Rebuttal to above article by Da Christian Psychology: Tool of the Lord or Evil Philosophy? A Rebuttal to the “Sound” Doctrine
by David W. Horn
One of the greatest challenges facing today’s Christian mental health professional is the dwindling, though still formidable challenge of those who believe and teach that psychology, especially “Christian psychology,” is some sort of unholy marriag e between a man-made philosophy and God; and as such, is to be opposed. Rather than attempt to learn from the myriad facts and research projects that continue to add to our knowledge of the human mind and its many facets, these groups steadfastly attack Christians working in the mental health fields as spiritual traitors, spreading a worldly philosophy that contaminates the Christian community.
I recently had an experience in which I was able to learn first-hand just how potent this force can be. Shortly after the purchase of my first computer and modem, I logged onto a small religious bulletin board in the Denver metropolitan area. Its operators called it the “Sound Doctrine,” after the church that they operate under the same name.
A little background information is called for here. The “Sound Doctrine” Church is not a church in the commonly understood sense of the word. It is a small group of religious zealots, numbering fewer than forty, who meet in the basement of the ho me of Tim Williams, its self-proclaimed “pastor.” Williams possesses neither ecclesiastical credential nor any formal training in the Bible or in the pastorate. He is assisted by a “co-pastor,” NAME DELETED, whom he apparently “shepards.” Williams proud ly proclaims that “he [NAME DELETED], too, is unqualified…” Though the statement of belief of the “Sound” Doctrine says that no one member is the leader, Williams is clearly in charge. He runs both the “Church” and its sundry other operations, including a s hort-lived radio show and the computer bulletin board system (BBS).
The “Sound” Doctrine teaches a number of things that most Christians would have little argument with; but a number of doctrines that most Christians would find at least suspect if not abhorrent are practiced. These doctrines, upon investigation, can be shown to be the result of poor exegesis on the part of Williams. They include “hating for Jesus,” the forced wearing of “coverings” by female members of the church, the greeting of fellow “Sound Doctrinites” with a “holy kiss,” a selective reject ion of things “worldly,” a near-communal operation, and the belief that saved Christians can go to Hell. There are also a number of other doctrines, violations of which generally result in accusations that the guilty party is not “fully carrying their c ross” or has not “fully given his/her life to Jesus.” Among these are the wearing of “long” hair by men — which the “Sound” Doctrine will not define but which they claim is prohibited by I Corinithians 11:14 — and the support of most forms of contempo rary Christian music.
Shortly after I logged on to the “Sound” Doctrine computer bulletin board, I became enmeshed in a “discussion” on the merits, or lack of merits, of psychology, especially “Christian” psychology. I found myself attempting to break through the circu lar and unBiblical reasoning of Williams, NAME DELETED, and another “Sound” Doctrine BBS user.
Admittedly, I am not always at my best when dealing with such people. We all have “pet peeves” and one of mine is willful ignorance masquerading as Christianity. It soon became apparent that, while Williams and NAME DELETED seemed to be soliciting comme nts, they were not really interested in anything that disagreed with their viewpoint. Though I am sure that they read the comments I wrote, the showed very clearly that either they were not really all that interested in what I had to say or they were ha ving serious trouble understanding it. Oftentimes they would twist a comment in order for it to appear as if something was said that clearly was not. Furthermore, they “supported” their viewpoint with Bible references that were, upon examination, almos t always completely irrelevant. Finally, and most interstingly, NAME DELETED — though obviously having a severe problem with psychology in general and me in particular — could not resist practicing his own peculiar form of psychology, often saying “Well, you said this; but you *meant* this…”
I soon became convinced that I was wasting the valuable time that I was given charge of by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit further moved me to detach myself from the discussion. When I informed NAME DELETED and the other “Sound” Doctrine user that I would n o longer respond to their poor argumentation, I was chastized by Williams, who said that I would no longer be allowed to say with whom I would communicate and with whom I would not. “You must let others make that determination,” he said.
With this bit of tyranny, I informed Williams that I would never again patronize the “Sound” Doctrine BBS. That was March, 1989. I have not called since, though I have had minor run-ins with them on other bulletin boards and computer communicatio ns echoes.
What follows is an article that is available through the “Sound” Doctrine BBS. It is indicative of the poor exegesis and lack of scholarship of the subject matter. The article will be quoted fully; with my comments interspersed throughout.
“**********************
“CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGIST
“************************************************”
“There is no such thing as a Christian Psychologist. Unless of course there is a such a thing as a Christian strip tease dancer.” Although it is badly written, this serves well as a “grab- ber, i.e., it gains the early attention of the reader. Unfor- tunately, it is also a very gratuitous statement.
“Psychology is a philosophy and a religion.” By redefining psychology in such a way, Williams is able to twist the facts to support his premise. If psychology is a “philosophy and a religion,” it must be opposed to Christianity, which is also a “philosophy and a religion;” but which prac- tices an exclusivity uncommon to religion. By referring to psychology as a “philosophy and a religion,” and by implying that it must, therefore, be opposed to Christianity, Williams hopes to automatically call all Christians to his camp.
“Psychology is not a science.” In fact, psychology *is* a science. A “science” is defined as a “systematic study.” Science is what scientists do. It follows the “scientific method” so well defined by Popper. Work- ers in psychology observe, hypothesize, experiement and observe, and theorize in the manner prescribed by science and the scient- ific method. Williams is neither well-educated in science nor in psychology. Though he is a proclaimer of “Truth,” it is clear that this statement is nothing more than uninformed opinion.
“You cannot show me a[n] id, ego or super-ego.” This is true; but I cannot show you an atom, a radio wave, or a a charged alpha particle, either. This is a gratuitous argument. Most of what we define as “science” has never been directly observed in the manner that Williams would like us to believe is required. If he ever actually sees gravitation, for example, then he is one up on both Newton and Eistein.
“Not only that, but psychologist[s] cannot even agree on what the truth is concerning human behavior.” What Williams seems to be doing here is accusing psycho- logists of being scientists, i.e., they compare notes, question, experiment, and argue. The fact is that a number of psycho- logists have little trouble agreeing on the “truth,” whatever *that* means, regarding human behavior. Differences of opinion, however, do persist in how to treat various mental conditions.
“When I was majoring in psychology one message came through loud and clear. Psychology has all the questions, but no answers.” In fact, psychology has a number of answers. If you add psychiatry you have even more answers. However, as is true with any science, psychology will not claim to have *all* the answers. What is clear here is that Williams either wasn’t “majoring in psychology” for very long, or he had serious trouble understand- ing it.
“That is why it changes concepts every 6 hours. Yesterday Freud was in with his Penis envy and castration complexes. A few years ago it was Maslows heirchary of needs. Today it is left – right brain voodoo.” The first sentence in this paragraph is utter nonsense and reveals Williams’ obvious anti-intellectual bias. Psychology no more “changes concepts every 6 hours” than any other science does. The reader may notice that, by the selective use of terms such as “Penis envy,” “castration complexes,” and “left – right brain voodoo,” Williams hopes to sensationalize certain aspects that many would find distasteful. This gives his article a “National Enquirer” air that probably was intentional. It should be noted that Williams refers to all of the above as if they are or will be pass