Pastoral Psychol

DOI 10.1007/s11089-011-0372-5

Psychology of Religion: Toward a Multidisciplinary

Paradigm

Lewis R. Rambo & Matthew S. Haar Farris

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract This paper provides an overview of contemporary psychology of religion and

points to the urgent need for the discipline to enrich and expand its horizons through an
intentional and systematic approach to interdisciplinary theory and research. The
study of conversion is given as a case study of this approach.

Keywords Psychology of religion . Conversion . Theory . Research . Interdisciplinarity .

Multidisciplinarity

Introduction

The discipline of the psychology of religion is at an important turning point in its history. The
vicissitudes of the contemporary world challenge everyone to see the world in a new light. On
the one hand, there is the specter of ecological catastrophe, the looming economic crises that is
devastating millions of people, and the travesties of relentless wars and political upheavals; on
the other hand, the globalized world connects vast numbers of people through instantaneous
communications, there is a growing appreciation of the enormous varieties of cultures and
traditions, medical treatments are being developed that cure horrible diseases, and the
resurgence of religious and spiritual traditions fosters hope and healing (as well as trepidation at
those religious groups that foster polarization and even violence).
Charles Dickens (1859/2003, p. 3) captures our predicament in the introduction to A Tale
of Two Cities:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the
age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was
the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was
the winter of despair.

L. R. Rambo (*)
San Francisco Theological Seminary, 105 Seminary Road, San Anselmo, CA 94960, USA
e-mail: lewisrayrambo@yahoo.com

M. S. Haar Farris
5800 Solano Ave., Richmond, CA 94805, USA
e-mail: farrismatt@earthlink.net
 Pastoral Psychol

More than 100 years after the founding of psychology by Wilhelm Wundt and William
James, we are undertaking a remarkable step in the development of the psychology of
religion; a dedicated group of Chinese and American psychologists are working together to
explore the possibilities of studying one of the most fascinating and complex endeavors
created by human beings: religion and spirituality. Who could have imagined such an
enterprise 20 years ago?
Although Christianity was the dominant religion in the nations that produced psychology
(Germany and the United States), the contemporary world is filled with manifold religious
and spiritual leaders, organizations, ideologies, techniques, and experiences. It is imperative
that psychologists engage these realities with a willingness to embrace new theories,
methods, and strategies to examine, explore, and assess the contours of the religious and
spiritual worlds thriving in the contemporary world (Tweed 2006) and (Vasquez 2008).
The purpose of this paper is to provide reflections that will, I hope, encourage
psychologists of religion to embrace an interdisciplinary paradigm for the future.

History of the psychology of religion

From its origins in the nineteenth century to the first decade of the twenty-first century, the
psychology of religion has been a discipline with a complex history of shifting boundaries.
The field of psychology has been from the beginning involved in relationships with various
disciplines. I will advocate the urgent need to move toward an intentional and systemic
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary paradigm for the field. The field of psychology must
expand its horizons and include other relevant disciplines in order to plumb the depths of
human experience, action, and consciousness. The psychology of religion in particular
requires the resources of various disciplines in order to understand the multiple factors and
dimensions that intersect in religious and spiritual phenomena.
The psychology of religion is an academic discipline in which psychological theories
and methods are used to describe, explore, and understand the nature and function of
religion and spirituality in human life. The psychology of religion deploys many different
subfields of psychology in order to comprehend religion. For example, approaches include
personality theory, social psychology, human development, interpersonal relationships,
cognitive neuroscience, and affective processes.
Religion has been an important concern for the field of psychology since its inception in
the late nineteenth century in Europe and the United States. Perhaps the field should be
called “Psychologies of Religions” because of the diversity of theoretical and methodo-
logical strategies deployed by psychologists. Even though the psychology of religion has,
because of its original historical context, focused upon Christianity and Judaism, the field
has been gradually including other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and New
Religious Movements.
The psychology of religion is a cluster of interrelated disciplines, themes, and issues that
focus on the human experience of religion and spirituality. The focus, generally, is on the
person: experiences, relationships, beliefs, behaviors, and consciousness as it is related to
supra- or trans-human dimensions, entities, or beings perceived by individuals, groups, and
cultures to be important. Psychologists of religion also recognize the influence of groups,
institutions, and cultures on the construction of religion and spirituality.
In contemporary American society, many people distinguish between “religion” and
“spirituality.” Religion, for some, implies religious institutions and leaders who prescribe
and proscribe beliefs and practices. Spirituality, on the other hand, implies the human
Pastoral Psychol

dimension of experiences, beliefs, and actions that provide meaning, purpose, and, in some
cases, the transcendence of mundane life. Implied in this distinction is the emphasis on
personal choice, freedom, and independence from the constraints of religious ideology and
organizations. In recent years contemporary psychology of religion has begun to explicitly
include spirituality.
A few words about the history of the field are in order. In the final decades of the nineteenth
century and the early decades of the twentieth century, the field of psychology emerged within
the confluence of two academic disciplines: the biological sciences and philosophy.
Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920) in Germany and William James (1842–1910) (James 1902/
1986) in the United States were the two major founders of modern psychology. These
extraordinarily gifted, brilliant men, both educated in medicine, embodied a wide knowledge
of a number of fields: biology, physiology, philosophy, history, religion, and literature.
Religion played a major role in their extensive publications. Wundt and James set the stage
for many of the diverse schools of thought that have formed the psychology of religion.
In the first half of the twentieth century, Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) emerged as one of
the most influential figures in the history of the psychology of religion. For many complex,
historical, and cultural reasons, Freud’s method of psychoanalysis—as a theory and as a
therapeutic practice—had a major impact on the United States, the United Kingdom, some
parts of Europe, and Latin America (especially Argentina). Freud created a compelling
criticism of religion. Nevertheless, his theory of religion recognized the enormous power of
religious wishes, fears, rituals, and primal human needs. Freud and his followers continue
to have an impact on the psychology of religion and to provide the orienting ideas and
methods that compete with the scientific, empirical psychology of religion.
The psychoanalytic approach to religion has expanded to include new developments in
psychoanalytic interpretations of religion such as object relations theory, Erik Erikson’s
(1902–1994) cultural and life cycle approach, and Self Psychology to explore new
dimensions of religious and spiritual experiences.
Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) is another influential figure in the psychology of religion.
Unlike Freud, Jung was a compelling and erudite advocate of the value of religion. Though
not uncritical, Jung argued that religion provides people with essential resources for the
central goal of human life, a process Jung called “individuation.” Through his vast and
complex writings, Jung saw the power of the religious imagination, rituals, archetypes, and
symbols as essential foundations upon which a whole, dynamic, creative self could be
constructed. Though generally rejected by those committed to developing a rigorous,
scientific psychology of religion, Jungian psychology continues to exert influence in certain
academic circles and among many believers. Critics, however, see Jung’s psychology as a
surrogate religion.
The empirical/scientific psychology of religion and spirituality is expanding in terms of
phenomena being explored, theories deployed, and methods utilized. While peripheral to
mainstream academic psychology for many decades, the psychology of religion is currently
establishing itself as a valuable contributor to the science of psychology. An indication of
the growing role of the psychology of religion in mainstream academic psychology may be
seen in the February 2009 inauguration of the new journal, Psychology of Religion and
Spirituality, an official publication of the American Psychological Association: Division 36:
Psychology of Religion.
Some psychologists of religion are empirical research scientists—rigorous and
experimental. Others are more interpretive, particularly those who are influenced by the
psychoanalytic, humanistic, theological/philosophical, or transpersonal traditions. These
scholars, as opposed to the psychologists of religion who advocate the empirical
 Pastoral Psychol

