psychology – Page 3 – Warren Throckmorton

The Nashville Statement and God's Design

As they say in journalism, the Nashville Statement has legs. Mark Galli has a critical editorial about the NS in November’s Christianity Today. The President of NS sponsor Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Denny Burk answered that a couple of days ago. Downstream, I am now responding to Burk.
Because it is behind a paywall, I can’t read all of Galli’s op-ed. However, my main focus is what Burk has to say in reply. In particular, I want to briefly discuss God’s design and sexual orientation and gender identity.

God’s Design

Article 7 of the NS says:

We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

In his CT op-ed, Mark Galli criticized Article 7 of the NS for this position which stigmatize some Christians who consider themselves gay even though they refrain from gay sex.* Burk isn’t having it:

In response to this, I would simply point out that Galli’s criticism is not that Article 7 of the Nashville Statement is false or unsupported in scripture. His argument is simply that those who embrace a gay identity might disagree with it. He may be right that some who embrace a gay identity will not wish to support the statement, but that fact should not be confused with a substantive critique of Article 7 on the merits. Nor should it obscure the fact that Christians who experience same-sex attraction can and do endorse the statement (e.g., Sam Allberry, Rosaria Butterfield, Christopher Yuan).

Burk says Galli doesn’t use the Bible to criticize the NS, then Burk resorts to a defense which relies less on the Bible and more on natural law. As I will demonstrate below, Galli and Burk both look to nature but see different things. Burk continues:

Notice that Article 7 focuses on God’s purpose in his creation design and in his redemptive work through Christ. The careful reader will recognize that this article is concerned with the revelation of God’s design in both nature and scripture. In what sense does Galli think it consistent with God’s design to embrace a transgender self-concept? In what sense is it consistent with God’s design to embrace a gay self-concept? Does Galli think that adopting such self-concepts are a part of God’s original design in creation? Does Galli believe that people will embrace a gay or transgender self-concept in the new heavens and the new earth?
Galli offers us no guidance on these questions, but they are precisely the kinds of questions that ordinary Christians are asking and that Article 7 of the Nashville Statement answers. And I believe the statement does so in a way that is consistent with both natural law and scriptural revelation.

Burk looks at nature, sees the typical arrangement, calls it God’s design and asks Galli questions. He wants Galli to answer that embracing a transgender or gay self-concept isn’t consistent with God’s design. Burk wants him to say that such self-conceptions were not part of the original plan nor will they be part of the eventual eternal state. Therefore, we shouldn’t affirm them now.
Let me now speak for Galli and ask some questions of my own. Mr. Burk, what about the exceptions? Do they not exist? Are they not valuable? In what sense do you think it is consistent with God’s design to pretend that LGBT people don’t exist now? Do you think straight and cisgender people become undesigned if we acknowledge that non-straight and transgender people exist? If those people who exist in exception honestly acknowledge it, will anyone be excluded from the new heavens and the new earth? Can’t the typical and the atypical coexist in your world? They do in mine.
Galli points to one part of nature and says the NS doesn’t fully capture it. Burk comes along, points to a more orderly part of nature and says everybody is supposed to be straight and cisgender even if they aren’t.

Exceptions Happen

In fact, there are many exceptions to “design” in nature. Among humans, some people have extra bones or teeth, some have webbed toes, some are missing limbs. Some couples are unable to have children. Among sheep, some rams attempt to mate with other rams. This does not alter the behavior of the straight rams. Arguing against LGBT people from God’s design is a weak argument because LGBT people also exist in God’s world. I don’t believe they are a surprise or have thwarted His plans. The basic means of furthering the species is intact even if a small percentage of people aren’t going to find love and attachment in the usual way.

Oppose same-sex sexual behavior if that is your conviction, but don’t tell LGBT people that their very existence is an attack on God’s created order and then tell them in the next breath that your statement to that effect is “an expression of love” for them.
Read my other posts about the Nashville Statement here.
*The issues are similar for transgender persons but for simplicity, I will focus on sexual orientation.

