Black Liberation Integrative Psychology: Implications for Clinical Theory and Practice

Limitations of existing integration models

There is extensive history that has outlined the relationship between Christian theology and secular philosophy, going as far back into history as St. Augustine’s theological work and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle (Johnson et al., 2010). This is understandable, given the shared interest of secular philosophers and Christians in the development and wellbeing of the human internal self and its relationship to the external world. This overlap in interests represents a strong bond shared among Christian psychologists as well. Predominant integration models seek to reconcile apparent tensions between views of the secular world and of the Christian faith as it applies to matters relating to human existence and behavior (Johnson et al., 2010). More specifically, the Levels of Explanation model posits that Christianity and psychology both explain human behavior at their unique sphere of engagement with existence. However, the two are not necessarily well-positioned to provide an integrated framework—rather, the perspective that is deemed most relevant in a particular circumstance is the preferred point of view for that context (Johnson et al., 2010). The Christian Psychology view is described as a distinctly Christian psychotherapy, theory, and practice constructed directly upon Biblical foundations—an alternative form of psychology altogether distinct from secular psychological frameworks (Johnson et al., 2010). Transformational Psychology is an integrative framework that emphasizes spiritual direction and soul care using distinctly Christian resources. From this perspective, the primary goal of psychology is to support the spiritual formation of the individual (Johnson et al., 2010). Biblical Counseling as a practice is exclusively centered upon the Bible as the only source of input and knowledge used for psychological practice (Johnson et al., 2010). Finally, the Integrative framework is constructed around the premise that God’s truth can be found both in secular psychology (i.e., God’s world) and in Christianity (i.e., God’s Word), and that the two can be integrated as distinct but not mutually exclusive sources of knowledge about human behavior (Johnson et al., 2010).

Collectively, the aforementioned five views start with an assumption that Christianity and Psychology are disparate topics that need to be integrated, rather than as naturally and inherently intersectional (Jones & Butman, 2011). Furthermore, the overarching focus and nature of predominant mainstream models of integration are cognitive, conversational, and rational in nature (Johnson et al., 2010; Neff & McMinn, 2020). That is, these models heavily emphasize the intellectual, cerebral aspects of aligning Western religious philosophy with Western psychological theory. Said differently, they are rightly understood as a valid contextual approach to integration, reflecting a Western understanding of psychology and a Western understanding of Christianity—integrated in a manner consistent with Western thought and practice. For these reasons and more, these models are prone to miss avenues of knowing and experiential wisdom central to many cultures and theological perspectives indigenous to most of the world (Neff & McMinn, 2020). As such, the uncritical application of these models to non-White or non-Western cultural contexts can lead to practices that lack depth and relevance or even cause harm.

Integration views and cultural inclusion

These five frameworks are not meant to be mutually exclusive approaches to integration. Rather, each has its own value when it comes to addressing the psychological needs of the individual, the body of Christ, and the world at large. Still, while each of these views follows a unique approach to the understanding of human existence and behavior, there seems to be a common missing element—the consideration of culture and context in the shaping of one’s engagement and experience in the world and in the Christian faith (cf. Porter et al., 2021). A plethora of research in the area of multicultural psychology has illuminated current understandings of how context and culture profoundly shape human experience (Matsumoto, 2008), with some studies illustrating the unique benefits of culturally congruent and spiritually integrative approaches to psychotherapy (D. C. Wang et al., 2016). In fact, in recent decades, scholars have built their cases for a greater focus on the psychological study of religion and spirituality on the grounds that such constructs represent a vital dimension of culture (Tarakeshwar et al., 2003). Thus, it is long overdue that the integration literature follows suit by exploring the means by which culture and context might profoundly shape the integration endeavor. Accordingly, we turn now to one particular perspective that we believe can serve as an excellent starting point to this line of inquiry: Cone and BLT.

Black liberation theology

BLT, rather than being a discrete framework developed by a single scholar, encompasses a wide swath of theologians with specific applications to various communities. Liberation theology (LT) more broadly was first cultivated and expanded by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a priest and theologian of Peruvian descent (Dear, 2011). After wrestling with how to adequately apply his European education to the poverty and oppressive forces he witnessed within Latin America, Gutiérrez began articulating a theology that advocated for justice to be brought to earth and for the righting of societal wrongs (Singer, 2022). To truly care for marginalized persons, Gutiérrez’s new LT taught that one must also confront the systemic greed and violence that entangled and dragged down the oppressed (Dear, 2011). Saving faith involved not only eternal implications, but also being part of the “process through which the world is transformed” (Gutiérrez, 1973, p. 12). In his seminal book, A Theology of Liberation, Gutiérrez (1973, p. 118) writes,

Christians have not done enough in this area of conversion to the neighbor, to social justice, to history. They have not perceived clearly enough yet that to know God is to do justice. They still do not live in one sole action with both God and all humans. They still do not situate themselves in Christ without attempting to avoid concrete human history. They have yet to tread the path which will lead them to seek effectively the peace of the Lord in the heart of social struggle. (p. 118)

Gutiérrez outlined three broad categories of freedom and liberation that flowed out of the heart of the Christian gospel, including economic freedom, the ability to use one’s free will, and ultimate liberation from sin leading to communing with God (Gutiérrez, 1973). Gutiérrez faced pushback from the Catholic church due to the Vatican’s concerns that he was embracing Marxist ideology, despite the reality that Marxism and LT were quite dissimilar except in their commitment to empowering and elevating the poor (Singer, 2022).

James Cone, then, was central in translating LT into an American context, and applying the principles first outlined by Gutiérrez to the systemic evils of racial injustice plaguing the purportedly Christian nation of the United States. The following section will focus on James Cone’s specific contributions to LT, especially BLT, and provide an overview of its development, key principles, and a rationale for integration with psychology.

Implications of BLT for integration

BLT bears important implications for Christian integrative clinical practice. As noted earlier, the integrative framework is premised upon the assertion that God’s truth can be found in both God’s Word and God’s world. Said differently, Christians (and by extension, Christian psychologists) are to draw knowledge from both special revelation and general revelation. Concerning the latter, Erickson (2013) speaks of God’s self-manifestation through nature, history, and the inner being of human persons, noting that this particular self-manifestation of God is described as general due to its universal availability as well as in the nature of its content being less particularized and detailed than special revelation. Elaborating further on general revelation, Porter (2004) speaks of three specific sources of knowledge useful for theological reflection drawn from the work of John Wesley; these include human reason, historical tradition, and human experience.

Although there are several areas of overlap and interaction between Erickson and Porter’s views on general revelation, the one we wish to highlight here concerns the vital role that human experience plays in shaping and informing one’s theological reflection and discourse. Perhaps Cone’s contribution to this discussion would be his invitation to consider, within the integration literature, whose human experience is being integrated and whose is not. Indeed, although one of the characteristics of general revelation is that it is universally available to be observed, in practice, many of us not are socially located in contexts where we can personally relate to or even have the opportunity to bear witness to the experiences of those who are marginalized. Social polarization within the United States is a trend that is reflected in church congregational makeup, with 85% of congregations in the United States being comprised of at least 90% of one racial group. Emerson (2020) suggests that this segregation and homogeneity in our religious communities facilitates in-group bias, negative stereotyping and dehumanization of out-group members, and the dismissal of contradictory evidence of out-group stereotypes. If this is indeed the case, what sort of evidence or perspectives might be prone to be dismissed? Cone (1969) responds to this question rather directly:

The problem with White society is that it wants to assume that everything is basically all right. It wants Black people to assume that slavery never existed, and the present brutalities inflicted on them are the working of isolated individuals and not basically a part of the system itself. (p. 170)

