Like a one week class would ever teach me to deal with complex mental illness.
Don't you mean debbil spirits? :blink: When it came down to it. twi was not able to help to many people with mental illness because they failed to see what really caused it. Most people with a mental illness did not stay around to long. They were labled as having those debbel spirits running through their mind and shunned, imho.
Hmmm let me get back with you on the most worthless class. I need to look in my corps notes. Bet I can find a doozy or two in those.
Me personally - I really got into Jay Adams' stuff. I found his work to be a breath of fresh air from TWI's stifling legalism. I agree with Shazdancer - we TWI folk weren't competent to counsel. Probably because Adams' idea of counseling Christians was dealing with them as morally responsible people expected to follow the dictates of Scripture. That's fundamentally at odds with TWI's litmus test for a good believer - are you abundant sharing, attending every meeting, getting the tapes and magazines and believe the Board of Trustees are gods on a stick [or how about "shtick"].
I am somewhat familiar with Adams' stuff – I liked a lot of his ideas – but like everything else I read – I try to exercise good critical thinking skills – picking and choosing things that I think are valid. While in TWI I enjoyed Adams' books more as a self-help tool [along the lines of cognitive therapy] – and didn't portray myself as a qualified Christian counselor to others but as a believer providing friendship/empathy/feedback/help in identifying the problem and resolving the issue with the understanding of "this is what worked for me." I viewed his counseling tactics as good for most general run-of-the-mill problems and issues in the Christian walk. In my opinion, a simplified description of how Adams and TWI differ is on their viewpoint: Adams attributes a Christian's problem to personal sin and needs to take morally responsible action to resolve it – following the dictates of Scripture. Whereas, TWI tends to spiritualize the situation, suggesting the believer is under attack by devil spirits or possessed and needs to obey the dictates of leadership to resolve the problem.
As to your question WordWolf, I have quoted below from his Competent to Counsel book – and it appears your recollection is fairly close.
Concerning psychiatric disorders and institutionalization
Page 17-19: "…Nearly all recent counseling books for ministers, even conservative ones, are written from the Freudian perspective in the sense that they rest largely upon the presumptions of the Freudian ethic of non-responsibility...Mental health institutes are conducted in order to persuade ministers that they cannot [more often the wording is "dare not"] help the "mentally ill." The big words at such conferences are "defer" and "refer." …This book strikes an entirely new note, a note which is long overdue. Rather than defer and refer to psychiatrists steeped in their humanistic dogma, ministers of the gospel and other Christian workers who have been called by God to help his people out of their distress, will be encouraged to resume their privileges and responsibilities. Shall they defer and refer? Only as an exception, never as the rule, and then only to other more competent Christian workers. Their task is to confer. The thesis of this book is that qualified Christian counselors properly trained in the Scriptures are competent to counsel – more competent than psychiatrists or anyone else…The real issue for the minister is referral. At this point he cannot dodge the question. He must ask himself, shall I refer my parishioner to a psychiatrist or a mental institution, or can I do something for him? In view of these recent changes, he must reevaluate the propaganda of the last generation and ask anew, "How much can I do?" But in order to answer that question, it is necessary for him to come to some conclusions about the true nature of the problems of the so-called "mentally ill." The question must be considered from a biblical perspective, beginning with scriptural presuppositions, refusing to Baptize Freud [or Mowrer, for that matter]. Such a consideration reveals that the central issue boils down to a discussion of the question: Is the fundamental problem of persons who come for personal counseling sickness or sin?"
Page 28: "…The fact is that the words "mental illness" are used quite ambiguously…Organic malfunctions affecting the brain that are caused by brain damage, tumors, gene inheritance, glandular or chemical disorders, validly may be termed mental illnesses. But at the same time a vast number of other human problems have been classified as mental illnesses for which there is no evidence that they have been engendered by disease or illness at all. As a description of many of these problems, the term mental illness is nothing more than a figure of speech, and in most cases a poor one at that. To put the issue simply: the Scriptures plainly speak of both organically based problems as well as those problems that stem from sinful attitudes and behavior; but where, in all of God's Word, is there so much as a trace of any third source of problems which approximate the modern concept of "mental illness"? Clearly the burden of proof lies with those who loudly affirm the existence of mental illness or disease but fail to demonstrate biblically that it exists. Until such a demonstration is forthcoming, the only safe course to follow is to declare with all of Scripture that the genesis of such human problems is twofold, not threefold."
