Joseph Leavell

"No half-heartedness and no worldly fear must turn us aside from following the light unflinchingly." — J.R.R. Tolkien

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Eleven Personal Resolutions as a Biblical Counselor Seeking to Evaluate the Scientific Understanding of Mental Health Through the Lens of Scripture

1. Resolved:
Not to stake my position, my theology, or my reputation as a biblical counselor on a contrarian posture that presupposes the science of mental health always gets it wrong.

2. Resolved:
Not to stake my position, my theology, or my reputation as a biblical counselor on a conformist posture that presumes the science of mental health is always right.

3. Resolved:
Always to evaluate every truth claim impartially through the lens of God’s authoritative and sufficient Word, remembering that while Scripture is always right and true, human scientific understanding of the body and mind is limited and fallible, and my own knowledge and interpretation of that data as a non-medical professional is even further restricted.

4. Resolved:
To take a posture of respectful trust toward those who serve in the medical and scientific fields, recognizing their work of understanding the body is progressing as a gift of common grace, yet to test all claims carefully and embrace only what accords with both sound evidence and the truth of God’s Word.

5. Resolved:
Through it all, never to surrender the authority or sufficiency of God’s Word to any other field of study, whether science, archaeology, history, or any other discipline.

6. Resolved:
To remain humble and teachable, acknowledging that growth in true wisdom requires both reverence for God’s Word and subsequent attentiveness to the expressive reality of God’s created but fallen world.

7. Resolved:
To recognize that insights from scientific research, when consistent with Scripture, may reflect accurate and helpful descriptions of God’s design and the noetic effects of sin on the human body and mind.

8. Resolved:
Never to call a physical or mental calamity sin, nor to label a sinful failure as a medical condition, but to discern each according to Scripture and evidence, acknowledging the interrelated ways the body can affect the soul and the soul can affect the body.

9. Resolved:
To remember that biblical counseling is not merely an exercise in doctrinal precision but an expression of patient Christlike compassion and care toward those who suffer and struggle both physically and spiritually.

10. Resolved:
To depend continually on the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who alone enables true understanding, discernment, and transformation in our lives.

11. Resolved:
To pursue lifelong learning in both Scripture and human experience, so that my counsel may grow in depth, accuracy, understanding, and grace.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

I have a very gracious and loving wife who is so kind to me! But the reality is, even if I spent the rest of my life, lovingly serving her with every fiber of my being and she does absolutely nothing for me in return, I am only scratching the surface in reflecting the disparity of riches of God's love, grace, and the opulent inheriance that He has lavishly poured out on me!

Christian, you are so wealthy in your Savior's love!! You are a citizen and an ambassador of His Kingdom! The very first person who should experience that identity and mission reflected into their life is your spouse!

[Dustin Benge @DustinBenge]

“In Him” we live and move (Acts 17:28).
“In Him” we have redemption (Eph 1:7).
“In Him” we are heirs (Eph 1:11).
“In Him” we were sealed (Eph 1:13).
“In Him” we are built together (Eph 2:22).
“In Him” we have boldness (Eph 3:12).

We are nothing without Christ.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

This is true.

[Missional Wear @missionalwear]

“If salvation was 99.99% Jesus and 0.01% us, we would all be damned.” — Paul Washer

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

@BobKellemen @acbc @EdwardCWilde That is fascinating!

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Sharing this for two reasons. One is to thank Ed Wilde for his kindness in engagement on the subject. Even in his writing and papers, he is not accusatory but seeks a more even keeled approach which I find valuable and commendable.

Secondly, I'm sharing to demonstrate why, from my perspective, there has been a frustrating loop of logic that seems to never close.

@EdwardCWilde

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Thanks for this, Ed! I didn't read all your footnotes, but I read through the whole article. Good word, and thank you for sharing.

Based on your three buckets of common grace usefulness, I would contend that the disagreement between the "classical" and CIBC groups is not over what should be utilized from buckets one and two. Rather, CIBC is being accused of diving into the third category, adopting clinical information and including it (un-redemptively) in their counseling. The anthropological, teleological, and methodological perspectives are said to be adopted as means of change and to replace Scripture in these areas, hence the accusation of "neo-integrationists."

