An Apologetic for Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler

Introduction

Christianity is under attack today, and it must be defended. There are attacks from within by cults, sects, and heresies. And there are attacks from without by atheists, skeptics, and other religions. The discipline that deals with a rational defense of the Christian Faith is called apologetics. It comes from the Greek word apologia (cf. 1 Peter 3:15) which means to give a reason or defense.

I. Objections to Defending the Faith: Biblical and Extra-Biblical

Many objections have been offered against doing apologetics.  Some offer an attempted biblical justification.  Others are based in extra-biblical reasoning.  First, let’s take a look at those based on biblical texts.

A. Objections to Apologetics from Within the Bible

1. The Bible Does Not Need to Be Defended

One objection to apologetics often made is the claim that the Bible does not need to be defended; it simply needs to be expounded. Hebrews 4:12 is often cited as evidence: "The Word of God is alive and powerful..." (NIV).  It is said that the Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended but simply let loose. A lion can defend itself. Several things should be noted in response.

First, this begs the question as to whether or not the Bible is the Word of God. Of course, God's Word is ultimate, and it speaks for itself. But how do we know the Bible is the Word of God, as opposed to the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or some other book? One must appeal to evidence to determine which of the many conflicting books really is the Word of God. 

Second, no Christian would accept the claim of a Muslim without question that "the Qur'an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword...." We would demand evidence.  Likewise, no non-Christian should accept our claim without evidence.

Third, the analogy of the lion is misleading. A roar of a lion speaks with authority only because we know from previous knowledge what a lion can do. Without the tales of woe about a lion's ferocity, its roar would not have the same authoritative effect on us. Likewise, without evidence to establish one's claim to authority, there is no good reason to accept that authority.

2. Jesus Refused to do Signs for Evil Men

Some argue that Jesus rebuked people who sought signs. Hence, we should be content simply to believe without evidence. Indeed, Jesus did on occasion rebuke sign seekers. He said, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!" (Matt. 12:39 cf. Luke 16:31). However, this does not mean that Jesus did not desire people to look at the evidence before they believed for many reasons.

First, even in this very passage Jesus went on to offer the miracle of His resurrection as a sign of who He was, saying "But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matt. 12:39-40).  Likewise, Paul gave many evidences for the resurrection (in 1 Cor. 15).  And Luke speaks of “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3) of the resurrection. 

Second, when John the Baptist inquired whether He was the Christ, Jesus offered miracles as proof, saying: "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor" (Matt. 11:5). When replying to the Scribes, He said: "`But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.' He said to the paralytic, `I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home'" (Mark 2:10-11). Nicodemus said to Jesus, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no-one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him" (John 3:2).

Third, Jesus was opposed to sign-seeking or entertaining people by miracles. Indeed, He refused to perform a miracle to satisfy king Herod's curiosity (Luke 23:8).  On other occasions He did not do miracles because of their unbelief (Matt. 13:58), not wishing to "cast pearls before swine." The purpose of Jesus' miracles was apologetic, namely, to confirm His message (cf. Ex. 4:1f; Jn. 3:2; Heb. 2:3-4). This He did in great abundance, for "Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him..." (Acts 2:22).

3. Paul Was Unsuccessful In His Use of Reason on Mars Hill and Later Discarded the Approach

Opponents of apologetics sometimes argue that Paul was unsuccessful in his attempt to reach the thinkers on Mars Hill (Acts 17), discarding the method and later telling the Corinthians that he wanted to "know Jesus and Him only" (1 Cor. 2:2). However, this interpretation is based on a misunderstanding of the text.

For one thing, Paul did have results on Mars Hill. For some people were saved, including a philosopher. The text says clearly "A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others" (Acts 17:34).

Second, nowhere in either Acts or 1 Corinthians does Paul indicate any repentance or even regret over what he did on Mars Hill. This is reading into the text what simply is not there.

Third, Paul’s statement about preaching Jesus and Jesus only is not a change in the content of Paul's preaching. This is what he did everywhere. Even to the philosophers "he preached Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17:18 cf. v. 31). So there was nothing unique about what he preached; it was simply how he did it.
Paul tailored his starting point to where the audience was. With the heathen at Lystra he began by an appeal to nature (Acts 14) and ended by preaching Jesus to them. With the Jews he began with the OT and moved on to Christ (Acts 17:2-3). But with the Greek thinkers Paul began with creation and reason to a Creator and on to His Son Jesus who died and rose again (Acts 17:24f).

4. Only Faith, not Reason, Can Please God

Heb. 11:6 insists that "without faith it is impossible to please God." This would seem to argue against the need for reason. In fact, it would appear that asking for reasons, rather than simply believing, would displease God. In response to this argument against apologetics two important points must be made.

First of all, the text does not say that with reason it is impossible to please God. It says without faith one cannot please God. It does not eliminate reason accompanying faith or a reasonable faith.

Second, God in fact calls upon us to use our reason (1 Pet. 3:15). Indeed, He has given "clear" (Rom. 1:20) and "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3 NASB) so that we do not have to exercise blind faith.

Third, this text in Hebrews does not exclude "evidence" but actually implies it. For faith is said to be "the evidence" of things we do not see (Heb. 11:1 NKJV). For example, the evidence that someone is a reliable witness justifies my believing his testimony of what he saw and I did not. Even so, our faith in "things not seen" (Heb. 11:1 NKJV) is justified by the evidence we have that God does exist which is "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Rom. 1:20).

5. Paul Said God Can't be Known by Human Reason when he wrote, "the world by wisdom knew not God" (1 Cor. 1:21 NKJV).

However, this cannot mean that there is no evidence for God's existence, since Paul declared in Romans that the evidence for God's existence is so "plain" as to render even the heathen "without excuse" (Rom. 1:19-20). Further, the context in 1 Corinthians is not God's existence but His plan of salvation through the cross. This cannot be known by mere human reason but only by divine revelation. It is "foolish" to the depraved human mind.

What is more, the "wisdom" of which he speaks is "the wisdom of this world" (v. 20), not the wisdom of God. Paul called a sophist the "disputer of this age" (v. 20). Sophist could argue for argument's sake. This leads no one to God.
Further, Paul's reference to the world by wisdom not knowing God is not a reference to the inability of human beings to know God through the evidence He has revealed in creation (Rom. 1:19-20) and conscience (Rom. 2:12-15). Rather, it is a reference to man's depraved and foolish rejection of the message of the cross.

Finally, in this very book of 1 Corinthians Paul gives his greatest apologetic evidence for the Christian Faith--the eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Christ which his companion Luke called "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3 NASB).
Indeed, even though man knows clearly through human reason that God exists, nevertheless, he "suppresses" or "holds down" this truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).  Thus, it is the presence of such strong evidence that leaves him “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

6. The Natural Man Can't Understand Spiritual Truths

Paul insisted that "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..." (1 Cor. 2:14). They cannot even "know" them. What use, then, is apologetics? In response to this argument against apologetics two things should be observed.

First, Paul does not say that natural persons cannot perceive truth about God, but only that they do not receive it (Gk: dekomai, welcome). Indeed, Paul emphatically declared that the basic truths about God are "clearly seen" (Rom. 1:20). The problem is not that unbelievers are not aware of God's existence but that they do not want to accept Him because of the moral consequences this would have on their sinful lives.

