The Therapeutic State and Competing Religions

Granting that our contemporary therapeutic, self-worship culture is controlled by psychical theories, Christians need to become increasingly cognizant of the primary religious competitor of the Christian faith in America.  I am not talking about Islam or Buddhism; rather, the comprehensive control religion of the psycho-therapeutic state.  Below is one of my initial critiques of the psychical so-called “sciences.”  I have shared this point with several psychology professors and others in the field.  I’ve yet to hear a reasonable rescue of the position.  Granting my decades of navigating a closest family member’s struggles with so-called Bipolar disorder, I thought it would be a fine point of departure.    

One of my primary concerns with psychical sciences has to do with just that, its science.  Of course, at bottom, any and all science is fundamentally concerned with causal relations.  Psychical theories are no different.  So, to be a genuine science, it will seek to discover causes and sufficiently explain related effects.  As I see it, psychiatry on the one hand and psychology on the other must posit (and do postulate) reversed causation.  Let me explain.

Let's take so-called bipolar disorder as our example.  Psychologist must presuppose that the causes of bipolar are external stimuli or otherwise behavioral in nature.  This generalization will likewise be narrowed according to the adopted theory of the clinician.  Cognitive psych will suppose that the patient's problem lies in their conceptualization and interpretation of relational and situational events, for instance.  The behaviorist (even contemporary theorists, such as Bandura) will posit that the patient's environment or social construct is the final causal link in the chain of causes.  Thus, psychological theory finds the causes of manic-depressive episodes in something extraneous the patient.

Psychiatry, on the other hand, is obliged to work on the assumption that the effect of bipolar behavior is caused by biochemical imbalances in the brain.  This, of course, is part and parcel of the popular-level thought on the problem.  The psychiatric position, then, says the cause is internal to the patient and the effect is the external behavior and symptoms.  Therefore, the psychologist and the psychiatrist are operating off of perfectly contrary causal premises.  This is not to say that neither can therefore be true.  One or the other may be true, but they cannot both be true; the ice cold grip of logic will not allow it.  Moreover, the respective methodologies of each perspective reinforce the causal premise of the perspective.

It is tempting to say, "Well, the truth lies in a careful wedding of the two perspectives; and, subsequently, a bipolar sufferer's remedy lies in dual treatments: pharmacotherapy (by the psychiatrist) and psychotherapy (by the psychologist).  Despite how hopeful and popular this may be, it is still illogical.  The former assumes that the brain causes the behavioral effect; the latter assumes the external stimuli are the cause of the effect.  It is unreasonable to the say the cause is the effect and the effect is the cause.  This would contradict the laws of logic, the principle of sufficient reason and intuitive common sense. 

A word on the Word from Justin Martyr, a Re-Post

(This is a re-post from 2009.  I believe it is worthy of rereading time and again, and that it is most needful for Christians to hear today.  Enjoy.  KLS.) 

This is undoubtedly one of my favorite passages from the writings of Justin Martyr, one of the great early Church Apologists. It is the first chapter of his On The Resurrection. Nowhere have I read a clearer, more impassioned expression of presuppositionism’s principle thought. Apologetics is moving back to the future so to speak.

The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak.

Calvinism in the Early Church

"It is important to note that the Early Church fathers had certain conceptions that differed from the historical context of the middle ages, or of the Reformation. In this way many of the terms and ideas they utilized 'theologically speaking' are housed differently. For example, 'regeneration' to the early church fathers meant 'the entirety of the Christian life,' or what we might mean as parts of sanctification. This clears up a HUGE amount of problematic passages that most people would not understand if they read them, or would twist to mean something else. In our day, or even as far back as the Reformation, that term 'regeneration' is used more specifically of the initial step of conversion that is wrought by the change of heart by the Spirit of God upon the sinner. Subsequently, many gainsayers against the Gospel go to the early church fathers simply because they believe the early church did not teach what the Reformation taught, or what Westminster taught afterwards. They see theology as progressive. This is a mistake. Christ taught the same Gospel that Augustine, Gottschalk, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, or Princeton Theology believed – or even you. It is up to the student to work out an historical theology that is consistent based on a thoughtful representation of the historical CONTEXT for each period of church history.

"These quotes are simply that – quotes taken out of context that teach the doctrines of grace. This does not mean that are 'troublesome' areas of Tertullian’s theology, or hard to understand parts of Augustine. It does mean that the student must be careful to take their writings as compendiums, not simply proof texts. but this will be of help nonetheless." Read the Patristics on the Doctrines of Grace...

The Yuck Factor, Carl Truman

The yuck factor is a significant and deadly element of Christian thinking. Take, for example, the various denominations currently tearing apart over the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage.  Many, if not all, such denominations have routinely allowed men, and often women, who deny the resurrection, to occupy pulpits for many years with impunity.  Denial of the resurrection is, according to Paul, lethal to any kind of gospel witness and utterly destructive of Christian hope, to the point that it not only denies the saving action of God but actually makes Christians the most pitiable of all people.

So why the bust up over homosexuality when the most important things have already been made matters over which we can institutionally agree to differ?   I suspect the answer is the yuck factor.  Homosexuality is, or perhaps better was, revolting to a certain generation. It disgusted them in a way that polite, educated men denying the faith did not. That generation is now rapidly passing away and a new one is rising, with a mindset shaped not only by knowing kind, civil, gay friends but also by  a myriad pop culture images and an increasingly aggressive politicization of the issue.  The yuck factor does not apply any more. More here. 

St. Augustine on Scripture

“How amazing is the profundity of your words! We are confronted with a superficial meaning that offers easy access to the unlettered; yet how amazing their profundity, o my God how amazingly deep they are! To look into that depth makes me shudder, but it is the shudder of awe, the trembling of love”

—St. Augustine, Confessions XII, 14, 7.