My Personal Philosophy for Integrating Theology & Psychology

A worldview is the mental lens through which a person perceives such things as the universe, themselves, and the meaning of life. Bufford (2007) establishes the scope of a worldview:

While the precise definition and contours of a worldview vary among theorists, at their core worldviews involve a set of beliefs about humans and the world. Worldviews answer basic questions about what exists, how we know it, how things work, what is good and bad or right and wrong, and who we are (or what it means to be human). These themes correspond to the philosophical topics of metaphysics, epistemology, cosmology, ethics, and anthropology respectively. (p. 293)

Although most people hold their worldview subconsciously, a person’s perception of the world will affect everything one does and how he or she interacts with others. Blanton (2008) describes a worldview as a foundation which has implications for such things as psychotherapy. He goes on to quote Collins who stated that “Integration involves clarifying our foundational worldviews” (in Blanton, 2008, p. 74). When people are unaware of their own worldview, it is not possible for them to appropriately integrate different disciplines, such as theology and psychology. Since a worldview has serious implications for all aspects of a person’s life, including a profession in counselling, it is crucial that people be aware of what they believe, particularly regarding epistemology, cosmology, and philosophical anthropology. How a person knows that they know anything, how the world is understood, and what human nature consists of are each necessary pieces of the foundation to be laid prior to integrating theology and psychology.

Epistemology

How can a person know anything? Since childhood, people are taught that the sky is blue, that one added to one makes two, and that a chair is for sitting on. How do people actually know that these are true facts? How can a person be sure that what he or she believes is not simply imagined? These questions represent the study of ways of knowing, or epistemology.

Epistemology can be understood in a couple ways: “Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief.... Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry” (Steup, 2005). A key question arising from epistemology which affects both psychology and theology asks what knowledge sources are authoritative and reliable.

Some Christians believe that Scripture is the sole reliable source of knowledge, particularly in regards to psychological issues. Jay E. Adams, founder of the National Association of Nouthetic Counsellors (Institute for Nouthetic Studies, n.d.), may be the most well-known promoter of this approach to understanding counselling. According to Hunter (2009), “Adams suggested that Scripture is the sole epistemological source necessary for counselling” (p. 101). Adams (1979) stated “The Christian’s basis for counselling, and the basis for a Christian’s counselling, is nothing other than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. The Bible is his counselling textbook” (as cited in Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002, p. 45). Some Christians, such as Adams, believe that Scripture’s sufficiency means that other sources are unnecessary and perhaps even heretical for understanding the human psyche. He goes on to warn, “Do not forsake the Fountain of living water for the cracked cisterns of modern counselling systems” (Adams, 1979, as cited in Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002, p. 45). Psychological research, therefore, would not only be not applicable to counselling, but is wrong to conduct since it relies on the scientific method rather than the Bible.

Another perspective on reliable sources for understanding psychology views God’s revelation as coming in two forms: His Word and His works. The author holds this perspective. According to this approach, the Bible is not the only source of knowledge, since creation provides other valuable information. Entwistle (2004) boldly claims that “Christians who are true to historic, orthodox expressions of the faith believe that God has revealed himself indirectly, through general revelation, and directly, through special revelation” (p. 96). Bufford (2007) describes this worldview:

Christians believe that human knowing draws on two sources. We believe that God has revealed himself both in the Word (2 Tim, 3:l6; 2 Pe, 1:21) and in the World (Ps, 19:1), Thus Christians believe we can learn from the world around us, including each other and human traditions. However, Christians believe we can also learn from direct, divine revelation. God's self-revelation comes through the world around us. It comes through the Bible, It also comes through direct revelation as God spoke through the Holy Spirit to the prophets in the past and speaks to us today to instruct and guide us. (p. 294)

As early as the mid-1500s John Calvin supported the idea of these two ways of knowing, and claimed that neither is a solely sufficient foundation of knowledge but that rather they are interdependent (as cited in Averbeck, 2006).

Even after claiming that neither Scripture nor general revelation is independently sufficient, the question remains: is one superior to the other? Larry Crabb stated that “wherever two authorities exist, there will eventually be an unsolvable impasse, an ascendance of one authority over the other, or the emergence of a superior third authority” (as cited in Entwistle, 2004, p. 255). Entwistle responds to Crabb’s assertion by clarifying who the real authority is:

Scripture is true because God chose to reveal truth within its pages. Likewise, truth that is found in the book of God’s work is true only because God authored its truths when He wrote the book of His Creation.... There is only one ultimate authority – God, Who is the Author of both books – and truth, whatever its immediate source ultimately comes from the Creator Himself. (pp. 255-256)

Therefore, neither Scripture nor creation need to take precedence over the other, but rather God is the source of all truth.

Because both specific and general revelation have the same source, they cannot conflict with one another. “Moreover, if all truth is God’s truth and truth is one, then God does not contradict himself, and in the final analysis there will be no conflict between the truth taught in scripture and truth available from other sources” (Holmes, 1987, as cited in Entwistle, 2004, p. 97). At times it may appear that Scripture and science are in conflict, but in actuality it is a person’s interpretation of either one or both forms of revelation which would be incorrect. “While God’s word is without fault, human understanding and interpretation of that word is not infallible” (Entwistle, 2004, p. 97). Having insufficient information may lead to a wrong interpretation, as can the biases or assumptions which one brings to the table (Entwistle, 2004). Entwistle warns that “what we see depends, to some degree, on what we expect & are predisposed to see” (p. 87). He goes on to say that “drugs, delusions, dementia, or deceptive reasoning” may each lead to a misunderstanding of the truth (p. 88). Based out of a worldview which includes the Fall of humankind, Entwistle highlights human fallibility as a result of sin limiting one’s understanding of the facts. Because of this, people need to state their findings with humility (Entwistle, 2004).

At best, we can humbly try to evaluate our beliefs carefully enough to arrive at a contingent certainty; that is, if our assumptions are correct, and if we discern an accurate epistemology, and if we apply our epistemic methodologies accurately, then we can be tentatively certain about our conclusions. (Entwistle, 2004, p. 90)

The most a person can hope for is to be able to express one’s opinions tentatively after taking precautions throughout the whole process of gleaning knowledge.

Entwistle (2004) summarizes the current state of epistemology:

The desire to know and understand God’s world is a God-given capacity, but the pursuit of knowledge is affected by worldviews, human finitude, human frailty, individual and communal sin, assumptions, methodological limitations, and the availability of data, among other things. Our ability to know is contingent, limited, and fallible. (p. 107)

This view of knowing has obvious implications for conducting research. If the Bible were the sole source of knowledge, there would be no point to studying psychological phenomena. If God has revealed truths through His creation, such as in humans and how the world works, however, then psychological researchers are honouring God by their work. This creates an impetus for seeking knowledge through conducting research with excellence. According to Entwistle (2004), “All truth is grounded in the transcendent God who created an orderly world, and whose truths can often be known through rational, experimental, or revelational means” (p. 104). As Solomon declared in his wisdom, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might...” (Ecclesiastes 9:10, NIV). Although some Christians believe that it is unscriptural to look outside of the Bible for knowledge regarding the psyche, in actuality the Bible invites believers to survey God’s creation in order to better be able to do one’s work.

Being open to research conducted outside the Bible also has obvious implications for how one conducts his or her professional practice. Whereas “Nouthetic counsellors use the Bible almost always, if not exclusively as their resource” (Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002, pp. 44-45) and scorn the use of psychological research, accepting revelation from God through both His Word and His works opens the door to a variety of counselling techniques not specifically taught in the Bible. Although one must be alert to not go against the Bible, by opening the door of psychological understanding wider, a practitioner honours God.

This epistemological worldview will also affect a person’s personal devotional life. Without minimizing the importance of studying the Scriptures, seeking God in other ways as well can be quite powerful for a person’s relationship with God. For example, taking a walk under a night sky sparkling with stars can reveal God’s infiniteness. The melting of snow as winter turns to spring reminds one of God’s faithfulness through the years. Watching a squirrel scamper up a tree with a nut is a testimony to God’s provision. As God reveals Himself and His will through the written Word and the created world, believers can seek to better know Him in many different ways.

Cosmology

According to the experts on the study and exploration of space, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, 2009), “Cosmology is the scientific study of the large scale properties of the Universe as a whole. It endeavours to use the scientific method to understand the origin, evolution and ultimate fate of the entire Universe” (p. 1).

Cosmology is a hot topic within both Christian and scientific worlds, and particularly in the overlap between the two. While the Bible informs one’s view of cosmology and is quite clear in certain aspects of the study of the cosmos, Bible believers firmly disagree on a number of relevant issues. Although Scripture is clear in stating from the first verse that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, NIV), exactly how He created is debateable. Perhaps the most hotly contested issue amongst Christians regarding cosmology is the age of the earth.

Ken Hamm of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are adamant supporters of the young earth view of creation, while Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe (RTB) proposes that an old earth perspective is reconcilable with Scripture.

Answers in Genesis submits all scientific findings to the supremacy of Scripture:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. (AiG, 2009)

The members of AiG are correct in realizing the epistemological weakness of being people prone to error when studying the world around them. Unfortunately, however, they do not recognize that even one’s interpretation of Scripture can be mistaken. They claim that the creation account recorded in Genesis 1 should be read in a simple, literal way leading to the conclusions that the universe was formed recently (within the past few thousand years) and that God used six literal, twenty-four hour days to make it (AiG, 2009). Coffee and Dean (2009) assert that these conclusions are formed by forcing science and the Bible to fit into a person’s own preconceived notions.

Henry M. Morris, who “is widely recognized as the founder of the modern creation science movement” (Dao, 2009) also held to a literal reading of Genesis. He was surprised that many believers would “discard the statements of Scripture in order to accept the imagined ‘Big Bang’ as the event of divine creation” and in so doing contradict the Bible (Morris, 2000, p. c).

Reasons To Believe sees compatibility between scientific findings and the Bible, because the organization operates out of a two-book epistemological worldview.

The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies.... It is our conviction that since the same God who ‘authored’ the universe also inspired the writings of the Bible, a consistent message will come through both channels. In other words, the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted. (RTB, n.d.)

RTB presents a different view of creation from AiG. While both believe that God is the Creator and that macroevolution is incompatible with a biblical worldview, RTB disagrees with AiG’s young earth interpretation of Genesis, and claims instead that the days of creation can be viewed as six long ages.

Although the author grew up believing in a creation story as interpreted by Answers in Genesis, over the past few years Reasons To Believe has had an influence on her cosmological worldview, leading her to accept their day-age assertions. Although a consensus may never be reached amongst Christians as to the age of the earth or how exactly the universe was formed, the most crucial thing is to remember what can be known with confidence. “The important thing for us not to lose sight of is that we agree on ‘who’ Created, and that it is not so important as to when, or how long Creation took” (Coffee, L., & Dean, D., 2009). No matter how or when He did it, God created. Without this act, the universe would not exist, nor anything or anyone in it. Humans are therefore dependent on God as their Creator and receive their identity from His moulding hand.

Belief in a Creator God necessitates an acceptance of more than just a physical reality. Entwistle (2009) recognizes that physical, spiritual, psychological, and social realities all exist. Acknowledging these multiple realities, particularly in relation to humanity, forms a framework for integrating theology and psychology:

A Christian conceptualization of human personhood as a holistic unity allows us to respect biopsychosocial and spiritual realities, and moreover, to see them as unified rather than bifurcated. The most important implications of this perspective are that it recognizes the legitimacy and boundaries of naturalistic science while simultaneously affirming the fundamentally spiritual nature of human beings and the truths that God proclaims about human beings. This being the case, theology and psychology can work together to inform our understanding of human nature and functioning. (Entwistle, 2009, p. 142)

Bufford (2007) echoes Entwistle’s claim that both material and non-material realities exist. Many believers see the universe as operating in accord with the natural laws which God set in place for it, yet God is able to intervene in miraculous ways (Bufford, 2007). Once He has intercepted the world with a miracle, however, the natural laws again take over (Bufford, 2007). The earth is limited by natural laws, but God is not (Bufford, 2007). According to Entwistle (2004), this is because “God is seen as distinct from, independent of, and superior to nature” (p. 116). Because God is the Creator, nature connects humans to God. By surveying the world around, one is drawn to worship the God Who made it (Entwistle, 2004). Believers can also rest in peace, knowing that the God who created the world in an orderly way will continue to sustain it (Entwistle, 2004).

Viewing the earth as old or young has implications for how one integrates science and faith, but perhaps more important are the implications which belief in a created world in general has for researching psychological phenomena. Perceiving the world as formed for a purpose by a loving and good God leads researchers to ask the question, “Why?” Why is such-and-such the way it is? What purpose does it serve? The scientific method itself relies on the assumption that the universe is logical, ordered, and run by laws which make sense when understood properly. Perceiving the earth and humans as created are not popular views within the psychological field, however. One area of the discipline, evolutionary psychology, has gained significant momentum in recent years.

While psychology as a science adopted methodological naturalism, many psychologists took a further step by embracing metaphysical naturalism, the belief that there is nothing other than the physical world. From this perspective, human behaviour can only be seen as a product of material forces and as bounded by physical life: death is the end of existence. (Entwistle, 2009, p. 142)

Holding to a metaphysical naturalism stance, each person is viewed as merely a material substance which is around for just a few years and has no real purpose.

Philosophical Anthropology

Out of a cosmological view which sees God as the Creator of all things flows a philosophical anthropology of humans as created beings. Just as a number of psychologists view cosmology through a reductionist perspective, so also humans are often seen as solely being bio-psycho-social beings. This approach is an improvement on some other views of humanity, however, which are even more materialistic. According to Entwistle (2009), “The biopsychosocial approach has been enormously successful, leading to medications for mental illness, interventions based on intrapsychic phenomena (from cognitive behaviourism to psychoanalysis), and awareness of how membership in groups or the presence of others influences behaviour (social psychology)” (p. 142). Faith expands this understanding of who a person is by adding a spiritual component to the bio-psycho-social model. As spiritual beings, people are both Fallen and made in the image of God.

A bio-psycho-social model of philosophical anthropology obviously broadens former counselling approaches to include considerations of multiple factors in a person’s life. Viewing people as spiritual beings results in an even deeper counselling approach which addresses not simply an extra component of life but which rather considers all other aspects of a person in light of spirituality. “Human beings are rational, relational, spiritual and biological beings, (created as good, though finite, frail, and now fallen)” (Entwistle, 2004, p. 104). Humans do not merely have a soul somewhere within them; each person is a living soul.

Although some Christians would say that all physical and psychological maladies are directly caused by personal sin, the author disagrees that this is always the case. As John records in his Gospel,

As he went along, [Jesus] saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” (John 9:1-3, NIV)

Although the meaning of this particular passage of Scripture has been widely debated, Jesus makes it quite clear that the man’s blindness was not caused by either his or his parents’ sin. A professional’s worldview will affect how he or she sees a client.

McMinn (2001) suggested that biblical counsellors oftentimes look to the role of sin as the root cause of behavioural problems while “Christian psychologists have tended to emphasize faulty learning patterns, unhealthy relationships during formative years and incorrect thinking as the source of the problems.” (McMinn, 2001, p. 13 in Hunter, 2009, p. 101)

Although personal sin may not be the cause of a person’s distress, there are physical and psychological effects of being born in a world affected by the Fall of Adam and Eve. Sandhu (2007) believes that “In the final analysis all psychological problems, properly understood, have their origin in spiritual need” (p. 68). For example, “A person’s feelings of guilt about a specific issue... may reflect broader feelings of guilt about not being good enough for life in general” (Sandhu, 2007, p. 68). Although there may not be a direct cause-and-effect relationship between sin and distress, people’s identity as Fallen beings cannot be ignored in the counselling office or research lab.