approach, are sometimes found in religious studies departments or theological

seminaries as well as in psychology departments in colleges and universities. Some
scholars in religious studies departments, rather than merely doing psychology of
religion, prefer to explore the inter-relationship between psychology and religion.
Whether engaging in dialogue or mutual critique, the relationship of psychology and
religion is complex and ever-changing. To summarize these complex relationships, some
characterize the field as Psychology of/and/as/or Religion.
The future of the field of psychology of religion offers many possibilities and
challenges. For psychology of religion to thrive, its scholars must be more aware of the
importance of culture in shaping persons, communities, and religions. On the other end of
the spectrum, cognitive neuroscience offers a treasure trove of new understandings of the
biological bases of human perception, experience, and meaning. For the field of psychology
of religion to thrive, it must be in sustained relationship with anthropology, sociology, and
religious studies. Religious and spiritual phenomena cannot be understood in isolation from
cultural and social matrices. Finally, psychology of religion must explore religion and
spirituality beyond Judaism and Christianity. The work of psychologists of religion can be
enriched by an understanding of the ways in which various forms of religion and
spirituality understand and explain human experience (thoughts, feelings, and actions).
Buddhism, for instance, has a long history of sophisticated explications of consciousness. In
other words, what are the implicit, and in some cases explicit, theories of human
psychology found in various religious and spiritual systems? (See Scroggs and Douglas
1967 for an overview of perennial issues in the psychology of religion)
Although rarely discussed, psychology itself is not a unified, monolithic discipline. One
only needs to look at the American Psychological Association (APA) website or its vast
literature to recognize that there are many approaches under the umbrella of the APA. No
one method, set of presuppositions, or subject matter is dominant. The American
Psychological Association website indicates that there are 54 Divisions in the APA.

Toward a new paradigm: multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches

The new paradigm embodies several characteristics. First, the study of psychology and
religion is becoming globalized (see Juergensmyer 2006; Wijsen and Schreider 2007; Brock
2006). Parochial approaches are no longer viable. Second, interdisciplinary approaches are
crucial in order to explore the diversity of psychological, religious, and spiritual
phenomena. Interdisciplinary and comparative studies do not, of course, obviate the
importance of continuing to study carefully particular academic disciplines. In fact,
responsible interdisciplinarity demands disciplinary rigor (Repko 2008, p. 16). Third, what
was once assumed to be true of various methods and theories is no longer taken for granted.
Critique of virtually all approaches is the order of the day.
Interdisciplinary resources must be deployed in order to improve the psychology of
religion. At the very least, psychologists of religion need to engage the sociology of
religion (for example, see the work of Yang 2004, 2005, 2006), anthropology of religion
(see Gooren 2010 for a new model of conversion based upon his anthropological studies),
and religious studies. It is clear that the phenomenon of religion is inextricably
interconnected with cultural, social, and personal factors and forces.
Interdisciplinary work is, of course, extremely difficult. Scholars in these three
disciplines have worked hard to develop specialized knowledge and skills in their
respective disciplines. Many are thus hesitant about (if not opposed to) the work of
Pastoral Psychol

colleagues in other disciplines. The disciplinary research traditions, assumptions, methods,

and even, I would say, ideologies often constrain genuine consultation, much less
collaboration, but the psychology of religion needs to engage experts in various fields
and afford them respect for the alternative perspectives each discipline may provide. The
widespread reluctance to traverse disciplinary boundaries, while understandable, must be
overcome if we are to more fully make sense of the complex phenomena typically
examined by psychologists of religion.
This statement should not be read as advocating a form of interdisciplinary interaction
requiring that each discipline jettison its distinctive contributions. To the contrary, there is a
good deal of agreement among interdisciplinarians that “different disciplines . . . tend to
shed more light on some facets [of multifaceted or complex questions or problems] than
others” (Szostak 2007, p. 51; see also Newell 2007; Repko 2008). The importance of
specialized disciplinary knowledge and perspectives is not in dispute. Rather, the issue is
that weaknesses tend to go hand-in-hand with strengths. Specialized skills and knowledge
carry with them concomitant limitations; “each discipline has been developed to illuminate
a different, particular facet of reality” (Newell 2001, p. 19). Disciplinary scholars, therefore,
must be encouraged to open their minds and hearts to perspectives that, while very
different, offer valuable insights into the complex phenomena under examination. In this
case, it is psychologists of religion who must realize that sociology of religion,
anthropology of religion, and religious studies afford quintessential insights into the
complex phenomena with which psychology of religion contends.

Religious and theological studies

It is imperative that psychologists of religion study the religious content, including beliefs
and practices, of the various persons and groups they are studying. Such research is crucial
in order to understand more fully the nature and depth of various religious traditions. For
instance, a psychologist studying conversion needs to learn about the norms, expectations,
metaphors of change, patterns of relationships within the group, and the group’s norms for
who is considered a “real” convert. Without learning about the group’s “theology” and
practices, the researcher may be misled to think the convert’s description of his or her
conversion is idiosyncratic. While each conversion has unique qualities, most conversions
are shaped, to some degree at least, by the norms, practices, expectations, beliefs, and
patterns of the religious group (Tweed 2006).
It may be argued that the group’s norms and theology (or ideology, if one prefers)
shape consciousness and form the basis of the experience of conversion. In certain
cases, people have conversion experiences radically different from the norms of the
group. With few exceptions, these differences cause major problems for the convert. In
some situations, the differences are so great that converts are expelled from the group
(Cleary 2004; Glanzer 2001).
The study of religion in the exploration of conversion processes is also valuable since,
with very few exceptions, the language converts use is theological or religious. Virtually no
convert discusses his or her conversion as a process in which they resolved emotional
issues or enhanced their upward social mobility, but these are concepts commonly used in
the social sciences. Some skeptical scholars reject the convert’s language as merely a form
of self-deception (which, of course, may be true in some cases), but this is a point of view
radically different from the convert’s. The point is that converts convert because they
believe the new religion is true, that it was ordained by God, or that it was a gift from God
(or equivalent language used in various religions). The interesting questions for the scholar
 Pastoral Psychol

of conversion are, How do people acquire a new definition of the nature of truth? and How
do they align themselves with that new understanding?

Phenomenology of religion

Psychologists of religion need to explore the contours of the religious experience of

individuals and groups. The careful scholar may find new and often unexpected paths of
interpretation when the authentic, complex reality of a person’s religious experience is
taken fully into account. In the past, some phenomenologists sought universal structures or
themes of various phenomena and others sought the unique and distinctive aspect of a
particular person’s religious experience (see Rambo and Reh 1992; C. Smith 2007). As
Walter H. Capps observes, these “two dominant strains” in the phenomenology of religion
have rather distinct genealogies (Capps 1995). My recommendation to psychologists of
religion deals more with the latter strain than the former. A salient lesson to be learned from
the phenomenology of religion is the importance of rigorously exploring the concrete, lived
experience of religious adherents (Smith 2007).

History of religions

It is important that religions and spiritual orientations be understood within their historical
trajectory. While all religions are rooted in various traditions and have, at the same time,
distinctive qualities, it is crucial to understand that a theological/religious tradition is not
static. New themes, issues, rituals, and beliefs develop within traditions. One cannot assume
that the Roman Catholic Church in the nineteenth century is the same as in the twenty-first
century. There are, of course, certain theological beliefs that are asserted over many years,
but the careful historian recognizes that variations take place as the tradition confronts new
challenges and constructs new insights.
If one considers conversion processes, it may be argued that different configurations of
motivations play a different role at different times in the history of a particular religion at
different stages of its history. Becoming a Baptist in eighteenth-century Pennsylvania is
different from becoming a Baptist in twenty-first-century China. Historical studies also alert the
scholar of conversion to the reasons behind the contours of the rhetoric of conversion at a
particular time in history (see Sandos 2004 for an excellent example).

Indigenous and cultural psychology

One of the most recent and important developments in the field of psychology is the
emergence of what scholars are calling “indigenous and cultural psychology.” Myriad
psychologists around the world, many in locations other than Europe and the United States,
are seeing the impact of Western culture on the very foundations of psychology as a
science. The questions researched, the methods deployed in this research, and, most
importantly, the assumptions guiding the enterprise of scientific psychology have been
formed within the matrix of European, British, and American institutions and culture (see
Roland 1988; Kim et al. 2006; Kitayama and Cohen 2007).
While not rejecting the goals of developing a sophisticated science, indigenous and
cultural psychologists advocate locating psychology within the context of culture.
Culture, rather than being a distraction to the goals of psychology, thus becomes a
central concern in order to develop a psychology that is intimately connected to the
human experience of living in various cultural communities, with their particular
Pastoral Psychol

worldviews, assumptions, beliefs, religions, rituals, philosophies, and modes of family

relationships, life cycle formation, etc. (Belzen 2010; Bond 2010).
Archie Smith, Jr., in his excellent review of Kim, Yang, and Hwang’s Indigenous
and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context (2007), reminds us that
religion itself is a cultural force that plays a crucial role in the lives of millions of people
(Smith 2008).

Case study in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies

I would like to illustrate how interdisciplinary efforts may be undertaken. Charles E.

Farhadian and I are currently working on The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion
(Rambo and Farhadian forthcoming). The project is a reference book for understanding
the complexities of religious conversion in the contemporary world. Comprising 33
essays, the volume focuses on the nature of religious change within the global
community. It seeks to provide a comprehensive resource by bringing together a wide
range of recent scholarship on the subject of religious conversion (for a more detailed
discussion of these issues, see Rambo 1989, 1993, and 1999).
The goal of the handbook is built upon the assumption that a phenomenon of such
complexity requires the deployment of various disciplines. My co-editor, Charles E. Farhadian,
and I believe that no single discipline is adequate to comprehend the multi-level, interacting
factors that converge in the processes involved in religious and spiritual change.
We recognize that the handbook itself is not interdisciplinary in the strict sense of a fully
integrated theory or model of conversion. Allen F. Repko’s explanation of the difference
between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary is instructive here: “Multidisciplinarity
refers to the placing side by side of insights from two or more disciplines as, for example,
one might find in a course that invites instructors from different departments to explain their
discipline’s perspective on the course topic in serial fashion but makes no attempt to
integrate the insights produced by these perspectives into an interdisciplinary understand-
ing of the topic” (2008, p. 13, bold in original). We hope that at the very least the book
promotes multidisciplinary approaches to conversion and at the most provides the
resources to begin sustained, sophisticated interdisciplinary studies of conversion.
The enormous social, cultural, and political impact of religious change in the globalized
world, where religious identifications are remaking contemporary societies, points to the
critical need to understand the phenomenon of religious conversion. Given the fact that
conversion is a poorly understood factor that gives rise to social change in many different
places, this volume will give conversion studies its most forceful articulation yet through
some of the best scholarship on the topic.
Only a few decades ago, scholars predicted the demise of religion through the impact of
secularization and modernization. Recently, however, with the resurgence of historic world
religions and the rise and spread of New Religious Movements, scholars are increasingly
recognizing the tremendous salience of conversion studies for an understanding of religions
in the world today, particularly as religions mobilize millions of people and play a critical
role in ethnic, social, political, and cultural spheres.
The Handbook is organized into two sections delineating the field of conversion studies.
Part I presents a host of interpretive perspectives that challenges any essentialist
interpretation of converting processes. These in-depth chapters provide 19 different
viewpoints that seek to cover the widest possible variety of scholarly insights on the topic.
Several chapters cover social scientific disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and
 Pastoral Psychol

anthropology, while other chapters bring to bear historical, linguistic, legal, cognitive,
political, and artistic approaches to religious conversion. Each author explores various
methodological issues in the study of religious change, such as insider/outsider
perspectives, postmodernism, and relevant theological and ideological issues involved in
particular disciplines.
Academic disciplines tend to shape the questions asked, the methods deployed, and the
ideologies that influence the definitions of conversion. For instance, psychology and
Protestant theology had the dominant influence in the field of conversion studies from the
late nineteenth century until the 1960s. In the late 1970s the field of sociology, especially in
the study of New Religious Movements, began to exert an influence on the ways in which
conversion was conceptualized and studied (see Wulff 2002 for the best historical overview
of the study of conversion within the psychology of religion). After the 1950s,
anthropologists began to see the importance of studying conversion as a topic worthy of
investigation, and in the last two decades a significant number of anthropological studies of
conversion have been published. Historians have always been interested in exploring the
history of religions but have tended, until the last decade, to relegate conversion studies to
church history. That approach has changed drastically. Dozens of studies of conversion
have been published by historians with expertise in a wide range of religions of the world.
These studies add theoretical and ethnological richness to understanding the specific
conditions of conversion processes in many different places in the world. Part I of the
Handbook also evaluates the contributions of various disciplines and assesses the strengths
and limitations of their disciplinary strategies and ideologies.

I. Disciplinary Perspectives: Table of Contents

History of Conversion—Marc Baer (University of California, Irvine)
Geography of Conversion—Lily Kong (National University of Singapore)
Demographics of Religious Change—Todd M. Johnson (Gordon-Conwell School of
Theology)
Phenomenology of Conversion—J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu (Trinity Theological
Seminary, Legon, Accra, Ghana)
Anthropology of Conversion—Henri Gooren (Oakland University)
Sociology of Conversion—Fenggang Yang (Purdue University) and Andrew S. Abel
(Keene State College)
Psychology of Conversion—Raymond Paloutzian (Westmont College)
Cognitive Neuropsychology and Conversion—Kelly Bulkeley (Graduate Theological
Union, Berkeley)
Narrative and Autobiographical Approaches to Conversion Studies—Bruce Hindmarsh
(Regent College)
Feminist Approaches to the Study of Conversion—Eliza Kent (Colgate University)
Linguistic Approaches to Conversion Studies—Peter Stromberg (University of Tulsa)
Conversion and Semiotic Analysis—Massimo Leone (University of Turin, Italy)
The Politics of Conversion: Legal Theories Concerning Proselytizing—James T.
Richardson (University of Nevada, Reno)
Art and Conversion—Diane Apostolos-Cappadona (Georgetown University)
Dreams and Conversion—Patricia M. Davis and Kelly Bulkeley (Graduate Theological
Union, Berkeley)
Conversion and the Spread of Religions—Robert L. Montgomery (New Jersey)
Migration and Conversion—Rebecca Kim (Pepperdine University)
Conversion and Politics: How Political Science “Found Religion” and What Remains
Pastoral Psychol

Lost in the Process—Timothy J. Steingena (Florida Atlantic University)

Deconversion—Heinz Streib (Bielefeld University, Germany)
Part II consists of 14 chapters that focus on conversion in various religious traditions. Each
chapter explicates the ways in which believers enter the tradition and provides a case study of
conversion to the given religious tradition. Each chapter seeks to emphasize the distinctive
prescriptions and proscriptions deployed by various religions in their efforts at converting people,
institutions, societies, and cultures. Each religion employs different methods and models of
eliciting, persuading, or coercing conversion, and conversion has played a distinctly different role
in various religions. For instance, conversion is more central to Christianity and Islam than it is to
Hinduism and Judaism. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam have explicitly and intentionally
sought to expand their membership and territory through implicit and explicit strategies and tactics
of converting millions of people in vast regions of the world. Conversion processes and ideologies
are often zones of conflict and debate. Academic disciplines have tended to focus on specific
dimensions of religious change. No one discipline has yet created a comprehensive theory of
conversion processes and patterns, yet the editors and authors envision better ways to orchestrate
the distinctive contributions of various disciplines to create a foundation upon which a genuinely
interdisciplinary approach to the study of the phenomenon of conversion may be created.
II. Religions: Table of Contents
Conversion to Hinduism—Arvind Sharma (McGill University)
Conversion to Buddhism—Dan Smyer Yü (Beijing, China)
Conversion to Jainism—Andrea Jain (Purdue & Indiana University, Indianapolis)
Conversion to Sikhism—Gurinder Singh Mann (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Conversion to Taoism—Louis Komjathy (Pacific Lutheran University)
Conversion to Confucianism—Anna Xiao Dong Sun (Kenyon College)
Conversion and Indigenous Religions— Luzhou Fan and Na Chen (Fudan University,
Shanghai, China)
Conversion to Judaism—Alan Segal (Barnard College/Columbia University)
Conversion to Christianity—David W. Kling (University of Miami)
Conversion to Islam: Historical Perspectives—Marcia Hermansen (Loyola University
of Chicago)
Conversion to Islam: Contemporary Perspectives—Karin van Nieuwkerk (Radboud
University Nijmegen)
Conversion and Retention in Mormonism—Seth L. Bryant, Henri Gooren, Rick
Phillips, and David G. Steward, Jr.
Conversion to New Religious Movements: The Brainwashing Debate and Beyond—
Douglas Edward Cowan (University of Waterloo)
Disengagement and Apostasy in New Religious Movements—Stuart A. Wright (Lamar
University)

Conclusions ➔ to the future!

The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion is only one example of how scholars can
work together on a rich and important topic. The future of the psychology of religion will
be shaped by our capacity to work together productively. We must expand our horizons;
namely, we must engage vastly different cultural, political, religious, economic, and
spiritual traditions and disciplines.
 Pastoral Psychol

With generosity of spirit, rigorous intellectual work, and compassionate hearts, we can
create a new, revitalized psychology of religion worthy of our aspirations. Our work together
can give us hope for a more harmonious world that honors all peoples and all traditions.

References

Belzen, J. A. (2010). Towards cultural psychology of religion. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bond, M. H. (Ed.). (2010). Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brock, A. C. (Ed.). (2006). Internationalizing the history of psychology. New York: New York University
Press [See Geoffrey Blowers, “Origins of Scientific Psychology in China, 1899–1949,” pp. 94–111.].
Capps, W. H. (1995). Religious studies: The making of a discipline. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Cleary, E. L. (2004). Shopping around: questions about Latin American conversions. International Bulletin
of Missionary Research, 28(2): 50–54.
Dickens, C. (1859/2003). A tale of two cities. New York: Bantam Classics.
Glanzer, P. L. (2001). Christian conversion and culture in Russia: a clash of missionary expectations and
cultural pressures. Missiology, 29(3): 319–29.
Gooren, H. (2010). Religious conversion and disaffiliation: Tracing patterns of change in faith practices.
New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
James, W. (1902/1986). The varieties of religious experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Juergensmyer, M. (2006). The Oxford handbook of global religions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kim, U., Yang, K., & Hwang, K. (Eds.). (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people
in context. New York: Springer.
Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford.
Newell, W. H. (2001). A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 1–25.
Newell, W. H. (2007). Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In G. Morçöl (Ed.), Handbook of
decision making (pp. 245–264). Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
Rambo, L. R. (1989). Conversion: toward a holistic model of religious change. Pastoral Psychology, 38, 47–63.
Rambo, L. R. (1993). Understanding religious conversion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rambo, L. R. (1999). Theories of conversion. Social Compass, 46(3), 259–271.
Rambo, L. R., & Reh, L. A. (1992). The phenomenology of conversion. In H. N. Malony & S. Southard
(Eds.), Handbook of religious conversion (pp. 229–258). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Rambo, L. R., & Farhadian, C. E. (forthcoming). The Oxford handbook of religious conversion. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
Roland, A. (1988). In Search of self in India and Japan: Toward a cross-cultural psychology. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sandos, J. A. (2004). Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the missions. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Scroggs, J. R., & Douglas, W. G. T. (1967). Issues in the psychology of religious conversion. Journal of
Religion and Health, 6(3), 204–216.
Smith, C. (2007). Why Christianity works: an emotions-focused phenomenological account. Sociology of
Religion, 68(2), 165–178.
Smith, A. (2008). Indigenous and cultural psychology: where does faith come in? Pastoral Psychology, 56,
95–104.
Szostak, R. (2007). Modernism, postmodernism, and interdisicplinarity. Issues in Integrative Studies, 25, 32–83.
Tweed, T. A. (2006). Crossing and dwelling: A theory of religion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vasquez, M. A. (2008). Studying religion in motion: a networks approach. Method and Theory in the Study
of Religion, 20, 151–184.
Wulff, D. M. (2002). A century of conversion in American psychology of religion. In C. Henning & E.
Nestler (Eds.), Konversion: Zur Aktualitat eines Jahrhundertthemas (pp. 43–73). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Yang, F. (2004). Between secularist ideology and desecularizing reality: the birth and growth of religious
research in Communist China. Sociology of Religion, 65(2), 101–120.
Yang, F. (2005). Lost in the market, saved at McDonald’s: conversion to Christianity in urban China. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(4), 423–441.
Yang, F. (2006). The red, black, and gray markets of religion in China. The Sociological Quarterly, 47, 93–
122.