Second, 1 Cor. 2:14 says they do not "know" (Gk: ginosko) which can mean to know by experience. In other words, they know God in their mind (Rom. 1:19-20) but they have not accepted Him in their heart (Rom. 1:18). The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, `There is no God'" (Psa. 14:1).

7. Only the Holy Spirit Can Bring Someone to Christ

The Bible says that salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. He alone can convict, convince, and convert (John 16:8; Eph. 2:1; Titus 3:5-7). This is certainly true, and no orthodox Christian denies this. However, two things must be kept in mind.
First, the Bible does not teach that the Holy Spirit will always do this apart from reason and evidence. It is not either the Holy Spirit or Reason. Rather, it is the reasonable Holy Spirit using good reason to reach rational people.  God is always the efficient cause of salvation, but apologetic arguments can be an instrumental cause used by the Holy Spirit to bring one to Christ.

Second, apologists do not believe that apologetics saves anyone. It only provides evidence in the light of which people can make rational decisions. It only provides evidence that Christianity is true. One must still place his faith in Christ in order to be saved. Apologetics only leads the "horse" to the water. Only the Holy Spirit can persuade him drink.

8. Apologetics is not Used in the Bible

It is objected that if apologetics is biblical, then why don't we see it done in the Bible? There are two basic reasons for this misunderstanding.

First, by and large the Bible was not written for unbelievers but for believers. Since they already believe in God, Christ, etc., they are already convinced these are true. Hence, apologetics is directed primarily for those who do not believe so that they may have a reason to believe.

Second, contrary to the claim of critics, apologetics is used in the Bible. 1) The first chapter of Genesis confronts the mythical accounts of creation known in that day. 2) Moses’ miracles in Egypt were an apologetic that God was speaking through him (Ex. 4:1-9). 3) Elijah did apologetics on Mt. Carmel when he proved miraculously that Yahweh is the true God, not Baal (1 Kings 18). 4) As we have shown in detail elsewhere,  Jesus was constantly engaged in apologetics, proving by signs and wonders that He was the Son of God (John 3:2; Acts 2:22). 5) The Apostle Paul did apologetics at Lystra when he gave evidence from nature to the heathen that the supreme God of the universe existed and that idolatry was wrong (Acts 14). 6) The classic case of apologetics in the NT is Acts 17 where Paul reasoned with the philosophers on Mars Hill. He not only presented evidence from nature that God existed but also from history that Christ was the Son of God. Indeed, he cited pagan thinkers in support of his arguments.

B. Objections to Apologetics from Outside the Bible

These objections against apologetics are geared to show either its irrationality, inadequacy, or fruitlessness. Many come from a rationalistic or skeptical point of view. Others are fideistic which denies reason should be used to support ones faith.

1. Human Reason Can't Tell Us Anything About God. Some critics assert that human reason cannot give us any information about God.

First, it says that reason doesn't apply to questions about God. But this statement itself is offered as a reasonable statement about the issue of God. In order to say that reason doesn't apply to God, one has to apply reason to God in that very statement. So reasoning about God is inescapable. Reason cannot be denied without being employed.
Second, purely hypothetical reason itself does not tell us anything exists, including God.  But since something undeniably exists (e.g., I do), then reason can tell us much about existence, including God.  For instance, if something finite and contingent exists, then something infinite and necessary must exist (i.e., God).  And if God exists, then it is false that He does not exist. And if God is a necessary Being, then He cannot not exist. Further, if God is Creator and we are creatures, then we are not God. Likewise, reason informs us that if God is omnipotent, then He cannot make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it. For whatever He can make, He can lift.

2. Reason is Useless in Religious Matters

Fideism argues that reason is of no use in matters that deal with God. One must simply believe. Faith, not reason, is what God requires (Heb. 11:6). In response to this several points can be made.
First, even from a biblical point of view God calls on us to use our reason (Isa. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:15; Matt. 22:36-37). God is a rational being, and He created us as rational beings. God would not insult the reason He gave us by asking us to ignore it in such important matters as our beliefs about Him.

Second, this position is fideistic and is self-defeating. For either it has a reason that we should not reason about God or it does not. If it does, then it defeats itself by using reason to say we should not use reason. If fideism has no reason for not using reason, then it is without reason for its position, in which case there is no reason why one should accept fideism.
Furthermore, to claim reason is just optional for a fideist will not suffice. For either the fideist offers some criteria for when we should be reasonable and when we should not, or else his view is simply arbitrary. If he offers some rational criteria for when we should be rational, then he does have a rational basis for his view, in which case he is not really a fideist after all. Reason is not the kind of thing in which a rational creature can choose to participate. By virtue of being rational by nature one must be part of rational discourse. And rational discourse demands that one follow the laws of reason.

A major contribution made by the late Francis Schaeffer was his emphasis on the need for a reasoned approach to apologetics.  In his Escape from Reasonhe showed the futility of those who attempt to reject reason.  He constantly chided those who make a “dichotomy between reason and non-reason.” He also criticizes those who forsake reason for a  “lower story” materialism or an “upper story” mysticism.

3. You Can't Prove God or Christianity by Reason

According to this objection, the existence of God cannot be proven by human reason. The answer depends on what is meant by "prove."

First, if "prove" means to demonstrate with mathematical certainty, then most theists would agree that God's existence cannot be proven in this way. The reason for this is because mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract, and the existence of God (or anything else) is a matter of concrete, real existence.  Mathematical certainty is based on certain axioms or postulates that must be assumed in order to get a necessary conclusion. But if God's existence must be assumed in order to be proven, then the conclusion that God exists is only based on the assumption that He exists, in which case it is not really a proof at all. Mathematical certainty is deductive in nature. It argues from given premises. But one cannot validly conclude what is not already implied in the premise(s). In this case one would have to assume God exists in the premise in order to validly infer this in the conclusion. But this begs the question.

Second, if by "prove," however, we mean "give adequate evidence for" or "provide good reasons for," then it would seem to follow that one can prove the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Indeed, many apologists have offered such proofs and people have become Christians after reading their writings.

4. No One is Persuaded of Religious Truths by Reason

According to this argument, no one is ever persuaded to accept a religious truth by reason. Psychological, personal, and subjective factors prompt religious decisions, not rational arguments. But this objection is patently false for many reasons.
First of all, who ever became a believer because he thought it was irrational and absurd to do so. Certainly, the vast majority of people who believe in God or accept Christ do so because they think it is reasonable.

Second, this objection confuses two kinds of belief: belief in and belief that. Certainly, religious belief in God and in Christ is not based on evidence and reason. But neither is it done without them. Every rational person looks to see if there is evidence that the elevator has a floor before he steps in it. Likewise, all rational people want evidence that an airplane can fly before they get in it. So belief that is prior to belief in. Apologetics deals with the former. It provides evidence that God exists, that Christ is the Son of God, and that the Bible is the Word of God. A religious decision is a step of faith in the light of the evidence, not a leap of faith in the dark--in the absence of evidence.

II. The Reasons for the Need to Defend the Faith

There are many good reasons for doing apologetics.  First of all, God commands us to do so.  Second, reason demands it.  Third, the world needs it.  Fourth, results confirm it.

A. God Commands the Use of Reason

The most important reason for doing apologetics is that God told us to do it. Over and over the New Testament exhorts us to defend the Faith.  1 Peter 3:15 says, "But in your hearts acknowledge Christ as the holy Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to every one who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." This verse says several important things.
First, it says that we should be ready. We may never run across someone who asks the tough questions about our faith, but we should still be ready just in case. But being ready is not just a matter of having the right information available, it is also an attitude of readiness and eagerness to share with others the truth of what we believe.

Second, we are to give a reason to those who ask the questions (cf. Col. 4:5-6). It is not expected that every one needs pre-evangelism, but when they do need it, we must be able and willing to give them an answer.

Finally, it links doing pre-evangelism with making Christ Lord in our hearts. If He is really Lord, then we should be obedient to Him by "destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and ... taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). In other words we should be confronting issues in our own minds and in the expressed thoughts of others that are preventing them from knowing God. That is what apologetics is all about.

In Philippians 1:7 speaks of his mission as one of "defending and confirming the gospel." He added in verse 16, "I am put here for the defense of the gospel" (Phil 1:16). And we are put where we are to defend it as well.

Jude 3 declares: "Beloved, while making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt it necessary to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith once for all given over to the saints." The people Jude was writing to had been assaulted by false teachers and he needed to encourage them to protect (literally agonize for) the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude as we do this in verse 22 when he says, "have mercy on some, who are doubting." Apologetics, then, is a form of compassion.

Titus 1:9 makes knowledge of Christian evidences a requirement for church leadership. An elder in the church should be "holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."

In 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Paul declares that "the Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." Anyone attempting to answer the questions of unbelievers will surely be wronged and be tempted to lose patience, but our ultimate goal is that they might come to a knowledge of the truth that Jesus has died for their sins.

Indeed, the command to use reason is part of the greatest command. For Jesus said, "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment" (Matt. 22:37-38).

B. Reason Demands It

God created us with human reason. It is part of His image in us (Gen. 1:27 cf. Col. 3:10). Indeed, it is that by which we are distinguished from "brute beasts" (Jude 10). God calls upon us to use our reason (Isa. 1:18) to discern truth from error (1 John 4:6); to determine  right from wrong (Heb. 5:14), and to discern a true from a false prophet (Deut. 18:19-22).
A fundamental principle of reason is that we should have sufficient grounds for what we believe. An unjustified belief is just that--unjustified. Being created rational creatures and not “unreasoning animals” (Jude 10 NASB), we are expected to use the reason God gave us.  Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Likewise, the unexamined faith is not worth having. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Christians "to give a reason for their hope" (1 Pet. 3:15). This is part of the great command to love God with all our mind, as well as our heart and soul (Matt. 22:36-37).

C. The World Needs It

Many people refuse to believe without some evidence, as indeed they should. Since God created us as rational beings He does to expect us to live irrationally. He wants us to look before we leap.  This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light--in the light of evidence. He does not want us to leap in the dark.
We should have evidence that something is true before we place our faith in it. For example, no rational person steps in an elevator unless he has some reason to believe it will hold him up. Likewise, no reasonable person gets on an airplane that has a broken wing and smoke coming out the tail end. Beliefthat is prior to belief in. Evidence and reason is important to establish belief that. Once this is established, one can place his faith in it.  Thus, the rational person will want some evidence that God exists before he places his faith in God. Likewise, rational unbelievers will want evidence for the claim that Jesus is the Son of God before they place their trust in Him.

D. Results Confirm It

There is a common misnomer among many Christians that apologetics never helps to bring anyone to Christ. This is a serious misrepresentation of the facts.

1. The Conversion of St. Augustine

There were several significant rational turning points in Augustine's life before he came to Christ. First, he reasoned his way out of Manichaean dualism. One significant turning point here was the success of a young Christian debater of Manicheans called Helpidius.

Second, Augustine reasoned his way out of total skepticism by seeing the self-defeating nature of it.
Third, were it not for studying Plotinus, Augustine informs us that he would not even been able to conceive of a spiritual being, let alone believe in one.

2. The Conversion of Frank Morrison

This skeptical attorney set out to disprove Christianity by showing the resurrection never occurred. The quest ended with his conversion and a book titled Who Moved the Stone? in which the first chapter was titled "The Book That Refused to be Written"!  More recently another unbelieving attorney had a similar journey.

3. The Conversion of Simon Greenleaf

At the turn of the century the Professor of Law at Harvard, who wrote the book on legal evidence, was challenged by students to apply the rules of legal evidence to the New Testament to see if its testimony would stand up in court. The result was a book titled The Testimony of the Evangelists in which he expresses his confidence in the basic documents and truths of the Christian Faith.

4. The Results of Debates

Many people have been led toward or to Christianity as a result of debates we have had with atheists and skeptics. After debating Berkley University philosopher Michael Scriven on "Is Christianity Credible?" the University of Calgary audience voted three to one in favor of Christianity. The campus news paper report read: "Atheist Fails to Convert Campus Christians!”  Following a debate on the rationality of belief in Christianity with the head of the philosophy department at the University of Miami, the Christian student leadership held a follow-up meeting. The atheist professor attended and expressed doubts about his view expressed at the debate. It was reported that some 14 people who had attended the debate made decisions for Christ.

After a debate on the Moonie religion at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, a Moonie girl asked some questions about Christianity. I could see that she had been convinced that the Unification Church was not teaching the truth. After talking with her briefly, I introduced her to a female seminary student who led her to Christ.
When sharing the gospel with Don Bly, he informed us that he was an atheist. After reasoning with him from atheism to open-minded agnosticism, he agreed to read Frank Morrison's book. The evidence for Christ's resurrection convinced him and we had the privilege of leading him to Christ. He has subsequently raised his family for Christ became a leader in a church south of St. Louis.

5. The Results of Reading Apologetic Writings

I have received a number of letters and reports of people who have been converted to belief that God exists or to belief in Christ after readingApologetics works. God used its arguments as an instrument to bring people toward and to Christ.
The world’s most notorious atheist wrote, “Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called super- natural or miraculous.  In short, my discovery of the divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.”

Noted former atheist Francis Collins said, “After twenty eight years as a believer, the Moral Law still stands out for me as the strongest signpost to God.  More than that, it points to a God who cares about human beings, and a God who is infinitely good and holy.”

A college student wrote, “God sent me your book ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’….  I opened the book thinking I would rip it apart with my superior viewpoint and about one quarter of the way through I ended up apologizing to God and accepting him into my heart.  I have since grown exponentially in Christ, and I thought I would thank you for your inspiring book.”

“I just got done reading Why I Am a Christian, and I was blown away.  It is perhaps the most powerful and influential Christian book I’ve ever read.  It was exactly what I was looking for.  It provided the answers to the roadblocks that were guarding against my faith…. Your book pressed the red button setting off the nuclear bomb of my faith.”

Conclusion

Christianity is under attack today and must be defended against attacks from within by cults and heresies and from without by skeptics and other religions.  We have a reasonable Faith, and the Bible has commanded that we give reasons for it. As perhaps the greatest apologist of the twentieth century, C. S. Lewis, said: "To be ignorant and simple now--not to be able to meet the enemies on their ground--would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." The reason we need to defend the true religion is because there are false religions. The reason we need to stand for authentic Christianity is that there are counterfeit forms of Christianity.

*This article is a revision of a previously unpublished article called “The Need for Apologetics.”

**Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Bible are taken from the New International Version of the Bible (NIV).

Sources

Bush, Russ L., ed., Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics

Clark, Gordon H., Religion, Reason and Revelation

Corduan, Winfried, Reasonable Faith.

Geisler, Norman L., Christian Apologetics

Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask

Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics

Lewis, Gordon R., Testing Christianity's Truth Claims

McDowell, Josh, Evidence That Demands A Verdict

Montgomery, John W., Faith Founded on Fact

Moreland, J. P., Scaling The Secular City

Smith, Wilbur M., Therefore Stand

Copyright © 1996 by Norman L. Geisler

A trajectory of love? How logical is that as an hermeneutical choice?

Remember the old advice, don't mix religion and politics?

Well, I am here to tell you that you had better mix your religion with your politics because politics involves moral choices.

Now, at the onset, let me make it clear that there are some moral choices that are personal, either on an individual basis or between two consenting adults. That, of course, includes one’s sexuality; again between two consenting adults. 

Marriage license and tax laws, of course, are effected when the State sanctions same sex unions. Naturally, as an Evangelical minister, I believe that Scripture is adamantly opposed to homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. And, no, I am not homophobic. However, I have come to the conclusion that we do not have exclusive rights to the use of the English language; so, if States decide to call same sex unions marriage there is not much I can do except object and protest against the use of the word to describe such unions.

There is, however, a world of difference between the legality of certain aspects of the gay agenda and nurturing such beliefs in innocent children as an viable choice. Scripturally, it is not a viable choice, ever! That is, unless you are willing to employ what is known as trajectory hermeneutics which liberal impose on biblical interpretation. The essence of which is that scripture, for example, once condoned slavery which the church finds no longer acceptable. Other examples are the stoning of adulterers in Old Testament times, or insisted that women remain silent in church during New Testament times. Today, they point out, this is no longer accepted, and is, indeed, considered barbarous.

The whole idea is that morals are determined by a trajectory of love which eventually will eradicate the unloving response to such issues as homosexuality and/or abortion. The logic for either case is, I must admit, beyond me.

Paul, as a matter of fact, says that it is unnatural; which it is. Intuitive, nature itself argues against it; yet, gays and gay sympathizers continue to search for that elusive “gay” gene. The truth is, however, that gene not unlike evolution’s “missing” link is simply not there.

Enough of that, however.

What about “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion rights? I agree that there should be a choice; but it should be the baby’s choice, not some immoral adult that has decided that a new member of the family or a child would cause an inconvenient burden or interfere with their hedonist lifestyle.

So, “pro-choice”? Yes. But, let’s make that the baby’s choice!
   

Smarter Than Jesus?

Red necked comedian Jeff Foxworthy host of the quiz show 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?' has  proven over and over again that, no, the average person is not smarter than a 5th grader. I don't know if you have ever watched the show, but if you have I am sure you have said to yourself, "How in the name of commonsense can anyone be so dumb!"

Truth of the matter, however, is that there are just a whole lot of dumb people out there. The dumbest I know, however, are those that come around ever so often who claim to have the inside scoop on when Christ will return. Someway, somehow, however, they have convinced themselves that they are smarter than Jesus. And, believe me, this is a phenomenon that has been around a long time.

Dennis Fisher, a columnist for Daily Bread writes:

To many Londoners, 1666 looked like the year when Jesus would return. Prophecy enthusiasts had added 1,000 years since Christ's birth to 666, the number of Antichrist, to arrive at the date 1666.

The world did seem to be on the verge of destruction when in 1665 a plague claimed the lives of 100,000 people in London. The in September 1666,a London fire destroyed tens of thousands of buildings. Some wondered ,Didn't the Bible predict catastrophes at the end of the world? (see Matt. 24:1-8).Yet the year 1666 passed and life went on seemingly as it had before.

Even in our own day, there are those who have predicted the end of the world. A date is predicted, the media covers the frenzy, then that day passes uneventfully.


In God's wisdom, the actual time of Christ's return has been kept from us. Jesus said. "Of that day and that hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only" (Matt. 24:36).

So, it seems to me that our wisest course of action in all of this is to simply "watch and pray for no one knows the day or the hour, not even Jesus!" It would seem, therefore a little ridiculous for us or anyone else to predict exactly when Christ is coming; however, the signs of the season are here.

The Sikh massacre ~ choices determine the consequences.

Unlike the killings last month in Aurora, Colorado, and the attempted assassination last year of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, the FBI is investigating a gunman’s rampage that killed six people at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee as a domestic terrorism incident.

Under the USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism occurs when a person intends “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” The incident at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, two days ago ended when Wade Michael Page, a 40-year-old U.S. Army veteran, was shot dead by police. He appeared to target turbaned men as he moved through the building, a member of the temple, Kanwardeep Singh Kaleka, told CNN.

Now, in the aftermath, the media is struggling for someone or something to put the real blame on. Was it the motherless adolescence years that cause Wade Michael Page to commit such a horrendous act? Or was it his recent breakup with his live-in girlfriend or the loss of his job? The problem with these floundering questions is that they sadly overlook one important fact ~ that is, somewhere along the line he made a choice. And, unfortunately, choices have consequences.

So, if I were an active pastor today or an evangelist, I would take this opportunity to thunder from the pulpit that God gives us an opportunity each and every day in each step of the way to choose.

We can either choose the path to destruction or the path of righteousness.

Now, changing the subject slightly. It is obvious that Wade Michael Page thought enough to kill these innocent Sikhs; but my question is, who among us has thought enough to reach out to this community or witness (past or present) to these almost 360,000 individuals who have chosen to live in our land ~ and now, theirs ~ so that they can enjoy the freedom to practice their religion and attempt to live the American dream?

Do I agree with their take on God? Absolutely not! But that does not take away from the fact that many have fought and died in our wars to secure their freedom and ours.

May God erase any misguided hatred in our hearts against the Sikhs or Muslims or any other group with whom we may disagree, and may He fill our hearts with an overwhelming love for the spiritual welfare of each of them. After all, that is the heart of God.

Who said, there is no God? I say, prove it!

Getting older has advantages; like, for instance, having more time for reflective thought. Which brings me to this mornings thought. I have taught Apologetics for years in colleges and seminaries around the world.

My position is, and has been since I can remember that the best argument for the existence of God is that he lives in my heart. Now, I know that there are some sincere fools that believe that there is no God or that God can be reduced to a figment of our imagination, symbolized by an idol. None-the-less, the thought of a supreme being is universal. Some deny it, others embrace it. It’s all a matter of choice. Which brings me to my choice. I believe that he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6) And, for those that believe otherwise, I say the onus is on them to prove otherwise. Why should we waste precious time on trying to prove that there is a God; why don’t we reverse the process and demand that they prove that there is no God?

And for those that say, “There is no God, or your God is not my God,” I reply really? Who said so? Prove it.

My rationale for this reply is that we don’t have the luxury of defining God. He is what He is. He defines Himself. Ours is a matter of acceptance.

KNOWING VS. DOING

[This is one for those among us who are suffering from a bad case of intellectualitis]

Knowing vs. Doing

 Knowing and doing are two different things altogether. Yet, we all know that with God, there is no division between the two. Thomas A. Kempis, a monk who wrote during the Middle Ages, once asked, "What doth it profit thee to dispute deeply abut the Trinity, if thou be wanting in humility, and so be displeasing to the Trinity?"

Then with wisdom, he went on to say, "I would rather feel compunction [remorse] than know how to define it."

Sometimes, as an aspiring theologian (which at this point in my life I must say that a heavy emphasis should be placed on the word, aspiring) I find it much easier to wax eloquent on a holy concept than to live a life of holiness.

May God grant us the desire to become doers of the word, and not hearers only. Sometimes I think we hear, or think we hear the word of the Lord, but do not really understand because our perception of what God is saying and what God is really saying are altogether different. So, we expound on nuances and trivialities, and many times just outright falsities.

Paul cautions us to,

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. Colossians 2:8 (NASB ©1995)

Personally, I think we need to take a very close look at that verse. Philosophy, all philosophy, is deceptive. Why do I say that? Well, primarily because it is!

Now, allow me to explain.

Philosophy originates on the grid of human intellect. It is the expressed thoughts of man as he gazes inward, outward and upward through a filter of inadequate language patterns, paradigms, illusions, and experiences. Therefore, it is faulty. We cannot trust it for for sure.

So, my policy when reading theology is square it up with Scripture. This in my opinion, eliminates dialectical theology—pitting God over against nature and reason, and searching for understanding in that. "Not at all!" as Paul says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." Romans 3:4 (NIV ©1984)

In light of this, I feel that a good rule for us to follow is to allow God to speak for Himself. We do not define God. God defines himself. Or in the words of Martin Luther, we must "let God be God." Really, we have no other choice.

This would also rule out the silly illogical theology of evolution as espoused by men like Michael Dowd; or Christological monism-that is, God is in, and is everything (which sounds good, but in fact is just monistic Hinduism with a theological twist); or liberalism; or conservatism, and so-forth. Why? Because God does not fit into any of these boxes. God is God, period. Describing him does not make him better, or different, or changed in any way. God is what He is. I AM, He said. Nothing more; nothing less.

Therefore, in my opinion we do not discover who He is, or describe Him. He tells us. Naturally, that involves words; but primarily The Word, His Word, His Son, and our Savior, Jesus Christ, the Lord of all things created.

May God grant us the clarity of vision to see Him as He is; and ears to clearly hear His voice at all times and in all of His purposes.

"Should we allow false teachers into our home?"

Just this past week I was asked: "Should we allow false teachers into our home?"

Here's a good brief answer: The short letter of 2 John is written in part to warn believers against the influence of false teachers. John identifies them as those “who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” and describes them as deceivers and antichrists (2 John 7). He goes on to prohibit receiving them into our homes or wishing them well. The question is whether this prohibition refers to those who knock on our doors today, such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are we to deny members of these sects access to our homes?

It is important to understand exactly what it means that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Many cultists will agree that Jesus was a man of flesh and bone who walked the earth around 2000 years ago. But that is not what John means here. He first addressed this issue in 1 John 4:2, telling us how to identify false teachers and the spirits who drive them. The first test of a true teacher/prophet of God is that they proclaim that Jesus is God incarnate in human flesh (John 1:14). Both the full deity and full humanity of Christ will be asserted by any teacher who truly comes from God. The Holy Spirit testifies to the true nature of Christ, while Satan and his demonic host deny that true nature. That is why John identifies anyone who denies the deity of Christ—which both the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do—as deceivers and antichrists.

What should be our response, then, when cultists come knocking at the door? John, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives a clear answer: we are not to receive them into our homes. While John was likely more commanding against allowing false teachers to stay in your home than just allowing them in the door, the principle is the same. We are not to do anything that would give the appearance we approve of their message. Many people feel “called” to debate endlessly with cultists, bringing them into their homes for Bible studies or witnessing to them in chat rooms and forums. But God does not call us to do these things; He commands us to avoid false teachers. Cultists are master deceivers who are well-trained in techniques that will confuse those whose knowledge of Scripture is limited—the very ones cultists most often seek out. It is invariably these well-meaning and compassionate souls who dialog with cultists. But God’s desire is to protect the weak among His people and John’s prohibition reflects that desire.

John’s final warning regards “greeting” cultists, which the King James Version translates as bidding them “God speed.” This phrase in the Greek means to cheerfully or joyfully hail or salute someone. In other words, we are not to give cultists or anyone else the impression that we see them as having legitimate claims, doctrines, or opinions. We are not to bless them or wish them well. John tells us that to do so is to share in their wicked work. Christians are of Christ; cultists are anti-Christ, no matter how kind, sincere, and charming they may appear. We can have no fellowship with darkness or those who spread falsehood; rather, we are to separate ourselves from them.

But aren’t we to witness to them about Christ? Aren’t they the mission field? Interestingly, nowhere in the Bible are we called to witness to false teachers. Jesus tells us to “watch out” for them (Matthew 7:15) and Paul tells us to “avoid them” (Romans 16:17) and declares them to be “accursed” (Galatians 1:8). We are, of course, to be always ready with an answer for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15), but that presupposes the cultist is actually interested in the true hope of salvation through Christ, something that is rarely, if ever, the case. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), but we are not to cast our pearls before pigs (Matthew 7:6). In regards to cultists, it is especially important to rely on the Lord’s wisdom (James 1:5) in discerning the difference between an opportunity and a distraction.

Psychology In Search Of A Soul

Psychology has for a long time been in search for a soul - problem is, all of the political correctness surrounding science prevents them from finding one.

As our first example, let us consider Psychiatrist Karl Augustus Menninger, M.D. (July 22, 1893 - July 18, 1990).

In 1973 Carl Menninger wrote a book called "Whatever Became of Sin."[i] And, although, the book has long been gathering dust in most professional counselors and psychiatrist's libraries, it would help for all of involved in counseling to revisit this eminent psychiatrist and the route he took to arrive at his conclusions.

After attending Washburn University, Indiana University, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Menninger was accepted to Harvard Medical School, where he graduated cum laude in 1917.

Following graduation, Menninger completes an internship in Kansas City, during which time he also worked at the Boston Psychopathic Hospital and taught at Harvard Medical School. After that he joined his father, psychiatrist Charles Frederick Menninger in Topeka, Kansas. There in 1919 Menninger he and his family founded the now famous Menninger Clinic. Later, his brother, Brigadier General William C. Menninger, M.D., an outstanding US Army's psychiatrist joined them.

During his illustrious career, Menninger wrote a number of influential books.[ii] In 1930 he published his first book which he entitled, "The Human Mind." Optimistically, in the book Menninger premised that since in his opinion the mentally ill are only slightly different than healthy individuals that with the help of the science of psychiatry they can be helped. Apparently, writing the book was the easy part because following that for years he struggled with just how to go about helping them. Fortunately for him-although, perhaps not so for his patients-he had an almost inexhaustible supply of patients to test his theories on.

Finally, in 1968 Menninger feels comfortable enough with his theory to write "In The Crime of Punishment," in which he argued that crime is preventable through psychiatric treatment; and advocates treating offenders as if they were mentally ill. Yet, even with those conclusions, he still sensed that treating crime like mental illness and getting to the root of the problem was beyond his grasp.

In any event, in 1973 Dr. Menninger climaxed his illustrious career as an author with has last book which he titled, "Whatever Became of Sin?" An interesting choice which seems to indicate his growing affirmation that the primary cause for much of our mental distress is rooted in sin.

