Competent to Counsel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Adams has a blog that he and his associate Donn Arms update regularly. The category Adams Answers, which answers critics of his method, may be of particular interest.
 
"Repent of your sin" is not the solution to everything in the mental realm.

Have you actually read Adams' book or, as you say, you were tempted to read it but did not. One cannot get past the first Introduction to dispel the myth that he ever advocates such a thing. I'm not saying his method has no issues but that is a gross mischaracterization of his work.
.

I've read many of Adam's books and I read Competent to Counsel twice (because I thought I reacted too negatively against it the first time, the second time I felt more assured in my estimation that Dr Adams tried to swing the pendelum too far back the other direction and discounted too much of the physical as well as the many legitimate uses of psychology). I find in Welch and Powlison more balance and a less caustic tone.

Modern secular psychology turns everyone into a victim, Adams, in over-reaction appears almost to turn everyone into a perpetrator.

Here is a quote from the link that I provided above that illustrates that dangers of downplaying the physical (or giving the medical/physical side lip service only):

I have a friend who suffers from PTSD—he endured a lot of trauma as a child—and his symptoms worsened after his experience with a Nouthetic counselor who simply told him that he was the one in the wrong and that he needed to repent of his sin. Although he currently attends a seminary that strongly teaches NC, he is in the extreme position where he feels that no good can come out of it, even with a Bible-based approach that would include the Nouthetic method.

How does your quote apply to Adams precisely? Was this "nouthetic counselor" Jay Adams that is referenced? Also, you have not defended your charge that Adams chalks *all* resolution to problems to repentance from sin. Please substantiate. You have read the book twice and it ought to be easy to demonstrate.
 
Jay Adams and co have one huge fatal flaw: they do not understand that mental illness is as real as cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and any other chronic illness (these have in the past been called demon possession. The changes in brain chemistry from such things as a fall, a blow to the head, seizures, dehydration etc not to mention schizophrenia, bipolar (ever see someone cycle? it is scary) and other known mental illnesses are quantifiable and measurable but Mr. Adams and his followers call every mental illness, every episode of depression, anxiety etc "sin" and that both diminishes God and is toxic to the patient. Is this an inexact new and rather imperfect science? As inexact as treatment of cancer was until DNA was discovered, as inexact as treatment of diabetes was until insulin was discovered. My question to you is this: when someone with schizophrenia comes to Mr. Adams or one of his followers, will they refer the schizophrenic to a psychiatrist or call the condition sin and call "treatment" done?
 
I guess I stand with MacArthur:


My view of Biblically-based counseling is defined by seven core elements (adapted from Counseling: How to Counsel Biblically, John MacArthur, et al.):

1. God is at the center of counseling.
God is sovereign, active, speaking, merciful, commanding, and powerful. The Bible is authoritative, relevant, and comprehensively sufficient for counseling. God has spoken truly to every basic issue of human nature and to the problems in living.

2. Commitment to God has epistemological consequences.
First, other sources of knowledge must be submitted to the authority of Scripture. The sciences, personal experience, literature, and so forth may be useful, but may not play a constitutive role in counseling.

3. Sin, in all its dimensions (motives, behaviors, acts done, acts received), are the consequences of the Fall and our own actions.
Sin includes wrong behavior, distorted thinking, an orientation to follow personal desires, and bad attitudes. Sin is habitual and deceptive, and much of the difficult in counseling consists in bringing specific sin to awareness and breaking its hold.

4. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer.
Forgiveness of sin and the power to change into His image.

5. The biblical change process which counseling must aim at is progressive sanctification.
Change is metaphorically, not actually, healing. The metaphor captures ongoing repentance, renewal of the mind to Biblical truths, and obedience in the power of the Holy Spirit.

6. The situational difficulties people face are not the random cause of problems in living. These difficulties operate within the sovereign design of God.
They are contexts in which hearts are revealed and faith and obedience are purified through the battle of the Spirit and the flesh.

