Whoever spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Proverbs 13:24
May I be blunt? Free passes are damning people to Hell.
My wife and I were just watching an episode of The Way of the Master. This is a great video series produced by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that teaches you how to show others their need for a savior.
If you’ve seen any of these videos, you know the drill: Ray or Kirk will take somebody through a conversation that goes something like this:
Ray: Have you ever told a lie?
Man On The Street: Sure.
Ray: So what does that make you?
MOTS: Human.
Ray: Come on, if I told you a lie, what would you call me?
MOTS: A liar.
And so it goes until Ray finally gets the guy to admit that he’s a liar, a thief, a blasphemer, and a hateful murderer at heart. Finally, the climactic question:
Ray: So if God judges you by this standard — lying, thieving, blasphemy, and murder — would you be innocent or guilty?
MOTS: Guilty.
Ray: So would you go to Heaven or to Hell?
And here’s where something clicked for me tonight.
Most people say, “Hell.” Even the atheists say, “Hell,” because they get the logic (even though they don’t believe).
The rest don’t say, “Heaven” — they start negotiating! Americans expect an admission of guilt to be met with a free pass. They expect some kind of plea bargain, some kind of parole, some kind of negotiation after the gavel falls. But with God there’s no such thing.
As a result, a lot of people who believe in God and understand their guilt before Him are not troubled by their guilt. The human authorities they’ve been exposed to — parents, teachers, the courts — are so inclined to give guilty people a pass that they expect the same from God. The prospect of a permanent, irrevocable, eternal sentence in Hell just can’t be made real to them.
My conclusion: Free passes are damning people to Hell.
I agree Hugh. Our culture has for about the last 50 years told people nothing is their fault. You see it preached on Oprah and reflected in the actions of our ‘justice’ system. It’s their genes or their parents or their difficult childhood, etc. that are to blame so, as you say, many people believe that when push comes to shove, they won’t really be held accountable, even by God.
Unfortunately, this view is not limited to the lost, however. Thanks to the extensive infiltration of psychology into the teachings of the church, many Christians also hold this same view. My wicked actions are no longer due to sin originating in my own wicked heart but the result of ‘brokenness’ (or some other non-judgmental sounding term) due to my unfortunate circumstances.
Well said. I have a question though: what do you mean by “psychology?”
It seems to me that “psychology” — the study of human behavior and mental processes — isn’t necessarily good or bad; it’s what people do with it that matters. I’m curious about the distinctions that might be drawn.
Psychology as we know it today is largely the result of the theories and teachings of Freud and Jung. As Darwin sought to explain origins in a way that excluded God, Freud sought to explain and deal with problems of living in a way that excluded God. Freud and Jung did not come upon these theories after some scientific and unbiased research project, they had an agenda, a decidedly anti-Christian one. In other words, psychology is not simply a dispassionate look at human behavior drawing conclusions from those observations but a belief system which views that behavior apart from the revealed Word of God.
I know there are many Christians (some very high profle ones) who call themselves Christain Psychologists but that makes about as much sense to me as saying I’m a Christian Evolutionist. Its a syncratic approach to dealing with people’s problems rather than relying on God’s Word which assures us it has all we need to deal with any problems of living that come our way.
Some very brief comments on somethat that could be discussed in much more length. I’ll spare you and the other readers! 🙂
So, Larry – you would make a distinction between psychology and psychiatry, correct?
Aren’t there mental and/or emotional issues that have an underlying organic cause and therefore can be legitimately treated by either psychology or psychiatry?
John, I would, to a certain degree. Our brain (or other organs in our bodies) can be diseased resulting in the need for medical attention. Our mind cannot be sick because our mind is not a physical thing, however, our thinking can be negatively impacted by organic issues. Psychiatrists are MDs, primarily meaning they can prescribe drugs in addition to their use of psychological techniques. I don’t see how a psychologist could/should deal with an organic issue as they are not MDs.
However, even with psychiatrists, I think most of the things they would identify as ‘mental illness’ are the result of a mind that is not in conformity to the teachings of scripture rather than some organic issue. There’s a very interesting book (despite its funny title) called “Psychoheresy” by Martin & Diedre Bobgan dealing with Christianity and psychology. One of the things they point out is how subjective even psychiatry is. For example, if I have appendicitis, an examination by a competent doctor anywhere in the world will yield the same result – I have appendicitis. With psychiatry, the exact same patient with the exact same symptoms will have diagnoses all over the board when examined by multiple psychiatrists. The reason is that the diagnosis is not based on empirical data but depends to a great deal on the culture the psychiatrist lives in, the school he attended, the psychological school to which he ascribes etc., etc.
Another excellent resource is “The Christian’s Guide to Psychological Terms” by Marshall Asher. It takes the most common psychological diagnoses and frames them in a scriptural context.
Interesting stuff.
While I think that the contributions of Freud and Jung were misguided, surely psychology as a discipline is larger than those two men. I think it would be a shame if the church categorically rejected something on the grounds that A) it was most significantly advanced by atheists, and B) it is poorly understood.
I freely admit I’m out of my league when it comes to this stuff. I know we have some skilled practitioners in this area who attend GF; I’d be interested to hear their take on these things…
No free pass for me…
I am completely and openly mental and very happy in Jesus…;)
Justin Taylor happens to be running a series of posts out of a new book by David Powlison called Seeing With New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition Through the Lens of Scripture (Resources for Changing Lives). I haven’t taken the time to read it, but I wonder where Powlison fits in the discussion.
Dr. Powlison is one of those guys I don’t know, but seems to be well-respected by lots of people I respect. So if there is a “transitive property of respect,” then I guess I respect him. 😉
For a little more background, Dr. Powlison serves on the faculty at the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation.
The distinction here, though, is that counseling and psychology are two different things. I’m stuck with some open questions about how one informs the other.
Psychology is a method of counseling seems to me. Counseling can be done from many different vantage points. My feeling is a Biblical vantage point is in conflict with one based in psychology.
Mr. Farr, the book you mentioned by Dr. Powlison is excellent, and he also has a follow-up titled Speaking Truth in Love. As to where he fits in the discussion, all who are interested may read Dr. Powlison’s own proposed definition of biblical counseling. I believe this will be a rather helpful resource in the discussion on psychology, particularly as it relates to the church. This is an issue that should be examined and confronted by more of those in church leadership, especially since it is so pervasive in our society and even our churches today.
Visitor, thanks so much for linking that article. Very powerful. I definately want to read Powlison’s book(s) now.
Larry, you are very welcome. May I also suggest PsychoBabble: The Failure of Modern Psychology and the Biblical Alternative by Dr. Richard Ganz, a former psychotherapist. I must admit that I am not a fan of the title “PsychoBabble,” but the book itself is a very helpful resource in understanding the differences between secular and biblical counseling. I also agree with your earlier reference to Marshall and Mary Asher’s The Christian’s Guide to Psychological Terms; it is a great resource.
For anyone else who may be interested, in addition to Dr. Powlison, the following are several other authors who are involved in biblical counseling and well worth looking into: Wayne Mack, Lou Priolo, Ed Welch, Stuart Scott, Jay Adams, Martha Peace, and Elyse Fitzpatrick.