Review 2:
|
Dr. Eric L. Johnson |
|
Associate Professor, Southern Seminary |
|
A Critique by Martin Bobgan |
|
|
|
Dr. Eric L. Johnson, an associate professor at the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Seminary), has written a huge
volume titled Foundations for Soul Care. It is a tome of 716 pages. It
is loaded with a vast number of bibliographical references that, in spite of
small print, covers over 70 pages. Because Johnson’s tome is loaded with
references and jargon profusely sprinkled throughout in sometimes convoluted
and complex reasonings and confusing explanations, it comes across at times
as a prolixity of obfuscation. For example, Johnson writes: A science consists of a
set of communally established practices for elucidating the nature of some
object of inquiry and how it changes, leading to a resulting body of complex
discourse that records and organizes that knowledge.1 He also writes: Therefore, each science
is a hermeneutical discipline that seeks to elucidate the meaning of its
object by obtaining an increasing accurate and comprehensive description,
explanation and understanding of it.2 I minored in philosophy and studied under Dr.
Herbert Feigl, a luminary philosopher of science, and I had to read those two
sentences, as well as many others, twice to catch on to what Johnson is
trying to communicate. Feigl was much easier to read and comprehend than
Johnson. Thankfully those blessed biblical saints who minister to souls and
who do not normally experience this kind of academic verbosity will be
totally lost and understandably so. My advice to them is, "Don’t bother
reading this book." In his blockbuster of words, Johnson provides a
plethora of ideas but a paucity of help for the ones who are currently
biblical soul carers. This book will be of no help, require a ton of time to
read, and may even be a confusing and intimidating detriment to those who
truly care for souls. The book will appeal to the small number of
theologians who have the vocabulary, know the jargon, and will endure the
torture of reading it. I doubt that I will read all of Johnson’s book; I have
read articles he has written. However, I may have already read more of
Johnson’s book than did those recommending it. If any of those individuals
who have given a written endorsement for the book call me, I will read to
them several inexplicable paragraphs from the book and challenge them to
explain what they mean. My guess is that they will not be able to do it. The
best part of this book is that, while it will be recommended by many who will
probably never read all of it, few will be buying and reading it aside from
the unfortunate seminary students who will be compelled to do so. Even those
who follow Johnson will be flummoxed by his fluidity. Johnson Maligns the Bobgans After we obtained Johnson’s book, we went to the
index to identify where Johnson may have written about us. We were curious
for personal as well as academic reasons as we have often been
misrepresented. We found one paragraph about us on page 111. The paragraph
begins: "The most reactionary approach to descend from [Dr. Jay] Adams
is seen in the work of Martin and Diedre [sic] Bobgan." Note the
pejorative remark with the word descend, which means "to go or
pass from a higher to a lower place." In the next sentence he refers to
Adams as our "mentor." Johnson is totally in error here, as we
neither descended from nor ascended to Jay Adams. We were not mentored by him
and did not even know him prior to Bethany House publishing our first book The
Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way in 1979, about which Johnson seems to
know little. Johnson says that the Bobgans "would appear to
have relatively little influence outside of a small group of
like-minded extremists" (bold added). Johnson ends the paragraph by
saying: Suffice to say that the
Bobgans serve as a tragic reminder to conservatives of what can happen when
Christians become consumed by the antithesis, to the point that they cut
off everyone in the body of Christ, except those who are in total
agreement with themselves (bold added). Once again, Johnson is in gross error. This is a
statement that begs an explanation or a footnote, but none exists. What
constitutes influence and where has he proved that we have "cut off
everyone in the body of Christ"? Johnson’s ignorance is appalling here
as he has probably read none of our books and knows little about us, yet he
comments on our influence and isolation. Granted, we are cut off from those
who believe in counseling psychology and those who have an insufficiency view
of the Word of God for problems of living, such as Johnson. Admittedly, we
are not in the popular stream of psychological integration and the biblical
counseling movement. We do not normally speak about our influence, but,
since Johnson, who seems to believe that popularity is somehow related to
truth, has publicly made such egregiously false statements, we will
reluctantly compare ourselves to him. We could compare the sales of our books
with the sales of Johnson’s books and particularly his current one. Deidre and
I have coauthored 18 books. Our books were published by Bethany House, Moody
Press, and Harvest House before we established our own publishing company. My
prediction is that one of our 18 published books has sold more copies than
all of Johnson’s. As to distinguished individuals who respect our academic
work to the extent that some have given us written endorsements, this
includes both Christians and secular academics. We would naturally have fewer
than Johnson, because there are fewer in the church today who truly believe
in the sufficiency of Scripture for problems normally taken to a
psychotherapist. Though we have fewer than Johnson and the
insufficiency-of-Scripture group, we do have a number. The following are two
examples of well-known Christians. "[PsychoHeresy]
is a book that should have been written ten years ago, and the message should
be gotten to every conservative pastor in this nation today. It has a very
important message for this hour." — Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible
Radio. "The modern church
is being inundated with human philosophy. It has been deluded into believing
that psychology and psychiatry can be used to replace the eternal verities of
God’s Word in the redemption of mankind. Martin and Deidre Bobgan warn God’s
people of this great peril." — W. Phillip Keller, author of A
Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, one of the most widely read Christian writers
of the last century. The following are two examples of well-known
academics in the mental health field: "Although I do not
share the Bobgans’ particular religious views, I do share their conviction
that the human relations we now call ‘psychotherapy’ are, in fact, matters of
religion—and that we mislabel them as ‘therapeutic’ at great risk to our
spiritual well-being. This is an important book." — Thomas Szasz, M.D.,
professor emeritus of psychiatry, State University of New York, and one of
the best-known psychiatrists in the world. "The Bobgans have
produced a unique and helpful book which puts ‘psychotherapy’ back where it
belongs. Spiritual counseling is as valid and effective a way to assist
people who have problems of living, and is in fact more honest than most. For
people with problems of living who share the Bobgans’ spiritual world view,
their approach would be the most effective. The Psychological Way/The
Spiritual Way is incisive, well reasoned, well written, and an important
addition to literature on counseling and psychotherapy." — E. Fuller
Torrey, M.D., author of Surviving Schizophrenia and numerous other
books, known internationally for his research in the field of schizophrenia. We have had over 400,000 visits to our web site this
past year. How many visits does Johnson have? We have also probably been on
more radio and television broadcasts than Johnson as well. So, whether it’s
book sales, endorsements, web site visits, or media interviews, Johnson is
totally wrong about our "little influence" and our being "cut
off from the body of Christ." He would be correct if he said that we
were cut off from those like himself who have an insufficient view of
Scripture when it comes to problems of living and granted there are many of
them out there. In addition, Johnson has misspelled my wife’s name,
not only in this paragraph, but elsewhere in the book. So, in one half-page
paragraph, Johnson can’t even get his facts straight. It’s a small glimpse of
the multitude of errors that may exist elsewhere in his 716 pages. Also, this
one paragraph misrepresentation of us reveals that Johnson is more driven by
emotion than fact. How much has this affected the rest of the book? The above misrepresentations of our position are not
the only ones Johnson has made. Johnson elsewhere says this in reference to
us: A number of writers have
called for a wholesale rejection of psychology and have suggested
that all our knowledge of human nature should be derived from the
Bible (bold added).3 This is another example of shoddy research on
Johnson’s part. We have never had a "wholesale rejection of
psychology" and have never "suggested that all our knowledge
of human nature should be derived from the Bible." This is further
evidence that Johnson makes comments absent having ever read us. We have
university professors of psychology who support our work who would not do so
if we had a "wholesale rejection of psychology" or ever even
"suggested that all our knowledge of human nature should be derived from
the Bible." By using the generic term psychology, Johnson
erroneously accuses those of us who are specifically anti-psychotherapy
of being generally anti-psychology! We repeatedly say throughout our
work, "When we speak of the leaven of psychology we are not
referring to the entire field of psychological studies."4
Even a casual reader of our work would know better! We have repeatedly referred to the fact that the
American Psychological Association (APA) has over 50 divisions. Our target is
"Division 29. Psychotherapy." Considering how often we have written
and said this publicly, it becomes more apparent that Johnson has, probably
out of ignorance or sloppy research, misrepresented us. How much other
ignorant or sloppy research has Johnson done in his book? Johnson Is an Integrationist Johnson admits that he is an integrationist when he
says, "The author [Johnson] identifies himself with the integrationist
position."5 An article he coauthored ends by saying: The bottom line is that
clients should be able to go to a therapist and trust that the therapeutic
engagement of their soul corresponds to the type of ultimate direction
exploration, or orienteering, they seek.6 Those who are the listed endorsers of Johnson’s book
are also integrationists or open to it. There is no endorser on the cover of
Johnson’s book who completely subscribes to the sufficiency-of-Scripture
position or they wouldn’t be there. Also, there is a
left-of-Southern-Seminary, liberal leaning of the institutions represented by
the endorsers. Until the rise of psychoheresy in the church, the
"integrationist" label alone would have nullified the work of any
Christian. Too many in the church, through popular psychological writers,
have become too "sophisticated" and, like the Laodicean church, too
lukewarm and too worldly to care that much. Science or Pseudoscience? One thing I learned in my study of the philosophy of
science is that scientific status is recklessly claimed by many who are
seeking acceptance for their beliefs. Johnson is guilty of very loosely and
very audaciously making statements about psychology as science. He says: But the scientific basis
of most of contemporary psychology is beyond dispute in contemporary
academia, because of its now voluminous, well-documented and replicated
studies in areas like neuropsychology, cognition, motivation, emotion, social
psychology, personality, as well as psychopathology and psychotherapy,
a judgment confirmed by scientists in other disciplines (e.g., psychologists
are regularly invited to contribute to representative science periodicals
like Scientific American) (bold added).7 Here lies one of the enormous mistakes made by
Johnson throughout the book. The word psychology for Johnson is used
generically and includes the list of items in the above quote, and these are all
scientific according to him. Contrary to what Johnson says, his entire list
is not accepted as science "in contemporary academia." By throwing
all of these disciplines into one list and declaring a "scientific
basis" for them, Johnson has revealed how ignorant he is about the
philosophy of science. Let me name two of many eminent philosophers who
would say the opposite from Johnson regarding the Freudian et al
psychotherapies. Sir Karl Popper, who is considered one of the greatest
philosophers of science, looked into psychotherapies formulated by Freud and
others and said: "though posing as sciences,
[psychotherapies] had in fact more in common
with primitive myths than with science; that
they resembled astrology rather than astronomy."8 He also
says, "These theories describe some
facts, but in the manner of myths. They contain
most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form."9 Dr. Adolf
Grünbaum, a distinguished professor of philosophy and research, levels
extensive criticism at The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, which is the
title of his book. (Psychoanalysis is one form of psychotherapy.) Based on
his writings, it is obvious he would condemn the psychological foundations of
psychotherapy and would not regard them as scientific theories.10
The weight "in contemporary academia" with respect to Johnson’s
claim of scientific status for all the psychological disciplines on
his list is on my side and not on his. As proof for his above statement claiming scientific
status for all the psychological disciplines on his list, Johnson
first says that this is "a judgment confirmed by scientists in other
disciplines." As evidence, Johnson then says, "e.g., psychologists
are regularly invited to contribute to representative science periodicals
like Scientific American." This is another one of his many
false statements. The Scientific American has no science degree
requirements for articles; neither is there a requirement that one be a
scientist to have an article accepted.11 It took me two minutes to
find this out by calling "editorial" at Scientific American.
This is probably true of many other science journals. It is true of many
science journals with which I am acquainted. How many other false,
off-the-cuff statements like this are sprinkled throughout his 716 pages? Another great error by Johnson is when he uses the
generic term psychology, for which he gives examples as in the above
quote, and then uses the same generic term to describe or criticize those who
believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. For example, he says, "TBC
[traditional biblical counseling] in particular often seems to
assume" that "since modern psychology originates from
non-Christians, it all must be invalid" (bold added).12
He gives the following individuals as seeming to hold this view: Dr.
Gary Almy, Dr. Ed Buckley [sic], Dr. Richard Ganz, Dr. John F. MacArthur,
Jr., and S. Lance Quinn. Now, when academics use "often seems" they
have a lot of evidence to support their "often seems" statement. I
say this so that Johnson doesn’t weasel out of this accusation of mine by
weaseling on the words "often seems." The logic of Johnson’s
accusation when applied to his earlier statement means that all of the men
mentioned above (Almy et al) believe that, since psychology, including
"neuropsychology, cognition, motivation, emotion, social psychology,
personality, as well as psychopathology and psychotherapy,"
"originates from non-Christians," "it all must be
invalid." It is clear from their writings that, when these men use the
word psychology, they are referring to the theories and therapies of
counseling psychology and not all psychology. They are not saying that
"it all must be invalid." I have means of contacting all of
these men, but it would be a waste of time. It would be a waste of time
because they would all say that no matter what "truths" exist among
the myriads of psychologies not one of these is needed to support, augment,
or replace the biblical truths when it comes to the saving and sanctifying of
souls for what are regarded as talk therapy problems. This is not the
same as these men saying, when it comes to the entire field of psychology,
that "it is all invalid" or that they, to use Johnson’s
words, "tend to reject non-Christian psychological work across
the board" (bold added).13 They would certainly say that
it (psychology) is all unnecessary, because of the sufficiency of the
Bible, which is far different from saying that "it is all
invalid." The Bible, through its doctrines and teachings
applied to one’s life, has been sufficient for almost 2000 years for what are
now regarded as problems to be sent to conversation therapists. These
Johnny-come-lately theories and therapies are not needed for soul care
by the men named above because they were not needed from the Day of
Pentecost onward and they are not needed now. Johnson apparently
doesn’t get it. The subject is psychotherapy and not generically-speaking psychology.
It has to do with the individual, marital, and family problems normally taken
to a talk therapist. You guessed it—one more false accusation on Johnson’s
part. Sleepy-Time Reading Let me save our readers and others who are willing
to listen to reason the time of reading Johnson’s book. You don’t need to
read about the "doxological," "semiodiscursive" (took me
twice to pronounce that one), "canonical," and
"psychological" distinctives of Johnson’s "Soul Care
Model." You don’t need to learn about semiotics with its semiodiscursive
possibilities, along with a lot of other gobbledegook that’s spread
throughout the pages of this almost three-pound book. Don’t be impressed with
or intimidated by this book, and, most of all, don’t read it unless you need
some sleepy-time reading. Let me give you reasons. This type of psychology (soul care psychotherapy) of
which Johnson twists the definition (p. 16) is a recent arrival on the scene.
In fact, the first state license was issued to a mental health professional
(other than a psychiatrist) during Johnson’s lifetime. One element of what
Johnson is teaching at Southern Seminary and in his book was not even a
licensed profession prior to his birth and would have been laughed out of
every seminary and Bible college in America at the time. It took the rise and
popularity of clinical psychology in the past 50 years, based upon politics
and not science,14 to eventually make it one of the most popular
majors in Christian colleges. And, now it is held in high esteem in most
seminaries across America. It is teachings like Johnson’s at Southern
Seminary that earn the "slip of the tongue" of calling seminaries
"cemeteries." Those in the psychological and many in the biblical
counseling movements have intimidated enough people so that the biblical care
of souls is largely absent in the church. Thankfully, few in the pew will
ever know about Johnson’s book and even fewer will read it. Flip the book open to almost any page and you will
have prime examples of circumlocution. What did the church do since the Day
of Pentecost without Johnson’s circumlocutions on soul care? They cared for
souls, because they believed in the sufficiency of the Word of God for
problems of living that are now normally taken to a psychotherapist or a biblical
counselor or one of Johnson’s soul carers. It was called the "cure of
souls" in the literature. Johnson’s Book No Help to Soul Carers I have four college degrees, including two degrees
in mathematics, and have become familiar, over the past 30-plus years, with
the meta-analytic studies in the field of psychology having to do with
outcomes in psychotherapy. Underneath all the highfalutin language used by
Johnson is a question that he probably never asked and the answer to which
could eliminate his voluminous verbiage. The question is: Has any scientific
research established that any one of the almost 500 psychotherapies with
their theories surpassed the biblical care of souls? Scientifically speaking,
if a later approach (psychotherapy) is to replace or modify an earlier
approach (the biblical care of souls), scientific evidence is presented to
prove the need. To date there is no valid research comparing the biblical
care of souls with any other approach or ideas that came after it. I say categorically that there are no scientifically
valid studies, no not one, that have proven that the biblical care of souls
has needed any help from any of the 500 approaches to psychotherapy or any of
their underlying pseudoscientific psychologies or from Johnson’s soul-care
psychotherapy! There is no
scientifically justifiable reason for these psychological counseling theories
and therapies, including Johnson’s, to supplement, supersede, or supplant the
biblical cure of souls. Johnson cannot dredge up one meta-analytic research
study on psychotherapy to support his revisionist theory of soul care. I
challenge Johnson to prove me wrong by providing scientific evidence to show
that there is a psychological theory, technique, or methodology that can
trump the biblical care of souls to the extent that it would produce a better
cure rate than the biblical care of souls alone! Nothing in Johnson’s
book is needed to improve upon what believers have done over the centuries to
cure souls. Johnson’s book, like those of all the integrationists who
preceded him, will not add one iota or one scintilla of aid to the biblical
care of souls. This means that those in the church, like Johnson, who are
genuflecting at the altar of counseling psychology are doing so absent
scientific proof. Christians do not need psychotherapy or any other
modern-day psychologically-oriented amalgamated soul care, such as Johnson
presents in his book. Contradictory Views at Southern Seminary According to Christian Century, in 2005
Southern Seminary made "a ‘wholesale change’ in its counseling
program." Southern Seminary threw out "the ‘pastoral counseling’
model in favor of ‘biblical counseling.’" Christian Century says: School officials say the
new approach is "built upon the view that scripture is sufficient to
answer comprehensively the deepest needs of the human heart."15 As I read the Christian Century article, it
was clear that Johnson’s views are more compatible with the critics of the
change than with the supporters of the change. Russell Moore, dean of Southern
Seminary’s school of theology, refers to the former model as a "failed
‘model.’" Moore says that "it is naïve" in reference to
"the presuppositions behind secular psychologies." Moore goes on to
say, "You can’t simply say you’re going to integrate the science of
psychotherapy with scripture because there are only sciences and theories of
psychotherapy that are contradictory and incoherent." What Moore is
criticizing Johnson would defend. It is obvious from Johnson’s past and present
writings that he would be in disagreement with the "new approach"
at Southern Seminary. In case there is some question about this disagreement
between Johnson and the "new approach" at Southern Seminary, the
following description of Johnson’s classes by one of his students, shows his
commitment to the former model: In an
atmosphere increasingly becoming "anti-psychology," Dr. Johnson
worked hard to help us understand that psychology, in its proper place, can
be a conduit of God’s grace to the suffering.… Psychology, when grounded
firmly in Scripture and theology, becomes not our enemy but a tool that
allows us to effectively apply the truth of Scripture. You cannot use
psychology apart from a thoroughly Christian worldview and theology if you
expect to succeed as a counselor. If Scripture is truly sufficient, we
should have no qualms about subjecting our psychology to it, rather than
discarding psychology entirely (bold added).16 Based upon Johnson’s teachings, the Word of God, the
work of the Holy Spirit, and the fellowship of the saints are not
sufficient to deal with the personal, marital, and family problems normally
taken to a psychotherapist. Johnson is an integrationist; he supports an
integrationist position in his book. In fact, his book should be a joy to
every integrationist and every Christian mental-health practitioner. Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could
Johnson’s teachings fit into the sufficiency-of-Scripture, new model at
Southern Seminary. No amount of rationalization or justification or oleaginous
twisting of the English language can make the Johnson model fit the
sufficiency-of-Scripture model. Any fair-minded reading of Johnson’s work
will confirm that what he teaches contradicts the sufficiency-of-the-Bible,
new direction at Southern Seminary. Revisionist Soul Care or Biblical Soul Care? We have listened to messages by Dr. Albert Mohler,
Jr, president of Southern Seminary, and even quoted him. Mohler says, at
times, something like: "Give me that old-time religion." Johnson’s
work is not old-time religion. It is a new-time, latter-day religion which
has given birth to all kinds of latter-day deceptions. Johnson’s teachings
are the very wisdom of men about which the apostle Paul warns God’s people (1
Cor. 1, 2). Johnson’s teachings and book are perfect examples of what the
Holy Spirit warns about. Johnson’s work is worse than the worldly wisdom of
men, because it is amalgamated with Scripture. His book Foundations for
Soul Care abuses the Word of God by corrupting it with the worldly wisdom
of men, but it is only pseudoscientific snake oil offered to the unwary or to
those in academia who salivate over erudite teachings. Johnson can justify,
rationalize, and, yes, even at times euphemize what he says, but in essence
he is opposed to the sufficiency of the Bible and in favor of integration.
Johnson serves as a tragic reminder of what can happen when Christians become
consumed by the academic antithesis of what the Bible clearly teaches on
sufficiency to the point that they embrace the very wisdom of men about which
the Bible warns. Question One:
What will Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr., do about this oxymoron in his midst? How
long will he stand between two opinions? Will it be Johnson’s revisionist
soul care theory or the biblical care of souls? Question Two:
How long can Johnson, the promoter of psychological integration, stay at
Southern Seminary and keep his integrity? (PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, November-December
2007, Vol. 15, No. 6) |
|
|
|
(Endnotes) 1 Eric L. Johnson. Foundations
for Soul Care. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007, p. 144. 2 Ibid., p. 153. 3 Eric L. Johnson,
"A Place for the Bible within Psychological Science," Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 1992, Vol. 20, No. 4, p. 346. 4 Martin and Deidre
Bobgan. PsychoHeresy. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 1987, p.
4. 5 Eric L. Johnson,
"A Place for the Bible…," op. cit., p. 348. 6 Eric L. Johnson and
Steven J. Sandage, "A Postmodern Reconstruction of Psychotherapy:
Orienteering, Religion, and the Healing of the Soul, Psychotherapy,
Vol. 36, No. 1, p. 13. 7 Eric L. Johnson. Foundations
for Soul Care, op. cit., p. 112. 8 Karl Popper,
"Scientific Theory and Falsifiability" in Perspectives in
Philosophy, Robert N. Beck, ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1975,
p. 343. 9 Ibid., p. 346. 10 Adolf Grünbaum, The
Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984; Adolf Grünbaum, personal letter
on file. 11 Jacob Lasky, editor. Scientific
American, phone conversation. 12 Eric L. Johnson. Foundations
for Soul Care, op. cit., p. 111. 13 Ibid., p. 112. 14 Rogers Wright and
Nicholas Cummings, eds. The Practice of Psychology: The Battle for
Professionalism. Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, Inc., 2001. 15 David Winfrey,
"Biblical therapy," Christian Century, January 23, 2007, p.
24. 16 Student response to
Johnson’s classes, http://stephennewell.wordpress.com. |
|
|
|
Article Topics | Titles | Top |
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries
4137
www.pamweb.org