Printer Friendly

Calvinism, gender ideology, and relational spirituality: an empirical investigation of worldview differences.

Participants were grouped on the basis of theological beliefs about divine-human and female-male dynamics using cluster analysis. We then explored whether these subgroups might differ on (a) hierarchical social expectations, (b) commitments to social justice and intercultural competence, (c) religious exploration, (d) existential defensiveness, (e) views of psychology--theology integration, and (f) perspectives on women's leadership. The sample consisted of graduate students (N = 227) at an Evangelical seminary in the Midwestern United States. Results yielded a four-cluster solution. Individuals scoring high on both Calvinist theological beliefs and complementarian gender role beliefs scored significantly higher on hierarchical relationship expectations and existential defensiveness, and preferred a Christian psychology view of integration and a male headship perspective of leadership, compared to those scoring low on Calvinism and complementarianism. In contrast, individuals scoring low on both theological dimensions scored higher on Arminianism, gender egalitarianism, social justice commitment, intercultural competence commitment, religious exploration, and they preferred an integration view of psychology and theology and a "no restrictions" perspective on women's roles. Findings highlight implications for theological training and spiritual formation.


Theological debates are a perennial and sometimes valuable dynamic within religious communities. Careful observation of the discourse within theological debates often reveals a movement back and forth from arguments about abstract ideas and ultimate truths to considerations about the practical implications of a particular theological view for embodied social life and spiritual practice, or "lived religion" (Ammerman, 2013, p. xiii). While theologians and laypersons alike can be found marshaling various forms of biblical, philosophical, or historical evidence for their theological persuasions, it would probably be unusual for someone to indicate that they did not care about the connections between ideas and lived religion. Thus, theological debates typically involve some level of interaction between consideration of ideas about God and the sacred (theology) and the descriptive analysis of how ideas influence human behavior (social science).

Calvinism and Arminianism have shaped historic sets of theological debates among Protestant Christians. Calvinism is rooted in the theological work of 16th century Reformation leader John Calvin (1509-1564), with an emphasis on God's sovereignty, total human depravity, the predestination of the elect for heaven or hell, the irresistibility of grace, the limit of Christ's atonement to the elect, and the impossibility of those same elect losing their salvation. Arminianism arose from Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), a Dutch theologian who came to disagree with the scriptural basis of certain aspects of Calvinism, including limited atonement, unconditional election, and the irresistibility of grace. While the debate has often, perhaps particularly in the past, taken on a dichotomous and polemic tone, nuance is warranted because of significant intra-group variation among adherents on either side of the supposed dichotomy. In fact, researchers are increasingly recognizing that different aspects of religiousness, including seemingly contrarian aspects, may manifest as complex theological constellations within individuals (Jankowski et al., 2015). It is likely therefore that aspects from Arminian and Calvinist theologies can be found within the same individual, or subgroup of individuals. Historically, the primary points of disagreement seem to have been Arminius' belief that God granted humans free will and a more inclusive understanding of the extension of God's grace in the atonement Calvin would have claimed, although Arminius agreed humans had to freely respond to God's grace in order to be saved. Contemporary Calvinist theology can be found in the works of theologians such as Wayne Grudem (1995) and Michael Horton (2011), whereas the Arminian stream receives contemporary articulation from Roger Olson (2011) and Thomas Oden (2012).

We conducted the current study from within a relational spirituality theoretical framework (Shults & Sandage, 2006; Sandage, 2012) which defines relational spirituality as "ways of relating with the sacred" (i.e., divine-human relating; Shults & Sandage, 2006, p. 161). We chose this framework because it (a) understands individual differences in relational dynamics with the sacred as developmental (e.g., construction of interpersonal neurobiological templates) occurring within particular sociocultural contexts and traditions (i.e., human-human relating), and (b) has been empirically supported in at least seventeen published studies to date (Worthington & Sandage, 2015). We therefore explored how theological beliefs distinguished subgroups of individuals and then investigated differences between subgroups on aspects of relational spirituality: (a) preference for social hierarchy, (b) commitments to social justice and intercultural competence, (c) religious exploration, (d) existential defensiveness, (e) ways of viewing the relationship between psychology and theology, and (f) views of women's leadership. We expected to observe differences between subgroups on the above outcome measures, with subgroups determined by the extent to which individuals hold to theological worldviews defined by divine-human relating and male-female relating (i.e., heterosexual, gender-role ideology within marriage). These two relational spirituality dimensions also influence (a) Christian stances on social ethics and epistemology (e.g., Stassen & Gushee, 2003), (b) conceptualizations of mature faith (i.e., a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension; Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993), and (c) approaches to spiritual formation that emphasize eudaimonic views of well-being (i.e., self-awareness and growth in relational virtues as part of self-development; Shults & Sandage, 2006), in contrast to hedonic views of well-being (i.e., individualistic or personal feelings of well-being).

Theologically, a difference in valuing hierarchy seems to correspond to a Calvinistic emphasis on God as sovereign and transcendent, whereas equality seems to correspond to an Arminian emphasis on God as loving and immanent. Prior empirical research has shown that individuals differ in their expectations for interpersonal hierarchy, which has been operationalized as "expecting dominance hierarchies to be present or to form in interpersonal interactions or relationships" (Mast, 2005, p. 287). In addition, the Calvinistic emphasis on God as sovereign also makes this worldview (i.e., an interpretive set of assumptions about human nature, existential beliefs about meaning in life and the cosmos, beliefs about society and institutions, and core values; Koltko-Rivera, 2004) more deterministic than Arminianism, which retains a stronger place for human freedom. This determinism-freedom difference can influence relational spirituality emphases of trusting in God's sovereign protection or using human freedom to quest and explore new spiritual meaning. But, to our knowledge, these proposed conceptual differences have not been tested empirically.

Theological Worldviews and Gender

We hypothesized that distinct subgroups of individuals can be created based on the ways in which Calvinist and gender complementarian theological beliefs are combined within individuals, and that these subgroups would differ in terms of interpersonal hierarchy expectations. Much like the intra-group variation in Calvinism and Arminianism, it would be a mistake to imply that gender complementarianism and egalitarianism form two discrete views, and the reality is that a myriad of positions exist on a wide variety of gender issues. But to summarize a gender complementarian view, Ware (2007) explains that male and female:
   were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence
   and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the
   male was given the responsibility of loving authority
   over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted
   and submissive assistance to the man ... Wives are
   to submit to their husbands in the model of the Church's
   submission to Christ, and women are not to exercise
   authoritative roles of teaching in the Church in view of
   Eve's created relation to Adam. Male headship, then, is
   seen to be restored in the Christian community as men
   and women endeavor to express their common humanity
   according to God's originally created and good hierarchical

By comparison, a gender egalitarian view can be summarized as follows:

The Bible teaches that woman and man were created for full and equal partnership. The word "helper" (ezer) used to designate woman in Genesis 2:18 refers to God in most instances of Old Testament usage (e.g. 1 Sam 7:12; Ps 121:1-2). Consequently the word conveys no implication whatsoever of female subordination or inferiority ... The Bible teaches that the rulership of Adam over Eve resulted from the Fall and was therefore not a part of the original created order ... The Bible teaches that husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility. (Ware, 2007)

Thus, egalitarians tend to believe God desires collaboration between men and woman and suggests both genders can exercise leadership in domestic and church relationships, whereas complementarians believe God intends to restore male leadership and female submission.

