Truth or Lie? "God won't give us more than we can handle"

I recall some churches that proudly boast that "God won't give us more than we can handle". Rather than being scriptural, this is more of a declaration of their low faith levels and a reluctance to try anything that seems humanly unlikely. What does it mean to be able to handle something? Does it mean you're not drawing blood? Not dying from it? Or that it's not disturbing your schedule? Or it's not mentally tough?

We will know for sure that you were not able to handle something if at the end of it you physically die, or your mind cracks. Think more of war veterans who cannot operate normally because of the nightmares, and less of having such a "killer" week that I "feared that I might not survive it". Might not survive what? A bad boss? An all nighter? I'm pretty sure you will survive and handle all these things that millions of people handle every single day.

Nowhere does the Bible ever say anything remotely like "God won't give us more than we can handle".

People often quote from corinthians saying, no temptation will come that we cannot resist. But the point of that verse is that when we rely on God, he will deliver us. We see that he will provide the way of escape. The way of escape does not necessarily exist before the temptation came. As you can see, the emphasis is on God's faithfulness:

http://bible.com/59/1co.10.13.ESV No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

In fact, the Bible says the opposite will happen.

http://bible.com/59/2co.1.8-10.ESV For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.

And God says not to rely on false hopes and false gods, which include your own strength.

What the Bible also says is that our current faith or hardness of heart can limit what God is able to teach us today. But rather than not being able to "handle" this teaching, it is more about either the teaching falling on deaf ears or about not having enough basics to prevent misunderstanding ("hard to explain").

http://bible.com/59/heb.5.11.ESV About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

http://bible.com/59/jhn.16.12.ESV “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

Take heart, though, that God cares too much about his glory through your increasing holiness that he won't stick to your comfortable game plan. He will, over and over again, give you challenges beyond your own strength and ability. In order to make you rely more on Him rather than on yourself or on false gods. Be glad that he does this! It is a mercy to you. Rather than letting you stagnate or wander into permanent unbelief and hellfire, he continues to uphold you and to remove all confidence you have in things other than Himself. This is a wonderful portal to greater reliance upon Jesus as saviour, greater delight in the mercies of Father God, and ultimately a greater display of his glory.

In summary, "God won't give you more than you can handle" is a sign of a fragile faith, and worse than that, an unbiblical view of God. That God was merely there for my comfort and my comfortable life. This is not the Almighty God, and us as his humble servants. Wrong God, wrong theology, wrong way of approaching life.

Ask God to challenge your faith and to help you rely on him more and on yourself less. Today, commit to move away from false clichés into the warm light of truth!

Do you agree or disagree? Post your thoughts below!

Attachment Style - Survey

Alright! So in my small group we did some stuff on attachment theory and how that affects our relationship with God. If you're wondering what style you might have tendencies towards, go down the list of questions and answer (Often/Rarely). Get out notepad.exe and list your yes and no's! The answer key is at the bottom of the page. (Taken from "Why you do the things you do, the secret to healthy relationships, Clinton & Sibcy")

<<Start>>

1. I don’t like sharing my feelings with others. 
2. I don’t like it when my partner wants to talk about his/her feelings. 
3. I have a hard time understanding how other people feel. 
4. When I get stressed, I try to deal with the situation all by myself. 
5. My partner often complains that I don’t like to talk about how I feel. 
6. I don’t really need close relationships. 
7. I highly value my independence and self-sufficiency. 
8. I don’t worry about being alone or abandoned. 
9. I don’t worry about being accepted by others. 
10. I tend to value personal achievements and success over close, intimate relationships. 
11. I really like sharing my feelings with my partner, but he/she does not seem as open as I am. 
12. My feelings can get out of control very quickly. 
13. I worry about being alone. 
14. I worry about being abandoned in close relationships. 
15. My partner complains that I am too clingy and emotional. 
16. I strongly desire to be very intimate with people. 
17. In my closest relationships, the other person doesn’t seem as desirous of intimacy and closeness as I am. 
18. I worry a great deal about being rejected by others. 
19. I tend to value close, intimate relationships over personal achievement and success. 
20. When I get stressed, I desperately seek others for support, but no one seems as available as I would like them to be. 
21. My feelings are very confusing to me, so I try not to feel them. 
22. My feelings are very intense and overwhelming. 
23. I feel torn between wanting to be close to others and wanting to pull away. 
24. My partner complains that sometimes I’m really needy and clingy and other times I’m distant and aloof. 
25. I have a difficult time letting others get close to me, but once I let them in, I worry about being abandoned or rejected. 
26. I feel very vulnerable in close relationships. 
27. Sometimes I feel very disconnected from myself and my feelings. 
28. I can’t decide whether or not I want to be in close relationships. 
29. Other people can really hurt you if you let them get too close. 
30. Close relationships are difficult to come by because people tend to be unpredictable in their actions and behaviors. 
31. I find it easy to share my feelings with people I’m close to. 
32. I like it when my partner wants to share his/her feelings with me. 
33. I am comfortable getting close to others, but I also feel comfortable being alone. 
34. I expect my partner to respect who I am. 
35. I expect my partner to respond to my needs in a sensitive and appropriate way. 
36. Building intimacy in relationships comes relatively easy to me. 
37. I let myself feel my emotions, but I’m rarely, if ever, overwhelmed by them. 
38. I am able to understand and respond sensitively to my partner’s feelings. 
39. I do a decent job balancing my need for intimacy with my need for achievement and success. 
40. When I get stressed, I feel comfortable seeking comfort from my partner and/or close friends. 

<<End (scroll down!)>>

If many of your "often" or "yes" came in the following sections of the questions, then you might have a tendency towards:

Q1-10 The Avoidant Attachment Style

Q11-20 The Ambivalent Attachment Style

Q21-30 The Disorganised Attachment Style

Q31-40 The Secure Attachment Style

The Healthy Church

The Five Dimensions of a Healthy Church (Rick Warren):

1. Churches grow warmer through fellowship.
2. Churches grow deeper through discipleship.
3. Churches grow stronger through worship.
4. Churches grow broader through ministry.
5. Churches grow larger through evangelism.

This is my diagram, based on an interpretation of Rick Warren's work at http://globalchristiancenter.com/strategy-and-planning/a-healthy-church-balances-the-five-purposes.html The five axes are the five purposes of the church. The coloured area (ie spikes) indicate how strong the church is on each axis. If the vertex is close to the outer edge, then the church is strong on that point.

The excerpt from his article (reformatted slightly for readability):

******start of direct quote********

The Importance of Balance

• Every church needs to grow warmer through fellowship, deeper through discipleship, stronger through worship, broader through ministry, and larger through evangelism.
• These five purposes of the church are commanded by Jesus in the Great Commandment and Great Commission, explained by Paul in Ephesians 4, described in Jesus' prayer for the church in John 17, and modeled by the first church in Jerusalem.
• In Acts 2:42-47 these five facets of health are mentioned: They fellowshipped, edified each other, worshipped, ministered, and evangelized. As a result, verse 47 says, "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

The Five Dimensions of a Healthy Church

1. Churches grow warmer through fellowship.
2. Churches grow deeper through discipleship.
3. Churches grow stronger through worship.
4. Churches grow broader through ministry.
5. Churches grow larger through evangelism.

Church growth is the natural result of church health. But church health can only occur when our message is biblical and our mission is balanced. Each of the five New Testament purposes of the church must be in equilibrium with the others for health to occur.
Now this is important: Because we are imperfect beings, balance in a church does not occur naturally!
In fact, we must continually correct imbalance. It's human nature to overemphasize the purpose of the church we feel most passionate about. As a result, most evangelical churches already do the five purposes of the church - sort of.
But they don't do them all equally well. One church may be strong in fellowship, yet weak in evangelism. Another may be strong in worship, yet weak in discipleship. Still another may be strong in evangelism, yet weak in ministry.
Why is this? It's the natural tendency of leaders to emphasize what they feel strongly about and neglect whatever they feel less passionate about. Around the world you can find churches that have become the extension of their pastor's giftedness. They focus only on what he cares about most.
Unless you set up a system and structure to intentionally balance the five purposes, your church will tend to overemphasize the purpose that best expresses the gifts and passion of its pastor. Most churches fall into one of five categories, based on the purpose they emphasize most.

Without a system and structure to balance the five purposes, your church will overemphasize the purpose that expresses the gifts and passion of the pastor.

Five Kinds of Unbalanced Churches

1. The Soul Winning Church
• If the pastor sees his primary role as an evangelist, then the church becomes a soul-winning church. This church is always reaching out to the lost - to the neglect of the other four purposes. The only goal is to save souls. The terms you're likely to hear most often in this church are witnessing, evangelism, salvation, decisions for Christ, baptisms, visitation, altar calls, and crusades. This church is shaped by the leader's gift of evangelism. Everything else takes on a secondary role.
2. The Experiencing God Church
• If the pastor's passion and gifts lie in the area of worship, he will instinctively lead the church to become what I call an experiencing God church. The focus is on sensing the presence and power of God in worship. Key terms for this church are praise, prayer, worship, music, spiritual gifts, spirit power, and revival. The worship service receives more attention than anything else. You can find both charismatic and non-charismatic varieties of this type of church.
3. The Family Reunion Church
• A church that focuses primarily on fellowship is what I call the family reunion church. This church is shaped by the pastoral gift. The pastor is highly relational, loves people, and spends most of his time caring for members. Key terms for this church are love, belonging, fellowship, caring, relationships, potlucks, small groups, and fun. In the family reunion church, the gathering is more important that the goals.
• Most churches of this type have less than 200 members since that's about all one pastor can personally care for - probably 80% of American churches fall into this category. A family reunion church may not get much done - but it's almost indestructible. It can survive poor preaching, limited finances, no growth, scandal, and even church splits. Relationships are the glue that keeps the faithful coming.
4. The Classroom Church
• This church occurs when the pastor sees his primary role as being a teacher. Because he's gifted in teaching and enjoys it immensely, he will emphasize preaching and de-emphasize the other tasks of the church. The church may even have "Bible" in its name. The pastor serves as the expert instructor and the members come to church with notebooks, take notes, and go home. Key words for the classroom church are expository preaching, Bible study, Greek and Hebrew, doctrine, knowledge, truth, and discipleship.
5. The Social Conscience Church
• This is the church that is out to change society. It is full of activists who are "doers of the Word." It comes in both a liberal and conservative version. The liberal version tends to focus on the injustice in our society. The conservative version tends to focus on the moral decline in our society. Both feel the church should be a major player in the political process. There is always some current crusade or cause that the church is involved in. The pastor sees his role as prophet and reformer. Important terms in this church are needs, serve, share, minister, take a stand, and do something.

I realize that I have painted these pictures with broad strokes. Generalizations never tell the whole story, and are usually incomplete. Some churches are a blend of two or three of these categories. The point is that unless there is an intentional plan to balance all five purposes, most churches will embrace one purpose to the neglect of others.

There are some interesting things we can observe about these five categories of churches.

• First, the members of each of these churches will usually consider their church as the most spiritual. That's because people are attracted to join the type of church that corresponds to their own passion and giftedness. We all want to be a part of a church that affirms what we feel is most important.
• The truth is all five emphases are important! These are the purposes of the church, but they must be balanced if a church is to be healthy. A lot of congregational conflict is caused when a church calls a pastor whose gifts and passion do not match the purpose that the church has emphasized in the past.
• For example, if a family fellowship church thinks they're calling a pastor to be their chaplain, and they get an evangelist or a reformer, sparks will fly! Having counselled thousands of pastors, I know this is a common recipe for disaster.
• Intentionally setting up a strategy and a structure to force ourselves to give equal attention to each purpose is what being a purpose-driven church is all about.

Healthy churches are built on purpose!

By focusing equally on all five of the New Testament purposes of the church, your church will develop the healthy balance that makes lasting growth possible.

In ministry, some things must never change but others must change constantly.

Clearly, God's five purposes for his church are non-negotiable.

If a church fails to balance the five purposes of:

1. worship,
2. fellowship,
3. discipleship,
4. ministry, and
5. evangelism,

then it's no longer a healthy church, and it is in danger of becoming simply a social club.

On the other hand, the way or style in which we fulfil these eternal purposes must continually be adjusted and modified because human culture is always changing.

******end of direct quote********

Models of Integration Part 2

Last time, we looked at the different models, or ways, of integrating Christian theology and modern psychology together on the topic of human behaviour. I continue here on why I don't quite buy Entwhistle's chosen model, and propose a possible tweak to his model.

The two books of Revelation and Nature were given to us to understand God and ourselves, but it seems to me that they shed light on some very different aspects of human behaviour.

The book of Nature was written to display the glory and power of God. (To paraphrase C S Lewis) I would not have known what splendour was if I had not seen, amidst biting cold winds, the labyrinth of Tasmanian valleys stretched out below a high vantage point. I would not have known beauty if I had not met Ukrainians. I would not have known dread and terror if I had never skied blizzard-blinded down the French Alps, unable to see the snow between my boots. I would not have known glory if I had never watched a copper-green hailstorm unleash its anger over rural Sydney. The book of Nature gives expressions and definitions to theological words - splendour, beauty, fear, glory. From the beginning, the invisible attributes of God have been clearly seen through what has been made - his eternal power and divine nature.

The book of Revelation (the whole Bible) was written to teach us everything we needed regarding obedience, holiness and righteous living. Its words are legible and intelligible whereas the book of Nature paints in vague and broad strokes, requiring much reflection and discretion to decipher correctly. If we start to draw our theology more from the vague brushstrokes of Nature than from the precise and explicit propositions found in the Bible, we not only get a lousy picture of God, but our thinking about how to learn more about God also goes astray. Logically, this occurs (gradually) because our own mind and notions  become the final critic if what may be known about God rather than asking him directly and discovering the answer in the Bible. It would be like having a preconceived notion about the plight of exploited sex workers but never bothering to engage with then to discover the real problem. Such an approach would immediately reveal to the discerning onlooker the inflated sense of self that must necessarily accompany such an approach. Theologically, one might say that the mind controlled by merely the human nature is hostile toward God and cannot please Him and hence cannot formulate pleasing thoughts about Him. 

So we see that regarding matters of salvation and doctrine, the book of nature can only be read under the light of and through the lens of the book of revelation. 

This is groundwork. The real question I now ask is whether this "lens of revelation" approach also holds true regarding matters of human behaviour and psychological understanding of the human mind. I will address this in the next post! 

Models of Integration - Part 1 (Jan 2014)

My apologies for the short absence, as I've been away on a whirlwind of a November, finishing up a big report (possibly the most serious one I've ever written to date), had an adventure in North Carolina, attended a Glycobiology conference in Florida, and went deep-sea fishing in the Maldives! And yes, you've guessed it, I don't quite have any more leave for Christmas!

This is actually the fourth or fifth time I've attempted to put pen to paper, and is the only successful one (the other three posts were too ambitious for this piece-meal format). I've decided to make about 5 more posts on this topic, so I can move on to other topics. As before, I completely welcome any comments or discussion.

If everything before was just entrées, today we turn to the meat of the book.

These are models of how "psychologically committed" proponents and "religiously committed" proponents can decide to agree or disagree on their viewpoints. The list seems to be quite comprehensive, covering what seems to be most of the actions that two parties might make towards each other - fight, steal, conquer, ignore, unite. Have a read through the list...which group do you fall under?

This has been one of the more interesting...and personally more controversial chapters in the book. This is because the author was clearly pushing the argument towards "Allies", and I sometimes felt overselling it a bit too much. In fact, I found myself disliking what I felt was a snobbish disdain of the four other models. This disdain felt like something akin to two women watching some children disagreeing over toys, and whispering to each other, "oh look Martha, the two are at it again - a pity they can't get along like us; oh no, they're far too silly to ever play peacefully". Note again how the only real positive terms are awarded to his favourite model, Allies, and to the easiest one to debunk, Neutral Parties. I am probably being terribly unfair, because, surprise of surprises, I don't fall into the "Allies" model! 

I stress here that he is not addressing Christianity in its entirety, but the Christian theology of human behaviour. The Allies model sees both theology and the scientific field of Psychology as equals, with each one considering the data from BOTH fields, with appropriate methodology, in order to make increasingly accurate conclusions about the truth behind human behaviour. The ancients called this something like "reading aright from the two Books of Revelation and of Nature". 

I love that Entwhistle points out, rightly so, that theology is not the same as truth, and likewise the theology of human behaviour is most definitely not the same as God's truth about human behaviour. This guards us from picturing our theological understanding as an unassailable fortress - the first step, always in the name of dogma, towards heresy. 

But here is where I depart from his reasoning. I find my feet more firmly planted in the Colonialist camp - where theology dominates psychological understandings, and the only way to meet is by "conquering". Conquering by capturing psychological findings and transforming them by re-interpreting through a theological framework. Entwhistle diagnoses me well here, rightly blaming my stance as due to the twins of lack of working knowledge of psychological methods, and having no intention to contribute to psychological research. And so I find myself being labeled a "pilferer" and "Colonialist", which of course nobody born after Queen Victoria, in their right mind would ever want to wear such a title. Do you see how Entwhistle's use of emotive terms now work against him?

I find that my biggest pickle with his proposed Allies model is that, as data sources, the book of Revelation is put on equal footing with the book of Nature. Yes, his point is valid that they are both written by the same Sovereign. But just as one would hesitate to equate the biographical value of "An Autobiography of a Fireworks Technician" to his/her million dollar fireworks display on New Years' Eve, I likewise would hesitate before equating the books of Revelation and of Nature as to their informative value on behaviour. 

