Evangelical Reformation

We have all heard the designation, “professional help,” and know what it means. The person in view has problems beyond the capacity of his friend George or Pastor Bill and needs to talk with an expert, that is someone trained in psychology.

How does psychotherapy get billed as professional help? For starters, psychologists undergo extensive training, do an internship that demands many hours, and get licensed by the state. All this is great, assuming that the material covered in their training provides valid answers to the problems of their clients. But does it?

The designation, “professional help,” is supported substantially by the assumed or stated parallel between the psychologist and the medical doctor. Just as the medical doctor offers professional help for the body, so the psychologist provides professional help for the personality, i.e. for emotional, behavioral, and relational problems. The implication is, just as medicine is science applied to the body, so psychology is science applied to the personality. Both fields offer equally valid expertise based on scientific research, only in different arenas.

That comparison is largely invalid. In the previous two posts, we have been discussing the vast difference in success between the natural sciences and the social sciences. Though it may seem harsh, it seems fair to say that while natural science through physics and engineering has put a man on the moon, social science through psychology has put a man and women in divorce court. While natural science through medicine has increased our lifespan, social science through education has decreased our SAT scores and our capacity to compete educationally with other nations. Examples of the disparity between the successes of the natural and social sciences could go on.

It is important to recognize this disparity because psychology tends to ride the coattails of the natural sciences in establishing its credibility. Psychologists construct the equation, science is successful, psychology is scientific, therefore psychology is successful, i.e., treats problems professionally. This line of reasoning, which includes the suggested parallel to medicine, has convinced the public of the legitimacy of psychology. However, that this is not a valid equation is demonstrated by the lack of success of psychology discussed in the previous two posts, especially in the area of psychotherapy, which relies heavily on personality theories.

Several factors, which we plan to discuss in the future, play into this conclusion. One is that psychology is not a homogeneous field. Some aspects of psychology are based on good research. The sad truth is that evangelicals have borrowed from the most troubled end of the psychology spectrum. More on this later. A second issue related to our understanding of the failure of psychology is that scientific research is not a sufficiently powerful tool to address foundational issues in any field, be it biology, philosophy, psychology, ethics, or some other area. Therefore, for foundational issues, we must rely on revelation. I also plan to address this assertion in the near future.

The bottom line is that, as we will see, psychotherapy based on personality theories, which includes most psychotherapy, is not professional help because it is not founded on solid research, despite claims to the contrary. Rather, psychology needs professional help, i.e. help from professional research, to examine its findings. Such professional help would lead to the conclusion that the only real professional on the foundational issues of psychology is the Designer, and the only source on foundational aspects of human nature is the handbook that He has provided. I am not suggesting that psychology offers no role in the counseling process. I believe it has a role to play. However, evangelicals have assigned it the wrong role, one that it was not designed to fulfill in a professional manner.

The goal of the left is power. They are shamelessly obvious in their pursuit of it. Thwarting the will of the people through judicial fiat and holding our educational system hostage via the NEA represent just two liberal power grabs. A recent news report mentioned one California initiative approved by the voters that was held up in the courts for 10 years. Therefore, even though their political fortunes have waned, liberals retain a stranglehold on significant segments of our society.

The bad news is that when liberals impose their will on our society, they do not take responsibility for the resulting failures. Virtually everything liberals touch deteriorates, be it economics, education, or other aspects of society. Yet we never find them acknowledging the chaos they inflict. And because they have controlled the media and educational institutions, it is difficult to hold them accountable.

Practically every major psychological theory is a liberal idea. These are at root humanistic concepts, spawned and propagated by liberals, extensively in liberal academic institutions. One of the tragedies of our day is that conservatives, including evangelicals, have been taken in by liberal psychological concepts. This is especially tragic because these ideas have not been supported by valid research and had not proven to be effective. To the contrary, they have proven to be ineffective. Yet, as with other liberal initiatives, rather than admitting the failure for their ideas, liberals continue to promote them as valid.

In my previous post, I mentioned the destructive impact psychology has had on marriages. Psychology has also exercised a commanding role over our society’s approach to parenting, with similar results. In his book, A Family of Value, psychologist John Rosemond describes how psychology gained influence over the child-rearing process in our society and how badly it has failed. He goes on to share how ultimately he came to reject the psychological concepts he had learned. In so doing, Rosemond underscores both the influence and the failure of psychology in this arena. (John Rosemond: Cassette Tape Series, A Family of Value)

We find the same process at work in the field of education. Maureen Stout has described this phenomenon in her book, The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of America’s Kids in the Name of Self-esteem. (Maureen Stout, The Feel-Good Curriculum; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 2000) Her book makes essentially the same points that we have observed in other areas, that psychology has had vast influence and has produced negative results.

In the face of all of the evidence, we must conclude that major psychological theories when applied to various societal areas have been counterproductive. This is not to suggest that every contribution made by psychology is flawed. However, it does appear that whenever psychology provides the commanding theoretical position, the core concepts, the guiding principles, in a given area, the influenced area experiences decline.

Therefore, though some may argue for accepting psychology as science, as the product of valid research, it is best to listen to the old cliché that warns that the proof of the pudding is in the taste. The success or failure of a theory must be determined by the bottom line. And while the bottom line for the natural sciences has for the most part been highly favorable, the bottom line for psychology across the past number of decades shows a serious deficit balance. Since the psychological theory that has enjoyed the most influence in these areas is that of Carl Rogers, this warning holds special application to his concepts.

Thus, we must be cautious in labeling the findings of psychology as “truth.” We agree that all truth is God’s truth, but viewing the creations of the left as truth constitutes an expensive mistake. And if we are waiting for them to admit the failures of their psychological concepts, we should not hold our breath.

For a while, my wife and daughter were in the business of buying rundown houses, fixing them up, and selling them. Prior to buying, if they saw cracks in the walls, they would hire a house inspector to ensure that the house was structurally sound. Most important, he would check to see if the foundation was solid.

Beginning with our previous post, we started asking whether psychology didn’t warrant a foundation inspection, especially the theories of Carl Rogers that have shaped secular and evangelical thinking and counseling. Our contemporary and evangelical communities assume that scientific research provides a solid foundation for any field, view psychology as being built on a scientific foundation, and conclude that the theories of Carl Rogers represent good psychology. QED, the therapeutic foundation of Carl Rogers is solid.

A substantial body of evidence supports the conclusion that science provides an effective means of discovering truth. It is apparent that scientific research has brought us many blessings, from good medical care to comfortable homes. Perhaps the most dramatic expression of scientific accomplishment was putting a man on the moon, though the mapping of the DNA molecule may be even more impressive. These accomplishments, and countless others, confirm the credibility of scientific research, if our society needs such confirmation.

However, those advances represent achievements in the natural sciences. Achievements in the various disciplines related to human behavior, including psychology, comprise quite another matter. While there is substantial evidence that humanity has been making strides forward in the area of natural sciences, the evidence that we have been losing ground in our understanding of the human being is equally as compelling. Not that long ago another school shooting took place, this one involving a 15-year-old boy in California who killed two of his classmates and wounded 13 others. As you know, this is not an isolated incident, but rather part of an ongoing trend in our society.

This type of incident is just one of many trends revealing societal decline. Sources such as William Bennett’s Index of Cultural Indicators, statistically demonstrate societal decay. The rise in the divorce rate, the use of drugs, births out of wedlock, cohabitation of unwed couples, educational decline, increased suicides, and many other symptoms, all indicate that contemporary theories related to human behavior are counterproductive.

For the purposes of our discussion, it is significant that most of the areas of decline are in fields influenced by psychology. Psychology predominantly deals with human behavior, emotions, and relationships. It is specifically in these areas that our society is experiencing the greatest devastation. For example, there is little question that in our society psychology provides the predominant input in the area of marriage and family. Even evangelicals draw heavily on psychology to deal with family relations. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, in her book, The Divorce Culture, observes, “Even pastoral marriage counseling began to acquire a more psychotherapeutic orientation.” She then quotes from the book, Unfaithful Angels: How Social Work Has Abandoned Its Mission, by Harry Specht and Mark Courtney as saying, “Ministers and priests have come to look and act more and more like psychotherapists, just as psychotherapists have come to look and act more and more like priests.” She goes on to observe, “Pastoral counseling began to take a client-centered approach that required clergy to stay within the client’s ‘value system.’ Pastors (and congregations) retreated from theological challenge to an individual’s values on the psychotherapeutic ground that such a challenge would be damaging to the individual’s selfhood and would come across as ‘preachy’ and ‘moralistic.’” Whitehead continues, “Perhaps more surprisingly, psychology made inroads into the evangelical denominations. Unlike the mainliners, evangelicals tended to use psychology to support traditional religious teaching on marriage and family, although over time they too came to view marital dissolution in more psychological terms.” (Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The Divorce Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), 48-49.)

My wife and daughter would not buy this therapeutic house with all the cracks in the walls without a foundation inspection. It is of special interest to our discussion that the “client-centered approach” cited by Whitehead is specifically a reference to the theory of Carl Rogers. Therefore, any inspector checking the psychological house should give special attention to the foundation under the Rogers wing. In future posts we will grab our flashlight and make this much-needed inspection.