We received a long email critical of our work and quite typical of what has been said about us by many critics over the years. There is much amiss in the email, but we have decided to expose the critic’s ignorance of our views of Christianity and psychology in the lives of believers and her fallacious belief about the use of a psychotherapy license. She says:
Hi, I am in a clinical mental health program at a university and in one of our textbooks, they listed this website as an example of Christians who are completely opposed to any integration of Christianity and psychology.
This critic reveals that “one of our textbooks” for a class in her “clinical mental health program at a university” lists our website as “Christians who are completely opposed to any integration of Christianity and psychology.” We have, over many years, been rightly accused of being “completely opposed to any integration of Christianity and psychology” by those who have no idea about our views of either Christianity or psychology.
We call the integration of psychology and Christianity “amalgamania” because of the ever-increasing eagerness to combine the world’s psychological theories and therapies of counseling with the Bible. This amalgamania is not only persuasive and pervasive; it distorts the very essence of the Bible and denies its sufficiency.
The psychologizing of the church has reached epidemic proportions. By psychologizing we mean treating problems of living by the use of psychological rather than or in addition to biblical means. This psychologizing occurs in every important facet of Christianity.
First, we hear it in psychologized sermons. Psychologists are quoted as authorities and psychological ideas are presented and even promoted.
Second, church counseling has become psychologized. The Bible is supposedly not enough. Thus, psychological understanding is sought, and psychological techniques are applied.
Third, those who want to help people in the church who have problems of living generally become more psychologically than biblically trained. We have found this to be true in even some of the remotest areas of our land and in some of the most unsuspected places.
Fourth, there is promiscuous referral. When people with problems of living seek help from their pastor, they are regularly referred to a professional psychological counselor. This often happens with even the most basic of problems.
Fifth, there is evidence that reveals the rising number of churches providing psychological counseling with psychologically trained and licensed individuals within the church itself. The increase includes even the most conservative churches and conservative denominations.
Sixth, many Christian schools, colleges, universities and seminaries rely either partially or even entirely upon teaching psychological rather than biblical solutions to life’s problems.
Seventh, it is almost mandated that marriage and family counselors or psychologists be present at conferences whether in or out of the church and especially at the favorite camp or conference locations. Having conferences now necessitates some psychological presence like the necessity of having a pastor present at a wedding.
Eighth, many books, tapes, workshops, and seminars designed for the Christian consumer are psychologized in one way or another.
This thought-to-be-ideal combination of psychology and theology is just another insidious dilution of Scripture and diminution of the influence of the Holy Spirit. The inclusion of such trained professionals is one additional testimony to the psychologizing of Christianity and the secularizing of the church. It demonstrates a lack of faith in what God has provided and a misplaced faith in what man has contrived.
Paul Bartz says that “well-intentioned, but ignorant, Christian leaders have widely adopted psychological models to deal with everything from counseling to church growth.” One does not need a well-trained ear, eye, nose, hand or tongue to hear, see, smell, touch or taste the evidence of the psychologizing of Christianity. It is so all pervasive that, if anything, our senses have been dulled to it. The psychologizing is rampant to say the least.
This excessive confidence in merging the psychological way of the world with the very Word of God is gravely misplaced. The Bible is sufficient for issues relegated to psychological theories and therapies, whereas psychotherapy is riddled with fallacies and failures. One ministers to the new creation in Christ and works to conform a believer into the image of God, while the other puts confidence in the “old nature.” which a believer is to put off.
Until the middle of the twentieth century, the believers found both solace and direction in dealing with trials and tribulations through the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the fellowship of the saints. Such ministry strengthened faith as it revealed the faithfulness of God in using all circumstances to conform the believer into the image of Christ. The Gospel was preached, and biblical doctrines were expounded regarding the new creation of a believer and how to live according to the spirit rather than the flesh. We believe and have taught for over 40 years that THE WORD OF GOD AND THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE SAINTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH THE NONORGANIC ISSUES OF LIFE WITHOUT SENDING CHRISTIANS OUT OF THE CHURCH TO PSYCHOTHERAPISTS OR TO CHRISTIANS WHO ARE INTEGRATIONISTS. Additionally, those who suffer from the biological trials and tribulations of life can profit greatly from biblical ministry as they seek bodily help.
We have taught and practiced from the beginning that all the personal and relational issues of life, which are now popularly referred to licensed psychological counselors for help through man-made conversations with psychological words, can best be done by those in the church ministering to one another with God-given spiritual words from the Bible. Building up the church spiritually is far more important than attempting to solve the trials and tribulations of life through man-made and often sin-saturated psychotherapy.
As we often explain, we are not anti-psychology. For both biblical and scientific reasons, we are anti-psychological therapies, their underlying theories and personality tests being used on and by Christians. All these areas will be studied and learned in preparation for obtaining a license to practice psychotherapy.
Psychology is a broad field that covers many disciplines. The American Psychological Association (APA) has fifty-four active divisions. When we say “psychology,” we are referring to those divisions of the APA that include psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies. This also includes personality theories and tests. The APA begins its definition of psychology by referring to it as “the study of the mind and behavior.” The APA expands that definition and then lists 54 Divisions at https://www.apa.org/about/division. Go there and read the names of the 54 Divisions.
The main discipline studied in school by those wishing to get a license is “clinical psychology,” which is defined as following:
Clinical psychology is the study in psychology of mental disorders. It is about learning, understanding, diagnosing, treating, or preventing these types of illnesses. Clinical psychologists examine the mental functioning of a person and use psychotherapy to treat the disorder. Psychotherapy uses talking instead of medical or physical treatments.
We have good biblical and scientific reasons for rejecting the APA divisions that incorporate psychological counseling, related theories, and personality tests. We have been following and reporting on the research examining the effectiveness of psychotherapy and of biblical ministry for over forty years and have concluded that NO ONE HAS EVER PROVED THAT PSYCHOTHERAPY OF ANY KIND PRODUCES BETTER RESULTS THAN THE BIBLICAL MINISTRY DONE IN THE CHURCH FROM THE DAY OF PENTECOST ONWARD. YES, NO ONE HAS PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY THE SUPERIORITY OF PSYCHOTHERAPY OVER THE BIBLICAL CARE OF SOULS!
One of the numerous scientific examples is from Dr. Robyn Dawes, a professor in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie-Mellon University. As a widely recognized researcher, Dawes offered much academic research support for his thesis that professional psychotherapy is a “house of cards” and that psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies are built on myths. In commenting on Dawes’s book, Dr. Donald Peterson, a professor at Rutgers University, says:
What [Dawes] does show, convincingly, is that a large number of studies designed to examine associations between training for psychotherapy and effectiveness of treatment have failed to show any positive relationships. Results as substantial and consistent as these cannot be explained away, and they cannot responsibly be ignored.
In his book House of Cards:Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, Dawes says: “There is no positive evidence supporting the efficacy of professional psychology. There are anecdotes, there is plausibility, there are common beliefs, yes—but there is no good evidence.” (Italics in original.) In his introduction, Dawes says:
Virtually all the research—and this book will reference more than three hundred empirical investigations and summaries of investigations—has found that these professionals’ claims to superior intuitive insight, understanding, and skill as therapists are simply invalid.
In reply to his critics, Dawes says:
Critics of my arguments may well be able to drag out a single study, or even several, that appear to contradict my conclusions. As I pointed out earlier, however, the generality of my conclusions is dependent on multiple studies conducted on multiple problems in multiple contexts.
Dawes points out that “Every state requires that practicing professional psychologists be licensed.” Throughout his book and particularly in a chapter on licensing, Dawes makes a strong case for abolishing licensing for professional therapists. He says:
What our society has done, sadly, is to license such people to “do their own thing,” while simultaneously justifying that license on the basis of scientific knowledge, which those licensed too often ignore. This would not be too bad if “their own thing” had some validity, but it doesn’t.
“Only Mild to Moderate Relief”
Some years back the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Commission on Psychotherapies published a book titled Psychotherapy Research: Methodological and Efficacy Issues. In it the APA stated: “Whether the magnitude of the psychotherapy effect is medium or small remains a moot point; no one has claimed that it is large.” (Bold added.) While no researchers would claim that psychotherapy’s level of relief is large, many practitioners and popularizers of psychology do.
Many new psychotherapies and research studies have occurred since the APA’s findings, but the same conclusion remains. In an interview with Dr. Martin Seligman, past president of the American Psychological Association, he was asked:
As a therapist and researcher who has spent three decades trying to build a bridge between the world of science and the world of everyday practice, are you impressed with the hard evidence of psychotherapy’s effectiveness?
After discussing the results of averaging all the therapy outcome studies, Seligman admitted that “by and large, we produce only mild to moderate relief.” After “regularly revising a formal textbook about abnormal psychology that has gone through five editions” over the past 25 years, Seligman indicated that not much has changed over the years with respect to his conclusion of “only mild to moderate relief” from psychotherapy. Based upon research, Dr, Hans Strupp, a distinguished professor at Vanderbilt University, says, “Psychotherapy is most helpful to those who need it least.” (Bold added.)
While some individual lives may change dramatically and others may remain the same or become worse, scientific research on psychological counseling indicates that, on average, counseling probably produces “only mild to moderate relief.” In our book PsychoHeresy: Revised & Expanded, we reveal how and why psychotherapy produces “only mild to moderate relief.”
A reminder: At one time Freudian psychoanalysis was regarded as the ne plus ultra of the mind cures; now in its pure form it is held in disregard by many. Distinguished researchers Dr. Bruce E. Wampold et al explain the dilemma well in their “Research Forum,” published in The Behavior Therapist. Please excuse the complexity of the following, but it is the last sentence that is the most important.
Given the complexity of the therapeutic endeavor, it is not surprising that interpreting the evidence is complex—if it were not, the debate surrounding empirically supported treatments (EST) would be inconspicuously absent.… What constitutes evidence is ultimately decided by a confluence of two factors—the phenomenon itself and people…. The phenomenon, under various environmental conditions, is observed by people (i.e., the scientists), who then draw conclusions about the phenomenon. The road from observation to conclusion is saturated with social influences on the scientist. (Italics theirs; bold added.)
One’s counseling approach is finally confirmed in “the eye of the beholder.” No matter the training, certification, or academic degree of the counselor, the sum of the counselor’s background adds up to whatever is received, modified, and applied by the counselor to the counselee in the counseling office.
A study of professional and nonprofessional therapists by Dr. Hans Strupp at Vanderbilt University compared the mental-emotional improvement of two groups of male college students. Two groups of “therapists” were set up to provide two groups of students with “therapy.” The two student groups were equated on the basis of mental-emotional distress as much as possible. The first group of therapists consisted of five psychiatrists and psychologists. “The five professional therapists participating in the study were selected on the basis of their reputation in the professional and academic community for clinical expertise. Their average length of experience was 23 years.”
The second group of “therapists” consisted of seven college professors from a variety of fields, but without therapeutic training. Each untrained “therapist” used his own personal manner of care, and each trained therapist used his own brand of therapy. The students seen by the professors showed as much improvement as those seen by the highly experienced and specially trained therapists. In other words, people untrained in psychotherapy can do as well, on average, as trained psychotherapists.
Not only that, practitioners of non-Christian religions can also do as well as professional psychotherapists. An excellent example can be seen in the following description of findings reported in Psychotherapy Research: Methodological and Efficacy Issues, published by the American Psychiatric Association: “An experiment at the All-India Institute of Mental Health in Bangalore found that Western-trained psychiatrists and native healers had a comparable recovery rate. The most notable difference was that the so-called “witch doctors” released their patients sooner.”
There is no scientific reason for those in the church to pursue psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies. There are about 500 psychological counseling theories and therapies, but no one has shown scientifically that any one of the psychological counseling theories or therapies “produces better results than the biblical ministry done in the church from the Day of Pentecost onward.” Thus, it is that, since the rise of psychotherapy in the last century, those in the church do not even follow the science when it comes to there being no proof for the effectiveness of a man-made psychological system trumping the very Word of God!
One of us earned a doctorate and qualified for the California Clinical Psychologist License, but decided not to apply for it. We had come to the same conclusion as Dr. Lawrence LeShan, when president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, who said some years after us: “Psychotherapy may be known in the future as the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.”Worse than that: Psychoheresy is one of the greatest heresies of modern-day Christianity.
One of the most deceptive and devastating alternatives to the Gospel, new life in Christ, Word of God, and the inner work of the Holy Spirit is made up of man-devised psychological means and methods of studying the soul and dealing with problems of living and human suffering. What is this insidious leaven and why would pastors, church leaders, and others who truly care for their flocks be promoting this leaven in the church? This leaven is counseling psychology and its underly theories, which consist of secular theories and techniques that are according to “the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). They are man-made ideas which are substitutes for salvation and sanctification. As we have said many times, when we speak of the leaven of psychology, we are not referring to the entire field of psychological study. Instead, we are referring to those parts of psychology which deal with the nature of man, how he should live, and how he can change. It involves ethics, values, attitudes, and behavior. Our critic would be shocked to know that we have professors of psychology at state universities who recommend our writings who would not do so if we were so naïve and unlearned to condemn an entire field based upon ignorance about its diversity.
This critic is training to become a licensed psychotherapist and is enrolled in a “clinical mental health program,” which will enable her to apply for one of the State licenses to practice psychotherapy. She reveals her fallacious belief about what she can do as a psychotherapist by saying:
Your website saddens me. God’s Word is the Bible. Human behavior is a part of God’s works. Psychology is simply studying God’s works. I don’t believe He is disappointed with it at all, when used in combination with His leading….
I love Jesus. One day I would like to point clients in the direction towards God. I would never use techniques that oppose God’s law. Discovering this website hurts me. To know that there are Christians who would look upon what I am doing trying to point clients to Jesus through counseling as sin hurts.
The information that we will reveal here regarding California psychotherapy licensure is likely to be equally true for all the other states. Each state licenses its own psychotherapists, but the requirements are similar state by state, and many states have reciprocal agreements. California and Connecticut were the first States to offer a license for a psychotherapist. California issued its first Clinical Psychologist license in 1958. Five years later, in 1963, California issued its first Marriage and Family Therapist license. Before that time, no church in America referred their congregants out to licensed psychotherapists, because there was no one to send them to. The only source they had was the same source used for almost 2000 years up to the psychological licensing era in the last half of the twentieth century: The BIBLE!
Over the years we have heard about Christians who are practicing State licensed psychotherapists claiming to be doing “Christian counseling” or counseling by the Bible. Some of these State-licensed psychotherapists approach pastors with their claims, advertise themselves as Christian counselors, and/or indicate likewise on their websites.
Although we knew the answers to the following two questions, we wanted it in writing from the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Our first question was: “Can psychotherapy-licensed Christians or those of any other faith, e.g., Jewish, Buddhist, etc., inject their faith system into their client sessions.” Their answer references the California “Business and Professional Codes” and the California Psychology Board’s “Laws and Regulations,” with the sum and substance answer being “No.” There were exceptions for those who could counsel according to their religious persuasion because of being “duly ordained members of the recognized clergy or duly ordained religious practitioners.
We then wrote, “This second question has to do with what these Christians can say in their ads. Can they state, infer, or imply that they provide Christian counseling?” The answer again refers to codes and the Psychology Board’s “Laws and Regulations.” Once more, the answer boiled down to “No,” just as we expected.
Another aspect of the license has to do with those parts of the non-discrimination requirements that are anti-biblical, namely those having to do with sexual identification and practice. A licensed psychotherapist is prohibited from denying services or from encouraging an individual who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to change sexual preferences. For instance, if married homosexuals come to a licensed psychotherapist for help to “patch up” their marriage, the therapist is obligated to help them. Or, if one who identifies as transgender wants psychological help making the transition, the licensed therapist is obligated to help. Christians who are licensed to practice some form of psychological counseling and who are honest about following the license requirements are stuck in the world’s system of thinking and speaking.
Christian psychology depends on psychology itself. Because psychology is such a broad field, we want to make it clear that when we use the word psychology, we are referring to psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies. Other questions arise as to “Christian” psychologists. Is there such a person as a Christian psychologist? Only if this is simply a professing Christian who practices psychology, just as one could be referred to as a Christian plumber as being a plumber who happens to be a Christian. A primary problem with this designation is that many Christians believe that Christians who are licensed psychotherapists do Christian counseling, when their license only authorizes them to therapize according to their training in psychological theories and therapies. In promoting themselves as licensed psychotherapists who do Christian counseling, they are being deceptive at the very least, unless they set aside their license and counsel for free or unless they give up their license and become ordained ministers.
Actually, there is no such recognized theory or therapy that is “Christian psychology.” The Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) is an organization of psychologists who are professing Christians. The following was admitted at one of their meetings:
We are often asked if we are “Christian psychologists” and find it difficult to answer since we don’t know what the question implies. We are Christians who are psychologists but at the present time there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology. It is difficult to imply that we function in a manner that is fundamentally distinct from our non-Christian colleagues . . . as yet there is not an acceptable theory, mode of research or treatment methodology that is distinctly Christian.
In order to find out if there is such a uniform practice as Christian psychotherapy, we asked ourselves and then others, “What types of psychotherapeutic approaches most influence the Christian psychotherapist?” No one we contacted was able to answer that question. Therefore, we devised a simple, easy-to-answer survey form comprised of a list of ten major psychotherapies. The survey was administered to members of CAPS. Each respondent was asked to rank one or more of these psychotherapeutic approaches that influenced his/her professional practice. Additional space was provided for participants to add other psychotherapies before ranking.
The results of the survey indicate that Christian psychotherapists or counselors are eclectic in that they are influenced by and use a variety of psychological approaches rather than just one or two. In other words, there is not just one Christian psychotherapeutic way. A great variety of approaches influence clinical practice. This survey demonstrated that, while some psychotherapies are more influential than others in the practice of Christian counseling, in general the Christian psychotherapist is both independent and eclectic in his/her approach to counseling. In addition, each Christian psychotherapist’s combination of counseling approaches differs from that of other Christian therapists.
There are licensed psychiatrists and psychotherapists who are Christians who regularly share the Gospel with a patient or client and even pray with them. They will say, “Only when it is appropriate.” However, under the circumstances, it is never appropriate! It is both unethical and illegal. It is unethical because of the limitations of their license and illegal unless the psychotherapists are not advertising their license, the patient/client has not come to them based upon that license, and no money has been charged.
Sadly, this critic who “would like to point clients in the direction towards God” through psychological counseling with a psychotherapy license is not the only Christian who is deceived into thinking that they would not be violating their psychotherapy license. This integration of Christianity and psychology is being promoted throughout the church. Christians who integrate psychotherapeutic theories and therapies with their faith are using their license dishonestly in a manner not indicated or permitted by the license. In doing so, they are also practicing simony in the name of Christ. This deception is rampant! Although the psychotherapy licensed individuals should have learned this as part of their training, many seem ignorant of this clear restriction of their license. All they need to do to discover this restriction is to call their State licensing office.
Worse than this deception of unethically using the psychotherapy license is the very fact that:THOSE CHRISTIANS AND THOSE CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS THAT USE OR RECOMMEND PSYCHOTHERAPY MUST NOT BELIEVE IN THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE FOR DEALING WITH THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF LIFE. In fact, they are denying the very Bible they claim to believe in by either conducting psychotherapy as a psychotherapist or participating in psychotherapy as a client. Because of the nature of psychotherapy with its underlying ideas and its psychological conversational format, participants generally participate in sinful speaking about others, blame shifting, and false accusations, because the focus is on self rather than on Christ. That is why we urge Christians not to be practitioners (psychotherapists) or participants (clients) in psychotherapy. We call such ungodly activities “psychoheresy.” But too many Christians are blind to this serious deviation from living according to the new life in Christ. Their theology is a mixture of the ways of the world (psychological theories and therapies) with the way of the Lord, and this ungodly mixture saturates Christian schools, seminaries, universities, denominations, and mission agencies.
In his book titled The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion, psychologist Dr. O. Hobart Mowrer asks the following question: “Has evangelical religion sold its birthright for a mess of psychological pottage?” Christians need to remember their birthright and carefully, objectively, seriously, and prayerfully examine this mess of psychological pottage, which can be found throughout Christianity.
We Need to Get Back to the Bible
There are numerous verses in the Bible that would trump the possibility of Christians becoming psychological therapists and would dissuade Christians from seeking their help. Also, these verses should prevent any discerning pastors from referring their congregants to such individuals trained in this psychological miasma. Just two of the numerous available verses are:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17.)
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:3-4.)
Although a few Christian leaders are speaking out and condemning what we call psychoheresy, they are not speaking out specifically by naming names. Rarely do we hear even those Christian leaders who agree with us name names of individuals or organizations. Where are the pastors, theologians, and church leaders who are willing to speak out against this PSYCHOHERESY?
Indeed, too many sheep have placed confidence in a hireling in the garb of a psychological therapist and following the ways of the old nature. Not only does this lead them away from the true Shephard, but it is making them prey to all kinds of deception as the church is becoming more and more like the Laodicean church in the book of Revelation. Interestingly, the etymology of the word Laodicean is from two Greek words: “(1) the noun λαος (laos), (common) people, and (2) the noun δικη (dike), justice.” In other words, the Laodicean church was conducting itself according to ideas of the people rather than according to the Word of God, and this is exactly what psychology is as it attempts to study the soul, which God created. And in doing so, a human study of the soul (the inner life) will be warped because of sin. That is why we need the Bible, not only to reveal the sinful soul, but to give new life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and to show humans how to live by faith. As the apostle Paul boldly declared:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:16-17)
Just as the Laodicean church needed to come back to Christ for counsel rather than continue in their own man-made means, so also does the church need to return to Christ and His Word. What believers need in every challenging situation is God’s answer to Paul’s prayer for the Colossians:
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:9-14).
And, how do we know God’s will, but through the Word and the Spirit. We cannot forget that because God’s Word is living and life-changing, it can see every detail hidden within every soul:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13).
WHAT BETTER RESOURCE THAN GOD HIMSELF THROUGH HIS WORD, HIS SPIRIT, AND HIS BODY FOR HELP IN TIME OF NEED? EVERY BELIEVE HAS ACCESS TO GOD, HIS WORD, HIS SPIRIT, AND THE BODY OF CHRIST. WHY BE SATISFIED WITH THE WORDS OF MEN WHEN GOD GIVES THE WORDS OF LIFE AND PROMISES ETERNAL LIFE FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE IN HIS SON?
 Martin and Deidre Bobgan. PsychoHeresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity, Revised & Expanded. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 2012, pp. 265-267.
 Paul Bartz, “Chemical Man.” Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 24, No. 2, February 1986, p. 1.
 “Clinical psychology,” Wikipedia, 8/26/2021.
 Donald R. Peterson, “The Reflective Educator,” American Psychologist (December 1995), p. 976.
 Robyn M. Dawes, House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy: Built on Myth. New York: The Free Press/Macmillan, Inc., 1994, p. 58.
 American Psychiatric Association Commission on Psychotherapies. Psychotherapy Research: Methodological and Efficacy Issues. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1982.
 Mary Sykes Wylie interviewing Martin Seligman. “Why Is This Man Smiling?” Psychotherapy Networker, Vol. 27, No. 1, p. 51.
 Hans Strupp, personal letter on file.
 Martin & Deidre Bobgan. PsychoHeresy: Revised & Expanded. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Publishers, 2012, Chapter 10.
 Bruce E. Wampold, Zac E. Imel, and Scott D. Miller, “Barriers to the Dissemination of Empirically Supported Treatments: Matching Messages to the Evidence,” The Behavior Therapist, Vol. 32, No. 7, p. 144.
 Hans H. Strupp and Suzanne W. Hadley, “Specific vs. Nonspecific Factors in Psychotherapy,” Archives of General Psychiatry, September 1979, p. 1126.
 “Ambiguity Pervades Research on Effectiveness of Psychotherapy,” Brain/Mind Bulletin, October 4, 1982, p. 2.
 Lawrence LeShan, Association for Humanistic Psychology, October 1984, p. 4.
 P. Sutherland and P. Poelstra, “Aspects of Integration,” paper presented at the meeting of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, Santa Barbara, CA, June 1976.
 See “$$$imony & Biblical Counseling, https://pamweb.org/critiques-of-the-biblical-counseling-movement/simony-biblical-counseling/.
 O. Hobart Mowrer. The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand co., Inc., 1961, p. 60.
 “Abarim Publication’s Biblical Names Vault: Laodicea,” https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Laodicea.html.