Biblical Counseling in an Age of Psychological Confusion
This is the third and last part in the series of articles about the historical background of the biblical counseling movement.
For the first two parts:
Necessary Distinctions
Reading the first two parts in this series, I could not blame the reader if he got the impression that behavioral sciences are useless when it comes to biblical counseling. Nothing is farther from the truth, and that is why necessary distinctions must be made.
In terms of methodology, if the specific problem has been identified as medical, then “medication, shock therapy, group therapy, and other techniques” have their appropriate place in biblical counseling. A biblical counselor would be more than willing to send the counselee to a medical professional if the problem is related to some physical dysfunction.
Such a recognition of the place of medical treatment in biblical counseling was first observed by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a medical doctor who became a gospel minister. He identified that there are certain kinds of depression and mental illnesses that are related to physical causes such as “pernicious anemia, arteriosclerosis, porphyria, and even gout” (p. 8). These physical diseases “can cause dementia or produce depression” (ibid.). In cases like these, it is appropriate for a biblical counselor to advice his counselee to undergo physical examination and seek medical treatment if needed. Some kind of therapy or medical treatment can also be used “for someone who is alcoholic, drug addicted, learning disabled, traumatized by rape, incest, or severe battering . . . to cope with their trauma” (ibid.).
However, the above examples do not “justify the indiscriminate use of secular psychological techniques for essentially spiritual problems” (ibid.). Even these psychological approaches are useful in modifying external behavior regardless a person is a Christian or not, they do not constitute the biblical idea of change, which is sanctification.
Christian Psychology
For John MacArthur, the term “Christian psychology” is an “oxymoron” because of three reasons. One, the focus in the study of Christian psychologists is no longer the soul. Instead, the term describes a jungle of therapies and humanistic theories. Two, the underlying presuppositions of psychology cannot be reconciled with Christianity. And three, “the infusion of psychology into the teaching of the church has blurred the line between behavior modification and sanctification” (p. 9).
The Christian psychologists preoccupied with behavior modification are incapable to minister to the soul. It is the task reserved for biblical counselors.
MacArthur is not happy with the integrationist movement. He identified it as a serious threat to the life and ministry of the church today. What many psychologists today describe as “Christian counseling” is in reality “using secular theory to treat spiritual problems with biblical references tacked on” (ibid).
Textbooks on Christian counseling confirms the dominance of the above idea. Those who still adhere to the sufficiency of the Bible in biblical counseling are dismissed as guilty of not using their minds, “simplistic” in their “understanding of life and its problems,” “naïve,” “superficial,” and “inadequate counselors” (p.10).
Moreover, literature on Christian psychology share similar outlook when it comes to “traditional solutions” to people’s problems such as the “Scripture, the Holy Spirit, Christ, prayer, and grace” (ibid.). None of these can offer genuine solution to people struggling with depression and anxiety. Reading the quotes in the chapter, it surprises me that even Larry Crabb, a popular Christian bestseller is convinced that secular psychology is far superior than biblical counseling:
The church ‘promotes superficial adjustments while psychotherapists, with or without biblical foundations, . . . do a better job than the church in restoring troubled people to more effective functioning’(ibid.).
‘Secularists sometimes seem to have a corner on honestly facing the disturbing complexity of life while Christians recite clichés that push away real questions of the heart. As a result, nonbelievers often help people with emotional problems more effectively than Christians do’ (ibid.).
No wonder, if counseling textbooks and popular Christian authors are that confident and increasingly more outspoken, pastors and caring Christians who rely only in traditional resources have been made to feel that they are not qualified to continue this counseling ministry in the church.
Crisis in Behavioral Sciences
The question as to the scientific character of psychology is not easy. Some advocates of biblical counseling would flatly say that psychology is not a science. Jumping to the 3rd chapter, John Street’s explanation is helpful. For him, accepting psychology as a scientific discipline is debatable. However, this does not mean that he rejects that there are some aspects of psychology “that carefully used rigid scientific reasoning” (p. 39).
Nevertheless, he prefers to categorize psychology as a “philosophical system of thought disseminated as a materialistic worldview that expresses itself variously as behaviorism, humanism, determinism, existentialism, epiphenomenalism, and simple pragmatic utilitarianism” (ibid.). This confirms MacArthur’s conclusion that “psychology is not a uniform body of scientific knowledge” (p. 10). In short, there are diverse schools of thought that fall under psychology, and they don’t agree with each other.
This directs us to what the experts describe as the “crisis” in psychology. At this point, we will cite divergent interpretations coming from those who know the subject. We will give specific attention to the result of a conference in Phoenix, Arizona that “brought together the world’s leading experts on psychotherapy” (p. 12).
Let us take first the opinion of Karl Kraus, a Viennese journalist:
Despite its deceptive terminology, psychoanalysis is not a science but a religion – the faith of a generation incapable of any other” (ibid.).
MacArthur calls it a “pseudo-science” and connects it to “phrenology,” a behavioral science that explains personality characteristics as “determined by the shape of someone’s skull” (pp. 10-11). Even popular treatments appear primitive such as surrounding “an adult in the petal position with pillows” and the “primal scream therapy” (p. 11).
I think a full quote from the cover story of Time magazine in 1979 will capture the failures of psychiatry (pp. 11-12):
On every front, psychiatry seems to be on the defensive. . . . Many psychiatrists want to abandon treatment of ordinary, everyday neurotics (“the worried well”) to psychologists and the amateur Pop therapists. After all, does it take a hard-won M.D. degree . . . to chat sympathetically and tell a patient you’re-much-too-hard-on yourself? And if psychiatry is a medical treatment, why can its practitioners not provide measurable scientific results like those obtained by other doctors?
Psychiatrists themselves acknowledge that their profession often smacks of modern alchemy full of jargon, obfuscation and mystification, but precious little real knowledge. . . .
As always, psychiatrists are their own severest critics. Thomas Szasz, long the most outspoken gadfly of his profession, insists that there is really no such thing as mental illness, only normal problems of living. E. Fuller Torrey, another antipsychiatry psychiatrist, is willing to concede that there are a few brain diseases, like schizophrenia, but says they can be treated with only a handful of drugs that could be administered by general practitioners or internists. . . . By contrast, the Scottish psychiatrist and poet R. D. Laing is sure that schizophrenia is real and that it is good for you. Explains Laing: it is a kind of psychedelic epiphany, far superior to normal experience.
Even mainline practitioners are uncertain that psychiatry can tell the insane from the sane.
Let us now turn our attention to the conflicting interpretation that came out from that largest conference of specialists on psychotherapy that I mentioned earlier. This gathering is composed of “seven thousand mental-health experts from all over the world” (p. 12).
The Los Angeles Times, quoted Laing saying statements like:
I couldn’t think of any fundamental insight into human relations that has resulted from a century of psychotherapy. ‘I don’t think we’ve gone beyond Socrates, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or even Flaubert . . .” (ibid.).
I don’t think psychiatry is a science at all. It’s not like chemistry or physics where we build up a body of knowledge and progress” (ibid.).
He even said that in his struggle with depression, “humming a favorite tune to himself sometimes is of greater help than anything psychotherapy offers” (ibid.).
Time magazine reported that three out of four experts in a panel discussion agreed that schizophrenia as a disease does not exist:
R. D. Laing, the favorite shrink of student rebels in the ’60s, retains his romantic opinion of schizophrenics as brave victims who are defying a cruel culture. He suggested that many people are diagnosed as schizophrenic simply because they sleep during the day and stay awake at night. Schizophrenia did not exist until the word was invented . . .” (p. 13).
If there is one sure outcome in that gathering of experts, it is this:
Among therapists there is little agreement. There is no unified science of psychotherapy, only a cacophony of clashing theories and therapies (ibid.).
Here are some of the statements that represent the above interpretation:
Dr. Joseph Wolpe, a leading pioneer of behavioral therapy, characterized the Phoenix conference as ‘a babel of conflicting voices.'
Jeffrey Zeig, organizer of the conference, said there may be as many as a hundred different theories in the United States alone. Most of them, he said, are ‘doomed to fizzle.’
The Failure of Christian Psychology
Despite the crisis in psychotherapy, the attitude within the church is very sympathetic. “‘Mental and emotional health’ is the new buzz word” and “many seem to equate it with spiritual wholeness” (p. 14). “Sin is called sickness, so people think it requires therapy, not repentance. Habitual sin is called addictive or compulsive behavior, and many surmise its solution is medical care rather than moral correction” (ibid.).
The misdiagnosis of the problem of a woman with compulsive fornication illustrates the failure of Christian psychology.
A woman called and said she had had a problem with compulsive fornication for years. She said she went to bed with ‘anyone and everyone’ and felt powerless to change her behavior. The counselor suggested that her conduct was her way of striking back, a result of wounds inflicted by her passive father and overbearing mother. ‘There’s no simple road to recovery,’ this radio therapist told her. ‘Your problem won’t go away immediately—it’s an addiction, and these things require extended counseling. You will need years of therapy to overcome your need for illicit sex.” The suggestion was then made for the caller to find a church that would be tolerant while she worked her way out of the “painful wounds” that were “making” her fornicate” (p.15).
MacArthur was shocked with the counselor’s advice. The command of the Bible to “flee immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18) is very clear. Instead of emphasizing that the woman should take responsibility of her actions, the counselor shifted the blame to her parents and making her a victim.
As already mentioned, proponents of biblical counseling do not reject methods and tools to contain external destructive behavior. They can serve as preparatory in dealing with the real issue, which is the problems of the soul that can only be resolved by the power of grace in Christ.
What MacArthur cannot tolerate is the practice of exalting psychology above the Bible and prayer. Combining psychology with divine resources to sell a “spiritual elixir” is “a tacit admission that what God has given us in Christ is not really adequate to meet our deepest needs and salve our troubled lives” (p. 16).
Conclusion
MacArthur ends his chapter with strong warning against counselors who claim to represent God but rely on human wisdom. He cited the experience of Job who “had to endure the folly of well-intentioned human counselors” (ibid.). Their advice was mistaken and useless, making Job’s suffering even more painful.
Failure to recover our confidence in the resources that God provides would spell not only the doom of Christian witness, but of the life of the church itself:
I am convinced that far more is at stake than the average Christian realizes. If evangelicals do not rediscover biblical counseling and reinstate God’s Word to its rightful place as the supreme discerner and mender of the thoughts and intents of the heart (see Heb. 4:12), we will lose our testimony to the world, and the church itself will die” (p. 17).