I would simply ask for quotes from the CIBC groups showing that they advocate doing so. They have continually claimed that they use the true observations from their studies, and that some of these observations can be "radically reinterpreted" through deeper study of the Word. They have been called "liars" to their faces, without proof, when they cite what they have studied and claim to simply utilize categories 1 and 2 with these findings.

Beyond this, I would love to see concrete examples from the first two categories that you yourself would acknowledge you use today. This question is where the loop of logic begins in the conversations I have had before.

Below is a sample/paraphrase of how it normally goes when I've had this conversation with others. Hopefully it explains my frustration with the logical discrepancies I have encountered. If you want me to name names on this sample, I will do so privately. The people in it include even some of your colleagues.

Them: "Yes, there are things unbelievers get right, and we don't have a problem with those. Science especially is fine."

Me: "OK, great! What are they, and how should I utilize them? Can you give me some examples of how to do this well?"

Them: "Well, God's Word is sufficient. You don't need them because they're not trustworthy."

Me: "But you just said...and isn't reverting to sufficiency a different argument than advocating discerning what is and is not a true finding?"

Them: "Joe, are you saying God would have left Christians without vital information for centuries? We have the completed Word! You don't need those things! Scripture is sufficient!"

Me: "I'm not saying they are vital. That's categorically a different claim from 'helpful.' So you acknowledge that some of those insights are valid, but rather than exercising discernment, we categorically abstain from those true findings because God's Word is sufficient, and thereby advocate nuda Scriptura?"

Them: "No! That's offensive! We are totally fine with medical findings that are true! Stop the false accusations! Nuda Scriptura would take every observation off the table! We're not saying that!"

Me: "But you're not responding to the actual question. No one is saying anyone takes medical off the table. We're talking about nuda Scriptura in response to true findings that psychologists have made that may be observationally helpful. Can you tell me any of those observations that would be OK for me to utilize in helping me see the person in front of me?"

Them: "No, because psychologists are unbelievers, have an agenda, and take the observations to different places than Scripture does. These are only useful to study to show where psychologists get it wrong. Scripture is sufficient. To say otherwise is to be 'mistress informed.'"

Me: "So then, again, we are not talking about discernment anymore. We're talking about categorical abstention in the name of faithfulness to God's Word, and saying that without abstention, a person is idolatrously wh*ring after false gods."

Some respond, "Yep. You've got it!"
Others respond, "No! You're taking Lambert and others out of context! That's offensive!"

To both: "OK, help me understand how that works when you just said that some of the insights are true. What insights are we talking about that are true that I should be aware of?"

...silence...and/or blocked.

I'll end the sample by thanking you for disrupting that cycle of engagement through your cordial desire to sharpen iron here. It is greatly valued!

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

@dandarling Same.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Maybe if I get just ONE more unsolicited text message, THEN I'll be ready to vote!

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

@EdwardCWilde @Livng4Jesus I would urge you to ask Kristen Kellen directly for her take as she's the one who said it. If you don't have her info, this podcast she was on recently does quite a bit of clarifying:

https://t.co/RRnXL9VjX2

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Sorry for the delayed response. It was quite the weekend.

"There's nothing wrong with bringing outside information to bear on those." This is exactly what the clinically informed keep saying they are doing.

No one would be surprised if someone started coming to church, trusted Christ, and began discipleship while their finances were in disarray and their marriage was falling apart. No one would get mad if the church's benevolence helped them get back on their feet, or paid for a babysitter so they could attend marriage counseling at the church uninterrupted by their young kids. No one would say, "The church is about making disciples! It's not our role to babysit kids!" James 2 teaches that our faith helps people in tangible ways. I would argue that we do these things as an act of obedience to the sufficient Word. We take into account that a distracted mother cannot engage in counseling or discipleship the way she could if she were freed from those cares. So babysitting and financial help are not sanctification in themselves, but they are tools that help the work of sanctification continue without distraction.

Likewise, understanding how someone who is growing in sanctification experiences suffering, or the fallout of their own sin, and caring for them in tangible ways to mitigate the damage, is not sanctification in itself. It can be an indirect aid to its progress and can lessen the fallout of that suffering. To be clear: the help and care itself is not sanctification, but the life it restores because of Grace truly IS. Restoring God's design for finances and family as a response to the Gospel IS sanctification, and that is very much the church's job.

This is the nature of the argument for embodied souls. 'Outer man' issues can directly relate to 'inner man' issues, and vice versa. If someone is struggling with anorexia, and I go to the passages of Scripture that talk about Jesus being the Bread, God providing manna, Jesus' temptation to turn stones into bread, and 'do not be anxious about what you eat,' without considering how those passages relate to the mental and physical responses of the addicted person in front of me, I have not done my job in caring well for their sanctification.

As an example, I worked with a man who, as a kid, always had to work hard to manage his parents' emotions to keep a bomb from going off during their continual fights. In his case, he got good at reading people's emotions and became a people pleaser. He became highly adept at noticing everything! Knowing his story helped me see that he might be completely willing to do all the homework and say everything I wanted to hear, not because he was growing in sanctification, but because he wanted to please the counselor. Why? He equated everything with his performance to keep things from falling apart...even his own appearance. He was very hard on himself, worked out all the time, struggling to make sure people liked him and approved. His walk with God was also through the same lens of performance. As such, he struggled with...anorexia. Having a proficient understanding of his outer man struggle was important in also caring for his inner man. Caring for his inner man well also began to heal his outer man.

Knowing the person and caring for them as an embodied soul clears a path for sanctification. That's how a biblical counselor utilizes case wisdom well.

By labeling themselves clinically informed, these are making known that they research 'outer man' issues as they relate to inner-man sanctification, and that they intentionally work to do so proficiently. Disagree with their success or failure, or their methods to radically reinterpret around the Gospel, or what they accept as accurate or not. That's fine to debate and discuss.

But none of this makes for spiritual adultery. It is a response to a desire for faithfulness to Christ and his Word. That is why the 'mistress' language is unfit: it treats a work of fidelity as unfaithfulness. I would once again reiterate the charge of "slander."

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

I know the quote well and I read the article. That quote has been debated and clarified.

From what I understand, they are claiming more fully that they are using your first two categories to clear any hindrances that would provide a barrier to a sanctifying conversation, not that the findings themselves ARE sanctification (though I would argue even working out and going for a walk CAN be worship - 1 Cor. 10:31).

Example: Helping a scared wife who is reluctant to entrust herself to her young husband as she reads 1 Peter 3, that while her fears are biologically understandable because of how God wired women with an awareness of danger so that they can protect their children and alert their husband (an observational insight), she is called to find rest for her fears in God as her ultimate protector. She can subject herself to her husband's care in a way that helps him in his competency and character through a posture of a "gentle and quiet spirit" (which brings a physiological response from a posture of rested worship - not fearing what is frightening) rather than an escalated and panicking heart that is bent on self-preservation (i.e. fight/flight).

Do I have that wrong? Do you have a problem theologically with that counsel? I would argue that those are utilizing categories 1 and 2 while rejecting the teleologically humanistic perception of "looking out for number one" which would fly in the face of 1 Peter entirely.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

@Livng4Jesus @EdwardCWilde Jared, my response above to Ed will have to suffice to my answer to you. I would say the same to you. I hope that's OK.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Thanks for this, Ed! I didn't read all your footnotes, but I read through the whole article. Good word, and thank you for sharing.

Based on your three buckets of common grace usefulness, I would contend that the disagreement between the "classical" and CIBC groups is not over what should be utilized from buckets one and two. Rather, CIBC is being accused of diving into the third category, adopting clinical information and including it (un-redemptively) in their counseling. The anthropological, teleological, and methodological perspectives are said to be adopted as means of change and to replace Scripture in these areas, hence the accusation of "neo-integrationists."

I would simply ask for quotes from the CIBC groups showing that they advocate doing so. They have continually claimed that they use the true observations from their studies, and that some of these observations can be "radically reinterpreted" through deeper study of the Word. They have been called "liars" to their faces, without proof, when they cite what they have studied and claim to simply utilize categories 1 and 2 with these findings.

Beyond this, I would love to see concrete examples from the first two categories that you yourself would acknowledge you use today. This question is where the loop of logic begins in the conversations I have had before.

Below is a sample/paraphrase of how it normally goes when I've had this conversation with others. Hopefully it explains my frustration with the logical discrepancies I have encountered. If you want me to name names on this sample, I will do so privately. The people in it include even some of your colleagues.

