Category Archives: Counselling

Religious marriage with a different twist: My response to Spencer Howson

By Spencer D Gear

bmag is a Brisbane freebie newspaper-magazine style publication delivered to Brisbane households once a month. It can be accessed online HERE.

Spencer Howson is a breakfast presenter on radio, ABC 612 Brisbane. He used to write a regular column for bmag. Since my email letter of 11 July 2012 to Spencer Howson, a bmag contributor, was not published on 24 July 2012, p. 16, ‘Your say on marriage’, here I publish what I wrote to him on 11 July 2012 (his email was, [email protected]):

Your ‘Marriage shake-up‘ article (bmag, 10 July 2012) was your secular, religious, relativistic, politically correct (PC) promotion to accommodate the homosexual community. Yours is as religious a perspective as any in Australia. There is no philosophy, religion or worldview that is not devoted to some divinity – the object of its highest desire and deepest commitment. You may not call it ‘divinity’ but this pinnacle of desire and depth of commitment is the essence of the ‘divine’ (even though you define it differently).

Your use of projection triggers gives away your presuppositions (bold emphasis ahead). These projection triggers included,

(1) ‘I’ve never considered our marriage has anything to do with God’.

(2) Your marriage to Nikki was ‘a religion-free declaration of love and commitment’.

(3) ‘Nikki and I would have chosen a Civil Marriage’.

(4) ‘What do you think of my idea of having Church Marriage and Civil Marriage?’

Yours is a religion of autonomous reason – but it is as religious as any Christian’s view in Australia. [Here I add dot points that I did not include in the letter.] His presuppositions include:

Marriage has nothing to do with God.
A God-less marriage is religion-free.
Marriage is a declaration of love and commitment with no reference to God.
A Civil Marriage is preferred if you want it to be religion-free.

This is a pluralistic, relativistic religion that has considerable negative ramifications. How come? When the polyamory, polyandry, polygamy and marriage to children PC groups come along promoting their views, you have no rational basis to reject such religious perspectives. Yours is a slippery slope argument, Spencer, and you are standing at its pinnacle.

You are conning yourself by claiming yours is a non-religious perspective and your PC view should be considered or promoted. Having Church Marriage and Civil Marriage – your religious perspective – is a BIG compromise of the integrity of marriage.

By the way, your view of the church as ‘membership of a club – and that’s what church is’, is a country mile from the reality of the church being and functioning as the body of Christ (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:27). If your knowledge of marriage is as far-off as your understanding of the church, our society is in deep trouble if it pursues your religious views.

Why is the church so adamant about marriage being between a man and a woman? In spite of your alternate religious values, from the beginning of time the Judeo-Christian Almighty God has declared that this is the foundation of marriage: ‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24). The foundation of a stable and just society is marriage of a man and a woman. [The following was not in my email to Spencer Howson.]

Jesus Christ supported the Genesis 2:24 passage when he was teaching about divorce:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:4-6 ESV)

I add Karl Barth’s comment:

There is no man who does not have his own god or gods as the object of his highest desire and trust, or as the basis of his deepest loyalty and commitment. There is no one who is not to this extent also a theologian. There is, moreover, no religion, no philosophy, no world view that is not dedicated to some such divinity. Every world view … presupposes a divinity interpreted in one way or another and worshiped to some degree, whether wholeheartedly or superficially. There is no philosophy that is not to some extent also theology. Not only does this fact apply to philosophers who desire to affirm—or who, at least, are ready to admit—that divinity, in a positive sense, is the essence of truth and power of some kind of highest principle; but the same truth is valid even for thinkers denying such a divinity, for such a denial would in practice merely consist in transferring an identical dignity and function to another object. Such an alternative object might be “nature,” creativity, or an unconscious and amorphous will to life. It might be “reason,” progress, or even a redeeming nothingness into which man would be destined to disappear. Even such apparently “godless” ideologies are theologies (Barth 1963:3-4).

Reference:

Barth, K 1963. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

6pointMetal

Mass media correct and Christian wrong!

Photo: Gay rights protesters gathered outside the Victory Life Centre to make their views known. (ABC News: Claire Krohl)

Map: Perth 6000

By Spencer D Gear

How did the news media report on the ‘Rally to Preserve Marriage’ at the church which Margaret Court pastors in Perth, Victory Life Centre, on 24 April 2012?

This is what one of the speakers, Bill Muehlenberg, stated in his article, ‘Shouting Down the Opposition’. He stated:

The mainstream media was of course intolerant as well, refusing to offer balanced coverage. They did come out to video the protestors. Only a few dozen showed up, but the MSM focused on them and their loud shouting, and refused to have anything to do with what was happening inside the venue.

So if you check out and rely upon only the MSM today (see one example I link to below), you would not even know what occurred inside. All the focus was on the noisy militants. There will be plenty of shots on the television news tonight about the tolerance brigade seeking to drown out the meeting, but no coverage at all about what actually transpired inside.

And this is news coverage? This is professional journalism and news reporting? It is like covering a football match and only reporting on one team, with a complete blanket ban of coverage on the other team. But that is a poor analogy, since it implies two equal teams.

At the base of Bill Muehlenberg’s article, he gave the link to the ABC News (Australia) report on the rally, ‘Gay rights protesters rally outside Court’s church’. I took the Christian, Bill Muehlenberg, at his word and found these news items online to examine their coverage:

‘Gay rights protesters rally outside Court’s church’, Yahoo! 7 News, 25 April 2012. This is the identical story to ABCOnline.
‘Gay rights protesters rally outside Court’s church’, Efficient Farming, 25 April 2012. Again the exact story from ABCOnline repeated here.
police.com.au provided a link to the ABCOnline story.

The West Australian newspaper provided a slightly different story but with the same slant – only on the protesters who were demonstrating outside the meeting, ‘Gay marriage sides clash at rally’, The West Australian, 25 April 2012.

Courtesy: The West Australian

This is the email reply I received from one of The West Australian editors:

I have consulted with the reporter who wrote the article. She informs me that the press were not invited into the church. She said she “was barred from entering the church by security staff, who would not let me past the barriers to speak to anyone, so it would have been rather difficult to report on the meeting inside. Also tried to get in contact with Margaret Court, but she did not return my calls.”

I hope this addresses your query.

I have copied below an article from ABC online, which covered the story in a similar way to our reporter.

It sure did clarify my understanding. It gave me another side to the story.

Bill Muehlenberg was complaining about the intolerant, imbalanced view in the mainstream media, giving a link to the ABC news item reporting on this event that only gave coverage of the protesters. According to this news editor from The West Australian, that is the only version that was possible. The journalist had no alternative but to tell about the 70 homosexual protesters outside Victory Life Centre because journalists were banned from entering the church and reporting on the Rally.

This causes me to conclude on this occasion that one Christian gave an uninformed, slanted version of the way things are reported in the mass media. However, I need to observe that any journalist could have interviewed a number of people entering the rally – and they didn’t. Bill Muehlenberg informed me via email that he walked past the mass media journalists and cameras without being interviewed. However, this assumes that reporters knew who Bill was and could identify him for interview.

By the way, this one editor from The West Australian was the only letter of response I received from all of the other media mentioned above. All of these received an email from me.

This is not my opinion about all mass media coverage, but an example of what happened on one occasion that was misreported by a Christian (Bill Muehlenberg).

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

How to talk to your child about alcohol and other drug use

By Spencer D Gear

Alcohol or drug use, particularly when it may involve a member of your family, is a very emotionally loaded issue. Thus, it is quite natural that many parents are at a loss to know how to begin to handle this problem within the family. The following guidelines were prepared by counsellors trained in working with young people to provide parents with some basic ideas for use in dealing with this issue.

(freedigitalphotos.net)

1. Become informed about alcohol and drugs and their effects. Be a credible source of information for your child.

2. Make your position on alcohol and drug use clear to your children so that they know where you stand, even if you have no indications they are involved.

3. Husband and wife should try to reach agreement with each other over handling the issue. There should be consistency and mutual support in your communications with your child on this subject.

4. Be aware that the behaviour you are expecting from your children may be different from that of their peers and that peer acceptance may be of paramount importance to them. Work with them so that they understand the reasons for your expectations. Strengthen their feelings of self-confidence and independence.

5. If you suspect alcohol or drug use, avoid unproductive accusations. These often result in denial. Sit down with your children and discuss calmly any suspicions you have. Talk about your personal concern for them, as well as their wrong-doing. Try to keep discussions on a rational level. Overly emotional, angry outbursts frequently serve only to cut off parent-child communication prematurely.

6. If you see evidence of alcohol or drug use (i.e. physical or psychological symptoms or drug apparatus in their possession), restate your position and make clear the consequences you are prepared to enact. Make sure you are prepared to follow through with the consequences you set. Empty threats are meaningless to a child.

7. Avoid “labelling” or name-calling. You are not dealing with your child’s character at this stage, but with his/her behaviour. Try to remain calm and avoid saying things which tend to further alienate you from your child. The goal of communication is to help him/her understand that, although you are concerned about and disapprove of his/her behaviour, you still love him/her.

8. Try to maintain good communication with your children’s teachers. Let them know you are interested in their progress in school and would be appreciative of feedback from them regarding their academic and social behaviour. Make your child aware of this so that the children realise there exists a “parent-teacher coalition.”

9. Make it your business to get to know your child’s friends, who their parents are, where and with whom he/she is socialising, whether or not parties will be supervised by adults, and so on. Don’t be afraid to communicate with parents of your child’s friends. Introduce yourself to them in person or by telephone. As a general rule, parents have the bests interests of their children in mind and need to reach out and support each other. Make sure that your child is aware you are establishing communication with his/her friends’ parents – being secretive only breeds mistrust.

10. Don’t be afraid to seek professional help. Counsellors trained in working with children and adolescents can help by re-opening communication between parent and child, providing a neutral ground for expression of feelings, and serving to “de-fuse” the climate of tension within families which sometimes develops over issues such as alcohol and drug use.

Whytehouse Designs

The Christian and drug abuse[1]

For Christians living in the 21^st century, we cannot afford to be ignorant about drug abuse. It is all around us. Drug busts have made it to the front page of my local newspaper, the Bundaberg News-Mail (Queensland, Australia).

How should you respond to the escalating drug problem?

What should you relate to your children & friends?

What is the message we should take to a culture that is enmeshed in drugs — legal and illicit?
What reasons can we give for our approaches to drug abuse?

I want to limit my focus to the biblical, theological and ethical issues of the use of drugs for non-medical reasons.

I. THE FOUNDATION

The Christian response has some foundations:

The existence of the living, eternal, personal God who is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
He is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He is the Redeemer of the world who sent Jesus to die on the cross to provide salvation.
He is the Judge before whom all persons, including nations, will bow and be judged for what they have done;
He is the One who writes the rules of the universe.
As Francis Schaeffer’s book title puts it, He Is There and He Is Not Silent. He’s the listening and speaking God who speaks through the Bible, illuminates it by His Holy Spirit and speaks to our heart by the Holy Spirit.

We must begin any attempt to address the drug situation from these foundations.

Isaiah 8:19-20 reads:

When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn

(note especially v. 20).Many are asking today: What’s wrong with drugs? They say that marijuana is no worse than alcohol or cigarettes, the legal drugs. We must give our youth solid reasons for not using illicit drugs.

A. Foundation Principles

Bible basics for all of life, not just the drug experience, is the Creation, the Fall and Redemption. These make up the foundation of a biblical world view. To interpret and understand anything biblically, we must see it in light of Creation, the Fall and Redemption.

1. Drugs & the Doctrine of Creation

Why be so basic? What does Creation of the heavens and the earth have to do with drugs? When talking about drugs, there are four reasons to begin with Creation(Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”).

a. We are living in a postmodern (“post-Christian”) age.

Religious liberalism within Christianity contributed to this by hacking into the very heart of the supernatural God who is exists and denigrating God’s works in the world. It has moved the church away from its view of truth. The conservative evangelical

operates with a definite supernaturalism — God resides outside the world and intervenes periodically within the natural processes through miracles… The liberal… [considers] there is no supernatural realm outside of the natural realm. God is within nature rather than beyond or outside it. [2]For example, what this means in terms of liberalism:

Human nature contains God;
There’s a spark of the divine in every human being;
Human nature has not been corrupted by sin; rather, human nature is good and has the potential for developing;
Human beings do not need conversion; they just need inspiration and a vision of what they can become. [3]
Christianity’s beliefs are so tied to the ancient world and need changing. They are old fashioned and out of date. It is not necessary to conserve or preserve those doctrines [of Christianity]. [4]
Jesus is basically a good man, a teacher of great spiritual truths, but not the miracle-working, pre-existent Second Person of the Trinity. There is no Jesus dying for the sins of the world as a substitutionary atonement. [5] Of course, there was no miraculous birth.
The Bible is not the Word of God, but the writings of human beings, containing many errors.

Then add scientism to religious liberalism and you have an explosive mixture that hacks into the heart of supernatural Christianity. Scientism states that the principles of the “scientific methods can and should be applied in all fields of investigation.” [6] All of life is governed by what you can see, measure and manipulate.

This have moved our thinking away from the truth of Creation, for people in Western cultures. I have people who come to me who have perpetrated horrible sexual abuse against children and ask, “What wrong have I done?” Children who lie, steal, are disobedient, rebel like crazy, and think it’s their right. Many of them have no remorse for the wrong they have done. Where is conscience?

What is right and what is wrong? Just your opinion against mine? This is postmodern relativism. Anything goes as far as values are concerned. Why the hue and cry when euthanasia is voted down by the parliament? Why is the government even thinking of lowering the age of consent for sex to 10 and making incest no longer a criminal offence? How do we choose right vs. wrong?

That’s why we must get back to Creation.

The second reason we must get back to Creation when talking about drugs is:

b. Because of the influx of Eastern religions and the popularity of the New Age Movement.

This view is pantheism. All is god. Therefore, the universe is God. This is especially true of young people. Many young people have never heard of Creation. In my field of welfare, the New Age movements’ meditation, crystals, yoga, mantras and the like are dominating in dealing with stress.

This comment comes from the front page article of Contact [7], “a monthly Newsletter for people interested in mental health in the Bundaberg district” (May, 1997). It recommended Eastern meditation, saying it

Is all about relaxation, contentment and awareness. It is all about “stilling the spontaneous activity of the mind” as one of the Eastern Master[s] wrote 300 years before Christ.Through the deep relaxation that meditation can bring, comes an altered state of awareness. This altered state of awareness can take people from aggressive to tranquil, from fearful to confident, from doubtful to positive and from discontented to understanding.

Then the article proceeds to recommend many methods of meditation: transcendental meditation, progressive muscle relaxation, concentration, walking and standing, mantras and chants. It admits that the mantras and chants are “derived from Eastern religion where they were believed to have mystical powers.”

The third reason we must get back to Creation is because:

c. Pantheism is the basic world view of many who take drugs.

It interprets the drug experience for them. Leaders in the “flower children” of the 1970s who were into drugs, Timothy Leary, Alan Watts, etc. openly embraced pantheism.

Why do you think the Green movement has become so big? Nature is part of God and needs to be preserved, according to pantheism. Ecological movements use pantheism in their presentations.

There’s a fourth reason to get back to Creation:

d. Unless you understand the biblical doctrine of Creation, you can never understand the rest of Scripture.

To get to the sinful response of the Fall into sin, you must start with Creation. After the Fall comes Redemption. We must start with Creation to oppose pantheism. I also put it to you that in this secular age, we need to get back to Creation, the Fall and Redemption in our witnessing for Christ.