Christian Counseling and the Life of Jesus

This is the fourth in a series of posts which examines the 95 Theses for an Authentically Christian Commitment to Counseling published by the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors and authored by Dr. Heath Lambert. I offer this critique from my perspective as a psychology professor and mental health counselor. For prior posts in the series on the first fourteen theses, click here. Today, I examine thesis 15.
Is Jesus the Standard for Everything?
This section focuses on Jesus as a standard for Christian mental health.

Counselors require a standard to know what changes must be pursued in the lives of the troubled people they wish to help and, because the Bible portrays Jesus Christ as that perfect standard for human living, it is impossible to accomplish authentically Christian counseling without reference to him (1 John 2:5-6).

I can’t tell what this statement means in a practical sense. Knowing that Jesus is perfect in every way doesn’t tell me what kind of changes human beings should pursue in counseling. Three possibilities occurred to me which I will frame as questions:

Does Lambert mean Christian counselors should always pursue change in every dimension of personality (i.e., behavioral, emotional, cognitive, moral)?
Is he referring to the outcomes of counseling? Does he mean that Christian counseling should lead to clients being perfect as Jesus is perfect?
Or does he mean that counselors should only deal with issues depicted in the Bible’s accounts of the life of Jesus?

Each of these questions deserve a separate article for a full response. For the purpose of this post, I will briefly reply to each one.
Symptom v. Personality Change
Historically, counselors have debated the scope of counseling. Should counseling focus on symptom removal or on deeper personality change? Modern approaches aim for symptom relief while older approaches such as psychoanalysis focus on personality change.
I see nothing in the Bible which requires all counseling to deal with every level of human functioning. I believe counseling may properly deal with one aspect of functioning (e.g., symptom reduction versus deep personality change). In fact, Jesus at times healed diseases without any obvious attention to other areas of life. The needs of clients should guide counselors in planning their interventions.
Can We Be as Healthy as Jesus?
Although Jesus healed diseases in others, there are no recorded instances of Jesus suffering with medical or mental disorders. Does that mean he lived in such a way that he never suffered health problems? Or did His divine nature prevent those effects of a sinful world? Many theologians believe Jesus was unable to sin.* In like manner, could it be that Jesus was unable to experience mental or physical disease? Since He healed others, perhaps He healed Himself at the first sign of any disease. Or, on the other hand, is it possible that Jesus could have gotten cancer or suffered with bipolar disorder? Charles Spurgeon did not believe Jesus was ever ill. In his sermon, “Help for Your Sickness,” Spurgeon said no “disease was upon him.”

Is Jesus a Perfect Standard for Every Aspect of Living?
Jesus is an example of obedience to the Father, holy living, and sacrifice. He modeled a life of virtue and was the substitute for our transgressions. He is our example for moral conduct and virtuous reflection. About this, most Christians agree. However, there is much Jesus didn’t cover during his short time on Earth. Jesus’ teachings are the standard as far as they go.
We don’t know much about the life of Jesus outside of His mission to rescue people from sin. While the New Testament speaks in general terms about the humanity of Jesus, I don’t think it is possible to know with certainty what that means for mental health treatment.
Jesus didn’t deal with much of what we need to know to live today. He never chose a college, a spouse, or a profession. He never invested in a retirement account or purchased insurance. He didn’t play sports or watch movies. What He taught us we should emulate. However, on many aspects of human living, He offered no specific example or teaching. We must use our minds in community with others to figure out how to pursue the rest.

For the earlier posts in this series, click here.

*This is certainly true of theologians who teach at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where Heath Lambert also teaches counseling. In a 2015 article, Denny Burk wrote:

Jesus’ impeccability in this regard has provoked some people to wonder whether his experience of temptation can ever be as intense as that of the sinners that he came to save. Can he really have known our weaknesses when he himself was not capable of sinning? (p. 104)

Burk believes Jesus did know the temptation but was unable to sin.