On medication
Page 108, Adams refers to James 5:14-16 about the sick calling on the elders of the church to pray over him anointing him with oil: "…What James advocated was the use of consecrated, dedicated medicine. In this passage he urged the treating of sickness by medical means accompanied by prayer. The two are to be used together; neither to the exclusion of the other…"
And in a footnote on page 142: "The excessive use of pills among psychiatrists and physicians is alarming. Sometimes personality is so distorted by mood-effecting drugs that it is difficult for the counselor to know whether he is talking to the person or the pill. Whenever possible, the prescribing physician should be contacted to determine whether the pills could not be eliminated or dosage reduced during counseling. Pills may remove much motivation by lessening pain and depression. While not all medication is unnecessary, clearly much is. There may be cases in which the counselor must refuse to work with the client until the use of drugs has been moderated or eliminated. No nouthetic counselor advises about the use of drugs unless he is a physician, but whenever possible he should become acquainted with a physician whose judgment and advice can help him make his own judgments."
And in a footnote on page 142: "The excessive use of pills among psychiatrists and physicians is alarming. Sometimes personality is so distorted by mood-effecting drugs that it is difficult for the counselor to know whether he is talking to the person or the pill. Whenever possible, the prescribing physician should be contacted to determine whether the pills could not be eliminated or dosage reduced during counseling. Pills may remove much motivation by lessening pain and depression. While not all medication is unnecessary, clearly much is. There may be cases in which the counselor must refuse to work with the client until the use of drugs has been moderated or eliminated. No nouthetic counselor advises about the use of drugs unless he is a physician,ut whenever possible he should become acquainted with a physician whose judgment and advice can help him make his own judgments."
The impression I get is that-if you read the whole book-
you come away thinking virtually all medication is unnecessary,
but comments like this show a distinction between OVERmedicating
and proper dosage. I'm not sure Adams wasn't "hedging his bets"
and basically allowing for people to claim he said both at once.
For situations NOT the result of a chemical imbalance, or requiring a chemical rebalancing,
I think this was quite a handy book.
For true psychiatric (medical) problems, however, the smart thing for the reader
I'm just trying to picture a Corps person with a 2-week class under the belt trying to consult with a physician about reducing a psychotic patient's medication....
I had 2 believer friends who trusted "professional" people who put them on medication rather than having believers pray for them. They're both dead. One at 42 the other at 54, both from complications with their meds. No thanks.
The key word in my post is "trusted". Sometimes trust is immediate, as in trusting that your car can make it between two objects. Other times it is long range, as in trusting the same person or organization to service your car or something like that.
Summed up in a few words? What was I supposed to do, write a full biography on these 2 people?
I trust God's word and other people who do the same more than I trust the wisdom of men. Those people are not just dispensing meds; there's a whole belief system behind that crap. I even think it was criminal for that doctor to prescribe the handful of meds the 42 year old had to take twice a day. That guy was a great believer; had a big heart for God. Dead at 42. You think that's normal? You think that was God's will?
To be fair, I do know a man who takes some kind of prescription medication for depression. He seems fine. If you think I'm one of those people who is always criticizing other peoples' "lack of believing" as a value judgement, no way.
There are many viewpoints here. I'm not saying mine is the only one, I'm saying I trust God more than I trust the lucrative AMA. Some self serving men may have been in the place that taught me the word of God, but their self serving actions don't trump God himself. Like I say...whom do you trust?
Perhaps the most USELESS class I've ever taken is the "Witnessing and Undershepherding" class.
As far as I'm conserned, it was just another way to get your money from you while boreing you with inane drivel. They even admitted to making up the word "undershepherding" (just TRY to find that one in the dictionary)!
On the Positive side, probably the most fruitful TWI class I've ever taken was the "Understanding Biblical Research" class by Walter Cummins. I've gotten more out of that one than even the error riddled PFAL classes.
From what I've heard on this board, I count myself lucky that I didn't have to take the WAP class.
I dunno, it is hard to pick WHICH class was the most useless...there were so many....
I think imo Christian family and sex was probably the worst......Was I supposed to be impressed with all of the slang that rolled so smoothly offa his tongue.....and did old vp REALLY think that we needed pictures? ....ick
It all boiled down to treat your man like a king and be an angel in the kitchen and devil in the bedroom....now THERE is something usefull to carry me through the rest of my life
FYI WHENEVER anyone takes any medication you should always be aware of possible side effects. These can be found on line but are also should be provided by pharmacy you get the drugs from. Ask the doctor or pharmacist what symptoms to look for-be aware. You should also make sure the doctor knows all meds you are taking-including over the counter. Even more important is make sure the pharmacy/pharmacist has all the drugs you are taking (easiest if you get all meds from same pharmacy) because their computer programs have info on how drugs can affect each other and what drugs can make other medical conditions you might have worse. Pharmacists know more about the drugs-doctors know more about illness.
I dunno, it is hard to pick WHICH class was the most useless...there were so many....
I think imo Christian family and sex was probably the worst......Was I supposed to be impressed with all of the slang that rolled so smoothly offa his tongue.....and did old vp REALLY think that we needed pictures? ....ick
It all boiled down to treat your man like a king and be an angel in the kitchen and devil in the bedroom....now THERE is something usefull to carry me through the rest of my life
And Martindale carried it one step further in 1994/95(?)...............with his Biblical Principles of a Believer's Family class, the class replaced CF&S. The grey lines of sexual boundaries just got greyer.
No strong stance on adultery......[no surprise there].
Craig and Donna shared about their marriage principles.......
This strictly audio "class" was recorded in Gunnnison and was later run on the field. If I remember correctly, the fee was $40. It was pawned off as a class. What a joke.
Don't forget LCM told singles over 20-something it is OK to go out and get yourself some. Remember the line about if he had 27 year old son who wasn't married yet? He wouldn't expect him (or anyone who is divorced) to wait to be married to have sex.
My BC's wife went wild with that one. She kept telling everyone to get laid so they could stop being so religious.
Don't forget LCM told singles over 20-something it is OK to go out and get yourself some. Remember the line about if he had 27 year old son who wasn't married yet? He wouldn't expect him (or anyone who is divorced) to wait to be married to have sex.
My BC's wife went wild with that one. She kept telling everyone to get laid so they could stop being so religious.
Wayfer Not,
Looking back on all this craziness.....
Martindale had no business teaching on the categories of "Christian"....."Family"......."Sex."
Recommended Posts
likeaneagle
I never heard of that class..was that a Corp requirement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
Don't you mean debbil spirits? :blink: When it came down to it. twi was not able to help to many people with mental illness because they failed to see what really caused it. Most people with a mental illness did not stay around to long. They were labled as having those debbel spirits running through their mind and shunned, imho.
Hmmm let me get back with you on the most worthless class. I need to look in my corps notes. Bet I can find a doozy or two in those.
Edited by justloafingLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Was there a textbook for that class,
and, if so, was it Jay Adams' "Competent to Counsel"?
A corps person once recommended it to me as a good read on the subject.
(Interestingly enough, it's not exactly limited to twi people in terms of
who owns a copy.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Yes, it was a Corps requirement. I took it the one year I was in-res. The textbook was called Competent to Counsel. Believe me, we weren't.
-- Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
gotcha, I remember now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i read the text
i don't think i was supposed to[not corps]
and man did i learn how to council
i counciled my best friend right out of his marrage!
thank god he is still my best friend but it took awhile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Don't know, never took it.
I can remember not being able to stop laughing during "Keys to Research"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Me personally - I really got into Jay Adams' stuff. I found his work to be a breath of fresh air from TWI's stifling legalism. I agree with Shazdancer - we TWI folk weren't competent to counsel. Probably because Adams' idea of counseling Christians was dealing with them as morally responsible people expected to follow the dictates of Scripture. That's fundamentally at odds with TWI's litmus test for a good believer - are you abundant sharing, attending every meeting, getting the tapes and magazines and believe the Board of Trustees are gods on a stick [or how about "shtick"].
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's been quite a while.
I have a dim impression that Adams thought there were no such thing as true
psychatric disorders that require medication or institutionalization.
Is that correct that he said that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I am somewhat familiar with Adams' stuff – I liked a lot of his ideas – but like everything else I read – I try to exercise good critical thinking skills – picking and choosing things that I think are valid. While in TWI I enjoyed Adams' books more as a self-help tool [along the lines of cognitive therapy] – and didn't portray myself as a qualified Christian counselor to others but as a believer providing friendship/empathy/feedback/help in identifying the problem and resolving the issue with the understanding of "this is what worked for me." I viewed his counseling tactics as good for most general run-of-the-mill problems and issues in the Christian walk. In my opinion, a simplified description of how Adams and TWI differ is on their viewpoint: Adams attributes a Christian's problem to personal sin and needs to take morally responsible action to resolve it – following the dictates of Scripture. Whereas, TWI tends to spiritualize the situation, suggesting the believer is under attack by devil spirits or possessed and needs to obey the dictates of leadership to resolve the problem.
As to your question WordWolf, I have quoted below from his Competent to Counsel book – and it appears your recollection is fairly close.
Concerning psychiatric disorders and institutionalization
Page 17-19: "…Nearly all recent counseling books for ministers, even conservative ones, are written from the Freudian perspective in the sense that they rest largely upon the presumptions of the Freudian ethic of non-responsibility...Mental health institutes are conducted in order to persuade ministers that they cannot [more often the wording is "dare not"] help the "mentally ill." The big words at such conferences are "defer" and "refer." …This book strikes an entirely new note, a note which is long overdue. Rather than defer and refer to psychiatrists steeped in their humanistic dogma, ministers of the gospel and other Christian workers who have been called by God to help his people out of their distress, will be encouraged to resume their privileges and responsibilities. Shall they defer and refer? Only as an exception, never as the rule, and then only to other more competent Christian workers. Their task is to confer. The thesis of this book is that qualified Christian counselors properly trained in the Scriptures are competent to counsel – more competent than psychiatrists or anyone else…The real issue for the minister is referral. At this point he cannot dodge the question. He must ask himself, shall I refer my parishioner to a psychiatrist or a mental institution, or can I do something for him? In view of these recent changes, he must reevaluate the propaganda of the last generation and ask anew, "How much can I do?" But in order to answer that question, it is necessary for him to come to some conclusions about the true nature of the problems of the so-called "mentally ill." The question must be considered from a biblical perspective, beginning with scriptural presuppositions, refusing to Baptize Freud [or Mowrer, for that matter]. Such a consideration reveals that the central issue boils down to a discussion of the question: Is the fundamental problem of persons who come for personal counseling sickness or sin?"
Page 28: "…The fact is that the words "mental illness" are used quite ambiguously…Organic malfunctions affecting the brain that are caused by brain damage, tumors, gene inheritance, glandular or chemical disorders, validly may be termed mental illnesses. But at the same time a vast number of other human problems have been classified as mental illnesses for which there is no evidence that they have been engendered by disease or illness at all. As a description of many of these problems, the term mental illness is nothing more than a figure of speech, and in most cases a poor one at that. To put the issue simply: the Scriptures plainly speak of both organically based problems as well as those problems that stem from sinful attitudes and behavior; but where, in all of God's Word, is there so much as a trace of any third source of problems which approximate the modern concept of "mental illness"? Clearly the burden of proof lies with those who loudly affirm the existence of mental illness or disease but fail to demonstrate biblically that it exists. Until such a demonstration is forthcoming, the only safe course to follow is to declare with all of Scripture that the genesis of such human problems is twofold, not threefold."
On medication
Page 108, Adams refers to James 5:14-16 about the sick calling on the elders of the church to pray over him anointing him with oil: "…What James advocated was the use of consecrated, dedicated medicine. In this passage he urged the treating of sickness by medical means accompanied by prayer. The two are to be used together; neither to the exclusion of the other…"
And in a footnote on page 142: "The excessive use of pills among psychiatrists and physicians is alarming. Sometimes personality is so distorted by mood-effecting drugs that it is difficult for the counselor to know whether he is talking to the person or the pill. Whenever possible, the prescribing physician should be contacted to determine whether the pills could not be eliminated or dosage reduced during counseling. Pills may remove much motivation by lessening pain and depression. While not all medication is unnecessary, clearly much is. There may be cases in which the counselor must refuse to work with the client until the use of drugs has been moderated or eliminated. No nouthetic counselor advises about the use of drugs unless he is a physician, but whenever possible he should become acquainted with a physician whose judgment and advice can help him make his own judgments."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The impression I get is that-if you read the whole book-
you come away thinking virtually all medication is unnecessary,
but comments like this show a distinction between OVERmedicating
and proper dosage. I'm not sure Adams wasn't "hedging his bets"
and basically allowing for people to claim he said both at once.
For situations NOT the result of a chemical imbalance, or requiring a chemical rebalancing,
I think this was quite a handy book.
For true psychiatric (medical) problems, however, the smart thing for the reader
of this book to do is to not interfere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I remember (back in '76 when I was still in Indiana),
one guy in a local fellowship died
because he refused to take his meds.
He was young, married, full of life, had just taken the class,
and decided that he didn't need the meds.
Needless to say -- he did need them. :(
I'm thinking it was that year that docvic (at the ROA), did his thing about:
"Take your medication, and when they make you sick ---
then you know you don't need them anymore"
(Or something along that order).
Don't know if this case was the impetus for the *teaching* he did,
but regardless -- it came too late.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
vpw was always an expert on anything he wanted to expound upon...
..and if following his advice messed you up,
then it was your fault for "insufficient believing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
I'm just trying to picture a Corps person with a 2-week class under the belt trying to consult with a physician about reducing a psychotic patient's medication....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I had 2 believer friends who trusted "professional" people who put them on medication rather than having believers pray for them. They're both dead. One at 42 the other at 54, both from complications with their meds. No thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
John
That is such a cheap shot. A whole life or 2 whole lifes summed up in a few words.
If you are so smart why didn't you pray for them or listen to God for the deliverance.
Maybe God sent them to the doctor for them to get a few more days then they had.
Maybe they would of died no matter what they did. Face it vp died. Paul died. Moses died.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
John
Thanks for making my point so clear.
Lets see if its up to you don't go to a Dr.
Because they will always give you the wrong meds that
will kill you.
And if you have any other problem just pray.
Perhaps drug inventions are Godly inspired to keep some
of us alive. I wonder if any pharmacist or doctors could be
cristian?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Hmm. Irisheyes are definitely not smiling.
The key word in my post is "trusted". Sometimes trust is immediate, as in trusting that your car can make it between two objects. Other times it is long range, as in trusting the same person or organization to service your car or something like that.
Summed up in a few words? What was I supposed to do, write a full biography on these 2 people?
I trust God's word and other people who do the same more than I trust the wisdom of men. Those people are not just dispensing meds; there's a whole belief system behind that crap. I even think it was criminal for that doctor to prescribe the handful of meds the 42 year old had to take twice a day. That guy was a great believer; had a big heart for God. Dead at 42. You think that's normal? You think that was God's will?
To be fair, I do know a man who takes some kind of prescription medication for depression. He seems fine. If you think I'm one of those people who is always criticizing other peoples' "lack of believing" as a value judgement, no way.
There are many viewpoints here. I'm not saying mine is the only one, I'm saying I trust God more than I trust the lucrative AMA. Some self serving men may have been in the place that taught me the word of God, but their self serving actions don't trump God himself. Like I say...whom do you trust?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Technobyte
Perhaps the most USELESS class I've ever taken is the "Witnessing and Undershepherding" class.
As far as I'm conserned, it was just another way to get your money from you while boreing you with inane drivel. They even admitted to making up the word "undershepherding" (just TRY to find that one in the dictionary)!
On the Positive side, probably the most fruitful TWI class I've ever taken was the "Understanding Biblical Research" class by Walter Cummins. I've gotten more out of that one than even the error riddled PFAL classes.
From what I've heard on this board, I count myself lucky that I didn't have to take the WAP class.
All done...
Tech
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I dunno, it is hard to pick WHICH class was the most useless...there were so many....
I think imo Christian family and sex was probably the worst......Was I supposed to be impressed with all of the slang that rolled so smoothly offa his tongue.....and did old vp REALLY think that we needed pictures? ....ick
It all boiled down to treat your man like a king and be an angel in the kitchen and devil in the bedroom....now THERE is something usefull to carry me through the rest of my life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
John,
FYI WHENEVER anyone takes any medication you should always be aware of possible side effects. These can be found on line but are also should be provided by pharmacy you get the drugs from. Ask the doctor or pharmacist what symptoms to look for-be aware. You should also make sure the doctor knows all meds you are taking-including over the counter. Even more important is make sure the pharmacy/pharmacist has all the drugs you are taking (easiest if you get all meds from same pharmacy) because their computer programs have info on how drugs can affect each other and what drugs can make other medical conditions you might have worse. Pharmacists know more about the drugs-doctors know more about illness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And Martindale carried it one step further in 1994/95(?)...............with his Biblical Principles of a Believer's Family class, the class replaced CF&S. The grey lines of sexual boundaries just got greyer.
No strong stance on adultery......[no surprise there].
Craig and Donna shared about their marriage principles.......
This strictly audio "class" was recorded in Gunnnison and was later run on the field. If I remember correctly, the fee was $40. It was pawned off as a class. What a joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Skyrider,
Don't forget LCM told singles over 20-something it is OK to go out and get yourself some. Remember the line about if he had 27 year old son who wasn't married yet? He wouldn't expect him (or anyone who is divorced) to wait to be married to have sex.
My BC's wife went wild with that one. She kept telling everyone to get laid so they could stop being so religious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Wayfer Not,
Looking back on all this craziness.....
Martindale had no business teaching on the categories of "Christian"....."Family"......."Sex."
He just wasn't qualified.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.