The History of Psychology

October, 2003

by: Justin Erickson

The rise of psychology as we know it today, having been recognized as a scientific discipline, came at a very interesting time in the history of the world, in the mid to late 1800's, during a movement that arose known as “modernism.” This term is used to describe the western development of thought and technology. Simply, man is able to find answers to life in his higher learning. Rationalism was reborn as man again attempted to find answers in himself, from within.

Featured in modernism is the departure from that which is supernatural and the pervasion of secularism. The thinkers of the day were not pastors or theologians, but scientists (until the 1800's known as “natural philosophers”) and influential people like Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, etc. This led to the inevitable take over of universities and colleges by secularism, moving the religious discussions to the dining room table and the churches. As Johnson and Jones note, “with few exceptions religious considerations were dropped from public discourse” (Psychology and Christianity). So all that was discussed in the realm of education and learning was secular — no God. At the same exact time, another significant and influential development occurred in the history of the west — the application of the sciences once applied to bio logy, astronomy, physics, and chemistry to the study of human behavior and consciousness. They, whose secular presuppositions guided their study, turned to examine humans and "other animals" and that without reference to anything spiritual or supernatural. It is believed that this gave rise to modern psychology.

Four underlying assumptions pervaded this thinking. First, they assumed that religion and science are mutually exclusive and theology and belief systems do not operate in the realm of the objective. In other words, God and the Bible can be left out of the discussion because religion is separable from science. Second, the immaterial part of man can be examined with the same laws that govern the rest of the world. The subjective can be measured by objective criteria. Third, the answers to man, his reasonings, the inworkings of his soul are not sufficiently given in the Bible or in religion. If man is to understand himself and how he relates to the world around him, he must look beyond God to himself. Fourth, man is another animal. Studies on monkeys, birds, rats, and other species, who do not have souls, can render conclusions about man, who is more sophisticated.

With the rise of modernism came the birth of evolution. A human being was examined as a “thing to observe” to which the scientific method could be applied and yield deductions about him. As Darwin ascended with his anti–supernatural theories about the origin of the universe and its species, he attempted to evaluate man while stripping him of his soul. He and those after him sought to dissect subjective components of man such as his personality, his motives, his ambitions, his perception of events in history, his values and morality (all things that were not actually found in the rest of the natural world) with objective methods devoid of theology. His underlying assumption was that we must understand life in a world where there is no God.

Freud's hero was Darwin. He applied Darwin's theories about man to the realm of behavior. His answers to why man behaves the way he does rested in findings that excluded God and the Bible. Modern psychology is the worldview and birth child of evolution. Darwin opened the door, and in 1879, Wilhelm Wundt opened the first laboratory for the purpose of studying human behavior, whose work is commonly landmarked as the beginning of modern-day psychology from that year forward.

From that point in history, because the church was largely out of the conversation, universities were proliferated with psychology and evolutionary theories. The more widespread the influence, the more psychology and natural science became the authority, not the Bible. Psychologists sat in judgment upon the Bible and spirituality. Religion was studied under the watchful eye of objectivity, as a branch of psychology. In other words, religion became a subcategory of greater psychological study, and religious experiences were examined “empirically.”

As psychology took over colleges and universities, the church was relatively passive. Liberal churches and denominations absorbed this “new psychology” while the conservatives remained quiet. Many embraced it because of its apparent benefit to the study of theology. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church led the way in embracing psychology because of their heritage from Thomas Aquinas.

On the other hand, instead of engaging and confronting the movement, the evangelical conservatives dismissed it and were more concerned with evangelistic preaching, crusades, and missions. Coming to Christ was a preoccupation, to the exclusion of matters of sanctification and the health of the soul. The only ones addressing such matters were the psychologists and liberals, for the most part. There the movement gained a stronghold, and was allowed to spread with free reign.

Fundamentalism took a separatist approach against psychology, turned away from it, and in the 1920's and 30's began to establish Bible Colleges. Eventually, after WWII the conservatives began to readdress the issues of the well being of the soul, which led to the acceptance of psychology once again into the conservative Christian thinking, because the only authoritative voice in the culture was that of psychologists.

Conferences were designed to give a platform for dialogue in the matter of psychology with those who held a high view of Scripture. Psychologists converted to Christ and retained their practices, but peppered them with the Word of God. For many, it was the best of both worlds. Seminaries like Fuller Theological Seminary and graduate programs such as Rosemead School of Psychology were born in part because of the desire to provide advanced training in this newly married, “Christian Psychology.” Journals and magazines were published to advance psychology, all with the majority of the church on board.

Today, there are variances in the field of psychology. There are those who maintain secular psychology should refrain from religious studies, except as a psychological phenomenon. Others hold that Christians should distinguish between what is psychological and what is spiritual, so that they are not confused and co–mingled, yet both valued respectively. Still some believe that the commonality between Christianity and Psychology should be emphasized in order to show how they could work together for the health of the soul. Yet others, a small percentage believe that Psychology has no place in the thinking of a Christian because it makes no real lasting contribution and the Bible is sufficient to deal with the matters that Psychology attempts to address. This is where the battle now rages.