I’ve been thinking a little about the sufficiency of Scripture. This doctrine is either neglected or misused. One denies the sufficiency of Scripture by completely outsourcing mental health issues, while the other misuses the sufficiency of Scripture by never outsourcing. One brother seems to put Scripture on par with other resources, while another brother believes that the Bible is the only book you need on your shelf and that it alone is needed to speak to all issues.
Using cancer as an example, I hope to show how to properly use the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. First, consider this little graph I created:
This chart is a visual way of saying that where Scripture does speak it does so with authority. When Scripture speaks clearly (and therefore I am confident of my interpretation) then I should have absolute confidence in the truth that it declares. The less clearly that Scripture speaks on a topic the less confident I should be.
Cancer and the Bible
You’ve just received a most unwelcome diagnosis. That lump…it’s…cancer. Your mind races. A million questions flood your mind. You wonder where in the world God is in all of this. What does He have to say about cancer?
Now remember our rule: Where Scripture does speak it does so with authority.
What this means is that we test al truth claims by this. You will soon have options about treatment. Should you do chemo? What is the best way to fight this cancer?
The Bible is not going to answer those questions. It does not speak to what foods a cancer patient should eat. It doesn’t address issues like chemotherapy. Therefore, you should probably do what your doctor tells you. It’s not denying the sufficiency of Scripture to listen to your doctor and to get the help that you need.
Yet, the Bible is not silent when it comes to issues like cancer. The Scripture tell us that everything that happens in the life of a believer is designed by God for our good; namely, to bring us into greater conformity to Christ. (I’ve written more on this point here). We also know from Scripture that Jesus is our ultimate healer. We know that death is not the end of the story. We know that we are called to pray—even to call upon others to pray over us.
What happens if your doctor contradicts any of these points? What if he tells you, “prayer won’t help”? In this situation he is making a truth claim. And it is a truth claim that the Bible does speak to. Therefore, we measure his statement according to the Scriptures. God clearly calls us to pray and to cast our cares upon Him. Therefore, in this instance we don’t listen to our doctor because God, who has far more authority, has spoken.
Mental Health and the Bible
I don’t intend to flesh this out here, but my point in this article is not about cancer it is about the sufficiency of Scripture. There are some issues that are far more complex than cancer. Mental health is one of these issues. My hope in this article is to give us a way of thinking about how the sufficiency of Scripture relates to things like mental health.
The point is simple. The application is more tricky. Where Scripture speaks on issues of mental health it does so authoritatively. Where Scripture is silent (like brain chemistry) it is silent, and the sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t call us to make the Bible address issues that it does not address. Therefore, when we think through these matters it would do us well to humbly embrace a “both/and”.
We must not neglect the truth that Bible is sufficient. And we must not pretend that this means that the Bible speaks to every issue. Let us be bold where Scripture is bold…and no more.
the sacred Scriptures are testaments . . . they are inspired by God . . . if however, the sacred writings were all-sufficient, then Christ would have had no need to send the Holy Spirit to remain with the Church and to guide the Church into all truth
Mike: What you have touched upon, I think, is a matter involving the Omniscience God who is the source of Holy Scripture, an issue I am not sure we can ever adequately begin to understand, a matter as deep as the being of God Himself. I remember reading a statement by a Puritan that our problem with the Bible was really with its perspicuity, its clarity. You can look at a matter and think that you understand it, because it is so clear, but your problem is a depth problem, comprehending the depth of the reality which engages your thinking in the profound sense. Part of the problem, I think, is our lack of enough knowledge and wisdom to begin to comprehend that which we read in the text of Holy Scripture. Sufficiency of Scripture, as it has been understand, means that one has enough there to understand and follow in the way of faith. How much more is comprehending in the sufficiency matter is a moot question.