Them: "Yes, there are things unbelievers get right, and we don't have a problem with those. Science especially is fine."

Me: "OK, great! What are they, and how should I utilize them? Can you give me some examples of how to do this well?"

Them: "Well, God's Word is sufficient. You don't need them because they're not trustworthy."

Me: "But you just said...and isn't reverting to sufficiency a different argument than advocating discerning what is and is not a true finding?"

Them: "Joe, are you saying God would have left Christians without vital information for centuries? We have the completed Word! You don't need those things! Scripture is sufficient!"

Me: "I'm not saying they are vital. That's categorically a different claim from 'helpful.' So you acknowledge that some of those insights are valid, but rather than exercising discernment, we categorically abstain from those true findings because God's Word is sufficient, and thereby advocate nuda Scriptura?"

Them: "No! That's offensive! We are totally fine with medical findings that are true! Stop the false accusations! Nuda Scriptura would take every observation off the table! We're not saying that!"

Me: "But you're not responding to the actual question. No one is saying anyone takes medical off the table. We're talking about nuda Scriptura in response to true findings that psychologists have made that may be observationally helpful. Can you tell me any of those observations that would be OK for me to utilize in helping me see the person in front of me?"

Them: "No, because psychologists are unbelievers, have an agenda, and take the observations to different places than Scripture does. These are only useful to study to show where psychologists get it wrong. Scripture is sufficient. To say otherwise is to be 'mistress informed.'"

Me: "So then, again, we are not talking about discernment anymore. We're talking about categorical abstention in the name of faithfulness to God's Word, and saying that without abstention, a person is idolatrously wh*ring after false gods."

Some respond, "Yep. You've got it!"
Others respond, "No! You're taking Lambert and others out of context! That's offensive!"

To both: "OK, help me understand how that works when you just said that some of the insights are true. What insights are we talking about that are true that I should be aware of?"

...silence...and/or blocked.

I'll end the sample by thanking you for disrupting that cycle of engagement through your cordial desire to sharpen iron here. It is greatly valued!

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

If attack ads are to believed, our choices for governor in Arizona are between someone who wants to kill all the wild horses and someone who protects abusers. Fun.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

@EdwardCWilde Hopefully this parallel conversation with Jared here helps provide a bit more clarity to the line of thinking as well. Thanks!

https://t.co/Rsl27jThGd

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Thanks for the response, Jared! I'm glad we agree that ACBC values physical issues and accepts that unbelievers can make true observations.

I'd gently push back on "you don't need it for sanctification, and the doctor handles the physical so I don't need to know anything but Scripture" type argument. That can cut us off from caring for the actual person.

For one, a doctor may not catch everything (they also are fallible), and a counselor who knows to ask about sleep, a head injury, medications, or hormone levels can make sure the right things get tested and can take into consideration those things in how they counsel. For example, I've worked with someone with cancer who has chronic low iron to keep him alive...which makes him irritable, angry, anxious, has trouble remembering, causes sleep deprivation, headaches, etc. So all of those physical symptoms has caused tremendous weight on his mental state. His doctors won't be caring for him in those areas and have referred him to a psychologist...but he came to a biblical counselor instead because he's a Christian. I need to be able to competently care for him in his affliction.

So answer your question, there are two parts. First, you'd be missing nothing about the means of sanctification: heart idols, repentance, faith, the gospel, the Spirit's work, and putting off and putting on are all in Scripture. That has never been contested by the clinically informed, which is why it frustrates me when they're accused of saying you can't be sanctified without psychology. That's not what has been claimed at all!

The other part is that what you'd be missing is observational wisdom. None of it has to come from secular sources but there are true observations that secular sources have learned that can be helpful for those working in those cases. For example, I'm not going to a 19-year old single man to help further understand my wife through peri-menopause, even if he knows the Bible well. I'm going to the 65-year-old who has been married for 40 years.

Sufficiency doesn't mean observation and experience doesn't matter. Sometimes unbelievers make accurate observations, and even an unbelieving old man can tell a young man who is angry that his wife got upset when he wasn't paying attention to her, "Yeah...you should stop scrolling twitter when she's talking and pay attention. You're being rude!" Which is both helpful and biblically faithful to "dwell with your wife in an understanding way." The difference though is the unbelieving old man may be motivated by self preservation of "happy wife, happy life" instead of "worshipping God through loving my wife in an understanding way." The lens of Scripture gives that wisdom. Biblical sufficiency provides the authoritative lens to help us sort sinful, non-sinful, and medically driven responses. So someone who has worked with victims of molestation for 40 years may have a thing or two that may be helpful in working with people who have experienced those same struggles. We've already given anorexia as another example.

So with anger, while an unbeliever can help with description and understanding of scope and size, etc., the only help that they can truly provide with sinful anger is "management", mitigating damages. Only the Spirit through Scripture and provide a peace that passes understanding.

The second part matters the most to me: safety. Going back to anger, recognizing patterns in an angry person's behavior can protect people who are being abused or controlled by their sinful anger. DARVO, a pattern psychologist Jennifer Freyd identified in the 90s, describes how an abuser deflects blame onto the person he's harming. I don't need the acronym to counsel, but the pattern that echoes how Adam shifted blame when God confronted him has been well observed and documented. None of this changes a heart. Only Christ does that. But recognizing patterns of temptation, blame shifting, harming victims, etc. can be super helpful!

That's all "clinically informed" means to me, though I do not use the label myself. I honestly don't think they always get it right and I haven't done the research to be able to use it competently. I also don't want the drama of having to explain it either because it is a trigger word, like "nouthetic" is to others so I don't use that word either. But personally, I believe studying people carefully myself, and leveraging other people's observations so that I can apply Scripture wisely and shrewdly. If we disagree about particular practices of how the clinically informed go about doing that, I'm totally fine with that conversation. I just don't see how it amounts them being unfaithful to the Bible which was objection in the first place.

Thank you for engaging so graciously. That has meant a lot.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

If we're going to play the 'mistress informed' game with the clinically informed, the argument could be made that it cuts the other way and could be labeled 'abuser', which is exactly why this is a game that should not be played.

Let me demonstrate.

God authored two books. The law of the Lord is perfect, but the heavens declare his glory and wisdom cries out in the streets. The argument could be made that the nouthetic counselor who refuses to open the second book is like a husband who prizes his wife only in the bedroom but completely ignores and neglects her throughout the rest of the day. He has no interest in knowing who she is fully, and in refusing to know her completely, he has abusively neglected and abandoned her.

Do you see how absurd that is? That is the point. No one should accuse a nouthetic counselor who loves God's Word of abandonment. But you can make the analogy cut both ways if you want to press the point of the importance of God's natural revelation by provocatively playing word games. Only, stuff like this proves nothing and only works to slander a brother's fidelity to Christ.

Two can play word games, but as the computer learns in the movie War Games, "The only winning move is not to play."

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Good morning, Ed! Sorry for the delayed response. I'm prepping for a marriage conference this weekend so some things had to be dropped.

I'll just say this. I saw that Joe Hussung engaged with you on common grace. I think you'll enjoy interacting with his expertise. I share his theological perspective that common grace is the restraining effect of God on sin to allow some aspects of God's design to still be experienced. Without it, the curse on creation and the depravity of man would be complete and we would all simply be killing each other, and ultimately, Earth would cease to exist. Joe will likely express it far better.

I would see true scientific, mathematic, biological, etc. observations as something enabled by common grace. Not common grace itself. The propensity to get things wrong are there because of the Fall. The ability to get anything right is enabled by God's grace for our brains to continue functioning at some capacity - to learn and to grow and to cultivate.

The question with chronic pain is this: if there was an ability to alleviate the suffering, would that be a lack of trust in the sufficiency of Scripture?

How about if that suffering is caused by sin? Someone who smoked their whole life and developed lung cancer? Should I tell them they are reaping the fruit of their choice and should simply worship God as they die or would I seek to mitigate the damages of their sinful choices? Should I not offer an aspirin to someone who shows up to counseling with a hangover so that they can be more fully present in understanding why their addiction is a "banquet in the grave."?

It seems to me if the answer to that is in any way "yes," then we at least can understand what the clinically informed are trying to do...and that endeavor is not infidelity to God but is a fruit of reformed theology.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Thanks for the response, Jared! I'm glad we agree that ACBC values physical issues and accepts that unbelievers can make true observations.

I'd gently push back on "you don't need it for sanctification, and the doctor handles the physical so I don't need to know anything but Scripture" type argument. That can cut us off from caring for the actual person.

For one, a doctor may not catch everything (they also are fallible), and a counselor who knows to ask about sleep, a head injury, medications, or hormone levels can make sure the right things get tested and can take into consideration those things in how they counsel. For example, I've worked with someone with cancer who has chronic low iron to keep him alive...which makes him irritable, angry, anxious, has trouble remembering, causes sleep deprivation, headaches, etc. So all of those physical symptoms has caused tremendous weight on his mental state. His doctors won't be caring for him in those areas and have referred him to a psychologist...but he came to a biblical counselor instead because he's a Christian. I need to be able to competently care for him in his affliction.

So answer your question, there are two parts. First, you'd be missing nothing about the means of sanctification: heart idols, repentance, faith, the gospel, the Spirit's work, and putting off and putting on are all in Scripture. That has never been contested by the clinically informed, which is why it frustrates me when they're accused of saying you can't be sanctified without psychology. That's not what has been claimed at all!

The other part is that what you'd be missing is observational wisdom. None of it has to come from secular sources but there are true observations that secular sources have learned that can be helpful for those working in those cases. For example, I'm not going to a 19-year old single man to help further understand my wife through peri-menopause, even if he knows the Bible well. I'm going to the 65-year-old who has been married for 40 years.

Sufficiency doesn't mean observation and experience doesn't matter. Sometimes unbelievers make accurate observations, and even an unbelieving old man can tell a young man who is angry that his wife got upset when he wasn't paying attention to her, "Yeah...you should stop scrolling twitter when she's talking and pay attention. You're being rude!" Which is both helpful and biblically faithful to "dwell with your wife in an understanding way." The difference though is the unbelieving old man may be motivated by self preservation of "happy wife, happy life" instead of "worshipping God through loving my wife in an understanding way." The lens of Scripture gives that wisdom. Biblical sufficiency provides the authoritative lens to help us sort sinful, non-sinful, and medically driven responses. So someone who has worked with victims of molestation for 40 years may have a thing or two that may be helpful in working with people who have experienced those same struggles. We've already given anorexia as another example.

So with anger, while an unbeliever can help with description and understanding of scope and size, etc., the only help that they can truly provide with sinful anger is "management", mitigating damages. Only the Spirit through Scripture and provide a peace that passes understanding.

The second part matters the most to me: safety. Going back to anger, recognizing patterns in an angry person's behavior can protect people who are being abused or controlled by their sinful anger. DARVO, a pattern psychologist Jennifer Freyd identified in the 90s, describes how an abuser deflects blame onto the person he's harming. I don't need the acronym to counsel, but the pattern that echoes how Adam shifted blame when God confronted him has been well observed and documented. None of this changes a heart. Only Christ does that. But recognizing patterns of temptation, blame shifting, harming victims, etc. can be super helpful!

That's all "clinically informed" means to me, though I do not use the label myself. I honestly don't think they always get it right and I haven't done the research to be able to use it competently. I also don't want the drama of having to explain it either because it is a trigger word, like "nouthetic" is to others so I don't use that word either. But personally, I believe studying people carefully myself, and leveraging other people's observations so that I can apply Scripture wisely and shrewdly. If we disagree about particular practices of how the clinically informed go about doing that, I'm totally fine with that conversation. I just don't see how it amounts them being unfaithful to the Bible which was objection in the first place.

Thank you for engaging so graciously. That has meant a lot.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

OK, this looks good!

[The Lord of the Rings @TheRingsofPower]

This season, One Ring to rule them all. Watch the official trailer now, then witness Season 3 beginning November 11.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

@MitchellSheten1 Please tell me this is a joke!

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

A few thoughts here.

First, that's the kicker: the clinically informed ARE claiming that they ARE talking about care for the body, specifically the brain. Suffering, sinning, and being sinned against can all significantly affect a person physically. No one would argue against the reality that regular porn usage warps a man's brain and affects him in the bedroom with his wife. But do the traumatic experiences of war or being molested impact the brain? Does the automatic flinch a wife has when her young husband touches her, one she developed from being ra*ed when she was younger, not matter? What about a hundred other such examples?

