CRI-webbk

CRI(Christian Research Institute)

Guilt

of

PSYCHOHERESY

?Martin & Deidre Bobgan

Authors of PsychoHeresy

Scripture quotations are taken from the AuthorizedKing James Version of the Holy Bible

Copyright 1998 Martin and Deidre BobganPublished by EastGate PublishersSanta Barbara, California

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-92420ISBN 0-949417-13-5

Books printed in the United States of America

CRI GUILTY OF PSYCHOHERESY?

CONTENTS

Introduction: ................................................................ 5CRIs Psychology6 & the Church Series

1. Responding to Part One ....................................... 21Laying a Foundation for Discernment

2. Responding to Part Two ....................................... 47The Biblical Counseling Alternative

3. Responding to Part Three .................................... 77Can Psychology Be Integrated with

Christianity?

4. Responding to Part Four .................................... 115The High Cost of Biblical Compassion

and Commitment

References ................................................................ 153

All scripture is given by inspirationof God, and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof, for correction, for instruc-tion in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect,thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks.

(2 Timothy 3:16,17)

As ye have therefore received ChristJesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

Rooted and built up in him, andstablished in the faith, as ye have beentaught, abounding therein withthanksgiving.

Beware lest any man spoil youthrough philosophy and vain deceit,after the tradition of men, after therudiments of the world, and not afterChrist.

(Colossians 2:6-9)

This current response to the Christian ResearchInstitute (CRI) position on psychotherapy and itsunderlying psychologies seems like deja vu to us. Someyears back Walter Martin, the founder of CRI, left thedoor open for hypnosis under certain conditions. Nowthe president of CRI, Hendrik (Hank) Hanegraaff,supports the position of Bob and Gretchen Passantino,which leaves the door open to psychotherapy and itsunderlying psychologies under certain conditions. Thepublication of the Passantinos four articles establishesclearly that this is the CRI position. And, just as WalterMartin was in error about hypnosis, so too HankHanegraaff is in error about psychotherapy.

Introduction

CRIs

Psychology &

the Church

Series

5

Hanegraaff and the Passantinos may protest thatthere is no relation between hypnosis and psycho-therapy and therefore no relation between WalterMartins leaving the door open to hypnosis andHanegraaff s leaving the door open to psychotherapy.However, there is a definite connection. In a sectiontitled Mesmerism: The Beginning of American Psychol-ogy, the American Psychological Associations book onthe History of Psychotherapy: A Century of Change says:

Historians have found several aspects of mesmer-ism and its offshoots that set the stage for 20th-century psychotherapy. It promoted ideas that arequintessentially American and have become per-manent theoretical features of our 20th-centurypsychological landscape (Freedheim, 32).

In his book Mesmerism and the American Cure ofSouls, Robert Fuller describes how the thrust ofmesmerism changed directions as it came to America(Fuller, 46,47). Its promoters garnered great expecta-tions of psychological and spiritual advantage.Non-Christians especially welcomed its promises forself-improvement, spiritual experience, and personalfulfillment. Fuller says that mesmerism offered Ameri-cans an entirely new and eminently attractive arenafor self-discoverytheir own psychological depths andthat its theories and methods promised to restoreindividuals, even unchurched ones, into harmony withthe cosmic scheme (Fuller, 104). The anticipatedpossibility of discovering and developing human poten-tial, which emerged from mesmerism, stimulated thegrowth and expansion of psychotherapy, positive think-ing, the human potential movement, hypnosis, and

6 CRI Guilty of Psychoheresy?

mind-science religions. Fullers description of mesmer-ism in America accurately portrays twentieth-centurypsychotherapy.

Mesmers far reaching influence gave an earlyimpetus to scientific-sounding religious alternatives toChristianity. Moreover, his work established the trendof medicalizing the mind and replacing religion withtreatment and therapy. Mesmer gave the world anotherfalse religion and another false hope. PsychiatristThomas Szasz describes Mesmers influence:

Insofar as psychotherapy as a modern medicaltechnique can be said to have a discoverer, Mesmerwas that person. Mesmer stands in the same sortof relation to Freud and Jung as Columbus standsin relation to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.Columbus stumbled onto a continent that thefounding fathers subsequently transformed intothe political entity known as the United States ofAmerica. Mesmer stumbled onto the literalized useof the leading scientific metaphor of his age forexplaining and exorcising all manner of humanproblems and passions, a rhetorical device that thefounders of modern depth psychology subsequentlytransformed into the pseudomedical entity knownas psychotherapy (Szasz, 43).

Because of their position on psychotherapy and itsunderlying psychologies, CRI and the Passantinos areguilty of what we call psychoheresy. We coined the termpsychoheresy with the following definition: a psycho-logical heresy, a heresy because it is a departure fromthe Word of God and from the fundamental truth of theGospel, a psychological heresy because the departure

Introduction 7

is the use of and support of unproven and unscientificpsychological opinions of men instead of absolute con-fidence in the biblical truth of God. CRI, through thePassantinos, leaves the door open to the integration ofsecular psychological counseling theories and therapieswith the Bible. These teachings have become so acceptedin Christian schools, seminaries, churches, missionaryorganizations, books, radio and other media that manyChristians assume such psychological ideas are trueand even biblical. Thus, the tentacles of the psychologi-cal way have strangled the thinking of many Chris-tians. CRI must now accept part of the responsibilityfor the churchs ongoing capitulation to and use ofpsychotherapy.

Bob and Gretchen Passantinos four-part series onPsychology & the Church was published in the Chris-tian Research Journal. The four-article series representsnothing new or revelational about either psychology orabout what the Passantinos refer to as the BiblicalCounseling Movement (BCM). Their position supportsthe psychotherapists view rather than that of the psy-chotherapy critics. There is little that a professionalpsychotherapist would disagree with in the Passantinoarticles and the Christian psychologists are no doubtdelighted that the Christian Research Institute (CRI)has left the door open to continued business as usualfor professional psychotherapy.

While the Passantinos will protest, stating that theirarticles are critical of psychology, all of the integration-ists named in their articles have also been critical insome way of psychology. So to say the Passantinos arecritical of psychology separates them from none of theintegrationists on that count.


In their series the Passantinos provide enoughinformation to condemn the idea that psychotherapy isscience, but seem to be confused about it. They revealenough about psychotherapy to condemn it as being ofany value for Christians, but avoid doing so. They criti-cize certain theories and practices of psychotherapy, butdo not link their charges with the specific individualsand organizations involved. They laud certain theoriesand practices of psychotherapy, but, with only a onebrief paragraph exception, they refrain from sayingwhich individuals and organizations they recommend.While they expose many of the problems of psycho-therapy, they fail to warn about the widespreadencroachment of psychotherapeutic theories and prac-tices throughout the church. Their oleaginous approachundermines the effect of the evidence they do present.The Passantinos give evidence of knowing enough toshut down the psych-industry in all its forms through-out the church, but instead they tenaciously hang ontothe idea that its fine if done their way.

A repeated recommendation in the Passantino seriesis the open door to psychotherapy and its underlyingpsychologies under certain conditions. Even with theseconditions, they are not able to produce one integra-tionist who would admit to violating the Bible with histheories and techniques. Worse yet, in one brief para-graph they name two individuals (William Backus andJames Dobson) as models of what they recommend, butthese two individuals are found to be grossly unbiblical.The Passantinos failed formula with those two indi-viduals leaves them with zero individuals who exem-plify what they recommend. With zero integrationistswhom the Passantinos can name that admit they violatethe Bible with their therapies and techniques and zero

Introduction 9


individuals who actually comply with their recommen-dations when tested, the Passantinos have come up withzero reasons for leaving the psychotherapeutic dooropen. Their recommendations add up to one big zerofor Gods people.

The Passantinos have enough information to closethe door on psychotherapy for Christians, but they donot. The question for the reader throughout is: Havethe Passantinos provided adequate scientific and bibli-cal evidence to support their leaving the door open forpsychotherapy under the conditions they describe? Wedemonstrate that they have failed to do so. As we saylater, The Passantinos promise much . . . but providelittle. With all their razzle-dazzle about using psychol-ogy under certain conditions, they were not able to giveone example of an insight from psychotherapy and itsunderlying psychologies that is of any use to the Chris-tian, and they could not name one individual whosework would demonstrate what they claim. These factsalone should condemn the entire series.

Even before the Passantino articles appeared, manyof us accurately predicted their substance. Their leav-ing the door open to psychotherapy and its underlyingpsychologies and their use of John Coespsychotheology* to support their own position were nosurprise. And, who is Coe, whose theology dominatesthe CRI/Passantino position? Coe is a professor at theRosemead School of Psychology, which produces numer-ous integrationists who are active participants inpsychoheresy. What else would one expect from a facultymember at a school that dispenses and promotes

* A theology that leaves the door open to psychotherapyand its underlying psychologies.

Introduction 11

psychoheresy? In our critique of Part Two, we presenta diametrically different view than the CRI/Passantino/Coe psychotheology.

After the first Passantino article appeared we wrotethe following letter to the editor of the ChristianResearch Journal:

In the first of a four-part series on psychology andthe church, the Passantinos identify us. We areunabashedly opposed to psychotherapy and itsunderlying psychologies for both biblical andresearch reasons, described in a number of ourbooks. Unless they have changed their minds, thePassantinos are pro-psychotherapy and its under-lying psychologies. In other words, they supportthe integration position. The Passantinos articlesneed to be read with their pro-psychology bias inmind.

The editor suggested that we hold off respondinguntil the series was completed. The editor mentionedthat psychotherapy would be critiqued in the thirdinstallment. We did not need to wait until that thirdinstallment as we had already accurately identified thePassantinos position.

After the Passantino series first came out we werecalled by someone in Texas whom we had never metand did not know, but who has an apologetic ministry.He asked if we were willing to have a debate with thePassantinos on his radio program. We immediatelyagreed and waited for confirmation of the date. Aftermuch time had elapsed we were told that thePassantinos declined, even though they were repeat-edly contacted and given an option on the date.


While the Passantinos, the integrationists, and mostpeople in the church support the open door to psycho-therapy, many secularists are closing the door on it. Dr.Tana Dineen is a clinical psychologist who has writtena book titled Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychol-ogy Industry is doing to People. Dineen relates in detailhow the psychological manufacturing of victims takesplace. She differentiates between real victims and theones manufactured by the Psychology Industry, whichinvolves a blurring between the two and spreads a netto include virtually everyone. She concludes her bookby saying:

The Psychology Industry can neither reform itselffrom within nor should it be allowed to try. Itshould be stopped from doing what it is doing topeople, from manufacturing victims. And while thePsychology Industry is being dismantled, peoplecan boycott psychological treatment, protest theinfluence of the Psychology Industry and resistbeing manufactured into victims (Dineen, 309).

Dineens conclusion also applies to the ChristianPsychology industry. The following was admitted at ameeting of the Christian Association for PsychologicalStudies (CAPS), which is an organization of psycholo-gists who are professing Christians:

We are often asked if we are Christian psycholo-gists and find it difficult to answer since we dontknow what the question implies. We are Christianswho are psychologists but at the present time thereis no acceptable Christian psychology that is mark-edly different from non-Christian psychology. It is

Introduction 13

difficult to imply that we function in a mannerthat is fundamentally distinct from our non-Chris-tian colleagues . . . as yet there is not an accept-able theory, mode of research or treatment meth-odology that is distinctly Christian (Sutherland &Poelstra).

As more and more Christians are supporting psy-chotherapy and its underlying psychologies over thepast 25 years, more and more secularists are comingagainst it, because they are willing to pay serious at-tention to the research. It is a tragedy when conclu-sions reached by many secular researchers would leadone to close the door on professional psychotherapy andits underlying psychologies, while the Passantinos andintegrationists reach conclusions that leave the dooropen to such practices. Any objective reading of thePassantinos series will reveal that this complex issueis simplistically concluded to the advantage of the psy-chotherapist and at the expense of the church.

Because the Passantinos warnings finger no one andtheir qualifications for seeing a therapist are so easilyconfirmed by integrationists, no one will stop from us-ing even the most corrupt of therapies or therapists. IfHanegraaff wrote his critiques in a similar fashion, thedoor would be left open to all kinds of aberrations,heresies and cults, under certain conditions of course.

Prior to the appearance of the Passantinos articles,we made a presentation to Hanegraaff and his staff onthe subject of psychoheresy. CRI sent the following replyto those who inquired about their position on psychol-ogy and the church:


CRI is still in the process of evaluating the properrelationship between psychology and the Chris-tian church and formally establishing a positionon this controversial topic. We have met withprominent people on both sides of this debate andit remains an issue that must be carefully studiedand assessed. If you would like information on thissubject from opposing points of view so you canprayerfully study and come to your own conclu-sions, we recommend materials from Martin andDeidre Bobgan (anti-psychology) and John Coe(pro-psychology).

CRI was correct in saying that our position is anti-psychology and Coes position is pro-psychology. Theprominence of Coes pro-psychology theology in thePassantinos series confirms that CRI chose the pro-psychology position. In opposition to Coes pro-psychol-ogy paper, Hanegraaff had a copy of a paper opposingCoes position, which was written by Doug Bookman, aprofessor at The Masters College.

In a letter to Hanegraaff one of us said:

I would like to suggest that you sponsor a debateat Rosemead Graduate School on this issue. I havetried in the past to arrange such a debate or evento speak there with no success. If your staff hasheard them and us separately, why not now putthe two sides out in public together? . . . I believeyou would do the church a great service if youwould sponsor such a debate. Please give it somethought and prayer. I look forward to your reply.

Hanegraaff never replied. It cannot be said thatHanegraaff lacked information to make a decision

Introduction 15

regarding what should be the CRI position on psycho-therapy and its underlying psychologies. But, it can besaid that his decision is harmonious with the manyintegrationists we have accused of psychoheresy overthe years and would certainly be applauded by the manyintegrationists quoted in the Passantinos articles.

Leaving the door open to psychotherapy and itsunderlying psychologies is an overwhelmingly popularposition in the church. Many are satisfied and othersare ecstatic about the CRI/Passantino position on theintegration of psychology and the Bible. It is alwaysdifficult to combat the popular socio-cultural mores ofa society, but it is more difficult to fight against theabsorption of these mores into the church. Admittedly,we are presenting a minority view and unfortunatelywe are left with proving the case against something forwhich the case has never been made to begin with.

Based on hundreds of research studies, Dr. RobynDawes, professor at Carnegie-Mellon University and awidely recognized researcher on psychological evalua-tions, declares:

. . . there is no positive evidence supporting theefficacy of professional psychology. There are an-ecdotes, there is plausibility, there are commonbeliefs, yesbut there is no good evidence (Dawes,58).

While the Passantinos refer to Dawes book in a foot-note, they give little evidence to suggest they read it.

Those who have been paying attention to theresearch have been sounding alarms about psycho-therapy. In his book The Myth of Psychotherapy, Dr.Thomas Szasz warns:

My point is rather that many, perhaps most, so-called psychotherapeutic procedures are harmfulfor the so-called patients . . . and that all such in-terventions and proposals should therefore beregarded as evil until they are proven otherwise(Szasz, xxiii).

Michael Scriven, when he was a member of the Ameri-can Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethi-cal Responsibility, questioned the moral justificationfor dispensing psychotherapy, given the state of out-come studies which would lead the FDA to ban its saleif it were a drug (Scriven, 96). The outcome studiescontinue to confirm the results upon which the remarksby Szasz and Scriven were based.

After reviewing all the research, one could concludethat professional psychotherapy is one of the biggestand most vicious ripoffs that has ever been perpetratedon the American public and that it is one of the great-est deceptions in the church today. When he was presi-dent of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, Dr.Lawrence LeShan said, Psychotherapy may be knownin the future as the greatest hoax of the twentieth cen-tury. It may also be known as the greatest heresy oftwentieth-century Christianity.

Even The Family Therapy Networker, a publicationby and for psychological counselors, is honest enoughto report:

Money is not the only worm in the golden appleof old-time therapeutic practice. Books citing theirrelevance, incompetence, venality and evendownright criminality of therapists have becomethis years literary growth industry, aimed at a


mass market of apparently disillusioned therapyconsumers. At the same time, a plethora of out-come research studies paints a troubling pictureof the profession, finding virtually no empirical evi-dence that any one therapy model is significantlymore or less effective than any other.

Finally, as if this werent enough bad news,therapists over the past 10 or 15 years have beenmade to realize just how culture bound, parochialand downright discriminatory some of their mostcherished theories and models actually have been(Nov/Dec 1994, p. 10).

Because the efficacy of professional psychotherapyhas not been fully demonstrated, Alexander Astin con-tends that psychotherapy should have died out. But itdid not. It did not even waver. Psychotherapy had, itappeared, achieved functional autonomy (Astin, 62,italics his). Functional autonomy occurs when a prac-tice continues after the circumstances which supportedit are gone. Astin is suggesting that psychotherapy hasbecome self perpetuating because there is no supportfor its efficacy. Astin concludes his comments with thefollowing dismal note:

If nothing else, we can be sure that the principleof functional autonomy will permit psychotherapyto survive long after it has outlived its usefulnessas a personality laboratory (Astin, 65).

Professional psychotherapy has not been affirmedby scientific scrutiny and only remains because of theusual inertia that results when a movement becomesestablished and then entrenched. Worse yet, because

Introduction 17

integrationists have mixed psychotherapeutic theorieswith the very Word of God, many professing Christianshave incorporated these notions into their belief sys-tem and added them to the scenery of their so-calledChristian world view.

In The Emperors New Clothes after the little boycried out, He has no clothes! the people knew thatwhat the boy said was true. The greatest tragedy wasnot the discovery (no clothes), but the continuation ofthe deception by the emperor. The story goes on:

The Emperor squirmed. All at once he knew thatwhat the people said was right. All the same, hesaid to himself, I must go on as long as the pro-cession lasts. So the Emperor kept on walking,his head held higher than ever. And the faithfulminister kept on carrying the train that wasntthere (Andersen).

And so, like the naked emperor, psychotherapy and allits psychologies will go on as long as the processionlasts. And, CRI and the Passantinos will probably con-tinue in that charade of a parade as long as the pro-cession lasts. For many of us the procession is over.The cure of minds (psychotherapy) never was and neverwill be a satisfactory replacement for the cure of souls(biblical ministry).

Perhaps the Passantinos consider that their open-ness to psychotherapy and its underlying psychologiesdemonstrates open-mindedness. However, JonathanAdler, a professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College andthe Graduate Center of the City University of New York,has said, What truly marks an open-minded person isthe willingness to follow where evidence leads. The


open-minded person is willing to defer to impartial in-vestigations rather than to his or her own predilections(Adler, 44). The Passantinos lack of open-mindednessshould leave many open-mouthed at their open-doorrecommendations and conclusions.

Some of those who have researched the effective-ness of psychotherapy have likened themselves to thedoggedly optimistic boy in the old joke, who was foundcheerfully digging his way through a large pile of horsemanure. When asked why, he responded, With all ofthis horse manure, there must be a pony in here some-where! The Passantinos hoped-for pony is not there;what you see in this illustration is what you get.

Much more could be written about the failure of thePassantinos to deal objectively and extensively withthe complexity of the issues involved. This book onlytouches upon some of their errors. To make it conve-nient for the reader to compare our response to thePassantinos articles, we respond to each article (PartOne, Part Two, etc.) in the series and use the same sec-tion headings as they do, though for the sake of brevitywe do not respond to all of them.

While the Passantinos have written on a variety ofissues, the psychology and the church issue is one theyshould have left alone. Their many failings in this four-part series are probably traceable to their predilec-tions about psychology and were possibly supportedand influenced by their friendships with certain indi-viduals. Their foregone conclusions were visiblethroughout all of the four parts and were no doubt thedriving force behind their use of so many logical falla-cies to prove their position.

Introduction 19

21

1Responding to Part One

Laying aFoundation

for Discernment

The first article, designated Part One in the CRI/Passantino series on psychology and the church, is titledLaying a Foundation for Discernment

The Complexity of the Problem

The Passantinos mention two extreme positions withrespect to psychology: total acceptance or total rejec-tion (22). They represent themselves with the follow-ing statement: [Psychology] is a complex subject andthe lines must be drawn carefully to produce a respon-sible and balanced evaluation of it (22).


A major problem with the Passantino series is thatthey admit psychology is a complex subject, but theydemonstrate ignorance about many of its complexitiesand fail to deal with some of them, except in a verysuperficial manner. They suggest that they are draw-ing lines carefully, but we shall demonstrate that theyhave drawn lines carelessly and even recklessly attimes. They believe they have produced a responsibleand balanced evaluation of psychology, but they havemerely used the series to promote their own views.

The Passantinos use the word complex as a meansof demonstrating that total acceptance or total rejec-tion is too simplistic. The fact that some of the mostscholarly writers in the field have dealt thoroughly withthe complexities and present an entirely different viewthan the Passantinos has apparently escaped them. Wecould quote literally hundreds of studies having to dowith the questionability of the very practice for whichthe Passantinos have left an open door.

Not dealing with the extensive research having todo with the efficacy of psychotherapy and its underly-ing psychologies is a giant failing in the Passantinoseries. This failure demonstrates that they have notdealt with the needed facets of the subjects complexity,which would hamstring their ability to draw lines care-fully. Their oversight, due to bias, unfamiliarity, or in-sufficient knowledge, is probably why they producedan unbalanced series.

In their section The Complexity of the Problem,the Passantinos present three simplistic testimonials,none of which rejects psychology. Instead of presentingthe complexity of the problem, their three examplesintroduce confusion. Each example contains simplisticand false information, which the Passantinos fail to

Laying a Foundation for Discernment 23

clarify or refute anywhere in the series. More could besaid about each of the examples to demonstrate theerrors; however, we will give only one quote from eachwith a comment. Since each example is about a friendof the Passantinos, we will refer to them that way.

In the first anecdote Friend One gives reasons whyChristians would rather go to Alcoholics Anonymousand asks a rhetorical question, Why do we wonderwhen Christians who abuse alcohol go to secularprograms when they are not welcome in their ownchurches? (22). This is only a partial truth. There arenumerous churches that welcome and work with sinnersof all sorts, including substance abusers. In addition,there are numerous Christian organizations that pro-vide ministry to such individuals. Apparently thePassantinos are ignorant of such programs and are notaware of the great spiritual danger posed by AlcoholicsAnonymous and other similar programs.

The research is clear about AA; it provides noadvantage over other such programs and it presents aworld view alien to Christianity. For instance, The Jour-nal of Studies on Alcohol (January 1997) reported thatone of the largest clinical experiments ever conducted,sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuseand Alcoholism, found, in comparing individuals in vari-ous programs (including those in hospital settings andthose on the outside), that none of the treatments wasmore successful than the others. The only differencesin success had to do with other factors, such as personalmotivation and social environment. The Passantinosdescription of Friend One also sounds contradictory.They describe him as one who is involved in AA andalso as one who pursued a strong biblical counselingpractice. In other words this person is evidently one


who purports to be a biblical counselor (using the Scrip-tures), but who seeks personal help from an unbiblicalsystem.

The second anecdote is about a man whose son didnot do well in psychotherapy. Friend Two asks, If Idismiss all psychology because it didnt work with myson, does that mean I must dismiss the Bible becausebiblical counseling didnt work either? (22). Through-out their four articles the Passantinos resort to a num-ber of logical fallacies to promote their views. FriendTwos reasoning contains a logical fallacy called falseanalogy. One logic text explains:

An argument from analogy draws a conclusionabout something on the basis of an analogy withor resemblance to some other thing. The assump-tion is that if two or more things are alike in somerespects, they are alike in some other respect(Johnson, 256).

In regard to a false analogy the text says:

To recognize the fallacy of false analogy, look foran argument that draws a conclusion about onething, event, or practice on the basis of its analogyor resemblance to others. The fallacy occurs whenthe analogy or resemblance is not sufficient towarrant the conclusion (Johnson, 258).

This type of psychology is comprised of the unprovenopinions of men, whereas the Bible is the truth of God.Friend Two is equating science falsely so-called withthe very truth from God and then coming to a conclu-sion about psychology. In addition, pragmatism is the


unbiblical standard of evaluation here, rather thantruth.

Friend Three, a mental health professional whohesitates to identify himself as a Christian, wonders,How can I believe the Bible has all the answers forfulfilled personal living when people who swear by itare so messed up? (22). Apparently this mental healthprofessional is not aware of the mental health andother benefits attributed to believers and ignorant ofthe many problems that mental health professionalsthemselves have. We could provide the Passantinos withmuch research on this, but we will refer to only onearticle, Why Shrinks Have So Many Problems by Rob-ert Epstein, Ph.D., in which he reports, Suicide, stress,divorcepsychologists and other mental health profes-sionals may actually be more screwed up than the restof us. Near the beginning of his article Epstein says:

Sure Freud was peculiar, and, yes, Id heard thatJung had had a nervous breakdown. But Id alwaysassumed thatrumors to the contrary notwith-standingmental health professionals were prob-ably fairly healthy.

Turns out I was wrong.

The following revealing quotes are from Epsteinsarticle:

A number of surveys . . . reveal some worrisomestatistics about therapists lives and well-being.At least three out of four therapists have experi-enced major distress within the past three years,the principal cause being relationship problems.More than 60 percent may have suffered a clini-


cally significant depression at some point in theirlives, and nearly half admitted that in the weeksfollowing a personal crisis theyre unable to deliverquality care. As for psychiatrists, a 1997 study byMichael Klag, M.D., found that the divorce ratefor psychiatrists who graduated from JohnsHopkins University School of Medicine between1948 and 1964 was 51 percenthigher than thatof the general population of that era, and substan-tially higher than the rate in any other branch ofmedicine. . . .

According to psychologist David Lester, Ph.D.,director of the Center for the Study of Suicide,mental health professionals kill themselves at anabnormally high rate. . . .

One out of every four psychologists has suicidalfeelings at times, according to one survey, and asmany as one in 16 may have attempted suicide(Epstein, 59).

We have often said that mature believers are capableof providing far better support for troubled people thanpsychotherapists. Moreover, Friend Threes goal of ful-filled personal living falls far short of the biblical goalof glorifying God and being conformed to the image ofChrist.

In their footnotes the Passantinos say, These friendsstories are meant as illustrations of the complexity ofthe issue. They are not presented here as proof or docu-mentation for any position. However, these three an-ecdotes are not illustrations of the complexities of theissues. They are examples of simplistic thinking on thepart of the Passantinos and their three friends. More-over, these stories demonstrate a bias on the


Passantinos part to present these simplicities as com-plexities. We can only feel sorry for the three friendswhom the Passantinos made no effort, at least in print,to guide out of their confusion and simplistic thinking.In presenting these as illustrations, the Passantinossound as confused as their friends and do a disserviceto their readers by adding confusion rather than clar-ity to a complex issue.

Instead of giving the testimonies of these threefriends, the Passantinos would have better served Godspeople by quoting some testimonies from the other side.One Christian woman, who had been through the psy-chological and psychiatric system for years and is nowa critic of it, says the following:

The type of relationship established in therapy isone that needs close Biblical examination. Doingso reveals a closer resemblance to prostitution thanto Biblical love. A relationship which ought to befounded on love is converted to one of business.Prostitution takes an intimate relationship whichshould never involve money and establishes aprofit-making business. The counselee is more ofan inanimate object than a Christian brother inneed of our ministry, prayer, and loving service.Friendship is out of the question; there is no genu-ine involvement or commitment that extendsbeyond the professional obligation. The Bibleinstructs us to serve one another in love, to esteemothers ahead of self, and to preach the gospel with-out charge (Dewart, 4).

This woman has become theologically trained and haswritten extensively on the subject of Psychology & the


Church. She would have been a far better choice towrite this series for CRI. However, she would not havepresented the same view as CRI found in thePassantinos.

After their three stories, the Passantinos say:Indeed, psychology is one of the most controversial anddivisive issues in the church today (22). Actually formost people it is a non-issue, because most professingChristians are eager promoters and consumers ofpsychotherapeutic ideas and techniques through books,tapes, seminars, seminaries, and radio shows, as wellas through professional counseling. They may feel irri-tated that a few people speak out against it, but it isfar from being the most controversial. One of the mostserious? Yes! One of the most controversial? Definitelynot! For those who profit from other peoples problems,the controversy thus far has posed little threat to theirincome. As we have documented elsewhere, both thesecular and Christian psychology industries are thriv-ing (Bobgan, The End of Christian Psychology, Ch 1;PAL, V4N6).

The Scope of Psychology

The Passantinos understand, but at times confuse,the difference between psychotherapy with its under-lying psychologies, on the one hand, and the generalword psychology, which covers a multitude of fields andnumerous other individuals, on the other hand. Theydefine the difference between the terms psychology andpsychotherapy and say that their focus in these articleswill be on (though not limited to) psychotherapy (23).

They begin this section by properly defining the wordpsychology and then wrongly accusing individuals who


condemn the religious nature of psychotherapy. Theyrightly speak of the evolving nature of language butthen state:

Those who use the term psychology today do notgenerally mean to make any religious statementsabout the human spirit or soul, but instead arereferring to the nontangible personal aspects ofhuman beings (22).

However, it is not just the etymology of the wordpsychology, but rather its current usage in the field ofpsychotherapy that is of concern to us. Colossians 2:8warns: Beware lest any man spoil you through phi-losophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, afterthe rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Thiswarning applies to psychotherapeutic psychology andits philosophical origins.

Dr. Thomas Szasz is probably one of the most dis-tinguished psychiatrists in the world. In endorsing oneof our earlier books, Szasz said:

Although I do not share the Bobgans particularreligious view, I do share their conviction that thehuman relations we now call psychotherapy, are,in fact, matters of religionand that we mislabelthem as therapeutic at great risk to our spiri-tual well-being. This is an important book.

We could quote numerous others who see psychotherapyand its underlying psychologies as religion. Interest-ingly, most of them are atheists. Elsewhere Szasz hassaid:


Herein lies one of the supreme ironies of modernpsychotherapy: it is not merely a religion that pre-tends to be a science, it is actually a fake religionthat seeks to destroy true religion (Szasz, 27,28).

He warns about the implacable resolve of psycho-therapy to rob religion of as much as it can, and todestroy what it cannot (Szasz, 188).

The Passantinos have misrepresented the positionof those who call this type of psychology religion by firstpresenting an evolution of language argument, whichhas nothing to do with the substance of the criticism,and then by deflecting the substance of the criticism ofpsychotherapy by using an argument about the wholefield of psychology. They may not know that the Ameri-can Psychological Association has over 50 divisions.There is a mixture of science and pseudoscience amongthe various divisions and practitioners. The Passantinosfailure to present and confront this variety reveals aninadequate understanding of the complexities involvedthroughout the disciplines of psychology. They set outto present the complexities but through important omis-sions, they have confused rather than clarified.

The Origin of Psychology

In the previous section the Passantinos quote a lead-ing Christian textbook definition of psychology as ascientific study (23). They begin this section by saying,Psychology is among the youngest sciences (23). Inthis section they mishmashedly present the laboratorywork of William Wundt along with the description offive systems of thought in psychology. All of this follows


their initial reference to psychology as science. Theymake no needed distinction in this brief history as towhat is and what is not science. Their only criticism isdirected at mental health counselors when they prag-matically choose what they like or think will work fromany of the three major branches of psychotherapy (23).The Passantinos criticism is directed at therapistsusing, with a single client, a variety of approaches thathave rational underpinnings that are mutuallyexclusive (23). Because they sometimes raise thepractice of psychotherapy to the level of science andlimit their criticism to only certain practices, such asirresponsible eclecticism, they leave the door open topsychotherapy. One sees both criticisms and compli-ments in this section, which tends to leave their read-ers confused and vulnerable. Because of the manner inwhich psychotherapy is presented and practiced, aChristian, after having read the Passantinos articlesand thereby being assured that existing problems areresolvable, could easily step through the door into someof the worst kinds of psychotherapy.

Psychology and the Scientific Method

In this section the Passantinos discuss the scientificmethod. As important as it is to discuss the scientificmethod, it is more important to discuss whetherpsychotherapy itself is science. While it is true thatresearch can employ the scientific method, it does notfollow that whatever is being investigated is scientific.Many nonscientific and even questionable practices,such as E.S.P., biorhythms, fingertip reading, andpsychic phenomena, have been investigated by scien-


tific research procedures. The scientific method has beenused to investigate everything from art to Zen and fromprayer to politics. We certainly would not call all of thesescience.

The Passantinos say, However, consistent, com-prehensive application of the scientific method isimpossible in psychology because of certain uniquefeatures (23,24) They give several excellent reasonswhy. While what they have written in this section shouldlead them to condemn psychotherapy as science, theycontinue to leave the door open by quoting the summaryby Paul Meier et al. of Mary Stewart VanLeeuwensposition on psychology as science. The Passantinos quoteMeier et al. as saying, VanLeeuwen doubts whetherthat approach used by physicists and biologists isappropriate for the study of human behavior and think-ing (36). So, instead of ending this section with acondemnation of psychotherapy as science, they endwith a question as to whether or not the scientific para-digm is an appropriate one to evaluate the practice ofpsychotherapy. The typical response of therapists iseither to ignore the research or point out the shortcom-ings of the research method. Disregarding and devalu-ating research serve to keep the therapists in business.

The serious weaknesses in their articles seem to bedue to having an agenda that would allow some warn-ings to be sounded about some of the errors of psychol-ogy but would prevent closing the door to all psycho-therapies and their underlying theories. That wouldexplain the absence of an adequate representation ofthe extensive research about psychotherapy as science.For example many psychologists have made a case forthe idea that psychotherapy is merely personal opin-ions offered as science. Dr. Linda Riebel has said, theo-


ries of human nature reflect the theorists personalityas he or she externalizes it or projects it onto humanityat large (Riebel, 90). Dr. Harvey Mindess says in hisbook titled Makers of Psychology: The Personal Factor,It is my intention to show how the leaders of the fieldportray humanity in their own image and how eachones theories and techniques are a means of validat-ing his own identity (Mindess, 15).

Failure to truly present the complexity of the issueby including such research permits the Passantinos toconform what they do know to their own presupposi-tions about psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy

The Passantinos discuss psychotherapy in thissection and make a very interesting statement:

Some psychotherapies, especially some of thecognitive ones (and certainly we would hope onespracticed by Christians), intend to improve notsimply ones feelings, but also ones abilities to actindividually and socially in reality (36).

One can only guess at why the Passantinos elevate thecognitive therapies over the others. They may haveheard this from one of their mental health workerfriends. However, there is no research reason for doingso. It is unfortunate that the Passantinos often givepersonal opinion unsubstantiated by research. ThePassantinos often state something that begs a footnoteor a quote, but none is to be found. The Passantinosowe the reader a footnote here but do not provide one.


Their statement, about cognitive psychotherapies beingespecially the ones to accomplish what they say, wouldcertainly not be supported in the research.

According to the Handbook of Psychotherapy andBehavior Change (Handbook), what is referred to in theresearch literature as the Dodo Bird Verdict still holds.After an extensive review of the literature on outcomesof the various schools of therapies, several researcherssuggested a verdict similar to that of the DoDo bird inAlice in Wonderland: Everyone has won and all musthave prizes (Bergin, 156). The Handbook states thatmeta-analytic methods have now been extensivelyapplied to large groups of comparative studies, andthese reviews generally offer similar conclusions (i.e.,little or no difference between therapies) (Bergin, 156).In its conclusions, the Handbook lists psychotherapyresearch achievements. One of the ten listed is the fol-lowing: Demonstrating the relative equivalence inoutcome for a large number of therapies, therapeuticmodalities, and temporal arrangements (Bergin, 828).This is repeatedly referred to in the research literatureas The Equal Outcomes Phenomenon (Bergin, 822).

The Passantinos return to two early themes bysaying:

The primary explanation for this wide variationand inconsistency in psychotherapeutic practiceis that most counselors use what appears to workat various times with various patients, withoutstrict regard to the foundational schools fromwhich the techniques developed, and without thescientific objectivity and testing one would expectfrom a practitioner of a science (36).


While the variety of psychotherapies can be used tocondemn the profession as a whole, the Passantinos useit to condemn individual therapists with whom theymay disagree, and yet they leave the door open to thosepractitioners who are eclectic, as long as they do itscientificallywhatever that means. One can also seethat the Passantinos themselves are guilty of not payingstrict regard to the foundational schools from whichthe techniques developed when they made their posi-tive statement about cognitive psychotherapy.

The Passantinos reference to an expectation from apractitioner of a science repeats again their error ofcrediting psychotherapy with being science, a subjectwith which they have only superficially dealt and whichthey conveniently turned into a non-issue with thereference to VanLeeuwens remark.

The Handbook says, Therapists identify themselvesas eclectics more frequently than any other orientation.The Handbook then says:

At the same time, the use of the term eclectic doesnot have any precise operational meaning beyondthe general definition of selecting from diversesources what is considered best for the individualcase. The fact that two psychotherapists identifythemselves as eclectics does not in any way indi-cate that they would treat a specific case in exactlythe same way (Bergin, 7).

The Handbook reveals a further serious problemwith eclectic psychotherapy when it says, Eclecticismdoes not represent any truly systematic view, and thusresearch on this approach has been minimal and in factis not really possible (Bergin, 7). If one is selling a prod-


uct or a procedure, in this case psychotherapy, and thereis a direct or implied benefit (such as help, relief, cure),then there should be some scientific validation for itsuse. None exists. If these psychotherapists were trulypractitioners of science, they would cease practicingthese approaches because they are not scientificallyvalidated.

The Passantinos refer both to the benefits and weak-nesses of the diversity of approaches in psychotherapy.They first say:

The benefit of such [psychotherapeutic] diversityis that counselors can acknowledge their clientsunique problems, emotional and mental states, andabilities to make changes in their own lives (36).

Later, in Part Three of their series, the Passantinos saythat the psychotherapists pick and choose from hun-dreds of different systems, techniques, methods, schools,and ideas, applying what works in individual caseswith different people with different problems (Part 3,22). These statements seem to contradict their earliercriticism of the underlying theories (23).

Evidently the Passantinos are not in touch withresearch demonstrating that eclecticism does not workin actual practice the way they imagine. While mostprofessional therapists are eclectic, with the idea thatthey will use different theories and techniques withdifferent clients for different problems, there is noresearch proving that they do. In fact, it is our impres-sion, in reading the research and from interviewing oneof the leading researchers, that most professional thera-pists tend to treat the diversity of their clients problemswith the same combination of theories and techniques.


The various conferences and workshops where a par-ticular eclectic approach is touted will demonstrate theplethora of problems each eclectic approach is purportedto address.

After they attempt to give a positive twist to eclec-ticism, the Passantinos then say:

This diversity, however, also exposes a seriousweakness in the attempt to scientifically validatepsychotherapy. If it is classified as a science, it mustbe judged as a science; but if it is subjective andinconsistent, it is not good science (36, italics inoriginal).

The Passantinos remind us of a boxer whose oppo-nent is totally open to a possible knockout punch butwho only lightly jabs away. Instead of using this state-ment as one possible disabling punch to psychotherapy,they use it only as a criticism, albeit a serious criticismof psychotherapy as a whole. But do they condemn ittotally? NO! As a matter of fact, many practicing psy-chotherapists have made similar criticisms of the wayother psychotherapists practice. This permits them, aswell as the Passantinos, to deal with the reasons whyonly some professional psychotherapy should be aban-doned altogether for Christians. Which therapists byname and which organizations by name are neverlinked directly with such criticisms. The critics of somepsychotherapy who leave the door open to their ownpsychotherapeutic opinions and practices will not namenames of problematic therapists, counseling centers,and clinics, and neither do the Passantinos.

Another criticism used by the Passantinos is thefollowing remark, Sadly, some counseling does worse


than no good at all; it actually harms the clients (36).Here again, an opening for a severe blow to psycho-therapy, but the Passantinos say it in one sentence andthen quickly pass over it. Any superficial acquaintancewith the research will demonstrate that psychotherapydoes produce iatrogenic or detrimental effects for manyit is intended to help. Instead of a sharp blow at psy-chotherapy, the Passantinos pull their punch with abrief nod to the existence of harm. And, no name is givento the counseling or organization that harms, becauseany and all can harm or help, but only according to thePassantinos formula. We suggest the Passantinos readthe chapter titled Deterioration, Negative Effects, andEstimates of Therapeutic Change in the Handbook ofPsychotherapy and Behavior Change, which is regardedas the bible of outcome research on psychotherapy(Bergin, 176ff).

The Passantinos end this section by discussing com-mon elements of psychotherapy. But, because of theirignorance, they fail to quote the research that demon-strates that the training, credentials, and experienceof psychotherapists are irrelevant (Dawes, 62). Thecommon elements in therapy, used by both amateursand professionals, that contribute to change are com-mon in many kinds of interpersonal relationships andare not dependent on training, credentials, or experi-ence. This section would have been an excellentopportunity for the Passantinos to bring glory to Godby pointing out that believers are competent to minis-ter and that professionals have no advantage over them.However, they would never say that because they donot believe it.


Biblical Counseling

We find some major problems with this last section,in which they present the Bible as inadequate withrespect to problems of living. The Passantinos say:

Christians . . . often focus their criticism on psy-chotherapy and exhort Christians to return toGods Word for the solutions to their problems. Thisapproach has merit, but it is not only an inaccu-rate generalization, it also is inadequate (37).

If they believe that exhorting Christians to return toGods Word for the solutions to their problems is inad-equate, what do they propose? One would agree if theyare merely saying that some people need personal min-istry, i.e. a coming alongside to minister Gods grace,wisdom, and encouragement. However, in this section,they include extrabiblical sources of help. Thus, theyappear to suggest that a return to Gods Word for thesolutions to their problems would be inadequate? Thebottom line on the Passantinos is they seem to denythe sufficiency of Scripture in dealing with problems ofliving, and additionally they leave the door open to psy-chotherapy. Underlying their inadequacy of Scriptureposition and leaving the door open to psychotherapy isa special theological position that we will discuss later.

The Passantinos have avoided the real problem (theinfiltration of psychotherapy into the church) by focus-ing attention on their own conclusion that the churchis to blame for believers seeking psychotherapy. By con-centrating on the churchs failure, the Passantinos directattention away from the fact that they leave the dooropen to psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies,


which compounds the churchs failure. This is donethroughout this article, but strongly in this section. Theysay:

We believe that a far more critical concern is thecause of this turn away from Gods Word topsychotherapy. When the church fails to ministerin a complete and biblical way, peoples needs gounmet and they turn to other sources for solutionsto those needs. The ministry of the church shouldinclude support and nurture for its member, in-cluding biblical counseling (37, italics in original).

The Passantinos also say:

When the church fulfills its responsibilities forbiblical community, nurture, and support, thenChristians will not feel the need to turn to secularpsychotherapy. By contrast, as the stories openingthis article illustrate, when the church does notembrace the repentant alcoholic, the parent withthe troubled teen, or those emotionally bruised bysinful behavior, then the hurting and needy willlook elsewhere for help.

It is our contention that psychotherapy has becomeenormously popular among Christians primarilybecause the church has failed to fulfill its biblicalobligation to nurture, protect, admonish, andmature its members . . . if psychotherapy offerssome help while the local church does not, can weblame those who turn to it for relief? (38).


It is the Passantinos clear contention that the reasonpsychotherapy is so successful is because the churchhas failed. They are partly right, but mostly wrong. Theerror of the church is that pastors and parishioners havesuccumbed to the intimidation put forth by mentalhealth organizations, secular psychotherapists, andprofessional Christian counselors. There was an all-outeffort during the 1960s to make pastors feel inadequatein dealing with psychological problems. As a resultpastors learned to refer problem-laden people toprofessional counselors, or they became psychologicallytrained themselves.

With this intimidation, Christians are afraid to min-ister without psychological training and therefore theyrefer people right out of the church into psychotherapy.Along with this intimidation comes a whole host ofprograms to promote and dispense psychotherapeutictheories and techniques. This is the failure of the church,not the initial inability to minister.

Due to the vast amount of intimidation to whichthe Passantinos have added, the church has failed tominister, and yet it is still far more successful at deal-ing with problems of living than psychotherapists. Justthink of how much the church could minister if theintimidation were removed or if people truly turnedback to the Word of God and trusted Him in minister-ing to one another in the Body of Christ. Psychothera-pists use only their ears to hear and their mouths tospeak, but almost never use their hands (except toreceive cash, check or credit card) or feet (unless its torun after those who dont pay) to help, particularlyoutside the office setting. No therapy or therapistsconversation can compete with the work of the church.


The problem is a multiple one. The church has failedin many ways, but the critical part of the problem isthat the door to psychotherapy has been left open bymany in the church, including the Passantinos. One ofthe most flagrant failures of the 20th-century churchis the acceptance and promotion of psychology in Chris-tian schools, seminaries, churches, missionary organi-zations, books, radio, and other media. This repeatedfalse finger pointing at an amorphous church withoutfingering those various facets of it is dreadful report-ing on the part of the Passantinos. If they truly wish tohelp believers they would specifically name individu-als, organizations, and practitioners with unbiblical orunscientific practices. The Passantinos should warn andenlighten rather than to accuse and obscure. By notdoing so they have failed the very audience for whomthey are writing.

One part of the responsibility must also be placedon the individual. Believers are responsible to do whatthe Bereans did, i.e. searched the scriptures daily,whether those things were so (Acts 17:110). But wheredo the Passantinos emphasize this?

The Passantinos, appearing not to trust thesufficiency of the Word of God to deal with problems ofliving, have taken a theological stand that leaves thepsychotherapeutic door open. First they blame thechurch for not ministering and then leave the door opento psychotherapy, which is a major reason why thechurch is not ministering. Like many psychotherapists,the Passantinos are part of the problem and only providea compromised solution.

In this final section of Part One, the Passantinossay:


The term biblical counseling is used in differentways by different authors. Some use it to refer tothe preaching of Gods Word apart from applica-tion. Some use it to refer to a counseling approachthat affirms the Bible as its sole source forauthority concerning human nature, values, andprescriptions for healthy living. Some use the termto refer to counseling that uses the Bible as itsfoundation and standard, but also borrowscompatible and testable information and principlesfrom other sources, such as laboratory experimen-tation, statistical surveys, clinical experience, andso forth. In this series of articles we use the termin this latter way (37,38).

The source for the inner quote in the above quote refersto John H. Coe and a paper that he presented to theInternational Christian Association for PsychologicalStudies. While most readers have not heard of Coe, it isimportant to note that it is really Coes theology thatthe Passantinos are promoting.

Notice within this paragraph the openness to clini-cal experience. What is clinical experience? Clinical isin contrast to experimental. Clinical psychologists arethose who therapize patients. Apparently thePassantinos are leaving the door open to apsychotherapists self-evaluation as a basis for judg-ment. If they mean something other than that, theyshould clarify, because information gained from clini-cal experience is highly individual and subjective.

With respect to the term biblical counseling, thePassantinos say, Some use the term to refer to coun-seling that uses the Bible as its foundation and stan-dard, but also borrows compatible and testable


information and principles from other sources. Thephrase borrows compatible and testable informationand principles from other sources is explained and thenthe Passantinos naively state, When we use the prin-ciples of Gods Word as our standard (2 Tim 2:16), andwe understand how to evaluate claims (2 Tim 4:2), wecan confidently test the truth or falsity of a claim (38).That statement sounds as if it came right from theAmerican Association of Christian Counselors (AACC),which is an association of integrationists (those whouse psychology and the Scriptures).

Gary Collins, president of AACC, makes the follow-ing statement, which is widely endorsed by Christianpsychologists:

When a psychologist seeks to be guided by the HolySpirit, is committed to serving Christ faithfully, isgrowing in his or her knowledge of the Scriptures,is well aware of the facts and conclusions of psy-chology, and is willing to evaluate psychologicalideas in the light of biblical teachingthen youcan trust the psychologist, even though he or sheat times will make mistakes, as we all do. If thepsychology or psychological technique is not atodds with scriptural teaching, then it is likely tobe trustworthy, especially if it also is supported byscientific data (Collins, 19).

If one were to ask the numerous Christian psycholo-gists if they meet Collins criteria, they would all saythey do. But then we have to ask, why it is that thesenumerous Christian psychologists, who would say thatthey meet Collins criteria, come to contradictoryconclusions about what therapeutic systems to use and


which techniques to apply? There must be a lot of proof-texting, to say the least.

There is a great need for dealing with the issue ofwhat is and what is not compatible with Scripture.There are numerous claims about compatibility withScripture. For example, psychiatrists Frank Minirthand Paul Meier claim that all the Freudian ego-defensemechanisms are found in Scripture. There are manyexamples of what various psychotherapists haveattempted to support with Scripture, including theFreudian Oedipus complex. We challenge thePassantinos to find one Christian psychologist who willstate that what he is practicing is incompatible withScripture. In spite of the great variety of the sometimescontradictory approaches of Christian therapists andthe fact that many of these approaches have extremelyunbiblical foundations, we have never found a practic-ing Christian therapist who confessed that what he isdoing is unbiblical. It is obviously easy to biblicize anyof the psychotherapeutic approaches, no matter howsilly or satanic they might be. How sad that thePassantinos took such little time to explore this impor-tant and complex issue rather than expressing theirpersonal opinion undergirded by the work of Coe.

In the following paragraph the Passantinos parrotJohn Coes views, when they say:

Our presupposition is that God works authorita-tively and infallibly in His written Word, but alsodynamically in the world and among people. Whilewe look to Gods Word as the standard by which tojudge all things (1 Thes 5:21,22), we recognize thatthe same God who preserved His Word also gavethe world order and consistency, created natural

laws, created humans with the ability to use logicand reasoning processes to apply biblical principlesto new situations and to understand new experi-ences, and gave us the ability to develop testingtools to help us understand ourselves and the worldaround us (38).

The Passantinos expand on Coes psychotheology in PartTwo. Therefore we will critique their psychotheology inmore detail in our response to Part Two.

The subtitle of Part One of this four-part series onpsychology is titled Laying a Foundation for Discern-ment. It should actually be titled Laying a Founda-tion for Deception. The Passantinos, by expressing theirbiases under the guise of objective reporting on psy-chology and by leaving the door open to psychotherapyand its underlying psychologies, have established adoorway of deception through which many Christianswill walk.


47

We are responding only to the last section of PartTwo, because there were few flagrant problems in thepreliminary sections. However, lumping us togetherwith the biblical counseling movement (BCM) is a majorfaux pas on the part of the Passantinos, since we hadpreceded their series by over a year with our book titledAgainst Biblical Counseling: For the Bible. We shouldhave been referred to as critics of the BCM.

The Passantinos use a number of logical fallaciesthroughout their four articles. In this last section ofPart Two the Passantinos demonstrate their knowledgeand use of the straw man fallacy. A logic text states:

2

The BiblicalCounselingAlternative

Responding to Part Two


The straw man fallacy occurs when an arguerresponds to an opponents argument by misrepre-senting it in a manner that makes it appear morevulnerable than it really is, proceeds to attack thatargument, and implies that he or she has defeatedthe opponent. It is called the straw man fallacybecause, rather than attacking the real man, theopponent sets up and knocks over a straw man(Johnson, 260).

Instead of dealing with the real BCM, the Passantinoshave set up a straw BCM so they can appear to beattacking the real BCM.

Inadequacies of the BCM

First inadequacy:The first inadequacy mentioned by the Passantinos

is as follows:

First, the BCM generally fails to recognize thatsome of what we learn about God, ourselves, ourrelationship to God, and our relationships to otherscomes from what are called natural theology(understanding God and His relationship with theuniverse by means of rational reflection) andgeneral revelation (that which can be known aboutGod generallyespecially through the createdworldon a universal basis) (28, italics in origi-nal).

Note the phrase, fails to recognize that some of whatwe learn. The first inadequacy of the BCM stated by

The Biblical Counseling Alternative 49

the Passantinos is an inadequacy on their part. We werea part of the BCM for 20 years, wrote about it, spoke atconferences and corresponded with many of its leadersover the years, and we would say that the Passantinosinvented this inadequacy to support theirpsychotheology. Depending on what the Passantinosmean by what they say, we know of no one in the BCMwho fails to recognize those things mentioned in theabove quote. However, those in the BCM would alsorecognize the severe limitations of natural theology andthe real purpose of general revelation.

The Passantinos say:

God speaks not only specially (in the Bible, throughprophets, and in His Sonsee Hebrews 1:1-2), butalso through reason, the material universe, socialhistory, and conscience (28).

We know of no one in the BCM who would deny thatsome things can be discovered by these natural means.The very basic issue, however, is whether such humanlydiscovered truths can be properly categorized asrevelation, either general or specific. The Passantinocriticism proceeds upon the assumption that the theo-logical category general revelation (or, as is often usedsynonymously, natural theology) is composed of allsuch humanly discerned truth-claims. They find supportfor this proposition in the writing of John Coe, a facultymember of Rosemead School of Psychology. It would beappropriate to say that the Passantinos have used Coestheology to support their presuppositions aboutpsychology.

If one accepts the theology of Coe as explained bythe Passantinos, one would conclude just what the


Passantinos concluded, even though they have misrep-resented the BCM position in their first-mentionedinadequacy. However, Doug Bookman, a professor at TheMasters College, has written a paper presenting a refu-tation of Coes position and therefore the Passantinostheological position.

Because we are attempting to be brief in ourresponse, we will quote sparingly from the Bookmanpaper. Bookman reveals three primary and fatal flawsin Coes theology viz. his epistemology, anthropology,and bibliology.

Epistemology is defined as the study or theory ofthe origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge.In describing Coes position, Bookman says, Coe regardsthe claim that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sourceof spiritual/moral knowledge as comically andtragically mistaken (Bookman, In Defense of BiblicalCounseling, 5). In concluding his discussion of Coesposition, Bookman says:

I have suggested that this proposition is flawed inthat it commits the basic error of natural theology,assuming that there is a world of metaphysicaltruth outside of Scripture which can be discoveredby the unaided efforts of men (Bookman, InDefense of Biblical Counseling, 9).

In another place, Bookman makes the case that therationale employed by Coe and others in defense of suchan epistemology is dangerously flawed. Very briefly, thatrationale is accomplished by an arbitrary and unbiblicalbroadening of the definition of general revelation.

General revelation is an important theologicalconcept. Conservative theologians have used the term


general revelation to identify a very narrow category oftruth that God has made powerfully evident (thus theword revelation) to every rational human being (thusthe word general), according to the way He fashionedthe moral and physical universe. Romans 1 and 2, themost important New Testament discussion of generalrevelation, states unequivocally that the revelation Godhas set before all men, through the infinitely mysteri-ous, complicated physical universe and through themoral consciousness of all human beings, renders allhumans without excuse when they reject that truth.

Lately, however, the important theological categoryof general revelation has been broadened to include alltruth-claims made as a result of human efforts tounderstand the many aspects of the created order. Thosewho have broadened the category argue that the Scrip-tures are indeed the special revelation which God hasleft to us and that, because God is the Author of theentire created order, whenever men discover truth inthat order, we can refer to that humanly discoveredtruth as general revelation.

Bookman identifies the very dangerous ramifica-tions of the argument that replaces the biblical doctrineof general revelation.

First . . . by defining general revelation as thatbody of truth which is gained by human investi-gation and discovery, the argument is guilty ofneglecting the element of non-discoverabilitywhich is intrinsic to the biblical notion of revela-tion and supplanting that notion with its exactantithesis. Further, the approach is dangerous inthat it attributes to the truth-claims of men anauthority which they do not and cannot possess,


and renders it virtually impossible to bring thosetruth-claims under the authority of the onestandard by which God demands that they bemeasured.

Second, the argument . . . is confused in its defi-nition of the term general. By mistakenly takingthat term to refer to the content of the category(rather than to the audience to which the revela-tion thus denominated is available), the apologistswho employ this argument commit two fallacieswhich are destructive of orthodox theology: first,they expand the category to include all manner oftruth-claims which have no right to be thus hon-ored; and second, they eviscerate the character ofrevelation by including in the category truth-claims which are admittedly lesser than the truthsof Scripture, which demand that finite and fallenmen measure them to determine their validity, andwhich at best can possibly issue in a higher levelof insight into the demands of living (Bookman,General Revelation, 10, italics in original).

Bookman concludes that:

. . . as described in Scripture, general revelation istruth which is manifestly set forth before all men(Rom 1: 17-19; 2:14,15); it is truth so clear andirrefutable as to be known intuitively by all ratio-nal men (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1: 19); it is truth soauthoritative and manifest that when men, byreason of willful rebellion, reject that truth, theydo so at the cost of their own eternal damnation(Rom 1:20; 2:1,15). For this seamless, flawless andmajestic tapestry of God-given truth is substituted


a patchwork of lesser truths, of truth which isobtainable at least in part, truths which are notdelineated for us by God but are discovered byfallible humans . . . . Surely such a concept ofgeneral revelation represents a ravaging of the bib-lical concept (Bookman, General Revelation, 9).

Anthropology. Coe quite clearly denies the effect ofsin upon the fallen mind of man. Bookman identifiesas absolutely basic to Coes argument the propositionthat fallen man retains the ability and propensity todeduce truth from the created world and thus to arriveat conclusions which are as authoritative as the Scrip-tures themselves (Bookman, In Defense of BiblicalCounseling, 15). Coe defends such a proposition, notby any exegetical consideration of relevant biblicalpassages, but rather by pointing out that the sage inthe book of Proverbs explicitly says he learned somethings by observing the natural order and that thosethings are recorded in Scripture. Coe concludes that ifit could be done by the biblical sage, it can be done byany human being. However, such a parallel is illegiti-mate. The conclusions drawn from the supposed parallelare wrong and dangerous.

More central to the issue of biblical anthropology,however, is that Coes argument involves a denial ofthe biblical insistence that divine truth is foolishnessto the natural man (1 Cor 2:14), that apart from regen-eration mans understanding is darkened and alienatedfrom the life of God (Eph 4:17), that all men are enemiesin their minds until God transforms them through thework of salvation (Col 1:13), and that from the sole ofthe foot even unto the head there is no soundness infallen man (Isa 1:5). Further, even regenerated man is


crippled by the continuing corruption of sin, as well asby the reality of his own finiteness (Isa 55:8,9; 1 Cor2:16). Thus, for any man, saved or lost, to suppose thathis thoughts ought to be regarded as certain and/or asauthoritative as those of Godlet alone the notion thatall human truth-claims deserve such respect, simplybecause the sage of the Old Testament sometimesrelated his articulation of truth to observations he hadmade in the natural orderis to deny what the Biblesays so often and so clearly about the real fallennessand finiteness of man and about the infinite wisdomand matchless authority of God.

Bibliology. Bookman says:

Coes purpose in developing [his] argument fromthe Wisdom literature is to insist that thescriptures recognize a non-propositional source ofwisdom embedded and evident within the patternsand dynamic structures of both the inorganic andorganic world . . . he is convinced that the knowl-edge possessed by the sage and recorded by himin Scripture was discovered by the sage alone, withno dependence upon God (Bookman, In Defenseof Biblical Counseling, 15,16).

Bookman summarizes:

The point of all this is that Coe has drawn a whollyunwarranted conclusion when, on the basis of theOT sages supposed discovery of moral truths, hededuces the legitimacy of a science of values,derived from contemporary investigation into thesupposedly normative world of nature. Coesperceived parallel between the ministry of the OT


sage and the work of the modern social scientistsimply does not exist (Bookman, In Defense ofBiblical Counseling, 22,23, italics in original).

Bookman gives one additional summary:

The issue here relates very directly to the charac-ter of inspired Scripture. Wisdom literature, suchas that which is represented by the sage in thebook of Proverbs, is one of many precious andprofitable genres of biblical literature. But therecorded message of the sage, no less than that ofthe prophet, the Gospelist or the writer of a NewTestament epistle, is authoritative and dependablesimply and only because it was breathed out byGod (2 Tim 3:16). The prophets received theirmessages by means of dreams (Num 12:6); thatdoesnt suggest that the dreams of men today arejust as authoritative as those of the prophets. Thesage normally received his message by means ofobservation; it is erroneous to conclude that there-fore the observations of any man are as authorita-tive and/or dependable as those observations of thesage which are recorded in the pages of sacredScripture. Note carefully that the debate here isnot whether any of the observations made byhuman beings might be true. Rather, the debate iswhether the observations of men today ought tobe regarded as possessing the absolute certaintyand/or normative authority which the Biblepossesses in all of its parts. The words of the sageare not certain and authoritative because they werediscovered by observation, any more than thewords of Jude are certain and authoritative


because he cites them from the apocryphal book ofEnoch (Jude 14). The words of all biblical writersare authoritative because the recording of themwas done under the careful supervision of the HolySpirit which is known as inspiration. To regardthe words of men as possessing the same sublimedignity and ultimate authority that the words ofthe Bible possess is remarkably dangerous(Bookman correspondence, italics in original).

The Passantinos understanding of general revela-tion is all-encompassing but erroneous. In one fell swoopthey even reduce sections of Scripture to less than God-breathed in their attempt to show that Godsrevelation refers to that which can be discoveredthrough observation and natural reason. The wordrevelation refers to an unveiling, a revealing of some-thing that could not be otherwise discovered or known.What mankind gleans through observation, reason andlogic is not revelation, but discovery. These discoveriescan be very helpful to mankind, such as the discoveryof electricity. The kind of psychology the Passantinosare both criticizing and defending may include somediscovery about the superficial aspects of man throughobservation, reason and logic, but these kinds of theo-ries include highly subjective, speculative imaginationsabout the depths of man.

Regarding Coes psychotheology, Dave Hunt says:

In order to justify Christian psychologys borrow-ing of the wisdom of this world (1 Cor1:20;2:6;3:19) from Freud, Jung, et al. and callingit part of Gods truth to supplement the Bible,


[Coe] must show that the Bible is insufficientorabandon his profession.

Hunt further says:

Coe claims that the Bible itself mandates thechurch to develop a science of [moral and spiri-tual] values and human nature from extrabiblicalsources. He declares that whatever is natural isgood and that one can deduce a science of [moral]values simply from observing nature. This isobviously not true.

Nature has no morals; nor can science revealmorals; neither can there be a science of humannature because man is not a robot and humanqualities such as love, joy, peace, choice, a sense ofright and wrong, etc. cannot be explained in scien-tific cause-and-effect terms. Einstein confessedthat science has nothing to do with religion; andNobel Laureate physicist Erwin Schroedinger saidthat science knows nothing of . . . good or bad,God and eternity. Mankinds common recognitionof right and wrong comes not from nature but fromGods laws written in the conscience (Rom 2:14-15). Moreover, nothing is more natural than toeat the fruit of a tree, especially if it is deliciousand promises the knowledge of good and evil!

Regarding Coes article, Hunt says:

Coe accuses those who affirm the sufficiency ofScripture of having retreated, particularly fromthe light of reason and natural revelation, to the


island of faith, clinging desperately and unfortu-nately to the illusion of a Bible-alone approach towisdom which is solely from above. He soundslike a humanist! He declares that without naturalrevelation the Bible . . . alone is insufficient. Ofcourse, he includes in natural revelation that partof Gods truth which secular psychologists haveallegedly discovered and which is therefore neededto supplement Scripture.

Yes, the Bible is insufficient when it comes toflying an airplane, repairing an engine, transplant-ing a kidney, but not when it comes to those thingsthat pertain to life and godliness, all of whichPeter says have been given to us in Christ (2 Pt 1:3-4). Paul says that through Scripture alone theman or woman of God is throughly furnished untoall good works (2 Tm 3:17). Christ said that theHoly Spirit is the Spirit of truth, whom the worldcannot receive (Jn 14:17) and who guides believersinto all truth (Jn 16:13). He said that those whocontinue in His word, which is truth (Jn 17:17)know the truth (Jn 8:32), not part of the truth,and are thereby set free, not partially free.

The Bibles declaration that the natural mancannot know Gods truth, which is only revealedby the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14), is proof that Freud,et al. had nothing of Gods truth to impart. Thatfact alone thoroughly demolishes the Coe/Chris-tian psychology thesis that part of Gods truth isto be found in secular psychology. It isnt there.

Inasmuch as all of Gods truth is contained inGods Word, Christian psychology has nothing tooffer and leads into gross error. Preventing Godspeople from believing in the sufficiency of Scripture


is essential for Christian psychologists if they hopeto remain in business, and John H. Coe is deter-mined to prove this thesis (Hunt, Q & A, re Coe).

Second inadequacy:The Passantinos present what they perceive to be a

second inadequacy of the BCM. They say:

Second, since the BCM fails to recognize varietiesof Gods communication to humans in naturaltheology and general revelation, it also establishesa false standard of comprehensive exclusivityregarding the Bible. The BCM wrongly assumesthat the Bible is the sole source of all values andprescriptions, when in reality God is, and the Bibleis one of the ways God communicates the valuesand prescriptions (28, italics in original).

Notice how this second so-called BCM inadequacyis dependent on the Coe/Passantino psychotheology.What many in BCM fail to do is agree with the Coe/Passantino version of general revelation. Instead, BCMadvocates do recognize that any form of natural theol-ogy is severely weakened and distorted by the noeticeffects of the Fall.

Bookman summarizes this facet of Coes thesis asfollows:

Objective Source of Values Thesis: There exists anobjective extra-biblical source of values andwisdom in the patterns and dynamic structures ofnature, particularly in human phenomena, whichcan be discovered by human observation andreflection. . . . Coe argues that there exists an


objective, empirically knowable and demonstrablesource of ultimate metaphysical reality outside ofspecial revelation (Bookman, In Defense of Bibli-cal Counseling, 1-2).

What Coe does not apparently realize is that whatmay be seen and reflected upon is severely limited bythe unsearchable depths of the inner person and theinability of fallen man to observe objectively, withoutthe intrusion of sinful biases. We who trust the Bible assufficient for life and godliness say that the Bible is thesole authoritative source of understanding the humancondition, including values, and sole authoritativesource of prescribing how one is to live. None of thehumanly derived observations or strategies can everbe regarded as possessing certainty or authority equalto that of Scripture.

The BCM position is confidence in the unique au-thority and thus the full sufficiency of Scripture. Sucha regard for the character and authority of Scripturecomes from an exegetical consideration of those Scrip-tures themselves, because the Bible claims to be thevery Word of God (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21, et al.) and itsets itself infinitely above the words of men (Ps 19:7-11; 119:160).

But the Passantinos call into question the very pos-sibility of drawing such conclusions upon the basis ofinterpreting Scripture. They ask, how do counseleesknow that the interpretation and/or application of Scrip-ture given them by their BCM counselor is accurate?(28). To answer that question we ask a counter ques-tion: How do the Passantinos know that their use ofreason, the material universe, social history, andconscience is accurate? In the area of values andprescriptions, regarding the inner man (volition,


cognition, emotion, purpose, conscience, etc.), would thereader rather trust Scriptures or reason, the materialuniverse, social history, and conscience?

The Passantinos say, God uses other people,personal observation, rational discourse, experience,and, as we have already seen, natural and generalrevelation as well as the Bible (28, italics in original).However, people, personal observation, rationaldiscourse [and] experience are all distorted because ofthe Fall. There are serious problems in attempting touse general revelation to support integrating secularpsychological theories and therapies with the Bible tohelp Christians live more effective lives. Through suchintegrated counseling, psychological systems intrudeinto the believers process of sanctification or Christianliving. One must remember that the more than 400different systems of psychotherapy were devised bynonChristians. One must wonder how the subjectivenotions of unbelievers about the depths of man havebeen elevated to such a high status in terms of under-standing the human condition and prescribing howChristians should change and live.

We have dealt with this important subject of generalrevelation and how it relates to secular psychologicaltheories and therapies in our book The End of Chris-tian Psychology (Bobgan, Ch 3).

It is difficult to justify the idea that those whorejected the very existence of God can know either thecharacter of God or the human soul through generalrevelation. Cornelius Van Til put it this way:

After sin has entered the world, no one of himselfknows nature aright, and no one knows the soulsof man aright. How then could man reason from


nature to natures God and get anything but adistorted notion of God? The sort of natural theol-ogy that the sinner who does not recognize himselfas a sinner makes is portrayed to us in the firstchapter of Romans (Van Til, 69).

Notice the indictment on mankind found in Romans1. After properly perceiving truth about God throughnature, people consistently suppress

CRI-webbk

Documents

Transcript of CRI-webbk