Interview with Dr. Jay Adams

Aaron

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

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

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

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

The Big Umbrella, p.6, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not believe I have ever met Bob T so I have no way of gauging whether or not his comments about Dr. Adams are intended to be tongue in cheek or not. Either way, he has given SI readers a good example of the kind of vitriol Dr. Adams has attracted for over 40 years. For Bob T, a man who I gather from his posting is somehow invested in the mental health industry, Jay Adams is not a fellow believer and follower of Christ whose views are to be debated and evaluated. Instead, he is “dangerous,” “ignorant,” and “cultic.” His views are “a joke,” “invented out of thin air,” “in the same category as the KJV only movement,” “prejudiced,” “misapplications of Scripture,” and (amazingly) “integrationist.” I am not sure how the ad hominim pejoratives contribute to the discussion.

I thought I had heard all the criticisms of Dr. Adams that could be raised but Bob T presents one that is new to me. He is quite correct that today most psychiatrists “have left Freud far behind.” The quote he posts is from a book Dr. Adams wrote in 1972, a time when Freud was still revered in the psychological world. But for Bob T, Dr. Adams is to be faulted for not being prescient enough to know what the secular psychological landscape would look like 37 years later in 2009. Still, the point Adams made in 1972 is even more true today. Most psychiatrists do not do truly medical work. They prescribe drugs philosophically, not medically.

The term “mental illness” is at best, a metaphor. It is not a reality. The mind is not a biological organ and therefore cannot be “ill.” The brain (a biological organ that can be treated medically) is not the same thing as the mind. In the Scriptures, the terms “mind,” “heart,” and “soul” are used interchangeably to describe the inner person where one thinks and lives before God. We will continue to think long after our brain is buried and decayed.

Donn,

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

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

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

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

[Donn R Arms] I do not believe I have ever met Bob T so I have no way of gauging whether or not his comments about Dr. Adams are intended to be tongue in cheek or not. Either way, he has given SI readers a good example of the kind of vitriol Dr. Adams has attracted for over 40 years. For Bob T, a man who I gather from his posting is somehow invested in the mental health industry, Jay Adams is not a fellow believer and follower of Christ whose views are to be debated and evaluated. Instead, he is “dangerous,” “ignorant,” and “cultic.” His views are “a joke,” “invented out of thin air,” “in the same category as the KJV only movement,” “prejudiced,” “misapplications of Scripture,” and (amazingly) “integrationist.” I am not sure how the ad hominem pejoratives contribute to the discussion.

I thought I had heard all the criticisms of Dr. Adams that could be raised but Bob T presents one that is new to me. He is quite correct that today most psychiatrists “have left Freud far behind.” The quote he posts is from a book Dr. Adams wrote in 1972, a time when Freud was still revered in the psychological world. But for Bob T, Dr. Adams is to be faulted for not being prescient enough to know what the secular psychological landscape would look like 37 years later in 2009. Still, the point Adams made in 1972 is even more true today. Most psychiatrists do not do truly medical work. They prescribe drugs philosophically, not medically.

The term “mental illness” is at best, a metaphor. It is not a reality. The mind is not a biological organ and therefore cannot be “ill.” The brain (a biological organ that can be treated medically) is not the same thing as the mind. In the Scriptures, the terms “mind,” “heart,” and “soul” are used interchangeably to describe the inner person where one thinks and lives before God. We will continue to think long after our brain is buried and decayed.

First, please note that there are no ad hominum attacks of Jay E. Adams. The attacks are of his ideas and outlook and that of Nouthetic counseling. However your post does involve an ad hominem attack.

Second, as noted by the remarks, and those of his assistant in the interview, his views regarding psychiatry are essentially the same today. Also, this view can also be seen in some of the recent books by second generation Nouthetic counselors. Edward T. Welch and others will talk of physiological causes but then go no further than depression and the over prescribing of drugs. They will mention Schizophrenia or bipolar but never deal with them or other mental illness. Their acquaintance appears to indicate almost no understanding of psychiatric illness (the latest PC label).

Third, I am familiar with the Biblical terms for the soul and would differ that Soul, mind, and spirit are exact synonyms. Man is a living soul. That immaterial soul has a spirit aspect and a mind aspect. However, the term used is not “mind illness” referring to the immaterial aspect of the soul but “mental illness” which refers to the process and result of thinking. It refers to the mental process which involves the mind and the brain and the result. The mind is not able to function properly through the Brain when the organ of the Brain is not functioning properly. The result is “mental illness”. It is “mental” and it is “illness” as there is physiological disease involved. The aversion of Nouthetic counseling to this term is most likely due to their agenda. This agenda involves false concepts of the sufficiency of scripture and of epistemology or how we know truth. All truth is God’s truth. However, non revelatory truth can be wrong and therefore non truth. This does not preclude the reasonable verification and acceptance of non revelatory truth. We do this every day of our lives. We repair our automobiles, repair our electronics, and are healed through medical science. All such truth is God’s truth. This does not diminish scripture as th priority truth source to which all truth must be compared and that no truth can contradict.

Fourth, my characterization of Nouthetic counseling may seem overly harsh but expresses the true feelings and opinions of many Christians who are caretakers for the mentally ill. Once one is critically confronted with those mentally ill, the ideas and literature of the Nouthetic counseling movement appear as a cruel joke. There is a Christian care center in Grand Rapids, Michigan that focuses on the mentally handicapped or ill. They do not allow Charismatic or Nouthetic oriented Christians to be involved in their ministry. The charismatics cannot differentiate between physiological illness and Demonization. They also want miracle healing on demand. The Nouthetic Counselors have insufficient appreciation of the psychiatric diagnosis and necessity of prescription drugs. They often diminish the need for drugs and this can be dangerous for the mentally ill who are hard to deal with in this matter. Both are extremely dangerous to the well being of the genuinely mentally ill. The Christian care centers in L.A. County are of the same opinion. I heard a Nouthetic counselor who has a regular Radio progrem speak many time overly harshly of anti psychotic drugs and their use. On one occasion he advised a caller who by admission had been under hospital care several times and who did not like taking hes medication to “stop immediatly because this may be your problem. ” He was advised to seek Biblical counseling and to “get off drugs.” To the care taker, of this person this was dangerous advice. When off of medicine some mentally illness can become dangerous, especially to those close to them.

Fifth, your accusation that psychiatrists do not do medical work, and prescribe drugs philosophically rather than medically, is not what is occurring today. This is the kind of opinion that makes Nouthetic counseling dangerous. This is why most Nouthetic counselors do not refer to Psychiatrists. Only the psychiatrist can deal with the reality of the medical problem that is mental illness. It is the general practitioner Physician who is likely to prescribe a mood drug without proper medical consideration. The psychiatrist gains vast experience in dealing with the mentally ill. The local psychiatrists in the L.A. county mental health dept. see from 8 to 10 seriously mentally ill a day. They can recognize symptoms with little problem. However, they will also order all necessary and pertinent testing. Everyone they see is on disability due to mental illness. These are not just depression or behavior cases. It is estimated that 1% of the adult population has such serious mental illness. This has nothing to do with the kind of problems the Psychologist or Christian counselor deals with.

Sixth, there are many Fundamentalists who are able to fully honor scripture by rejecting that which is contrary but recognize the blessings of truth gained from different intellectual disciplines. Such disciplines as Psychology have a history of many theories that were, and are, contrary to biblical truth. However, the progress of knowledge has still been blessed by many of the findings in this field. Christian counselors with insufficient theological discernment and Biblical commitment can be a problem. True Biblical based counseling is based upon the foundation of a good theological knowledge, practical experience, a willingness to learn from many sources, and a willingness to recognize limitations. Humility should make us thankful for established truth and increased affectiveness in psychiatric medicine. Nouthetic counseling theory and methodology have presumptions that interfere with true biblical counseling and dealing fairly and affectively with genuine mental illness.

Very Good post Aaron. To add to it, there are many within the psychatric community that are unwilling to deal with the short falls. On more than one occassion, I have referred someone who needed to be hospitalized (they were a danger to themselves or someone else or both). It was clear to everyone (police, EMTs, me) that they were going to hurt themselves or others. They were home withing two hours b/c they talked a good game. In my area that happens often, but I still refer.

Aaron,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron & Bob

Aaron

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

Bob

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

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

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

Aaron,

I do not know what your point is? What I have posted has nothing to do with counseling regarding problems that may involve sin. However, it would appear to me that Nouthetic counseling is wrong in many instances in this sphere of counseling. The well taught biblical pastor may be more effective than the trained Nouthetic counselor in dealing with normal counseling problems. Many so called Nouthetic counselors are merely part of a new pseudo profession that has little legitimacy. It is like Chiropractic or Naturopathy is to medicine. We have people running around with doctor degrees that represent questionable course content and philosophy of healing. In this case the healing of the soul.

Mental illness is not a sin caused problem other than being part of the physical curse of the fall as was my two time bout with Cancer. It is a medical problem with necessary medical treatment.

Of course we agree on items 1 through 3 as do all the Evangelical Psychologists that I know of. The Charismatics would also agree as would Wesleyans and Dispensationalists. However, these groups all have a differing view of the sanctification process. Nouthetic counseling is built upon the theology of the Reformed view of sanctification plus other additional concepts.

Mental illness is not a sin caused problem other than being part of the physical curse of the fall as was my two time bout with Cancer.

This is a very overly simplistic and dangerous approach. To pretend to know the cause of mental illness in any case, much less in all cases, is way too high an opinion of one’s knowledge. You simply cannot know what causes mental illness in all cases. To say that it is not a “sin caused problem” is the height of naivete. It may not be, but it may be. Just because you have a little knowledge about something doesn’t mean you know enough to make these kinds of pontifications. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, precisely because it is little.

Your view is dangerous in that it ignores the relationship between material and immaterial. There are physical illnesses that are sin-caused and physical illnesses that are not. And sometimes, it isn’t even a true physical illness. Sometimes physical symptoms are the result of sinful thought patterns as well as thought patterns that turn into actions.

Your view that mental illness is not sin caused does a great disservice to those who desperately need to be confronted about their sin but instead are given a free pass because it is “mental illness.” This type of oversimplification is as dangerous as the kind of oversimplification on the other side.

[Aaron Blumer] Well, now we’re getting somewhere because now I know what you accept and what you don’t… and thus where the beef mostly is: the “Reformed view of sanctification.”

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

Larry, your post does not deserve a long answer. You need to get beyond your Fundamentalist Bible College education before you accuse someone who is a care taker for a mentally ill person and involved with research on the subject for over 10 years as being naive. I have been involved with this subject in teaching law and in court. Your arrogance is only exceeded by your appearant ignorance. Opinions like yours are exactly why Fundamentalism looks so bad to educated Christians. Why has Fundamentalism lost the younger generation? Look in the mirror.

If you properly define what and who is genuinly mentally ill, then you have a medically based cause. All Schizophrenia and Bipolar and adult autism has been so classified based in many studies. So have other catagories. You can probably still get the Canadian dept. of health study on Schizophrenia online. I do not have the time to find the address for you. Read and learn before you offer opinions!!

Bob,

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

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

I will sum it up for you again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron,

my problem is not with Reformed sanctification here. This is with Nouthetic counseling and is not my problem alone. As J. Adams admits, he has received harsh criticism from many. Much of it has been very specific and has handled the issues better than I have here. It must be understood that most Evangelicals reject Nouthetic counseling. I know several who are very conservative and reject many of the concepts from secular Psychology but also reject Nouthetic counseling. It is a shame that many in Fundamentalism have accepted it. When at a Fundamentalist seminary in the early 1970s we had a class on counseling. However, it was not oriented toward Nouthetic counseling as that was not yet popular. As a “True Grace Dispensationalist” I would not agree completely with the Reformed view of sanctification. However, that is not the focus here at all.

I know you are seeking a common ground on the issues. I appreciate that.

Larry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Bob. That’s a start.

First, your title to your post is part of the problem and it indicates that you are not interacting with what I have actually said. I never said anything that could remotely be implied as saying that it was sin or the devil that makes people do things. You need to get past what you think other people are saying and deal with what I am saying. I have intentionally not been dogmatic because I don’t know. But you don’t either.

With respect to DSM, it is not used only for billing purposes for insurance and government. The APA disagrees with you, according to their website. The DSM is routinely used in legal cases to assert mental illness. It is also used as a diagnostic tool to increase the likelihood that two psychiatrists will diagnose the same person in the same way. So your explanation was simplistic and inaccurate.

With respect to depression, clinical depression or major depressive disorder is a recognized mental illness, and is frequently attributed to physiology. I am sure you know that. But I am sure you know a lot of this and it makes your statements very confusing.

With respect to physiology, as I have said several times, there is no doubt that at least some mental illness is physiological. However, you are failing to interact with the cause/effect relationship. Does the mental illness cause the physiological symptoms or the other way around?

With respect to dealing with mental illness, I can’t speak for other pastors. And I certainly don’t need a movie about it. I have, for the better part of seven years, dealt with it. I have been through the episodes. The whole hearing voices thing, going through strange behavior, major mood swings, etc is all familiar. I could tell some incredible stories. And yes, bipolar people still sin and you have to try to find the sin issues and deal with them. They do need to stay on their meds. But they still have a heart and will still stand before God and give account, and we will stand before God for how we discipled them. The one thing I have been very careful to do is stay out of the medical end of it. I tell him to stay on his meds. He has no choice about that.

With respect to love and care, you cannot biblically love and care for someone without ministering to them in their sin. Ignoring their sin is not “love and care.” It is helping them along the road to damnation. Even mentally ill people still make choices.

Finally, I don’t advocate nouthetic counseling as you speak of it here. Furthermore, you haven’t actually shown anyplace that I have been wrong. You disagree with me, which is fine, but that doesn’t establish who is right and who is wrong.

So Bob, I appreciate the attempt you made here. I find it inadequate to support the charges you have made. I will look forward to seeing further interaction of substance that will help to clarify the issues.

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

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

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

Bob,

You are right that real mental illness can only be taken care of by psychatrists. But, by your own admission that is less than 5% of the population. For the other 95% there are Biblical alternatives (I have had alot of NANC training, but I don’t follow the whole model either).

You also said that in some cases they prescribe drugs for depression. I don’t know what it is like in Southern California, but here in rural illinois, it is the other way around. In my small church of 40, i have had as many as 10 on a script for depression at a given time. Like I said earlier, that is the common thing to do here.

I refer and I never tell someone to stop taking their meds. I think those who tell people to stop taking there meds are nuts and I would venture that that is a very small minority who would do that. I have dealt with real mental illness before. But not with a family member as you have (I greatly sympathize and have prayed for your family often). I do have a son with regressive autism, but he is getting better. We have been fortunate that he has not had to be on meds, but if it were needed he would have been on medication.

Let me give you a real life story of my other son. When he was in first grade, he started twitching. His teacher noticed it and so did we. It got worse and we took him to the pediatrition. His Dr.’s response was to automatically refer him to a psychiatrist for medication for terets (medication that at the time was not FDA approved for kids, BTW). Before we did that, I took him to a Biblical Counseling Center. Before we went, I had talked to him and knowing him well, I knew he had some mild fear issues. The counselor at the center asked if he had scene a neurologist.

We made an appt with a pediatric neurologist in Chicago. After he examined him, he asked if he had problems with sore throats. We told him that he had strep twice that year. He told us that he needed his tonsils out. There was cutting edge research that showed there was a connection between the chemicals in infected tonsils and mimicking teret like symptoms.

We made an appt with a local ENT DR. We told him what the neurologist said and he agreed and also told us that children who need their tonsils out will often twitch because they are not sleeping well even when they appear healthy.

Within weeks of having his tonsils out, the “tick” disappeared. We were willing to put our son on teret medication if it were necessary. But how many children out there are on psychotropic drugs that are not even approved for minors because they have “terets” when all they need is there tonsils out? I am not saying there are people who have don’ terets. What I am saying and what you would agree with is that whenever a recommendation for medication is necessary is that investigation needs to be done.

If I had your opinion of assumming medication was always the answer my son would be on medication for 4 years now and still would have the underlying problem. You accuse Larry of being simplistic and misguided. Bob you seem to be as well. There are MANY who need to be on medication. But there are MANY who do not. People need to investigate before they are put on meds. People need advocates that are seeking the best thing to be done for someone who cannot do it for themselves. Sometimes are needed, sometimes they are not necessary, and other times (like in the case of my son) meds will make the situation worse.

So one says “mental illness can be caused by sin” and another says “no way” while simultaneously granting that “many of the problems people have in life are due to sin.”

I think we are often presented with false options. The two options are not ‘mental illness is be caused by sin” (which I know is not what you said, but it is what some say) and “no way.” The options are Mental illness may be caused by sin and mental illness may not be caused by sin. Someone who says, “No way” is (as you say) shortchanging the Bible, and talking well past the limits of medical knowledge. Psychiatry simply cannot identify the causes of mental illness in all cases. The truth is that they cannot even consistently identify mental illness with a given set of physiological symptoms or indicators. They are generally dealing with symptoms, not causes.

So we need to be more cautious about the topic. The dogmatic statements from either side are not helpful, and I think that is what is most frustrating to many. Bob T makes some good points, but in doing so he ignores some other issues, and he makes those points with dogmatism that is not warranted. That is why I say that is simplistic, naive, and dangerous.

Any dealing with the issues of life must include a rigorous spiritual and biblical evaluation. We may find that there are no spiritual issues that we can determmine and thus proceed onto other ways of dealing with things. We may find that there are spiritual issues which must be addressed in conjunction with physical matters. And we may find that addressing spiritual matters is all that is necessary. But we must not rule out an option.

It reminds me of the congressional debate about social security. I remember one democrat saying, “All options are on the table, but we will not allow privatization.” Well, that particular Senator is not the brightest bulb because if you take one option off the table (privatization), then all the options are not the table.

In this case, once you deny the possibility of anything spiritual, then you have illegitimate taken one possible explanation off the table. If the situation is truly connected to the spiritual, you have done the patient a gross disservice, and one that has eternal consequences. So let’s take this matter more seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hendrickson,

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

Roger, you stated the following concerning my expressed viewpoint:

“If I had your opinion of assumming medication was always the answer my son would be on medication for 4 years now and still would have the underlying problem. You accuse Larry of being simplistic and misguided. Bob you seem to be as well. There are MANY who need to be on medication. But there are MANY who do not. People need to investigate before they are put on meds. People need advocates that are seeking the best thing to be done for someone who cannot do it for themselves. Sometimes are needed, sometimes they are not necessary, and other times (like in the case of my son) meds will make the situation worse.”

I do not appear to have made any statements that indicated we should “assume medication is always the answer.” I stated that medication was needed for “mental illness.” Your son was misdiagnosed by by a pediatrician. But actually it appears he may not have been. He was referred to a psychiatrist for diagnosis but was not taken to one. Another specialist gave a diagnosis which was evidently correct. At any rate, the incidence is not pertinent to the subject of mental illness or medication. No one had yet given a diagnosis or prescribed medication. My posts never indicate we assume medication. I do state that the only remedy for genuine mental illness is medication. But correct diagnosis is necessary.

To others:

Dr. Laura uses the term “Brain disease.” I have used the term mental illness as that is the term most common to several venues such as SSDI, SSI, Medicaid, and such groups such as NAMI (National Association of Mental health). However, I appreciate her professional expertise and using the term “Brain disease”probably does away with some confusion. I appreciate Dr. Laura’s insight and her perspective on Nouthetic counseling.

I would add that as a pastor, and involved in the Christian community and institutions, I do believe that the J. Adams 1972 perspective on Mental Illness (Brain Disease) is alive and well and still expressed in today’s literature from those involved in Nouthetic counseling. The interview on here alludes to this. In the Book “Introduction to Biblical Counseling” edited by John MacArthur, the chapter by John indicates that there may not be such a thing as Schizophrenia and refers to a 23 yr. old Times magazine article. In other chapters the book is still referring to Freud and other prior figures for the purpose of discrediting psychology and psychiatry. It appears to admit to some usefulness but not much. This is a text book currently used at Central Baptist Seminary, Detroit Baptist Seminary, Calvary Baptist Seminary, and Masters College and Seminary. To me this is a very serious problem and discredits those schools.

Let me be clear, I believe in the priority and necessity of Biblical Counseling. However, I view Nouthetic counseling as being a deficient and dangerous form of counseling that is less than biblical. It is also called Biblical Counseling. There are forms of Biblical counseling that give the proper place to scripture but have a more friendly view of the behavior sciences. Dr. Laura appears to be within that framework of Biblical counseling.

The problem within Fundamentalism is that some go to Bible College, Seminary, then to a Doctor of ministry course in Nouthetic counseling. They have never taken the necessary courses in Psychology to be exposed to and gain an understanding of the behavioral sciences. It is like getting a degree in “Creation science” and having never taken the normal courses in Biology and life sciences. We would never accept a Ph. D. degree in Creationism but will accept a PhD in Biology from a person who believes creationism. If you believe and teach nouthetic counseling you should have at least a Masters in Psychology. What is happening is that we are perpetuating ignorance and teaching a form of bi biblical counseling that lacking in needed substance.

It is helpful to have Dr. Laura post on here and give us her perspective. It is certainly helpful.

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

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

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

I do not appear to have made any statements that indicated we should “assume medication is always the answer.” I stated that medication was needed for “mental illness.” Your son was misdiagnosed by a pediatrician. But actually it appears he may not have been. He was referred to a psychiatrist for diagnosis but was not taken to one. Another specialist gave a diagnosis which was evidently correct. At any rate, the incidence is not pertinent to the subject of mental illness or medication. No one had yet given a diagnosis or prescribed medication. My posts never indicate we assume medication. I do state that the only remedy for genuine mental illness is medication. But correct diagnosis is necessary.

Bob,

You missed my point. Sorry that I was not clear enough. In your posts about this issue (both now and on the old SI) you do not seem to understand ANY problems with psychiatry. After speaking with a few professionals, what happened with my son is standard operating procedure. A child appears to have a tick the pediatrician sends him or her to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist writes a prescription with no other testing done. It may not be that way in all areas of the country but that is the way it is in my area. Other regions that I consulted with do the same thing. So my example is not isolated. You just didn’t have the knowledge on this issue. I could give other examples from my community where similar things have happened. Never once have you asserted that rigorous questioning should be done, so I took your view as getting any opinions outside of psychiatry as dangerous. If that is your position, it will harm people physically and spiritually. So my point does apply to this issue.

I agreed that with brain diseases (mental illness) that psychiatry and pharmacology are necessary. But what the discipline does that shoots themselves in the foot is to treat things as such when they may or may not be. There needs to be cross consultation with other disciplines. In my region, there rarely is and the result is people being on medication that they do not need to be on and therefore not dealing with the real issues.

Let me state again that I am not totally on board with NANC. But your views show a lot of ignorance about NANC. For instance, Dr. Hendrickson is a NANC counselor and has spoken at NANC conferences. Your views of NANC are as out of date as you claim Jay Adams to be. Larry is right that you are being simplistic. You are swinging the pendulum way to far to the psychiatry side without thoroughly checking things out for others. Your decisions have been great for your family (and I am truly glad). Many people need psychiatric care and should be helped by the church no matter what. There are also many out there who have been harmed (or in the case of my son would have been) by psychiatric care. All I am saying is do the research before you allow yourself or a loved one on medication.

I hope I have not come across as harsh that is not my intent. I am just trying to get you to think through. Based on your postings, you have not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bro Bob (and others),

It may help to understand the road Laura has traveled. This snatch is from the bio page on http://www.drlaurahendrickson.com/About_Laura.html her website :

Dr. Laura knows that God reigns in the storm! As a medical doctor and psychiatrist, juggling work and the care of a very challenging toddler (who was later diagnosed with autism), she developed severe depression. Later her doctors diagnosed bipolar and prescribed even more medicines, but they didn’t resolve the deeper issues that were producing the depression. Then she learned biblical counseling principles that taught her to deal with those deeper issues. Her depression and bipolar resolved, and she has not needed psychiatric medicines in 15 years. Dr. Laura now ministers as a biblical counselor at the Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship in the San Diego area.

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

Aaron,

I do not understand. You state:

“It’s quite clear that many, many nouthetic counselors have a healthy respect for medicinal treatments for brain disease. And, as Laura pointed out, Jay always granted that organic causes need organic cures as well.”

Who are the many, many? Let me know please. Please see the evidence just offered. It includes your interview.

The most influential on this subject in the west is MacArthur and Masters College and Seminary. They clearly deny mental illness as a myth. They go into the Pastoral ministry and on church staff with this opinion. And please don’t try to differ with them as they know it all. They have the infallible truth on all subjects.

The closest Nouthetic counselors come to acknowledging Mental illness and the need for Psychiatry is a form of doublespeak. With one sentence or paragraph they giveth. With the next they taketh away. A perfect example is seen in the book “Why Christians can’t Trust Psychology” by Ed Bulkley. He expresses the doubts about mental illness quoting Thomas Sazs. He then acknowledges that some of it may be OK if it is organic disorder. He then gives all the problems of determining this and sows the doubts. All this doublespeak leaves an open door but raises doubts in readers. Actually he reveals that he really is not acquainted with the latest and best information on the subject. He is the radio counselor that I mentioned in a prior post who advised a Schizophrenic to stop his meds as that may be his problem.

What Dr. Laura pointed out was gracious. As she indicated, perhaps Jay Adams has indeed left an open door for possibilities but has not gone through it. There is a failure of repentance and clear acknowledgment. Just clear unequivocal acknowledgment would be helpful. In your interview he allowed his assistant to give all his arguments against Psychiatry and mental illness diagnosis. This was a take away after his open door.

MacArthur and Masters Seminary are very influential. They directly and clearly deny any concept of Mental illness. It is likened to a fairy tale. The Masters college offers Bachelors and Masters degrees in “Nouthetic Counseling. Some from Fundamentalist schools and churches have come to Masters for such degrees.

If you know of any Nouthetic literature that offers evidence for what you have just stated please inform me of it. I will be glad to acknowledge it and let others know. It would help alleviate the continued damage done by MacArthur and Masters college. There was just a Nouthetic training course offered at a local Bible church here in the valley. A graduate of Masters College taught the course. Several other chuches sent people. One of the main books was the one just cited by me; “Introduction to Biblical Counseling.” The teacher clearly denounced all Psychology and Psychiatry and the concept of “mental illness.” He then acknowledged the possibility of organic disorder but that a “regular doctor can handle that.” The organic disorders they have in mind are other than Brain disease unless it is a tumor.

Actually dealing with this issue reminds me of the old liberalism battles. The liberals would deny their denial then give a convoluted complicated explanation of the denial they deny.

I am open and eager for referral to any book or literature that clearly and sufficiently handles the mental illness subject as it is understood and treated today and expresses thankfulness to modern medicine for giving some hope to those who prior had no hope.

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

[Bob T] I would add that as a pastor, and involved in the Christian community and institutions, I do believe that the J. Adams 1972 perspective on Mental Illness (Brain Disease) is alive and well and still expressed in today’s literature from those involved in Nouthetic counseling. The interview on here alludes to this. In the Book “Introduction to Biblical Counseling” edited by John MacArthur, the chapter by John indicates that there may not be such a thing as Schizophrenia and refers to a 23 yr. old Times magazine article. In other chapters the book is still referring to Freud and other prior figures for the purpose of discrediting psychology and psychiatry. It appears to admit to some usefulness but not much. This is a text book currently used at Central Baptist Seminary, Detroit Baptist Seminary, Calvary Baptist Seminary, and Masters College and Seminary. To me this is a very serious problem and discredits those schools. (emphasis added)

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

Larry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just when did you graduate from Detroit Baptist? What year?

MDiv in 98 and ThM in 01

I also respect and love Dr. McCune. DMins are not offered at DBTS, and I doubt they ever will be. DMins, like PhDs, depend on a lot of factors (although they are two totally different degrees). Some of them are useless. Others are not. But I am not sure how any of that applies here.

I still have overall respect for this school but use of a book that may reflect a wrong and hurtful counseling philosophy is problematic.

I am not sure what class this book is used in. I think there is only one counseling class (as I recall) offered as an elective in summer school. Furthermore, I know that not all books used are fully endorsed. I don’t even think all the faculty would fully endorse Dr. McCune’s Systematic. As with any institution of higher education, books are used for variety of reasons. I have no idea what their stance is on the particular issue at hand, if they even have a stance.

Personally, Bob, I think you have bought into a position on mental illness that is as problematic as the one you are complaining against (which I also find problematic). I see that you say this book “may reflect a wrong and hurtful counseling philosophy.” That seems a bit of a backing away from your earlier charge. It is a welcome change (if it is in fact intended). I have the book in question. I haven’t read much of it. But like all books, we should interact critically with it.

I have no doubt that “brain disease” as Laura puts it is real. And I have no doubt that the psychiatric community is troubling free from any roots in the reality of the human condition as sinful. There can be no doubt that sin’s effects do reach into our physical bodies. Psychiatry’s failure to deal with that is inexcusable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than quote the part written to me, I will summarize.

Why does Bob think DBTS uses this as a textbook? Dr. Doran cannot find any record of it (though he is not going to spend the time rummaging around for it). He says, “I may have used it, but can’t recall—just like I almost always forget what books I’ve required for classes since they are only collateral reading, not the basis for the class. That really is the germane point here.”

I also wondered where Bob got this information. Bob, would you be so kind as to tell us where you got the idea that DBTS uses this as a textbook? I don’t recall it, but I have been out for a while.

Dr. Doran also corrected me on teh number of counseling classes. There are actually two: Intro to Biblical Counseling and Pastoral Counseling.

He continues,

I guess my reply to Bob is: (1) you incorrectly assumed that having a student read a book means that we teach everything in that book; (2) you engaged in a massive leap in argument from your assumption to the claim that using this book somehow discredits our institution; and (3) rather than acknowledge that you were hyper-ventilating, you doubled down on your position and tried to shift the subject away from the false accusation on you made. Very bad form.

Bob,

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

It is interesting that Larry and Roger want to now avoid tje revealed errors of Nouthetic counseling by trying to make an issue of a passing reference to a seminary. Sorry if I offended you.

First, if anyone, including Dave Doran, wishes to communicate on the internet with someone thay should do it directly.

If the posted qoute by Larry is from Dave Doran, I would expect it to be of some reasonable explanation. How can he plead that he can’t remember if this book was used but then accuse me of making a false accusation? Hmmm. If Dave Doran’s opinion is important to you Larry that is your concern. I am sure Dave Doran is a fine young man and good Pastor. However, he has little to contribute to this subject at this point and I am really not that interested in what he has to say.

Larry, you evidently are a graduate of this school and your views regarding mental illness, sin, and accountability appear fairly unenlightened. You appear to now say you accept “Brain disease” but not accept it as involving clear no fault physiological causes. You keep bringing up sin. Is that also the general outlook of the school? Your prior posts appear to want to hold mentally ill people to account for a sin problem when in fact you and I may have more of a sin problem than some of them. What has made them unable to see reality, have hallucinations, and other problems, is not caused by their specific sins anymore than one with Cancer has the disease due to sins. All people are sinners. God has a remedy. But it is not an issue to be dealt with as connected to their mental Brain disease. You state:

“I have no doubt that “brain disease” as Laura puts it is real. And I have no doubt that the psychiatric community is troubling free from any roots in the reality of the human condition as sinful. There can be no doubt that sin’s effects do reach into our physical bodies. Psychiatry’s failure to deal with that is inexcusable.”

This is the double speak and giving and then taking away that I mention in a prior post. You appear to be saying Brain disease is real but just maybe sin reached into the human body as a cause. You then hold Psychiatry to account for not dealing with it. When I had Cancer I forgot to hold the surgeon and then the Oncologist accountable for not dealing with the sin issue. When our children were born we forgot to hold the physician accountable for the sin issues involved even though the birth pains were a revealed part of the curse. Oh wait, the physicians and nurses were not Christians and not subject to Christian accountability. Also, their responsability and duty was to deal with the physical disease. The visit by a Pastor would have possibly handled any spiritual problems. In the same way, most all mental health providers, the Psychiatrist and nurses, have the expertise to deal with the physical diseases. A Pastor can handle any spiritual problems if he has a proper understanding and humility to understand his limitations. He should also be appreciative of the work of the health care providers even though not Christian. The person we are involved with as caretakers, goes to one of the Psychiatrists at the county mental health clinic. They provide free care and bill medicaid for some. The medications are paid for by medicare. This is the case for most all disabled mentally ill. The psychiatrists are usually not Christians. Some care more than others. Contrary to some opinions, they are not antagonistic to a persons faith. They have seen it may help in some areas of living. The mentally disabled are reliant on SSDI and Medicare - Medicaid. They cannot work. They have no private health insurance. They are not accepted in most churches. Most Pastors do not really undersatand the issues. They do not understand that there are times when the mentally disabled cannot talk or will not talk. They can take things wrongly and misunderstand. One young man who was Christiian thought he needed to cut off his hand to keep out of hell in order to be obedient. He thought that the Pastor who tried to explain the scripture was seeking to explain it away and became angry at him. His medication was upped slightly and he regained a grasp on reality. He is now working part time and wants to go to school. However, he will need to continue to take his meds. We are thankful for the continued advances in diagnosis, medicine, and practical knowledge of the course of an illness. We are also thankful for what government aid is available as medication, especially new ones, are very expensive.

To put it simply, we cannot, and should not, hold Psychiatry, a medical specialty, responsible for not dealing adequatly with sin. Psychiatrists diagnose disease and prescribe, The Psychologist or social workers talk. If a Pastor wants to be the talker he better have the properly informed perspective. As all my posts have attempted to point out, Nouthetic counseling has, and cintinues to have, the wrong perspective. I have given solid evidence for this. They are dangerous and harmful to the small percentage who are genuinely mentally ill. The other 98% of counseling is best handled by non Nouthetic Biblical counselors. The most effective are congregation peers with good bible knowledge and a little counseling guidance. The alleged professional counselors are less effective. This is based on some followup studies I have read.

Most people who go to the secular NAMI meetings are family caretakers. All who have any relationship to a church state that the church and staff really have no understanding. If they are in a conservative Evangelical church or Fundamentalist church they often have been victimized and have the suspicion of fault hanging over them. In this area , churches with Masters graduates as pastors usually are taught that Mental Illness is a myth.

It is very disappointing to see some of the posters on here who have ignored the truth and are defensive of Nouthetic counseling. I have found that I have been able to talk with Evangelical Pastors who have more understanding and compassion on this subject. A friend of mine is a Christian Psychiatrist. Besides his M.D. he has a PHD degree in Biochemistry and an M.Div. from Western Baptist Seminary. I have been able to bounce my findings off him and in turn get information from him. He desires to put together a lecture series on this. Most from Masters and GARBC and independent Baptists have stated they will not come as they already know it all and feel to change to an acceptance of mental illness would be unbiblical. From what I have been able to determine, the Fundamentalist schools are teaching Nouthetic counseling and remain against Mental illness and Psychiatry in various degrees. I am open to anyone referring me to books, literature, or persons who are openly anad clearly advocating a more balanced and enlightened position. Such sources would be promoted by me.

It is hoped that my posts on here may help some who read them and encourage some to gain a balanced view on this subject. The Mentally ill are all around us and ignored, They need compassion and understanding. The next time you see a person pushing a shopping cart, take a second look. They are someones son or daughter. Have their parents passed away and now they have no one who cares? They may be an alcoholic or on drugs and have some responsibility for their condition. But look closely. They could be mentally ill and off their meds and no one to care. Meanwhile we have schools teaching counseling and view point built upon someones theory. We have young students worried about the Ordo or the order of the decrees. And than we have the Fundamentalists who know everything and are sure there just must be sin that needs to be handled because human behavior is their area of expertise and we must not allow science to invade our territory. What to do? Make up a counseling system that excludes them!

[Bob T.] It is hoped that my posts on here may help some who read them and encourage some to gain a balanced view on this subject.

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

Bob,

Your post # 36 on the subject was good. We are not as far apart as you may think. If you were to reread your posts (both here and on the old SI) you will see that you do come across very evangelistically for psychiatry. Your views are on the other end of the Adams pendulum. You may not intend that, but that was how you are perceived.

You have misrepresented me as I have said on several occassions that I do believe mentally ill need to be treated with compassion and medication. Yet, you accuse me of saying the opposite. All I have tried to do was to get you to realize that many people (with insurance and on state aid) are assumed to be mentally ill without much investigation. That may not be your experince, but it is real. I have seen it time and time again. You ignore this out of ignorance i am sure.

Humility is needed. Please take this in all sincereity. I have read almost every post that you have posted. I value your opinion greatly even when I

disagree. But Bob, you almost alwasy come off as arrogant and condescending. Even when you are proven wrong or mistaken, you NEVER admit it. Bob, that is sinful and hurts your reputation.

I am just trying to tweak your style because you have so much to offer. And those offerings will be so much better without the arrogance and

condescension.

I hope you take this how it was intended. I mean this in the spirit of

Galatians 6:1.

In prayer,

Roger Carlson

It is interesting that Larry and Roger want to now avoid tje revealed errors of Nouthetic counseling by trying to make an issue of a passing reference to a seminary. Sorry if I offended you.

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

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

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

First, if anyone, including Dave Doran, wishes to communicate on the internet with someone thay should do it directly.

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

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

If the posted qoute by Larry is from Dave Doran, I would expect it to be of some reasonable explanation.

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

How can he plead that he can’t remember if this book was used but then accuse me of making a false accusation?

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

If Dave Doran’s opinion is important to you Larry that is your concern

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

I am sure Dave Doran is a fine young man and good Pastor.

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

However, he has little to contribute to this subject at this point and I am really not that interested in what he has to say.

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

Larry, you evidently are a graduate of this school and your views regarding mental illness, sin, and accountability appear fairly unenlightened.

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

You appear to now say you accept “Brain disease” but not accept it as involving clear no fault physiological causes.

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

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

You keep bringing up sin. Is that also the general outlook of the school?

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

Your prior posts appear to want to hold mentally ill people to account for a sin problem when in fact you and I may have more of a sin problem than some of them.

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

What has made them unable to see reality, have hallucinations, and other problems, is not caused by their specific sins

How do you know this??

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

This is the double speak and giving and then taking away that I mention in a prior post. You appear to be saying Brain disease is real but just maybe sin reached into the human body as a cause. You then hold Psychiatry to account for not dealing with it. When I had Cancer I forgot to hold the surgeon and then the Oncologist accountable for not dealing with the sin issue.

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

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

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

A Pastor can handle any spiritual problems if he has a proper understanding and humility to understand his limitations. He should also be appreciative of the work of the health care providers even though not Christian.

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

To put it simply, we cannot, and should not, hold Psychiatry, a medical specialty, responsible for not dealing adequatly with sin.

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

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

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

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

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

As all my posts have attempted to point out, Nouthetic counseling has, and cintinues to have, the wrong perspective.

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

I am open to anyone referring me to books, literature, or persons who are openly anad clearly advocating a more balanced and enlightened position. Such sources would be promoted by me.

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

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

And you have already said that our position is helpful.

It is hoped that my posts on here may help some who read them and encourage some to gain a balanced view on this subject.

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

The Mentally ill are all around us and ignored

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

Meanwhile we have schools teaching counseling and view point built upon someones theory.

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

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

Bob,

I did not mean get the conversation side-tracked. I honestly thought you would recognize the overstatement you made and simply qualify it in some way. I’ll let others decide if how they should evaluate your posts, but, in my mind, you’ve seriously damaged your credibility in how: (1) you can’t recognize your own obvious mistakes; and (2) attempt to win the argument by changing the subject.

I asked you if you were serious in the charge that the seminaries you listed were discredited by the use of the book you cited. That’s a pretty simple question that doesn’t take a lot of debate to settle the answer. I should not have wasted people’s time trying to show the flaws in your thinking about this since I think most people can see them pretty plainly. My easy point of access to was through my friend Larry. I’ve now caused him enough abuse, so let me apologize for even raising the question and turning it away from the interview. Please feel free to resume your bashing of Dr. Adams. :)

DMD

Aaron,

That may be best.

Bob,

You did not represent my position correctly. I have made it clear several times that I believe real mental illnesses should be treated medically. I also made it clear that there are times psychiatrists don’t do their job well. Sometimes its from a lack of funding, but either way in cases such as terets in children the standard procedure is to put children on meds with out doing a thorough exam. That is fact. You say it is wrong and unimportant. Well you are wrong. I was truly just trying to bring a balanced aproach. The far wing of nouthetic is one extreme side. But you are clearly on the other side. You accuse some of double-speak, yet you appear to have done the same.

Your best post was post 36. Humility on all sides is needed. Bob, I say this as someone who always values your opinion, education, and expertise. But you do often come across as arrogant. You are often dismissive even when you have been proven wrong. This something you have continually done. It is sad, because you know more than I ever will. But there are some areas that I do have great experience than you do (though not many). But this isn’t about me. A good example is how you treated Dave Doran - a man with an MDiv, ThM (DBTS) and a DMin from TEDS. Not only that, he has over 20 years pastoral experience. He may be young to you, but your response was condescending and arrogant.