Since neither ecstasy nor miracle destroys the structure of cognitive reason, scientific analysis, psychological and physical, as well as historical investigation are possible and necessary. Research can and must proceed without restriction. It can undercut the superstitions and demonic interpretations of revelation, ecstasy and miracle. Science, psychology, and history are allies of theology in the fight against the supranaturalistic distortions of genuine revelation; they cannot dissolve it, for revelation belongs to a dimension of reality for which scientific and historical analysis are inadequate.

In this quote, Tillich makes several points that support the positions of this article:

1. Faith and relationship with God (theology), however it is expressed (e.g., ecstasy or miracle) does nothing to destroy the structure of cognitive reason. This is especially true of the cognitive reason in psychology.

2. Research can and must proceed without restriction. While research in the disciplines of theology and psychology can and do proceed without substantive restriction, research into the syncretism of these two disciplines does not exist. Much has been done to assist the alliance (read integration) of these two disciplines; but so far as I know, no one sees them as a separate and distinct union. They are not viewed as two facets of the same diamond.

3. Obviously, Tillich did not have syncretism in view when he pointed out that such research can undercut the superstitious. The superstitions on both sides of the theological and psychological issue proliferate. They never have and do not now really trust each other. We suggest here that a definitive union of theology and psychology, creating a new basis for study will indeed undercut such superstitions. The walls of distrust should fall. There will always be room for disagreement and growth, but the irrational hostilities between the two disciplines should cease.

4. Science and in particular, psychology, are allies of theology. They always have been. Yet the neanderthals on both sides still control debate. On the religious side, psychologists and psychiatrists are often looked upon as dangerous or evil. The American Psychiatric Association has done much to create this impression and in some measure richly deserve the reputation they have generated.

On the other hand, David Larson, a psychiatrist and senior government researcher in Washington, D.C., who for ten years worked with the National Institute of Mental Health, interviewed by Christianity Today, is quoted as saying,

"During my training as a psychiatrist . . . I had been told repeatedly that religion was clinically harmful. I decided to investigate the psychiatric journals for empirical evidence to see if they supported the harmful effect of religion. I actually believed the research would indicate the evidence was harmful, but I found almost no empirical data supporting the idea. What the data showed was that religion was highly beneficial -- beneficial in more than 80 percent of the cases found in the psychiatric research. We discovered the exact opposite of what was commonly taught to psychiatrists and what still pervades the mental health culture shaped by clinicians."

The idea that religion is harmful did not begin with Marx. It did not begin with the American Psychiatric Association. There is plenty of reason to believe that certain practices, beliefs, and structures of religion are harmful. Despite Dr. Larson's examination of the literature, in my own practice I have seen dozens of patients who were highly anxious and profoundly depressed. The stimuli for these cases? Their local church, their pastors and Christian friends. If you do not believe Christian friends can be harmful, talk to any evangelical who has gone through divorce.

5. But revelation, says Tillich, is reality. He is right. Human behavior is also reality. What is needed is a science which concentrates its focus on bringing the best of theology to the best of the body of behavioristic knowledge. "Revelation," says Tillich, "belongs to a dimension of reality for which scientific and historical analysis are inadequate." True enough. But revelation alone is not enough to address the spiritual and mental pathologies of those who are affected by them. This is seen in the woeful number of souls who have been exposed to and accepted revelation as the Truth it is, yet are also victims of mental disease. The proportion of Christian believers among the population of believers, who are so afflicted is roughly the equivalent to those among the larger population who make no religious claims at all.

Revelation then, needs science! Science needs revelation. Redemptive Therapy is a syncretism of the two that issues a strong call for the these disciplines to create a new discipline in the areas where they overlap one another.

Redemptive Therapy is based on the premise that wholeness in human functioning is not possible apart from the direct intervention of a personal God.

It is therefore, wholly a sacred process rather than a civil or secular process. It is a scientific process fully utilizing accumulated scientific knowledge and the scientific method.

Such knowledge is not utilized as a separate body of knowledge, but is absorbed into a new construct of a different type, producing a singular and atypical scientific approach to human functioning. This fact sets Redemptive Therapy completely apart from the common practice of Christians functioning as psychologists and psychiatrists, or any of the several derivatives of behavioral science. In such cases, there is often little difference between the civil practitioner and the Christian practitioner except for the influence that the latter's faith has upon his or her practice.

Why Redemptive Therapy?

By "civil practitioner" is meant one who is licensed by the state to perform such practice and be financially compensated for it. Such a person must meet certain academic and professional requirements before being granted a license to practice in that state. Ostensibly, these requirements are intended to "qualify" or credential a person to perform the tasks attendant to his profession. That these intentions are at best naive, is attested to by the substantial number of credentialed mental health professionals who are morally bankrupt and profoundly unfit for the profession in which they function.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders, (DSM), which constitutes the basis for all mental health diagnoses has proven to be a document vulnerable to social and political expedience. For example, DSM II (1968) states that "Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior" and that "by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder." It does indicate that if one is homosexual and is disturbed about it, that the disturbance is itself, pathological. The subsequent and then the revised DSM III and III-R (1980), however, has given a name to this disturbance: Ego-dystonic homosexuals. Ego-dystonic homosexuals of course, need therapeutic attention to help them feel more comfortable with their sexual orientation. In other words, the only sick homosexual is the one who doesn't want to be. The term, deviant, has been dropped altogether. And finally, in DSM IV (1994), any reference to homosexuality at all has been written out. Ostensibly, even ego-dystonic homosexuals no longer warrant treatment.

What caused this major change in the psychiatric "Bible?" New scientific evidence? The results of broad, closely monitored studies? Unfortunately, no. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, (viz., Masters & Johnson, Janov, et. al), the American Psychiatric Association (APA, publisher of DSM) decreed that since homosexuality cannot be changed, it must be normal. Due to the political influence garnered by a misguided, politically active homosexual community, and the liberal bias of the psychiatric community, the current DSM IV has been altered to reflect not science, but unsubstantiated opinion. Should pedophiles ever become politically active, who knows what lengths of accomodation the psychiatric community will accord those who seek the status of normalcy?

Unlike the more precise field of medicine, the mental health field is more open to the corruption of the values of its practitioners. Those who sit on the state boards and grant licenses are these very same mental health practitioners. Thus a kind of incestuous system has developed which establishes the definitions and controls the practices of the mental health profession. The victim of the system and its abuses is, of course, the mental health patient.

Of course the system is well-intended. Of course there are many fine and competent mental health practitioners both Christian and otherwise. But theirs is an uphill and hopeless battle simply because God is not at the center of their therapeutic philosophy. Mental illness and spiritual illness are seen as two distinct entities. Indeed spiritual illness is credited by the formulators of policy as a para-psychological phenomena at best and a dangerous fiction at worst.

Needless to say, the "professional practitioners of Christianity" are in no better shape. Organized religion from the most primitive pentecostalism to the most sophisticated high-church has its share of abuses and has offered little for the healing of the damaged soul. It is a fact that has not gone unnoticed by secular mental health professionals. Despite Dr. Larson's failure to find anything in the scientific literature, religious icons, strictures and beliefs have caused as much mental anguish and suffering as they have abated. Perhaps he is looking in the wrong place. Perhaps he should turn on his television set.

All of this is a result of the fact that mental pathology has not received the benefit of spiritual healing agency; as spiritual pathology has not received the benefit of responsible and competent behavioral science.

How is Redemptive Therapy Different?

A Redemptive Therapist observes a patient from God's perspective. This means that the patient is loved and affirmed, not judged. A relationship of loving care and trust is assumed if possible, and if not, it is established in the process of therapy. With this love and trust comes influence. The therapist practices the role of a spiritual, psychological advisor and guide into what for the patient will constitute positive, constructive behavior. This also means that the patient is affirmed as a significant person in the over-all meaning and significance of things. He or she is consistently fortified with hope and encouraged to believe that relief from impairment is possible.

A Redemptive Therapist is capable of helping the patient to find a satisfactory integration of his/her awareness and intimacy with God and how such intimacy may be reconciled with the patient's pain. In this regard, the therapist is able to lead the patient into profound spiritual encounters with God thus precipitating a healing process.

A Redemptive Therapist recognizes the value of involvement with the patient's struggle while at the same time maintains therapeutic integrity by avoiding a vicarious relationship. While the therapist may assume a role of spiritual leadership and guidance, he must be careful to remember that he is not God, and unlike the crucified Christ, cannot own for himself the patient's pathology.

A Redemptive Therapist is called of God. Being "called of God" is a very convenient door to hide behind. My wife often reflects upon this when in total exasperation she fumes as I deftly close an argument with the conceited caveat that I have been 'called of God.' It is a puny way to make one's point at best and downright unfair and cowardly at worst. So, at the outset it is important to say that this is a subject which must be approached carefully, lest we abuse it.

Nor it is our intention to suggest that none other than Redemptive Therapists are called of God. Any person of faith may deeply feel such a call to his work or profession. Many fine Christian mental health professionals are aware of such a call. What does a "call" mean if it doesn't mean that a person of faith believes that he or she is doing what God specifically designed them to do?

There is no sense in which others feel a call from God that a Redemptive Therapist's is unique. Few of us hear a "call" from God in the same sense as Noah, Abraham, Samuel or Paul. Given the overwhelming silence of God since the apostolic period, claims of such calls are doubtful. So what we refer to here is a deep and righteous sense of inner conviction -- not a heavenly vision.

