psykologi og den kristne. Del 2

The following chart will demonstrate their distinctions in contrast with the Scriptures. 

SURVEY OF COUNSELING METHODS

Item	Psychoanalytic	Behaviouristic	Humanist	Biblical Counseling
Other Names	Depth           Psychology/Psychic Determinism		Third Force	Nouthetic Counseling
Leader(s)	Freud/Jung/Minirth & Meier	Skinner/Watson/ Dobson/Maslow	Rogers/Allport/ Malow/Adler/Ellis/ Crabb	Adams/Bobgan
Man (Anthropology)	Instinctual animal	Conditioned animal	Basically good	Created by God/image of God
	id – basic instincts	Evolved,    dependent,    & determined                     by environment	Potential internal	Original sin @ Fall
	Superego – learned conscience	Experimental determinism	Mature like a flower	To be what God wants him to be
	Ego  –  reality  oriented  decision maker
Problem	Conflict      between      id      and superego	Environmental conditioning	Social         Environment hinders     realizing     of potential	Fallen sinner by choice
	Poor socialization Denial			Has sinned against God
Responsibility	Not man‘s – but other‘s	Not   man‘s    –   but   the environment	Not     man‘s     –     but responsible     only     to himself	Man‘s – but with dependence on God
	Victim, not a violator
Guilt	False	Unnecessary – eliminated by reconditioning	Unnecessary	Real   –   because   of   willfulchoice    to    disobey    God‘s standard

Treatment (General)	Free id/Side with id	Restructure environment	Help realize potential	Justification by faith
	Ignore superego/find source	Reconditioning     by     the expert	Reflect    –    focus    on feelings, not facts	Sanctification/Biblical  change by Spirit and Word
	Resocialization by the expert	Operant conditioning	Resources in self	Teaching the Word & correct doctrine
	Control  (‗support‖  &  drugs),  no cure		Find     answers     within oneself  with  therapist‘s unconditional acceptance   &   positive regard
Treatment     of Guilt	Shift blame Label as false	Change standard	Solution    within    Love yourself	Focus   on   facts   (guilt   real) Deal     with     sin     (personal responsibility)
			Become self-actualized
Counselor	Expert	Technician/Clinician	Mirror (Feeling centered)	Biblicist
Techniques	Role play	Reward/Punishment	Client-centered, nondirective therapy	Training in Godliness through the Word
	Hypnosis to past lives	Aversive      controls      for behaviour modification	Listening	Transforming by renewing of mind.
	Scream therapy Dream analysis Free association Transactional analysis Ventilation of anger	Glasser reality therapy	T-groups Gestalt est Sensitivity training	Prayer Teaching
Element        of Truth	―People    do    exert    significant influence upon one another.‖	―Environment   is  of  great influence     upon     man.‖ ―There   is  a  need  for  a disciplined reward/punishment structure ‖	―Man        does        have resources  that  he  can tap‖ (but not apart from the will of God discerned by the Holy spirit.)	The    entire    Word    –    all elements of God‘s Word are truth

As can be seen in the above illustration, the approaches to our problems differ widely depending upon which model you follow. Psychology, which follows the medical model, teaches that ''mental'' problems are really an illness. They have come upon a person, just as the flu might, and therefore are not the person's fault. Since the person cannot help themselves they need take no responsibility for their actions, and can look for someone or something else to blame. 
For example, a man with a bad temper can blame his anger on his abusive father. Rooted deep in his ''sub conscience'' is a resentment and bitterness toward this father (which he may not even recognize) that is now being ''acted out'' in his own temper tantrums. Unfortunately, the man does not know this. So, he attempts to curb his anger through prayer and Bible reading, but it does no good. What he needs is a psychological expert to uncover the root forces behind his behaviour. When he discovers that he is an angry man because of his father he can blame his problems on dad, and feel better about himself. Once all of this has happened (which could take years) he will begin behaving better, or so the theory goes. 

The biblical approach, however, is that our man is responsible for his own actions. While it is true that he may have copied bad behaviour from his father, and while it is true that his past will affect his present, nevertheless, this is no excuse for sinful actions. It is not necessary for this man to understand all that has happened in his past, nor is helpful for him to blameshift. He must take responsibility for his own actions, confess his sins and seek to change according to biblical principles. It might be useful at this point to mention several other fundamental differences between psychology and Scripture: 

DIFFERENCE IN FOCUS: Scripture is God-centered, psychology is man-centered. The Bible teaches that our purpose in life is to glorify God. Therefore, everything else is subjugated to that purpose. Psychology being, man-centered, has as its highest goal the happiness of the individual. 

DIFFERENCE IN VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE: One of the gravest flaws of psychology is its anthropology. Psychology teaches that human nature is basically good, or at least neutral. The only reason that people misbehave, is because of outside forces (such is society or parents) that harm them. This being the case, when a psychologist is counseling a person as behaving inappropriately; they must find the source of the pain and eliminate it. Scripture teaches, however, that people misbehave because they are sinners with a flawed and depraved nature. 

DIFFERENCE IN VIEW OF VALUES: The Bible teaches absolutes. There are rights and wrongs in this world. Psychology teaches relativism. I can have my views and you can have yours, but by all means, I must not push my values upon you. The implications for counseling are obvious. 

DIFFERENCE IN OUR SOURCE FOR ANSWERS: Psychology teaches that the individual has the answers within themselves. The job of the counselor is to help the counselee discover these answers. The Bible says that the answers are found within Scripture as revealed by God. 

DIFFERENCES IN METHODOLOGY; Most forms of psychology teach that the key to personal problems lies somewhere in our past. The Bible always deals with us in the present. As a result, God can command us to stop being angry or anxious immediately, without looking for root causes found in the past. 

DOES PSYCHOLOGY WORK? 
The real issue is never whether something works, but whether it is biblical. However, the ''success'' of psychology should at least be addressed. lf one were to listen uncritically to both the secular and Christian media, they would be convinced of the effectiveness of psychology. It is all but exalted as the saviour of modern man, but the studies do not bear this out. A few years ago Bernie Zilbergeld, a well-known unsaved psychologist, wrote a book exposing the ineffectiveness of his field. The book was entitled The Shrinking of America: Myths of Psychological Change (an excerpt can also be found in Leadership, Vol. 5 #1 pp. 87-91). 
The following is a synopsis of his thoughts: Zilbergeld claimed that there were eight myths of modern psychology. After listing each myth we will summarize his critique of that myth. Keep in mind that the majority of Leadership's authors and readers would be supportive of ''Christian Psychology.'' 

1. There is one best therapy. --Actually about the same result can be expected regardless of which therapy is used. 
2. Counseling is equally effective for all problems -- In general it works best for the less serious, less persistent difficulties. For instance it does not work well for depression, addictions or schizophrenia. 
3. Behaviour change is therapy's most common outcome. -- Actually behaviour change is not common, however, the client often feels better simply because he has been listened to, understood, cared for and valued. I.e. the client has received in counseling what they are looking for in a good relationship with people. 
4. Great changes are the rule. - The evidence is overwhelming that fundamental changes are rare. The typical change is far more modest and very far from the claims that are bandied about. In short, cures in therapy are not common. 
5. The longer the therapy, the better the results. The fact is that no relationship between results and duration of counseling has been demonstrated. However, it is positive for the counselor‘s finances. 
6. Therapy changes are permanent or at least long lasting. - Relapse rates of over fifty percent are common and in the case of addictions over ninety percent. 
7. At worst, counseling is harmless. -- One study of encounter groups found that sixteen percent of the participants were worse off as a direct result of being in the group. 
8. One course of therapy is the rule for most clients. - One of the most consistent and important effects of counseling is a desire for more counseling. 

Zilbergeld then draws this conclusion: The message conveyed in therapy and in the culture at large is that if you experience almost any form of discontent, you should get expert assistance…. This is unfortunate, because many clients are going to be disappointed, for two reasons. First, there is absolutely no evidence that professional therapists have any special knowledge of how to change behaviour, or that they obtain better results - with any type of client or problem - than those with little or no formal training. In other words, most people can probably get the same kind of help from friends, relatives, or others that they get from therapists. Second, as we have seen, people are not all that easy to change; we simply cannot alter our lives in the ways we now think we want to (Ibid., p. 92). Gary Collins, well-known Christian psychologist who teaches an integrational approach, amazingly agrees. He says that during the past thirty years, literally thousands of research studies have examined the effectiveness of psychology and have demonstrated that what Zilbergeld reports are true (Ibid., p. 93). 

A Time Magazine article entitled ''The Assault on Freud'' (Nov. 29, 1993) highlighted, ''A spate of new books attacking Freud and his brainchild psychoanalysis for a generous array of errors, duplicities, fudged evidence and scientific howlers'' (p. 47). In the article one scholar dealing with the major tenets of Freudianism said that they, ''AII are undermined by Freud's failure to prove a causal relationship between the repression and the pathology. That's why the foundation of psychoanalysis is very wobbly'' (p. 49). The concluding thought from the article is ''What Freud bequeathed was not (despite his arguments to the contrary), nor has yet proved itself to be, a science. 

Psychoanalysis and all its offshoots may in the final analysis turn out to be no more reliable than phrenology or mesmerism or any of the countless other pseudosciences that once offered unsubstantiated answers or false solace'' (p. 51). This is a damaging statement from a liberal secular magazine of Time's status for all those claiming that psychology is a science. 

Del 3 kommer 29.mars