Thread: Psychology and the Church

I myself know very little about this but nouthetic counseling seems to be a good alternative to using psychological methods. One of the major proponents of nouthetic counseling, Jay Adams, is a retired reformed minister. Why don't you check it out for yourself?

Nouthetic Counseling

I think we have a problem when we create an either/or philosophy. Psychology is nothing more than the study of behaviour and how the brain works. If this is scientific and accurate there is no reason to ignore what the research tells us. If the research is based on perceived ideas that are wrong then obviously it poorly explains how the brain/human behaviour works.

It is a bit like should we engage in science or just read the bible. Really both should compliment each other. Psychology could probably give us some good insights.

Psychology, evolution, Loc Ness Monster...take your pick.

Originally Posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih

I think we have a problem when we create an either/or philosophy. Psychology is nothing more than the study of behaviour and how the brain works. If this is scientific and accurate there is no reason to ignore what the research tells us. If the research is based on perceived ideas that are wrong then obviously it poorly explains how the brain/human behaviour works.

It is a bit like should we engage in science or just read the bible. Really both should compliment each other. Psychology could probably give us some good insights.

How much do you know about Psychology and its presuppositions and methods?

Originally Posted by Chippy

I myself know very little about this but nouthetic counseling seems to be a good alternative to using psychological methods. One of the major proponents of nouthetic counseling, Jay Adams, is a retired reformed minister. Why don't you check it out for yourself?

Nouthetic Counseling

We have the privilege at Christ Presbyterian in Lakeland, Florida, to be using Adams and nouthetic counseling in our Whitefield Seminary classes on counseling. I am in my fifth course and love it. We use several other textbooks in addition to Adams.

I reflect that when I took Fuller Seminary extension classes on counseling, we really did not point to Scripture as we do in the nouthetic approach--it was mainly secular. When you hand church members over to secular even Christian/secular counselors, you miss an opportunity for growth in the Lord. The exception is chemical causes of mental health problems when you need someone else to be involved along side of your ministry.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih

I think we have a problem when we create an either/or philosophy. Psychology is nothing more than the study of behaviour and how the brain works. If this is scientific and accurate there is no reason to ignore what the research tells us. If the research is based on perceived ideas that are wrong then obviously it poorly explains how the brain/human behaviour works.

It is a bit like should we engage in science or just read the bible. Really both should compliment each other. Psychology could probably give us some good insights.

How much do you know about Psychology and its presuppositions and methods?

I sit in psychology classes at the moment for work so I hear a lot about the subject but not enough yet to work out what the presuppositions are at the very base of it all. So I will admit not much considering I havn't learnt it from introduction up but rather get thrown into random sessions that are no interconnected. Care to enlighten me?

Two major problems with most psychology.

1) Evolutionary underpinnings through and through
2) The perspective that religious faith is the product of human invention.

These lead to ALL kinds of unbiblical issues, including the 'moral neutrality' of all
manner of deviant behavior and self-expression.

Now I know of Christian institutions that promote forms of secular psychology for their pastoral counseling trainees...and this seems to utterly fly in the face of Biblical wisdom. Obviously such institutions don't accept all the presuppositions that go into secular psychology, nor all the implications - but still, that said, there seems to me no reason that they can't counsel with the perspective that sin is sin, and most interpersonal and intrapersonal problems stem from Adam's fall.

R.J. Rushdoony has an excellent book on this subject called Revolt Against Maturity.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

R.J. Rushdoony has an excellent book on this subject called Revolt Against Maturity.

Wonderful, wonderful book.

I also recommend "Deceptive Diagnosis", "Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology" and "Psycho-babble".

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

R.J. Rushdoony has an excellent book on this subject called Revolt Against Maturity.

Wonderful, wonderful book.

I also recommend "Deceptive Diagnosis", "Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology" and "Psycho-babble".

I'll second each of these.

My undergraduate degree is in Psychology, with a minor in Sociology. Psychology is the science of the mind and behavior and places focus on the individual within society. Sociology is the science of society and institutions. Many times Psychology is confused with Psychiatry, which has different methodologies in analyzing and interpreting behavior than Psychology. One methodology is psycoanalysis used by Sigmond Freud (the cocaine addict that had a crush on his mom). Psychology, in general, is interesting. Observations of individuals and behavioral patterns are harmless. What one has to be careful of, are the methodologies proposed to deal with certain behavioral patterns. When these methodologies, as well as theories based on behavioral observations, go against Scripture then there is danger. I have nothing wrong with Psychology as a science, but unfortunately in Christian institutions, some of the methodologies proposed to deal with behavior are unscriptural. Like any science, there is room for error. The Holy Scriptures must be our main source when dealing with individual behavior in the Church and Christian home.

I had a bunch of psychology classes, and by in large, Christians are better off with Biblical counseling. Psychology may be able to make useful observations at times, but for the most part it appeals to a scientific basis that is full of holes. (You cannot put human behavior under a microscope, so you have practitioners gravitate toward a particular theory, then do everything they can to bolster that set of presuppositions.) What's more, psychologist cannot accurately describe what a humans is, a creature made in God's image.

I worked on a psych floor for 4 years and was trained as a counselor. I was also on a combat stress control team when deployed.


My observations:

-Psychiatry/psychology often gets it right when it comes to observations of behaviors and the reasons behind such behaviors.

-But, in the realm of underlying theory, they are always wrong on the big issues.

-Psychiatry often gets it right when it comes to meds which help real conditions.

-There are real mental disorders, which need to be studied, diagnosed and treated - often with medication.

-Sometimes complexes of behavior pop up, which then gets a diagnoses and then becomes a "disease" instead of just bad behavior. This allows people to take on the "patient role" and shirk responsibility.


Other observations:

-Christians are often suspicious of psychology.

-Many of the Christian books on psychology/psychiatry are just as much quackery as what they are reacting against.




Finally,

Practically, psychology has its uses.


Use 1: Screening of missionaries: Mission agencies usually give some sort of test to candidates to pick out unhealthy patterns of behavior in their candidates. This is a useful screening device and I think is warranted.

Use 2: Psychology has done well in seeing and treating things like PTSD, which is affecting our veterans from Iraq.

Use 3: After a crisis, it DOES help to have someone to debrief or someone to talk to.

...there are many other legitimate uses.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

-Many of the Christian books on psychology/psychiatry are just as much quackery as what they are reacting against.

Would you give some examples? Not goading - I'm genuinely curious.

Is "Christian Psychology"Christian? This Outside the Camp guy is a real quack. Although, some of his articles are not that bad. A favorite tactic it to take the excesses of psychology and paint the whole picture with those hues. An author could make Christianity look very bad too by cherry picking examples ofbad Christian belief.

Here's another site that is unbalanced: Psychology & the Bible. There's a mix of valid points with an attitude of sniffing out heresy behind every rock and accusing folks like RC Sproul of being seduced by psychology.


I think there is a ministry called Psycho heresy, too, and some other "ministries" whose sole purpose seems to be to combat psychology. Many of these groups seem suspicious of any sort of medications. PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries: Christian Study Materials

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 10:32:31 EST-----

P.s. here is a critique of Jay Adams' book, which many reformed Christians like: Psychology is the Devil: A Critique of Jay Adams’ Counseling Paradigm T h e o ? p h i l o g u e

Most of these anti-psychology groups have similar traits: (1) they find dangerous trends in even innocous-sounding things, (2) they reveal and expose respected teachers as being sold out to psychology, (3) they regard with suspicion ALL tenets of psychology and do not merely see it as a mixed bag but see it as entirely bad...even as a purposeful tool of the devil to deceive the church (4) they give NO credit to psychiatry/psychology at all for any gains in knowledge, (5) they cherry pick examples from the history of psychology to make the whole profession look bad (which is not that hard...ha)

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Is "Christian Psychology"Christian? This Outside the Camp guy is a real quack. Although, some of his articles are not that bad. A favorite tactic it to take the excesses of psychology and paint the whole picture with those hues. An author could make Christianity look very bad too by cherry picking examples ofbad Christian belief.

Here's another site that is unbalanced: Psychology & the Bible. There's a mix of valid points with an attitude of sniffing out heresy behind every rock and accusing folks like RC Sproul of being seduced by psychology.


I think there is a ministry called Psycho heresy, too, and some other "ministries" whose sole purpose seems to be to combat psychology. Many of these groups seem suspicious of any sort of medications. PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries: Christian Study Materials

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 10:32:31 EST-----

P.s. here is a critique of Jay Adams' book, which many reformed Christians like: Psychology is the Devil: A Critique of Jay Adams’ Counseling Paradigm T h e o ? p h i l o g u e

Most of these anti-psychology groups have similar traits: (1) they find dangerous trends in even innocous-sounding things, (2) they reveal and expose respected teachers as being sold out to psychology, (3) they regard with suspicion ALL tenets of psychology and do not merely see it as a mixed bag but see it as entirely bad...even as a purposeful tool of the devil to deceive the church (4) they give NO credit to psychiatry/psychology at all for any gains in knowledge, (5) they cherry pick examples from the history of psychology to make the whole profession look bad (which is not that hard...ha)

Yes, I've read some of Biblical Discernment Ministries (I thnk they're associated with the Psycho-Heresy stuff) and Outside the Camp. Some of their stuff is weird and really goes too far - breaking the ninth commandment. Thank you for clarifying with these examples.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

P.s. here is a critique of Jay Adams' book, which many reformed Christians like: Psychology is the Devil: A Critique of Jay Adams’ Counseling Paradigm T h e o ? p h i l o g u e

So Pergy, just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you including Jay Adams (and Nouthetic Counseling) in the realm of "quackery"?

After listening to some lectures by Bahnsen on Van Til, I don’t think we can throw everything out about psychology. Scientists depend on their inconsistent epistemological presuppositions to gather and analyze information. Some of what they teach is true, like with memory (sensory, short term, long term), but a lot of what they teach is wrong. I think a good to “sort the sheep from the goats” is to see where they part from the scientific method.

If psychology was just collecting data on human behavior, using the scientific method, then the discipline might have some hope, but it gets into problems when it tries to “help” people. When you look at how godless men try to apply what they have learned, mixed with their own quackery, and neglecting God’s revelation about the true nature of humanity, you see serious problems. After taking an intro to psychology class I see their methodology in the treatment of patients as being akin to medieval medicine.

Psycology is a secular discipline built on hodgepodge of right and wrong presuppositions. It is evolutionary in nature and I believe that it, like evolutionary biology, should be kept out of the church. Jay Adam’s program looks like somthing God would perscribe for us to use

I enjoy Jay Adams' books a lot. I like his premise that all Christians who understand their bibles are "competent to counsel". It is very freeing to know that we don't have to have a bunch of degrees and humanistic, behavioristic education in order to counsel people. Modern counseling, like any profession today, is bogged down with way too much elitism. Ordinary, godly people can point to scripture and give people hope - the only Hope there is!

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by Pergamum

P.s. here is a critique of Jay Adams' book, which many reformed Christians like: Psychology is the Devil: A Critique of Jay Adams’ Counseling Paradigm T h e o ? p h i l o g u e

So Pergy, just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you including Jay Adams (and Nouthetic Counseling) in the realm of "quackery"?

No Jay Adams gives some excellent advice.

However, some reformed believers seem to think he is the only voice out there when I like David Powlison much better. There is also Paul Tripp, Ed Welch, Wayne Mack and others to sift through. Even Larry Crab has gotten better than he used to be.

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 11:20:59 EST-----

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

I enjoy Jay Adams' books a lot. I like his premise that all Christians who understand their bibles are "competent to counsel". It is very freeing to know that we don't have to have a bunch of degrees and humanistic, behavioristic education in order to counsel people. We can point to scripture and give people hope - the only Hope there is!

Many Christians understand their Bibles cognitively but some are definitely not "competent to counsel" because their beleifs are overly cognitive and they lack in empathy and even sound common sense. Some folks cannot heed the advice to laugh with those that laugh and to weep with those that weep. Counseling is much more than cognitive input of academic advice and many many Christians I have met would not be able to empathize, connect and show emotional care to hurting souls in a way that would bring honor to the Bible...

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by Pergamum

P.s. here is a critique of Jay Adams' book, which many reformed Christians like: Psychology is the Devil: A Critique of Jay Adams’ Counseling Paradigm T h e o ? p h i l o g u e

So Pergy, just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you including Jay Adams (and Nouthetic Counseling) in the realm of "quackery"?

No Jay Adams gives some excellent advice.

However, some reformed believers seem to think he is the only voice out there when I like David Powlison much better. There is also Paul Tripp, Ed Welch, Wayne Mack and others to sift through. Even Larry Crab has gotten better than he used to be.

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 11:20:59 EST-----

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

I enjoy Jay Adams' books a lot. I like his premise that all Christians who understand their bibles are "competent to counsel". It is very freeing to know that we don't have to have a bunch of degrees and humanistic, behavioristic education in order to counsel people. We can point to scripture and give people hope - the only Hope there is!

Many Christians understand their Bibles cognitively but some are definitely not "competent to counsel" because their beleifs are overly cognitive and they lack in empathy and even sound common sense. Some folks cannot heed the advice to laugh with those that laugh and to weep with those that weep. Counseling is much more than cognitive input of academic advice and many many Christians I have met would not be able to empathize, connect and show emotional care to hurting souls in a way that would bring honor to the Bible...

Good point - I would say that part of that "competence" involves understanding that the scriptures command us to love. Love, empathy and compassion are doctrine. We forget that, but we must remember that. Especially hotheads like me! And if someone is academic in their Christian approach and knows the confessions and scriptures backward and forward and can't show love and compassion, no they're not doctrinally competent.

I agree. Therefore all Christians are not competent to counsel, but only those Christians who rightly see that doctrine is not merely cognitive but also shapes their mannerisms, attiudes and way of talking and empathizing with others as well, especially when the distribution of data might be the least helpful approach and the most helpful approach might merely be a silent presence for the hurting soul.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

...especially when the distribution of data might be the least helpful approach and the most helpful approach might merely be a silent presence for the hurting soul.

Amen.

Thanks for the input, Pergy. I agree with your comments on the need for "competency."

Originally Posted by Knoxienne

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

R.J. Rushdoony has an excellent book on this subject called Revolt Against Maturity.

Wonderful, wonderful book.

I also recommend "Deceptive Diagnosis", "Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology" and "Psycho-babble".

I'll have to get Rushdoony's book. But "Psychobabble" is great! It's even on mp3.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I like David Powlison much better. ....

Pergamum, have you come accross the books by Richard Ganz? His book take charge of your life is one of the best books I have read. He is a trained Psychologst but regards most of it as unbiblical in approach and is now in the Biblical Counselling movement. Interestingly enough the book take charge appears to use some psychological tips (I assume he would regard these as common sense!). He has written a book critiquing Psychology. See Dr. Ganz's Website

many many Christians I have met would not be able to empathize, connect and show emotional care to hurting souls in a way that would bring honor to the Bible...

I agree fully. I suffer from Aspergers so am reluctant to seek advise of Christian Counsellors who have limited knowledge of the issues involved. Actually the best books on Aspergers are written by Psychologists, though often the 'behavioural answers' they propose are often inconsistent with scriptural presuppositions.

I've been on the receiving end of nouthetic counseling. I have had extensive training in pyschology myself (years ago, probably outdated now). I won't keep my post long but would recommend nouthetic counseling for issues of depression, anxiety, and existential angst. For light reading, I recommend Christian writer Edward Welch's books on depression, anxiety, and the book "When People are Big and God is Small". I like his tone a bit better than Adams whose style (though not points) is a bit dated. My two cents. Not overtly sappy self help pablum....and doesn't push the medicinal angle hard (and brings up many problems with it)

Originally Posted by Stephen L Smith

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I like David Powlison much better. ....

Pergamum, have you come accross the books by Richard Ganz? His book take charge of your life is one of the best books I have read. He is a trained Psychologst but regards most of it as unbiblical in approach and is now in the Biblical Counselling movement. Interestingly enough the book take charge appears to use some psychological tips (I assume he would regard these as common sense!). He has written a book critiquing Psychology. See Dr. Ganz's Website

many many Christians I have met would not be able to empathize, connect and show emotional care to hurting souls in a way that would bring honor to the Bible...

I agree fully. I suffer from Aspergers so am reluctant to seek advise of Christian Counsellors who have limited knowledge of the issues involved. Actually the best books on Aspergers are written by Psychologists, though often the 'behavioural answers' they propose are often inconsistent with scriptural presuppositions.

Thanks, checking it out.

I think there is something to be said about psychological studies and analysis of persons. It seems to me that there is some knowledge in psychology and that, if Christianity is true, and only true things can be known, then what they know in psychology cannot be contradictory to any Christian teaching.

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

I think there is something to be said about psychological studies and analysis of persons. It seems to me that there is some knowledge in psychology and that, if Christianity is true, and only true things can be known, then what they know in psychology cannot be contradictory to any Christian teaching.

I have no love for false science, cultic practices, phonies, a sham priesthood that relies upon its technical language in order to impress (I ought to know psychobabble when I encounter it ... after all, I was trained in it).

That being said, I'm not precisely sure what you mean. I think I agree. However, I have to wonder ... if what you say is true, then it seems one must conclude that psychology is a redundant waste of time and energy (and with that, I definitely agree!).

Perg-

-There are real mental disorders, which need to be studied, diagnosed and treated - often with medication.

This is the area that confuses me the most. I'm still not sure about the drugging. From reading up on Bi-polar from a SECULAR viewpoint, I'm becoming less and less agreeing with giving meds to quell that. The same with "ADHD". Here are people who supposedly can't control themselves, so instead of teaching them to discipline themselves and their emotions, we tell 'em its not their fault and drug them up. It seems secular psychology tries to take away any sense of self-responsibility by blaming something outside the person for the way they think and act, or, by blaming the mind, instead of the heart, as Scripture does. Meds certainly cannot be a long term answer, seeing that the person will not learn anything about self-control while using medicine, and if they ever get off will still be a problem.

I have seen my mother suffer through horrific anxiety attacks, not with anti-depressants, but with prayer and the Word of God. According to secular Psychology, 4 of us, including myself have bi-polar. But there are no meds involved because we are people who need to, by the power of the Holy Spirit, control ourselves. Unfortunately, a lot of people I know are under the influence of Ritalin. It's a crying shame to see a female friend of mine, fall into depression while doing the drug, when she is such a happy and jovial person outside of it. But just another thing that gets me about SP, and the way even Christian parents relegate responsibility to the state to control their children, instead of being the disciplinarian.

I am certainly open to correction, but I cannot see the necessity for medications.

This is a helpful directory for NANC, the biblical nouthetic counseling and local counselors.

Directory

I would definitely only use those who adhere to a scriptural focus.

There are a lot of issues here.

Dichotomy vs. Trichotomy - Is man made of three parts, or two. The "Christian Pschologist" sees three, and treats the mind, leaving the body to the MD and the soul to the pastor, though working with both if necessary/helpful. If the counselor is simply a psychologist he may not see a distinction between the soul and the mind; indeed he may not see a soul at all. Usually the issue of tri is with Christians who see these separate fields.

Soul vs. mind - Part of the problem lies in the fact that the soul is the mind (ψυχή [psuche /psoo·khay = soul, life, mind, heart). God's Word is fully sufficient to treat what ails men's souls/minds (2 Tim 3:16-17). Psychology is the study of the soul, and should be driven by God's Word first, with all findings subject to the verity of Scripture. When it starts as a so called science (another discussion) then it departs from the foundation upon which all true science should be built. To separate science from God's Word is to rip it from that which it depends, God.

Results conclude truth - In psychological practices the results are often given as proof as to the verity of the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. The problem here is that, especially with much of modern medicine, the symptoms are treated rather than the cause. ADHD is the most common example of this I can think of. What are the objective tests? There are none that I'm aware of. A child is observed, asked questions and diagnosed. There is no blood drawn. There are no scans. There is no chemical test of any sort to discern that there really is a chemical imbalance. Therefore, a child who can't sit still and pay attention is drugged in order to get them to do so.
The proof comes then, and again years later. The child now grows up, having been dependent upon a dulling drug to get through his childhood and adolescence. As an adult they tell him he's ready and take him off the drugs. Because he has been dumbed down by drugs for so long he has never really developed the ability to cope with real life pressures. They overwhelm him and he commits suicide. Now the professionals point out how much he really needed the treatment, and that he could not function without the medication, never taking any responsibility in the idea that it is very well possible that they created the problem by drugging sin.

The language in the description of the drugs as well as the diagnoses is structured in such a way as to lend authoritative credibility while at the same time refusing to take a direct and purely objective stand. Subjection is written into the script, but hidden behind the expertise of the professionals and the studies they perform.

Having said that, there are legitimate doctors out there today who are not quacks, and have real medical knowledge of what ails the brain. But that's not really what the OP was about. Much of the challenge in this is separating good medical practices from the religion inherent in much of psychology.

Wannabee-

The problem here is that, especially with much of modern medicine, the symptoms are treated rather than the cause.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

The language in the description of the drugs as well as the diagnoses is structured in such a way as to lend authoritative credibility while at the same time refusing to take a direct and purely objective stand. Subjection is written into the script, but hidden behind the expertise of the professionals and the studies they perform.

Yep. Anyone who has read the DSM IV can see subjectivity written all over it.

Modern medicine - even "real medicine" treats symptoms all the time. Treating symptoms is not a bad thing, in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Modern medicine - even "real medicine" treats symptoms all the time. Treating symptoms is not a bad thing, in and of itself.

Modern medicine treats diseases that have a demonstrable organic origin. Doctors do lab tests, check temperature, listen to breathing, etc., in order to derive objective results and determine the nature of the disease in order to treat in by prescribing medicine. Consulting the DSM IV and answering a series of subjective questions about the nature of something that may not even be organic in nature is not the same thing.