How do we protect ourselves from self-deception? How do we avoid becoming some form of Jim Jones or David Koresh? It seems the only real protection we have is good judgement. Is our call free from excesses and extremes? Do other educated and intelligent people who also are of good and wise judgement affirm our call? It is consistent with our abilities and gifts? Is it enduring over the years? Decades? All of these qualifiers are important to consider. But none are pre-emptive. None decide the issue with unerring credibility and finality.

For whatever the liabilities, it is futile for a Redemptive Therapist to effectively perform his or her duties without such an inner conviction. A profound belief and confidence that this is a part of the rationale for personal existence. Somewhere in the psyche of the therapist there must be a conviction that to minister to others in this way is why God gave him life.

The reason this is approaching the non-negotiable is that we are dealing here with spiritual ministry. This is central to the core philosophy of redemption. All who are in the ministerial service of God must feel personally "called" of God to be there. If a candidate does not feel this call, then integrity requires that they remove themselves from the service. Such is the nature and such are the demands of the service. This is not just a job. It is a service of worship and ministry! One does not enter this service unless one has been "set apart" for it.

A Redemptive Therapist is accountable to the church. This leads quite naturally to the issue of controls. What controls should be applied to a Redemptive Therapist and by whom? Who should qualify and credential him? To whom should he be accountable? Who are those who shall affirm and approve his call to this ministry? Is there a human agency whereby individuals who aspire to this ministry may be "set apart" for it? Is such an approval necessary?

It is extremely necessary.

Already in place are state boards of licensure. I need not take the space here to dwell on their inadequacy not to speak of abuses of power. These boards are entities of government. In the United States, they cannot legally be nor do they qualify as supervisors of spiritual ministry.

From the earliest movements of the church, men and women have been set apart and recognized for ministry:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Jesus selected the twelve. They in turn, chose Barnabas and Saul and others. Barnabas and Paul (Saul) confirmed elders in the church and so it went. Ministers, rabbis and cardinals today are ordained and set apart by those before them. In Christianity, it is called "apostolic succession." It is not an unflawed system. While it may resemble the blind leading the blind, as long as there is sin and human frailty, it is all we can hope for.

So what is necessary is a qualified form of this succession. Educated men and women who have proven themselves clinically and have made constructive contributions to the profession. People who, not only are trained theologians and psychologists, but also trained and proven lutrologists. People who have an exemplary record of healing and who are themselves consummate Redemptive Therapists. They in turn, ordain -- not license -- other therapists.

Should a Redemptive Therapist be licensed?

Assuming the therapist meets the criteria for licensure, there is no reason why he shouldn't be licensed. Clearly, there are certain advantages, e.g., processing health insurance claims. It is of interest to note here, that unlicensed Christian Science Practitioners qualify as "providers" by some insurance companies. However, we must remember that licensure only guarantees that an individual has taken a prescribed academic regimen (none of which is theological or lutrological), has been "supervised" the required amount of clinical hours, and has passed the state board examinations for his profession. Licensure in no way guarantees or certifies an individual's competency as a therapist.

We must remember also that a Redemptive Therapist assumes one of the basic functions of clergy: counseling, or "pastoral care." The right to such counseling (privileged communication) is recognized by every state in the union. In order to accommodate this, state laws governing the behavioral sciences stipulate that if the therapist is ordained or otherwise recognized as clergy by a duly constituted religious body, requirements for licensure are exempted.

It is believed here that the licensing issue gets in the way. For the purpose of keeping religious ministry separate from the functions and control of the state, we support the idea of Redemptive Therapy functioning under the religious exemption. From the perspective of principle, it may be argued that licensure is a concession to secularism. In the United States, and in the venue of religious activity, the state has no authority and therefore no right to regulate what is essentially a religious practice. Also, the records and confidence of a non-licensed clergy-counselor cannot be supoened in a court of law. What takes place between a clergyman and his counselee is privileged. This is not true of a licensed clinician.

A Redemptive Therapist possesses the spiritual gift of "counseling." Again, this is not to suggest that other Christian mental health professionals do not possess this gift.

There is some controversy surrounding the impartation of spiritual gifts. They are interpreted variously. However they are perceived, there is general agreement that they are special abilities given only to Christians by the Holy Spirit and only to those believers whom he chooses.

It is believed here that the gift mentioned in Romans 12:6-8, in particular verse 8, parakaleo, is given as a legitimate spiritual gift. This verb is translated variously as comfort, console, exhort, encourage, entreat, implore. However in John's Gospel, where in noun form it is identified with the Holy Spirit, it is translated "Counselor" (NIV), "Advocate" (NRSV), "Comforter" (KJV).

How do we conclude that this is the gift of "counseling," in particular? If one combines the verbal use in Romans with the noun use in John, it seems rather obvious doesn't it? Perhaps not to some. If we note further that the prefix, para, means alongside or close to and kaleo, means to call, it is not difficult to conclude that the prefix and suffix taken together mean to be "called alongside." To do what? It cannot stretch the meaning of the word to understand that a person with this gift will do the work of the Holy Spirit in comforting, counseling and nourishing. This is the essence of Redemptive Therapy. PDM

Feeding the distrust and the disparity between theology and psychology is a large gap in training. One the one side, there are minds that have invested thousands of hours in the formal pursuits of philosophy and biblical studies. On the other, are men and women who have concentrated on the eccentricities of human behavior.

Theological students are required a minimum of three year's class work for the standard theological degree. Beyond this, there is a usual expectation of at least two year's experience before ordination is conferred. "Professional" counselors receive their degree routinely in one to two years and are licensed after the minimum required experience is completed. On the doctoral level, it is demanded of theological students that they attend classes another two to three years beyond the basic Master's level degree. Generally, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology takes less.

Despite the comparisons between the two curricula, a Christian counselor is usually not perceived by the general public in the same way a Christian doctor, a Christian dentist, or a Christian mechanic is perceived. When one goes to a Christian counselor, one often assumes that he or she is going to receive the benefit of both theology and psychology. In the vast majority of cases, this is patently not the case.

Most Christian counselors are, in the formal training sense, theologically illiterate. Apart from their church experience, they have had little or no formal theological training. This is fine if one is practicing a more precise craft like medicine, dentistry, or auto mechanics. A patient or customer does not expect the "product" of these professions to be materially different from one who makes no religious claim. However, the expectation of the Christian patient is very different in the field of mental health. For this reason, the ethics of a counselor whose training has focused only on psychology or psychiatry and advertises as a Christian counselor, may be called into question.

A counselor who has had at least a Master's (three-year graduate curriculum) level education in theology in addition to psychological training, may or may not be more exact in advertising this way. One must then ask, "to what degree does the counselor's theological training affect psychotherapeutic expertise?" It is not uncommon for such a person to in effect, discard the theological benefit because in his or her mind, the separation between the two disciplines is too distinct. In which case the theological benefit is lost to the psychotherapeutic endeavor.

The same criticism may be said for those who have had no psychological training. If one is to be a Christian therapist, one must know the "man" as well as the "message." Jesus, whom most Christian therapists would agree was the most effective counselor who ever lived, "knew what was in man." Most therapists also, would agree that they are not Jesus! In other words, the benefit of knowing what is in man for we believers, must come through years study and practice.

It is a legitimate question for any troubled Christian to ask of his counselor, "How well have you been trained in dealing with human trauma?" To say that the Bible has "an answer" for every human trauma is to wildly overstate the intent of Scripture. The Bible does not elaborate on how to handle every human problem.

I am dismayed by the number of Christians I have met who think that the answer to every human predicament can be found in the Bible. It would be one thing if this were only true of the uneducated, but sophisticated and influential Christians are sometimes just as foolish. If this were true, then since the "answer" is in black and white, there should be no Christians suffering from emotional or mental disease. "Of course," the purveyors of this idiocy might suggest, "and those of you who suffer these things are simply wallowing in carnality." I will not dignify this line of reasoning with further comment except to borrow a line from Jesus, ". . . he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Or perhaps more to the point, the maxim, "He who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks."

If one is ignorant of the nuances of human pathology, how can one possibly apply biblical instruction? In many cases, as Jesus recognized, instruction was not the thing that was called for. Indeed, he healed many who were infirm -- instantly. Most healing however, requires a process. How to nourish one through this process is not always clear. The fact that we should nourish is abundantly clear. To "know what is in man," is critical if we are to be effective helpers.

Integrating theology and psychology is not a new concept. The earliest pioneers in this included Paul Tournier, Clyde Narramore, Henry Brandt and others. Currently, Gary Collins (a psychologist) of the American Association of Christian Counselors, has possibly done more than anyone to bring about an amenable dialogue between theologians and the psychological community. However, we suggest that integration, falls short of accomplishing what, in the long term, is best for the patient.

This is why we feel that Redemptive Therapy, which is based on what amounts to a new discipline, a new science, (lutrology), best meets the needs of the patient. Redemptive Therapy is a new construct, a new gestalt, a syncretism of what we know about God and what we know about man and how best to bring the two together in healing, holy relationship. We have had enough recklessness and high-handed opinion in this field. A coming-together is long overdue. Perhaps there will never be a way to really help people in trouble until a fresh, systematic and innovative paradigm is reached. PDM

Bibliography

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM), Editions II, III-R, and IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1968, 1980 and 1994, respectively.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. The University of Chicago Press, Harper & Row, Publishers. New York. 1951. Vol. I, p. 117.

Larson, David, M.D., Christianity Today, "Holy Health." November 23, 1992. p. 19.