WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGY?
The word itself means the study of the soul. Minirth and Meier give a broader definition in their Introduction to Psychology and Counseling, "Psychology is the scientific study of the behavior of an organism. Basically, psychologists try to find out what makes people tick and how their minds work. Psychology might be thought of as the study of how living creatures are able to interact with their environment and each other, and how they cope successfully or unsuccessfully with that environment" (p15). In other words, psychology is the study of how people think and live, why they do what they do and what can be done to help them live better. These subjects, by the way, are addressed rather directly by the Scriptures, yet Christian psychologists minimize this truth. For example Minirth and Meier say, "One would hardly expect to find material related to the field of psychology within the Scriptures, except where they directly illustrate or discuss a particular aspect of human behavior" (Ibid p16). So, while the Bible claims to be sufficient to equip us for every good work (II Tim 3:15,16), and to provide through the knowledge of Christ everything that we need for life and godliness (II Pet 1:3,4); yet, Christian psychologists inform us that psychology and Scriptures do not even deal with the same issues. How sad that would be if it were true, especially since modern psychology is barely 100 years old. Were the believers before the era of psychology without resources for dealing with life and its problems? Are we to believe that God neglected to include instructions on handling life's difficulties through the inspired authors of Scripture, but instead waited until recently to reveal those instructions to godless men such as Freud, Jung, and Rogers? We find this hard to believe and in direct contradiction to the Bible's claim of sufficiency.
It is very important to understand that when we speak of psychology we are not talking about a cohesive body of belief, but a wide range of opinion and theory. It is estimated that there are today over 250 major psychological philosophies and thousands of systems within these. However, the many theories are often in conflict, so when we speak of psychology we have to clarify which system we are talking about. Although there are many psychological systems, the big three are psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and humanism. The following two charts (which are adapted from materials published by the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) will demonstrate their distinctives in contrast with the Scriptures.
| Item | Psychoanalytic | Behavioristic | Humanist | Biblical Counseling |
| Other Names | Depth PsychologyPsychic Determinism | Third Force | Nouthetic Counseling | |
| Leader(s) | Freud/Jung/Minrith & Meier | Skinner/Watson/ Dobson | Rogers/Allport/ Malow/Adler/ Ellis/Crabb | Adams/Bobgan |
| Man (Anthopology) | Instinctual animal | Conditioned animal | Basically good | Created by God/image of God |
| id - basic instints | Evolved, dependent, & determined by enviroment | Potential internal | Original sin @ Fall | |
| Superego - learned conscience | Experimental determinism | Mature like a flower | To be what God wants him to be | |
| Ego - reality oriented decision maker | ||||
| Problem | Conflict between id and Superego | Enviromental conditioning | Social environment hinders realizing of potential | Fallen sinner by choice |
| Poor socialization Denial | Has sinned against God | |||
| Responsibility | Not man's - but other's | Not man’s - but the enviroment | Not man’s - but responsible only to himself | Man’s - but with dependence on God |
| Victim, not a violator | ||||
| Guilt | False | Unnecessary - eliminated by reconditioning | Unnecessary | Real - because of wilful choice to disobey God’s standard |
| Treament (General) | Free id/Side with id | Restructure enviroment | Help realize potential | Justification by faith |
| Ignore superego/ Find source | Reconditioning by the expert | Reflect - focus on feelings, not facts | Sanctification/Biblical change by Spirit and Word | |
| Resocialization by the expert | Operant conditioning | Resources in self | Teaching the Word & correct doctrine | |
| Control (“support” & drugs), no cure | Find answers within oneself with therapist’s unconditional acceptance & positive regard | |||
| Treatment of Guilt | Shift blame Label as false | Change standard | Solution within Love yourself | Focus on facts (guilt real) Deal with sin (personal responsibility) |
| Become self-actualized | ||||
| Counselor | Expert | Technician/Clinician | Mirror (Feeling-centered) | Biblicist |
| Techniques | Role play | Reward/Punishment | Client-centered, nondirective therapy | Training in godliness through the Word |
| Hypnosis to past lives | Aversive controls for behavior modification | Listening | Transforming by renewing of mind. | |
| Scream therapy Dream analysis Free association Transactional analysis Ventilation of anger | Glasser reality therapy | T-groups Gestalt est Sensivity training | Prayer Teaching | |
| Element of Truth | “People do exert significant influence upon one another.” | “Environment is of greeat influence upon man.” “There is a need for a disciplined reward/ punishment structure.” | “Man does have resources that he can tap” (but not apart from the will of God discerned by the Holy Spirit. | The entire Word - all elements of God’s Word are truth |
Modern psychology follows what could be termed the "medical model." The following illustration will demonstrate how this works and contrast it to the teachings of Scripture:
MEDICAL Flu Illness is medical, physical
Treatment by an expert |
PSYCHOLOGICAL Schizophrenia Illness is medical, physical
Treatment by an expert |
BIBLICAL Sinful thoughts & actions Moral issue
Treatment:
|
As can be seen in the previous illustration, the approach to our problems differ widely depending upon which model you follow. Psychology, which follows the medical model, teaches that "mental" problems are really an illness. They have come upon a person, just as the flu might, and therefore are not the person's fault. Since the person cannot help themselves they need take no responsibility for their actions, and can look for someone or something else to blame. For example, a man with a bad temper can blame his anger on his abusive father. Rooted deep in his "subconscience" is a resentment and bitterness toward this father (which he may not even recognize) that is now being "acted out" in his own temper tantrums. Unfortunately, the man does not know this. So, he attempts to curb his anger through prayer and Bible reading, but it does no good. What he needs is a psychological expert to uncover the root forces behind his behavior. When he discovers that he is an angry man because of his father, he can blame his problems on dad, and feel better about himself. Once all of this happens (which could take years) he will begin behaving better, or so the theory goes.
The Biblical approach, however, is that our man is responsible for his own actions. While it is true that he may have copied bad behavior from his father, and while it is true that his past will affect his present, nevertheless, this is no excuse for sinful actions. It is not necessary for this man to understand all that has happened in his past, nor is it helpful for him to shift the blame. He must take responsibility for his own actions, confess his sins and seek to change according to Biblical principles.
It might be useful at this point to mention several other fundamental differences between psychology and Scripture:
DIFFERENCE IN FOCUS: Scripture is God-centered, psychology is man-centered. The Bible teaches that our purpose in life is to glorify God. Therefore, everything else is subjugated to that purpose. Psychology, being man-centered, has as its highest goal the happiness of the individual.
DIFFERENCE IN VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE: One of the gravest flaws of psychology is its anthropology. Psychology teaches that human nature is basically good, or at least neutral. The only reason that people misbehave is because of outside forces (such as society or parents) that harm them. This being the case, when a psychologist is counseling a person who is behaving inappropriately, they must find the source of the pain and eliminate it. Scripture teaches, however, that people misbehave because they are sinners with a flawed and depraved nature.
DIFFERENCE IN VIEW OF VALUES:The Bible teaches absolutes. There are rights and wrongs in this world. Psychology teaches relativism. I can have my views and you can have yours; but by all means, I must not push my values upon you. The implications for counseling are obvious.
DIFFERENCE IN OUR SOURCE FOR ANSWERS: Psychology teaches that individuals have the answers within themselves. The job of the counselor is to help the counselee discover these answers. The Bible says that the answers are found within Scripture as revealed by God.
DIFFERENCES IN METHODOLOGY:Most forms of psychology teach that the key to personal problems lies somewhere in our past. The Bible always deals with us in the present. As a result God can command us to stop being angry or anxious immediately, without looking for root causes founded in the past.
DOES PSYCHOLOGY WORK?
The real issue is never whether something works, but whether it is Biblical. However, the "success" of psychology should at least be addressed. If one were to listen uncritically to both the secular and the Christian media, they would be convinced of the effectiveness of psychology. It is all but exalted as the savior of modern man, but the studies do not bear this out. A few years ago Bernie Zilbergeld, a well known unsaved psychologist, wrote a book exposing the ineffectiveness of his field. The book was entitled The Shrinking of America: Myths of Psychological Change (an excerpt can also be found in Leadership Vol 5 #1 pp87-91). The following is an synopsis of his thoughts.
Zilbergeld claimed that there were eight myths of modern psychology. After listing each myth we will summarize Leadership's critique of that myth. Keep in mind that the majority of Leadership's authors and readers would be supportive of "Christian psychology."
• There is one best therapy. -- Actually about the same result can be expected regardless of which therapy is used.
• Counseling is equally effective for all problems -- In general it works best for the less serious, less persistent difficulties. For instance it does not work well for depression, addictions or schizophrenia.
• Behavior change is therapy's most common outcome. -- Actually behavior change is not common, however, the client often feels better simply because he has been listened to, understood, cared for and valued. I.e. the client has received in counseling what they are looking for in a good relationship with people.
• Great changes are the rule. -- The evidence is overwhelming that fundamental changes are rare. The typical change is far more modest and very far from the claims that are bandied about. In short, cures by therapy are not common.
• The longer the therapy, the better the results. -- The fact is that no relationship between results and duration of counseling has been demonstrated. However, it is positive for counselors finances.
• Therapy changes are permanent or at least long-lasting. -- Relapse rates of over fifty percent are common and in the case of addictions over ninety percent.
• At worst, counseling is harmless. -- One study of encounter groups found that sixteen percent of the participants were worse off as a direct result of being in the group.
• One course of therapy is the rule for most clients. --One of the most consistent and important effects of counseling is a desire for more counseling.
Zilbergeld then draws this conclusion:
The message conveyed in therapy and in the culture at large is that if you experience almost any form of discontent, you should get expert assistance. ...This is unfortunate, because many clients are going to be disappointed, for two reasons. First, there is absolutely no evidence that professional therapists have any special knowledge of how to change behavior, or that they obtain better results -- with any type of client or problem -- than those with little or no formal training. In other words, most people can probably get the same kind of help from friends, relatives, or others that they get from therapists. Second, as we have seen, people are not all that easy to change. We simply cannot alter our lives in the ways we now think we want to (Ibid p92).
Gary Collins, well known Christian psychologist who teaches an integration approach, amazingly agrees. He says that during the past thirty years, literally thousands of research studies have examined the effectiveness of psychology and have demonstrated that what Zilbergeld reports is true (Ibid p93).
A Time magazine article entitled "The Assault on Freud" (Nov. 29,1993) highlighted, "A spate of new books attacking Freud and his brainchild psychoanalysis for a generous array of errors, duplicities, fudged evidence and scientific howlers" (p47). In that article one scholar dealing with the major tenets of Freudianism said that they, "All are undermined by Freud's failure to prove a causal relationship between the repression and the pathology. That's why the foundation of psychoanalysis is very wobbly" (p49). The concluding thought from that article is, "What Freud bequeathed was not (despite his arguments to the contrary), nor has yet proved itself to be, a science. Psychoanalysis and all its offshoots may in the final analysis turn out to be no more reliable than phrenology or mesmerism or any of the countless other pseudosciences that once offered unsubstantiated answers or false solace" (p51). This is a damaging statement from a liberal secular magazine of Time's status for all those claiming that psychology is a science.
PSYCHOLOGY'S INFLUENCE UPON CHRISTIANITY
In light of the above comments it might seem odd that Christians have taken such an interest in psychology, but they have. Christianity Today says, "Right now evangelicals are swimming in psychology like a bird dog in a lake; they hardly seem to realize how much has changed (in Christianity over the last thirty years). They certainly do not feel in danger. But there is danger..." (Christianity Today, May 17,1993; p31). Christianity and psychology both deal with the issue of how to live, yet, they come at it from different angles, draw different conclusions, and basically are not compatible.
So why has psychology had such an influence upon Christianity during the last thirty years? We might suggest several reasons. First, Satan is always busy attempting to undermind the authority of God's Word. The first recorded temptation in the Garden of Eden was to doubt the Word of God (Gen 3:1), and this has been Satan's focus ever since. Today, virtually every error found in the Christian ranks can be traced back to some form of rejection of the Bible as God's final authority. It may be pragmatism (which adds "what seems to work" to the Bible); mysticism (which adds experience); tradition (which adds the past); legalism (which adds man's rules); or philosophy such as psychology (which adds man's wisdom). The end result is all the same: The Word of God takes a back seat to the inventions of men.
Secondly, there is very little understanding or desire for Biblical truth and theology today. The Bible is not being expounded in many pulpits. Christian radio saturates the airwaves with talk shows and pop-psychology, and just about anything but solid meat. Christian magazines aimed at the laymen are full of testimonies but devoid of solid spiritual food as well, and far too few believers study the Word for themselves. As a result, we are a spiritually starved people who are no longer able to discern truth from error. So, when an appealing error such as psychology rears its head we are all too ready to accept it as being from God.
Thirdly, seemingly good and respected Christian institutions and leaders support a Scripture/psychology blend. Some of our finest seminaries, Bible schools, and missions organizations promote "Christian psychology." Numerous parachurch organizations have sprung up with the primary purpose of spreading this error. Is it any wonder that the average believer is confused?
Finally, confusion over the concept of , "All truth is God's truth." This has become the battle cry of those who wish to integrate psychology with Scripture. The idea runs like this: God is the author of all truth, therefore, whenever truth is discovered we can be sure that it is from God. If mathematical and scientific truth can be discovered apart from the Word of God, why can't psychological truth be found and accepted in the same way? In reply we could make several observations: 1) There is a difference between facts and truth. Two plus two equals four, that is a fact, but it is not truth in the sense in which the Bible uses truth. Note that Jesus claimed to be "truth" (John 14:6). In other words, we must be careful that we define our terms properly. 2) Apart from the verification of God's Word the observations of mankind can never be proven as "true." For example, many medical and scientific "facts" or "truths" will be proven wrong in the future. To place the observations of mankind, in any field, on par with God's truth is a mistake. Infallible truth is found only in the Scriptures. 3) The Bible does not claim to be a textbook on math or medicine or science. When it speaks on these issues it is accurate, but these things are not its focus. The Bible does however claim to be a textbook on living, the same claim made by psychology. The Scripture declares itself to be able to equip us to live life in such a way as to please God (II Tim 3:16,17; II Pet 1:3). To imply that the Word of God is inadequate to teach us how to live in this world is to deny its power and sufficiency.
However, even though pyschology has made great inroads into Christianity, it does not mean that there is a unanimity among Christian psychologists. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a branch of psychology known as "Christian psychology." Instead, what we find is a variety of ways that various types of secular psychology have been integrated with Christianity. Below we will briefly overview the systems espoused by some of the prominent individuals in the field of Christian psychology:
OVERVIEW OF THE TEACHINGS OF
VARIOUS CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGISTS
All of the men mentioned below believe in and promote many good causes and Biblical concepts. We do not doubt that these individuals are believers, nor do we attempt to judge their motives. As far as we know, they all love the Lord and desire to minister to His people. Yet, the God who warns us not to judge motives (I Cor. 4:3-5), calls us to be discerners of what is being taught in His name (Titus 1:9). The purpose of this section is to draw attention to some areas in which "Christian psychologists" have departed from the teachings of Scripture.
Bruce Narramore:
He is basically Rogerian (see chart on p3) with some Christian principles. In The Integration of Psychology and Theology, Bruce Narramore says: "All truth is God's truth, wherever it is found" (p13). "There is no distinctly Christian theory or model or research (of psychology)" (p15). "The church has the responsibility to respond to the claims of psychology by restudying, clarifying, reaffirming, enlarging, or correcting its understanding" (p 19). All of this clarifuing and correcting will, of course, be in light of newly discovered psychological "truth" outside of the Bible.
With this philosophy in mind we are not surprised to find this statement from Bruce Narramore, "Under the influence of humanistic psychologists like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, many of us Christians have begun to see our need for self-love and self-esteem" (You're Someone Special, p22).
Gary Collins:
In his book Can You Trust Psychology?Collins has these thoughts: Psychology is a God-given field of knowledge enabling us to more adequately help people who live in a society permeated with change and complexity unknown in the days of Jesus and Paul (p91). "God has allowed us to discover psychological techniques and insights that He has not chosen to reveal in the Bible" (p96,97). "The Word of God never claims to have all the answers to all of life's problems" (p97). One of the problems for which Scripture has no answer is our basic human desire for self-fulfillment and a positive self-image (p144-6). (Of course, Scripture does not give us an answer for this problem because it is not a need that God has placed in our hearts. Rather, it is one of those psychological "truths" that God has chosen apparently to reveal outside of His Word, and that to ungodly men.)
Since Collins clearly supported the integrational position throughout his book, we are surprised to find this statement toward the end: "It is too early to answer decisively if psychology and Christianity can be integrated" (p130). This is an amazing answer to Collins' own question, "Can you trust psychology?" In essence, he does not know; yet, uncertainty does not keep him, and other "Christian psychologists," from flooding the Christian market with psychological answers to life's problems.
James Dobson:
Dobson teaches many unbiblical and unscientific faddish ideas such as the Freudian theory that our lives are basically set by age six; the right-brain, left-brain myth; the birth-order pop-psychology; and the new age mind over matter. His fundamental teaching, however, has to do with self-esteem. His ideas on this subject do not originate in Scripture because they are not found in Scripture, but rather in the humanistic teachings of Adler, Fromm, Maslow and Rogers.
Dobson's beliefs concerning our need for a good self-image can be found in all of his books and on virtually every radio broadcast of "Focus on the Family." His famous illustration of Lee Harvey Oswald (Hide or Seek (p18ff)) explains his views well. In Prophets of Psychoheresy II, the authors sum it up this way: "Dobson's description of Oswald's life reveals a psychological viewpoint influenced by underlying ideologies of the Freudian unconscious, Adlerian inferiority, and the humanistic belief in the intrinsic goodness of man and the universal victimization of the individual by parents and society. The culprit is society (mainly parents) and the diagnosis is low self-esteem with feelings of inferiority and inadequacy. In fact, those feelings are presented as overwhelming and uncontrollable and thus cause rebellion. Therefore the universal solution to personal problems, rebellion, unhappiness, and hostility presented throughout Dobson's books is raising self-esteem" (pp 24.25).
The following quote from What Wives Wished Their Husbands Knew AboutWomen, states well Dobson's system, "If I could write a prescription for the women of the world, it would provide each one of them with a healthy dose of self-esteem and personal worth (taken three times a day until the symptoms disappear). I have no doubt that this is their greatest need" (p 35).
Larry Crabb:
In Understanding People Crabb states, "It is my view that counseling models must demonstrate more than consistency with Scripture; they must in fact emerge from it" (p29). Yet, at the same time he believes in what he calls "spoiling the Egyptians," (see p1 of this paper) i.e. taking the best from secular psychology and combining it with Christianity (something that not even Collins is sure can be done).
But as Martin Bobgan says, "Glasser's responsibility has nothing to do with God or His measure of right and wrong; Ellis equates godlessness with mental health; the hope Fankl gives is not a sure hope because it is man-centered; the love of Fromm is a far cry from the love that Jesus teaches and gives; Adler's guide is self rather than God; Harris' acceptance disregards God's law; Freud hardly understood himself and he repudiated God; Perl's expression focuses on feelings and self; and Skinner's methods of self-control work better with animals than humans. Why not give credit where credit is due? To the Lord and His Word! Why not look to God's Word concerning responsibility, truth, meaning, hope, love, guidance for effective living, understanding oneself, expression and self-control instead of rummaging around in the broken cisterns of the opinions of unredeemed men?" (Prophets of Psychoheresy I p134).
Freud and Adler play a major role in Crabb's view of man. Freud taught that we each are controlled by a reservoir of drives and impulses that he called the unconscious. This is the basic theme of Inside Out, as Crabb instructs us to enter the dark regions of the soul to find light (p32). While in the dark cave of the soul, we are to explore the imperfection of key relationships until we experience deep disappointment (p107). This self-induced confusion and disappointment supposedly leads to an awareness of our sin of self-protection to love (p196).
Adler, on the other hand, taught that behavior is directed to the goal of overcoming inferiority and thereby gaining a sense of worthwhileness in both relationships and tasks in life. It is from Adler that Crabb develops his theory that our behavior is motivated by needs for worthwhileness (deep longings) through security (relationships) and significance (impact) (see Bobgan p132).
But as Biblical Counselor Wendell Miller says, "Light is not found in the dark regions of our souls but in Jesus (Jn. 14:6) and His Word (Ps. 119:130). Christian growth is not achieved by self-awareness but instead, it is a work of God (Phip. 1:6; 2:13) in which the believer obediently does 'of His good pleasure'."
Minirth & Meier
In the writings and broadcast ministry of these men, as with the Christian psychologists mentioned above, much of their teachings do not emerge from Scripture but can be traced to secular psychologists. If you would like to be a Freudian with a Biblical facade, Minirth and Meier would be a good choice.
Note the following views, not found in Scripture but found in Freud, that are taught by these men:
1) Depression is anger turned inward
2) The existence of the unconscious mind (in Happiness Is a Choice they equated
"heart" in Jere. 17:9 with "unconscious," no lexicon would agree).
3) In Introduction to Psychology and Counseling (p298) they said, "One can see in Paul's writings to early Christians some of the ideas later developed by Sigmund Freud (id, superego, ego)."
4) At least partially believe in Odeipus Complex (see Happiness p80-97)
5) Believe in dream analysis (in Happiness p114,115 they say, "In our dreams all of our current unconscious conflicts are symbolized. Every dream has symbolic meaning. Dreams are usually unconscious wish fulfillments in symbolic form.")
6) Believe in unconscious defense mechanism
7) Teach that 85% of adult behavior patterns are set by their sixth birthday
8) Often recommend insight therapy (in the Psychotherapy Handbook it says, "the history of insight psychotherapy can be traced to Freud)
In addition to the source of their information, Minirth and Meier often makes statements that they claim to be fact that do not even have a basis in research. For example, in Happiness they say, "Holding grudges depletes certain brain chemicals and therefore results in depression. Forgiveness restores those chemicals." The first statement is unproven and the second is unheard of in research. Another is that homosexuality is a result of an absent father, while lesbianism is a result usually of an absent or hostile mother and, by Freudian necessity, before the age of six (see Bobgan p 303).
THE BIBLICAL ALTERNATIVE
It should be obvious by this point that we believe secular psychology and Biblical Christianity are totally incompatible. At the same time we want to clearly state that we are not against counseling that is in alignment with the Scriptures. The Bible is full of instruction concerning counseling, advising, admonishing, warning, rebuking, etc. (see Rom 15:14; Ps 1; the book of Proverbs for example). However, we find that counseling is not to be left up to the professionals but is simply part of the life of the body of Christ. We do not doubt that some have greater gifts, experience and knowledge in this area than others, but tremendous counsel can be given by any believer who knows the Bible. It might be helpful to point out some of the characteristics of true Biblical counseling:
· Biblical counseling teaches that truth emerges from the Bible. Integrationists claim that they do not contradict the Bible, but we do not believe that that is enough. Instead, all truth concerning "life and godliness" must emerge from the Word.
· Biblical counseling teaches that our standard for thinking and behaving is found in the Scriptures.
· Biblical counseling uses the principles found in the Word of God coupled with the power of the Holy Spirit to bring about change in thinking and behavior.
· Biblical counseling teaches that the primary purpose of people is to glorify God with their lives. The goal of Biblical counseling is not primarily to remove the trial, but to be God's kind of person, i.e. to help us be conformed to the image of Christ (8:28,29).
· Biblical counseling has the same aim as Biblical preaching and teaching: to glorify God, evangelize the lost and disciple believers.
HOW WE CHANGE AND GROW
The need for change and growth: The characteristics of spiritual immaturity are found in such passages as Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5,8,9 and II Tim. 3:2-7. God tells us in these and other Scriptures that we should expect people not living God's way to be unstable and easily deceived, guilty, selfish, those who cause divisions, people who love wrong things, gossips, those who lack self-control, angry at life, liars and deceivers, etc. However, to live this way will result in a host of what many call today emotional and psychological problems. If people are enslaved to such sins why should it surprise us that they feel unloved, paranoid, anxious, burnt-out, hatred, depressed, nervous and so forth.
The problems that people face today are real, and the psychological world often recognizes this fact. However, based on a faulty anthropology, psychologists will never discover the true source of people's problems. Therefore, they cannot offer genuine, lasting help. If you recall, psychology teaches that man is basically good or at least neutral. In addition, it teaches that people have the answer to their problems deep within themselves and it is the psychologist's job to help them discover those answers. Also, most psychologists believe that there is only one real value, and that is that there exists no values. Therefore, psychologists do not press upon their patients any values or objective truths. It is easy to discern then, that the foundation stones of all modern psychology contradict the Scriptures which teach that:
Mankind is lost, morally depraved, basically evil sinners who neither desire nor seek true life or righteousness (Eph. 2).
Our hearts (intellect, emotion, will) are distorted and corrupt. The only answers deep within us are those that will deceive and disappoint us (Jere. 17:9).
God has given us eternal, objective values in Scripture that are to rule and govern our lives. To reject these values not only results in eternal consequences, but in the types of problems for which people are seeking therapy.
If we are to handle the problems that we face in a way that pleases God we must grow spiritually (II Pet. 1:5-8; James 1:2-5) through obedience to the Word of God (Col. 3:16; Acts 20:32; II Tim. 3:16,17) as we allow theHoly Spirit to have His way in our lives (Gal. 5:16,22-25). (Also see Heb. 5:12-14).
FAULTY VIEWS OF SANCTIFICATION
The confusion caused by secular psychology aside, another major problem for the Christian is a wrong doctrine of growth. The classic example is Wesleyan Perfectionism, originating with John Wesley and taught by many branches of Christianity.
Wesley taught that the sin nature may be eradicated at a crisis experience with the result that we can reach sinless perfection in this life. At that point through an all-surrendering act of faith, we will cease our struggles with sin, with living for God, etc. In the 1800's Charles Finney and the Keswick movement's "Let go and let God," as well as the Methodist preachers, would popularize this view of Christian growth. However, the New Testament does not teach any form of instant maturity. We are sure that the Apostle Paul would be very surprised to discover that entire sanctification (or anything close to it) was possible in this life in light of his testimony in I Cor. 9:24-27.
Unfortunately, many who would reject this Wesleyan doctrine have been greatly influenced by it. Christians everywhere are looking for an experience that will make the Christian life easy or bring them to perfection. In the Fundamentalist and Evangelical circles we call this a "rededication" or "total commitment," with the implication that once-and-for-all we can turn our lives over to God and never waver again. Yet, Jesus tells us that there is a constant choice (Lk. 9:23), and Paul says we will always be in a battle (Eph. 6:10-18). Many of usdo not want to do the hard work necessary for growth; we would rather be given supernatural power in the form of an instantaneous endowment that would immediately change us. We find ourselves doing the same thing when it comes to decision-making. How much easier it would be to do what we "feel the Spirit" wants us to do, rather than endure the hard work of Bible study and the application of Scriptural principles.
If we are to deal with the problems and opportunities of life God's way, we must change and grow. In order to change and grow, we must understand that the Bible does not teach instant maturity. It does not teach that there is a "second blessing" whereby we become holy or spiritual. So what does the Bible say about change and growth?
The New Testament teaches that there are five parts to Biblical sanctification. First, the activity of the Godhead. The Father (Jh. 15:1-2); The Son (Eph. 5:26-27); The Spirit (Eph. 6:17; II Cor. 3:18). Systems that ignore God may produce outward change, but not spiritual maturity. Self-help groups such as AA are an example. Secondly, the activity of man. There are no commands in Scripture addressed to the Holy Spirit in regards to our spiritual growth, but notice this sampling of commands given to the believer: II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 4:1; Eph.4:22-24; I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 2:22; I Cor. 9:24-27. Thirdly, the Word of God. Change in our behavior or feelings must begin in our thinking. Therefore it is imperative that our minds be renewed (Rom. 12:1,2; Eph. 4:23). This renewal can only take place through the Word of God (Heb. 5:11-14). A true renewal in our thinking will lead to changed behavior and feelings (Phip. 4:8,9; Eph. 4:22-24). Any systems that leave out the Word of God leave us at the mercy of our own hearts (Jere. 17:9) which will lead us astray (Prov. 14:12). Fourthly, time -it is a gradual process. Many long for instant change, but growth takes time (Heb. 5: 11-14). Fifthly, effort is required by the believer. This balances the activity of God on our behalf. That God is actively involved in our growth is true, but that the believer must be actively involved is just as true. This balance is perfectly taught in Phip 2:13,14.Other passages include: I Cor. 9:24-27 --"race," "self-control" and "buffet;" Eph. 6:10-12 --"be strong," "put on," "struggle," "take up" and "stand firm; "and II Tim. 4:6,7 -- "fight" and "course" (Adapted from The Doctrine of Spiritual Growth by William W. Goode).
A good study would be of the first eleven verses of II Peter. In verses 1-4, we find the activity of the Godhead granting us everything we need for salvation and godly living. God's activity is followed by teaching concerning the appropriation of God's gifts by the believer (vv 4-7). That this is possible only through the knowledge of Christ as found in the Word is emphasized in verse three. However, growth will take time, and Peter teaches this truth in verse eight when he speaks of Christian qualities increasing. Still, all of this requires effort, and so we are told to be "diligent" (vv 5,10) about our growth towards maturity.
THE GROWTH PROCESS
The New Testament teaches that there are several basic things that a believer must understand in order to grow in godliness. We must first understand that we are a new creature in Christ(Eph. 2:1-6; II Cor. 6:17; Rom. 6:11). Next, we must understand the nature of temptation. Temptation comes from the world, the flesh and the devil (James 1:13,14; I John 2:15,16; I Pet. 5:8; II Cor. 11:13,14). A believer can, however, overcome temptation by God's strength (Matt. 4:2-11; I Cor. 10:13), through the proper use of God's Word (Matt. 4:2-11; II Tim. 3:16,17). We must then understand that God's purpose for our lives is to glorify and please Him as He works to conform us into the image of Christ (II Cor. 5:9; I Cor. 10:31; Rom. 8:28,29). When we understand this, it will enable us to set proper priorities. Last of all, we must comprehend that God expects obedience. This obedience is made possible through the power of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:16; John 15:7,8; Phip. 4:13), as we present our bodies to God for His will to be done (Rom. 12:1,2; Rom. 6:12,13) and learn the "put-off put-on, renewal of your mind" principle, as found in Eph. 4:22-24.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SELF-IMAGE
Few would disagree with the following statement: How people think of themselves will to a large degree determine how they will think of others, how they will think of God, how they will obtain and maintain all their relationships, and how they will make decisions. There is no area of life that will not be directly or indirectly affected by the way we view ourselves.However, there are two vastly different views on the subject of self-image:
THE UNBIBLICAL VIEW OF SELF-IMAGE, SELF-WORTH, SELF-ESTEEM AND SELF-LOVE:
The basic teaching in pop-psychology today is that people in general have a low self-image, self-esteem, self-worth, self-love, etc. They do not think that they are very good, they do not love themselves, they do not accept themselves the way they are, they lack self-confidence, etc. People behave poorly because they view themselves in this manner. If people could improve their self-image, then they would feel better about themselves and perform better in life. Everyone, of course, has a bad self-image, there are however, varying degrees. Also, since people do not want others to know how badly they perceive themselves, they tend to cover up their poor self-image with different methods: some with shyness -- so that people will not catch on to how bad they really are; others may show-off trying to prove that they are really okay.
In order to get a feel for what is actually being taught, let's look at what some of today's self-image proponents, both in secular and Christian circles, are saying:
"If I could write a prescription for the women of the world, I would provide each of them with a healthy dose of self-esteem and personal worth. ...I have no doubt that this is their greatest need" (James Dobson, What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women, p35).
"Feeling good about ourselves may in fact, be the cornerstone of our total well being" (Barnett, Baruch and Rivers, "The Secret of Self Esteem," The Ladies Home Journal, Feb. 1984, p54).
"Mothers who choose to obtain abortions do so because of too little self-esteem, not too much" (Philip A. Captain, Eight Stages of Christian Growth).
"Lack of self-esteem can actually extinguish the desire to go on living" (James Dobson, High or Seek, p80).
"Once a person believes he is an 'unworthy sinner' it is doubtful if he can honestly accept the saving grace God offers in Christ" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p98).
"Depression always has a loss of self-esteem in the foreground. ... Be slow to direct a depressed person to the Scriptures . . . no preaching. I would recommend a recess from church if there is preaching done in the church" (Jeff Boer, "Is Self-Esteem Proper for a Christian?" The Journal of Pastoral Practice, Vol 5, #4, p78).
"Under the influence of humanistic psychologists like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, many of us Christians have begun to see our need for self-love and self-esteem" (Bruce Narramore, You're Someone Special, p22).
"Self-love is the prerequisite and the criterion for our conduct towards our neighbor. ...Without self-love there can be no love for others. ...You cannot love your neighbor, you cannot love God unless you first love yourself" (Walter Trobishch, Love Yourself, p11).
"Actually, our ability to love God and to love our neighbor is limited by our ability to love ourselves. We cannot love God more than we love our neighbor and we cannot love our neighbor more than we love ourselves" (Captain, Eight Stages of Christian Growth, p157).
"Low self-esteem can lead to depression and other emotional and physical illness, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, and even suicide" (Shirley Sherrif, Contact, Vol. II #1; Jan 1991).
"You have to think that you are somebody if you want to maintain good mental health" (Arthur Rounder, You Can Learn To LikeYourself, p3).
"Self-esteem or pride in being a human being is the single greatest need facing the human race today" (Robert Schuller, Self-Esteem, p19).
"People have one basic personal need which requires two kinds of input for its satisfaction. The most basic need is a sense of personal worth, and acceptance of oneself as a whole, real person" (Lawrence Crabb, Effective Biblical Counseling, p80).
According to the self-image proponents: sexual promiscuity, suicide, crime, abortion, depression, poor mental health, stress, unhappiness, lack of success in life, the inability to love God and to accept His free gift of salvation, the inability to love others, and the inability to love self, are all the results of a poor self-image or low self-esteem.
What is the cure then for all of these problems? According to the self-image advocates, it is to build a good self-image (and a strong sense of self-worth) into the lives of all people. If what they are saying is true, then we as Christians had better jump on the self-image bandwagon. As a matter of fact, if people are unable to love God and others because of a poor self-image, then building self-esteem in our children, our spouses, our unsaved friends, ourselves and the entire world should become a primary goal of the church.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SELF-IMAGE,
SELF-WORTH, SELF-ESTEEM AND SELF-LOVE
The power of the human mind to deceive itself seems infinite. We need to pray Psalms 139:23,24: "Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way" -- often! One study of two-hundred criminals revealed that not one of those criminals believed he was evil. Each criminal thought of himself as basically a good person even when planning a crime (The Washington Star, Aug 15, 1976).
One of the Bible's major aims is to correct man's high view of himself; yet, it is now interpreted by Christian leaders to intend just the opposite. How can creatures who are constantly told (in the Word of God) that they think too highly of themselves, be convinced that their problem is in fact low self-esteem? Left to our own observations and imaginations such a thing is possible (Jere. 17:9,10: "The heart is more deceitful than all else. . ."), but the Bible does not cater to our self-deception, it seeks to correct it.
C.S. Lewis, writing before the self-esteem fad took off, made this interesting observation, "The child who is patted on the back for doing a lesson well, the woman whose beauty is praised by her lover, the saved soul to whom Christ says, 'well done,' are pleased and ought to be. For here the pleasure lies not in what you are but in the fact that you have pleased someone you wanted (and rightly wanted) to please. The trouble begins when you pass from thinking, 'I have pleased him; all is well,' to thinking, 'what a fine person I must be to have done it.'" If Lewis were to write such words today, would they be well received? I doubt it!
What do the Scriptures have to say about how we view ourselves?
Jesus taught the virtue of humility (Luke 18:14), and the importance of self-denial, rather than self-love (Mt. 16:24).
The Epistles are in hardy agreement with the words of Jesus (cp. I Tim 1:15; Rom. 7:24; 12:3; and Phip. 2:3-8). As a matter of fact, nowhere in the Bible are we warned not to think more lowly of ourselves than we ought. Yet, there should be many such Scriptures if our problem is lack of self-esteem. There are, however, five and a half pages in the Nave's Topical Bible on the subject of pride, including Prov. 16:5,18 and 19. In addition, there are three pages on self-denial. There are no references to self-image or any word meaning the same. Only in II Tim. 3:2 does the concept of self-love appear, and then it is a vice (see below). Clearly, the Bible does not present self-esteem as man's problem. In fact, the opposite of self-esteem, pride, is certainly stated to be a problem.
In the New Testament, neither John the Baptist (Lk. 3:16) nor the prodigal son (Lk. 15:21) were corrected when they declared themselves unworthy. Yet Norman Wright says, "Worthiness is a feeling of 'I am good.'" If this is true, then what do we do with Jesus' statement, 'there is none good but one, that is God.'
Note the Old Testament examples of Gideon (Jud. 6:15); Isaiah (Isa. 6:5); Amos (Amos 7:14); Job (Job 42:6); Moses (Exod. 3:11; 4:10-13). Each of these men were used of God when they recognized the Lord's greatness and their own smallness. II Cor. 12:9,10 also teaches us that we find God's strength only when we recognize our own weakness.
II Tim. 3:16,17 and II Pet. 1:3 explains that God's Word is sufficient to equip us to be godly people, and that everything concerning life and godliness is found in His Word. This being the case, we must ask the question: "Why is there no mention of self-esteem in all of the Scriptures?"
The answer to that question surely lies in the fact that our relationship with God is not based on our righteousness or our worth to Him, but upon His grace (Titus 3:4-7). Rather, we are sinners who can do nothing to impressor please God (Rom. 3:23; 5:6-8).
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELF-IMAGE | |
| SELF-IMAGE ADVOCATES SAY: | GOD SAYS IN HIS WORD: |
| 1. Love yourself | 1. Love God and others (Matt. 22:37) |
| 2. Build your self-esteem | 2. Build up others (Heb. 10:24,25) |
| 3. You are good | 3. None righteous (Rom. 3:23) |
| 4. Believe in yourself | 4. Heart is deceitful (Jer. 17:9) |
| 5. Put yourself first | 5. Put others first (Phip. 2:1-4) |
| 6. Think highly of yourself | 6. Be humble (Rom. 12:3) |
| 7. You are of great value | 7. We are sinners (Rom. 3:10,11) |
| 8. Do what you want to do | 8. Walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16) |
| 9. Find yourself | 9. Deny yourself (Matt. 16:24-26) |
| 10. Have self-confidence | 10. Put confidence in God (Phip. 4:13) |
SOME FALSEHOODS ANSWERED
WE MUST LOVE OURSELVES
Self-image advocates claim that Scripture commands us to love ourselves. The main verse they use to support this claim is Matthew 22:39b which says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Based on a faulty interpretation of this passage many teachers -- of the self-image theory -- see this as a clear Biblical command for us to love ourselves.
However, nowhere in this passage (Matt 22:36-40) is there a command from the Lord for us to love ourselves. As a matter of fact, there is no place in Scripture where we are told to love ourselves. Instead, it is always assumed that we already love ourselves (Note "as yourself" in the passage under study). Nevertheless, we are told that what Jesus meant to say is that we have to learn to love ourselves first, before we can love others. In other words, there are really three commandments given here (even though Jesus said that there are "two"). We are commanded to love God and our neighbor; then, Jesus concludes by saying, "On these two commandments depend the whole Law. . ." If Jesus says that there are two commandments here how dare we claim that there are three.
Eph. 5:28,29 is another passage used by the teachers of the self-image philosophy to promote self-love. We are told that we must first learn to love ourselves before we can love our spouse, but the passage clearly states that there has never been a person who did not love himself. Our problem has never been lack of self-love, but too much concern for self. There is however, one time in Scripture where self-love is mentioned: II Tim. 3:2. There we find the love of self at the top of a list of sins that will characterize the last days. It is interesting to note as well, that the Greek word used for love in this verse (phileo) speaks of emotional love as opposed to self-sacrificing love (agapao) in the other passages. In other words, the only verse in the New Testament that speaks of us loving ourselves emotionally (feeling good about ourselves, etc.) is a warning that this is a sin to avoid.
WE ARE WORTHY OF GOD'S LOVE
William Kirwin in Biblical Concepts for Christian Counseling (p107) says, "It is as if Christ has said, you are of such worth to me that I am going to die; even experience Hell so that you might be adopted as My brothers and sisters." Donna Faster wrote, "Of course the greatest demonstration of a person's worth to God was shown in giving us His Son (Building a Child's Self-Esteem, p6). Wrong!!! The sending of God's Son is not a demonstration of our worth, but the greatest demonstration of the love, grace, mercy and kindness of our God. The truth is that God saves us not because He sees anything of value in us, but despite the fact that there is nothing in us worthy of saving (Rom. 5:6-10; Tit. 3:4-7; Eph. 2:4-9). Such a statement wounds our pride, but it is true nevertheless.
The self-worth advocates destroy the concept of grace. The very definition of grace is God giving us what we do not deserve. If we are worthy of His salvation then eternal life is not a gift of grace but a reward based on our value, or good works. This is a concept totally refuted in Scripture (Eph. 2:8,9). For a person to come to Christ, they must first recognize their unworthiness and total depravity in the eyes of God (Rom. 3:23) in order for them to recognize their need for salvation. Teaching them that they are worthy in the eyes of God is to do them a terribly cruel and unbiblical injustice. The more we view ourselves Biblically the more precious the love, grace and mercy of our God becomes. If we consider ourselves worthy of any of God's blessings we have grossly cheapened His free gift of love and grace.
SATAN LOVES IT WHEN WE THINK BADLY OF OURSELVES
Self-image teachers would like us to believe that we must have a good self-image or else the devil has a strong foothold in our life. They believe that a poor self-image will keep us from recognizing our worth to God and therefore we won't accept His gift of salvation. In truth Satan doesn't care what we think about ourselves as long as we are preoccupied with self. If he can keep us wrapped up with self he can keep us from being occupied with God and others as we are instructed in Scripture (Phip. 2:3-8).
Man's problem has always been pride. From the beginning man wanted to be like God (Gen. 3:5). The devil, himself, is the author of sinful pride (Isa. 14:13,14). This kind of attitude and high opinion of himself not only got Satan kicked out of heaven and damned to eternal punishment, but it also became his favorite tool to keep people from trusting in God.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SELF
Jay Adams in The Biblical View of Self-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image says, "While there is no concern evidenced in the Bible about having too little self-esteem, and therefore no directions for enhancing self-esteem, God does indicate that He wants us to evaluate ourselves - so far as it is possible to do so - accurately" (p113). In Romans 12:3 Paul is instructing his readers how to evaluate themselves concerning the different gifts that God has given to them. In doing so, he provides the principle that we should use to evaluate ourselves concerning every area of our lives. In that passage, "sound judgment" means (and demands) that a reasoned judgment, based on evidence, be made. Note that Paul's warning is against thinking too highly of ourselves. He says nothing about being careful not to think too lowly of ourselves.
When we evaluate ourselves according to sound judgment what do we find? As believers we will find that God has reached down to us totally by grace to save unworthy sinners, making us a very child of God! We have been made worthy by God (cp Rev. 3:4), not because we deserved it but because of God's love. We also now know, by the Scriptures, that God has uniquely equipped us to serve and minister for Him in this world and in His church. Our value is not based upon a comparison of ourselves with others (as a matter of fact that is forbidden, II Cor. 10:12), but upon the position that we have in Christ and the gifts with which He has equipped us to live for Him.
As Christians, are we suppose to think badly about ourselves? Not at all! The Scriptural position is that we are to focus on God and others, not ourselves (Matt. 22:36-40; Phip. 2:3-8). Any preoccupation with self (either in thinking too highly or too lowly), is an unbiblical response to God's Word. Scripture starts from the position that we already love ourselves and commands us to love others equally. As a matter of fact, we are to put the interest of others before our own (Phip. 2:3,4).
RESEARCH
Most would assume that since both the secular and Christian segments of our society have jumped on the self-image train, that apparently scientific research has revealed that low self-esteem is rampant and the need to build a good self-image is paramount. Such is not the case. As a matter of fact, most research has shown that both children and adults in our society actually esteem themselves too highly. In addition, there appears to be no correlation between self-image and behavior. The following are some such examples:
• The findings of the College Board (through surveys taken from millions of high school seniors who take its tests) found that seventy percent rated themselves above average; two percent as below average. Sixty percent viewed themselves as above average in "athletic ability;" only six percent said they were below average. In "ability to get along with others," zero percent rated themselves below average; sixty percent rated themselves in the top ten percent and twenty-five percent saw themselves in the top one percent (The Inflated Self, p23,24).
• In one study, ninety-four percent of college faculty members think themselves better than their average colleague ("A New Look at Pride," in Your Better Self, p90).
• In a recent issue of Psychological Review, a journal published by the American Psychological Association, an article was written with the subtitle: "The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem." The authors stated after studying numerous serious empirical studies, "In our view, the benefits of favorable self-opinions accrue primarily to the self, and they are if anything a burden and potential problem to everyone else." (Reported in Fortune, April 29, 1996 pp211-212). Newsweek claimed that although more than ten thousand scientific studies of self-esteem have been conducted, the experts cannot even agree on what it is (Newsweek, Feb. 17, 1992, "Hey, I'm Terrific," pp48-51).
• Perhaps the most comprehensive study of its kind was that which was done by the California State Task Force on Self-Esteem. U.S. News and World Report (April 2, 1990), says concerning this study, "The Bush era turns out to be a perfect time for self-esteem programs. They cost almost nothing. They offer the light of sunny California optimism at a time of great pessimism. They are simple -- easily grasped, easily spread. And in public-school systems torn by competing pressure groups, they have no natural enemies. They have only one flaw: They are a terrible idea. First of all, despite the firsthand reports of many teachers, there is almost no research evidence that these programs work. The book Social Importance of Self-Esteem, which is basically all the research turned up by the California task force, says frankly, 'One of the disappointing aspects of every chapter in this volume. . . is how low the associations between self-esteem and its consequences are in research to date.' In fact those correlation's are as close to zero as you can get in the social sciences."
The fact is that the self-image movement is neither biblical nor scientific. It is a fad that will eventually pass away after doing incredible damage in our society and unfortunately in all too many churches. By God's grace and the truth of His Word, believers need not be taken in by Satan's lies. We can choose to live by the infallible, never changing Word of God.
CODEPENDENCY, A BIBLICAL VIEW
Codependency is one of the "hot topics," at the moment, in modern-day psychology. Until recent years the word (and even the concept) was virtually unknown; now everyone seems to be a codependent. The goals of this section are to define codependency, look at what psychologists tell us causes it, examine its supposed effects on people and find out how to cure it. Finally, we will examine all of this in the light of Scripture.
A DEFINITION OF CODEPENDENCY
"Originally, codependency was used to describe a person whose life was affected as a result of being involved with someone who was chemically dependent" (Martin Bobgan, Twelve Steps To Destruction, p 15). Today, however, definitions vary so greatly that it is often difficult to be certain what is being talked about. For example:
• "A codependent person is one who has let another person's behavior affect him or her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person's behavior" (Melody Beattie, Codependent No More, p31).
• "Codependency can be defined as an addiction to people, behaviors, or things. Codependency is the fallacy of trying to control interior feelings by controlling people, things, and events on the outside. To the codependent, control, or the lack of it, is central to every aspect of life. When it comes to people the codependent has become so elaborately enmeshed in the other person that the sense of self -- personal identity -- is severely restricted, crowded out by that other person's identity and problems" (Love is a Choice by Hemfelt, Minirth, & Meier, p11).
• "Codependency is the condition when your love tanks are running on empty" (Ibid p38).
• "Codependency is a pattern of painful dependency on compulsive behaviors and on approval from others in an attempt to find safety, self-worth, and identity" (Definition used at the first national conference on codependency in 1989, Bobgan, p17).
Confused? Even Melody Beattie, the acknowledged spokeswoman for codependency admits, "There are almost as many definitions of codependency as there are experiences that represent it. In desperation (or perhaps enlightenment), some therapists have proclaimed, 'Codependency is anything, and everyone is a codependent'" (Codependent No More, p29). Not only are the experts uncertain about what this disorder is, they are also not sure who has it. Minirth and Meier tell us that roughly one hundred million Americans suffer from codependency; and therefore, we are embattled by an epidemic of staggering degree (Love Is A Choice, p14). It has been estimated by yet another source, that eighty-five percent of the codependency market is female. The reason for this is that mainly the traditional feminine traits and behaviors, such as nurturing, mothering and developing intimate relationships are often considered symptoms of codependency. Women, who have chosen to be caretakers and nurturers, rather than putting their own feelings and desires above others, are labeled codependent -- in need of psychological help. While we would acknowledge that these traits can be carried too far by some, we are greatly concerned when we are told that virtually the whole adult population (especially women), is suffering from this "disease." Could it be that the psychologists are confusing codependence with unselfish acts of love? Is the goal of the anti-codependent proponents to turn us into a race of people who serve and love self more than others? If so, they are in contradiction with Phip. 2:3,4.
THE CAUSE OF CODEPENDENCY
What causes a person to become codependent and what are the effects of this "illness" on the life of the codependent? Minirth and Meier claim the causes of codependency are: "unmet emotional needs, lost childhood, and the compulsion to fix the dysfunctional family" (Ibid. p15). While these causes are interrelated, we will nevertheless take them one at a time:
Unmet emotional needs: The theory is that we each have a reservoir for love (or love tank) inside us. If our love tank has not been filled by the "significant others" in our lives, we will not have our emotional needs met; we will therefore become a codependent (see Ibid. pp33ff). This theory is especially true of children.
Lost childhood: Children lose their childhood through abuse usually by parents or parental figures. Active abuse, such as incest, physical abuse or even excessive anger on a parent's part is the most recognized form of abuse -- abuse that we must not deny. However, we are told of more subtle forms of abuse that apparently leave similar scars on a child's life. Minrith and Meier inform us of the following forms of abuse, often not recognized: one parent who is preoccupied and unavailable to a child emotionally, a child who is not constantly praised, lack of touching and hugging in the family, parents not being at peace (with one another) sexually, parents who demand "too much," parents depending too much on their children, a parent who is too rigid, etc. (Ibid. pp. 52-62).
We would mention two things at this point: Note the terrible pressure the codependency view places upon parents. At what point do we cross over from being emotionally available, to overindulging our children? When are we being too rigid, rather than firm? How do we know if we are expecting too much from our children, or not enough? What a horrible position to be in, knowing that the answers to these questions are relative, yet knowing that failure on our part will "scar" our children for life. The Biblical view would be that parents do have responsibility to their children, but that they are not responsible for the choices their children make. Likewise, instead of blaming our parents for the mistakes they made while raising us, we must take responsibility for our own actions.
By the codependent definition of abuse, virtually all children in the past have been abused and should have developed into codependents. How could parents of ten or more children always have been emotionally available to them? How were parents able to fill their children's love tanks when they worked sixty-plus hours per week, and their children held full-time jobs as well? Even more importantly, if codependency has been our problem all of these years, why didn't God give us instructions on how to deal with it? Are we to believe that God allowed all of His people until the 1980s to be unequipped to deal with this grave problem? Are we to believe, as well, that God has not chosen to deal with codependency in His Word, but has revealed this problem and its solution, to ungodly men and women, such as Freud, Maslow and Beattie?
The compulsion to fix the dysfunctional family: Minrith and Meier tell us, "We all possess a primal need to recreate the familiar, the original family situation, even if the familiar, the situation, is destructive and painful" (Ibid. p65). Why would anyone want to recreate a painful situation? Why, because we are compelled by our unconscious minds that actually control (we are told) eighty percent of our decisions (apparently without our conscious knowledge) (Ibid. p65). But why would we unconsciously choose to put ourselves through such pain? Consider the following three reasons given by followers of codependency:
We believe that if the original situation can be drummed back into existence, this time around we can fix it. We can cure the pain. We know we can! The codependent possesses a powerful need to go back and fix what was wrong, he must cure the original pain.
We believe that we were responsible for the rotten original family; therefore, we must be punished -- we deserve pain. Codependents may actually be hooked on misery.
We believe that there is that yearning for the familiar and the secure. Even if the past was painful, at least it was home.
John Bradshaw, popular TV codependent guru, lays the blame on the Biblical teaching that everyone is born in a condition of sin. He contends that such teaching produces a "shame-based" personality destined to become an addict. He says, "Many religious denominations teach a concept of man as wretched and stained with original sin. . . With original sin you're beat before you start" (Healing the Shame that Binds You, p64).
Actually, the various "experts" come up with various (and often contradictory) reasons why they believe people become codependent. Why so many opinions? Perhaps this quote from the University of California's "Wellness Letter" explains the problem well, "The literature of codependency is based on assertions, generalizations, and anecdotes. . . To start without the slightest shred of scientific evidence and casually label large groups as diseased may be helpful to a few, but it is potentially harmful and exploitative as well. If as the best sellers claim, 'all society is an addict' and ninety-six percent of us are codependents, that leaves precious few of us outside the rehab centers -- but at that point the claims become ludicrous at best" (Oct., 1990 p7, quoted in Bobgan, p33).
There is neither scientific nor Biblical evidence to support the claims of those who teach the theories of codependency, but why should truth get in the way of a good thing?
THE EFFECTS OF CODEPENDENCY
We are being told that it is very difficult to discern whether the behavior of a codependent was caused by his "illness," or the "illness" was caused by his behavior. At any rate, Melody Beattie groups the problems of codependent people around the following categories: caretaking, low self-worth, repression, obsession, controlling, denial, dependency, poor communication, weak boundaries, lack of trust, anger, sex problems, miscellaneous and progressive (Codependent No More, p37-45). After reading her lists, you realize that no one can totally escape the codependent label.
Minirth and Meier blame addictions and compulsions on codependency. Even more importantly, they claim that a codependent is unable to obey God: "The Christian's foremost privilege and responsibility is to hear and respond to God. The codependent can neither hear clearly nor respond adequately. It's that simple" (p 171). How cruel God must be, to demand obedience from people who cannot obey because of their emotional illnesses (caused usually by harsh parents), then punish them because of their disobedience. Either the apostles of codependency are right, or God (in His Word) is --we cannot have it both ways!
THE CURE
In order to recover from codependency, the codependent must enter a Twelve-Step program specifically designed for him: Codependence Anonymous, which is almost identical to Alcoholics Anonymous -- with only minor changes in the steps (see our paper on the Twelve Step recovery programs). Another option is to enter a clinic such as Minirth and Meier's and go through their similar program.
As a summation the adherents of codependency would say, "Codependents carry distorted messages about their own sense of worth and such messages originate in dysfunctional families. Those messages must be erased through regressive therapy and replaced with positive, self-enhancing messages" (Bobgan, p46) (Note the section on self-image discussed previously in this study).
The Scriptures teach a very different method of change and growth. This method is outlined in Eph. 4:22-24, where we are told to put off the old self, put on the new self, and be renewed in the spirit of our mind. Specifically how to do this depends upon the problem that we face.
The psychological world (including Christian psychologists) errs, because it has a faulty anthropology (view of man) based upon human wisdom, rather than upon the Word of God. Psychologists believe that people behave poorly, and develop emotional and psychological problems because their love tanks are empty. If they can get their "significant others," or even God, to fill up their "love tanks," their problems will be resolved. The endresult is everyone living for themselves. The Bible says, however, that we behave poorly because we are totally depraved, having been born with a sin nature. As a result, we react sinfully to our problems. The solution offered by God is to live Biblically. Progressive sanctification is our goalas we live our lives to please God. The codependency movement is quickly turning Biblical living into a vice. Those who choose to put Christ and others before their own needs are being told they are sick and in need of therapy. Is it any wonder that their world is confused?
INNER HEALING AND VISUALIZATION
One of the more popular methods of dealing with problems today is Inner Healing (also known as Healing of Memories, or Healing for Damaged Emotions) through the use of visualization. Some of the better known practitioners of this methodology have been: Agnes Sanford, Ruth Carter Stapleton, Dennis & Rita Bennett, and among Protestant non-charismatics, David Seamands. Seamands' books, Healing for Damaged Emotions and Healing of Memories, are perhaps the standard texts on the subject. These books come highly recommended by Gary Collins, James Dobson and the Narramore Christian Foundation, among others. The books are published by Victor Books (a division of Scripture Press) and have sold over six hundred thousand copies since 1981. Throughout this section we will examine the teachings and techniques of Inner Healers in the light of Scripture.
THE BELIEFS OF INNER HEALING
Background -- There are many surface variations between teachers, but the basic structure of all Inner Healing approaches is a Freudian view of human nature that teaches that all of our problems find their roots in our early childhood, but those early painful experiences have been repressed into our subconscious mind. In addition, at least in Christian circles, a Jesus who loves unconditionally is imagined into our past in order to heal our childhood wounds. The Inner Healing movement among Christians has sprung from the view that neither God's Word nor Christ's power, as taught in the Word, is sufficient to meet the needs of people with deeply damaged emotions stemming from childhood. Seamands says, "Early in my pastoral experience, I discovered that I was failing to help two groups of people through the regular ministries of the church. Their problems were not being solved by the preaching of the Word, commitment to Christ, the filling of the Spirit, prayer, or the Sacraments. . . . During this time of discovery, God showed me that the ordinary ways of ministering would never help some problems. And He began to enable me to open up my own heart to personal self-discovery, and to new depths of healing love through my marriage, my children, and intimate friends" (Healing for Damaged Emotions, p7).
How amazing to discover that God has revealed to David Seamands what He never revealed to the Apostle Paul. How utterly unbelievable it is to think that God waited until 1966 to let us know that His Word, prayer and the Holy Spirit were unable to solve the real problems in our lives -- that we must instead turn to Freud and his disciples for answers. Whenever man takes it upon himself to add his insights to the Word of God, error will be the inevitable result. At the foundation of all heresy is the belief that the Scriptures are insufficient and can be improved upon by the wisdom and/or revelation of man.
Teachings concerning human nature -- Our problems are caused by sins against us. People are fundamentally victims: hurt, wounded, needy, deprived -- that we are all sinners is only of secondary importance. The "heart" is a passive storehouse of repressed hurts, unmet needs and yearnings for love (Biblically, however, the "heart" represents the inner man: our intellect, emotions and will). Long forgotten memories and experiences of childhood (even experiences in the womb; Healingof Memories, pp16-19) cause personality and behavioral problems. Such problems call for "healing." In other words, it is because we are victims that we behave poorly. We sin because we suffer; we do evil because evil has been done to us. The only way that we will be able to stop making poor and destructive choices (i.e. stop reacting sinfully) is to eliminate the pain and suffering of the past (adapted from a seminar by David Powlson).
Teachings concerning Christ -- The Christ of Inner Healing is a loving, nonjudgmental, unconditionally accepting healer, who will heal your wounds and comfort your pains. Biblically, on the other hand, Jesus is the Savior of mankind. He died in our place in order to deliver us from the penalty, power and presence of sin.
THE TECHNIQUES OF INNER HEALING
Exploration of the past:
Our past experiences are explored in an effort to identify feelings of disappointment and rejection that supposedly are causing our problems in the present (even simple things such as accidents, illnesses, or delays may trigger these feelings, see Healing of Memories, pp81-84). Until these wounds are uncovered, no inner healing is possible.
In this diagnostic phase, damaged emotions are first of all identified. Next to be uncovered are the hurts that have caused those damaged emotions. Of course, hurts must have been caused by people; so, eventually the search leads to those who have wounded us. David Powlson gives this helpful diagram:
DAMAGED EMOTIONS
|
|
HURTS
|
|
THE WOUNDER
Visualization:
"Through a process of guided imagination, the all-accepting Jesus is imagined back into the memory of traumatic past events. Intensive prayer is offered for the Holy Spirit to be a mystical revealer of problem areas and then a Healer" (Powlson). Secular Inner Healers would substitute another important figure, in place of Jesus, as the all-accepting healer. For example, a psychology student might imagine Carl Rogers; a history buff might call up Abe Lincoln; a Buddhist would visualize Buddha. The individual playing the part of the healer is not important; after all, this is taking place in our imagination, not in reality. What is important to Inner Healing is that you believe in the healing power of the person that you are calling back into your past. It matters very little whether this healer is Jesus or Donald Trump, just as long as you have faith in this person. Another diagram by Powlson shows the process:
A NEW ACTOR (SUCH AS JESUS) WHO WILL ACCEPT US AS WE ARE
|
|
THIS NEW ACTOR BRINGS TO OUR PAST THE EXPERIENCE OF HEALING
|
|
WE BECOME NEW PEOPLE CAPABLE OF REACTING & LIVING DIFFERENTLYTHE BIBLICAL ALTERNATIVE TO INNER HEALING
Inner Healing has created a Jesus who will meet the needs that we think must be met by going into our past and healing our wounds. "The real Jesus (not a fantasy Jesus) meets real people (not inner children of memory) in the present (not in the past). He deals with the behavioral and personality problems of people by sanctification" (Powlson). The Jesus of Inner Healing is a nonconfrontational, unconditionally accepting Jesus, who receives you to Himself without regard to your sins. The true gospel message is that God saves people even though they are yet sinners (Rom. 5:1-11). However, He does not simply leave them in their sins, but rather, forgives their sins and imputes to them the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4). By grace He brings them into the family of God and starts the process of transforming them into the image of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28,29).
Inner Healers believe that suffering causes us to behave poorly; the Scriptures, on the other hand, teach that suffering reveals our character (Rom. 5:3,4) and is used by God to mature us in Christ (James 1:2-4).
The Biblical process of solving personality and behavioral problems begins with God's Word revealing our hearts (James 1:21-25, Heb. 4:12). At that point we can then go to the real Christ for grace, mercy and help (Heb. 4:13-16). Then as the real Holy Spirit ministers in our lives through the Word of God, we will grow in abundant life and godliness (II Pet. 1:3) and become adequate for every good work (II Tim. 3:16,17).
All of mankind is trying to solve the problem of suffering. Throughout time, no less than in our day, a multitude of false religions and false gospels have arisen to solve the problem. In our day, the false gospel of Marxism says that revolution—violent or otherwise—will end suffering. This false gospel gained great power especially in the 1960s with the help of another, lesser known false gospel, that of psychology.
The false gospel of psychology, following the errors of Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich, says that suffering is a result of outmoded rules which hamper sexual and emotional desires. The solution to suffering, says this false psychology, is to break all the rules in order to fulfill your desires and let your emotions out. Thus comes the psychological word “repression” or “repressed” into colloquial speech, referring to someone who is not psychologically “developed.” In no small part we may ascribe this extreme ideology to the failure of the parents of the baby boomer generation to teach their children how to suffer.
In the wake of the extreme suffering of World War II, that generation could not bear any more suffering, and so they spoiled their children who, when they came of age in the 1960s and 70s, did not know how to suffer and embraced en masse the false gospel of psychology.[1] This false gospel led quickly to the evil of Marxism as its close ally—both preaching sexual “liberation,” “freedom,” and “revolution.” The psychological fad blossomed into the Human Potential Movement which, says William Kilpatrick, “arguably did more harm to Catholicism than Freemasons or communists ever did.” This led to the pervasive vice of effeminacy, which is a reluctance to suffer due to an attachment to pleasure (II-II q138 a1).
This false gospel of psychology swallowed the conciliar Church, and they stripped the Sacred Liturgy of everything that does not make people “feel good.”[2] Many clergy were more concerned with making people “feel good” than preaching the hard truths of the Gospel and repentance. Even worse, many men identified the charity and mercy of Jesus Christ particularly with this false “niceness” and “feelings.” The great good of suffering and asceticism were jettisoned in favor of the false gospel of psychology. In his book, After Asceticism: Sex, Prayer and Deviant Priests, author Patrick Guinan calls this the dominance of the “therapeutic mentality” which had a close connection to the future sexual scandal:
[T]he core change over the course of the twentieth century was one of purpose or allegiance—leaving behind ascetical discipline, having disdain for religious tradition, and adopting the therapeutic mentality, a popular belief that fulfillment of the human person springs from emotional desire in a quest for self-definition, or self-actualization, without regard to an objective philosophical, religious or moral truth. Further, the therapeutic mentality views sin as a social concern and discourages loyalty to religious authority; it is profoundly anti-ascetical.
Allegiance to the therapeutic mentality has dislodged ascetical habits and manners, and it now holds sway over the attitudes of the clergy, just as it strengthened its materialist grip on western societies for nearly a century. Mental health experts and educators, as the main purveyors of the therapeutic mentality, know little of the spiritual life and are ignorant of ascetical discipline. Nevertheless, in the name of science, and as the prime representatives of the educated elites, they advocated a liberalization of sexual standards before the sexual scandal in the Church, and then attempted to advise the bishops and to treat problem priests as the crisis took form. Bishops, who have oversight of the parish priests and seminaries, and who have been at the center of the crisis management, do not speak much, if at all, about ascetical discipline. Priests give few indications that they know or care about ascetical discipline. But most clergy seemed well versed in language of the therapeutic mentality.[3]
The most infamous example of this was the destruction of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Sisters by psychologist Carl Rogers by 1969. This was merely a prelude to the destruction of this false gospel on the priests through the sexual scandal to come. Instead of embracing the great good of suffering, Catholics became effeminate and terrified of suffering.
The Gospel of Christ Crucified
Against this perversion, the Church proclaims the truth:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men (I Cor. 1:23-25).
The Christian Church preaches the Gospel of Christ Crucified and provides in Him the answer to the problem of suffering. The salvation of man was wrought by the suffering of the cross, and now every Christian soul must bear their own cross in order to be saved as He said: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me (Mt. 16:24).
All the spiritual masters extol the great good and value of suffering. Fr. Ignatius of the Side of Jesus puts it this way:
Learn, O my soul, in what manner thou shouldst accept whatever God sends thee. It may be a heavy Cross that he sends thee, but remember that it is imposed upon thee by God Himself. Thou wilt never be called upon to suffer as much as Jesus, and unless thou bearest thy Cross after Him, thou wilt never partake of His glory.[4]
Lorenzo Scupoli puts it this way:
You must toil and make every effort, especially at the beginning, to embrace tribulation and adversity as your dear sisters—desiring to be despised by all, and to have no one who entertains a favorable opinion of you, or brings you comfort, but your God.[5]
Suffering comes from an inordinate attachment to the things of this earth, and lack of attachment to one Unchanged and Unmovable God. Effeminacy and the false psychology have for their root an attachment to earthly, sensual pleasure, whether sexual, emotional or otherwise. The true Gospel of Christ Crucified sees these things in their true light: merely as parts of a created order designed by God. We must practice detachment from these things and enjoy them only in a proper manner. Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange writes that
We must detach ourselves from the goods of the body, from beauty, from health itself; it would be an aberration to cling to them more than to union with God. And we cling to health far more than we think; if it were irremediably taken from us, it would be a true sacrifice for us, and one that may be asked of us. All these things will pass away like a flower that withers…
When we receive consolations in prayer, we must not dwell on them with satisfaction; to do so would be to make of this means of drawing near to God an obstacle that would hinder us from reaching Him. It would be the equivalent of pausing in a selfish fashion over something created and making an end of the means. By so doing, we would set out on the road of spiritual pride and illusion. All that glitters is not gold; and we must be careful not to confound an imitation diamond with a real one. We should remind ourselves of our Savior’s words: Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God and His justice; and all these things (all that is useful to your soul and even to your body) shall be added unto you.
Therefore we understand that adversity is good for us in order to deliver us from illusion and make us find the true road again.[6]
This spiritual axiom of suffering and detachment is of vital importance for all Catholics to recover on a basic spiritual level. This is particularly difficult in an age when instant pleasure is available online, through things like pornography or even simple, anonymous jeering. This effeminate pleasure and hatred of suffering is a plague which must be rooted out before we can dream of a return to Tradition. The Imitation of Christ condemns our folly:
Unless a man be disengaged from all things created, he cannot freely attend to things divine[.]…And unless a man be elevated in spirit, and free from attachment to all creatures, and wholly united to God, whatever he knows and whatever he has is of no great importance.[7]
Or again in another place:
…How is it that you look for another way than this, the royal way of the holy cross? The whole life of Christ was a cross and a martyrdom, and do you seek rest and enjoyment for yourself? You deceive yourself, you are mistaken if you seek anything but to suffer, for this mortal life is full of miseries and marked with crosses on all sides. Indeed, the more spiritual progress a person makes, so much heavier will he frequently find the cross, because as his love increases, the pain of his exile also increases.
Yet such a man, though afflicted in many ways, is not without hope of consolation, because he knows that great reward is coming to him for bearing his cross. And when he carries it willingly, every pang of tribulation is changed into hope of solace from God. Besides, the more the flesh is distressed by affliction, so much the more is the spirit strengthened by inward grace. Not infrequently a man is so strengthened by his love of trials and hardship in his desire to conform to the cross of Christ, that he does not wish to be without sorrow or pain, since he believes he will be the more acceptable to God if he is able to endure more and more grievous things for His sake. It is the grace of Christ, and not the virtue of man, which can and does bring it about that through fervor of spirit frail flesh learns to love and to gain what it naturally hates and shuns.[8]
The solution to suffering is not the effeminate imaginings of the psychologists, but the holy cross of Jesus Christ our Lord. The great good and value of suffering lies in the union of a soul with Christ Crucified, to the point where a man will love suffering as his “dear sister” because it strips him from attachments to the earth and attaches his heart to his Lord and King. Let us put away the foolishness and childishness of the psychology of effeminacy. When I became a man, I put away the things of a child (I Cor. 13:11). Do manfully, and let thy heart take courage (Ps. 26:14) and take up the cross of Christ Crucified.
NOTES:
[1] I am indebted to a baby boomer, Kh. Frederica Matthews-Green, for this insight in her 2002 book Gender: Men, Women, Sex, and Feminism (Conciliar Press).
[2] This was Bugnini’s famous justification for gutting the liturgy of our fathers so that Protestants would feel welcome: “[I]t is the love of souls and the desire to help in any way the road to union of the separated brethren, by removing every stone that could even remotely constitute an obstacle or difficulty, that has driven the Church to make even these painful sacrifices” (March 19, 1965 edition of L’Osservatore Romano). In the same way, the Liturgy of Hours specifically justifies their censoring of certain Psalm verses and entire Psalms for “psychological” reasons (General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, 131). Finally, in the new lectionary, “texts that present real difficulties are avoided for pastoral reasons” (General Introduction to the Lectionary, 76).
[3] Patrick Guinana, After Asceticism: Sex, Prayer and Deviant Priests (Linacre Institute: 2006). Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution (Fidelity: 2016), 56
[4] Fr. Ignatius of the Side of Jesus, The School of Jesus Crucified (1866), Day 20
[5] Lorenzo Scupoli, Of Interior Peace or the Path to Paradise contained within The Spiritual Combat (Scriptoria Books: 2012), 163
[6] Garrigou-Lagrange, Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, Vol. I (Herder: 1947), 375-376
[7] The Imitation of Christ, Bk. III, ch. 31
[8] Imitation of Christ, Bk II, ch. 12
I often wonder why would a true believer of Jesus Christ go to any psychologist or to a psychiatrist when we believe in the ultimate Healer, especially when it comes to issues pertaining to the mind? Doesn’t God and His word provide all of our needs? As far as I have gathered, most of the “masters” of Psychology were Jesus-rejectors. Does relying on these godless heathens show a lack of faith in Jesus?
From the late Dave Hunt:
The only possible justification for the existence of “Christian” psychology in the church would be if the Bible did not contain all of the counsel, wisdom, and guidance that Christians need for living sanctified lives pleasing to God in today’s modern world. For thousands of years, both Old and New Testament believers found God and His Word more than sufficient in every way. At least this is what the Bible tells us of those who triumphed by faith over every trial and circumstance that Satan could bring against them. Some of their lives are summarized briefly in Hebrews 11.
The heroes and heroines of Bible history all triumphed by faith in God and in His promises. They neither had nor needed any help whatsoever from “Christian psychology”, which didn’t even exist in their day. Wouldn’t faith in God and His Word, which has been proved thousands of times through the ages to be more than sufficient in every conceivable circumstance and in the deepest trials, be sufficient for Christians today, no matter what their trials and challenges might be? What could possibly persuade a Christian to look to psychology, invented by anti-Christians, for help in living a life pleasing to God?
Of course, [some] Christian psychologists claim to have a firm faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. But no matter how firmly a psychologist adheres to inerrancyof Scripture, they all must deny its sufficiency. This is the only way to justify their profession. If any part of the Bible is in error, however, then where can the line be drawn? If the Bible has not given us all we need to live the Christian life, that fact alone would be enough to make all of it suspect in view of the many places where it claims to be sufficient for living triumphant lives pleasing to God.
How and why would psychology, invented by atheists and anti-Christians as a substitute for God, the Bible, and Christianity, provide new insights into the Bible unknown to (and obviously unneeded by) millions of believers over the last four thousand years or more? And why would we need it now? There is neither a biblical nor rational answer to that logical question.
“Christian” psychology is not a recognized classification in this field. Textbooks and reference manuals list hundreds of psychologies (Freudian, Jungian, Rogerian, humanistic, etc.), each named after its founder or its founder’s chief theory. But there is no school of psychology that was founded by a Christian and is therefore called “Christian” and recognized as such in university libraries. Psychology is in fact anti-Christian. It doesn’t come from the Bible but is simply an attempt to integrate the theories of atheists into the Bible in order to supply missing essentials for daily living that the Holy Spirit apparently failed to include. Does that sound reasonable?
Here is what two leading Christian psychologists had to say in a paper delivered at a convention of Christian psychologists:
We are often asked if we are “Christian psychologists” and find it difficult to answer since we don’t know what the question implies. We are Christians who are psychologists, but at the present time there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology.
Psychology wasn’t even well known in the secular world until after Freud and Jung popularized it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Nor did it enter the evangelical church until after World War II. For nearly nineteen hundred years, Christians triumphed over the world, the flesh, and the devil by faith in Christ alone and obedience to His Word. If great men and women of God throughout history didn’t need psychology, why would anyone need it today?
How did psychology get into the church? The man most responsible for the intrusion of that Trojan Horse was none other than arch heretic Norman Vincent Peale. Peale declared on national TV on the Phil Donahue show, “It’s not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God; I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine…God is everywhere.” Shocked, Donahue responded, “But you’re a Christian minister; you’re supposed to tell me that Christ is the way and the truth and the life, aren’t you?” Peale replied, “Christ is one of the ways.” Among his many other heresies were the following:
Who is God? Some theological being…? God is energy. As you breathe God in, as you visualize His energy, you will be reenergized! Prayer power is a manifestation of energy. Just as there exist scientific techniques for the release of atomic energy, so are there scientific procedures for the release of spiritual energy through the mechanism of prayer….
Prayer…is a procedure by which spiritual power flows from God…releases forces and energies…one must learn step by step the formula for opening the circuit and receiving this power. Any method through which you can stimulate the power of God to flow into your mind is legitimate…So how did secular, anti-Christian psychology metamorphose into Christian psychology? It doesn’t come from the Bible and was unknown in the church until Peale brought it in. As reported on Peale’s home page, here is how “Operation Trojan Horse in the Church” began:
In 1937, Peale established a clinic with Freudian psychiatrist Dr. Smiley Blanton in the basement of the Marble Collegiate Church…. The clinic was described as having “a theoretical base that was Jungian, with a strong evidence of neo- and post-Freudianism.”
It subsequently grew to an operation with more than 20 psychiatric doctors and psychologically-trained “ministers,” and in 1951 became known as the American Foundation for Religion and Psychiatry. In 1972, it merged with the Academy of Religion and Mental Health to form the Institutes of Religion and Health (IRH)…. Indeed, Peale pioneered the merger of theology and psychology which became known as Christian Psychology. [Emphasis added]
Peale said, “through prayer you . . . make use of the great factor within yourself, the deep subconscious mind… [which Jesus called] the kingdom of God within you….Positive thinking is just another term for faith.”According to J. Harold Ellens, author of a section on Peale in the Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, “Dr. Peale…had the courage to stand pat on this position in spite of the opposition of the entire Christian church for nearly half a century [emphasis added].”
So the “entire Christian church” opposed “Christian psychology” for decades. Eventually, not only liberals but evangelicals succumbed to this appealing delusion that theology could be made “scientific” by merging it with psychology – though the latter is not a science and never could be. Peale was not only a master of heresies by the dozens but a master of persuasion. Much of that can be credited to Billy Graham, who repeatedly praised Peale and endorsed his writings.
Christian psychology is an attempted marriage of the Bible to theories of the atheistic inventors of psychology. It is worse than trying to mix oil and water; it is the attempt to blend the Word of God with atheism and occultism. This is impossible to do honestly. Even “Christian psychologists” themselves admit they can’t quite find a way to put that mixture together. After trying for decades to mix this devil’s brew, Gary Collins admitted: “It is too early to answer decisively if psychology and Christianity can be integrated.”
Then why keep trying? Why is anyone attempting this impossible and incompatible partnership? It has succeeded because those who call themselves Christian psychologists and promote it in the evangelical church want legitimacy and respect both in the world and in the church. But Scripture declares, “whosoever . . . will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).
The very foundation of Christian psychology is the belief that the Bible is insufficient to deal with the traumas and challenges of modern life: we need something more than the counsel God gives in His Word. Although one of Christ’s names is Counselor (Isaiah 9:6), we supposedly need more today than His counsel alone. The atheistic founders of psychology’s various schools presumably offer part of “God’s truth” that either isn’t included in Scripture or isn’t explained there as well as psychology expresses it. This is the sand upon which Christian psychology is founded. It is not the kind of ground upon which one would want to build anything.
(Source)
I can’t say I disagree with Mr. Hunt.
Another wrote:
Psychology literally means “the study of the soul.” The questions psychology answers are the same ones answered by Christianity and the Bible: Why am I here? What is my purpose? Why do I suffer? How can I be happy? How should I live?
Since God has already given us everything in the Bible for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), why would we need to have those same questions answered by psychology, whose founders sought to answer life’s most important questions apart from God?
Christians don’t need Christ plus psychology. He alone is sufficient. But as “me too” Christians, we are constantly craving what the world has, and we somehow think putting a Christian spin on psychological theories will make our idols pleasing to God.
Instead of ministering to our Christian brothers and sisters, as every believer is called to do, we send them out to “professionals.” In some cases, our Christian psychologists are more revered than our pastors — and in all cases the false prophets preach another gospel than we have received from God in His Word.
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. … As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
—Galatians 1:6-9
Psychology could easily be called the Religion of Self, because it teaches that the way to right living and happiness is to:
• find yourself,
• believe in yourself,
• love yourself,
• be proud of yourself,
• stand up for yourself, and even
• forgive yourself.God’s Word however, teaches that the way to right living and true joy is through relationship with God, which means to:
• seek God (not self),
• believe in Christ (not self),
• love others (for “no one ever hated himself”),
• humble ourselves (not be proud of ourselves),
• die to self, and
• forgive others while repenting of our own sins.It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that standing up for myself, esteeming myself, setting boundaries for myself as to how much of my time and attention I will give, and having “me time” is exactly the opposite of dying to myself. And yet Christians daily embrace this kind of language and incorporate it into our hearts and lifestyles as if it were true. As with any sin, it certainly feels good for the moment to stand up for ourselves, but God says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” I myself have fallen into the trap of thinking I need “me time,” yet in fact when I yield to God, the blessings of giving up that time to do the good works He has prepared for me (Ephesians 2:10) are beyond anything I could have imagined. (For an inspirational story of a young woman’s obedience to God and sacrificial living, read Kisses from Katie by Katie Davis.)
The Bible says, “In the last days, men will be lovers of themselves…” (2 Timothy 3:2). I can think of no other time in history when this is more true than today, even in the Church. I truly believe psychology’s stealth entry into our belief system plays a large part in the fulfillment of this prophecy.
When it comes to pride vs. humility, the correct attitude is so simple even a child can see it: You can be proud of yourself, or you can humble yourself, but you cannot do both because they are polar opposites. God Himself says He “opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). And yet we teach our children to embrace the very attitude that God opposes!
God’s Word says, “I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13). Psychology says, “I can do all things” (through belief in myself), or “If I can imagine it, I can achieve it.” But God’s Word says, “Nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). God can do infinitely more than we can ever ask or imagine, but first we have to stop relying on ourselves and surrender completely to God’s plans for our lives.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.”
—Proverbs 3:5-6
Even though we give lip service to this verse, the language of psychology is so deeply ingrained in our culture that most of us simply accept the diametrically opposed beliefs of psychology without holding them up against the light of Scripture, as we are commanded to do.
God’s voice says repent and turn to God alone. But we make excuses and look for reasons for our sin: our past, our circumstances, our genes, our brain chemistry.
God’s Word says confess our sins and pray for each other so that we may be healed. But we go to professionals (the secular priesthood, the religion of the state), instead of to one another, the body of Christ, as God commands.
We take to heart the wisdom of man and confess not our own sins but the sins of others! Even “Christian counseling” often leads eventually to gossip, bearing false witness, and dishonoring parents.
And we can be sure any time we pay for counseling services, it is not God’s way, for God’s Word is free to all:
“Unlike so many, we do not peddle the Word of God for profit.”
—2 Corinthians 2:17
God says He has given us everything we need for life and godliness in His Word. Do we believe Him? As believers encouraging and ministering to one another (for free!), led by the Holy Spirit, we have such an opportunity to change lives. Instead, we have set up a false religious system in the Church that insidiously undermines God’s one way of sanctification.
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
—John 17:17
I have wondered many times if one of the reasons we can see God removing His protective hand from our nation is because we have not humbled ourselves and repented of the sin of bringing this idolatry of psychology into our churches, nor have we made any effort to cast it out. We do many things in the name of Jesus, but our hearts are divided; we have a form of godliness but deny its true power to save and deliver (2 Timothy 3:5).
“He sent His Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”
—Psalm 107:20
We need to repent and turn to God with our whole hearts, and He will deliver us, never with the philosophies of men, but by the truth of His Word!
The demonic origins of psychology
As one of the world’s top research psychiatrists, E. Fuller Torrey declares: “The techniques used by Western psychiatrists are, with few exceptions, on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witchdoctors (Dave Hunt, The Seduction of Christianity, pg. 202).” Interesting he would say that because despite most, if not all, of the “fathers” of psychology were atheists, as far as I know, and many were involved with the occult! I have no doubt that their ideas were channeled from the demonic realm. Let’s take a look at what several of them were involved with and what they believed in.
Carl Jung (1875-1961) 
Jung was the founder of analytical psychology. I won’t get into details how but Jung had an enormous influence on New Age thinking – greater, perhaps, than most realize. Jung was deeply interested in psychical research and the paranormal. I won’t bore you with detailing his theories but instead, provide interesting facts with his involvement with the occult. This alone should make anyone (or at least a Christian) be vigilant about Psychology.
There is absolutely no doubt to me Jung was possessed. He wrote:
“While I am writing this I observe a little demon trying to abscond my words and even my thoughts and turning them over into the rapidly flowing river of images, surging from the mists of the past, portraits of a little boy, bewildered and wondering at an incomprehensibly beautiful and hideously profane and deceitful world.” source
Carl became consumed purportedly by demonic spirits ended up an incoherent shell of a man. He required delilverance or exorcism and 11 months of hospitalization for recovery. Carl said:
“Solemnly and of my own free will I wish to acknowledge that knowingly and freely I entered into possession by an evil spirit. And, although that spirit came to me under the guise of saving me, perfecting me, helping me to help others, I knew all along it was evil.”
Jung was involved with seances and used the ouija board.
One author wrote:
Jung’s involvement with occult ideas and practices is well documented by his biographers, and his occult activities began to germinate after many séances with his cousin Helene Preiswerk. He was so steeped in magic that he used to tell friends, “They would have burned me as a heretic in the Middle Ages.”[38] Biographer Frank McLynn writes:
“At the 1895 séances…Helene communicated with Jung’s paternal and maternal grandfathers and produced a remarkable impersonation of Samuel Preiswerk’s voice and lecturing style.
“While ‘possessed’ she spoke in High German instead of her usual Basel dialect and afterwards could remember little of what she had said during the session, except that she was convinced the spirits of the dead had spoken through her mouth.
“When the coven of spiritualists regrouped in 1897—Jung was by now coming to the end of his second year in medical school—Samuel Preiswerk “came through” again, this time with a proselytizing message, in which he urged Helene to set up a national home for Jews in Palestine and then to convert them to Christianity.
“This puzzled the listeners, for in his lifetime Samuel Preiswerk had been an ardent Zionist but not a convertor. After about a month, however, Helene fell into a different sort of trance, which Jung described as ‘semi-somnambulic,’ in which she remained aware of her surroundings while making contact with the spirits.
“In this state she revealed a secondary personality in herself and said that her name was “Ivenes.” This new personality was dignified, ladylike, calm, poised and serious, in contrast with Helene herself, who was inclined to giddiness and instability; Helene tended to go in for table turning and automatic writing, Ivenes for revelations about the past.”[39]
Jung’s maternal grandfather, Samuel Preiswerk, was chief of the Protestant clergy of Basel and a professor of the Old Testament at the Evangelical Institution in Geneva. Although he was known to be well-trained, Preiswerk, like many others before and after him,
“would talk to the spirit of his deceased first wife in weekly séances while locked in his study, much to the dismay of his second wife and the fascination of his children, including his favorite, Emilie.”
Emilie herself, the youngest of the twelve children, had paranormal experiences with the dead. After a crisis at the age of twenty, she began to fall into regular trances, an occurrence that continued throughout her life.[40]
But it was the séances in 1895 that proved to be a key point in Jung’s life. Jung wrote of this experience,
“For myself I found such possibilities extremely interesting and attractive. They added another dimension to my life; the world gained depth and background.”[41]
The following year, Jung plunged into occult reading while he was going to medical school. His goal, as Noll puts it, was to put “the mediumistic henomenal” which he had learned through the séances with Helene “into a wider intellectual context outside traditional Christianity thought.”[42]
The massive information he had accumulated through his reading helped him understand the spirit world better when he later again began to get involved in séances with Helene in 1897. By that time, Jung had already
“turned the séances from a parlor game into a more serious affair, at times inviting his medical-student colleagues to witness [Helene’s] phenomena and to make their own judgments.”[43]
The lessons which Jung learned from the séances had a profound influence on him, much more than “most of the instruction he received in medical school.”[44]
In the process, when many occultists and spiritualists would call the spirit entities Jung encountered through the séances as demonic, Jung called them “complexes,” “unconscious personalities,” or “splinter personalities.”[45] But as Noll puts it, it was ultimately “the realm of the gods.”[46] This terminology became the primary basis of Jung’s life, and eventually his doctoral thesis.[47]
By that time, Jung was no longer a novice in the occult. Famed psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor (who was at one time Sigmund Freud’s associate) wrote that Jung’s home became
“a haunted house. It seemed to be filled with ghostly entities. His eldest daughter saw a white figure, snatched off her bed at night. His nine-year-old son dreamed of a fisherman and drew his picture.
“The head was a chimney from which flames were leaping up and smoke was rising. From the other side of the river where he was fishing, the Devil came flying through the air cursing that his fish had been stolen.
“Above the fisherman an angel was hovering and answered the Devil: You cannot do anything to him; he only catches bad fish.”[48]
At one point,
“the front doorbell began ringing frantically. Several people could see the doorbell as it rang, but no one was ringing it. The ringing of the bell by unseen hands occurred in the afternoon on a bright summer day.
“As the poltergeist operates in daylight, we may suspect the young daughter as the focal center of this disturbance. However, Jung assumed full responsibility for these happenings, even though he could not understand how the dead were involved.”[49]
During that time, Jung declared that
“the whole house was filled as if it were a crowd present, crammed full of spirits. They were packed deep right up to the door…
“As for myself, I was all a-quiver with the question, ‘For God’s sake, what in the world is thing?’ Then they cried out in chorus, ‘We have come back from Jerusalem where we found not what we sought.’
“That is the beginning of the Seven Sermons. Then it began to flow out of me, and in the course of three evenings the thing was written. As soon as I took up the pen, the whole ghostly assemblage evaporated…The hunting was over.
“These conversations with the dead formed a kind of prelude to what I had to communicate to the world about the unconscious: a kind of pattern of order and interpretation of its general contents.”[50]
The eventual product of those three nights was Jung’s book Seven Sermons to the Dead.[51] Stephan A. Hoeller and others also mention that Jung was involved in automatic writing,[52] a purely occult technique which was practiced by nineteenth-century occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky[53] and which later became quite common among some writers such as William Butler Yeats.[54]
This is reminiscent of how several Hollywood actors, actresses and “musicians” who received information through automatic writing or channeling. Celebrities such as Rudolf Valentino (and his wife Natasha), Greta Garbo, Mae West, Joan Crawford, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe, Rosanne Barr, Shirley MacLaine, Carlos Santana, Robert Plant, etc. were known to be involved with occult practices and got their “inspiration” from the spirit world.
You can watch this video exposing the occult practices in Hollywood click HERE.
For the occult practices in the music industry, you can click HERE.
More about Jung:
Jung found in the occult not only a supernatural power that seeks to destroy the foundations of Christendom, but also a power that guaranteed that occult ideas in the name of “science” or “psychology” would spread far and wide.
“By 1916, in ‘The Structure of the Unconscious,’ Jung attacks the scientific worldview and defends the validity of occult movements like Theosophy, Christian Science, the Rosicrucians, and those who practice ‘folk magic’ and astrology by arguing that, ‘No one who is concerned with psychology should blind himself to the fact that besides principles and techniques, humanity fairly swarms with adherents of quite another nature.’”[61]
Following his predecessors, like Friedrich Nietzsche, Jung’s analysis, Noll tells us, was an attempt to destroy Christendom and its influential power over the individual.[62] Noll goes on to say:
“Jung was waging war against Christianity and its distant, absolute, unreachable God and was training his disciples to listen to the voices of the dead and to become gods themselves.”[63]
Jung continued: “We are cut off from our earth through more than two thousand years of Christian training.”[64]
For Jung, the time to break with the “Christian training” had come, and the age of a new religion had arisen. Jung believed that Western culture had suffered much under the wings of Christianity, and that the time for a new revelation was long overdue.
He repeatedly stated that Christianity failed to answer life’s fundamental questions and man’s bold quest for knowledge and for penetrating the mysteries of life.[65]
Moreover, Christianity emphatically condemned occult divinations and pagan practices. It was not long before Jung found himself in constant battle with Orthodox Christianity.[66]
Hence, psychoanalysis, Jung’s archetypal image, and new terminology such as “unconscious” had to be introduced into mainstream thought in order to properly seduce the masses into the new religion. These terms did not have their development out of a scientific need, but because people like Jung wanted to rationalize the occult and indeed sexual liberation. Jung, along with Freud, became one of the noted figures to merge occultism with modern psychology.[67]
This became clear when Jung moved to other points in his covertly occult system. In fact, he made repeated references to the occult and Gnosticism throughout his writings and lectures.[68]
Carl Jung even had spirit guides, which are really demons, he named as Philemon and Ka. Jung wrote:
“Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself…
“It was he who taught me psychic objectivity, the reality of the psyche…I understood that there is something in me which can say things that I do not know and do not intend…Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight…To me it was what the Indians call a guru…
“And the fact was that he conveyed to me many an illuminating idea. I did a painting of [Ka, another demonic figure], showing him in his earth-bound form, as a herm with base of stone and upper part of bronze…Ka’s expression has something demonic about it…
“Philemon has a lame foot, but was a winged spirit, whereas Ka represented a kind of earth demon…Philemon was the spiritual aspect, or “meaning.” Ka…was a spirit of nature…In time I was able to integrate both figures through the study of alchemy.”[76]
(Source)
So, it was by the demonic realm Jung received his information. Jung also was experienced “induced a dissociative altered state of conscious and made a visionary ‘descent’ into the unconscious,” and this world was named the Land of the Dead. It sounds like some sort of astral projection.
Carl Jung was also into astrology:
He wrote to Freud,
“I made horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth…I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge which has been intuitively projected into the heavens (Source).”
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) 
Considered to be the Father of psychoanalysis, Freud himself used to take drugs as a form of spiritual enlightenment, and even one of his famous disciples, Ernest Jones, was quite surprised that Freud would abandon the scientific enterprise and went into magic through strange drugs. Freud was known as a Cocaine addict and one who rejected Christianity. Freud is described as a “convinced, consistent, aggressive atheist” who considered himself as “godless Jew.”
Interesting information on his occult activities:
He was involved with the occult. He was a member of the Society of Psychical Research London and the American Society for Psychical Research in New York City. Freud had experiences with clairaudience (the supposed power to hear things outside the range of normal perception), telepathy (communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power), dreams of premonition as well as hearing voices (Harpers’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experiences by Rosemary Guiley). Further, he rejected the truth that man was a sinner and that sin was at the root of man’s problems. As a result of that, he developed his own theory called the psychoanalytic theory. He said that man’s problems stem from repressed desires. He supposed that the unconscious was a vast reservoir of forgotten experiences and repressed desires primarily sexual in nature. In light of this people are not really responsible for their actions. Those who follow Freud say that the only way to resolve our problems is to go on an archaeological dig into your subconscious mind and see what you can dredge up from the reservoir of your unconsciousness. How did Freud attempt to get the repressed information to the surface? First, by hypnotism. “As a young physician, Freud had observed that hysterical patients seemed to lose their symptoms after being under hypnosis and recalling material which, apparently had been completely forgotten. From this, he developed the concept of an unconscious which dominates the activities of a person, and is motivated by forgotten experiences, forgotten by means of repression, and kept submerged by means of resistance”5
(Source)
Hypnotism is truly an occult practice. For more information, you may want to watch this video. I have no doubt Freud picked up demons involved with drug use and the occult.
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
He is most well known for his hierarchy-of-needs theory, with all needs centered around the self.
Maslow believed that man was basically good. “Maslow rejected the Lord and His Word … and even blamed Christianity, with its doctrines of the fall and sin, for preventing the natural development of humanity and for thus being a major source of evil (source).”
As far as I know, Maslow wasn’t involved with the occult but was he was involved with someone who seemed to be.
Maslow was an associate of Alfred Kinsey, the sex guru and part-time disciple of Satanist Aleister Crowley:
“In 1945, returning to his earlier interest in human sexuality, Maslow agreed to help Alfred Kinsey recruit subjects on the Brooklyn College campus.
“Kinsey took his fellow sex researcher on a walking tour through Times Square, pointing out the pimps and prostitutes plying their trade—an eye-opening experience for Maslow…Maslow kept his promise to help Kinsey find subjects.” [Joyce Milton, The Road to Malpsychia: Humanistic Psychology and our Discontents (New York: Encounter Books, 2002), 52]
Click here for more information about Crowley and Kinsey and their demonic influence over the culture through the sexual revolution.
Carl Rogers (1902-1987)
Carl Rogers was known for his Humanistic Theory of Psychology which emphasizes to love ourselves and accept ourselves because self-love and self-acceptance is the key to solving our problems. Yeah, right. Carl “contacted” the spirit of his dead wife, Helen, through an Ouija board—one of the easiest ways to open oneself to the demons in my opinion (source). He rejected the biblical view of man. 1 Samuel 15:23 says, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…” so it is little wonder that later in his life when he came face to face with eternity that he resorted to séances and looked to the Ouija board for answers about the hereafter.
What does the Bible read about contacting familiar spirits and the occult?
Leviticus 19:31 “Regard not them that have FAMILIAR SPIRITS, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.”
Deut. 18: 9 – 12 “When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a CONSULTER OF FAMILIAR SPIRITS, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.”
Leviticus 20:6 – “And the soul that turneth after such as have FAMILIAR SPIRITS, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.”
Leviticus 20:27 -“A MAN ALSO OR A WOMAN THAT HATH A FAMILIAR SPIRIT, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.”
But isn’t psychology and psychiatry a real scientific enterprise that truly helps people with “mental illness”?
Research shows that psychology is not doing such a good job of resolving the issues at life. The Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health did a survey and this is what they found: “of those persons who actively sought help for personal problems, the vast majority contacted persons other than mental health professionals, and generally they were more satisfied with the help they received than were those who chose psychiatrists and psychologists.” (source)
Here are more interesting quotes:
In Psychology: A Study of a Science, Dr. Sigmund Koch, of the American Psychological Association, concluded that it is now “utterly and finally clear that psychology cannot be a coherent science.”
Dr. Lawrence LaShan, former president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, concurred: “Psychotherapy may be known in the future as the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.”
And R. Christopher Barden, a psychologist and lawyer, stated, “It is indeed shocking that many if not most forms of psychotherapy currently offered to consumers are not supported by credible scientific evidence. … Too many Americans do not realize that much of the mental health industry is little more than a national consumer fraud.”7
Indeed, most people do not know that every single diagnosis listed in psychiatry’s “bible,” the DSM-IV, was voted into existence by committee.8
“It is important to understand clearly that modern psychiatry … began not by identifying such diseases by means of established methods of pathology, but by creating a new criterion of what constitutes a disease. Thus, whereas in modern medicine new diseases were discovered, in modern psychiatry, they were invented.”
—Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D.
Not only is psychology without merit, but psychiatry defrauds the public as well. Medical psychiatrists have been trying for years to validate their biochemical theory of mental illness, but “after decades of research that has yielded not a single definitive biological marker connecting brain dysfunction to mental disorders,” we are letting doctors evaluate and treat us as if such diseases exist.9 To put it more loosely, making a diagnosis of mental illness is “a near mindless act where you can speculate whatever you want and never be ‘wrong’ (if any new or unrelated symptoms emerge just add another diagnosis).”10
In fact, there is not a single scientific study that shows prescription psychotropic drug users suffer from an objective, confirmable abnormality of the brain.
I am going to share with you just a few quotes from the experts themselves (not the ones getting paid by drug companies). These people have risked their reputations to speak out against the sacred cow of psychiatry, many because they understand the true dangers of the psychotropic drugs being hoisted on the public and know the risk-benefit ratio is in nobody’s favor.
“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biochemical imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical imbalance?”
—Dr. Ron Leifer, psychiatrist
“All psychiatrists have in common that when they are caught on camera or on microphone, they cower and admit that there are no such things as chemical imbalances/diseases, or examinations or tests for them. What they do in practice, lying in every instance, abrogating [revoking] the informed consent right of every patient and poisoning them in the name of ‘treatment’ is nothing short of criminal.”
—Dr. Fred Baughman Jr., Pediatric Neurologist
Sadly, many if not most patients accept their doctor’s reassurances that psychiatric drugs are safe. And few doctors have the time or inclination to understand the side effects and dangers of the psychotropic drugs they prescribe, other than the information provided by the drug companies themselves. As a result, most of the American public routinely elects to take psychotropic drugs without true informed consent.
“Until the psychiatric community is called upon to provide conclusive evidence that the nearly 400 disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) are not merely subjective clinical diagnosis but rather objective, confirmable abnormalities of the brain, the debate surrounding the benefit or risk of psychotropic drugs seems moot.”
—O’Meara, Psyched Out, p. 4
“Psychiatry makes unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin. … Modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness.”
—Dr. David Kaiser, psychiatrist
While “there has been no shortage of alleged biochemical explanations for psychiatric conditions … not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false.”
—Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist
“There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the presence or absence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases. If such a test were developed … then the condition would cease to be a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a bodily disease.”
—Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry,
New York University Medical School, Syracuse“The FDA’s data reveal that sugar pills were as effective as the drugs in a majority of clinical trials.”
—O’Meara, Psyched Out, p. 17
(See this video for more on the placebo effect.)“Biological psychiatry is a total fraud.”
—Fred Baughman, as quoted by Dr. Timothy Scott,
America Fooled: The Truth about Antidepressants,
Antipsychotics and How We’ve Been Deceived
(source)
Other sources read:
The American Psychiatric Association indicates that a definite answer to the question, “Is psychotherapy effective?” may be unattainable. Their 1982 research book, Psychotherapy Research: Methodological and Efficacy Issues, concludes: “Unequivocal conclusions about casual connections between treatment and outcome may never be possible in psychotherapy research.” In its review of this book, the Brain/Mind Bulletin says, “Research often fails to demonstrate an unequivocal advantage from psychotherapy.” The following is an interesting example from the book:
..”. an experiment at the All-India Institute of Mental Health in Bangalore found that Western-trained psychiatrists and native healers had a comparable recovery rate. The most notable difference was that the so-called ‘witch doctors’ released their patients sooner.”
(source)
The cure for the sinful soul and the problems of life was the vital ministry of the church, using the Word of God, for more than 1900 years:
The early Church faced and ministered to mental-emotional-behavioral problems which were as complex as the ones that exist today. If anything, the conditions of the early Church were more difficult than those we currently face. The early Christians suffered persecution, poverty, and various afflictions which are foreign to most of the twentieth-century Christendom (especially in the West). The catacombs of Rome are a testimony to the extent of the problems faced by the early Church.
If we suffer at all, it is from affluence and ease, which have propelled us toward a greater fixation on self that would likely have occurred in less affluent times. However, the cure for sins of self-preoccupation existed in the early Church and is just as available today. In fact, Biblical cures used by the early Church are just as potent if used today.
The Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit are applicable to all problems of living and do not need to be superceded by talk therapies and talk therapists.
Has the modern Church given up its call and obligation to minister to suffering individuals? If so, it is because Christians believe the myth that psychological counseling is science when, in fact, it is another religion and another gospel.
The conflict between the psychological way of counseling and the Biblical way is not between true science and religion. The conflict is strictly religious — it’s a conflict between many religions grouped under the name of psychotherapy (psychological counseling) and the one true religion of the Bible.
The worst of the primrose promises of Christian psychology is that the Bible plus psychotherapy can provide better help than just the Bible alone. While this idea has been promulgated and promoted by many “Christian” psychotherapists, there is no research evidence to support it. No one has ever shown that the Bible needs psychological augmentation to be more effective in dealing with life’s problems.
No one has proven that a Christianized cure of minds (psychotherapy) is any more beneficial than the original unadulterated simple cure of souls (Biblical counseling).
(source)
Jesus is the Answer
I will close with the following quote:
But, as in every generation, there are those who do not want to submit to the Word of God. Freud and Jung were two such individuals from their generation. They boldly rejected the authority of the Word of God. But did not stop there. They developed a theory that claimed offered an alternative solution for the sin problem and the problems of life. It was called it psychology. Freud and Jung believed that they had found a means through which the soul of man could be perfected without having to repent of sin and submit to God. Man didn’t need Jesus as his Savior, he could be his own Savior.
From this root psychology has grown by leaps and bounds with more than 250 separate systems of psychotherapy. But is even more mind boggling is that the Christian church has been duped into buying into this human wisdom. There are many Christians that have been convinced that the difficult problems of life need more than Word of God and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. But, the Bible assures us, “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:” 2 Peter 1:3 and “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee.. because he trusteth in thee.” Isaiah 26:3.
Non-believers can only attain spiritual life and health by surrender to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. That is the direction the church should be pointing them. Psychological techniques, even in the name of Jesus, cannot produce spiritual life. It’s time we get back to the Bible!2
The church must minister under unction of the Holy Spirit–not according to man’s wisdom. The problem is, that many churches and Christians have been spoiled by the humanly devised philosophy of psychology.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Colossians 2:8
(source)
Let Jesus Christ be our Healer and Counselor, especially when it comes to the mind.
Isaiah 9:6 reads “6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Isaiah 28:29 “29 This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.”
Isaiah 11:2 “And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;”
Amen.
If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you can receive Him into your heart, and He can deliver you from darkness and sin and have your name written in His Book of Life.
If you are sincere, you can say this simple prayer to the Father (it doesn’t have to be word for word):
“God, I recognize that I have not lived my life for You up until now. I have been living for myself and that is wrong. Please forgive me of all of my sins just as I forgive others. I need You in my life; I want You in my life. I acknowledge the completed work of Your only begotten Son Jesus Christ in giving His life for me on the cross, I believe in my heart Jesus is Lord and was raised from the dead and I long to receive the forgiveness you have made freely available to me through this sacrifice. Come into my life now, Lord. Take up residence in my heart and be my king, my Lord, and my Savior. From this day forward, I will no longer be controlled by sin, or the desire to please myself, but I will follow You all the days of my life. Those days are in Your hands. I ask this in the Lord and GOD Jesus’ precious and holy name. Amen.”
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment