Eternal Perspectives

If I am really seeing what I think I am seeing, it’s a good thing – to a point.

I think I am seeing a change in the “order of high priests” in the Christian subculture, a change that is moving us away from an order whose ideas and promises have been tried and found lacking. The hope that was offerred by this well-intentioned order of incumbent priests has been exhausted after only a few decades of leading us down a path of “specialized” understanding of faith.

The earlier order of high priests consisted of psychologists and counselors (like myself) who held out the promise of a new level of spiritual maturity, dynamic ministry, and marital bliss based loosely upon the Word of God- but heavily influenced by the theoretical constructs of secular psychology. Following the authoritative voices and charismatic personalities of psychologists such as Narramore (Clyde, then Bruce), Dobson, Crabb, Adams, Collins, and others, the Christian community became enamored with psychological fads such as finding one’s inner child, constructing boundaries, becoming assertive, and casting off the shackles of codependence.

Q: How many codependents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. The codependents simply detach in love and watch the light bulb screw itself.”

Without question, a lot of good came from the psychological priesthood and this should not be construed as an attack on any of the aforementioned individuals who have sought to triage a bruised reed or re-ignite a smoldering wick. These psychologists – with eyes trained to see – began to comprehend and formulate passages and teachings in the Scripture a little differently than the pedestrian Levites, i.e., those trained theologically but without the “benefit” of in-depth instruction in art of therapy and personality development.

Several concepts were re-discovered in the Bible that had been overlooked in the past. The ministry of Christ was re-examined through psychological lenses and some significant, valuable insights were gleaned. Some (thankfully, not all) concepts and practices taken from therapy were adapted to discipleship and genuine growth – spiritual growth – resulted.

As is often the case with any movement or development, problems began to surface because the new high priests had no way of restricting access to the masses. Quality control was quite impossible and just about anyone who had been trained in therapeutic techniques, been in therapy, or knew someone who had been in therapy began speaking out and writing books with “new insights” into Christian living. (I suspect more Christians have read Dobson or even Dr. Phil than have read – or even heard of – Grudem, Stott, Henry, or Erickson.)

The wine of God’s grace was quickly watered down or poured out completely and the Christian community was left to gulp down whatever was put in front of them. If the one serving them was a believer and had the endorsement of the church, then it was assumed that the wine must be good. Too many Christians were parched and didn’t stop to considered that the wine bottles were filled with non-alcoholic liquids.

H.L. Mencken: Whoever called it near-beer was a poor judge of distance.” (Also attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and Al Capone.)

Many churches drifted toward becoming therapeutic communities – a good thing – but only therapeutic communities – not a good thing. Who Jesus is and what He did became less important to many than what Jesus could and would do for them: save their marriage? straighten out their children? relieve their anxiety or depression? make them happy?

Now the garb of high priesthood is being passed to another, perhaps more fitting group of Christian experts that appear to be poised to take the Christian community in a different direction. The new high priesthood, if I am correct, are those Christian philosophers who books are becoming more and more popular and whose voices are being heeded with greater and greater frequency.

It is an impressive group, including such solid thinkers as Willard, Moreland, Craig, Geisler, and Groothuis. There are many more. (The patron saint, arguably, is Alvin Plantinga, the Notre Dame professor of philosopy whom Christianity Today stated was the leading philosopher – Christian or otherwise – of our day.) Whether intentionally or not, this group stands poised to assume the garments of high priesthood, thereby consummating an betrothal made decades ago with Francis Schaeffer.

This is a good thing, I think. As an insider of the psychological community, I’m only too familiar with the emptiness and hollow promises that are frequently offered by its proponents. Again, I am not suggesting that these Christian psychologists are peddling snake oil and deliberately fleecing the flock: these are true believers, men and women who believe in the efficacy and hope of psychology and therapy. Sincere Christians, for the most part, but often lacking the theological skills and training necessary to fully integrate secular psychology with biblical psychology.

Certainly there are some – and certainly there are those far more qualified than I in both disciplines – who deftly embody theology and psychology. Henry Cloud, John Townsend, and John Trent come to mind. There are others, of course. But theirs, sadly, have not always been the books that have shaped the church in the past few decades. Hopefully their voices will continue to be heard, albeit with less impact than previously enjoyed.

But a day seems to be dawning when philosophers will serve as high priests to the church. Sufficient training – not just knowledge – in both theology and philosophy should be required of Christian philosophers that assume the mantle passed on by the soon-to-be defrocked Christian psychologists. The Christian philosophers among us, I believe, have a great deal to offer the church collectively and Christians individually. Perhaps due in no small part to the psychological emphasis on emoting and emotions, we have become lazy and sloppy in our thinking. Philosophy is a well-suited corrective – if not cure – for that dangerous condition. Feeling poorly is relatively harmless compared to thinking poorly: good thinking can overcome bad feelings, but the converse is rarely true.

I began this post by saying this was a good thing “to a point.” It would be wonderful, in my opinion, to return to the day when the authoritative voices in the church came not from psychologists or philosophers – or scientists or politicians or educators – but from theologians. The real authorities, when they apply themselves, in matters psychological or philosophical are the theologians who wrestle with the word of God and God Himself, seeking to known Him better – men and women submitted to the authority of God and Scripture, not their own intellect.

I mean not just those who teach in colleges or graduate schools but the men and women who minister in and through the local church. People trained in psychology, philosophy, and other important disciplines who are first and foremost theologians. People who filter everything through a biblical understanding and worldview and seek to develop a Christian perspective on the issues that confront us and vex us.

To accomplish the latter would require a significant shift in the Christian colleges and seminaries charged with educating those whose occupy the pulpit. It might even require preparation that begins at the undergraduate level: a pre-seminary curriculum to go alongside pre-med or pre-law preparation. It would take a lot of doing.

In the meantime, however, I welcome the change in high priests – if that is, after all, what I am seeing. It is a huge responsibility and undertaking, but it’s certainly time for some wine with a bit more substance.

Here’s to the philosophers among us: lead well, lead wisely, lead humbly.