Stetzer: "Mental illness is not a subject Christians should run from."

When one considers the accurate definition of “problems” and “diseases,” one readily understands why the secular counseling model falls short of the mark. A “challenge” is a testing experience that presents itself to an individual. As such, it is not in itself a spiritual or psychological problem. It is simply a challenge that provokes some kind of response. The challenge becomes a problem when the emotional response is negative and sinful. The problem calls for a solution in order to restore the person to a condition of spiritual homeostasis or balance. When there is resistance to solving the problem in a manner prescribed by the Scriptures, the problem compounds to the point where physical, mental, and psychological issues develop.

The secular approach tends to approach this situation in a way that omits and ignores the spiritual ramifications of the problem. It sometimes seeks to comfort the individual by shifting any blame that may be his own for the problem to others, thus attempting to remove personal responsibility for the cause and the cure. Following this approach, a level of success may be achieved in lessening the pain that goes with the problem, but wholeness and complete healing is not possible as long as the spiritual component is ignored. The use of drugs may alleviate the pain and help the individual to cope better with his problem, but the biblical model of counseling seeks to remove the cause of the problem and restore the individual to wholeness and freedom from the negative emotions that are complicating and controlling his life.

The goal of biblical counseling is freedom to live as God intended in wholeness and holiness. The objective is not simply to cope but to be “more than a conqueror through Him that loved us.” The result of secular counseling is too often a dependence upon the counselor and upon drugs for coping. I suspect that a great portion of the DSM contains studies that suggest ways to deal with differing psychological problems, many of which in reality result from unresolved spiritual issues and conflicts. Because many of the protocols recommended do not produce lasting results, more study is needed, and more tests are carried out and reported. Following this method of treatment, there is no end to the editions that may result because the root causes are often ignored in favor of treatments that alleviate the suffering. Without any statistics to rely on here, I suggest that the great majority of potential psychological problems are resolved through the personal application of the Scriptures that might otherwise compound to a pathological level.

A proper and intelligent application of the Scriptures to everyday life has been the tried and proven method of meeting spiritual and psychological challenges for centuries. A merciful God would not leave His children to manage life on their own without giving them hope and help in all ages. Certainly, this does not negate the improvements to medicine and spiritual counseling that result from research and increased knowledge, but the divorcing of the care of souls from the primary remedy for their healing is what we are objecting to. Christians should be wary of secular answers for spiritual challenges.

Joni Erickson Tada, a well-known quadriplegic is a good illustration. Her diving accident produced a challenge for her: how could she live in any normal manner now that she no longer had the use of her limbs? This became a spiritual problem to her because of her response to the situation. She developed doubt, depression, despondency, and anger — all of which she tells about in her personal account of the situation. Over time, she learned how to cope with her physical disability, but she also learned through the application of the Scriptures to her situation to become an “overcomer.” She grew to understand that this challenge could result in a greater sphere of ministry and a fuller meaning of life as she used her disability to bless and benefit others. Everyone who knows her story marvels at the victory she enjoys in her life despite the ongoing physical/mental/emotional challenges that are hers everyday.

[Aaron Blumer]

Read MacArthur, perused the others. Some good points… Some major problems. In general these sources sidestep the same questions you have sidestepped. Or answer them inadequately. Mostly they just don’t go there. But these questions are not going away.

It would be helpful, Aaron, if you would enlighten us on the problems that are being sidestepped.

Very simple. Anyone doing Biblical/nouthetic counseling ought to be aware that his client has probably also discussed the matter with a doctor, counselor, or psychiatrist who is working from DSM. So to be ignorant of it is just plain dangerous.

Plus, if we want to add to the body of knowledge, DSM is more or less the playing field that has been chosen for us, the reviewed papers the authority for that. It defines what we need to do.

People who come to us for counsel, come for a reason. They are probably not getting results from the traditional approach. The approach we would follow is no doubt very different. In the first place, most biblical counselors are not medical practitioners and would not be employing psychotic drugs, shock therapy, etc. A biblical counselor would want to know what therapies have been practiced on the counselee, and he would seek to understand by consulting the DSM what those therapies involved, and if those therapies stand in opposition to biblical principles. Biblical counseling, apart from respecting the medical professionals, would likely pursue a different course. When allowed, the full medical report may be shared by the counselee. Biblical counseling would apply the Scriptures to bring about the individual’s salvation experience, would seek to create harmony between the counselee and his adversaries, would teach the meaning of forgiveness, would employ the practice of prayer and biblical medication, would share principles of spiritual growth, etc. The secular counselor may consider all these irrelevant, but the biblical counselor knows the value of conversion, spiritual growth in holiness for healing the whole person and destroying the works of the flesh that generate negative patterns of behavior.

“there is a history with Biblical Counseling calling things that are not sin based sin” — Joeb

Don’t you think that saying that is a little over the top? It would be like my saying: “There is a history of secular counselors failing to resolve the complaints brought to them,” or “Cancer patients are not being cured by the cancer-treating doctors.” Of course, in all the healing professions, there is some ignorance and mal-practice. What seems to be the theme of this thread is that the DSM is a reliable enough guide that Christian counselors should consult with it. The reaction to that is that it is a secular approach that very often categorizes behavior in a way contrary to Scripture. The point I have tried to make is that, when we are dealing with sin issues, the best model for resolving problems and helping people must rely primarily on the spiritual answers the Bible offers. I do not deny the relationship to the physical, and I carefully agreed that all good Biblical counselors take this into account and in many cases require a physical exam and the involvement of the medical profession. I know it is popular nowadays to condemn Berg and Mazak, but if you have read their material, as I have, you should recognize that, while they don’t claim infallibility, they do apply the Scriptures amazingly well to the healing of souls. This does not say they have not made mistakes, just as no counselor who relies on the medical model is exempt from error. If you read in this area of study, you will find many people testifying to the mal-practice of psychologists and psychiatrists. You will also recognize that from a biblical standpoint, they are often way off-base. I don’t believe you will find that Berg says that PTSD is sin-caused, but you will probably agree that some people who suffer PTSD expect to be treated with drugs and refuse to acknowledge that the RESPONSE to their injury does include a spiritual element. To refuse to acknowledge this and to cooperate with God’s healing might surely be a sin — not the cause, but the response. Can’t you agree with that?

[jimcarwest]

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Read MacArthur, perused the others. Some good points… Some major problems. In general these sources sidestep the same questions you have sidestepped. Or answer them inadequately. Mostly they just don’t go there. But these questions are not going away.

It would be helpful, Aaron, if you would enlighten us on the problems that are being sidestepped.

There’s a good bit scattered through my earlier posts, but without going back through them, I can summarize. I’ll probably end up expanding the list a bit.

• What is the difference between spiritual problems and “emotional” problems?
• If there is a biblical category of nonphysical sickness of heart (Prov. 13:12), why are so many in the BCM (Biblical Counseling Movement) so determined to limit the category of “mental illness” to “organic” causes only?
• Given what Scripture reveals about the effects of the Fall, shouldn’t we expect people to be damaged on multiple levels by their own and others’ sins, as well as by the effects of the curse?
• If we accept that people are broken in both changeable and unchangeable (apart from miracles) ways and that we do not really usually know which is which when we’re trying to help, why is coordinating our efforts with mental health professionals such a problem?
• Since we know from Scripture that body affects mind and mind affects body (see Scripture references posted earlier), how do we know where the “spiritual” begins and matters of brain activity and body chemistry end?
• Given that the Bible does not reveal what the relationship is between the eternal “inner man” and the physical brain, isn’t the level of dogmatism (and attendant sweeping generalities) of many on the nature of mental illness inappropriate?

Back to the DSM again, it seldom pretends to offer solutions. It is aimed at “diagnoses,” which are really nothing more than categorized patterns of thought and behavior. It really shouldn’t be surprising that the sons of Adam show some observable patterns in the various ways they are broken. Where I have found DSM occasionally useful is not in fixing anything, but in understanding a bit better what’s going on in the case of individuals who’s behavior seems unexplainable.

The answer often given is a general appeal to sin. Well, they act that way because they’re sinners. But we’re all sinners, and that approach doesn’t explain why sinner A behaves this way while the vast majority of “normal” sinners don’t.

So I have no doubt that sin and conditions of a spiritual nature are interwoven in every case, and of course the secular (not atheistic—that’s something else) professionals have no way of understanding that or including it. But our theology also doesn’t always have any way of arriving at this functional kind of information either.

The application process:

Yet another analogy (I’ve used parenting and few others along the way). Whenever we apply Scripture to situations it does not directly refer to, we have to understand two things: (a) the principles the Bible is revealing and (b) the situation we are seeking to apply them to. Neither of these can serve as a substitute for the other. We understand, for example, that cruelty, pride and malice are sinful actions/attitudes. But how do we know when we’re seeing these? Only by understanding the conduct we’re applying it to. A child thinks his parent is being cruel when he punishes him for wrong doing or doesn’t let him eat seven bowls of sugar pops. But he does not understand the situation. Similarly, in adults a person’s actions or words may appear to be cruel and selfish when in reality they are motivated quite differently but are working from different information than we are aware of.

Similarly, a person who has a disability of some sort cognitively (or a bunch of them) begins with some pretty confused understandings of what he observes. I’m pretty sure nobody here would deny that phenomena like dyslexia and autism are real. It’s my view that there indeed lots of “disorders” that interfere with people’s ability to understand other people and the world they live in. They are not excused from sinning, but they are also not necessarily sinning when they appear to be, given the “information” they are working with.

They need help. In general, guilt, blame and accusation are overused categories anyway in helping people, especially believers, who by virtue of new birth want to grow and change. There are more bruised reeds and smoldering wicks than many seem to realize.

I can agree with most everything you have said, especially your concluding paragraph. I’ve probably expressed myself all I care to do at this time on the subject as I am involved in other endeavors. God bless to all who have commented on this thread.

Last week I read a publication from the Dept. of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing. I’d encourage folks to download it and read Part 1, especially the “Stories from the Field.” It’s the sort of thing I read just about every day in my work now.

But I think the stories may help illustrate why I’m both more open to the value of the work of mental health professionals and also more open to the idea that life experiences can make us truly sick in heart/soul/mind/body in ways that have no “organic” cause.

The document is aimed at Police Chiefs and is called Preparing for the Unimaginable: How chiefs can safeguard officer mental health before and after mass casualty events

http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-P347