|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page revised and Copyrighted: Theon Doxazo |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
04.1.2.0 |
||||
|
I just spent several pages arguing that, to their creators, the various Psychological Theories SEEMED to be correct. I argued that, each theory was limited to some things they could help with and others that they could not help with. Basically, I argued that each theory was limited and that accepting only a single approach would hamper a clinician in dealing with the wide diversity of people and problems walking around out there. I argued, instead, for an Eclectic approach to theory. A clinician should become comfortable with SEVERAL approaches and choose the 'best fit' for each patient/problem/situation that was presented.
All of that begged the question of: Why am I so excited by the 2nd Peter Theory? Won't it be limited and hampered in the same way?
Well, yes, but. . .
The 2 Peter Theory is an example of what is called a 'Special Purpose' theory. By design it is limited in it's scope. It is limited in the population it is designed to serve, limited in the types of problems it copes with, and limited in the interventions it may propose. All of these limitations are by design and consistent with the sources the theory is derived from.
The 2 Peter Theory is limited in the Population it is designed to serve. It is a theory of Christian Spiritual Development. It is intended to be used with Christians, not Muslims, not Jews, not Buddhists, and not Atheists. Only Christians are it's intended audience. By constraining the applicability of the theory in this way the variance or diversity of the people dealt with will be minimized. As we will see later, this will be a massive benefit. Notice also, it is designed to deal with Spirituality. It is NOT designed to deal directly with cognitive functioning, affective functions or physiological aspects of the person. It is limited in it's applicability. As we will, hopefully, later see, this will greatly reduce the 'error variance' we will have to deal with. Finally, it is also intended to be a developmental theory. It is not intended to directly deal with assessment, pathology, or treatment of any persons, even though a good developmental theory should be indirectly reflected in these areas.
Thus, as a Special Purpose Theory, the 2nd Peter Theory of Christian Spiritual Development should be constrained to very particular persons dealing with very particular growth-related problems.
Earlier I had recommended the book 'Theories of Personality' by Hall and Lindzey. If one were to review the theorists discussed there one would find that MOST of them were very broad in their definitions of the types of persons they were seeking to describe. Freud and Jung proposed theories they believed would be applicable to all people everywhere. Erikson, originally a Freudian, limited his approach mostly to Ego functioning, and he did recognize the role of Culture in impacting patients. One can go on and on like this. The vast majority of Theories in Psychology are designed to relate to and explain the functioning of very large groups of the public at large. Piaget described cognitive development [and very well, too!]. His disciple, Kohlberg dealt with a sub-section of this approach, trying to explain the development of Moral Judgment. Kohlberg eventually got into 'trouble' as his 'universal' theory of development was found to be constrained in it's cultural applicability. Again and again, we find broad and 'universally applicable' theories to run into these problems. It is the hope of this author that this 'Special Purpose Theory' of Christian Spiritual Development will find less of that. However, I suspect that it will be inevitable that some in the various denominations of Christianity will attack it, for not adequately explaining their particular experiences or problems. Oh, well.
I feel compelled to relate a personal experience related to just this issue. I was driving an elderly lady to the airport. She was Jewish and a Holocaust survivor. She asked what I was working on and I related a bit of the 2 Peter Theory. She was deeply troubled by this. That I was working on a theory of Spirituality that didn't specifically relate to Judaism was very disturbing to her. I tried to explain that my Anthropology professor had taught me that using the world-view of one culture to try to 'explain' the world-view of a different culture was a problem. She wasn't consoled by this. I don't think I was able to get this viewpoint across to her. So, I do expect that I will be criticized for 'artificially' constraining the applicability of 2 Peter to this select group. I also expect to be criticized for doing it badly and missing so much from the various existing Christian traditions. Guilty as charged. Maybe you can help me improve! Check out the Dialogue section of this website for ways to [hopefully constructively] file your criticisms of and suggestions for what has been done here.
The 2nd Peter Theory is limited in the Population it is designed to serve. It is also limited in the types of authoritative sources it seeks to reflect. As you may have noticed while you went through the Exegesis section, I tried to cast the net widely for authors that had something to say about 2 Peter 1. I wanted to consider a broad range of voices in constructing the Exegeses of the various terms. You may also recall that I paid special attention to a limited number of authors that I felt were especially authoritative. Thayer, Trench and Kittel spring to mind. These were very fine scholars whose works have stood the test of time. Why did I make such an effort? Remember that the books that we now recognize as the New Testament were written by different people to different people, and they were all written in Greek. As I am not 'fluent' in Greek, coming to a firm understanding of the terms used can be problematic. Thus, the need for numerous and authoritative sources for descriptions of the various terms and their usage in their original languages.
Notice further, I went to some pains to try to make relatively few Assumptions, and to focus these on the authority of the Christian Scriptures. While the various denominations of Christianity will disagree about many things, I would hope that they would agree on the Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures. Which portions of the Scriptures need to emphasized will, inevitably, be a point of contention. Further, there will, likely, be disagreements between the denominations over the interpretations to be made from the Scriptures. Even though my efforts to 'narrow' the range of applicability of the 2 Peter Theory to Christian Spirituality, I can readily see many within group differences that will likely bring forth both controversy as well as research design problems. It may be that I/we will be mired in controversy within the Church, much as the secular Psychologists were controversial within the broader secular community.
|
||||