How could anyone view psychology as a gift of God? After all, in our last post we considered the position that the Bible is sufficient to deal with our emotional, relational, and behavioral issues, and that consequently, evangelicals don’t need psychology. In fact, from that perspective psychology seems to be a corrupting influence. As we considered that position, it seemed to be quite convincing. How, then, can any evangelical take the position that psychology is a gift of God?

The fact is that many do, and the support they offer for this position is very compelling. One evangelical psychologist maintains that just as the Israelites on their way out of Egypt took the spoils of the Egyptians, so evangelical adoption of psychology is taking the gold and silver of the secular academic world.

This position is founded on three rather convincing arguments. (As with the Sufficiency of Scripture position, here I am seeking to present this position from the perspective of those who embrace it. I am not necessarily advocating for it.) First, the Bible does not address many psychological pathologies, for example, Tourette’s Syndrome, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anorexia to name a few. What do counselors using only the Bible do when a schizophrenic exhibiting psychotic behavior walks through the door? Often what they do is admit the person to a psychiatric unit for psychological and psychiatric treatment.

A corollary to this position is that since these types of pathologies are not found in Scripture, we are misguided to view them as sin issues. To do so erroneously heaps condemnation on people already hurting. It is tantamount to shooting our wounded.

A second argument advanced in support of viewing psychology as a gift of God is rooted in the often repeated assertion that “all truth is God’s truth.” Whether truth is found in Scripture or in nature, it is part of God’s provision for understanding and living in the world in which we live. Those holding this position contend that since psychology is a product of academic research, it is part of God’s truth. Therefore, the failure to embrace and utilize it is tantamount to tossing a gift of God into the city dump.

A related third argument depicts a parallel between spiritual, medical, and psychological expertise. It contends that just as the pastor cares for the spiritual needs of the individual and the medical doctor treats his physical pathologies, so the psychological challenges of the individual constitute the turf of the psychologist. This representation seems to wrap up neatly the various components of the human being and the appropriate treatment for each. This position suggests that those rejecting the benefits of psychology reflect the same mindset as the person refusing medical treatment for his child because he is convinced that God will heal him.

As the Sufficiency of Scripture position seemed to be compelling, this perspective does also. Yet it appears that they are diametrically opposite and incompatible. To confuse matters further, in our next posting we will look at an intermediate position that also appears to have validity. After describing that position, we will begin an evaluation process. I believe a precise understanding of the appropriate role of psychology is the most significant issue facing the evangelical community today. An accurate evaluation could instigate an evangelical reformation.