Category Archives: Doctrine/Theology

October 27, 2009 · 5:48 am

Dichotomy vs. Trichotomy?


In the world of Christian counseling past, thinkers (philosophers, theologians, model builders) pondered whether it would be good to consider humanity in two parts (body/soul) or three parts (body/soul/spirit or psyche). These days I can’t recall anyone even raising this as an issue that competent counselors should consider. This absences does beg the question(s): Is pondering the substances of humanity not particularly needed anymore? Is it that our academic predecessors already answered the question?

I’m not sure but I lean to the first reason–most people think this isn’t particularly relevant to their work counseling others. I tend to agree with caveats. When I sit with someone, I try to consider their whole being. We can’t possibly discuss their body without considering their mind. We can’t possibly talk about spiritual matters without using the body. I can just imagine this. “Now, let’s discuss your stomach pain, but we will not consider your thoughts or your spiritual well-being in this part of the conversation…[room goes silent]”

And yet many counselors continue to function like this in implicit ways. The counseling professional who feels incompetent to talk about faith matters (or that it somehow violates ethics) may choose to ignore spiritual matters (e.g., “I deal with only the psyche and I leave faith matters to the pastor). Well-intended, but in denial of the whole person in front of them. Then there are those counselors who see themselves as only dealing with faith or spiritual matters; matters of the will. These counselors may implicitly neglect, even reject, the role of the body in counseling concerns.

We counselors need to consider whether we tend to neglect a part of the person in front of us when we ignore body or spirit issues. Thus, it can be helpful to examine our practical theology of persons. Note I didn’t answer the question in the title. There are a good many who do a fine job debunking the trichotomy position. However, a practical monism likely works better in the session–that the whole person in front of me functions as a unity that cannot nor should not be divided into pieces.

9 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

October 19, 2009 · 3:12 pm

Theological thoughts on intersex and gender


For those in the Philly area, you are invited to come to Biblical to hear a guest lecturer speak on the subject of intersex. Megan De Franza will be guest lecturing in an MDiv theology class, Tuesday, November 3rd, starting at 6 pm. She is a doctoral student at Marquette University and writing her dissertation on the topic of gender and how Christian theology might address “intersex” (formerly known as hermaphrodism). As many as 1:2200 births result in a form of intersex (anywhere from ambiguous external genitalia to more hidden gender anomalies).

Is there room for a third gender? Megan will explore Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 about marriage and eunuchs and consider if this relates to the subject.

No charge (but I’m sure someone would take a check if you felt so inclined).

5 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, sexuality

Tagged as , ,

July 26, 2009 · 8:52 pm

What should Christian counseling look like?


 I posted this little item for my last guest blog at www.christianpsych.orgfor the month of July. In it I mention “Christian Counseling: An Introduction” by Malony and Augsburger (2007).

And no, I don’t say what it should look like–merely a comment that we still need to figure out how we handle the faith/science dichotomy that we’ve been handed all these years.

Those who have been around wisecounsel for a while will remember I blogged through each chapter. If you are interested in seeing those posts, just use the search engine on this page to find posts mentioning Malony.

1 Comment

Filed under Christian Apologetics, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling science, Doctrine/Theology, History of Psychology, philosophy of science, Psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as , , , ,

June 20, 2009 · 2:33 pm

A Christian Psychology 2


Chapter 2 of Eric Johnson’s book, Foundations for Soul Care(IVP, 2007) traces the use of the bible as soul healing agent throughout the history of the church. Eric explores the work of early church fathers, medieval church, reformation, and Puritanism as examples of soul care writings based on the biblical text.

The chapter then moves to consider the historical movement of the relationship between Christianity and science. While early scientists saw their field of study as something revealing evidence of God’s handiwork, a “fracture” begins with Enlightenment thinking.

Ironically, while Christianity contributed to the development of the scientific revolution, that revolution came to be increasingly linked to an alternative worldview: modernism (p. 63)

 Eric does a nice job summarizing the transition. One moves from the use of metaphysics, tradition, and revelation (Eric’s words) to a focus on the specific object of study and the use of observation. Thus, human reason and empiricism rule the day.

At core what distinguishes modernism and Christianity as ways of thinking about human life are their different ultimate commitments. Christianity assumes a God-centered worldview in which the individual self (with its submissive reason) is seen as relatively important in relation to the rest of creation but relatively unimportant in comparison to the infinite God. In such a framework, science is a noble task done first for the glory of God and second for the benefit of humanity, a good means to a greater end. Modernism inherited the self of Christianity, but without its God to keep things in proper perspective, the self became the center of the universe (an anti-Copernican revolution!), eventually regarding its own experience, together with its autonomous reason, as the foundations of truth and morality…Consequently, individualism–and not relationship–was established at the base of the modern worldview. (p. 65)

Eric goes on to talk about how Christianity imbibed the modernistic assumptions (either trying to use empiricism to defend fundamentalism or accepting that psychology is the best way to understand human functioning).

Eric does a good job summarizing the modern pastoral care movement and capitulation to psychotherapy models. Further, he shows how a Barthian model of soul care was not quite liberalism nor evangelicalism. Finally, he reviews the postmodern turn and “postliberal recovery.”

Johnson’s take on modern pastoral care movement? It doesn’t offer much to the evangelical in the way of thinking biblically about souls. The postliberal engagement with the Bible does two things: re-engages the text of Scripture as a real dialogue partner while not dismissing the helps within positivist psychology.

If you are unfamiliar with the modern history of Christian counseling and pastoral care, this is a great chapter to start with. You can get  a quick overview plus a bibliography to point you to original sources. The next chapters deal with evangelical and fundamentalist counseling models and how they dealt with Scripture (i.e., biblical counseling or integrationism).

Leave a comment

Filed under biblical counseling, book reviews, christian counseling, Christianity, counseling, Doctrine/Theology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

June 19, 2009 · 8:50 am

Vital Religion per Ben Franklin


I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. And the Scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined by what we thought, but what we did…

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

by W. Isaacson (Simon & Shuster, 2003)

My wife is reading this book and pointed out the quote to me. From Isaacson’s take, Franklin is less a deist than many have reported. And while he fought with some of his relatives over the meaning of faith, I think he does capture this sentiment right. It is possible to concern yourself so much with orthodoxy that you fail to miss the heart of the Gospel. Yes, Franklin did try to have virtue via his own power (a friend of his said something to the effect that Franklin’s efforts failed to tackle the virtue of humility or the vice of pride).  But nonetheless, virtue or act is what is asked of individuals. Did you clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned?

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, Gospel, Great Quotes

Tagged as ,

June 10, 2009 · 2:08 pm

A Christian Psychology Proposal 1


This summer I’m choosing to read through Eric Johnson’s Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal (IVP, 2007). Eric is the founding director of the Society for Christian Psychology. I’ve skimmed large portions of it before, had numerous, enjoyable conversations with Eric over the years, and am familiar (and mostly agree) with his ideas. But, I thought I might share of few tidbits now and again from what I’m reading. But realize the book is 700 plus pages (he tells me he had to cut 1/3 of his book to get it published!). So, I will not be blogging through it like I have done with others books.

What distinguishes this Christian Psychology?

The book attempts to lay out a framework of Christian psychology. Johnson says that a framework ought to include these core distinctives:

1. It is doxological. It should glorify God in all that it aims to do and understand.

2. It is semiodiscursive. Here, he uses this word to convey that any psychology is a use of words, descriptions, and interpretations that point to meaning. “…soul care is interested in the referential function of various aspects of human life: language, emotions, mental images, actions…”

3. It is dialogical/trialogical. It is relational and interactive rather than something that exists by itself.

4. It is canonical. The bible, Johnson says, is the Text of texts. There is a standard that is our guide for soul care.

5. It is psychological. It is interested in the “nature of human beings and their psychopathology and recovery….Christian soul-care providers study the bible not for its own sake but for the light it sheds on the nature of human beings and their well-being and improvement.” (p. 16) 

I encourage interested parties to read his first chapters. Chapter one, “The Place for the Bible in Christian Soul Care” acknowledges that “The entire canon shows a concern with human well-being with reference to God.” He goes on to explicate that by sampling from Old and New Testaments as well as to define “soul-healing to include both salvation and sanctification in both vertical and horizontal dimension. Soul healing is not merely for creating the right relationship with God but also for healing and strengthening human to human relationships.  Chapter 2 and 3 talk about the misuses of the Bible in both biblical counseling and Christian psychological venues.

This book is exceptionally focused on the foundations. So, we may not expect great focus on whether soul care will greatly reduce mental healthy symptoms. But, lest we only think pragmatic thoughts, we ought to step back and consider the basis of the practical–the theoretical and theological bases for our work.

3 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, Doctrine/Theology, Psychology

Tagged as ,

April 29, 2009 · 5:21 am

Can your body cause you to sin, part 3


As promised, I offer you a vignette to consider as we think about the matter of culpability and involuntary sins.

Consider a 2 year old that has missed his daily nap, is hungry, and tired of being out in public. He has a meltdown. He kicks, screams, cries, refuses his mother’s comfort because he wants some object he cannot have. The good parent recognizes the child’s distress, whispers in his ear to comfort him, says “no” firmly to his kicks, and finds something for him to eat and a place to take a nap. Has the child sinned? He surely has demanded something, acted aggressively, maybe even disobeyed by going after the object after his mother said to stop. Yes, he sinned. But was it really voluntary? Well, maybe partly. But don’t we consider the circumstances and the fact that his body is not helping matters. We forgive, we overlook, we understand, we help. We do so because we know his choices are not really voluntary.

Now, we may have another reaction altogether when we see our little boy (fully rested and fed) look us in the eye and try to bite his baby brother after we just told him to stop. We know he has great voluntary control here and is in a power struggle. And we respond with appropriate discipline.

We could easily have considered a vignette of a brain injured man or a panic disordered woman. We respond to individuals based not on whether something is sinful or not but on how much voluntary control we think they have and the circumstances in play (environment, biology, understanding, etc.).

So, our bodies can cause us to sin. In the classic sense, we are guilty whether it is voluntary or not. And yet we, and God himself, varies responses to such sins based on a variety of factors. We do not ascribe innocence to those less culpable but do try to determine levels of responsibility. Thankfully, all of it is covered by the cross.

Here’s one way this might matter. I find many afraid to seek biological aids for what they determine to be spiritual problems (addictions, depression, anxiety, etc.). If we see body and soul together, then both body and soul interventions are working toward the same goal.

4 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, Doctrine/Theology, sin

Tagged as , ,

April 28, 2009 · 12:20 pm

Can your body make you sin, part 2


Yesterday I posted an introduction to this topic. Today, I want to give my answer to the first question:

Is it possible that my body (against or apart from my will) might cause me to sin?

  • What is gained and/or lost if we say yes? If we say no?

My answer: Yes.

I suppose you might like some defense of this position. Okay, here’s my best shot in five minutes:

1. Nothing is done by a person apart from their cells. We mediate all worship, desire, etc. through our cells. When we do good or evil, all of us are involved.

2. Sin is not merely an act, but a disposition. All of me is tainted and not functioning as it was originally intended, including my physical body (and don’t I feel the effects of being over 40!).  The dualist position is more in danger of treating sin as only what we consciously choose.

3. I don’t have to know that I broke the law (biblical or federal) to be guilty of violating the law. I didn’t know I was speeding but I still got a ticket. In the OT, lack of intention or knowledge violating the law did not protect against impurity or guilt (e.g., Lev. 4:22; 5:3).

4. If the body is broken and under sin’s curse it stands to reason that our bodies function in ways that are out of accord with our will. If they can move without our control (e.g., Parkinsonian tremors) can they not also move in such a way that violates God’s design for us. We have scientific evidence of this. Stimulate a certain part of the brain, and you will have rageful feelings. Stimulate another part and you may have sexual thoughts. Consider, as a commenter suggested yesterday, a person with Tourettes. There is some evidence of temporary volitional control (a surgeon is able to stop a tick during an operation) but other evidence that the ticks, and in some cases, curses burst out against the conscious effort of the person.

Saying yes to this question violates our Western sensibilities:

If we accept that our bodies can act against or without the will, what do we gain or lose? I think the primary concern by many would be that somehow we will either be held culpable for sins we didn’t want to commit or claim innocence for sins we didn’t willfully commit. And this gets to our thinking patterns here in the West. We want to be only held accountable for things we did do and not held accountable for things we either didn’t do or didn’t have any control over.

It strikes us as evil to be held accountable for that which we didn’t know was wrong. I once got a ticket for making a u-turn on a Chicago city street at 11 pm when no one (but the cop!) was around. There were no signs. I wasn’t familiar with Chicago rules, was lost in an unsavory neighborhood. And yet I still got the ticket. It didn’t seem right. But I did violate the law.

Our American judicial system isn’t the only system that holds us accountable for involuntary acts. Romans teaches us that because of Adam’s sin, all are sinners. I bear the culpability for his sin (and I make plenty of my own as well). I bear the impact of his choices in my entire being. Further we see OT prophets confessing the sins of the community as if they were their own.

So, in short, I think we can answer yes to the question about whether our bodies can make us sin. They can because we (body and soul) are tainted by the Fall. It doesn’t make us more or less out of sorts with God whether our sin is chosen or involuntary. Happily, God doesn’t just forgive willful sin, he forgives sin period and makes it possible to not sin by imputing his righteousness to us.

For those still thinking about culpability, I’ll give a little vignette tomorrow to chew on.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, christian counseling, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, sin, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

April 27, 2009 · 12:41 pm

Can your body make you sin?


I’ve had a small email exchange on this topic with a PhD student at another seminary and so I’m going to raise the topic here. Can your body make you sin? Obviously, I’m going to tackle this question from a Christian perspective that cares about sin and wants to think carefully about our ontology (what it means to be human).  

The major questions behind the question are (a) are we made up of 2 substances (body and soul), and (b) even if we are, does it matter when considering what causes people to do what they ought not? I am not going to even try to defend (a) but I do want us to think about (b).

Some background might help. (If you get bored with background, just scroll down to the questions below.)

1. In the Christian life sin matters. Sin is that which we do that violates God’s definition of holiness. Sin is that which fallen creatures do all the time. Thankfully, God provides a way of escape from the logical consequences of sin (grace via the cross). Despite (no, because of) this gift from God, Christians still care about eradicating sin even though it is not possible. It stands to reason, then, that it can help to discern the sources of sin in order to stop them.

2. The classic Christian view of human nature is that we are made of two substances: body and soul. We are not just our physical bodies but something intangible was imputed to us when God breathed life into Adam. Our soul allows us to worship God. The bible refers to our soul in various ways: will, heart, desires, etc. The soul is the driver of the will and therefore responsible for the moral direction of our actions. Early theologically oriented scientists (think Descartes) assumed the existence of the soul but looked to explain how the intangible soul connected to the tangible body. Now with the advances in neuroscience we have better explanatory power in describing the action of thoughts, feelings, and knowing. However, the will remains a mystery. While we can explain neural networks and what the brain does when desiring something, we cannot yet explain WHY we want or desire certain things. 

Some philosophers and theologians have attempted to deal with classic dualism by suggesting that we are only one substance. I am not capable of succinctly defending this position so I point you to Nancey Murphy and a review of her book here.  She does a masterful job defending non-reducible physicalism.

Okay, now if you think humans are made of body and soul you have these questions to consider.

  1. Is it possible that my body (against or apart from my will) might cause me to sin?
    • What is gained and/or lost if we say yes? If we say no?
  2. If it is possible, am I culpable for such sins? 
    • What is the consequences of saying yes to this question?

During this week I plan to give a feeble defense of a yes answer to both questions 1 and 2. We’ll see how this unfolds.

5 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , , ,

April 22, 2009 · 10:14 am

Read any good books on evil?


Have a new writing assignment on the theology of evil in sexual abuse. I’m to think theologically about this particular kind of evil. So, I want to do some reading. Any books you might recommend that discuss evil (outside of the usual ones describing the damage done by sexual abuse)?

I’ll start with NT Wright’s “Evil and the Justice of God” book, but other recommendations might be helpful as well.

7 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, sin

Tagged as ,