Journal of Pastoral Theology

ISSN: 1064-9867 (Print) 2161-4504 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypat20

POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AS A RESOURCE FOR

PASTORAL THEOLOGY AND CARE: A PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT

MARY CLARK MOSCHELLA

To cite this article: MARY CLARK MOSCHELLA (2011) POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AS A

RESOURCE FOR PASTORAL THEOLOGY AND CARE: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT,
Journal of Pastoral Theology, 21:1, 5-1-5-17, DOI: 10.1179/jpt.2011.21.1.005

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/jpt.2011.21.1.005

Published online: 25 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypat20
 POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AS A RESOURCE FOR PASTORAL
THEOLOGYAND CARE: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT1

MARY CLARK MOSCHELLA

YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL

The field of pastoral theology and care has long relied on insights from the social
sciences in its quest to “construct theology growing out of the exercise of caring
relationships…” (Mission Statement of the Society for Pastoral Theology, 1990). Positive
psychology, a very young, developing field of psychology, involves the study of
psychological wellness, goodness, and fulfillment. This article explores the potential of
positive psychology as a conversation partner for pastoral theology and its related
practical disciplines. It begins with a brief introduction to the field of positive
psychology, through an overview of three publications: one popular book (Seligman,
2000); one reference book, (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); and one introductory textbook
(Peterson, 2006). This is followed by a review of pastoral theologian Robert Wicks’ use
of positive psychology in a recent text (Wicks, 2010), and a reflection on implications for
pastoral theology and care. The article then offers a critical evaluation of positive
psychology, noting its strengths and weaknesses from a pastoral theological perspective,
as well as critiques in the scholarly and popular literature. The article concludes with a
preliminary assessment of the value of positive psychology for the field of pastoral
theology and care.

What is Positive Psychology?

Martin Seligman first uses the term “positive psychology” to name a new
initiative of his presidency of the American Psychological Association in 1998.2 In his
best-selling book, Authentic Happiness, Seligman tells the story of his dawning
perception that most prior research in psychology, including his own, had focused on
advancing the scientific and clinical understanding, identification, and treatment of
psychiatric disorders. While affirming the value of what had been learned, Seligman
began to view the scope of research and treatment modalities as too narrow. He worried
that an almost exclusive focus on pathology in the research had led the field to embrace a
“disease model” of human nature. He questioned the idea of treating persons with
psychiatric illnesses only in order to bring them up to a vague level of “normal” human
functioning. He wondered what could be learned about psychological improvement
above the line of normal, and set out to explore greater levels of positive emotions,
fulfillment, and accomplishment. Together with his colleague, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,
Seligman proposed a new area for psychological research, focusing on psychological
health and wellness, strength and virtue, and the pursuit of what Aristotle termed, “the
good life” (Seligman, 2002, p. ix). According to another key figure in the movement,
Christopher Peterson, “The most basic assumption that positive psychology urges is that
human goodness and excellence are as authentic as disease, disorder, and distress”
(Peterson, 2006, p. 5). These researchers and others, primarily at the University of
Pennsylvania, launched numerous empirical studies of positive emotion, human
strengths, virtues, fulfillment, and positive social institutions.3

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-1

 Of course, this emphasis on human strengths, resources, and health is not entirely
new. Antecedents can be found in the humanistic psychology movement of the 1950s,
particularly the work of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. For pastoral theologians,
Howard Clinebell’s work on growth counseling (1981) might come to mind, as well as
Margaret Kornfeld’s more recent text, Cultivating Wholeness (2000). Family therapy is
also known for its strengths-based methods (Walsh, 2006). Authors in positive
psychology acknowledge some of the parallels in humanistic psychology, yet also point
to distinguishing features of their enterprise (Peterson, 2006, pp. 8-10).