The doctrine of Creation means:

Time, matter, energy, space and all things that are created had a beginning. They are not eternal. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).
By an act of His sovereign will, God created everything without using pre-existent material.
The Creator and His creation are totally and qualitatively different from each other. Human beings are distinct and different from animals.
The universe is not God or a part of God. It is the creation of God (John 1:1-4; Col 1:16-17; Heb. 11:3; Rev 4:11).
The universe was originally created good and with a divine purpose. God created everything with a definite purpose in mind (Prov. 16:4; Ps. 19; Rev. 4:11).
Nothing happens by chance or luck in the universe. Nothing is meaningless.
Therefore, we must look upon every plant, drink and drug as having some purpose and function in the created world.

When the biblical doctrine of Creation is understood and believed, the pantheistic drug experience will be rejected.

The Eastern/New Age pantheist wants to get away from life and the body in this world. He/she wants to escape to an inner world of non-material reality. Only in the teaching on Creation, do we find a positive attitude to material reality. It is all made by God for a purpose.

Pantheism can never use drugs for the correct purpose in its escape to “Nirvana.” The Hindus see themselves as trapped in a wheel of suffering “and they yearn to break out of the cycle so that they can finally merge as a mindless drop in the great sea of forgetfulness that they call Nirvana.” [8] This is what many on drug trips expect.

Only the biblical doctrine of Creation serves as the positive, useful and correct use of drugs which God created.

Don (D.A.) Carson preached a series of messages for the Presbyterian Theological College, Melbourne, in late 1996. He’s an outstanding evangelical scholar of the Bible as well as a thinking, enthusiastic university evangelist. He says that he is having considerable impact on these postmodern students by going back to Genesis 1-3. He places a photocopy of Gen. 1-3 on each seat in the building and proclaims Creation, the Fall and then Redemption in Christ. You can read of his approach in his massive book, The Gagging of God (600 pages) [9]. Some of it is heavy going, but Carson’s analysis and solutions are brilliant, in my estimate.

2. Drugs and the Biblical Teaching on the Fall

Human beings were created righteous, pure, holy and good (Gen. 1 & 2). Gen. 1:28, “God blessed them and said to them, `Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'” This is the Cultural Mandate.

But then sin entered (Gen. 3). Original sin was a deliberate act of rebellion. Gen. 2:16, “And the Lord God commanded the man, `You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Gen. 3 shows how they listened to Satan, ate the fruit and the dreadful consequences of sin and eternal damnation came on the human race. This original sin was rebellion of human beings misusing part of creation to satisfy the evil desires of the heart.

The sin of Adam had two effects:

a. It made him legally guilty before God because he had broken God’s law.

So human beings at that moment were subjected to God’s justice and holiness.

b. Adam’s sin infected his own being and made him evil. This has been passed on to the whole human race.Human beings became corrupt in every aspect of their natures. The Bible’s clear teaching is that all human beings are now born with an evil nature and that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Ps. 51:5; Rom.. 1-5; Eph. 2:1-3). No aspect of us misses the radical effects of the Fall into sin. In our emotional, intellectual, volitional activities we are sinners before the true God.

Our thoughts, feelings, desires come out of wickedness in every area of our experience. In relation to God, sin is disobedience to God’s Holy Law and Word (I John 3:4). Sin is a form of idolatry (Ex. 20:3-7). In relation to the world around us, sin is the abuse and misuse of the creation — in opposition to the commands of God’s law (Ex. 20:8-17).

This means that a person does not ultimately become a drug abuser because of environmental or psychological factors. These are important factors, but they are not the ultimate cause of drug abuse. From the Christian perspective, drug abuse does not come from people’s ignorance or peer pressure but from sinfulness.

Why am I going over this fundamental doctrine of sin? Unless we see this, we are misguided in our attempts to help drug users. We must lay the axe at the root of the problem, because a radical cure is needed. If a person is serious about getting off drugs, he/she must see drug abuse as something that is sinful, that needs repentance from sin.

I read about

A well-known Christian drug-abuse center in Brooklyn, New York. Several men from the FBI [went] in and started asking questions. In conversation, one of them said that the government could not officially send anyone to a religious organization even for drug rehabilitation. However, so many drug users had been cured at this Christian establishment that they had come to see the secret of the success. After the Gospel was explained to them, they replied that the government could not use any religion for rehabilitation, but they were going to send people to them unofficially. Certain individuals with whom the government had worked and failed had come to the center. There they had been converted and seemed permanently cured of drug abuse. Obviously the power of the Gospel had been displayed to the government officials. [10]

3. Drugs and Redemption

There are four basic aspects to biblical redemption:

a. It is something that God has planned and accomplished.

The Fall into sin did not take God by surprise. He had planned salvation for people before He created the universe according to Eph. 1:4, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.”

b. The Trinity is involved in Redemption.

God the Father planned the salvation of sinners by choosing them for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for us, paying the full penalty for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17) so that we could be redeemed. He died in our place to secure eternal redemption for us (I John 4:10).

Then the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit to apply Christ’s redemption to sinners. We could say, “Christians were chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son, and sealed by the Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). Salvation is from the Triune God.” [11]

c. Redemption concerns individual persons

Individual people become Christians. It is personal (John 6:37, 65). God the Spirit renews and indwells individuals (Eph. 1:13). However, these individuals become part of the body of Christ–corporate. But individuals make up this body (I Peter 2:5).

d. Redemption has cosmic ramifications.

The earth itself will one day be redeemed from the effects of sin. READ ROMANS 8:19-23. There will be a new heaven and a new earth without contamination (2 Peter 3:7-13). All of this confirms that biblical Christianity is radically opposed to the pantheism of the drug experience and Eastern religions. Pantheism believes in the ultimate destruction of the individual person by absorption into the One.

This Eastern view of the annihilation of the individual self is a popular explanation of drug-induced experiences. This impersonal annihilation teaching has been known to be the background of some suicide attempts.

II. A PROPOSAL (THESIS) CONCERNING DRUG ABUSE

Based on the foundation laid, we can say, concerning drug abuse:

We are dealing with the difference between right and wrong;
The basis of Christian ethics is:

Something is absolutely wrong when God says it is wrong in His Word. God writes the laws for the universe.
We must examine the Scriptures to know the thoughts of God concerning drug experience. The Bible alone tells us this (Isa. 8:20).
Those who base their views on subjective experience will contradict much of what I have said. These people exalt experience over the Word.

A. The Distinction Between Medical Use of Drugs and Illicit Drugs

The NT records over 100 cases of healing, most of them being miracles by Christ and the apostles. Jesus portrayed himself as a physician (Mark 2:17).

If we take the teachings of Christ, we can construct a biblical view of the role of a physician to indicate some of the functions of medicines.

“Jesus said, `It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick'” (Matt. 9:12). Therefore,
“The function of drugs for medical purposes is to bring a person from the abnormal state of sickness or unwholeness into a state of normal health.”[12] God, in His grace, has given human beings the means to cure diseases. However,
“Drug abuse functions to take a person from the normal state of life into an abnormal state.” [13]
The medical use of drugs has been used to help people with emotional difficulties, e.g. anti-depressants. On the other hand, drug abuse has been linked with permanent mental illness (we’ll talk about his when we get to discuss marijuana).

The drug experience is designed to take people into an inner world and to forget about society, problems, the family, work and school. If you go to Nimbin, Northern NSW, you can still meet drop-outs from society and those on drug highs. However, you don’t have to go that far. I know of many who have dropped out and into drugs — in Bundaberg — a regional Queensland city and district of 65,000 people.

Robert Morey’s summary is penetrating: “The use of any drug for the purposes of entertainment, escape, mind-control, religious worship, occult experiences, magic or murder is a sin against God, the Creation, the Society and the Individual.” [14]

My proposal to you condemns any use of drugs for non-medical reasons, regardless of whether that use has developed into a physical dependence or continuous use. I do not support the methadone program. It is the giving of a synthetic morphine substitute (methadone) to heroin addicts. The methadone is not for medicinal reasons. It is a continuation of drug addiction. Neither the individual nor the government has the power to change the drug addiction. Some by sheer determination have come out of the drug scene — but it’s a tough battle. That’s why the Australian government’s policy is “harm minimisation.”

However, I know of many who have been set free from the oppression of drug addiction through a life changing encounter with Jesus Christ — through repentance, forgiveness and faith. If you are interested in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that changes people NOW and guarantees eternal life — see “The Content of the Gospel.” [15]

III. WITCHCRAFT (SORCERY) AND DRUGS

Some people seem to think the Bible has nothing to say about the drug problem in our society. They reach this understanding because of

A. Two basic misunderstandings:

1. They assume drug problems are peculiar to the 21st century.

The fact is, the ancient world during biblical times had many drug cultures. Many of the empires surrounding Israel wisely used drugs in their cultural life.

Jewish awareness concerning drugs. In Gen. 30:14-24, Jacob’s wife obtained a love potion called “mandrakes” to cure her infertility. She soon discovered that only God can open the womb for the infertile.
In NT times the drug problem was worse. Drugs were integral to the popular Mystery Religions of first century AD. Acts 19:18-20 — the people who had repented under Paul’s ministry, turned away from their mystery religion and burned their occult books that, no doubt, contained recipes for various drugs. [16]

There’s a second misunderstanding that causes people to think the Bible does not speak of drug abuse.

2. In their reading of the Scriptures, they fail to see the places where the writers raise the issue.

This is understandable because drug abuse is not mentioned explicitly in the English versions of the Bible. It is disguised by certain translations that are used.

Consider the Greek word, “pharmakeia.”

The English words, “pharmacy, pharmaceutical, pharmacist”, come from the Greek word, pharmakeia. The origin of this word refers to the making and use of drugs. “The word means in the classical writers, a preparer of drugs.” [17]

W.E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, “In sorcery, the use of drugs whether simple or potent, was generally accompanied by incantations and appeals to occult powers, with the provision of various charms, amulets, etc., professedly designed to keep the applicant or patient from the attention and power of demons, but actually to impress the applicant with the mysterious resources and powers of the sorcerer.” [18]

A more recent word study by Colin Brown, says, concerning pharmakeia, “Its meaning of medicine, magic potion, poison gives the underlying idea of the words. Potions include poisons but there has always been a magical tradition of herbs gathered and prepared for spells, and also for encouraging the presence of spirits at magical ceremonies.” [19]

B. Biblical Use of “Pharmakeia”

We see the use of pharmakeia in passages like Gal. 5:20 where one of the works of the flesh (“acts of the sinful nature”) is witchcraft or sorcery (depending on the translation). Drugs were part of witchcraft. Pharmakeia was only part of sorcery, “it literally means the act of administering drugs.” [20]

In the context of Galatians, pharmakeia refers to sinful activity. It is the practice of witchcraft, involving drug abuse. It is the non-medical use of drugs that is one of the “acts of the sinful nature.” We must get this clear. People may say the reasons they use drugs are: boredom, to get kicks, or to escape, “but the ultimate motive lying behind all other seeming motives is a self-satisfaction of the inner, depraved desires. This reveals that a drug experience is essentially selfish because it directs one entirely into oneself.

Galatians 5: 17 makes it clear that drug abuse is being in total opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit, “For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.”

In this context, the remedy for witchcraft and drug abuse is the work of the Spirit of God which replaces the “acts of the sinful nature” with “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness and self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23).

You will also notice in Galatians 5 that pharmakeia is linked with other sins. For example, in v. 20 the list “couples idolatry with its habitual ally, sorcery.” [21] The Bible seems to place certain sins together because there are elements that bind them together — idolatry and witchcraft.

With this is mind, what kinds of sins are generally associated with witchcraft and drug abuse? If you look at the list of sinful practices here is Gal. 5:19-21, they divide into four basic categories: [22]

1. Sins of sensual passion. “Fornication” or “sexual immorality” (NIV) refers to any kind of sexual immorality outside of marriage. “Impurity” or “uncleanness” often refers to the unnatural sexual acts such as homosexuality. “Debauchery” or “licentiousness” indicates the “giving up of oneself totally to sensuality and is expressed in such sins as pornography, exhibitionist nudity, sleeping around with anybody. These are sins against the body. [23]

2. Sins of unlawful dealing in spiritual things. “Idolatry” means that one makes a god out of some aspect of created things. The wood or stone idols of the heathen are obvious. The secularism and exaltation of reason of modern human beings are also forms of idolatry. All idolatry is a direct sin against the God who exists.

3. Sins of “violations of brotherly love.” Or, sins against your neighbour — hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, factions and envy.

4. Sins of “intemperate excesses.” Or, sins against society. These are sins that usually happen in groups. In Gal. 5, these sins are mentioned as “drunkenness, orgies and the like.”

Western people seem to be returning to the “Age of Magic” through the New Age Movement There’s a resurgence in meditation, yoga, crystals, astrology, the occult, witchcraft and Satanism. “There is an acknowledged attitude toward drug abuse which views it as a magical solution to personal problems.” [24]

Wherever the Bible mentions sorcery/witchcraft (pharmakeia), it also refers to drug abuse, which was an integral part of ancient sorcery. When the Bible condemns witchcraft/sorcery, the denunciation includes drug abuse. This position is taken by many well known New Testament commentators and scholars. [25]

There are other biblical uses of pharmakeia that I can mention briefly:

Rev. 9:20-21:

Even after a third of the human race has perished under God’s relentless, severe punishment, people still will not repent of their sins and turn to God. John, the revelator, mentions certain sins that were prominent at that stage of society. They include “magic arts” (NIV), pharmakeia. We could just as easily translate v. 21, “Nor did they repent of their… drug abuse.” [26]

The judgment of God could not break [people] of [their] addiction to drugs. It is only the grace of God which can savingly change the heart of a drug-abuser. Notice the sins which accompany drug abuse in the context [of Rev. 9:20-21]. [27]

Note: “worshipping demons.” Right now, the worship of Satan and his demons, the rise of witchcraft, astrology, magic, and the occult, is happening at the same time as the rise in drug abuse. The Bible, thousands of years ago, told us this would be so.

The existence of these things in cultures of the East and now in the West (thanks to the New Age) supports the underlying unity between these evils. “What binds them together is a lust to substitute the world of the creature for the world of the Creator. In his rebellion, man wants to be his own Creator and to live in a pleasure world which panders to the desires of the flesh.

Rev. 9 says that the people “did not repent… they did not stop worshiping demons and idols” (v. 20).

Alan Watts, one of the leaders in the hippie drug culture in the 1960s and 70s, “pointed out that drugs cause a person to loosen up in the area of inter-physical and inter-sexual contact with other people.” [28] We know that some drugs seem to heighten sexual sensations during intercourse. When a person takes drugs, he/she often loses self-control, including sex-control.

I don’t have space to look into Revelation 18:23; 21:8; 22:15 to see how illicit drugs will be used by people and nations at the end of the church age. Just before Christ returns. However, it is important “to note that the last chapter of the last book of the New Testament ends with a warning to those who traffic in sorcery and the wrong use of drugs.” [29]

The Old Testament is just as adamant against use of drugs and sorcery. e.g. Ex. 7:11, 22; 8:18; 22:18; Deut. 18:11; 2 Kings 9:22; Isa. 47:9, 12; Dan. 2:2; Micah 5:12; Nahum 3:4; Mal. 3:5.

