(Note: for a pdf file of this blog post, see this link: Tim Chambers, Crabb’sModel of Christian Psychology)
Crabb’s
Model of Christian Psychology
By:
Tim Chambers (email: teddycham97@gmail.com)
September
2020
(A) Introduction:
If the Bible is a reliable source of truth, then this would carry some
intriguing consequences for our understanding of human psychology. As a sample,
consider the following verses:
·
Jeremiah 17:9-10: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who
can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every
man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”
·
2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things
are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
·
Ephesians 4:22-24: “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which
is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of
your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness.”
·
Romans 12:2 “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect, will of God.”
·
Philippians 4:6-7: “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of
God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through
Christ Jesus.”
·
Romans 7:22-23: “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another
law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin which is in my member.”.
·
John 8:34: “Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin.”
What functional model of
human psychology could validate such verses? This essay sketches and examines
one such model, proposed by Christian counselor Lawrence J. Crabb, Jr., (Crabb
1977). Along the way, we’ll see how Crabb’s model offers psychological accounts
of the above verses. We then conclude this essay with some questions and
closing remarks.
(B) Crabb’s Model:
(1) Non-Materialism:
Unsurprisingly, Crabb’s Christian view of the mind includes a commitment to a
non-physical aspect of the mind’s functioning: “I am not what is called a
physicalistic reductionist…Emotion is more than glandular functioning. Thinking
is more than neurobiological activity in the brain…I do not believe that how we
think, act, and feel as persons can be explained completely in terms of
physical correlations” (87). This gives rise to a number of predictable
philosophical questions—How does the mind’s non-physical part cause changes in
the brain’s physical parts? Is Crabb likewise a non-materialist concerning
animal minds?—which we’ll leave alone. Our main concern is with Crabb’s “flow
chart”-anatomy of the mind and its functional workings.
(2) Anatomy
of the Mind and Functional Model: Crabb’s model consists of five main
parts, which interact to give rise to human thought, behavior, and emotion—and,
more specifically, can be used to give psychological content to some of the
Bible-verses, above:
(a) The
Conscious Mind: Crabb describes the activities of the conscious mind as
involving “talk[ing] to ourselves in sentences,” including the making of
“evaluations” of “external events” (88-89).[1] Notably, “evaluations”
include moral judgments (90).
This ability of the conscious mind to
evaluate “external events” has emotional significance, since Crabb (following,
for instance, (Ellis 2009: 479-526)) claims that “events do not control my
feelings. My mental evaluation of
events (the sentences I tell myself)…affect how I feel” (89).
One clarification: Thought Crabb speaks of
the “conscious mind,” this doesn’t entail that we’re always aware of the
goings-on in the conscious mind: “I may not always notice the sentences I am
telling myself, but I am responding in verbal form, nevertheless (89); rather,
events in the conscious mind are “conscious” in the subjunctive sense that, “if I paid attention to my mind, I could
observe what sentences I am using to evaluate this event” (89).
(b) The
Unconscious Mind: Intriguingly, Crabb (“tentatively”) suggests that the
unconscious mind can be modeled on a careful reading of the Greek word, phromena. On this understanding, the
unconscious mind is described as “a part of personality which develops and
holds on to deep, reflective assumptions” (91), or, more specifically: “the
unconscious part of mental functioning [is] the
reservoir of basic assumptions which people firmly and emotionally hold about
how to meet their needs of significance and security” (91, emphasis in
original). These “basic assumptions,” Crabb avers, are best identified as
“attitudes…[which] have affective (emotional) as well as cognitive components”
(95).
On Crabb’s view, these “basic assumptions”
are not neutral in character: “Each of us,” he posits, “has been programmed [by
the “unbelieving world”[2]] to believe that
happiness, worth, joy—all the good things of life—depend on something other
than God…[and that] we can…achieve true personal worth and social harmony
without kneeling first at the cross of Christ…[and that] something other than
God offers personal reality and fulfillment” (91-92).
As noted before, Crabb’s model echoes
Albert Ellis’s “ABC model” in that Crabb locates a number of dysfunctional
assumptions in the unconscious mind, for instance (93):
·
“I
must be a financial success in order to be significant.”
·
“I
must not be criticized if I am to be secure.”
·
“Others
must recognize my abilities if I am to be significant.”
Owing to such unhealthy
assumptions, Crabb adds, “it is no wonder that many people are anxious, guilty,
or resentful” (93).
Yet while these implicit assumptions guide
much of human behavior, they are “unconscious” in a striking sense: bringing
these assumptions to conscious light requires supernatural intervention:
Scripture
teaches that we are masters of self-deception and that we require supernatural
help to see ourselves as we really are (Jer. 17:9-10)[3]” (95). Honest and accurate
exploration of the inner chambers of one’s personal being is the special
prerogative of God. Christian counseling at this point depends critically upon
the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit. Without His assistance, no one will
perceive or accept the truth about his self-centered and wrong approach to life
(95).
(c) Basic
Direction (“Heart”): By “heart,” Crabb doesn’t seem to have in mind any
particular part of human personality,
but rather orientation of “the human personality as a whole” (97).
Specifically, Crabb’s idea of “heart” seems to be a kind of center-of-gravity of the human
“rationality, moral judgment, emotions, [and] will” (97).
The “heart,” under
Crabb’s understanding, has one of two orientations: self-centered and God-centered;
it “represents a person’s fundamental intentions: for whom or what do I choose
to live?” Do I “live for self or live for God”? The former orientation, “which we all
naturally do,” means that you “are left to yourself … in meeting your personal
needs.” On the other hand, if “your basic intention is, by God’s grace, to put
Christ first and serve Him…, then you can reject
all of the world’s ideas on how to become worthwhile…and you can start
filling your conscious mind with the truths of Scripture” (97-98). For an
illustration of this difference, contrast the two pictures in Figure 1, below,
on page 12. Note, too, that this offers an interpretation for the oft-quoted
Bible-verse 2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore
if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new,” and the imperative to “put on the new
man” in the 4th chapter of Ephesians.
This, then, is Crabb’s view of the
psychological difference between non-Christians and “saved” Christians. The
Christian, on this view, is that the Christian has “two sources of input into
the conscious mind: what Satan says through the world to our unconscious mind
and what God says through the Bible to our conscious mind” (97). As a result,
the Christian is often conscious of two ways to make a moral decision: one
self-serving (the result of world-inculcated selfish attitudes in the
unconscious), the other God-serving (the result of conscious study of the
Bible). (And Christians, as per Romans 12:2, are to opt against the selfish,
“worldly,” choice by “renewing one’s mind” with Scripture.) Non-Christians,
however, lack the latter, Biblical, source of guidance; thus, the
non-Christian, on Crabb’s view, lives only to serve himself and “[a]ll [his]
components…work together…toward the sinful goal of self-exaltation” (97).
(d) Will:
Crabb’s understanding of the will is familiar: it is the “capacity for choosing
how to behave” (100). The behavior-options available to the will are, in turn,
“restricted by the limits of his rational understanding” (100)—i.e., the truths
believed by the conscious mind, plus the attitude engendered by the unconscious
mind. Of course, these two sources can often be expected to conflict in the
(Bible-immersed) Christian, on Crabb’s model. Suppose, for instance, a
Christian is gratuitously insulted by a passer-by. The Christian’s “selfish”
unconscious can be expected to kick up a desire to retaliate for the insult.
But, thanks to the Christian’s Bible-immersion, her conscious mind also calls
up a Biblical response to the situation: “But
I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). Needless to say, the
Christian, despite her Biblical immersion, might find it difficult to overrule
her unconscious selfish attitude, and forbear from retaliating: “It often
involves teeth-gritting effort to choose to behave as we should” (101).
(e)
Emotions: But of course, people aren’t like the “purely logical” Vulcans
found on Star Trek. We are creature
with emotions and feelings, and no psychological model can be complete without
accounting for them and their causal role in our psychological lives.
On Crabb’s model, emotions have two main
functions. First, following Albert Ellis, Crabb views emotions to be caused by (our conscious and unconscious
evaluations of) events—recall §§(a)-(b), above. The second function of emotions
is that they motivate behavior—as when we act vengefully out of a feeling of
resentment, or act charitably out of a feeling of compassion.
Crabb also hastens to clarify the roles of
negative emotions in the Christian life. “Christianity was never intending to
be one laugh after another,” Crabb declare, “[w]e all feel bad sometimes. And
all ‘bad’ feeling are not morally bad” (103). To the contrary: a feeling is
sinful, on Crabb’s view, only if it is “mutually exclusive with compassion”
(103). Thus, the emotions of depression, crippling guilt, resentment and
anxiety are “sinful,” since in their leading to self-absorption, they crowd out
a feeling of compassion for others—and motivate sinful behavior (104-105). On
the other hand, anguish, “constructive sorrow,” anger, “motivated discontent,”
and sorrow are not sinful—since they can motivate virtuous behavior such as
(respectively) soul-searching, changing one’s behavior, rebuking sin (as when
Jesus expelled the moneychangers from the Temple (Matthew 21:12-17)), changing
intolerable circumstances, or forward-planning (104-105).
Pictures help, so we can see how Crabb’s
psychological portraits of the non-believer and the Christian believer are
contrasted at Figure 1, below.
(C) Questions and
Concluding Remarks:
As we’ve seen, Crabb’s model is
well-organized, elegant and allows for psychological interpretations of various
Biblical statements involving human psychology. And yet, Crabb’s model suggests
some questions. We turn to them now, followed by some concluding remarks.
(1) Questions:
(a) Re: The Conscious Mind:
(Q1)
Crabb describes the contents of the conscious mind as “sentences” or
“propositions.” But it appears there are ample non-linguistic contents of our
streams-of-consciousness. For instance, I might entertain an image of Charlie Chaplin’s slipping on a
banana peel. (Indeed, even Crabb points out that the “‘real you’ involves…an
imagination capable of scheming hideous sins” (55).) Isn’t this an event in the
conscious mind? Or is mental imagery handled by a different (and unnamed?)
mental faculty? And what are we to say about pre-linguistic infants or
non-linguistic animals?
(b)
Re: The Unconscious Mind:
(Q2)
Crabb claims that Satan uses “the world” to inculcate self-centered “false
programming” concerning our needs and how to meet them. But is the world’s
“programming” so bleak? Children are routinely taught (at home and at school)
the importance of helping others altruistically (see, e.g., the perennial
bestselling book, Shel Silverstein’s The
Giving Tree). Why isn’t this “positive” programming accounted for in
Crabb’s model?
(Q3)
Many children are taught the importance of God—whether this Deity is called
“Jehovah,” “Allah,” or “HaShem”. Why doesn’t Crabb’s model acknowledge
non-Christian faith-systems which have theistic content?
(Q4)
Crabb claims that, “Apart from God’s sovereign work, people ultimately are out
for themselves” (97). This view is well-known in the philosophical literature
as psychological egoism. Moreover, there are abundant arguments which show that
psychological egoism, while superficially plausible, is ultimately a false
characterization of human motivations (see, for a primer, Feinberg 1999).
(Q5)
Is Crabb’s psychological egoism borne out by empirical evidence? Why aren’t
people’s altruistic(-seeming) responses to natural disasters (for instance)
evidence against psychological egoism?
(Q6)
Crabb distinguishes the Christian from the Non-Believer as one who (i) “loses
oneself in Christ” and (ii) avails oneself of “what God says through the Bible
to our conscious mind” (99). Couldn’t this process also be achieved by, for
example, losing oneself in Allah and availing oneself of what Allah says through
the Quran to the conscious mind? If not, why not?
(Q7)
How is the conscience to be understood on Crabb’s model?
(d)
Re: The Will:
(Q8)
By Crabb’s model, an unbeliever’s rejection of Christianity isn’t a result of a
“weak will”; rather, “the problem with an unsaved person is not his inability
to choose God…but [rather] his darkened understanding [i.e.(?) the conscious
and unconscious mind] will bnot allow his will to make that choice. He does not
need a strengthened will, he needs and enlightened mind, and that is the work
of the Holy Spirit” (100-101). But if the will is not “allowed” to choose
Christianity by “the understanding” (save a supernatural intervention by the
Holy Spirit), in what sense does a non-believer freely choose his non-belief? In what sense is an atheist morally responsible for his belief, if
he couldn’t have chosen otherwise (save a supernatural intervention by the Holy
Spirit)? .
(e) Emotions:
(Q9)
In what sense are depression and anxiety “sinful” emotions, as Crabb terms
them? Something is “sinful” only if someone is morally responsible for that
emotion. Yet medical science recognizes types of depression and anxiety which
are not a “choice” by the sufferer, but rather symptoms of a neurological
condition (insufficient serotonin levels, for instance). How does Crabb’s model
account for advances in psychopharmacology, which shows that various emotions
are products of neurochemistry, rather than the volitional products of a
person’s psychodynamics?
(Q10)
Crabb suggests that the emotions are effects
of evaluations by the conscious mind
and/or attitudes of the unconscious
mind. But isn’t it evident that emotions can cause events in the mind, as well? Is a person suffering from
clinical depression because of their
pessimistic thoughts? Isn’t the contemporary neurological explanation for
clinical depression that a person’s pessimistic thoughts are caused by a
depressed mood (which, in turn, is caused by an imbalance in neurochemicals
(e.g., serotonin))?
(f)
General Questions:
(Q11)
Obviously, non-believers have occasion to read the Bible. How does a
non-believer’s exposure to the Bible differ from that of a believer’s, on
Crabb’s model? Is this because of factors that are present in the Believer’s mind, yet absent in the non-believer? Or vice-versa?
Or both? Would such differences be observable in a brain-imaging scan (such as
an fMRI)?
(Q12)
What differences between Crabb’s model and non-theistic models might be
amenable to experimental tests (if any)?
(Q13)
Many models of human moral development don’t distinguish between a person’s
religious affiliations (see, e.g., Lawrence Kohlberg’s). Yet Crabb seems to
suggest that non-Christians’ moral development is “arrested” at an egocentric,
self-centered stage. How would the defender of Crabb’s model respond to
discrepancies between non-religious theories of moral development and Crabb’s
model?
(2) Concluding
Remarks: Crabb’s model gives rise to a number of thought-provoking
questions. Some of these questions appear to cause no trouble for the Crabb
model; a refurbishment or clarification might address them sufficiently. Other
questions, though, seem to present significant challenges to Crabb’s model,
concerning the topics of child development (questions (1) and (2)), human
altruism (questions (4) and (5)), and neurobiology and psychopharmacology
(questions (9) and (10)). So Crabb’s model may call for adjustment and
amendment—but, at the very least, it prompts a number of illuminating
questions. If Crabb has made mistakes, I aver that they are certainly interesting mistakes.
Figure 1: Diagram
of Crabb’s Functional Portrait of the Mind
for the Christian
and Non-Christian, respectively (106-107)
Works
Cited
Lawrence J. Crabb, Jr., Effective
Biblical Counseling: A Model for Helping Caring Christians Become Capable
Counselors (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977).
Albert Ellis, Mike Abrams and Lidia D.
Abrams, Personality Theories: Critical Perspectives (Los Angeles, CT:
Sage, 2009).
Joel Feinberg, “Psychological Egoism,” in:
Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau (eds), Reason and Responsibility: 10th
Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999).
Shel Silverstein, The Giving Tree
(New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1964).
[1]Though Crabb
emphasizes “external events” in the world, his model seems able to also account
for evaluations of events “internal” to the mind—i.e., evaluations of my own
thoughts and feelings. For instance, while I might not actually tell off my
boss, I might mentally entertain (imagine) doing so, judge such a
confrontational thought as “shameful,” and feel pangs of remorse.
[2] Crabb doesn’t
speak of any of these “basic assumptions” in the unconscious mind as inborn or
innate. I can’t help but wonder how this view (which seems reminiscent of
Skinnerian behaviorism) squares with contemporary understandings of
Developmental Psychology—especially children’s linguistic and moral
development.
[3] “The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the
reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit
of his doings.”