Some of the most widely-cited contemporary proponents of gender complementarianism are also advocates for Calvinism--Grudem, J.I. Packer, John Piper, and Thomas Schreiner (Grudem, 1995; Packer, 1991; Piper & Grudem, 2012; Schreiner & Ware, 2000). We could not locate any prior studies empirically examining associations among Calvinism and complementarianism; however, the implicit relational emphasis on the constructive value of hierarchy (i.e., God over humanity and men over women) may provide one point of linkage between Calvinism and gender complementarianism. Potter (1986) noted that Calvin considered men and women equally redeemed by God, but he also viewed women as needing to occupy subordinate roles in church, government, and home. In his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:13, Calvin (1948) said:
   woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be
   a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined
   to the man on the express condition, that she should be
   at hand to render obedience to him. (Gen. ii. 21.) Since,
   therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power,
   but added to the man an inferior aid. (p. 69)

This was consistent with the social context and most theologians of his time; however, Arts (2013) suggested "more so than Luther, Calvin emphasized the complementary relationship between man and woman" (p. 25) drawing heavily on his view of God-ordained natural law. Burgess (2012) noted early Calvinists believed "the Bible commanded the subordination of women" (p. 52) and would not allow them to preach, although the sociological influence of the Reformation in Geneva was to improve educational opportunities for both women and men.

Historically, Arminian traditions such as Wesleyanism and related offshoots have seemed more commonly to hold gender egalitarian positions compared with Calvinist groups. Wesley provided many opportunities for women to preach and be in leadership, and Wesleyan Methodists have been leaders in many social justice causes and progressive theological movements related to gender (e.g., women's suffrage, feminist theology, and domestic violence prevention; Burgess, 2012; Leclerc, 2001). It is important again to note that some contemporary Christians may endorse aspects of Calvinist doctrine and also accept a more egalitarian perspective, while some who may endorse Arminian theological beliefs may hold to a more complementarian stance. Hence our analyses, which are primarily descriptive, will identify general patterns or associations we expect to find, while also anticipating exceptions.

Theological Worldviews, Social Justice and Intercultural Development

We were also interested in how different constellations of theological beliefs might relate to diversity commitments (i.e., social justice and intercultural competence). By social justice commitment, we mean "active concerns and commitments related to social justice advocacy" (Sandage, Crabtree, & Schweer, 2014, p. 67). Intercultural competence refers to "the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways" and with sensitivity to "relevant cultural differences" (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, p. 422). Previous studies in Evangelical contexts show significant individual differences in social justice commitment and intercultural competence, as well as associations between these constructs and many spiritual formation factors (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014; Jankowski, Sandage, & Hill, 2013; Sandage & Jankowski, 2013; Sandage & Morgan, 2014). However, none of these studies has examined the role of specific theological beliefs in these relationships.

Historical and theoretical depictions of Calvinistic social ethics in relation to diversity and social justice are mixed. For example, some have suggested that Calvin and his followers were concerned with helping the social conditions of the poor in the Geneva area (Burgess, 2012; Lee, 2009; Noelliste, 2009). However, Calvin's strong valuing of hierarchy can also be seen in his stance toward preserving the hierarchy within sociopolitical order and his view that "the citizen's only appropriate response to government is willing acknowledgement and full obedience" (Noelliste, 2009, p. 226). It has also been suggested that the Calvinistic call for separation of theology and politics in combination with affirming a hierarchical social order may have at times contributed to a slow or even enabling response to certain unjust policies and social practices (e.g., slavery, racial segregation, and apartheid; Vesely-Flad, 2011).

As a comparison, Arminian traditions such as Wesleyanism have a strong history of social justice concern and activism across numerous areas. Burgess (2012) noted that Wesley "taught social sensitivity" and, in contrast to Calvin, did not view poverty as a sign of sin or a lack of virtue but rather investigated the systemic causes of poverty. Wesley and his followers also directly opposed slavery, promoted economic generosity and justice, and founded homes for orphans and widows. Arminian traditions appear more progressive in advocating for transformations of social structures, while Calvinistic traditions seem to generally promote obedience to social structures. We used the Faith Maturity Scale (Benson et al., 1993; Piedmont & Nelson, 2001) to measure mature faith that is defined by both a secure, loving relationship with God (vertical dimension) and a commitment to loving one's neighbor (horizontal dimension). While some of the content of the scale might be more consistent with Arminian and egalitarian orientations of faith than with Calvinistic and complementarian approaches, we could not find previous research using this scale to examine associations with different theological orientations. The dimensions acknowledge individual differences in that some may emphasize one aspect of faith maturity, whereas others emphasize an integration of both as mature faith.

Theological Worldviews and Existential Defensiveness

Calvinist and complementarian subgroups could also be expected to differ from each other on existential orientations toward faith. The Calvinistic emphasis on unconditional election and predestination shapes a deterministic theology that depicts eternal security and special protection for the elect. Psychologically, this seems to fit with Beck's (2006a) measure of defensive theology, which carries a pejorative label but implies a theological and psychological orientation toward belief in divine protection and a sense of spiritual blessing or specialness which reduces the anxiety of existential vulnerability and complexity in the world. Some have suggested that Calvin developed his theological system--one that emphasizes righteousness as submission to clear hierarchy and boundaries of order and control--in order to help quell existential fears about one's personal security or ultimate salvation and to reduce ambiguity in both a turbulent 16th century historical context and in a personal life marked by significant losses of key attachment relationships (Bouwsma, 1988; Rambo, 2016).

Defensive theology as measured by Beck (2006a) is oriented toward existential and epistemological closure and has been negatively correlated with a questing religious orientation toward faith, which values existential questions and the ongoing exploration of deeper meaning. Defensive theology and quest represent differing goals of faith, that is, faith as primarily reaching closure on ultimate truth with gratitude for God's safe haven of special protection (defensive theology) or faith as a secure base to authentically face existential realities with openness to new understandings of meaning over time (quest exploration). Calvinism may promote closure and acceptance of order and hierarchy. Some streams of Arminian theology have moved toward process theology and open-theism, which strongly emphasize human freedom and indeterminacy combined with views of God's foreknowledge as self-limited. Yet Calvinistic theologians tend to resist these ideas, with some perhaps even considering them heretical.

There is some empirical evidence that this difference between a defensive theological orientation and a questing orientation impacts attitudes toward diversity and outgroup members. In an experimental study, Beck (2006a) found Christians scoring high in defensive theology tended to show bias against out-group religious persons following a mortality salience priming, whereas Christians scoring high in quest religiosity did not show this same bias. Beck interpreted this finding as a reflection of the way in which a theological focus on special protection by God from personal suffering may work against an inclusive attitude toward those who are considered outside one's faith community (i.e., "I can't be special or elect if God's blessings and protection extend beyond my group"). Similarly, Sandage and Harden (2011) found quest religiosity was positively associated with intercultural competence in a sample of Christian graduate students.

Theological Worldviews and Psychology--Theology Integration

Various approaches to relating psychology and theology have been articulated in Evangelical contexts (Johnson, 2010; Sandage, 2012). Some views privilege theology as having authority over psychology in hierarchical fashion (e.g., biblical counseling; Powlison, 2010; Christian psychology; Roberts & Watson, 2010), whereas other views (e.g., integrationist; Jones, 2010; levels of explanation; Myers, 2010) hold psychology and theology in equal tension. Sandage and Brown (2010, 2012) suggested these differing stances (i.e., hierarchy or equality) toward psychology and theology are roughly analogous to complementarian versus egalitarian views of gender. This could be more than coincidental as Calvinistic and complementarian views tend to correspond to more conservative, hierarchical approaches to an epistemology of theological headship, whereas Arminian and egalitarian views tend to fit with more progressive epistemologies that hold differing sources of knowledge in productive tension.

Calvin was suspicious of human reason, since he viewed it as utterly corrupted by sin, even commenting "most philosophers are sillier than old women" (cited in Bouwsma, 1988, p. 156), which connects his epistemology and view of gender. According to the Canons at the Synod of Dort (which clarified differences between Calvinism and Arminianism), Calvinism insists on the "total depravity" of human nature, while Arminianism speaks of the "universality of sin" that persists within humanity. However, Calvinism underscores the complete and utter abjection of human nature (including rational faculties) more stridently and unvaryingly than does Arminianism. The latter, while still holding a belie! in the deleterious effects of the fall on the human mind, heart, and body, is yet willing to affirm humans' ability to do good and achieve saving faith with the regenerating power of God (Thorsen, 2008). Calvin also positioned the special revelation of God's truth through scripture above the general revelation of God's truth through nature and human reason. Nature and reason were viewed as more misleading than helpful in understanding truth. Conversely, the Wesleyan quadrilateral (scripture, reason, tradition, and experience; Wright, Jones, & Strawn, 2014) suggests each source of knowledge is valued and brought into productive tension as part of a holistic "symbiosis" (Oord, 2004).

The Present Study

In order to explore whether participants could be grouped "according to their similarity on one or more dimensions ... that maximize within-group similarity and minimize between-group similarity" (Henry, Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2005, p. 121), we conducted a cluster analysis using the TwoStep Method in IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Cluster analysis is an example of a person-centered approach to data analysis. Person-centered analyses "focus on the ways in which multiple variables are configured within individuals" (Good, Willoughby, & Busseri, 2011, p. 539). Person-centered approaches capture the heterogeneity of individuals' lived religion and thus tend to be more ecologically valid (Hodge, Andereck, & Montoya, 2007; Pearce, Foster, & Hardie, 2013; Salas-Wright, Vaughn, Hodge, & Perron, 2012).

We subsequently examined differences on the outcome variables between clusters generated by the TwoStep Method. The latter enabled us to address the lack of empirical research examining patterns of association between particular theological beliefs and psychosocial commitments and measures of religiousness. In addition, the person-centered cluster analysis allowed us to engage in theological specificity, thereby answering the call for "tradition-based integration" of psychology and theology. We hypothesized that (a) distinct subgroups could be identified from measures of theological beliefs about divine-human relating and husband-wife relating, and (b) that these distinct subgroups would be differentially associated with hierarchical social expectations, commitments to social justice and intercultural competence, religious exploration, existential defensiveness, views about psychology-theology integration, and perspectives on women's leadership.



Participants were 227 masters-level students from an Evangelical seminary in the Midwestern United States. They ranged in age from 22 to 65 years, and the mean age was 33.05 (SD = 9.64) years. The sample was 49.3% female and 50.7% male. Participants identified as 82% White/Caucasian, 8.8% Asian/Asian-American, 4.4% Black/African-American, 4.4% Chicano/Hispanic/Latino, 0.4%, American-Indian/Alaskan Native. When allowed to write in their ethnic identifications, participants listed a total of 36 different ethnic groups. Their mean year in seminary was 2.55 (SD = 1.60). Their majors were 52.9% Divinity, 18.1% Marriage and Family Therapy, 10.6% Theological Studies, 5.7% Children and Family Ministries, 4.4% Undefined, 2.6% Christian Thought, 2.6% Transformational Leadership, 1.3% Community Ministry Leadership, 1.3% Global and Contextual Studies, and 0.4% Christian Education.


Beliefs about divine-human relating. The Calvinist-Arminian Beliefs Scale (CABS; Sorenson, 1981) contains 10 items that assess explicit Calvinistic theological beliefs and 10 items that assess explicit Arminian theological beliefs. We used the sum of the 10 Calvinist items as an input variable in the cluster analysis. A sample Calvinist item was "Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only," whereas an Arminian item was "Human faith makes possible and precedes the new birth." Participants responded to items on a 6-point likert scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). Evidence of construct validity for the CABS subscales was demonstrated through predicted associations with convergent and divergent constructs (e.g., positive correlation between Calvinistic beliefs and cynicism, negative correlation between Calvinistic beliefs and internal locus of control; Sorenson, 1981). The correlation between Calvinist items and Arminian items in the current study was r = -.29, p < .001. Cronbach's alpha for the 10 Calvinist items was .86 and the 10 Arminian items was .66.

Beliefs about male-female relating. A 15-item measure of egalitarian and complementarian gender role beliefs (ECS; Colaner & Warner, 2005; Colaner & Giles, 2008) was used to assess beliefs about female-male relating in marriage. A sample item from the five-item egalitarian subscale was "The husband and wife should bear equal responsibilities in leading the family spiritually," and an item from the 10-item complementarian subscale stated "Marriage should be a relationship of leader (husband) and follower (wife)." Participants rated their agreement with items on a scale of 1 (always true) to 7 (never true). Evidence for construct validity is found in theoretically predicted associations between the subscales and measures of career aspirations and mothering aspirations (Colaner & Warner, 2005; Colaner & Giles, 2008). High scores on one subscale should theoretically correspond to low scores on the other, and this was the case in the current study (r = -.78, p < .001). We used the sum of the 10 complementarian items as an input variable in the cluster analysis. Colaner and Giles (2008) reported Cronbach's alphas of .72 and .94 for the egalitarian subscale and .94 for the complementarian subscale, and in this study we found alphas of .83 and .92 respectively.

Relational hierarchy expectations. The Interpersonal Hierarchy Expectation Scale (IHES; Mast, 2005) is an eight-item measure that assesses the degree to which persons expect "dominance hierarchies to be present or to form in interpersonal interactions or relationships" (p. 287). Participants rated items on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly). A sample item was "Every group needs to have someone with extra power or authority to be sure things get done properly." Reliability and construct validity evidence exists (Mast, 2005) and Cronbach's alpha for the IHES in the current study was .81.

Social justice commitment. Social justice commitment was measured using three items from the Horizontal scale of the Faith Maturity Scale (FMSH; Benson et al., 1993). In the present study, we used the following three items: (1) "I am active in efforts to promote social justice," (2) "I speak out for equality for women," and (3) "I speak out for equality for people of color." Prior studies using these same three items have found social justice commitment to be positively associated with hope, forgiveness, humility, differentiation of self, and positive religious coping (Jankowski et al., 2013; Sandage, Crabtree, & Schweer, 2014; Sandage & Morgan, 2014). Items were endorsed on a scale from 1 {never true) to 7 (always true). In the current study, the three items had an internal consistency of .79.

Intercultural competence commitment. A commitment to developing intercultural competence was assessed using the following two items: "Growth in intercultural competence is a vital part of Christian spiritual formation," and "I feel personally motivated to develop my skills and competence to improve my intercultural relationships." Items were endorsed on a scale from 1 [never true) to 7 (always true). Cronbach's alpha for the two items was .82.

Religious exploration. The six-item exploration subscale from the self-report Multidimensional Quest Orientation Scale (MQOS; Beck & Jessup, 2004) was used to measure the extent to which participants explore their religious faith. A sample was "I would characterize my religious life as one of consistent searching and exploration." Participants responded on a scale of 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The scale has demonstrated evidence of internal consistency ([alpha] = .85; Beck & Jessup, 2004) and construct validity (Beck & Jessup, 2004). The exploration subscale was negatively correlated with both anxious-ambivalent and avoidant dimensions of insecure attachment, suggesting it may represent a secure base for spiritual exploration (Beck, 2006b). Cronbach's alpha for the subscale in this study was .84.

Faith maturity. The Faith Maturity Scale--Short Form (FMS-SF; Benson et al., 1993) is a 12-item self-report measure of the extent to which an individual reports experiences of a mature spirituality characterized by: (a) closeness with God (vertical faith maturity; e.g., "I have a real sense that God is guiding me") and (b) altruistic commitments (horizontal faith maturity; "I feel a deep sense of responsibility for reducing pain and suffering in the world"). The FMS-SF has evidence of cross-cultural and construct validity (Dy-Liacco, Piedmont, Murray-Swank, Rodgerson, & Sherman, 2009; Hui, Ng, Mok, Lau, & Cheung, 2011; Piedmont & Nelson, 2001). An 11-item version was used in the current study (three items for the horizontal dimension [FMS-H], different than those used for the measure of social justice commitment, and eight items for the vertical dimension [FMS-V]; e.g., Dy-Liacco et al., 2009). Items were rated from 1 (never true of me) to 7 (always true of me). In the current sample, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the full-scale was .84, and for the horizontal dimension [alpha] = .73 and for the vertical dimension [alpha] = .84.

Existential detensiveness. The Defensive Theology Scale (DTS; Beck, 2004, 2006a) was used to assess the extent to which participants repress existential anxiety through a sense of special protection and provision from God's control. The DTS is a 22-item self-report scale, which has demonstrated internal consistency and evidence of construct validation, including a negative correlation with religious questing (Beck, 2006a). Sample items included "God has a very specific plan for my life that I must search for and find," and "When making a choice or tough decision, God gives me clear answers and directions." Participants rated items from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Cronbach's alpha for the DTS in this study was .90.

View of the relationship between psychology and theology. Participants were asked to respond to the following item: "Which of the following positions best represents your view of the optimal relationship between theology and psychology?" We constructed position statements based on descriptions in the existing literature (Johnson, 2010; Sandage, 2012). Five position statements met the criteria of sufficient information to contrast in terms of hierarchical and egalitarian forms of relationality, and one position (the transformation view; Coe & Hall, 2010) could not be categorized. Participants selected from the following five statements: (a) Biblical counseling: "The Bible is sufficient as a complete source of knowledge for all counseling with the discipline of psychology being mostly deceptive and unnecessary," (b) Christian psychology: "Psychology can have some valid insights but needs to be brought under the authoritative headship of theology in pursuit of a distinctly Christian psychology," (c) integrationist: "Both theology and psychology are disciplines requiring responsible interpretation and can each contribute valid insights ideally brought together through a process of integration," (d) levels of explanation: "Theology and psychology are very different disciplines offering separate methodologies and distinctive levels of explanation of the same phenomena," and (d) psychology of religion: "As a science, psychology offers a more accurate picture of human nature than theology and should be used to evaluate theological validity." The wording of the psychology of religion item represents a particularly reductionist version of the larger field and served as a contrast to the views privileging theology. The wording of items was reviewed by two PhD-level psychologists on the faculty at different Evangelical schools with American Psychological Association-approved training programs in clinical psychology who have published extensively on the relationship between psychology and theology.

View of women's roles. Since our other measure of gender roles focused on domestic relationships between females and males, we also included the Women's Roles Questionnaire, which is a single self-report item on the role of women in leadership (Eliason, Hall, Anderson, & Willigham, in press; Maltby, 2007). Participants were asked to respond to the following: "Please endorse the view that most closely resembles your own on women's roles." Participants selected from a list of five statements: (a) strongly egalitarian: "The Bible places no restrictions on women's roles. All positions of leadership in the home, church, and society are equally open to all qualified men and women. We are morally obligated to promote women at every opportunity to correct for biases in our society that disadvantage women," (b) moderately egalitarian: "The Bible places no restrictions on women's roles. All positions of leadership in the home, church, and society are equally open to all qualified men and women," (c) moderately complementarian: "In the home, the husband has leadership functions because of his role as head of the wife. In the church, women are encouraged to minister in any office or ministry open to any non-elder, assuming qualification and appropriate gifting. The office of elder is reserved for men," (d) strongly complementarian: "In the home, the husband has leadership functions because of his role as head of the wife. In the church, women have an important ministry to women and children. They should not exercise any ministry that includes public teaching to the corporate body, teaching Bible to men or the exercising of authority over men in the church," and (e) Biblical patriarchy: "Women should function under male authority and be in submission in all areas of life, including in general society (e.g., employment, government) as well as home and church, because God has ordained such a structure." These views were arranged along a liberal to conservative continuum. Maltby (2007) found the more conservative views on this scale were associated with ambivalent sexism (both hostile sexism and protective paternalism dimensions) in a sample of undergraduates at a private liberal arts university. Among faculty at an Evangelical university, Eliason et al. (in press) found that more conservative views were less likely to (a) perceive gender harassment, (b) believe that women should be able to teach Bible classes, and (c) believe that women should be able to hold leadership positions.


Cluster Solution

The input variables for the cluster analysis consisted of one measure each for the dimensions of: (1) divine-human relating (i.e, vertical dimension; 10-item Calvinist scale), and (2) interpersonal relating (i.e., horizontal dimension; complementarian subscale). In selecting input variables, we adhered to the recommendations to select "variables consistent with relevant theoretical perspectives and expectations" and to avoid "redundant measures" (Henry et al., 2005, p. 121). Both scales conceptually represent opposite ends of a continuum, with higher scores on one scale theoretically corresponding to lower scores on the other (i.e., a Calvinist-Arminian continuum; Sorenson, 1981; and a complementarian-egalitarian continuum; Colaner & Warner, 2005). Therefore, in the context of cluster analysis, the scales depicting each end of the continuum represented redundant measures of an underlying dimension.

Empirical examination of the Calvinist-Arminian scales and complementarian-egalitarian scales as input variables in an initial cluster analysis supported the redundancy among measures. More specifically, the analysis yielded two subgroups, in which one group scored high on complementarianism and low on egalitarianism, and the other subgroup the reverse. This was consistent with the negative correlation among subscale scores. In terms of Arminianism, the predictor relevance was .03 (on a scale from 0 to 1), suggesting that Arminianism added very little to subgroup classification. Thus, Calvinism appeared to be the better input variable (predictor relevance = .21) for the dimension of divine-human relating. Results therefore supported the use of the complementarian and Calvinist scales as input variables for the respective worldview dimensions. It should be noted that selection of input variables was also guided by substantive interpretation of the subgroups generated by analyses. The two-cluster solution yielded less theoretically meaningful interpretations than the final four-class solution, in part due to redundancy among input variables.

The TwoStep Method with Calvinism and complementarianism as input variables yielded a four cluster solution, as indicated by the lowest value for the Bayesian Information Criterion (204.84 for the four cluster solution, 221.01 for the three cluster solution, and 209.56 for the five cluster solution) and highest value for the ratio of distance measures (log-likelihood distance measure; ratio = 2.23; ratio = 1.37 for the three cluster solution, and 1.17 for the five cluster solution). In addition, the silhouette measure of cohesion and separation for the four cluster solution indicated acceptable cluster quality (silhouette average = .50) and the ratio of sizes among clusters was below 2.00 (cluster 1 = 28.2% of the sample, n = 64; cluster 2 = 15.1%, n = 57; cluster 3 = 25.1%, n = 57; cluster 4 = 21.6%, n = 49). Predictor relevance for complementarianism was 1.00, and for Calvinism predictor relevance was .95.

The first cluster was characterized by persons scoring high on both Calvinist and complementarianism subscales, whereas cluster 2 consisted of those scoring moderately high on Calvinism and low on complementarianism. Cluster 3 was characterized by those scoring moderately high on complementarianism and moderately low on Calvinism, whereas cluster 4 consisted of those scoring low on both Calvinism and complementarianism. Table 1 contains the estimated means for the input variables and outcome measures and the results of Least Significant Difference pairwise comparisons.

Validation of the four-cluster solution was obtained through criterion-related validity (Henry et al., 2005). ANOVA/ANCOVAs were conducted with pairwise comparisons with the four clusters generated by the cluster analysis as the grouping variable and egalitarian subscale scores (Colaner & Warner, 2005) and Arminian scale scores (Sorenson, 1981) as dependent variables. An ANCOVA analysis, with gender as a covariate (males scored significantly lower than females on egalitarianism [F(1,225) = 19.59, p < .001]; males: M = 23.05, SD = 6.43; females: M = 27.03, SD = 7.07), indicated a significant difference among all four clusters on egalitarian subscale scores (F(3, 222) = 54.89, p < .001). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between all combinations of comparisons (cluster 1: M = 19.48, SD = 5.86; cluster 2: M = 28.91, SD = 5.31; cluster 3: M = 22.26, SD = 5.38; cluster 4: M = 31.14, SD = 7.03). An ANOVA revealed a significant difference among all four clusters on Arminian subscale scores (F(3, 223) = 3.94, p = .009) and pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 38.00, SD = 9.75) and cluster 2 (M = 41.32, SD = 6.68), cluster 1 and cluster 3 (M = 42.53, SD = 7.05), and cluster 1 and cluster 4 (M = 41.31, SD = 6.21).

Comparison of Clusters on Outcome Variables

In order to examine differences among clusters on the outcome variables of interest, ANOVA/ANCOV As and chi-square analyses were conducted. First, an ANOVA revealed a significant difference among all four clusters on IHES scores (F(3, 223) = 8.30, p < .001) and pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 27.66, SD = 6.68) and cluster 2 (M = 24.04, SD = 7.03), cluster 1 and cluster 3 (M = 25.05, SD = 6.04), cluster 1 and cluster 4 (M = 21.76, SD = 5.52), and cluster 3 and cluster 4. Second, an ANOVA revealed a significant difference among all four clusters on a measure of commitment to social justice concerns (F(3, 223) = 10.93, p < .001), and pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 13.80, SD = 3.33) and cluster 2 (M = 15.77, SD = 3.23), cluster 2 and cluster 3 (M = 13.33, SD = 3.79), cluster 1 and cluster 4 (M = 16.53, SD = 3.39), and cluster 3 and cluster 4. Third, an ANOVA revealed a significant difference among all four clusters on a measure of commitment to intercultural competence (F(3, 223) = 6.62, p < .001), and pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 11.38, SD = 2.18) and cluster 2 (M = 12.35, SD = 1.60), cluster 2 and cluster 3 (M = 11.21, SD = 2.05), cluster 1 and cluster 4 (M = 12.50, SD = 1.65), and cluster 3 and cluster 4. Fourth, an ANOVA revealed a significant difference among all four clusters on a measure of religious exploration (F(3, 223) = 3.18, p = .03), and pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 23.80, SD = 5.76) and cluster 4 (M = 26.88, SD = 5.89), and cluster 3 (M = 23.56, SD = 6.68) and cluster 4. Fifth, an ANCOVA, adjusting for gender (males scored significantly lower than females on FMS-SF full-scale scores and significantly lower on both the horizontal and vertical dimensions; males: M = 59.85, SD = 7.94; females: M = 63.61, SD = 7.85), indicated a significant difference among all four clusters on FMS-SF scores (F(3, 222) = 4.06, p = .01). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 61.91, SD = 7.19) and cluster 3 (M = 58.58, SD = 9.52), cluster 2 (M = 63.00, SD = 7.40) and cluster 3, and cluster 3 and cluster 4 (M = 63.53, SD = 7.12). Table 1 contains the pairwise comparisons for the FMS horizontal (F(3, 222) = 2.81, p = .04) and vertical (F(3, 222) = 3.42, p = .02) subscales. Last, an ANCOVA, adjusting for gender (males scored significantly lower than females on existential defensiveness; males: M = 95.85, SD = 19.60; females: M = 100.55, SD = 20.59), indicated a significant difference on DTS scores (F(3, 222) = 19.59, p < .001). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences between cluster 1 (M = 103.81, SD = 13.80) and cluster 2 (M = 99.19, SD = 20.99), cluster 1 and cluster 4 (M = 82.23, SD = 21.54), cluster 2 and cluster 4, and cluster 3 (M = 104.26, SD = 17.17) and cluster 4.

Chi-square analyses indicated a significant association between clusters and views on the relationship between psychology and theology ([chi square] (12) = 61.27, p < .001; N = 227), with those in cluster 1 (i.e., high Calvinist and high complementarianism scores) showing a preference for the Christian psychology view (60.9%; i.e., "psychology needs to be brought under the authoritative headship of theology") and those in clusters 2-4 showing a preference for an integrationist perspective (78.9%, 63.2%, and 93.9% respectively; i.e., "theology and psychology are disciplines requiring responsible interpretation and can each contribute valid insights").

Last, chi-square analyses indicated a significant association between clusters and views of women's roles (i.e., heterosexual gender roles within church, family, and society; [chi square] (9) = 89.10, p < .001; N = 225), with those in cluster 1 showing a preference for a male headship perspective (74.6%; i.e., moderately and strongly complementarian percentages combined: "husband has leadership functions because of his role as head of the wife") and those in clusters 2-4 showing a preference for a "no restrictions" perspective (94.6%, 66.7%, and 93.9% respectively; i.e., moderately and strongly egalitarian percentages combined: "the Bible places no restrictions on women's roles").


The results of the current study supported our expectation that distinct subgroups of participants could be empirically generated using theological beliefs about divine-human relating and female-male relating, and that these subgroups could be meaningfully differentiated from each other on measures of psychosocial commitments and religiousness. More specifically, significant differences were observed between clusters on measures of hierarchical relationship expectations, social justice commitment, intercultural competence commitment, religious exploration, faith maturity, defensive religious motivation, psychology-theology integration, and leadership. Individuals scoring high on both Calvinist theological beliefs and complementarian gender role beliefs (i.e., cluster 1) scored significantly higher on hierarchical relationship expectations and existential defensiveness than those scoring low on Calvinism and complementarianism (i.e., cluster 4), whereas individuals scoring low on both dimensions scored significantly higher on social justice commitment, intercultural competence commitment, and religious exploration than those scoring high on both Calvinism and complementarianism. This overall contrasting pattern of results is most evident comparing participants in clusters 1 and 4.

Differences between Clusters

It is important to note that the four-cluster solution shows the complexity with which theological beliefs are constellated within individuals. We must therefore caution against over-generalization or stereotyping of theological perspectives. We offer our interpretations of the various findings with awareness that limited empirical research on theological views and psychosocial variables exists, and our conclusions are therefore tentative. First, clusters 2, 3, and 4 did not differ on the explicit measure of Arminian beliefs. Our findings suggest that participants differed more in terms of how they rated Calvinistic statements and less so on the Arminian items. These findings could highlight the difficulty people have reconciling aspects of each theological system, and/or signify that people hold opposing theological ideas in tension, or with little integration. It could also be that some students may not fully understand theological ideas as embedded within distinct traditions, particularly those who are newer to formal theological education. In addition, persons in cluster 2 were characterized by moderately high scores on Calvinism and low scores on complementarianism, which suggests a kind of Calvinistic egalitarianism with a different overall profile from the larger trends comparing clusters 1 and 4. Furthermore, the cluster 3 profile involved above average levels of both Arminian and complementarian beliefs. A comparison of clusters 2 and 3 also shows an interesting difference on higher social justice and intercultural competence commitments for those persons in cluster 2 over cluster 3, raising the possibility that views of female-male relating are more relevant to diversity related social-ethical stances than are views of divine-human relating. This could be because male-female relating is more similarly a human diversity issue.

Second, cluster 2 was also similar to cluster 4 on engaging in religious exploration, with both clusters 2 and 4 scoring lower on complementarianism. It may be that religious exploration results in more egalitarian theological beliefs about female-male relating, or it may be that holding to egalitarian beliefs tends to be associated with an open, curious, flexible commitment to one's theological beliefs (which some would see as relativistic or lacking in commitment). Additionally, cluster 3 participants scored lowest on total scale scores of faith maturity compared to the other three clusters (and lower on the vertical dimension than those participants in clusters 1 and 4), and as such could suggest that moderate levels on both input variables represents persons who have not yet reflected upon, explored their theological beliefs, or had their faith tested; that is, a sort of foreclosed religious identity. The latter interpretation is further supported by cluster 3 participants scoring highest on defensive theology (i.e., repressing existential anxiety through a sense of special protection and provision from God's control) although not significantly different from cluster 1 and cluster 2 (i.e., the two clusters scoring higher on Calvinism).

Furthermore, given that clusters 1 and 4 did not differ on the vertical dimension of faith maturity (see Table 1) it may be that experiencing closeness with God is somewhat independent of specific theological differences about divine-human and male-female relating. The vertical dimension connotes subjective felt experience of one's relationship with God and may represent a distinct dimension of religiousness to that of the cognitive domain of theological beliefs--although it is also possible there are differences in forms of relational closeness with God that were not measured in this study. In contrast, for the faith maturity horizontal dimension (i.e., altruistic service to others), participants in cluster 3 scored significantly lower than participants in clusters 2 and 4 but not significantly lower than participants in cluster 1. These results seem to suggest, similar to those for social justice commitment and intercultural competence commitment, that views of female-male relating may be more relevant to altruistic service than beliefs about divine-human relating. It might be that for some, the horizontal dimension is not deemed as crucial to spiritual development as it is for others, and this may be more the case when both complementarian and Calvinism are moderate to high (see Table 1).

Last, participants in cluster 1 scored highest on interpersonal hierarchy expectation, and cluster 1 was also the only to show a preference for the Christian psychology view of psychology-theology relationships (as opposed to the integrationist view). In our applied experience, a preference for social and relational hierarchy often seems to be a powerful, implicit factor that informs views on various theological and social issues. An approach that limits the authority with which psychology can understand or analyze a given phenomenon seems consistent with the lowered religious questing and elevated existential defensiveness of participants in cluster 1 relative to those in cluster 4. Cluster 4 participants showed the strongest preference for the integrationist view of faith-psychology integration, which tends to value the connections between special and general revelation. Thus, beliefs about hierarchy and the related implications for epistemology and diversity are important topics in the larger discussion of relating psychology and theology (Brown & Sandage, 2015; Sandage & Brown, 2010, 2012, 2015).

Limitations and Future Research

Before considering the implications of these findings, we want to note several important limitations of this study. First, in terms of the limits to generalizability, this was a predominantly Euro-American sample at an Evangelical seminary in the Midwest United States, and further research is needed in other contexts and with more diverse samples. The particular context of this study appeared to offer some diversity in Evangelical theological perspectives, and yet, it is also possible that different findings would emerge with student samples from more distinctly Calvinist or Arminian seminaries. It is also possible that laypersons might show a different pattern of effects than was the case for these seminary students. In addition, our input measure of gender role ideology and our outcome variable of views of women's leadership roles both assumed heterosexual relationships, and future research might include measures of theological beliefs about same-sex attraction, sexual diversity, and interpersonal relating to others of diverse sexual and gender identities. Our cross-sectional design also limits causal inferences about the associations between clusters and outcome variables.

We also recognize an element of subjectivity to person-centered analyses when determining input variables and the number of classes (Henry et al., 2005). Thus, we primarily relied on empirical criteria to guide decision making, eventually landing on the four-class solution. We considered a three-class solution based on the four input variables, and a three-class solution based on Arminianism and complementarianism, but in the end determined that the empirical criteria more strongly supported the final four-class solution with Calvinism and complementarianism as input variables. Regardless of input variables and number of classes for various solutions, bottom line interpretations did not change. Individuals scoring higher on both Calvinism and complementarianism tended to have increased scores on hierarchical relationship expectations and existential defensiveness, elevated complementarian scores seemed a particular risk factor for reduced altruistic service, intercultural competence commitment, and social justice commitment. Perceived closeness with God showed no consistent pattern across subgroups, suggesting that the subjective experience of divine-human relating may represent a separate dimension of religiousness (i.e., salience or spirituality; Pearce et al., 2013) to that of the cognitive dimension of theological beliefs. Future research might make use of alternative person-centered approaches (e.g., latent profile analysis) that employ different means of determining subgroup membership (i.e., probability of an individual belonging to a class versus distance between individuals' data points). Future research might also collect longitudinal data and explore how change in input variables over time (i.e., dimensions of relationality) creates distinct class trajectories (e.g., latent class growth analysis), which can then be used to compare trajectories on the outcome variables.

Finally, two of the scales used in this study were new (intercultural competence commitment; views for relating psychology and theology) and two have been used infrequently in published studies (CABS; ECS), so further construct validation work is needed. The associations observed in the current study do offer construct validation evidence for the CABS and ECS in terms of the theoretically consistent differences found between clusters. Cronbach's alpha for the scale comprised of explicit Arminian items was also somewhat low, suggesting the value of further psychometric work on that scale.

Practical Implications

Our observation--that distinct subgroups constituted by differing constellations of theological beliefs about divine-human relating and female-male relating exhibited different profiles among psychosocial commitments and religiousness measures--raises the question about how to best prepare professionals to provide effective ministry in theologically diverse environments. Given that the vast majority of the sample was comprised of those training to become providers of direct service to others through ministry or helping professions (e.g., pastoral care, marriage and family therapy, children's ministry, religious leadership), the most significant practical implication of our findings seems to center on Christian spiritual formation as part of their preparation for service. Eudaimonic approaches to spiritual formation emphasize self-awareness and growth in relational virtues as part of self-development (i.e., spiritual, cognitive, social, and emotional development; Shults & Sandage, 2006), in contrast to approaches that emphasize individualistic well-being (i.e., hedonic well-being). Some have called for defining well-being in ways that explicitly include a concern for relational virtues such as social justice commitment (e.g., Cohrs, Christie, White, & Das, 2013; Prilleltensky, 2012).

We did not directly assess effectiveness and so cannot speak to whether there are observable differences between subgroups on helping effectiveness. We wonder though whether particular theological beliefs, which correspond to differences in social-ethical commitments (i.e., social justice, intercultural competence, interpersonal hierarchy, altruism), might result in observable differences in the effectiveness of services provided, particularly with diverse populations. Or, is it that effective service is not tied to particular theological beliefs? We also wonder whether we might observe differences in the amount of helping, in the populations who are helped, or the ways in which helping is conceptualized and carried out. Future research might consider addressing these questions.

Nevertheless, it does seem that one implication we can speak to is that training programs in religious institutions should consider the ways in which they are fostering eudaimonic dimensions of self- and professional development in their graduate students. This should be considered in addition to a hedonic approach that focuses on their subjective experiences of the Divine and more broadly to happiness and satisfaction in their vertical religiousness. Subjective well-being was most closely assessed in the current study through perceived closeness with God, and as noted earlier, there was less difference between groups in terms of patterns of responses on vertical religiousness. Thus, it appears that facets of hedonic well-being (i.e., spirituality) might be less tied to particular theological beliefs (i.e., cognitive domain), unlike the facets of eudaimonic well-being. Perceived closeness with God has demonstrated associations with greater hedonic well-being (e.g., Ciarrocchi & Deneke, 2005; Mendonca, Oakes, Ciarrocchi, Sneck, & Gillespie, 2007), and yet, trainees can be encouraged to consider ways in which their vertical religiousness intersects with their horizontal religiousness, and ultimately eudaimonic well-being. Given that subgroups of distinct constellations of theological beliefs did differ on religious exploration and existential defensiveness, encouraging students to reflect on their theological beliefs and social-ethical commitments might require institutions to provide safe and structured learning environments for dialogue about theological difference and experimentation in different means of spiritual formation informed by both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.


We found that individuals scoring high on both Calvinist theological beliefs and complementarian gender role beliefs scored significantly higher on hierarchical relationship expectations and existential defensiveness than those scoring low on Calvinism and complementarianism, whereas individuals scoring low on both dimensions scored significantly higher on social justice commitment, intercultural competence commitment, and religious exploration than those scoring high on both Calvinism and complementarianism. We also found that theological beliefs about female-male relating may be more relevant to altruistic service, intercultural competence commitment, and social justice commitment than beliefs about divine-human relating. Last, closeness with God (vertical dimension) seemed somewhat independent of theological beliefs (i.e., less consistent pattern across subgroups) about divine-human and male-female relating. The primary implication of the findings is training graduate students in the helping professions to consider emphasizing self-awareness and growth in relational virtues as part of their self-development, in addition to a focus on their vertical relating to God.


Ammerman, N. T. (2013). Sacred stories, spiritual tribes: Finding religion in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Arts, S. (2013). Calvin, nature, and women. Priscilla Papers, 27, 20-28.

Beck, R. (2004). The function of religious belief: Defensive versus existential religion. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 208-218.

Beck, R. (2006a). Defensive versus existential religion: Is religious defensiveness predictive of worldview defense. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 142-151.

Beck, R. (2006b). God secure base: Attachment to God and theological exploration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 125-132.

Beck, R. & Jessup, R. (2004). The multidimensional nature of quest motivation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 283-294.

Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical validation. In M. L. Lynn &: D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. 5, pp. 1-26). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bouwsma, S. (1988).John Calvin: A sixteenth-century portrait. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, J. K., & Sandage, S.J. (2015). Relational integration, Part II: Relational integration as developmental and intercultural. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 43, 179-191.

Burgess, S. M. (2012). Christianity: Historical setting. In M. D. Palmer & S. M. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 46-60). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Calvin, J. (1948). Commentaries on the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (W. Pringle, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Ciarrocchi, J. W., & Deneke, E. (2005). Hope, optimism, pessimism, and spirituality as predictors of well-being controlling for personality. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 161-184.

Coe, J. H., & Hall, T. W. (2010). A transformational psychology view. In E. L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.; pp. 199-226). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Cohrs. J. C., Christie, D. J., White, M. P., & Das, C. (2013). Contributions of positive psychology to peace: Toward global well-being and resilience. American Psychologist, 68, 590-600.

Colaner, C. W., & Giles, S. M. (2008). The baby blanket or the briefcase: The impact of evangelical gender role ideologies on career and mothering aspirations of female evangelical college students. Sex Roles, 58, 526-534. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9352-8

Colaner, C. W., & Warner, S. C. (2005). The effect of egalitarian and complementarian gender role attitudes on career aspirations in evangelical female undergraduate college students. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 224-229.

Dy-Liacco, G. S., Piedmont, R. L., Murray-Swank, N. A., Rodgerson, T. E., & Sherman, M. F. (2009). Spirituality and religiosity as cross-cultural aspects of human experience. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 35-52. doi:10.1037/a0014937

Eliason, K. D., Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Willingham, M. M. (in press). Where gender and religion meet: Differentiating gender role identity and religious beliefs about gender .Journal of Psychology and Christianity.

Good, M., Willoughby, T., & Busseri, M. A. (2011). Stability and change in adolescent spirituality/religiosity: A person-centered approach. Developmental Psychology, 47, 538-550. doi:10.1037/a0021270

Grudem, W. (1995). Systematic theology: An introduction to Biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4

Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2005). Cluster analysis in family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 121 -132. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.121

Hodge, D. R., Andereck, K., & Montoya, H. (2007). The protective influence of spiritual-religious lifestyle profiles on tobacco use, alcohol use, and gambling. Social Work Research, 31, 211-219. doi:10.1093/swr/31.4.211

Horton, M. (2011). For Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hui, C. H., Wai Ng, E. C., Ying Mok, D. S., Ying Lau, E. Y., & Cheung, S. (2011). "Faith Maturity Scale" for Chinese: A revision and construct validation. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 308-322. doi: 10.1080/10508619.2011.607417

Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2014). Meditative prayer, gratitude, and intercultural competence: Empirical test of a differentiation-based model. Mindfulness, 5, 360-372. doi:10.1007/s12671012-0189-z

Jankowski, P. J., Hardy, S. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Ham, L. S., Schwartz, S. J., Kim, S. Y., & ... Cano, M. A. (2015). Religiousness and levels of hazardous alcohol use: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1968-1983. doi: 10.1007/s10964-0150302-4

Jankowski, P. J., Sandage, S.J., & Hill, P. C. (2013). Differentiation-based models of forgivingness, mental health and social justice commitment: Mediator effects for differentiation of self and humilicy. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 412-424. doi:10.1080/17439 760.2013.820337

Johnson, F., L. (2010). Psychology & Christianity: Five views (2nd ed). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Jones, S. L. (2010). An integration view. In E.L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.; pp. 101-128). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8, 3-58.

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-2. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

Leclerc, D. (2001). Wesleyan-Holiness-feminist hermeneutics: Historical rendering, current considerations. Wesleyan Theological Journal, 36, 105-132.

Lee, J-S. (2009). Calvin's ministry in Geneva: Theology and practice. In S.W. Chung (id), John Calvin and evangelical theology: Legacy and prospect (pp. 199-218). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Maltby, L. E. (2007). Predicting ambivalent sexism: Narcissism, overcontrolled hostility, and religious fundamentalism. (Unpublished master's thesis). Biola University, La Mirada, CA.

Mast, M. (2005). Interpersonal hierarchy expectation: Introduction of a new construct. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 287-295. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_08

Mendonca, D., Oakes, K. E., Ciarrocchi, J. W., Sneck, W. J., & Gillespie, K. (2007). Spirituality and God-attachment as predictors of subjective well-being for seminarians and nuns in India. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, 121-140.

Myers, D. G. (2010). A levels-of-explanation view. In E. L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.; pp. 199-226). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Noelliste, D. (2009). Exploring the usefulness of Calvin's sociopolitical ethics for the majority world. In S.W. Chung (Ed.), John Calvin and evangelical theology: Legacy and prospect (pp. 219-241). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Oden, T. (2012). John Wesley's teachings, Vol. 1: God, providence, and man. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Olson, R. E. (2011). Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Oord, T.J. (2004). Science of love: The wisdom of well-being. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

Packer, J. I. (1991, February 11). Let's stop making women Presbyters. Christianity Today, 35, 18-21.

Pearce, L. D., Foster, E., & Hardie, J. (2013). A person-centered examination of adolescent religiosity using latent class analysi s. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, 57-79. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12001

Piedmont, R. L., & Nelson, R. (2001). A psychometric evaluation of the Short Form of the Faith Maturity Scale. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 165-183.

Piper, J., 6c Grudem, W. (Eds). (2012). Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (Redesign ed.). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Potter, M. (1986). Gender equality and gender hierarchy in Calvin's theology. Journal of Women's Culture and Society, 11, 725-739.

Powlison, D. (2010). A Biblical counseling view. In E.L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.; pp. 245-273). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Prilleltensky, I. (2012). Wellness as fairness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 1-21.

Rambo, S. (2016). Salvation in the after-living: Reflections on salvation with Joshua Ralston and Sharon Betcher. In M. V. Roberts (Ed.), Comparing faithfully: Insights for systematic theological reflection (pp. 296-316). New York: Fordham University Press.

Roberts, R. C., & Watson, P.J. (2010). A Christian psychology view. In E. L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.; pp. 149-178). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., Hodge, D. R., & Perron, B. E. (2012). Religiosity profiles of American youth in relation to substance use, violence, and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1560-1575. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9761-z

Sandage, S. J. (2012). Relational spirituality, virtue, and psychotherapy: Pathways for integration. In P. J. Hampson, O. D. Crisp, G. D'Costa, & M. Davies (Eds.), Christianity and the disciplines: The transformation of the university. Religion and the university series: Vol 2 (pp. 135-150). New York: Continuum Press.

Sandage, S. J., & Brown, J. K. (2010). Monarchy or democracy in relational integration? A reply to Porter. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 29, 20-26.

Sandage, S. J., & Brown, J. K. (2012). Converging horizons for relational integration: Differentiation-based collaboration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 40, 72-76.

Sandage, S. J., & Brown, J. K. (2015). Relational integration, Part I: Differentiated relationality between psychology and theology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 43, 165-178.

Sandage, S. J., Crabtree, S., & Schweer, M. (2014). Differentiation of self and social justice commitment mediated by hope. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92, 67-74.

Sandage, S. J., & Harden, M. G. (2011). Relational spirituality, differentiation of self, and virtue as predictors of intercultural development. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 14, 819-838.

Sandage, S. J., & Jankowski, P.J. (2013). Spirituality, social justice, and intercultural competence: Mediator effects for differentiation of self. International Journal for Intercultural Relations, 37, 366-374.

Sandage, S. J., & Morgan, J. (2014). Hope and positive religious coping as predictors of social justice commitment. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 17, 557-567.

Schreinder, T. R. & Ware, B. A. (2000). Still sovereign: Contemporary perspectives on election, foreknowledge, and grace. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Shults, F. L., & Sandage, S.J. (2006). Transforming spirituality : Integrating theology and psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Sorenson, R. C. (1981). Evangelical seminarians philosophies of human nature and theological beliefs. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 33-38.

Stassen, G. H., & Gushee, D. P. (2003). Kingdom ethics: Following Jesus in contemporary context. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Thorsen, D. (2008). An exploration of Christian theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Vesely-Flad, R. (2011). The social covenant and mass incarceration: Theologies of race and punishment. Anglican Theological Review, 93, 541-562.

Ware, B. (2007). Summaries of the egalitarian and complementarian positions. Retrieved from: summaries-of-the-egalitarian-and-complementarian-positions/

Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Sandage, S. J. (2015). Forgiveness and spirituality: A relational approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wright, R., Jones, P., & Strawn, B. D. (2014). Tradition-based integration. In E. D. Bland & B. D. Strawn (Eds.), Christianity and psychoanalysis: A new conversation (pp. 37-54). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Author Note: Steven J. Sandage, Boston University; Peter J. Jankowski, Bethel University; Sarah A. Crabtree, University of Minnesota; Maria L. Schweer-Collins, University of Oregon. Corresponding Author: Steven J. Sandage, Ph.D., Albert and Jessie Danielsen Institute, Boston University, 185 Bay State Rd. Boston, MA 02215. Email: Phone: 617-353-3047. Fax: 617-353-5539.

Author Information

SANDAGE, STEVEN J. PhD. Address: 185 Bay State Rd, Boston, MA 02215. Title: Albert and Jessie Danielsen Professor of Psychology of Religion and Theology, Boston University; Research Director and Staff Psychologist, Albert and Jessie Danielsen Institute; Visiting Faculty in Psychology of Religion, MF Norwegian School of Theology. Degrees: BS (Psychology), Iowa State University; MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; MA and PhD (Counseling Psychology), Virginia Commonwealth University. Specializations: Spirituality and Psychotherapy, Positive Psychology, Integration of Psychology and Theology, Couple and Family Therapy, Intercultural Competence.

JANKOWSKI, PETER J. PhD. Address: Bethel University, St. Paul, MN. Title: Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology Program. Degrees: BA (Psychology), Grace College; MS (Applied Family and Child Studies), Northern Illinois University; MA (Specialized Ministry) Grace Theological Seminary; PhD (Marriage and Family Therapy), Texas Tech University. Other Professional Work: Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (MN), Licensed Professional Counselor (MN), Clinical Fellow and Approved Supervisor, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Specializations: Differentiation-based Spirituality, Religion and Men's Violence Against Women, Religiousness and College Students' Hazardous Alcohol Use, Positive Psychology, and Clinical Decision Making.

CRABTREE, SARAH A. PhD. Address: University of Minnesota, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Ave. St Paul, MN 55108. Title: PhD Candidate, Licensed Associate Marriage and Family Therapist (MN). Degrees: BA (Communication Studies), Bethel University; MA (Marriage and Family Therapy), Bethel University. Specializations: Religion and Spirituality, Couple Relationships, Divorce Decision-Making, Families and Substance Abuse.

SCHWEER-COLLINS, MARIA L. PhD. Address: 339 East 3rd Alley Apt C, Eugene, OR 97401. Title: PhD student in Prevention Science, University of Oregon. Degrees: M.Ed (Prevention Science), University of Oregon; MA (Marriage and Family Therapy), Bethel University. Specializations: Childhood Development of Self-regulation, Stress Physiology, Parent-Child Co-regulation, Couple and Family Therapy, Differentiation, Bowen Theory.

Steven J. Sandage

Boston University

Peter J. Jankowski

Bethel University

Sarah A. Crabtree

University of Minnesota

Maria L. Schweer-Collins

University of Oregon
Estimated Means on Input Variables and Outcomes

                         Cluster 1            Cluster 2
                          (n = 64)             (n = 57)

Input Variables
Complementarianism    46.31 (7.98) (a)     21.30 (7.01) (b)
Calvinism             48.70 (6.46) (a)     39.56 (5.12) (b)

Outcome Variables
Egalitarianism (+)    19.48 (5.86)         28.91 (5.31)
                      19.81 (5.26) (a)     28.71 (5.19) (b)
Arminian              38.00 (9.75) (a)     41.32 (6.68) (b)
IHES                  27.66 (6.68) (a)     24.04 (7.03) (b)
SJC                   13.80 (3.33) (a)     15.77 (3.23) (b)
ICC                   11.38 (2.18) (a)     12.35 (1.60) (b)
RE                    23.80 (5.76) (a)     25.00 (6.33) (a,b)
FMS (+)               61.91 (7.19)         63.00 (7.40)
                      62.53 (7.85) (a)     62.62 (7.75) (a)
FMS-H (+)             14.88 (3.22)         16.19 (2.84)
                      15.02 (3.33) (a)     16.11 (3.28) (a)
FMS-V (+)             47.03 (5.41)         47.11 (5.60)
                      47.50 (5.75) (a)     46.83 (5.68) (a,b)
DTS (+)              103.81 (13.80)        99.19 (20.99)
                     105.31 (18.31) (a)    98.29 (18.08) (b)

                          Cluster 3             Cluster 4
                           (n = 57)              (n = 49)

Input Variables
Complementarianism    41.88 (8.83) (c)      18.67 (5.48) (b)
Calvinism             30.51 (6.54) (a)      24.37 (5.30) (d)

Outcome Variables
Egalitarianism (+)    22.26 (5.38)          31.14 (7.03)
                      22.29 (5.16) (c)      30.91 (5.19) (d)
Arminian              42.53 (7.05) (b)      41.31 (6.21) (b)
IHES                  25.05 (6.04) (b,c)    21.76 (5.52) (d)
SJC                   13.33 (3.79) (a)      16.53 (3.39) (b)
ICC                   11.21 (2.05) (a)      12.50 (1.65) (b)
RE                    23.56 (6.68) (a)      26.88 (5.89) (b)
FMS (+)               58.58 (9.52)          63.53 (7.12)
                      58.63 (7.70) (b)      63.09 (7.76) (a)
FMS-H (+)             14.25 (3.65)          15.82 (3.40)
                      14.26 (3.26) (a,b)    15.71 (3.29) (a,c)
FMS-V (+)             44.86 (6.80)          47.95 (5.08)
                      44.90 (5.64) (b)      47.62 (5.68) (a,c)
DTS (+)              104.26 (17.17)         82.23 (20.19)
                     104.39 (17.98) (a,b)   81.17 (18.11) (c)

                     Cohen's d

Input Variables

Outcome Variables
Egalitarianism (+)
Arminian              .40-.53
IHES                  .41-.96
SJC                   .70-.90
ICC                   .51-.69
RE                       .53
FMS (+)
FMS-H (+)
FMS-V (+)
DTS (+)

Note: Standard deviations in parentheses. Least Significant
Difference pairwise comparisons. IHES = Interpersonal Hierarchy
Expectation Scale. SJC = social justice commitment. ICC =
Intercultural Competence Commitment. RE = religious exploration.
FMS = Faith Maturity Scale, FMS-H = Faith Maturity
Scale--horizontal dimension, FMS-V = Faith Maturity Scale--vertical
dimension. DTS = Defensive Theology Scale. Means with different
superscripts are significantly different between clusters at the
.05 level, reading from left to right for comparison across
columns. Mean differences on the variables were derived using
ANOVA/ANCOVAs based on the cluster variable created during the
cluster analysis as the independent variable and outcome measures
as the dependent variables in those analyses. (+) ANCOVA, with
gender as covariate; pairwise comparisons based on estimated
marginal means. Cohen's d calculated based on Lakens (2013).
COPYRIGHT 2017 Rosemead School of Psychology
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Sandage, Steven J.; Jankowski, Peter J.; Crabtree, Sarah A.; Schweer-Collins, Maria L.
Publication:Journal of Psychology and Theology
Date:Mar 22, 2017
Previous Article:Development of the experiences of humility scale.
Next Article:Penal substitutionary atonement and concern for suffering: an empirical study.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |