Frank Lake's Maternal-Fetal Distress Syndrome:
- An Analysis -

By Stephen M. Maret, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Caldwell University


CHAPTER 5

Conclusions

    B. Critique of the M-FDS as a Theological Paradigm
    1. Lake's Methodology
    a. Theological and Biblical Method

    b. Integration of Psychology and Theology

Lake's flawed exegesis of the Biblical and theological resources in the service of certain psychological observations regarding the M-FDS gives rise to the weakness of his attempt to integrate psychology and theology. Perhaps the fact that Lake was never professionally trained as a theologian partially explains his eisegesis; but certainly any attempt to integrate two overlapping, yet disparate fields, brings with it certain problems.

For instance, both theology and psychology have distinct "languages" and "categories" which, in the parameters and context of each well-defined field of study, are intelligible and useful. But when the "languages"' and "categories" of one field are used interchangeably with those of another, meaning is often lost or transmuted in the transition.262 F.J. Roberts, in a discussion about Clinical Theology makes the further point that even within the various fields that Lake sought to integrate there are a whole variety of sub-fields with distinct vocabulary and category structure which complicates the task of integration even further.263 For instance, the challenge of integration that Lake attempts with the M-FDS embraces the not only the theological dimension, but also the physiological, psychoneuroendocrinological, and psychological/psychiatric. Melinsky, addressing this difficulty, writes of Lake's attempted integration:

For theological guidance, Dr. Lake looks principally to Job, St. John's Gospel, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Kierkegaard, Simone Weil and Martin Buber. His psychological mentors are Freud and the neo-Freudians, Klein, Fairbairn, Sullivan and Guntrip. Since there are great divergences amongst theologians and psychiatrists in their own fields, it is hardly to be expected that any one mortal could lead these two contentious disciplines to a happy marriage.264

_______________

262"Among a number of criticisms of the movement's [Clinical Theology Assn.] teaching, some people believe that it has used psychiatric, theological, existentialist and psychoanalytic language as confusing alternatives, losing the rigour and consistency of each language in the process." (Gravelle, "Clinical Theology" 38).

263Roberts, "Clinical Theology: An Assessment," 24.


276


Thus, Lake's attempt to integrate psychology and theology results in a superficial amalgam of psychologically interpreted theology and theologically interpreted psychology. There is a concomitant loss of rigor in both sets of categories, but especially in the theological. Melinsky comments:

There are flashes of insight sparked off by the high tension between the fields of theology and psychiatry. But there are also links made between the two disciplines which are too simple.265

Lake saw no barrier to using the different categories as if they corresponded in a one­to-one fashion. This often resulted because he was open to new ideas and if they struck his fancy, he sought to "integrate" them immediately into his theoretical constructions. Michael Jacobs, who edited Tight Corners in Pastoral Counselling, states that Lake's "failing was the wish to integrate everything he read as soon as he could, without really digesting it, or looking for alternative explanations." Indeed, Jacobs stated that Clinical Theology started to "go wrong" with the "rapid undigested introduction of the newer therapeutic ideas."266

Others267 have criticized Lake similarly. The integration of new "ideas" often took place on the basis of a "seeming" similarity between Lake's evolving thinking regarding the M­FDS and the new "idea." Especially toward the end of his life, Lake seemed to be grasping for anything that might buttress his theories of pre-natal distress. Perhaps at the root of this rapid superficial integration was, as one of Lake's colleagues put it, his seeming "inability to reflect critically upon one's own basis of thought."268 This inability led, in turn, to an inability to countenance criticisms of the M-FDS. In a final riposte to Alastair Campbell's critical review of Tight Corners in Pastoral Counselling, Lake wrote:
_______________

264M.A.H. Melinsky, "Clinical Theology: A Survey," 119.

265ibid, 127.

266Peters, Frank Lake, 86.

267John Peters wrote that Lake "seldom read a book through from page one to the end; rather, he sought out all those things which were grist to his mill." (Peters, Frank Lake, 163). James Cotter wrote that Lake "did seem to me to be often in the grip of the latest theory. I suspect it was the combination within him of pioneer and fundamentalist." (ibid, 90).

268ibid., 81.


277


Enough. Enough to make my point that the reviewing is tendentious. It is looking to criticize, manufactures some most unjustly on the way, and ends where you would expect. To throw in our direction that most pejorative of smear terms, "Fundamentalist", is in the poorest of taste and quite indefensible. Alastair remains, entrenched where he began, unable to make the effort to understand my world and therefore unjust to it. Of what group are those the predominant characteristics?269

Lastly, Lake's attitude toward those who disagreed with his assumptions regarding theology and psychology was often one of condescension. Roberts wrote that very often "the confusion created by the . . . mixing of categories is interpreted by some as an indication of their failure to acquire the secret."270 That Lake believed this is evidenced by his introduction to "Mutual Caring" where he is commenting on those who would continue to disagree with him after reading the book:

I doubt its power to convince where the opposition is itself partly unconscious and partly deeply invested in current theory and long-established practice, based on Freudian, Kleinian or neo-Freudian 'object-relations' theory, all true at their own levels, but whose assumptive fields cannot conceive of foetal experience and learn ing.271

_______________

269Lake, "Letter to the Editor," 29.

270Roberts, "Clinical Theology: An Assessment," 24

271Lake, "Mutual Caring" lntro:6.

Go To Next Section



Return to the Menu of Frank Lake's Maternal-Fetal Distress Syndrome - Chapter 5 - Conclusions
Return to the Primal Psychotherapy Homepage