You have brought up the issues of cancer and mental health, and you have handled them in a fashion that I find relevant and germane. I have a degree in counseling as does my daughter-in-law, who is also a nurse and has two degrees in nursing and even teachings the subject in a school under the direction of the famed Duke medical center (I don’t know just how the whole Duke complex of the medical center and the university works in such matters). However, she took her counseling degree from a school that taught only biblical counseling, whereas I took mine from a school that not only taught me biblical counseling but also prepared me to take the secular test (required for employment in the Public Schools of North Carolina). Some schools do not try to prepare one for such tests, a mistake in my opinion, due to the vastness of the subject and the need to be exposed to a variety of schools and movements in the psychotherapy field (when I took my degree there were 450 plus schools and movements. That was 25 years ago. I wonder how many there are now). What I found in my study of the Bible is that there is a compelling depth, intellectually, to the word of God which fits in with the wisdom of every age in such a fashion as to speak to it in the most profound sense to evoke and sustain faith in lost sinners, no matter what level of society in which they exist.
The Bible, it seems to me, prepares one intellectually to become extremely sensitive to realities and truths that escape human thought, especially when it is not aware of the spiritual or biblical dimension. Having a degree in intellectual history has been most helpful. What was even more helpful has been to do years of research in a number of fields. I have done six years of intensive research in the 2000 years of church history, two years on the I Cors.12:31b pericope on Agape love, plus years on many other subjects (e.g., creation, evolution, eschatology, theology, preaching, various books in the Bible, etc. What I have found is that I pick up on things, seeing them from many different angles, all of which assist me in recognizing whether a matter is genuine or not, relevant or not. I remember just scan a few pages of a book on EDM, Eye Desensitization Movement, a therapeutic technique discovered by a Psychologist for the treatment of PTSD, Our son, a pastor, referred a person to me for counseling, and I was struck by the trauma from which she was suffering. In any case, something seem to touch my mind, indicating that I should use the technique (this was before an institute was established and the certification requirements were established), and I, rather timidly, tried something from a book which I had read some seven years before (and even then not in detail) and I was utterly dumbfounded by the results. I won’t go into the matter, but what I want to emphasize is that it was the Bible that had enabled me, intellectually, to become sensitive to the value of therapeutic technique developed by an apparently secular therapist,
Seeing the Bible in its depth is the most difficult of perceptions, and the sufficiency of scripture is of that nature. After all, as I found in research on Jonah, the Bible does not mean what we want it to mean or even what our little methods say it must mean, but, on the contrary, it means what God wants it to mean or, to put it another way, it involves His purpose. What has He purposed by a text? I could continue, but, suffice it to say, I have said more than enough.
Mike…is there any chance this phrase is intended to have a link attached to “here”:
“I’ve written more on this point here”.
Specifically with respect to cancer: it’s amazing that the Bible specifically does not mention anything about cancer given the use of yeast to illustrate some principles of sin. But in order to validate anything the Bible said about the organs of the body would require cutting the body open and generally touching sick and dead things instead is used as a spiritual warning. As well as–in general–the concept of malformedness or sickness being related to (spiritual) uncleanness.
Specifically with respect to mental health: the clearest presentations of mental illness-style conditions in the Bible surround those who are demon possessed. I’ve always wondered why exactly that’s the clearest picture we get. One could suggest that such an image is extraordinarily harmful given both the superstition associated with demon activity in most of the world (both “developed” and “developing” regions) as well as the general taboos associated with mental illness.
Similarly, we simply do not have adequate spiritual tools today for diagnosing and treating demonic influence of the kind that Jesus treated miraculously. So not only is the Bible limited to presenting images that are puzzling and confusing with respect to mental illness, but we are somewhat in a quandary about how to integrate the Bible with the mental health profession. As a result, there is a very strong tendency among evangelicals to treat psychology as superstition and to reject it as being in conflict with Scripture.
Now that in and of itself is probably both understandable and acceptable. But then the same kind of superstitious view of medicine often emerges and people reject the science of medicine in favor of odd remedies. Those remedies frequently treat certain foods as essentially demonic and recommend other foods as more wholesome. While there very well MIGHT BE some unexpected advantage to that kind of superstitious thought and practice, it comes across as irrational if not unhinged.
Yes, you know where I’m going next: a lot of the organic, locally grown, and non-GM food craze has elements of the same irrationality in it. From even the slightest distance from the person who adheres to that kind of thinking we start sensing elements of efforts to create self-righteousness.
So I’m going to propose a rather simple framework:
1. Unless the Bible speaks clearly on a subject, then the person should prefer a discovery and evidence-based method for seeking understanding on that subject. Very specifically: the Bible does not directly address most of medicine nor does it directly address most of psychology/psychiatry/mental conditions.
