A Most Vexing Problem

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.A. Theology

FOR THE FOURTH TIME this newscast I grabbed for the remote and muted yet another 90-second commercial touting the glorious new activity of gambling online. Sexy young voluptuous blondes and brunettes with plunging necklines smile seductively and splay decks of cards, gesturing. These TV ads bear the names of so-called “trustworthy” gambling institutions, and promise a risk-free day of odds-laying up to $500, failing to remind that the house always wins in the end or such games of chance would shrivel up and blow away. One TV spot says “…now you can have the name of MGM Grand Casino in your pocket.” Never has a more ironic statement been made!

Steve Rose, PhD, a certified gambling counselor and problem-gambling prevention specialist, writes, “Since the pandemic began, there has been an explosion of online gambling.” With experts warning of this ticking time bomb, responsible gambling safeguards are sparse. Admittedly, online gambling is not new. However, the pandemic accelerated demand, leading to higher rates of riskier gambling. According to a report published by the Responsible Gambling Council (RGC) of Canada, one out of three online gamblers admit to being influenced by pandemic lockdowns (1).

Due to ease of access, online platforms make it easier to use gambling as a way to cope with underlying issues such as anxiety and depression. In fact, the RGC survey found that anxiety and depression are major factors contributing to high-risk gambling. Individuals with severe depression are almost five times more likely to engage in high-risk gambling. Typical depression symptoms such as low mood, apathy, and social isolation are a barrier to people traveling to live venues to gamble. With online gambling, anxious and depressed people can engage in round-the-clock gambling while distracting themselves from their circumstances from the ease of their living room.

A Prolific Online Presence

I did an Internet search with the words the perils of impulsive online gambling. The site listed at the top of my search results was an AD, which said Pennsylvania Online Casino – Real Cash Payouts in 24 Hours! The second result listed said Best Online Casinos in PA 2021 – Get $1,500 Welcome Bonus! Internet gambling is reeling in college students and young children along with adults. The COVID-19 crisis, and the confinement and other restrictions associated with it, represent a unique situation that carries financial consequences for the population. People worrying about the future, possibly spending more time than usual online, are at risk for falling hard for distraction or “easy solutions” to their woes.

Sports gambling in particular has soared during the pandemic and continues to climb. CBS News reports that gamblers placed $4.3 billion in bets on Super Bowl LV, marking “the largest single-event legal handle in American sports betting history.” In sports betting, a “handle” refers to the total amount of money wagered by bettors. About 7.6 million people placed bets on the game through platforms like FanDuel and DraftKings, marking a 63% increase from bets place on the 2020 Super Bowl. Additionally, more than 47 million Americans placed bets on March Madness games (2). Casey Clark, a senior vice president at the gaming association, said “You weren’t going to in-person sporting events and you weren’t going to brick-and-mortar sportsbooks [where gamblers can wager on various competitions].” He said more than 100 million people live in a state where gambling is now legal. Not long ago, that was only in Nevada (3).

Salerno and Pallanti write, “The COVID-19 pandemic has exerted a dramatic impact on everyday life globally. In this context, it has been reported that the lockdown and social distancing may have exerted an impact even on gambling behavior, not only by increasing gambling behavior in those affected by this disorder but even contributing to the occurrence of new cases” (4). According to their peer-reviewed paper, studies performed in different countries around the world have reported psychological and mental health problems due to the changes caused by the pandemic, including stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Moreover, the lockdown and social distancing exerted an impact on gambling behavior, not only by increasing gambling incidents in those affected, but even contributing to the occurrence of new cases of problematic gambling.

Hodgins and Stevens write, “…the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on gambling and problematic gambling are diverse – possibly causing a reduction in current or future problems in some, but also promoting increased problematic gambling in others” (5). The study says, “At the same time that land-based gambling accessibility decreased during the pandemic, online gambling sites continued to operate. Some media reports indicated that online gambling business flourished during this time, and that the pandemic served to promote this increasingly popular gambling format” (6). Online gambling sites typically include the full range of types of gambling, including lottery ticket sales, casino table games such a roulette, blackjack and craps, slot machines, online poker and sports betting.

Like a Drug

Gambling, a leisure pursuit for most individuals, has the potential to cause harm to the gambler, their family and the community (7, 8). It is considered to be a potentially addictive behavior, which for some individuals can lead to gambling disorder (GD). GD is found in the DSM-5 under Unspecified Other (or Unknown) Substance-Related Disorder. This category applies to presentations in which symptoms characteristic of an other (or unknown) substance-related disorder cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate, but do not meet the full criteria for, any specific substance-related disorder or any of the disorders in the substance-related disorders diagnostic class (9). It is critical to note that, according to clinical studies, gambling addiction activates the same brain pathways as drug and alcohol cravings. Online gambling is considered to be a particularly problematic gambling format given the relative lack of constraints on how and when it can be accessed, its solitary nature, and the wide variety of types of gambling available.

David Zendle says a variety of practices have recently emerged which relate to both video games and gambling. He writes, “These range from opening loot boxes, to e-sports betting, real-money video gaming, token wagering, and social casino spending” (10). A blurring of the lines has occurred between video games and gambling activities. The most widely-discussed example of this convergence are loot boxes: Items in video games that may be bought for real-world money, but which contain randomized contents. In other words, your expenditure may lead to a “goose egg,” but the risk becomes tantalizing. Loot boxes share several formal features with gambling, and there has been widespread interest in the idea that engaging with loot boxes may lead to problem gambling. The more frequently gamers use loot boxes, the more severe their gambling problems tend to be (11). Certainly, you can see how this phenomenon places chronic gamers (especially younger players) at great risk for developing a gambling addiction.

Gamblers Anonymous (GA) was founded in 1957. It is an international fellowship of people who have a compulsive gambling problem whose approach is based upon the 12-step method of recovery from addiction initially established by Alcoholics Anonymous. Related programs include Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, and Over-eaters Anonymous. GA believes gambling disorder involves repeated problematic gambling behavior that causes significant problems or distress. It is also called gambling addiction or compulsive gambling. Though Gamblers Anonymous is not associated with any religious group or political affiliation, some people find the 12-step principle of surrendering your problems to a higher power to have distinctly religious overtones. However, Gamblers Anonymous is welcoming of people of all ages, religions, and racial backgrounds—you just need to want to end your gambling addiction.

Gamblers Anonymous is a community of people who want the same goal: freedom from gambling addiction. Many Gamblers Anonymous members may also be struggling with other mental health or behavioral addictions. As a group, Gamblers Anonymous members share their wisdom, experiences, ideas for maintaining recovery, and healthy habits so that others may benefit. Members offer each other support, understanding, compassion, and solace when times are tough. Often, Gamblers Anonymous members will serve as sponsors to newer members who need more intensive support or a person to call when urges hit.

Are You Addicted to Gambling?

According to the DSM-5, persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior leading to clinically significant impairment or distress is indicated by the individual exhibiting four (or more) of the following in a 12-month period (12):

  1. Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement.
  2. Is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling.
  3. Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling.
  4. Is often preoccupied with gambling (e.g., having persistent thoughts of reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble).
  5. Often gambles when feeling distressed (e.g., helpless, guilty, anxious, depressed).
  6. After losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even (“chasing” one’s losses).
  7. Lies to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling.
  8. Has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity because of gambling.
  9. Relies on others to provide money to relieve desperate financial situations caused by gambling

Concluding Remarks

Television advertisements for gambling sites is a huge issue with me. I am sensitive to addiction issues because of my 40-year-plus struggles with alcohol and drug addiction. Looking over the nine criteria listed above for gambling addiction, I can honestly say I exhibited much of the same obsessive behaviors as they pertained to drinking and getting high. Addiction messes with the brain chemistry of the addict by taking hostage the chemicals associated with pleasure. The “computer chips” of the brain are neurons: billions of cells that are organized into circuits and networks. Each neuron acts as a switch controlling the flow of information. If a neuron receives enough signals from other neurons that it is connected to, it fires, sending its own signal on to other neurons in the circuit. To send a message, a neuron releases a neurotransmitter into the gap (or synapse) between it and the next cell. The neurotransmitter crosses the synapse and attaches to receptors on the receiving neuron, like a key into a lock. This causes changes in the receiving cell. Other molecules called transporters recycle neurotransmitters (that is, bring them back into the neuron that released them), thereby limiting or shutting off the signal between neurons.

Drugs interfere with the way neurons send, receive, and process signals via neurotransmitters. Some drugs, such as marijuana, opioid pain medications, and heroin, can activate neurons because their chemical structure mimics that of natural neurotransmitters in the body. These chemicals are dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, and endorphins (abbreviated DOSE). Because heroin and other substances are extremely potent compared to these naturally-occurring brain chemicals, the brain is incapable of producing them at a level that can reproduce the intensity, leading the addict to develop a craving for his or her drug of choice.