Positive Emotion: Past, Future, and Present

Positive psychology involves three main areas of study: positive subjective

experiences such as pleasures and emotions; positive traits such as virtues and character
strengths; and positive institutions such as families, schools, communities, and societies.
In Authentic Happiness, Seligman cites studies that indicate that positive emotion is good
for people. It has been shown to contribute to emotional “broadening and building”
(Frederickson, 2001) and to predict health and longevity (2002, p. 40). Seligman
describes positive emotion in a temporal scheme, which includes happiness related to the
past, the future, and the present. He provides instruments for readers’ self-assessment of
emotional levels and exercises for increasing positive emotion in each of these (2002, p.
45). Positive emotions that have to do with the past include “satisfaction, contentment,
fulfillment, pride, and serenity” (2002, p. 62). In order to increase satisfaction with the
past, Seligman offers exercises involving practices of gratitude and forgiveness.
Positive emotions related to in the future include optimism, hope, faith, and trust
(2002, p. 62). The exercises provided here involve learning how to dispute one’s negative
self-talk, or “explanatory style” (Seligman, Reivich, Jaycox, and Gillham, 1995). Readers
are urged to begin to do two things: (1) find “permanent and universal causes of good
events;” and (2) find “temporary and specific causes for misfortune” (Seligman, 2002, p.
92). This disputation process is similar to some of the exercises that cognitive therapists
advocate for challenging unhealthy or “twisted” thinking patterns (Burns, 1999).
In regard to positive emotions in the present, Seligman enumerates “joy, ecstasy,
calm, zest, ebullience, pleasure, and (most importantly) flow” (2002, p. 62). He describes
the diverse types of pleasures and offers several ways to amplify them (2002, p. 110),
including savoring pleasures, varying them, expressing thanks, marveling, and
luxuriating in them. It has been shown that people adapt quickly to pleasures; the positive
enjoyment of them decreases as the novelty wears off. This is called the “hedonic
treadmill” (2002, p. 49), a principle of which the advertising industry is well aware.
Seligman considers positive emotion more complex than pleasure. He uses the
term “gratification” to denote the positive emotion that comes from activities involving
absorption, concentrated effort. This is also known as “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).
Gratifications include things like reading a good book, playing volleyball, volunteering to
help someone, or other activities that require sustained effort in order to meet a goal.
While watching TV might yield pleasure, reading a book might offer gratification.
Authentic happiness, in Seligman’s terminology, involves more gratifications than
pleasures (2002, 111–121).

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-2

 What leads people to seek out activities that go beyond pleasure to involve
gratification or flow? Seligman and Peterson assert that good character has something to
do with these choices. Of course, the term “character” has been challenged by numerous
twentieth-century intellectual and psychological movements, including behaviorism,
environmentalism, and Marxism, to name just a few (Seligman, 2010, pp. 125–129).
Authors in positive psychology are attempting to revise and rehabilitate a notion of good
character, because they believe that through the cultivation of character strengths people
can increase their wellbeing, fulfillment, and excellence. For theologians, discussions of a
link between the practice of virtue and happiness will recall the writings of Aristotle,
Augustine, and Aquinas. Indeed, the study of the interrelationship between goodness and
happiness has a long philosophical and theological pedigree (McMahan, 2005).

Virtues and Character Strengths

This brings us to the second area of study in positive psychology, which focuses
on positive traits such as virtues and character strengths. In this area, researchers have
worked to identify and test particular lists of virtues and strengths for their salience and
multi-cultural stability. Attempts have been made at creating manuals for describing and
classifying strengths and virtues. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and
Classification is one such manual (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Here the authors imitate
the DSM-IV approach to classifying psychiatric disorders, calling their work a “manual
of the sanities” (Peterson and Seligman, 2004, pp. 3–32). This eight hundred-page
compendium identifies six core virtues—courage, justice, humanity, temperance,
transcendence, and wisdom, (2004, pp. 36-40). The authors find evidence of these core
virtues in the major influential religious and philosophical traditions within China, South
Asia, and the West, broadly construed. While not claiming that these virtues are
understood or valued in precisely the same ways across these “literate cultures,” the
authors suggest that there is enough “convergence” around these six broad virtue classes
to consider them ubiquitous (2004, p. 51). A review of previous classification systems is
offered, which includes reference to psychologists such as Erikson, Maslow, Kohlberg,
and Gardner, as well as philosophic treatments of virtue ethics.
These core virtues are then used to organize a longer list of twenty-four specific
character strengths. Ten criteria for the selection of the strengths were considered; in
order for a particular strength to be selected for the classification, it had to meet at least
five of the criteria (Seligman & Peterson, 2004, pp.16–31). Strengths are understood as
more specific and less abstract than the virtues. Strengths are viewed as character traits,
psychological characteristics of an individual that can be seen across time and in diverse
situations (Seligman, 2002, p. 137). The twenty-four strengths so grouped appear in the
table on the following page.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-3

 Table of Character Strengths and Virtues

Virtue 1: Wisdom and Knowledge Virtue 4: Justice

1. Creativity 13. Social responsibility
2. Curiosity 14. Fairness
3. Open-mindedness 15. Leadership
4. Love of learning
5. Perspective Virtue 5: Temperance
16. Forgiveness and Mercy
Virtue 2: Courage 17. Humility
6. Bravery 18. Prudence
7. Persistence 19. Self-regulation
8. Integrity
9. Vitality Virtue 6: Transcendence
20. Appreciation of beauty
Virtue 3: Humanity 21. Gratitude
10. Love 22. Hope
11. Kindness 23. Humor
12. Social intelligence 24. Spirituality

A chapter is devoted to a systematic description of each character strength. Each

chapter begins with a vignette, telling the story of a person who exemplifies the particular
strength. This is followed by sections on definitions, history, measures, development,
enabling and inhibiting factors, gender and cultural aspects, interventions, and so on. This
volume is also linked to a companion website that offers an electronic version of the
Values In Action Inventory of Strengths (VAI-IS) for adults (uat.viacharacter.org).
Positive psychologists believe that most people have “signature strengths,” a short
list of these strengths that they practice enthusiastically and that feel authentic to them.
Readers can identify their signature strengths by taking the VAI-IS inventory, either in
written form or on-line. Positive psychologists recommend that people try to find ways to
make greater use of their signature strengths in their work, play, and relationships in
order to increase fulfillment, meaning, and “authentic happiness” (Seligman, 2002, pp.
160-161).
A third volume of note is Christopher Peterson’s A Primer in Positive Psychology
(2006). This accessible textbook summarizes the history, vocabulary, literature, and basic
themes of positive psychology. It covers all of the topics noted above, stressing that
learning positive psychology is “not a spectator sport” (Peterson, 2006, p. 25), and
providing exercises to help students try out the concepts and practices that the research
suggests will contribute to “the good life.” This text also includes chapters on positive
thinking, values, interests, abilities, accomplishments, wellness, positive interpersonal
relationships (love), and positive institutions. It is to the last chapter that we will now
turn.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-4

 Positive Institutions

What is a positive institution? Peterson catalogs different types of social

groupings, from mere aggregations or assemblies of people who have no connection to
each other, to collectivities, in which people have something in common, to groups,
where people interact and mutually influence one another, to organizations, which have
structure, traditions, and customs, to institutions, which are sets of like organizations
“with sustained, pervasive influences within a society or even the world as a whole”
(2006, p. 280). Institutions are large-scale associations such as government, religion,
family, and education. Peterson notes that institutions are too large and complex to be
characterized as completely positive (2006, p. 276). He prefers to use what he considers a
light-handed term, “enabling institutions,”4 to describe institutions that support, enable, or
allow good outcomes for their members. Peterson seeks to identify institutional-level
virtues, or moral characteristics that are an enduring part of institutional cultures that
promote the fulfillment of their members. He stresses that, like Aristotle, he is not
defining fulfillment as simple happiness or as code for money, status, or pleasure, but as
reflective of “the willful choice and pursuit over time of morally praiseworthy activities”
(Peterson, 2006, p. 281).
Peterson then surveys the psychological research on good families, schools,
workplaces, societies, and religion. He identifies some widely valued institutional-level
virtues, which include: purpose—shared moral vision; safety—protection against threat
or danger; fairness—equitable rules and consistent means of enforcing them; humanity—
mutual care and concern; and dignity—regard for the personhood of each individual
member (2006, p. 298). This third area of positive psychology appears to be the least
developed, perhaps because the literature necessarily goes beyond the authors’ purview
into fields such as sociology, organizational management, and psychology of religion.
Nevertheless, the attempt to identify characteristics of positive institutions recognizes the
impact of social systems upon the wellbeing of persons.5

Bounce

Robert J. Wicks, at Loyola University in Maryland, is a Roman Catholic pastoral

theologian who has begun to appropriate some of the insights of positive psychology in
his work. Wicks sees benefits in this literature for caregivers, who are vulnerable to
second-hand stress and professional burn-out. In Bounce: Living the Resilient Life (2010),
a self-care guide for caregivers, Wicks notes that positive psychology can broaden our
horizons so that we consider our strengths “rather than merely focusing our outlook on
the negative, on only things that need fixing” (2010, p. 89). Wicks finds compelling the
evidence that “positive mood states help people build enduring personal resources” (Carr,
2004, cited in Wicks, 2010, p. 90). Reflecting on the studies of psychologist Barbara
Frederickson (2001), Wicks notes that “the benefits of happiness extend beyond just the
enjoyment of good feelings. . . . Positive emotions strengthen resources that are drawn on
throughout life to improve coping and improve our odds of survival” (2010, pp. 91-2).
Wicks finds the literature of positive psychology relevant to his larger project of
helping caregivers cultivate resilience from day to day. In particular, he utilizes the
concept of signature strengths. Based on this, he provides a table of exercises for

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-5

“Enhancing Happiness and Optimism, and in Turn, Resilience” (2010, pp. 93-4). He
describes the study of positive psychology as a way “to provide a reflective grid that
focuses us on those positive experiences, events, behaviors, cognitions, gifts, talents, and
conditions to be recalled, celebrated, and reinforced” (2010, pp. 93, 95, emphasis in the
original). Wicks includes a selected bibliography of writings in positive psychology and
encourages caregivers to make a habit of reading this literature in order to enhance their
own resiliency (2010, p. 95). Noting that the benefits of self-care extend beyond the
caregiver, Wicks writes, “We can’t share what we don’t have. It’s as simple as that”
(2010, p. 65).
Along with his adaptations of positive psychology, Wicks also offers his own
checklists for self-awareness and protocols for self-care, including tools for debriefing for
caregivers at risk for vicarious PTSD (2010, pp. 38–47). As one who has worked
extensively with caregivers, including disaster-relief workers who were evacuated from
the civil war in Rwanda, Wicks knows from whence he speaks. The book also includes
working explanations of meditation and mindfulness, as practiced in diverse religious
traditions. Wicks notes that persons of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, or
other faiths can benefit from these practices (2010, p. 135). His focus is on practice rather
than explicit theology.

Implications for Pastoral Theology and Care

In order to understand the implications of positive psychology for pastoral

theology and care, we need to get a sense of the extent of scholarly field and the
magnitude of the popular positive psychology movement. In an article in the Chronicle of
Higher Education, Jennifer Ruark outlines the remarkable growth of this academic field
and its related popular success (Ruark, 2009). Well-subscribed courses in positive
psychology are now being offered in major universities across the U.S. as well as
internationally. There is a dedicated journal, The Journal of Positive Psychology, a guild,
the International Positive Psychology Association (IPPA), a Master’s program at the
University of Pennsylvania, and a new Ph.D. program at Claremont Graduate University.
Research in positive psychology and related subjects (such as neuroscience) has attracted
extensive funding from diverse sources.6 The popular, self-help literature on positive
emotion is also voluminous, and it reaches into the field of executive coaching.
What can we make of this growing field of research and “applied psychology”?
Does the field of positive psychology have any implications for the field of pastoral
theology and care? One way to look at the significant interest in positive psychology is as
an indication of a widespread longing for happiness and wellbeing. Perhaps this
movement suggests spiritual longings that are not fully recognized or honored through
religious institutions and spiritual care practices.
Beyond this, positive psychology raises some interesting questions for the field of
pastoral theology and care. What do we believe about the human condition? Is goodness
as real as sin and evil? While we have eloquent descriptions of human experiences of the
absence of God and/or the ambiguity of God (Poling, 1996) rarely do we find reflections
on experiences of the goodness of God.7 Perhaps this is due to our appropriate focus on
care for the suffering of the world. Peggy Way states:

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-6

 (T)he reality of the human creature as finite and limited; historically situated; and
vulnerable to suffering, violence, and evil cuts through historical time and context.
God’s “entirely beautiful” creatures (W. H. Auden) participate in death and dying,
loss, grief, and mourning, situations of violence, horrors of Holocaust and natural
disasters. … The focus of pastoral care on these situations, along with its
contemporary participation in attempts to cure, fix, make right, and correct various
vulnerabilities, seems to have diminished the discipline’s firm grounding in the
faith claim as to the goodness of God. (2005, pp.138)

Way’s comments raise an important question for our field. Are we pulled into the mood
and sway of “these situations,” to the point that we miss seeing the beauty, wonder, and
gifts of human life that are also real? Positive psychology prods us to revisit these
questions.

Strengths and Limitations

Robert Wicks has picked up on two of the main strengths of positive

psychology—its numerous hands-on exercises that can help foster well-being by focusing
attention on the goodness and wonder of life, and its strengths-based approach that can
cultivate empowerment. We will look at each in turn and then consider other issues,
before turning to the critiques of positive psychology.

Effective Exercises

The positive psychology texts described here offer numerous user-friendly

exercises for reader to try out. These exercises are surprisingly effective in shifting inner
habits of thought that affect mood states. For example, one simple exercise that is
repeated in several positive psychology texts is meant to foster gratitude, which is
considered both a positive emotion and a strength. In this exercise, which is called “Three
Good Things,” persons are encouraged to sit down at the end of each day and write a list
of three good things that happened that day. In order to encourage deeper reflection,
persons are also encouraged to ask themselves why this good thing happened and to write
down their answers. In order for this exercise to take hold as a habit, it can be repeated
for 21 consecutive days. This very simple exercise has been shown to increase self-
reported happiness and decrease depression in follow-up studies done six months after
this habit was initiated (Peterson, 2006, p. 38).
Pastoral theologians and caregivers can appreciate the value of an exercise that
offers people even a small hedge against depression. Furthermore, the practice of
gratitude is central in biblical religions (as well as others). In the words of the psalmist, “I
will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart; I will tell of all your wonderful deeds”
(Ps. 9:1 NRSV). In religious settings, this exercise could be re-interpreted as a practice of
telling of God’s gifts and reflecting upon why they were given. Small groups could
covenant to engage in this daily habit of paying attention to blessings and then meet
regularly so that members can share experiences of gratitude. This exercise or some
adaptation of it could also be used in pastoral theology and care courses that address

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-7

pastoral formation. Discussing the exercises in a class or group helps reinforce and
expand the learning.
While many of these user-friendly exercises are laudable and restorative, not
every exercise in this literature is well-suited to the repertoires of pastoral care or
formation. For example, Seligman’s forgiveness exercise (2002, pp. 79–81) might
generate caution in light of previous work in pastoral theology that challenges the
wisdom of encouraging quick and easy forgiveness in all cases (Cooper-White, 1995, pp.
253–256). Along these lines, pastoral theologians may also question whether
“forgiveness, mercy” should be considered a standard character strength.
Forgiveness is a sensitive subject for pastoral theologians because we are all too
familiar with the horror stories of battered women whose pastors advise them to forgive
their abusers and return home, whereupon they experience more domestic violence.
Further, if forgiveness is listed as a ubiquitous strength, this seems to imply that those
who cannot forgive are weak. In reality, it requires enormous strength (and some would
say virtue as well) for a battered person to resist her or his abuser’s pleas for forgiveness
and reconciliation.8 In light of these issues, the exercise for forgiveness that Seligman
offers for general use could be harmful rather than helpful.
At the same time, pastoral theologians can investigate the prodigious work of
positive psychologists who study forgiveness such as Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet (e.g.,
Witvliet et al., 2004). Additionally, given our concern for “constructive theology growing
out of lived experience,” we could also learn from listening to the voices of religious
leaders such as Desmond Tutu, who testify to the liberation that some survivors of the
violence of apartheid described when they forgave their former enemies (Tutu and Tutu,
2010).

Faith-friendliness

Positive psychology is friendly toward persons of faith, since many studies

indicate that religious participation increases wellbeing (Seligman, 2002, pp. 59–61). It is
encouraging to find research that supports the efficacy of faith practices in contributing to
emotional health and wellbeing. However, the positive psychology literature described
here does not go into a detailed analysis of which faith practices contribute to wellbeing
and why. We must look to the psychology of religion and pastoral theology to
supplement and refine this kind of claim (See Pargament, 2007; Hummel, 2003).
In terms of communal care, positive psychology’s list of institutional-level virtues
noted above might be fruitfully compared to Margaret Kornfeld’s description of healthy
congregations (2000, pp. 15–44). Similarly, this research would support pastoral
leadership strategies that focus on identifying and making use of the particular strengths
and ministries of laypersons within congregations (Shelp & Sunderland, 2000).

Concern for the Least

A challenge for pastoral theologians may be our sense of calling to minister to

“the lost and the least,” those who are suffering and in need of healing, or, to use a time-
honored scriptural metaphor, the sheep that have wandered away. To shift our focus from
those who are most in need to the study of wellness, goodness, strengths, happiness, and

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-8

fulfillment may seem callous or neglectful. Surely we do not want to participate in a
diversion from the needs of those who suffer or who are oppressed.
Though this research usually does not directly address bereavement, psychiatric
illnesses, or forms of social marginalization, the findings of positive psychology
nevertheless may be of service to many who suffer from these conditions. In regard to
psychiatric illnesses, positive psychology is clearly not a substitute for medical treatment
or psychotherapy. Still, many of the strategies identified for increasing wellbeing may be
of use to persons who are managing chronic illnesses and conditions such as mood
disorders. The focus on strengths in positive psychology is critical in that it is
empowering. It offers ways for persons to identify and expand parts or aspects of
themselves that are vital, such as talents and interests. Given the ways in which persons
with psychiatric illnesses are stigmatized and stereotyped, the tools for identifying and
building on strengths may be particularly salutary. Such exercises and habits can support
the deep recognition on the part of “soul sufferers” that they are more than their
symptoms (Greider, 2007, pp. 43–50).

Critiques

There are some important critiques of positive psychology for pastoral

theologians to consider. The first and most striking difficulty is the veritable explosion of
the popular literature, much of which is of uneven quality. Many of the popular books
like Authentic Happiness are written in the vein of self-help, lacking the depth and
breadth of scholarly discussion that we would like. Clearly the profit motive helps drive
the wave of frenzied publications, conferences, and You-Tube videos. Seligman and
Peterson both appear anxious to establish their status as founders of the movement, so
much so that they quote themselves frequently, and in some cases, repeat large swaths of
text in different publications. Also, as these authors try to differentiate their work from
other schools of psychology, they often oversimplify Freud and his successors, glibly
dismissing them rather than carefully explaining points of agreement and disagreement
(For example, Seligman, 2002, pp. 66–68). These factors combined will make the
popular literature offensive or off-putting to many pastoral theologians.

Research Methods and Findings

Positive psychologists are conducting extensive empirical research. In our quest

to engage in intelligent and holistic care practices, we can benefit from critically
examining their methods and their findings. Many of the instruments used to measure
wellbeing rely on self-reporting questionnaires (Peterson, 2006, pp. 80–91). This presents
some limitations, though since the self-reports of symptoms of illness or dis-ease are
taken seriously in psychology and pastoral counseling, self-reports of life satisfaction can
be viewed as having similar merits and limitations. It has been pointed out that many of
the conclusions drawn from the use of these life-satisfaction questionnaires are
correlational rather than causative. For example, self-reported optimism is associated
with a high level of achievement in many professions. This finding only proves a
correlation between the two things, not that one causes the other.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-9

 Other critiques of the science of positive psychology concern the validity of the
“happiness equation:” H=S+C+V. In this equation, H stands for happiness, S stands for
“set point” (which indicates the natural level of happiness that an individual experiences),
C stands for life circumstances, and V stands for factors under voluntary control. Critics
point to the lack of precision in this equation and the pseudo-scientific way in which it is
described (Ehrenreich, 2009, pp. 156–158).
Seligman, in particular, claims that positive psychology is descriptive rather than
prescriptive. Yet some researchers challenge the conclusions that positive psychologists
draw from the research. For example, the evidence linking positive psychological states
to health outcomes is debated (Coyne, Tennen, Rancher, 2010; Held, 2004). It becomes
clear that the very success of a positive psychology “movement” that is closely aligned
with the needs of the market creates conflicts and tensions related to scientific integrity
(Coyne, Tennen, and Rancher, 2010, p. 36; Ehrenreich, 2009; Ruark, 2009).
Seligman and Peterson emphasize that their findings are based on positivist
scientific research, rather than phenomenology or case studies. They appear to be trying
to distinguish themselves from humanistic psychology. One critique, following Foucault,
suggests that authors in positive psychology are “valorizing their own movement,” while
deriding and sidelining humanistic psychology as a “false prophet” (McDonald and
O’Callaghan, 2008, pp. 133–135). It is further argued that the leaders of the movement
lack reflexivity, and that by creating an “overarching document” (Character Strengths
and Virtues, described above), they are positioning themselves as “the arbiters of expert
knowledge related to human happiness and wellbeing” (2008, p. 138). Thus positive
psychology is not value-free as it is claimed, but unwittingly prescribes the constraining
ideology of current neo-liberal values (2008, p. 140). It is recommended that positive
psychology open itself to alternative positions, such as other schools of psychology, in
order to find a more flexible approach to the study of human happiness.

Cultural Contexts and Diversity

The critique of the overarching narrative of positive psychology brings up the

question of cultural complexity. While there are some studies of cultural differences in
positive psychology, there is not a strong focus on cultural context in the texts we have
examined here. Even where cultural differences are studied, researchers in positive
psychology tend to use quantitative rather than qualitative approaches. There is also a
tendency to oversimplify or essentialize cultural traits.
For these reasons, positive psychology does not fit easily into our postmodern
pastoral theological discussions (Doehring, 2006). This problem is not unique to positive
psychology, but is also found in reconciling the insights of many schools of psychology
with the issues raised by postmodernism (Kvale, 1992). Pastoral theologians will
therefore always need to bring contextual lenses of analysis to bear on this conversation,
complexifying it with questions that address issues of social location, power dynamics,
and cultural difference (Lee, 2009).

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-10

Social Justice?

Pastoral theologians might question whether positive psychology’s emphasis on

uplifting emotional states will lead to the neglect of social justice issues. Will we be so
concerned with the inner life that we stop paying attention to the urgent needs of the
world? While it is indeed possible to use this material to distract from the urgent issues of
our day, such as climate change and growing social inequalities, positive psychology
does not promote isolated individualism. Indeed, much of the research points to the
importance of love and integrity and fulfillment through service to a broader purpose.
Seligman often uses the word “calling” to describe what he considers the most authentic
and lasting paths to happiness.
As to the issue of giving too much attention to the inner life in light of pressing
concerns for social justice, consider the reflections of theologian Wendy Farley, who
writes:

Attention to the interior landscape of human beings is not a

rejection of the claims of justice. To the contrary, attention to our
interiority deepens our capacity for justice. Or rather, it roots justice in the
wellspring of compassion . . . .Attention to interiority can resuscitate our
capacities for relationship and ignite in us the desire for compassion and
delight in this life. In this sense it is integral to the desire for justice.
(2005, p. xviii).

Attention to the interior experience can “resuscitate our capacities for relationship.” This
holistic goal can be cultivated with some of positive psychology’s resources. By
increasing the frequency and depth of inner experiences of gratitude, compassion, and
joy, we can root work for justice in deep compassion. This can help sustain heart-felt
commitments to social justice ministries over the long haul.
Still, the question has merit. While justice and humanity are considered two of the
main virtue classes, we do not find an explicit commitment to social justice—for
example, the alleviation of poverty—in this literature. In fact, because several studies
indicate that beyond a certain baseline of adequate income, wealth is not a good predictor
of happiness, positive psychology does not logically bolster efforts to overcome income
disparities. On this point, Seligman notes, “It can be morally right and politically
desirable to attempt to close the gap between rich and poor, not on the grounds that it will
make the poor happier, (which it likely will not do), but on the grounds that it is a just
and humane obligation” (2002, p. 280). We find something less than a full moral or
political commitment to social justice in these words. There is also some irony in the fact
that while the leaders of the positive psychology movement continue to stress a lack of
association between income level and happiness, they sell their wares to executive
coaches for exorbitantly high fees.
Another way of looking at the positive psychology research on income and
happiness is as supportive of counter-cultural theological values that challenge
consumerism. Pastorally, these findings might be engaged as evidence of the wisdom of
Jesus’ injunction in Luke’s gospel to “Sell your possessions and give alms” (Luke 12:33
NRSV). Evidence that great wealth does not increase human happiness could be used to

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-11

enrich congregations’ conversations about their mission and purpose. Such conversations
might prompt the re-examination of communal faith, values, and practices such as the
community’s use of natural and financial resources. While there is not a shared moral or
political commitment to social justice in the positive psychology literature, the findings
can be engaged in such a way as to enliven pastoral theological conversations and
commitments.

Preliminary Assessment

Positive psychology is a young field that may or may not live up to its promise to
study human experiences of wellbeing, goodness, and flourishing in a transparent and
open manner. While some critics dismiss the field as merely the heir of the “power of
positive thinking movement” and consider it a mind-numbing form of social control
(Ehrenreich, 2009), others counter that there is more to positive psychology than
optimism and note that the exercises it promotes support mindful and attentive living
(Dacey, 2008).
It is not necessary to accept the entire program of positive psychology in order to
appreciate the research and exercises that do have merit. In making use of these materials,
pastoral theologians will need to sift through the rubble of the strident claims of the
leaders of the movement and discuss and discern what we can learn from the more
scholarly research. We will also need to continue to raise questions about social and
cultural contexts, power arrangements, and the tacit assumptions of the “overarching
document.” This article is offered in the hope of inviting such discussions.
Recognizing the limitations and problems in the positive psychology literature
examined here, we find that positive psychology’s focus on human wellbeing, goodness,
and strengths offers wisdom for pastoral theology and practice. As noted earlier, “The
most basic assumption that positive psychology urges is that human goodness and
excellence are as authentic as disease, disorder, and distress” (Peterson, 2006, p. 5). This
prods us to remember, first, that experiences of the goodness of God are real and worth
exploring; and second, that “God intends the flourishing of the beloved creatures, and
affirms their desire for free play in a good world” (Way, 2005, p. 138).
In recent years, some pastoral theologians, working from diverse perspectives and
with various methodologies, have begun researching experiences of human flourishing.
We now have good work addressing hope (Lester, 1995; Capps, 2001; Keshgegian, 2008;
Bidwell, 2010); resilience (Wicks, 2010; Holton, 2011); play (Koppel, 2008; Hamman,
2011); and joy (Gay, 2001; Way, 2005; Son, 2009). Studies in positive psychology can
help us continue to develop and teach pastoral theologies and care practices that nurture
the wellbeing of persons and communities.
To take goodness seriously does not mean denying the daunting realities of pain,
sin, or suffering. For it is often in the middle of pain, sin, and suffering that the awareness
of the goodness of life or of God dawns, perhaps in the form of hope, longing, a glimpse
of beauty, or a taste of love. Pastoral theologians and care givers who comprehend
experiences of the goodness of God deeply, in an embodied way, will be better able to
foster healing and hope, even in situations of ambiguity. Along these lines, Peggy Way
writes,

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-12

 Pastoral practitioners must have courage to absorb the reality of the
creature’s perils and awfulness …and be present to see the vastness of
other blessings and emerging possibilities. Acceding to one’s
creatureliness carries the courage to be within it along with characteristics
of persisting, resisting, enduring. Accompanying such a process is delight
in the joys of creaturely existence, even celebration, without guilt or
shame that the entire creation is not yet fulfilled. (2005, p. 141)

Persistence, resistance, and endurance are strengths worth cultivating; we may “delight in
the joys of creaturely existence” while also being faithful to the calling to care.

Endnotes

1. My thanks to the Henry Luce III Fellows in Theology grant program of the Association
of Theological Schools for affording me the time to work on this study. Thanks also to
Roslyn Karaban for serving as a reader and the Journal editors who reviewed the first
draft of this article.

2. The first person to use the phrase “positive psychology” was actually Abraham
Maslow (1954. P. 353). See Christopher Peterson, 2006, p.4, n1.

3. For a sense of the scope of the literature and teaching related to positive psychology at
the University of Pennsylvania, visit the Center for Positive Psychology website at
www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu. Note the Master’s program in Applied Positive Psychology
(MAPP).

4. In the study of addiction, the term “enabling” has a negative connotation. Here
Peterson uses the term in a positive way to indicate institutions that are supportive to the
wellbeing of their members.

5. For a pastoral theological view of social systems, see Larry Kent Graham, 1992.

6. “The National Institute of Mental Health has given more than $226-million in grants to
positive-psychology researchers in the past 10 years, beginning with just under $4-
million in 1999 and reaching more than nine times that amount in 2008. The John
Templeton Foundation has long supported the work, and recently awarded Seligman a
grant of nearly $6-million to encourage collaborations between positive psychologists
and neuroscientists. Backing has also come from the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Department of Education, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, among others”
(Ruark, 2009).

7. See Peggy Way’s essay, “The Goodness of God” (2005, pp. 138-152).

8. For a pastoral theological discussion of the complex issues related to intimate partner
violence, see Jeanne Hoeft, 2009. For a discussion of forgiveness in pastoral theology and
care, see John Patton, 2000.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-13

 References

Bidwell, D. R. & Batisky, D. L. (2009). Abundance in finitude: An exploratory study of

children’s accounts of hope in chronic illness. The Journal of Pastoral Theology,
19 (1), 38–59.

Bidwell, D. R. (2010). Eschatology and childhood hope: Reflections from work in

progress. The Journal of Pastoral Theology 20 (2), 109-127.

Burns, D. (1999). Feeling good: The new mood therapy revised and updated. New York:
Avon Books.

Capps, Donald. (2001). Agents of hope: A pastoral psychology. Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock.

Carr, A. (2004). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths.
London: Routledge.

Clinebell, H. (1981). Contemporary growth therapies: Resources for actualizing human

wholeness. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Cooper-White, P. (1995). The cry of Tamar: Violence against women and the Church’s
response. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Coyne, J. C., Tennen, H., & Ranchor, A. V. (2010). Positive psychology in cancer care:
A story line resistant to evidence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39 (1), 35-42.
doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9157-9

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday

life. New York: Basic Books.

Dacey, M. (2008). The message of positive psychology. Chronicle of Higher Education,

54 (27), B25.

Doehring, C. (2006). The practice of pastoral care: A postmodern approach. Louisville,

KY: Westminster John Knox.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive

thinking has undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Farley, W. (2005). The wounding and healing of desire: Weaving heaven and earth,
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The

broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–
226.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-14

Gay, V. P. (2001). Joy and the objects of psychoanalysis: Literature, belief, and neurosis.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Graham, L. K. (1992). Care of persons, care of worlds: A psychosystems approach to

pastoral care and counseling. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Greider, K. J. (2007). Much madness is divinist sense: Wisdom in memoirs of soul-

suffering. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim.

Hamman, J. (2011). A play-full life: Slowing down and making peace. Cleveland, OH:
Pilgrim.

Hoeft, J. M. (2009). Agency, culture, and human personhood: pastoral theology and
intimate partner violence. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

Holton, M. J. (2011). Building the resilient community: Lessons from the lost boys of
Sudan. Eugene, OR: Cascade.

Hummel, L. (2003). Clothed in nothingness: Consolation for suffering. Minneapolis,

MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Koppel, M. S. (2008). Open-hearted ministry: Play as key to pastoral leadership.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Kornfeld, M. Z. (2000). Cultivating wholeness: A guide to care and counseling in faith

communities. New York: Continuum.

Kvale, S. (Ed.) (1992). Psychology and Postmodernism. London, Newberry Park, CA,
and New Delhi: SAGE.

Lee, K. S. (2009). Engaging difference in pastoral theology: Race and ethnicity. The
Journal of Pastoral Theology 19 (2), 1–20.

Lester, A. D. (1995). Hope in pastoral care and counseling. Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

McDonald, M., & O'Callaghan, J. (2008). Positive psychology: A Foucauldian critique.

Humanistic Psychologist, 36 (2), 127-142. doi:10.1080/08873260802111119

McMahon, D. M. (2006). Happiness: A history. New York: Grove.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and

addressing the sacred. New York and London: Guilford Press.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-15

Patton, J. (2000). Forgiveness in pastoral care and counseling. In M. E. McCullough, K.
I. Pargament, and C. E. Thoresen (eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research, and
practice, pp. 281–295. New York and London: Guilford Press.

Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A handbook
and classification. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Poling, J. N. (1996). Deliver us from evil: Resisting racial and gender oppression.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Ruark, Jennifer. (2009). An intellectual movement for the masses 10 years after its
founding, positive psychology struggles with its own success in Philadelphia.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (43), 4.

Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., and Gillham, J. (1995). The optimistic child:
A proven program to safeguard children against depression and build lifelong
resilience. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to

realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.

Shelp, E. & Sullivan, R. (2000). Sustaining presence: A model of caring by people of

faith. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Son, A. (2008). Agents of joy as a new image of pastoral care. The Journal of Pastoral
Theology 18 (1), 61–85.

Tutu, D. & Tutu, M. (2010). Made for goodness: And why this makes all the difference.
New York: HarperOne.

Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience. (2nd ed.) New York: The Guilford
Press.

Way, P. (2005). Created by God: Pastoral care for all God’s people. St. Louis, MO:
Chalice.

Wicks, R. J. (2010). Bounce: Living the resilient life. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.

Witvliet, C. V. O., Phipps, K.A., Feldman, M. E., and Beckham, J. C. (2004).

Posttraumatic mental and physical health correlates of forgiveness and religious
coping in military veterans. Journal of Trauma and Stress, 17, 269–273.

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY 21(1), SUMMER 2011 5-17