Interview with Dr. Jay Adams

Aaron

Do you sense there is a significant difference in their understanding and presentation of sanctification between Adams and the CCEF guys? Was the idols of the heart question an example of this?

Can I share a neat story? My husband's brother, an MD in a town near where Dr. Adams lived at the time, was thrown a surprise party about a dozen years ago for a "big" birthday. We went early to help, and my husband ended up parking cars for over an hour, hiding them behind a neighbor's house, with a really nice man with a beard. When they returned to the house, I enjoyed a brief conversation with the same very friendly and kindly man. Neither one of us asked his name at the time. It wasn't until about a half hour later that we realized that my husband had parked cars for an hour with Jay Adams. We ended up eating near him and his wife at the party, and they were delightful dinner companions. I had read several of Dr. Adams' books - had used them as college textbooks as well - and it was nice to see that in real life he was the "real thing."

Jay E. Adams states the following in the book “The Big Umbrella”:

“In this country, because of a prestigious alliance with the A.M.A., a psychiatrist is required to have an M.D. But you will soon agree that Freud was right if you read the articles written by some psychiatrists complaining about the necessity to take medical training that they never use in their work and soon forget. The point is this: there is nothing a psychiatrist does with his medical training that a physician couldn’t do just as well, or better. And the physician could do it in conjunction with a pastoral counselor. The psychiatrist may write prescriptions for tranquilizers or other pills now and then, but a physician does that all of the time. There is no need for a specialty in order to prescribe pills.”
The Big Umbrella, p.6, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972.

This statement reveals one of the major problems with the Nouthetic counseling philosophy. Psychiatrist is a medical specialty that involves special and continuous training in those aspects of medicine and research that involve the brain and neurology and the various diseases that affect them. In actual practice they have left Freud far behind. They are specialists who through knowledge and research are able to diagnose a cause and when necessary prescribe proper medication. There are now over 70 anti psychotic drugs available. Only the specialist physician (Psychiatrist) can accurately and safely prescribe them. Most all physicians in general or family practice will not get involved in prescribing anti psychotic drugs or treating mental problems. They may prescribe mood elevation drugs in some cases. If you have a serious medical problem you most likely will be referred to a specialist who understands a specific area of medicine. When it comes to genuine mental illness, the general practice physician or Psychologist will not treat the mentally ill without a psychiatrist being involved. It is a medical problem requiring a medical specialist.

This statement by Jay E. Adams appears to indicate a great deal of prejudice against the psychiatrist and very little knowledge of how they practice. It is a statement of monumental ignorance. This foundation assumption regarding psychiatry continues today in the second generation of Nouthetic counselors. They talk of physician referral but not psychiatric referral. They speak of mental illness but then start talking about depression. Depression alone is not mental illness though it may involve a medical cause.

Those who would be classified as genuinely mentally ill can only be properly cared for with the help of psychiatry. The drug prescription medication is almost always needed. With the mentally ill the proper drug is usually the only answer. The Schizophrenic or Bipolar person will suffer delusions, paranoia, and uncontrolled attitudes and moods without proper medication.

Chemical imbalance is today often diagnosed based on medical testing. Brain scans show the differences in function of a normal brain and a brain with chemical imbalances. This is now well established verifiable medical science.

In the interview, the person with J.E. Adams gives three problems with psychology (psychiatry). They are “agenda, diagnostic, and the chicken and the egg.” His statements are filled with errors and serious ignorance of modern psychiatry.

Most mentally ill people are not in the office of the private psychiatrist or psychologist. They also are not attending church even though they may be a Christian. They are being seen by a psychiatrist at the public health centers and are on SSDI or SSI. They are also on Medicaid. They get about 600 to 800 dollars to live on each month and do not have adequate shelter or care. If they have families that care they may have a place to live. They often do not take their medication and become confused. You see them pushing their shopping carts with their belongings. Those who have help and take their medication can often live fairly normal lives. The difference is the modern medicine available for treatment and getting them to take it regularly.

I would recommend that everyone see the movie “The Soloist.” It is a true story and parts of it are filmed at Christian run shelters in Los Angeles that specialize in sheltering the mentally ill. Those of us who have family members who suffer from mental illness and who are caretakers, understand the reality in this film.

Those of us who are caretakers of mentally ill persons view J.E. Adams as a seriously ignorant and dangerous person and training in Nouthetic counseling as a joke. The whole field of Nouthetic counseling as a false intellectual discipline built on contrived reality and selective biblical truth. A degree, usually a D.Min., in Nouthetic counseling is a degree in a made up field that pretends to have answers by ignoring the real problems.

Nouthetic counseling is as integrationist as other approaches to Psychology and counseling. They will use many of the statistics and findings of studies done in clinical Psychology. It seeks to derive a system of truth for counseling from scripture and the impose this system on scripture.

Biblical counseling recognizes the priority of truth is established by scripture and will endeavor to screen all principles and methods that ar expressly contrary to scripture. However, it will recognize and accept that if something is discovered and known from sources other than scripture and is reasonably verifiable as true. All truth is God's truth. No truth can conflict with the truth of scripture that is clear and properly applied.

One truth that is improperly applied here is the concept of the sufficiency of the scriptures. The scriptures are sufficient for the purposes intended. To use both scripture and other disciplines together in gaining an answer to a specific problem does not diminish the scriptures. The scriptures give answers for the soul. They give no instructions in human anatomy or diseases of the body. Man is a living soul and has a body. His soul works with and through the body. If we have a problem with the brain our soul will be effected in the way we express ourselves and behave. Integration of truth is essential to have a proper understanding and arrive at a proper spiritual interpretation of cause and effect.

Nouthetic counseling is a recently derived and invented system that diminshes real bibilical counseling. It was invented out of thin air. It was not part of historic approaches to sanctification or part of historic Fundamentalism. True Fundamentalism seeks to protect the church from dangerous movements. and trends. Nouthetic counseling should be looked upon as being in the same intellectual catagory as the KJVO movement.. It has an improper view of the the application and intent of scripture and has created a dangerous cultic mindset which has an improper view of the relation of Revelatory truth and non revalatory truth. Six day creationism is a clear on the face scriptural teaching. Nouthetic counseling has no such clear scriptures for its foundation principles. Its name and many of the scriptures used are misapplied from the original intent. It was improper to compare this non acceptance of Nouthetic counseling with acceptance and non acceptance of evolution. However, that statement reveals the cultic false epistemology that this system rests upon.

Donn,

A quick philosophical point; you are fallacious in your reasoning about the mind.

Besides the fact that there are Christian non-reductive physicalists (a view I do not support or think well of, but it exists and is cogent), one can be a dualist and still think "mental illness" is a reality. Besides the fact that your point about metaphor is of dubious relevance and meaning (almost everything can be shown to be metaphorical; this is major issue in studies of "metaphor" and the "literal" sense), and the fact that your idea of "illness" is rather reductive, one can still argue that the mind is numerically distinct from the brain yet claim, as any responsible dualist that I know of would (e.g. Alvin Plantinga), that the proper functioning of the brain is a necessary condition for the proper functioning of the mind. Thus, brain functioning corrolates, quite obviously (hence the otherwise inexplicable attraction of reductive physicalism/materialism in neuro-science), with mental functioning.

This point alone indicates the fallaciousness of your reasoning, but beyond this point, one can note the fact that one of the dominant strands of dualism, one based on Aristotelian/Thomistic hylomporphism (the body is the matter that is informed by the mind, which is the form), would also support the idea of mental illness, because this tradition, quite influential in Christianity, argues that though mind and matter are distinct, they are inseparable, at least in this life, and therefore they function together.

It's simply basic ignorance of neuro-science to not acknowledge what everyone knows: that brain states corrolate with incredible precision to "mental states," and even if this erroneously leads some to reduce the latter to the former, it should lead no one to deny the corrolation and inseparability of the two.

Aaron,

My opinions regarding Nouthetic counseling are expressed in terms giving reasons why it is not considered a valid counseling philosophy. I do not believe these would normally be characterized as a rant.

Before Nouthetic counseling was proposed out of thin air, all Biblical counseling recognized your items 1 through 3. Most recognized your item no. 4 in various degrees.

A very serious problem exists within the Nouthetic counseling philosophy. This problem is that all true and genuine mental illness is physiologically based and can only be treated by Psychiatrists. The accepted, and medically effective treatment, is with anti psychotic drugs. Nouthetic counseling simply cannot accept this and in various ways seek to diminish this need of such treatment. In their scenario of the "Chicken and the egg" they even seek to propose that there may be some responsibility upon the mentally ill because they choose their thinking and behavior and this then changes Brain chemistry. This has been the subject of much research and is thoroughly discredited by all legitimately recognized studies. After the fact change does occur in some cases because such conditions as Schizophrenia often continue to deteriorate, especially if medication is not taken regularly. Yet this middle ages philosophy was stated in the interview with you. Nouthetic counseling is based upon defective research, pooled ignorance of those wishing to uphold some sort of Biblical accountability for all behavior, and a paranoid attitude toward culture and society that includes an aversion to science that involves the mind and human behavior. In this respect the anti intellectual tendency toward knowledge by Fundamentalists has produced the embracing of a counseling theory that is dangerous. It is like the mentality of some groups that advocate faith only healing and are against the intervention of medical treatment. In the same way, Nouthetic counseling presents a false anthropological view of man and mental problems. It is defective both philosophically and theologically.

There are two dangers to the historic Fundamentalist ideas. One is the KJVO movement. The other is the Nouthetic counseling movement. Both are built upon pseudo intellectualism and extra biblical dogmatism.

We certainly can agree on items 1 to3 and with some of item 4. However, it is the extra baggage of the Nouthetic counseling movement that is the problem. They have philosophical assumptions that are not only extra biblical, but in the case of their view of th constitution of man, are contrary to scripture. A big step would be their at least being aware of what medical science now knows with regard to the human brain and behavior. It would also be good for them to acknowledge the need to treat mental illness with anti psychotic drugs and being thankful that such drugs are now available. Just 30 years ago the drug treatment picture was severely limited. 50 years ago we had to lock up the mentally ill as the only way of keeping them safe. Nouthetic counselors continually misrepresent the drug prescription treatment picture and the methodology of Psychiatrists. Until they can present knowledgeable and truthful picture of this necessary and effective aspect of medicine they are guilty of negligence based on ignorance and being a stumbling block to the treatment of the mentally ill. We are not talking here about the thousands who receive counseling for various problems. They can be handled by knowledgeable laymen and trained biblical counselors. We are talking about the "mentally ill." Such have physiologically based problems.

I have not painted with broad strokes. I am not giving a rant. I am telling you that thousands of people, many Christians included, deal with mental illness daily. Nouthetic counseling is an enemy to them. Many Christian families with loved ones who are mentally ill look at Nouthetic counseling advocates like those advocating a flat earth. Their Fundamentalist mentality is seen as prjudice based on ignorance.

Nouthetic counseling does not adequately display the love of God and the compassion of the Lord Jesus Christ. This has been stated to me in various ways by both mentally ill Christians and their care takers. How right they are. This is seen even in your interview with Jay E. Adams. They appear to receive those who criticize as persecutors of their stand for biblical truth. In reality they bring turmoil and misunderstanding based on false biblical views to many who suffer and are in need of a truly biblical and Christ like approach to their problems.

Aaron & Bob

Aaron
Your list (1-3) is where it seems the church lost its way at one point, and the "nouthetic" world is seeking to reclaim to the good of the church. I do think many "Bible believing" churches still chalk most aberant and even sinful behaviors to imbalances and emotional sicknesses, that are simply the long term affects of sin.

Bob
Your experiences reflect two things. One is just like the term fundamentalism, those claiming "nouthetic" represent a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. Sometimes a good idea is practiced imperfectly, thus to some impugning the idea. Your experience is/was real, but my experience with the nouthetic world has been far different, particularly on the compassion side and the medication approach. Most instruction I have been given has emphasized that since we are not doctors, refer any counselee to a doctor and don't attempt to play doctor. Focus on the spiritual issues that are present and leave the physical to those who are trained.

Secondly, the question you have raised seems to deal with severe situations that do bring both medical professionals and the Church to a place of humility and some uncertainty. Obviously, you have experience with a situation that has greatly affected you and those close to you. Even the work of medical professionals in these case does not bring "healing", but may allow someone to exist and live. These drugs may indeed be needed mercies, but to everyone's sorrow they do not result in a return to lasting health.

In my experience, these cases are not the majority of people that are being ministered to in churches. Most who are needing help in the church today do struggle with clear issues of obedience and trust. Some have been under the care of psychiatry and have not received the "therapy" to address the heart struggles that are present. They feel like they have "stabalized" emotionally, but they lack the knowledge and hope to really change their relationships, attitudes, affections, and actions. That is where the nouthetic world is aimed, returning care of the immaterial man to the Church.

Wow, after reading rather comprehensively Bob T's comments where the significant portion of his objection and argument (where the beef mostly is) he presented is based in Adam's rejection of true psychiatry and noting that the comment you cited is a singular one of Bob's, it is a bit of a head shaker to read that someone comes away from it believing the somewhat anecdotal reference to the Reformed view of sanctification is where his beef mostly is with Bob. I could be wrong but it appears his beef is mostly with the former (the psychiatric denial by Adams), first and foremost.

Bob,

My post deserves more interaction than you are willing to give it. But I understand it is easier just to accuse me of ignorance. First, I don't even have "fundamentalist Bible college education." Second, knowing some things about the issues is enough to offer a contribution. Third, I have dealt with these issues in ministry for a number of years. So I am not sure why you are calling me arrogant.

If you truly are a care taker for a mentally ill person, and if you have truly been involved with research for ten years, then your comments are even more inexcusable. How does someone with that kind of background possibly make the charges you have made? It is inconceivable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of both mental illness and the Bible. I am not familiar with your caretaking responsibilities, so I won't pretend to pass judgment on that. You, in return, not being familiar with my experience should not pretend to pass judgment on it either. If you want to quit making personal attacks and read what I actually said, then you can offer a congent and coherent response.

I will sum it up for you again.

1. Some mental illness is physiological. No one should dispute that.

2. Not all mental illness has been shown to be physiological or caused by physiology. No one should dispute that.

3. Physiological mental illness has not been shown to be completely disconnected from sin. We know for a fact that much of what is diagnosed as mental illness can be traced to sin based on the diagnostic standards used by psychiatrists. No one should dispute that. Sometimes, sinful habits can bring on physiological changes.

4. It is naive and simplistic to say that all mental illness is physiological. We simply do not know that. Even a cursory reading of the relevant material will bear out the fact that we simply do not always know what causes things like clinical depression. If you read the DSM and compare it to Scripture, you will see very quickly that many of the things they consider as mental illness can in fact be traced directly to spiritual issues. That doesn't mean they all are. But it means that a psychiatrist who does not explore that realm is not dealing with the whole realm of possible contributing factors. He is doing a disservice to his patient not to consider what else might be contributing to the problem.

You don't seem to admit any other possibilities, even though the Bible and human experience gives us plenty of reason to I think your biggest problem revealed here is that you do not show any interaction at all with the interaction of the body and the spirit. The fact is that the human is complex. Spiritual matters, such as sin, do affect the body, and our response to the world around us. You are ignoring that fact.

Take, for instance, clinical depression. Let's assume there are physiological indicators (which, as you know, generally are not tested for). Are those physiological indicators the cause of depression? Or are they the result of depression? You see, that is what psychiatry does not fully interact with. If a person is involved in habitual sin, and they exhibit "clinical depression," we should immediately suspect that the sin habits may be the cause of the clinical depression. Surely even you admit that, don't you?

So, Bob, you may know more than you are saying here, but based on what you have said here (and said previously) you do not demonstrate a good handle on the complexity of these issues.

You have some valid concerns with the nouthetic counseling movement. But you also have some severe problems with your position, at least as you have laid it out here.

Larry,
your reference to the DSM indicates where you stand on these issues. The DSM is used for billing purposes for insurance and government. It provides broad category information and description. It is not a primary or secondary source for information and knowledge as to the state of Psychiatric medicine.

Today we actually have mental illness studies indicating that it is physiologically based. Clinical depression is not part of that classification. It seems like every time Nouthetic counselors talk about mental illness they digress to using depression or clinical depression as some sort of example or excuse. You say that "we simply do not know that all mental illness is physiological." Who is we? Only physiological or medically based mental illness is so classified. You are possibly confusing the fact that Psychologists do not consider all psychological problems, including depression (which some loosely call clinical depression) as physiological. They will endeavor to use "therapy." Some will refer to a Psychiatrist for a prescription. These are usually not classified as "mental illness." The use of Brain scans is now wide spread. Physiological problems are the essence of mental illness within the mental health system.

Your claim for ministry acquaintance with the issues is very interesting to me. Pastors and church staff usually have almost no interaction with real mental illness. All I can say to you is to get the DVD for the movie "The Soloist." You will quickly understand what I am talking about. The subject in this film is typical of mental illness problems. It is a true story. Many caretakers have been through what the reporter in the movie goes through. You do not spend time trying to figure out what sins you can find. You try to keep them on medication and just care and help them move forward and alleviate symptoms. Some will improve if kept on the proper path of medication and later improve their executive functions and possibly work. Some will have symptoms subside in their forties. A Psychiatric nurse at a local hospital was in the mental health system from age 21. She went back to school in her forties and finally obtained her Phd. at age 70. She is still working in the behavioral medicine unit. Schizophrenia shows itself in males in the late teens and early twenties. In females it shows up in the twenties and even starts in the thirties in some. This is when the last 5% of the frontal lobe develops. If a person had the knowledge and experience to diagnose they could often see some odd symptoms in childhood years even though the child functioned mostly normal. When the onset does occur the first symptoms are usually word salad (mixing word order in sentences) and obsession with journaling which may be done with very small writing. The journaling will become increasingly nonsensense sentences. Eventually they may start hearing voices and may reply when alone. These and other onset symptoms are common in all schizophrenia onset. If diagnosed early, progression to more serious problems may be alleviated. However, because of parental and public ignorance most early symptoms are not understood and are over looked. Bipolar has its own set of onset symptoms. Some overlap with Schizophrenia. Studies indicate the causes to be genetic or birth or pregnancy trauma, such as an automobile accident. Studies indicate that twins separated at birth and brought up separately but one becomes Schizophrenic, the other has a 50% chance of also becoming Schizophrenic. These studies, and countless other studies, have given us a vast new resource of understanding regarding the different classifications of mental illness. The Brain is a mystery but we have made progress in understanding and treatment of mental illness. This includes the fact that all that is classified as mental illness has a medical etiology.

I took the time to give the above information so you will understand that much is known about mental illness causes and etiology. If someone wishes to allege that sin may be the cause of the presence of such illness then please show the study information. As you should realize no such studies can really be done. It is after the fact speculation. Also, in light of studies indicating a physical onset such speculation is simply avoiding what we do know.

The genuinely mentally ill deserve our love and care. It is sin to seek to make them accountable based on theories. Some medical experts have indicated that man's attitude and behavior may effect their physiology. However, none indicates that such could have such a severe effect as to initiate, contribute to, or cause actual mental illness. Nouthetic counselors like to use any such statements beyond their context and intent to construct a theory of sin causation. This is soundly rebuked by both secular and Christian behavioral science.

Your statements about mental illness are not accurate, old information of the 1950s to 1970s theories, and not in accordance with sound medical science of today. It is information found in books advocating Nouthetic counseling. Such books are not written by qualified medical science researchers and practitioners.

I have now interacted with you more than I should have . Larry, you need not do the somewhat extensive research I have done in this area as you do not have the motivation I have. Most Pastors do not have the time or necessity to do so. However, you should refrain from giving your opinions which are not based on accurate information and valid sources. I am going to give another post tomorrow in which i will give the ten best and latest books that can be a real help in understanding this subject today.

Bob, I understand this is subject that is close to your heart. I agree that sometimes the nouthetic viewpoint goes too far, and that mental illness is a very complicated subject.

But let me make sure I understand you...after decades and decades of theories first being championed and rejected in the areas of psychiatry and psychology, you are 100% sure that NOW they have it right?

I'm looking forward to your reading list. Let me suggest a book for you to read: American Therapy: The Rise of Psychotherapy in the United States by Jonathan Engel. It is not written by a nouthetic counselor but from a completely secular perspective. He shows the complete failure of psychotherapy. He does advocate the use of drugs to a greater or lesser degree in current therapy of mental illness, but his history should be a warning to be so dogmatic about the causes of or solutions to mental illness.

I practiced psychiatry until my son was diagnosed with autism 18 years ago. I left my practice to direct his treatment program and never returned, because in the interim I discovered biblical counseling. My current ministry includes psychiatrically informed biblical counseling. I've kept up with the psychiatric field and still subscribe to the journals. I like the term "brain disease" better than "mental illness" because today's psychology/psychiatry has muddied the distinction between painful emotional states and real physical illness of the brain. I counsel people with severe brain diseases like Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, autism, psychotic bipolar, and traumatic brain injury, I'm supportive of the use of meds in a variety of circumstances, and I consult with pastors and biblical counselors on their difficult cases. I'm not able to engage in a dialog, and I'm not willing to address every issue that's been brought up in this forum, for reasons of time, but I would like to respond to a few of the assertions that have been made here.

Jay Adams is a brilliant man whose books have done much good, but he is, like all of us, a product of his times. When he first began writing in the late 1960s, psychiatrists were exclusively psychoanalytic. They held to an unbiblical model of personality development, and believed that they could cure everything, including schizophrenia, through talking. His books were directed at this worldview, and he initially spoke more approvingly of psychologists because he received some training in psychology by a university research psychologist (O. Hobart Mowrer). But this was before psychologists in large numbers abandoned university research for clinical practice and took over the same psychotherapeutic ground that psychiatrists later abandoned for the current biomedical model. When he taught biblical counselors to send their counselees to their family doctors instead of psychiatrists for medical screening he was attempting to keep Christians away from psychotherapists espousing unbiblical views, not demonizing psychiatrists. He later had the same problem with psychologists. It was primarily an issue of worldview, not medication use.

Adams left open the possibility that proof of organic causation for some problems could be discovered in the future, and spoke about how we would understand such a development biblically if it should happen--which, of course, it has for brain diseases like schizophrenia. On this subject, I think that he was amazingly prescient, and it's to his credit that his biblical theology was inclusive enough to leave room for this possibility. Overzealous followers asserted that he taught that there was no such thing as schizophrenia and therefore serious brain disease did not really exist, but he never actually said that. His argument was with the label "schizophrenia," not with the potential for existence of conditions that could impair the ability to accurately perceive reality, but many biblical counselors have in the past believed that to be biblical they have to take a "no such thing as schizophrenia and no meds ever" approach.

The biblical counseling movement has been swinging away from this view in recent years. I've had a public ministry for some years now on this subject, and have found unfailingly that biblical counselors are quick to correct their misperceptions about brain diseases when they understand the issues involved more clearly. I encourage biblical counselors to refer those with brain diseases to psychiatrists for medicine, and agree that they are the most competent physicians to prescribe these potentially dangerous medicines. But I also encourage biblical counselors that they can counsel even those who have serious impairments with reality, because even those who are seriously ill also have a sin problem. We can't escape this, since every human being ever born except our Savior is a sinner, and all sinners sin (Romans 3:23). I've found that even very seriously impaired people's function improves when they are in an environment where they are encouraged to take their meds, surrounded by a church community that loves them and holds them accountable, and helped to structure their lives to minimize the kinds of things that work against stability (substance abuse, chaotic living situations, wrong friends, not keeping regular hours, etc). In fact, I'd love to see the church take seriously the deep needs of people who are currently in the community mental health system--not to get them out of it, for many need the free care and practical support it provides, but to supplement it with a much-needed biblical worldview, personal, loving Christian charity and real relationship.

But it's essential to see clearly the distinction between real brain disease and what is referred to as "chemical imbalance." There is much functional brain scanning research linking the brain's chemical status to the thoughts and feelings of experimental subjects. Nobody is arguing with the fact that functional scanning demonstrates the brain's activity when a subject is having thoughts and feelings. But there is not, and cannot be, any research proving that the brain's chemical status arises de novo and produces thoughts and feelings on its own. The belief that it does has to be considered to be religious/philosophical in nature, because it's not possible to determine causation where the immaterial mind is involved. It is possible to experiment on the brain, but it's not possible to delineate via experiments the precise relationship between activity in the immaterial mind and corresponding brain activity. This is not a problem for the many secular psychiatrists who are also materialists, denying the existence of an immaterial mind. But for those of us who want to be biblical, we have to go beyond what the brain is doing to seek to understand how the mind (whose existence the Bible clearly teaches) is involved in cases where physical brain disease is not the primary issue. We also have to insist that even those whose relationship with reality is seriously disordered have thoughts and emotions that are tainted by their sinful nature, and can learn to respond biblically to areas of sin in their lives (as well as learn not to listen to their voices!). But as we do this we need to step very tentatively, understanding that there is much we don't know about the relationship between the physical brain and the nonphysical mind.

Biblical counselors look to biblical anthropology and insist that the mind (soul, spirit, heart) is the source of our thoughts, feelings, and choices. This means that bad feelings, by themselves, do not constitute brain diseases, even though the brain's chemical balance is involved in the expression of those feelings. I don't believe that this means that it's wrong to take medicines for overwhelming feelings. But when people do, they should be aware that what they are doing is suppressing those feelings, not curing them. This is somewhat analogous to what morphine does for the pain of appendicitis--it decreases the pain but does not solve the underlying problem. I've been practicing psychiatry or biblical counseling for about 25 years now, and have not found medicines to be curative in any case by themselves, although they can be a useful adjunct for those who are struggling with very overwhelming emotions, and are essential for those who have true brain diseases, since all we can do for manifestations like voices is to suppress them using medicines.

Biblical counseling is a biblically consistent intervention that gets to the heart of the painful emotions. When I counsel those with brain diseases, I work to get them to understand that they will need to continue to take their medicines to remain stable, as well as teach them how to deal with temptations and struggles in their lives that rise from their sin nature. As they walk in increasing stability, they also begin to understand themselves and their problems better and are able to lead a more normal life. As for those who are not suffering from these devastating diseases, but are struggling with painful emotions, many who begin seeing me while already on medicines over time find them to be no longer necessary because they get to the heart of their struggles. I've also had counselees who don't respond to counseling alone, because they're already in a deep emotional hole by the time they come for counseling. I refer such counselees to a psychiatrist for medicine, and usually find that they do well in counseling with this additional physical support, and later are able to stop the medicines. It should go without saying that when a counselee is considering harm to self or others, I always recommend a trip to the emergency room and hospitalization with medicines, to protect a sufferer when he is too vulnerable to do so for himself.

This is not the only way to slice this pie, and I don't think that you have to see it the way I do to be biblical. This is just the way that I do it. I respect very much the passion that Bob T. brings to this discussion. I am passionate about this topic too, as I have a close relationship with a dear one who has had a very severe case of schizophrenia for almost 20 years, as well as a son who was born with severe autism. But I believe that it's possible to be biomedically informed and biblically consistent at the same time.

I've written books, including one that has a chapter on brain diseases. I want to respect this site's position on advertising my own books, but if you are interested in reading more of my work, you can find me at www.drlaurahendrickson.com. I'm not available to dialog on this issue because my ministry schedule is busy, but perhaps you'll find my written work helpful in your quest to find your own understanding of the truth on this difficult subject.

Dr. Hendrickson,
Thank you for posting. I have benefited from your work. When you were in San Antonio a while back, my wife and I wanted to be there. It was right after our son was diagnosed with autism. Your post brings some excellent points and I agree with you comepletely.

Thanks Laura, for your comments. Very good. It reflects the understanding that I have come to (and tried inadequately to express). I think it reflects the complexity that exists in this topic. I think both the Bible and psychiatry has been greatly disserviced by the simplistic approach that is too often taken on both sides.

I am not that familiar with Adams. Twenty years ago I read the Christian Counselor's Manual, and more recently his books on Divorce and Remarriage, church discipline, and how to help people change. I have some others I refer to from time to time, but not in depth.

I think we too often underestimate the power and the extent of sin in our lives. Hopefully, we will engage in a careful reflection in this.

There appears to be a defence of Nouthetic counseling that is constantly being asserted that claims they have changed their views regarding Psychiatry and mental illness. Some posters on here are making that claim. Let me point out the following:

1. The interview you just listened to here on Sharper Iron specifically asserted the same criticisms of mental illness, psychiatry, and psychology. Please listen again if you need to. The criticisms involved three areas; the agenda of psychiatry, the diagnosis procedures of psychiatry, and the chicken and the egg concept which is that mental illness could be self inflicted. The criticisms are essentially the same that J. Adams expressed in 1970 and in keeping with my quote from "The big Umbrella" first published in 19972 but reprinted recently without changes.

2. The book "Introduction to Biblical Counseling," John MacArthur editor, Word Publishing, 1994 with chapters by several others including several by Nouthetic counselor and professor Wayne Mack, states the following:

"The biblical counselor is accused of denying reality. Yet who is to say this is reality? Even though the majority of people in our society accept the theory of mental illness as a fact, that still does not make it a fact. Such reasoning is not scientific but philosophical. This is the same logic that says believers deny the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Many people believe they exist, so does that make them real? Since mental illness is a theory and not a fact, biblical counselors do not deny the existence of something that has been proven to exist by empirical data gained in the laboratory. There is no need to deny the existence of something that does not exist." p.375

This book, as stated in my prior post, is used as a textbook at Fundamentalist seminaries and Bible colleges. It has chapters by faculty from Masters College and seminary. It is widely accepted. Recent printings state the same. IT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF ALL MENTAL ILLNESS OR BRAIN DISEASE.

3. Other recent books by nouthetic counselors make passing reference to mental illness but then make disclaimers that to one degree or another, speak of it in ways that diminish it as a concept. They often allude to over diagnosis, or misdiagnosis. Like some posters on here they used some alleged personal experience or other to seek to diminish the concept. The overwhelming amount of Nouthetic counseling literature either avoids or diminishes the field of psychiatry. None that I am aware of gives them the needed attention to make it accepted in a way that will be beneficial to victims of mental illness, or Brain disease if you prefer that term.

The present generation of Nouthetic counselors and teachers have not come to the place of giving mental illness (Brain disease) the acknowledgment and acceptance necessary. Because of this churches and individual Christians do not accept the genuinely mentally ill as being patients with disease that is no fault of theirs. In this local area I have seen this especially in graduates of Masters Seminary and college, and Christians who are or were members of John MacArthur's Grace Community church. There is also a great deal of ignorance that continues to produce misconceptions and prejudice among those who would be labeled as Fundamentalist.

The Dr. Laura Hendrickson, who posted on here, was very helpful. She appears to have some relationship to the "Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship" in San Diego. This is a Nouthetic counseling related organization. While independent, it is associated with the Reformed Baptist churches and Orthodox Presbyterians. However, Dr. Laura appears to have her own independent ministry and her views are in some cases divergent from those of others in the institute. She certainly gave a good history of J.Adams ideas and the changes in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. One that gives some insight into their aversion to mental health professionals. However, based on the Nouthetic literature of today, the changes have been minimal among many in Nouthetic counseling. There still exists an unreasoned prejudice against mental health professionals.

Nouthetic counseling has not changed sufficiently to warrant endorsement. It denies reality and is dangerous to those in most need of counsel and medical treatment. It is mis educating students and Christians and creating prejudice and non acceptance of those with Mental illness (Brain disease) in churches and among Christians. This brings heartache and spiritual abandonment from the churches. Among Fundamentalists we have Pastors who are willing to be indifferent to the extreme problems of Nouthetic counseling and instead search for fault and negligence among mental health care professionals. They cite some case of misdiagnosis or lack of followup by those referred to. Some still want to hunt for the sin causation as a priority.

No profession or field of endeavor is perfect. I, or others, have never claimed there has not been misdiagnosis or other problems in the mental health field. Due to money and lack of resources many victims of mental health problems are inadequately treated. However, this is so in the greater health care system. Such problems exist but do not do away with the validity and necessity of Mental illness treatment by the only ones who can handle the problems.

My plea to Fundamentalist oriented Pastors, faculty members, and congregations is to face the reality of the evidence against Nouthetic counseling and demand real and clear change. Also, bring your criticism into the present decade. Be wary of those who write or teach who cite twenty or thirty year old statements regarding mental illness and Psychiatry.

Make biblical truth the infallible priority and reject any truth or method that is contrary to scripture. Be open to accept truth that is not contrary to scripture and may be helpful. Make sure your your interpretation of scripture does not violate the original intent and is not being applied in a way that does not appear to be in accordance with original intent. Derived truth often requires excessive human intervention and may be wrong. But above all we need some humility. If you have not reasonably researched a subject then withhold dogmatic statements. Admit to possible limitations in education or reading. There are many Pastors today who have inadequate formal education for any ministry, do not read or study well, and yet are willing to wave the Bible and make dogmatic statements of ignorance about subjects they have researched little. This appears to be the norm in the field of counseling as it relates to mental illness. Psychiatry and Psychology make handy whipping boys in which we feel justified by our gallant stand for the Bible. The victims are those suffering from mental illness (Brain disease).

Bro Bob (and others),
It may help to understand the road Laura has traveled. This snatch is from the bio page on her website:

Having crawled out of the trenches herself I am sure contributes to her unique, balanced perspective.

Dave Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Seminary that was mentioned by Bob, has requested that Bob speak to this comment.

Dave Doran says: I sure hope you’ve been careless with your words here or you’re discrediting yourself. What kind of an argument is this? Based on one objectionable (to you) statement in a very long book that covers a wide range of counseling issues, you conclude that the use of that book discredits a whole list of seminaries. Really, please tell me you aren’t serious and that this was a momentary hyperbolic lapse of some sort. Do you really believe that these seminaries are discredited by the use of this book as a reference for counseling classes?

Larry,

Just when did you graduate from Detroit Baptist? What year? Rolland McCune, the first President, is a former professor of mine and one I greatly respect. I last talked with him at the 50th Anniversary conference of Central Baptist Seminary. The last I knew he had no use for the D.Min degrees being awarded by some schools. As far as I know Detroit still does not award the D.Min degree.

I still have overall respect for this school but use of a book that may reflect a wrong and hurtful counseling philosophy is problematic. I would hope they are concerned. It demeans the mentally ill and causes wrongful discrimination against them. The real subjects to be concerned for here are the mentally ill and their families. They do not deserve the ignorance that brings wrongful prejudice. Many Fundamentalists of the past were on the wrong side of racial discrimination based on pseudo knowledge and supposedly standing for Bible truth. There are parallels here.

If you have indeed had some contact with Dave Doran then perhaps he will give you an explanation to pass on of their position regarding this book and what is taught in their counseling classes. I would be concerned with the use of any text that gave such a view regarding mental illness and Psychiatry. That is very important to ones overall counseling philosophy.

The book "Introduction to Biblical Counseling," John MacArthur editor, Word Publishing, 1994 with chapters by several others including several by Nouthetic counselor and professor Wayne Mack, states the following:

"The biblical counselor is accused of denying reality. Yet who is to say this is reality? Even though the majority of people in our society accept the theory of mental illness as a fact, that still does not make it a fact. Such reasoning is not scientific but philosophical. This is the same logic that says believers deny the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Many people believe they exist, so does that make them real? Since mental illness is a theory and not a fact, biblical counselors do not deny the existence of something that has been proven to exist by empirical data gained in the laboratory. There is no need to deny the existence of something that does not exist." p.375

With all due respect, the victims of Mental illness, and their families, anxiously await any explanation if they wish to offer one.

I just want to say thanks to all who have posted here. 23 years ago, in Atlanta GA, 1986, as a wet behind the ears sophomore at a school which no longer exists, I heard a man teach on this very issue, and I never forgot it. He stated that it was essential for me as a future pastor to remember this.

People can have sin problems, and people can have medical problems, and they both can be present at the same time. Science/ Medicine doesn't have all the answers to the medical side of things and will constantly change, but God's word is sufficient to deal with the spiritual side of things. Pray that God will help you to find the best medical help for the medical side, and that he will guide you in applying the best method for dealing with the spiritual side, and trust him that together both sides will lead to healing to this one who needs it.

I have since learned this to be so true. Science will always be changing, but thank God His word doesn't.

Thanks to all who are posting here, this has been a great refresher to my mind on the importance of this issue and how far this area has advanced.

Bob,

Dr. Doran makes excellent points. By the way, did you get my email?

But Bob, you are not presenting a balanced view on the subject.

You didn’t offend me. I am so uninvested in this conversation, I don't think you could offend me.

I don’t want to “avoid the revealed errors of Nouthetic counseling.” I have long said I am not a supporter of Nouthetic counseling completely.

However, you made a charge that you have not supported. Are you backing away from the charge that DBTS uses this book? I would seriously like to know what you base that on. I simply don’t know. I don’t recall it, but I have a bad memory in some cases. Dr. Doran doesn't recall it and can't find it. I don't care. You may be correct about DBTS using this book. Most schools use books that they do not fully agree with. The use of a book by a school is not an endorsement of everything in it. You probably know that having gone to Central. So help us out, Bob. I am just curious where you got this information.

It is interesting that you want to avoid the revealed errors of your post by trying to make an issue of someone calling you on some accusations you made.

Dave Doran is not a member of SI. He cannot communicate directly with you here.

You have already shown that your expectations are not always legitimate, and your definition of “reasonable” is suspect. Now you accuse me of making stuff up. From yesterday, I have two emails from Dave Doran in my inbox. (I suspect I will have a third soon.) If you were here, I would gladly show them to you. They are not private and confidential. He sent them to me to pass on. He addressed them to me because he knows me and he knows I am a moderator here, and his seminary was brought up in a discussion.

What was the false accusation he is referring to? Do you even know?

While I respect Dr. Doran, on this issue, his opinion is not particularly important to me. I honestly don’t even know what his view is. We haven't talked about it, and I don't assume we will. Usually when I see him or communicate with him, it is about other stuff. His question was about the charge you made against DBTS.

Really? While I am sure he appreciates you calling him "young," just two sentences ago you insinuated he was a liar. How does that work? Is a liar a “fine young man and a good pastor”? Bob, I think you are venting, and not thinking about what you are saying.

Then why did you ask? You’re the one who wanted to know (post #39). How does the president of the seminary in question have little to contribute to charges made about the seminary?

My views are virtually identical to Laura’s, whom you praised. Bob, make up your mind. Already, in this post, you have contradicted yourself several times.

That’s not clear so I am not sure what you are saying. If you are saying that I deny that brain disease may have no clear sin issues involved, you are wrong. From my very first post, I said that mental illness may be caused by sin, or it may not be. That is a clear statement that I accept mental illness as possibly involving clear no fault physiological causes.

Seriously Bob, you do not appear to be reading very closely because you are not interacting with what I actually said.

To bring up sin? Yes, the school is pretty down on sin, and they talk about it a lot. Counseling, on the other hand, and mental illness, they don’t talk much about. As I said there are two classes, I think both are summer school classes, and neither is required to my knowledge (but my knowledge may be faulty about that). I don’t know what they say about this topic.

I have no doubt that I have more of a sin problem than you or any mentally ill person. But the fact is that all are responsible for sin, no matter their mental state. The good news is that Jesus died and paid the penalty of sin for all who will trust in him, regardless of their mental or physical state. Even mentally ill people make choices, and we must work with them on those choices about what they are loving and doing.

How do you know this??

This is my point exactly. You don’t know for sure. It may not be caused by sin. But a person whose brain is diseased by drug use has a problem that is caused by sin. A person who has major depression (a mental illness according to the NAMI that you cited approvingly earlier) may be depressed because of sin in their life. We have to deal with that. Until we have at least explored it, we haven't dealt with the patiently rightly.

So if someone’s sickness is caused by behavior, should not the Doctor address that behavior? I know mine does. My doctor routinely tells me “no bending lifting or twisting” because it creates a serious medical condition in my back. And my back will never get better. The best I can do is take care of it. When I had my surgery two years ago, I asked the dr. "After the surgery will my back be normal?" He said, "Your back's not normal now. It won't be after the surgery."

My dentist has warned me about my brushing techniques because of gum disease. Doctors always address behavior when it is a part of the cause of the problem.

But what you want to do here is try to change the subject. I am not saying that all mental illness or brain disease is sin caused. I haven’t said that from the beginning. I said we need to explore it. The problem is that you appear to say none of it is. And you, Bob, are not God, and you simply cannot know the cause of all mental illness.

Exactly. This is the most cogent point you have made in this post (and perhaps in this whole thread). But having given it, you then take it away with every thing else you have said.

But you have just removed one possible contributing factor. It’s like telling my physiatrist that she can’t deal with movement, even though certain kinds of movement are a major cause (though not the only cause) of my back problems when they spring up. It’s like telling a doctor he can’t deal with alcohol use by a patient with cirrhosis of the liver, even though alcohol use is a major cause of cirrhosis.

Why should not a doctor deal with every possible contributing factor? How long would you continue to go to a doctor who said, “Alcohol use isn’t contributing to your cirrhosis. Drink up”? If you went more than once, you are foolish because it is a doctor who is showing himself unqualified and uninformed.

Now, your cirrhosis may in fact not be caused by alcohol. But until you have explored that, you don’t know.

But why give certain kinds of doctors a free pass because you don’t want to acknowledge reality?

The reality is that certain mental illnesses may be caused by sinful behaviors, and we need to explore that. To do less is to not treat actual causes.

I think you have attempted to point that out, and I think most agree that Nouthetic counseling is at least somewhat inadequate on this. You haven’t really made a solid case, however. You haven’t really dealt with the issues.

Then promote me, Bob. I have promoted a balanced and enlightened position that recognize that mental illness is real, it is sometimes physiological, it needs to be treated by medical doctors who are familiar with the issues, that people need to stay on their meds, and that pastors should never tell anyone to stop their meds, and that pastors should deal only with spiritual issues of the heart. I have said that mentally ill people need to be treated with the love and compassion of Jesus. They are as much the responsibility of the church as everyone else.

Promote Laura. It sounds like she says the same thing.

And you have already said that our position is helpful.

I hope so as well. You have certainly presented one side, and Adams has presented the other, and there are a few who have tried to balance it out. Hopefully, it causes us all to think more biblically about these issues rather than simply buying one side or the other uncritically.

Then change it where you are at. But recognize that not everyone does that. The mentally ill around here are not ignored.

As opposed to people who come in here and teach a view point built on someone’s theory? The fact is that this science is developing continually. There are a lot of theories that we work with, and if you have been in this study for ten years or more (as I think you said), then you know how quickly it changes. Some are clearly deficient. Some are probably deficient. Some are still being considered. Some are helpful.

BTW, Bob, you say that biblical counselors aren't dealing with this. Ed Welch has a book called "Blame It On the Brain?" where he deals with this kind of stuff. So you can't really say that no one is dealing with it. You may not like the treatment, but it has been and is being dealt with.

I haven't read Dr. Adams for years, but I had what I thought was a basic understanding of nouthetic counseling... that is, until I read this thread.

So I went to the NANC website and read the Standards of Conduct, where I saw the following:

I don't see a problem with this- the SoC may be brief and general, but it seems sensible to me in light of what the Scripture teaches about how the body, mind, and spirit interact and affect each other.

Donn,

Thanks for the links.

I would encourage you to participate in the discussion about the ideas. The reaction you have read is about the stuff in the interview. Drive-by posting such as you are doing doesn't help us further understand your position or Dr. Adams position as expressed in the interview, nor the doubts about it, implications of it, etc. When the people whose ideas are being questioned don't defend and explain it, those who misunderstand are not helped.

I don't think it reasonable to expect the interview not to have any critics. Perhaps with your experience, you could help further our understanding and clarify or correct where you think people are misunderstanding.

I wish to thank Donn R. Arms for his post with links to the Nouthetic website. I am getting old and forgot all about it. All one need do is go to the sight and read their article on Schizophrenia. Then compare what they say to what Dr. Laura posted earlier on this sight and then also go to the NAMI website and find links on the subject. They are still advocating the same view of Schizophrenia, the most severe of Brain disease, that they held in the 1970s.
My case evidence rests.

Now let me explain that within the general diagnosis of Schizophrenia there are several sub catagories that greater define an individuals problem. Within that there is a category of "short term Schizophrenia." The person developes it during the last formation of the frontal lobe but it goes away after a completion time. One study indicates it may go away helped by medication which signals the body to alter chemical balance to the brain. The case they cite of a Paranoid Schizophrenic with certain symptoms appears to be such a case. Also, Schizophrenia will often become less in the thirties as the body changes and may subside completely in the forties or fifties. However, in many cases it is a life long struggle. Keep in mind that Donn and Jay Adams have no medical degrees. They are at the mercy of their own observations. Which of you would take your child to a person with no medical training for a problem that has a good chance to be medical. Their website makes the case for my not advocating Nouthetic counseling.

Now for my credentials: I have degrees in liberal studies, theology, and law. I have taught at New Testament and theology at Talbot school of Theology of Biola University and Law at Western State College of Law, Fullerton. I have practiced law and handled some cases and research involving mental illness. I have been a Pastor for over 25 years. In 1976 my wife and I were on the way to a church conference when we were involved in a head on auto collision. My wife was three months pregnant with our youngest son. He had some problems at birth but growth appeared normal. He appeared to start to exhibit some very mild symptoms of possible autism. Lack of eye contact etc. That went away. He started school and all went normally. In junior high he was tested and cinsidered a gifted child intellectually and the school system wanted him to attend a special school. He refused. After high school he started college. He started to exhibit some odd behavior. Later we found hundred s of hand written pages on various subjects. This is called "journeling." The writing became smaller and smaller -almost unreadable. It also made less and less sense. He turned in a term paper at college that was totally without any logic or sense. When I saw it and asked hima about it he became indignent as it made perfect sense to him. About this time he began to use a lot of big words in speaking. He always had a good vocabulary. However, the words started to be used out of place in the sentence. Soon you could not understand much of what he said. This is called "word salad." He began to look at us funny. He would want to talk to us but made little sense. Then one day as we were at church he left home. He took no clothes. He was just gone. About a week later we received a call from a male psychiatric nurse from a hospital in a city about 200 miles away. Our son had been taken into custody under CA. 51.50. This is a non arrest custody when a person is a danger to themselves or others. He was held 72 hrs. and released and then taken in a second time. They found my card in his wallet. We went up to get him. He was dirty and disoriented. Like a street person. He had abandoned his car on a street and forgot he had one. He had been wondering the steets of the city. At first he was pestering merchants asking for work. The second time he was take in he was at a Starbucks yelling at people that they were sinners and needed to repent.

We got our son home but had to have emergency intervention as he could not be controlled. He has spent time in hospital Psych words more than once. He has attacked me twice. Never deadly intent. He is now age 33 and has mellowed. He will now take his meds fairly regularly and things have been better the last three years. He went to a local Bible church regularly. However, he felt isolated and would no longer go. He knows he will never be able to marry or be accepted by many people. He experiences constant rejection if nayone knows he takes Psych meds. Never rude but just withdrawel from him. They call it the lonely disease. He tries to therefore keep it confidential. He now has a part time job delivering Pizza. A job he does well as he is by himself in a car and not just trapped in a work place. He has a somewhat good mind and now reads very technical books on economics and theory and wants to go back to school. However, he is not ready for that yet.

It has now been thirteen years since diagnosis. He is treated through the county mental health system. He gets reasonable care considering their overload and slim budget.

I have become a prolific reader and researcher on this subject. I have interacted with Psychiatrists when possible including one Christian one mentioned in a prior post. Some Psychiatrists will say that caretakers often become the real experts. This of course is an exaggeration ststed with tongue in cheek. We attend NAMI meetings and have constant contact with other mentally ill and their families. Psychologists (Those who have PHDs) do not treat the genuinly mentally ill. It is considered a medical problem requiring a Psychiatrist to be involved. So you can understand my great concern and passionate resistance when I see a bunch of guys with minimal hands on experience, and degrees in some sort of biblical counseling methodology from a seminary making dogmatic statements about mental illness and its causes and treatment. I do not believe in Chiropractic, Naturopathy, or other forms of non medical intervention in medical problems. I also do not believe a Noutheropathic practitioner is capable of speaking intellegently on these issue. I have fairly extensivly looked at this from several sides. I was an ardent embracer of all that was anti Psychology and anti psychiatry throughout my ministry. I was a Fundamentalist!! In the last thiteen years i have become enlightened. I became ashamed of my former dogmatism of something really I knew nothing about. I have read books. articles on the internet and pestered Mental health workers. I ahve attempted to read the pertinat medical journals avaible at the not too far UCLA library. I have interacted with three professors there.I have a need to know on this subject.

Psychiatry is far from perfect. it has many bad ideas and has had some real kooks in the field. As Dr. Laura indicated in her post, things have changed.
I am still a Biblical counselor. However, because of certain misinformation and dangerous opinions I do not advocate Nouthetic Counseling. I gave you my academic background so that you will understand I am a somewhat well trained researcher and able to separate the wheat from the chaff. I have some confidence in that. Some may think I have been arrogant on this thread. Possibly rightly so. I have a confidence in my present viewpoint on this subject that comes from having been wrong in the past and having practice in separating the wheat and Chaff.

My frustration on this thread is with the fact that, as in all internet discourse, people are too full of wanting to be right. We all do. But please stop explaining away or ignoring evidence. Now, it is my hope that all of you will go to the website offered by Don R. Arms and click on Schizophrenia and see the present position of Nouthetic Counselors on Schizophrenia. They do not attribute all to a physiological cause. They sow doubts that hurt the mentally ill. Medicine, even allowing for possible misdiagnosis, indicates all Schizophrenia is a Brain disease. One clinic of a "Dr. Amen" (thats his real name) in central California does Brian scans of all patients and does treatment on the basis of comparative scans on the patient. It is a whole new world in mental illness in the 21st century. Nouthetic counseling and their anecdotal evidence from unqualified interpreters are in the 1950s and 1960s (but stated by them first in the 1970s),

To Larry, sorry for any insults to you or your alma mater or Dave Doran. Doran first insulted me by accusing me of a false accusation even though he was not sure if the book has been used. I did not accuse you of lying. My contingencies attached to Doran's posts to you were because I had no direct communication with him which is normal. His posts , passed on by you, were nothing but personal attacks. Not too classy, yet he was indefinite on the use of the book. If he thinks I over stated, fine. That an opinion not a rebuttal of fact. So forgive me if you feel I was indiscreet. I am ending my discourse on that here.

Thanks Bob, for your gracious conclusion.

You didn't offend me. It takes a whole lot to do that, and I can't imagine that happening in an internet forum of impersonal debate. I have no problem with people who disagree with me.

My original thought when I read your comments about DBTS (and the other seminaries) was that "discredited" was way over the top, even if they actually used the book (which I do not recall, and apparently neither does Dave or Mike Harding). I am not sure where you got that from. I think that was Dave's point, that "discredited" was way out of line. I don't know if the "false accusation" is the charge that the book was used or the charge that the seminary was discredited because of its supposed use. I think he only communicated through me because he is not a member and I am.

Enough said.

Thanks and you are right, the wording is less than clear, I did mean to say Bob did not make comments about Adams' person. As to the comment you noted I do not view this, nor do many others, as a personal comment rather a comment about his expertise and effect on the matter, not one about his person.

I did read your responses as I stated both my wife and I read the thread thoroughly. Your grasp of both the content and intent of Bob did not strike either of us as impressionable. Sorry. Certainly this is just the opinion of two people and others may disagree.