ACBC Essays Volume 3

The Essays are largely works that served to show the inadequacies in the success of and support for modern psychiatry. After having read Dr. Adams’s Competent to Counsel, these essays further improved on his idea that modern psychiatric and psychological practice is largely mythical. While helpful in understanding the state of things as they stand, it did not paint a hopeful picture of psychiatry as it was or as it is becoming.

Dr. Johnson’s introduction to the essays prepared the way for Robert Whitaker’s take on the recent history of psychiatry and its dubious progress. It was difficult for me to have a substantive agreement or disagreement with Whitaker, as I am not well learned in psychiatric history in the last seventy years. It was intriguing to see the progression from the adoption of Thorazine as a drug for psychosis turning into the wholesale adoption of the chemical imbalance theory. Considering the amount of money that could be generated by the peddling of these drugs, it is unsurprising that businessmen and marketers have pushed these medications so hard. Whitaker’s citation of the studies which showed a near across the board negative correlation with the use of antidepressants and the well-being of the patients was saddening, although unsurprising (p.20 - 23). Unfortunately, my own extended family and many of my acquaintances from childhood who were on these kinds of medications have either died by their own hand, have attempted their own lives, or have a dizzying cocktail of drugs they are still imbibing to maintain normalcy.?

The first thing I had to note about Dr. Chen’s contribution was her reference to the noetic effects of the fall. Her focus on complications in knowledge and the way we present it was not something I had thought of since college. While I knew about the proclivity of statisticians in the marketplace to manipulate data in favor of a product for monetary gain, I had not thought scientific inquiry would be as likely to have the same problems. This oversight made the whole of her essay an easy rabbit trail into thinking about the statistics that I knew and how they may have been manipulated. Her citation of Loewenstein’s study on p-hacking and its universal prevalence within her sample was astonishing. Dr. Chen places the instability of so many of the claims made by naturalistic science that often are taken for granted as settled truth in stark contrast to the sure Word of God.?

Daniel Berger’s focus on the materialistic worldview of psychiatry makes perfect sense, and that makes the results of its inadequacies more tragic. The presence of so much jargon in psychiatry makes it easy to see how people can get swept up in what he calls “modern shamanism” (p 50). It makes sense that people would seek material cures for supposedly material problems, even as they ignore the soul because of its empirical evasiveness. Berger’s coverage of Benjamin Rush highlights the need for solid scriptural teaching. Although I think this was unintentional, he legitimizes the godless clergy caste that Freud sought to develop, and the DSM represents a perverse version of canonization. It’s a new scripture for the new priesthood in the new religion where moral failure is disease rather than just sin. I did notice an interesting parallel between the psychiatric model of treatment of mental disorders alongside the allopathic model of physical medicine. In both cases, the solution is supposedly encapsulated, literally, rather than requiring any action of the person under care to change their attitudes, habits, or submission to God.

Dr. Edmonds essay is the most illustrative of this collection of essays of the difficulty in diagnosis for spiritual ills that are masqueraded as mental illness. I had no knowledge of what NAMI was or the difference between an illness, disease, or condition, and the fact that the experts have not delineated that clearly in the DSM struck me as absurd (p 96). How can the experts in the field not define concretely the terms within the field, define the causes of those problems, nor treat them in any meaningfully methodical way? Edmonds writes about a school age boy who may be treated for ADHD, but why would a child not have difficulty in school? The generation of children just after mine, I suspect, would have the least amount of exercise, the least amount of time in creation, the lowest level of connection with their actual neighbors, spends the most time on comparative/social media, and likely spends almost no time learning about his purpose and worth in Jesus. While none of these factors would excuse delinquent behavior, it does beg the question of how ill someone really is if all they need is an adjustment in their educational mode and material. Given what the general populace, myself included, knows about psychiatry it is unsurprising that the wool remains firmly over the public’s eyes.

I can say with Dr. Edmonds, “If not for human sin, this entire essay would be unnecessary (p 106).” While I hope that societal and scientific changes may come that will make the mismanagement of people’s souls less frequent, ultimately the only solution for these issues will come in Christ’s hand. While the tone of these essays was not optimistic about the world, I was grateful for each author’s reminder of the supremacy of the Lord and His salvation freely offered.?