Later, most probably because of his increasing understanding of the nature of mental illness his publishers felt that it was now time to revisited his first book, so in 1978 they published a collection of essays and marketed them under the title of "The Human Mind Revisited: Essays in Honor of Karl A. Menninger."

Although, Menninger's "Whatever Became of Sin?" was his last full length book, he continued to correspond and dialogue with colleagues. One of the most intriguing exchanges during that period his life was a letter to Dr. Thomas Szasz, then Professor of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York.

Menninger had just read Dr. Szasz's highly reviewed book entitled "Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences,"[iii] and this prompted Menninger to write a letter to the eminent professor on October 6, 1988 in protest to criticisms that Szasz directed against Menninger in the book.

In essence, Szasz felt that Menninger relied to heavily on the myths of psychiatry and psychology to effectively deal with the issue of mental illnesses. As far as Szasz was concerned Menninger should break with these archaic methodologies and instead return to a more common sense approach.

(In his defense, it should be noted that Szasz's criticism was not so much against Menninger as it was again the scientism that he perceived Menninger had embraced. Menninger, it appears, however, failed to reach that understanding of Szasz's criticism and took the confrontation personally.)

Neither of the two, however, were willing to turn to Christ as the ultimate answer to their dilemma.

Had they, they would have found that sin is a choice and a very bad one at that; and one that science can only analyze and report on, but certainly not treat as one would treat a bad case of meningitis or some other physical illness.

Psychology In Search Of A Soul continued . . .

No history of how the field of pastoral counseling has developed would be complete without considering our second example, Psychologist Orval Hobart Mowrer (January 23, 1907 - June 20, 1982). So, let's take a brief history of this influential psychologist and see what his conclusions were.

Mowrer was raised on a farm near Unionville, Missouri, until he reach school age at which time his father moved the family into town. Apparently, life for him was idyllic there until his father passed away when the young Hobart was 13 years of age. The year following, Mowrer suffered his first bout with severe mental depression which he attributed to the stress brought on by his father's death.

This episode of depression pricked his interest in psychology, so upon graduation from High School he entered the University of Missouri and studied under Max Friedrich Meyer the university's first and only professor of psychology at the time.

Although, Dr. Meyer was originally trained as a physicist he quickly adapted to the study of behaviorist psychology. That approach suited Mowrer just fine, so he threw himself wholeheartedly into his studies with apparent disregard for the conservative Christian principles on which he had been taught. Science was the cure all for his condition and he was out to prove it.

He left the University of Missouri in 1929 after considerable protest over a research survey project he conducted on acceptable sexual practices for a course in sociology. He then entered Johns Hopkins University and conducted research under Knight Dunlap as part of his doctoral studies. There at Johns he also underwent Freudian psychoanalysis Hopkins for the first time in his life. According to him, the treatment was unsatisfactory, and he continued to struggle with bouts of depression.

As time passed, Mowrer's confidence in Freudian psychology faded. Yet, despite his doubts he underwent a more analysis while he was at Harvard culminating with a final series with the prominent Freudian disciple Dr. Hans Sachs.

Regrettably, none of this had any real lasting effect on Mowrer's depression.

From Johns Hopkins University Mowrer accepted a position in 1944 as a psychologist at the Office of Strategic Services. His assignment was to develop assessment techniques for potential intelligence agents. Naturally, as a behaviorist he developed environmental constructs in which he could assess the potential agents' ability to handle stress.

This procedure without a doubt added to his understanding of human behavior as it relates to environmental and culturally produced stress. Perhaps people are insane or bad because of conditioning? Who knows? So, the search continued.[iv]

In any event, as part of his work there, he participated in a seminar led by Dr. Harry Stack Sullivan.

Dr. Harry Sullivan's studies concentrated on the role of disturbances in interpersonal relationships with "significant others" in mental disorders. Sullivan's suggested etiology for the progression of mental disorders had a lasting effect on Mowrer's ideology.

Mowrer returned to Harvard with a renewed vigor and enthusiasm for counseling. So, he began to counsel students in addition to his faculty duties. His methodology was simple and straightforward, he used the principles he had learned from Sullivan, questioning them about their interpersonal relationships and confronting them when he felt they were being dishonest.

Again notice, however, that the standard was established on the basis of accepted culture within interpersonal relationships. In essence then, man was still determining right and wrong. Godly defined sin had little or nothing to do with mental or emotional discomfort, except within the context of acceptable culture.

Then in 1948, Mowrer and his family moved to Urbana, Illinois, where he conducted research and was professor of psychology from 1948 to 1975 at the University of Illinois. His research assignment which was directed primarily to learning theory but was no doubt greatly enhanced by his work in aversive conditioning or avoidance learning.

During Mowrer's tenure at the University of Illinois in Urbana his interest in clinical psychology was primarily an avocation throughout the 1950's-after all, he had lost faith in Freudian psychotherapy following his the failed attempts to cure him at Harvard.

Furthermore, Harry Stack Sullivan had also convinced him that the real answer to mental health was in healthy, meticulously honest relationships, not in the intrapsychic dynamics of the mind. Mowrer had tested Sullivan's theory by confessing to his wife that he had engaged in unacceptable sexual practices as an adolescent and had furthermore had an affair during the marriage. Understandably, Molly was unset, but she as well as he agreed that his dirty secrets most probably were the cause of his severe bouts with depression. The remission lasted for 8 years.

In 1953 he was elected to the presidency of the American Psychological Association but just before he was to ascend to the position he experience the most severe psychological collapse of his life. He was hospitalized for three and a half months with psychotic like symptoms, but upon discharge he continued to battle depression until a few years later he was treated with a tricyclic antidepressant-which, in my opinion, simply masked the underlying problems without providing a cure as is evidence by his eventual suicide some twenty-some-odd years later.[v]

Overtly, for most of his adult life Mowrer showed little personal interest in religion. There is no doubt, however, that he did recognized that his theories on the role of guilt in the drama of life were similar to traditional religious ones.

Freud, in Mowrer's opinion, failed to understand the positive corrective role that guilt feelings plays in mental health. Mowrer was convinced that many mental disorders-including schizophrenia, were the result of real, not imagined guilt. For Mowrer, however, a guilt complex was not a phenomenon of religious beliefs, but rather feelings of disappointment because of poor socialization.

His focus was on studying the causes of mental distress in relation to man vis-à-vis man, not man vis-à-vis the Creator.

However, in 1955 Mowrer read the Magnificent Obsession a religious novel by Lloyd C. Douglas a former Congregational minister. The characters in the book all shared one common secret. The secret was that each had found great spiritual and material success in practicing the admonition of Jesus to "do your alms in secret" without letting anyone know that you were the benevolent donor. The act proved to invest almost magical power in the fictional characters.

The book had a power effect on Mowrer. Through a quirk in his thinking, he negatized the concept and turned the entire premise upside down, reasoning that if good secrets could have such profound effects on the psyche, then guilty secrets (a Christian would say, secret sins) could have just the opposite effect. Eventually, Mowrer incorporated this idea into a counseling therapy which he called "Integrity Therapy."

The central theme in integrity therapy can be summed up in the phrase, "You are as sick as your secrets" or more generally, "You are your secrets."

Shortly after reading a few more books written by Lloyd Douglas, Mowrer joined the Presbyterian Church, but was soon disappointed and left. The disappointment that he had with psychoanalysis for being soft on sin, he immediately sensed in modernistic churches. Mowrer also had difficulty with the doctrine of justification by faith which he saw a way to white wash guilt and irresponsibility without an appropriate corrective effort on the part of the counselee.

That conclusion launched Mowrer on a self-appointed righteous crusade to restore churches to the consciousness of person sin and the attending guilt which he felt they had lost. Fortunately, for him, the Lilly Foundation Endowment Fund committee agreed to sponsor a fellowship in morality and mental health.

The response from seminarian was modest but significant. Among those who attended were John W. Drakeford and Jay E. Adams[vi] who joined him on Champaign-Urbana campus to study counseling and group techniques under him.

According to Drakeford, the three basic principles of Mowrer's integrity therapy are:[vii]

(1) All individuals have a conscience, or value system, and when they violate this conscience they become guilty. Guilt is not a sickness but a result of their wrongdoing and irresponsibility.

(2) A common reaction to personal wrongdoing is to cover up and deny the experience. In this secrecy guilt gives rise to symptoms that may upset the balance of life.

(3) As secrecy causes people's troubles and separates them from others, so openness is the beginning point on the road back to normality. This openness begins with one person, then moves to "significant others."

There is little if anything here with which a counseling pastor can disagree.

Furthermore, according my Drakeford notes, Dr. Mowrer established the following ground rules for integrity groups:

Do threats or physical violence is permitted.

No person may leave a group session because they are upset or to avoid a integrity challenge or line of questioning.

No group is allowed to gang up on a member, or give unwarranted emotional support.

No restrictions are placed on what can be said, including non-violent nonverbal expressions as long as they non-aggressive and appropriate socially acceptable ones. (In a secular context this would include curse words to show disgust).

The group is not allowed to subgroup into smaller segments in or outside of the group to discuss issues that should be shared with the total group.

Confidentiality is a must. However, members are allowed to share their group experience with others outside the group.

All members are required to subscribe to the core values of honesty, responsibility, and involvement and to practice these virtues in and outside of the group.

The following 10 Commandments were developed by Integrity groups.

They are revised as follows:

1. Don't interrupt! Hear the other person out.

2. Don't blame! Accept personal responsibility for your actions. The other person may be at fault, but you are only responsible for your reaction, not theirs.

3. Don't "smart off"! Smarting off may come off as cleaver or funny, but it is most times hurtful.

4. Don't pare off to discuss something with another member of the group. If you do outside the group setting, as for instance on the telephone, share the discussion with the group at the next meeting.

5. Don't "Yes ......but"! This is also known as a "cop out." You can never justify bad behavior. It is bad. Period.

6. Don't "talk back"! If guilty, when corrected, your immediate and final response should be "Thank you!"

7. Don't try to second guess or expect some to second guess what you are thinking. Be open and honest. Expect others to respond likewise.

8. Don't cheat or fudge! If you make an agreement, keep it, and expect the other person to do likewise. You may renegotiate the agreement, but you are never allow to unilaterally change it.

9. Don't double-talk! Or blow a lot of hot air. Playing word games shows a lack of integrity and inconsistency. Words must express the truth.

10. Don't tit-for-tat! Getting even is not acceptable.

What can we as pastoral counselors gain from O. H. Mowrer's approach to counseling? Well, a lot, that's for sure. His behaviorist approach to psychology in general has a sound scientific foundation and reflect much of what we believe is the nature of mankind. Mowrer, however, is not the first to discover that human nature is sinful, secretive and tries to cover up their faults. Adam and Eve are our first example, and, of course, the Gospel provides the answer to our dilemma.

Psychology In Search Of A Soul continued . . .

Finally, in our list of three, let us consider the counseling theory of Psychiatrist and learning theorist, Dr. William Glasser, M.D. (May 11, 1925-present).

William Glasser was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1925. He graduated from Case Western Reserve University with a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering and a master of arts in clinical psychology. Following that, he studied medicine at The University of Los Angeles and graduated with as a medical doctor, and following that he completed his residency in psychiatry and set up practice.

Although, originally trained in Freudian psychoanalysis he soon became dissatisfied with that approach as a viable therapy and switched to an eclectic therapy of his own which he originally referred to as Reality Therapy-later changed to "Choice Therapy" to distinguish Reality Therapy from the "Perceptual Control Theory" of William T. Powers.[viii],[ix]

Now, let's consider a brief overview of Dr. Glasser's position.

Psychologists in general assume that people have certain basic needs and, broadly agree that these needs fall into identifiable categories. In the hierarchy of human needs Glasser identifies these core needs as:

The power to preserve and protect ourselves and to reach desired goals. The power to preserve and protect ourselves and to reach desired goals is primary. In short, people want to view themselves as winners.

People also want to love and be loved by all, and to have a sense of belonging.

The sense of freedom is also a deep desire and need. People want to be independent, function in autonomy, and basically have their own ‘space' physically and mentally.

Pleasure or fun is likewise a basic need. That includes the ability to enjoy life in general.

And lastly, the ability and opportunity to survive. This includes the basic needs for proper nourishment, shelter, and reproductive sex.

According to Glasser, these five core needs are foundational to sound mental health.

So, according to Choice Therapy counseling principles for the emotionally or mentally disgruntled the first process should be to meet the psychological needs for power, belonging, freedom, fun and survival. Albeit, usually, in today's society survival needs are generally met-perhaps not as affluently as we prefer, but none-the-less met. Meet the other four basic needs, however, and an individual will generally be content.

There is little to argue with here-except, there is no mention of meeting the spiritual needs of man wherein lies much of the problem.

However, to continue. Choice Therapy bottom-line question is "What do you want?" Because what one generally wants out of life is an expression of a basic or core psychological need.

We generally don't think of these core needs as needs, but rather as wants. Yet, according to Glasser, in we are simply voicing a need expressed as a want.

Of course, this is a simplification of the process, but it does illustrate ways we perform to meet our needs.

Therefore, taking all of this into consideration, the counselor in Choice Therapy would run a check list to see if the counselee’s basic needs are being met by asking three simple questions:

1. What do you want?
2. What are you doing to get what you want?
3. And, is that plan of action working for you?

In essence, the basic desire of the counselor in Choice Therapy is to help the client implement a workable plan based on components over which the counselee has real control to meet these needs.

Consider these scenarios and their solutions as examples:

Case one: The need to belong and/or be loved.

Scenario-your wife is angry with you and refuses to tell you why.

Response-you can ask for forgiveness, if you are in the wrong. Or you can bring her a bouquet of roses, and ask her to help you understand the problem or talk though the problem with you.

Results-this may work, or it may not work. The point is that is all you can do. If it isn't and you can think of another logical approach, try that. It nothing works, then you should assume no further responsibilities.[x]

Caution-worrying or fixating over the problem will not bring about a solution over which you have no control. So, you must resolve yourself to the inevitable. Wishing for a better solution solves nothing.



Case two: The need for power to preserve and protect.

Scenario-your teenage daughter is on drugs and sasses you and refuses to pick up her clothes or help with chores in the home. You have tried every peaceful means you know of but she still refuses. You have put her in drug rehab and she repeatedly runs off and comes back home. In essence she wants to continue her lifestyle in the comfort of a place to call home.

Response-you can exercise ‘tough love' and show her the door and tell her that she is welcome back home when she stops taking drugs and assumes her responsibilities in life.



Results-this may work, or it may not work. The point is that is all you can do, and it is the only answer unless you wish for her and the family to both suffer under these circumstances.

Caution-again, worrying or fixating over the problem will not bring about a solution over which you have no control. So, you must resolve yourself to the inevitable. Wishing for a better solution solves nothing.

Case three: The need to survive.

Scenario-your boss refuses to give you a raise, even though you know he has the money to do so.

Response-you can look for another job, or think of some creative way to encourage him to pay you more.

Results-this may work, or it may not work.

Caution-consider the consequences of quitting. Your new job may not be as secure as the current one. Or, you may not like your new job, and an increased in income may not compensate for that. However, bemoaning your current misfortunate will solve nothing.

The point is, Choice Therapy endeavors to help the counselee by calling attention to what the counselee has the power to do. Once that is established, then it is up to the counselee to implement a workable plan. ‘Doing' is therefore at the heart of Choice Therapy.

Sometimes, ‘doing' simply involves a change of one's attitude.

William James, M.D., the father of psychology understood this years ago and wrote:

"The path to cheerfulness is to sit cheerfully and to act and speak as if cheerfulness were already there."[xi]

And, we might add, if sitting cheerfully, acting cheerfully, and speaking cheerfully works-do it!

Further, William James advised:

"We must make automatic and habitual, as early as possible, as many useful actions as we can...in the acquisition of a new habit, we must take car to launch ourselves with as strong and decided initiative as possible. Never suffer an exception to occur till the new habit is securely rooted in your life."[xii]

Choice Therapy, recognizes that we live in a real world, with real difficulties. We can never make life perfect. We can, however, change our attitude and assume our responsibility to change what we have the power to change, and leave the rest alone.

To help the counselee understand that process, Glasser and his colleagues have delineate ten axioms of Choice Therapy. These axioms are:

The only person whose behavior we can control is our own.

All we can give another person is information.

All long-lasting psychological problems are relationship problems.

The problem relationship is always part of our present life.

What happened in the past has everything to do with what we are today, but we can only satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the future.

We can only satisfy our needs by satisfying the pictures in our Quality World[xiii].

All we do is behave.

All behavior is Total Behavior and is made up of four components: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology.

All Total Behavior is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking components. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think.

All Total Behavior is designated by verbs and named by the part that is the most recognizable.

Dr. John W. Drakeford (1914-2004), an eminent professor of pastoral counseling at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, summarizes Glasser's understanding of the cause of mental instability in the following way,

"[According to Glasser] The person normally called neurotic is afraid of reality, while the so-called psychotic denies reality-but the label makes little difference. In the process of "reality therapy,"[xiv] all cases ranging from delinquent girls to psychotic veterans are in their condition because they have acted irresponsibly in the past [italics mine] and, as a result, continue to behave badly in the present."

The weakness in Dr. Glasser's position -at least from what I can tell - is the failure to give definition to what constitutes irresponsibility. The Bible labels irresponsibility as sin, and as pastoral counselors we must do likewise.

So, as Dr. John Drakeford[xv] noted years before, psychology as well as psychiatry is still in search of a soul.[xvi]

Yet, there are concomitant similarities between the secular theorists like Menninger, Mowrer and Glasser and many competent pastoral counselors. Perhaps, those similarities are best illustrated in the words this poem written by the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who wrote:

"The Serenity Prayer"

God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;

Enjoying one moment at a time;

Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;

Taking, as He did, this sinful world

as it is, not as I would have it;

Trusting that He will make all things right

if I surrender to His Will;

That I may be reasonably happy in this life

and supremely happy with Him

forever in the next.

Amen.

Now, in light of this, what if anything can psychology contribute to pastoral counseling. Well, the answer is obvious-a lot, if science is employed and not the quasi-religion of scientism which, in the case of some secular psychologists results in psychology as a religion.

In any event, science has much to offer as long as it remains scientific, and not scientism, which is simply another form of religion. I hope this give us something to think about. JMR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] 1973. Whatever Became of Sin?. New York: Hawthorn Books.
[ii] Below is a selected sample with their corresponding dates of publication:
1930. The Human Mind. Garden City, NY: Garden City Pub. Co.
1931. From Sin to Psychiatry, an Interview on the Way to Mental Health with Dr. Karl A. Menninger [by] L. M. Birkhead. Little Blue Books Series #1585. Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Julius Press.
1938. Man Against Himself. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
1950. Guide to Psychiatric Books; with a Suggested Basic Reading List. New York: Grune & Stratton.
1952. Manual for Psychiatric Case Study. New York: Grune & Stratton.
1958. Theory of Psychoanalytic Technique. New York: Basic Books.
1959. A Psychiatrist's World: Selected Papers. New York: Viking Press.
1968. Das Leben als Balance; seelische Gesundheit und Krankheit im Lebensprozess. München: R. Piper.
1968. The Crime of Punishment. New York: Penguin Books.
1972. A Guide to Psychiatric Books in English [by] Karl Menninger. New York: Grune & Stratton.
1973. Whatever Became of Sin?. New York: Hawthorn Books.
1978. The Human Mind Revisited: Essays in Honor of Karl A. Menninger. Edited by Sydney Smith. New York: International Universities Press.
[iii] Szasz, Thomas (1997 (1987)). Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0815604602.
[iv] This of course is my interpretation, but it is consistent with the logical conclusions of behaviorist psychology.
[v] Hunt, J. McVicker (August 1984). "Obituary, Orval Hobart Mowrer (1907-1982)". American Psychologist.
[vi] I am relying on memory on this, but I did studied under John W. Drakeford at Southwestern Theological Seminary, Forth Worth, Texas, and remember him talking about meeting and collaborating with O. H. Mowrer. And, of course, Jay E. Adams is a well known participant in Dr. Mowrer's Champaign-Urbana program that was sponsored by the Libby Endowment fund.
[vii] Drakeford, John W. (1978). "People to People Therapy," NY: Harper Row, p. 78.
[viii] In essence, Powers views behavior is goal directed and purposeful, not mechanical and responsive. Thus, according to Powers, behavior is a means of controlling perception, rather than a function of perception. In other words, human behavior is not a knee jerk reaction, but rather a thoughtful process with many variables. Whereas, with Glasser by-in-large, perception controls us. And, although action is not ipso facto simply a programmed reaction to a particular response, it very easily can be. Therefore, in human affairs, since one can not force change in someone else, they can none-the-less change their own behavior or attitude to create a more pleasant quality of life. Naturally, this an over simplification of two very complex theories of cognitive psychology, it does give us a fundamental understanding of Glasser's approach to counseling therapy.
[ix] For a good site to further explain the theory behind PCT visit http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/overview.html
[x] As a friend of mine, Dr. Charles E. Greenaway used to say, "If you don't have the answer, don't become part of the problem."
[xi] Source: http://www.famous-quotes.com
[xii] Source: http://www.famous-quotes.com
[xiii] The phrase "Quality World" represents a person's worldview.
[xiv] i.e., choice therapy
[xv] Psychology in Search of a Soul. John W. Drakeford. Publisher: Broadman Press. Date: 1964.
[xvi] 2 Timothy 3:7. Although this reference may stretch hermeneutics a bit, I feel it is appropriate to acknowledge that man in general without God, and unwilling to accept his Word are left to analyze and read symptoms are the real cause; whereas, in medicine as well as in theology, symptoms are only an expression of what is causing the illness.