The Fall has led to people forming what Benner (2004) calls the false self, which comes from doubting that God will provide for a person’s happiness. Instead of trusting God, people try to secure their own happiness (Benner, 2004). In order to feel special, people grow extremely attached to things, accomplishments, experiences, abilities, and a pretend image to such an extent that their true identity is hidden (Benner, 2004). Authenticity has been replaced by an illusion (Benner, 2004). Why are attachments held so dearly? “Ultimately, attachments are ways of coping with the feelings of vulnerability, shame and inadequacy that lie at the core of our false way of being” (Benner, 2004, p. 82). Although humans still reveal the image of God, this image is marred.

As a result of the Fall, however, the image is distorted, though not destroyed. His moral purity has been lost and his sinful character certainly does not reflect God’s holiness. His intellect is corrupted by falsehood and misunderstanding; his speech no longer continually glorifies God; his relationships are often governed by selfishness rather than love, and so forth. Though man is still in the image of God, in every aspect of life some parts of that image have been distorted or lost. (Grudem, 1999, p. 190, in Entwistle, 2004, p. 154)

Humans affect one another for better or worse, and often one person’s weaknesses have serious implications for those around him or her. Some have said that “the false self has its origins in failures of the early caregiving environment, and it emerges as a defensive response to such failures” (Parker & Davis, 2009, p. 316). According to Parker and Davis (2009), Winnicott (1960/1965) believed that “safety, nurturance, responsiveness, and consistency” (p. 321) formed an environment conducive for replacing the false self with one’s true self.

Benner (2004) counters the false self with truth and trust. He declares, “The only hope for unmasking the falsity that resides at the core of our being is a radical encounter with truth. Nothing other than truth is strong enough to dispel illusion” (Benner, 2004, p. 79). And later, “Had we dared to trust God’s goodness, we would have discovered that everything we could ever most deeply long for would be ours in God” (Benner, 2004, p. 80).

By “unmasking your false self” (Benner, 2004, p. 75), the true self, or imago Dei, is able to show itself. According to Keating (2005), “The true self is God’s idea of who we are” (p. 56). Knowing one’s true self by knowing God, and knowing God through knowing one’s self, is a foundational premise for Benner’s (2004) book, The gift of being yourself. Benner (2004) cites John Calvin: “There is no deep knowing of God without a deep knowing of self and no deep knowing of self without a deep knowing of God” (p. 20). People find their true selves by finding God (Benner, 2004). In Peters’ (1992) words, “to enhance our understanding of things divine is simultaneously to enhance our self-understanding” (in Blanton, 2008, p. 79). Becoming one’s true self is essentially a spiritual exercise, therefore, which is grounded in one’s identity as being made in the image of God.

What does it mean to be made in the image of God? Christians throughout the centuries have recorded what this means to them. For Augustine, the ability to reason and have moral agency were key (Entwistle, 2004). For Bufford (2007), “To be made in the image of God connotes significance and worth” (p. 295). Erickson’s (1985) three-fold perspective has been frequently cited (Entwistle, 2004; McMinn & Campbell, 2007; Bufford, 2007).

Erickson observed that there are three general views of the character of the imago Dei: a substantive view in which the image reflects a particular divine quality, such as thinking; a relational view in which human relatedness (made male and female) reflects divine relatedness within the trinity; and a functional view in which the task of dominion, tending, creativity or some other activity reflects the divine endeavours. (Entwistle, 2004, p. 152)

McMinn and Campbell (2007) noticed an overlap between Erickson’s perspective of the imago Dei and psychology’s multi-dimensional understanding of human nature. Instead of reducing the meaning of the image of God to only one interpretation, it is more holistic to recognize the worth of each perspective (McMinn & Campbell, 2007).

How is the imago Dei in each person released to express itself? By replacing the false self with one’s true self, which is ultimately found in God.

The true self is... your total self as you were created by God and as you are being redeemed in Christ. It is the image of God that you are—the unique face of God that has been set aside from eternity for you. (Benner, 2004, p. 91)

By expressing one’s “gifts, temperament, passions and vocation in truthful dependence on God” one is living out the true self (Benner, 2004, p. 103). Truth and trust work to replace the false self with the true self, grounded in God (Benner, 2004).

