The role of the person in interpreting the Bible and integrating psychology and theology has always been problematic. Some approaches emphasize personal, subjective experience. Others emphasize objective biblical truth. This article attempts to show the importance and difficulty in communicating balance of the two extremes. Critiques of my prior attempts to bring personal experience back into the equation are evaluated—in terms of biblical interpretation that is first, dominated by and second, free from personal experience. It is concluded that God himself has put both Scripture and the person at the heart of interpretation and integration. We dare not remove either one.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BestE. (1972). A commentary on the first and second epistles to the Thessalonians.New York: Harper & Row.
2.
BookmanD. (1994). The Scriptures and biblical counseling. In MacArthurJ. F.Jr., MackW. A. & the Master's College Faculty. Introduction to biblical counseling (ch. 4) Dallas, TX: Word.
3.
ClintonS. M. (1990). A critique of integration models. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 13–20.
4.
FarnsworthK. E. (1982). The conduct of integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 10, 308–319.
5.
FarnsworthK. E. (1985). Wholehearted integration: Harmonizing psychology and Christianity through word and deed.Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
6.
FarnsworthK. E. (1990). Understanding religious experience and putting it to the test. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 9, 56–64.
7.
FarnsworthK. E., AlexanianJ. M., & IversonJ. D. (1983). Integration and the culture of rationalism: Reaction to responses to “the conduct of integration,” part II. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 349–352.
8.
HarrisR. L., ArcherG. L.Jr., & WaltkeB. K. (Eds.). (1980). Theological wordbook of the Old Testament (Vols. 1, 2). Chicago: Moody.
9.
HolmesA. F. (1983). Contours of a world view.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