7. Counseling is fundamentally a pastoral activity and must be church-based.
It must be regulated under the authority of God's appointed church leaders.

AMR
 
Someone remind me to come back to this thread. I may be the only Reformed psychiatrist in existence (smile). I've also read Adams and have profited from him.
I would suggest to all to also read Powlison's _The Biblical Counseling Movement_ (which I am part way through).
 
Jay Adams and co have one huge fatal flaw: they do not understand that mental illness is as real as cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and any other chronic illness (these have in the past been called demon possession. The changes in brain chemistry from such things as a fall, a blow to the head, seizures, dehydration etc not to mention schizophrenia, bipolar (ever see someone cycle? it is scary) and other known mental illnesses are quantifiable and measurable but Mr. Adams and his followers call every mental illness, every episode of depression, anxiety etc "sin" and that both diminishes God and is toxic to the patient. Is this an inexact new and rather imperfect science? As inexact as treatment of cancer was until DNA was discovered, as inexact as treatment of diabetes was until insulin was discovered. My question to you is this: when someone with schizophrenia comes to Mr. Adams or one of his followers, will they refer the schizophrenic to a psychiatrist or call the condition sin and call "treatment" done?

Gail, look at this page from the site Rich linked to. Nouthetic Counselors Oppose the Use of Medicine, Don't They?

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

Someone remind me to come back to this thread. I may be the only Reformed psychiatrist in existence (smile). I've also read Adams and have profited from him.
I would suggest to all to also read Powlison's _The Biblical Counseling Movement_ (which I am part way through).

BJ, could you give your take on this article? The chemical imbalance myth
 
Rich,

My thoughts on Jay Adams are as follows:

In General:His 3 main theses in Competent to Counsel are all correct, namely that (1) modern psychology is, by and large, bad theology, and (2) that psychologists have become a new priest-caste, and (3) the Bible contains info useful in counseling and pastors ought to use the bible and reclaim their rightful role in soul-care. These three main theses are all true.

-
-
Here are some further thoughts about Jay Adams;

-He was reacting against the psychological establishment. Therefore, much of what he says is reactionary and bombastic. Adams was a controversialist and he often found himself in the middle of arguments. this seemed to be part of his personality and it comes out in his writing.
--Because of this, some of the local pastors I have met who most adored Jay Adams were also controversialists as well and these two followers of Adams that I knew were very hard to get along with. Perhaps the tone of his writing attracts fellow controversialists.

-Part of the mission of his book is to reclaim counseling from the hands of the psychologists and his main argument is that pastors ought to care for souls. That is good, but he advances his cause by painting a picture of psychology as wholly anti-god. In truth, however, psychology has many useful functions. The models of Welch and Powlison show us how one can be discerning, even while refusing to be dismissive of the legitimate findings of psychological research.

David Powlison, who seems to respect Adams, writes:

For example, some of Jay Adams’s written statements sound dogmatic, harsh, polemical, triumphalistic, simplistic, legalistic, impudent, reductionistic. Many readers have reacted to this, sometimes with violent antipathy.

Many of these harsh dogmatic statements are directed to other schools of Christian psychology, a real turn-off.

-
-
-
also,
-His means of helping people is through counseling, i.e., talking. Therefore, non-talk approaches are minimized in his book. This eliminates pharmacological approaches to treatment (at least to the pastor-counselor), which can prove useful in many cases. In some of Adams writings, however, he does state that he is not opposed to medication, but he writes with a strong suspicion against the practice of medicating.

Though, even on this point, I have found Adams to be more balanced than I initially read him (partly because some of his statements sound very dogmatic against medications in some places, but then he qualifies those statements in other places).

-Adams, on page 37 (?) of Competent to Counsel states that nouthetic counselors ought to work side by side and back to back with physicians. Adams states that his approach is not scientific or medical but presuppositional, but nouthetic counselors often make sweeping scientific and medical statements that are sometimes unsubstantiated. Nevertheless, physicians often are consulted and often appear at nouthetic counseling meetings.

-Adams approach is entirely too confrontational. If I am not wrong, he himself describes his approach as a confrontation between the patient and the Word of God.

-Adams spoke out not just against secular psychologists but also proved to be very polemical towards fellow Christians who he referred to as "integrationists" and much of my dislike for Adams' writings stem around this area of unnecessary harshness towards those who differed with Adams as to what role psychology could play.



Also, below Powlison writes about Adams propensity to identify all problems that are not purely organic to be sin problems:

As we have seen, Adams considered the diagnosis “sin” appropriate for the
gamut of normal problems in living: interpersonal conflict, unhappy emotions, bad
behavior, faulty beliefs, and typical reactions to suffering. But he also believed it applied
to the most extreme problems in living: “schizophrenia” and other forms of bizarre
behavior.66 The extremes of bizarre behavior – the “mentally ill” – played a significant
part in Adams’s articulation and defense of his system. He believed that most “mental
illnesses” could be unmasked as instances of things the Bible treated under the category
of sin. Just as he reacted to defining the pastor as one who offered consoling promises to
sufferers, so he reacted to defining the pastor as one who should deal with nothing
“more serious than a psychic scratch,” referring more difficult problems to mental health
professionals.


David Powlison writes below about Adams and the issue of organic disorder. It does appear that Adams wrestled with this issue and was sometimes open to medication. Adams wrote much about schizophrenia and sometimes denied that this disease was mainly organic:

Moral causes of bizarre behavior might be mingled with physiological factors.

Adams was interested in ostensible organic concomitants to bizarre behavior:
Not all peculiar behavior, of course, stems from specific acts of sin; there are
people who have toxic problems, tumors on the brain, brain damage, etc., who
because of physical damage or chemical malfunction perform badly. Such organic problems, external to moral responsibility, might come into play and
modify the counselee’s capabilities to some undetermined degree. Adams never got
more specific than saying “to the extent that it is possible to do so” organically impaired
patients were responsible to obey God.79

In Adams’s view, physiological impairment was an indirect consequence of the problem of sin,one component in that comprehensive
impairment characteristic of the “fallen” state of humankind:

...
In treating people whose behavior was peculiar, Adams was amenable to
cooperation with physicians, and to a cautious use of both medical treatments and
medical research in seeking to disentangle vexing cases.

Adams’s discussion of organic components to bizarre behavior was typically hedged and tentative, a contrast to
his typical style. For example, while he generally opposed psychotropic medications,
finding “the excessive use of pills among psychiatrists and physicians alarming,” he granted that “not all medication is unnecessary.”82 When he wrote regarding depression
that “The physician might uncover some of the infrequent cases of chemically-caused
depression and in very serious cases may help the pastor to engage in meaningful
counseling by temporarily administering antidepressants,”83 he did not seek to resolve
either the ambiguities of “chemically-caused” or to define the parameters of “serious.”
In Adams’s proposed reconfiguration of the professional landscape, he reassigned
psychiatrists to explore such organic problems and not to intrude into the functional
problems. “That there is much for the psychiatrist to do medically to help persons
suffering from problems in living whose etiology is organic cannot be questioned.”84

He never gave a more specific answer to the question of disentangling organic from moral
etiologies.

This all sounds very good above, and Adams makes this generalization (which I also believe to be true):

The number of people “whose problems are organic in origin (as over against those who are simply not ‘making it’ in life because they are not solving
life’s problems biblically) is negligible.”


However, in response to psychological pain due to abuse Powlison says the following of Adams;

In Adams’s view, “sinful influences” and “acts of abuse” only gained purchase in the
human soul because of the susceptibility of sinful hearts to embrace sin or to react to sin
sinfully.

So, pain from abuse, too, is due to sin it seems from Adams. This appears to "blame the victim" in cases of abuse where the abused party suffers long-term negative effects from the abuse.

Powlison again:

To many critics, Adams view of the dislocation in human nature was too narrow
as well as too shallow. Certain emotional and psychological dimensions of human woe
did not immediately reduce to outworkings of the problem of personal sin. Inner misery,
mental illness, psychological dysfunction, and social maladjustment could not always be
explained either as sin or as organic dysfunction.


Is the counseleee more of a sinner or one sinned against:

-People who come for counseling are hurting. Whereas many psychologists stress their victim status, Adams often stressed the counselees' own patterns of sin. Powlison has this to say:

Adams writes of both the sin nature and of being sinned against. When it
actually comes down to his theory of pathology, however, he lays most of
the responsibility at the feet of the individual.

...
The outworking of Adams’s actual theory and counseling practice paid little attention to
being sinned against, and in effect treated the impact of such things as negligible.

Again, Adams’s failings were specifically biblical failings. The evangelical
psychotherapists thought that Adams had almost wholly missed the point made in
numerous psalms, that counselees were often more sinned against than sinning. The God
of the Bible cared for those who had been sinned against, and he would meet people in
their sufferings just as he gave grace to them in their sins. God called those who
ministered in his name to an analogous love and patience towards the oppressed, sinned
against, misled.

Adams was often charged with being one of “Job’s counselors” in the
way his confrontational model moved rapidly past suffering as somewhat irrelevant in
comparison to the need to address responsible behavior.
Adams and the evangelical psychotherapists clashed over the

The person who suffers mental anguish is often both a sinner and a victim, but Adams' approach over-emphasizes one aspect (the sinner) while modern psychology emphasizes the other (man as a victim).

Concerning suffering, Adams says many good things and is a good antidote to philosophies that would cave in to pity when encountering suffering. Nevertheless, Powlison summarizes the critiques of some towards Adams below:

The moral strenuousness of Adams’s discussion of suffering caused many of the
most impassioned outcries against his model of counseling. Many critics thought that he
sounded heartless to afflicted people and passed too quickly over their suffering.

Also, Adams focuses much on conscious thoughts and behaviors and this leads some to charge him with being simplistic and even behavioristic. Powlison writes:
This focus on conscious behavior and thoughts made Adams’s counseling process rapid, but superficial. His counseling, when successful, largely consisted in helping people replace identifiably ungodly habits with purportedly godly habits:









Three final areas of possible difference with Adams are: (1) The Bible was not written as a counselor's textbook, (2) some truth or knowledge about human behavior can be gained through common grace investigations by even secular psychologists. First, I do not see a system of counseling to be found in Scripture. I see info we can use to draw some conclusions, but the main purpose of Scripture is not as a counselor's handbook. Second, Adams often calls other evangelical "Christian" counselors on the carpet and calls many of them compromisers for using insights gained from secular psycholology. But, I believe that this, too, is a legit practice as long as we do so in discerning fashion.
 
Second, Adams often calls other evangelical "Christian" counselors on the carpet and calls many of them compromisers for using insights gained from secular psycholology. But, I believe that this, too, is a legit practice as long as we do so in discerning fashion.

Pergy, could you give some more elaboration on the differences between these counselors whom you think are legit and Jay Adam's methods? I don't side with Adams per se, but I would like to get a better idea of what alternatives there are and whether they are in line with the theses you had pointed out.
 
Addendum;


Adams' approach to guilt is often flawed. For instance, he seems to deny the notion of false guilt:

"Shall we seek to remove guilt feelings (that is, false guilt)? Never; instead we must acknowledge guilt to be real and deal directly with it. Psychological guilt is the fear of being found out. It is the recognition that one has violated his standards. It is the pain of not having done as one knows he ought to do."


From Competent to Counsel, pg. 14. However, I believe that false guilt is a real entity that must also be counseled against and is particularly common in religious circles.

---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

Jason,

I believe that Welch and David Powlison and Tripp share most of the same presuppositions of Adams but their tone is less polemical, they are less likely to attack other Christian psychologists or call them compromisers and they are more open to ideas such as false guilt and the legitimate contributions of even secular psychology. Also, they better acknowledge that the counselee is a hurting victim in need of comfort and not primarily a sinner in need of confrontation and repentance. Finally, they seem to dive deeper into motivations and heart-issues, whereas much in Adans' writings concerned behaviors and the modification of those habits and behaviors. Many of the practices, however, seem very similar and Powlison writes with much respect concerning Jay Adams, and Powlison's writings helped me to reread Adams in a more positive light whereas I was pretty negatively disposed towards Adams after my initial reading of several things he wrote on schizophrenia.

---------- Post added at 07:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 AM ----------

Jason,

I think Ed Welch, David Powlison and others are less polemical, less likely to accuse other Christian psychologists with whom they differ of being compromisers, are more likely to incorporate the legitimate findings of psychology into their practices, and they seem to stress motivations and heart-issues to a greater degree whereas Adams often stressed behaviors and habits and the modifications of those behaviors and habits.
 
Jay Adams and co have one huge fatal flaw: they do not understand that mental illness is as real as cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and any other chronic illness

Can you substantiate this claim?

Sadly I can:

OAIM What Is Biblical Counseling

Jay E. Adams states the following in the book “The Big Umbrella”:

“In this country, because of a prestigious alliance with the A.M.A., a psychiatrist is required to have an M.D. But you will soon agree that Freud was right if you read the articles written by some psychiatrists complaining about the necessity to take medical training that they never use in their work and soon forget. The point is this: there is nothing a psychiatrist does with his medical training that a physician couldn’t do just as well, or better. And the physician could do it in conjunction with a pastoral counselor. The psychiatrist may write prescriptions for tranquilizers or other pills now and then, but a physician does that all of the time. There is no need for a specialty in order to prescribe pills.”

Jay Adams The Big Umbrella, p.6, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972.
 
Pergy, we differ (to some degree) on our estimation of Dr. Adams, but I appreciate your thoughts in post # 38 above and find them to be very reasonable.

An additional thought on this issue, with regard to the abrasiveness of Dr. Adams' personality (from someone who has benefited, in person, from both Dr. Adam's gentleness and directness): I remember listening to an iTunes lecture by John Frame, where he mentioned that in church history, you have periods where a reformer comes along and shakes things up a bit (to correct false teaching and the like), followed by a systematizer who is able to put all these things together for others afterward to benefit. And the two are not the same. You need both the lightening rod and the thoughtful person to work through the issue(s), and it often takes a long time. Frame's examples were for two different periods of church history. In the early church, the controversy was over the Trinity, the forceful person was Athanasius, and the systematizer was Augustine. During the Reformation, the issue (or one of the issues) was justification, the forceful man was Luther, the systematizer was Calvin. Perhaps we see something similar in Christian counseling -- with Dr. Adams being the forceful man and folks like the Tripps and Welch helping to develop the teaching. And while there are some differences, the groups are largely in agreement. After all, Dr. Adams does recommend books by folks like Ed Welch.
 
Someone remind me to come back to this thread. I may be the only Reformed psychiatrist in existence (smile). I've also read Adams and have profited from him.
I would suggest to all to also read Powlison's _The Biblical Counseling Movement_ (which I am part way through).

Come back to this thread! I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about psychiatry and counseling.
 
Tim,

Yours seems like a fair assessment. I have often wondered whether Adam's real or perceived abrasiveness was not necessarily due to what he was facing. Now, that he has cleared the way a bit, the more likeable systematizers like Welch and Powlison can emerge.
 
Jay Adams and co have one huge fatal flaw: they do not understand that mental illness is as real as cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and any other chronic illness

Can you substantiate this claim?

Sadly I can:

OAIM What Is Biblical Counseling

Jay E. Adams states the following in the book “The Big Umbrella”:

“In this country, because of a prestigious alliance with the A.M.A., a psychiatrist is required to have an M.D. But you will soon agree that Freud was right if you read the articles written by some psychiatrists complaining about the necessity to take medical training that they never use in their work and soon forget. The point is this: there is nothing a psychiatrist does with his medical training that a physician couldn’t do just as well, or better. And the physician could do it in conjunction with a pastoral counselor. The psychiatrist may write prescriptions for tranquilizers or other pills now and then, but a physician does that all of the time. There is no need for a specialty in order to prescribe pills.”

Jay Adams The Big Umbrella, p.6, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972.

I fail to see how that supports your claim--nowhere in that quote does he deny the existence of mental issues. He simply questions/rejects the need for a specialist merely to prescribe drugs that cover up rather than treat the problem. Are you saying a physician is not qualified to treat any mental issues?
 
Jay Adams and co have one huge fatal flaw: they do not understand that mental illness is as real as cancer, alzheimers, diabetes and any other chronic illness

Can you substantiate this claim?

Sadly I can:

OAIM What Is Biblical Counseling

Jay E. Adams states the following in the book “The Big Umbrella”:

“In this country, because of a prestigious alliance with the A.M.A., a psychiatrist is required to have an M.D. But you will soon agree that Freud was right if you read the articles written by some psychiatrists complaining about the necessity to take medical training that they never use in their work and soon forget. The point is this: there is nothing a psychiatrist does with his medical training that a physician couldn’t do just as well, or better. And the physician could do it in conjunction with a pastoral counselor. The psychiatrist may write prescriptions for tranquilizers or other pills now and then, but a physician does that all of the time. There is no need for a specialty in order to prescribe pills.”

Jay Adams The Big Umbrella, p.6, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972.

In healthcare, we know it when our fields are dodgy in some sense. What I do in speech therapy generally has much less evidence compared to physical therapy and I accept that in some settings where it is practised, it is pointless. Psychiatry is a much less clearcut field than many other specialties and there are valid reasons to question the need for the specialty of psychiatry in the first place. Where the bible does not give answers, in this case on the presence and nature of the organic bases of some of the mental illnesses, we look to natural revelation. Perhaps at some point it will do us good if we look at the clinical research out there pertaining to this question rather than debating on our interpretations of what a pastoral counsellor says about it. That said, the world of research is often fraught with dishonesty and controversy, so we often would then need to tread carefully.
 
Three final areas of possible difference with Adams are: (1) The Bible was not written as a counselor's textbook, (2) some truth or knowledge about human behavior can be gained through common grace investigations by even secular psychologists. First, I do not see a system of counseling to be found in Scripture. I see info we can use to draw some conclusions, but the main purpose of Scripture is not as a counselor's handbook. Second, Adams often calls other evangelical "Christian" counselors on the carpet and calls many of them compromisers for using insights gained from secular psycholology. But, I believe that this, too, is a legit practice as long as we do so in discerning fashion.

Rich, I agree with the emphasis here. As I mentioned previously, Lloyd-Jones (who was very sound theologically!!) and Johnson say the same thing.
 
The one caveat I would add to those emphases is that 1) a robust doctrine of sola Scriptura will confess that the Scriptures are sufficient in all matters of faith and practice, which would include the area of pastoral counseling and 2) the problem with secular methodologies is that they do not have a correct doctrine of anthropology and thus will tend to misinterpret data in this area.

Take the area of addictions, for example. I think it was Ed Welch who pointed out that the reason that secular counseling speaks of addictions as "diseases" is because they literally have no categories to deal with this. Bondage to sin simply is not part of their worldview, and labeling it as a disease is the way it looks from a naturalistic perspective.
 
I wonder how much confusion on this subject might be cleared up by considering the particularity of grace. Biblical counselling presupposes the transforming power of grace. OTOH, the unbeliever is given over to a reprobate mind, including whatever therapies he relies upon to help him find meaning in life. Again, all things are working together for the good of those who love God, especially the good of being conformed to the image of his Elder Brother. OTOH, wretchedness is the constant companion of wickedness so that the unbeliever really should find no comfort at all in his state of rebellion against God.