Since Cone’s day, White conservative Protestants’ approach to racial inequality continues to be codified through frameworks such as “accountable free will individualism,” “anti-structuralism,” and the assumption that “all Americans have equal opportunity” (Emerson et al., 1999). Such frameworks may hold some merit upon purely theoretical grounds in an ideal world. However, in reality they stifle efforts to address present racial injustice that needs to be reckoned with in a society that has been racialized since its founding (Miller, 2020). It follows that if most of the foundational frameworks of a given field were authored and theorized by individuals unaware of or out of touch with the experiential realities of the marginalized, such frameworks are similarly free to remain abstract in nature and in so doing, offer little value to those individuals who are still living in the consequences of the concrete. Cone (1969) admonished, “to be Christian means that one is concerned not about good and evil in the abstract but about men who are lynched, beaten, and denied the basic needs of life” (p. 160).

Unfortunately, remaining in the abstract and the ideal in a socially stratified society or spiritual community can lead not only to a lack of awareness, but even an open denial of the experiential realities of the marginalized. To illustrate, recent research conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that 71% of White evangelical Protestants believe that the recent killings of Black individuals at the hands of police officers were isolated incidents rather than part of a larger pattern (Vandermass-Peeler et al., 2020). In contrast, this same study reported that an overwhelming majority of Black Americans (82%) believed that these killings are part of a broader pattern. It appears probable that one’s views on such a pressing issue are in fact shaped by human experience (or a lack thereof).

Regretfully, experiences and perspectives of people of color are woefully underrepresented in both the Christian psychology literature and the training regiments of Christian psychology programs. This is a dearth that we, the body of Christian psychologists, must change because endorsement of the same ideologies that represent and benefit the majority can often bear dire consequences to those in the minority (Coleman et al., 2013). Alongside Cone, we wish to encourage the consideration of how the future understanding and practice of Christian integration might evolve if it took seriously the reality of human experience, both historical and ongoing. To do such a thing would require starting from the lived experience of those who are marginalized in our society.

To this end, we suggest that a valuable starting point would be for Christian integration to speak to and actively engage social injustice with a vision to facilitate not only individual flourishing but also community renewal (D. C. Wang, 2021). Unfortunately, many of the issues facing our society and spiritual communities today cannot be adequately addressed through individual counseling and psychotherapy alone (Bulhan, 1985). Because of this, calls have been made within the field of psychology to consider expanding the scope of our work and responsibility beyond only individual interventions (Vera & Speight, 2003). This bias toward individual flourishing and distress is shared not only by psychology, but also by Christian theology and practice. Again, the sentiments of Cone (1969) speak prophetically to this point:

The mistake of the modern church is to identify the work of God’s Spirit in the believer either with private moments of ecstasy or with individual purification from sin, particularly from a short list of ritual pollutants, such as alcohol and tobacco. This is a hopelessly impoverished view. The working of God’s Spirit in the life of the believer means an involvement in the world where men are suffering. (p. 65)

In light of the focus on Cone’s work in this discussion, it is important to raise a second question—to what extent is Christian integration actually embodied and active in communities and areas of the world where people are suffering? Prilleltensky (1997) asserts that knowledge should be a tool for social action. If this is indeed the case, D. C. Wang (2021) poses the following rhetorically—“Should not the wealth of knowledge created by and available to Christian mental health professionals be leveraged to benefit society and directly facilitate community renewal?” (p. 80). Cone’s (1969) conviction was that God remains active now in the lives of those who are marginalized and because of this, no Christian can evade or rationalize their responsibility for joining God in this important work. He adds by asserting that a fundamental purpose behind justification—being made righteous through Christ—is not to just be justified for its own sake or merely for our personal benefit, but rather for the justified to join God in fighting for justice. During a different era of unprecedented social unrest, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1997) concluded similarly that “the church is only the church when it exists for others . . . The church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life” (p. 382). We suggest that the same is true of the field of Christian integrative psychology—that it is only Christian when it exists for others, sharing and engaging in the secular problems of ordinary human life, and in so doing, demonstrating what it means to live in Christ.

Existing models of integration, such as but not limited to the Transformational Psychology model, posit that the primary goal of psychology is to support the spiritual formation of the individual, the transformation of the heart and spirit (Johnson et al., 2010). We agree with this assertion and believe that it should include the transformation of communities and of the world. This is because the Christian vision of redemption—of a new heaven and a new earth—transcends transformation on just an individual level.

One more practical application of this discussion is the need for more robust and holistic perspectives on spiritual formation. Cone (1969) emphasizes how the world needs a gospel that is concerned with freedom of the body as well as the soul, of life and living now in addition to an otherworldly reality. Recent empirical research in the area of spiritual formation has highlighted the salience of dispositions such as intercultural competence and self-differentiation as constructs of relevance to spiritual maturity (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014; Sandage & Jankowski, 2012; D. C. Wang, 2021). To more concretely illustrate practical implications of this discussion, we review how they might apply within a clinical training context.

Relational cultural theory in a clinical training context

Jean Baker Miller, credited as the seminal scholar behind Relational Cultural Theory (RCT), identified “five good things: sense of vitality and zest, increased clarity about self and others, augmented creativity and ability to take action, an experience of worth and empowerment, and a desire for increased connectedness with others” (as quoted by Singh & Moss, 2016, p. 401). Miller’s work and RCT more broadly provide a lens that views clients and supervisees within a relational context driven by mutual empathy. RCT highlights the core need for connection and interdependence to thrive while attending to “multiculturalism, intersectionality, resilience and strengths-based foci into counseling practice” (Singh & Moss, 2016, p. 398). However, this can be challenging in a culture that values independence and separation. According to Jordan (2017), “RCT is both a theory and part of a movement to shift from a culture of separation to one of connection” (p. 236). Of note, RCT was developed by a White feminist psychologist within the US context whose work was shaped by the recognition that White male developmental theories stressed independence as being integral to healthy human development. Still, RCT can be understood through a Black liberative framework as a potential application of Biblical principles of justice, collective healing and wholeness, and interconnectedness. Thus, RCT is examined here as a larger framework that can align with BLT.

Both theology and psychology value the importance of relationship and connection; however, based on worldview and context of the practitioner and/or interpreter, who and what defines health and connection may differ. Various branches of Western psychology view health as primarily focused on the self and moving toward individualism and personal happiness, with relational focus as a secondary need (Jordan, 2017). Within Christian theology, health is often considered in relationship and re-connection to God and His church. Thus, differences between theology and psychology may occur due to differing ideas of what constitutes health, how one understands human behavior, and how change occurs. In attempting to find ways to integrate the two, RCT’s values of centrality of relationship, interdependence, and lowering of hierarchy align with Biblical views that foster connection with one another and the Divine. According to RCT, authentic connection through empathic understanding, genuine engagement, and valuing differing perspectives provides a medium for encouraging relational-spiritual growth and clinical progress. In this way, RCT has the potential to bridge a gap that exists in the application of principles of BLT to clinical and supervisory relationships.

Historically in the field of psychology, the separate self leans toward the “need for power-over.” RCT, however, proposes boundaries as “places of meeting, differentiation, and exchange, connection rather than power-over” (Jordan, 2017, p. 229). These reflect values often represented in the Scriptures, where there are many examples of value of the Body of Christ versus the individual, honoring the roles each person plays without a power-over need, and valuing interdependence. Christian scholars have defined the purpose of God in the gospels as being counter-cultural and inverting power hierarchies (Green, 1995). This understanding of God is a vehicle for proclaiming that salvation is for all. Thus, one can conclude that holistic healing from a biblical perspective is not separate from social change, even if God is present in the midst of suffering. RCT proposes that it is within the relational context that healing takes place (Jordan, 2017). In this way, BLT, RCT, and the Bible all highlight the need for social change.