Nouthetic Counseling in Baptist Schools

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Somehow we’re not communicating or you’re arguing by picking on minutiae. </pre>[/QUOTE]The latter might be possible. I tend to be the personality type that will not throw out an entire discipline or theory simply because it fails in certain scenarios. Rather I will only use that discipline where it is needed. For example, I would not throw out Newtonian physics because it fails at certain points because it does succeed in other areas. I would simply use Newtonian physics where it works. For everywhere else, where appropriate, I would use General Relativity, quantum physics, and string theory. I know many of my friends dislike the historical-critical method because some scholars have used it to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Bible. My friends see the discipline used badly and they want to reject it all. I, on the other hand, see the discipline used correctly to authenticate the Bible, and wish to use the discipline used in such a manner. So when I am arguing for modern psychology I am not arguing for its misuse but for its value. So if I am picking on minutiae it is probably because I looking at particulars to see how it effects the general. I am quite Socratic in that sense. So if some one says, “Nouthetic counseling can solve many behavioral problems,” I immediately respond, “Many but not all. It is what is left out of the many that we need to discuss.”

You’ll have to see my previous posts on the problem of modern psychology to understand the makeup of man. Here is where I agree with those agitated with the secular view of man. Much modern psychology approaches man as a materialistic being, devoid of spirit. The mind/soul is perceived in a materialistic sense. Christians rightly reject this view as incorrect but their response is based on a very Platonic and Cartesian view of man that I believe is not correct. Specifically, for this discussion, I believe that the mind, as opposed to the physical and spiritual aspects of the body, is composed of both physical and spiritual elements.

Sorry. All I have to go on for your argument is what you say. Where do you believe I was making assumptions about your argument?

Okay. We may have to either agree to disagree or I may need to call upon one of my former psychology professors for clarification on their position. I’ll try the latter.

Just a thought. You previously wrote, “There are more than 600 psychological therapies or systems or variations of same in the USA alone.” How do I know that you were not taught in one of these false psychological systems and this is the route of your skepticism. Honestly, I don’t think you were from what you are telling me but it might help others who are reading.

Sorry about that. I went to my Webster’s New World Dictionary to see if the problem might be concerned with the definition of “deal.” "A scientists deals with facts" was the example they gave to the definition I had been using. Take that up with Webster.

Yes, I thought that might be the problem. Many Christian disagreements come from using imprecise words, terminology and definitions and the individual’s perspective upon those words. For example: I say to my wife, “turn up the air conditioner.” She thinks that I mean to turn up the air conditioner to make it hotter but I really mean for her to turn up the cold air of the air conditioner. What is the source of the confusion? When I was a child, my home had a heating system but a window air conditioner that was only used for cooling the house. For my family, “Turn up the air conditioner” meant turn up the cold air. It’s amazing how these confusions work.

But does a psychologist need to be trained in recognizing other disorders enough to refer the patient to a specialist? And if so, should those specialist be seminary trained?

 

Tinity Theological Seminary teaches nouthetic counseling.

 

But does a psychologist need to be trained in recognizing other disorders enough to refer the patient to a specialist? And if so, should those specialist be seminary trained? </font>[/QUOTE]In a word—NO!

I reject the concept of “mental illness.” I hold an IP (information processing) model that differentiates between mind and brain. One is software and the other is hardware. Although an inadequate analogy, the hardware and software are separate entities although they interface to process. The so-called “mental illnesses” are software (mind) problems, not hardware (medical/physical). For example, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, BPD, clinical depression, etc. are software problems, not hardware. These syndromes are learned behaviors, not medical conditions. They arise from behaviors, habits and thought patterns developed over many years. Recently, Caroline Carney at Indiana University linked various depression-related disorders to cancer patients. The connection, however, is through behaviors (e.g. drinking, smoking, etc.) rather than the clinical symptom—depression. (see Carney, C. Psychosomatic Medicine, vol 66)

I recommend your reading The Myth of Mental Illness. by Thomas S. Szasz, a psychiatrist.

 

Sorry about that. I went to my Webster’s New World Dictionary to see if the problem might be concerned with the definition of “deal.” "A scientists deals with facts" was the example they gave to the definition I had been using. Take that up with Webster.

[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, those word book guys probably never read Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper.

 

Okay. We may have to either agree to disagree or I may need to call upon one of my former psychology professors for clarification on their position. I’ll try the latter.

Just a thought. You previously wrote, “There are more than 600 psychological therapies or systems or variations of same in the USA alone.” How do I know that you were not taught in one of these false psychological systems and this is the route of your skepticism. Honestly, I don’t think you were from what you are telling me but it might help others who are reading.

[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, you're right. I was taught a lot of bunk. However, I question, question, question ……. Remember that I was a real scientist first. The nature of scientific inquiry is curiosity and questioning. The only thing that I don’t question is the Bible—I accept it as God’s Word by faith, although not Kierkegaard's "leap of faith." Everything else is questionable.

When I realized the so-called scientific basis for psychology was bankrupt, I became a psychological skeptic. I don’t have all the answers but I sure can tell when the other guy is blowing smoke. Having a long term interest in the philosophy of science, scientific methodology, and epistemology, I find it fascinating how we have come to accept a whole paradigm of psychological thought on the slimmest of evidence. Furthermore, most, if not all, runs counter to Scripture.

A case is point is the Piagetian educational psychology that was the rage a few years ago. Jean Piaget, a zoologist specializing in mussels, developed his educational psychology on phylogenetic recapitulation theory. This is the idea that ontogeny (development of the individual) recapitulates phylogeny (evolution of the species). Ernest Haeckel, who popularized this now discredited evolutionary theory, lied and manipulated drawings of embryos to make his theory plausible. Today, no reputable embryologist, evolutionary or otherwise, would support this spurious theory. Yet, Piaget based his whole system of educational psychology on this bogus theory and the observation of his two kids. Although the ardor for Piaget has waned, his theory is still one of the major theories taught in schools of education. Can a workable theory be based on a false premise?

 

You’ll have to see my previous posts on the problem of modern psychology to understand the makeup of man. Here is where I agree with those agitated with the secular view of man. Much modern psychology approaches man as a materialistic being, devoid of spirit. The mind/soul is perceived in a materialistic sense. Christians rightly reject this view as incorrect but their response is based on a very Platonic and Cartesian view of man that I believe is not correct. Specifically, for this discussion, I believe that the mind, as opposed to the physical and spiritual aspects of the body, is composed of both physical and spiritual elements.

[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, but this is where we differ. You are somewhat eclectic, taking elements from both views. No, I believe there is an interface but not a intermingling of the two. This is an area in which we cannot be too specific since Scripture is not clearly specific in some details. It has much to do with the soul-spirit-body argument. However, it is not necessary to solve this problem to be Biblical. Biblical teaching does clearly address behavior.

 

We may be at a dead end due to the fact that we may not agree on the makeup of the self. No problem.

I have read enough psychology that states that many of the above mentioned disorders can have both physical and mental and spiritual causes. What is worse … some of these problems can be caused by pregnant women smoking or drinking. Interesting problem. One’s mother drank during pregnancy and now one has a disorder. The disorder was caused by the sin of another. But I do not think we are going to agree on non-physical causes to some disorders and non-spiritual causes of others.

I question as well. Also, I trust the Scriptures, but I question interpretations of Scripture. I question, question, question where people get their ideas about faith from the Bible. I also question myself. I question what I believe and where I get my ideas from. What are my biases? Where have I been culturally conditioned to automatically see some “truth” in the Scriptures?

Anyway, I am a big Kierkegaard fan.

Yeah, I appreciate that. We see a lot of this in theology. There are whole lot of theological constructs which many believe are firmly based upon Scripture but are not. I won’t mention them because it might start a storm with others.

Yes. Many theories have “worked” despite the falsity of their premises. Of course it depends on what one means by work. Let’s take another behavioral science as example. Many different economic theories have “worked.” Feudalism “worked”. Capitalism “works”. Communism “works”. Socialism “works”. All of these are based on a false premise, all unbiblical. Look at forms of government. Monarchies “worked”. Republican Democracies “work”. Both of these are based upon false premises. The latter is certainly based upon unbiblical concepts about the nature of man. I hear many believers decry the Enlightenment and the science and theology it brought based on its humanistic worldview; but where are they decrying democracy which is a very humanistic worldview? Silence. Why? Because to them it works.

Many, many theological concepts are based upon false premises. I feel a bit impish so I’ll name some of the more popular Baptist ones.

Dispensational theology, the subordination of women, the elevated view of the pastor, views on the intermediate state, views on creationism, views on Scripture, views on faith and knowledge, views on Calvinism and Armenianism, etc.

Oddly enough, some people have held false views on certain theological concepts and have still been extremely faithful and have been blessed with successful ministries and reached others for Christ. Why? Because it is God who is behind the faith and the successful ministries. If we had to be 100% correct on all our theology before God could use us we would never accomplish anything because we can never be 100% correct on all our theology. And, even when we have a workable ministry based on a false premise, God can still use it.

Now, does this mean we can use any old theory and expect God to bless it? No. We have to change with the times and the cultures and always pursue a more Biblical theology.

Now, when it comes to hard sciences … can a workable theory be based on a false premise? I’ll have to think about that. I am discarding the “works on paper” notions. The String-theory of physics works on paper but has not been proven yet.

Perhaps the problem is that we have two different views of science. You are looking at psychology from a hard science point of view while I look at psychology from a soft science point of view. I see psychology as a behavioral science and subject to greater variations than, say, geology and physics.

Yes, and its these unspecific details that I think need to be either addressed or (perhaps better) allowed to proceed until it crosses path with scripture. Then we’ll have a better idea.

Could you explain this statement? I think it has bearing on the current discussion.

 

Thank you for your post. I will think about what you have written, but, as of now, I totally disgree with your assertion that democracy and capitalism are based upon true premises. Just because the Bible has much to say on a particular subject doesn't mean we are accurately applying those principles. But it doesn't really matter. We are living in a quasi-capitalistic society and a republican-democracy that is currently "working" and probably will for the rest of our lives. Let's enjoy its blessings and overcome its obstacles.

 

This post is written on the run. The Bible does address behavior because it forbids lying, drunkenness, stealing, murder, fornication, etc. These things (i.e. sins) are behaviors. Scripture does not necessarily address the etiology of the behavior in forbidding it. It does say in other places that sin (i.e. sinful behavior) comes from the heart. Sinful behavior is produced by the individual choosing to gratify his sinful desires in his heart (James 1). Temptation is simply an external appeal to those desires (lusts) within. I am working toward the point that behavior is a personal choice regardless of the factors motivating it. In other words, one may be pulled toward sin but he is not excused because of strong motivating factors. The Bible condemns and calls it sin regardless of the factors prompting it. This militates against the commonly accepted and popular suppositions that behavior is produced by genetic, environmental, or chemical factors. Although, I will not waste time arguing that certain things do not predispose toward certain behaviors (e.g. presence of large quantity of adipose tissue predisposes toward gluttony and obesity), I will contend that behavior is decisional. Therefore, the individual is responsible.

In sum, Scripture does address behavior and holds the person accountable for his actions. In other words, God judges us for our actions.

 

We may be at a dead end due to the fact that we may not agree on the makeup of the self. No problem.

I have read enough psychology that states that many of the above mentioned disorders can have both physical and mental and spiritual causes. What is worse … some of these problems can be caused by pregnant women smoking or drinking. Interesting problem. One’s mother drank during pregnancy and now one has a disorder. The disorder was caused by the sin of another. But I do not think we are going to agree on non-physical causes to some disorders and non-spiritual causes of others.


[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. My paradigm is entirely different from modern psychology. I am finding more and more skeptics—skeptical of psychology, that is—among psychiatrists and psychologists.

The problem with your example is that no causal relationship has been firmly established between so-called mental disorders and smoking or drinking mothers. There are, obviously, physical effects (i.e. low birth weight, etc.) but no causal relation to mental disorders has ever been definitively shown. This has only been presupposed. Whereas one can show a statistical relation with certain behaviors or feelings related to smoking and drinking mothers, it does not necessarily follow that the smoking and drinking created the syndrome. In other words, other unknown and uncontrolled factors in the environment may be underlying agent. These may accompany the smoking and drinking mother pattern. For example, you will find most of these scenarios in lower socio-economic strata where the house is dirty and foul with a higher incidence of cockroaches. It may be a viral agent from the cockroaches. Or, it may be the behavioral pattern of the parents.