wesley as model of intgration.

Compared to even ten years ago, integration seems to be a buzz word within many evangelical circles. Within Christian communities psychology appears to be more readily accepted now, as compared to a few years ago, and some Christian circles may even suggest psychology offers positive enhancement for the life of an individual. Partial evidence of this shift can be seen by the increase of counseling centers located within Christian communities and mental health services offered (and occasionally required) of Christian workers. While the historically negative stance of psychology within Christian circles may slowly be shifting to more of a neutral stance, or perhaps in some circles to an even slightly positive bent towards psychology, the fact remains that an exact methodology for integrating these two areas has not yet been fully articulated nor understood. As Porter mentions in the article, “Wesleyan Theological Methodology as a Theory of Integration,” the value and importance of integration in evangelicalism is evident, but the methodology to go about this integration of faith and psychology is much less understood. This seems like an important distinction, because instead of having to argue for the value of psychology or theology, the discussion begins at the point of examining how one begins to integrate these two fields of study. This feels like a much different starting point then perhaps a few decades ago would have required.
Porter outlines the Wesleyan quadrilateral theological methodology as a means of integration. The hierarchal system places Scripture as the foundational and authoritative basis, followed by tradition, reason, and finally, experience. While the Wesleyan method is offered as a model for integration of theology and psychology, ultimately it’s a methodology for approaching all of life. As a Christian, one first and foremost approaches life with a “Christian” lens (often an unorganized conglomerate of tradition, experience, Scripture, knowledge). However, as one is continual exposed to different ideologies (in this instance an increase of psychological theory and ideologies through study or experience), there will be a temptation to approach situations in life with a psychological lens. But with the acquisition of this new and developing psychological lens, does this definitely mean the Christian lens is discarded? A tension will begin emerge and swell between a psychological understanding and a “Christian” understanding. Basically one could enter a dichotomized view, to the degree possible, of either completely Christian or purely psychological. Perhaps it’s the messiness of balancing two differing viewpoints that evokes concern within Christian communities. These Christian communities advocate that Scripture holds the ultimate authority and therefore any other lens through which to view life is unnecessary, and therefore wading through messy tensions that emerge are avoidable hassles. But perhaps instead of seeing the world through two distinct lenses (psychological or theological), it can be understood as a completely new and integrated lens being developed.
Personally, the idea of these maturing lenses is an important distinction for me to make. Entering this rigorous graduate program I already feel as if I am being pushed to further develop this psychological lens of which to view life. I feel myself pushing back against diving too deep and too fast into viewing the world through this lens. A part of me fears that through the process of developing this psychological lens, I risk losing other lenses that have been developed to examine and understand the world around me. As mentioned previously, the Wesleyan methodology doesn’t just integrate psychology and theology, but offers the means of which to approach all of life. As a Christian, one could potentially approach life with only the psychological lens. However, it seems they would miss out on some of the richness and fullness that is offered through life in the Spirit. Maintaining only the Christian lens could truncate ones understanding of their experience and thus delude the richness of the Scripture and the life God has created.
Both lenses are needed, but a structure needs to be maintained and understood to sustain order. The Wesleyan model offers this order and structure of authority as a hierarchy of theological sources exists: Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. It seems to me that these four need to be the foundational basis, and psychology needs to be understood and sought after within this construct. The culture of Christianity in America causes me to question the strength of these foundational theological structures amongst the general population of Christians. It seems as if individuals approach other fields of study with a weak foundation of theological understanding, and therefore the lenses of other fields become incredibly developed, focused, and clear, while the lens of understanding God remains unchanged and thus increasingly irrelevant. Instead of approaching all of life as a means to understand and explore the creator God, lives are led in a dichotomized fashion. It is impossible to be merely culturally Christian and utilize this Wesleyan model of integration. This has to be a deeply lived and engrained approach to life. It’s not just theory and way of processing information, but it’s almost offering a way of being and receiving information.