Sufficiency or No Sufficiency?

The historic Protestant principle of the sufficency of Scripture (contra the Roman Catholic Church) is that Scripture is sufficient for salvation. As Article VI of the English Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563) reads, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Roman Catholicism, of course, erroneously taught and teaches doctrines which are not found in Scripture (which she admits; they are developments of the infallible 'Sacred Tradition', on par with Scripture, being equally the Word of God) and holds that assenting to these are necessary to salvation.

From what I have read, the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture is a foundation principle of so called "Nouthetic Counseling." The scriptures do indeed present themselves as inspired by God, inerrant, and fully sufficient to accomplish the purposes for which they were given to men. The distortion of this doctrine has often led to cults or cultic thinking. Those who have refused medical treatment for illness have believed it was a violation of scripture to receive such treatment. Others have sought to use this doctrine for purposes beyond original intent.

Thomas Zempel is head of the Counseling dept. at Central Baptist seminary and a counseling ministry that they have. From my understanding he has an excellent reputation as a person and a counselor. The counseling ministry is based on Biblical counseling. They put Nouthetic in parenthesis behind biblical and apparently equate the two. Also, Central Seminary has used the book "Biblical Counseling," edited by John Macarthur which equates mental illness as being the class of mythology. It was at one time one of texts to be purchased for a counseling class. However, that may not now be the case.

In 1979 John Carter and Bruce Narramore, wrote the book "The Integration of Psychology and Theology" and introduced what they called "The Integrates Model" for the integration of the two disciplines. They affirmed that the Christian must accept all the clear and basic doctrines set forth in scripture including the doctrine of anthropology. They also affirmed that since God is the creator of all things it affirms that there is a unity of all truth. However, they set forth the thesis that all truth apart from scripture is fallen truth. That is it comes from fallen sources and may have wrong conclusions. We see this in the life sciences. The established facts are true and a basis for medical practice. The fallen conclusions occur when the facts are sought to be used to construct the theory of evolution. In the fields of Psychology and Psychiatry truthful facts amy be gathered and of use in understanding some of behavior. However, such facts should not be used to construct conclusions or theories contrary to the clear doctrines of scripture.
I personally do not agree with all that the book sets forth. but some of there fundamental principles are not contrary to scripture and provide a truly biblical approach to epistemology.

Psychiatry and Psychology have had a foundation that was not biblical and many conclusions and theories that have been contrary to scripture and some blatantly against God and the Bible. However, there has been a great deal of change and increased objective knowledge that the Christian must be aware of. Jay Adams was so against Psychiatry that he recommended a medical examination by a Physician but would defame Psychiatry. Since the 1970s much has changed. There have been the extensive study and gathering of medical facts. Genetic studies, double blind social studies, brain scans, and the accumulation of treatment data has made Psychiatry abandon a great deal of Psychotherapy for medical treatment. The brain is still a mystery. But we know much more than thirty years ago. Schizophrenia and Psychotic Bipolar have been established as genuine Psychiatric disorders which can be called mental illness. This is not "Mind" illness which is the aspect of the soul spoken of in scripture which is immaterial, but mental having to do with the process of the mind working through and with the physical organ of the Brain. Mental illness is organic disease. Childhood Schizophrenia is now fully classified separately and is now Autism. Schizophrenia and Psychotic Bipolar occur in the late teens or early twenties (and as late as the thirties in females) when the last development of the Brain frontal lobe occurs. Some of the literature put out by NANCE and CCEF gives some validity to such but still speak of such Psychiatric disorders in a doubtful way and still do not understand present day Psychiatry. Psychiatry today is far removed from Freud, many old Psychotherapy models, and other conclusions that were contrary to God and scripture. Yes, some privater practice Psychiatrists are kooks and many Psychologists, especially some Christian are also kooks not a technical word. That is where discerning epistemology not dumping all must occur.

We have now founded and started a group called "CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS." The purpose is to have a foundation of peer group meetings for the caretakers and family and friends of the Mentally Ill.

Some of us do not equate Nouthetic Counseling with biblical counseling. We do not equate their anecdotal stories or help and cure as any more valid than that kind of evidence from Psychology which they have rejected in the past. Biblical counseling both informal and formal existed in the churches for decades prior to 1970 when Jay Adams invented a Nouthetic Counseling and its foundation principles out of thin air. True Biblical counseling rejects the limitations and foundation assumptions of the Nouthetic model. The word nouthos is never used in scripture with an intent of being part of a principle or foundation for counseling. It is part of the normal informal process of interaction among all Christians. Peer counseling by Christians and Elders is the most effective. Especially when occurring by those of similar problems and experience. This has actually been the finding of Psychology social studies and why we taught a class on counseling from time to time in our church. We covered values, specific common problems, process, and common sense application of scripture. No professionalism.

I will not go into the limitations of Nouthetic Counseling. That requires an extensive discussion. However, there are many who do give testimony of the lack of sympathy, mis placement of responsibility, and harm that has occurred from the counsel of a formally trained Nouthetic counselor. Also, the establishing of a certification by NANCE, and degree programs majoring in Nouthetic counseling has established a new professionalism based upon an incomplete and sometimes contrived curriculum. It has produced prejudices that have prevented the proper second premise application of scripture.
The sufficiency of scripture is not violated by the discerning use and acceptance of that truth which may come from Psychiatry and Psychology. All mental illness must be treated as a Psychiatric disorder which requires Psychiatric care. There should be no hesitance in acknowledging this and declaring the wonderful advancements of medicine and Psychological social studies that has produced much helpful objective truth which has advanced treatment. Such does not violate the sufficiency of scripture.

In the last three weeks I have had conversation with the Pastors and the assistant Pastors of two churches. One of 900 and the other of 1700 in attendance. One Pastor is a graduate of Masters College and one assistant Pastor is a graduate of Masters Seminary. All brought up the subject of Nouthetic Counseling. All now have problems with Nouthetic counseling because of their members being counseled wrongly and/ or seminars in their church taking an approach they viewed as wrong and potentially harmful. I was engaging them regarding seeking to establish a peer group as part of "Christian Alliance on Mental Illness."

We need to hold to a proper application of the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture.

There is a concerted effort by Randy Patten and other nouthetic leaders to repair some of the damage, and to combat some of the misconceptions of the movement. At the past several conferences I've attended, grace and love have been a big emphasis. Brad Bigney said it simply...and well..."LOVE is a key element often missing in biblical counseling." Also, the presence of CCEF, BBC, and other organizations speaks to a desire to learn from one another...and I think it's a wonderful change. All that say, the "Nouthetic" label is changing...at least it seems to be the desire of the leadership to change it.

I take a "softer" stance than many of the NANC counselors of the past concerning organic issues. By way of example, just a few months back I counseled a gentleman who was diagnosed Bi-polar, and told he an illness called "Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome" (he couldn't stand the sound of people eating, clicking pens, etc). His psychiatrist basically said he could do nothing for him and that needed to seek counseling some place else. I didn't question whether or not these were simply labels or legitimate illnesses...they were certainly legitimate to him! So really, I didn't even touch it. I asked him to please let me know if any of the noises I made in the counseling room bothered him, as I wanted to avoid them. Other than that, I simply treated it as I would have a stomach problem, or cancer. Let's learn how to live in such a way that God is honored through this difficulty. His "illnesses" didn't abdicate his responsibility to love and obey God and to love others above himself. So we carefully looked at his life, his thoughts and heart motives, and worked at living life in way that God was honored. It went well (not all of cases like this do).

My point is these "organic" issues don't change the sufficiency of Scripture, IMO. God's word still teaches us how to live for His desires above our own even if we are "sick." Most of the secular models deny a spiritual element to man...and therefore they fall far short. If I'm bi-polar, my heart is still wicked and I need to learn to guard it. If I'm diagnosed with seasonal depression, then I need to learn to love and honor God through that difficulty.

I disagree with the general tenor and tone here. The impression of Jay Adams is unfair and inaccurate. To say the he "would defame Psychiatry" is to misrepresent his views on the subject. To critique a subject is not necessarily to defame it. The word choice is highly prejudicial.

I have three distinct perspectives on the ideas discussed in this paragraph--biochemistry, psychology, and Biblical (Nouthetic) counseling. From all three perspectives, I questioned this material as presented. It is an over-confident and over-simplified presentation. There appears to be a denigrating attitude toward NANCE and CCEF in that they "still do not understand present day Psychiatry." Yet, I can find no persuasive evidence of an astute understanding of brain biochemistry and the disorders mentioned by the poster. The state of the art is a black box with some knowledge of input and output. It is a complexity of competing theories and models with some temporal results. At best, we are treating symptoms. The goal of Biblical (Nouthetic) counseling, on the other hand, is to identify the cause and remediate it.

The prevalent belief in psychology and psychiatry today is that all is physical. Thought is chemical. Behavior is hardwired and genetic. There is nothing beyond the physical-chemical-programmed brain. All their methods are based on this model. Now, what do Christians, who believe in a spiritual nature of man inexplicably intertwined with emotional, mental, physical man, have in common with those who deny the spiritual, eternal soul of man? How can their methods, developed for different ends, serve our purposes?

Finally, many unsupported generalizations are made. For example, the poster wrote: "Mental illness is organic disease." Now, how does he know this? If so, how does talk therapy help? Studies indicate that talk therapy and drug therapy are approximately equal in success. Do we understand the etiology of the condition? Did the thought/behavior produce the chemical state or did the chemical state generate the thought/behavior? If sexual thoughts can stimulate premature breast development in young girls, then it is not unreasonable to posit that thoughts can create chemical scenarios in the brain. At the most basic level, it is evident that we have a long way to go.

But, if we're using II Peter 1:3 as a proof text, it specifically states "all things that pertain unto life and godliness."

To RPittman and other Nouthetism defenders:

1. My accuracy on Jay Adams is well documented by the books of Jay Adams such as "The big Umbrella." The present NANC website posts anti Psychiatric statements. Oh yes, the word choice is definitely highly prejudicial. I am arguing against him and his ideas.

2. There was a recent Sharper Iron thread that involved an interview with Jay Adams done by Aaron. I would suggest one read that thread instead of raising the same defense issues here.

2.The post #13 citing David Powlison of CCEF is a post defaming Psychiatrists. So we do not have to go far to get that type of information from Nouthetic sources do we.

3. If Jay Adams did not originate Nouthetic counseling from thin air perhaps one can direct us to a pre Jay Adams Nouthetic counselor advocate or sources. By his own admission he was seeking to call people back to what he called Biblical counseling. I was trained in Biblical counseling in seminary before Jay Adams was really heard of. The training used the Bible as the text and simply applied it to commonly encountered problems encountered in Pastoral ministry. There were a couple texts used also. One was "Counseling from the Bible. Can't remember the author and it is no longer in my library.

4. So far as integration of Psychology is concerned, some have set forth three main theories: 1. The against model where all is bad and must be avoided. This is the Fundamentalist model which accepts Nouthetic Counseling because they do not know how to handle second premise truth of Biblical application; 2. The absorption model which accepts all as equal and complimentary to biblical truth. The liberal theology believers practice this; 3. The parallels model which places such truth along side each other and makes little attempt to integrate; 4.The integrates model which places scripture at full inerrancy on all to which it speaks and truth discovered outside scripture as from fallen sources which must be subservient to scripture. However, it recognizes that something really true is always God's truth as He created all things apart from Himself. As I gave testimony on the prior thread, I was an "against model" and Nouthetic supporter converted when confronted with mental illness involving our son. Since that time I have had constant contact with the mentally ill and all that they go through and what must be done for treatment. Medical diagnosis, treatment with drugs, and constant monitoring is the only successful treatment for Psychotic Brain disease. These are the real people who have real problems. All non Psychotic and non organic are best handled by biblical counseling by people not exposed to Nouthetic counseling theories and approaches. Nouthetic counselors are neither totally biblical and often lack the necessary life experience or Pastoral experience to help significantly.

5. The quote given in a prior post that is by David Powlison illustrates why those involved with the really mentally ill consider Nouthetic counseling dangerous. My son has had four different Psychiatrists from the county mental health who he has seen. Non have been Christians. It makes little difference. They make the diagnosis and have tried different medication and monitored results. He does better on the Rispidal, an older anti Psychotic drug. Some of the newer drugs such as Abilify have worked wonders on some patients but were not suitable to him. When going to a physician, it is always nice to have a Christian. But most want and accept the best at his practice and rarely ask for only a God believer or a Christian. It is so with treatment of Mental illness (Brain Disease). The statement by Powlison about understanding sin and not believing in God is of little value in these cases. Psychiatry, as actually practiced today, is not as presented by Nouthetic writers. The Psychiatrist prescribes not talks. The Psychologist talks (Psychotherapy). The Talking Psychologist can be replaced by a Loving Biblical counselor but preferably not a Nouthy as they have a poor reputation with Psychiatric cooperation. Powlison should give that tirade the Cardiologist, Oncologist, or heart surgeon if he ever needs one and let them read it. But if he is taken into ER he should probably wait until they have treated him.

6. Biblical counseling yes. Nouthetic counseling no.

7. Jamie Hart reflects the Nouthetic viewpoint that just never gets it. I have been talking about Mental illness which is organic Brain disease effecting 6% of the general population. He is talking about biblical life change, which by the way falls under the authority of scripture, and is delegated to the church, and then to elders not counselors. According to the Barna group only 5% of the adult population are born again Christians of minimal biblical understanding. Do we have too many Nouthetic counselors and not enough evangelists of the personal evangelism type?

8. One Nouthetic counselor is one too many. Spiritual problems the responsibility of Elders and church members not counselors waving a piece of paper that declares them "certified." Let us get back to real Biblical counseling and recognize that the Bible gives us authority to allow other truth and treatment to help those with other than just spiritual problems to receive the medical help available by Psychiatry.

Again, every one needs to see the movie "The Soloist." Now on DVD and a true story that reasonably represents what many Mentally ill and those who care for them go through. Until you have dealt with those who are going through a Psychotic episode and stand looking at you and don't know you or attack you, you haven't begun to learn the basics of mental illness.

This is one area that I think psychopathology has gone insane- pun intended. Not every single issue in a person's life is a syndrome or a disorder. My husband can hear someone chewing gum and clipping their fingernails three blocks away, but he doesn't have a Syndrome. He's just like everyone else who finds certain repetitive noises distracting and annoying. But we are so afraid to say "Get over yourself" (not in those exact words) because we don't want to appear to be lacking in compassion. We patronize what is sometimes plainly ludicrous until a person really IS disabled by something like clicking pens and rustling clothing. There is now a generation of people raised on television that have the attention span of a gnat- they can't sit still or focus without flashing lights and a commercial break. Should this be treated with drug therapy, or a change in behavior, in their spiritual discernment?

It's perfectly sensible to direct someone having problems to their physician or psychiatrist to test for any physiological issues- but we also must address those issues that are a sinful obsession with self and a lack of self-control. There IS a healthy balance.

I agree with Bob T. here-

We do not have to be afraid of science, but we do have to measure what science claims by the Word of God. A healthy skepticism of the conclusions the world draws from their research and studies is a good thing because we understand that all truth comes from God, and if science denies God, their grasp of truth is going to be limited to a certain degree.

Bob, I must challenge you on several points. I went back and read your post on the Adams interview. Whereas you accuse Dr. Adams of woeful ignorance, you exhibit a profound lack of understanding as well as fairness. You quote Dr. Adams from a 1972 work (almost 40 years old) and proceed to try to refute it with so-called modern knowledge. This is grossly unfair. What Adams wrote was perfectly in sync with the thinking about psychiatry in the 1970's. Remember Psychiatrist Thomas Saaz? He and many psychiatrists were also voicing their critiques.

One is not justified in misrepresenting, misconstruing, and using prejudicial word choices because he or she is "arguing against him and his ideas." One must treat his opponent fairly by accurately representing his view in context without prejudice. One cannot make another say what he wants him to say and then refute him. Also, prejudicial word choice does not advance a rational argument. It only appeals to the emotions. Bob, I intentionally curb my instincts and choose my words carefully when I challenge your assertions.

Furthermore, you have plastered the thread with accusations and generalizations without support. It basically amounts to "I don't like Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling." As one knowledgeable in biochemistry and psychology, I can confidently say that your generalizations are ill-founded and in-accurate to a fault. You have articulated what is a layman's view of the subject without apparent understanding of the more complex and technical issues. You can provide anecdotal accounts of amazing symptomatic improvement without realizing the longer range ramifications. The psychotropic medication has a known history of losing its effectiveness and must be constantly changed. Furthermore, one cannot suppose that a cure has been effected unless he presupposes the cause to be chemical. We don't know that the cause is chemical. It's a black box experiment. Do you understand what I mean?

As our chemical-drug treatment of problems increases, we are finding a proliferation of cases and an increasing range of maladies. IMHO, as long as we presuppose that it is a chemical or genetic problem, we are blinded to the real causes. We're talking about etiology. This is where Nouthetic Counseling has the advantage and insight. Nouthetic Counseling seeks to find causes and address the problems rather than the symptoms. Drug therapy is a band-aid at best. BTW, please don't try to paint Nouthetic proponents as ignoramuses who don't understand psychiatry and psychology. For some of us, it is our field of study and expertise. A number of psychologists (Paul Vitz, William Kirk Kilpatrick, et. al.) and psychiatrists (R.D. Laing, Thomas Saaz, et. al.) have written works critical of their disciplines within the past forty years. Jay Adams studied under Dr. Hobart Mowrer, who served as President of the APA. Richard Ganz is a Ph.D. psychologist who was director of psychological training at a large medical center. Bob, you profess to be knowledgeable of psychology. Have you done graduate work in psychology? Without trying to be offensive, much of what you are saying sounds like what comes out of sophomore General Psych.

Well, if you knew Jay Adams and how he came to develop Nouthetic Counseling, you would not make such assertions. To say the Dr. Adams "originate[d] Nouthetic counseling from thin air" is to imply that it came from nowhere. Dr. Adams was asked to teach a pastoral counseling course at Westminster Seminary. When he consulted the standard textbooks, he found they were simply teaching the same stuff as the secular counterparts. There was no Scriptural basis. Jay arranged to study under Hobart Mowrer, a leading psychologist and counselor, and began an intense study of Scripture to find Biblical answers to human problems. From his studies of Scriptures, Jay formulated what he believed the Scriptures taught. Whether one agrees with him or not, one must admit that he has based his teaching and belief upon what he understands the Scriptures to teach. He has invested much time and study in the exegesis and exposition of the Scriptures. Dr. Adams constantly admonishes, "You gotta get in there and dig." One cannot honestly accuse him of pulling "Nouthetic counseling from thin air."

I have no dog in this fight (yet), and am just seeking clarification.

I guess I am trying to further understand the Nouthetic approach. with my first two questions.

1. Is it ever allowable that behaviour is caused by a medical condition?
2. Is the brain and brain function considered a biological system similar to the heart, lungs, etc...?

For Both sides:

3. Back to the sufficiency question; What exactly does either side believe the sufficiency of scripture mean? And, what is the logical conclusion of that belief?

Not sure I have time to respond, but interested in hearing what is thought and reading where this thread goes.

Hey wbarkema...been hanging out with Bobby lately?
I'll take a stab at your questions. Please remember I'm not NANC certified and I would consider my approach somewhat different from other NANC counselors I know. My training has been solely from NANC organizations.

I believe that behavior IS impacted greatly by organic causes. For example, I believe that a lack of sleep can have a huge impact on a counselee...as well as postpartum depression, seasonal depression...and the list could go on. However, these organic causes do not abdicate the counselee's responsibility to live pleasing to God though it may make it harder...and that should be taken into consideration. I also believe that the biblical process of growth and change still apply. It should cause the counselor to be MORE loving, understanding, and compassionate to his/her counselee's situation....but he is to still teach truth and help his counselee to live in truth.

Sure...and there may be some chemical issues that impact the way we feel and behave. But again, it doesn't change our responsibility to live pleasing to God.

IMO, sufficiency of Scripture means the Bible reveals all we need to know in order to live in a manner pleasing to God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). It teaches me why I do what I do (heart desires - Luke 6:43-45; Jer. 10:5-10; James 4:1-10), and how to change (realize a loving God has died in my place and with a heart of love, change the way I think in my heart which will impact my behavior - 2 Cor. 5:14; Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 4 ). Please understand this is a quick generalization of the process and I'm sure it could be stated more accurately...but that's my view, in a nut shell.

Most certainly! There are brain tumors, infections, Alzheimer's Disease, vascular disorders, etc. that cause or affect aberrant behavior. Jay Adams recommends a thorough physical examination before counseling to rule out physical/medical problems.

Again, yes, the brain is a physical organ of the human body. And the answer is yes to brain function if you are referring to the physical processes of electrochemical nature. If by brain function you are referring to the memory, emotions, cognition, etc., then that is another story. A computer system is a good analogy with the brain as the hardware and the mind (thinking, emotions, memory, etc.) as the software. The analogy, however, breaks down when we include man's spiritual side and the ability to make autonomous decisions. The present trend in psychology and psychiatry is to treat everything as physical. What I mean is that cognition, emotions, memory, etc. are reduced to mere molecular configurations. Treatment is drug therapy. Really, this is somewhat naive and unrealistic way of understanding the brain-mind concept.

Sufficiency of Scripture means that the Bible is our standard or rule for judging behavior. By looking closely into Scripture, we find how we ought to respond to the situation. God has revealed to man what man is unable or unwilling to see within himself. It identifies the source of man's problems within man and shows the proper response to man's problems. Relief or changing the circumstances is not always the outcome. Many times, one learns how to cope with the matter knowing that God's grace is sufficient. The goal of Nouthetic Counseling is not necessarily to find relief or change things but it is to find and do God's will in the situation. One may have to endure pain and suffering. Scripture is sufficient in giving guidance for dealing with the problem. One reason, I believe, that people are so dead set against Nouthetic Counseling is that it doesn't give them the answer that they want. Many simply want relief rather than finding God's will. God's answer to Paul for his thorn in the flesh was a denial of relief but a promise of sufficient grace.

I have cut and pasted the post from Dr. Laura Hendrickson that was posted by her on the thread that was an interview with Jay Adams. It is posted under Dr. Laura. She is a NANCE certified counselor and is positive toward much of it. For this very reason her testimony must be considered seriously when it talks of Brain Disease.

RPittman has posted on here with some knowledge on mental illness. However, what he has stated is essentially what is stated by some Nouthetic counselors and what is in some CCEF literature, or I have heard on the radio from some radio counselors like Ed Blakley, who by the way always puts PHD after his name but it is from a degree mill. That is no reflection on Nouthetic counselors though as he has his own group. These statements about not knowing about the uncertainty of Chemical imbalances, and drugs only masking a problem, are unfortunate and very dangerous to the mentally ill. Most drugs taken for an ongoing problem are taken to control not "mask" the problem and usually not to cure it. I take heart medication that prevents irregular heart beat. It masks or corrects the problem. It will never cure it. The same is for much of medical drug treatment.The over prescription of drugs ( a common Nouthetic complaint) is for mood elevation or other non medical problems and occurs most among general practitioners. It is rare among Psychiatrists, especially those handling SSI Medicaid patients, which many of the mentally ill are involved with. The mentally ill have Brain disease. Some is due to chemical imbalance that can now be diagnosed objectively. One Psychiatrist I know uses brain scans to monitor Brain chemical function and the effects of medication. His clinic is known for that. He is "Dr. Amen" in central California. He has a website. I will possibly post regarding some other evidence later. Below is the quote from Dr. Laura from the other thread.

From Dr. Laura:

"Brain Disease"

"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."

I hope this may be helpful to some. There are still statements by Nouthetic counselors, and in some of their literature, that reflects the older view and brings doubt on mental illness legitimacy, treatment, and Psychiatric medicine. The 1994 book "Biblical Counseling" Edited by John MacArthur has articles by David Powlison, Wayne Mack, and Robert Smith of, or formerly of, CCEF. The book takes the position that mental illness does not really exist and is a myth like "believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny." This illustration is on page 375. One can also go the NANCE website and read some of the latest articles. These doubts and concepts are expressed right on here by by RPittman at post #19 in reply to Joel Shaffer. That reply is almost the same thing I have heard from Ed Welch of CCEF. It is the old yes we will acknowledge however, scenario. The doubts are based on older understandings of Psychiatry and of where Psychiatric medecine diagnosis and treatment is. Medication of the mentally ill is more than masking. It is solving a problem on an ongoing basis. No cure is claimed. However, there are various courses to the illnesses. Some have short term illness that the body self corrects (rare). Some grow out of the full illness with age as the body chemistry changes. For others it is a life long battle. These doubts and misinformation from Nouthetic counselors and their defenders are viewed as dangerous, careless, and cruel by those who are caretakers or involved with as professionals. A graduate of Masters College with a Bachelors and Masters in Nouthetic Counseling upset a pastor and some others due to emphasis and statements made. Some was about the same as made on post #19. I am sure that Jay Adams and most involved in the Nouthetic counseling movement are good men of high spiritual character. This however, does not excuse their viewpoint and its harm. There are now some who have formed recovery groups from Nouthetic Counseling.

Thanks, Bob...this was helpful.

Did you leave a little tipsy? She often uses "spirits" in her recipes...but all that cooks out...right? I enjoyed watching Garces win...seems like a genuine guy…and boy did his food look great!!

IMO, I would say...perhaps? But I would word things a little different. Instead of the drug "giving them the opportunity to correct their behavior" I would say, HELPING them correct it. You may not have intended make the drug mandatory, but the statement is worded that way. I have several counselee currently who use something to help them sleep as a temporary measure...but it's probably not a long term answer (though, even that would depend). I didn't suggest the medication, FWIW...though I wouldn't be opposed to doing so...again as a temporary help. Like many biblical counselors, I STRONGLY suggest a good medical exam. If there are some organic things that can be relieved, it will go a long way in heping the counselee. I'm reminded of how God dealt with Elijah. He slept, ate, then slept some more. God ministered to his physical (organic) needs before He dealt with his spiritual issues. However...He DID deal with his spiritual issues!

I take each case as it comes, I get a lot of advice for situations that are new, and try to be loving and understanding with each counselee. As my memory serves me, I’ve dealt with people who’ve been clinically diagnosed as depressed, as having Asperger’s Syndrome, Soft Sound Sensitive, as being Bi-polar, having Seasonal depression, and a couple borderline OCD. In each of these cases they came on medication (one woman was on 7 different psychotropic medications!)..and I didn’t touch the issue. I did some researach about the diagnosis and the effects of the medications, I made a few phone calls for advice, then taught biblical principles. I don’t recall ever suggesting that someone needed to go on medications…though I’ve told plenty of people they needed more sleep! It's important to note, the cases I mentioned above are very rare. By far the cases I deal with regularly are much, much easier to work with. Marriage, parenting, life dominating sins, etc.

Thanks!

I completely understand. Fundamentalists have had difficulty in accepting the concept of alcoholism, for example. It may carry over into our concept of mental dysfunctions. Alcoholism exists in that some people no longer have control over their drinking and lives. However, we cannot assume that this was always the case. Careful observation and consideration would seem to indicate that the alcoholism resulted from choices made when they did have some measure of control. Their drinking brought on their alcoholism. (FYI, I have worked in a Rescue Mission with the mentally dysfunctional, alcoholics, and druggies.) Is there a parallel for the mental dysfunctions in the homeless. Yes, I think there is something that triggered their brain dysfunctions. I see evidence that thoughts and behavior influence brain chemistry. It is pretty well established that sexual thoughts stimulate early breast development in young girls. It is a reasonable hypothesis, I argue, that thoughts and behavior affect brain chemistry creating new biochemical pathways that may result in brain dysfunction with time. If so, we would view chemical dysfunctions as symptoms and thoughts-behavior as causative. The logical conclusion is that drug therapy, at best, is a short-term solution to allow opportunity to work with thoughts-behavior issues. The problem with counseling and dealing with thought-behavior issues is that the effectiveness is wholly dependent upon the willingness and effort of the individual. One expects failure because of human weakness, rebellion, stubbornness, etc. Of course, there is the work of the Holy Spirit in a Christian context.

I don't really know, which is kind of my point. There are unanswered questions. I'm not sure I'm the one to figure that out, but I do think it's not enough to say "integration is bad" without developing some answers regarding the nature of truth and general revelation.
Some have pretty much denied that there is any general revelation at all in psychology, but I can't figure out how that idea can be coherent at all. For that to be the case, we'd have to assert that folks studying the human mind and behavior as a science absolutely never discover anything true at all. That would be pretty hard to sustain!
To connect the dots a bit further, this is what I'm talking about when I say "unity of truth." Any genuine truth discovered by research and not revealed in Scripture must be general revelation because truth cannot come form anywhere but God, and all truth must agree with all other truth (otherwise, one or the other is in error).
So I don't see how we can dismiss psychology as a field of study without claiming it is completely incapable of discovering anything. But why should we believe that about psychology and not believe it about, say, physics?

I'll happily grant this, though: because psychology deals so closely with human nature and suggests answers to many questions the Bible has already answered, bringing it under the Lordship of Christ as a field of study is a great deal messier than doing that with mathematics or medicine or history or even biology (biology is also very messy due to evolutionary theory). But to say "Here's a whole field of study that has absolutely nothing to offer Christians" is a huge problem for our view of truth and, therefore, our view of God.

So I guess I can sketch a beginning of an answer, Jamie. A proper "integration" for psychology would be just like a proper integration between Scripture and any other field of study. The Scriptures would be consulted first, last and throughout, but information gained by studying human behavior would supplement that, rejecting what is clearly not compatible with what the Bible says. Lots of groups have claimed this approach but actually short changed Scripture by a large margin. But this is a problem with implementation.
Because the Bible reveals so much about human behavior and human nature, a successful integration would involve getting a thorough education in biblical theology first, not getting a degree in psych. and adding on a few Bible courses. I'd suggest step one in getting it right would be to reverse those two.

What would it look like in counseling?
Well, for one, it would look like reading alot more widely. There's all kinds of fascinating research being done with very interesting findings. Of course, a significant percentage of the findings are reversed by other findings later... that's the nature of science. Hypothesis, test, new hypothesis, etc. I have personally found some non-Christian research on depression very helpful. It added very little to what Scripture teaches, though, beyond a different way of saying it--which can be very helpful. (So, one way to chip away "what would it look like?" a bit is to say it can be helpful with what we usually call application)

Thanks, Aaron. I guess my view is pretty simple. This kind of research may help understand the counselee better...but the answers for the counselee will be the biblical ones and they are sufficient. In other words, though understanding the ins and outs of Asperger's Syndrome may give me some insight into how my counselee ticks, he still needs to love Christ more and learn how to live for him even with the disease...and those answers are only found in God's Word. In that way, it is sufficient. The medical treatments may HELP the counselee, but can we really say they are NEEDED...or that he MUST have them to live pleasing to Christ? Of course the obvious question would be "What about people who lived before the medication was discovered?"

I think the problem comes in when a biblical counselor says "There is no such thing as ________________________ . " My approach has been...perhaps there is and perhaps there isn't. Let's learn how to live life in obedience regardless...and God's Word tells us how to do that.

Susan R., regarding your question regarding Dysfunction and sin.

It has been the contention by some of the Nouthetic Counseling advocates that prior choices and thinking can lead to and be the actual cause if mental illness. If true then they may talk the patient to wellness through their admonition therapy. If false then it is the cruelest of accusations. As pointed out by Dr. Laura, this was an error of earlier Psychiatrists. They talked instead of prescribed -so to speak. It can be said with reasonable certainty that the patient is a victim and not the cause of his or her own illness.

First we need to look at the theological viewpoint regarding the human body. By summary, we may say that man is a living soul that has a human body. The soul and body both originate at conception and develop together. In this life there has never been a time when we existed apart from our bodies. The soul and body develop, act, and exist together. The word mind in scripture appears to be used as an aspect of the functioning of the soul. Mind is therefore a reference to an immaterial aspect of man. In this life our minds have never functioned apart from the body and appear to work in and through the organ of the Brain. Our bodies have been effected by the debilitating effects of the curse by God on creation as a result of sin. Our bodies await redemption (Rom. 8:22-25). At present our bodies suffer due to the diminishing effects of sin and the goal of death. We have all sorts of physical suffering. The kidneys fail, the heart fails, various diseases ravage our bodies. Interestingly a great deal of what we go through can be traced to genes. When I went through Colon Cancer and later Prostrate Cancer, the different oncologists asked numerous questions about family and ancestry. Genetics is a great factor in many types of Cancer. Women are aware of these findings when it comes to breast cancer. Much has been written. After surgery, I went through a year of Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer. during that time I met and talked with many cancer patients as we sat hooked up to IVs for three or four hours at a time once e a week. One young man who had Colon cancer had his Colon removed because the family history of Colon cancer was such that the doctors viewed recurrence almost a certainty. My wife's family has a history of kidney problems. Though there are many factors involved in the diseases we get, genetics is a major factor, especially in some.

Second, the evidence for Brain organic disease has now been accumulated and compiled from many sources over enough time that medicine now makes some conclusions on on mental illness (Brain disease). Genetics is a major factor. Birth and pregnancy term trauma is also a factor. Twins, separated at birth and raised separately , the second has a 50% chance of Schizophrenia if one is Schizophrenic. Family histories indicate a genetic factor that goes beyond various life styles and educational factors. In some the birth trauma or Pregnancy term trauma seems to be a factor. In our case, scanning our family histories did not reveal any known mental illness. However, in 1976 we were involved in a major head on collision on an icy road while on our way to a church association convention. My wife was 3 months pregnant with our youngest son. She suffered extensive injuries including severe seat belt injury that eventually required repair of the Aorta artery in the abdominal area. Our son was said to be not harmed. There was a normal birth . We noted some odd traits the first couple years such as he would not look at you and would look upward. Like what some might say is mild Autism. However, it went away. His childhood was normal. In Junior high he was tested and found to be highly gifted mentally and the school wanted him to attend a special high school. He started college and all of a sudden there were changes. A couple term papers did not make sense. They were nonsense. He started journaling extensively. He accumulated a couple thousand pages of hand written thoughts written in such small hand writing that it was almost unreadable. Later he would talk and yell at himself at times. Then he started talking in sentences where the words were all mixed up. This is called word salad. One day he took off in his car and did not come back. We received a call from a social worker in another city. He had been picked up twice under CA 51.50 by the police. This is not an arrest but where the person is deemed unable to care for himself. He was walking the streets and forgot he had a car and did not know where he lived. He become disruptive as the second time he was in a Starbucks yelling at people they needed to repent or they would go to hell. We picked him up. He was having paranoid psychotic episodes. We got him home but had to have an intervention team involved. He was admitted to Psychiatric hospitals for a few days on four occasions. Medication calmed him down and he came under the care of the county health clinic. He receives adequate care considering their work load and budget shortfalls. He sees a Psychiatrist once every two months and takes medication regularly now. He is now age 33 and has now held down a regular part time job for over a year and is never late and performing well. Some become more mello and functional as they get older. The onset usually occurs between 17 and 22, and even as old as the 30s for females. I went into all this as one must understand that there is an onset pattern of symptoms that occurs with mental illness. The problem is almost no one knows that ahead of time. They get all this information after and then say, "if only I had known." We were totally ignorant of what was taking place. The onset period occurs during the final development phases of the Brain frontal lobe during the late teens and early twenties.

Third, extensive medical histories and medical testing with brain scans and chemical analysis has given us some real information. These have made possible the development of many anti Psychotic drugs which cause certain biological reactions. For example Rispidal causes the body to react and produce more Dopamine. This is a key chemical for the brain. Others do not "mask" but alter different aspects of the body chemistry. There are now over 70 different such drugs. Most Psychiatrists do not like the artificial mood elevation drugs and do not Prescribe them. One Psychiatrist my son saw at the mental health clinic had both the M.D. and then also a PHD in Biochemistry. These are experts seeking to apply the findings of medical science to difficult problems. They would laugh at Freud and the early Psychiatrists of Europe and then America.

Fourth, I hope you will begin to see that the concept of Brain Chemistry changes brought on by emotions and thinking do occur but are not of the type and extent to cause psychotic onset and behavior. Medical science treatment of the mentally ill has now generally ruled this out. Onset common symptom patterns, and other objective medical findings, now evidences such changes as insufficient causes. The mentally ill are victims of the body suffering from the debilitating effects of the curse. We do not blame those with Kidney disease for the wrong or sin in their life. The same with other organ failure. Lifestyle is a factor in health but not necessarily the determining major factor. With mental illness, what you eat, how you exercise , and how you think, are not the major causation factors. However, such are factors in non organic problems such as depression, anxiety, or other. These do not rise to the level of mental illness.

Fifth, It may be that some Christians, including Nouthetic advocates, do not understand the real nature of mental illness. If one becomes mentally ill they may end up living on the streets and dying early unless there are family and friends to guide them through the onset and crises years. They will be unable to work and therefore will need to apply for SSDI or SSI, depending on eligibility. With this they will get Medicaid and/or Medicare. In CA. Medicaid is called Medical. This gives them virtually free, no deductible or copay, medical and Prescription drug care. This will give them free treatment , usually at a county mental health dept. and free medicine. My son's Rispidal would cost him $400.00 per month. The state pays that. The SSI pays him $600.00 to $800.00 per month. Since my son lives at home he was getting a little over $600.00 disability. He is considered as lifetime disabled. Now that he is working his SSI pays almost nothing. He likes that as it gives him an assurance by providing for himself. I keep recommending the movie "The Soloist" because it gives a true picture of the situation of the mentally ill. Many are on the street and getting some help from shelters. That is depicted in the movie. They often get mixed in with the drug attics. The Movie is now on DVD.

Sixth, my understanding and information on this subject comes from being driven to read and discuss this. As a lawyer, I later ended up getting involved handling some legal cases in which the subject of mental illness was involved. This necessitated reading and consultation with Psychiatric experts. I have ongoing dialogue with a couple Psychiatrists who I discuss my reading with and get guidance on research on. As you may know I taught Theology and New Testament and language at Talbot school of Theology of Biola University. The university school of Psychology has what may be the best Christian program in Psychology. It is a 4 year residence graduate program leading to a PHD. It requires the taking of certain Theology classes. However, they have several faculty members that have what is to me an unbiblical integration viewpoint. I would not recommend anyone get a degree in Psychology there or anywhere else. I do not recommend anyone to a Psychologist for counseling. The kind of non medical problems that they should be able to handle are better handled by Pastoral counsel and church peer counsel. So I am not advocating Psychology as a professional discipline. I have talked with Psychologists that have no idea of what Psychiatry is doing as they are in private practice and have little contact with the genuinely mentally ill. However, I do recognize that there are some objective Psychological studies, and social studies, that have conclusions helpful to the Biblical counselor. So my own view point is that we do not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water but avoid the contaminated water. I am here talking only about mental illness that can only be handled by the medical professional called a Psychiatrist.

If Nouthetic counselors and some other Christians would stop trying to be experts about something they rarely deal with and just admit to incomplete information, it would go a long way to helping family and friends of the mentally ill. That is why I and some others are founding THE CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS. Information, understanding, and mutual compassion will go a long way to helping.

We (wife an I) recently went to a four session seminar by the County mental health for caretakers of the mentally ill. They had Psychiatrists there who went through the latest information and had extensive visuals of Brain scans. One Hispanic lady said her son was a Pastor and said his brother (her other son) was not mentally ill but was demon possessed. Afterward I talked with her and sought to give her some biblical information on Demon possession and the evidence that such as onset pattern, medical evidence, medicine reaction, and so forth that would indicate an organic disease. She talked with her Pastor son who rebuked her for believing the world instead of the Bible. It has occurred to me many times that the epistemological foundation of that Pastor (who has no formal training) is the same as those advocating Nouthetic counseling and their view of the sufficiency of scripture. The Nouthies are often well educated with seminary training and with PHDs (though often in unrelated fields). However, they are basically attempting to stake out their territory and make the Bible their sole and exclusive authority in a way that excludes other knowledge. When other knowledge threatens they seek to alter the contribution by twisting the truth or offering other alternatives to bring doubt. Thus the chicken and the egg scenario that states the brain is altered when we think so if we think in wrong patterns then perhaps we can make ourselves mentally ill. This is convoluted truth no better than the Charismatic who cries "Demon Possession" because its in the Bible. However this theory is not in the bible except by applying biblical admonitions regarding our being accountable. Carried to the logical conclusion it makes the Down syndrome person and the mentally handicapped all equally accountable with all others. The Charismatic takes bible verses on historical events and misinterpret and misapplies them. They make them first premise doctrine and then exclude other outside truth. It is also the same epistemological foundation that the KJVO advocates rest upon. Their Bible verses on preservation are misinterpreted and then misapplied. It then becomes the same as first premise bible doctrine. The Nouthetic advocate takes something the Bible states regarding the sufficiency of scripture or accountability and misinterprets it and then applies it wrongly as first premise bible doctrine. In all cases they they wrongly apply other second premise truth as first premise doctrine. I make this comparison with only the intention of pointing out a possible false common ground for applying truth.

I am advocating the proper second premise application of first premise Biblical truth. I am advocating true Biblical counseling plus the validity of mental illness and Psychiatric treatment. I am not advocating Psychology.

I feel like the "sufficiency of scripture" argument is one of those swords with two edges. - If scripture is all we need for life and godliness, is it idolatry to be reading an article posted on a website by Thomas Zempel? Probably not. I think it's ok to read his take on things and to appreciate the (long) interaction - to learn from it, and use it in my ministry. Obviously the sufficiency of scripture means something else.

And if the "sufficiency of scripture" doesn't outlaw learning from peoples' thoughts about God, then i don't think it should outlaw learning from people's thoughts about people.

www.suttersaga.com

i'm sorry, obviously i don't mean we can know nothing outside of scripture.

and yes, i am asking for a more nuanced definition of the sufficiency of scripture. I don't really like a position of ~scripture is sufficient so we can't learn from psychology/_____/_____~ fill in the blank.

I think a better critique might be that sometimes Scripture has a different take on the human condition than does psychology - and scripture is right, but that's a different theological label than sufficiency.

To: RPITTMAN,

now that this website is winding down it would only be appropriate to find out your background. Aaron Blumer was asked his counseling training and gave the courtesy of an honest reply. You have stated you reject the "mental health model" and considered my statements as generalizations of that like a laymen, and sophomoric. I am not the least bit offended by that but that is an interesting opinion. It is my desire to only post what I know or what I have learned from those who do know and conclusions based on that. You also stated you agreed with Dr Laura's post but later said you disagreed with her. You also stated that the "mental health model was no longer used and should realize that. If you are right I need to inform those Psychiatrists and workers at the L.A. county "mental health clinic." I will also need to inform those of the Nationally known "National Alliance on Mental Illness" so they can change their website. And I am sure that those of us forming the "Christian Alliance on Mental Illness" will want to use a different term. What should we use? Given this approach it would be of value to know your professional background. I was endeavoring to present what I had seen and learned from others. You were evidently endeavoring to give that which were your own primary source research and conclusions. I wish to be able to appreciate your expertise.

What Medical school did you graduate from? Where did you take your Psychiatric training and residency? What is the source of your Biblical and theological training, if applicable? Do you have any Psychological training?

I will be sharing the posts from this thread with two Psychiatrists and some Christians who are caretakers of mentally ill at the next NAMI meeting. I am sure they will be interested in that information.

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply.

Bob T.

FWIW... in the interest of being understood (not so much agreed with), it might help to mention again that I'm not really all that interested in "integration" in the area of how it plays out in the counseling situation. My interest is philosophical (in the non-technical sense of that word).

It would be fine if the writers of books critical of psychology simply said "Most of this stuff is not useful to pastors counseling members of their churches... and counselors have relatively little to gain from reading it relative to what they gain from understanding Scripture."

But instead, some (and I do say some) feel the need to go several steps further and take a position on psychology as a study that is really not compatible with the idea that God alone is the source of truth. If you want to get a better idea of what I'm reacting to, pick up a copy of Introduction to Biblical Counseling edited by MacArthur and Mack, and read Doug Bookman's chapter on "The Scriptures and Counseling." (p.63 ff).
(I'm a Doug Bookman fan, by the way, just think he's off on this)

Anyway... to RPittman: the fact that we "are not thinking God's thoughts after Him," does not solve the problem. If we apprehend genuine truth at all in any sense by examining the creation, reasoning, and so forth, that truth has come to us from God. It cannot come from anywhere else. If it does, it is falsehood. The fact that our apprehension is imperfect and approximate, etc., doesn't change the fact that every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights. There is nothing good and nothing true that does not originate in Him and come to us by grace.

And as for unity, all that is true must agree with all else that is true or it is simply not true. I don't personally see any way to reject that idea without redefining "true" into something pretty nonsensical. Of course, everybody's free to use the term in his own way, I guess. But in the interest of clarity, when I say "true," I mean--to put it really simply, "What God would agree is true if we were to get Him to comment." Surely we can agree that everything God believes is true agrees with everything else God believes is true?

I would much, much rather see psychology redeemed that rejected. To do that, we have to separate how people have gone about studying it (and their conclusions) from the thing itself. I can be an idealist at times. I just think that Christians with biblical convictions about human nature ought to be the best pyschologists the world has ever seen.

There are two slight corrections. The first is that we have nothing against psychology per se. Psychology is a broad umbrella covering many areas. Christians use psychology daily in advertising, motivational programs, etc. There are academic areas such as social psychology, cognitive development, industrial psychology, educational psychology, etc. With these, we have no argument. It is specifically psychotherapy, which is based on evolutionary, Freudian concepts, that we reject. (We would raise questions about the validity of experimental psychology using rats to draw conclusions about humans and evolutionary psychology.) So, we do accept and draw knowledge from psychology.

The second is that man best knows man. I do not believe this. Man has an unlimited capacity for self-deception. The thought appears throughout Scripture. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)" The only sure foundation for the study of man is what God has revealed about him. Any other source carries a certain amount of doubt. Man's knowledge is tentative and limited. He is able to discover what is workable but he is not able to discern ultimate realities. Thus, we begin counseling with the Scriptures. Anything outside of Scripture is open to question and debate. Furthermore, we know that some disciplines, psychotherapy for instance, are founded on wrong principles because they contradict clear teaching of Scripture. And some of the things seem to work but I have neither time nor space to develop this. Do we adopt the methods because they are workable? Would you accept workable techniques from Buddhist psychology (this is a trendy area). Dianetics? Altered states of consciousness can be an appealing solution. Would you be willing to accept this? Why? Why not? How do we judge the impact of methods from an eclectic approach? What is our benchmark other than Scripture? And Scripture has already condemned the premises of psychotherapy. Can we argue that methods from an un-Scriptural foundation are neutral? What is the Scriptural argument for an eclectic approach (i.e. integrationist)? If we cannot justify an eclectic position, then the alternative is sufficiency of Scripture, which is safe. (I know this may seem a strange way to approach it but think it through.)

Finally, I will close with a few of observations. Those who argue for "sufficiency of Scripture" are dealing only with professing Christians. Biblical counseling is for those who are saved and desire to please God. There's no magic that solves the unbeliever's problems. The success of the counseling depends on a person's willing to apply and implement Scriptural principles. Of course, the Holy Spirit plays a role but the subject must be submissive and willing. Most importantly, the goal of Biblical counseling is to discern God's will and to please Him; it may or may not resolve the problem. A man may not get his wife back but he can live in a manner pleasing to God having lost his wife. If pleasing God is the goal, then the Scriptures are sufficient without any outside source. How else would we know how to please God? We go to outside sources seeking relief from our problem, not to please God.

Bob, you are making an artificial distinction here between psychology and psychiatry. I have repeatedly pointed this out but you have chosen to ignore it. The psychiatrists use the same DSM - 5 (http://www.psych.org/) that psychologists use for diagnosis. There's no dichotomy between the two world-views. Jay Adams is not denying medical treatment but he is opposing the psychotherapy and unsupported drug therapy for emotions and behavioral control. He's right. Adams does not deny the existence or medical treatment of organic brain disorders (tumors, injury trauma, strokes, dementia, etc.) I am afraid that your bias has hindered your understanding.

How did I try to distance myself from Jay? This is simply not true. I studied under Jay Adams because I agreed with what he was trying to do--to make Scripture the foundation and source of counseling. Needless to say, one doesn't find himself in total agreement with any other individual if he thinks his own thoughts.

Come on, Bob. Don't try to psychoanalyze me. You're very biased by using prejudicial language such as "admits." It's not as if I am confessing to a crime. I stated it when you asked.

Bob, this is nonsense. It's not a black and white issue. You are mudding the waters by rambling from one thing to another, misconstruing the facts, and reading meanings into statements that were never intended. I see neither rhyme nor reason in furthering this discussion except to allow you to vent your spleen against Nouthetic counseling and Jay Adams. I really don't like the tone this thread is taking. In fact, I am rather disappointed.

What's the connection? Was this young man in Nouthetic counseling? There's no basis for what you seem to be saying here.

Bob, you just don't know what you're talking about. All this is unrealistic and make-believe. My Mother passed away five years ago with Alzhieimer's Disease. Believe me, I did extensive research during the time of her disability. She received the proper medication (Aricept and others) including Marinol when she needed it while recovering from hip surgery. I researched the pharmacology and requested its withdrawal when she became agitated. Her agitation ceased upon withdrawal. Presently, my 90-year-old father is in a skilled nursing facility suffering with dementia. He receives the proper medication although I exercise oversight and control. Recently, he has been overly medicated and sleeping most of the time. I have scheduled a re-evaluation and decrease of the meds.

This is not exactly accurate. Mentally handicapped (mentally challenged or some other euphemism has generally replaced the older terminology) refers more to a low level of mental functioning. Mental illness implies a dysfunction. There's a difference.

This is not the view of Nouthetic counseling. It is a very bad misrepresentation approaching a fabrication. It is simply not true. Great love, compassion, and caring is extended toward those with Down's Syndrome or birth defects. Bob, you painted a very wrong and biased picture. I'm sure that the readers will see this for themselves.

Bob, you are contradicting yourself. You cannot separate psychology and psychiatry. Psychiatry uses and applies psychology in its practice. Psychiatrists do psychotherapy although it is usually farmed out to lesser MH professionals. As I posted earlier, the main difference is that psychiatry extends beyond the practice of psychology to include medical issues and drug therapy. Amalgamate a psychologist with a medical doctor and you come up with a psychiatrist. What's the difference between them? Not much. Don't take my word. Check out the following web site: (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/psychology-vs-psychiatry-whi...) Furthermore, the concept of mental illness is not limited to organic causes as you say. Just check out the NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) web site: (http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Mental_...)

Because my posting is not about me but ideas, I have tried to avoid personal anecdotes. Please indulge me one more time. Approximately five years ago, my wife, who was working for me, experienced a personality and behavioral change. I noticed that she had become withdrawn and forgetful. While washing dishes, she would walk away leaving the faucet open with the water running. There were many other subtle changes. Two of her colleagues, who were also my employees, came with tears in their eyes and told me that they had noticed changes. We scheduled a visit with the doctor. The doctor smiled and said, "Well, we all have little down times and feel blue. We have some wonderful new medications for depression that will take care of this." He reached for his prescription pad and I stopped him. I said, "Doc, if this is a functional problem, then we'll handle it through counseling because this is what we do. However, we want to rule out any organic causes and we want a MRI." The MRI indicated that she had suffered a stroke and she was referred to a neurologist. The neurologist was impressed at our perceptive handling of the situation. Although I give God the glory for protecting my wife in this situation, it is apparent that dispensing medication was considered a quick fix and it was the wrong treatment. My pro-Nouthetic prejudices may have saved my wife's life.

Don't worry, Alex. I would not recommend calling Bill. And a glass of milk or cup of hot herb tea is much more satisfying for me. Anyway, I won't criticize you for the sleeping pill. After all, my 7-8 cups of coffee daily are probably the equivalent stimulus to a pep pill. What do you think? I think of coffee and chocolate as natural remedies because they are grown naturally.

Alex, how come you are not calling Bill daily to check in and get orders? Aren't you a Fundamentalist?

To RPittman:

In your post #52 you stated the following to me;

"Bob, you are making an artificial distinction here between psychology and psychiatry. I have repeatedly pointed this out but you have chosen to ignore it. The psychiatrists use the same DSM - 5 (http://www.psych.org/) that psychologists use for diagnosis. There's no dichotomy between the two world-views."

