What A Difference Fifty Years Can Make

Psychology, Sin, and Bigotry

In 1960–more than half a century ago–a prominent psychologist, O. Hobart Mowrer wrote the following in the American Psychologist:

For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch-making.  But at length we have discovered that to be “free” in this sense, i.e., to have the excuse of being “sick” rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost.  This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in Existentialism which we are presently witnessing.  In becoming amoral, ethically neutral, and “free” we have cut the very roots of our being; lost our deepest sense of self-hood and identity; and with neurotics themselves, find ourselves asking: “who am I?”  O. Hobart Mowrer, “Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils,” American Psychologist, XV (1960), pp. 301-304.

Fast forward to the present decade.
  The pervasive attempt to expunge sin from human being-ness, replacing it with “sickness”, has developed still further now that we are fifty years down the track.  In the present climate “sickness” is a no-no.  The identification of another as “sick” is pilloried as pejorative discrimination.  It has been trumped by the politics of identity.  In the sixties and seventies, sin was re-categorised as sickness; now sickness has been re-categorised not an illness at all, but as one’s true identity.  “I am who I am.  Human being-ness necessarily involves the realisation and acceptance by me (and others) of who I really am.  If society maintains a primitive prejudice against my identity, society, not me, commits a great sin, and is itself evil.” 

We see it all around us.  “I am gay.  I am bi-sexual.  I am trans-sexual.  I am trans-gendered.”  This is sufficiently widespread that Facebook has had to “create” fifty gender and sexual categories to provide sufficient choices for people to proclaim their self-identity.  Those who dare criticise, let alone condemn as immoral, the self-identity of the new human being-ness represent what is the true evil. Not “sickness”, mind, but evil.

Sin initially was parsed as “sickness”; then it morphed from “sickness” into self-identity; but the concept of “sin” did not depart the lexicon.  Rather, sin was imputed to anyone who did not accept and support one’s new self-identity.  The cardinal sin has now become bigotry–if one dares maintain a critical rejection of another’s self-identity, true evil has become unmasked.  Both the bigot and his perverse “identity” require execration and rejection and judgment, and, ultimately, punishment.

What will be the consequences of all this?  More self-loathing.  More true moral guilt.  More hopelessness.  More lashing out.  More ceaseless threshing.

Mowrer again:

Recovery (constructive change, redemption) is most assuredly attained, not by helping a person reject and rise above his sins, but by helping him accept them.  This is the paradox which we have not at all understood and which is the very crux of the problem.  Just so long as a person lives under the shadow of real, unacknowledged, and unexpiated guilt, he cannot (if he has any character at all) “accept himself”; and all our efforts to reassure and accept him will avail nothing.  He will continue to hate himself and to suffer the inevitable consequences of self-hatred.  But the moment he (with or without “assistance”) begins to accept his guilt and sinfulness, the possibility of radical reformation opens up; and with this, the individual may legitimately, though not without pain and effort, pass from deep, pervasive self-rejection and self-torture to a new freedom, of self-respect and peace. [Ibid.]

The strategy of the Church need not change.  Fifty years ago when perversions were rebranded as “sicknesses” faithful Christians and churches demurred, and continued to call such things sinful and evil, using the scriptural lexicon, not pop-psychology’s inanity-du-jour.  The message was: stop sinning.  Repent.  God has promised not just to cleanse, but to forgive and make whole. 

Now pop-psychology has moved on from “sickness” to “identity”.  Now not to accept and champion the self-identity of another is to commit grave harm.  But the Christian response has not changed.  No matter what evasive labels are given to sin and its perversions, sins and perversions they remain.  The only possibility of escape is to accept the judgement of God, return to Him, and plead His loving forgiveness through Christ.  Only under the gentle yoke of Christ will the deep, pervasive self-rejection and self-torture cease, to be overtaken by a new freedom, new self-respect and wholesome peace. 

Back in the day, pop-psychology slammed Christianity as stupid fundamentalist ignorance.  Now that the diagnosis of “sickness” has been upstaged by “identity”, pop-psychology indicts Christianity not just with ignorance, but with hateful bigotry, worth punishment.  But the abiding truth has not changed one iota.  We will continue to proclaim the eternal message: stop sinning; turn to Christ; be cleansed and made whole.  Nothing less will suffice.

False Prophets

Clearly Drawn Battle Lines 

A phenomenon we have frequently noted is the clarification of the lines of battle between Belief and Unbelief.  As the latter becomes more militant the powers of government are brought to bear against Christian beliefs and Christian practices.  It is inevitable that this would be the case.

In a broad sense, religion shapes culture, and culture shapes politics, government and the law.  The West has undergone a profound religious shift in the last 150 to 200 years.  Atheism, whether of the materialistic militant sort of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins, or of the ignorant sort of most people (“God may or may not exist, but as far as I am concerned, I will live my way”) has shaped and now dominates popular culture.  Next comes government and politics. 

Whilst Christian vestiges remain (the National Anthem, prayer at the convocation of Parliament, for example) new laws increasingly exclude consistent Christian belief and practice.  The battle lines become both drawn and clear.  While the pagan Unbeliever may speak piously about civic freedoms the list of what is considered beyond the pale and subject to state proscription  grows by the year. 

Here is the latest example–this time from the UK.  Attempts by professional counsellors to free homosexuals of their perversions will now result in being struck off from professional registers.  This from the Guardian:

‘Conversion therapy’ for gay patients unethical, says professional body 

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy formalises policy change for 30,000-strong membership 

Peter Walker guardian.co.uk,
Monday 1 October 2012

Britain’s biggest professional body for psychotherapists has instructed members that it is unethical for them to attempt to “convert” gay people to being heterosexual, formalising a policy change long demanded by rights groups.

The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has written to its near-30,000 members to inform them of the new guidelines. The letter says the BACP “opposes any psychological treatment such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or based on the premise that the client/patient should change his/her sexuality“. The body adds that it recognises World Health Organisation policy that says such therapies can cause severe harm to an individual’s mental and physical health.

The statement, drawn up by the board of governors, ends: “BACP believes that socially inclusive, non-judgmental attitudes to people who identify across the diverse range of human sexualities will have positive consequences for those individuals, as well as for the wider society in which they live. There is no scientific, rational or ethical reason to treat people who identify within a range of human sexualities any differently from those who identify solely as heterosexual.”

Conversion therapies are mainly associated with evangelical Christian groups in the US. It was long presumed that the vast majority of UK counsellors and psychotherapists recognised that these were widely discredited. But a 2009 survey of 1,300 therapists, psychoanalysts and psychiatrists found more than 200 had attempted to change at least one patient’s sexual orientation, with 55 saying they were still offering such a therapy.

There are number of possible responses which Christians may consider adopting in response to this new battle line. 

The first is that Christians who wish to remain in the particular British professional association should disclose that they refuse to treat or help homosexuals troubled with their sexual proclivities and desires–with suitable apologies, of course.  This is likely to ensure that what they do have to offer will be made more attractive to their potential clients–leading to discreet referrals to Christian pastors and counsellors who are not  restricted by the secularist humanist professional associations.   More homosexuals will be helped and delivered than ever. 

Secondly, Christians will have already set up their own professional counselling associations: all Christians currently members of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy  will likely look to joining a more sane and less atheistic professional association.  The drawing of battle lines can be quite helpful and useful–with good unexpected consequences. 

Thirdly, bold Christian provocateurs will likely commence a publicity campaign explaining that the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy wants to ensure that its patients and clients are condemned to exclusion from the Kingdom of God and wish them consigned to Hell.  They will, of course, cite biblical authority for this contention: 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  (I Corinthians 6: 9,10)

And they will cheekily add, no doubt, that if homosexuals want deliverance, don’t waste time and money going to any member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. They will be powerless to deliver from perversity.  And the same advice needs to be extended to people afflicted with all types of sexual impurity, together with all superstitious idolaters, adulterers, and thieves, along with those riddled and racked with envy, anger, bitterness, and deceit. 

The British Association will doubtless want to see these perversions as matters of human rights and human freedoms–you know, self-expression and self-actualisation.  The last thing they want is to see someone delivered out of wickedness.  They hate the idea that such people should gain acceptance into God’s Kingdom and to Heaven.

And last, but not least, Christian pastors and leaders will likely take up their proper responsibilities once again to minister God’s Word and Messiah’s promises of redemption, cleansing, and deliverance from the captivity of the Devil.  The secular pastors (that is, secular counsellors and psychotherapists) are like the false prophets that clustered around King Ahab, telling him what he wanted to hear.  Both they and Ahab were condemned to Hell.  The modern manifestation of the same will doubtless follow in their train. 

Ah, yes, there are some good things that can result from battle lines being drawn. 

>A New Psychological Syndrome

>Sickness or Sin?

An interesting article has appeared in the Guardian on a new Internet phenomenon where people elicit sympathy by feigning illness or trauma. Here is a case history so we all get the picture.

Anyone following her updates online could see that Mandy Wilson had been having a terrible few years. She was diagnosed with leukaemia at 37, shortly after her husband abandoned her to bring up their five-year-old daughter and baby son on her own. Chemotherapy damaged her immune system, liver and heart so badly she eventually had a stroke and went into a coma. She spent weeks recovering in intensive care where nurses treated her roughly, leaving her covered in bruises.

Mandy was frightened and vulnerable, but she wasn’t alone. As she suffered at home in Australia, women offered their support throughout America, Britain, New Zealand and Canada. She’d been posting on a website called Connected Moms, a paid online community for mothers, and its members were following every detail of her progress – through updates posted by Mandy herself, and also by Gemma, Sophie, Pete and Janet, Mandy’s real-life friends, who’d pass on news whenever she was too weak. The virtual community rallied round through three painful years of surgeries, seizures and life-threatening infections. Until March this year, when one of them discovered Mandy wasn’t sick at all. Gemma, Sophie, Pete and Janet had never existed. Mandy had made up the whole story.

Because these people have to work hard over many months, sometimes years to construct their faux conditions psychologists are arguing that this must be a psychological disorder rather than a black joke.  So, to confirm that it is a disorder–an illness–they have coined a name, which makes it official.  “Münchausen by internet” is the illness.  It even has its own abbreviation which makes it officiously official: “MBI”.

Some psychiatrists have started using the term Münchausen by internet (MBI) to describe this behaviour. Whereas Münchausen syndrome requires physically acting out symptoms to get attention from doctors, online scammers just have to be able to describe them convincingly. There’s a potentially limitless audience of sympathetic ears, and success can be quantified by the number of concerned emails and message board posts generated by your lies. Some even go so far as to fake their own deaths, reading their own obituaries and observing the torrent of grief from the comfort of their living room. If they are rumbled – and they rarely are, conclusively – they just go to another support group, and to a fresh batch of trusting victims. The people they’ve fooled rarely find it so easy to move on.

The article makes the following points:

1. The elaborate, sympathy extorting hoaxes are not “victimless”.  They can do damage to the hoodwinked.  This from the woman who finally twigged to Mandy’s duplicity and exposed her:

She began providing the round-the-clock emotional support that Mandy craved. “I could spend an hour with her in the morning, a couple of hours in the afternoon, then I’d be up at night after the kids went to bed, sometimes until one o’clock. Instead of having a glass of wine with my husband in the evening, I was on the computer listening to Mandy talk about her latest infection,” she says. “She was always on the verge of death. If I denied her and she died, then how would I feel?” . . . .

“She stole time from my kids and my husband, and I was able to be sucked in for so long because I couldn’t fathom anyone making all this up for nothing. Why would someone want to hurt people like that? I’ll never know.”

2.  The lust for attention and being fawned over is like a drug.  Usually the scam follows a pattern of increasing illnesses, symptoms, emergencies, and degeneration to keep the sympathy flowing.

3. Women predominate–both in the phenomenon of Münchausen itself and its on-line extenuation.

While it’s impossible to develop a profile of the typical support-group scammer, there’s little doubt that women are disproportionately involved, both as perpetrators and as victims. This is true of both MBI and factitious disorder in general. Online self-help forums tend to attract greater numbers of women than men, so women are more likely to be drawn into such a scenario in the first place, but Feldman offers another explanation. “Jails are full of men who get their needs met in direct, pathological ways, and women tend to resort to behaviour that elicits attention in an indirect way.”

4.  Münchausen clearly exists.  It clearly is a disorder.  By “psychologising” it so that it becomes categorized as an illness is a nonsense. Those who have had the “syndrome” and subsequently repent resent the idea that they are called “ill”.

Whether feigning illness online or in the real world, fakers are often profoundly disappointed when they’re told they may be ill after all. Many appear to prefer the stigma of being labelled cruel to that of being a psychiatric patient. According to Kanaan, this could be a false distinction. “There’s confusion about where the line lies between being a bad person and being ill. Someone who’s doing this, I’m afraid, could be both.”

No, not both.  The dichotomy is not false.  No-one committed to truth and truth telling would be suborned into such behaviour. It is a manifestation of sin, not illness.  Such confusion only occurs in a culture which is naturalistic, where God has been banished from the collective frame of reference.

And then it begs a question: since all Unbelievers are likely evolutionists, why would they not celebrate this “syndrome” as an extremely inventive survival or coping mechanism–a sign of advanced, sophisticated humanity.