The early church felt the force of the Scriptures against sorcery to be so strong that they met at the Council of Ancyra in Galatia about A.D. 315 to pass a severe canon against all (pharmakeia) [30]. The church of the twenty-first century must stand by this historic canon in condemning all forms of sorcery, especially drug abuse, which is at present over-running our society. The early Christians saw clearly that drug-cultures and drug-religions are diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity. The truth of this absolute antithesis [drugs and Christianity do not mix] must be revived in our day so that the Church may not only survive but also triumph.[31]

IV. DRUGS AND GOD

We can briefly note

1. Even some of those coming out of the hippie movement of the 1970s, such as Timothy Leary & Alan Watts, linked “religious” and “mystical” experiences with LSD and other drugs. This was their wonderful motive for taking drugs. [32] Aldous Huxley, who didn’t believe in “god”, linked the “religious” experience with taking drugs. [33]

2. But what has liberalism done over the last 100 years in the church? It has not taught people to fear God and it has rejected the new birth that brings regeneration. It brought “dead, formal, and external religion. This created a vacuum within [people] which drugs now attempt to fill.” [34]

3. Liberalism rejects the Christianity of the Bible, shattering the foundation of historical “facts”, leaving religion to be a non-rational leap of faith or state of mind. This opens life up to the drug experience.

4. This view is not only in modern liberalism, but in modern philosophies of art, music and literature of the last century. It is also the experience of the New Age Movement. Those on drugs, often say, “Why waste time meditating or praying when I can drop out on drugs?” How are modern liberal theologians going to interpret the drug-induced, non-rational religious experience when there is nothing like it in orthodox Christianity? The answers will come from: (1) Eastern religion (Hinduism, Buddhism), or (2) Existential Christianity of the Charismatics/Pentecostals.

5. Drug-induced mystical experience or hyped-up experiential highs of some Christian groups are not acceptable before God. Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

The way to the true God is the way of “faith.” The Bible’s view of faith is “that certain conscious commitment of the whole [person] to the Lord Jesus Christ in all the glory of His person and work.” [35]

6. Your true worship of God is this, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). You cannot love, obey and worship the one true God through a drug-induced experience. Your heart will be somewhere else, your soul high, your mind blown and your strength zapped.

When Jesus saved the demoniac, the demons were gone; he was clothed and in his right mind (Mark 5:15). According to 2 Tim. 1:7, the work of the Spirit in your life produces a sound mind/self-discipline. When the prodigal son was converted “he came to his senses/he came to himself” (Luke 15:17). Acts 19:18-20 makes it clear that the sign of true conversion is turning away from all forms of witchcraft — drug abuse.

Many people try to get to God via a drug experience. They by-pass Jesus Christ and are damned. “Since the Fall, [human beings have] attempted to find inward peace, happiness, and joy by any means except the way laid out for [them] in the Scriptures.” [36] The use of drugs in every aspect is opposed to the work of the Spirit in producing the fruit of the Spirit. Drugs is a manifestation of the sinful nature. Refer to Gal. 5:16-23.

V. SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO CHEW ON

1. In Gen. 1:28 we have the Cultural Mandate that God has given to human beings. Does drug abuse violate the Cultural Mandate? If so, why & how?

Drugs are an escape from this world into an inner world of irresponsibility.
Drugs can cause people to be blind to the evil and inhumanity around them. They see the real world as an illusion. “Marijuana is particularly guilty in this area. It cuts down on the motivation to do physical and mental labor. While they are high on pot, the earth can go to `pot’ for all they care.” [37]
To enable people to obey the Cultural Mandate, they must have use all of their faculties and be consciously working with all of creation. Drug abuse is a sin against the earth.

2. Why is a widespread turning to drugs detrimental to society?

It makes human society ultimately meaningless; society has no real significance.
Just take a look at some Eastern countries where drug abuse is endemic. Go to Burma, India. Andrew Weil has admitted that “clearly much drug taking in our country [speaking of the USA] is negative in the sense that it is ultimately destructive to the individual and therefore to society.” [38]
Those under the influence of drugs cannot truly love their neighbours. Yet drug users could respond, “Well, I know that when I am high I love everybody. The love which I have when high is fantastic and unbelievable. And you should feel what it is like to make love when high. Man, that’s love.” [39]

This is a confusion of fleshly excitement and lust, with love. This means that true human relationships cannot happen when intoxicated. Just take a trip through a drug community and see the filth, poverty, crime, disease, immorality. Drug users are a negative influence in any society.

Widespread use of drugs causes many drop outs in society. They don’t produce for society. They live off society by welfare, stealing, prostitution, etc.

3. You have to decide for yourself whether or not to use drugs. I put it to you that your personal drug use could:

temporarily affect you as a rational being while on a high;
it can twist your sense of time and history;
drugs can sometimes render you incapable of intelligible communication with another;
many drug users have lost their sense of being an individual person distinct from another. If this happens, you are destroying the image of God in yourself, reducing yourself to the level of an animal, plant or machine,
You may lose your sense of being a creature. Drugs create a sense of euphoria which sometimes may cause you to think you can transcend your creatureliness — even become a god. Some think of themselves this way, as superman, and leap from a tall building to their death. [40] Just remember that Satan’s main temptation to Eve at the Fall was “you will be like God” (Gen. 3:5). Ever since then, people have tried to experience godhood. They use drugs as one trip to try to get there.

Many drug users find that drugs help to create a period of self deification which eventually causes psychological problems and sometimes physical harm.

Remember, injecting SPEED may KILL you; LSD probably breaks chromosomes; many drugs destroy brain cells; marijuana has serious adverse effects. There are grave personal consequences from using drugs. They may alter your mind permanently. You can expect basic, and maybe, permanent change to your personality. Many times you may lose your ability to concentrate or read. Motivation could be zapped — especially with marijuana.

4. Pill popping is much quicker than sanctification. Some ask, “Why spend hours in prayer when a pill can give you instant peace? Why seek to put to death the sin of anxiety when a tranquillizer will calm your nerves?” Read James 1:2-4.

5. The use of drugs may open you up to demonic or satanic control. Is it worth it? Many pagan religions have used drugs to gain entrance into the spirit world to commune with evil spirits and gods.

6. Addiction is slavery. Paul to the Corinthians said, “I will not be mastered by anything” (I Cor. 6:12).

VI. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

Numbers of people have debated marijuana use through the pages of the my local newspaper, the Bundaberg News-Mail. A summary of an article and three letters-to-the-editor follow:

CALL FOR TOUGH LAWS: TEENS `UNAWARE’ OF DRUG DANGERS

In the Bundaberg News-Mail, “Friday Faith”, April 4, 1997, p. 18, it recorded:

1. “An outspoken, inner-city youth counsellor (Pastor Morrie Thompson, Teen Challenge, Adelaide) has called for tougher marijuana laws, including life imprisonment for adults supplying the drug to minors”:

2. “Current legislation [in SA] is responsible for many young people moving on to other drugs”;

3. “Lives are being ruined by m. because many teenagers were unaware of its dangers”;

4. “Many young people did not believe m. was harmful to their health despite `the peak health bodies in the world (being) unanimous in their condemnation of the drug’ because of a lack of information”;

5. Because the general community is ambivalent in its attitude, due mainly to misinformation, criminals are reaping a rich reward”;

6. “M. laws should be tightened to make growing `any quantity’ of the drug a criminal offence with `extremely heavy fines'”;

7. “A reward system should also be set up for information leading to conviction”;

8. “M. use could lead to harder drug abuse because `soft law’ sent a message to the community that `drugs are OK'”.

MOST DANGEROUS DRUGS ARE LEGAL

An April 12, 1997 letter to the Bundaberg News-Mail, in reply to an article, “Call for tough laws”, News-Mail, April 4, 1997, warning of the dangers of marijuana use contained this content :

1. “Pastor Morrie Thompson, calling for life imprisonment for marijuana dealers”;

2. “The nonsense printed by Drug Arm on marijuana”;

3. “The most dangerous drugs in common use are the legal ones: alcohol and cigarettes. . . The drug most linked with a greater use of hard drugs is alcohol”;

4. “Marijuana has never killed anyone”;

5. “The ban on alcohol earlier this century did nothing to curb its use, and only enriched the mafia. . . Marijuana now performs this role”;

6. “The drug debate needs informed opinion, not hysterical lies”;

7. “The best approach, I believe, is moderation in all drug use, whether legal or illegal”;

8. “Any high can induce an addiction cycle, and that mixing hard drugs, especially with alcohol, can be fatal”;

9. The ABC’s Quantum is running an excellent series on drugs at the moment. I am sure we will all find it informative on m., and that the claims made by the above writers will be entirely discredited”:

MARIJUANA IS NOT SO HARMLESS

An April 21, 1997 letter to the Bundaberg News-Mail (replying to letter of April 12) proclaimed:

1. “Misguided conception that marijuana is a comparatively harmless recreational drug.”

2. “Cannabis sativa is a complex mixture of about 60 cannabinoids.”

3. “The worst offender in cannabis appears to be THC.”

4. “It is rapidly absorbed by the blood through the lungs and accumulates in heart, brain, liver and body fats. Since release from fat can take up to 40 days the residual effects of marijuana can be topped up by intermittent smoking. Is this the recreational aspect you refer to?”

5. “Effects such as memory loss, balance and co-ordination impairment, hallucinations, anxiety and panic attacks and a form of psychosis…”

6. “The increase in the incidence of tongue, mouth and jaw cancer is apparent but as yet undocumented. It may be no worse than tobacco smoke but it does exist.”

7. “The biological dependence is well known.”

8. “All addictions need financial input to support them… supplemented by crime… juveniles turning to crime to support their addiction.”

9. “You look at the long term effects of drug dependency and not at the short term pleasures.”

DON’T EXAGGERATE DOPE’S IMPACT

An April 24, 1997 letter to the Bundaberg News-Mail (replying to letter of April 21), stated:

1. “Where oh where do you get your facts on marijuana use?”

2. “Your exaggeration of undocumented stories and half truths have little factual basis.”

3. “When we discuss m. it is essential that we are entirely truthful and do not conduct a campaign of scaremongering.”

4. “While the ACT and SA Governments have decriminalised m., Qld persists in prosecuting it as a dangerous drug.”

5. “If it must remain illegal surely the word `prohibited’ would be more descriptive than the word `dangerous’.”

6. “One of the most remarkable qualities of this drug is its safety as medicine. It is non toxic. No deaths from overdose have been reported. In fact it is safer than some foods… It is far safer than aspirin and many legal medicines which commonly have a lethal dose only 10 times their effective dose.”

7. “It has been estimated that one would have to smoke 800 m. cigarettes to induce a fatal reaction.”

8. “Like any drug used to excess it can have minor side effects. It is not called dope for nothing.”

9. “The citizens of Arizona and California voted into law their right to have legal access to marijuana for medicinal uses.”

VII. WHY DO PEOPLE USE DRUGS FOR NON-MEDICAL REASONS?

A. Initially, people use drugs because of:

social pressure,
boredom,
curiosity,
desire for a new experience,
better sex,
to gain wisdom & intelligence,
to escape pain, worry, responsibility, tension, etc.

To begin with, the use of drugs comes out of normal, natural or environmental needs or desires. Drug abuse is one way to try to satisfy our needs or desires. This doesn’t mean it is beneficial.

1. We must distinguish between needs based on creation and sinful needs.

Creation needs:

Gen. 1:27, “So God created man (human beings) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Psalm 8:3-9:

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

We were created by God to relate to God. This is a creation need.

Gen. 2:18, “The Lord God said, `It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
We are created with a need for human companionship, communication and love. There are created needs, but there are also

Sinful needs

In Gen. 3, human beings sinned and the results are: needs and desires are contaminated by sin. The desire to kill oneself or other human beings goes back to the Fall. When talking about drug abuse, we must make sure we are clear about the difference between created desires and sinful desires.

Within the limits of God’s will, He has provided us with wonderful ways to satisfy created needs: companionship through friends, marriage; relating to God through His Word, worship, prayer.

The desire for food and sleep comes through creation. The desire for a drug experience comes from the Fall into sin and the guilt that comes.

Initially, people use drugs for many sinful reasons.

B. Why do people continue to use drugs?

When I speak with drug users, most of them don’t give me the initial reasons for trying drugs. Many times they will say:

it feels good;
it puts me into a mental state so that I don’t have to worry about the things around me;
it has expanded my consciousness; it is a “high” that gives me a different perception on the world.

Let’s get this clear: the main reason for entering into the drugged state is the abnormal mental state that it gives — the high.

Most people would not risk memory loss, zapped motivation, schizophrenia, etc. if it were not for the altered states of consciousness that they experience.

C. The Pluses and Minuses of the Drug Experience

During the drug experience, you may lose:

1. the ability to rationally understand things;

2. contact with the normal world of sense perception;

3. any accurate perception of the size, shape, or colour of objects;

4. the ability to perceive differences between objects;

5. the sense of self and its identity;

6. the awareness of time;

7. consciousness of the past and its importance;

8. consciousness of the future and its goals;

9. the ability to give sustained attention;

10. the ability to communicate intelligently.

During the drug experience, you may gain:

1. the sensation of having great insight, intuition, & knowledge;

2. the monistic or pantheistic perception of the universe;

3. the experience of godhood by sensing that you are infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, indestructible, and eternal;

4. the sense of being possessed, overpowered, or carried along by some force greater than oneself;

5. a heightened perception of sounds sights, and colours;

6. a heightened sensual experience of sex, touch, and taste;

7. a confusion of the senses in which one may see music and hear colours;

8. the ability to live in the present without any care or concern for the past or future;

9. the ability to be released from all responsibility and restraint and to do whatever one feels like doing;

10. mystical or religious experiences with God/”god” or spirit beings. [41]

D. What can we say about the altered state of consciousness?

Is it good, bad, neutral or a mixture? Is it beneficial or destructive for human beings? Our answers to these questions decide the issue of drug abuse.

For some years I have thought and taught that the way to fight drug abuse is to show the scientific (factual data) about the harmful effects of drugs. But I’m not convinced now that this is the correct focus. Why?
I think this is opening the door to decriminalising or legalising drugs. Why?
I have no basis or right to reject legalisation of a drug which could be discovered in the future that does not cause physical harm.

While the harmful effects of drugs play an important part in the battle against drug abuse, I believe the primary attack should be made against the major motivation and goal of drug abuse: THE ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. This, I believe, is the core of our battle.

Once we realise that the core issue is the drug experience itself, then anything that produces in human beings this altered mental state must be condemned. This condemnation stands whether this drug is physically harmless and non-addictive. [42]

There are other ways to produce this altered mental state: Eastern meditation, yoga, chanting, singing and dancing.

I am convinced that biblical Christianity can give the proper arguments against drug abuse and answers to the issue of the drug experience. This requires a knowledge of basic Christianity — which is fairly scarce these days. We are in a day of shocking biblical illiteracy, even in the evangelical church.

X. Endnotes

[1] Much of the content of this web page is based on a summary of R.A. Morey, The Bible and Drug Abuse. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973. This is one of the most helpful books I have ever read on a Christian understanding of drug use. Unfortunately, the book is now out of print.
[2] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985, p. 304.
[3] Ibid., p. 305.
[4] Ibid., p. 113.
[5] Ibid., p. 663.
[6] Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged. Collins World, 1978.
[7] Issue 10, Bundaberg, Qld., May 1997, p. 1.
[8] Johanna Michaelsen, Like Lambs to the Slaughter. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1989, p. 302.
[9] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
[10] Morey, pp. 21-22.
[11] Ibid., p. 24.
[12] Ibid., 28.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., p. 29.
[15] “The Content of the Gospel” by Spencer Gear is a summary of essential Gospel content (a sorely needed emphasis in these days of spiritual declension in the church), based on John F. MacArthur Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Milton Keynes, England: Word Publishing, 1993, p. 247ff.
[16] See A Deissman, Light From the Ancient East. New York: George A. Doran Co., 1909, p. 259 for an example of a drug formula in a magic book. In Morey, p. 103, as footnote for Chapter 6, No. 2 (p. 32).
[17] Kitto (ed.), A Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. New York: William H. Moore and Co., 1846, p. 959, in Morey p. 32.
[18] W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. London: Opliphants, 1940, Vol. VI, “Sorcery”, p. 52.
[19] Colin Brown (Ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1976, p. 558.
[20] James Orr (Ed.), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, 5:3097, in Morey, p. 34.
[21] W. Robertson Nicoll (Ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. III. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Company, 1967, p. 187.
[22] J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957, p. 210.
[23] Morey, p. 36.
[24] Ibid., p. 33.
[25] Alford, Kitto, Lange, Lenski, A.T. Robertson, Vincent, as in Morey, footnote 9, p. 103.
[26] Literally, “their drugs,” Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, Vol. IV, Part II. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Guardian Press, 1976, p. 648; also supported by A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. VI. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1933, p. 369.
[27] Morey, p.37.
[28] The Joyous Cosmology. New York: Vintage Books, 1962, 93, in Morey, p. 39.
[29] Morey, p. 42.
[30] Lange, Lange’s Commentary, 138, in Morey, p. 42.
[31] Morey, p. 42.
[32] A. Watts, The Joyous Cosmology, pp. xi, xviii, 18-19, 90, in Morey, p. 43.
[33] See Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who is There. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 27-29.
[34] See Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape from Reason. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1968, pp. 46-55. Also W. Braden, The Private Sea: LSD and the Search for God. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967, 117-119, in Morey, pp. 44.
[35] J.G. Machen, What Is Faith?. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, in Morey, p. 47.
[36] Morey, p. 49.
[37] Ibid., p. 53.
[38] “The Natural Mind: A New Way of Looking at Drugs and the Higher Consciousness,” Psychology Today 6, no. 5 (October 1972), 83, in Morey, p. 56.
[39] Morey, p.56.
[40] See Lit-sen Chang, Zen-Existentialism. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969, 14, in Morey, p. 60.
[41] Andrew Weil, “The Natural Mind: A New Way of Looking at Drugs and the Higher Consciousness,” Psychology Today, 6, no. 5 (October 1972), pp. 51-66, 83-96. In R.A. Morey, The Bible and Drug Abuse. Baker Book House, 1973, pp. 8-9.
[42] Morey, pp. 10-11.
The Truth Challenge (homepage)

Whytehouse Designs

Is use of marijuana a sin for Christians

Flowering Cannabis plant

By Spencer D GEar

Is it a sin to use illicit drugs such as marijuana? I would say, yes, for these reasons:

1. You say that “I don’t’ see God declaring it a sin, so I don’t believe it is a sin”. Just because God doesn’t mention taking illicit drugs such as marijuana, does not mean that He doesn’t give principles in the Bible that apply to illicit drugs. If I am to accept your line of reasoning, I would have to say that I will promote abortion because the word “abortion” does not appear in the Bible. Also, if I pursue your view, I would say that I do not accept the Trinity because the word, “Trinity”, does not appear in the Bible. There are obvious reasons to reject abortion because it is the killing of a human being – yes, a human being from conception. The doctrine of the Trinity, even though the word is not mentioned in the Bible, is taught in the Bible as three persons in one God. The idea that God does not declare the use of marijuana as sin, so it is OK to use marijuana for a Christian or anybody else, has BIG holes in it. These include:

2. You have quoted, “all things are lawful”, but you didn’t complete the verse. The whole verse states: “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything. ‘Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food’—and God will destroy both one and the other'” (1 Cor. 6:12-13a ESV)[1]. Here Paul gave the slogans of the Corinthians and then provided his responses:

Slogan: All things are lawful for me; Response: but not all things are helpful

Slogan: All things are lawful for me; Response: but I will not be enslaved by anything

Slogan: Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food; Response: and God will destroy both one and the other

You are practising the Corinthian kind of sloganeering when you only quote part of the verse – the slogan. Paul opposed the slogans and gave God’s responses. There are plenty of applications in this slogan-response sequence to apply to illicit drugs. In context, 1 Cor. 6 is referring to food and sexual immorality (especially). However, God’s response through Paul is, “not all things are helpful”, “I will not be enslaved by anything”, and “God will destroy both one and the other”.

We know that marijuana use is NOT helpful. I have already provided you with a list of very negative consequences of marijuana use, based on the research. Since marijuana is a drug of addiction, it fits right in with Paul’s response, “I will not be enslaved by anything”. If you are truly wanting to follow the Lord, you will not want to be enslaved by the THC in marijuana. Therefore, it is a sin to break God’s teaching on what is beneficial for your health.

3. However, you dare to ask, “Why are we making stupid laws?” Excessive alcohol drinking is harmful to one’s health. But 50 glasses of beer in a lifetime do not have the same risk as 50 joints of marijuana: There was a 600% increase in the incidence of schizophrenia in conscripts who had used 50 cannabis cigarettes or more in their lifetime. (Longitudinal Study at Karolinska Institute in Sweden – study over 15 years with approx 55000 conscripts -Andreasson, Allerbeck Engstrom et al -The Lancet – 1987). One joint of marijuana impairs short term memory for at least six weeks. (Dr’s. R. Schwartz, Gruenewald, M Klitzner et al “Memory Impairment in cannabis dependent Adolescents.” 1989 Georgetown University). Please understand that I am not advocating the use of tobacco or alcohol. I have not used either in all my life, but what I’m trying to point out is that moderate use of alcohol does not have the same impact on one’s brain as use of marijuana. Therefore, based on the scientific evidence, far from making stupid laws by making marijuana use illegal, governments are making very sensible laws in trying to prevent severe medical and mental damage to individuals. Your accusation of “stupid laws” in relation to marijuana use does not hold up under the weight of mental illness caused by marijuana use, based on the research. I KNOW the impact of marijuana from 34 years of counselling these people. Please don’t be so myopic as to write anti-marijuana legislation off as “stupid laws”.

4. There is one area in which I substantially agree with you. There are better places than jail for rehabilitating somebody with a drug and gambling problem. Jails seem to be too easy of a sentence for most criminal offences.

5. You say, “But its not a sin for me to gamble”. I don’t know how old you are as a Christian. Have you been truly born again or are you a Christian in name only. It seems that you have an elementary understanding of Scripture. I live in a country, Australia, that has a love affair with gambling. Almost 21% percent of the world’s poker machines are in Australia.[2]

What is God’s view on gambling? Games of chance are not approved by God. Here are some biblical reasons:

I cannot locate a Scripture which states, “Thou shalt not gamble,” but the concepts of chance, luck and fortune should not be in a biblical world and life view. Support for gambling as we understand it today is foreign to the Scriptures for these reasons:

a. The Christian view of godliness

According to Matthew 6:33, believers are to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things [material things] will be added to you.” We are exhorted to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matt. 6:11). How is it possible to use gambling for help with daily necessities and still rely on God to supply our needs?

b. The Christian view of work

Ephesians 4:28 says: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” Could it be said that the modern concept of gambling, reaping many dollars for a small investment, is akin to stealing from others – legally? The Christian work ethic is one of labouring with one’s own hands or abilities to raise money or goods to maintain one’s individual life and family, and to share with those in need. Receiving $40 million as a gambling jackpot for spending only a few dollars sounds more like a “rip-off” of other people than an honest day’s work. But, of course, it is all done legally and governments receive their share of the “rip-off.”

c. The Christian view of stewardship

Hebrews 13:5 states that believers are to “keep your life free from love of money and be content with what you have, for he said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.'” This is in contrast to the ones seeking big bucks from all sorts of gambling, with the investment of an infinitesimal amount.

The gambler seems to be like the greedy person. What is the biblical view of greed? The greedy are “the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9). But there is good news for the greedy. They can be redeemed by being washed by the blood of Jesus, justified and sanctified. “Such were some of you,” said Paul of the greedy (I Cor. 6:11).

The common jargon these days is that gambling is supposed to be for fun – entertainment. Second Timothy 3:4-5 warns us that Christians are not to be “lovers of pleasure.” Instead they are to be “lovers of God.” Those who love pleasure are to be avoided (v. 5).

d. The Christian view of love for your neighbours and enemies

Jesus told us, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). How can we as Christians truly love our enemies (Matt. 5:44) while we contribute to taking money away from them? Approximately half of the revenue at poker machine venues in Australia comes from problem gamblers according to the Productivity Commission Report in 1999. How can we justify gambling when it is causing devastation to the individual and 5-10 other people associated with the problem gambler?[3]

e. How the Christian views his/her influence on others

How can Christians be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt. 5:13-14) while greedily wanting big bucks and ripping others off – legally, of course – through 21st century-style gambling? How can you “love your neighbour as yourself” (Matt. 22:39) while at the same time taking money from him/her through gambling?

Biblical Christianity promotes the view of Jesus, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), which is a life-style that, it seems to me, is impossible to reconcile with a 21st century approach to gambling that is promoted by governments.

f. Luck and fortune are not part of God’s kingdom

Isaiah 65:11-12 warns:

But you who forsake the Lord, who forget my holy mountain, who set a table for Fortune and fill cups of mixed wine for Destiny, I will destine you to the sword . . . You did what was evil in my eyes and chose what I did not delight in.

Luck, chance and fortune are not in God’s worldview. Neither should they be in ours. These are essential to the gambling kingdom! Christians should set a godly example and not participate in any games of chance.

Pastors and churches that approve of gambling should be called back to biblical Christianity.

6. Acts 5:29 states that “we must obey God rather than any human authority” (NLT). There are times when governments make unjust laws that conflict with God’s laws. At these times I must obey God rather than government. If I had been Corrie ten Boom in World War 2, I would have told lies like she did to prevent the slaughter of Jews and others in the Holocaust. But that is not what we are doing when we defy government laws against marijuana use, as the THC in marijuana is a very dangerous drug.

See:

“The drug menace: What can parents do?”
“Marijuana is not a soft drug: Here’s the evidence”;
“Summary of the effects of marijuana”;
“The Christian and drug abuse”;
“How to talk to your children about alcohol and other drug use”;
“One drug addict’s story: Set free”;
“Signs that your child might be using drugs” (Teen Challenge of Southern California);
“Teaching children about drugs” (Teen Challenge of Southern California).

Notes:

[1] See also 1 Cor. 10:23 where Paul states, “‘All things are helpful, ‘ but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful, but not all things build up” (ESV).

[2] “Russell Crowe rallies against gambling,” China Daily, 2008-01-03, available from: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/2008-01/03/content_6368802.htm (Accessed 15 November 2008).

[3] Senator Jeannie Ferris 2000, 3rd National Gambling Conference, Rex Hotel, Sydney, 12 May, available from: http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/gambling00/ferris.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2008).

Whytehouse Designs

Loree Rudd: Support for homosexual marriage caused a Labor Party member to quit the Party

Loree Rudd (brisbanetimes.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Loree Rudd has a famous brother, Kevin Rudd, former Australian Prime Minister. But something has been troubling Loree, according to the mass media. The Labor Party’s 46^th National Conference in Sydney, 2-4 December 2011[1], voted to support homosexual marriage and give MPs a conscience vote[2].

Loree Rudd objected so strongly to the support for homosexual marriage that she resigned from the Labor Party, Nambour, Qld., branch. This is reported in, ‘Kevin Rudd’s sister quits Labor over gay marriage policy’ (The Age, 13 December 2011).[3] According to The Age, these are the reasons given:

She cannot back a party that supports “homosexuals marrying”.
“It’s not something I believe in and it’s also the way it happened that I dislike”;
“I don’t believe gay marriage is good for the community”.
“Homosexuals should be loved and treated right and they should not be discriminated against”.
“But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses”.

Bible bashing antagonists

It was this last comment in The Age that used support from “a commandment of Moses” that caused a battering in the online letters of response about Loree Rudd’s decision and association with Moses. This is a small sample of what was said about the “commandment of Moses” issue:

1. “Moses? Please? Being Christian and screaming Moses does not give you special rights to deny citizens of this country marriage equality”.

2.”She can’t say ‘I love and cherish gay people’ and then say ‘I uphold the laws of Moses’. Last time I checked, gay people and other ‘undesirables’ were ordered to be stoned to death under the ‘Law of Moses’. Unless I am mistaken, Ms Rudd is a Christian and ought at least to be aware that Jesus decreed the ‘Law of Moses’ to be secondary to his golden ‘love thy neighbour’ rule. Again, she is entitled to her convictions but her theology seems a little muddled to me”.

3. “The laws of Moses allowed for slavery and subjugation of Women as well. Ms Rudd support this as well?”

4. Marriage is a Christian/Religious institution and “hijacking” the sanctity of marriage for the purposes of justifying unnatural unions is ultimately an exercise in futility. Rant all you want about your rights etc etc but it doesn’t change the basic fact that gay relationships are abhorred by God”.

5. “Hey, it’s against her religious beliefs, you morons are pretty bigoted yourselves, you’re all ragging on the old girl for holding to her beliefs. I applaud her”.

6. “Ms Rudd, I respect your right to express your clueless, bigoted, moronic opinions….You lady are an imbecile”.

7. The only huge leap is to believe that Moses actually existed. I’m sorry Ms Rudd, that is utter nonsense. I’m sure you believe that you are a decent person but here is an example of where your religious beliefs have blinded you. Please, live & let live”.

What some other media reported

The Sunshine Coast Daily reported the following points on 13 December 2011 in the article, “Rudd’s sister quits Labor”:[4]

“I’m not representing any particular church or religious group. It is me giving my thoughts and taking a stand which is important for my integrity”.
“This is a huge issue in our society. Any government honest with its people would take this matter to a referendum after a couple of years of open debate”.
‘She was also concerned with the way “Jesus is misrepresented”.
“The whole concept of equality comes from the Bible, from the sacred scriptures. All people are equal before God, but not all relationships,” she said.
‘Miss Rudd said she had also sent Member for Nicklin Peter Wellington a letter expressing her views on same-sex civil unions, but she was “sad he felt harassed or intimidated by Christians”‘.

What were some of the online responses to this Sunshine Coast Daily article?

1.”Flabbergasted at the contradictions in her comments: All people are equal before God, but not all relationships – what?
Gay marriage won’t affect my life at all, but it would be a tragic loss for our society. – wouldn’t that affect your life pretty profoundly then?
If the benefit was that homosexual couples knew more joy, it would be worth the trade-off. But I don’t think they will experience more joy”.

2. “Loree Rudd has to be congratulated for her stand on this issue. Her previously favoured political party (Labor) has certainly lost it’s way since Gillard became leader and seems to be controlled by the Greens Bob Brown”.

3. “Marriage is what it is and cannot be changed. Marriage is between a man and a woman excluding all others for life. They are the rules of the game. They have been the rules for thousands of years. If you don’t like the rules go and play another game but don’t call it Marriage. Loree Rudd is a courageous woman of character and conviction who should be applauded by every fair minded Australian for pointing out the obvious”.

4. “I am male and my wife is female and we are “MARRIED”. If a male and a male or a female and a female want to unite in their relationship then that is their choice but they need to choose a name that that will not offend the male/female tradition of being married. My suggestion is “GAYRIED” as is easily accepted on Google”.

5. “Is she serious? Gay marriage was the deal breaker? Yet she’s happily been in a political party that, for years, has encouraged and financially supported the rapid decline and breakdown of decent family homes for children? A party that finances males and females to indiscriminately procreate, and a lot of times not care decently for the those children? A political party that rewards slothfulness, bad values and welfare dependant households? And she’s worried a few gay marriages is the breakdown of the family unit and family values. The mind boggles at the sheer ignorance”.

How do I respond to this berating of a person & her Christian views?

Congratulations Loree Rudd on your resignation from the Labor Party over its support of homosexual marriage. You appealed to a “commandment of Moses” to support heterosexual marriage. Jesus Christ gave the same reason.

When Jesus was asked about divorce, he appealed to the same “commandment of Moses” to state that marriage was between a man and a woman. According to Mark 10:7-9 (NRSV), Jesus Christ stated, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Genesis 2:24 NRSV).

We already have an historical example of what happened to cities that supported homosexuality. They were Sodom & Gomorrah. Genesis 13:13 states that “the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (ESV). What was the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah? Genesis 19:4-13 states:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. ⁵ And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ⁶ Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, ⁷ and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. ⁸ Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” ⁹ But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. ¹⁰ But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. ¹¹ And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

¹² Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. ¹³ For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it” (ESV).

Yes, there was some homosexuality in this city, but the unrighteousness was broader than homosexuality, as we find in Gen. 18:20, 2 Peter 2:6, and Jude 7.

Genesis 18:20 states: ‘Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave”‘ (ESV).

2 Peter 2:6 explains further: ‘If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly’ (ESV).

Jude 7: ‘Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire’ (ESV).

It has been stated that “there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment”.[5]

No person or nation will get away with indulging in sexual immorality of any kind and to giving free rein to gratifying unrestrained pleasure. Whether that sexual immorality be heterosexual or homosexual, it brings judgment on individuals and nations according to Scripture. However, most secular people don’t give a hoot about what God says. Nevertheless, for them, this is God’s assessment: “Just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27, NLT).

One minute after they die, they’ll know the reality of what God has stated. What have been the words of dying people?

Sir Julian Huxley, the famous agnostic: ‘It is reported by his nurses that on his deathbed, as he looked up to heaven with a blank stare, he said, “So it is true”’.
Sir Francis Newport, head of the English Infidel Club, said to those gathered around his death bed, “Do not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in his angry presence! You need not tell me there is no hell, for I already feel my soul slipping into its fires! Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know that I am lost forever”.
Dwight L. Moody, Christian preacher, awakening from sleep shortly before he died said: “Earth recedes. Heaven opens before me. If this death, it is sweet! There is no valley here. God is calling me, and I must go.” “No, no, Father,” said Moody’s son, “You are dreaming.”
“I am not dreaming,” replied Moody. “I have been within the gates. I have seen the children’s faces.”
His last words were, “This is my triumph; this is my coronation day! It is glorious!”
David Hume, the atheist, cried: “I am in flames!” His desperation was a horrible scene.
Josef Stalin, communist tyrant and one of the most murderous dictators in history: ‘In a Newsweek interview with Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin, she told of her father’s death: “My father died a difficult and terrible death. . God grants an easy death only to the just…. At what seemed the very last moment he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane or perhaps angry…. His left hand was raised, as though he were pointing to something above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was full of menace…. The next moment he was dead”‘.
Voltaire, the famous skeptic, died a terrible death. His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”
Sir Thomas Scott, once president of the English Lower House said: “Up until this time, I thought that there was no God neither Hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am delivered to perdition by the righteous judgment of the Almighty.”
A Chinese Communist who delivered many Christians to their execution, came to a pastor and said: “I’ve seen many of you die. The Christians die differently. What is their secret?”

I am grateful to Loree Rudd for taking a stand for heterosexual marriage as being the norm since the beginning of time. She is right on track, but not with the politically correct crowd.

Notes:

[1] See: http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/national-conference-2011/(Accessed 14 December 2011).

[2] The Brisbane Times, 4 December 2011, ‘All’s fair in love, but now for the war in the House’, available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/alls-fair-in-love-but-now-for-the-war-in-the-house-20111203-1ocio.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[3] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/kevin-rudds-sister-quits-labor-over-gay-marriage-policy-20111213-1os44.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[4] Available at: http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/12/13/rudds-sister-quits-labor/ (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[5] Gregory Koukl, Stand to Reason, ‘What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?’, available at: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[6] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/kevin-rudds-sister-quits-labor-over-gay-marriage-policy-20111213-1os44.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

Adoption – How Sweet the Sound!

gograph.com

By Desley Gear

17 March 2008

“Adoption” – to me, one of the sweetest words in the English language. It is a reminder of two of the best things that ever happened in my life. The first, and of greatest importance, is of course being adopted into the family of God. Because of His marvellous grace, He adopted me into His family and I have found Him to be the same wonderful Heavenly Father that millions of others have, throughout the world, from the beginning of time.

The second happened in time some years earlier. At the age of three weeks, I went home to join a family of a mother, father, and two older brothers. My parents had been called in to the hospital within a couple of days of my birth. They would have taken me home immediately, but the matron advised that they should go on their planned 2-week holiday without me, since it was quite a cold winter, and I was fairly small. They could hardly wait for that holiday to end!

My childhood was a very happy one. I think it would be fair to say that I was spoilt, though I was never allowed to get away with bad behaviour. Mum was a strict disciplinarian, but she was also a doting mother, who loved to dress me up like a little doll. To this day, I still have the two books she kept with lists of all my birthday/Christmas/Easter gifts, and of all the dresses she made for me (with a description of colour, style, trimming, etc., and the years in which she made them).

She had had several miscarriages over the years after my brothers were born; one of her pregnancies went to 6 or 7 months. But she was determined one way or another to have a girl. When the doctor said “no more”, they decided to apply for adoption. This was over fifty years ago, and not many unmarried mothers kept their babies back then, so the waiting time was usually not much more than a year. I grew up in the security of a loving home with parents and brothers who cared greatly for me.

At 18, I married my childhood sweetheart, on my parents’ 33rd wedding anniversary. No prouder Dad ever walked his little girl down the aisle! My being married didn’t stop Mum and Dad from being there whenever we needed them and showing interest in everything we did. Four years later when our first of three children was born, they became doting grandparents, as they already were to their other grandchildren.

One day our daughter asked me, “Mummy, who was your ‘real’ mother?” My reply was, “You know my ‘real’ mother; Grandma is my real mother. She’s the one who took me into her home and who loved and cared for me, and who put up with me when I didn’t deserve her love. And that’s what makes a ‘real’ mother.”

In the 1980s my husband had major heart surgery three times – once while we were living overseas. My parents’ immediate response was to travel halfway round the world and be with us while he had the operation and for a few weeks after. Their support was invaluable, since we were only in our 30s with young children and no family outside Australia.

My mother died at age 77. I wish she could have lived longer and that I could have cared for her in her old age, but that wasn’t to be. Dad lived another 14 years, and for the last 12 of those years, I had the privilege of caring for him. His last 2 years were very full-on care; he was able to do almost nothing for himself – showering, toilet, brushing teeth. But every day I thanked God that I was able to do these things for him, and in some small way to express gratitude for all that he did for me throughout my life.

With a somewhat debilitating, terminal illness myself, there were occasional days when I couldn’t get out of bed. And then my husband had two of us to care for, as well as going to work. But we managed through those difficult days.

We always talked about and looked forward to celebrating Dad’s 100th, but 2 years ago he passed away at 95. His mind was so sharp right to the end, even though the body had become weak. He was a gentle, happy man, who was admired and respected not only in his home town where he lived his whole life, but throughout the state and beyond. His formal education finished at grade 6, but that didn’t stop his creativity. Some of his early machinery inventions became the basis for later developments in an industry where the family name has become known in several countries.

In the last few years of his life he went to day respite a few times a week, to enjoy the company of other elderly folk, and to give me a break. One day, each client at the centre was asked what they considered to be their greatest achievement in life, or the best day of their life. He came home and told me that his answer was, “The day we adopted Desley.” I thought he might have said, “My wedding day” or “The day I demonstrated my first successful machine”. But no, the day he got his little girl was his best day, according to him.

Do I have any regrets about being adopted in infancy? Yes, as I look back I have two regrets – 1) that I was a cheeky, disobedient child and a rebellious, obnoxious teenager; and 2) that I didn’t have more years to show appreciation and love for my wonderful parents.

I have several friends aged between mid 30s and mid 60s who also are adopted. All of them have had good lives with their adoptive families. Two traced their birth mothers; one had a very happy experience, the other most disappointing.

Have I ever tried to find the lady who gave me up for adoption? Yes, I took the initiative to track her down and went to meet her in a nursing home, but she did not want to admit my birth. It may be helpful for my children to have some knowledge of the medical history of their blood relatives. However, I just want to say “thank you” from the bottom of my heart, for my birth mother’s unselfishness in handing little Jennifer over to the two best parents any girl ever had.

Homosexual unions, homosexual marriage, mass media & politicians

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

By Spencer D Gear

When homosexuality is in the media spotlight, we get plenty of politically correct speak. Politicians have jumped on this bandwagon for what seems like political expediency. This is what is happening in my home state of Queensland (Qld), Australia. There is ample mass media coverage and the State of Qld is promoting a private members’ bill in support of legalising civil homosexual unions.

It is appropriate for me to make an assessment of these issues. Let’s start with an example from the mass media.

My local freebie newspaper [1] had 3 letters in favour of homosexual marriage in its ‘Speak up’ (letters to the editor) section, under the heading, “Pollies are under fire over gay rights”. This was an opportunity for the newspaper to print 3 pro-homosexual marriage letters. There was not any letter opposing homosexual marriage.[2]

Let’s summarise what these letters promoted:

1. One said that it was amazing that government agencies, Centrelink and the tax department, allow same-sex relationships but ‘the government will not allow it’. This person found this to be a contradiction and considered that it was discrimination against homosexuals. Pollies need to ask: “Would they be in government without the votes of homosexual citizens?” This person did not think so.

2. The line taken by the second person, a father, was that he supported gay marriage because his son is gay and has found his ‘soul mate’. This son and his partner are organizing a wedding in Sydney for next year. Both families support this union ‘wholeheartedly’ and believe they should have the same right to marriage as anyone. Homosexuals can’t change and it’s a hard road when they experience so much discrimination. This son and his male partner will marry whether it is legal or not and celebration will be with family and friends. This Dad is ‘proud’ of his homosexual son and the son will live with his partner ‘as a gay married couple’.

3. We need to ‘move with the times’ and legalise same-sex marriage, said the third advocate of gay marriage. Because marriage has always been a heterosexual union, doesn’t mean it should continue to be that way. There were no votes for women, no IVF, etc, but “we live in the 21^st century” and we should allow same-sex marriages, with the legal protections of a heterosexual couple.

How should we respond to the promotion of gay marriage?

1. Not one of these writers or I would be here if same-sexual relations were the norm. It takes an ovum and a sperm (woman and man) to create a human being. Same-sex marriage will not do it. A contribution from the opposite sex, whether through sexual intercourse or IVF, is necessary for a child to be born.

A zygote is the initial cell formed when an ovum is fertilized by s sperm. An ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male are needed to create a new human being. A zygote contains DNA that originates from the joining of the male and female. It provides the genetic information to form a new human being. Two males can’t achieve a zygote; neither can two females. It requires a joining of a male and a female in sexual union or through IVF. Shouldn’t this need for the genetic material from a male AND a female send an important message? Gay marriage will not do it!

2. Besides, from a biological point of view, the vagina was designed for sexual penetration. The anus and rectum were not. A 1982 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals was up to 50 times higher than the normal rate.[3] The New England Journal of Medicine (1997) showed the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact”.[4]

Why? The lining of the anus is very much thinner than the much thicker lining of the vagina. The anus tears readily and thus makes that region of the anatomy more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria.

The human body was not designed for anal penetration. But the politically correct speak would not want us to know that.

No matter how much some want to make same-sex marriage appealing, from the beginning of time marriage has involved the union of a man and a woman. If that link is broken, we don’t have marriage. It’s as simple as that. No claims like “I have a gay son”, “we must move with the times”, or “we live in the 21st century”, will change the fact that marriage is a heterosexual union.

What about these issues?

(1) Mother and father are important for a child’s up-bringing. This Millennium Cohort Study: Centre for Longitudinal Studies in the UK found that

“children in stable, married families were said to have fewer externalising problems at age 5 than virtually all of those with different family histories. The most marked differences were seen for children born into cohabiting families where parents had separated, and to solo mothers who had not married the natural father. These children were three times more likely than those in stable, married families to exhibit behavioural problems, judging by mothers’ reports”.

See Bill Muehlenberg’s summary of this study of the need for both a heterosexual mother and father in, ‘Why children need a mother and father‘.

(2) God’s design from the beginning of time was for marriage of a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24-25, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (ESV).

Jesus Christ affirmed this passage according to Matthew 19:4-6, “He answered,

‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate’ (ESV).

(3) Paul, the apostle, was able to speak of ‘men who practice homosexuality’ as being among those who were among ‘such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God’ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). In this list, homosexuals were placed among the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers who were the ‘unrighteous’ who would not inherit God’s kingdom. But Jesus changes all of these people – even homosexuals. If you don’t believe me, read my interview with a redeemed lesbian, Jeanette Howard, “One woman’s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howard“. I recommend her book, Out of Egypt: Leaving lesbianism behind.

Here are some more reasons to oppose homosexual marriage.

The homosexual sexual act is a revolt against nature. For procreation to allow for the continuation of the human race, a heterosexual liaison is needed. If homosexual sex were normal and practised extensively, the human race would be greatly diminished.

My interaction with Queensland politicians

At the time of posting this article to my homepage, my home state of Queensland, Australia, is considering a private members’ Bill, the Civil Partnerships Bill 2011, to legalise homosexual civil unions. While civil unions are not the same as marriage, I consider that it is a step towards the legalisation of homosexual marriage in Qld. & Australia.

I sent the following content to a number of Queensland politicians:

I urge you and your party not to support the private members’ Bill to be introduced into the Qld parliament by Andrew Fraser that promotes a lifestyle that has these very dangerous consequences?

Up to 50% higher cancer rate of the anus;
47% increase in HIV diagnoses;
More behavioural problems among children up to 5 years old.
Multiple other health problems.

If you support Andrew Fraser’s gay civil unions’ Bill in Qld, that’s what you will be doing – based on the research evidence. Let’s look as some of the evidence:

1. The USA Center for Disease Control & Prevention’s (CDC) Weekly Morbidity & Mortality Report was reported in CBS News, 26 June 2008, and it does not give favourable medical information to support Andrew Fraser’s promotion of the homosexual lifestyle that will come with the affirming of homosexual civil unions in Qld.

As far as health issues are concerned, this is some of the evidence. Part of the following report shows that men who have sex with men account for 46% of the increase in HIV diagnoses. Is this what you want to to promote in Qld? Isn’t our health budget at breaking point now? Here is part of a CBS News report in the USA:

HIV diagnoses in the U.S. are on the rise among men who have sex with men, especially among males aged 13-24.

That news comes from the CDC, which tracked HIV/AIDS diagnoses reported by 33 states from 2001 to 2006.
During that time, those states had 214,379 HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Men who have sex with men account for almost half – 46 percent – of those diagnoses.[5]

2. A study in the Netherlands (2002) found that “HIV incidence is increasing among homosexual attendees of an STD clinic. It is imperative to trace recently infected individuals, because they are highly infectious, and can thus play a key role in the spread of HIV” (Dukers et al 2002:F19). In an examination of “trends in HIV notifications and in other measures of HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, it was found that “there were increases in HIV notifications in homosexual men in almost all developed countries, starting in the late 1990s and continuing to 2006? (Grulich & Kaldor 2008:113).[6]

There is further evidence to demonstrate the danger of Andrew Fraser’s legislation: The big increase in HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men.

3. Medical researchers have known for many years that the homosexual lifestyle is accompanied by significant health risks. One example, from a biological point of view, is that the woman’s vagina was designed for sexual penetration. The anus and rectum were not. A 1982 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals was considerably higher than for heterosexuals; in some cases it was up to 50 times higher than the rate for heterosexuals.[7] Many other more recent studies have confirmed this trend.[8] The New England Journal of Medicine (1997) showed the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact”.[9]

Why? The lining of the anus is very much thinner than the much thicker lining of the vagina. The anus tears readily and thus makes that region of the anatomy more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria when there is sexual penetration through homosexual and other sex. The human body was not designed for anal penetration. But the politically correct speak of Andrew Fraser, with his promotion of homosexual civil unions, seems to be not making these medical consequences available to the general public for the sake of political correctness.

4. What about the impact on young children who don’t have a mother and father? Mother and father are important for a child’s up-bringing. This Millennium Cohort Study: Centre for Longitudinal Studies in the UK found that

“children in stable, married families were said to have fewer externalising problems at age 5 than virtually all of those with different family histories. The most marked differences were seen for children born into cohabiting families where parents had separated, and to solo mothers who had not married the natural father. These children were three times more likely than those in stable, married families to exhibit behavioural problems, judging by mothers’ reports”.[10]

5. For further information on the significant medical consequences of the gay lifestyle, see: “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”.[11]

I urged these serious and sensible Queensland politicians to reject Andrew Fraser’s promotion of a lifestyle that is deleterious to the health of Queenslanders with his promotion of gay civil unions.

Responses by politicians

At the time of writing this article, there have been four responses from MPs. Two affirmed their support for the continuation of heterosexual marriage. There were comments such as: “marriage is to remain between a man and a woman”; “my conscience however tells me that marriage is between a man and a woman” but this politician understood that the current Bill is not about marriage; “I consider that civil unions proposed by Labor are designed to mimic marriage. I support marriage being between a man and a woman as the most stable foundation for the family in society, which requires strengthening, not weakening”.

Another politician responded by asking: “In your email you include a lot of relevant medical information, but the supporters of the bill are saying that by encouraging the relevant people to live more settled lives you will actually reduce the spread of some of the diseases you mention. I would be pleased to know what you thought of that argument put by the proponent of the bill.”. This is how I responded to this last request:

You asked for my comment about the view of the supporters of the Civil Partnerships’ Bill that it encourages ‘the relevant people to live more settled lives’ and it ‘will actually reduce the spread of some of the diseases’ you mentioned.

What I didn’t tell these politicians in my letter was that I have just retired after 34 years as a practising youth, general and family counsellor and counselling manager, the last 17 years with counselling agencies here in Queensland. I have found through counselling homosexuals that the homosexual lifestyle is often very promiscuous in sexual contact – even with supposed committed relationships. My clinical experience tells me that I can’t see the passing of a homosexual Civil Partnerships’ Bill changing that lifestyle.

Why?

Research evidence confirms what I found in counselling: In a study of male homosexuality in the 1980s in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” Pollak concluded, “Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage”.

Research has shown that

for gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years. And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years. Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.[12]

See this study from the Netherlands which already had homosexual marriage. What did it find?

“Currently, 86% (range 74-90%) of new HIV infections occur within steady [homosexual] partnerships“.
A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[13]

This offers little hope for improving the longevity of homosexual relationships through legal sanctioning in the Civil Partnerships Bill in Queensland.

Research studies have shown that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime.:

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[14]
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred and one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[15]
A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[16]
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[17]

Concerning the promiscuity among homosexual couples, even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported on a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years. What did it find?
- Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all had been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[18]
In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[19]

Those who are promoting homosexual civil unions to encourage homosexuals ‘to live more settled lives’ are not basing these statements on the research evidence. It is a promotion of political correctness and not a promotion of a lifestyle that leads to better health and stability for those concerned.

I urged politicians NOT to vote for legislation that endorses homosexual civil unions. Saying that homosexual civil unions are not the same as homosexual marriage, does not alter the facts of the above research. The homosexual lifestyle is very promiscuous and quite unstable.

References

Dukers, Nicole H. T. M.a; Spaargaren, Jokeb; Geskus, Ronald B.a; Beijnen, Josd; Coutinho, Roel A.a,e; Fennema, Han S. A.c 2002. “HIV incidence on the increase among homosexual men attending an Amsterdam sexually transmitted disease clinic: using a novel approach for detecting recent infections”, AIDS: Official Journal of the International AIDS Society, 5 July, vol 16, issue 10, F19-F24, available at: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2002/07050/HIV_incidence_on_the_increase_among_homosexual_men.1.aspx(Accessed 7 November 2011).

Grulich, Andrew E and Kaldor, John M.2008. “Trends in HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, Sexual Health (CSIRO Publishing), 2008, 5, 113-118, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.6206&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011).

Notes:

[1] Northern Times (Pine Rivers edition), September 2, 2011, p. E8.

[2] I sent a letter-to-the-editor to this newspaper, opposing homosexual marriage, but it was not printed. Some of what follows was in that letter.

[3] These details are in the article ‘The unhealthy homosexual lifestyle’, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html (Accessed 26 September 2011).

[4] Ibid.

[5] “Troubling trend in HIV/AIDS diagnoses”, CBS News, 28 June 2008. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/health/webmd/main4213629.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[6] Grulich, Andrew E and Kaldor, John M. 2008. “Trends in HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, Sexual Health (CSIRO Publishing), 5, pp. 113-118, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.6206&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[7] Council on Scientific Affairs, “Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 1, 1996, p. 1355.

[8] See: M. Frisch, “On the etiology of anal squamous carcinoma,” Dan Med Bull, Aug. 2002, 49(3), pp. 194-209; M. Frisch and others, “Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships,” Am J Epidemiol, June 1, 2003, 157(11), pp. 966-72; D. Knight, “Health care screening for men who have sex with men,” Am Fam Physician, May 1, 2004, 69(9), pp. 2149-56; S. Goldstone, “Anal dysplasia in men who have sex with men,” AIDS Read, May-June 1999, 9(3), pp. 204-8 and 220; Reinhard Hopfl and others, “High prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus-capsid antibodies in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive men: a serological study,” BMC Infect Dis, April 30, 2003, 3(1), p. 6; R.J. Biggar and M. Melbye, “Marital status in relation to Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and anal cancer in the pre-AIDS era,” J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol, Feb. 1, 1996, 11(2), pp. 178-82; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-related prevalence of anal cancer precursors in homosexual men: the EXPLORE study,” J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005, 97(12), pp. 896-905; R. Dunleavey, “The role of viruses and sexual transmission in anal cancer,” Nurs Times, March 1-7, 2005, 101(9), pp. 38-41; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-Specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-negative sexually active men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE study,” J Infect Dis, Dec. 15, 2004, 190(12), pp. 2070-6; J.R. Daling and others, “Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer,” Cancer, July 15, 2004, 101(2), pp. 270-80; and A. Kreuter and others, “Screening and therapy of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal carcinoma in patients with HIV-infection,” Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Sept. 19, 2003, 128(38), pp. 1957-62 (cited in, “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html [Accessed 7 November 2011]).

[9] Cited in, “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, ibid.

[10] Kiernan, Kathleen & Mensah, Fiona n.d. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. Available at: http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/downloads/01_briefing_web%284%29.pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011). This research was conducted in the early 21^st century, with the first survey of families and 19,000 children conducted in 2001-2002 (p. 1 of this report).

[11] Available at: http://home60515.com/4.html (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[12] ‘Monogamy’, Facts about Youth, available at: http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/monogamy/ (Accessed 9 November 2011).

[13] Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003), p. 1031

[14] A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

[15] Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

[16] “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

[17] M. Pollak 1998. “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.

[18] David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

[19] M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited by J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

Whytehouse Designs

Warning signs of suicide

For 24 hour telephone crisis support, phone Lifeline: 13 11 14

By Spencer D Gear

In my 34 years as a youth, family and general counsellor (retired in January 2011), among the most difficult counselling sessions I have had, have been with those parents who have come for counselling after the suicide death of one of their children. Before my retirement, I worked 17 years straight in youth, family, gambling and marriage counselling.

I urge all to do everything they can to recognise the warning signs of suicide and to intervene before this tragedy happens. This is one of the few times I broke confidentiality in counselling, when someone told me that there was a person thinking of suicide. I began all new counselling sessions with this statement: “What you say here, stays here. However, you need to know that I will break confidentiality under two circumstances: (1) If a person is speaking of suicide, and (2) If children are being abused or neglected. In my many years of professional counselling for counselling agencies, I had to do this on a few occasions.

So, what are the warning signs for someone thinking of suicide?

The San Francisco Suicide Prevention project has given these helpful warning signs of suicide risk.

Warning Signs

Recognize the Signs Of Possible Suicide Risk

While some people suicide without warning, here are some warning signs a person may be at risk of suicide.

Talk about Killing Themselves:
This might seem obvious, but is often ignored. Some people that are considering suicide may talk about suicide or the methods they might use to kill themselves just before their attempt.

Talking About Dying:
People who are suicidal often talk about death a lot. This could also come out in art, journaling or other ways of expression.

Saying Goodbye:
People who are suicidal often say good-bye in strange ways. They might talk in terms of “not seeing me around anymore” or “no one would notice if I never came back”. They are hinting in the hopes that someone will stop them.

Tying Up Loose Ends:
Suicidal people often give away personal possessions, make arrangements for the care of children or pets, make wills, or other acts as if they are preparing to end their life.

Become Violent:
Some people become very violent or aggressive when they are suicidal. Watch for a sudden change in aggression.

Sudden Isolation:
People who are considering suicide may suddenly isolate themselves from friends and family. When no one investigates, it can reinforce the idea that no one cares.

Sudden Changes in Behavior:
When people are suicidal they may have sudden behavior changes in eating, sleeping, or activities previously enjoyed.

Lack of Sleep:
Your brain needs sleep to function properly. People feeling depressed or in crisis, who are also not sleeping, are at increased risk.

Drug and Alcohol Use:
Substance use and depression are a nasty combination. Many substances like alcohol are depressants and will make a person feel much worse. Sometimes people try to self-medicate their depression away through substance use, but that won’t work. Also drugs and alcohol can lower inhibitions, increasing the risk of sudden violence.

Fear of Losing Control:
People who are suicidal can talk about their fears of losing control of their bodies or emotions.

Very Low Self Esteem:
People feeling suicidal express being a burden, feeling worthless, having shame, overwhelming guilt, self-hatred, “everyone would be better off without me”.

No Hope for the Future:
People feeling suicidal often say that things will never get better and that nothing will ever change.

AND FINALLY REMEMBER:
The risk of suicide may sometimes be higher for a very depressed person once the depression lifts because the person may have more energy to carry out their planned act.

Australian Suicide Prevention

These are the warning signs provided by this organisation:

Warning signs

The vast majority of people who commit suicide have indeed talked to somebody about it beforehand.   Also, it is generally agreed that being forced to promise you will not tell other people what you have been told in confidence does not apply when somebody’s life is in danger, so do talk to a professional if you are in this dilemma about a friend.

Also, the statement made by some people that those who talk about suicide would never do it is totally wrong!

Here are some warning signs:

Talking, writing or joking about death:

This usually indicates hopelessness and perhaps significant depression, both of which are important warning signs. Similarly, even if not talking about death, people who talk about life being pointless and having no meaning are also at risk.

Talking about people who have died from suicide:

Every suicide brings with it the risk of “copycat suicide” by those close to the person who died, especially other family members (please keep this in mind if you are thinking of suicide!).   Copycat suicide is particularly a risk when a famous person dies from suicide, especially if media reports describe how the suicide was carried out, or make the action seem justified or glamorous. Unfortunately, every suicide really means the illness won again.

Withdrawing or avoiding contact with other people:

It is not normal for someone who was usually friendly to avoid contact with family and/or friends.   Not making or responding to telephone calls or SMS messages indicate something is wrong.   This is usually a significant sign of depression

Giving away personal possessions:

Why would anyone, especially a person still leading an active life, suddenly give away possessions they used and enjoyed?    This is considered a particularly significant warning sign in young people.

Saying goodbye in a meaningful way:

This may be significant, especially if the person’s behavior has changed in other ways.

Making arrangements for after their death:

Pointing out where important papers or belongings are kept, or suddenly making a Will with unusual haste may be significant.

Risk-taking behaviour:

Unusual behaviour for the person, such as driving dangerously, or generally behaving recklessly, may be significant.

Deliberate self-harm or a suicide attempt:

These events indicate great distress and suffering, and there is very risk the person will repeat the situation (perhaps with a more drastic outcome), if the stresses affecting them have not changed or if the illness affecting them has not been treated.   Statistically, suicide risk is highest in those who have already attempted suicide.

Discharge from a psychiatric unit:

The early days and weeks following discharge from a hospital for treatment of a psychiatric problem, are known to be one of the highest risk periods for suicide.

Evidence of depression:

Feeling hopeless about the future and having trouble sleeping, are considered the most serious indicators of suicide risk in someone who has depression.   For more information on depression, go to www.depression.ie at the bottom of the Home Page of this site.

Sudden calmness:

A person who has been very distressed, especially if they have had thoughts of suicide, may suddenly become calm and appear resigned to accepting whatever is happening. This may mean the person involved has decided to stop resisting the urge to suicide, and is calmly accepting that suicide is inevitable, and no longer able to be resisted.

“Terminal malignant alienation”:

This jargon phrase refers to a distressed person alienating all of those around them, often appearing extremely angry and grossly unappreciative of the help they are getting.   While the normal human temptation in response to such behaviour is to lash out verbally in return, this may be the last ling the distressed person has with support. Instead, try to see their unreasonable behaviour and unreasonable irritability as symptoms of what they are suffering, not as the personality of the person involved.   Be patient, and the normal person will eventually return, feel bad about the irritability and actually be very appreciative of what you have done!

Life is precious. I urge you to do all you can to take action to prevent suicide.

For crisis telephone support, phone Lifeline’s 24-hour-a-day crisis number: 13 11 14.

Whytehouse Designs

I was conned by Christian counselling [1]

(image courtesy of ChristArt.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Those of you who are observant and have read articles on my home page, Truth Challenge, should notice there is a contradiction between the content of these two articles:

Pornography: “One day you’ll beat it” and

I was conned by Christian counselling [1]

In the first article I was counselling with a person who would not understand biblical counselling. Most of my professional life as a counsellor was working with secular clients who did not operate from a Christian world view, so I had to use secular models – that were effective.

In the second article, I’m critiquing the way secular therapies have crept into Christian counsellor training, all in the name of “Christian counselling.” I entered such a program for my MA and thought it was going to be Christian counselling. It wasn’t. It was an integration of secular psychology/counselling. I voluntarily allowed myself to be conned.

What is causing me to use such a provocative title. To be ‘conned’ is a serious allegation. Let’s examine what has happened to others and me as we have worked in Christian counselling.

THE INFECTION

I am deeply concerned about something that is contaminating the Christian church. It is already causing deep problems and promises to be destructive — it could tear the heart out of our gospel.

