Journal of Psychology and Theology2011, Vol. 39, No. 4, 29.docx

Journal of Psychology and Theology
2011, Vol. 39, No. 4, 295-303
Copyright 2011 by Rosemead School of Psychology
Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730
295
Jewish theology has long acknowledged twoimpulses at work in
the human heart: the evilimpulse (yetzer hara) and the good
impulse
(yetzer hatov). Many rabbis believe that the Torah
was given for the express purpose of teaching people
how to combat and overcome the desire for evil
(Amsel, 1996). Some scholars have suggested that
Paul had these two impulses in mind when he reflect-
ed on the intense internal struggles described in
Romans 7 (Davies, 1980). Among Christian theolo-
gians, Reinhold Niebuhr (1941) argued that a key
distinguishing mark of the Christian view of human
nature is its paradoxical claim for both “a higher
stature for man” and “a more serious view of his evil”
than other anthropological outlooks (p. 18). A.W.
Tozer (2010) memorably quipped that “we are the
glory and the rubbish of the universe” (p. 48). In
short, the Judeo-Christian view of persons has long
recognized that, as those who are made in the image
of God yet also sinners, people are capable of great

good and profound evil. It is fairly commonplace,
however, to emphasize one dimension of the human
condition to the neglect of the other.
The thesis of this article, succinctly stated, is that
the integration of psychology and theology has been
out of balance, focusing so much on what is wrong
with human beings that it has often neglected what is
right about human beings. Before corrective mea-
sures can be suggested, however, the historical
antecedents that gave rise to the current situation
need to be elucidated, and the nature of the present
imbalance described. Only then can a more com-
plete view be attained, one that rightly celebrates the
positive features of human beings while also address-
ing the pervasiveness of sin and its effects. The start-
ing point is to understand the historical precursors
that gave rise to the current one-sided focus on the
dark side of human nature and functioning.
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS IN
MAINSTREAM PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology, in its 140-year history, has predomi-
nantly focused on what goes wrong with human
beings. To a large extent, this situation reflects the
emphasis of clinical psychology on treating mental
illness. The early pioneers of clinical psychology
focused on treating patients who had discrete types
of psychopathology, including schizophrenia, bipo-
lar disorder, and dementia (e.g., Kraepelin, 1883);
hysteria (e.g., Breuer & Freud, 1895); and mental
retardation and learning disorders (e.g., Witmer,
1907, 1909; Binet, Simon, & Town, 1912).
The desire to treat mental illness was—and

remains—a noble aspiration. The goal of treating psy-
chological disorders led to funding for the National
INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN
FLOURISHING: THE IMAGO DEI AND
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
The field of psychology in general, and clinical
psychology in particular, has historically focused on
the things that go wrong in human behavior and
functioning. Similarly, evangelical theology has
traditionally highlighted the problem of sin and its
wide-ranging consequences for human beings. Not
surprisingly, this state of affairs has led to integrative
efforts that concentrate on the darker side of human
nature and tend to neglect what is admirable and
noble in human nature. A case is made in this article
that a more complete view is needed that celebrates
humans’ positive features as creatures who bear the
image of God, while simultaneously recognizing the
pervasiveness of sin and its effects. After reviewing
the one-sidedness of past integrative efforts, we
suggest several possibilities for relating the image of
God to findings within positive psychology, before
concluding with some cautions for this new endeavor.
DAVID N. ENTWISTLE and STEPHEN K. MORONEY
Malone University, Canton, Ohio
Correspondence regarding this article may be directed to David
N. Entwistle, Psy.D., Dept. of Psychology, Malone University,
2600 Cleveland Ave., NW, Canton, OH 44709,. Email:
[email protected]

296 INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN
FLOURISHING
Institute of Mental Health (Seligman, in Keyes &
Haidt, 2003) and was expressed in the development
of discrete pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic
treatments, many of which have demonstrated effica-
cy in treating several categories of mental illness
(Seligman, 1994). However, as the disease model of
mental illness flourished, and funding for research
and treatment of psychological disorders increased,
psychology often ignored the normal, healthy func-
tioning of human behavior and the conditions that
fosterwell-being(Seligman, inKeyes&Haidt,2003).
Non-clinical areas of psychology, like their clini-
cal counterpart, have also tended to focus more on
what goes wrong with people than on what goes
right with them. Though at times psychology teaches
us about normal human functioning (e.g., Smock,
1999), we generally appear to be more intrigued with
abnormalities. This is certainly true in memory
research, where the spotlight is more often aimed at
illuminating errors in memory processing rather than
showcasing the normal accuracy and reliability of
memory (e.g., Loftus, 1979). It is also true in the pio-
neering studies within social psychology, where the
darker sides of human nature were exposed in many
studies, on obedience (e.g., Milgram, 1963), confor-
mity (e.g., Asch, 1955), prejudice (e.g., Allport,
1962), aggression (e.g. Berkowitz, 1989), and inter-
group conflict (e.g., Sherif, 1958).
PAST IMBALANCE IN EVANGELICAL
INTEGRATION

Given psychology’s historical fascination with
what goes wrong with people, it is understandable
that when evangelical scholars sought to relate their
theological convictions to the “dark” findings of psy-
chology, a natural focal point was the human fall
into sin. To date, sin and evil have been dominant
themes in the integrative literature, while the image
of God and human goodness have been only minor
notes. We conducted a search for the terms “imago
Dei” and “image of God” as keywords within the
PsycINFO database, and then used the combine sets
function to limit the results to articles published in
the Journal of Psychology and Theology (JPT) and
the Journal of Psychology and Christianity (JPC).1
We also ran this same search with the words “good”
and “goodness.” We further limited our focus to
those instances in which positive (e.g. “goodness”)
terms were clearly used to describe human nature
or functioning. The results of our search can be
seen in Table 1.
Taken together, there are slightly under a dozen
references in JPT and slightly over a dozen refer-
ences in JPC for imago Dei, image of God, or
good/goodness as descriptors of human beings.
Three of these references occur in book reviews,
and, when the references to the imago Dei or the
image of God are limited to those articles that pro-
vide an extensive discussion of these concepts, there
are only two articles that fit these criteria. All the
other articles treat the concept in a very cursory man-
ner.2 Likewise, only five articles explicitly refer to
human goodness as a quality, and only about half of
them provided more than a cursory examination of
the idea of human goodness grounded in a biblical

anthropology.
On the other hand, when we ran a search for the
words “sin,” “sins,” “sinful,” “sinfulness,” and “evil” in
these same journals, likewise limiting our focus to
those instances in which negative (e.g., “sinful”)
terms were used to describe human nature or func-
tioning, we found a much more frequent focus on
the darker side of humanity, as displayed in Table 2.
In JPT, sin or its cognates is indexed 51 times; evil is
indexed 13 times, (although only 2 of these refer-
ences globally denote human nature as evil). In JPC,
sin or its cognates is indexed 38 times, and evil is
indexed 15 times (3 times referring globally to
human nature, and in most other instances referring
to evil acts or evil spirits).3
There are clearly limitations to our search. Con-
cepts are often broader than any narrow set of words
that may be used to express them (Barr, 1961); issues
related to the image of God, goodness, sin, and evil
may have been addressed in other articles for which
these particular terms did not appear as key words.
1For reasons that we do not understand, searching for “image of
God” did not return all occurrences of this phrase in JPT
articles
—in fact, it returned only one result. We ran the search again
using
“image” and “God” and the combine sets function, and then
manually reviewed the results for “image of God”. We did the
same for JPC, but the results were consistent in that case.
2We excluded “God image” or similar terms when they referred
to object relation representations of God rather than to the bibli-
cal concept of humans imaging God.

3We attempted a similar search in secular journals that focus on
religion and spirituality, as well as in journals from a more
liberal
perspective. We found the term “imago Dei” only four times,
and
“the image of God” only as an indication of the internalized
God-
image in this search. While “evil” and “sin” were rarely
mentioned,
it was notable that this concept was often linked to corporate
sin
or to victimization as opposed to individual sin.
ENTWISTLE and MORONEY 297
Other key words could be examined, and the words
that we searched may not be completely parallel.
Still, these findings strongly suggest that there is
much more emphasis in the integration literature on
the negative dimension of humans as evil sinners
compared to the positive dimension of humans as
good creatures made in the image of God. Put sim-
ply, the concepts of sin and human evil are more
widely represented than the concepts of the image of
God and human goodness in Christian psychology
journals. This raises the question as to why this
imbalance exists, a question to which at least two dis-
tinct answers are possible.
WHY HAS INTEGRATION BEEN
IMBALANCED?
First, it could be argued that no imbalance really
exists. If the entirety of creation is marred by sin,

and we are surrounded by death, disease, and dys-
function, then perhaps these negatives are the
norm. If this is the case, then both psychology and
theology would understandably focus on human
brokenness, with little attention to that which is
positive in human nature.4 However, Christian the-
ology suggests that the current state of affairs is the
abnormal one. Even if dysfunction is prevalent,
things are not as they were designed to be. Likewise,
in psychology and medicine, we may recognize that
death and degeneration are inevitable, but we strive
to treat the conditions that give rise to them in order
to maintain a relatively healthy homeostatic state.
Remarkably, we recognize that dysfunction exists
(whether medically, psychologically, or spiritually)
because we can discern that there are relatively “bet-
ter” states of being compared to more diseased
states of being. This first hypothesis has much to
commend it (noting that in a sense sin, evil, and
death are “normal” in a fallen world), but it fails to
take into account why so many things work reason-
ably well despite the broken nature of the world.
Though the creation is now marred by sin and
groans under its curse (Romans 8:22-23), there is
also value in attempting to understand the proper
functioning of that which God repeatedly declared
to be good (Genesis 1).
Second, human beings respond to novelty. We
seem to be hard-wired to habituate to that which is
commonplace and to notice that which is unusual.
We experience sensory adaptation to stimuli that we
consistently encounter, but we experience reactivity
to that which is out of the ordinary. For instance, we
largely ignore the ubiquitous experience of accurate

TABLE 1
Frequency of “Positive” Key Words in JPT and JPC articles
Key Word JPT JPC
“Imago Dei” 6 3
“Image of God” 1 9
“Good/Goodness” 3 2
TABLE 2
Frequency of “Negative” Key Words in JPT and JPC articles
Key Word JPT JPC
“Sin/Sins” 6 3
“Sinful/Sinfulness” 1 9
“Evil” 3 2
4As one of our reviewers astutely observed, psychology has a
diffi-
cult time conceptualizing “health” because, unlike theology, it
lacks a view of the human person as originally untainted by
design. This situation creates a particular problem for studying
psychopathology, where “normalcy” must then be seen in
relative
rather than absolute terms; as Butcher, Mineka, and Hooley
(2010) noted, “any definition of abnormality or mental disorder
must be somewhat arbitrary” (p.6).

FLOURISHING
memories that serve us well, but we are intrigued by
the significant but much rarer experiences of gross
failures of memory. We often recognize sin and evil
in our workplaces and in our families because they
violate our expectation for human behavior to func-
tion properly. Psychopathology and interpersonal
conflict are easily observable problems only because
they are violations of more commonly occurring and
comparatively desirable states of affairs. The forego-
ing analysis does not require that we believe that
human beings are essentially good, but it does sug-
gest that, more often than not, we ignore that which
functions well.
Regardless of exactly why the imbalance exists,
clearly past integration efforts have focused more on
human dysfunction and sin than on human flourish-
ingandgoodness.Thenext sectionof thearticleaims
to correct this imbalance. Before proceeding, howev-
er, a caveat is in order. As exceptions to the general
trend, there have been some psychological and theo-
logical perspectives that focus on what is good in
humanity. However, most of these perspectives have
been flawed by their overly optimistic (even Pollyan-
naish) views of innate human goodness, their relative
neglect of the pervasive effects of the Fall, and their
naïve trust in the prospects of humanity to better
itself (humanistic psychology and liberal theology
come to mind in these respects). Nevertheless, the
views of humanistic psychology and liberal theology
did possess some genuine insights into positive
aspects of human behavior. Likewise, while some of

thecriticismsof theseviewsmayapply topositivepsy-
chology, its deeper philosophical grounding and its
focus on empirical validation may provide opportuni-
ties for Christian reflection and engagement with
contemporary psychology. Recent proposals in posi-
tive psychology may create possibilities for a more
balanced psychology in which various aspects of
human functioning are viewed as having potential to
serve as virtues or vices (e.g., Chang & Sanna, 2003)
as well as to study and promote human flourishing
(e.g.,Keyes&Haidt,2003).
While we must tread carefully here, it seems
imbalanced and a disservice to the one who created
us in his image to neglect whatever goodness and
God-likeness yet remain in humans. Kilner (2010)
recently argued that while Scripture repeatedly
acknowledges that sin has caused great harm to
humans, Scripture never speaks explicitly of the
image of God being lost, damaged, or compro-
mised. Recognizing this fact need not result in
human self-congratulation. Whatever goodness
remains in humanity, whatever aspects of the imago
Dei exist in our experience, they are derivative from
God, not self-generated by us.
Furthermore, goodness, in this sense, should not
be confused with righteousness. Scripture is quite
clear that our own attempts at righteousness and
good works will never sufficiently balance the scales
of our sinfulness (Isaiah 64:6, Galatians 2:16). Simi-
larly, Spirit-produced joy should not be confused
with self-manufactured happiness (Crabb, 2004;
Tan, 2006). With these important caveats in place,
however, our hope is to contribute to the integration

of psychology and theology by supplementing the
excellent literature on human dysfunction and sin,
which we fully affirm, with new perspectives on
human flourishing and goodness that have been
underdeveloped thus far.
EMERGING POSSIBILITIES FOR
INTEGRATING POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
WITH THE IMAGE OF GOD
When Martin Seligman was elected President of
the American Psychological Association in 1997, he
hoped to refocus the energies of the APA on preven-
tion, in addition to its standard focus on treatment.
Over time, Seligman came to believe that “prevention
was not about repairing damage,” and that it should
focus on building “hope, optimism, courage” and
other strengths as a buffer against psychological ill-
ness (Seligman, in Keyes & Haidt, 2003, p. xvi). His
ideal, however, was handicapped by what he saw as
psychology’s weakness. In his words, “because psy-
chology has been a profession and a science focused
on what was wrong and what was weak, we know
almost nothing about the strengths and virtues” that
we need to build an adequate prevention program
(Seligman, inKeyes&Haidt,2003,p.xvi).
Seligman’s efforts are designed not so much to
redirect psychology’s efforts away from human
weaknesses and vulnerabilities as they are designed
to balance that focus with an empirical investigation
of human strengths. In his words:
Throughout most of its history—for good reason—psychology
has been concerned with identifying and remedying human
ills, but the recently christened field of positive psychology
calls for as much focus on strength as weakness, as much inter-

est in building the best things in life as repairing the worst, and
as much concern with fulfilling the goals of healthy people as
healing the wounds of the distressed. (Peterson & Seligman,
2003, p. 381)
As Christians, there is much that we affirm in posi-
tive psychology. We suggest that the Christian con-
cepts of the goodness of creation and humanity as
the imago Dei provide a ground for why some of
the concepts of positive psychology exist: they are
built into the fabric of creation.
Our assumption here is that human flourishing is
optimized when we live in concert with the design of
God’s created intent, and that the empirical findings
of positive psychology will often be consonant with
that assumption. Just as importantly, however, there
are points at which Christian theology can provide a
much needed counterbalance to keep us from
becoming unrealistically optimistic. Thus, this would
seem to be a fruitful area for integration (Hackney,
2007, 2010). A first step in pursing this project is to
clarify our understanding of the image of God.
The exact meaning of the imago Dei has been
the subject of much theological reflection and debate
over the years (Middleton, 2005). Historically, the-
ologiansoften identified the imageofGodwithapar-
ticular human quality, such as reason. More recently,
others have seen the image of God most prominently
displayed in our relationships with God and other
people. Still others argue that we manifest the image

of God primarily by carrying out the “cultural man-
date” of Genesis 1:26-28 through exercising domin-
ion over creation. Erickson (1998) maintained that
the image of God is best understood as the communi-
cable attributes of God that enable us, like Jesus, to
live in right relationship with God, people, and cre-
ation. In the following paragraphs we do not attempt
to resolve longstanding debates over the image of
God, but rather we seek to highlight two specific
ways that the imago Dei can be related to findings
within positive psychology—the first more suggestive-
lyandthesecondingreaterdepth.
Relational Aspects of the Imago Dei
and Positive Social Relationships
The first mention of the image of God in Scrip-
ture occurs in Genesis 1:26-27, which indicates that
people were made in God’s image as males and
females (covenant partners). Thus an important
aspect of the imago Dei may be humans’ creation as
social beings to fellowship with each other—roughly
analogous to the way that Father, Son, and Spirit are
social beings who fellowship with each other (Barth,
1960/1948). Within the second chapter of Genesis,
we read that it is not good for the man to be alone
(2:18) and he finds fulfillment in relationship with
his female counterpart (2:23-25) as well as in rela-
tionship with God, his creator. In the language of the
New Testament, if we love God we will also love
people made in God’s own image (James 3:9-10, 1
John 4:20-21). Jesus himself taught that we most
completely fulfill our human calling when we love
God and others with our whole selves (Matthew
22:37-40). In other words, humans were made for

healthy personal relationships, an idea that intersects
closely with what positive psychology has found in
its recent research.
Positive social relationships have been found to
inhibit depressive symptoms and reduce the risk of
suicide, while negative social exchanges have been
found to increase depressive symptoms and the risk
of suicide (Hirsch & Barton, 2011; Newsom et al.,
2003; Okun & Keith, 1998). People who are socially
isolated experience poorer health and greater risk of
death, while people who view their social support as
high experience many health benefits (Reblin &
Uchino, 2008). Those who are communally-oriented
and have a paucity of negative social exchanges are
more likely than others to experience satisfying best
friendships (Jones & Vaughan, 1990). These findings
intersect with the biblical wisdom of Ecclesiastes 4:9-
10: “Two are better than one, because they have a
good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift
up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls
and does not have another to help” (NRSV). As
those created in the image of a relational God, we
are at our core relational beings who need each
other. Humans’ inherent sociality is a first potentially
fruitful area for future integrative efforts.
Diversity in the Image of God and
Positive Psychology
Celebration of diversity constitutes the second
connection between the imago Dei and positive
psychology that we will consider. We often think of
the image of God as something that each person pos-
sesses, and as we have seen, this is biblically warrant-
ed. But the image of God may go well beyond mere

individual dignity. There may be a corporate aspect
to the image of God that is often not fully appreciat-
ed. The vision given to John in Revelation 7:9 is of “a
great multitude that no one could count, from every
nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages,
standing before the throne and before the Lamb”
(NRSV). This echoes the earlier song of praise that
FLOURISHING
the Lamb had ransomed people for God from every
tribe, language, people, and nation, and had “made
them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God,
and they will reign on earth” (Revelation 5:9-10,
NRSV). Drawing on passages such as these, some
evangelical theologians have argued that the image
of God is most fully manifest in the beautifully
diverse gathering of the corporate people of God.
The image of God is far too rich to be completely represented
byasinglehumanbeing,nomatterhowgiftedhe [orshe]might
be. That image can only be disclosed in its depth and riches in
the whole of humanity with its millions of members. As the
traces of God (vestigia Dei) are spread out over the many works
of God, both in space and time, so the image of God can only
be seen in its totality in a humanity whose members exist both
afterandnext toeachother. (Bavinck,1918,p.621)5
Mouw (1983) echoed these sentiments, noting the
collective nature of the imago Dei.
[T]here is no one human individual or group who can fully
bear or manifest all that is involved in the image of God, so
that there is a sense in which that image is collectively pos-
sessed. The image of God is, as it were, parceled out among

the peoples of the earth. By looking at different individuals
and groups we get glimpses of different aspects of the full
image of God. (p. 47)
This idea of the corporate image of God intersects in
interesting ways with what positive psychology has
to say about positive institutions and flourishing
human communities.
Both positive psychology and Christian theology
highlight the role family can play as a positive social
institution. Positive psychology has demonstrated
empirically that high parental support is a crucial fac-
tor in adolescents’ life satisfaction. When they were
divided into “very low, average, and very high levels of
life satisfaction” it was found that “over 92 percent of
adolescents in the high satisfaction group reported
above-average levels of parental support” (Antarami-
an, Huebner, & Valois, 2008, p. 114). These findings
dovetail nicely with New Testament admonitions for
both fathers and mothers to be actively involved in
constructive child-rearing practices (Ephesians 6:4,
Titus 2:4). According to both positive psychology
and Scripture, families can serve as significant institu-
tions inpromotinghumanflourishing.
Within another formative institution, our
schools, positive psychology calls for heterogeneous
classrooms that promote positive relationships with-
in larger peer groups (Wentzel, Baker, & Russell,
2009). The Scriptural picture of the kingdom of God
resonates in important ways with the vision of posi-
tive relationships within a diverse group of people
who share a common allegiance and pursue a com-
mon cause. Frisby (2009), writing from a positive

psychology perspective, notes that multi-cultural sub-
jective well-being requires intentional efforts by all
cultural groups, majority and minority alike. Conso-
nant with this observation, the New Testament
affirms that in the first century both Jew and Gentile
had to make every effort to maintain the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace (Acts 15:1-31, Ephesians
4:3). According to both positive psychology and
Scripture, harmony between people from different
backgrounds is a desirable goal but one that requires
hard relational work.
The Church is yet another institution that can
promote human flourishing. A recent publication
within positive psychology notes that in the early
1800s the Irish immigrant underclass in New York
City commonly struggled with problems of alco-
holism, unemployment, violence, criminal behav-
ior, and children born out of wedlock (Frisby,
2009). Positive change was effected by church lead-
er John Hughes, who “formed parish churches
staffed by priests he trained personally, and sent
them into neighborhoods to spread a faith-based
system of personal confession for wrongdoing,
personal responsibility, and personal spiritual val-
ues” (Frisby, p. 457). Due in large measure to these
church-based reforms, Frisby reports, by the late
1800s, “Irish arrests for violent crime, alcoholism,
and drug addictions rates were drastically
reduced,” and “the Irish in New York became more
regular church participants, and the resulting pros-
titution and illegitimacy rates plummeted” (p.
458). Questions of correlation and causation
aside, this is a clear case of a positive psychologist
noting how Christian churches can contribute to
human flourishing. This, of course, echoes the

Christian conviction that, its many glaring flaws
notwithstanding, the Church can serve as a place
where people are gradually formed into the indi-
viduals and corporate body that the Lord intends
them to be—the people of God, the bride of Christ,
and the temple of the Holy Spirit. The interface
between biblical reflections on the corporate
image of God within ecclesial life and psychology’s
findings about positive institutions and communal
life constitutes another potentially fruitful area for
future integrative efforts.
5Citation and translation from Anthony A. Hoekema, Created
in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 99.
CAUTIONS FOR INTEGRATION OF
EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY AND
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
The foregoing instances provide examples of pro-
ductive engagement between evangelical theology
and positive psychology. Balanced integration
requires a balanced psychology and a balanced theol-
ogy as necessary preconditions, and there is reason
for optimism on both counts. Psychology is witness-
ing the growth of positive psychology as a paradigm
(e.g., Keyes & Haidt, 2003; Snyder, Lopez, &
Pedrotti, 2011). Contemporary approaches to sys-
tematic theology are also doing a better job of expli-
cating the imago Dei and the goodness of the origi-
nal creation (e.g., Erickson, 1998; Hoekema, 1986).
To this point in the paper, we have explored rich

possibilities for integrating these two perspectives,
taking the imago Dei as one point of connection
between evangelical theology and positive psycholo-
gy, as highlighted in the previous section. However,
there are also some important cautions to keep in
mind when relating Christian theology to positive
psychology more broadly, which will be the focus of
the remainder of this article.
First, several of the virtues commonly promoted
by positive psychologists do not correspond to rec-
ognized Christian virtues, and in some cases there
are serious differences between the competing
descriptions of human flourishing (Held, 2005). By
reviewing the results of individuals who took the Val-
ues in Action (VIA) online survey before and after
September 11, 2001, Peterson and Seligman (2003)
reported observing an increase in the “theological
virtues” (faith, hope, and love). At first blush, this
sounds like a promising overlap with a Christian con-
cept. However, one might wonder if a dispositional
character trait should show situational variance. Fur-
thermore, it is important to look at the way these
concepts are defined.
Hope is operationally defined on the VIA as
“expecting the best in the future and working to
achieve it” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 30). Inter-
estingly, “hope” is measured by items such as, “I
always looks [sic] on the bright side”, and a reverse-
scored item, “I do not have a plan for what I want to
be doing 5 years from now” (p. 630). While this may
measure optimism and planning for the future, it is
certainly not synonymous with the biblical idea of
hope which is “a defining characteristic of those who
seek God and experience his grace” (Myers, 1987,

p. 500). As another example, love is operationally
defined on the VIA as “valuing close relations with
others, in particular those in which sharing and car-
ing are reciprocated” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.
29). Love is measured on the VIA by items such as,
“There are people in my life who care as much about
my feelings and well-being as they do about their
own” and a reverse-scored item, “I have great diffi-
culty accepting love from anyone” (Peterson & Selig-
man, 2004, p. 629). While these items may measure
the desire for close, caring reciprocal relationships,
the VIA concept of love differs significantly from the
Christian understanding of love, which is grounded
in God’s love for humans and entails unilateral (non-
reciprocal) love, even toward one’s enemies
(Matthew 5:38-48).
As a twenty-first-century western academic move-
ment, positive psychology is, by and large, a secular
enterprise. Though “spirituality” is often included in
the two dozen widely recognized character strengths
of positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004),
the movement as a whole promotes Aristotelian
eudaimonia with little or no reference to God. This
stands in stark contrast to earlier Christian thinkers,
such as Aquinas, who incorporated eudaimonia into
a thoughtful, theocentric framework. As Hackney
(2010) put it, “Seligmanic positive psychology is char-
acterized by anthropocentrism” that promotes
dependence on self rather than dependence on God
(p. 199). Spirituality is operationally defined on the
VIA as “having coherent beliefs about the higher pur-
pose and meaning of the universe” (Peterson & Selig-
man, 2004, p. 30). Such broad spirituality does not
require a theistic commitment, let alone a Christian

one. So the differences between positive psychology
and Christian theology must be identified with a dis-
cerningeye thatdoesnotgliblyharmonize the two.
Second, as social psychology research so aptly
indicates, we enjoy the illusion of our own goodness.
Scripture reminds us not to think too highly of our-
selves (Romans 12:3; see Moroney, 2000). John
Calvin (1960/1536) warned us that, “there is, indeed,
nothing that man’s nature seeks more eagerly than to
be flattered.... Nothing pleases man more than the
sort of alluring talk that tickles the pride that itches in
his very marrow” (Book II, Chapter 1, Section 2, pp.
242-243). A reasonable question, then, is whether or
not we might run the risk of enjoying the soothing
flatteries of our own magnified excellences from pos-
itive psychology. In this vein, consider the following.
Seligman (2002) discussed his reasons for rejecting
FLOURISHING
the idea of a God, characterized by the Judeo Chris-
tian tradition, as a creator who is omniscient,
omnipotent, and good (p. 258). In its place, he sees
humanity as the result of an evolutionary process that
selects characteristics of knowledge, power, and
goodness, though imperfectly. “This design toward
more complexity is our destiny,” he claimed (p. 258).
Seligman thus replaces the view of the imago Dei
that we have presented here, with one of human
development, spurred by evolution, toward increas-
ingcomplexity.6

A process that continually selects for more complexity is ulti-
mately aimed at nothing less than omniscience, omnipotence,
and goodness. This is not a fulfillment that will be achieved in
our lifetimes or even in the lifetime of our species. The best
we can do as individuals is to choose to be a small part of fur-
thering this progress. This is the door through which meaning
that transcends us can enter our lives. A meaningful life is one
that joins with something larger than we are—and the larger
that something is the more meaning our lives have. Partaking
in a process that has the bringing of a God who is endowed
with omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness as its ultimate
end joins our lives to an enormously large something. (p. 260)
In short, Seligman claimed that evolution and positive
psychology will enable us to move toward omni-
science, omnipotence, and goodness, that is, to
become God-like. This is eerily reminiscent of the way
Genesis describes the original Fall, when the serpent
temptedEvebysaying,“Godknowsthatwhenyoueat
of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5, NRSV).
That, it seems, is the temptation of positive psycholo-
gy,orof anyviewthat seeks to highlight humanpoten-
tials, if it isnot temperedbyanappreciationofhuman
evil, and if it whispers that we can be like God, rather
thanthatweare finite, temporalcreaturesmade in the
imageofGod, the infinite,eternalcreator.
In whatever ways the imago Dei persists in
humankind, it is evident that our relationships are
broken, our reasoning is sometimes flawed, our
moral compasses frequently point in the wrong
direction, and we often exercise dominion over the
creation wrongfully as exploiters rather than caretak-
ers. Still, it is evident that the imago Dei remains.
Positive psychology can help us understand ways to

foster positive institutions, virtues, and character
strengths. But it must be tempered by an apprecia-
tion for human limitations and human sin.
The tremendous growth of positive psychology in
the past dozen years is a noteworthy development
within the discipline. Positive psychology has the
potential to offer a much-needed correction to a
field that has focused almost exclusively on patholo-
gy. However, positive psychology also runs the risk
of catering to our natural bent towards self-decep-
tion about our own goodness and our own potential.
Perhaps the biblical concept of the imago Dei can
create a framework through which Christians can
engage positive psychology. The concept of the
imago Dei reminds us of our creatureliness. It
reminds us of the fact that all good things emanate
from and owe their existence, allegiance, and wor-
ship to almighty God. Finally, in conjunction with
the doctrine of the Fall, it also reminds us that any
claims about our goodness and our potential need to
be tempered by the degree to which our human con-
dition has been marred through our own rebellion.
And yet, we must never forget Scripture’s words in
Genesis 1:31: “God saw everything that he had
made, and indeed, it was very good” (NRSV).
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1962). Prejudice: Is it social or personal?
Journal
of Social Issues, 18(2), 120-134.
Amsel, N. (1996). The Jewish encyclopedia of moral and ethi-
cal issues. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.
Antaramian, S. P., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2008).

Adoles-
cent life satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57, 112-126. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00357.x
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific
American, 193(5), 31-35.
Barr, J. (1961). Semantics of biblical language. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Barth, K. (1960/1948). Church dogmatics, III/2: The doctrine
of creation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Bavinck, H. (1918). Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 3rd ed., vol. 2.
Kampen Kok.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis:
Examina-
tion and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.
Binet, A., Simon, T., & Town, C. H. (1912). A method of mea-
suring the development of the intelligence of young children.
Lincoln, IL: Courier Co.
Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895). Studies on hysteria. In J.
Strachey
(Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psycho-
logical works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2, pp. 1-335). London:
Hogarth Press.
Butcher, J. N., Mineka, S., & Hooley, J. M. (2010). Abnormal
psychology, 14th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Calvin, J. (1960). Institutes of the Christian religion. (J. T.
McNeill, Ed.). Philadelphia: Westminster Press. (Original work
published 1536).

6As one of our reviewers observed, living in accord with divine
design is far more than a self-improvement program (let alone
self-deification).
Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (Eds.). (2003). Virtue, vice, and
per-
sonality: The complexity of behavior. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Crabb, L. (2004). Positive psychology: More narcissism? Or a
wel-
come corrective? Christian Counseling Today, 12(4), 64.
Davies, W. D. (1980). Paul and rabbinic Judaism: Some rab-
binic elements in Pauline theology (4th ed). Philadelphia:
Fortress Press.
Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian theology (2nd ed.). Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker.
Frisby, C. (2009). Positive psychology, culture, and schools:
Con-
ceptual and empirical challenges. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner,
&
M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in
schools. New York: Routledge, 447-461.
Hackney, C. H. (2007). Possibilities for a Christian positive
psy-
chology. Journal of Psychology and Theology 35(3), 211-221.

Hackney, C. H. (2010). Sanctification as a source of theological
guidance in the construction of a Christian positive psychology.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 29(3), 195-207.
Held, B. S. (2005). The “virtues” of positive psychology.
Journal
of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 25(1), 1-34.
doi: 10.1037/h0091249
Hirsch, J. K., & Barton, A. L. (2011). Positive social support,
nega-
tive social exchanges, and suicidal behavior in college students.
Journal of American College Health, 59(5), 393-398.
Hoekema, A. A. (1986). Created in God’s image. Grand Rapids,
MI Eerdmans.
Jones, D. C., & Vaughan, K. (1990). Close friendships among
senior adults. Psychology and Aging, 5(3), 451-457. doi:
10.1037/0882-7974.5.3.451
Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (Eds.). (2003). Flourishing:
Positive
psychology and the life well-lived. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kilner, J. F. (2010). Humanity in God’s image: Is the image
really
damaged? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,
53(3), 601-617.
Kraepelin,E. (1883).Compendium der psychiatrie.Leipzig:Abel.
Loftus, E. F. (1979). The malleability of human memory.
Ameri-
can Scientist, 67, 313-320.

Middleton, J. R. (2005). The liberating image: The imago Dei
in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Moroney, S. K. (2000). The noetic effects of sin: A historical
and contemporary exploration of how sin affects our think-
ing. Lanham, MD: Lexingon Books.
Mouw, R. (1983). When the kings come marching in: Isaiah
and the new Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Myers, A. C. (Ed.). (1987). The Eerdmans Bible dictionary
(revised ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Newsom, J. T., Nishishiba, M., Morgan, D. L., & Rook, K. S.
(2003). The relative importance of three domains of positive
and
negative social exchanges: a longitudinal model with
comparable
measures. Psychology and Aging, 18(4), 746-754. doi:
10.1037/0882-7974.18.4.746
Niebuhr, R. (1941). The nature and destiny of man, volume I:
Human nature. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Okun, M. A,. & Keith V.M. (1998). Effects of positive and
nega-
tive social exchanges with various sources on depressive symp-
toms in younger and older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psy-
chological Sciences, 53B, P4-P20.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths
before and after September 11. Psychological Science, 14(4),

381-384. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.24482
Peterson C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Values in Action
(VIA) classification of strengths. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Reblin, M., & Uchino, B. N. (2008). Social and emotional sup-
port and its implication for health. Current Opinions in Psychi-
atry, 21(2), 201-205. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3282f3ad89
Seligman, M. (1994). What you can change and what you
can’t. New York: Knopf.
Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new pos-
itive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfill-
ment. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of inter-
group conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349-356.
Smock, T. A. (1999). Physiological psychology: A neuro-
science approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2011). Positive
psy-
chology: The scientific and practical explorations of human
strengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tan, S. (2006). Applied positive psychology: Putting positive
psy-
chology into practice. Journal of Psychology and Christianity
25(1), 68-73.
Tozer, A. W. (2010). Experiencing the presence of God. Ventu-
ra, CA: Gospel Light.

Wentzel, K., Baker, S., & Russell, S. (2009). Peer relationships
and
positive adjustment at school. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, &
M.
J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in
schools. New York: Routledge, 229-243.
Witmer, L. (1907). Clinical psychology. The Psychological
Clin-
ic, 1, 1-9.
Witmer, L. (1909). The study and treatment of retardation: A
field
of applied psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 6, 121-126.
AUTHORS
ENTWISTLE, DAVID. Address: Malone University 2600 Cleve-
land Ave., NW Canton, OH 44709. Title: Professor of
Psychology
at Malone University in Canton, Ohio. Degree: Psy.D., Biola
Uni-
versity. Areas of interest: Integration of psychology and Chris-
tianity, coping, religious coping, and psychosocial issues in
cystic
fibrosis and other chronic illnesses.
MORONEY, STEPHEN, K. Address: Dept. of Theology, Mal-
one University, 2600 Cleveland Ave. NW, Canton, OH 44709.
Title: Professor of Theology at Malone University in Canton,
Ohio. Degree: Ph.D. in Theology, Duke University. Areas of
interest: Theological anthropology, doctrine of God, and the
intersection of theology and psychology. [email protected]
Copyright of Journal of Psychology & Theology is the property

of BIOLA University and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
1
Running head: ABBREVIATED VERSION OF YOUR TITLE
[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
3
ABBREVIATED VERSION OF YOUR TITLE
Journal Article Review Comment by Allen: You can vary this
title but it needs to refer to the journal article; title should be 12
words or less, per APA . Personalize the title for your particular
article
To delete this comment on your paper, right click and click on
“delete comment”
Student Name Comment by Allen: Use Times New Roman font
for your entire paper

School Affiliation Comment by Allen: Per APA 6th, the title
page contains only these three elements
Title of Paper Comment by Allen: On first text page repeat
title of paper here exactly as it appears on title page

Summary Comment by Allen: First major heading is for your
summary section
Left-aligned, bold, upper and lower case heading Comment by
Allen: If you want to use other headings to organize your main
points, here are the headings per APA. Most likely you would
only need the three level one headings for this paper (summary,
reflection, and application)
Indented, bold, lowercase heading with a period.
Indented, bold, italicized, lowercase heading with a period.
Indented, not bold, italicized, lowercase heading with a period.
Reflection Comment by Allen: Second major heading
Application Comment by Allen: Third major heading
(Reed & Enright, 2006) Comment by Allen: This is an
example of in-text citation corresponding to the reference
listing. Change this in-text citation to fit your journal article.

References Comment by Allen: Not bold
Reed, G. L., & Enright, R. D. (2006). The effects of forgiveness
therapy on depression, anxiety,
and posttraumatic stress for women after spousal emotional
abuse. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 920-
929. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.5920 Comment by Allen:
This is one example of a reference listing corresponding to one
of the journal articles. Provide the reference here for your
article.

Journal of Psychology and Theology2011, Vol. 39, No. 4, 29.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Psychology and Theology2011, Vol. 39, No. 4, 29.docx

Similar to Journal of Psychology and Theology2011, Vol. 39, No. 4, 29.docx (13)

More from tawnyataylor528

More from tawnyataylor528 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Psychology and Theology2011, Vol. 39, No. 4, 29.docx