In a previous article, I presented a practical way Christians can exercise discernment as we interact with psychology’s many truth claims. As we hear and read the various assertions made by modern-day psychologists and Christian integrationists, we must carefully distinguish between their observations, interpretations, and applications. We may often agree with a psychologist’s observations of problematic behavior because observations require the least amount of interaction with one’s underlying worldview.
Our disagreement often occurs at the interpretational level because an interpretation (diagnosis) is the fruit of synthesizing the observations and drawing conclusions about the cause of those behaviors based on our convictions about God, humans, and the source of our problems. The application (remedy/intervention) is built upon this second step and will therefore also be different based upon one’s underlying worldview.
In order to help us see how this distinguishing between observations and interpretations works in practice, I’ve chosen the book Raising Emotionally Strong Boys by David Thomas. I chose this book because the author is a Christian psychologist. Methodologically, he is an integrationist, which means that he is blending Christian theology with psychological theory in order to provide his readers with what he believes is the best advice to parents of boys.
As a licensed master social worker, however, Thomas’s training is primarily in the field of psychology, even though he does exhibit knowledge of Scripture. And herein lies the challenge. When Christian leaders and counselors utilize psychology in their instructions to parents, the task of discernment becomes increasingly difficult as it becomes increasingly necessary. The appearance of plausibility is bolstered by Thomas’ training and his faith in Christ. It is for this very reason that parents must tread ever so carefully.
Helping Boys Manage Feelings of Shame
The aim of the book is captured well in the title. Thomas wants to help parents raise boys who are not at the mercy of their emotions. A noble goal to be sure, but one that is, as we will see, hindered by a reliance upon psychological theory and a superficial use of the Bible.
In a section discussing how to help boys manage feelings of shame, Thomas describes typical behaviors boys exhibit when faced with a failure or disappointment. When he can’t find one of his possessions, a boy may blame his mother for misplacing it. When he fails a test, he may blame his teachers for their poor teaching. When he doesn’t get enough playing time, he blames the coaches. When there is a conflict with another sibling, he blames his sibling (see 87-88).
Each of these are legitimate observations. I remember this kind of behavior from when I was a young boy, and I’ve seen these tendencies in my own children. How do we explain this kind of behavior, and what should be done about it? With these inquiries, we turn to our underlying convictions about God, humans, how we are made, and what our deepest problems are to help us provide a context for this behavior and locate a remedy.
From these observations, Thomas states: “Neither blame nor shame is healthy. Neither is helpful” (88). While those sentences may sound innocuous, they are loaded with theological assumptions. In other words, Thomas is making an interpretation about the nature of shame and the seriousness of blaming others when we’ve experienced failure, disappointment, or frustration.
Importantly, Thomas’s statement tells us that his primary concern is the emotional health of the child. Thomas is worried that blaming and shaming might damage the child’s emotional well-being. But the child’s “emotion well-being,” is a self-focused concern. He continues:
Both [blame and shame] keep him from healthy ownership and cleaning up his side of the street. Blame involves deflection and avoidance. Shame involves self-contempt and sabotage. Neither moves him toward restoration and resolution (88).
While these may appear as basic observations, they are interpretations built upon a theological misunderstanding of what shame really is. Specifically, this paragraph reveals that Thomas has a different view of shame than Scripture does. He says shame is unhealthy because it involves “self-contempt and sabotage.”
A Healthy Kind of Self-Contempt
In fact, there is a healthy kind of self-contempt that leads to repentance and genuine change. Indeed, Scripture calls the believer to self-contempt when we’ve sinned. Far from sabotaging our emotional health, genuine shame leads to true confession of sin, pleading with God for heart-level change, recognition of God’s amazing grace, and the joy of a renewed relationship with God (Ps 51; Luke 18:13; 1 Tim 1:12-17). Without shame for sin, there can be no repentance and no lasting “health.”
It should come as no surprise that Thomas’ proposed remedy does not include repentance, faith, biblical instruction, and heart change. Rather, he proceeds with physical solutions.
Healthy ownership typically starts with moving blood flow from the back to the front [of the pre-frontal cortex]. That process of regulation that allows him to think rationally and manage his emotions (88).
While there may be wisdom in taking a deep breath, such wisdom is not the prerogative or exclusive insight of psychology, nor does a parent need knowledge of brain function or cerebral blood flow in order to instruct his or her child in the area of self-control. Scripture repeatedly calls us to be slow to anger, to guard our mouths, and to control our tempers (Prov 14:17, 29; James 1:19). Once the child has been brought under control by the Spirit’s help, then we can begin to think through the failed test or that fight with our sibling. Even if a child is not yet a Christian, he must be directed in these categories.
Thomas then instructs parents to move on to talking with their son through the issue, recognizing that boys will lean more heavily toward shame or blame. Earlier, Thomas explained that shame is expressed when boys say things like, “I’m such an idiot,” or “I’m the worst member of the family” (88). Unfortunately, Thomas has conflated genuine shame (a prerequisite of repentance) with mere self-deprecation. When a young man talks like this, it may very well be an indication that he deeply desires praise from others (e.g., his fellow family members), which is rooted in ungodly pride. But this is no indication of shame. At the very most, we could call it a “false” shame.
Due to his confused understanding and description of shame, Thomas’s solutions are spiritually superficial and do not go to the root of the problem. The remedy remains on the level of minor adjustments in the child’s thinking and never addresses the boy’s relationship with Christ and his Word.
Move from there to helping him make some different declarations that land him in the space of healthy ownership. Statements like “I didn’t get the grade I wanted. I didn’t prepare as well as I could have. Or, “I lose my temper over the iPad, but you told me how long I had before I started and gave me a five-minute warning.” Or, “I hated the outcome of the game, but I didn’t spend much time practicing last week” (89).
While there is nothing wrong with these suggestions as such, they do not go deep enough, nor do they make any use of divine wisdom or the gospel of God’s grace. When a child doesn’t get the grade he wanted, it may be true that he didn’t prepare well enough. Perhaps he was lazy (Prov 13:4) or he didn’t manage his time well (Eph 5:15-16). In either case, it is a matter of stewardship (Matt 25:14-30; 1 Cor 4:2), and the child must be shown that all his work must be done heartily as unto the Lord (Col 3:23). In the context of discipleship, a poor grade is a natural consequence that the Lord uses to teach us wisdom (Prov 14:16). The gospel provides the child with hope, for even when we fail to fulfill our tasks, those who are united to Christ by faith are still eternally forgiven (Col 2:13; Rom 8:32-39) and can experience God’s relational forgiveness as we confess our sins (1 John 1:9). This grace then enables us to work harder next time as we are motivated by God’s amazing mercy and love (1 Cor 15:10; see also Eph 2:8-10).
But it’s also possible the young man did work hard and managed his time well. What then? As sons of Adam, we all are tempted to blame others for our failures (Gen 3:8ff). The blame, however, is really directed at God, for he is the one ultimately responsible for our circumstances (Deut 32:39). When we do our best, obey the Lord, and yet our situation does not turn out the way we desired, our hearts can only be satisfied as we trust the goodness of God in our lives (Prov 3:5-6; Ps 100:5; Rom 8:28) and are willing to not only accept our circumstances, but remain thankful to God in the midst of them (1 Thess 5:18).
Better than “Coping”
For Thomas, the aim is to help our child to develop “coping” skills (89). But coping is not a biblical virtue. The aim in the Christian life is not merely to “deal with” our troubles but to keep believing in and glorifying God in the thick of them (2 Cor 4:16-18; Heb 10:32-36). The Bible calls this perseverance and endurance (Eph 6:18; Heb 10:36; Col 3:11). Far better than coping with our trials is persevering through with the hope of the glory of God (Rom 5:1-5).
We see, then, that Thomas is not simply providing us with evidence-based, objective, unbiased knowledge of how young boys should manage their emotions. He is running his observations through an interpretive grid—a grid that is, unfortunately, more attuned to psychological theory and vocabulary than it is with the theology and language of Scripture.
To practice sound discernment, Christians must be able to distinguish between observations and interpretations (and their subsequent applications). This skill will guard us from uncritically embracing plausible-sounding arguments that are rooted in human reason rather than the wisdom of God (Col 2:1-8).