Gambling addiction works by hijacking the brain’s neurochemicals and learned behaviors that activate the brain’s reward center. Remarkably, gambling behavior in such individuals has the same capacity to stimulate the brain as does dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, and endorphins. In addition, the gambling addict feels rewarded by the intermittent thrill of winning. When the need to win outweighs the risk of losing, the gambling addict begins to exhibit many of the criteria noted in the DSM-5 listed above. At this point, gambling is no longer a form of entertainment. Gambling, as with drug or alcohol addiction, becomes both the problem and the solution. In other words, the addict is now locked into a pattern of behavior where he or she continuously expects to replicate the early “high” of gambling or abusing addictive substances. The brain is hijacked by the randomness of reward.

Addiction can rewire the chemical circuitry of the brain to the point that it seems impossible to quit the addictive behavior. Even though gambling does not involve ingesting chemical substances, it produces the same response as any drug. Gambling addiction is not about money or greed. As the harms outweigh the entertainment value, the gambler looses control and becomes fixated on winning back losses. Because compulsive gambling is a progressive illness, the will to gamble becomes irresistible. Adolescents and teens are at risk for developing a gambling addiction at a time when social and emotional growth is most vulnerable to change. Adolescence is characterized by increased risk-taking, novelty seeking, and locomotor activity, all of which suggest a heightened appetitive drive.

Although teens can gamble casually, the pressure to “fit it” or establish “street cred,” and times of stress or depression, can trigger overwhelming urges to gamble. Widespread neurobiological changes such as shifts in brain matter composition can complicate addiction in teens. Finally, adolescents appear especially sensitive to rewarding cues, as evidenced by exaggerated neural responses when exposed to dopamine. During adolescence, brain cells continue to bloom, with notable changes in the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in decision making and cognitive control, as well as other higher cognitive functions. Accordingly, I believe additional study is indicated regarding teen risk for developing a gambling addiction.

Help is Available Right Now!
National Problem Gambling Helpline

1 (800) 522-4700
SAMSHA National Helpline
1 (800) 662-HELP

References

(1) “The Emerging Impact of Covid-19 on Gambling in Ontario,” Centre for the Advancement of Best Practices, Responsible Gambling Council (July 2020). URL: https://www.responsiblegambling.org/wp-content/uploads/RGC-COVID-and-Online-Gambling-Report_Jul.AP_-1.pdf
(2) Kristopher Brooks, “Sports Gambling Has Soared During the Pandemic and Continues to Climb,” (March 29, 2021). URL: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sports-gambling-betting-draft-kings-fanduel-american-gaming-association/
(3) Ibid.
(4) Luana Salerno and Steffano Pallanti, “COVID-19 Related Distress in Gambling Disorder,” (Feb. 25, 2021), Frontiers in Psychiatry. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.620661
(5) David C. Hodgins and Rhys M.G. Stevens, “The Impact of COVID-19 on Gambling and Gambling Disorder: Emerging Data,” (April 19, 2021). URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8183251/
(6) Ibid.
(7) “Spain orders ‘social shield’ to fast track gambling advertising window,” SBC News (2020). ULR: https://sbcnews.co.uk/europe/2020/04/01/spain-orders-social-shield-to-fast-track-gambling-advertising-window/
(8) “Coronavirus: Gambling firms urged to impose betting cap of 50 pound a day,” The Guardian (2020. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/mar/22/coronavirus-gambling-firms-urged-to-impose-betting-cap-of-50-a-day
(9) American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5) (Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013), 585.
(10) David Zendle, “Beyond Loot Boxes: A Variety of Gambling-like Practices in Video Games are Linked to Both Problem Gambling and Disordered Gaming,” PeerJ (July 14, 2020). URL: https://peerj.com/articles/9466/
(11) In Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 96 (Sept. 2019), 26-34. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.009
(12) American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5), Ibid., 585.

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part Four

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.A. Theology

Since the birth of psychoanalysis, there has been a disconnect between psychology/psychiatry and theology. Freud’s worldview was that belief in God was nothing short of neurotic.

I HAVE BEEN ASTONISHED for years about the human condition. Too much violence, sadness, depression, anxiety, and angst among the population. For several years now, I have been studying the integration of psychology and Christian theology. Actually, my interest in psychology began with a need to understand my mess of a life. Today, I am embarking on a ministry of reconciliation, determined to help the downtrodden and the oppressed rise above their struggles with mental illness and addiction. From a personal perspective, these two concerns ruled in my life for decades: mental illness triggered substance abuse over and over; active addiction prolonged my mental illness. Although I received insight regarding my behavior, secular counseling failed to provide the right vision and tools I needed to break free. A three-year stint in state prison did not curb my appetite for drugs and alcohol; I continued getting high in prison. I was beginning to see the Groundhog Day quality of my life.

Integrating Psychology and Theology, one of my classes at Colorado Christian University, peaked my interest. Fittingly, I had arrived at the point in recovery when I realized only Jesus could break the chains of drug abuse and mental disease. Moreover, I came to believe (at least for the Christian in crisis) that counseling alone often is not enough. I subscribe today to the adage, Counseling must always include discipling; and discipling must always include counseling. I noticed the fact that many Christians are embroiled in substance abuse, but this does not mean he or she is not saved or does not love God. During a 21-day stay at a rehab, I met a man who was the lead pastor of a church somewhere in the region. He was clean from drugs for 9 years. He relapsed on his drug of choice (crack cocaine) and lost everything. Whenever he shared he would say, “My name is Bill and I am a Christian in recovery.” He led some amazing late evening Bible studies which were well-attended by 5 others, including me.

A Legal Implication

In Nally vs. John MacArthur and Grace Community Church (1), 24-year-old Kenneth Nally committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a shotgun. His parents filed a wrongful death action against Grace Community Church of the Valley, a Protestant Christian congregation located in Sun Valley, California, and four Church pastors, MacArthur, Thomson, Cory and Rea, alleging “clergyman malpractice,” specifically negligence and outrageous conduct in failing to prevent Nally’s suicide. A member of the Church since 1974, Nally participated in pastoral counseling at GCC prior to his death. The pastors vehemently discouraged him from receiving psychological or psychiatric care (despite a prior attempt at taking his own life by intentional drug overdose), failing to meet a standard of care for pastors, failure to secure proper psychological counseling training, and failure to disclose Nally’s true psychiatric condition to his treating psychiatrist and his parents.

The intent of this lawsuit was to define “duty of care” regarding pastors and their clients. The same dilemma presents itself in addictions counseling. Christian and secular counselors share the same desire—helping people overcome mental illness. Christian counseling is distinct from secular counseling in that it specifically incorporates the spiritual dimension when providing therapy. By using biblical concepts, Christian counselors can provide specific direction and accountability in accordance with core Christian principles. When, however, must a Christian counselor refer a church member to secular treatment? At the heart of most efforts to understand secular versus faith-based counseling is the essential theological and philosophical foundation, the unity of truth. This is often expressed as all truth is God’s truth. Although the unity of truth has been affirmed since the time of the early Christian church, this specific relationship has been classically applied to psychology.

A Persistent Disconnect

Since the birth of psychology, there has been a disconnect between psychology/psychiatry and theology. Freud thought belief in God was nothing short of neurotic. Yet he was curious, warm, and respectful of several clergy, and enjoyed having them as house guests. Entwistle quotes several entries from the private journals of Abraham Maslow that I found upsetting. Since my initial exposure to his Hierarchy of Needs, I have agreed with his theory. I learned later in life that my physiological needs were not consistently met by my then fifteen-year-old mother. There were serious frustrations of my safety and security needs, as well as esteem related matters. I believe much of my trouble was rooted in the frustration of critical elementary needs. Regarding Maslow, I was shocked to read his private bashing of religion. Entwistle warns it is dangerous when someone deliberately conceals his or her anti-religious bias (2). Not surprisingly, the issue of secular versus faith-based counseling falls on a continuum, with “extreme” beliefs at polar opposite. John MacArthur can be found at the very end of the scale toward biblical counseling, with virtually no room for compromise. What of psychology’s roots in philosophy and theology?

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) began his career in psychology with experimental studies, hoping to understand the elements of thought and the mental elements that govern thought processes. According to Wundt, thought is comprised of sensations and feelings. “Sensations” come to us through the senses. In other words, our initial perception is the cause to our effect. All sensations are accompanied by feelings. He viewed the mind as active, creative, dynamic, and volitional. This gives us insight into similarities between psychology and theology. For example, ours is a “speaking” God, and we must be His “hearing” church. God is the cause and our response is the effect. Importantly, there is much that can keep us from hearing God: physical pain, anger, depressed mood, anxiety, selfishness, and so on. It is worth noting that successful ideas, no matter what their source, survive; unsuccessful ideas are cast aside. Even today, we see “schools of thought” labeled behavioristic, cognitive, psychobiological, humanist, etc.

René Descartes began with philosophy, focusing on the mind-body interaction. He noted that only humans possess a mind that provided consciousness, free choice, and rationality. He wrote, “Thus it follows that this ego, this soul, by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct from the body and is easier to know than the latter, and that even if the body were not, the soul would not cease to be all that it now is” (3). An aspect of theology presents itself in Descartes’ philosophy; our will can and should control our passions, so that virtuous conduct results. Such control, however, is far from perfect. He attempted to formulate a completely mechanistic explanation of man’s bodily functions. This was the dawn of both stimulus-response and behavioristic psychology. But his comparative study of the instincts of man and animal pulled his theory away from metaphysical and spiritual concepts. Regardless, Descartes is considered to be the father of modern philosophy in general and modern psychology in particular.

Søren Kierkegaard attempted to explain the meaning of human existence, freedom of choice, and the uniqueness of each individual. This is rudimentary existentialism identifies the most important aspects of humans—their personal, subjective interpretations of life and the choices they make in light of those interpretations. To me, this seems like a precursor to understanding worldview. No doubt Descartes’ exposure to his father’s theological teachings provided a foundation. His formal education included theology, literature, and philosophy. Hubben relates Descartes’ interpretation of man’s relationship to God to a lover’s experience. It is “…at once painful and happy, passionate but unfulfilled, lived in time yet infinite”(4). Renaissance humanism had four major themes: a belief in the potential of the individual, an insistence that religion be more personal and less institutionalized, an intense interest in the classics, and a negative attitude toward Aristotle’s philosophy.

Frederick Nietszche took an interesting view of human nature. His Apollonian aspect represents our rational side, our desire for tranquility, predictability, and orderliness. His Dionysian aspect represents our irrational side, our attraction to creative chaos, and to passionate, dynamic experiences. At first blush, these aspects line up with the duality of man’s behavior. Do not “just live” but live with passion; be willing to take chances. Nietzsche considered himself primarily a psychologist. To some degree, he, like Sigmund Freud, wanted to help individuals gain control of their powerful, irrational tendencies in order to live more creative, healthy lives. Nietzsche explored repression, which is a large part of Freud’s psychoanalysis. Nietzsche provided an example: “‘I have done that,’ says my memory.’ ‘I can’t have done that,’ says my pride'” (5). After much wrangling, memory wins out. Of course, Nietzsche gave absolutely no room for God in his theories. He said, “Is man just one of God’s mistakes? Or is God just one of man’s” (6). He famously said, “God is dead.” Perhaps today’s rejection of God and theology has more to do with the current atmosphere of moral relativism, secularism, and atheism than the grassroots relationship between theology and psychology.

In Part Five, I will present the major theories of personality development, comparing them to biblical theories of human behavior, the capacity to care for one another, free will, guilt and shame, and the concept of original sin. Also, I will discuss the similarities and differences between psychology and theology regarding human behavior. Christian theology is, after all, a branch of inquiry that—among other things—seeks to understand what it means to be human. But psychology, for the Christian, is infused with theological beliefs about our place in God’s world. I believe we can gain a more complete view of human behavior by drawing on both Christian theology and contemporary psychology. Yet, the caveat is that our theological and psychological perspectives can easily be hijacked, taking us down a troublesome path. Integration of Christian theology and psychology must be done in the interest of seeking God’s truth, recognizing His sovereignty over all that we do, and determine how best to relate Christianity and psychology.

References

(1) Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 763 P.2 948; 254 Cal.Rptr 97.
(2) David N. Entwhisle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, 3rd. ed. (Eugene, OR: 2015), 198.
(3) René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, 2nd. ed. (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 21.
(4) William Hubben, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, and Kafka (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1952), 24.
(5) Frederick Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1886, 1998), 58.
(6) Nietzsche, The Gay Science (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 5.

Referee

The pain of loneliness and

the excitement of adventure

face off, each convinced

of its position, mutually exclusive

of the other.

To what do I owe this honor?

A front row seat to the

fight of the century.

As blows are struck,

drops of sweat fly in my face.

Poignant reminders,

Rude, salty, definitive.

Whom do I root for?

Is that even a sensible question?

Should I hope for a draw?

I cringe with each punch;

on the edge of my seat,

stomach in knots.

I look for the referee.

I look for the time clock.

I listen for the bell.

What round is it?

Who’s calling this fight

anyway?

The room is spinning;

I can feel the pain.

I can sense the desperation of each fighter.

In a dizzying moment of clarity

I realize the referee is me.

© 1997 Steven Barto

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part Three

By Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.T.S.

IN PART ONE OF THIS SERIES we discussed the advent of social science, whose practitioners slowly changed the face of mental health counseling. Psychiatry stood as the primary specialty for treating psychiatric conditions such as bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. Psychiatrists typically do not engage in meaningful long-term clinical dialog. Instead, they prescribe psychotropic medications. Today, social workers, psychologists, and their ancillary workers, provide the majority of “talk therapy.” Notwithstanding the above, it was psychiatrists who were tasked with compiling data and establish a universal “code” for quantification, research, and billing purposes. Part Two showed the impact of the Enlightenment on virtually all aspects of life, characterized by skepticism toward religious dogma and other forms of traditional authority. Secularism and relativism began to creep into the discussion. Isaiah Berlin established an alternative movement in the late 1800s which he labeled Counter-Enlightenment. He attempted to challenge rationalism, universalism, and empiricism, objecting to these and other isms, saying they identify man as “mere machine” whose quest for reality is drastically limited to empirical interaction with nature.

Early practitioners thought experimental psychology was the best tool for getting at the basics of consciousness, but they believed “laboratory psychiatry” was useless for grasping the aspect of higher cognitive function. Wilhelm Wundt proposed that “sensations” (which occur when a sense organ is stimulated and impulses reach the brain) are are always accompanied by feelings. Arguably, attempting to isolate, grasp, understand, and write about “feelings” has always been a difficult task. Clinics and laboratories for the study of cognition flourished throughout Europe. Not surprisingly, psychology is a discipline rich in historical and philosophical roots. Many evangelical and fundamental pastors have disparaging thoughts regarding psychiatric and psychological treatment modalities. Although many people keep “faith” carefully segregated from the rest of their lives, I believe it is possible to establish and maintain productive links between psychology and Christian theology.

It helps to remember that “worldview” is a fundamental orientation of the heart, which is laid bare by our words and actions. Scripture notes that our heart is the central defining element of us as a person. Jesus said, “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45, NRSV). What we hide in our hearts, what we have sown in its soil, eventually comes to the surface. Essentially, worldview provides a home for our philosophy on life. In its simplistic definition, worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. We all have a worldview—the window through which we view the world, framed by the assumptions and beliefs that impact what what we experience on a daily basis. Without a doubt, our worldview shapes our philosophy of life.

One of the most influential myths of the modern period has been the belief that it is impossible to locate and occupy a non-ideological vantage point, from which reality may be surveyed and interpreted. The social sciences have been among the chief and most strident claimants to such space, arguing that they offer a neutral and objective reading of reality; in which the ultimate spurious truth claims of religious groupings may be deflated and deconstructed in terms of unacknowledged, yet ultimately determinative, social factors” (2).

A Kaleidoscope of Views

Worldview brings with it many implications, which can admittedly muddy the waters regarding integration of psychology and Christian theology. When modernism failed to provide a beneficial philosophy of life in the face of war, poverty, famine, sickness, and unresolved racial tension, postmodernism attempted to replace knowledge with opinion or conviction. However, postmodernism had no advice on how to determine whether any given conviction is in some way better or more accurate than another. Again, our families, religious beliefs, academic experience, and media (especially social media) continue to influence us in ways of which we are unaware. It seems the key to unlocking our assumptions is having the humility and willingness to see them for what they are: that which we accept as true or as certain to happen, without proof. By definition, this “pursuit” of truth is a matter of epistemology (the theory of knowledge, especially how it is obtained). As we move forward in this series, we will explore how sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology are crucial to integrating treatment modalities and Christian theology.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury said, “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe—that unless I believe, I should not understand.” It was thought that we could essentially become our own authority, knowing with absolute certainty (as God) the definition of right and wrong; in other words, the knowledge of good and evil. This is the very essence of our First Parents’ disobedience in the Garden of Eden (see Gen. 3:1-5). A hallmark of modernism is belief in the human capacity to function as an independent authority. This orientation gave rise to another aspect of modernism: the myth of progress. Man became convinced that we can know things with God-like certainty (3). The brash disobedience of Adam and Eve caused a cosmic ripple effect for all of mankind. This “fallout” has shown itself in countless vain philosophies, which prove how we all thirst for what went wrong, whose fault it is, and how to fix it.