McMinn and Campbell (2007) note that viewing a person as an imager of God has implications for how therapists interact with their clients, because it forms the foundation of people’s dignity.

Every human being is a created one, made in the image of a loving God. And Christian therapists are called a step beyond recognizing God’s dignity in other humans; we are to be ambassadors of God’s character in our dealings with others. (McMinn & Campbell, 2007, p. 27)

Seeing clients as being made in the image of God not only enables a therapist to value them, but also to have a direction for counselling. Although obsessive compulsive tendencies, anxiety, and low self-esteem will each call for unique approaches, by seeing a person as created in the image of God yet living in a fallen world a counsellor gains a new way of conceptualizing the human condition. This will ultimately affect the counsellor’s therapeutic goals, of helping each client to become more his or her own true self, while at the same time also inspiring the counsellor to become more his or her own true self.

Conclusion

Prior to integrating theology and psychology, a professional must be aware of his or her own personal worldview. This will form the foundation and the impetus for integration. One’s understanding of epistemology, cosmology, and philosophical anthropology will each affect how a person conducts research, engages in professional practice, and directs his or her personal devotional life. The author believes that God’s revelation through His Word and His works are reliable sources of knowledge, that the universe and all that is in it was created intentionally by God, and that although humans are fallen and tend to present a false self they ultimately bear the image of God in their true selves.

References

Answers in Genesis. (2009). The AiG statement of faith. Retrieved from Answers in Genesis website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith.

Averbeck, R. E. (2006). Creation and corruption, redemption and wisdom: A biblical theology foundation for counselling psychology. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 25(2), 111-126.

Blanton, P. G. (2008). Integrating postmodern and Christian contemplative thought: Building a theoretical framework. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27(1), 73-84.

Benner, D. G. (2004). The gift of being yourself: The sacred call to self-discovery. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.

Bufford, R. K. (2007). Philosophical foundations for clinical supervision within a Christian worldview. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 26(4), 293-297.

Clinton, T., & Ohlschlager, G. (2002). Competent Christian counselling: Definitions and dynamics. In T. Clinton & G. Ohlschlager (Eds.), Competent Christian counselling: Foundations & practice of compassionate soul care (Vol. 1) (pp. 36-68). Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press.

Coffee, L., & Dean, D. (2009). Introduction to the creation-date debate. Retrieved from Reasons to Believe website: http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/animal-death-before-adam/introduction-creation-date-debate.

Dao, C. (2009). Man of science, man of God: Henry M. Morris. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research website: http://www.icr.org/article/science-man-god-henry-m-morris/.

Entwistle, D. N. (2004). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Entwistle, D. N. (2009). A holistic psychology of persons: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 28(2), 141-148.

Hunter, L. A. (2009). Epistemological approaches to inner healing and integration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 28(2), 101-104.

Institute for Nouthetic Studies. (n.d.). Jay E. Adams: Biography. Retrieved from http://www.nouthetic.org/jay-e-adams/biography.html.

Keating, T. (2005). Manifesting God. New York: Lantern Books.

McMinn, M. R., & Campbell, C. D. (2007). Integrative psychotherapy: Toward a comprehensive Christian approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academics.

Morris, H. M. (2000). Cosmology on trial. Back to Genesis, 137, a-c. Retrieved from Institute for Creation Research website: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-137.pdf.

National Aeronautics & Space Administration. (2009). Cosmology: The study of the universe. Retrieved from http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/WMAP_Universe.pdf.

Parker, S., & Davis, E. (2009). The false self in Christian contexts: A Winnicottian perspective. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 28(4), 315-325.

Reasons to Believe. (n.d.). Our purpose. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-purpose.

Sandhu, D. S. (2007). Seven stages of spiritual development: A framework to solve psycho-spiritual problems. In O. J. Morgan (Ed.), Counselling and spirituality: Views from the profession (pp. 64-92). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Steup, M. (2005). Epistemology. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy website: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.