Biblical Psychology

Concepts from the Accountability Group become a Clinical Psychology  

Stephen H. Farra, PhD, LP
© 2003,   Stephen H. Farra, PhD, LP.  All rights reserved.

This proposal works from the assumption that there is such a thing as a biblical psychology.  The biblical portrait of human psychology springs up naturally and powerfully from the pages of Scripture.  It includes the biblical concepts of personal freedom, human potential for reasoned thought and meaningful communication, and true moral accountability.  These concepts logically separate Biblical Psychology from the "human-as-animal" and "human-as-machine," deterministic paradigms of Freud and Skinner.  Biblical Psychology acknowledges the limited, fallen, and divided natures of human beings, logically separating it from the "self-as-God" paradigms of Jung and Rogers.  In sharp contrast to all the modern secular models of human psychology, Biblical Psychology recognizes and affirms our ongoing human need to humbly respond to our Lord's amazing grace, sacrificial redemption, and consistent guidance.  Within the community of faith, to find and apply this biblical understanding of persons should be our accepted task, not attempting to develop an "eclectic" or "integrationist" psychology loosely wrapped around the non-biblical, and often non-empirical secular psychologies.  This proposal suggests that we use biblically and empirically supported, evidence-based means of evaluation, and then use as therapy those forms of cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting that logically extend from the core biblical concepts of "renewing the mind" and "making disciples" -- methodologically achieved through focused concern, therapeutic instruction, behavioral homework, and consistent encouragement.  Most comparative, carefully structured and controlled outcome studies now show these more biblically consistent forms of therapy to be more efficient at producing and more effective at maintaining positive, measurable changes in human lives.  Empirically supported clinical procedures are described in the final section of this paper.  Biblical Psychology represents an attempt to deal with both the conceptual/logical issues involved in psychological model building, and the practical issues involved in attempting to provide effective and efficient therapies to troubled and hurting individuals, across a wide variety of settings.  The goal is to present a working paradigm that is genuinely biblical, logically consistent, and actually effective in everyday life.    

         Many Evangelical Christians believe a strong case can be made for the benefits of "Christian psychology."  Through this means, many say they were drawn to the church for the first time.  Church-sponsored classes and seminars on topics related to psychological needs and disorders are often full to overflowing.  Evangelical media outlets, from Christian bookstores to radio stations, offer whole menus of psychology-related programs and materials.  Many Evangelical leaders believe that through the application of psychological evaluations and insights, we have come to see people more as they are, instead of simply how we want them to be.  Many Christian believers have felt their personal problems and hurts were first taken seriously and directly addressed through "Christian psychology."

           But, a big problem remains.  There is a fly in the ointment.

          The models of humanity and mind, the theories of personality and subsequent methods of evaluation and therapy that are routinely and rather uncritically absorbed and used from the paradigms of Freud and Jung and Skinner and Rogers are often non-biblical, if not anti-biblical, in their assumptions and direction.  This is not just a technical theological problem, to be pondered and discussed in our seminaries.  The more we use these non-biblical and anti-biblical models for understanding, education, and therapy, the more we will tend to lose our focus on the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.  Our awareness of our own biblical faith and the relationships it develops and protects will slip and wane.  We will begin to think, feel, and behave in ways that are other than, if not opposite from, the directions set forth in Scripture.  Once again, we will be back to following, not leading, secular culture.

           These concerns have led many Christian scholars to become increasingly cautious about the secular models of human psychology that are so frequently and so uncritically imported into the community of faith.  There is now something of a neo-conservative movement among Christian scholars concerning the content of the secular psychologies, even among those of us who are licensed in the field, and make our living practicing and teaching the models and methods of psychology.

           As described and documented in the paragraphs below, there is a developing consensus that what we call "Christian psychology" needs a new direction and a new paradigm -- a new paradigm that is at once more biblical and more scientific than anything yet presented.  Instead of a "Bible-only" approach, we need a comprehensive biblically consistent approach.  Yet, even achieving this will only be the necessary first step.  The working model must also be empirically consistent, that is, scientifically validated, showing itself to be clinically effective with different types of individuals, across a wide variety of settings.  To date, such a model has yet to be presented in a systematic and applicable manner.

       In their carefully documented and widely adopted textbook, Modern Psychotherapies, Stanton Jones and Richard Butman of Wheaton College argue rigorously for an "integrationist" approach to Christian psychology.   Yet, they also write that the operating models of most "integrationist" psychologists are admittedly weak from an empirical research point of view, and that they themselves have no new, positive, scientifically validated model to put forward.  (Jones and Butman, 1991, p. 23)  David Powlison, editor of The Journal of Biblical Counseling, writes that much of what we call "Christian psychology" is in truth a damaging syncretism (a carelessly blended form of soul care which is both self-contradictory and anti-biblical in nature).  This has led to the community of faith being gradually "inundated" by the pagan philosophies that serve as the conceptual core of the secular psychologies. (Powlison, 1992)   Jeffery Satinover, a practicing psychiatrist and Past President of the Carl Gustav Jung Foundation, takes much the same point to view.   He writes that the psychological models of Freud and Jung are thoroughly pagan in their roots and influence. (Satinover, 1994)   Well-known Christian psychologist and author, Larry Crabb, who in the past used sharp language arguing against what he saw as the impractical, too-narrow, sometimes harsh approach used in the biblical counseling movement (Crabb, 1975, pp. 49-50), has more recently said that counseling needs to come back within the boundaries of the Church, and under the supervision of the Church. (Crabb, 1995)   Crabb is now calling for an entirely new paradigm of practice. (Crabb, 2000)  

       Both the integrationist/eclectic and biblical counseling movements have been at least partially correct in their criticisms of the other.  They have been better at critique than positive creation, however.   While each group can bring meaningful criticisms against the other, important practical problems still remain concerning the practice of mental health care inside the community of faith.   They remain because neither group can put forward a model that is at once genuinely biblical and clinically powerful in an empirically demonstrable way.   It is my hope that this proposal will show a way to unite the biblical understanding of human beings with solid clinical science.   Biblical Psychology represents an attempt to be more biblically and logically consistent than anything we see emerging from the integrationist/eclectic movement, and more scientifically consistent than anything we see emerging from the biblical counseling movement.   

       In their important new book, Psychology and Christianity:  Four Views, the editors (Eric Johnson and Stanton Jones, 2000), allow advocates of four distinctly different ways of relating Psychology and Christianity to present their own viewpoints in their own words, with critique and dialog back and forth under the same book cover.  This interactional format greatly enhances the value of this volume.  The book will frustrate those searching for the one "right way" to proceed.   What the book does well is to clearly and succinctly update us on the state of dialog between and among some of the principal Christian practitioners and theorists in the field, on this culturally significant and spiritually important topic.   A brief review of the content is provided below.   

       To help us understand how psychology is being addressed by contemporary Christians, the editors recruited David Myers from Hope College (MI), a nationally recognized Christian researcher and author of two best-selling university texts, to present the research-driven, levels-of-explanation model.   They recruited Gary Collins, well known Christian psychologist and former Director of the American Association of Christian Counselors, to present the integrationist model.   They recruited Christian philosopher, Robert Roberts, formerly of Wheaton College, now teaching Philosophy and Ethics at Baylor University, to present the Christian psychology model.   And, they recruited David Powlison, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, and editor of the Journal of Biblical Counseling, to present the biblical counseling model.   The individual models are presented briefly and clearly.  The exchanges between the presenters are lively, sometimes pointed, but remain mutually respectful.   Between and among the editors and presenters, there are very few intentional distortions of perspective, or unfair, emotive jabs at each other.   In other words, you will find very few red herrings, straw men, or cheap shots here.   This is no small achievement considering the significance of the topic, and how strongly the contrasting positions are held.   Even if the editors do not provide any final answers, the "tone" of the book is right.  

       In the first chapter the editors give a brief history of psychology -- from ancient and medieval roots, to early modern psychology, to the quick embrace of modern secular psychology in liberal Protestant circles in the 1920s and 30s, to the slow entry of modern secular psychology into the evangelical world in the 1950's, to the enthusiastic acceptance of much of the content of modern secular psychology by much of the evangelical world in the 1970's, to the more recent analysis/critique of this enthusiastic acceptance.    This book appears to represent a somewhat more conservative and cautious approach to understanding the proper the relationship of psychology to Christianity than what we have frequently witnessed over the last three decades.   There is some acknowledgment from the editors that not all viewpoints and truth claims, even those coming from sincere Christians, are equally valuable or valid. (p. 249)    Further, the editors describe "eclectic" approaches, so popular from the 1970s through the early 1990s, as intellectually "immature" or "defeatist," and not very helpful in the end, since by definition, "eclectic" approaches are non-systematic, and therefore, not widely applicable in nature. (p. 253)   The editors mention that Christian psychologist Larry Crabb has moved from a much more wide-open "integrationist" approach to a much more structured, criteria-driven approach, saying that mental health counseling should to be offered within the church, and under the authority of the church.  Crabb is now calling for a new paradigm, built directly out of a biblical theology of sanctification. (p. 40)

       Just before introducing the selected presenters of the differing approaches, the editors suggest a short list of questions for making sense of the differences:  Is the Bible directly relevant to the theory and practice of psychology;  should the Bible's concepts shape our work?   Is the Bible meant to remain largely in its "own realm" of theology and ethics, or is it meant be authoritative over all of life?    More specifically, does the Bible give us a distinctive view of human nature that should guide all our model-construction, research, and therapy?  To what degree are the presenters critical, even suspicious, of the work of non-Christians?  More specifically, should we cooperate with non-Christians in human investigations?

       In the body of the book, Collins, Roberts, and Powlison criticize Myers for what they see as a weak commitment to biblical authority, since he contends that to honestly describe each level of phenomena in reality, we need language, procedures, and models appropriate to that level.   Myers contends that the biblical models and language systems are appropriate for theology and ethics, but are not appropriate for the physical sciences, or even for precisely stated hypotheses in psychology, dealing with the details of human experience and behavior.  Myers, in turn, criticizes the other three presenters for being very weak in terms of their research base.   Myers observes that none of the three chapters written by his co-presenters "mention a smidgen of research. None describe and critique the psychology that is published in most journals..." (p. 179)  By insisting that we submit our theories and truth claims to empirical test, when and wherever possible, Myers gives us one of the two important forms of quality control that we will need to apply rigorously and systematically, if our Christian psychologies are to become better, that is, better focused, more accurate, more helpful.

       Roberts and Powlison give us the other important form of quality control -- biblical/exegetical quality control, insisting that a biblical understanding of persons be the basis for all our models of internal dynamics and care:   "our endeavor will not be primarily to integrate, but to retrieve, evaluate, and communicate something originally Christian . . . we can expect that in the measure that we lose touch with our own psychology and replace it with one of the psychologies of the establishment or some conglomeration of them, we will lose touch with the apostolic faith." (Roberts, pp. 153, 171)

       Throughout, the integrationist perspective fares somewhat less well than do the other perspectives presented in the book.  This has nothing to do with Collins being weak as a thinker or presenter.  He is perceptive and clear on both counts.  The problem lies with the weakness of "integrationism" itself, as an intellectual position, and as a therapeutic method.  In an almost humorous section of the text, Gary Collins sharply criticizes the very model he is supposed to be advocating, writing, "integration has become a word shrouded in mystery, a slogan, a buzzword that gives us warm feelings, but is used more as a gimmick to attract students than as a genuine scholarly achievement or a practical methodology." (p. 105)   He goes on to write that we are often confused as to what lines of thought (exactly) we are trying to "integrate" together in the first place.   To his credit, Collins imports into his main presentation and side critiques a very real sense of biblical hierarchy and authority, including saying that we need to relinquish our normal psychotherapeutic focus on the troubled individual's past, and instead seek out and use more future/goal-oriented ("eschatological") therapies, since these are more in keeping with the life stories and message of the Bible. (pp. 118-120)   He mentions William Glasser's Reality Therapy as an early example of what he's talking about.  This is genuinely helpful, but to the degree that he attempts to establish and/or apply any set criteria, he is really abandoning the ultimately subjective, "do-your-own-thing," mix-and-match "art form" we know as "integrationism."   In its place, even though he fails to articulate this, Collins is really advocating a much more systematic, criteria-driven, distinctively Christian approach.  Both Roberts and Powlison point this out in their critiques of Collins' position.

     In their final chapter, the editors call for a new working paradigm, a two-track, criteria-driven biblical and empirical model (p. 261), after rightly criticizing the thinking that produces eclectic (blended) models as "intellectually immature." (p. 253)   Unfortunately, over the past several decades, the discussion in the evangelical world has mostly remained stuck in the highly contentious, excessively repetitious "Nouthetic Counseling verses Integrationist Psychology" debate.  Consonant with the apparent purpose of Johnson and Jones' book, this Biblical Psychology proposal attempts to break this conceptual log-jam and move us on in a meaningful, helpful way.   


       In the February 2000 issue of American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the APA, two articles appeared that should inspire all psychologists, secular and Christian, to some healthy self-examination and discipline-examination.  The articles were written in opposition to one another, but each makes an important point, and has the potential to move us toward much needed corrective actions.  The first one faulted psychologists and their trainees for being notoriously naive and self-defeating in their presuppositions, as they all too readily succumb to the prevailing psychiatric, disease-model point of view (Albee, 2000).   The second one faulted practicing psychologists for routinely ignoring the results of clinical research, for normally proceeding as if the last 50 years of clinical research never occurred.   (Nathan, 2000)   Those of us who build and/or use psychological models within the community of faith need to be clear and specific and wise about our philosophical and theological presuppositions, and more forthcoming about whatever empirical support, if any, we have for our operational paradigms.   Otherwise, we are likely to confuse and mislead others, and possibly even ourselves.  

       To date, "Christian psychology" has remained weak as a working paradigm and cultural influence.  It has remained weak partially because the community of faith lacks very many who can produce and/or analyze properly controlled empirical research, and build elegant methods of application on this empirical foundation.  Looking at the content of their writings, one would not conclude that most Christian psychologists are even be aware of the Boulder Model of therapeutic psychology, let alone allowing this or any other scientist-practitioner model to inform their formation of therapeutic concepts and subsequent applications.   Yet, the main reason, the more basic and abiding reason Christian psychology has remained weak is because most of the studies and applications (practice methods) inside the camp have not been directed by a biblical philosophy of mind.  Those who can clearly articulate and defend a biblical philosophy of mind rarely conduct and build upon properly controlled empirical research.   Biblical Psychology attempts to close this gap by starting with a genuinely biblical philosophy of mind, and then proceeding systematically and scientifically to build a practical, working paradigm of human psychology.  

       To build a biblically consistent paradigm of human psychology, the place to start is with the Bible itself, not the philosophies of humanity and mind developed by Freud, or Jung, or Skinner, or Rogers.   And, one cannot credibly claim to be maintaining a biblical philosophy of mind while consistently using the therapeutic methods of Freud, Jung, Skinner, and/or Rogers.  Their non-biblical and often anti-biblical philosophies are deeply imbedded in their therapeutic methods, and end up dominating the process over time.  

       Listed below are seven biblical assumptions / biblical truths concerning humankind that any psychology, as a conceptual system, needs to include and embrace if we are to consider it a genuinely Christian psychology.   Empirical support for these biblical truths follows in later sections of this proposal.  

    1.   Human beings have been granted the ability and freedom to choose, and their choices matter.  We are not utterly and mindlessly driven by forces within or without, as Freud and Skinner contended.  We are usually aware of those times when we are behaviorally "out of control" (acting apart from conscious intention).  Except for the most troubled among us, such experiences are the exception, not the rule in life.

       The arguments of any deterministic system of thought can only be believed if we do not apply those arguments consistently, that is, turn them back in on themselves.  As soon as we do, the supposedly thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments in the particular paradigm become mere unavoidable, unconscious, unreasoned expressions of instinct, intrapsychic dynamics, or conditioning and reinforcement -- the blind reactions of a driven animal that cannot logically be considered to be anything more than the blind reactions of a driven animal.  As soon as we understand this existential contradiction (imbedded in any deterministic model), there is much less reason to take the content of the deterministic, human-as-driven-animal paradigm very seriously any more.  Were Freud's theories involuntary, irrational expressions of his neuroses?   When we read Skinner's books, are we only observing the inevitable results of his conditioning and reinforcement?   If so, except as a matter of pure historical curiosity, why should anyone care about anything they said or wrote?   If no truth is shared, if no reality is described, why not save our time, order another pizza and watch another football game?   But then, this also would be an example of conscious, intentional behavior!

       Unlike what we read in the works of Freud and Skinner, and other deterministic philosophers/psychologists, we experience ourselves and others as free to choose.  We persistently and correctly believe we can make true and false statements, and describe in detail at least some aspects of reality.   Any fair analysis of human speech patterns reveals that very often (and very legitimately) we hold ourselves and others directly accountable for common behaviors.  Consider these statements made by almost every parent, manager, friend, and spouse on the planet: "Why did you do that, when I asked you not to?", or, "Why did you purposefully mislead me?", or, "Please, don't stop trying!   Don't quit on yourself!   With just a little more concentration and effort, you'll make it, you'll succeed!"  

       Many statements in Scripture, like Joshua's command (Joshua, Chapter 24), "Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve," and the Lord Jesus' challenge (Luke, Chapter 6), "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, but do not the things that I say?," no longer make any sense if we stop believing in the reality of human choice.   The experience of choice is not an illusion, a mere "emergent property" or "epiphenomenon," a mere by-product of brain activity.  Rather, our ability to make meaningful decisions and to choose between differing paths is a basic reality of life, and one of the starting points for a Christian psychology.   

       2.    Humans are basically rational creatures, doing most of what they do for a conscious purpose, instead of behaving aimlessly, or because they are routinely controlled by powerful unconscious motives.   Even though they often choose to turn away from truth, and do what is destructive, humans are generally portrayed in the pages of Scripture as capable of sorting between alternatives, and behaving purposefully.   Most of us have, at one time or another, been surprised by the strength or direction of an emotional response rising up out of our "heart," our "subconscious," our "limbic system," or whatever we want to call our deep emotional center.   Emotions that surprise us should indeed be taken seriously, and their psychological as well as physical roots should be examined.   But, these emotions should not and normally do not lead us, because emotions per se, that is, just by themselves, are completely blind.  

       Looking at this another way:   An overactive or misfiring amygdala, hypothalamus, or caudate nucleus can indeed pose a significant problem in the living out of our lives -- at least until conscious intention, or cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or medication can bring its level or type of activity back within normal parameters.   But, such experiences are the clear exception, not the rule in human experience, and in no way indicate that most people cannot normally behave rationally and responsibly on a day to day basis.  When we speak of the day to day operation of the limbic system (the emotional center of the brain), we would do well to paraphrase Viktor Frankl:   "We have a limbic system, but it doesn't have us."  

       Two brain ratios help to clearly set human beings apart from animals in terms of capacity and function.   Human beings do not have the largest overall brain mass.  Whales and elephants have larger brains, by weight.   But, the ratio of brain mass to overall body mass is highest for human beings, as is the ratio of prefrontal cortex to overall brain mass.  The Creator has endowed the average human being with a prefrontal cortex (the part of our brain, directly behind our forehead, capable of self-awareness, information processing, rational thought, moral consciousness, wisdom and judgement, and complex problem solving) that is much larger than anything we find in the animal Kingdom -- 202% of the average chimpanzee's prefrontal cortex (on a brain-proportion basis).  Put another way, a much greater proportion of the human being's total brain mass is capable of the "higher" functions of the prefrontal cortex. (Kalat, 1998, pp.  137, 138).   Additionally, the human being has many more connections (axons) running from the prefrontal cortex to those parts of our brain that directly control our vocal equipment (larynx, tongue, lips, etc) than what we observe in chimpanzees.  This makes it possible for us to have and transfer thought content into our vocalizations - meaning that a much higher proportion of our vocalizations can move beyond merely emotive or "limbic" vocalizations to include rational concepts and specific instructions.  Along with Broca's area (near the left temple) and Wernicke's area (above the left ear), the human being's much larger prefrontal cortex and the considerably larger number of axons running from the prefontal cortex to the vocal centers are among the brain structures that make possible what Noam Chomsky observed -- a transcultural human capacity to understand and use highly symbolic language with a universal deep structure (i.e. -- transformational grammar).   Evidence of this uniquely human, astonishingly powerful capacity rather spontaneously emerges from otherwise helpless toddlers, all over the world, at about the age of 18 months. (Chomsky, 1968, 1972)

      Examination of both DNA and neurological structures indicates that the chimpanzee is the creature most like the human being on planet Earth, yet when it comes to thinking ability and power, including the capacities for symbolic language comprehension and application, self-awareness, self-direction, and personal responsibility, the creatures are not very similar.  The data indicate clear and striking differences between the brains of human beings as compared to the brains of even the "highest" animals.  The Creator expects us to make good use of the unique mental and spiritual gifts he has bestowed upon us.  Human beings do have several animal-like vulnerabilities and responses.  This, however, does not mean that it is legitimate for anyone's psychology to cast the human being as an animal.

       From the invitation in Isaiah, Chapter 1, "Come let us reason together, says the Lord," to the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul reasoning with the Jews each Sabbath in the synagogues, the Scriptures portray humans as capable of engaging in rational thought and making conscious decisions, even though they do not always do this, or do it well.  In Romans, Chapter 1, even the powerful evil in man's heart is seen as the result of conscious ingratitude and misdirected thinking:   "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."  Romans 1:21, emphasis mine)   In this verse, the darkness in the hearts of human beings is not seen as the result of inherited animal "instincts," which humans cannot avoid or control.   Rather, the darkness and foolishness in their hearts is seen as the direct result of conscious thinking and choices -- foolish and wrong thinking and choices, but nevertheless conscious thinking and choices.  

       The whole notion of unconscious determinism is not a Christian idea at all, but an ancient pagan belief.   The Fates, the sister gods of Greek and Roman mythology, were said to pull and weave the treads of our lives, without communicating with us at a conscious level.   What will be, will be.   The Christian concept has always been that "what will be" depends on our conscious and intentional response to the grace and guidance of God.  

      3.   Because they are capable of making real choices, and are rational beings (at least potentially), humans are morally accountable.   One cannot read the Bible honestly without the message of moral accountability coming through "loud and clear."   The Bible confronts us with a concept we do not much like, the concept of sin -- not "illness" due to "unconscious conflicts," but sin.   Humans often attempt to dodge this concept, and all other forms of accountability, through any number of manipulations and maneuvers, but they cannot.  Unlike what Jung and Rogers proposed, we humans will answer specifically for the choices we have made to Someone other than ourselves.   We do not get to serve as our own final judge.  Romans, Chapter 1, makes it clear that all human beings are "without excuse," fully responsible for their behavior to the Creator of the universe.  

       If we continue to follow modern psychology's lead into the darkness of mindless irrationality (Freud and Skinner), and / or its lead into the darkness of individually defined moral codes (made to look oh-so-attractive by the "self as God" models of Jung and Rogers), we will utterly destroy the family, the criminal justice system, the educational system, and the business / commerce system in this culture.  We cannot operate as a coherent society without believing that we, individually and collectively, are essentially rational beings, and morally accountable to Someone other than ourselves.   Without the concepts of choice, rationality, moral accountability and social responsibility, our mental "illnesses," differing "reinforcement histories," and conflicting "interpretations of experience" will continually collide with one another, and in the end, we will witness cultural collapse.  

       4.   Humans wrestle with a divided nature, the elements of which war against one another.   While we live in our natural bodies, we will deal with this tension.   While he was simply wrong on so many points, Freud (like the Apostle Paul long before him) was more correct than Jung or Rogers on this point, in that we will continue to wrestle with a divided nature, no matter how "congruent" we think we are, or how successfully we believe we have integrated our personalities, partly through ''making friends with our Shadow."   Insight alone will not free us from experiencing a divided nature.   Our natures need continuous changing, not continuous analysis.  Because of our divided natures, discipline, obedience, and thought/behavioral accountability continue to be necessary in the righteous life, even with the powerful assistance of the Holy Spirit, apart from Whom we would have no hope.

       5.   Humans are very valuable, yet very fallen, creatures.   Human beings are not the "zeros" of Skinner's scheme (conditioned bits of protoplasm, responding mindlessly to conditioning and environmental stimuli), but they also are not the innately loving, helpful, angelic beings of Rogers' scheme who only need to be "liberated" or "empowered" in order to discover and reveal their wonderful natures, and then do wonderful things.   Humans are valuable not because they say so, but because God says so, and took action to secure their redemption.   Nearly every morning newspaper confirms that we humans, if given the opportunity, will often use power in unethical and destructive ways, using power against (instead of for)  one another.   The kind of "liberation" many of us need is not liberation from virtually all external constraint, but liberation from the undisciplined meanness and foolishness of our own natures.   It doesn't take a genius to understand that not all of our problems come from outside of ourselves.   Frequently, the source of our problems is housed in our own souls.   The familiar phrases, "we have become our own worst enemy," and "we have met the enemy, and they are us" ring truer than we wish they did.   Chapters 7 and 8 of the Epistle to the Romans address this problem of a corrupted nature, and show a way out.  

       6.   Personal salvation cannot result from the application of psychological technique.   It is the gift of God.   In the past few decades many attempts have been made to (in essence) substitute the temporary and partial gains of psychological therapy for the eternal gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.  Sadly, this is happening within churches, as well as within more secular outlets for soul care.   As contemporary churches have become increasingly psychologized, they have often given up their most important functions -- to call all humans to turn from sin, to surrender to the salvation that is possible through Jesus Christ alone, to seek His Kingdom and His righteousness, to become His disciples, and to train His disciples.  Instead of celebrating the unique and central role of Jesus Christ in the personal salvation of every person who receives the eternal gift, many contemporary churches have instead offered up carefully choreographed, "feel-good" morning services, self-empowerment support groups (of all kinds, for all ages, and both genders), and numerous recreational options, while often neglecting to teach and live out the message of Redemption.  Instead of acknowledging and celebrating the power of the Gospel to transform the self, and to call us into something greater than service to the self, morning sermons in many modern "seeker friendly" churches often offer little more than self-enhancement strategies (e.g. -- "How to Feel and Perform Better by Developing Your Self-Esteem").  But, people don't need more of this shallow pop psychology, particularly from the pulpit.   People need the Lord -- a real, deep, personal encounter with Jesus Christ, His people, His Kingdom, His righteousness.  

       There are no psychological techniques, or sets of techniques, that can substitute for the work of Jesus Christ and bring about personal salvation.   This is as true for cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting as it is for psychoanalysis, analytic psychology, operant behaviorism, or client-centered therapy.   Cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting (the modes of therapy advocated in this proposal), by emphasizing transpersonal truth, mutual encouragement, and real accountability, at least have the strength of being more in line with the true needs and nature of human beings -- as portrayed in the biblical understanding of human beings -- and thus may help indicate the need for, and contribute to the outworking of, the process of redemption.   In the models of Freud, Jung, Skinner, or Rogers there is no transpersonal truth, or real, external accountability.  By leading us away from transpersonal truth and real accountability, the paradigms of the principal founders of the traditional psychotherapies can only lead us into darkness. 

       7.   Real meaning and life direction are needed in people's lives, and they come from God's special calling to and for each one of us.   Perceptive theorists and therapists, like Erik Erickson (1968)   and Viktor Frankl (1963, 1965), have correctly affirmed that people cannot live successfully, long-term, without meaning and direction in their lives.   But, they (Erickson and Frankl)   do not state with unequivocal clarity where real meaning and life direction come from.   They come from God's specific calling to and for each one of us.   Our sense of meaning and direction needs to be grounded and real.   It needs to be grounded in God's plan for Creation and Redemption, not just a personal fantasy, not just something we make up to make ourselves feel significant.   Freud and Skinner both wrote that any sense of meaning, direction, or significance is ultimately an illusion.   Their position is very dark indeed, but their nihilistic position ultimately has more consistency and integrity than Jung's and Rogers' position that meaning, life direction, and personal significance are all self-defined, and can be whatever a man or woman want them to be.  


       Any psychological model that does not include at least these seven elements -- the ability to make real and important choices, the God-given potential for rationality, true moral accountability, man's divided, valuable, yet fallen nature, salvation not through psychological technique, but through Jesus Christ alone, and man's need for a meaning and life direction which are grounded and real -- does not qualify as anything close to a biblical / Christian psychology.  Most psychological approaches practiced in America, including those practiced by most sincere Christians, do not qualify by this standard.  

         Practitioners who routinely use essentially non-biblical psychotherapies may actually be doing more harm than good in their clients' lives -- by implanting false, distorted and distorting views of vital relationships.   We were made to have and enjoy creative and meaningful relationships with other persons, with ourselves, with the natural world, and with our Creator God.   If any psychological paradigm and/or its methods of therapy cause clients to turn away from, misunderstand, or in any way distort these vital relationships, then there will likely be more soul-damage than healing in the end.   This will tend to hold true, even if the clients' presenting symptoms diminish over the course of initial psychotherapy.   Not all psychotherapies are finally good for the suffering and vulnerable persons to whom they are applied!

         Any therapeutic approach worthy of a biblical/Christian label will emphasize what the Scriptures emphasize -- encountering and responding to truth, renewing the mind, accepting and extending consistent encouragement, all within the context of rationality, conscious intentions, and mutual moral/behavioral accountability. 


         Lest anyone misunderstand the message here:   the current lack of a fully developed, biblically consistent psychology that is also empirically validated is not a good reason for us to throw our hands up and retreat from the whole process of scientifically seeking out the very best therapies we can find.   We cannot help the majority of the hurting souls around us if we refuse from the outset to deal with anything other than the mild-to-moderate adjustment disorders that can sometimes be handled through "exhortational" counseling alone.   We further limit our influence for good, if we refuse to counsel anyone who ahead of time does not declare that he or she is a believer.   It is vitally important that the Christian therapist know the Bible very well.   But, it is not enough, it is not "totally sufficient" to only know the Bible very well, and to merely exhort people to follow the principles of Scripture.   There is a reason we typically do not ask our pastors to operate on us in our local hospitals, or ask our seminary theologians to fly our jetliners from city to city!   We love our pastors and theologians, and deeply respect the work of eternity to which they are devoted, yet we rightly understand that there are many other persons who have very different types of expertise, often scientific expertise, we frequently will need as we live out our lives before our Creator.  

         To deliver an effective and efficient form of mental health care, besides knowing and respecting the content of the Bible, and conscientiously following and applying its moral guidance, we must also be well trained scientifically.   We need to be trained scientifically, so we can do the honest and thorough research that will allow us to understand the complex and wonderful processes inherent in God's creation, to diagnose accurately, to know in detail of the benefits and limitations of the psychotropic medications, and be able to offer hurting persons practical and powerful therapies -- including offering them those concrete cognitive and behavioral steps which can move them toward better lives.  

         Since Thomas Aquinas started writing Summa Theologica in 1265 AD, later mirrored in the thinking and work of Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton, practical progress in the Western world has been propelled by this simple, yet profound thought:   Scientific examination of general revelation (the natural creation)  will finally lead us toward the same place that the honest, consistent/contextualized exegesis of special revelation (the Bible) leads us to -- God's abiding truth.   If we are willing to read the Word of God, and seek the face of God, and be gently guided by His Spirit, and are willing to accept the often challenging technical/intellectual work involved in the research and application tasks at hand, we can frequently see how any one part of God's truth finally coheres with the rest of God's truth.   This is our Father's world.   The heavens and the earth do declare the glory of God.   In psychological research and therapy, if we allow the content of the Bible to shape our basic values and the broad conceptual grid for our intensive investigations and therapeutic applications, it will lead us toward research procedures and therapies that will empirically prove out to be effective and efficient, and it will keep us from succumbing to ancient pagan philosophies and/or the modern syncretisms these ancient philosophies frequently generate in the modern world.  

         As indicated, I have chosen to call the approach broadly outlined here Biblical Psychology.   It is my hope that it will help unite the biblical understanding of human beings with solid clinical science.  


         There are two systematically developed and well-validated therapies in modern American therapeutic psychology that come close to being logically compatible with the biblical understanding of human beings.   Both spring rather naturally from the pages of Scripture, yet, counter-intuitively, were first popularized in this culture by unbelievers (Beck and Ellis; Lazarus and Glasser),   The methods are essentially biblical in their conceptual origins, deep structures, internal dynamics, and effects -- despite the lack of personal Christian faith on the part of their proponents.   These two therapies are:  

       1.   Cognitive Restructuring (which focuses on the mental rehearsal of truth, in order to counter the destructive power of lies), and

       2.   Behavioral Contracting (which focuses on putting legs to intentions, extending and accepting encouragement, and then holding oneself and others to the standard of behavioral accountability),  

         The Bible is not silent about the nature of the human being.   It has much to say about the makeup of the human being, how he or she tends to act, and what needs to happen for the human being to become spiritually and emotionally healthy.   This proposal assumes that there is such a thing as a biblical psychology.    It springs out clearly and powerfully from both the Old and New Testaments.   Containing the wisdom of the Ancient of Days, we should not be shocked that this wisdom is supported by the lion's share of empirical outcome studies here at the beginning of the 21st century.   There is a world of difference between a Christian who practices an invalid secular psychology, and by so doing, undermines the biblical understanding of human beings, and a Christian who practices a scientifically validated psychology consistent with the biblical understanding of human beings.  

         A question to those who say they want to practice a Christian psychology:   Instead of starting with a Freudian, Jungian, Skinnerian, or Rogerian model, and then trying oh-so-hard (yet, oh-so-ineffectively)   to adapt it to Christian practice, why not start with the biblical understanding of the human being, and then look for and develop methods of therapy, guidance, and counseling built upon this foundation?   Do we really believe that we need a Freudian, Jungian, Skinnerian, or Rogerian philosophy of mind to serve as the conceptual foundation of our working psychology of human beings?   Those who say that they will regularly use secular methods derived from obviously non-biblical and anti-biblical sources, without being influenced by the underlying philosophy, should read or re-read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962).   In this classic and influential short book, Kuhn persuasively shows how methods of research or application are always derived from an underlying philosophy and set of values, and take the reader/participant back toward that same underlying philosophy and set of values.   There is no such thing as a multi-step application (therapeutic procedure) which can be completely separated from the values and concepts which gave it rise.  

       Further, from a practical point of view, Skinner's methods only work within very narrow, tightly controlled, artificially maintained parameters, and are very dehumanizing if pushed to the extreme.   The truth concerning the other models is this:  As the research record will clearly indicate, Freudian, Jungian, and Rogerian models are philosophical models, not empirically constructed or verified models; they do not work very well for the general population under any set of conditions, and conceptually, they take people away from, instead of toward, the truth of the Gospel.  These models really need to be de-certified -- on both biblical and scientific grounds.   In their place, we need to build a scientific psychology, on the base of an authentically biblical philosophy of mind.  

         Operating in this manner will seem like nonsense to those who consider the Scriptures to be merely the musings of primitive men who lived in far-off ancient cultures, unenlightened by modern culture and technology, and thus not possibly able to address the issues of life in a digital age.   If, however, we believe that the pages of the Scripture reveal enduring truths about the nature and response-patterns of human beings in all cultures, at all times, then these enduring truths, not the unsupported philosophical speculations of therapists and "personality theorists" should be our starting points.  

       Most believers know better than to try to build a "Christian" psychology out of the literally mindless animal/automaton operant-conditioning model of B. F. Skinner.   Yet, they often remain confused and misguided when it comes to the working models of Freud, Jung, and Rogers.  These later three models, launched from obviously non-biblical and anti-biblical starting points, are not just bad theology -- they are also (generally speaking) bad science, or no science at all.   Those who teach and/or practice these traditional, anecdotally supported, philosophical/interpretive models of psychotherapy typically do not submit their truth claims to empirical testing.  To use their systems, we must take their core concepts/constructs on the basis of faith in the founder, because they refuse to permit the kind of logical and empirical tests which are necessary to confirm the reliability and scientific validity of those constructs.   Further, they typically do not state their hypotheses as hypotheses, in any kind of testable/falsifiable form (Kendler, 1987, p.   241). They artificially protect their assumptions and methods by refusing to specify the outcomes, conditions, or terms under which a reasonable person could consider their ideas and therapies to be false (that is, unproven, invalid).   Further, as we will see below, they typically cannot show strong (or usually any) statistical/probability linkage between replicable, observable clinical procedures and measurable, beneficial outcomes in and across real-life situations.  

         To reiterate: Skinner's model consistently works only in the laboratory, that is, under tightly maintained, artificially controlled conditions.  The other models, generally speaking, do not reliably work anywhere.  The outcome records of Freudian, Jungian, and Rogerian therapies are either missing or very poor indeed, by scientific standards (Rachman and Wilson, 1980, pp.  50-76, 94- 105).  

         These gaps and failures in the research record led Peter Nathan in the February 1998 issue of American Psychologist to the call for empirically-confirmed practice guidelines (similar to the "usual and customary care" standards legally required of practicing physicians).   These practice guidelines would be designed to frame and direct the therapeutic activities of all mental health professionals.   (Nathan, 1998)  

         Unfortunately, two years later, again in American Psychologist, Nathan writes of the subtle, but intractable resistance of those in the traditional psychotherapy camps to empirically-based practice guidelines:  

    "The infrequency with which clinical practitioners utilize clinical research . .  .  continues to be an embarrassment to the discipline.   David Barlow said very well almost 20 years ago what could also be said today:   'At present, clinical research has little or no influence on clinical practice.   This state of affairs should be particularly distressing to a discipline whose goal over the last 30 years has been to produce professionals who would integrate the methods of science with clinical practice to produce new knowledge."   (Nathan, 2000)  

         George Albee, writing in American Psychologist, addresses another important issue, an issue involving ideology and values.   While he fully supports the scientific training of all clinicians, he specifically targets the sell-out of psychologists to the animalistic and deterministic presuppositions inherent in the prevailing psychiatric worldview:  

       "By placing psychology graduate students in psychiatric settings for training and service, psychologists lost their students to the invalid, ideologically tattered, often incompetent psychiatric worldview.   Psychologists violated, again out of ignorance and inexperience, the fundamental criterion for professional training:   Train students in your own house, otherwise you are an ancillary profession . . . Psychologists have sold their souls to the devil:  the disease model of mental disorders."   (Albee, 2000)  

       (Comment:   Some schizophrenic disorders, endogenous depressions, bi-polar disorders, Huntington's chorea, Tourette's syndrome, etc. may sometimes legitimately be considered biologically induced diseases.   But, Albee is correct in that most of the disorders listed in the DSM IV are not in the strict, real sense diseases at all.  They are the result of foolish and destructive choices, either on the part of the individual showing the symptoms, or those around the individual.   The undeniable fact that these disorders can become very powerful in their negative, compulsive dynamics does not take away from the fact that they initially develop from choices.   Further, these disorders will not be overcome until new and better choices are forthcoming from the individual, including the choices to accept help from other human beings, and from God.)  

         As indicated earlier, theoretical and practical problems with the paradigms are not limited just to the psychodynamic, more obviously "psychiatric" psychologies.   Skinner's paradigm and methods work only under the most tightly controlled, artificially maintained conditions.   There were attempts to empirically support Rogers' agnostic, existentialist assumptions and the non-directive methods built upon them, but (as reported) these attempts mostly failed, and rather dramatically so. (Rachman and Wilson, 1980, pp.  94-105)   Rogers' agnostic existentialism (finally as "agnostic" about meaningful scientific criteria as it is about the existence of God) is no more useable clinical science than are the mythological/literary/interpretive psychodynamic psychologies of Freud and Jung.   

         All this to say:    Psychology in general, and Christian psychology particularly, is in need of a new paradigm.   On both biblical and scientific grounds, it is time to finally abandon the philosophies, values, and paradigms of Freud, Jung, Skinner, and Rogers, and to seek for better alternatives.  Most importantly, we need to start with, and remain faithful to, a genuinely biblical philosophy of mind.  We will never have a genuinely biblical psychology, until we first have a genuinely biblical philosophy of mind.  To put the thought into other words:   Christian psychologists will never "find their voice" and be able to present a genuinely biblical psychology, until they can first articulate a genuinely biblical philosophy of mind.  Then, it will be time to really get busy -- consistently and progressivley attempting to empirically validate these biblical constructs.  We proceed with and in the faith that what is genuinely biblical will finally and really meet all the necessary internal and external (ecological) standards of validity.


         While other models and methods of therapy stress uncovering the unconscious, manipulating behavior by shifting reinforcers, or becoming very comfortable with yourself by defining reality "your way," the Judeo-Christian scriptures stress renewing the mind, accepting moral/behavioral accountability, and extending consistent encouragement as methods of achieving righteous goals, and living out the will of God.  Below are but a few of the many biblical passages that call us to proceed along these lines.

      From the instructions given in Deuteronomy 6 concerning the faithful teaching of God's commandments to our children, and King David writing in Psalms 1 and 119 of meditating day and night on the law of God, to the Apostle Paul writing in 2 Corinthians 10 that we must bring "every thought into captivity," and writing in Romans 12 that it is by the "renewing of the mind" that we are transformed and able to prove out the will of God, the Bible stresses setting God's enduring truth in front of us day and night.   Furthermore, while the writers of the Bible repeatedly call us to face up to problems and sins, they do not call us to morbidly dwell upon the failures of ourselves, or others.  We cannot build upon the negative.  If we want to build our lives in a constructive manner, we must look to the positive.  The Apostle Paul calls us to finally dwell upon the highest, most positive aspects of life -- whatever is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy. (Philippians 4)   Cognitive therapists make very good use of these core biblical concepts.  They have clearly demonstrated -- through literally hundreds of empirical studies, with people from all walks of life -- that if we want to feel better and act more effectively, we must first think better.  Thinking better means thinking in a broader, more realistic, less fearful and self-pitying, more hopeful and accurate manner. 

      Like the writers of Scripture, writing thousands of years before them, cognitive therapists at the beginning of the twenty-first century do not hesitate to be compassionately directive when they instruct us to engage in healthier (truer) thinking.  A steady diet of lies is not good for the soul.  A steady diet of truth strengthens and liberates the soul.  It is noteworthy that in John 14 the Holy Spirit is referred to as "the Spirit of truth," who "will guide you into all truth."   This is the same Holy Spirit who can liberate us from "the Destroyer", "the Father of lies." (John 8, 1 John 2, 3 & 4)   Cognitive therapists know that the actual repetitious rehearsal of specific truth statements, each replacing a false and destructive self-statement, constitutes a powerful therapeutic method, because it helps to break up and eliminate the internal mechanisms which generate and perpetuate psychopathology, spiritual darkness, and behavioral dysfunction.   

         Those who practice behavioral contracting also affirm what Scripture indicates about the nature of the human being -- that we must put legs to our stated intentions, if we want to see them realized, and that we cannot and will not live properly all by ourselves.   We must encourage one another, and expect to meet the standard of behavioral accountability.    In Scripture this is called the process of discipleship, accepting and applying church discipline, and engaging in the ministries of encouragement and mutual exhortation.   While Scripture smiles upon accepting responsibility for our own behaviors, it takes a very dim view of the carelessness and personal selfishness to which we are all naturally predisposed.   This message is consistent from the moral narratives of Genesis and the specific prohibitions of the Ten Commandments through the social/ethical declarations of the prophets to the parables and epistles of the New Testament.  All three of the Lord Jesus' parables in Matthew 25 speak powerfully to this issue of moral/behavioral accountability, as does much of the content of both I John and the book of James.  The Apostle Paul writes in I Corinthians, Chapter 4, "It is required of stewards that they be found faithful."   In Hebrews, Chapter 10, we are instructed to hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, to consider how we might spur one another toward love and good deeds, to not give up meeting together, "but let us encourage one another, and all the more, as you see the Day approaching."  

       Outcome studies indicate that without encouragement and mutual, faith-based behavioral accountability, human beings tend to lose heart, and deteriorate morally.  There is now a large and growing body of studies supportive of faith-based accountability programs. (Matthews, 1998)   To cite just one here:   The US Public Health Service Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas carefully analyzed the outcomes of a broad array of sobriety programs.   The researchers found that faith-based sobriety programs are up to ten times more effective than secular chemical-dependency treatment programs.  (Desmond and Maddux, 1981)  

       Since, as active Christians we believe this to be "our Father's world," the results of most recent university and hospital outcome studies should not shock us.   Cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting typically produce superior results if other variables are held reasonably constant.  Those who scientifically study therapeutic outcomes for a living say there are certain sets or classes of variables that are important to consider as we study the process of therapy, primarily:   client variables (including client levels of intelligence and ego-strength, and his or her degree of trust in the therapist and the process), therapist variables (including therapist levels of intelligence, empathy, ego-strength, and therapeutic skill), setting variables (including privacy, comfort with physical setting, and freedom from distraction), and the method variables we are discussing in this proposal.  

         In the mid 1980's I was privileged to do my doctoral dissertation at the University of Minnesota in the area of outcome research.   As I read the review literature, it was apparent:   all psychological therapies (methods)   have not been created equal.   I was struck by the fact that none of the widely recognized "metastudies" (those studies which examine scores or hundreds of adequately controlled studies in a single review)   indicated the superiority of either Rogers' "person-centered" therapy or any form of Freudian or Jungian "psychodynamic" therapy.   While some of the metastudies indicated rough equivalency between and among treatment types, whatever consistent differences that were emerging from well-structured empirical studies tended to favor cognitive and behavioral therapies.  

         In the specialty area of outcome research, there is the often mentioned and demonstrated "minimal therapy" or "placebo" effect -- produced by caring adult attention alone.   (Luborsky et al, 1975:   Smith and Glass, 1977; Bergin, 1978)   The important and interesting question in outcome research is whether or not there is an "active therapy effect" beyond this positive, adult-attention "placebo effect."   Since the late 1970's, it has been the cognitive-behavioral therapies which have most consistently been able to show this additional "active therapy effect."  

         Since the late 1970's and early 1980's, the practical superiority of cognitive and behavioral contracting therapies has been demonstrated by literally hundreds of controlled empirical studies, including internal studies done for HMO networks, and the UCLA studies (Shwartz et al, 1996)   which show through before-and-after examinations of PET Scans that "the mind can change the brain." By this the researchers meant that the intentional consciousness of the individual can alter the biological structure and function of his or her brain, not just short-term, but long term! The strength of cognitive-behavioral methods is further demonstrated by the British Journal of Psychiatry studies (Blackburn et al, 1981, 1986; Teasdale et al, 1984)   which indicate that the benefits of cognitive-behavioral therapy compare favorably to the benefits derived from psychotropic medications, with the added benefit that the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy tend to last much longer than the benefits derived from medication, not to mention the financial and side-effect considerations associated with long-term medication use.   When a NIMH study in 1989 appeared to call these conclusions into question, family practice physicians and psychiatrists turned almost exclusively to medication to treat many mental disorders, including most anxiety disorders and depression.   But, a large scale review of several studies reported in the Journal of Counseling and Development (Beamish, et al, 1996), each comparing cognitive behavioral therapy to medications in the treatment of panic disorders, favored cognitive behavioral therapy, partially because of its long-term benefit.   After reporting that the short-term benefits of medications alone and cognitive behavior therapy alone were about equivalent, the team concluded:   ". . . cognitive-behavioral treatments are based on solid empirical data.   Unlike pharmacological interventions, cognitive-behavioral treatments have demonstrated relatively low rates of relapse and the absence of side effects."   Further, a study out of University of Pennsylvania, recently published in the American Journal of Psychiatry has reinforced the belief that cognitive behavioral therapy is at least equivalent in benefit to the benefit derived from medication in the treatment of even severe depression. (DeRubeis, et al, 1999)  

         To date, the research record suggests that only those researchers applying cognitive-behavioral therapies can clearly and consistently show: lasting beneficial changes in the physical structure and operation of the brain (as a result of psychotherapy), and/or consistently produce positive emotional and behavioral outcomes comparable to the benefits derived from psychotropic medications.  Other methods and models of therapy simply do not enjoy such a positive research track record.  

         Before summarizing the practical significance of these outcome studies, consider the results of the following empirical observational studies:  

       Many Christian psychologists express opinions about the relationship of a psychologist's values/religious orientation to his or her theoretical and methodological orientation, that is, his or her choice of an operating paradigm.   Yet, there are very few studies that examine these issues empirically.   One of the largest and the best to examine these issues empirically was produced at the University of Maryland (Bilgrave and Deluty, 1998).   The paper, originally a thesis at the University of Maryland, was first presented publicly at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in 1996, before eventually being published in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion in 1998.   In this large and provocative study, the authors analyze the responses of 237 PhD, independently licensed clinical and counseling psychologists from across the United States, from four different APA Divisions, representing several distinctly different religious and therapeutic orientations.   Scales showing degree of allegiance to different religious orientations and theoretical (paradigm) orientations were scored and compared for all participants.   A search for systematically related variables in the survey responses yielded these results:  

       1.   Most psychologists acknowledge that their philosophical/religious orientations and values do influence their therapies, and how they tend to view and interact with their clients.   Those in the humanistic and cognitive-behavioral camps most readily acknowledge this.  

       2.   In the primary regression analysis, the authors found that degree of commitment to a psychodynamic orientation was significantly and negatively related to degree of commitment to orthodox Christian beliefs.   It is possible to predict one from the other in an inverse manner.  

       3.   In the primary regression analysis, the authors found that degree of commitment to a humanistic orientation was significantly and positively related to degree of commitment to both Eastern mystical and existentialist beliefs.   These three variables tend to track together.   It is possible to predict one from the others.  

       4.   In the primary regression analysis, the authors found that degree of commitment to a cognitive-behavioral orientation was significantly and positively related to degree of commitment to orthodox Christian beliefs.   These two variables tend to track together, and it is possible to predict one from the other.   This covariance was stronger for the younger counseling and clinical psychologists.  

       5.   The authors partially attribute these findings to the fact that the ideological content of orthodox Christianity obviously and directly conflicts with the core assertions of both the psychodynamic and humanistic (existential/Eastern)   schools.  

         In a second relevant and important observational study, published in American Psychologist, University of California researchers looked at the overall number of research articles and the number of citations generated by those research articles in the flagship publications of four different "schools" of psychology.   Specifically, they looked at the percentage of research articles and citations that included keywords relevant to the Cognitive, Behavioral, Psychoanalytic, and Neuroscience schools.   They performed a similar keyword analysis of doctoral dissertations in psychology.   They found that as a research paradigm, psychoanalytic psychology is essentially dead, that is, hardly any serious research activity is occurring at all, at any level, even inside its own camp.   Rogers' client/person-centered therapy is not generating enough research activity (articles, citations, dissertations)   to even be listed in the report.   The influence of behavior therapy, without a cognitive or contracting component, appears to have declined sharply since the late 1960s.   The two models of therapy which are currently generating most of the serious research activity are:   cognitive therapy and the neuroscience (brain-study)  applications, particularly cognitive therapy.   (Robins, Gosling, and Clark, 1999)   As the authors of the study write, claims of strength and influence for psychological "schools" (paradigms) should be determined empirically, not intuitively.  

         Observational studies, like those above, can also help us to "connect the dots" (complete the pattern) for a new, more biblical and scientific paradigm.   These observational studies highlight the need for solid empirical research, undergirded by a genuinely biblical philosophy of mind.   Observational studies like those above are often useful in helping us to establish the context for the therapeutic outcome studies -- which are ultimately necessary to scientifically validate any therapeutic paradigm.  

         Outcome research, as a body of knowledge, now speaks fairly clearly concerning cognitive-behavioral therapy:   Troubling symptoms and life difficulties are more likely to diminish / disappear in a timely fashion, and are less likely to recur and / or become serious again, once cognitive and behavioral contracting skills are learned well.   Both cognitive restructuring and behavior contracting offer skill-based methods which are well articulated and fairly easy to understand and apply.   The key to success in these therapies lies not in mastering very complicated theories, or esoteric jargon, but lies in the willingness of the client to practically follow the program.  

         Scripture indicates that not only are we humans capable of learning these cognitive and behavioral contracting skills, we are required to learn them.   We are directly commanded to learn them in all the passages that instruct us to keep truth ever before us, and in all the passages that instruct us to extend and accept encouragement, and to accept behavioral accountability.   Both cognitive and behavioral contracting methods offer more hope than those approaches that merely preach at people, without giving them concrete steps by which they can move toward better lives.   They also offer more hope than those approaches that have clients coming back for seemingly endless rounds of psychoanalytic therapy, or have them looking for a final answer in the medicine cabinet.  

         While the Scriptures sometimes presuppose, sometimes advocate, and at times actually command the use of the methods we know as cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting, the biblical understanding of persons simply does not conceptually connect to the endless search for unconscious conflicts, or coolly manipulating reinforcers to get desired responses from mindless organisms, or directing individuals to define reality in whatever way makes them feel most comfortable.   Therapies that suggest or impose these last three strategies must be considered non-biblical, if not anti-biblical.   Further, there is no credible evidence that over time and multiple situations these strategies work very well.   After decades of use, they should be finally, firmly be laid aside.  

         A side note on psychotropic medications:   Fifteen years of serving as a provider and supervisor of psychological services helped convince me that psychotropic medications should mostly play a support role -- not the lead role -- in mental health therapy.   With very few exceptions, the proper use of psychotropic medications lies in relatively short-term, not long-term use (stretching on from year to year).   When psychotropic medication is prescribed, cognitive-behavioral therapy (requiring accountability, and offering support, at both the thought and behavioral levels) should also be applied, and should take over as the foundation for therapy relatively quickly.  

       Recently, a Presidential Commission assigned to seek for better ways of treating the mentally ill in America came to similar conclusions:

"Treatment for millions of mentally ill Americans should go beyond medication to help people find jobs, make friends and otherwise live meaningful lives, a presidential commission recommends ... 'The commission recommends fundamentally transforming how mental health care is delivered in America,' said the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health..."

"In addition, the report recommends that government encourage better care by paying mental health organizations for treatments and services that are 'based on proven effectiveness and consumer preferences -- not just on tradition, or outmoded regulations.' As it is, critics say, the system responds to crises, simply keeping people on medications and squelching symptoms. Under a new model, counselors would develop a plan to help the patient live a fuller life -- including, but not limited to, medication."

"'That could mean helping someone get training for a job, or develop skills to have social or romantic relationships,' said Robert Bernstein, executive director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an advocate who did not work on the report but applauds its conclusions. In the past, he said, 'The hope was to just manage symptoms.' An approach centered on 'recovery,' as the report recommends, would go further. 'There's plenty of evidence that if you provide tools they can be successful in achieving life goals,' Bernstein said." (AP, July 22, 2003)


         Step by Step Procedures:   Below are the specific therapeutic procedures of Biblical Psychology.   Biblical Psychology combines the exposition of a genuinely biblical philosophy of mind, and its empirical confirmations with the procedures listed below.   A biblical philosophy of mind provides a stronger and more natural conceptual foundation for the working procedures of Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, Arnold Lazarus, and William Glasser than the conceptual foundations they attempted to provide for themselves.   Further, the procedures listed below are presented as a combined and modified form of practice.   Having said this, I wish to readily acknowledge the obvious and substantive contributions of Beck, Ellis, Lazarus, and Glasser to the content and methods listed below.  

                Biblical Psychology

         After:   1)   an initial medical assessment has been completed, and any medication recommendations have been received, evaluated, and acted upon, and 2)   regular physical exercise has been started (often very helpful), and 3)   a regular, personal schedule review has been initiated, and any appropriate adjustments have been made, then 4)   the two Modes of Biblical Psychology can be effectively applied.   5)   Successfully employing the two Modes of Biblical Psychology opens the door for the client to get far enough past their presenting pain, learned helplessness (persistent hopelessness), and lack of personal responsibility to begin to seek for that deeply rooted personal identity and sustaining meaning and joy that comes through experiencing God's grace.   This can and should lead the client to experiencing the responding to God's specific calling and plan for his or her life.  

             Mode One:   Accountability in Thought

       1.   The therapist attempts to establish rapport with the client by discussing topics and issues of mutual interest and concern.  

       2.   The therapist asks the client to put into his or her own words the nature of the troubling situation, or personal problem.  

       3.   The therapist helps the client to see that emotional and behavioral outcomes in life are mostly the result of self-statements (cognitive behaviors), certainly not external events alone.  

       4.   Illustrative charts and concrete examples are used to present and clarify the relationships between life events, cognitive interpretations, self-talk, and the emotions and behaviors that follow.  

       5.   The therapist asks all intellectually capable clients to very specifically identify the maladaptive, self-defeating, irrational self-statements they often make to themselves about themselves and their life situations.   (Four examples:   1.  "I am a pathetic, disgusting person.   No one will ever love me."   2.  "The politics at work are awful.   I cannot stand it anymore.   If just one more thing comes up, I will have a nervous breakdown."   3.  "I fail at everything I try to do, so why try?   What's the use?"   4.  "It is my husband's / my wife's job to keep me happy.   If he/she is not keeping me happy, then he/she is failing me, and that is just awful.")   It sometimes helps to refer to these maladaptive self-statements as "bad tapes."   As a homework assignment, after instruction on what to look for, the client is asked to search his or her thinking, to identify and write down several bad tapes.   He or she is then told to select the most recurrent or damaging bad tapes and present them to the therapist at the next therapy session.  

       6.   Once the maladaptive self-statements (bad tapes)   are identified, the therapist and client brainstorm and dialogue in a cooperative effort, as they specifically target the false content of each of the bad tapes with two new, very specific, more accurate and more adaptive replacement thoughts (good tapes),   These 10 or 12 replacement thoughts (good tapes)   are then each written down on separate 3 x 5 cards, one replacement thought per card, and carried with the person in his or her vest pocket or purse.   The clients is asked to promise to read through these cards, three times a day.   Providing effective mental therapy lies not so much in fostering positive thinking, as it does in fostering true thinking.   The whole level of a person's life usually improves, often dramatically, when damaging lies are removed from the person's thought-stream.   The actual, repetitious rehearsal of more adaptive (truer)   thinking has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a powerful therapy.  

       7.   The therapist carefully monitors the client's cognitive, emotional, and behavior progress as he or she agrees to be accountable in their thoughts, and agrees to regularly work the program.   Adjustments are made, when necessary.   A good faith effort and consistency are expected from the client, not perfection.   The therapist should freely use praise, encouragement, and good humor as the client attempts to look at and respond to the events of life in a new and better manner.  

       Note:   Very often mental restructuring programs fail because the worst of the bad tapes are not specifically identified and targeted, and / or the replacement thoughts are themselves not specific enough.   It is important that the whole process be very specific, and very directive.   When it is, the beneficial effects are usually very noticeable, within a few weeks.  

         Mode Two:   Accountability in Behavior

       Note:   The first two steps in mode two are the same as in mode one, then the process adopts a different focus, and takes a somewhat different track.  

       1.   The therapist attempts to establish rapport with the client by discussing topics and issues of mutual interest and concern.  

       2.   The therapist asks the client to put into his or her own words the nature of the troubling situation, or personal problem.  

       3.   In discussion, the therapist gradually shifts focus from the client's intentions and / or feelings to his or her observable behavior -- what the client is or is not doing about his or her life situation.   Without being harsh, the therapist points out that every person naturally wants to be respected as a unique individual by other human beings, and wants to be given a wide range of personal freedom, but that this respect and freedom, generally speaking, must be earned though constructive behaviors.  

       4.   The client is asked to evaluate his or her own behavior patterns, from a point of view that is perhaps more aware and responsible than the point of view that he or she initially started with.  

       5.   After discussion of several alternatives, a new, potentially more constructive and effective behavior pattern is agreed upon.  

       6.   Small behavioral steps toward specific goals are written up in contract form, and signed by both therapist and client.   The therapist keeps a copy; the original is given to the client.   (Initial goals and steps in the contract should not be overly ambitious.   It is important that the client have an initial success experience or two, before attempting to take more difficult steps.)  

       7.   The results of keeping or not keeping the contract are identified and discussed from week to week.   As in mode one, adjustments are made, when necessary.   Again, a good faith effort and consistency are expected from the client, but not perfection.   Gentle confrontation about not following the program is employed, if necessary, but again, the therapist should freely use praise, encouragement, and good humor as the client attempts to look at and respond to the events of life in a new and better manner.  

       Note:   In both modes of Biblical Psychology, the therapist takes responsibility for helping the client set up a constructive, workable program to address his or her life situation.   It is very important that the therapist not attempt to work the program for the client.   Working the program is the responsibility of the client alone.   If the client does not make a good faith effort at working the program, rescue efforts are limited.   The therapist should compassionately point out that life will probably become better when the client begins (or begins again)   to work the program.   The client needs to fully recognize and respect the capacities for freedom and responsibility that God has granted to human beings.   Typically, the client will not fully recognize and respect these capacities until the therapist recognizes and respects them.  

      To some degree, both modes of Biblical Psychology are usually necessary in the long run.   But, the clinician can and should make adjustments in the early therapy sessions, based on client characteristics.   Generally, the more intelligent, intense, introverted, and/or naturally conscientious a client is, the more the therapist should focus on accountability in thought.   When the clients are very young (children or adolescents), or globally less intelligent, or are more extroverted, and/or careless by temperament, the more the therapist should focus on accountability in behavior. 

       These same concepts that offer such significant promise in individual therapy can effectively be applied in small-group therapy, too. Thus, the reference to the faith-based accountability group.   The accountability group can serve as an effective adjunct therapy to individual therapy, and in some cases may prove considerably more effective than individual therapy alone. 

      The direct goal of an accountability group in a church setting is "fellowship with a purpose" -- together making progress in the life-long process of personal sanctification / personal discipleship.   The direct goal of a clinical accountability group is personal and sometimes group healing.   Yet, there is a substantial cross-over effect, both ways.   Church groups very often and very significantly help to end confusion, and heal the hurts of life.  And, faith-based accountability/recovery groups in a clinical setting very often help people to get past themselves, and find their way toward God, His righteousness, and spiritual growth.

      Throughout the entire process of therapy, individual differences (including the uniqueness of the client's personality), and the possible need for regular participation in an accountability group, must be regularly assessed and respected.  Unlike what some therapists seem to think, one size does not fit all.   Even when working primarily from within one of the modes described above, the speed, intensity, and mix with the other mode must be frequently monitored, and adjusted appropriately.  Also, and this is a mission-critical item, interactions between a person's physiological, affective, mental/spiritual, and social/relational dimensions must be frequently assessed and considered.  Adjustments must be made based on what is going on within the individual as a whole person.   

         Applications of both modes of Biblical Psychology are aimed at the same goals -- to help clients recover emotionally, by cognitively and/or behaviorally redirecting their emotions; to help clients begin to think and act in a less self-defeating manner, through thought and behavioral contracts (thought/action lists), and very genuine, consistent encouragement.   The final goal of Biblical Psychology is to help clients find real meaning and direction for their lives, by pointing them toward their Creator and encouraging them to respond to His saving grace and His unique calling for each of their lives.   Central to all of this is the client's willingness to accept thought and behavioral accountability -- on an ongoing, day-by-day, even hour-by-hour basis.   As the research record indicates, both modes of Biblical Psychology are effective and efficient methods of therapy when applied and acted upon conscientiously and consistently.   Both are grounded in the biblical understanding of human beings.  


         Summary:   Within the community of faith, if our psychological beliefs and methods are to become less distorted and misleading, they must be genuinely biblical, that is, they must be logically compatible with the biblical understanding of human beings.   If any model is not logically compatible with the biblical understanding of human beings, we need to ask ourselves serious questions as to what kind of long-term consequences are likely to result from its repeated application.  

         Those therapeutic models and methods which are more consistent with the biblical understanding of human beings, namely cognitive restructuring and behavioral contracting, are, as indicated, proving to be more effective and efficient than most other therapeutic approaches.  This is true across a wide variety of individuals, in a wide variety of settings.   These findings are emerging from literally hundreds of empirical outcome studies, most of these studies run by state university and hospital researchers who profess no significant knowledge of, or particular allegiance to, biblical Christianity.  

         The pages of Scripture do reveal enduring truths concerning the nature and response-patterns of human beings.   Those of us who practice and/or teach in the mental health disciplines need to become more than educated and skilled individuals -- we need to become wise individuals.   To be better psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and counselors we must learn, and then learn to apply, these enduring truths.   We need, American culture needs, a more biblical psychology.

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.   Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."    (Eph. 4:14-15, NIV)

References and Notes:  

Albee, G.   W.   (2000),   The boulder model's fatal flaw.   American Psychologist, 55 (2), 247-248.  

Cited in the proposal.   Albee offers an intense in-house critique of the tendency of psychologists to completely adopt the psychiatric, disease-model approach to mental disorders.   In essence, he says that psychologists need to learn to think for themselves, and receive their training in-house, otherwise psychology becomes "an ancillary profession."  

American Psychiatric Association.   (1994),   Diagnostic and statistic manual of mental disorders (4th ed.)   .   Washington, DC:   American Psychiatric Association.  

Cited in the proposal.   Valuable in that it offers a fairly comprehensive catalog of mental disorders, with each successive edition moving toward more specific and observable diagnostic criteria.   Problematic in that its language and arrangement imply that nearly all the listed mental disorders are biologically induced diseases, which is nonsense.   Many, if not most, of the listed disorders, even those that eventually become very compulsive and controlling in nature, were originally the result of personal choices.  

Arlow, J.   A.   (1989),   Psychoanalysis.   In Corsini, R.   J.   & Wedding, D.   (Eds.),   Current psychotherapies (4th ed.)   (pp.   19-64),   Itasca, IL:   F.   E.   Peacock Publishers.  

Not cited in the proposal, but a good place to begin to understand modern psychoanalytic / psychodynamic thought.   Arlow's chapter in Corsini and Wedding's well known and widely used volume includes some interesting insights not only into classic psychoanalysis, but also into some of the more modern psychodynamic and object-relations theories.   Arlow, being an advocate for the approach, includes a rather grandiose claim for psychoanalysis:   "Although there are many ways to treat neuroses, there is but one way to understand them -- psychoanalysis .   .   .   psychoanalysis is the only approach that makes clear what is going on in neurosis; it is the one theory that gives a scientific explanation to the effectiveness of all psychotherapies."   (p.   21),   And, typical of psychoanalytic therapists, Arlow lays the psychological problems of most patients at the feet of their parents, through strategically quoting a fellow advocate:   "Franz Alexander (1932)   felt that because most patients had been traumatized by parental mismanagement during childhood, it was necessary for the analyst to arrange a 'corrective emotional experience' to counteract the effects of the original trauma."   (p.   35)   This common claim for psychoanalysis and this common perspective on parenting in the psychoanalytic/psychodynamic tradition are hindered by a lack of empirical support for either.   These common psychoanalytic/psychodynamic assertions also run counter to the biblical understanding of the human being.   The human being in Scripture is conscious and intentional, free to choose in most circumstances, and responsible for his or her actions.   The supposedly "scientific" explanation of the human mind given us in psychoanalysis is that the human being is nothing more than an animal, whose life is not just influenced, but typically determined by a combination of inherited "instincts" and childhood trauma.   Because they are logically incompatible, one cannot at the same time believe and put their trust in the psychoanalytic/psychodynamic understanding of the human being and the biblical understanding of the human being.  

Associated Press.  (July 22. 2003).   New ways sought to treat mentally ill.

Beamish, P., Granello, P., Granello, D., McSteen, P., Bender, B., Hermon, D.   (1996),   Outcome studies in the treatment of panic disorders:   a review.   Journal of Counseling and Development, 74 (5/6), 465.  

Cited in the proposal.   Results indicate cognitive-behavioral treatments produce roughly equivalent benefits to psychotropic medications short-term, and are clearly superior benefits, long-term, because of the low rates of relapse and the absence of side effects.  

Beck, A.   T.   (1963),   Thinking and depression.   1.   Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions.   Archives of General Psychiatry , 9, 324-333.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Part of the initial data and theoretical content that established Cognitive Therapy as a powerful, workable paradigm of therapy.  

Beck, A.   T.   (1964),   Thinking and depression.   2.   Theory and therapy.   Archives of General Psychiatry , 10, 561-571.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Also part of the initial data and theoretical content that established Cognitive Therapy as a powerful, workable paradigm of therapy.  

Beck, A.   T.   (1967),   Depression:   clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects.   New York, NY:   Hoeber.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Further development of the Cognitive Therapy paradigm, particularly as applied to the treatment of affective disorders.  

Beck, A., Weishaar, M.   E.   (1989),   Cognitive therapy.   In Corsini, R.   J.   & Wedding, D.   (Eds.),   Current psychotherapies (4th ed.)   (Pp.   241-322),   Itasca, IL:   F.   E.   Peacock Publishers.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Good place to begin to understand the Cognitive Therapy paradigm.   Clear and to the point.   Included are many helpful references, including empirical research references.  

Bergin, A.   E., Lambert, M.   J.   (1978),   The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes.   In A.   E.   Bergin & S.   L.   Garfield (Eds.)   Handbook of psychotherapy and behavioral change:   an empirical analysis.   (2nd ed. ),   New York, NY:   Wiley

Cited in the proposal.   One of the classic reviews of outcome literature.   It helped to establish that there generally is a benefit to receiving psychotherapy for mental disorders.   It does not, though, help to distinguish between the human- attention "placebo" effect and any active-therapy effect grounded in the method itself.  

Bilgrave, D., Deluty, R.   (1998),   Religious beliefs and therapeutic orientations of clinical and counseling psychologists.   Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.   37 (2), 329-349.  

Cited in the proposal.   This study is valuable in that it examines empirically what many writers deal with in an intuitive or anecdotal way only.   A review of findings is provided in the text of the proposal.  

Blackburn, I., Bishop, S., Glen, A., Whalley, L.   & Christie, J.   (1981),   The efficacy of cognitive therapy in depression:   A treatment trial using cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy, each alone and in combination.   British Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 181-189.  

Cited in the proposal.   One of the early studies indicating that any psychotherapy can match or exceed the benefit of psychotropic medications in the treatment of mental disorders.  

Blackburn, I., Eunson, K., & Bishop, S.   (1986),   A two-year naturalistic follow-up of depressed patients treated with cognitive therapy, pharmacotherapy, and a combination of both.   Unpublished manuscript.   Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Scotland.  

Cited in the proposal.   A follow-up to the study just above which showed that many of the initial benefits of the cognitive-behavioral therapy remained two years after treatment.   Generally speaking, treatment via cognitive behavioral therapy alone has more staying power (that is, less relapse)   than treatment via medication alone.  

Chomsky, N.   (1968),   Syntactic structures.   The Hague:   Mouton.  

Cited in the proposal in connection to the discussion of specifically human brain structures.   One of Chomsky's classic works where he argues that the human ability to understand and generate speech is mostly an innate ability, governed by genetics and brain structure, not systematic reinforcement.   Useful for those who believe and wish to highlight the uniqueness of human beings.  

Chomsky, N.   (1972),   Language and mind.   New York, NY:   Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.  

Cited in the proposal, also in connection to the discussion of brain structures.    More accessible, and therefore even more useful than Chomsky's work cited above.  

Crabb, L.   (1975),   Basic principles of biblical counseling.   Grand Rapids, MI:   Zondervan.  

Cited in the proposal.   One of the clear, early statements of an integrationist position.   As indicated in the text of the proposal, quite critical of a Bible-only, exhortation-only approach.   Crabb's perspective has been more developmental than fixed over the last 25 years.   He might write a very different book today.  

Crabb, L.   (1995),   Putting an end to Christian psychology:   Larry Crabb thinks therapy belongs back in the churches.   Christianity Today.   August 14, 1995.  

Cited in the proposal.   Crabb was not entirely happy with how this interview appeared in publication, because of how the authors/editors framed some of his statements.   Nevertheless, the interview is significant in that Crabb does clearly call for counseling ministries to come back into the church, and come back under the supervision of the church elders.  

Crabb, L.   (2000),   A new paradigm for Christian counseling.   Nineteenth Annual Scandrette Lecture, Wheaton College, Ill.   April 4, 2000.  

Cited in the proposal.   The important aspect of this reference for the purposes of Tranformational Psychology is that Larry Crabb, one of the best known Christian psychologists and one of the principal spokespersons for integrationist/eclectic psychology is himself now calling for a whole new paradigm of practice, based on a biblical theology of sanctification.  

DeRubeis, R., Gelfand, L., Tang, T.   & Simmons, A.   (1999),   Medications versus cognitive behavior therapy for severely depressed outpatients:   mega-analysis of four randomized comparisons.   American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1007-1013.  

Cited in the proposal.   Important recent study indicating that cognitive-therapy alone is at least as beneficial as medication in the treatment of severe depression.   Directly addresses, both in its text and data, the questions that the 1989 NIMH study raised concerning the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy.  

Desmond, D., Maddux, J.   (1981),   Religious programs and careers of chronic heroin users.   American Journal of Drug and Alcohol and Abuse.   81, 71-83.  

Cited in the proposal.   One of a large and growing number of studies which indicate that faith-based accountability programs can be a very effective form of treatment, up to ten times as effective as non-faith based programs.  

Dineen, T.   (1998),   Sacred cows and straw men.   American Psychologist, 53 (4), 453.  

Not cited in the proposal, but definitely worth a look.   In her review of another psychologist's address, Dineen correctly criticizes her colleague's approach as more religious than scientific.   "In recent years, a shift has been occurring in which psychology is coming to be seen less and less as a science and to be presented as a religion replete with dogma and liturgical hierarchy.  The principles of objectivity, rationality, reliability, and validity are being replaced with the values of subjectivity, emotionality, peer consensus, and client satisfaction.   In Brown's address, she argued implicitly for a secular religion of psychology in which psychological practice and psychotherapy would serve as a means to enact judgment ('undermine the oppressive status quo,' p.   453)   and to bring about salvation ('the act of saving another human life,' p.  453)."  

The only inaccurate phrase in Dineen's statement is that it has not just been in recent years that many practitioners have advanced their particular system of thought and therapy as if it were a religion.   Because the practitioners of Psychoanalysis consistently refuse to establish and test falsifiable hypotheses, for most of its existence this paradigm has been more religion than science.   The practitioners of existentialist therapy, because of their unwillingness to allow for any true reference criteria apart from the individual self, have never had a day when their theories and methods could legitimately be called a science.  

Erikson, E.   (1968),   Identity, youth, and crisis.   New York, NY:   W.   W.   Norton.  

Cited in the proposal.   Erickson's book where he writes that it is very difficult for the developing person to function well over time without a strong sense of personal identity and resulting sense of direction.  

Frankl, V.   (1963),   Man's search for meaning.   New York, NY:   Pocket Books.  

Cited in the proposal.   True account of Frankl's three years in Auschwitz and Dachau, and a brief introduction to the principles of Logotherapy.   Those who had a sustaining meaning were often able to survive the horrors of the Nazi death camps; those who did not have such a deep inner purpose quickly died or themselves degenerated into greedy animals.   The source of this sustaining meaning is not within man, but is transcendent to man, writes Frankl.   Frankl, though, does not go so far as to say that each person must hear God's call, accept it, and respond to it.   Biblical Psychology does incorporate these last three steps.  

Frankl, V.   (1965),   The doctor and the soul.   New York, NY:   Knopf.  

Cited in the proposal.   Same core message as Frankl's work above, but this is a greatly expanded version of Frankl's perspective, and includes clearer exposition of Logotherapy.   Useful to mental health care practitioners.  

Freud, S.   (1928),   Future of an illusion.   NewYork, NY:   Doubleday.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Sigmund Freud's classic attack on biblical faith.   In this short, but culturally significant book, Freud claims that God is a human creation, a "projected father image," produced to help those who cannot face life on its own terms.   In Freud's own words:   "Now when the child grows up and finds that he is destined to remain a child forever, and that he can never do without protection against unknown and mighty powers, he invests these with the traits of the father-figure; he creates for himself the gods, of whom he is afraid, whom he seeks to propitiate, and to whom he nevertheless entrusts the task of protecting him.   Thus the longing-for-the-father explanation is identical with the other, the need for protection against the consequences of human weakness; the child's defensive reaction to his helplessness, i.   e.   the formation of religion."   (p.   42)   Freud's perspective has made its way down to the modern state university, where it is commonly said:   "God is an emotional crutch for the psychologically weak."   We can briefly address Freud's argument and the logic of psychoanalysis here:  

Freud traced belief in God to primitive fears and repressed conflicts, but never applied the same arguments to his own atheism.   We will gladly do it for him.   Freud held that his beliefs about humanity and the universe were the result of rational investigations, and therefore must be taken at face value.   But, this directly contradicts his own model.   Psychoanalysis holds that human beliefs are expressions of emotional need and reflect neurotic distortions of reality, arising from unresolved intrapsychic conflicts and long-buried trauma.   So, did young Sigmund run into a cantankerous rabbi or pastor who badly scared, or otherwise upset him?   Perhaps he repressed the encounter, and therefore did not know how to consciously deal with the residual conflicts and trauma.   Is this why he wrote such negative things about the life of faith?   Or, alternatively, was Freud as an adult still unconsciously attempting to please his Father, who apparently gave up his own faith in Jewish theology in his youth?   Were there no unconscious motives or needs behind Sigmund Freud's diatribes against belief in God?  

Apparently, Freud's line of attack on belief and reason did not much apply to his own beliefs and process of reasoning, or those of his colleagues who fully supported his model.   Are psychoanalysts mortals, or are they a higher life form, not subject to the forces that, according to Psychoanalysis, determine the lives of human beings?   Either intrapsychic needs lie behind, and ultimately dominate what we believe and produce, or they do not.   If they do dominate, then all human beliefs and values (including Freud's)   are rendered essentially meaningless, as mere by-products of inevitable biological processes.   If intrapsychic needs do not dominate, then Psychoanalysis, as a working model of psychotherapy quickly falls apart, because it then lacks its conceptual foundation, and there is no longer any justification for its use.   Or perhaps, intrapsychic needs dominate in all persons except those enlightened by the Great Master.   The logical contradictions, elitism, and intellectual hypocrisy inherent in Psychoanalysis apparently give no pause to those who proselytize for the cause.  

Freud, S.   (1910),   The origin & development of psychoanalysis.   American Journal of Psychology, 21 (4),  

Not cited in the proposal.   This is the text of Freud's presentation of Psychoanalysis to the New World, as he lectured in the United States for the first time, in 1910.   Brief, reasonably clear exposition of the core constructs of the paradigm that somehow largely conquered the Western World without empirical support.  

Gallup, G.   Jr.   (1998),   The epidemiology of spirituality with emphasis on death and dying.   Verbal address and printed notes from Harvard conference, Spirituality and Healing , presented at the Westin Hotel, December 12 -14, Boston, Mass.  

Not cited in the proposal.   This address, by the head of the Gallup polling organization, indicated that Americans are currently more open to faith- based solutions to life's problems than anytime in the last several decades.   However, they remain somewhat confused as to how to begin to find or apply these faith-based solutions.  

Hogan, J.   (1996),   Why Freud isn't dead.   Scientific American, 275 (6), 106-111.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Spirited defense of Freud and psychoanalysis.   While admitting there is no compelling research record to support the therapeutic claims of the psychoanalysts (a surprising admission for a senior editor of Scientific American defending a theory), Hogan nevertheless says that Freud and psychoanalysis will be with us for some time to come because there are no other large-scale and internally coherent explanations for overall personality functioning.   In essence, Hogan claims that, to date, only Freud has supplied us with a comprehensive philosophy of mind.   This of course ignores the biblical philosophy of mind that serves as the foundation of Biblical Psychology.  

Johnson, Eric and Jones, Stanton (eds)   (2000), Psychology and Christianity:   four views.   Downers Grove, Ill:   InterVarsity Press.  

Cited in the proposal.   Important new book, detailing the "biblical counseling" point of view, the "integrationist" point of view, , a "biblical-psychology" point of view, and an empirically based "levels-of-explanation" point of view.   The work is particularly valuable for its dialog back and forth between those representing each point of view.  

Jones, E.   (1957),   The life and work of Sigmund Freud (Vol.   3),   New York, NY:   Basic Books.  

Not cited in the proposal.   The third and final volume of Jones' official autobiography of Sigmund Freud includes another of Freud's signature attacks on biblical faith.   This quotation is from Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents(1930)  :   "The ordinary man cannot imagine this Providence in any other form but that of a greatly exalted Father, for only such a one could understand the needs of the sons of men, or be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of their remorse.   The whole thing is so patently infantile, so incongruous with reality, that to one whose attitude to humanity is friendly it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.   It is even more humiliating to discover what a large number of those alive today, who must see that this religion is not tenable, yet try to defend it inch by inch, as if with a series of pitiable rearguard actions."   (Jones, p.   358)   Here we have yet another clear statement of Freud's atheism, which caused him to produce a deterministic, animalistic philosophy of mind which is radically different from the one found in the pages of Scripture.  

Jones, S.   & Butman, R.   (1991),   Modern psychotherapies:   a comprehensive Christian appraisal.   Downers Grove, IL:   InterVarsity Press.  

Cited in the proposal.   Large, well-documented volume which has become a classic in the integrationist/eclectic camp.   Sharply criticized by those in the biblical counseling camp as establishing secular psychology and psychologists as full, competing co-authorities with Scripture concerning human experience.   While full of useful information, this major text is not very clear as to how to fully bring the content and procedures of secular psychology under biblical authority.   Jones and Butman acknowledge that much of "Christian" psychology lacks empirical support.   And they say they have no new, positive model to put forward.  

Jung, C.   G.   (1933),   Modern man in search of a soul.   New York, NY:   Harvest Books.  

Cited in the proposal.   Jung was not as obvious in this departure from orthodox belief as were Freud and Skinner, or even Rogers.   Jung remained a "religious" man, and often used biblical words and imagery in his writings.   Yet, the thrust and content of his writings are far from biblical in their direction and final destination.   Some consider Jung the Father of the New Age Movement, and it is easy to see why they do.   Consider Jung's "inverted pantheism" in the following excerpt, where nature is God, and man's "fall" comes from developing consciousness, which then separates him from nature (God), which is really, finally, a good idea:  

"Every problem, therefore, brings the possibility of a widening of consciousness -- but also the necessity of saying good-bye to childlike unconsciousness and trust in nature.   This necessity is a psychic fact of such importance that it constitutes one of the essential symbolic teachings of the Christian religion.   It is the sacrifice of the merely natural man -- of the unconscious, ingenuous being whose tragic career began with the eating of the apple in Paradise.   The biblical fall of man presents the dawn of consciousness as a curse.   And as a matter of fact it is in this light that we first look upon every problem that forces us to greater consciousness and separates us even further from the paradise of unconscious childhood."   (p.   96)  

When Jung used the word childhood, as he did in the section just quoted, he was referring not only to our first years as an individual, but also to our more primitive states, our "childhood," as a species.   Note that the curse of sin (the fall)   is what Jung said we necessarily experience as we gradually leave our biological union with nature behind, and develop an independent awareness of what is going on around us, and in us.   Following Jung's logic, in order to fully emerge as individual human beings, and respond intelligently to the challenges of life, we should hope for a fall from grace every day.   How else can we further separate ourselves from our unconscious, blissful, but bestial past (paradise as Jung called it), and achieve full, mature self-actualization?  

According to Jung, any "sense of sin," any recurrent existential anxiety, comes not from a profound sense of separation from the Spirit of the living God, brought on by our own intentional rebellion against that which is holy, but rather comes from a profound sense of separation from the bestial ancestry from which we supposedly all emerged, and to which we all unconsciously wish to return.  

While there may be passing references to biblical characters and images, the works and perspectives of the four principal creators of contemporary psychology should never be considered Christian in any meaningful sense of that word.   The embedded control beliefs are as far from orthodox Christianity as the East is from the West.  

Kalat, J.   (1998),   Biological psychology (6th ed.),   New York, NY:   Brooks/Cole Publishing.  

Cited in the proposal.   Despite his intensely atheistic and materialistic orientation, James Kalat has produced a text which is full of detailed, useful information.   Kalat goes out of his way in his attempt to show how similar the chimpanzee is to the human being.   Yet, to remain true to the data, Kalat is forced to admit that the brains of the creatures are not very similar in either their proportions or their functions (pp.   137-138),  

Kendler, H.   (1987),   Historical foundations of modern psychology.   Pacific Grove, CA:   Brooks/ Cole.  

Cited in the proposal.   Kendler is an internationally known historian for the discipline of psychology.   He faults the psychodynamic therapies for their logical inconsistencies, and their refusal to state their hypotheses as hypotheses, in a falsifiable form, and then writes:   "One of the most controversial problems in judging psychoanalysis revolves about the issue of selecting a relevant criterion of truth.   This controversy still rages because Freud and his followers failed to come to grips with this fundamental methodological issue.   As a consequence the historian is left with the task of selecting a criterion of truth appropriate for psychoanalysis.   In terms of his training and apparent convictions, Freud was a positivist .   .   .   .   The conception of psychoanalysis as a natural science has been refuted by those who argue that Freud's actions belie his professed positivism.   Freud, the argument goes, failed to support his theory by objective empirical evidence.   Instead, he offered a coherent interpretation of personality that many found intuitively compelling, in spite of a lack of empirical support.   Other intuitively compelling interpretations, however, are possible as demonstrated by the acceptance of competing psychoanalytic interpretations offered by Adler, Jung, and others.   Psychoanalysts have yet to offer empirical procedures that can objectively resolve the theoretical differences among these competing theories."   ( p.   241)  

Kuhn, T.   (1962),   The structure of scientific revolutions.   Chicago:   University of Chicago Press.  

Cited in the proposal.   This short book, which Kuhn called an "essay," significantly changed the way we view scientific "results" in the Western world -- from an objective description of reality, to a carefully constructed model, yielding conditional results, developed from a certain point of view.   His exposition of the structures and functions of scientific models applies to the natural as well as the social sciences.   His book first introduced the word "paradigm" into common usage, and eventually moved many in the academic world from a "modern" to a "post-modern" philosophical orientation.   Kuhn argued effectively, through both logic and examples, that scientific "results" are dependent upon the scientific methods which produce them, and that scientific methods themselves spring from the values and beliefs of the researchers.   Paradigms govern the process, and import their values and constructs.   This hold true, whether they are newly created paradigms or older paradigms which have been selected and then applied to the project at hand.  

All too frequently we hear a Christian practitioner of a non-biblical, secular psychology boldly state that he or she certainly does not believe the overtly pagan, agnostic, atheistic assumptions and statements of Freud, Jung, Skinner, or Rogers, but will, nonetheless, feel free to use any or all of their therapeutic methods to help people "get to know themselves better," to relate to God "more authentically," and thereby, to slowly but surely "strengthen the Church."   Typically, these Christian practitioners will refer to their orientation as "integrationist" or "eclectic."   Such thinking and language indicates a deep misunderstanding concerning where therapeutic methods come from, and where they inevitably lead both client and therapist.   Those who want to pursue this line of thought should read (or re-read)   Kuhn's book about the creation and use of scientific paradigms, where in a very convincing way he demonstrates that methods cannot and do not exist by themselves.   They spring from a set of assumptions and values and take those who use the methods back to those same assumptions and values.   To those Christian therapists who still practice a non-biblical form of therapeutic psychology it is important for us to say:   It is not enough for your explicit statements (formal ideologies/theologies) to be biblically consistent.   Your methodologies must also be biblically consistent, if you want to authentically represent and extend the Kingdom of God.  

Larson, D.   & Larson, S.   (1994),   The forgotten factor in physical and mental health:   what does the research show?   Rockville, MD:   National Institute for Health Care Research.  

Not cited in the proposal.   David Larson, MD was a fallen-away Catholic who was drawn back to personal faith by the raw data he observed and described as a researcher at the federally funded National Institutes of Health.   He and his wife have devoted much of their time in recent years to highlighting the beneficial impact of faith and prayer on personal health.   They have founded the National Institute for Health Care Research to draw together many of the studies concerning faith, prayer, health, and happiness.   The research and perspective of the NIHCR is compatible with the message and methods of Biblical Psychology.  

Lazarus, A.   A.   (1971),   Behavior therapy and beyond.   New York:   McGraw-Hill.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Trained as an expert behavior analyst, Lazarus gives an insider's critique of the strengths and weakness of behaviorism.   The great weakness is this:   Without employing the suffering person's intentional consciousness (his or her mind), any positive results obtained by the techniques of behaviorism are likely to be short- lived and situation-contingent.   In using operant behaviorism one must face the recurring lack of positive generalization.   To achieve positive generalization to other times and settings, and thus demonstrate ecological validity, the therapist must involve and focus the suffering person's mind.  

Lazarus, A.   A.   (1989),   Multimodal Therapy.   In Corsini, R.   J.   & Wedding, D.   (Eds.)   Current psychotherapies (4th ed.)   (pp.   503-546),   Itasca, IL:   F.   E.   Peacock Publishers.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Brief, clear introduction to Lazarus' multimodal model which adds physiological, mental, and interpersonal elements into the behavioral therapy that serves as his base.  

Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, L.   (1975),   Comparative studies of psychotherapies:   is it true that everyone has won and all must have prizes?   Archives of General Psychiatry , 32, 995-1008.  

Cited in the proposal.   Famous study in early outcome research.   This study helped to establish the widely-held belief that virtually all forms of psychotherapy are better than no psychotherapy at all, and that all forms of psychotherapy are about equally effective.   Rachman and Wilson call this the dodo hypothesis, and suggest that caring human attention alone is simply the "placebo" against which all therapies must be judged.   Therapies which have an "active therapy effect" will be able to show a help/cure rate which is significantly better than what is observed in the "placebo" condition.  

Matthews, D.   (1998),   The faith factor:   proof of the healing power of prayer.   New York, NY:   Penguin.  

Cited in the proposal.   As the title indicates, the book shows the effect of faith and prayer on many areas of life:   teenage abstinence from drugs and pre-marital sex, length of marriages, effectiveness of sobriety/recovery programs, recovery from heart surgery, overall longevity, etc.   The effect of faith and prayer is overwhelmingly positive, and often surprisingly powerful.  

Myers, D.   (1993),   The pursuit of happiness.   New York, NY:   Avon.  

Not cited in the proposal.   David Myers has spent much of his professional life researching happiness and well-being.   Myers has found that regular church attendance, personal faith and prayer are positively associated with reported health and happiness -- across decades and across many subcultures on the North American Continent.   Myers presents the levels-of-explanation point of view in Eric Johnson and Stanton Jones' book (2000),  

Myers, D.   (1998),   The pursuit of personal and spiritual well-being:   what role for spirituality?   Verbal address and printed notes from the Harvard conference, Spirituality and Healing, presented at Westin Hotel, December 12 -14, Boston, Mass.  

Not cited in the proposal.   In this address, Myers documented much of the recent cultural deterioration in the United States:   climbing number of illegitimate births, suicides, violent crimes, swelling prison populations, etc.   despite advancing technology and more wealth per capita in real terms.   As a source for hope, Myers pointed to the practice of spirituality, which (as indicated just above)   is strongly associated with personal and cultural healing.  

Natan, P.   (1998),   Practice guidelines:   not yet ideal.   American Psychologist, 53 (3), 290-299.  

Cited in the proposal.   Important article where Natan writes that we must begin to bring the results of clinical research into counseling practice in a more consistent manner.   Based in replicated and validated research results, he calls for establishing practice guidelines for psychologists, similar to the usual and customary care standards legally required of physicians.   If we refuse, we cannot expect to win the confidence of the general public.  

Natan, P.   (2000)   The boulder model:   a dream deferred or lost?   American Psychologist, 55 (2), 250-252.  

Cited in the proposal.   Natan writes of the resistance of most practicing psychologists to bringing their practice under the influence of even the best clinical research.   Quotation from Nathan included in text of proposal.  

New American Standard Version of the Holy Bible (1976),   Chicago, IL:   Moody Press.  

Cited in the proposal.   One of four versions of the Bible quoted in the proposal.   Accountability Psychology represents an attempt to produce a working model of human psychology which is biblically consistent, as well as logically and scientifically consistent.  

Powlison, D.   (1992),   Integration or innundation?   In M.   S.   Horton (Ed.)   Power religion:   the selling out of the evangelical church?   Chicago, Ill:   Moody

Cited in the proposal.   Powlison historically documents the movement of secular psychology into the conservative church, particularly the discipline of "pastoral counseling."   His perspective is that, through the process Christian psychologists call "integration," the conservative church is being gradually inundated by the idolatry (paganism)   that serves as the conceptual core of the non-biblical, secular models of psychology.  

Powlison, D.   (1998),   Staley lecture series at CIU.   Taped at Columbia International University, Spring, 1998.  

Not cited in the proposal.   This lecture series allowed me to hear and speck with David Powlison personally.   While he is well known in the evangelical world for writing and speaking on the damaging syncretisms we find in many popular models of "spiritual warfare," Powlison said he is more concerned about "Christian psychology" bringing damaging syncretisms within the walls of the Church.  

Rachman, S., Wilson, G.   (1980),   The effects of psychological therapy.   New York, NY:   Pergamon.  

Cited in the proposal.   Major, devastatingly precise research volume, showing the empirical track record of many different paradigms of therapy.   Rachman and Wilson report that the research track records of both the psychodynamic and Rogerian models are (at best)   no better than the generic, human-attention only, "placebo" level of cure.   They wrote that the research track records of the cognitive and behavioral models were more promising.   The last 20 years of clinical research has confirmed their belief that the cognitive and behavioral models could prove to be effective and efficient models of therapy.  

Robbins, R., Gosling, S.   & Clark, K.   (1999),   An empirical analysis of trends in psychology.   American Psychologist , 54 (2), 117-128.  

Cited in the proposal.   Recent "blockbuster" study which used an electronic keyword analysis technique to scan the number of research articles, citations from those articles, and the number of dissertations coming from and supportive of four different "schools" of psychology.   Only the cognitive and neuroscience "schools" appear to be alive and well as research paradigms.   The others appear to be dead or dying.   The authors write that claims of strength or influence for psychological paradigms/"schools" should be made on empirical, not intuitive or anecdotal grounds.  

Rogers, C.   & Rablen, R.   (1958),   A scale of process in psychotherapy.   Unpublished manuscript at Univ.   of Wisconsin, cited in On encounter groups (pp.   122-125),   New York, NY:   Harper & Row.  

Not cited in the proposal.   This six-point scale attempts to show how clients open up, examine and correct their own psychological problems when they are supplied the kind of interpersonal atmosphere advocated by Rogers and his followers.   Unfortunately for Rogers and his followers, the research track record, that is, the significant help/cure rate of Client/Person-Centered Therapy is no better than the record of generic human attention, the "placebo" control in outcome research.  

Rogers, C.   (1969),   Freedom to learn.   Columbus, OH:   C.   E.   Merrill.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Rogers' agnostic (really atheistic)   perspective is probably most clearly stated in this book.   In it, Rogers goes out of his way to functionally define and to use the word "orthodoxy" to indicate those recurring forms of thought and habit that inhibit honest inquiry and discovery.   (p.   179)   From Rogers' perspective, any "orthodoxy" is finally nonsense.   In a more perfect world, he writes, "we would do away with the exposition of conclusions, for no one learns significantly from conclusions."   (p.   155)   Deeply influenced by the atheistic existentialism of the late 1960s, and functionally becoming one of its champions, Rogers ends up quoting those thoroughly absorbed into the "God is Dead" movement, and then in his own words declares:  

"The issues of personal freedom and personal commitment have become very sharp indeed in a world in which man feels unsupported by a supernatural religion, and experiences keenly the division between his awareness and those elements of his dynamic functioning of which he is unaware.   If he is to wrest any meaning from a universe which for all he knows may be indifferent, he must arrive at some stance which he can hold in regard to these timeless uncertainties."  (p. 260)

[Comment:   Coming from his philosophical base, it is not surprising that Rogers would disavow any real, external-to- the-individual, transpersonal standards for morality, or even rationally.   What is surprising, and distressing, is that Rogers' paradigm has been the de facto, functional base for pastoral counseling -- for decades! Only very recently have seminaries begun to seek for better alternatives.]

Rogers, C.   (1970),   On encounter groups.   New York, NY:   Harper & Row.  

Not cited in proposal.   Included here to supply reference for the Rogers and Rablen Scale cited above.  

Satinover, J.   (1994),   Jungians and Gnostics.   First Things , 46:   41-48.  

Cited in the proposal.   Those who doubt that the resurgence of paganism in American culture has much or anything to do with contemporary psychology, should read this review by Jeffery Satinover, MD.   Dr.   Satinover cannot be easily dismissed as an undereducated, reactionary "psychology-basher."   Rather, Dr.   Satinover is a practicing psychiatrist, who remarkably writes what he writes as the Past President of the Carl Gustav Jung Society.   Here are a few excerpts:   "The classical, reductionistic psychoanalytic worldview, because it undermines belief in spirit, inadvertently nudges men in the direction of worshipping the instincts--e.   g., if not God, then we shall worship pleasure, each his favorite--all the while deluding itself that it has helped men to outgrow worship altogether.   Jung saw this.   He was convinced that, simply put, Freud's god was Eros (just as it is for so many others),   But though recognizing it for what it was, Jung did not reject this inevitable outcome of depth psychology.   On the contrary, he embraced it even more fully (and in a certain sense, more honestly), carrying the psychoanalytic venture to its natural conclusion.   If psychoanalysis has forced us to worship the instincts unwittingly, says Jung, why then, worship them we shall, only deliberately, with the added illumination that these are not merely instincts we are worshipping, they are gods as well.   In the spirit of Renaissance Neoplatonism and magic, says Jung, every spirit above has its reflection below in the world of matter, with man's imagination (soul)   the carrier in which above and below intersect .   .   .   To discover the god to whom one belongs, to embrace him-or her!-fully, to discover and not resist the fate he has laid out for you, is to know meaning and purpose in life.  

.   .   .   Finally, in all of this, paganism is idolatrous, which is an archaic word for humanistic.   Pagans take that which is simply found within their own human nature; and taking what is as the measure of what is good, they represent it to themselves and make of it a god:   man as the measure of all things.  

.   .   .   But, in fact, as long ago as the early 1950s, Jung, by psychologizing the Spirit and identifying matter with the feminine, had already incorporated into his conception of the Godhead both matter and evil.   This is the dominant theme of his major work, Aion, especially the chapter entitled Christ, a Symbol of the Self."  

Dr.   Satinover then directly quotes Jung (from Aion)  :  

"There can be no doubt that the original Christian conception of the imago Dei embodied in Christ meant an all- embracing totality that even includes the animal side of man.   Nevertheless the Christ-symbol lacks wholeness in the modern psychological sense, since it does not include the dark side of things but specifically excludes it in the form of a Luciferian opponent."  

[Comment:   When Jung openly made such statements as the one immediately above, it is no small wonder, and an ultimately sad commentary on both themselves and the Christian community supporting them, that many Christian counselors, including many pastors, now call themselves Jungian analysts.   Can there be any doubt that it is an oxymoron to call oneself a Jungian Christian?   Where are we, if we think that the image of Christ, within us or without, must include elements of "the dark side of things" if it is to help us achieve "wholeness in the modern psychological sense?  " Have we lost our minds?   Such syncretic nonsense violates the boundaries of anything that could legitimately be called Christian, and simply should not be held, much less advocated, within the community of faith.]  

Skinner, B.   F.   (1967),   B.   F.   Skinner.   History of psychology in autobiography.   New York, NY:   Appleton, Century, Crofts.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Skinner's short autobiography in which he tells of his early disillusionment with his conservative Christian upbringing in the coal-mining region of Pennsylvania.   While he considered his Sunday School teacher a cultured person and friend, he told her at the age of 14 the he had become an "atheist, " and never looked back.  

Skinner, B.   F.   (1948),   Walden two.   New York, NY:   Macmillan.  

Not cited in the proposal.   This is Skinner's book about his mythical planned paradise, Walden Two (1948), where everyone is conditioned to be happy and productive.   He does not conclude the book without directly mocking the Lord Jesus' claim to divinity.   (p.   299)  

Skinner, B.   F.   (1972),   Beyond freedom and dignity.   New York, NY:   Knopf.  

Not cited in the proposal.   By the time he wrote Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1972), Skinner had gone well beyond rejecting any personal moral accountability, and any concept of transcendent spirituality in God or man.   He had even come to discard any concept of intentional consciousness in the human being.   He had completed his task of describing us as mindless, biological mechanisms.   With what appears to be almost unparalleled cynicism, Skinner writes:  

"What is being abolished is autonomous man -- the inner man, the homunculus, the possessing demon, the man defended by the literatures of freedom and dignity.   His abolition has long been overdue.   Autonomous man is a device used to explain what we cannot explain in any other way.   He has been constructed from our ignorance, and as our understanding increases, the very stuff of which he is composed vanishes."   ( p.   200)  

Skinner logically extended his atheism to become an advocate for the totalitarian state, where the social engineers are free to work their will upon the people.   He attempted to present his vision as a model for the perfect socialist utopia, but in reality it is a model for the ultimately repressive totalitarian state, a dead dystopia.   Not believing in the Almighty, Skinner believed the social engineers should be given absolute power.  

Smith, M.   L., Glass, C.   V.   (1977),   Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcomes studies.   American Psychologist, 32, 752-760.  

Cited in the proposal.   Another classic study indicating that psychotherapy is usually better than no psychotherapy, but only because clients receive caring human attention.   Helped to establish the human-attention, or "placebo" hypothesis.  

Staats, P.   S.   (1998),   Mind as medicine:   how to use the power of thought to control pain.   The Insider, a monthly newsletter published by The John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD.   Carried in John Hopkin's InteliHealth on-line newsletter, November 11, 1998.  

Not cited in the proposal.   Short, clear article full of experimental data and practical tips, showing how the mind can be enlisted to minimize, and at times, overcome the experience of pain.   Another report indicating the power and usefulness of cognitive restructuring.  

Shwartz, J.   M., Stoessel, P.   W., Baxter, L.   R., Martin, K.   M, Phelps, M.   E.   (1996)   Systematic changes in cerebral glucose metabolic rate after successful behavior modification treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder.   Archives of General Psychiatry, 53 (2), 109-113.  

Cited in the proposal.   Important study showing that "the mind can change the brain."   Making good use of the individuals' own intentional consciousness (mind), the researchers found that twelve weeks of intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy involving "re-labeling" and "re-focusing" thoughts brought the functioning of the caudate nucleus back within normal parameters.   The caudate nucleus, an important part of the limbic system, is typically one part of the brain that is overly stimulated and misfiring in those suffering from severe obsessive-compulsive disorders.   These changes were tracked with PET scans of the clients'(patients')   brains.   The fact that a debilitating physiologically-based neurological disorder can be successfully treated, short-term and long-term, through a psychological therapy (using only words and the conscious mind)  is an astonishing and wonderful find.   To date, only the cognitive-behavioral therapies have been able to put forward results of this nature.  

Teasdale, J., Fennell, M., Hibbert, G. & Amies, P.   (1984),   Cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder in primary care.   British Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 400-406.  

Cited in the proposal.   Another one of the early studies showing that cognitive-behavioral therapy alone can be just as effective as medication alone in the treatment of major depression.