Is Mental Illness Real?

  • Psychological problems can cause physical symptoms. E.g. palpitations, abdominal pain, etc.
  • Psychological problems can cause physical illness. E.g. non-epileptic attacks (already mentioned in this thread), chronic pain disorders etc.
Absolutely agree with this. There are many cases where an individual struggling with post traumatic stress exhibits physical symptoms. Headaches, digestive issues, and weight gain are a few examples of physical issues that are common in people who have unresolved trauma. Memory issues are also strongly linked with trauma.
 
Some facts which, to my mind at least, conclusively refute the assertions that a) the brain and mind are entirely separate and b) mental illness is purely a spiritual problem due to sin:
I appreciated your post! Thanks so much for weighing in.

I did finally watch the recent JMA video. On the one hand, he made a lot of good points and there were a lot of true statements in there about the playing up of mental health issues, the unbiblical worldview behind it, etc.

I'm not a neurologist, a mental health counselor, or a pastor. But it is plain to me as a lay-person that he is dead wrong in his statement that the brain and mind are separate... in fact, this seems to be a form of gnostic dualism, in addition to being a variant of positivism or prosperity thinking (ironic given JMA's opposition to faith healers). Things that affect us physically do affect our minds and you don't have to look for the extreme Phineas Gage stories to see this. Our bodies and souls are united in this life and neglect of one will adversely affect the other. That goes both ways. Sleeping better and eating better improve mental health, and spiritual neglect often cause physical side effects.

When prudently and properly used, mental health treatments can be a valued blessing from God as we navigate a sin-cursed world. I'm grateful to live in an age that affords such helps, even though I grieve over the abuse of them.
 
I'm not a neurologist, a mental health counselor, or a pastor. But it is plain to me as a lay-person that he is dead wrong in his statement that the brain and mind are separate... in fact, this seems to be a form of gnostic dualism
He is more or less a Platonist or Cartesian at this point, which is ironic given that biblicists eschew philosophy. You cannot avoid doing philosophy, only doing bad philosophy. JMac did bad philosophy.
 
MacArthur followed up on his comments with a thorough article: https://www.gracechurch.org/news/posts/3982?s=01

Incidentally, it's clear that Ortlund didn't actually engage with MacArthur in his video. He just reacted. I found many of MacArthur's sources and found other parallel arguments from Christian and secular sources by following MacArthur's sources or listening to current discourse about mental health. I can recall at least six books from both sides of the Biblical spectrum that criticize psychiatry.
 
MacArthur followed up on his comments with a thorough article: https://www.gracechurch.org/news/posts/3982?s=01

Incidentally, it's clear that Ortlund didn't actually engage with MacArthur in his video. He just reacted. I found many of MacArthur's sources and found other parallel arguments from Christian and secular sources by following MacArthur's sources or listening to current discourse about mental health. I can recall at least six books from both sides of the Biblical spectrum that criticize psychiatry.
This sadly is one of the things I kind of dislike about MacArthur. While Christians should take a stand and speak the truth of Gods Word in all areas of life, I have noticed a trend with MacArthur where he asserts himself an expert in areas well outside his expertise. He did it with COVID, and now he is doing it with Mental Health. I understand his fervency to make the Bible preeminent, but the Bible was never meant to be a medical textbook.
 
This sadly is one of the things I kind of dislike about MacArthur. While Christians should take a stand and speak the truth of Gods Word in all areas of life, I have noticed a trend with MacArthur where he asserts himself an expert in areas well outside his expertise. He did it with COVID, and now he is doing it with Mental Health. I understand his fervency to make the Bible preeminent, but the Bible was never meant to be a medical textbook.
MaCarthur did research and cited his sources properly and you're saying he can't have an option? That's a ridiculous take. He's allowed to do research and assert a well researched opinion.
 
MaCarthur did research and cited his sources properly and you're saying he can't have an option? That's a ridiculous take. He's allowed to do research and assert a well researched opinion.
MacArthur cited the few opinions that agreed with him. That is why he promotes only a few select authors on the subject instead of saying something like "go out and pick up a stack of books on the subject, and see what I mean." We are all entitled to have an opinion, but we must know what our position is and the ramifications of our opinion. And for him, it isnt so much the statement, but the small army of MacArthurites who will now, without research, take his words for doctrine, and be "that church" that doesnt believe in mental illness long after he is gone. Either that, or admit their founder was wrong. To assert that "mental illness isnt real," is just ignorant. He is better than that, but, none of us are perfect.

What expertise did he claim with COVID?
Making statements like he was a virologist or medical doctor, on the dangers or potential dangers of COVID, when he is a theologian. You can look them up at your own convenience. It is one thing to deal with the issue of the governments sway over or under the church. It is another to talk about the ins and outs of a disease as if you have any training in medicine.
 
Last edited:
Making statements like he was a virologist or medical doctor, on the dangers or potential dangers of COVID, when he is a theologian. You can look them up at your convenience.
We must have a fundamental difference regarding our view of COVID; the statements that I saw seemed to be simple common sense about the whole fiasco.

But I digress; I don’t want to derail the thread.
 
We must have a fundamental difference regarding our view of COVID; the statements that I saw seemed to be simple common sense about the whole fiasco.

But I digress; I don’t want to derail the thread.
That could be one of the differences, thinking that issues that take a decade to specialize in, are matters of common sense.
 
That is why he promotes only a few select authors on the subject instead of saying something like "go out and pick up a stack of books on the subject, and see what I mean."
He has to tell you to go do your own research? It's your job to go out and do that. He doesn't need to tell you to do that.
And for him, it isnt so much the statement, but the small army of MacArthurites who will now, without research, take his words for doctrine
He forced/forces people to do this? People don't act this way with other teachers?
Either that, or admit their founder was wrong.
He's not wrong. We are supposed to uncritically assume that you're right and he is wrong?
To assert that "mental illness isnt real," is just ignorant.
Says you. I suppose YOU are an expert and therefore your word is final no matter what anyone else thinks.
Making statements like he was a virologist or medical doctor, on the dangers or potential dangers of COVID, when he is a theologian. You can look them up at your convenience.
People were not allowed to have opinions on Covid unless they were virologists or doctors? Well I guess no one should state any opinion unless he or she has a degree in a specific, highly specialized area.
 
He has to tell you to go do your own research? It's your job to go out and do that. He doesn't need to tell you to do that.

He forced/forces people to do this? People don't act this way with other teachers?

He's not wrong. We are supposed to uncritically assume that you're right and he is wrong?

Says you. I suppose YOU are an expert and therefore your word is final no matter what anyone else thinks.

People were not allowed to have opinions on Covid unless they were virologists or doctors? Well I guess no one should state any opinion unless he or she has a degree in a specific, highly specialized area.
For a little background, I have been stripped naked and put in rubber rooms, tied to a gurney and forcibly sedated, committed to psych wards, dealt with false realities related to mania, have had several suicide attempts as a result of schizophrenia, and have lived a normal life for the past almost 17 years by Gods grace through daily medication. So yes, his statement that mental illness doesnt exist is plain ignorant, and laughable to anybody who has actually suffered from it.
 
Understood. Trust The Experts.
When I was in college I had an expert with a post doc degree give me a totally absurd explanation of what Calvinism is. I'm so glad all those undergrad students took her seriously because she was an expert.

For a little background, I have been stripped naked and put in rubber rooms, tied to a gurney and forcibly sedated, committed to psych wards, dealt with false realities related to mania, have had several suicide attempts as a result of schizophrenia, and have lived a normal life for the past almost 17 years by Gods grace through daily medication. So yes, his statement that mental illness doesnt exist is plain ignorant, and laughable to anybody who has actually suffered from it.
And I'm sure people who had the same treatment and disagree with you are also ignorant, because they are actually out there.
 
When I was in college I had an expert with a post doc degree give me a totally absurd explanation of what Calvinism is. I'm so glad all those undergrad students took her seriously because she was an expert.


And I'm sure people who had the same treatment and disagree with you are also ignorant, because they are actually out there.
No, I am more concerned with people who have never dealt with this issue at all (either personally or practicionately) making such claims. Again, MacArthur sometimes thinks his Dr. stretches farther than theology.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe these people? This is the group the above gentleman is associated with.


"1. I’m told that some counselors really do tell their counselees to stop taking medication.
I say, “I’m told” because I don’t actually know anyone who has told a counselee to stop taking their prescribed medication. I believe the reports that some have given me, but I am not able to verify this from a first-hand perspective.
Counselors who engage in such behavior should not do it. In fact, counselors certified with ACBC are not allowed to do it. It is simply not the role of a counselor to function as a physician. If you have been told by a counselor that you should quit taking your medications, or if you know someone who has been told this I have a message for you. Such counsel is wrong, and stands outside of the biblical counseling movement that ACBC has participated in for decades."
 
A couple things:

1) MacArthur's doctorate is a DMin, which, in my opinion, is a joke of a doctorate in comparison to a PhD and needs to be eliminated. Too many people think those with Dmin Dr. in front of their name did the work to earn a PhD - seems like a scam to me.

2) I would be shocked if MacArthur did ANY of his own research on this topic, Phil Johnson has a history of doing a lot of heavy lifting on these kinds of things.

3) Eva, you are being disrespectful to a member of our community in your replies, you can state your opinions better than that
 
A couple things:

1) MacArthur's doctorate is a DMin, which, in my opinion, is a joke of a doctorate in comparison to a PhD and needs to be eliminated. Too many people think those with Dmin Dr. in front of their name did the work to earn a PhD - seems like a scam to me.

2) I would be shocked if MacArthur did ANY of his own research on this topic, Phil Johnson has a history of doing a lot of heavy lifting on these kinds of things.

3) Eva, you are being disrespectful to a member of our community in your replies, you can state your opinions better than that
Anyone who disagrees with davesjonesrescue is ignorant and I'm disrespectful? Please be specific. If that's true I'll make it right, but I have not labeled anyone here as ignorant. It's becoming clear to me that this board has clear biases and an implicit requirement to agree with the consensus - in which case I will happily bow out to keep the peace.
 
Anyone who disagrees with davesjonesrescue is ignorant and I'm disrespectful? Please be specific. If that's true I'll make it right, but I have not labeled anyone here as ignorant. It's becoming clear to me that this board has clear biases and an implicit requirement to agree with the consensus - in which case I will happily bow out to keep the peace.
Think about this for a second, what do you think when someone says "the world is flat?" Now what would you think if someone said "cancer, AIDS, diabetes, MS, etc are not real?" Now ask yourself why you would take the statement "mental illness isnt real" any more seriously? That statement, not the man, is ignorant. It has absolutely no basis. Even the Puritans recognized what they would call unreasonable melancholy, frenzies, and madness were out of the realm of the shepherd to address and better left to a physician. And this was hundreds of years ago!
 
Last edited:
Anyone who disagrees with davesjonesrescue is ignorant and I'm disrespectful? Please be specific. If that's true I'll make it right, but I have not labeled anyone here as ignorant. It's becoming clear to me that this board has clear biases and an implicit requirement to agree with the consensus - in which case I will happily bow out to keep the peace.

No, disagreement is fine, it is the tone and language you are using which you may not recognize. Go back and read your replies.

this board has clear biases and an implicit requirement to agree with the consensus

If you think that is true you clearly have not read here much. We disagree with each other all the time.
 
A couple things:

1) MacArthur's doctorate is a DMin, which, in my opinion, is a joke of a doctorate in comparison to a PhD and needs to be eliminated. Too many people think those with Dmin Dr. in front of their name did the work to earn a PhD - seems like a scam to me.

2) I would be shocked if MacArthur did ANY of his own research on this topic, Phil Johnson has a history of doing a lot of heavy lifting on these kinds of things.

3) Eva, you are being disrespectful to a member of our community in your replies, you can state your opinions better than that
1) I don't think MacArthur has a DMin. To my knowledge he has no formal education beyond a M.Div. and has an honorary doctorate.

2) MacArthur hasn't said anything new recently on this topic. He was in print over 30 years ago with the same views, which are basically the same views as the late Jay Adams. They are not very different than Heath Lambert's either, who was cited approvingly by a person who is disagreeing with MacArthur. Lambert is opposed to any integration of Biblical counseling and psychology.
 
Last edited:
1) I don't think MacArthur has a DMin. To my knowledge he has no formal education beyond a M.Div. and has an honorary doctorate.

2) MacArthur hasn't said anything new recently on this topic. He was in print over 30 years ago with the same views, which are basically the same views as the late Jay Adams. They are not very different than Heath Lambert's either, who was cited approvingly by a person who is disagreeing with MacArthur. Lambert is opposed to any integration of Biblical counseling and psychology.
Yet, I think the contrast would be 1. not denying mental illness exists, and 2. the need to seek psychiatric treatment for mental illness that do not stem from sin. (or what it seems he is calling "organic") Notice the article from Lambert. He gives significance to the physicians skill and ability to diagnose issues in which he admittingly considers himself unqualified to do. If not, why would he give credence to psychiatric diagnosis' and not instead suggest a completely, non-medicinal biblical approach which would include the stopping of prescribed medication?
 
Yet, I think the contrast would be 1. not denying mental illness exists, and 2. the need to seek psychiatric treatment for mental illness that do not stem from sin. (or what it seems he is calling "organic") Notice the article from Lambert. He gives significance to the physicians skill and ability to diagnose issues in which he admittingly considers himself unqualified to do. If not, why would he give credence to psychiatric diagnosis' and not instead suggest a completely, non-medicinal biblical approach which would include the stopping of prescribed medication?

In the realm of nouthetic counseling, "organic" means an illness that can be seen in things like a brain scan or bloodwork. It means a physical (rather than mental) illness for which there is concrete evidence to be found in medical testing. It isn't referring to bipolar, treatment of depression with Prozac, etc. I suspect that schizophrenia would not be considered "organic." They acknowledge physical illness can cause psychiatric/psychological symptoms. However, they deny the validity of a wide range of diagnoses in the DSM, if not every one of them. Some see some limited validity of certain medicines. Some don't. I suspect that one reason why the organization has a policy against straight out telling people not to take their medicine is that they don't want to be accused of practicing medicine without a license and because they don't want the liability.

I'm less familiar with Lambert than I am with various Presbyterians, or people I've assumed are Presbyterian due to an association with WTS. But I do know that Lambert is alleged to have instigated the firing of a psychologist from Southern due to his anti-psychology stance. Some of Lambert's critics might say that the article about not taking medicine is not free of disingenuousness or sleight of hand. See also the statement at the end: "People who have spiritual problems will not change as long as they keep taking drugs as a cure. They will only change as they draw near to Jesus in repentant faith." What happens when the counselee tells the doctor they don't need or want the antidepressant or antipsychotic anymore and the doctor disagrees? I'm sure it won't surprise you that many doctors in a wide variety of specialties deny the validity of spiritual problems altogether. Of course, Lambert didn't say that they had to go back to the original doctor. Maybe it helps to have a friendly M.D. of like mind on speed dial who can help people get off unneeded antidepressants, etc. A lot of those are prescribed by Family Practice physicians to begin with.

Lambert's latest is attacking the validity of things like "trauma-informed."

I don't have time to get into a long and drawn out back and forth on this. MacArthur is not known for nuance or representing opposing views charitably. But saying mental illness doesn't exist or whatever isn't something that he came up with on his own. It isn't something that came out of IFB World (which he's never really been a part of) or pentecostalism. His views on that come straight out of Jay Adams' work, a reformed minister and seminary prof.
 
Last edited:
In the realm of nouthetic counseling, "organic" means something you can see on a brain scan, bloodwork, etc. It means a physical (rather than mental) illness for which there is concrete evidence to be seen in medical testing. It isn't referring to bipolar, treatment of depression with Prozac, etc. I suspect that schizophrenia would not be considered "organic." They acknowledge physical illness can cause psychiatric/psychological symptoms. However, they deny the validity of a wide range of diagnoses in the DSM, if not every one of them. Some siee some limited validity of certain medicines. Some don't. I suspect that one reason why the organization has a policy against straight out telling people not to take their medicine is that they don't want to be accused of practicing medicine without a license and because they don't want the liability.

I'm less familiar with Lambert than I am with various Presbyterians, or people I've assumed are Presbyterian due to an association with WTS. But I do know that Lambert is alleged to have instigated the firing of a psychologist from Southern due to his anti-psychology stance. Some of Lambert's critics might say that the article is not free of disingenuousness or sleight of hand. See also the statement at the end: "People who have spiritual problems will not change as long as they keep taking drugs as a cure. They will only change as they draw near to Jesus in repentant faith." What happens when the counselee tells the doctor they don't need or want the antidepressant or antipsychotic anymore and the doctor disagrees? I'm sure it won't surprise you that many doctors in a wide variety of specialties deny the validity of spiritual problems altogether. Lambert's latest is attacking the validity of things like "trauma-informed."

I don't have time to get into a long and drawn out back and forth on this. MacArthur is not known for nuance or representing opposing views charitably. But saying mental illness doesn't exist or whatever isn't something that he came up with on his own. It isn't something that came out of IFB World (which he's never really been a part of) or pentecostalism. His views on that come straight out of Jay Adams' work, a reformed minister and seminary prof.
I'm leaving this board, but I saw this response and wanted to point out that it was fair and wonderfully written. Whether you agree with him or not, you represented neuthetic counseling accurately and without all the bunk I keep seeing here. Jay Adams was one of my pastor's professors, and all of my pastors practice neuthetic counseling. They have been wonderful. Blessings to you.
 
Lambert's latest is attacking the validity of things like "trauma-informed."
TL;DR but if it's anything like the teacher PD I have gone through the last few years, 'trauma informed' is meaningless garbage that seeks to be so inclusive that it tends to exclude or minimize those who have real trauma. It is also utilized as a way to explain racial disparities.
That said I am not an Adams fan but rather like CCEF and their model.
 
TL;DR but if it's anything like the teacher PD I have gone through the last few years, 'trauma informed' is meaningless garbage that seeks to be so inclusive that it tends to exclude or minimize those who have real trauma. It is also utilized as a way to explain racial disparities.
“Trauma informed care” is full of Marxist ideology and encourages victim mentality.
 
Back
Top