Psychology and the Church

[LawrenceU]

My main assertions here are as follows:

1. Mental illnesses are real, and many have hereditary, genetic and biological/chemical casues. One's own persoanl sin is not the primary reason for many patients.

2. Counseling, studying behaviors, medication are all options that should be on the table.

3. Pastors who dismiss 1 and 2 are dangerous when faced with hurting people in their churches if they make it hard for hurting people in their midst to take advantage of all legitimate options. Stigmas become barriars which keep people from getting help.


4. There are many schools of thought in psychology just as there is in Christianity. Not all evidences are objective, just as in pastoral ministry. But, we need not resign ALL of psychology to the scrap heap. And this is my MAIN assertion.

Again, my view of Christian psychology (into which I am including Powlison and Welch...like the majority of other writers on the subject) is that we should be cautious but open and weigh all things, but that we should not throw it all out.

Pergy, I agree 100% with your assertions. There are very real psychologic and psychiatric disorders, and many of them lead to sin; many of these people can be treated successfully with therapy and medication. Of course there are some people who are just sinners and need the grace of God like we all do, and psychology would never ad it this is the case. But we as Christians should not dismiss all psychology simply because the field is dominated by non-Christians who don't share our world view.

The Bible clearly distinguishes between those with medical problems and those with spiritual problems. We should have both in view when we minister to people with problems of all sorts:

That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all those who were sick. - Matthew 8:16 (ESV)

Brothers, your comments are a breath of refreshing air. Thank you.

 

[Pergamum]

Randy, I believe your concerns were address in post # 95 above. I also believe this thread is possibly becoming too long, as folks (who had not commented earlier) are posting here at the end and are referencing things that have already been stated earlier in the thread. Two examples: 1) I've already stated (multiple times) earlier why the example of insulin was a weak analogy; 2) you linked an old thread where you accuse NANC counselors of being like Job's friends. Adams, however, says this (linked above):

In Competent to Counsel, published 40 years ago, I stated clearly that the cases of Job and the man born blind (John 9) are explicit examples of the fact that people do not always bring their problems upon themselves. In the providence of God, who knows how many illnesses, and other untoward circumstances, may accrue from transactions that take place in the unseen world? We are not privy to such information. The only thing that is important for us to say about such matters is that God held Job (and his four counselors) responsible for interpreting and dealing with his condition so far as they were able to do so.

In cases where no causal relationship between one’s behavior and his circumstances is apparent, that usually calls for a similar tact to be taken by Nouthetic counselors. They help their counselees to understand (so far as possible) what is happening, to face it with biblical attitudes and actions, and to learn how to grow more like Christ from doing so. Often, an exposition and application of Romans 8:28-29 to the counselee’s situation is in order. We certainly would not postulate some hidden sin where there is no evidence of it. Rather, with Christ, we would declare, “Neither did this man nor his parents sin (John 9:1-2).” We would also take our stand with Job against the accusations of the first three counselors.

In addition, you say:

I believe you keep missing Pergy's point.

However, I was the one who posted this from Adams (also back in # 95):

All problems stem from Adam’s sin. Had there been no fall, there would be no remedial counseling. But Adam did sin, and if you were to trace genetic problems, environmental factors, and poor training back far enough, you would discover that it is because of the fall that these problems exist.

On this point, I believe Pergy and I are agreed. I've also already stated -- numerous times -- that there may be physiological reasons for some counseling problems. This too is old ground being retread.

At this point, it would probably be wise of me to simply leave the thread. No new information is being posted, and old information is being ignored (or rejected). It is not profitably to continue to go over the same old ground. If anyone has a specific concern or question (beyond what has already been stated), feel free to PM me.

Hey brother, yes, I think I, too, am ready to leave the thread. I think we adequately understand each other's position. I also think that we probably agree about 90-95% and are quibbling over semantics and that last 5%. I understand and respect your position, although you and I both I think probably disagree a bit with the other's emphases.

So, God bless you brother and thank you for helping to sharpen me.

 

[Wannabee]

I was afraid you'd say that Lawrence.

As Tim pointed out, nothing new is being presented and there is clearly disagreement. As Pergy pointed out a while ago, there is a large emphasis on definitions here that is central to the disagreement. If I may recap:

1. Both sides of the debate agree that Scripture is fully sufficient for any spiritual malady of man.
2. Both sides agree that there are dangers inherent in psychology.
3. Both sides agree that there is responsibility in treating someone physically as well as spiritually. This may involve medications to help if there is a discernible medical condition that is influencing the individual in regard to thought process and perhaps mood.
4. Both sides agree, I think, that in extreme cases it may be appropriate and even advisable for a doctor to prescribe a medication to the counselee for a period of time in order to even them out and give the counselor/pastor an opportunity to have more meaningful (perhaps coherent) communication.
5. Both sides agree that there are mental conditions that are not directly sin oriented, just as there are other physical conditions that are not necessarily a result of personal sin. For the sake of this agreement, I would like to stress that the agreement here is based on genuine physical issues, whether they're chemical or structural issues.
6. As follow-up to the above statement, both sides agree that a person's life experiences affect them mentally. And I think that both sides agree that Scripture is fully sufficient to deal with such cases, though some medical assistance may be advisable. See number 3.
7. Both sides agree that we are all culpable for our own sin, regardless of our circumstances or life challenges.
8. Both sides agree that not all secular psychology is quackery.
9. Both sides agree that most psychological counseling is anti-God.
10. Both sides agree that we are in general agreement.

1. We disagree on what entails psychology.
   1. One side says that to the extent that, and because, nouthetic counselors use methods that psychologists us then that puts them, at least in a general sense, under the umbrella of psychologists.
   2. The other side says that psychology came along and used some of the methods pastors were using to advance their cause, but that this in no way puts what they do, nouthetic counseling, under the umbrella of psychology. They both are under the umbrella of counseling, but not psychology.
2. Though there is substantial (overwhelming) agreement, there is still disagreement as to the line where mental illness ends and sin caused maladies begin.
   1. Generally speaking, those on the nouthetic side would propose that if it can't be tested objectively then it is most likely a sin issue. It is taken into consideration that there are conditions that medicine has not recognized yet, and we must be sensitive to this. Perhaps they are more concerned with being wrong and calling sin something else than being wrong and counseling someone who has a genuine physical challenge that's influencing their lives.
   2. Those on the other (integrated) side claim that there is much in counseling, even nouthetic counseling, that is subjective as well, and that there is nothing wrong with subjective diagnoses. Perhaps they are more concerned with missing a physical issue and unduly admonishing a person who has medical issues influencing their lives.

If my assessment is correct then we can rejoice that there is much that is admirable from both perspectives. I know that in my own interaction with some over the past couple of years I have softened on my approach and perception on this. We can learn from one another here. Both are concerned about the souls of men, but emphasize a different angle. Both perceive "erring on the side of caution" from different perspectives.

Also, if I have listed these correctly, then I understand why some would call even nouthetic counseling psychology. I've voiced my opinion and stand firmly on this conviction. As a simple courtesy I would recommend and request that respect be given those who disagree with you and that you refrain from calling them something that they find objectionable, whether there is disagreement or not. Because of my convictions and perspective I assure you that I do not practice any kind of psychological counseling. And, rather than quibble and force a label on those who are adamantly against it, it would be gracious to simply hold your own views and respectfully refrain from pushing them on those who have very good reasons to disagree with you. If you prefer the integrated model then please remember, your not the one who is being labeled in a way you find objectionable and identified with something that you consider anti-God.

 

[Pergamum]

I was afraid you'd say that Lawrence.

As Tim pointed out, nothing new is being presented and there is clearly disagreement. As Pergy pointed out a while ago, there is a large emphasis on definitions here that is central to the disagreement. If I may recap:

1. Both sides of the debate agree that Scripture is fully sufficient for any spiritual malady of man.
2. Both sides agree that there are dangers inherent in psychology.
3. Both sides agree that there is responsibility in treating someone physically as well as spiritually. This may involve medications to help if there is a discernible medical condition that is influencing the individual in regard to thought process and perhaps mood.
4. Both sides agree, I think, that in extreme cases it may be appropriate and even advisable for a doctor to prescribe a medication to the counselee for a period of time in order to even them out and give the counselor/pastor an opportunity to have more meaningful (perhaps coherent) communication.
5. Both sides agree that there are mental conditions that are not directly sin oriented, just as there are other physical conditions that are not necessarily a result of personal sin. For the sake of this agreement, I would like to stress that the agreement here is based on genuine physical issues, whether they're chemical or structural issues.
6. As follow-up to the above statement, both sides agree that a person's life experiences affect them mentally. And I think that both sides agree that Scripture is fully sufficient to deal with such cases, though some medical assistance may be advisable. See number 3.
7. Both sides agree that we are all culpable for our own sin, regardless of our circumstances or life challenges.
8. Both sides agree that not all secular psychology is quackery.
9. Both sides agree that most psychological counseling is anti-God.
10. Both sides agree that we are in general agreement.

1. We disagree on what entails psychology.
   1. One side says that to the extent that, and because, nouthetic counselors use methods that psychologists us then that puts them, at least in a general sense, under the umbrella of psychologists.
   2. The other side says that psychology came along and used some of the methods pastors were using to advance their cause, but that this in no way puts what they do, nouthetic counseling, under the umbrella of psychology. They both are under the umbrella of counseling, but not psychology.
2. Though there is substantial (overwhelming) agreement, there is still disagreement as to the line where mental illness ends and sin caused maladies begin.
   1. Generally speaking, those on the nouthetic side would propose that if it can't be tested objectively then it is most likely a sin issue. It is taken into consideration that there are conditions that medicine has not recognized yet, and we must be sensitive to this. Perhaps they are more concerned with being wrong and calling sin something else than being wrong and counseling someone who has a genuine physical challenge that's influencing their lives.
   2. Those on the other (integrated) side claim that there is much in counseling, even nouthetic counseling, that is subjective as well, and that there is nothing wrong with subjective diagnoses. Perhaps they are more concerned with missing a physical issue and unduly admonishing a person who has medical issues influencing their lives.

If my assessment is correct then we can rejoice that there is much that is admirable from both perspectives. I know that in my own interaction with some over the past couple of years I have softened on my approach and perception on this. We can learn from one another here. Both are concerned about the souls of men, but emphasize a different angle. Both perceive "erring on the side of caution" from different perspectives.

Also, if I have listed these correctly, then I understand why some would call even nouthetic counseling psychology. I've voiced my opinion and stand firmly on this conviction. As a simple courtesy I would recommend and request that respect be given those who disagree with you and that you refrain from calling them something that they find objectionable, whether there is disagreement or not. Because of my convictions and perspective I assure you that I do not practice any kind of psychological counseling. And, rather than quibble and force a label on those who are adamantly against it, it would be gracious to simply hold your own views and respectfully refrain from pushing them on those who have very good reasons to disagree with you. If you prefer the integrated model then please remember, your not the one who is being labeled in a way you find objectionable and identified with something that you consider anti-God.

That's a pretty good summary. I would have to read it again to really see if I would object to anything; but if I did object to your assessment, it would only be minor. In general I think you have summarized well.

In your last paragraph you seem to take your stand, which I will not quarrel with. It is a reasonable stance.

Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for this chance for me to get the blessing of your interaction.

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

I've been too busy to chime in on this thread, but, it sometimes feels like Christians, are so resistant to the science of psychology, that they blind themselves to truths. They'd rather have the "dark box" of the brain a mystery, and are threatened by the complexity of it all.

