https://www.christianpost.com/news/churches-address-mental-health-stigma-in-the-pews.html
In some respects it's surprising that this article is even
appearing at this point. This debate over whether or not Christians should
embrace psychology and its assumptions is effectively over. The ship has sailed
as they say. I remember the contentions over this point in the 1990's and by
the early 2000's it was clear there had been a fundamental shift. We moved from
hearing psychology condemned from the pulpit to pastors on Christian radio
telling the audience to leave their church if psychology is called into
question – because at that time there will still churches challenging this
paradigm.
As is often the case (and this article is no exception) the
fundamental issues and the primary arguments used to counter psychology are
ignored.
First, broadly speaking the Evangelical world has embraced a
materialist worldview – at least on this point. Practically speaking, you are
your brain so to speak – which is a view that should be reckoned unacceptable
by those committed to Scripture.
There is the heart which is the oft employed Scriptural term
that incorporates the complex of mind and will. And of course we are spiritual
beings, and critically it must be pointed out that psychology fails to take
into account the noetic effects of sin – the fact that even our minds and thus
our very thinking are also fallen. If it does, it tends to biologize the issue
or reduce such questions to behavioural patterns – eliminating the aspect of a
sin nature, or the flesh, the postlapsarian tendency toward sin. To be fair,
sin may be mentioned by so-called Christian counselors and psychologists but
sin has no quantifiable or objective aspect in terms of scientific
investigation. Once again, it must be reduced to biology, chemistry, and or
behaviour rooted in bad habits or environment. And yet this hardly touches on
the core problem that apart from Christ we are children of wrath and under the
power of the god of this world.
This ethos is even reflected in Evangelical popular music and
in common parlance. Self-esteem, not believing 'lies about yourself' and the
like are frequently expressed – a far cry from the brokenness we're called to
in the Sermon on the Mount or the recognition of the vanity and futility that
characterizes this life apart from the hope in a spiritual and transcendent
Kingdom. Mental illness (so to speak) is the effective norm for the lost world,
depression is to be expected and apart from redemption, is a logical response
to the futility that characterizes this present evil age.
It's not always a spiritual issue – or so we're told in the
article. The argument is in terms of biology. Your organs such as your kidneys,
lungs, and liver are subject to disease. So it is with your brain. But this
fails to recognize that the brain is different – a different kind of organ.
Once again this expresses a materialist viewpoint and fails to recognize that
the brain (while a physical organ) is not merely physical but interacts with
the mind which is something immaterial. We are more than connected neurons and
tissue. This represents a painfully simplistic and fatally reductionist
understanding of what a human being is. And it must be admitted this
interaction is in fact a mystery that science cannot explain. So why has the
Church largely embraced this thinking and all of its assumptions?
To say you take a pill for your kidney and therefore you
should take a pill for your brain is a fallacious argument. The analogy if
there is one is not that simple.
While the spectrum of mind-body dualism is out of favour in
the halls of Western Analytic philosophy, the arguments against it remain
unconvincing. They are pushed out of necessity due to the materialist
assumptions and as such the movement cannot even begin to reckon with these
questions and others such as consciousness.
Additionally the embrace of psychology on the part of the
Evangelical movement is part and parcel an expression of their rejection of
Scriptural Sufficiency. Some of Paul's final words were an exhortation to the
authority of Scripture and the fact that it is sufficient, perfect, and
complete for correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God
may be thoroughly equipped for all good works.
Christian Psychology rejects this and says that when it comes
to the issues of the brain and mind, behaviour, guilt, stress, anguish, one's
attitude and so forth the Scriptures are not enough. What's needed is a field
of quasi- (or rather pseudo-) medical study, that in reality is deeply rooted
in philosophy and in extra-Biblical philosophical assumptions about the nature
of reality, personhood, behaviour, and meaning. And instead of turning to
leaders in the Church who possess (by the Holy Spirit) spiritual wisdom and the
tools of the faith – prayer, repentance, and even the sacraments, we instead
are to turn to this other school of thought that seeks to 'scientifically'
analyse one's difficulties, categorize them in terms alien to Scripture, and in
many cases resorts to pharmaceuticals in the form of psychosomatic medications.
How this is effectively different from pouring out your guts
on a barstool while getting drunk is still a mystery to me apart from the fact
that supposedly there's a structure to the treatment and yet I wonder how many
therapists really possess any more wisdom than your local barkeep. Additionally
there are a many competing and contradictory schools of thought when it comes
to psychology and yet how many people pursue or make inquiry regarding their
counselor and his fundamental beliefs?
The Church has largely followed the world on these points and
I remember being shocked (even back in the 1990's) to discover large numbers of
the people in my congregation were drugged – and this was in the context of
Confessional Presbyterianism. In the Evangelical world it's commonplace, and I
know of many pastors who also rely on psychosomatic medications. Instead of
being disqualified for the office, this was at first tolerated and is now (in
the name of authenticity) almost celebrated.
Anyone remotely reflective about their life struggles with
regret, doubt, guilt, and the like. Scripturally speaking – and this statement
is completely radical at this point in time – this is a good thing. Praise be
to God. It means you have a conscience. You can overly or morbidly focus on
self and lose your way. You don't need a 'licensed therapist' charging you fees
to tell you that. An older Christian and certainly an Elder should be able to
help you in this regard. Brokenness is a good thing as is an acknowledgment of
life's seeming futility. It leads to submission, reliance, and dependence on
Christ. This dependent living trust is called faith.
I suppose when for many faith is mere intellectual assent or
expressed by going forward at an invitation (and is viewed in practical terms
as a one-time event), then it's no wonder this is so disturbing to people. The
idea of faith being an ongoing struggle of trust, obedience, and repentance
containing past, present-ongoing, and eschatological aspects is foreign to
them.
The New Testament calls on us to struggle, fight, wrestle,
work out our salvation, and make our calling and election sure. There is an
exhortation toward perseverance. The Cheap Grace Gospel of Evangelicalism (and
large swathes of Calvinism) wants to teach presumption instead of assurance and
so the struggles we're bound to have and called to embrace become problematic.
And so they are explained away and in some cases chemically suppressed (I did
not say eliminated) – a clear attempt at supplanting the work and testimony of
the Holy Spirit. As I've said for years, for the Evangelical movement the
embrace of psychology is one of several 'elephants' in the room that in fact
represent a deep and existential threat to the gospel and New Testament
Christianity. When considered cumulatively one must question the very viability
of this movement and its claims to New Testament religion.
Most of what's being described in articles such as the linked
'Christian Post' article has to do with the struggles of the Middle Class and
its self-destructive cycle of values rooted in consumerism and the desire for
security and respectability. These are un-Christian modes of thought and
incompatible with the imperatives provided by Christ and the apostles. We are
to embrace persecution and a form of alienation vis-à-vis the world. This is
incompatible with middle class expectations of success or the good life.
The embrace of psychology rejects Scripture, tears away an
essential pastoral function of the Church and places it in the hands of syncretistic
'professionals'. In terms of 'Christian' counseling it is the sanctification of
the world's wisdom. It's a Trojan Horse and needs to be condemned. On this
point the Fundamentalists I remember from the 1970's, 80's, and 90's were
right. The shift also represents an abdication on the part of Church
leadership.
Anxiety is human but to be human post-Eden is to be fallen.
It is sinful. We all fall into anxiety and to be sure there are levels to it.
It's one thing to be anxious which is a sin, as we're told to be anxious for
nothing. But we sin all the time. And yet it's something else when anxiety
dominates and defines you. Then it becomes a problem of faith – which is trust.
This is not something physiological or environmental but spiritual. The pastor
cited in the article is wrong and leading his flock astray.
While it's good that some (particularly in Reformed circles
and under the influence of Jay Adams) have questioned the common narratives and
sought to 'tweak' them, the truth is even the 'Biblical/Nouthetic Counseling' movement
he started has succumbed to this larger and more dominant cultural impulse. We
don't need 'licensed therapists' and if you had any doubts about the
non-Christian nature of this enterprise, then it simply needs to be pointed out
that in most cases they charge money for their services. That's not 'ministry'.
That's exploitation and these people will give an account for it.
Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are not purely
physiological problems. My wife's family has a long history of mental illness
including numerous family members being institutionalised. There are patterns
to what happened with these people – patterns of selfishness and
self-absorption, sinful behavioural patterns that developed often in childhood
in response to trauma, to neglect, and many other things. Unchecked by poor or
absent parenting these sinful tendencies came to dominate and define these
people. The two Christian people in the family (her mother and aunt) saw these
patterns all too clearly. One may pity such people and (make no mistake) they
do need help but their problems are not physiological or merely psychological.
They are spiritual.
I will readily concede that these spiritual problems can
generate physiological responses and effects. Again, this is the impenetrable mystery
of interaction, how the mind and spirit interact with the body and vice versa.
We've all see what anxiety can do in terms of the body and how thought patterns
can affect everything from blood pressure to diet, to sleep rhythms and the
like. We also see that physical ailment can cloud the mind and in some cases
can come to dominate it and the person's perception and judgment. Depression
and anger can affect the body's chemistry but the world reasons from effect to
cause but in their paradigm the cause is always limited to the material order
and experience and that doesn't do justice to Biblical anthropology.
Finally there is a very dangerous aspect to this embrace of
psychology. While theological liberals and unbelievers will dismiss the gospel
accounts of demonic possession as primitive or superstitious diagnoses of
epilepsy and other physiological conditions, the Christian must take these
accounts seriously and acknowledge the reality of demonic activity.
Some try to maneuver out of this difficulty by arguing such
cases or instances are limited to the time of Christ's ministry on Earth and as
such would not be pertinent to today's context but this argument is baseless.
Someone might then ask, does this mean that all epileptics
and/or persons with mental illness are demon possessed? By no means does it
mean that. But I would argue that mental hospitals, asylums, and prisons are in
fact filled with demoniacs and yet they're not limited to such locales. I
believe there are many such people out on the streets and in the world. Some
function within the context of 'normal' life and others struggle or fail to
function within society. There is angelic activity of both varieties in the
realm of politics and therefore it shouldn't surprise us that demonic activity
is also prevalent.
The humanistic psychological approach cannot account for the
demonic and as such it is certain to misdiagnose and mistreat such persons.
It's one thing to say this about the world. We shouldn't expect any more or
less but for those who view their mental health treatment or counseling as
'Christian' or a form of 'ministry' – this is problematic because they have
embraced a method that discounts the Bible from being able to deal with these
problems and so the Christian claim is in doubt. As such it's not only
unbiblical and thus unchristian, it's dangerous because it is misunderstanding
the state of such people and consequently is guilty of leading them astray and actually
removing from the table the very tools which are capable and sufficient in
addressing their malady.
On the basis of common grace many will argue that we can take
the 'good' from the field of psychology and integrate it with the doctrinal
knowledge we possess via Scripture. This is the same methodology employed by
Christian philosophers and even Systematic Theologians who also use the
framework of philosophy to shape their dogmatic constructs. In opposition to
this I would argue common grace is a valid concept in terms of explaining the
Providential sustenance of society and culture in this period of delayed
Judgment known as the Church Age – this time between the times, between this
age and the age to come. The effects of the curse are limited and judgment is
delayed – or to put it differently being stored up. It does not have a positive
role (by means of a functional and sanctified syncretism) in advancing the
interests of the Kingdom. Abraham Kuyper and the whole of his Dominionist
progeny are wrong and perilously so.
The purpose for this delay is that God may be glorified
through the testimony of His martyr-Church (which 'wins' by losing) and that
the gospel may go to the ends of the Earth for those who would repent – after
which comes the Judgment and the fiery destruction of the Earth and all of its
works. Such thinking is of course foolishness to the world.
To argue that Common Grace is the basis on which Christians
may work hand in hand with the pagans, or that they may build on the knowledge
of the pagans to 'advance' the Kingdom – which assumes such progress is
manifest in terms of cultural attainment, and that the work of pagans may be
sanctified and brought into the Kingdom itself, is begging the question and I
challenge those who argue such to produce any evidence from the New Testament.
There isn't any and the argument always rests on a philosophical cultural
narrative.
We're not here to build culture or to save it but rather as
pilgrims to testify against it. This doesn't mean that we're ascetics or that
we must embrace cultural philistinism. Not at all, but if we do have an
appreciation for cultural attainments we do so as pilgrims and thus always with
a degree of detachment and transcendent reflection.
Psychology presumes we have something to offer (in terms of
help) to the unbeliever apart from Christ. We do not. People can live
'successful' lives but we know that lives of that sort are little more than
futility, especially absent Christ. The message we have is Christ and the
imperatives of the gospel are profound and yet simple – repent and believe. Run the race. Accept grace in the context in
which we are called and press forward not looking back. Continued repentance is
the cure, not a pill which clouds the mind and suppresses the conscience.