of love and the goodness of love)--are important for developing our understanding of love and do not in any way denigrate the importance of empirical research regarding some dimensions of love. Developing a comprehensive psychology, one that is adequate to the nature and complexity of love, thus requires methodological diversity, a diversity embracing quantitative, qualitative, theological, and ethical methods--recognizing of course that all scholarly methods see in a mirror, dimly.

Psychologists are, of course, socialized to scrupulously avoid ethical issues--like the ethical issues raised by Evans (2006, pp. 78-90) in "Is There a Basis for Loving all People?"--in developing the content of our discipline in favor of pure scientific objectivity. In his American Psychological Association presidential address, however, Campbell (1975) noted that psychologists often do, in fact, take ethical stands. In the main, he contended, "psychology and psychiatry ... not only describe man as selfishly motivated, but implicitly or explicitly teach that he ought to be so" (p. 1104). When, by contrast, psychologists teach that we ought to love one another, Evans observes, they generally rely on two problematic ethical theories, evolutionary naturalism and social contract views. Evans argues that a Christian divine command ethical theory is not only defensible, but superior to those two alternatives. Psychological and philosophical issues are intertwined here, Evans asserts, so the philosophical issues he raises are deeply pertinent to such psychological issues as our motivation to love God and love neighbor-as-self. In addition to its philosophical merits, the Christian divine command theory, he contends, also makes more psychological sense than those other two ethical theories. Demonstrating the defensibility and desirability of a Christian ethical theory thus provides a philosophical basis that Christian psychologists can use in developing psychologies of love.

There is great peril in trying to summarize or briefly characterize seven rich, complex articles, packed with nuanced arguments, supportive evidence, and practical applications. Each article needs to be read on its own. Ultimately, each reader needs to decide which of the various approaches sheds the most light on love, and which he or she would like to pursue further in future efforts to better understand love.

From another perspective, of course, this special issue is an effort to explicitly address a central Christian concept that is psychological in nature in a way that explores how contemporary psychology does, and does not, help us develop a psychology pertaining to that concept, how theology (including the whole tradition of theological Christian psychologies to which Charry, 2005, points) helps, and how we need to create some wise, insightful combinations of at least some aspects of both. Other concepts for which we can (and should) develop (or further develop) theology-informed psychologies include, but are not limited to, sin, guilt, sanctification, freedom, morality, reconciliation, virtue, the experience of grace, suffering, and acting justly. All are addressed extensively by theology, central to Christianity, and clearly psychological. Other religious traditions could likewise develop psychologies for psychological concepts that are central in those traditions.

The diversity of approaches in this special issue will, I hope, be helpful to a wide range of people interested in developing psychologies of love that integrate psychology and theology. Of greater importance, developing an intellectual understanding of a psychology of love can become, not an end itself, but a preface to our loving--in word and deed, with full heart, soul, mind, and strength--God and neighbor-as-self.

REFERENCES

Ardelt, M. (2003). Empirical assessment of a three-dimensional wisdom scale. Research on Aging, 25, 275-324.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, R. (2006a). Communion and complaint: Attachment, object-relations, and triangular love perspectives on relationship with God. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

Beck, R. (2006b). Spiritual pollution: The dilemma of sociomoral disgust and the ethic of love. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103-1011.

Charry, E. T. (2005, September). Augustine of Hippo: Father of Christian psychology. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Christian Psychology, Memphis, TN.

Clough, W. R. (2006). To be loved and to love. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

Dell'Olio, Andrew J. (2003). Foundations of moral selfhood: Aquinas on divine goodness and the connection of the virtues. New York: Peter Lang.

Evans, C. S. (2006). Is there a basis for loving all people? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

Johnson, E. L. (1998). Some contributions of Augustine to a Christian psychology. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, 293-305.

Johnson, E. L., & Jones, S. L. (Eds.). (2000). Psychology and Christianity: Four views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Leahey, T. H. (2000). A history of psychology: Main currents in psychological thought (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Levin, J. (2001). God, love, and health: Findings from a clinical study. Review of Religious Research, 42, 277-293.

Levin, J. (2002). Is depressed affect a function of one's relationship with God? Findings from a study of primary care patients. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 32, 379-393.

Niebuhr, R. (1952). The irony of American history. New York: Scribner's.

Olthuis, J. H. (2006). With-ing: A psychotherapy of love. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

Richards, P. S., Smith, T. B., Schowalter, M., Richard, M., Berrett, M. E., & Hardman, R. K. (2005). Development and validation of the Theistic Spiritual Outcome Survey. Psychotherapy Research, 15, 457-469.

Tjeltveit, A. C. (2006). Psychology's love-hate relationship with love: Critiques, affirmations, and Christian responses. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

Underwood, L. G., & Teresi, J. A. (2002). The Daily Spiritual Experience Scale: Development, theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 22-33.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Sharp, C. B., Lerner, A. J., & Sharp, J. R. (2006). Interpersonal forgiveness as an example of loving one's enemies. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, xx-xx.

AUTHOR

TJELTVEIT, ALAN C.: Address: Department of Psychology, Muhlenberg College, 2400 West Chew Street, Allentown, PA 18104. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: B.A., St. Olaf College; M.A., Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary. Specializations: theoretical and philosophical psychology; integration of psychology and theology; ethics and psychotherapy; ethics and psychology; and love of God and neighbor-as-self.

ALAN C. TJELTVEIT

Muhlenberg College

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alan C. Tjeltveit, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Muhlenberg College, 2400 Chew Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18104, USA. E-mail: [e-mail].