Bottom line, if my hand needs rehabilitation we have no problem using the knowledge we have today to work ligaments, rebuild bones, attach arteries, etc. Whereas, 2000 years ago somebody with the same damaged hand might be prayed for, have the hand blamed on sin, and live the rest of their lives with it.

The brain, although at a microscopic level, is being understood at just as practical level, as muscles and ligament...most call it wiring.

Yes, the wiring is faulty due to sin just as my aching back is, but that doesn't mean I don't fix my back, and go to an expert that understands it. Why would we not want somebody, studying the "wiring" so that while we recognize sin we also recognize how the sin of others, or genetics, may have wired us in a way, that CAN BE REWIRED.

This article, is not about psychology, but, it's just an example, of the complexity of the brain. And these same wires can affect "behavior", and that's what psychologists study.

Neurobiological Advancements

In a perfect world, the Adams (who I love the biblical angle) would also embrace the hard science of the study of the brain, without fear.

I just don't see why people are so afraid of it. We can recognize the faulty theories of some, and embrace the biblical theories for those that study the most intricate and fascinating part of the human creation, the brain.

I’ve been wondering how much of psychology is actually true. We can, after all, only call psychology a science if it uses empirical investigation. The problem with psychology is that what it doesn’t take from Biology it tends to get wrong. I know this is s a big statement, but just look at the many different schools of thought on psychological treatment. There is Evolutionary Psychology, Behavioral Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Humanistic Psychology, Gsalt Psychology, Freudian Psychology, etc. Each has it's own theory. They make a conflicting mass of quackery. If psychology were to ditch it’s numerous godless theories and stick to empirical investigation, I think it would quickly be reduced to another field of biology.

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks Pergy,

I was still typing when you posted just prior to me. Thank you for your graciousness.


Blessings,

 

[MrMerlin777]

The only thing I will add to this thread is from personal experience.

In early 2006 I was deployed to the pacific aboard the Abraham Lincoln. I'd been having several difficulties mentaly with the arduous nature to the duty since I'd been assigned there in March of 2005. Long story short, shortly into the deployment I had a complete "mental meltdown" to the point that I was incappable of performing my duties. I was medically PCSed from the ship and reassigned to the clinic where I currently work. Also durring that time I badly ruptured a disc in my back and required meds for chronic pain and surgery. This only served at the time to exacerbate my mental state even further. It took well over a year of meds and counceling (psychological, psychaitric and spiritual) along with much prayer and attendance and meditation upon word and sacrament to "become myself again". I praise our great God for providing the professionals and the ministers that helped me and, blunly, no one can make me believe that I was sinning by recieving the help they offered. If it hadn't been for the providential fact that I'm in the service and the help was readily available to me the aftermath of my breakdown would have been much worse than it was.

 

[Marrow Man]

Hey brother, yes, I think I, too, am ready to leave the thread. I think we adequately understand each other's position. I also think that we probably agree about 90-95% and are quibbling over semantics and that last 5%. I understand and respect your position, although you and I both I think probably disagree a bit with the other's emphases.

So, God bless you brother and thank you for helping to sharpen me.

I know I said I would leave the thread, and I am not adding anything new to the discussion, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for this post, brother. Thank you for the graciousness of it. You know that I dearly love and appreciate all you, even though we might not agree on everything. I both appreciate and respect you immensely for what you wrote here, as well as the insightful summary of Joe, with which I agree.

Also, I also want to emphasize that I hope I did not offend anyone who might have had some issue of this sort at some point in their life. From the repeated consensus, it seems that some thought I was simply saying, "You are sinning, you are sinning," which was not my point at all. Please understand that above all else that I care deeply for precious souls, enough that this poor shepherd becomes very wary when he perceives there to be wolves among the sheep. My desire, as I am sure it is the desire of Pergy, Joe, et al, is to strike at the wolves without harming the sheep. Sometimes I miss.

 

[Pergamum]

Hey brother, yes, I think I, too, am ready to leave the thread. I think we adequately understand each other's position. I also think that we probably agree about 90-95% and are quibbling over semantics and that last 5%. I understand and respect your position, although you and I both I think probably disagree a bit with the other's emphases.

So, God bless you brother and thank you for helping to sharpen me.

I know I said I would leave the thread, and I am not adding anything new to the discussion, but I just wanted to express my appreciation for this post, brother. Thank you for the graciousness of it. You know that I dearly love and appreciate all you, even though we might not agree on everything. I both appreciate and respect you immensely for what you wrote here, as well as the insightful summary of Joe, with which I agree.

Also, I also want to emphasize that I hope I did not offend anyone who might have had some issue of this sort at some point in their life. From the repeated consensus, it seems that some thought I was simply saying, "You are sinning, you are sinning," which was not my point at all. Please understand that above all else that I care deeply for precious souls, enough that this poor shepherd becomes very wary when he perceives there to be wolves among the sheep. My desire, as I am sure it is the desire of Pergy, Joe, et al, is to strike at the wolves without harming the sheep. Sometimes I miss.

You are very appreciated, and I am pleased to understand your emphases regarding this subject and I beneiftted from this thread. There was never any offense taken.

 

[lshepler412]

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...[/QUOTE]

I do not agree with Adam's premise that all Christians who understand their bibles are "competent to counsel". Many believers lack the maturity, compassion, and knowledge to be able to analyze, understand, and apply biblical truth to a particular problem or person. Many are too impatient too. I agree that counseling is much more than straightforward advice but involves the santifying work of the Spirit in the counselee's life.

 

[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... I do not agree with Adam's premise that all Christians who understand their bibles are "competent to counsel". Many believers lack the maturity, compassion, and knowledge to be able to analyze, understand, and apply biblical truth to a particular problem or person. Many are too impatient too. I agree that counseling is much more than straightforward advice but involves the santifying work of the Spirit in the counselee's life.

I agree with you, but we must remember that those qualities you mentioned that many Christians lack - they are commanded to have if they claim to belong to Christ. John's epistles are very clear that loving the brethren and having compassion for them are every bit as important as any other doctrine in the Bible. Loving the Lord our God and our neighbor as ourselves is what all other commandments hang on.

I think we should assume that when Adams says "all Christians are competent to counsel" he's not talking about Christians who have a bunch of answers and bible knowledge but no love and compassion. As Christians, we are to be known for our love and compassion, so much that, if we call ourselves Christians and don't possess them, we need to question whether our hearts have been changed.

We can acquire all the biblical knowledge and doctrine in the world and go to hell for all our trouble - if we don't love God and the bretheren, these things are worthless.

 

[calgal]

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... I do not agree with Adam's premise that all Christians who understand their bibles are "competent to counsel". Many believers lack the maturity, compassion, and knowledge to be able to analyze, understand, and apply biblical truth to a particular problem or person. Many are too impatient too. I agree that counseling is much more than straightforward advice but involves the santifying work of the Spirit in the counselee's life.

I agree with you, but we must remember that those qualities you mentioned that many Christians lack - they are commanded to have if they claim to belong to Christ. John's epistles are very clear that loving the brethren and having compassion for them are every bit as important as any other doctrine in the Bible. Loving the Lord our God and our neighbor as ourselves is what all other commandments hang on.

I think we should assume that when Adams says "all Christians are competent to counsel" he's not talking about Christians who have a bunch of answers and bible knowledge but no love and compassion. As Christians, we are to be known for our love and compassion, so much that, if we call ourselves Christians and don't possess them, we need to question whether our hearts have been changed.

We can acquire all the biblical knowledge and doctrine in the world and go to hell for all our trouble - if we don't love God and the bretheren, these things are worthless.

I have to say some people in the visible church have a sick and twisted idea of "loving God and the bretheren." In their eyes however, they are "acting out of love." And competent to counsel also means knowing your limits: when and how to refer them to a COMPETENT Christian Counselor or to their doctor. This goes for pastors as well as random passing Christians.

 

[Knoxienne]

I agree with you, but we must remember that those qualities you mentioned that many Christians lack - they are commanded to have if they claim to belong to Christ. John's epistles are very clear that loving the brethren and having compassion for them are every bit as important as any other doctrine in the Bible. Loving the Lord our God and our neighbor as ourselves is what all other commandments hang on.

I think we should assume that when Adams says "all Christians are competent to counsel" he's not talking about Christians who have a bunch of answers and bible knowledge but no love and compassion. As Christians, we are to be known for our love and compassion, so much that, if we call ourselves Christians and don't possess them, we need to question whether our hearts have been changed.

We can acquire all the biblical knowledge and doctrine in the world and go to hell for all our trouble - if we don't love God and the bretheren, these things are worthless.

I have to say some people in the visible church have a sick and twisted idea of "loving God and the bretheren." In their eyes however, they are "acting out of love." And competent to counsel also means knowing your limits: when and how to refer them to a COMPETENT Christian Counselor or to their doctor. This goes for pastors as well as random passing Christians.

I have to say that if people who name the name of Christ (I realize lots of people call themselves Christians) are truly filled with the Holy Spirit and are using God's Word as their standard in both the letter and the spirit of the law, they are certainly not going to be sick and twisted.

And if we are going to recommend a COMPETENT Christian Counselor, they need to hold to God's Word as their standard also. There's no competence outside of God's Word when dealing with the human psyche (soul)

 

[lshepler412]

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 am of the opinion that many christian counselors have very limited and biased knowledge of all the issues involved in the mental health realm. God didn't stuff the brain with cotton batting- it's complex and the brain has been affected by the fall too in the sense that there might be something organically wrong that is separate from a heart/sin issue. Many, many, many health problems can contribute to depression/anxiety so we need to have great humility in this area. Thyroid impairment, iron deficiency anemia, and gluten intolerance are just a few. Many medical problems can be hard to test for. Just because there in not a blood test for something does not mean it is not a medical problem. Was there a blood test for diabetes or epilepsy 150 years ago? No, sadly people cruelly thought it was just insanity. Some people with depression/anxiety actually have gluten sensitivity or Celiac disease and their symptoms would greatly improve with the removal of the offender. A subset of people with schizophrenia actually have celiac disease and their hallucinations and delusions disappear on a gluten free diet. Celiac disease can be difficult to diagnose though because the symptoms are so varied and can differ from person to person in its presentation. How many noethetic counselors would tell the schizophrenic that they are not handling their feelings God's way instead of asking if they've been tested for celiac or gluten sensitivity. I volunteer in a therapeutic riding center for children with autism and some can not even speak. There is no blood test to diagnose them yet there is clearly, medically something wrong and their constellation of symptoms falls under the spectrum of autism. I do think we need to exercise the greatest humility and compassion to these souls who suffer beyond measure. Sometimes medication is the answer for some and we should not fault them for that.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Every nouthetic counselor I know requests a physical workup to rule out organic causes. They prefer to treat the source (which is often organic) rather than mask symptoms with drugs that are unneeded, so they try to partner with doctors who are like-minded.

 

[jandrusk]

Read the bible. The Bible alone is to be the rule of life and faith. See WCF Chapter 1.2.

 

[Knoxienne]

Read the bible. The Bible alone is to be the rule of life and faith. See WCF Chapter 1.2.

Amen.

 

[tdowns]

While I agree...

Read the bible. The Bible alone is to be the rule of life and faith. See WCF Chapter 1.2.

Amen.

I agree. And good medical treatment, that is within the bounds of the bible's rule of life and faith is also great.

Schizophrenia.com - Schizophrenia Pictures and Images

Sure, reading the bible is good for everybody. But, if someone, who is suffering from an actual mental disease goes to bible studies with folks, who just say, find the sin, read your bible...you don't need meds...and when it doesn't work, begin to question their very salvation, and become distraught enough to kill themselves, that's not loving or Christian...it's happened.

I'm not saying you're saying that, but...it's out there.

 

[jlynn]

Here is another book I would recommend that falls in the category of "Christian psychology": Amazon.com: When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man (Resources for Changing Lives): Edward T. Welch: Books[/QUOTE]

I have this book and absolutely love it!

 

[Staphlobob]

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


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 am of the opinion that many christian counselors have very limited and biased knowledge of all the issues involved in the mental health realm. God didn't stuff the brain with cotton batting- it's complex and the brain has been affected by the fall too in the sense that there might be something organically wrong that is separate from a heart/sin issue. Many, many, many health problems can contribute to depression/anxiety so we need to have great humility in this area. Thyroid impairment, iron deficiency anemia, and gluten intolerance are just a few. Many medical problems can be hard to test for. Just because there in not a blood test for something does not mean it is not a medical problem. Was there a blood test for diabetes or epilepsy 150 years ago? No, sadly people cruelly thought it was just insanity. Some people with depression/anxiety actually have gluten sensitivity or Celiac disease and their symptoms would greatly improve with the removal of the offender. A subset of people with schizophrenia actually have celiac disease and their hallucinations and delusions disappear on a gluten free diet. Celiac disease can be difficult to diagnose though because the symptoms are so varied and can differ from person to person in its presentation. How many noethetic counselors would tell the schizophrenic that they are not handling their feelings God's way instead of asking if they've been tested for celiac or gluten sensitivity. I volunteer in a therapeutic riding center for children with autism and some can not even speak. There is no blood test to diagnose them yet there is clearly, medically something wrong and their constellation of symptoms falls under the spectrum of autism. I do think we need to exercise the greatest humility and compassion to these souls who suffer beyond measure. Sometimes medication is the answer for some and we should not fault them for that.

Organic issues are not opposed to Scripture. Never have been. Nouthetic counselors (should, and I think do) know this. The opposite would be like saying science and the Bible are mutually exclusive.

However, once the proper diagnosis has taken place, and a workup to insure the proper meds and dosages are being given, then there is no need for anything other than solid biblical counseling.

 

[lshepler412]

Every nouthetic counselor I know requests a physical workup to rule out organic causes. They prefer to treat the source (which is often organic) rather than mask symptoms with drugs that are unneeded, so they try to partner with doctors who are like-minded.

While that is very good to request a physical to try to rule out organic causes, the very fact remains that some conditions can not be easily diagnosed or can be overlooked. Many other conditions like Parkinson's are chronic. Some people with depression are simple deficient in B vitamins or essential fatty acids. From my experience, most medical doctors aren't very concerned about diet and many are even unaware of the prevalence of Celiac disease despite the fact that the National Institues of Health is conducting a campaign to increase Celiac awareness due to all of the health problems associated with it. Most physicals too are not very indepth- they check to see if you are breathing etc. and maybe do some basic blood work. The fact that they find nothing wrong does not mean that there isn't something wrong that could be contributing to the depression etc.

-----Added 5/19/2009 at 02:21:21 EST-----

Read the bible. The Bible alone is to be the rule of life and faith. See WCF Chapter 1.2.

Amen.

I agree. And good medical treatment, that is within the bounds of the bible's rule of life and faith is also great.

Schizophrenia.com - Schizophrenia Pictures and Images

Sure, reading the bible is good for everybody. But, if someone, who is suffering from an actual mental disease goes to bible studies with folks, who just say, find the sin, read your bible...you don't need meds...and when it doesn't work, begin to question their very salvation, and become distraught enough to kill themselves, that's not loving or Christian...it's happened.

I'm not saying you're saying that, but...it's out there.

Sadly, that does happen. And frankly some of those advisors remind me of Job's friends.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Linda,
Which is why the nouthetic counselor partners with a doctor rather than just sending the counselee to someone chosen from the Yellow Pages.