The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard plays an important role in our quest to establish a viable integration of psychology and Christian theology. His “existentialism” stresses meaning, accompanied by freedom of choice and the uniqueness of each individual. He likened a proper relationship with God to a love affair, saying, “It is at once painful and happy, passionate but unfulfilled, lived in time yet infinite”(Hubben, 1952, p. 24). Kierkegaard initially rejected Christianity while in college, but changed his mind some time later. However, the Christianity he accepted was well outside the walls of the institutional church. He had no patience for dogma. The ultimate state of being for Kierkegaard was arrived at when we decide to embrace God and take His existence on faith, without needing a logical, rational, or scientific explanation of why or how one makes such choice. He was a proponent of the “leap of faith” approach to religion: the moment Abraham lifted the knife to kill his son on Mount Moriah captures what he meant by religious faith. He advised reading the Bible as we would read a love letter, letting the words touch us personally and emotionally.

These excursions into philosophy are meant to help us discover the roots of psychology. Friedrich Nietzsche considered himself a psychologist. His approach was comparable to Sigmund Freud. In fact, Freudian and Nietzschian psychology shared the goal of helping their patients gain control of their powerful, irrational impulses in order to live more creative and healthy lives. Nietzsche identified urges as das es, which is Latin for the id. He often discussed repression (a later cornerstone of Freudian psychoanalysis). For Nietzsche, internalizing the external standards of others was problematic. Likely, he saw this as counter to being authentic. So-called religious “followers” in his eyes become slaves to the one they follow. I will admit that this is an acceptable tenet of Christianity (see Rom. 6:20-22), but the focus is more on “dedicated follower” than slave. Nietzsche’s remark, “God is dead,” has been misunderstood and misused for generations. Actually, he believed God was dead because “we have killed him.” By we, he meant the philosophers and scientists of his day who stubbornly held on to empiricism, giving no credence to the metaphysical or spiritual realm. This left mankind with nowhere to turn for answers to the four great questions: (1) Where did we come from? (2) What is the meaning of life? (3) What is the basis for morality (right vs. wrong), and (4) Where do we go when we die? With the so-called death of God came the death of His shadow (metaphysics) as well.

This seems to leave mankind in a cosmic tabula rasa devoid of transcendental or spiritual forces to guide us. Yet, amazingly, Nietzsche said conviction is “belief in the possession of absolute truth on any matter of knowledge” (4). But it was his opinion that rationalistic philosophy, science, and the organized church discourage us from having a deep, personal relationship with God. Logic and facts have nothing to do with such a relationship, which must be based on faith alone. In this manner, Nietzsche believed we killed God, at least philosophically. Ultimately, when we accept God on faith, God becomes (for us and our encounter with Him) a living, emotional reality in our subjective experience. Although I believe in the ontological existence of God, I believe it is critical we understand that a “speaking God” needs a “hearing church.” It is our individual faith that quickens our spirit and allows us to experience God.

The Fork in the Road

David Entwistle notes that every branch of learning provides a unique view of God’s world and allows glimpses of His mystery. For the evangelical, fundamental Christian, psychology must be infused with a theological belief about our place in God’s world. Christianity is much more than theology; it is predicated upon a personal relationship with Christ as Lord, as rabbi, as redeemer. Of course, Christianity holds very specific beliefs as to the cause of human suffering. Admittedly, this causes Christian counselors to come to the table with certain assumptions. Pastors and church elders shepherd church members toward a maturity in Christ, as they should. Elders tend the flock in such a way that believers develop from spiritual infancy to full-grown Christ-likeness. Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians, “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh” (1 Cor. 3:2-3a, ESV). The word “milk” (Gr. gala) in the above Scripture passage means the basic, elemental teachings of Christianity first learned by new believers; the word “meat” (Gr. broma) denotes a deeper, more complete understanding and application of God’s Word.

What does reason have to do with faith? What does the intellectual have to do with the spiritual? What does philosophy have to do with Christianity? Tertullian summed up these questions when he asked, “What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?”(5). Entwhistle noted “individuals who espouse a sacred/secular split in an attempt to preserve theological supremacy actually minimize the scope of God’s sovereignty” (6). This makes perfect sense. We cannot bifurcate God from His creation, or from our everyday existence. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to encounter fundamentalist or evangelical pastors and teachers who claim that Christians must reject in total the “false doctrine” of psychology, and run from all manner of secularism in order to find health and healing in Christ. It is critical to understand the difference between “secular” life issues and secularism. As human beings, we need to avoid an “ivory tower” existence. We cannot deny non-religious, “lay,” or temporal orientations while we remain in an earthly body. Secularism is a worldview that is hostile to Christian theology. Entwhistle helps put this matter into perspective: “To think secularly is to think within a frame of reference bounded by the limits of our life on earth… to think Christianly is to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man’s eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God” (7) (italics mine).

In Part Four I will show how counseling provided to Christian believers in crisis by Christian practitioners and clergy must include discipling; and inversely, Christian discipling must include counseling. Further, I will introduce the concept that extremism regarding this continuum is destructive. So-called secular combatants see religion as incompatible with mental health and intellectual discourse. Christian combatants see psychology as an enemy which is opposed by sound doctrine, and they see the use of psychotherapy (and psychotropic medication) as incompatible with, if not unnecessary for, those who live victorious Christian lives. I will provide insight on the theory of “nouthetic counseling” (Gr. noutheteo, “to admonish”), which is a form of evangelical Protestant pastoral counseling based solely upon the Bible and focused on Christ. It repudiates mainstream psychology and psychiatry as humanistic, fundamentally opposed to Christianity, and radically secular.

I will present the case of Nally vs. John MacArthur and Grace Community Church. The case presents a variety of issues concerning a lawsuit for wrongful death by the parents of a suicide victim against Grace Community Church’s pastoral counselors. On April 1, 1979, 24-year-old Kenneth Nally committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a shotgun. His parents filed a wrongful death action against Grace Community Church of the Valley, a Protestant Christian congregation located in Sun Valley, California, and four Church pastors, MacArthur, Thomson, Cory and Rea, alleging “clergyman malpractice,” specifically negligence and outrageous conduct in failing to prevent Nally’s suicide. A member of the Church since 1974, Nally participated in pastoral counseling at GCC prior to his death. The pastors vehemently discouraged Nally from receiving psychological or psychiatric care (despite a prior attempt at taking his own life by intentional drug overdose), failing to meet a standard of care for pastors, failure to secure proper psychological counseling training, and failure to disclose Nally’s true psychiatric condition to his treating psychiatrist and his parents.

The case of Nally vs. Grace Community Church puts at our feet the issue of integrating Christian theology and psychology. Pastors at GCC told Nally that his attempted suicide by overdose was a sign that God was punishing him. MacArthur and his pastoral staff told Nally his problems were rooted in sin, and that his mental illness could be properly treated by relying solely on biblical principles. The irony is not lost on me that psychology literally means “the study of the soul.” I will present the argument that psychiatric care must never be dogmatically withheld from a church member who is contemplating, or who has attempted, suicide.

Footnotes and References

(1) James Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, 5th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 20.
(2) Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theory: Nature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2009), 17.
(3) David N. Entwistle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, 3rd. ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books), 2015.
(4) Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human (Germany: 1878).
(5) Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 7 (New York, NY: London Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1914), 45.
(6) Entwhistle, Ibid., fn3, 8.
(7) Ibid., 9.

Stigma and the Toll of Addiction

By Nora D. Volkow, M.D.
Executive Director, National Institute on Drug Addiction

Original Post April 20, 2020

Each day in 2018, an average of 185 people in the United States died from a drug overdose (1). In fact, recent declines in U.S. life expectancy are being attributed to direct and indirect effects of alcohol and drug use disorders. Expanding the number of people receiving evidence-based addiction treatment is crucial for reversing these trends. But among the many challenges in delivering appropriate care to the nearly 20 million people in the United States with substance use disorders is the chilling effect of stigma. Stigma not only impedes access to treatment and care delivery; it also contributes to the disorder on the individual level. Stigma associated with many mental health conditions is a well-recognized problem. But whereas considerable progress has been made in recent decades in reducing the stigma associated with some psychiatric disorders such as depression, such change has been much slower in relation to substance use disorders (2). One obstacle is that this stigma has causes beyond those that apply to most other conditions. People who are addicted to drugs sometimes lie or steal and can behave aggressively, especially when experiencing withdrawal or intoxication-triggered paranoia. These behaviors are transgressions of social norms that make it hard even for their loved ones to show them compassion, so it is easy to see why strangers or health care workers may be rejecting or unsympathetic.

Tacit beliefs or assumptions about personal responsibility — and the false belief that willpower should be sufficient to stop drug use — are never entirely absent from most people’s thoughts when they interact with someone with a drug problem. Health care professionals are not immune to these assumptions. Indeed, they may hold stigmatizing views of people with addictions (3) that may even lead them to withhold care. In emergency departments, for instance, health care professionals may be dismissive of someone with an alcohol or drug problem because they don’t view it as a medical condition and therefore don’t see its treatment as part of their job. People who inject drugs are sometimes denied care in emergency departments and other hospital settings because they are believed to be drug-seeking. In part, the difficulty reflects continued resistance to the idea that addiction is a disease. Drug use alters brain circuitry that is involved in self-regulation and reward processing, as well as brain circuits that process mood and stress. For a person with a serious substance use disorder, taking drugs is no longer pleasurable or volitional, for the most part, but is instead a means of diminishing excruciating distress and satisfying powerful cravings — despite often devastating consequences. Some people are more vulnerable than others to developing a substance use disorder because of a genetic predisposition, adverse social environmental exposures, traumatic life experiences, or other factors. To recover, they often need external help and support — evidence-based treatment, with medication when possible. Unfortunately, their encounters with health care providers may serve only to reinforce their disorder.

While visiting a makeshift heroin “shooting gallery” in San Juan, Puerto Rico, I urged a man who had what appeared to be a massive abscess in his leg to go to an emergency room to get it treated. He refused to even consider it, and told me that when he had previously sought medical help, he had been so badly mistreated that he was frightened of returning. He would rather jeopardize his life or risk a leg amputation than endure being dismissed as a “drug addict.” Stigma not only impedes care delivery, it also most likely causes us to underestimate the burden of substance use disorders in the population. But stigma plays an even larger role in this crisis, one that has been less discussed: when internalized, stigma and the painful isolation it produces encourage further drug taking, directly exacerbating the disease.

Ever since the “Rat Park” experiments of the 1970s, which showed that animals housed in enriched environments with access to other rats self-administered morphine much less frequently than those housed in isolation, social isolation has been known to play a crucial role in vulnerability to and difficulty of recovering from addiction. Research on social reinforcement and its neurobiologic mechanisms has illuminated the links between stigma and drug use. For one thing, there is substantial overlap between the neurologic underpinnings of drug rewards and those of social rewards. Research by Naomi Eisenberger at UCLA has found that social pain is processed in some of the same brain areas that process physical pain and is quelled by pain relievers (4).

Strikingly, a recent article by Venniro and colleagues reported that when given a choice between self-administering a drug and interacting with another animal, methamphetamine- or heroin-dependent rats chose the social interaction. However, when they were punished for the social choice with an electric shock before the interaction, the rats reverted to choosing the drug (5). In a sense, stigmatizing treatment of people who use drugs, such as ignoring or rejecting them, may be the equivalent of an electric shock in the cycle of drug addiction: it’s a powerful social penalty that spurs further drug taking. Stigma is not the only factor impeding adequate treatment of people with substance use disorders, but if we are to achieve the public health goal of getting and retaining many more people with substance use disorders in treatment, we have to ensure that the health care system will not penalize people who are addicted to drugs for their condition. Among other steps, improving treatment will require training physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and emergency department staff in providing compassionate care to patients who may display the difficult, sometimes frightening behaviors associated with drug addiction and withdrawal.

It is also necessary to promote awareness of addiction as a chronic relapsing (and treatable) brain disease. This effort should include promoting understanding of the disease’s behavioral consequences as well as of the factors that make certain people particularly vulnerable. Susceptibility to the brain changes leading to compulsive substance use is substantially modulated by genetic, developmental, psychiatric, and social factors, many of which are out of the person’s control. Given the gravity of the current overdose crisis, it is urgent that we conduct research aimed at overcoming stigma toward people with addiction. Yet even in the absence of research, common sense can guide us: respect and compassion are essential. People working in health care should be made aware that stigmatizing people who are addicted to opioids or other drugs inflicts social pain that not only impedes the practice of medicine but also further entrenches the disorder.

References

  1. Hedegaard H, Miniño AM, Warner M. Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 1999–2018: NCHS data brief no 356. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, January 2020 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db356.htm. opens in new tab).
  2. Corrigan PW, Nieweglowski K. Stigma and the public health agenda for the opioid crisis in America. Int J Drug Policy 2018;59:44-49.
  3. Kennedy-Hendricks A, Busch SH, McGinty EE, et al. Primary care physicians’ perspectives on the prescription opioid epidemic. Drug Alcohol Depend 2016;165:61-70.
  4. Dewall CN, Macdonald G, Webster GD, et al. Acetaminophen reduces social pain: behavioral and neural evidence. Psychol Sci 2010;21:931-937.
  5. Venniro M, Zhang M, Caprioli D, et al. Volitional social interaction prevents drug addiction in rat models. Nat Neurosci 2018;21:1520-1529.

NA Meetings Available on Zoom

It has been difficult during the pandemic to find NA Zoom meetings. I decided to compile a listing and post it on my blog, and provide a link to my friends who are participating in a drug treatment court program. Each of these meetings are sanctioned by Narcotics Anonymous and will count toward any weekly meeting quota. Most (if not all) of these meetings provide verification (typically in the form of an email to your inbox which you can then forward to your probation officer. Just ask the chairperson of the meeting regarding how to receive a verification.

Remember, you can do it!
Steviebee77

Morning Wake Up Group of Narcotics Anonymous
Saturday
07:00 (7:00am) EDT – 08:00 (8:00am) EDT
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2134996571
Chester County, PA

Mugs not Drugs
Saturday
08:00 (8:00am) EDT – 09:00 (9:00am) EDT
https://zoom.us/j/5463636379
Big Lake, MN
ID 5463636379 No password needed.

Carrying the Message Around the World
Saturday
12:00 (12:00pm) EDT – 13:30 (1:30pm) EDT
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/79162981566?pwd=SlkrM3RVUHRORkMrTVFXMC8wUEFxQT09
City of Brotherly Love, PA
password: jftna

Honest Beginners
Sunday
10:00 (10:00am) EDT – 12:00 (12:00pm) EDT
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/703237349
Joliet, IL

Just for Today
Bridgeton, NJ
Sunday
10:00 (10:00am) EDT – 11:30 (11:30am) EDT
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9400801538
Bridgeton, NJ

The “After Noon” Group
Sunday
13:00 (1:00pm) EDT – 14:00 (2:00pm) EDT
https://zoom.us/j/722207704
West Chester, PA

Newcomers
Sunday
14:00 (2:00pm) EDT – 15:30 (3:30pm) EDT
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2045349460
El Paso, TX
password: RecoverE (Please Note: the last letter must be a capital E)

Start the Day Off Right NA
Monday
09:00 (9:00am) EDT – 10:00 (10:00am) EDT
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/183339330
Atlanta, GA

Hugs Not Drugs
Monday
13:00 (1:00pm) EDT – 14:00 (2:00pm) EDT
https://zoom.us/j/82422942328
Houston, TX
password: JimmyK
[From Steviebee77: This is a great meeting. Might see you there!]

Mugs not Drugs
Tuesday
08:00 (8:00am) EDT – 09:00 (9:00am) EDT
Big Lake, MN
ID 5463636379 No password needed.
https://zoom.us/j/5463636379
[From Steviebee77: I enjoy this meeting as well. This is Mugs Not Drugs, not Hugs…]

Waking Up Clean
Tuesday
10:00 (10:00am) EDT – 11:00 (11:00am) EDT
https://zoom.us/j/266540613
Reno, NV
password: 457382

Keeping It Real Group of NA
Wednesday
08:30 (8:30am) EDT – 09:00 (9:00am) EDT
Tel: (848) 777-1212, 5574929#
NJ

Any Lengths Group
Wednesday
12:00 (12:00pm) EDT – 13:00 (1:00pm) EDT
Richmond, VA
Password: AnyLengths
https://us02web.zoom.us

Keeping It Real Group of NA
Thursday
08:30 (8:30am) EDT – 09:00 (9:00am) EDT
Tel: (848) 777-1212, 5574929#
NJ

Mid-Day Miracles
Thursday
15:00 (3:00pm) EDT – 16:30 (4:30pm) EDT
https://zoom.us/j/5786365647?pwd=Vy9QYWV6MzhJMm9DSGg2ZEJBNmdxdz09
Kennewick, WA

Keeping It Real Group of NA
Friday
08:30 (8:30am) EDT – 09:00 (9:00am) EDT
Tel: (848) 777-1212, 5574929#
NJ

The 12 Steps of NA
Friday
19:00 (7:00pm) EDT – 21:00 (9:00pm) EDT
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/727210620
Detroit, MI
ID 727210620

Contact Numbers

SAMHSA’s National Helpline, 1-800-662-HELP (4357) (also known as the Treatment Referral Routing Service) is a confidential, free, 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year, information service, in English and Spanish, for individuals and family members facing mental and/or substance use disorders. This service provides referrals to local treatment facilities, support groups, and community-based organizations. Callers can order free publications.