Psychiatry and psychology, like other branches of philosophy, serve as descriptions of the human condition. The only prescription for the vanity and misery of human life is to be found in the gospel which preaches repentance unto life. Being renewed in the spirit of one's mind is absolutely prerequisite to putting on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. And apart from holiness there is no genuine happiness.
 
wretchedness is the constant companion of wickedness so that the unbeliever really should find no comfort at all in his state of rebellion against God.
Matthew your post brought to mind two passages;
19I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.

20But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

21There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

3Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee

The unbeliever does not live in the "real world" in that he or she attempts to re-define God's world...into their own fantasy world. This does not lend itself to proper mental health.
 
wretchedness is the constant companion of wickedness so that the unbeliever really should find no comfort at all in his state of rebellion against God.
Matthew your post brought to mind two passages;
19I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.

20But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

21There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

3Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee

The unbeliever does not live in the "real world" in that he or she attempts to re-define God's world...into their own fantasy world. This does not lend itself to proper mental health.

No but people who are believers or unbelievers that are mentally ill or mentally unstable live in a world full of "noise" if you will. Noise being anything from the voices in their heads (that only are quieted by medications) to the more "mundane" feelings of anxiety, fear, depression and the noise can be so loud nothing else including logic, reason, the voice of God Himself can be heard clearly. The noise muffles and alters everything around it and the role of meds is to shut the noise down long enough for the patient to think clearly. That is why my mommy is on Mellaril: her brain chemistry has been physically mutated by an act of God and she does not think clearly: she is getting worse thanks to a couple brain scars on a couple lobes. And when the seizures got bad, she was told she was possessed by the devil. Mommy is an atheist. Sadly one of the side effects of Mr. Adams and the Nouthetic counselors are that the folks who show anything resembling a breakdown shut up and shut down. Because if they say what they feel they are either demon possessed or they must not have faith. THAT is my problem with Mr. Adams and his followers. There ARE mental illnesses out there and physical illnesses which have a symptom of depression (or a side effect of sorts). Incidentally some of the most mentally deranged folks I have had the pleasure of meeting are quite devout (at least they will tell you they are)
 
and physical illnesses which have a symptom of depression (or a side effect of sorts).

Again, Adams completely believes this. A physical workup is the step after the initial counseling session. Organic/physical causes can be determined and treated, thus actually solving the depression rather than simply adding an antidepressant drug to the problem without solving the thyroid imbalance or whatever is causing the depression. Medicine interaction is a leading cause of depression, for example.
 
Last edited:
Different emphases in sanctification?

I'm sure it doesn't apply in every case, but it seems to me that those who line up with Dr. Adams tend to have more of an emphasis on the use of the law in sanctification whereas many (in my experience) who would identify with the CCEF approach would also tend to identify with more of a Sonship emphasis.

The connection came to mind for me when reading this post on the law and sanctification on Dr. Adams' blog. Counseling is not mentioned in the post, but its implications on the subject at hand here seem pretty clear to me.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I am loathe to criticize Dr. Adams because while I know when he wrote CTC (late 1960s), I cannot tell for example when this online article when written:

Nouthetic Counselors Oppose the Use of Medicine, Don't They? - Institute For Nouthetic Studies

That article which Jason linked to has a simplistic model of how psychotropic medications work, that they simply "inhibit the body from functioning as it should."

As to Jason's other article (see post 37), I would say that psychiatrists (and others who prescribe psychotropics; actually 2/3 of all psychotropics are prescribed by other than psychiatrists) depend on grace more than other doctors! While I can tell you how the medication works, and the theory of "chemical imbalance" (again, simplistic) as to why a certain person may have a certain illness, there is a "black box" in the middle because it is not always a one to one relationship. And yes, I do explain this to my patients.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top