My reply was to transfer the following quote from the Website article you referred me to as evidencing your point of no difference between Psychologists and Psychiatrists, the article does clearly state:

"Increasingly, however, psychiatrists in private practice spend their time with medication management and not psychotherapy. Other mental health providers usually do therapy sessions, and when they see a patient who could benefit from medication, they send the patient to a psychiatrist for an evaluation and possibly a prescription."

Now you allege that I am contradicting myself in this matter. What is clear is that my assertion, based on the present reality, and supported by the post by Psychiatrist Dr. Laura, is that Psychiatrists are practicing using a different (medical) model as sole or primary. Psychologists practice using Psychotherapy which is not based on a medical model. They are different in their practice. You then come and accuse me of contradicting myself because I used the written evidence you supplied to show that the article contradicted your assertion. The DSM you referred to does not indicate treatment. Their worldview involves more than their practice. The Christan Psychiatrist may have a differing world view than the non Christian Psychiatrist, Both will use the medical model for treatment. It is necessary that the mentally ill be treated by the Psychiatrist. This again was the opinion of Dr, Laura.

It would be of value if you answered the two questions in my prior post # 55.

[b]1) Do you consider Schizophrenia an organic Brain disease that is not that caused by the Schizophrenic?

(2) Do you believe that a Schizophrenic must be treated by a Psychiatrist?[/b]

Your yes or no with any brief explanation you wish may bring some clarity and finality to this discussion.

"Schizophrenia" is like alot of other conditions out there:

a. There are real cases and fake ones
b. There are correct diagnoses and false ones
c. There are cases where the condition causes the behavior and cases where the behavior causes the (apparent) condition

The complexity of the definition makes it easy to abuse.
From Wikipedia (not exactly authoritative, but at least shows I'm not making this up)

And the definition is not completely standardized... (same source)

But do some people hear voices, see things that aren't there, etc. due to something wrong in their brain chemistry? I know of no biblical reason to assert that zero do. But given how easy it is for bad choices and bad thinking to mess up perceptions, its wise to be skeptical about these things. (For example, the fact that people often "hear" and "see" what they want to hear and see--or fearfully anticipate hearing or seeing--is well documented. And the fact that what we believe and think affects "emotions" like fear, etc. is pretty easy to see by self examination)

So I'll go so far as to say that the main problem w/mainstream psychology and psychiatry is that they do not--indeed cannot--account for the soul/spirit factor. (But cognitive behaviorism at least explores how what we believe and think affects the rest of body and mind, so these systems are not all equally weak in this area)

This is the same quote as in the prior post by RPITTMAN. It depends on which part you wish to highlight. Please note the dates. The initial study was 1975 and other studies in the 1980s.

Quote:
"Many clinical and epidemiological studies prove that alcoholics often suffer from an additional psychiatric disorder such as depression, personality and anxiety disorder (Hesselbrock et al. 1985; Hirschfeld et al. 1989;Hasin et al. 1989; Roy et al. 1991a,b; Schuckit 1986a, b). A possible correlation between substance abuse and schizophrenia has long been suspected. In his 1975 review Freed reported prevalence rates for alcohol abuse in schizophrenia ranging from 3 to 63%. More recently, several authors (Alterman et al. 1980-1982; Test et al. 1985, 1989; Mueser et al. 1990) further emphasized this issue and reported a high comorbidity of alcohol or drug abuse and schizophrenia. Open questions concerning this topic have been addressed by Kesselmann et al. (1982) and Pulver et al. (1989) who pointed at the lack of valid epidemiological and clinical data on the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse in schizophrenia, the temporal relationship between the onset of schizophrenia and an additional abuse as well as the specific psychopathology in "dual diagnosis" patients. Both clinical and epidemiological studies suggest that drug, especially cannabis, as well as alcohol abuse might be a risk factor for developing psychosis (Knudsen and Villmar 1984, Tsuang et al. 1982, Tien and Anthony 1990, Eikmeier et al. 1991). [emphasis added]"

Today, some 35 years away from the initial study, and 26 years from the last mentioned, we have very definite and clear evidence from studies indicating the genetic cause and birth trauma connection with mental illness. There is an internet 55 page handbook available from the Canadian mental health that is a good summary. The connection with substance abuse is still not completely clear. Alcoholics and drug addiction certainly does lead to Psychotic episodes after a course of time. There is a theory that the abuse of alcohol or drugs may also trigger mental illness such as Schizophrenia. Some say it does so in those already having a genetic factor and merely hastens the episode. However, from my discussion with two different Psychiatrists at the L.A. county Mental Health Dept., their personal experience, and that of the department, is that the vast majority of Schizophrenics have onset independent of any abuse. Some they are seeing may later get involved in alcohol abuse but that is small. Some use Cannabis (Pot) after the fact as it takes away anxiety. However, it can trigger an episode.

It all comes down to the fact that when a person is diagnosed as mentally ill the only course is to seek to alleviate the disease by medication. Failure to do so usually means the person will become worse over time and in some cases violence does occur. My son took no drugs or alcohol before onset and was attending a conservative Bible teaching church where he was active in short term missions work to mexico and had grown spiritually. The vast majority of the mentally ill and their caretakers that we have encountered at meetings over ten years were not involved in alcohol or Drugs. However, some caretakers have testified of their being occasional Pot involved after the fact that has concerned them. The biggest problem by far is getting the mentally ill to take their medication regularly.

If some Christians want to place blame on the mentally ill as doing it to themselves, fine, do so and then help them and recognize the first help is probably going to be medication and they need to be under a Psychiatrist for the proper diagnosis and treatment. All the mentally ill need spiritual counsel once their condition is under control. However, such counsel is of no value or effect as long as the medical treatment does not bring their condition under control.

As can be seen on this Fundamentalist thread, there may be an unfortunate tendency among some Fundamentalists to want to have accountability and that they do so by selective use of any type of research or statements that will diminish the concept of their being mental illness. Some see those so diagnosed as the victims of wicked and worldly Psychiatry or Psychology. They confuse Psychology and Psychiatry, often fail to acknowledge the more objective model used in Psychiatry, and seek to avoid referring anyone for Psychiatric care. This is the general viewpoint and practice of those being graduated from the programs at Masters College and Seminary. It appears to be the continued viewpoint of other Nouthetic counselors. It is still the viewpoint of Jay Adams as can be seen on the website of The Institute for Nouthetic Counseling.

In all the years of their functioning they still have not worked out the theology of the label "mental illness."
Don Aarms of the Institute for Nouthetic counseling posted on that last thread seeking to correct me. He stated there can be no such thing as mental illness as the mind is immaterial. He had to be reminded that those who accept the fact that in the Bible the word mind refers to an immaterial aspect of the soul also accept that "mental" by definition refers to a process which is the result of the mind and Brain together and that since the organ of the Brain can be effected by disease, it is proper and clear to use the term "mental illness." AMAZING! That would seem basic and that the use of the term should not be a problem at all. But it appears to still be a problem to the Nouthetic counselors. It appears to be such a problem to them as they do not want to acknowledge that anyone can really be the victim of the onset of disease that effects the behavior of individuals and cannot be changed by their spiritual counsel. To many of them this would be contrary to their view of the sufficiency of the scriptures .

There are some genuine Bible believing Christians who know better than to avoid the facts and problems of mental illness. Bible believing Christians should acknowledge the duty to bear one another's burdens and include the genuinely mentally ill in that responsibility. Brain disease is more than just tumors or other obvious physical damage. It involves Schizophrenia, Psychotic Bipolar, Autism, and other such disease involving the Brain.

As we form the CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS, we hope to make some small contribution that will help Christians and churches in this. We hope to be able to involve even some professed Fundamentalists in this.

Fundamentalism eventually became aware of the abuses and unscriptural teachings involved with Bill Gothard. Perhaps they will also see the problems with Nouthetic Counseling.