Many Christian leaders understand that moral relativism is a plague on society but for some reason they do not understand that this thinking originated from theories of psychology.
It also is no accident that psychology is now a major part of the education offered in many Bible colleges and seminaries. Is it any wonder then that leaders with majors and minors in psychology are now emerging out of these schools and are creating the Emergent Church movement.
They teach people to question and redefine what were once Christian absolutes. So now we have the emerging blind leading the blind that have already been brainwashed to accept moral relativism by their secular educators. Unless the church rejects these theories of psychology and the philosophies of the pagan world it will continue to slide into apostasy.
Many Christian leaders today use theories of psychology in their sermons, seminars and counseling sessions as if it were truth. No it is not! These so called truths originated from satanic men and are doctrines of demons.
For a good perspective on this read this excellent article.
American Thinker: Psychology: The Hard Truth about a Soft Science
Yet the problem with psychology is not just that those within the field may be peddling a relativistic creed, but that it has provided a specious scientific basis for relativism’s wider embrace. We now live in the age of “If it feels good, do it,” a maxim that is eminently logical if morals are really values and values are determined by man. Because of this, it is also the age of no accountability; after all, if right and wrong are merely opinion and thus don’t truly exist, how can anything I’ve done be wrong? Haven’t you heard, you provincial thinker, that you aren’t supposed to impose your values on me? Don’t you know I have my own “truth”? And, if nothing can be truly wrong, there is nothing to be accountable for.
For this reason, I might call psychology the science of why we not accountable. Think about it: Everything formerly labeled a sin is now diagnosed as a disease or condition of the brain. If you drink too much, it is simply because of your genetics or chemistry; if you’re an ill-behaved child, it may be ADHD; if you murdered your husband, you perhaps were in the grip of PMS; and the list goes on.
And even if, by chance, the accident that is you wound up with a well-functioning organic CPU, you’re still at the mercy of your environment (although the nurture argument seems to have lost weight in recent times). Sure, you robbed the convenience store, but you were simply programmed incorrectly by mommy, or perhaps daddy wasn’t there to provide the data that only XY org-robs can. It’s a variation on the “The Devil made me do it argument,
I also might say that mental health professionals have become the new priesthood. After all, whereas years ago people might have gone to a man of the cloth for guidance, now they are likely to lie on a therapist’s couch. The prescriptions they get are far different, too. A priest, minister or rabbi would usually render advice steeped in tradition and God-centered, but the psychologist is most likely to offer relativistic counsel, where the focus is on feelings and is thus self-centered.
And what happens when the matter of religion is raised? If you’re like many, including someone I know of, you may be told you’re taking your faith too seriously, that such devotion is akin to a mental illness. This isn’t surprising, I suppose. What future could a person have with an “illusion,” even the very attractive one that Freud seemed to believe was the opiate of the masses? Yet, with over 20 million Americans, 40 percent of college students and 1 out of 9 schoolchildren on psychiatrist-prescribed psychoactive drugs, one is left to wonder what realm is truly most deserving of that title.
Is “temperment testing” part of psychology? I have seen several ministries, including Joyce Meyer and Jim Bakker recommend that your temperment be tested to see which of 4 basic temperments you have. One of them is called “melancholy”, but I can’t remember what the other 3 are. It sounded like hogwash to me, almost like going by your “astrological sign” or something.
Yes temperament testing originates from the psychotherapy theories of psychology which is really the psychology that I am talking about.
Temperament typing is one of the deceptive practices in the church and yes, it is very much like astrology. I wrote about temperament typing in the following article. (this is a long article look about half way down for the psychology section – there is also an excellent link in the article to even more information called “Tim Lahaye and Psychoheresy” Yes, Tim Lahaye’s early books popularized temperament typing it in the church)
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/The%20woman%20on%20the%20beast%20in%20end%20time%20prophecy%20has%20dominion%20theology.htm
Thank you for answering my question, and for the link to your article. It was very interesting and informative. I knew something didn’t seem right about temperment testing but it confused me that so many Christian ministies seemed into it.
It has a long-standing tradition in the Catholic church too. Just do some searches on the four classical temperaments (“choleric”, “melancholic”, “sanguine” and “phlegmatic”) and you’ll see. There’s also the modern Keirsey test that is based on this. Temperament testing isn’t a “Christian” thing though, it predated Christianity and was found amongst the Greeks and Ancient Egyptians.
Those temparements test are very tempting because you are lead to think it will help you to better understand yourself. I won’t deny that I’ve taken lots of these tests myself too, either out of curiousity, boredom or just “for the fun” of it. The thing is when you start taking these things *seriously*, rather than aiming at being Christ-like and transformed in His image, you are lead to think you can change yourself by focusing on your temparement’s “strengths”. It leads to you to idealize your temperament(s) and forget that as Christians we ought to focus on Christ and live by His example. I’m not making this up, I’m talking from my own experience.
I do think we all have been created with something as a “temperament”, or a “character”. We all have different personalities as we’re all individuals. God can use our character or personalities for some purpose and it’s not a bad thing to know yourself. Moses, Joseph, Daniel, Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael.. They all had different personalities, their strengths and weaknesses.
But the problem with (pop) psychology is that they emphasize developing your personality by focusing on your own perceived “strengths.” As a Christian, I think it’s wiser to be aware of your weaknesses (or rather, sinfulness) and therefore humble ourselves and follow the Shepherd rather than trusting in our own selves. The Holy Spirit transforms people, you can’t do so by your own will power. In my own pride I have often rebeled at that. I guess it’s typically human. But ultimately you must face it – nobody is worthy of glory but God because without Him we are absolutely lost. No psychiatrist is ever going to change anything about that simple Truth.
ps: there’s no scriptural support for anything like the 4 temperements. Those who claim otherwise are turning the Bible upside down trying to find some hidden esoteric knowledge in there which really is blasphemy
Much of what you said is also said in the link to the article I wrote that covers psychology in the church and temperament typing. The link is in my previous comment above.
One reason why everyone has done this temperament typing is that it is part of many Christian seminars and studies and bible colleges. I believe Saddleback (Rick Warren’s church) makes you take a course that includes temperament typing to even become a member.
Another reason is that it is part of diversity training required in most corporations and the U.S. government. It also is part of government vocational rehab programs etc. (which all proves that there is nothing Christian about it).
Like Astrology it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If you are led to believe you are a certain way you will tend to act the part.
Yeah, I like how you put that in the last two sentences. That pretty much sums it all up.
I read your article on this issue a long time ago. I’m going to read it again in the coming days. I recall reading about Warren’s Saddleback church using it and how its getting applied to company staff too.
It’s quite scary when you think of it. They start grouping people based on their temparement. In fact, I have to say that I’ve noticed myself how easy it is to try identifying people’s temparement and seeing them differently because of that. It is not at all how we are supposed to act towards others as Christians. Many of those psychology things are pagan thinking. As is often the case, they may contain some truth but they remain deceptive and therefore qualify as lies.
It’s impossible to belong to “one” temperament. People are too complex and each individual differs. Sure there’s groups of people that have similar characters. But from what I’ve noticed myself, just a few years ago, I was said to be a “melancholic” mostly. Now I’m much more of a “choleric”. But nobody’s a full blown “melancholic” or “choleric” or whatever else. And who says I might not have a few “sanguine” or “phlegmatic” traits? Then of course you may wonder whether there’s such a thing as those four temperaments in the first place. My take? No, there isn’t. People can change overtime. People are affected and influenced by their environment, their families, some youth subculture they choose to identify with, or religious values. All these affect one’s personality and set you apart from others.
We should judge ourselves based on the list of vices in Galatians and the fruits of the Spirit found in the same epistle. We must aim at being fruitful Christians rather than becoming a “good choleric” or a “good phlegmatic” or whatever. I think your personality traits aren’t there for nothing and if we live through the Spirit I believe some of those traits can be put to good use but it will differ for each and every individual. As is the case with talents, for instance.
Some companies actually force you to wear a color coded name tag at work so that when other employees deal with you they will know how to talk to you, so you won’t hurt their feelings or something. Its really nutty stuff and its based out of the junk science branch of junk science psychology. Even professional psychologists discredit temperament typing. But corporate and government social engineers can’t get enough of it, and the general population loves it because like astrology it gives them excuses for their flaws and lets them flaunt perceived strengths.
I see. It’s basically pretty much the same as with like the whole global warming issue then.
I think you’re right in calling them “perceived” strengths. I suppose people do have certain strengths or weaknesses but then of course some of what the (pop) psychologists call “strengths” might just as well be vices from a biblical point of view or how we to what use we put one of our “strengths”. For instance, one person’s “strenght” is to be productive and goal-oriented. But if that person puts his energy in wrong things that keep him from God and sets sinful goals that, say, make him neglect his duties towards family, it makes you wonder how much of a “strenght” that person’s productiveness really is.
Ok, looks like I should better check before posting. Too many mixed up sentences today..