Above All Things Put on Love: Transforming the Emotions of the Mind

A Brief History of Emotions

Before delving into the inadequacy of the contemporary brain-based interpretation of emotions as a model for facilitating emotional transformation in Christian spiritual formation, I will commence with a succinct overview of the historical progression of emotions. This will help elucidate how our present comprehension has come to fruition. The English word for “emotions” has only been in use for the past 200–300 years, stemming back to the philosophy of David Hume who likely picked up and modified the French term émotions from his reading of René Descartes. ⁶ Notwithstanding the recent coinage of the term, the phenomenon of emotions has existed throughout antiquity.

The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, contains no specific word referring to our modern concept of emotions, ⁷ and this was also true throughout ancient Near Eastern culture. ⁸ Despite this lack of a designated term for emotions, the reality is clearly present in the biblical writings. Cain was angry with his brother Abel (Gen 4:5), Jacob was sad when he believed Joseph had been killed (Gen 37:34-35), and the Israelites were afraid of Pharaoh and his army (Exo 14:10).

There is no direct reference to the concept of emotions in the New Testament. However, during the time of these writings, the Greek term “pathē” was used to describe human “passions.” The concept of the passions can be traced back to ancient Greece and was mentioned in various genres, from Aristotle’s ethical teachings to Greco-Roman entertainment. ⁹

Aristotle perceived passions as “passive” states, experienced by an embodied soul when acted upon by the outside world. He recognized their significance in human life, as they had the potential to cause both conflict and harm but could also be cultivated by reason for character development and a well-lived life. ¹⁰

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul speaks of passions influencing individuals, both in the workings of the flesh (Rom 7:5, Gal 5:24), and in afflictions and sufferings (Phil 3:10, 2 Tm 3:11). These passions were something the body “suffered,” resulting in bodily changes and influencing behavior. ¹¹ Biblical references to passions could conceivably correlate with the modern concept of negative emotions as passive, context-dependent bodily states. However, the contemporary emphasis on a brain-based description is not reflected in these references, nor is the notion of positive emotions conveyed in these references.

Roman Stoic philosophers, influenced by the writings of Cicero and Seneca, similarly regarded passions as passive bodily responses, and with notably unfavorable implications. They likened the passions to a disease-like state that disrupted genuine human nature, using the Latin terms “perturbatio” and “affectus” to refer to them. The Stoics held the belief that for a select few, the ideal state of human existence would be one of “apatheia,” where the passions of the body were entirely eliminated. ¹²

Influential Christian theologians delved into the discussion of human passions and how to effectively manage them for a fulfilling life. Augustine of Hippo employed both Latin terms “passiones” or “passions,” and “affectiones” or “affections,” to describe these movements of the soul. ¹³ According to Augustine the passions could be united by love and guided by reason, steering human beings away from their obsession with worldly things and, instead, towards God. ¹⁴

Thomas Aquinas later picked up on the work from both Aristotle and previous Christian thinkers, formulating a highly sophisticated model of the passions. Aquinas presented a holistic picture of the human being, a body-soul composite fully integrated with his time’s available medical physiology. ¹⁵ He described human beings consisting of higher and lower faculties and powers of the soul, working together in unison to provide bottom-up input from the lower sensitive soul (which housed the passions) and top-down agency and political control from the higher intellectual soul (which included the intellect and the will). ¹⁶ Aquinas’ model associated a sense of morality with the passions. Because human agency had governance (even if incomplete) over the passions, they could be habituated over time via grace into virtue, allowing human beings to live fully into their nature of pursuing beatitude in God. ¹⁷

There was considerable overlap with the use of the terms passions versus affections, and a distinction between the two continues to be an area of debate. ¹⁸ Despite the ambiguity in terminology, the passions and affections of the soul served as the normative language for Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and Christian thinkers alike, up to the modern period. ¹⁹

In the eighteenth century, René Descartes facilitated a transition in the understanding of passions and affections, moving away from the classical model of soul movements to one centered on perception. ²⁰ Alongside a literal dualism of body and soul as distinct substances, this shift gradually set the stage for a clear separation between the bodily animal powers and the rational powers of the mind. ²¹ Consequently, this division distanced the passions and affections from the will and, over time, from human agency and moral responsibility as well. ²²

In spite of this evolving trend, certain influential Christian thinkers, such as Jonathan Edwards, remained more aligned with the classical model of considering passions and affections as movements of the soul, while rejecting the literal division between soul and body. ²³ Although the tradition had always involved some degree of intermingling between the passions and affections, Edwards, in following the trajectory of certain Medieval Christian theologians, established a clear differentiation between the two. Here, affections, an act of the will, pertained to the highest and most noble aspect of the soul – relating humans to the Divine and disembodied spirits. Conversely, passions, originating in the body and moving against the soul, were associated with the lower aspect of the soul, relating humans to the more animalistic nature of creation. Kyle Strobel elaborates on Edwards’ viewpoint, noting that for Edwards,

Passions, following contemporary use of the term “passionate,” are more sudden and violent to the body (i.e., violence to the ‘animal spirits’ and the ‘motion of fluids’ according to Edwards’s understanding of human physiology). Affections, on the other hand, are a more abiding movement of the will…Edwards’s vision for human flourishing is a whole-hearted person whose affect is integrated with the intellect and the body, and not someone whose passions are overriding their person. ²⁴

Within Edwards’ framework, the regenerate Christian can develop a habitual disposition toward religious affections and virtue, the highest of which being love, that can re-order the soul around God. “The Christian has a new mode of habituation that entails a weaning away from the old self and in the passions of the flesh, to the new self with the affections of the Spirit.” ²⁵

While Edwards adhered to the more classical model of passions and affections, Descartes’ influence eventually paved the way for a broader adoption of the term “emotions.” Through the contributions of philosophers like David Hume and Thomas Brown, a fresh wave of thinkers sought to establish a scientific understanding of emotions, distancing themselves from religious categories, such as that of the soul. As Lasater notes,

The ‘passions’ of the soul were on their way to being transformed into the ‘emotions’ of the body, with the body pragmatically redefined to fit into the early-modern mechanistic conception of nature, which, by definition, excluded from the outset anything like the soul with its ‘passions’. ²⁶

In the nineteenth century, a new secular psychology emerged, deliberately distancing itself from theology and concerns related to the soul. ²⁷ This modern psychology applied careful mathematical and observational techniques that had been helpful in the natural sciences and embraced Darwin’s theory of evolution which provided an alternative understanding of human origin consistent with a naturalistic worldview. ²⁸ Eric Johnson notes “As the impetus to turn psychology into a natural science grew across the West, biblical study and philosophical reflection were systematically excluded as sources of knowledge about human nature, in favor of the empirical investigation of the structures and processes of the senses, mind, memory and behavior.” ²⁹ What was once the theology of the passions had become the science of the emotions.

Charles Darwin published The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals in 1872, concluding that emotions share a common expression in both humans and animals based on his observations of facial and bodily behaviors in cats, dogs, and human infants. ³⁰ This led to the development of a supposed set of “universal” or “basic emotions,” based on the cross-cultural ability to identify these basic emotions by facial expressions. ³¹ The six commonly agreed-upon emotion categories became: happiness, surprise, fear, anger, disgust, and sadness. ³²

This concise historical overview of emotions brings us to the era of modern psychology and its exploration of a brain-based approach to the study of emotions. However, the historical background raises three crucial points pertinent to Christian spiritual formation. Firstly, it underscores a significant shift in how we perceive the emotional or affective realm, transitioning from focusing on the passions and affections of the soul to examining the emotions of the body. Dixon aptly captures this historical transformation, stating,

It is an immensely striking fact of the history of English-language psychological thought that during the period between c. 1800 and c. 1850 a wholesale change in established vocabulary occurred such that those engaged in theoretical discussions about phenomena including hope, fear, love, hate, joy, sorrow, anger and the like no longer primarily discussed the passions or affections of the soul, nor the sentiments, but almost invariably referred to ‘the emotions’. ³³

Secondly, as the focus shifted towards a physicalist perspective centered on the body, the emphasis on the will was lost. The implication of this is a subsequent decline in the sense of human agency and morality in the modern conception of emotions. Dixon underscores this, noting that this “Category of emotions, conceived as a set of morally disengaged, bodily, non-cognitive and involuntary feelings, is a recent invention.” ³⁴

Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially for the context of this article, the wealth of guidance concerning the cultivation of healthy growth and transformation in the realm of the affective life is notably absent from a modern brain-based discussion of emotions. Particularly, the emphasis on nurturing virtues such as love, with its unifying potential, has been largely overlooked. This omission leaves the earnest Christian with an incomplete portrayal of the potential for growth and flourishing achievable through the integration of a sincere exploration of the emotional life into the process of Christian spiritual formation.

The Brain Basis of Emotion

To delve deeper into this argument, I will offer a succinct overview of the evolution of the present field recognized as affective neuroscience. This field has produced a substantial body of literature and knowledge. Nevertheless, despite its remarkable discoveries, a noteworthy lack of consensus endures within the contemporary understanding of emotions, leading to insufficient guidance for achieving authentic emotional transformation that aligns with the tradition of Christian spiritual formation. I posit that this shortfall might stem from an overly exclusive approach that excluded essential disciplines such as philosophy and theology, which were previously integrated into the most significant historical advancements in understanding the emotional life.

Scientists commenced employing the disciplines of physiology and neurology to search for a neurological basis of emotion within the body. Emotions were broken down into discrete emotion categories (e.g. fear, or sadness) with the assumption that an underlying physical fingerprint for each category could be found in the brain. In the realm of contemporary affective neuroscience, this is commonly referred to as the “classical view” of emotions, where “the human mind is structured as a set of mental abilities, each associated with a unique state caused by its own, unique biological system.” ³⁵

In the 1960s, Paul MacLean proposed the theory of a “triune” human brain to explain how the human brain evolved over time from animal ancestors forming three layers: an ancient reptilian core, an old mammalian brain, and the new mammalian neocortex which separates the human brain from lower animals. ³⁶ Emotions were assumed to arise from the more primitive “limbic system” and cognition, then, from the “neocortex”. ³⁷

But instead of discovering a distinct physical fingerprint for emotions in the brain, the result was a variability in findings. This led to a further act of reduction where emotions themselves were deemed merely functional states of behavior, so the emphasis switched to studying the causes and effects of behavior itself (behaviorism). Barrett and Satpute note, “The neural circuitry for freezing or fleeing became the circuitry for fear;” ³⁸ however, this approach only continued to produce variable findings.

A new approach emerged from behaviorism which likened the brain to a computer, where emotions were seen as specific programs within the brain. ³⁹ This led to the rise of cognitive neuroscience, and the search began for specific neuronal circuits for each emotion category, still strongly influenced by the triune brain theory with the “prefrontal cortex (as putative home of cognition) downregulating the amygdala (as the putative home of emotion).” ⁴⁰

Barrett and Satpute noted that history repeated itself, with variability in data once again being the norm. They observed that “studies that were purposely designed to isolate the specific neural basis of a mental category and distinguish it from other categories were consistently unable to do so.” ⁴¹ As an illustration of the variability in findings, experiments conducted on S.M., a famous patient who lost both amygdalae due to Urbach-Wiethe disease, led to the designation of the amygdala as the “the hub of fear,” as S.M. showed difficulty experiencing fear in many typical instances. ⁴² However, S.M. would still spontaneously report feelings of worry, and patients with amygdala lesions did not report subjective changes in their experience of emotions. ⁴³ In addition, some animal evidence showed that monkeys and rats could express fear responses without intact amygdalae, ⁴⁴ and a meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies showed a more consistent increase in amygdala activation with disgust compared with anger, fear, happiness or sadness. ⁴⁵

Newer research has challenged the idea that emotions are expressed in strict and universal ways, instead showing cultural differences, ⁴⁶ within-category variability, ⁴⁷ and context-dependent features. ⁴⁸ And a renewed focus on the subjective experience associated with emotions only adds another layer of variability in findings, further complexifying the study of emotions. ⁴⁹

Barrett and Satpute claim that new evidence from the constructionist theory of emotions suggests “that the category of emotion is not a natural kind…just as emotion categories themselves are not natural kinds.” ⁵⁰ This rethinking of the overall nature and understanding of emotions is not unique to Barrett and Satpute. The validity of concepts like the triune brain and an actual discrete limbic system are now largely challenged, referred to as “so-called” when mentioned by leading researchers. ⁵¹ What was once widely-held—that the amygdala is the “fear center”—is now publicly denounced. Joseph LeDoux notes, “It is nothing short of a cultural meme. Work by me and others on how the amygdala detects and responds to danger in rats has added quite a bit of fuel to this memetic fire. But I actually don’t think that feelings of fear are made by the amygdala, and I have made a concerted effort to clarify this in recent years.” ⁵²

So, where does this leave us today? In a recent debate between two leading affective neuroscientists on the topic “What is an emotion?,” moderator Leonard Mlodinow comments,

After more than a century of scientific inquiry…emotions remain essentially contested concepts: scientists disagree on how they should be defined, on where to draw the boundaries for what counts as an emotion and what does not, on whether conscious experiences are central or epiphenomenal, and so on. Such disputes have sown great discord among scientists, leaving the field in perpetual upheaval, and without a unified framework for guiding scientific inquiry and accumulating knowledge. ⁵³

From the original aim of modern neuroscience to discover a distinct physical fingerprint for individual emotion categories, variation in results has been the norm; no specific neural circuit can be consistently identified for a particular emotion. ⁵⁴ Despite the impressive body of research data accumulated over the past century, our current scientific understanding of what we refer to as an emotional experience (such as feeling angry) remains in infancy. Barrett states, “We presently know very little about the conceptual system that supports the mental representation of emotion, and we know even less about the neural referents for the conceptual system for emotion.” ⁵⁵

A further difficulty is the lack of progress in developing effective treatment options for common emotional problems people experience, such as anxiety. LeDoux notes “the problem is not with the research. It is with the widespread assumption that disordered fear and anxiety are problems that stem from pathophysiological alterations in circuits that we have inherited from our mammalian ancestors.” ⁵⁶ The research has focused on objectively measurable physical responses that are assumed to represent fear, while neglecting the subjective feelings themselves. LeDoux argues the “subjective feelings are not an optional, less-reliable measure of fear or anxiety: they are the fear or anxiety that the person experiences.” ⁵⁷

So how did things get so far off track? The loss of interdisciplinary contributions from philosophy and theology led modern psychology to become narrowly fixated on uncovering a purely biological, brain-based explanation of emotions. This narrowed and exclusive approach starkly contrasted the holistic and multidisciplinary approach of Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Perhaps there is a valuable lesson for us to learn here. Barrett emphasizes, “Only when we understand all the elements that construct emotional episodes, in social, psychological, and biological terms, will we understand the nature of emotion.” ⁵⁸

For the earnest Christian seeking guidance on matters concerning the emotional life (love, joy, hope, fear, anger, etc.), the brain-based approach to the emotions has proven inadequate in offering effective advice for navigating the affective challenges of everyday life.

Drawing From the Judeo-Christian Wisdom Tradition

A historical analysis of emotions highlights a notable shift away from recognizing the wisdom embedded within the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition regarding this topic. Specifically, there has been a loss of the emphasis on love as a unifying element and its role in shaping emotional development which has shown up repeatedly through the history of Chrisitan thought. Interestingly, what was excluded from the discussions of the emotions in the nineteenth century, namely theology and philosophy, might actually provide the missing ingredients for developing an approach to the affective life that remains relevant to everyday living. Alvin Plantinga states the scholarly work of a Christian philosopher, as well as that of a Christian psychologist, will include two tasks: cultural criticism, and positive Christian scholarship. Plantinga describes the current state of academics for the Christian scholar generally:

Contemporary scholarship is an arena in which a fundamentally religious conflict is being played out: the struggle is between a theistic perspective, on the one hand, perennial naturalism and creative anti-realism (along with the relativism and anti-commitment it spawns) on the other. These last dominate contemporary scholarship; furthermore they are deeply opposed to the Christian perspective. What the Christian and theistic community needs, therefore, is first, Christian cultural criticism, and second, Christian scholarship. ⁵⁹

Applying this line of thought to the study of emotions, the Christian psychologist brings a unique lens from which to offer constructive cultural critique. This begins with questioning the intentional and direct dismissal of the religious category of the soul that was made at the start of modern psychology. No empirical finding was made at the time to support such a dramatic move; rather, the decision was based on emerging cultural and ideological grounds. ⁶⁰

Furthermore, it was not only a rejection of the entire category of spiritual reality but also an unnecessarily exclusive approach that assumed the disciplines of philosophy and theology were not needed in the study of human emotions. ⁶¹ A way to re-invigorate this area of study and expand on the possibilities of progress is to openly invite a multi-disciplinary approach once again. There should be no room for this academic exclusivity if the shared goal is joint discovery and progress. Barrett takes a step in this direction, incorporating biological naturalism from the philosophical work of John Searle to help model a new approach of understanding and studying the experience of emotions. ⁶² Although this is far from an open invitation to theology, it does show a turn from the exclusivity of the natural sciences seen over the past couple centuries.

The second task Plantinga gives to the Christian psychologist is positive Christian scholarship in the respective field of study. The Christian psychologist brings unique knowledge to offer. Dallas Willard would often refer to the Bible as the best information we have on the most important topics in life. ⁶³ If this is correct, then Christianity offers essential knowledge to the discussion of human psychology and human emotions.

One challenge when examining ancient wisdom sources in the study of emotions is anachronism, which involves superimposing the modern concept of emotion onto a time when the modern notion did not exist. However, as previously mentioned, the actual phenomena encompassed by the term “emotions” have always been present; it is our conceptual understanding of emotions that has shifted and evolved over time.

Another concern with reading our modern construct of emotions back into the Judeo-Christian writings is misunderstanding the object of study altogether. For example, “to equate יראה [fear] with an emotion or mental state of fear risks distorting our understanding of ancient Jewish anthropological and psychological concepts from the outset.” ⁶⁴ For example, an instance of fear in the Bible may be described with explicit terms, or it may be represented by facial expressions, gestures, physical symptoms, or metaphors. ⁶⁵ Furthermore, fear can describe being afraid, but also a good and right reverence to God that can be intentionally learned and practiced over time. ⁶⁶ As Barrett and Satpute state in the field of affective neuroscience, “What we learn (or fail to learn) about emotion in any experiment is determined by how we define emotions in the first place.” ⁶⁷

What Christian spiritual formation needs in this complex realm of the emotions is a cross-disciplinary voice, firmly grounded in the Scripture and enriched by the wisdom of great philosophers and theologians from the past. This voice can offer practical guidance on effectively managing the emotional aspects of everyday life, while remaining aligned with the traditional Christian beliefs that emphasize the significance of the soul, body, will, and the unifying power of love. This timeless tradition has been upheld and enriched through the ages, from biblical times to the eras of influential figures such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Edwards. I will suggest a framework for a positive approach to the emotional life based on such a voice, Dallas Willard, largely drawn from his work in Renovation of the Heart. ⁶⁸

Christian Spiritual Formation and Emotions

Before presenting Willard’s model as a possible solution for emotional transformation, I will delve into his broader model of Chrisitan spiritual formation and provide a brief overview of his associated understanding of human anthropology. Ensuring clarity in terminology is undoubtedly a crucial aspect of any positive advancement in the field of emotions, given the long-standing historical ambiguity surrounding terms in this area. Willard’s model of Christian spiritual formation describes a process where the various dimensions of the human person are transformed to look more like Jesus. His human anthropology is based on the Greatest Commandment which Jesus gives in the Gospel of Mark: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these’” (Mk 12:30-31). From this command Willard identifies five dimensions of the human person: the heart, soul, mind, body, and social context. ⁶⁹

Willard situates the human capacities of thought and feeling within the dimension of the mind, with the broader category of feelings including sensations, desires, and emotions. ⁷⁰ In this model, feelings encompass anything that is “felt,” with emotions being a specific type within this broader category. Consequently, Willard frequently employs these terms interchangeably but maintains a technical distinction between them. He contends that “feelings and emotions are fostered and sustained by ideas and images, though social or bodily conditions also factor in.” ⁷¹

The idea that thoughts sustain emotions is present in various models. Aquinas’ model described a higher intellective soul working with the lower sensitive soul to formulate a “phantasm” from bodily and environmental input and previous experience, which is then presented to the will for judgment. ⁷² Barrett’s constructionist model of emotions involves a “cognitive appraisal” which is formulated from bodily core affect, environmental exteroception, and prior experience (conceptualizations), all of which are guided by executive attention. ⁷³ And Ledoux’s “emotional mental model” is supported by subconscious schemas that are based on prior object and situational concepts, emotional facts and contexts, and self-facts and concepts. ⁷⁴ In all of these models, emotions arise as a gestalt out of several complicated inputs, but they are supported by an intermediary thought or cognition.

These models all share some features of a cognitive theory of emotions, where an emotion derives from emotion-relevant cognitions or thoughts. ⁷⁵ All of these models also account for both bodily and environmental inputs in the development of emotions. Regardless of theory, what is clear is that emotions and thoughts are closely related, so much so that Barrett suggests the two may be conceptualized as being on a gradient rather than two separate systems. ⁷⁶ Clinicians know this well from experience, as they engage in the work of helping to change the thoughts and emotions of their clients on a daily basis. Willard insists “We must be very clear on how the negative feelings rest on ideas and images. Those feelings can themselves be transformed by discipleship to Christ and the power of the gospel and the Spirit, through which the corresponding ideas and images are changed to positive ones.” ⁷⁷

Emotions vs. Conditions

Before delving into Willard’s model of emotional transformation, it is essential to clarify one more point. When Willard discusses feelings or emotions, he is referring to relatively brief, short-lived experiences, which he insists must be distinguished from longer-term dispositions that he calls “conditions.” For instance, Willard asserts that love, joy, and peace are, in fact, longer-term conditions, not merely fleeting emotions. ⁷⁸ In Willard’s explanation, conditions are habitual, enduring, settled dispositions of the person which may give rise to secondary, short-lived feelings such as emotions. However, the emotions associated with love, for example, should not be confused with the condition of love itself. Willard offers examples, such as a person who perpetually seeks the emotions associated with love but struggles to maintain healthy loving relationships (essentially “falling in love” with the emotions linked to love), or one who consistently pursues emotions of peace but sidesteps addressing the essential sources of injustice required for genuine peace. ⁷⁹

This distinction between a short-duration, episodic instance of an emotion compared with a longer-term, more settled condition is also seen in the characterization of state versus trait emotions. One can be in an acute “state” of anxiety, but there is also a longer-term personality characteristic known as “trait” anxiety, described as “an individual’s tendency to appraise situations as threatening, avoid anxiety-provoking situations, and demonstrate high baseline physiological arousal.” ⁸⁰ Over time, these tendencies lead to increased negative emotional experiences and maladaptive safety behaviors which maintain long-term anxiety symptoms. ⁸¹ Could a positive illustration of this enduring trait emotion resemble Willard’s concept of “conditions” or Edwards’ description of “affections,” where there exists a sustained disposition of the will, accompanied by secondary bodily effects, ultimately shaped by grace within the rightly ordered soul under God?

In the realm of religious affections, Edwards himself recounted his personal experiences of habitual dispositions that sometimes appeared to be at odds with his momentary “felt” experiences. For instance, despite his advancing Christian maturity, he found himself increasingly aware of his inner pride and self-righteous tendencies, which did not align with the type of felt experience one may expect from such positive growth. ⁸² Strobel explains Edwards’ perspective, stating that he compares “a disposition in the soul to union with another of the opposite sex, Edwards avers, but one, clearly, does not “feel” that all the time. Rather, it is a habitual disposition from which acts and affections flow.” ⁸³

This differentiation between emotion and conditions can also be seen in the New Testament writings concerning anger. When anger is mentioned in the New Testament, two Greek terms are employed. “Thymos,” refers to a more turbulent and short-lived emotion that eventually subsides, while “orgē,” although it can be used interchangeably with “thymos,” is more closely linked to a longer-term, enduring, and settled disposition of the mind.

Willard’s distinction between feelings and conditions is clarifying and generative; for example, separating the biblical condition of love from the modern concept of an emotion removes any confusion of seeing love as merely a fleeting emotion or transient state. Additionally, understanding love in this way can foster the longer-term condition of love within our character. In reference to spiritual formation, then, Willard suggests “we must choose and act with regard to the condition, good or bad, and allow the feelings to take care of themselves, as they certainly will.” ⁸⁴

Love, Joy, and Peace

Now that we have grasped Willard’s concept of conditions, we are prepared to explore his approach to transforming the emotions of the mind through the process of spiritual formation into Christlikeness. Willard suggests the initial step in spiritual transformation must involve the heart, which he argues is synonymous with the spirit, or will. From the approach of the loving Word and Spirit of Christ, the human will can surrender to the will of God. This initial transformation of the heart cannot be skipped, as proceeding to transform the emotions of the mind depends on the Holy-Spirit empowered, surrendered human will. ⁸⁵

Although the emotional landscape may seem like an overwhelming terrain to navigate, Willard suggests there are just three primary “conditions” to focus on in the transformation of our emotional life: love, joy, and peace. If we actively pursue these conditions in the process of discipleship to Jesus, it will lead to a transformed emotional life. ⁸⁶

In the area of positive Christian scholarship, the Christian psychologist can bring unique and essential knowledge on love, joy, and peace from the Scripture as well as from the vast wisdom of the Christian tradition. Below, I offer a case study using the condition of love to demonstrate this point.

Love: A Case Study

When we turn to Scripture to comprehend love, we encounter something notably different from the modern concept of an emotion. In modern terms, emotions are regarded as functional states or mental constructs generated by the brain to explain the body’s internal condition and its surrounding environment. However, if we do not consider love within the modern context of emotion, where exactly does it belong?

Love, biblically, comes from God himself (1 Jn 4:7) and is an essential attribute of God (1 Jn 4:8, 16). In both the Old and New Testaments, love is represented by several different words in the Hebrew and Greek languages and expressed in various ways. Perhaps the most well-known word for love among Christians is agapē, but even agapē holds various meanings in the Scripture. Thomas Jay Oord notes “Agapē has many meanings because love takes many forms. Over ninety percent of the time agapē refers to promoting well-being. Although the forms vary from self-love to neighbor love to foreigner love to enemy love and more, agapē aims in various ways to do good, benefit, or be a blessing.” ⁸⁷ Oord explores the various ways love is described in the Scripture and concludes, “To love is to act intentionally, in relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.” ⁸⁸

Willard’s description of love is “an overall condition of the embodied, social self, poised to promote the goods of human life that are within its range of influence.” ⁸⁹ So although love can take a variety of forms in the Bible (such as desire, compassion, friendship love, and love of God), all of these forms fit under the umbrella definition of acting to promote the good or well-being of another.

The disciple of Jesus can learn to cultivate and foster this condition of love through the various dimensions of the human person (heart, soul, mind, body, and social context) being progressively changed into the image of Christ as the disciple is with Jesus, learning to be like him. Willard suggests a “Golden Triangle” of spiritual formation with the three points of the triangle (representing the action of the Holy Spirit, the ordinary events of daily life, and the planned use of spiritual disciplines) surrounding the Mind of Christ at the center. ⁹⁰ This triangle maps a daily, intentional journey of a disciple learning to experience the grace of God in the everyday details of life.

Practically, this involves intentionally engaging particular spiritual disciplines in the course of regular life, which places the disciple in an open posture of accepting the grace of God; practicing fasting, prayer, scripture memorization, solitude and silence, worship, or service, for example, begin to make up the fabric of the disciple’s daily life, just like they did for Jesus himself. The result of living a life in this way brings change to the heart, soul, mind, body, and social context by God’s nature, which is love.

Willard is careful not to overly-manualize this journey because it is a relationship not a program, though he does suggest a logical order in the personal transformation process of becoming a loving person. These stages of inner character growth include coming to terms with your feelings and desires, growing in faith, and dying to self, all of which prepare the individual to be filled with God’s love. ⁹¹

In addition, Willard suggests an order involved in the process of learning how to love God and those around us. The initial step involves the disciple accepting God’s love for them into their inner being, so they can then love God in return with the love that came from him in the first place. After these initial steps, the disciple can love their neighbor as themselves in the power of God, as well as truly receive the love of others in return. ⁹²

The focus is on seeking and cultivating change in underlying conditions. In the process of doing so, the overall sum of our emotional life takes on a different character from these underlying conditions. We can still experience a wide range of positive and negative emotional experiences, but the steady tone of our emotions become shaped over time by the effects of love. One can imagine a variety of emotions arising from this underlying condition of love which, above all, acts to promote the good and well-being of others. This could include romantic emotions for a spouse, compassion or grief when empathetically listening to another, or even uncomfortable emotions when having to set a difficult but firm boundary for a loved one, because that is the loving thing to do for them.

Future Implications

With the development and rise of modern psychology, there was an associated dramatic shift in the approach to studying and understanding human emotions. This shift involved separating psychology from theology and religion, ⁹³ which has resulted in an unnecessary divide between the study of psychology and Christian theology. Consequently, there are insufficient resources available for Christians who are serious about navigating some of the more critical aspects of the affective life, such as those pertaining to love. Reflecting on his experience in the mental health field, psychiatrist Dan Blazer addresses this split by claiming the related discipline of psychiatry has “lost its soul” and Christianity has “lost its mind.” ⁹⁴ Blazer was alluding to the mechanistic approach that the psychological sciences were adopting towards human beings, neglecting their spiritual experiences, as well as a dramatic counter-response from the Christian community, resulting in the dismissal of insights from the discipline of psychology altogether.

However, after more than a century of frustrated scientific study, the landscape is changing to now include Christian efforts at seriously integrating psychology and theology, ⁹⁵ as well as an initial recognition for the cross-disciplinary dialogue needed to study what we refer to as emotional experiences. ⁹⁶

The Christian tradition holds unique and essential knowledge for the discussion of human emotions. This places Christian spiritual formation not on the periphery but, rather, at the cutting edge, as it offers essential contributions to advance the field of emotional health and well-being. Specific training and instruction on how to pursue these three biblical conditions (love, joy, and peace) in the context of Christian discipleship, as well as measuring growth in these conditions and the associated psychological and physical sequelae of embodying them, provides rich opportunity for future scholarly study.

Beginning from a sound theology of each condition, we can seek to develop objective measurement tools to assess personal growth in the respective area. Furthermore, the effects of embodying these conditions can be analyzed (studying the effects of love, joy, and peace, for example, on depression and anxiety scores, substance use patterns, perceived social support, quality of life measures, inflammatory and immunological bodily states).

If Willard’s model is fruitful, and the biblical conditions of love, joy, and peace are demonstrated to associate with various positive markers of health and well-being, the focus then remains on the wisdom of the Christian tradition to teach people how to pursue and foster these conditions (love, joy, and peace) in daily life. This is one way in which Christian spiritual formation can contribute positively to the ongoing scientific study of emotions.