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Hours: Available 24 hours. Languages: English, Spanish.
Learn more 800-273-8255

For immediate emergencies, call 911. Another resource is the Poison Control emergency number: 1-800-222-1222. This is a free and confidential service open 24/7 to talk to a poison and prevention expert.

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part Two

By Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.T.S.

A NUMBER OF PHILOSOPHERS of the Enlightenment began publishing their thoughts in the late 1600s to early 1700s, and detractors almost immediately took on the task of stating their objections. Public debate began in Europe and Western Civilization whose echoes can be heard today. Enlightenment was characterized by skepticism toward religious dogma and other forms of traditional authority. Consensus was that principles governing the universe were discoverable, and could be applied to the betterment of mankind. Some of the Enlightenment’s key philosophers include Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes; key natural philosophers of the Scientific Revolution include Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

In contrast, Isaiah Berlin established a movement called Counter-Enlightenment. His theory became a movement in the late 18th- and early 19th-century. This school of thought stood against rationalism, universalism, and empiricism (typically associated with the Enlightenment). Berlin’s essay “The Counter-Enlightenment” was first published in 1973, and later reprinted in a collection of his works, Against the Current, in 1981. Much of Berlin’s thought was linked to his philosophy of “value pluralism” which holds that moral values can be equally valid and yet mutually incompatible, creating conflicts that can only be reconciled pragmatically. He is noted for stating, “Those who have ever valued liberty for its own sake believed that to be free to choose, and not to be chosen for, is an inalienable ingredient in what makes human beings human.”

Isaiah Berlin wrote, “Opposition to the central ideas of the French Enlightenment, and of its allies and disciples in other European countries, is as old as the movement itself. The proclamation of the autonomy of reason and the methods of the natural sciences, based on observation as the sole reliable method of knowledge, and the consequent rejection of the authority of revelation, sacred writings and their accepted interpreters, tradition, prescription, and every form of non-rational and transcendent source of knowledge, was naturally opposed by the churches and religious thinkers of many persuasions” (1).

Philosophies inherent in the Enlightenment (empiricism, sensationalism, and rationalism) depicted humans as complex machines; products of experience; highly rational beings operating in accordance with abstract principles. Leaders in romanticism emphasized inner experience, and distrusted both science and the philosophy which pictured humans as products of experience, as machines, or as totally rational beings. Obviously, no one can be 100 percent “rational.” Rational beings are capable of logical thought with the ability to reason toward sound conclusions based on facts and evidence, draw inferences from situations and circumstances, and make sound well-reasoned judgements based on factual information. Read that again, and notice it is missing a reference to man’s emotions. I do not know a single human who is capable of Spock-like reasoning: logical, not emotional (2).

Early Approaches to Psychology

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology at the University of Leipzig in Germany in 1879. This was the first laboratory dedicated to psychology, and its opening is usually thought of as the beginning of modern psychology. Accordingly, Wundt is often regarded as the father of psychology. He believed that experimental psychology could be used to grasp an understanding of immediate consciousness, but said it was useless in attempting to understand higher cognitive function. Wundt stood in bold contradiction to Galileo, Comte, and Kant who claimed that psychology could never be a science. Wundt identified sensations (which occur whenever a sense organ is stimulated and the impulses reach the brain), adding that they are are always accompanied by feelings. He also developed the principle of contrasts. For example, if we taste something that is very bitter or sour, something sweet tastes even sweeter.

Early German psychology led to establishment of various clinics and experimental psychology labs. This era included the study of judging, recalling, expecting, inferring, doubting, loving, hating, and hoping. Looking at the previous listing, it is clear that experimental psychology was chasing mental abilities and processes at the same time it was seeking to explain emotion. Persistent questions in psychology over the centuries have included mind/body, mechanism versus vitalism, nativism versus empiricism, rationalism versus irrationalism, objective versus subjective reality, universalism versus relativism. Traditionally, “science” involves empirical observation, but the issues usually start with a problem that needs solving.

Not surprising, some aspects of psychology are scientific, and some are not. Nondeterminists assume that human behavior is “freely chosen,” and therefore not amendable to traditional scientific method. The indeterminist believes human behavior is determined, but say determinants of behavior cannot always be known. To what extent are humans free, and to what extent is their behavior determined by knowable causes? What is the nature of human nature? How are the mind and body related? And what of the spiritual element of human behavior? What is the origin of human knowledge? Is there a difference between what exists physically and what is experienced mentally? Are there knowable universal truths about the world in general, or just about people in particular? This is where psychology, philosophy, and theology began to ask similar questions.

I had intended to move on to David Entwistle (Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity), and the concept of worldview (David Sire, John Stonestreet, Nancy Pearcey, Lee Strobel). Instead, in Part Two I have presented an introduction to the history of psychology, and the many tough questions that come with exploring philosophy, psychology, and theology. Integration of these grand schemes is of vital importance. Naturally, some schools of thought overlap. Of course, others are diametrically opposed. In Part Three, we will explore the underpinnings of worldview from a secular and Christian perspective and show the overall importance of integrating psychology and Christian theology.

References
(1) “Archived Copy” (PDF). Archived from the original on Sept. 3, 2013. Retrieved 2013-08-03. URL
http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/counter-enlightenment.pdfi
(2) The character Spock is a character in television and movies as science officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise on Star Trek and related spinoffs.

Integrating Christian Theology and Psychology: Part One

By Steven Barto, B.S., Psy., M.T.S.

I have heard it said that since the cultural revolution of the 1960s the emotional and mental needs of the American people have increased dramatically. When psychiatric epidemiology emerged in the early 20th century, social scientists rather than psychiatrists determined its basic character. This practice eventually led to the unfortunate trend today in addressing mental illness: psychiatrists schedule 15 minute exams for their patients, usually a mere 4 times a year (every three months). “Talk therapy” has been bifurcated from psychiatrists and placed under the umbrella of psychologists and social workers. Because most social scientists are not trained in medicine, they had little concern for the formidable problems posed by a nosology (scientific study and classification of diseases and disorders, both mental and physical) based on symptoms rather than etiology.

Psychiatry was defined and promulgated by a group of statistically oriented social scientists concerned with problems relating to poverty, dependency, and welfare. Certainly, this is an impetus for what is now called “social science.” But it also led to the advent of social justice issues, especially along the lines of “identity politics.” Psychologists and social workers realized that institutional populations were notoriously poor sources for epidemiological inquiry. Socioeconomic and environmental factors are key components of personality formation. At a more fundamental level, psychiatric nosologies (with few exceptions) rested on symptoms (“descriptive”) rather than cause (etiological) evaluation of the mental illness.

Additionally, philosophy and theology have found their way into medical and psychological diagnosis and treatment. St. Anselm (AD 1033-1109) argued in Faith Seeking Understanding that perception and reason can and should supplement Christian faith. This represents one of the earliest major departures from Christian tradition, which emphasized faith in God as the source of salvation, wisdom, knowledge, and physical and mental illness. St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God promoted using reason within theology. Simply stated, if we think of something then something must be causing that thought. In a sense, faith preceded efforts to understand. Frankly, the believer has nothing to fear from logic, reason, or even the direct study of nature. All truth is God’s truth. William of Occam (1285-1349) believed extraneous assumptions should always be kept as simple as possible. He said, “It is futile to do with many what can be done with fewer,” and “Plurality should not be assumed without necessity.” He said all miscellaneous details must be “shaved” from explanations or arguments. This has been affectionately labeled as Occam’s Razor.

Interestingly, William of Occam changed the question concerning the nature of knowledge (epistemology) from a metaphysical to a psychological problem. He rejected sole reliance on abstract reasoning or intense “introspection.” Instead, he placed emphasis on how the mind classifies experience; he said we habitually respond to similar objects in a similar way. Sensory experience provided information about the physical world only. Occam’s views are said to be the beginning of empiricism. Turning to St. Thomas of Aquinas (1225-1274), we find a man of God furiously dedicated to Christian theology. He turned his back on family (and a life of wealth and power) to focus on theology. Aquinas, in the same vein as Aristotle, said that the senses would provide information only about particulars, not about so-called “universals.” His work in this regard made it possible to bifurcate reason and faith, making it possible to study the two separately. Plato’s Theory of Forms asserted that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality. Plato’s Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space.

Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650) search for ultimate truth showed him that nothing in philosophy is beyond doubt. He was, of course, an empiricist, who invented analytic geometry. In fact, he concluded that the only thing of which he could be certain was the fact that he was doubting; but we know doubting is thinking, and thinking necessitates a thinker. This is how Descartes arrived at his much-celebrated conclusion, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). He included among the innate ideas those of unity, infinity, perfection, the axioms of geometry, and God. His methodology consisted of intuition and deduction. Intuition is the process by which observation leads to analysis, before becoming a “theory.” Observation should be from an unbiased and attentive mind arriving at a clear and distinct idea; an idea whose validity cannot be doubted. Deduction starts with an idea, then observation is made before it is given the identity of theory or idea. Decartes’ psychology heralded a mechanistic explanation of bodily functions and of much behavior. His mechanistic analysis of reflexive behavior can be seen as the beginning of both stimulus-response and behavioristic theories.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) also supported empiricism, suggesting “evidence of the senses” as the primary data of all knowledge; that knowledge cannot exist unless evidence has first been gathered; and that all subsequent intellectual processes must use this evidence and only this evidence in framing valid propositions about the real world. After visiting with Galileo in 1635, Hobbes became convinced that the universe consisted only of matter and motion and that both could be understood in terms of mechanistic principles. He saw humans as machines functioning within a larger machine (the universe). Hobbes also believed humans were naturally aggressive, selfish, and greedy. Incidentally, Hobbes thought democracy was dangerous because it gives too much latitude to man’s negative natural tendencies. He said fear of death is what motivates humans to create social order. Civilization is created as a matter of self-defense; each of us must be discouraged from committing crimes against the other.

Alexander Bain (1818-1903) has been referred to at the first true psychologist. He published two seminal works: The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and Emotions and the Will (1859). These books are heralded by some as the first systematic textbooks on psychology. He followed with Mind and Body (1873). Bain was the first in his field to attempt relating real psychological processes to psychological phenomena. For Bain, the mind had three components (or “functions”): feeling, volition, and intellect. Many Christian theologians and pastors believe man is made of three components: body, soul, and spirit. The soul is said to be comprised of mind, will, and emotions. Yet, to say that humans are morally superior to non-human animals is to overlook (at least to some degree) the seamier human activities like cannibalism, infanticide, and wars. The mere aspect of “religion” has certainly not improved the human condition. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) rejected Descartes’ contention that God, matter, and mind were separate entities. Instead, Spinoza proposed that all three were simply aspects of the same substance, which formed the basis of his theory on life that was both ethically correct and personally satisfying. He believed God, nature, and the mind were inseparable. Spinoza said God was not relegated to the realm of monotheists; rather, He was in everything. This is pantheism.

The practice of establishing categories of thought was proffered by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He disagreed with Hume by demonstrating that some truths were certain, not based on subjective experience alone. He did not deny the importance of sensory data, but he believed the mind must add something to that data before knowledge could be attained. He said that “something” was provided by a priori (innate) categories of thought. He listed the following in his breakdown of pure concepts or categories of thought: unity, totality, time, space, cause and effect, reality, quantity, quality, negation, possibility/impossibility, and existence/nonexistence. For Kant, a mind without concepts would have no real capacity to think; however, it can also be said that a mind loaded with concepts, but with no sensory data to which they could be applied, would have nothing to think about!

Philosophers began to argue that humans consist of more than an intellect and ideas derived from experience. We possess a wide variety of irrational feelings (emotions) that cloud meaning and tantalize or betray us. We also operate on an intuitive and instinctual platform. Romanticism was a predictable challenge to empiricism. After all, empiricism reduced people to unfeeling machines. Theologians talk of us possessing the imago Dei (the image of God). This seems to be contrary to the believe that emotions are found on the pleasure/pain continuum. Spinoza taught that emotional experience is often destructive if not controlled by rational processes. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) said, “Man is born free and yet we see him everywhere in chains.” Christian theology benefited, however, from Rousseau’s feelings vs. reason tenet because it supported the idea that God’s existence could be defended on the basis of individual feeling and did not depend on the dictates of the church.

I have decided to break this topic into a series. There is simply too much to cover in one blog post. Part One is designed to give you fairly deep background on how Christian theology interacted with philosophy. A great deal of psychology is built on the shoulders of early philosophers. Part Two will move a little faster, starting with David Entwistle’s thoughts on integrative approaches to Psychology and Christianity. Also, I will present the theology, philosophy, and worldview of David Sire, John Stonestreet, Nancy Pearcey, and Lee Strobel.

Why Must We Suffer?

By Steven Barto, B.S. Psy., M.T.S.

MANY FACTORS TODAY IMPACT how we feel about ourselves and life. We wonder why bad things happen to good people. We question the existence of an all-powerful, benevolent God in the face of seemingly insurmountable evil and social unrest. America is embroiled in doubt and fear, depression and anxiety, hopelessness and a loss of meaning; caught in a national angst we have not seen since the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the Great Depression. Some of us turn to psychology and psychiatry, hoping medication and talk therapy will cure our misery. Others turn to “religion.” Tragically, many Americans try booze and illicit drugs, and some choose to end their life. What is the answer?

How Could You?

I sat, alone, quietly, wondering what was about to happen. Misery had brought me to this place. I was so sick and tired of myself, yet I had no idea how to change me. And what if I cannot change? Would I be able to live, period? Perhaps you or someone you are close to has been at this point. My complaint, for lack of a better word, was simple: God, how could you? Why did you give me this life, this complete mess. I felt impotent and alone. Nothing thrilled me anymore. Not. One. Thing. I decided to find out why, or die. Why am I lost and alone, confused and burdened? I am so tired of hearing my own voice―especially the one in my head that never seemed to stop making excuses for my circumstances. It is quite unsettling to give one’s self an ultimatum. What happened to the hour I first believed? I saw the face of Jesus at age 13, and asked Him into my heart and my life. There was an unambiguous call on my life to serve as a pastor or teacher of the Word. Finally, my raison d être.

But things did not go “according to plan.” Life got complicated. I got lost on the way to my calling. I’d never really been happy in life, but at least I wasn’t a nihilist. My belief that something matters, no matter what that something is, seemed to propel me toward hope. A chance to see the horizon. Light. There has to be light, right? And doesn’t that light illuminate, reveal? Like that new GE light bulb, giving the best light, filtering dull yellow light to give incredible color contrast and whiter whites for exceptional clarity. That’s what I needed. Exceptional clarity. Let’s get real here. My life did not seem to be “exceptional” and I had absolutely no “clarity.” Instead, I was kneeling in my bedroom, alone, broke and broken, asking God, “How could you do this to me?” How could a Christian lose hope. Lose the horizon? Give up the reigns to a task master like substance abuse?

I didn’t stop there. I wanted to know why my grandmother and father got cancer. Why my father lost his dad when he was only 13 years old. Why he contracted COPD, emphysema, and chronic hypoxemia? When he eventually needed supplemental oxygen 24 hours a day, he said to me, “Well, this is the beginning of the end.” Shortness of breath robbed him of his many favorite activities: woodworking, painting, gardening, landscaping. No longer could he ride his lawn tractor without suffering compression fractures of lumbosacral vertebrae. He had stopped smoking after his heart attack at age 55, yet he still suffered the horrific medical consequences. He passed away in 2014 from pneumonia. Why God? He’d quit smoking decades ago. Why is he gone now that I finally have a life worth living? Why isn’t he here to see the amazing turnaround I’ve finally made? He’s not here to see me preparing for ministry. God, how could you? Thankfully, I am not prone to thinking this way any longer, but it took some exegetical research for me to determine the best way to address these issues without blaming God, my father, or others.

If God Loves Us, Why Must There Be Pain and Suffering?

If God loves us and is an omnipotent and benevolent God, why does He allows pain and suffering. These questions are not limited to skeptics and nonbelievers; they haunt many Christians as well. Surely, He can rid His creation of wars, murders, torture, sickness, tsunamis, earthquakes; He must be capable of arresting evil, right? This issue has stymied believers and non-believers for centuries. Richard Dawkins sees universal suffering as an indictment against the existence of a loving God. Further, he writes, “There is no good case to be made for our possession of a sense of right and wrong having any clear connection with the existence of a supernatural deity” (1). Dawkins believes theodicy (the “vindication” of divine providence in the face of the existence of evil) must keep theologians up at night. However, he provides no further evidence of this claim. Second, I and many other theologians and biblical scholars I know, are not suffering from insomnia over the conundrum of evil in the face of a “good” God.

Dawkins says it is “…childishly easy to overcome the problem of evil. Simply postulate a nasty god – such as the one who stalks every page of the Old Testament. Or, if you don’t like that, invent a separate evil god, call him Satan, and blame his cosmic battle against the good god for the evil in the world. Dawkins’ detractors see the foregoing comment as a straw man fallacy, especially because Christian theologians and biblical scholars do not claim that the issue of evil is easily overcome, nor do they believe Satan is “a separate evil god,” responsible for the existence of evil in God’s creation. Designating one cosmic power “good” and the other “evil” presupposes a third element for making the evaluation, namely an objective standard (or “measuring stick”) of good and evil. For the terms of “good” and “evil” to be meaningful, they must be linked to some objective standard, but “…then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God” (2).

C.S. Lewis writes, “Each [entity] presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other bad. One of them likes hatred and cruelty, the other likes love and mercy… Now what do we mean when we call one of them the Good Power and the other the Bad Power? Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, or else we are saying that one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, in regarding itself good” (3). Lewis argues that no created being can be intrinsically evil or love evil for evil’s sake. He contends that there is no way that an evil being can stand in the same relation to its evil that an ultimate good being can stand to its goodness. He adds, “Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. There must be something good first before it can be spoiled” (4). Augustine of Hippo postulated that evil has no existence of its own; instead, evil is the absence of good.

I understand this conclusion sounds a bit counterintuitive. So, let us take an exegetical approach to the origin of evil. When God created the heaven and the earth, He paused and saw that it was good (Gen. 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25). On the sixth day, after surveying all He made, God said it was very good (1:31). When we read the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, we see no mention of God creating anything bad, corrupt, malevolent, ugly, or wicked. Yet, in Genesis 3 we are introduced to the serpent tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The serpent, which had not been previously mentioned, suddenly comes on the scene and becomes a major player in the fall of man and introduction of original sin. So, good is morally “prior to” evil such that evil is damaged goodness and love of evil is desiring evil as though it were good. Natural laws and libertarian free will are necessary conditions for a variety of valuable relational situations (within humanity and with God).

Lewis believed pain is “God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world,” emphasizing pain’s capacity to shatter our illusions of self-sufficiency. But this is not a dyed-in-the-wool formula; pain only sometimes shatters our false sense of self-sufficiency and at other times drives us farther from God, depending on our response. Further, Lewis did not make sweeping generalizations about the purpose of all pain, although some interpreters mistakenly represent him as doing so. Moreover, Lewis did not address “evils” such as natural catastrophes that wipe out hundreds of people without giving them a chance to reorient toward God; nor did he engage human wrongful acts like the torture and murder of children who cannot respond productively to the pain. To be sure, however, God can work redemptively with pain when it does occur. There is simply no guarantee that all persons, even when pain exposes their insufficiency, will choose relationship with God.

If the universe is as scientists say it is, then what scope remains for statements about good or bad, right or wrong? What are we to conclude about evil and wickedness? If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong. To admit this would force philosophers to admit that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality.

Created Selves and Reality

As a created self, a finite personal being possessing intelligence, will, and agency, Satan’s true good would have been realized by accepting his place (as Lucifer) in creation, which he refused to do. We human beings are also created selves who must either accept our nature and ultimate destiny in God or craft for ourselves a destiny apart from God, which Lewis sees as “a free choice.” Essentially, a series of accumulative moral choices in which “good and evil both increase at compound interest” (5). It is inevitable that left unchecked, bad temper, jealousy, narcissism, selfishness, and other spiritual or character defects, gradually get exponentially worse and become Hell when projected out over an eternal future. Finding our true selves, then, is a matter of letting God heal and transform us spiritually. But God will never force himself upon us. He will not ravish, He can only woo. As perfect love, God can do nothing less than will our true good. Lewis said, “He cannot bless us unless He has us” (6).

Concluding remarks

We all hear the question so many typically ask, “Why would a loving God send someone to hell?” Yet, the truth is, people send themselves there. If you see someone walking toward a cliff and you yell to them, “Wrong way! There is a cliff ahead. You’re going to fall off and die if you don’t go the other way.” But if the person foolishly responds with “I’ll take my chances”, “I don’t believe you”, or “All roads lead to safety,” then he or she ends up falling off the cliff and into the abyss, who sent them there? They did! I wrote a poem during my active addiction that looked at the excitement and the peril of living my life right up to the edge of the abyss. Certainly, God did not want me to push myself away from Him, coming closer and closer to the cliff. He wanted to rescue me from myself, but I had to make the first move.

Lewis said a “Cosmic Sadist” might hurt us, but he could not do positive things such as invent or create or govern a universe. To hurt us, the Cosmic Sadist might bait traps, “…but he’d never have thought of baits like love, or laughter, or daffodils, or a frosty sunset. He make a universe? He couldn’t make a joke, or a bow, or an apology, or a friend” (7). It is goodness that is original and fundamental and evil that is derivative and parasitic. I, as Lewis, remain confident that the Christian worldview explains evil and suffering better than other worldviews explain it. Evil occurs within a total world context that includes other important phenomena that cannot be adequately explained by an evil source. The problem of evil itself, as Lewis indicated, can be credibly formulated only if these other realities are assumed. In the final analysis, when Lewis lost his wife Joy, he did not waiver one bit in his faith in God. His theory that pain is a catalyst for spiritual reorientation (a belief he articulated frequently and that many of his readers took as categorical) encountered the hard fact that sometimes we just have to endure pain that seems to serve no particular purpose.

Footnotes

(1) Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: First Mariner Books, 2008), 135.
(2) C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952), 43.
(3) Ibid, 42-43.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid., 132.
(6) Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus (London, UK: SCM Press, 2000).
(7) C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (London, UK: Faber and Faber, 1961), 65.

Many Questions Remain About Youth Substance Use Trends

December 15, 2020

The following is from the web blog of Dr. Nora Volkow, Executive Director of NIDA.

The results of the 2020 Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of drug use and attitudes in middle and high school students were released today, with the encouraging news that the alarming rises in teen vaping both of nicotine and marijuana seen in prior years had leveled off, although use remained high. But as with so many other efforts in 2020, the MTF survey was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. And we are left at the end of this tumultuous year with many questions about how circumstances have affected youth, their substance use, and their mental health more generally.

The MTF survey is ordinarily conducted from February until May, with the results released later the same year. This year, schools closed in mid-March before the majority of the students could be surveyed, leaving the University of Michigan researchers who conduct the survey with a smaller-than-usual sample—11,821 students in 112 schools. Although only a quarter the size of the usual sample, it remained nationally representative and contained much valuable data.

Generally, the 2020 MTF showed continued low levels of most forms of substance use among teens, including very low levels of opioid use despite the devastating effects opioids have had on all older age groups including young adults. However, there are other indications that the evolving addiction and overdose crisis is directly affecting youth. For example, a study by CDC researchers just published in the Journal of Pediatrics shows increases in suspected nonfatal overdoses involving stimulants (a category that includes prescription stimulants, cocaine, and methamphetamine) in children and teens between 2016 and 2019. MTF shows decreases in use of prescription stimulants in 10th and 12th graders but a trend toward increased use among 8th graders. It will be important to closely monitor adolescent stimulant use in future MTF surveys.

The MTF data collected at the beginning of this year reflect a certain point of relative normality before the COVID-19 pandemic threw all our lives into upheaval, including the lives of teens. As we seek to understand adolescent substance use in this new reality, we look to research to answer many important questions on how the stresses of the pandemic may have affected substance use by teens. For example, it is important to investigate the consequences of social distancing and virtual classes on adolescent drug experimentation and use, since those are strongly influenced by peer pressure and group dynamics. NIDA has issued supplemental funds to existing grantees to help study the impact of the pandemic on adolescents’ risk of substance use; their access to prevention and treatment services; and the pandemic’s effects on families. Future research, including the results of next year’s MTF survey, can help us understand how school closures and lockdowns affected adolescent substance use.  

Although research has suggested that the pandemic’s stresses have increased many forms of substance use in adults, it remains to be seen whether reduced ability to interact with peers or other sources of drugs may be a mitigating factor in youth. There is already evidence that reduced commercial availability of vape products during the pandemic may be affecting teen vaping. Researchers at Stanford and University of California San Francisco captured self-reported vaping habits of 2,167 teen and young-adult e-cigarette users in May, two months after the national emergency was declared and after MTF stopped gathering data for the 2020 survey. Over half of the respondents reported changing their use of vaping products, with 68 percent of those reporting that they had reduced their use or quit. Inability to purchase the products was one reason cited.

2020 has posed many urgent questions for science. Finding out the different ways the pandemic and other stresses of the year have affected young people is a high priority. Adolescence is an important period of social and emotional development, and the pandemic has disrupted many of the processes that impact that development. NIDA research has pivoted to ensure we address this unique time in history as we pursue scientific solutions to the impacts of drug use and addiction across the lifespan.