¹ A version of this essay was first presented before the Religion and Social Sciences Section of the American Academy of Religion at its seventy-fifth anniversary meeting (Chicago, December 1984). My thanks to Professor Robert Fuller for that original invitation and to Professors Thomas Groome, Peter Homans, and Don Browning for their critical and constructive suggestions in the preparation of this paper.

² More transitional from this perspective, but sharing it in large measure, were such psychologists as Edward Aloysius Pace of Catholic University, who had studied under Wilhelm Wundt, and Pace's highly influential protégé Moore, Thomas Verner, author of Heroic Sanctity and Insanity: An introduction to the Spiritual Life and Mental Hygiene (New York: Grune & Stratton, 1959).Google Scholar See also Donceel, Joseph, Philosophical Psychology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955).Google Scholar

³ The most extreme statement of this collaborative function is perhaps represented by John Giles Milhaven's assertion that moral theologians have a positive “moral obligation to use contemporary empirical methods and science” in their work as ethicists. See Milhaven, , “The Behavioral Sciences and Christian Ethics,” in O'Meara, Thomas and Weisser, Donald, eds., Projections: Shaping an American Theology (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 134–53.Google Scholar More critical and more nuanced is the position of James Gustafson that truly contemporary theological ethics is impossible without the contribution of social science but that “empirical research will never replace ethical arguments in the resolution of moral issues.” See Gustafson, , “The Relationship of Empirical Science to Moral Thought,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 26 (1971).Google Scholar See also Curran, Charles, Moral Theology: A Continuing Journey (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), pp. 62–89;Google Scholar and McCormick, Richard, Notes on Moral Theology 1965-1980 (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981), pp. 367–71.Google Scholar The methodological debate over the role of social science is well summarized with respect to the crucial area of sexual ethics by Cahill, Lisa Sowie in her article: “Sexual Issues in Christian Theological Ethics: A Review of Recent Studies,” Religious Studies Review 5 (1978).Google Scholar

⁴ Rahner, Karl, “Theology and Anthropology,” Theological Investigations, 9: 28–45.Google Scholar

⁵ Rahner, Karl, “The Theological Concept of Concupiscentia,” Theological Investigations, 1: 347–82.Google Scholar

⁶ Maritain, Jacques, “Freudianism and Psychoanalysis—A Thomist View” in Nelson, Benjamin, ed., Freud and the Twentieth Century (N.Y.: Meridian Books, 1957).Google Scholar Maritain's formulation displays the significant influence of the French Catholic writer Dalbiez, Roland whose two-volume study, Psychoanalytic Method and the Doctrine of Freud, trans. Lindsay, T. F. (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1941)Google Scholar was a masterful defense of psychoanalysis as a methodology for the investigation of the unconscious, a careful but qualified critique of the “scientific sexology” of psychoanalysis, and a rejection of what he viewed as the philosophical inadequacy of psychoanalysis with respect to the fundamental matter of the human good and the higher functions of morality, art, and religion.

⁷ Conn, Walter E., Conscience and Self-Transcendence (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1981);Google ScholarDoran, Robert, Subject and Psyche: Ricoeur, Jung and the Search for Foundations (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1977);Google ScholarTyrrell, Bernard S.J., , Christotherapy II (New York: Paulist Press, 1982).Google Scholar

⁸ Homans, Peter, Theology After Freud: An Interpretive Inquiry (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970).Google Scholar

⁹ Cauthen, Kenneth, The Impact of American Religious Liberalism (New York: Harper and Row, 1962).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Tracy, David, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975), p. 25.Google Scholar Note that my typology differs from Tracy's which includes among liberal theologians not only Protestant figures (Schleiermacher, Ritsehl, etc.), but Roman Catholic modernists as well. Similarly, the way in which he organizes neo-orthodox theology, the category into which he would place the figures we are here calling “Protestant existentialists,” also is intended to include such Roman Catholic writers as Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan.

¹¹ Horton, W. M. himself, in a preface to a later work, Theology in Transition (New York: Harper and Row, 1943)Google Scholar, acknowledged that the influence of neo-orthodoxy and the assaults of contemporary social traumas had forced him to reconsider his earlier optimism and moved him towards what he termed a “realistic theology.”

¹² For illustration of a liberal theological posture with respect to psychology see Doniger, Simon, ed., Healing: Human and Divine: Man's Search for Health and Wholeness through Science, Faith and Prayer (New York: Association Press, 1957);CrossRefGoogle ScholarRitey, Hector J., The Human Kingdom: A Study of the Nature and Destiny of Man in the Light of Today's Knowledge (New York: University Publishers, 1962);Google Scholar and James, M. and Savary, Louis, The Powerat the Bottom of the Well: T.A. and Religious Experience (New York: Harper & Row, 1974).Google Scholar See also Fuller, Robert, “Carl Rogers’ Impact on Pastoral Counseling and Contemporary Religious Thought” in Shlein, J. and Levant, R., eds., Client-Centered Therapy and the Person-Centered Approach (New York: Praeger, 1983).Google Scholar

¹³ Van Til, Cornelius, Psychology of Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1935);Google ScholarAdams, Jay, The Christian Counselor's Manual (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Collins, Gary, The Rebuilding of Psychology: The Integration of Psychology and Christianity (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁵ For a survey account of the evangelical response to psychology see Carter, John D. and Narramore, Bruce, The Integration of Psychology and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981);Google Scholar also Collins, Gary R., Psychology and Theology: Prospects for an Integration (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1981).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Homans, Peter, “Toward a Psychology of Religion: By Way of Freud and Tillich” in Homans, Peter, ed., The Dialogue Between Theology and Psychology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 53–82.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Homans, Theology After Freud, chap. 7.