2. While the fields of medicine and psychology might not provide perfect insight into diseases and conditions, both are very strongly discovery and evidence-based as a whole. Sure: psychology especially integrates some thinking that seems opposed to the Bible. But rather than rejecting that discovery-based framework, we ought to seek to understand the specific disagreements with Scripture in detail rather than, as it were, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
3. Fear of the unknown drives as many Christians to “cooky” responses as non-Christians with respect to potentially terminal diseases. For the most part all of those “cooky” responses are as irrational as the irrationality of mental health. And I see zero evidence that Christians are MORE LIKELY to reject “cookiness” than non-Christians as a whole. I would think that our faith produces reason, but the evidence–admittedly largely anecdotal–argues against that stance.
4. While specifically some of psychology–particularly the earlier frameworks–are more speculative than evidence-based, some of the INSIGHTS from those early frameworks have been very helpful in guiding discovery. For example, Freud’s thoughts on the subconscious provides a useful diagnostic technique for examining behaviors that a person does not rationally “choose”. That kind of framework is even more useful if it helps the individual understand behavior and build strategies for accommodating the less helpful behavior (up to and including pharmaceutical therapies.)
What we need is spiritual insight and examination of these key cultural elements–medicine in general and psychology in specific–that seeks to create a helpful interface between our faith and these evidence-based, discovery-oriented fields. The general tendency to simply reject science–brought on in evangelical circles largely by science bypassing the Bible with respect to the “creation story”–is essentially wrong.
Which isn’t to say that we should abandon apologetics that seek to also make room for faith-based understanding in the public square. But a better overall approach to reconciling faith and science that is more careful in drawing distinctions would put the “faith world” in a better position to avoid simply being ignored.
And I think it can be done in much the same way you’re approaching this. Start with some very simple principles and then stick to them. Then don’t be afraid to highlight with clarity sure distinctions. But also work very hard to avoid the appearance of appealing to irrationality “in the name of Jesus”. And everyone reading that sentence knows exactly what I mean by that.
I would like to see you do a piece entitled, “Mental health Issues and the Sufficiency of Scripture.” I suppose we all agree with the latter part of that.
Interestingly enough, Greg, one noted psychiatrist, C.G. Jung, stated in his writings that in his analysis of persons and their problems he had encountered more than one personality in some of his clients, even malignant personalities, pointing perhaps to demons!!!
This might post twice:
I’m not sure that a single, rare, controversial diagnosis (see Wikipedia entry for Dissociative identity disorder) ought to be used to justify general opposition to psychology as a science. A more general exegesis of the DSM v. the Bible might be pertinent, but even then it should be specific and crisp.
Of course, when the symptoms agree directly with the test of Scripture, by all means cast out that demon (or demons) with prayer and fasting. I just think most of us aren’t very realistic about how often we’ve observed that kind of behavior and most of us struggle with how appropriate responding that way really is. My take is that–given Jesus’s healing regime for demonic possession could be considered largely “miracle-based”–most of the time we cannot apply Scripture directly. And very few of us–in my experience–develop the expertise to know when the situation should be described as “demonic possession”. Which suggests a mental-health-based treatment might nominally be a better approach.
Mike Leake
Sufficiency of Scripture can be a broad area, and a tangled web. All of the Apostles were martyred but one, they suffered sickness, and they all died. Mike, please forgive me but it seems you are tiptoeing through these issues.
Doc: you raise a valid point that I thought about bringing up. But it really deserves its own topic. So, of course, I’m going to throw together a series of comments that illustrates why it deserves its own topic…
Should we as believers expect medicine to extend our lives when God has clearly chosen to give us infirmities that potentially shorten our lives? A clear warning on the subject is the birth of Manasseh–described as the most evil king of Judah–to Hezekiah after Hezekiah successfully petitioned God for a longer life when he had been told his life was going to be shorter and Manasseh was born during that extension of life.
I’ll add to that (and I really do hope Ed Stetzer reads this): in the summer of ’93 there were a group of consultants and pastors from the SSB in the upper lofts of the chapel at Glorieta discussing one of the more daunting portions of Sunday School: the prayer request time. They noted it is just as difficult to handle on Wednesday night in a church-wide prayer meeting, but at least those meetings normally are limited to the “immediate family” of the congregation for the most part.
The daunting things that come out in prayer requests include some of the subjects this blog also brings out. But the participants (and I believe Ed was in that discussion) included things like (and I’m pretty sure Ed made this comment) “Aunt Susie’s bunions” (name changed to protect the innocent??) There was a very strong sense in that discussion that these kinds of prayer requests are primarily palliative to the church body and might not be intended by God to be a primary substance of the “work of the church”.
And to the extent that we focus on these kinds of prayer requests they often (dare I say “usually” or even “always”) cause us to be less serious about the real spiritual needs of the community surrounding the local body. We endure or tolerate these kinds of prayers very specifically because the congregation raises them and therefore in essence expects a serious response.
I’ve attempted prayers in front of SS classes/departments that “put the situation into God’s hands to choose for his glory what the outcome is” and been chided by both pastors and laypeople for my “lack of faith”. And yet: I’m pretty sure I’m expressing a broader sense of true trusting faith to depend on God to resolve what ought to be non-essential prayer requests when there are more essential ones that should receive a significantly higher priority. (Which isn’t to say that this kind of prayer request should receive NO priority either.)
To me this is the kind of serious conversation that Mike’s blog deserves. And, yes, pastors sometimes tiptoe around these subjects while asking important questions. I think Mike’s important question is whether or not we should depend too heavily on Scripture to solve problems that God might be providing solutions to in other ways (i.e. medicine or psychology.) And, of course, a corollary of that question is this: to what extent should I expect a miraculous intervention by God in my life regarding difficulty?
Expressing that question ties it back to Dave’s post on “strange fire” and to Andy’s on “pragmatic Deism”. To what extent should the contemporary believer expect to directly see God working in a visible way in his or her life? As opposed to Christianity providing a reason-based set of guidelines that we essentially follow as directly as possible in an effort to please God solely through faith resulting in obedience?
Doc,
I’m unsure of your point here. Without showing how I am tiptoeing It’s really hard to respond.
I’ll chalk it up to a poorly written article. As I read through this article again I realized that my writing didn’t do justice to the thought that I’m hoping to convey. I plan on writing on this same concept but in a different way.
P.S. Greg, you mentioned above that a link is missing. I believe you are correct. I’ll look into getting it fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
Jess, I too wonder how you define Mike as tiptoeing through these issues. He writes pretty clearly. Can you elaborate?
This subject is of interest to me, so I read it eagerly.
The assertion was:, “The point is simple. The application is more tricky. Where Scripture speaks on issues of mental health it does so authoritatively. Where Scripture is silent (like brain chemistry) it is silent, and the sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t call us to make the Bible address issues that it does not address. Therefore, when we think through these matters it would do us well to humbly embrace a “both/and”.”
This begs for application. I would be interested in knowing (a) exactly what does mike think scripture says about mental health, and (b) what is the correct course re: mental illness that mike thinks doesn’t minimize the sufficiency of scripture?
What William, and Greg said.
Last week a friend of mine was in the hospital visiting a man who was there due to severe hallucinations and irrational behavior correlated with a huge drug overdose. My friend said, “this guy was demon possessed”. As a layman I ask this forum. Is there such a thing as “demon possession” today? If so, how would one go about differentiating this from mental illness or symptoms related to a drug overdose.
Is there any correlation between “demon possession” and suicidal behavior?
I have personally seen people with Alzheimer’s who have lost all rational thought. They do things which are destructive to themselves and others.
For example, they run away from the house in the middle of the night and wander aimlessly in the street. They walk out in traffic on a busy street and get hit by cars.
Yesterday, I was at a hospital with my wife. While I was there I got in a conversation with a nurse at that hospital. She was telling me about people who come in there with problems due to taking a street drug called “Alligator”. This drug literally eats away the skin on your arms and legs so your bones show through. Sounds close to the stuff we read about in the Bible that happened with the guy running naked in Gadara on the Eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
I am a microcode designer and software engineer. I have a BSEE in Electrical Engineering and an MBA with concentrations in decision science, statistics, management, and finance. I don’t claim to be an expert in theology, psychology, or medicine. That’s why I reach out to you guys since you may be able to shed some light here at the intersection between science / medicine and Christianity.
I’ve done some study at Western Baptist Seminary. Just enough to be dangerous.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK