Psychological Exploration of Human Understanding of Divine Realities: From Well-Being to Imagination

Abstract

This editorial introduces the empirical and theoretical works in this special issue, which examine questions about how people conceive of and think about divine realities, emotional and intellectual understandings of the divine, and the relationship between God representations and outcomes such as coping, health, faith development and leadership, and artistic expression. These examples are situated within a broader conversation about the tensions, concerns, opportunities and benefits of cross-disciplinary research between psychology and theology, including mutual theoretical refinement and exchange of methods, and the research posture involved in developing successful research. Key among these is the value of a researching community to which we suggest this special edition contributes in a modest way, especially through curating roundtable discussions on the two themes of “Cultural and psychological resources for well-being” and “Imagining the Divine and the implications for practice.” This editorial aims to illuminate entryways for scholars thinking about the challenges and features of research across these disciplines and support the emergence and growth of new researchers working at this frontier.

Welcome to this double special issue of the Journal of Psychology and Theology, titled “Understanding Human Conceptions of Divine Realities: Exploring the Intersection between Psychology and Theology.” The empirical and theoretical works in this special issue examine questions about how people conceive of and think about divine realities, emotional and intellectual understandings of the divine, and the relationship between God representations and outcomes such as coping, health, faith development and leadership, and artistic expression. The inspiration for this special issue comes from a John Templeton Foundation–funded program designed to cross-train theologians in psychological science. The members of the editorial team served as the project’s core researchers (more about the project itself can be found here: https://crosstrainingpsychologyandtheology.com). The primary goal of the project was to better equip theologians to conduct psychology-engaged theological research, ensuring that contemporary theology is informed by the latest psychological data, methods, and theories. Although our project was focused on theologians engaging with psychology, we believe that the benefits of engagement across disciplines are not unidirectional; psychology has much to learn from theology as well. Both disciplines share deep interests in the human condition and religious experience. Thus, the articles featured in this special issue are specifically at the intersection of psychology and theology, incorporating methods and/or insights from both fields. We hope that the themes explored in this collection will be of interest to scholars investigating religious/spiritual practices and well-being, as well as those assessing the theological meanings and imaginaries of ritual, liturgy, scripture, and other texts.

This double special issue contains two themes: “Cultural and psychological resources for well-being” (Volume 1) and “Imagining the divine and the implications for practice” (Volume 2). For each of these volumes, the first authors of the articles and the editorial team took part in roundtable-style discussions on the respective theme. These collaborative exchanges delve into the specific themes of the issue and explore the broader integration of psychology and theology. We intend for these roundtables and this editorial to illuminate entryways for scholars thinking about the challenges and features of research across these disciplines and support the emergence and growth of new researchers working at this frontier. We will draw on the articles as well as the roundtables for our discussion below.

Forms and Methods

What became clear, both from our cross-training program and from the articles we received as part of this special issue, is that there are many novel methods that research at the intersection of psychology and theology can deploy, and the results take different forms. Theoretical engagement provides a method to introduce new perspectives into the established frameworks of both psychology and theology. Examining a discipline through the lens of another’s theories or approaches can help scholars broaden and redevelop their own paradigms, as demonstrated by Perez (2026), who drew on psychological studies of suffering and resilience to evaluate a theological model of compassionate theodicy, and by Callizo et al. (2026), who integrated theological insights from Catholic confession to expand on the latest psychological theories of divine forgiveness perception.

Relatedly, empirical research methods offer tools to translate abstract theological concepts into concrete hypotheses that can be tested, validated, and expanded upon. This special issue features a rich array of research designs, ranging from quantitative studies, such as Taylor et al. (2026) on God attributes and personal aspirations, and Tanton et al. (2026) on conceptualizing God in nature, to qualitative inquiries, including Łazarewicz-Wyrzykowska (2026) on God’s where-being and contemplative prayer, Waite (2026) on clinicians’ perspectives on religious experience, and Kašparová (2026) on Christian artists’ visualization of the divine. Finally, Bixler et al. (2026) employ a mixed-methods design to explore attachment and adolescent faith development. Theology has been developing its empirical interface with social sciences for some time, both in the sense of the particular model of “empirical theology” (van der Ven, 1988) and in practical theology more broadly. Intersections with psychology can provide additional methods, tools, and resources that will continue to diversify and complexify how theologians conceptualize and conduct their research.

Moreover, intersections with theological insights can help psychologists to refine their methods for particular uses or populations. Dow’s (2026) research on the God- and self-representations of people with intellectual disabilities shows how psychological tools can be adapted for use with specific populations, to elevate their voices and perspectives. The pastoral experience some theologians hold can inform psychological investigations and in the case of Dow gesture toward differences in apparently shared vocabulary.

It should be noted that although we have largely spoken of psychology and theology as monolithic, perhaps static, disciplines, these fields of study might be better understood as multifaceted and dynamic heritages. Within each of these heritages, there are distinct streams of intellectual thought and tradition. Reading a clinical psychological paper will be a very different experience from a social psychological one. Reading a systematic theology paper will be very different from reading a Biblical studies paper.

These internal differences are not mere preferences: they represent varying theoretical frameworks, skills, techniques, and training. Consequently, a scholar’s position within a broader discipline carries certain assumptions and commitments that often shape the research questions they pursue. While engaging with the theoretical or methodological insights from a particular subdiscipline or heritage of theology or psychology can be profoundly inspiring, it can also fundamentally alter, threaten, or even constrain one’s work. Thus, it is important for engagement across disciplines to avoid “shallow waters”; deep engagement and conversations across disciplines can help to avoid the frustrations and pitfalls of misunderstanding or misalignment. In particular, working with colleagues who are immersed in the other discipline can help with this issue, whether that is through official collaboration or mentorship, or through less formal arrangements. The key is to find conversation partners who are motivated to navigate difficult and occasionally frustrating exchanges (where languages might be used differently, or theories and disciplinary norms misunderstood) to push through to the vital insights waiting at the intersection of these disciplines.

What Does it Take to Do This Kind of Work?

As noted above, cross-disciplinary research presents distinct challenges, yet cultivating particular values or virtues can guide researchers pursuing this type of work. The characteristics highlighted here are largely taken from our roundtable discussions, and although we outline the core values for successful collaborative work, we intend this to be a starting point rather than an exhaustive list.

Perhaps the most fundamental values are curiosity and open-mindedness. One must be curious about another discipline’s approaches, theories, methods, and norms, to be motivated to engage with it. For example, we might wonder how scholars in another field conduct their research and how their findings might dovetail with our own. We may be curious about the particular lenses through which they view “big questions” and how these may align with or diverge from our own perspectives. This curiosity is an initial driver of engagement. In addition, to be willing to engage deeply, we must be open-minded. If we stay resolutely within our usual “ways of doing things,” we will likely fail to see how another discipline’s insights and practices could enrich our own work. Keeping an open mind helps to lower the barriers that may emerge when we encounter new and unfamiliar paradigms.

Another set of paired virtues is humility and empathy. Humility here indicates a recognition of one’s own limitations, by having an understanding that one’s own perspective is necessarily limited and fallible. Humility allows us to see past our own views and recognize that others’ perspectives may also be valuable, interesting, and even helpful in terms of “rounding out” our understanding of phenomena. By empathy, on the other hand, we mean a recognition and appreciation of the limitations of others. When we are learning about a new field, we often learn about it in the abstract – detached from the difficult trade-offs and choices that researchers face in practice (e.g., falling short of a target sample size, having to work with a scale that very imperfectly measures a construct of interest, or confronting the limits of what a theological argument can claim). By focusing on empathy, we can have an appreciation for the limitations and practicalities that may constrain others’ research, keeping it from being the “perfect” ideal. This allows us to engage with the research as it is, rather than being frustrated or discouraged.

Nevertheless, conducting research outside of one’s familiar patterns and habits inevitably invites logistical, conceptual, and methodological complications. For example, small theological colleges might not have ethics boards to approve empirical research studies. In addition, researchers may encounter translation issues with different uses of terms across disciplines or confront hidden epistemological assumptions while engaging with literature from another discipline. Navigating these frustrations takes perseverance – pushing through the difficulties and finding a way forward in an unfamiliar environment. Creativity may be required to adapt to changing circumstances and unfamiliar disciplinary norms. It is rarely feasible (or even appropriate) to completely abandon one’s former research practices and adopt those of a different discipline wholesale. Rather, research at the intersection of disciplines often requires scholars to be creative and develop novel approaches that will best serve their goals.

Sustaining this work also requires a commitment to building a constructive community − a value directly linked to having conversation partners mentioned earlier. Theology, in particular, tends to be a discipline where it is usual to write individually, though developing forms of dialogue on the page by engaging critically with others’ work. However, when doing work at the intersection of disciplines it is important to (a) be able to get input from experts outside of one’s own expertise, and (b) develop a community of researchers committed to doing work at that intersection. Doing this work can be challenging and intense, so having other researchers to discuss ideas with, test against technical expertise and be inspired by is integral to doing multi-disciplinary work well. We conceive this in terms of community as a way to emphasize collaboration above competition. Furthermore, precisely because this work can be challenging and intense, it is important to cultivate the value of love. Such a value might be seen though the focus on the populations we are attending to and working with, seeking to amplify their voices or uncover new answers. It shapes our commitment to excellent research and drives our vocational motivation. Ultimately, love may be the answer to the key reflexive question: What brings us to a particular piece of work?

We hope that this special issue and others like it represent a prompt to consider these convictions and build those bonds. The special issue aimed to accomplish some community building in a modest way, and the two roundtable papers are one illustration of how to form new scholarly connections.

How Psychology Informs Theology

There is perhaps more work that has been done on how psychology informs theology than the other way around, due to the proliferation of research and theory regarding science-engaged theology (Perry & Leidenhag, 2023). Barrett (2022), writing specifically on psychology-engaged theology (or “Theopsych”), has identified four occasions in particular when theologians might benefit from engaging with psychological science: (a) making descriptive psychological claims; (b) making normative claims supported by psychological claims; (c) making claims about the effects texts, rituals, and practices might have on people; and (d) constructing an argument that uses intuitions as premises (pp. 13–23). These are helpful as starting points. The remainder of this section will elaborate on the tangible benefits that theologians might gain by engaging with psychology, as demonstrated by the articles and roundtable discussions within this special issue.

The first benefit is the rigorous empirical testing of ideas or theories. Theologians may have specific hypotheses regarding how theological ideas or concepts manifest in daily life. Social sciences offer methodological tools to gather evidence for or against those theories, and this special edition demonstrates that with psychology. For example, Taylor et al.’s (2026) research on the link between God representations and self-aspirations benefited from using quantitative psychological research methods and the psychological concept of the Michelangelo phenomenon as a conversation partner. Likewise, Tanton et al.’s (2026) research provides empirical scrutiny of ecotheological theories regarding conceptualizations of God/Nature overlap. The more that such research goes forward, the more theologians may be prompted to interrogate their assumptions about practices and communities as hypotheses that can be scrutinized and evidenced (see further discussion in Watanabe et al., 2025).

The second benefit might be framed as psychology serving as a “hearing aid” for theological inquiry. There are at least two ways in which this dynamic might be manifested. The first is using psychological theories and vocabulary to attend to and interpret theological concerns. Bixler et al.’s (2026) intervention for Christian caregivers is an excellent example of this. While their project was rooted in theological questions regarding caregiving and faith formation, they used attachment theory to ground their analytical approach. Second, although many theologians are committed to lifting up the voices of marginalized or vulnerable populations, and traditional fora for theological dialogue are shifting to reflect that (e.g., Goto, 2018; Radford, 2022 and reflections on recent practical developments on synodality such as Clifford, 2026), it can still be difficult to do so within the traditional methods and approaches of theology. Theologians therefore might use psychological tools to amplify these voices in a sympathetic and systematic way. The emerging interest in theology on the character of trauma and the role of trauma-informed practice may be an important example here (e.g., O’Donnell & Cross, 2022). Being a “hearing aid,” however, does not mean that psychological theories and tools should necessarily be adopted without critique or reflection. Dow’s (2026) research provides an excellent example of this balance, showing that while psychological research tools are useful, they may need to be adapted to enable meaningful engagement with, and insights into, the beliefs and experiences of particular groups (c.f. Henrich et al., 2016).

The third benefit is the cross-fertilization of theological and psychological concepts and theories, leading to their refinement. Theologians may be interested in or engaging with similar constructs to those used in psychological research, where its theories and concepts may add specificity and structure to theological ideas. Perez’s work is an excellent example of this, addressing the theological concept of Compassionate Theodicy through psychological models of meaning-making and suffering. Our roundtable discussions of embodiment and creativity (Daughton et al., 2026) illustrate how such theological concepts are illuminated by psychological examination. Reflection on the theological significance of distinct elements like memory, or desire, is made possible or reangled because of the insights that psychological study uncovers and examines. More widely in the discipline we see examples like Simeon Zahl’s work on doctrinal development informed by Affect Theory (Zahl, 2020).

Finally, psychology’s particular focus on the “human” can help to elucidate people’s actual beliefs and experiences. These beliefs and experiences might be lost (or at least difficult to hear) in some iterations of theological discourse, particularly if it is more focused on doctrine. In fact, examining operant beliefs present in practices reveals theological meaning, which as Clare Watkins has observed is already part of the long development of doctrine within communal discernment (Watkins, 2020). In this double issue Kašparová’s (2026) research on Christian artists’ representations of the Divine, for example, shifts the focus from traditional iconography to the dynamic theological imaginings of her participants’ lived experience. Łazarewicz-Wyrzykowska’s (2026) work introduces complexity into the reception of the doctrine of God by way of self-understanding of prayer among believers.

How Theology Informs Psychology

As we noted above, much of the discourse on the intersection of these disciplines has focused on psychology-engaged theology. We contend that theology can also inform psychology, and there is meaningful scope to further expand what this could look like. First, theology’s alternative vocabulary can help provide additional insight into psychological findings. This alternative vocabulary can add to our understanding of people’s perspectives, as it may more adequately reflect how people think about and discuss particular concepts, beliefs, or experiences in their daily lives. This is particularly relevant when thinking about applications such as the treatment of mental illness, in which understanding the specific religious belief systems and expectations that patients hold is essential. For example, Waite (2026) notes that although clinicians often have the desire to be culturally and religiously sensitive in their treatment, they can lack the confidence and vocabulary to do so effectively. This already suggests that practitioners – and researchers – may be helped to a fuller awareness of assumptions they may be unconsciously bringing to their work, and to a deeper attention to context, through religious literacy.

Theology can also provide critical feedback on psychological frameworks, which are often derived from specific samples yet assumed to be generalizable, guiding us toward more inclusive models. Callizo et al.’s (2026) research valuably demonstrates this dynamic, illustrating how existing psychological theories may need to be refined and empirically tested to ensure that they are inclusive of theological nuances and cultural variations (i.e., with Spanish-speaking Catholics’ perceptions of divine forgiveness in the context of Confession). Such deeper engagement and critique show how theology can inform psychology, reflecting both fields’ shared goal to elevate the voices of marginalized or vulnerable populations. By integrating the more emic-focused research methods common in theology, psychologists can highlight the experiences of those often dismissed as “outliers” in their data, helping us understand the full spectrum of human experience as a result.

Finally, theology’s emphasis on reflexivity in the research process offers an important perspective for psychology, as highlighted in the first roundtable discussion (Watanabe et al., 2026). Practical theology often includes insider research, and methods of autoethnography and life-writing play a growing role in the field. Consequently, attention to reflexivity as a driver, but also as a critical tool of scrutiny in research, has grown as well, though with important cautionary commentary (Walton, 2025). By contrast, psychology has long prized objectivity, even tending toward suspicion of “me-search,” or identity-related research in which one may have a subjective stake (Rios & Roth, 2020). There is a longer discussion to have in contrasting these two paradigms – is objectivity superior? Is it possible? – but we can begin by pointing to the value of the expectation of reflexivity that theology introduces, with its associated research practices. There are already practices in the psychology research field that aim at mitigating bias, particularly when it comes to methodology, data analysis, and publishing practices (Kavanagh & Kapitány, 2021; Korbmacher et al., 2023), but rarely do these involve introspection regarding a researcher’s own assumptions and subjective perspectives. Such a task is integral to the reflexive models that practical theology supplies, and examples of reflexivity are evident throughout the papers in this special issue (e.g., Bixler et al., 2026; Dow, 2026; Kašparová, 2026; Łazarewicz-Wyrzykowska, 2026; Waite, 2026), which place one’s own perspective at the forefront of research. Such explicit self-reflexivity can also be integrated earlier in the research process, especially during the initial development of research agendas, questions, and interests. Psychologists may use self-reflexivity as an additional means for accountability as researchers and to contextualize the boundaries of their conclusions when conducting their research.

Concerns and Tensions

As with any two disciplines, conducting research at the intersection of psychology and theology risks “translation” difficulties. Many terms have specific meanings in one field that may be interpreted differently either in the context of the other discipline, or in everyday language. For example, “manipulation” has a specific, benign meaning within psychological experimental designs, but it might sound strange or even threatening in everyday contexts. Conversely, terms like “grace” that a non-theologian might understand as a human capacity for granting patience or time to oneself or others, carry a significant theological meaning that is qualitatively distinct, naming divine rather than human action.

Another tension lies in the extent to which generalizability is seen as a priority. As discussed during our second roundtable (Daughton et al., 2026), it can be difficult to balance the tension between psychology’s push to develop scales or models that apply across contexts and cultures, versus theology’s emphasis on having deeply contextual insights into the beliefs and experiences of particular populations. This contrast is clearly illustrated by Łazarewicz-Wyrzykowska’s (2026) work on contemplative prayer among Polish Catholics. Of course, psychologists also study specific populations, particularly within clinical psychology (e.g., to understand the experiences of individuals with particular disorders). As a general rule, however, there is more focus on generalizability in psychology, whereas theology leans toward the granular nuances and contexts when considering practices and communities.

There are also practical issues to consider when conducting research outside of one’s primary discipline. Navigating unfamiliar institutional ethics review procedures, meeting differing expectations for sample sizes (and securing the funding required for participant compensation), adapting to unfamiliar norms surrounding preregistration and data transparency, and learning the unspoken rules of publications all present major hurdles. Working on multi- or interdisciplinary teams may help to mitigate some of these challenges, but they do not eliminate them entirely. These practical concerns may lead to more existential concerns as well about where we fit into our “home” discipline, especially against peer scrutiny. To successfully bridge two distinct fields, researchers must bring creativity and originality to their work; however, such an innovative approach may be seen as problematic if it challenges accepted knowledge or disciplinary traditions.

Another underlying concern, discussed in the second roundtable (Daughton et al., 2026), involves research integrity and the distinct horizons of meaning-making against which each discipline operates. From the psychological perspective, clear boundaries exist regarding what empirical research can claim; for psychologists, the limits of what we can say about our findings is the human. For example, social psychologists may investigate people’s mental representations and experiences of God as being real to those individuals, without venturing into claims about the metaphysical or theological reality of God (see Luhrmann, 2020, and Orsi, 2006 for excellent discussions of this from different social scientific perspectives). Theologians, on the other hand, may see psychology as one of the ways to understand God’s influence in the world. While theologians will acknowledge that God is beyond human comprehension, they nevertheless seek to say something truthful about the basic structures of the world, knowledge, and God. How theologians use psychological insights to do that work comes with a responsibility not to overclaim beyond the proper limits of those insights.

At the same time, engaging in this kind of work risks “functionalizing” theology – intentionally finding ways to “use” what people believe to produce preferred outcomes, rather than seeking a more fundamental, theological truth, or indeed, attending to or making the case for the theological and moral significance of those outcomes. How should the truthfulness of psychologically informed research be responsibly handled when discussing theological claims about divine realities? The value frameworks of theological heritages here pose a critical question: Does interdisciplinary research at this intersection risk turning theological research into a mere lever to shape behavior rather than a way to deepen a theological account of the world?

The kinds of questions we raised through this section of concerns and tensions may be tackled in a range of different ways. This is terrain that is not impassable but requires deliberate and thoughtful navigation. Researchers can valuably attend to the purpose, values, and epistemology they are beginning with, before engaging in the cross-disciplinary journey.

The Shared Benefits When This Research Is Done Well

Although translation between disciplines can often be a source of tension, the other side of translation, as discussed in Roundtable 1, is “functional bilingualism” (Callizo in Watanabe et al., 2026). In this sense, the disciplines can act as corrective lenses for each other (e.g., preventing psychology from becoming purely mechanistic, or theology from becoming purely theoretical). By learning to “speak both languages,” researchers can bring these fields into conversation and grasp the nuances, similarities, and differences in how each approaches a given topic. Just as in spoken languages, certain concepts might be better articulated in one disciplinary language than another. Functional bilingualism is sharper than the idea of a “common language” because it retains the particularity of each discipline’s approach – a particularity which may be important for a deep, detailed understanding of how humans conceive of divine realities.

Furthermore, as discussed in Roundtable 2 (Daughton et al., 2026), our understanding of humanity has the potential to fundamentally change from the integration of these disciplines. There is the potential to gain new information about how people view the world. Being attentive to different populations, disciplinary languages, and perspectives can help us to see the full extent of humanity. This might be visualized as widening our scope, or as combining lines of sight to see new patterns as we consider people’s fundamentally different ways of understanding the world.

Finally, the research presented across these two volumes in this special issue illustrates how the integration of psychological and theological perspectives can support competencies on both sides. This may be with regard to professional practice in either field. For example, Callizo et al. (2026) establish a foundation from which guidance is being created to inform practice for Catholic priests on how to do confession in a psychologically healthy way (Rodríguez-González et al., 2025), while Waite (2026) highlights the need for mental health clinicians to be alert and reflective about context. Łazarewicz-Wyrzykowska (2026), Perez (2026), Taylor et al. (2026) also take up conceptions of divine realities that have the potential to inform pastoral practice in relation to prayer, self-development, and bereavement and suffering. Such outcomes may also take the form of the development and evaluation of specific integrative interventions, such as Bixler et al.’s (2026) Conectere program, which uses an attachment paradigm to support faith development. Tanton et al. (2026) also provide feedback to theologians on the utility of ecotheology, while Dow (2026) provides helpful examples of how to incorporate people with intellectual disabilities into psychological research paradigms. In all of these cases, it is specifically the integration of disciplinary theories and/or approaches that makes these insights possible.

Looking Forward

The research covered in this double special edition is expansive. It covers a wide range of methods, themes, and approaches at the integration of psychology and theology. The Roundtables, as well as discussions within many of the articles, provide insights into how to bring together these disciplines in an integrative way. However, the research presented across these two issues is only based on one particular theme of connection between psychology and theology: “Understanding Human Conceptions of Divine Realities: Exploring the Intersection between Psychology and Theology.” There are many other topic areas where this kind of disciplinary integration would be relevant, important, and welcomed. We encourage interested scholars to pursue research on this topic as well as to expand the repertoire of topics on which the integration of psychology and theology can deepen insights into the human experience.