The text plainly says that God cannot be tempted by evil. In what way are we tempted by evil that God is not tempted by evil? Verse 14 gives the answer. We face temptations that arise from our “own desire” (1:14). By contrast, because Jesus never desired evil, Jesus never faced temptations arising from “his own sinful desire.” His heart never in any degree fixated on evil. Temptation had no landing pad in Jesus’ heart nor did it have a launching pad from Jesus’ heart. The same is not true of sinners, who are often carried away by their own desires, as James describes it. (p.105)

Petition Reignites Biblical Counseling Controversy at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

In September, I wrote about a controversy at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary involving the Christian psychology of Eric Johnson and the Biblical counseling of Heath Lambert. According to Johnson, his version of Christian psychology is no longer compatible with how SBTS wants counseling taught at the school. Thus, he had to step down from his position. It is not clear if he was fired or negotiated a settlement of some kind.

Reviving Eric Johnson’s Position Revisited

At the time, a petition was constructed to register discontent with Johnson’s ouster. Now, an update has been posted to the petition with a broader aim. The petition to SBTS now asks:

Given the obvious harm that these consequences would cause both to the standing and reputation of Southern Seminary, the following are recommended steps that should be taken and questions to be asked next week as the Board of Trustees visit Southern Seminary:

Offer immunity and anonymity to any and all professors who would be willing to speak with the trustees regarding this situation. Many of them know far more than we do but are terrified of speaking out for fear of ending up like Professor Johnson. Allow them to simply affirm, deny, or elaborate upon anything said in this letter without the fear of disciplinary actions.
Reconsider the silencing effects that the removal of tenure in 2014 has had up the seminary’s faculty, as they have been afraid to speak up for their terminated colleague, Professor Johnson. Please take steps to reinstate tenure. Tenure ensures the continuity of an institution’s identity, maintains the financial security for faculty families, and establishes boundaries that prevent the president from wrongfully firing professors. Before the removal of tenure in 2014, professors could be justifiably removed for moral or doctrinal transgression. There is no added benefit to the new faculty contract policy aside from the consolidation of power within the office of the president. The reason alumni are writing this letter is because all the faculty and staff members who contacted us were afraid that they would lose their job by speaking out.
Southern Seminary’s counseling program is very important in the life of Southern Baptist Churches, as it is on the front lines of pastoral and congregational soul care. Is it in the best interest of the churches that Southern Seminary serves to train up future pastors in a monologuing counseling department? Should pastors not study under both biblical counselors and Christian psychologists as they learn how to care for the complex needs of their churches?
Ask President Mohler directly whether any ACBC-affiliate (church, person, organization) was involved in his termination of Johnson. If Mohler refuses to provide a direct “yes” or “no” answer, ask him whether or not his reluctance to speak about the termination is the result of a non-disclosure agreement. It is imperative that the truth come out so that the Seminary can move on and begin a healing and reunifying process.
Based upon the findings of the above mentioned investigations, if it is found that there was any improper conduct that led to the termination of Professor Johnson, we recommend that the Board of Trustees extend a public apology to Johnson and offer to reinstate him in his original position at Southern Seminary.

This Story Is About More Than Eric Johnson and Heath Lambert

Johnson’s personnel matter is wrapped up in a broader issue. Will Southern Baptist pastors be exposed to one narrow approach to counseling or will they have access to training and teaching which takes psychological insights into account? Why this matters to a broad audience is that many people go to their pastors for counseling or for recommendations for counseling. It would be tragic and potentially dangerous for pastors to refer only to Biblical counselors.
Note to the folks at SBTS, mental illness is real and the Bible doesn’t say much about it. Recently, I featured representatives of Biblical counseling and Christian psychology in a discussion about a case. It was clear to me that the Biblical counseling approach left important components out. Furthermore, there are many problems in living which Scripture doesn’t address.

