Psychoheresy

I work in the mental health and disability sector. As part of my work I utilise, as much as possible, current evidenced base psychological theories and research to care for my clients.

Yet there is within the greater Christian church a movement that argues that I am dabbling in error. Worse, by accepting some contemporary psychological explanations of the conditions that I deal with, and the need for therapeutic interventions, I am guilty of “psychoheresy”.

This is a serious charge. To be guilty of heresy, for the Christian, is to be guilty of turning your back upon the faith. It is to reject the teachings of the church and the truth of God as revealed through his son Jesus.

According to my critics the Bible is both necessary and sufficient and that all mental illness is due to sin. Furthermore the solution to mental illness is repentance, prayer and reading the Bible as the source of all truth. The critics of psychoheresey charge that contemporary psychology is a Trojan horse undermining Christian truth.

Now I believe in the Bible. It has been my guide through all my life. But is it the source of all truth? It is, in view, God’s revelation of himself to his creation. It revels the way though which we, his creation, can be restored to the relationship God intended from the beginning, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It reveals why we, outside of this revelation, cannot enter into this relationship due to the corrupting influence of sin. It also reveals how God is at work in the world to bring to pass that which he has planned since the foundation of the world.

The bible is necessary and sufficient for salvation by introducing its readers to the only one who can lead us to salvation, who took all our sin upon himself at the cross.

But the bible is not the sum total of all truth. It is silent on a number of areas. It says very little about engineering, mathematics, archaeology, biology or a host of other disciplines. While it says that man is mind, body and spirit, it says nothing about how each of the constituent parts is constituted. Neither does it outline how they interrelate.

Science has filled in much about the physical world in which we live. From scientific research we know far more than the writers of the Bible about how our physical brains work. We also know what happens when parts of our brains break down. Through imaging studies and post mortuum examination of the brains of the healthy and unwell individuals who have donated their body for research we know that when a person suffers from a mental illness parts of their brain malfunctions and changes. From other studies we also know that the brain chemicals of the mentally unwell are out of balance.

In summary, the brains of the mentally ill are sick and in need of repair. We also know that experience and genetics have a part to play, though how is still, in many cases, a mystery.

Sin has a part to play. Sin has corrupted our spirit. We also live in a sinful world, so we experience sinful influences. Science though cannot address the matters of the spirit. But it can address the matters of the body.

The critics of “psychoheresy” though seem singularly incapable of making this distinction. They lack the discernment and subtlety of mind necessary in understanding the interface between science and the spirit as it relates to the mind. As a result they engage in a wholesale rejection of the science of the mind, arguing the Bible is the only source of knowledge about human behaviour.

Much in the psychological literature is of dubious value. It is the result of flawed research and false philosophical underpinnings. But does this mean that all psychological research needs to be rejected? I would argue that the results of psychological inquiry, when it is based on sound research, adds much to our understanding of emotional and psychological trauma. At its best it compliments the revelation of scripture. Discernment is the key.

A Christmas Carol

Where is God
When it hurts so bad
That it feels like someone has reached
Underneath your ribs
And ripped it out
All of it
Your heart, your hopes
Everything is gone

When even your friends do not understand
On the outside all is good
I smile I laugh, I pretend
Yeah I’ve got it all together

But
I haven’t
And how many
Do the same dance
Pretending everything is alright

Into this world you came
A baby in a manger
A child in swaddling cloth, so helpless
The very creation you came to save
Cared for you
They changed you, fed you, looked after you

Amongst death and squalor you breathed
You felt pain and endured so much
In a life cut short

Christmas – a time to remember and share the good times
But
How many hate its very name
It brings back memories so cruel
We are broken but how many want to think
Of the broken pieces of our lives
We want to celebrate but can’t

In that child that became a man there is hope
Yet at this time I do not feel it
But I believe
In the hope that revealed itself as a man
And that is enough
For beyond the birth there is the cross
And the promise to all who might believe

Same old phoenix, always losing

The season is now two thirds through. And how are the Phoenix doing? On the attendance front a lot better than the Knights. The Knights averaged 7,106 supporters per game compared to the current season to date average of 12,244 for the Phoenix excluding the Beckham benefit match. The season to date average though was inflated by the Beckham promotion giving free tckets to the Adelaide match. If we exclude that match the average was 11,130. Still healthy but the worrying trend is that attendances have been steadily falling from a season opening attendance of 14,421 to 8,062 for the Wellington - Sydney game two weeks prior to the Beckham match.

In terms of results, the Phoenix has won only 20% of their matches. The woeful Knights still managed to win 23.8% of their games over the season. Goal difference is much improved at -0.6 per game for the Phoenix, compared to -1.2 per game for the Knights. However, defensively the Knights and Phoenix are about the same at 1.8 goals conceded per game for the Phoenix compared to 1.9 goals per game for the Knights. The early season goal scoring of the Phoenix has given the Phoenix a much better offensive record at 1.2 goals scored per game compared to 0.6 goals per game for the Knights. However the recent goal drought of the Phoenix and the inability to put away 10-man teams is a cause for deep concern.

















* Point Conversion Rate = total points earned/total points available

My conclusion is that despite all the hype the current performance of the Phoenix is only marginally above that of the recently departed Knights. The long term viability of the Phoenix requires significant on field improvement, particularly on the defence side, if the crowd numbers are to be maintained and the financial viability of the club in the competition assured.