I strongly believe that the two books were written for two separate purposes (and now I reveal again my Colonialist colours), and hence have different value for the investigator seeking answers to human behaviour. But more on why I think this way...next time!

Dividing Church and Psychology - A Case of Reductionism?

Galileo Before the Holy Court - c1900 Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

Entwistle, I believe, correctly diagnoses the divide between secular psychology and Christianity. The divide is a problem of historical polarisation due to knee-jerk reactions against "unchristian" assumptions. What assumptions? Psychologists, in their search for the natural causes of diseases of the mind, went a bit too far and begun to assume that ALL problems of the mind have merely natural causes. This was probably born out of modernism, the wide spread assumption that a merely scientific understanding could solve all man's ills. Furthermore, psychologists began to become skeptical of ALL religious experiences and explanations for certain mental states. On the wave of Darwinism, they began to believe that the universe and life spontaneously generated, and left with only the material world, Entwistle says they began to see their "scientific method as the only legitimate and reliable method for pursuing knowledge". And this is where the dichotomy begins. The dichotomy caused the split on the level of epistemology and origins. Since orthodox (lower case "o") Christians cannot accept these naturalistic assumptions, therefore they began to reject the theories, followed by rejecting the psychologists, and eventually rejecting the whole field of psychology. Of course, Christians do not have a monopoly on this kind of reductionist logic - this way of viewing the world appears to be inbuilt into the human psyche (a psychologist probably has a term for this).

As a side note, this pattern is of course a repetition of the Christian fundamentalist's tendency to disengage from the rest of world. E.g. Some movies are morally repulsive therefore all movies are morally repulsive therefore don't watch movies (told to my parents in the 70s); Some scientists use natural selection as an argument for naturalistic evolution, therefore reject all theories of natural selection (I read many of these books in the 90s). The converse approach would be to engage: evaluate the assumptions, understand the method, consider the conclusions proposed, then decide on a real response to the real issue. E.g. Some movies are morally repulsive, but not all movies are. But people can improve their quality of life by enjoying healthy movies (e.g. for the Christian, the biographical "Jesus film") while avoiding unhealthy ones, therefore raise awareness of danger of the flawed assumptions and the idyllic representation of life in the movies, and teach people how to distinguish between what is healthy and unhealthy for them.

Is this segregation of church and psychology in the past now? After all, a whole stream of books from Christian psychologists and counsellors have flooded our shelves, swelling both the "Christian Living" and "Self-Help" sections in both Christian and Normal bookshops. As Entwistle explains, there has been a huge effort by many Christians to integrate the Christian faith and worldview with modern psychological research and theories. They have tried to build on the firm foundations - of a biblical gospel and a biblical Jesus - with the treasures of knowledge uncovered from the science of psychology. They appear to have been successful in never out-stepping the orthodox boundaries set by the Bible, and are able to draw from the deep epistemological foundations of the Christian worldview to make more justified conclusions. Their work, whether packaged in churched or unchurched terms, have helped many people remove the emotional and mental blocks preventing them from receiving God's love - in one sense, "demolishing arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5; of course not exactly fighting with divine weapons as in the original passage, but the action is quite similar.)

In summary, while for many people the historical divide still exists between a Christian's faith and psychological research, the divide does not need to remain. I am not referring to a wholesale acceptance of modern psychological research, of course. Sure enough, much of the naturalistic assumptions underpinning that science render it quite useless to a Christian (e.g. work trying to show morality as an emergent dynamic from social interactions), but there still exists a vast area of useful information and tools for the discerning Christian. Excellent books that have helped many Christians including myself are plentiful (these are books written with a distinctly Christian flavour):

By Clinton (counselor) and Sibcy (clinical psych PhD) - Attachments: Why You Love, Feel, and Act the Way You Do.
 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/726510.Attachments?from_search=true

By Cloud (clinical psych PhD) and Townsend (clinical psych PhD) - Boundaries, How People Grow, Safe People.

By Loder - The Logic of the Spirit. (This is a seminal work, elegantly merging developmental theories with theology).

Psycho-Clergy?

A bit of fiction...

The sweat dripped from the General's helmet. Black, sooty tendrils curled around his horse's legs and clung to their leather strappings. Just before dawn, the wind had changed, and his scouts had caught a whiff of the fires. Now the sun was high overhead and, driven by a dry wind, the snaking lines of grass-fire had quickly encircled the hill where his army stood in battle columns. They had drank the last of the water early yesterday, and now the heat and smoke was pushing them to the brink of dehydration. 

His chestnut warhorse shuffled nervously. Gereral Ma Su squinted, his eyes stinging from the acrid air. The humiliation now seemed inevitable. He had been sent to defend Jieting, the key supply center for the Northern campaign. Against the advice of his trusted friend, he had chosen to take the high ground instead of fortifying the walled city in the nearby valley. He had been so sure of himself, so hungry for glory that he had not even entertained the idea that the victory would take more than a day. The enemy had shown more cunning, choosing to surround them at the plateau just below the only approach to the hill. Then, if he had chosen to attack, the plateau would have nullified the high ground advantage and caused his men to be fighting on three sides as they spilled out from the ridge lines. The few skirmishes he had ordered to try to break the enemy lines had confirmed this, and now they were penned in like sheep. If only he had listened to his advisor! The valley had plentiful fountains and, with the open plains around the walled city, it was not difficult to defend. But he had severely misunderstood the terrain. 

Sighing, he tightened the straps on his helmet, and twisted in the saddle to the line of grim-faced veterans behind him. He narrowed his eyes, scanning up and down the lines of fire. There! There was a gap in the blackened earth! He nudged his mount forward and nodded to the signallers. One last charge...

The Aftermath:

In the decisive defeat that ensued in AD 228, General Ma Su was captured and returned to the capitol in shame. Eventually, it emerged that due to his insistence on taking the textbook "high ground advantage", he failed to defend the supply center, which in turn caused the collapse of the whole Northern campaign. The Emperor had no choice but to order his execution.

Fighting the Battle and Knowing the Battlefield:

Understanding the battlefield and fighting the fight are two separate things, but they cannot be separated. It seems to me that, with psychology alone, I might understand facets of the battlefield of your mind (although without the Bible, I am unable to define absolute normality or even identify the sides). Indeed, I might perhaps begin to grasp the the terrain and the natural obstacles, the high ground and the water supply points for my army. But knowing the lay of the land is not on the same dimension as winning battles - information is not application.

I think you still need the bible to carry out the actual warfare - the day-to-day trial of displacing the defeated but yet entrenched army of sin, relying on the Holy Spirit to burn the dross from your desires, and re-calibrating your thoughts to reflect the mind of Christ, etc.. But perhaps psychological understanding and tools help us understand the battlefield of the mind?

Conversely, can one do with the Bible alone? Yes, it seems. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate,equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB. Therefore, the application of biblical principles under the expert blade of the Holy Surgeon must be enough for righteous living. So is there any scope for extra-biblical helps?

David Entwhistle does shed some light here. He brings up the fact that people were "doing" psychology before Psychology (the formal academic field) was invented (in the 19th Century). And more so, he continues to press, that it was the pastors using their bibles to improve the emotional and mental health of their parishioners! I can agree with his observation because in my reading of a couple of older texts, like Augustine's Confessions and Richard Foster's "Spiritual Life as Journey" (he's not dead but he reviews a selection of the contemplative/mystic saints), I do notice that great Christian thinkers from all ages seem to have been, in one sense, psychologists - in that to some extent they were seeking to unravel the workings of the human mind. An immediate example to memory is that of Evagrius (8th Century). He was a prominent clergy but fell into an affair with a married woman. Afraid of discovery and torn by guilt, he eventually found solace as a monk in a monastery. In what seemed like his attempt to understand his own sin and how subtly he fell into it, he penned the 8 Deadly Thoughts that eventually became the 7 Deadly Sins. You could say that it was his attempt to model and categorise the mental, emotional and spiritual processes that governed behavior, identifying the root causes and the visible presentations. Perhaps his view was to identify the root cause early so as to nip it in the bud before it can manifest in destructive behavior. He sounds like he could write a psych textbook! 

So Entwhistle has a very interesting observation - that clergy were psychologists long before Psychology emerged as we know it. He seems to conclude that when it comes to the pastor caring for church members, psychology does indeed overlap heavily with the Scriptures. Perhaps then, a very careful study of Scripture (with insight of course) might do much more for the Christian seeking to help others than a primer on psychotherapy!

But, why does it seem that psychological tools been rejected by many Christians? I do actually have friends who look at you suspiciously when you bring up counselling books (although they tend to be the older folk).

Next post - the apparent gulf between Psychology and the Faith...