Caring for the whole person



Professional opinion on sources behind human behavior has experienced a social revolution. 

The new authority in behavioral science is more multi-dimensional than ever before. Biopsychology holds the chief seat but maintains a vested relationship with pharmacology, medicine and the insurance industry.

Over the past decade or so, I’ve felt a growing uneasiness with the relationship between psychology and business. And I’ve suggested that we need more thoughtful conversation about the potential dangers of these alliances.

As the fields of counseling, psychotherapy and biopsychiatry have increasingly become profit-driven driven, I’ve grown more nervous about their market interests. It’s worth asking if the narratives being used for assessing behavior are potentially self-serving to business interests and profits in ways that could hurt those in need.

The big picture

The two most prominent narratives for understanding human behavior are nurture (social context) and nature (genes and brain chemistry). Consider a basic overview of these two sources.


For many years, social context has supplied the main narrative for understanding personal behavior. The roles of parents and other significant adults or life-altering circumstances explain most of your current thoughts, attitudes, emotions and behaviors. You are the product of social context. Focus in this narrative looks at how you were hurt or helped by others. Were you deprived of nurture as a child? The things done to you or withheld from you, explain you. For many years, this has been the dominant assumption behind most psychotherapy. Words like “wounded,” ”dysfunctional” and “co-dependent” became stock vocabulary for psychiatrist.

The nurture assumption also defined the primary objectives for helping wounded people heal. The path to healing focused on rebuilding self-esteem through therapy. Over time therapeutic psychology highly influenced public education so that teachers had to add building self-esteem to their educational agenda. Early on in this narrative, the person who saw a psychiatrist bore a social stigma for needing a “shrink.” But it soon became fashionable to go to therapy to see your personal therapist/psychiatrist. In social and behavioral sciences, therapeutic psychology occupied the authoritative seat in helping people with life issues. But the recent emergence of bio-psycholgy and pharmacotherapy dethroned therapeutic psychology.


Advancements in science (particularly in genetics and neuroscience) gave way to new conclusions about human behavior. Scientific discoveries led researchers to conclude that our lives are largely shaped by genetic physical conditions and brain chemistry. This narrative is offered as the most objective explanation for emotions and behaviors and gave rise to the discipline of biopsychiatry. It also shifted the source for diagnosis and cure toward medical professionals. As progress was made in these fields a new leader took a seat at the table: pharmacotherapy. This led to a kind of wedding between big business pharmacology, the insurance industry and biopsychology.

Without denying the effects of social context, biopsychiatry appears to offer the hard scientific conclusions as a reigning narrative for the sources and cures to human behavior. And, since sources to behavior trace to your body and brain, medical prescriptions (it’s postulated) offer the most objective solutions. It’s now accepted dogma that neuro-chemical deficiencies explain a host of personal problems ranging from depression and anxiety to learning deficiencies.

The primary example of the influence of biopsychiatry is the exponential increase in depression and anxiety diagnoses and the prescription of medications for alleviating them. Treatment of depression in outpatient services increased by 300% toward the end of the 20th century. Antidepressant medications have become the largest selling prescription drugs in America. During the 1990s, spending increased by 600% exceeding 7 billion dollars annually by the year 2000. Estimates now indicate that major depression afflicts 10-12% of Americans. A disconcerting by-product has been an inability to distinguish biologically based depression from normal sadness.

Shifting focus

Until recently nurture has provided the dominant narrative and therapeutic psychiatry has been the authoritative discipline for helping people understand their behavior. But relatively recent breakthroughs in science and medicine shifted mainstream opinion toward nature as the new reigning narrative for explaining behavior.

The new authority in behavioral science is now a big business merger of biopsychology, pharmacology, medicine and the insurance industry. If profit-driven interests occupy a controlling piece of the narrative, the losers in this arrangement will likely be counselees and patients. I realize that this is not a problem easily solved but it ought to be an issue receiving more focus and discussion.

More objective efforts are needed in working toward a holistic narrative for helping people understand themselves and their problems. The merging of big business and behavioral research is a slippery and potentially harmful alliance. Furthermore, human beings are more complicated than their narratives of nurture and nature. Each dimension offers important considerations but neither should be permitted to exclude the other.

Another discipline

An additional discipline should also be invited to the table. The discipline of theology offers a wider perspective because it reinforces the fact that God created humans as physical, social, psychological and spiritual beings. When counseling others, each of these dimensions should be considered. The counselor who respects this view of humanity will be better situated to help those in need.

Appeal to Christian counselors

Christian counselors should use the widest possible lens for understanding and addressing human behavior. A theologically grounded vision of humanity provides counselors with a unique advantage for being holistically honest in dealing with human problems. Counselors who understand that God has made us physical, social, psychological and spiritual beings (with three dimensions of personhood: emotion, intellect and volition) will not disrespect any part or dimension of humanity when helping others.

Those who accept the Biblical narrative of creation in God’s image and the subsequent fall from this glory will also acknowledge (from Scripture and empirical evidence) that the most corrupting and alienating force in the world (sin) has affected each dimension of life.

Counseling that does not take seriously this painful truth will be superficial at best and ultimately harmful.

Counselors who accept the multidimensional nature of humanity are better positioned to avoid inadequate and hurtful conclusions on the sources behind behavior.

Steve Cornell

About Wisdomforlife

Just another worker in God's field.
This entry was posted in Behavior, Biopsychology, Change, Christian Counselor, Counseling, Depression, Despair, Holistic ministry, Psychology, Social work, Spiritual growth, Spiritual inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Caring for the whole person

  1. Reblogged this on Wisdomforlife and commented:

    As the fields of counseling, psychotherapy and biopsychiatry have increasingly become profit-driven driven, I’ve grown more nervous about their market interests. It’s worth asking if the narratives being used for assessing behavior are potentially self-serving to business interests and profits in ways that could hurt those in need.

  2. Pingback: The expanded role of medical doctors | Wisdomforlife

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s