Hannah James and Harvey Cawdron
Introduction
On the 24th of October 2025, two of the fellows participating in the cross-training fellowship, Hannah James and Harvey Cawdron, discussed their work on the fellowship with staff and PhD students in the School of Divinity at the University of St Andrews. As part of this, they discussed 5 questions in which both the fellows provided answers, and then asked for the thoughts of other attendees.
Discussion Questions
1. How did you engage with psychology in your project?
Hannah: In my project, I primarily worked with qualitative data – analyzing the interviews of Christian participants who have a close non-Christian friend or family member. My project viewed these relationships through the lens of “symbolic threat,” or a threat to one’s morals, values, or ways of life. Where we might assume symbolic threat to be present in these interpersonal relationships, I asked the questions: 1) What does symbolic threat look and feel like? And 2) What are the interpersonal factors that help these individuals maintain their relationships in the face of difference?
Harvey: My project investigated how those with Dissociative Identity Disorder can be better enabled to flourish in Christian communities. It was a theoretical project, rather than an empirical one, that considered how revisions to our understanding of Christian doctrines and practices might help those with the condition. I engaged significantly with the psychiatric literature on Dissociative Identity Disorder to both gain an understanding of the condition and its causes and symptoms, and to gain insight into the experiences of those with it. My proposal for amendments to doctrines and practices were formulated in light of these considerations.
Audience: In this part, we asked the audience how, if at all, they engage with psychology in their own work. Several members of the audience were engaging with psychology in some way in their research. One member of the audience was a clinical mental health therapist, and is bringing ancient Christian contemplative practice into dialogue with contemporary mindfulness. Another researcher was formerly a counsellor, and although their project fits more within science-engaged theology, some ideas from their experience in counselling, like choice theory, are present in the background when engaging with theology. Another spoke about their engagement with sociology, and suggested this sounds similar to the way we are engaging with psychology. One scholar is also engaging with the philosophy of cognitive science in their project. Thus, members of the audience are engaging with areas related to psychology in a variety of ways in their own research.
2. How can psychology contribute to theological debates?
Hannah: Justin Barret in his work, TheoPsych, helps us to think about when we might rely on psychology in our theological projects by asking 4 important questions: “1) Are you (the theologian) making descriptive psychological claims? 2) Are you making normative claims supported by descriptive psychological claims? 3) Are you making claims about what effects texts, rituals, and practices have on people? 4) Are you constructing an argument that uses intuitions as premises?” (2023, pg. 14). These questions help us to think more carefully about how we represent certain topics in our research, e.g., human behaviour, motivation, morality, emotions, etc. With our research theme broadly being related to human flourishing, this is not only something that we should only think about theologically. While we might want to envision certain ways that our lives should flourish in relationship to God and others, we can put these claims to the test, and greater refine our normative claims about flourishing. In my project, Christoph Schwoebel was one helpful interlocutor on interreligious dialogue, positing that we should celebrate the other as other. This idea turned out to be psychologically healthy in my participants – those who could embrace the difference of the other were not only happier but seemed to have more vibrant, honest relationships with their friends or family members.
Harvey: My project was in the field of disability theology, which is focused on developing theological concepts and practices in a more inclusive way for those with disabilities. When trying to uplift the voices of marginalised communities, as disability theology is looking to do, it is crucial to listen to the voices of those in these communities. Psychological research enables us to do so in an academically rigorous way, and can provide insights from these communities to help us think theologically about how we can help them.
Audience: The audience had numerous suggestions here. It was noted that psychologists tend to engage more with people than we do in theology (although, exceptions to this, like practical theology, were noted), whereas theology is typically focused on theories and ideas. A more people-centred focus can add a new dimension to theological discussions. It was also suggested that psychology provides us with another perspective or vantage point, and thus helps us check the lenses through which we see things when conducting research.
3. How can theology contribute to research in psychology?
Hannah: In a conversation with a few other philosophers and theologians on this subject, there are a few ways that theology can critique and hopefully help psychology (and positive psychology in particular). A couple of examples: 1) Psychological studies often have a “philosophical thinness.” For example, in studies of flourishing or wellbeing, we might consider 3 theories of flourishing: eudaimonism, hedonism, or subjectivism. We could ask which one is better, in which context, for what measure, or for what purpose? Relatedly, 2) sometimes in positive psychology, there is too great a polarization between positive and negative emotions. Theology or the biblical witness can give us an insight into the fittingness, or the appropriateness of negative emotions in lament, anger, or protest. These also have their place.
Harvey: Theologians, certainly in the analytic tradition that I have been trained in, define terms very precisely, and there are lots of debates around how terms should be defined. Insight into these debates may help psychologists to provide more fine-grained definitions of the theological or religious terms they are using, and this could even help them measure the phenomena they are studying more precisely. For instance, when discussing prayer, being clear on the type one is referring to and its intended results may help when it comes to measuring its impact on participants.
Audience: Again, the audience had numerous ideas here. There were some who focused on the background assumptions of psychologists, and suggested that theology can help psychologists think about the assumptions they bring into their research and can help them to realise when they are being theological without knowing it. They also highlighted how theology can help provide clear definitions, particularly regarding theological and religious concepts. Others focused more on the lens theology can bring to psychological research. For example, it can bring an eschatological perspective when framing psychological research, and given the extensive discussions of meaning and ethics in theology, it provides resources for thinking about how the research fits within one’s life.
4. What challenges are there when trying to integrate psychology and theology in research projects?
Hannah: Much like Harvey, it feels like one discipline’s methods, assumptions, or definitions must win out. It is difficult to achieve equal integration. In order to commit to the psychology portion of my project, I often found myself drawing a blank about how to think theologically about my subject matter. It was as if I had abandoned theology in the process because I felt overwhelming pressure to do psychology “correctly.” There will likely always be a tension in trying to utilize both disciplines for a psychology-engaged theology project.
Harvey: One of the key challenges I encountered was the peer-review process. Because psychology-engaged theology is still in its infancy, a lot of the times manuscripts will be sent to either psychologists or theologians, both of whom offer interesting insights but can sometimes push your work to veer closer to their respective discipline. For instance, in one of my pieces I was building off of the psychiatric literature on Dissociative Identity Disorder, and my paper was reviewed by a theologian who wanted me to provide a theological interpretation of the condition, pushing the project far more towards theology.
Audience: Much of the audiences’ concerns here focused on critical engagement with psychology. They were keen to know how much we can trust the observations of psychologists and the outcomes of psychological research. We acknowledged concerns caused by things like the replication crisis but said that training on how to engage critically with psychological research helps to address these concerns, as it means you can learn what to look out for when assessing the conclusions and methods of the research. There was also a comment about the starting assumptions of both psychologists and theologians. It is easy to talk past one another if these assumptions, and even singular words/concepts, are not clearly defined.
5. How can the field of psychology-engaged theology be developed?
Hannah: I would say there needs to be a development on the integration of these fields, specifically through the directionality of psychology-engaged theology. Perhaps we could ask what it might look like for there to be a theology-engaged psychology? While there is a sub-discipline of psych of religion, this is not quite the same thing. In an interesting study on the perceptions of psychology from theologians and theology from psychologists, there tended to be a greater willingness and positivity from theologians when embracing psychology and some hesitancy from psychologists when thinking about theology/theologians. I’d like to think theologians are misunderstood, and that we could make more of an effort to justify our utility to the sciences.
Harvey: There are many different things we could focus on in this question (grant projects, teaching modules, degree programs). However, in line with my answer to the previous question, perhaps some additional journals or book series specifically for psychology-engaged theology would help. Having specific venues for publishing work that bridges these disciplines might help to lessen cases where work is pushed more towards one of the two disciplines in peer-review, as the venue itself would not lean more towards theology or psychology, but would prioritise both.
Audience: The audience had several observations here. They suggested treating psychology-engaged theology as a sub-group of theology. To do the foundational work needed to establish this as a discipline, they suggested that psychologists and theologians should spend more time together to reduce prejudice and build relationships. To help with methodological questions, they suggested figuring out the background assumptions of psychologists and theologians, as this will help us to identify, and address, potential conflicts.