¹⁸ Tracy, David, “The Foundations of Practical Theology” in Browning, Don, ed., Practical Theology (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), p. 62.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tracy, David, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975), pp. 32–42.Google Scholar

²⁰ Tracy, David, The Analogical Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1981), pp. 47–69.Google Scholar

²¹ For an influential discussion of the Freudian contribution to the creation of a culture of psychology, see Rieff's, PhilipThe Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New York: Harper and Row, 1968).Google Scholar

²² For the most developed and nuanced discussion of the role of psychology for a practical theology based on Tracy's model, see Browning, Don, Religious Ethics and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983);Google Scholar also see Browning's, “Pastoral Theology in a Pluralistic Age” in Browning, Don, ed., Practical Theology (New York: Harper and Row, 1983).Google Scholar

²³ Macquarrie, John, Thinking about God (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), p. 136.Google Scholar

²⁴ Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theoiogy (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p. 292.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid., p. 296.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 298. For a critical discussion of this “therapeutic” understanding of soteriology, see Hunter, Rodney, “Moltmann's Theology of the Cross and the Dilemma of Contemporary Pastoral Care” in Runyon, Theodore, ed., Hope for the Church: Moltmann in Dialogue with Practical Theology (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1980).Google Scholar

²⁷ Holland, Norman N., “Postmodern Psychoanalysis” in Hassan, Ihad and Hassan, Sally, eds., Innovation/Renovation: New Perspectives on the Humanities (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), pp. 291–309.Google Scholar

²⁸ Meissner, William, Psychoanalysis and Religious Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).Google Scholar It is a measure of the distance come in the field in two decades to compare Meissner's most recent book with his earlier collection of source materials, Foundations for a Psychology of Grace (New York: Paulist, 1965). The theological commitment to a “Catholic” vision of continuity remains constant, but the psychological bearings in the earlier work are taken almost entirely from ego psychology and in particular the work of Erikson. Erikson remains a seminal resource for theologians working out an understanding of the human roots of religious development—even as Erikson's own implicit and explicitly theological loyalties become more clearly visible and more critically analyzed. For representative examples of constructive appropriations of Erikson for ethical, pastoral, and fundamental theological analyses, see Browning, Don, Generative Man: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Society and the Good Man in the Writings of Philip Rieff, Norman Brown, Erich Fromm and Erik Erikson (New York: Delta, 1975);Google ScholarCapps, Donald, Life Cycle Theory and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983);Google Scholar and Berthold, Fred, “Theology and Self-understanding: The Christian Model of Man as Sinner,” in Homans, , ed., The Dialogue Between Theology and Psychology, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar

²⁹ For a comprehensive and current introduction to this perspective in psychoanalysis, see Greenberg, Jay and Mitchell, Stephen, Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

³⁰ Moore, Sebastian, The Crucified Jesus is No Stranger (New York: Seabury, 1977)Google Scholar, The Fire and the Rose are One (New York: Seabury, 1983)Google Scholar, and The Inner Loneliness (New York: Seabury, 1983).Google Scholar Moore is, of course, not the first or the only example of this soteriological appropriation of psychology. Moore's efforts are anticipated by Daim's, Wilfried use of psychoanalysis and existential psychology in Depth Psychology and Salvation (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1963).Google Scholar On the contemporary scene we could also have appropriately chosen for discussion Loder, James, The Transforming Moment: Understanding Convictional Experiences (New York: Harper and Row, 1981).Google Scholar

³¹ It is striking, as William Loewe has pointed out, that along the way of rendering this “psychological appropriation of the story of Jesus,” Moore has come closest to recovering the Christology of Martin Luther. See Loewe, William, “Encountering the Crucified God: The Soteriology of Sebastian Moore,” Horizons 9 (1982), 216–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Moore, , The Fire and the Rose are One, p. xii.Google Scholar

³³ McDermott, Brian, What Are They Saying About the Grace of Christ? (New York: Paulist, 1984), P, 63.Google Scholar

³⁴ Lamb, Matthew, Solidarity With Victims: Toward a Theology of Social Transformation (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 82.Google Scholar

³⁵ The thesis that the praxis of pastoral counseling is a neglected but crucial source for the material of fundamental theology has been elsewhere argued. See, e.g., Thornton, Edward, Theology and Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967);Google ScholarLake, Frank, “The Theology of Pastoral Counseling,” Contact: The Journal of the Clinical Pastoral Association 3 (1980), 1–27;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Mcintosh, lan, Pastoral Care and Pastoral Theology (Edinburgh: St. Andrews Press, 1972).Google Scholar

³⁶ Miller, Alice, The Drama of the Gifted Child, trans. Ward, Ruth (New York: Basic Books, 1981)Google Scholar, also For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, trans. Hildegarde, and Hannum, Hunter (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1983).Google Scholar

³⁷ Slipp, Samuel, Object Relations: A Dynamic Bridge Between Individual and Family Treatment (New York: Aronson, 1984).Google Scholar For a promising suggestion of how we might rethink the soteriological problematic using the resources of family systems theory see Harding, Leander, “The Atonement and Family Therapy,” Anglican Theological Review 67 (1985), 1–12.Google Scholar