I think that the Bible would be invaluable in counselling. Suppose you have a man who's feeling depressed. He's with a nonchristian counsellor and the latter's trying to figure out why he feels that way. Meanwhile, the man is cheating on his wife. This is how I imagine their conversation going: "What sort of things are going on in your life right now and over the past few months? Have there been any significant changes?" "Well, two months ago I began an affair with my secretary from work," the man reported shamelessly. "Other than that, nothing different really that I can think of." "And you don't think this affair's affecting you?" "How could it? My wife doesn't have a clue and it's just for fun, so why should it be affecting me? I'm not hurting anyone so I shouldn't feel guilty." I wonder what a professional, certified psychiatrist would say to that. Since the best answer that an evolutionary worldview can produce to account for morality is that immorality is, by their definition, the cause of unnecessary pain, adultery in this cause would not, by definition, be immoral. The best response, I think, that the counsellor could give, would be to say, "Are you sure your wife doesn't know?" Because, if he's not sure, then he might be anxious that she'll find out. But that's not the point. The first thing the Christian should say to the man is, "REPENT! You're hurting your soul, most importantly." But the humanist psychiatrist can't go there. He needs to look for something else going on. And then, if he fails to find something else, blame it on an alleged chemical imbalance. (If you're interested in this stuff, then listen to this lecture from the 2001 Shepherd's Conference on medicating psychological illness, given by a former pharmacologist gone pastor.) Not off the above topic, though indeed changing focus, Carey Hardy, the pastor I referenced above, talked briefly about placebos in his lecture and even more briefly on dream interpretation. What a neat subject the mind is. As much as the Bible talks about the nature of man which comes in very helpful in the subject of counselling, it doesn't talk a lot about medication and dreams. I wonder where dreams come from. Are they somehow spiritual (e.g., do only our bodies rest when we sleep our do our souls shut down as well?)? Do they have any relevance to our lives? On the Wikipedia article on dreams, there is lots of hypothesis but next to no certainty. I wonder whether God has locked the science of the mind to shame the futile efforts of godless scientists. And as for placebos (a medically inert substance given under the pretence of being a medical drug), remarkable things happen by the power of suggestion. Let me quote part of the Wikipedia article: Placebo effects can last for a long time: over 8 weeks for panic disorder, 6 months for angina pectoris, and two and half years for rheumatoid arthritis. Placebo effects after verbal suggestion for mild pain can be robust and still exist after being repeated 10 times even if they have no actual pharmacological pain killing action[.] That's amazing. I've had a few thoughts about this myself. First, I think that this explains why people of every religion who pray are more likely to get better than those who don't pray. They (we, maybe) are suggestion to themselves that there is hope of getting better, and this suggestion upon the mind has a placebo effect, causing them to get better. Second, I think this would explain why people get sick a lot. Because they psychosomatically inflict it upon themselves, making themselves more vulnerable to real infection. I'm not a doctor, I can't verify either of those things. But I think they're true. The problem I have in stating these is that I fear I am granting too much power to the mind. The Bible is clear that the human mind is not lord over the body which is God's creation, He is. So the idea of the mind healing the person still seems an inadequate explanation to me. Yet, the evidence for the utility of placebos seems strong. And it answers how prayer can appear to work for nonchristians in the case of healing. Another problem that I have with this is that it seems very "name it and claim it." Bad theology. Anyway, things to consider where science hasn't even begun to scratch the surface.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
-I don't think you're giving enough credit to the non-Christian counsellor. He could take a number of approaches without the use of Christian morality. "Your wife could find out, and that will hurt her." "How might your mistress feel, being one of two women?" "This is probably affecting you internally even though you're rationalizing it away."
My point is that even though I disagree with the non-Christian's worldview, they are still made in the image of God (albeit tainted), so they have some internal sense of right and wrong. I think you need to be careful to argue against the worldview without making a strawman adherent to that worldview.
Placebo stuff is really interesting... I had no idea that the effects could last that long. I also don't doubt that people can make themselves sick, but my instinct says that it's often due to stress or fear, both which wear down the body (don't ask me how).
So I don't see it as worrisome for the brain to have the "power" that it does... it's pretty clear that some organs have been given greater responsibilities by God than others, and that doesn't mean that He's not Lord of even those. I don't see it as the mind healing people... rather, I see it as the mind pumping out hormones according to stimuli that have the effects of calming the body.
(The following statement has the potential for sounding sarcastic and patronizing. It is neither, but instead, gratitude.) It's really perceptive that you see this as a straw-man. I certainly didn't think of it as such, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
Nevertheless, I think that you don't have a full perspective on my argument. The patient is a guy who has abused his conscience so much that he feels no conviction for his adultery. "[Unregenerate sinners] by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. . . .[A]lthough they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:18, 21). So even if the doctor did think that adultery was wrong, he's swimming uphill trying to convince his patient that it's wrong. At that point, the moral relativism of a situation where God is left out (so not even a necessarily an atheist worldview, but one where the self is first) becomes brutally obvious.
I set up this scenario so that the patient's not defending it. I realize that probably no person could feel unaffected by committing adultery, but I'm convinced that it's possible to overcome a burdensome conscience.
I think that even every Christian's experienced it. The first time you do something that's wrong, say telling a lie, it feels wrong, the second time, it's a little easier, and so on, and so on, until there's no conviction.
There are sins in my life that after I've committed them, in my confession I'm asking God, "Why do I not feel convicted? Make me hate my sin."
Anyway, I'm talking about a guy with whom it would take a sovereign work of God to convince him that he's in sin. I genuinely think there's nothing the psychiatrist could say with any logical effect.
Jer, do you think that every nonchristian feels guilty for all of their sins?
Assuming you don't, let me ask you a question. Suppose you're not Christian. Where do you go when you realize the guy genuinely doesn't feel guilty for adultery? If he's not depressed out of guilt for something, what else could it be?
That said, even if the guy is hardened to his sin, that should not stop a Christian from calling him to repentance.
I agree with the heart of your comment... people can lose a sense of guilt/conviction by hardening their hearts, nobody (not even Christians) feels guilty for ALL of their sin, and yes, we should call even the hard-hearted to repentance.
I agree that apart from a Christian worldview, all attempts at life teaching, counselling, training, book writing, etc. will be at least partially flawed, if not very flawed.
Post a Comment