I think the framework of 'secular ideology or practice' is loaded. Research and observation are either true or they aren't, regardless of the sphere of information and regardless of whether the person is a Christian. If an unbeliever looks at the sky and says, 'It looks blue,' he may have an entirely different worldview about how it got that way, but he is still making a true observation. An observation isn't made true because a psychologist made it, but it isn't rendered false because the psychologist was an unbeliever. It is true or false on its own merit. The key is to weigh the merit of the observational truth claim through the lens of God's Word.

So the underlying question is this: can unbelievers make true observations about patterns of human behavior, thought processes, and responses that are helpful in any way? Can they also make unhelpful and untrue observations that lead people away from God and his design? Absolutely (like some psychologists recommending p#rn usage to spice up the bedroom)!

Marketing agents, for example, would say a hearty 'YES!' to observational data, because theirs is a field built on observed patterns of human purchasing. Each person's financial patterns are rooted in worship, but they can still be observed, noted, and used by companies to influence purchases.

Do pastors use voice inflection, pitch, pauses, and so on to bring more engagement to their sermons? 100%! We do not call that an attack on sufficiency. These techniques are based on observable responses to communication within a culture and a framework of human thought, and they help the listener engage with the Word of God.

So take the example I've already given, the anorexic. Not all of the information is medical. Knowing how an anorexic thinks about food helps me understand what I am hearing in her own experience, and anticipate what may or may not help her see her body as a good gift from God to steward.

Knowing that a man learned as a boy to manage his parents' emotions, and how that shaped his thinking about himself, gives me a point of reference for how best to communicate the truth of Scripture. It also helps me see that his eager compliance with the homework might not come from a changed heart but from a desire to please people through performance. These are culturally called 'psychological observations,' but I think Scripture would label them 'shrewd' (Matthew 10:16). It's certainly not original with me, but I would argue that the Bible presents the true psychology of humanity, and that it gives me the lens through which to understand what I am observing and what others have also observed.

I could give dozens of such examples, and I would argue that you could as well.

Unbelievers routinely make observations but cannot fully discern why they are true, nor understand how they relate to the metanarrative of a biblical worldview, so they twist what they see to fit a fallen perception that makes sense to a fallen mind. In our culture, they do so in the form of humanism.

This is why discernment and biblical wisdom are so critical: so that we do not adopt unholy frameworks, but biblically discern useful data points that help us see the person, in order to be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves.

I would really be curious where the point of disagreements are with what I'm saying.

[Joseph Leavell @LowerLeavell]

Apologies for the delayed response. I've been working on a marriage conference this weekend and some things had to be dropped.

A few brief thoughts. On Lambert, if the charged metaphor that is described throughout Scripture to illustrate spiritual adultery was not meant to communicate that, that is an unforced offense because throughout Scripture it does. Lambert is enough of a student of the Word to know that. Regardless, the accusation is still saying that a person turns to external sources because Scripture is not enough, so it is still about the heart and the problem I have is still there. I believe it to be a theological difference, not a faithfulness issue.

On drift, obviously I agree that standards matter, but they need to be biblical. Defending Scripture while jettisoning where Scripture says those lines should be drawn would actually be a real attack on sufficiency.

Colossians 2:20-23 warn that external rules have the appearance of wisdom but have no power over the flesh. So drawing lines where Scripture does not draw them is biblically described as "asceticism" and "man made religion." KVJO is a good example. I am concerned that lines are being drawn for sake of putting a man made hedge around Scripture where the Bible does not draw that line for itself...which ironically, comes from a low view of sufficiency.

So what clinicians add that is valuable or not valuable IS the right question. That is a VERY different statement than Scripture is sufficient so everything else is out of bounds. With anorexia, starvation impacts your body AND your thinking and those thought processes have been observed for a very long time by those who treat eating disorders. I'm NOT going to care for the anorexic the same way, but I can read their observations and learn some of the affects on their minds and bodies and some helpful ways to engage that may keep things on topic rather than being derailed unnecessarily. Like...jumping straight to Jesus is the Bread of Life.

Secular psychology gets human nature wrong. No arguments from me, which is why I advocate for discernment. I'd say the same for secular doctors, secular astronomers, and secular politicians. By refusing to learn from those who have a different world view, I would also be disinclined to learn from any unbeliever about anything for the same reason.