Christian Psychology v. Biblical Counseling: A. J. McConnell Reacts to Allchin and Throckmorton

I am in the middle of a series comparing and contrasting Christian psychology and Biblical counseling. Using a case of school refusal as a prompt, I have featured the conceptualizations of Biblical counselor Tim Allchin, and Christian psychologist A.J. McConnell as points of comparison to my description of how the case turned out. Today, A.J. McConnell sums up his views in this reaction to Allchin and me. Next week, Dr. Allchin will provide a similar reaction to McConnell and me. After Allchin’s reaction, then I will wrap up the series.*

Overall, I have enjoyed reading the varying perspectives presented on this topic in both the responses by Dr. Tim Allchin and Dr. Warren Throckmorton as well as the comments provided by other readers in the comments section. Before I comment on Dr. Allchin’s and Dr. Throckmorton’s approaches, I wanted to briefly respond to a few of Dr. Throckmorton’s critiques on my conceptualization.
Dr. Throckmorton wrote:
“I have concerns about advocating techniques a client doesn’t ordinarily believe in or engage in as a technique….While there is research which links stress reduction with meditation, I believe Christian prayer should be a voluntary and spontaneous response to God rather than a prescribed technique of counseling.”
I agree with your statement and would never recommend or prescribe a technique that is contrary to a person’s belief system. If a Christian requests that I integrate Biblical principles with my knowledge of psychological interventions, I always first assess what spiritual disciplines they use in their daily life. This usually leads to a discussion on how they can use these disciplines as an adjunct with other interventions.
Dr. Throckmorton also stated:
“I must add that counseling is about much more than advice or guidance in moral decision making.”
I also agree with this statement. Not every issue brought into a counseling session is a moral issue. For example, I believe that an individual pursuing treatment for anxiety is looking for practical strategies they can use to stop having anxious thoughts and/or physical manifestations of anxiety. Similar to how a medical intervention can help anyone regardless of their religious beliefs, psychological science has provided several effective interventions that can help reduce anxiety or other mental health concerns.
My response to Dr. Allchin:
I enjoyed reading Tim Allchin’s conceptualization of the case example and respect his point of view. I found myself agreeing with many of Tim’s general interventions. Specifically, I agreed on the following points:

I agree about medications not being the first option in this case. There are cognitive and behavioral interventions, for example, that can be used before even considering the need for medications. As Dr. Throckmorton discussed in his response about the role of PANDAS and separation anxiety, I would recommend the parents speak to the child’s pediatrician in order to rule out any underlying medical factors to this problem.

I also agree that establishing a relationship with the child and family is vital for effective therapy. There are several research studies that indicate a strong therapeutic alliance is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, factor in effective outcomes in therapy. In other words, having a good relationship between a therapist and the child is just as important, and even more important, than the specific interventions used.

I also agree with some of the examples of using a physical redirect as a replacement for anxious thoughts or behaviors. An example of a principle associated with behaviorism indicates that a behavior you are trying to extinguish needs to be replaced by an alternative behavior. Identifying alternative behaviors or physical redirects is a common strategy used by counselors.

In contrast, there are also areas in which I disagree with Allchin regarding this case. Here are a few examples:
Dr. Allchin wrote:
“What does the Bible say he needs to “put off” regarding fearful behaviors that lead to disobedience?”
Separation anxiety is a disorder and I do not believe that it comes from a spirit of disobedience towards God, the school, or the child’s parents. A child with this condition is experiencing a significant amount of fear that they do not know how to respond to appropriately.
Dr. Allchin also wrote:
“I would seek to help them identify emotions, behaviors, habits, beliefs, and heart motivations….. Biblical counselors seek to determine Action Steps that help a child function in a way that pleases God.”
Again, I perceive these quotes as indicating the problem is a “heart” issue rather than an issue of mental health. I did not get the sense in reading the case description that the child or family were exhibiting any oppositional, defiant, or other behaviors that would lead me to suspect any issues with their core belief system. Therefore, I would not focus on “heart motivations” or steps a child needs to do to “please God” in this situation.
On a side note:
I appreciate the role of Biblical counselors in our profession. They bring a unique perspective that is certainly applicable to many mental health concerns and they use the Bible as a strong resource to help others in need. However, Biblical counseling is not always appropriate for everyone. I would also make the same statement in regards to Christian Psychology and the western approach to Psychology in general. One reason why I chose psychology rather than becoming a pastor or a Biblical counselor is because I feel God called me to serve others as a psychologist. My role as a psychologist is not to convert people to Christianity. I’ll focus on that mission in my personal life. I work with many individuals that do not share my personal beliefs. My approach to everyone I work with, regardless of their religious views, is to respect them and not unnecessarily judge them for the choices and decisions they have made. I have worked with several individuals that have explicitly voiced their hatred towards the church, God/Jesus, and/or have expressed a belief in atheism. Their beliefs do not change how I approach them in counseling or treat them as a person when they are in my office. I feel that my professional role allows me to interact with a broader population. I enjoy the diversity and challenge when I meet people with other perspectives on life. It doesn’t compromise my faith or my relationship with Jesus. It helps me understand the world. I’m curious to how Biblical counselors would address these types of situations.
Response to Dr. Throckmorton’s conceptualization:
I am happy to hear that there was a successful resolution to this case example. The use of a paradoxical intervention was intriguing and one I may consider in the future if I encounter a similar situation. I have used paradoxical interventions in other situations involving working with families; however, this is not usually my first approach when addressing an issue of separation anxiety. My preference is a Cognitive-Behavioral approach given its strong research efficacy in treating this diagnosis. There is always a risk when using a paradoxical intervention that it will backfire and not have the intended outcomes that are desired by the therapist.
I appreciate Dr. Throckmorton’s willingness to review and consider new information in regards to this case example, as illustrated by the discussion of the role of PANDAS and its psychological impact on children. Personally, I have not researched any information on this topic but your post has reminded me of the importance of staying updated on scientific research findings in order to provide competent services to the individuals that we serve.
A quick note on other comments Throckmorton made about the 95 theses:
Similar to your opinion, I also disagree with Dr. Lambert’s theses statements #45 and #46 regarding the use of diagnostic labels in the DSM. These diagnoses are real conditions. Some are mentioned in the Bible. Other diagnoses are not. This does not make the DSM invalid. My specialty is in neurodevelopmental disabilities and I cannot recall symptoms of an autism spectrum disorder, for example, being discussed in the Bible.
I also take issue with Theses #72 and #73 regarding state licensure:

The process of requiring a state license to counsel is not required by the Bible, is used by the state to enforce counseling practices founded on secular therapy, and is unnecessary for those wishing to grow in God’s wisdom to counsel.

The only authentically Christian motivation for pursuing a state license to counsel is the missional desire of making Christ known to all people in all places, especially in those places where the authority of the state allows only licensed individuals to talk to troubled people.

These statements suggest that a professional counselor’s primary role is to convert others to the Christian faith. As Christians, we do not demand these expectations from Christians in other professions. We also do not expect other Christian professionals to not pursue a state license to practice medicine, nursing, law, accounting, teaching, etc. Most states require mental health professionals to obtain a license in order to practice. This provides a level of accountability and protects the public from harmful practices. Having a state license does not compromise a person’s faith. I find these statements to be judgmental and they place unnecessary guilt on an individual that has decided to pursue state licensure. If a Christian does not pursue a state license, it limits their ability to serve others. If this was the case, Christians would primarily only be able to provide counsel to others if they walked through a church door seeking help.

Thanks to Dr. McConnell for his participation in this series.
To read all posts in this series, click here.
*Even though I will wrap up this part of the series next week, I intend to start a new one featuring critique of Heath Lambert’s 95 theses.

Category: psychology

Top Ten Blog Posts of 2017

To follow the blog on social media, check out and like