These are quotes from a leading Christian author:

1. Please complete this author’s statement: “The basic personal need of each personal being is _____________. [3]

2. “When we raise our voices in favor of a radical commitment to biblical sufficiency, there is danger of losing depth in our understanding.” [4]

3. “A commitment to biblical sufficiency has sometimes resulted in shallow explanations of complex disorders. And shallow explanations promote the unchallenged acceptance of superficial solutions… The result is a shallow understanding of problems and solutions that sounds biblical but helps very few.” [5]

4. “Reminders of God’s love and exhortations to meditate on Jesus’ care sometimes provide about as much help as handing out recipes to people waiting in a food line.” [6]

5. “Unless we understand sin as rooted in unconscious beliefs and motives and figure out how to expose and deal with these deep forces within the personality, the church will continue to promote superficial adjustment while psychotherapists, with or without biblical foundations, will do a better job than the church of restoring troubled people to more effective functioning. And that is a pitiful tragedy.” [7]

6. “Although the Scriptures provide the only authoritative information on counseling, psychology and its specialized discipline of psychotherapy offer some valid insights about human behavior which in no way contradict Scripture.” [8]

All of the above quotes are from leading Christian psychologist, Dr. Lawrence J. Crabb Jr. They are a symptom of what is happening in the evangelical, charismatic, Pentecostal and liberal churches today. We expect the liberal church to take that line because it has rejected the infallible Word of God. However, something is desperately wrong when it has invaded the churches that accept the Bible as authoritative and proclaim the gospel.

The tragedy is underlined by Lawrence Crabb’s proclamation: When dealing with sin, “the church will continue to promote superficial adjustment while psychotherapists, with or without biblical foundations, will do a better job than the church of restoring troubled people to more effective functioning.” [9]

A. WHAT IS HAPPENING? THE WOLF AT WORK

1. Based on Psalm 1, those who try this amalgamation are walking in the “counsel of the wicked”.

2. Matthew 16:6: “`Be careful,’ Jesus said to them. `Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees’.”

3. I Cor. 5:6: “Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?”

Yeast/leaven has crept into the church and it is sweeping through the church–and most of us don’t know it is happening. It is so subtle.

3. Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

I believe deceptive, human philosophies are infiltrating the church and we are being taken captive.

4. Read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. We are unequally yoked together with unbelievers. The end result will be as devastating as if you are yoked with an unbeliever in marriage, or business, etc.

5. Isaiah 6:20-21: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And clever in their own sight.” [10] I believe we are calling evil good and darkness light in this invasion in the church.

It may well be a heresy that is unleashed in the church. If it were an attack on:

the substitutionary atonement, we would recognise it immediately;
the deity of Christ, it would stand out like a sore thumb;
the authority of the Scripture, it would be self-evident and we would oppose it.

But here we have an attack on the sufficiency of Christ and the Scriptures to meet your needs as a believer and there seem to be few objectors.

Evangelist, conference speaker and author, Leonard Ravenhill, wrote: “This psychoheresy is a menace and threatening to become a plague in the pulpit. Your trumpet is needed against what is nothing less than heresy.” [11]

In Christian Psychology’s War on God’s Word, Jim Owen writes: “If the church will not take a hard look at ‘Christian’ psychology, then it is well on its way to becoming enmeshed in a modern day heresy.” [12]

It is one thing to buy cars manufactured by unregenerate Shintoists (Japanese) or pharmaceuticals manufactured by some secular humanist, but it is quite another thing to turn to unbelievers to discover:

the nature of human beings,
the diagnosis of problems of living,
the cure of problems of living.

For the first 1900 years of the church’s existence, the “cure of souls” ministry (helping people with their personal problems) was given to the churches. Since the time of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, about 100 years ago, the “cure of souls” has become the “cure of minds” as we have handed people’s problems over to the psychotherapists, psychiatrists, social workers, counsellors, and other mental health professionals.

When we integrate psychology and the Bible, we are implying that God gave commands and instructions for living without providing all the necessary means of obedience until the coming of psychology.

When I speak of the danger of psychology, I am referring to the secular theories and techniques which “depend on human tradition”. They are human-made ideas which offer substitutes for salvation and sanctification.

I am “not referring to the entire field of psychological study”. But I am “referring to that part of psychology which deals with the nature of [human beings], how [they] should live, and how [they] can change. It involves values, attitudes and behavior.” [13]

B. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

1. The psychological society is leading to the psychological church.

The church is being seduced by departing from the fundamental truth of the gospel and what leads to Christian growth. It is using unproven and unscientific psychological opinions of secular people, in place of absolute confidence in the biblical truth of God. Theories of psychological counselling are becoming poison to the soul.

The church has bought into these myths:

a. Psychology is science rather than religion.

b. The best kind of counselling combines psychology and the Bible.

c. People who are experiencing mental-emotional-behavioural problems are mentally ill. They are supposedly psychologically sick. We take the line that a medical doctor treats the body, a psychologist treats the mind and emotions, and a Christian minister deals with strictly spiritual things.

d. Another myth: Psychotherapy has a high record of success. [14]

Christian psychologist, William Kirk Kilpatrick, concludes that, “True Christianity does not mix well with psychology. When you try to mix them, you often end up with a watered-down Christianity instead of a Christianized psychology. But the process is subtle and is rarely noticed.” [15]

2. We are becoming the psychologised church by integrating psychology with the Bible.

We see this in:

Psychologised sermons with pastors quoting psychologists as the experts and using psychological concepts in their sermons;
Church counselling has become psychologised–the Bible is supposedly not enough.
Those who want to help people in the church get psychological training.
When people have problems of living and go to the pastor for help, he quickly refers them to the psychological professionals.

A pastor friend of mine, who pastors in one of our capital cities, said that he doesn’t have time for counselling so he does one interview and then refers his parishioners to psychological professionals. Even conservative churches are now hiring people with psychological training to pursue church based counselling ministries.

Christian schools and Bible colleges are partially or entirely teaching psychological rather than biblical solutions to problems.

It is almost compulsory that marriage and family counsellors or psychologists be speakers at conferences, camps, or guests on radio shows.

Psychology has invaded the church and it is not a good thing, as we shall see.

There is an international organisation, based in the United States, called the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS), an organisation composed of practising therapists. Martin & Deidre Bobgan surveyed them to discover which psychotherapeutic approaches most influenced their private practices of psychology/counselling. They listed 10 approaches. The results were:

Client-Centred Therapy (Carl Rogers) and Reality Therapy (William Glasser) were the top two choices.
Freud’s psychoanalysis and Albert Ellis’s Rational Emotive Therapy followed closely behind.
The only biblical approach, Jay Adams’ Nouthetic Counselling, tied for last place.

Many of the psychotherapists were eclectic–using a variety of approaches. There are over 250 competing and often contradictory therapies using over 10,000 techniques that are not always compatible. [16]

What I find so alarming is that the number one method used by Christian psychotherapists is Carl Rogers’ method of counselling. Christians often find his active listening, client-centred, non-judgmental approach very attractive. I know of one Bible College in Australia whose counselling department is dominated by Rogerian counselling.

However, never let us forget that Rogers’ basic premise is that human beings are good and can solve their own problems. That’s why he believes in active listening and unconditional positive regard of the client. No matter how much prayer and Bible reading you have in counselling, if you are acting from Rogers’ premise it can’t be biblical. Rogers also said that the crowning discovery of his lifetime of counselling was love. For him it means “love between persons.” [17] Freud said the basic problem was your psychosexual urges in the unconscious.

Albert Ellis says your problem is with irrational self talk that needs to be changed. He is an atheist who would drive any religion that believes in absolutes out of any counsellee. Yet this is what is being used in the name of Christian psychology by Christian therapists. Several Christian counsellors have developed a Christianised version of Ellis’s Rational Emotive Therapy, calling it Rational Christian Thinking: Renewing the Mind. [18]

Secular psychological theories are built on the secular psychologist’s view of human nature and his/her personality. Secular therapist Dr. Linda Riebel acknowledges this. She says: “Theories of human nature reflect the theorist’s personality as he or she externalizes it or projects it onto humanity at large… The theory of human nature is a self-portrait of the theorist . . . emphasizing what the theorist needs.” [19]

In the book, Makers of Psychology: The Personal Factor, Dr. Harvey Mindess states it clearly: “The leaders of the field portray humanity in their own image. . . Each one’s theories and techniques are a means of validating his own identity.” [20]

They portray “humanity in their own image” and yet that is what Christian psychologists want to integrate with biblical Christianity. From this premise, you can expect psychologised religion that drifts away from the Bible.

This is all done in the name of integrating psychology with theology. Martin & Deidre Bobgan call it “amalgamania” [21].

Why is it done? All in the belief that:

3. All Truth is God’s Truth

They pick up this mish-mash of psychological opinion, try to glean some facts from it, and proclaim “All truth is God’s truth”. I don’t believe they are sure what God’s truth is. Is God’s truth what Freud says about obsessive neurosis? Or Carl Rogers’ ideas on human love? Or B.F. Skinner’s behaviourism that wants to manipulate your environment?

Similarities do not make psychology and Christianity compatible. Christianity and other world religions have similarities, but that does not make them compatible.

To say that the discoveries of unredeemed people like Freud, Rogers, Jung, etc. are God’s truth is to undermine the very basis of the Word of God. They are confusing facts with truth. [22]

There is a great deal of difference between taking your car to an unbelieving motor mechanic and seeking answers to life’s problems from an unregenerate psychologist.

What else is happening?

4. Secular values are invading the church

Even secular psychologists admit this. Dr. Hans Strupp says: “There can be no doubt that the therapist’s moral and ethical values are always `in the picture.’” [23]

Psychiatrist, Dr. Perry London, agrees: “Every aspect of psychotherapy presupposes some implicit moral doctrine… Moral considerations may dictate, in large part, how the therapist defines his client’s needs, how he operates in the therapeutic situation, how he defines `treatment,’ and `cure,’ and even `reality.’” [24]

Yet Christian psychologists want to take this secular morality and integrate it with Christianity. It will make a poisonous mixture.

What is really happening?

5. It is subverting the Christian faith

The antagonism of psychology towards Christianity gradually seeps into the church. We use psychological ideas to explain why we are the way we are, how we should live, what we need, and how we change. The claims of Christ are compromised.

Instead of denying the validity of the Word of God, we simply tell pastors and gifted Christians that they are not qualified to minister to the deep levels of human need — and we refer them to psychologists.

Pastors and Christians: You are ministers of the Word. Everything, including counselling, must be guided by the Word. Psychologists want to see the counsellee restored to what society considers normal. Our goal is to have the counsellee restored to right relationship with God. That is not the goal of secular counselling. How dare we allow such heresy to invade the church.

Carl Rogers confessed: “Yes, it is true, psychotherapy is subversive. . . Therapy, theories and techniques promote a new model of man contrary to that which has been traditionally accepted.” [25]

Bernie Zilbergeld, in his book, The Shrinking of America writes:

Psychology has become something of a substitute for old belief systems. Different schools of therapy offer visions of the good life and how to live it, and those whose ancestors took comfort from the words of God and worshipped at the altars of Christ and Yahweh now take solace from and worship at the altars of Freud, Jung, Carl Rogers, Albert Ellis, Werner Erhard, and a host of similar authorities. While in the past the common reference point was the Bible and its commentaries and commentators, the common reference today is a therapeutic language and the success stories of mostly secular people changers. [26]Psychology is undermining the church.

C. WHAT IS IT DOING TO THE CHURCH? THE SHEEP ARE SCATTERED

I’ll have to be brief here because each one of these areas is a sermon in itself:

1. The Self

Psychology is self-centred. Listen to the terms: self-fulfilment, self-love, and self-actualisation. Self denial and dying to self are out!

Observe Christian book titles: Love Yourself; the Art of Learning to Love Yourself; Loving Yourselves; Celebrate Yourself; You’re Someone Special; Self-Esteem: You’re Better than You Think; Self Esteem: The New Reformation. [27]

Something else is happening to the church and Christians:

2. Self-esteem

Most secular and Christian psychologists accept the premise that low self-esteem is the cause of most human behavioural problems. The good news of the psychologised gospel is that

People who realize their self-worth don’t have any need to do ugly or unkind things. And this is the point, please note, where Christianity and psychology part company. People will continue to behave badly, says the Christian, because human nature is twisted, and liking yourself doesn’t remove the twist. But psychological theory doesn’t take account of the Fall; it takes the position that there are no bad natural inclinations. [28]We don’t need a pat on the back or a regular positive affirmation. We need radical surgery. Humanity’s problem is not poor self-esteem.

“G.K. Chesterton once observed that the doctrine of fallen man is the only Christian belief for which there is overwhelming empirical evidence.” [29]

Another invasion in the church:

3. Recovery groups

Christians have bought into the “disease” model of Alcoholics Anonymous and so we have “New Hope” groups for those from dysfunctional families, recovery groups for children of alcoholic families. Based on the A-A model, they are 12-step programs that say your problem is sickness, not sin. You will always be an alcoholic. It’s a disease. The Bible calls drunkenness sin. The disease approach denies the spiritual dimensions of the problem.

An advertisement for a “Christians in Recovery” conference said that 90% of Americans come from

Dysfunctional homes–that is, homes that are not just damaged by, say, alcoholism or drugs, but also by such disorders” as workaholism, perfectionism, depression, compulsive behavior, intimacy problems, etc. These problems, we are informed, affect the family as much as does alcoholism.The advertisement continued:

For years millions of Americans have had to struggle alone with these kinds of dysfunctions. But times are changing and many of these individuals, including Christians, are tearing down the ‘walls of denials’ and opening doors of opportunity for emotional and spiritual healing. [30]How? Through “Recovery Groups” which call sin disease.

Closely related to this is:

4. Codependency

This is the psychological “disease of those with a `caretaker’ mentality, who are over committed and over involved in the lives of needy individuals… They have a high need for keeping people dependent on them.” 31]

Codependency is an extremely subjective definition and runs counter to the biblical view of self-denial. If you blame some addictive behaviour of another person for your problem, you are not taking personal responsibility.

Another example of how psychology has invaded the church is:

5. Healing of the Memories

This uses the occult technique of visualisation. The positive confession heresy uses a similar technique. I cannot and must not use such pagan procedures.

6. Victimisation

This is sanctification by victimisation therapy. You are a victim of your past, your environment, somebody else’s behaviour. This threatens to destroy biblical teaching on progressive sanctification.

Here’s a paraphrase of Luke 9:59-61 (our Lord’s call to obedience): The Lord said to one man, “Follow me.”

But the man replied: “Lord, first let me go back and analyze my childhood. Bad and harmful things were done to me then. My family failed to affirm me properly. Let me go back and again feel deeply the hurts and disappointments I experienced. Only then can I forgive those who inflicted them upon me. Only then can I overcome my dysfunctional behavior. Only then will I be able to develop an appropriate self-esteem. Only then can I truly ask your forgiveness. Only then, Lord, will I be free to follow you.”Jesus replied: “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God. No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” [32]

We see psychology in the church in the doctrine of rejection being preached and counselled in some quarters.

7. Rejection

My wife was adopted into a loving, caring family when she was a baby just three weeks’ old. She read recently: “Every person who has been adopted suffers from a spirit of rejection.” This is psychological confusion, not biblical Christianity. In addition, that is NOT what my wife experiences.

Christian counsellor, Charles Solomon says: “Research has also substantiated a cause-and-effect relationship between a mother’s rejection of the unborn child and the psychological difficulties of the child later in life.” [33]

That’s an interesting psychological idea, but research has not substantiated it. Just phone any medical school with faculty in child development and you’ll find there is no such evidence. How could that be quantified?

8. The four temperaments & personality testing

Space doesn’t permit us to go into these, except to say that the four temperaments are based on an occult model. For a detailed assessment, see Martin & Deidre Bobgan, Four Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing. [33a]

9. New language

disease for sin nature and bondage to lust,
addiction — people don’t lust any more, they have an addiction,
dysfunctional is a substitute for sin,
self-actualisation is equated with sanctification,
reprogramming in place of what the Bible terms “renewing the mind”

We are uneasy with sinners, salvation and sanctification so we say people hurt, have diseases, are traumatised, are addicted and dysfunctional. In a victimised world, these words sound better than sinner, rebel and wicked.

Christian psychology is writing a different gospel. The Bible points me to the cross and says, “Stand there, or be lost.” [34]

10. Whatever became of sin?

A Gallup poll of evangelical college students in the USA asked if they disapproved of premarital sex. Forty-eight percent answered “No”. I am disturbed by the deliberate avoidance of “sin” and “sinners” by evangelicals. This is a foreign gospel. [35]

D. I WAS CONNED BY CHRISTIAN COUNSELLING: I WENT ASTRAY

What I write is not theory. I have learned from bitter experience what happens when you mix secular psychology with the Bible. I wasted 10 years of my life pursuing the psychological integration model. I came out of a fine evangelical seminary in the USA with a master’s degree in pastoral psychology and counseling (counselling is the Aussie spelling).

I was convinced that the teachings of Albert Ellis (Rational Emotive Therapy) and his changing your irrational self-talk to his definition of rational self-talk, was the equivalent of “renewing the mind.” I was deluded. When a Christian came to me for counselling, say, for depression, anger, anxiety, marriage breakdown, etc., I never began with what the Bible says. I began with Albert Ellis. I counselled according to his model for over 10 years.

This is what a Rational Emotive Therapy text says:

What is ethical, then, is specific to each situation; there are no absolute rights and wrongs… The ethics that RET advocates are not based upon rigid dogmatism. In fact, RET holds that rigidity, authoritarianism, dogmatism, and absolutism are among the worst features of any philosophic system and are the very styles of thinking that lead to neurosis and disturbance (Walen et al 1980:9; details at note [36]).In humanism, the reasoning individual is the source of wisdom, not the almighty God. The existence of God is questioned or even denied entirely, since God is not needed to explain the creation of things (that is the job of science), nor is He needed to create an ethical code (for that can be done by clear thinking). . .

While Ellis is an unabashed hedonist, humanist, and atheist, one can retain a form of religion and practice RET. Many Christian and Jewish clergy do just that, although they do not share Ellis’ atheism. . .

A rational belief is not absolutistic…. An irrational belief is a command. [36]

Conclusion: For the above promoters of Rational Emotive Therapy, God’s absolutes are an irrational belief, but you can retain a form of religion and still practice RET. I concluded that the RET model is riddled with Ellis’s castigation of absolutes and his promotion of humanistic ethics. I forsook it in 1990.

It took a friendly debate with international author, Dave Hunt, at the church I pastored in Canberra, ACT, Australia in 1990 and encouragement by my wife, Desley, to investigate the sufficiency of the Bible for counselling.

I went to a secular university pursuing a Ph.D. in counselling psychology. But even my confrontation with this secular mentality in 1982-84, did not cause me to turn around. But my debate with Dave Hunt did.

Since then, I have sought to counsel according to the sufficiency of Scripture as a biblical counsellor (and it has not been an easy job in` putting off’ the psychology that I had imbibed into my counselling). Naive, you might say. Not when I read, 2 Peter 1:3-4:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. [37]I studied under Christian psychologist and ordained minister, Dr Richard Dobbins. When I pastored a church in Ohio, I showed his film series, “The Believer and His Self Concept.” In that film he leads the viewers through a series of steps and ends up reciting together: “I am a lovable person. I am a valuable person. I am a forgivable person.” [38]

Here’s the confusion. The biblical fact is that God loves and forgives us. But it is a humanistic psychological lie that we are intrinsically lovable, valuable and forgivable.

The hymn writer puts its in much better theology: “Nothing in my hand I bring. Simply to Thy cross I cling.” I bring nothing. The biblical truth is: “I am not a lovable person. I am not a valuable person. I am not a forgivable person. But, Christ died for me!” That’s the grace of God. How dare we confuse psychology with Bible. We do so to our own downfall and the church’s seduction. Our focus must be Christ — he’s the lovable person, the valuable person and the forgiving person. [39]

The psychological message sounded so convincing to me. But I was conned by Christian counselling.

E. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? PROTECTING THE SHEEP FOLD

1. I encourage all Christian counsellors to practise biblical counselling.

God’s word says: “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” [40]

Everything you need for life and godliness through your knowledge of him. That includes every counselling problem. On the basis of the Word of God, does psychological counselling and its theories have something better to offer the Christian than ministry through the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, prayer and the church?

As you move closer to God through His love and the ministry of truth and mercy expressed through His Word, the Holy Spirit and caring Christians, you will change in areas of thoughts, emotions and actions.

2. You don’t need professional psychological training.

Pastors and church members seem to have bought into the confusion that they need to have professional psychological training to be successful.

Truax and Mitchell state that, “There is no evidence that the usual traditional graduate training program has any positive value in producing therapists who are more helpful than nonprofessionals.” [41]

Psychologist Robert Carkhuff conducted a careful survey of all the research that had studied the effectiveness of what he called “lay helpers.” The findings are startling: “When lay counselors, with or without training, were compared with professionals it was discovered that ‘the patients of lay counselors do as well as or better than the patients of professional counselors.’” [42]

Say “No” to professional psychological training. It may hinder your practice as a counsellor.

3. Say “YES” to the Holy Spirit and the Word

The primary training for biblical counsellors is:

learning how to live in obedient relationship with God;
so you reflect God’s character and do his will in daily challenges;
know the Word.

In nearly every church fellowship there are mature believers who have been prepared and trained by the Lord for this ministry of teaching, caring and encouragement– called counselling. In most congregations you can identify those who:

know the Word,
have responded to the work of the Holy Spirit,
and are gifted in this way.

If there is a need for counselling in the local church, these are the people who are prepared to do this in mercy and truth.

I believe Martin & Deidre Bobgan hit the mark when they state:

There is some justification to conclude that for all problems of living the best way out is by individual effort; the next best help is the informal support group; then the formal support group; and finally least effective is individual therapy. [43]This is why, in addition to biblical counselling, I recommend that counsellees attend the regular services of the church and are involved in the loving environment of a small home group. However, I urge you to practise your Christian counselling in subjection to the leaders of your local church and their “equipping” ministry (see Eph. 4:11-12]. I urge you neverto be a lone ranger Christian counsellor. There is always safety in being subject to the supervision of God’s leaders in the church.

4. The cure of souls’ ministry belongs in the church

“For Christians, problems that can be treated by psychological counselling can be better ministered to by biblical counsel within the Body of Christ.” [44]

The psychological way provides man-made solutions. The spiritual way provides biblical solutions.

F. “CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE”

The choice is God’s way or the human way;
The flesh or the Spirit;
Self effort or faith in God;
Are you a victim or a sinner?
Will it be psychological referral or repentance and restoration?

Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who is not a Christian, “recommends that mental health care be taken away from professionals, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, and given back to the church.” [45]

These have been the cherished friends of believers down through the centuries:

love of the Scriptures,
the wonder and power of prayer,
fellowship with other believers in the Spirit,
the obedience of self-denial,
the longing to see our Lord,
and joy unspeakable and full or glory, no matter what the circumstances.

What has happened to these friends who have helped us to grow in grace, say no to sin and bear fruit in Jesus’ Name? The grace of the Lord has been replaced by the worldly wisdom of psychology. It is another gospel, a hybrid, that is overtaking the church and I am angry that we are letting it happen.

I call you back to the all-sufficient Christ and the sufficiency of His Word. When we emphasise people as victims instead of sinners, we radically challenge the biblical teachings on a person’s guilt and need of the cross, the supremacy of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s sanctification, and most importantly, the sufficiency and authority of the Scripture for the believer. [46]

I am firmly convinced that Christian psychology represents one of the most dangerous challenges to the sufficiency of Christ and the authority of Scripture that the church has confronted this century. If this poison is allowed to continue, it will destroy the heart of Christianity. Christian psychology is, I believe, a modern day heresy. I was conned by Christian counselling. Will you join me in renouncing this heresy and getting back to biblical counselling?

Endnotes:

1. When I say that I was `conned’ by Christian counselling, I in no way suggest that I was a victim of some subversive activity. I voluntarily subjected myself to the integration of psychology with the Bible, thanks to the influential professors who taught counselling psychology in the evangelical seminary that I attended in the USA. It was my own lack of discernment that resulted in my accepting the unbiblical doctrines promoted in this program. Perhaps a better title would be, “How I allowed myself to be conned by the secular messages integrated into Christian counselling.” But that kind of title is too long — but accurate.

3. Answer: “To regard himself as a worthwhile human being. Nothing is sinful about the need to be worthwhile. . . To accept oneself as a worthwhile creature is absolutely necessary for effective, spiritual, joyful living.” (Lawrence J. Crabb Jr., Basic Principles of Biblical Counseling. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, 53).

4. Lawrence J. Crabb, Jr., Understanding People. Melbourne, Australia: Interbac (S. John Bacon), 1987, 55.

5. Ibid., 57-58.

6. Dr. Larry Crabb, Inside Out. Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress, 1988, 194.

7. Crabb, Understanding People, 129.

8. Lawrence J. Crabb Jr., Effective Biblical Counseling. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977, 15.

9. Crabb, Understanding People, 129.

10. New American Standard Bible (NASB).

11. In Martin & Deidre Bobgan, Psychoheresy. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 1989, in the “about this book” section, at beginning of this publication, emphasis added — no page number given.

12. Jim Owen, Christian Psychology’s War on God’s Word. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1993, 21.

13. Bobgan, Psychoheresy, 4.

14. From ibid., 8.

15. William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction. Nashville (USA): Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, 23.

16. Martin & Deidre Bobgan, How to Counsel from Scripture. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, 40; Martin Bobgan & Deidre Bobgan, Prophets of Psychoheresy I. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 1989, 50.

17. In Bobgan, Prophets of Psychoheresy I, 51, Carl Rogers, “Some Personal Learnings about Interpersonal Relationships,” 16mm film developed by Dr. Charles K. Ferguson. University of California Extension Media Center, Berkeley, CA, film #6785.

18. Alice Petersen, Gary R. Sweeten, & Dorothy Faye Geverdt, Rational Christian Thinking. Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Information Committee, 1987. This manual is available from the publishers, Box 24080, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45224, USA.

19. “Theory as Self-Portrait and the Ideal of Objectivity,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Spring 1982, pp. 91-92.

20. p. 15. This and the previous quote are from Bobgan, Prophets of Psychoheresy I, 53.

21. Bobgan, Psychoheresy, chapter 5.

22. Ibid., 31.

23. “Some Observations on the Fallacy of Value-free Therapy and the Empty Organism,” in Steven Morse and Robert Watson (Eds), Psychotherapies: A Comparative Casebook. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1977, 313.

24. The Modes and Morals of Psychotherapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964, 6, 5). [Quotes from Bobgan, Prophets of Psychoheresy I, 41.

25. In Bobgan, Psychoheresy, 20, quoted by Allen Bergin, “Psychotherapy and Religious Values,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 48, p. 101, emphasis added.

26. In Bobgan, Psychoheresy, 20, The Shrinking of America, 5.

27. In Bobgan, Psychoheresy, 58.

28. Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction, 37.

29. Ibid., 40.

30. In Owen, 190.

31. Ibid., 153.

32. Ibid, 121.

33. The Rejection Syndrome, Tyndale, 21, in Bobgan, Psychoheresy, 96.

33a. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 1992.

34. Based on Owen, 13, 109.

35. In Owen, 29. “Religious Belief vs. Behavior,” The Church Around the World, September 1989.

36. Susan R. Walen, Raymond DiGiuseppe, Richard L. Wessler, A Practitioner’s Guide to Rational-Emotive Therapy. Oxford University Press, 1980, pp. 8-11,72, 74).

37. New International Version of the Bible (NIV).

38. In the brochure advertising the film, 6.

39. Based on Bobgan, Psychoheresy, 67-68.

40. 2 Peter 1:3, NIV.

41. In Bobgan, How to Counsel from Scripture, 87, quoted by Sol Garfield, “Psychotherapy Training and Outcome in Psychotherapy,” BMA audio cassette #T-305. New York: Guilford, 1979.

42. In Gary Collins, How To Be a People Helper. Santa Ana, California: Vision House Publishers, 1976, 58; R.R. Carkhuff, “Differential Functioning of Lay and Professional Helpers,” in Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 15, 1968, 117.

43. Bobgan, How to Counsel from Scripture, 43.

44. Ibid., 7.

45. In Bobgan, Prophets of Psychoheresy I, 101.

46. Based on Owen, p. 18.

I call you back to the all-sufficient Christ and the sufficiency of His Word in Christian counselling.

Reference:

How should you respond to the escalating drug problem?

I. THE FOUNDATION

A. Foundation Principles

1. Drugs & the Doctrine of Creation

2. Drugs and the Biblical Teaching on the Fall

3. Drugs and Redemption

II. A PROPOSAL (THESIS) CONCERNING DRUG ABUSE

A. The Distinction Between Medical Use of Drugs and Illicit Drugs

III. WITCHCRAFT (SORCERY) AND DRUGS

A. Two basic misunderstandings:

1. They assume drug problems are peculiar to the 21st century.

2. In their reading of the Scriptures, they fail to see the places where the writers raise the issue.

B. Biblical Use of “Pharmakeia”

IV. DRUGS AND GOD

V. SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO CHEW ON

VI. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

CALL FOR TOUGH LAWS: TEENS `UNAWARE’ OF DRUG DANGERS

MOST DANGEROUS DRUGS ARE LEGAL

MARIJUANA IS NOT SO HARMLESS

DON’T EXAGGERATE DOPE’S IMPACT

VII. WHY DO PEOPLE USE DRUGS FOR NON-MEDICAL REASONS?

A. Initially, people use drugs because of:

1. We must distinguish between needs based on creation and sinful needs.

B. Why do people continue to use drugs?

C. The Pluses and Minuses of the Drug Experience

D. What can we say about the altered state of consciousness?

X. Endnotes

Notes:

Bible bashing antagonists

What some other media reported

How do I respond to this berating of a person & her Christian views?

Notes:

How should we respond to the promotion of gay marriage?

What about these issues?

My interaction with Queensland politicians

Responses by politicians

Other links

References

Notes:

For 24 hour telephone crisis support, phone Lifeline: 13 11 14

Warning Signs

Recognize the Signs Of Possible Suicide Risk

Warning signs

THE INFECTION

A. WHAT IS HAPPENING? THE WOLF AT WORK

B. WHAT IS HAPPENING?

1. The psychological society is leading to the psychological church.

2. We are becoming the psychologised church by integrating psychology with the Bible.

3. All Truth is God’s Truth

4. Secular values are invading the church

5. It is subverting the Christian faith

C. WHAT IS IT DOING TO THE CHURCH? THE SHEEP ARE SCATTERED

1. The Self

2. Self-esteem

3. Recovery groups

4. Codependency

5. Healing of the Memories

6. Victimisation

7. Rejection

8. The four temperaments & personality testing

9. New language

10. Whatever became of sin?

D. I WAS CONNED BY CHRISTIAN COUNSELLING: I WENT ASTRAY

E. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? PROTECTING THE SHEEP FOLD

1. I encourage all Christian counsellors to practise biblical counselling.

2. You don’t need professional psychological training.

3. Say “YES” to the Holy Spirit and the Word

4. The cure of souls’ ministry belongs in the church

F. “CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE”

Endnotes: