Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Fruitful Friction: A Roundtable Discussion on Cultural and Psychological Resources for Wellbeing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This roundtable discussion, featuring a panel of scholars from both psychology and Christian theology, reflects on several different types of tensions at the intersection of these two fields. The discussion focused on four core inquiries. First, we explored the tension between interdisciplinarity vs. (hyper)specialization. Second, we discussed the tension between linguistic and cultural particularity vs. generalization and examined the importance of “functional bilingualism”— the ability to navigate the distinct vocabularies of both disciplines. Third, we considered how broad theoretical frameworks, such as attachment theory or core doctrines, are reshaped by the diverse ways they are lived out in practice. Finally, we discussed the practical implications of these findings, highlighting the necessity of both religious and psychological literacy in clinical, religious, and educational settings. The panel concludes by weighing disciplinary differences in methodological approaches, specifically as they relate to the interplay between scientific objectivity and researcher subjectivity.
Original languageEnglish
Article number00916471261461584
Number of pages14
JournalPsychology and Theology
Early online date5 Jul 2026
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 5 Jul 2026

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • wellbeing
  • interdisciplinary collaboration
  • interdisciplinarity
  • science-engaged theology
  • Psychology-engaged theology
  • Psychology of religion

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Fruitful Friction: A Roundtable Discussion on Cultural and Psychological Resources for Wellbeing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this