Psychologists and the derivatives thereof (pyscholanalysts,
psychiatrists etc) hold far too high a level of respect in our society today,
that is not warranted and is actually incredibly concerning. But it is
especially concerning how much this profession has come to be accepted in the
Church, when this is a profession that was developed to compete with and
actually replace biblical counselling and wisdom. David Hunt has some good
insights for us in his book Psychology and the Church, here are a few.
Psychology was brought into the Church by heretics:
So how did secular,
anti-Christian psychology metamorphose into Christian psychology? It is not a
recognized branch of psychology that was founded by a Christian. It isn’t
listed in the index of psychology textbooks. It doesn’t come from the Bible and
was unknown in the church until Peale brought it in. As reported on Peale’s
home page, here is how “Operation Trojan Horse in the Church” began:
In 1937, Peale established a clinic with Freudian psychiatrist Dr. Smiley Blanton in the basement of the Marble Collegiate Church. (Blanton brought with him the “extensive experience” of having undergone psychoanalysis by Freud himself in Vienna in 1929, 1935, 1936, and 1937.) The clinic was described as having “a theoretical base that was Jungian, with a strong evidence of neo- and post-Freudianism.”
It subsequently grew to an
operation with more than 20 psychiatric doctors and psychologically-trained
“ministers,” and in 1951 became known as the American Foundation for Religion
and Psychiatry. In 1972, it merged with the Academy of Religion and Mental
Health to form the Institutes of Religion and Health (IRH). To his death
[December 24, 1993], Peale remained affiliated with the IRH as president of the
board and chief fund raiser.
Indeed, Peale pioneered the
merger of theology and psychology which became known as Christian Psychology.
[Emphasis added]
Peale applied Christianity
to everyday problems and is the person who is most responsible for bringing
psychology into the professing Church, blending its principles into a message
of “positive thinking.” Peale said, “through prayer you …make use of the great
factor within yourself, the deep subconscious mind … [which Jesus called] the
kingdom of God within you. …Positive thinking is just another term for faith.”
He also wrote, “Your unconscious mind …[has a] power that turns wishes into realities when the wishes are strong enough.”
According to J. Harold Ellens, author of a section on Peale in the Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, “Peale’s work was initially scorned by ministers and therapists alike.… Dr. Peale was three-quarters of a century ahead of the times with his emphasis on the relationship between psychology and Christian experience. He saw psychology and Christian experience as very compatible… he had the courage to stand pat on this position in spite of the opposition of the entire Christian church for nearly half a century. His genius was that he …translated psycho-theology into the language of the people.”
So the “entire Christian
church” opposed “Christian psychology” for decades. Eventually, not only
liberals but evangelicals succumbed to this appealing delusion that theology
could be made “scientific” by merging it with psychology—though the latter is not
a science.[1]
Psychology was developed by maniacs:
“If the medium of
psychotherapy—talking and listening—doesn’t depend upon advanced classes in
conversation in order to be effective, what does one study to earn a Ph.D. in
clinical psychology? Theories about human behavior, mostly: what Sigmund Freud
gleaned from Greek dramas, his speculations about infantile sex, psychic
determinism, and the unconscious; Carl Jung’s beliefs about archetypal images,
the occult, and the collective unconscious; Alfred Adler’s “masculine protest”
and “inferiority complex” concepts; Abraham Maslow’s humanistic psychology,
“hierarchy of needs” theory, and New Age obscenities; B. F. Skinner’s
stimulus-response behavioral dogmas; Erich Fromm’s godless view of love; Arthur
Janov’s primal scream; Carl Rogers’ client-centered therapy; Fritz Perls’
Gestalt, and a legion of other speculative ideas.
What then of these theories?
Have they, over the years, formed an historic body of knowledge from which
developed true and helpful insights regarding mankind’s nature or provided
remedies for the problems of life? To the contrary, the field of psychotherapy
is its own lunatic asylum! If you think that’s a little harsh, check out the
lives of any of those mentioned above. Freud was a cocaine addict who lusted
for his own mother. Jung was suicidal and communed with a demon. Rogers
abandoned his cancer-stricken, dying wife for another woman but relieved his
guilt by allegedly contacting his deceased wife’s spirit through a Ouija board.
Rogers later ended his own life through assisted suicide. And the list goes on.
(“Physician, heal thyself” comes to mind.) In addition, there are more than
four hundred fifty different (often contradictory and utterly bizarre)
psychotherapeutic systems and thousands of methods and techniques.
Karl Popper, regarded as the
preeminent scholar in the area of philosophy of science, concluded, after a
lengthy study of psychotherapy, that its theories, “though posing as science,
had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science,” and that
“these theories describe some facts but in the manner of myths. They contain
most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in testable form.”1 Eighty
leading educators, writing in Psychology: A Study of a Science, edited by
Sigmund Koch, concurred: “The entire subsequent history of psychology can be
seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to
sustain the delusion that it already is a science.”2 Martin and Deidre Bobgan,
prolific authors and critics of psychotherapy, summarize the scene today: “The
entire field is amassed in confusion and crowded with pseudo-knowledge and
pseudo-theories resulting in pseudo-science.”3”[2]
Psychology is no better, and in fact inferior to just speaking to
a friend,
“I assume that most
evangelicals, whether in the pulpit or pew, can certainly handle the medium of
counseling—which is simply talking and listening! But, few of us are trained
professionals. We don’t have an advanced degree in talking and listening, nor have
we studied theories about human behavior, which are nothing more than the
opinions and speculations of godless men. Furthermore, there are more than five
hundred different (often contradictory and sometimes utterly bizarre)
psychotherapeutic systems and thousands of methods and techniques.
So, as nonprofessionals, we
missed out on all of that knowledge-so-called. But still, aren’t professionals
more effective than nonprofessionals in helping people with their problems? No!
After reviewing the research
comparing trained and untrained psychological counselors, researchers Truax and
Mitchell report: “There is no evidence that the usual traditional graduate
training program has any positive value in producing therapists who are more
helpful than nonprofessionals.”
Consider the conclusion of a
lengthy research project conducted by Dr. Joseph Durlak:
Overall, outcome results in
comparative studies have favored nonprofessionals.… There were no significant
differences among helpers in 28 investigations, but nonprofessionals were
significantly more effective than professionals in 12 studies. The provocative
conclusion from these comparative investigations is that professionals do not
possess demonstrably superior therapeutic skills, compared with
nonprofessionals. Moreover, professional mental health education, training, and
experience are not necessary prerequisites for an effective helping person.
Best-selling author,
psychologist Dr. Bernie Zilbergeld, writes in his book, The Shrinking of
America: Myths of Psychological Change: “… most problems faced by people would
be better solved by talking to friends, spouses, relatives or anyone else who
appears to be doing well what you believe you’re doing poorly. … If I
personally had a relationship problem and I couldn’t work it out with my
partner, I wouldn’t go and see a shrink. I would look around me for the kind of
relationship I admire. … That’s who I would go to. I want somebody who’s
showing by his life that he can do it.”[3]
And these points are just scratching the surface of why this profession should be avoided in almost all situations (for instance where it overlaps with neuroscience). If you are planning to see a therapist, I would strongly recommend you seek some counsel from some good friends or family first. Save your money, save your time, and save yourself from some terrible influences.
If you do not have friends or close family, then your problems are not solvable by a therapist. You need to join a local church and build friendships with good people in the Church. You will findthat if you do this that over time you can build good confidants that can help you.
But psychology is neither necessary, nor to be recommended, for a host of reasons. I will come back to this in some later posts and expand on some of these points. For now knowing that it was a profession that was introduced into the Church by heretics, developed by maniacs and is scientifically observed to be equal to or of less value than just talking to a friend, should be enough to get you to question whether or not you should blindly trust your psychologist.
List of References
[1] Hunt,
Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial
Answers (pp. 13-14). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.
[2] Hunt,
Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial
Answers (pp. 21-22). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.
[3] Hunt,
Dave; McMahon, T. A.. Psychology and the Church: Critical Questions, Crucial
Answers (pp. 45-46). The Berean Call. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment