Introduction (April ~ 2017)

The time covered in the book of Judges in the Old Testament was a time prior to Israel having a King. God set up judges to rule over the land and fulfill His Will for the nation of Israel.  

There would be coming a day that God would choose a King, yet Israel in their lack of faith demanded the King prior to God’s Will (1 Samuel 8:22) and received what they asked for, King Saul.  In due time God’s choice for their King, King David would come to the throne (1 Samuel 16:1).

“Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.  And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.  And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.”  (1 Sam. 8:19-22)

“And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.”  (1 Sam. 16:1)

One lesson we can reap from this is that God’s Will involves not only the specific details of His desires for His people but also the timing of when they should occur.  In addition, unfortunately sometimes we get what we ask for when we do not trust in God’s Will or timing, and subsequently, pay the price as Israel did.

The last part of the book of Judges, starting in chapter 21 does not specifically advance the narrative of this time in history, but as Warren Wiersbe states:

“Rather, they give frightening glimpses of the low religious, moral, and political state to which Israel had sunk during the period of the judges.”

Let us consider Judges 21:25, which states:

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

This displays what occurs when there is no leader/authority, which God has ordained, and a nation is left in moral bankruptcy like what Israel was going through at this time.  It is when people lean exclusively on their own understanding, and not God’s word, that evil overcomes the land.

Yet some would say: what harm is there in this statement -”Everyone did what was right in their own eyes”?

Let us consider this question (question #1) and seek to find if there any similarities in today’s world in regards to this statement (question #2)?

On a personal level:

• There are emotional implications,
• There are problematic reasoning consequences, and most importantly
• There are spiritual ramifications

On a social level:

Everything becomes that much more exponentially exhaustive as each person affects another, which affects another, which affects yet another.

The Emotive and Cognitive Implications

As a counselor, as well as a Christian, I have never run across an individual that is naturally “comfortable” with being wrong, or even admitting so.

Human beings by their very nature must feel justified in their behavior and in their thinking.

Even whenever humans commit obvious criminal behaviors, they must have a justification of why it was the right thing to do or at the least done for the right reason. 

Moreover, these rationalizations become patterns of thinking which are entrenched, and very difficult for people to break.

Confession of Sins

It is this inability to be comfortable with being wrong (many times unknown even to ourselves), that drives just about everything that we as humans do. This form of “rightness” may be seen in a number of different ways; like wanting to believe that we are good parents, good businessmen, good cops, or just good human beings – it is an innate drive.

We can confess we “were” wrong in the past, a while ago, but only because we are “now” right. “A few minutes ago I was wrong, but now I’ve got it right.”

Persons may confess to a crime, and while they may have got caught, and know what they did was wrong and appear contrite (or more correctly, remorseful – many times having to receive the penalty of the consequences is what drives a lot of remorse, not the guilt or shame of the act itself), they still have a reason for their behavior in their minds even if they don’t state it.

In my practice, I am aware that it is a positive sign when people gain the ability to ADMIT they are wrong and become more “comfortable” in taking ownership of it.  That is better than simply intellectualizing the idea that sometimes I might be wrong (and commit false humility in doing so), and disconnect from those feeling by using a false mental self-statement.

I must come to an understanding that I am wrong and thus must do something about it – if not today, then soon.

It is better to be honest about our sin, admitting it, even if we are not willing to correct it in the present, then to downplay the law, lowering its power by defending wrong actions and belittling the rules – those that God “SET IN STONE“. The next step is to accept correction. 

“For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” (Proverbs 3:12).

This does not mean it is OK to keep on sinning, just that we should never attempt to change the law, or believe that our wrong is really right.  

As Isaiah 5:20 says:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”   

Witnessing the WHOLE truth of the Gospel

This is why whenever we are sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with someone; they must first understand they are sinners, in need of saving before anything else can transpire.

We all must come to grips first with our sin nature, and the fact that we are all dead in our trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1-5), and unable to save ourselves. We are guilty, end of the statement. It is at this very healthy point, and only here; that saving grace by faith is a possibility.

Denying our guilt is the first sin that we must deal with in order to address what falls afterward. Because it is the sin that attempts to justify all subsequent sins.

In the field of counseling, there is a thing called “Thinking Errors” (This is an example – please do not think I am rationalizing psychology – I am NOT – please see below, after the Endnotes regarding my: Statement Concerning Psychology).  

These are observable, habitual patterns of rationalization that we all as human beings use in order to make our wrongs seem right. The drug addict and criminal use them; but so do the judge, the counselor, and the minister. It’s only to what degree, and how serious the violations, and the frequency, that make the difference.

There are different lists of these “Thinking Errors,” anywhere from 20 to 70 different types, depending on which list you refer too.  Whether we are aware of it or not, we all exhibit one or more of these patterns of rationality, the excuses that we call reasons for doing what we do. It is sort of like driving an automobile: national statistics show that every 30 seconds a motorist violates the law at least once. It seems to be our nature to sin, but also to have a reason for doing so.

An Example

That is why when you get pulled over for violating a traffic law, and the police officer asks you why, most of the time he’ll write you a ticket if you answer that question with an excuse or reason, no matter how good it sounds to you. Because what you stated, and what he would imply by giving you a warning, is that there would be a reason that would justify violating the law.

Usually the only time you will get a warning is when you say that you made a mistake, and it was unintentional, at least if the officer is any good at what he does. Because the worst thing you can do as a law-enforcement officer is to say or imply that some laws are worth keeping, and others are not, or that the officer can arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce, because at this point he stops being a representative of the law, and starts becoming a law unto himself.

The point is simple.  How can man come to the place of knowing what is right, in order to perform it, when our sin nature is so diabolical that it hides itself from us.

The main presupposition that is behind the thought of “doing what is right in your own eyes” is the belief that you have the discernment to determine what is truly correct.¹

If you (incorrectly) believe that your perception is always correct, then you will never seek guidance from a Bible or a God to correctly interpret or evaluate life.  You will believe (incorrectly) that man himself is his own best ruler to judge all things.

SIDENOTE:  I also believe that this drive: “to be right,” is something that God placed within man to protect him from destroying humanity.  When you really think about it, if man could be really comfortable with being wrong, without the necessity of a rationality for sinful behavior, how much worse this world would be. 

If man could kill women and children without a thought of moral correctness, or the mandate to rationalize such behavior; we would have killed ourselves off thousands of years ago as a species.  This innate necessity to do or be right reflects the imageness of God concerning righteousness.  Although this drive is now contaminated by sin, Man is still driven to seek righteousness and justice like His Maker.

By way of contrast, when a man is convoluted into believing that his own perception is perfect, then what chance is there for him to reevaluate and make any corrections? None.

We do not fix what’s not broken. Therefore, he never changes, he never grows, learns from his mistakes, or behaves himself as a better human being, or has a chance of becoming saved by God’s grace, understanding his need to be saved from his sin.

In this case, the only thing that grows is selfishness, and man’s ability to hide it. Selfishness is seen in every false religion, along with every humanitarian and philanthropic pursuit ever conceived.²

Because if I give away everything I own, feed the poor, return love for hate, do nothing but good all the days of my life, it’s still based upon selfishness, because it was done to either gain the esteem of others, or to make myself feel good about myself. Anything done outside of God’s Will is sin, because it is done without God.

There has never been a positive behavior ever witnessed by man that does not profit the person that does it, whether it is how others perceive him, or how they perceive themselves, the motive is always to achieve something positive concerning self.  There is no such thing as a completely pure motive, not within a fallen man.  This is why Jesus guides us to give our alms and gifts of love in private; as well as our prayers, or even fasting (Matthew 6).

Spiritual Implications

The foremost problem that I see in “every man doing what is right in his own eyes” is there must be a rejection of God because the person becomes their own god.

Moreover, the title, “god”, by its very definition (and in spite of polytheism, which becomes rationally problematic in addressing this question), invokes the idea of one that has power over another (as seen in its usage in the Old Testament, and even Jesus ~ John 10:34-35 / Psa. 82:6 in reference to earthly judges).

Therefore, doing what is right in one’s own eyes is making oneself “god,” and antithetical to Christianity. Therefore, spiritually speaking, you cannot be a Christian and live by this ethic.

To be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ. Jesus Christ displayed submission to God’s Will³, and what was right in the sight of God in every detail of His human life.

Jesus was void of selfishness because He was void of sin. When we see Him at the most crucial point of His human existence, having the power to avoid the most terrifying thing that He could ever experience, that of being separated from God the Father, His response was: “not my will but thine be done” (Luke 22:42). That is the polar opposite to the fallen man’s response to discomfort and pain or fear.

Yes, Jesus knew that the Father would resurrect Him, but don’t allow this to take from the fact of what He went through something that you and I could never understand in all of our eternal existence, that of being separated from God the Father, as only the Son could understand it.

We have no capacity whatsoever to be able to understand the depth of pain that He went through for us by being separated from God the Father.

We can fathom no sympathy or empathy⁴ for this pain, and to say or imply otherwise is not only condescending, but irreverent (In fact it displays a heretical mindset).

Therefore, for a Christian to make the statement that he “would do what right in his own eyes” is an anathema to Christianity, and proves he is not a true believer in Jesus Christ.

The second question – Are There Any Similarities in Today.

I would say the similarities are uncanny. In fact, this credo probably better defines the mindset in the 21st century, than it did back then.

Caveat
These views might seem to be cynical concerning humanity. First and foremost, they are Biblical views.  Secondly, it is an emotionally healthy point of view in that, within this point of view, there are no great expectations when it comes to how humans behave.

You have heard it say that one of the greatest causes of depression is unmet expectations, there is no doubt that broken expectations cause a lot of pain and turmoil.

Therefore, expecting less of people will always reduce stress.  In addition, there are those times that we will be filled with joy when we see people move out of their comfort zones, and set aside their natural selfishness and put someone else first.

The definition of God’s type of love for us to mimic is His “sacrificial putting of someone else first”, and it is a beautiful thing to behold. However, we are also told to be “wise as serpents yet as gentle as doves”.⁵

During the 21st century, and especially here in America (with it starting to consume the whole world), there are certain presuppositions that display this utter selfishness. They have become vanguards – using mantras of success.

As Christians, it should not be hard to understand why they are unbiblical (therefore, I will not take the time to run through the Scriptures concerning them).⁶

These expressions are:

• “If It Feels Good, Do It”
• “Anything That Feels this Good, Can’t Be Bad”
• “More Is Better Than Less”
• “Bigger Is Better Than Smaller”
• “Newer Is Better Than Older”
• “Winning Is The Only Thing That Matters”
• “Win At Any Cost”
• “I Want It, Now” (Based Upon Instant Gratification)
• “Sometimes You Have To Do The Wrong Thing, To Get Justice”
• “It’s Okay To Do The Wrong Thing If You Do It For The Right Reason”
• “The Most Important Thing Is The Greater Good”
• “The Ends Justify The Means”

These rationalities are but a few examples of what man can come up with when he lives by the philosophy of “doing what is right in his own eyes.”

The Body of Christ

What is unfortunate is that the church has become the new breeding ground for indoctrination into these presuppositions.  Seeker friendly environments only construct messages, which are centered on people and addressing their day-to-day problems, rather than teaching about God. Self-help is becoming the buzzword of many churches.  Mega-church ministers don’t preach about hell, sin, or other subjects which are uncomfortable to their congregation.⁷ 

Believers are doing what is right in their own eyes.  Such things as modern dance in the church are accepted as true worship.

(SIDENOTE: For those that would attempt to rationalize modern dance in the church utilizing David, the two situations are completely different.  David was not in the temple of the Lord, David was not entertaining people with the church as spectators, making himself the center of attention.  David was worshiping the Lord as the ark was being taken back to the Temple.  If I need to go any further to explain the difference in these situations, there is much more that needs to be considered wherein I cannot attempt to address currently.   Please email me, that way we can discuss this at greater length. If you are concerned about this issue please see Endnote # 10)

The church is becoming impotent due to the pollution of selfishness that is overtaking it. The masses have never got it right: “wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction…” (Matthew 7:13-14).  On a daily basis, we are to live out an understanding that it is God, and God’s Word alone that is our directive for living life. And that it is Jesus, and Jesus alone that should be the center of our services, as well as of our daily walk.

We are moving closer and closer to the dictates of man, rather than the direction of the Spirit in our assemblies.

The Heart

When the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) uses the word “heart”, it is never meant solely the emotions. It is the whole inward of the man, including 1) man’s reason (mind), and his 2) emotions, and his 3) will; which encapsulates the word “heart.”

Man is never to walk according to his emotions, but according to the intellect (the mind – the Mind of Christ, better stated, 1 Cor. 2:16) that God has given man through understanding God’s Word.

Unfortunately, the devil is using our own emotions to make us seek fellowships that make us feel good, yet don’t feed us the Word of God. Believers are doing what is right in their own eyes.

Many believers are confusing their sensual experience of feelings, with the expression of God’s Holy Spirit. They speak about walking into a church service and “feeling” God’s Spirit, which displays their lack of understanding of God’s Word, in light of Jesus teaching concerning the Holy Spirit (John 3:8, as also seen in the Elijah experience as recorded in 1 Kings 19:11-12)⁸  

The Holy Spirit is not to be perceived through our feelings, and when we mix up our emotions with what we think is Spirituality, we pay less attention to the preaching of God’s Word, and we stop truly worshiping God by a sanctified life unto Him.

It is easy to focus on the world and follow the pursuits of our own ambitions, and therefore heed the advice of their own corrupt hearts. Yet, it is God that has always held His people responsible for adhering and listening to His Word, and following His direction, and doing what He says is right – and not what is right in our own eyes.

Brent

“The difference between ‘involvement’ and ‘commitment’ 
is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: 
the chicken was ‘involved’ – the pig was ‘committed’.”

Endnotes

1. Proverbs 12:15 – “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.”
2. Romans 3:10-12 – “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
3. John 5:30 – “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
4. When we feel sympathy for someone we feel sorry for their pain, not having felt that particular pain ourselves. However, when we feel empathy for someone’s pain, we can empathize with them because we too have been through a similar situation as well.  Sympathy is “imagining someone’s pain” and empathy is “feeling someone’s pain.” In both cases, you are relating to someone else, but the words are not actual synonyms! Sympathy is a much more common feeling because we are not as likely to have experienced the same difficult situation as someone else. For instance, I have never gone through chemotherapy, sent a loved one to war, etc., but I definitely feel sympathy for those who have. That’s why “sympathy cards” exist and not “empathy cards”. 
5. Matthew 10:16 – “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”
6. Anyone that wishes any further insight into this area, or proof text please e-mail me.
7. Rick Warren, just to name one; teaches at Pastoral conferences and seminars, that sermons should not deal with the subjects, such as hell, damnation, suffering, dying to self, sacrifice, and stay with other native subjects from the Bible, because uncomfortable subjects will drive away potential parishioners.
8. John 3:8 – “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” I Kings 19:11-13 – “And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah? 
9. John 16:13 – “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
10. Dancing In the Church.  The word dance is used twice in the New Testament, where Jesus referred to a prophecy, and where the daughter of Herodias danced in order to bargain for the death of John the Baptist.  It is used 7 times in the Old Testament, and only 2 of those occasions refer to worship, and never in the sanctuary of the temple or Tabernacle.  The dance was used by the false religions as a means of sexual worship to their gods.  It went hand-in-hand with temple prostitution, as well as the worship of false gods in the gardens and groves.  There are only 3 places in the whole of Scripture which utilize dance is a form of worship, yet again never to be an exposition that is done in the sanctuary where worship was conducted.  It was never used as entertainment, nor were there spectators separate from those that chose to dance, wherein entertainment becomes the medium.  For those that would insist that this was their form of worship to God, let them do so discreetly and dance in their own prayer closets, following Jesus is an admonition to pray in a closet alone unseen by men.  Let them dance before an audience of one, God.  Because of the fallen nature for men to watch women dance does more harm than it is ever done good, otherwise, why is it such an effective tool to entice men to sin and seek after false gods.  There are certain things you cannot do and claim that it is Christian to do.  Prostitution, murdering of babies in the womb, and dancing in front of the congregation but to mention a few.  If I have missed anything, or not considered a valid point please email me so that we can discuss this further.  The last thing I want to do is misrepresent God’s word – how about you?

Conclusionary Statement Concerning Psychology
Whenever I speak utilizing what may be considered psychological tools (such as “Thinking Errors“) or approaches – I always need to make the following statement.

Personal Note:
As a licensed and certified counselor who specializes in substance abuse, as it is related to interpersonal relationships, dual diagnosis, personality and mood disorders; who has been classically trained in many different psychological modalities; I find none of them correct in themselves to deal with the problem of the soul and spirit of man.

ADDED
Having studied almost every psychological modality, I can unequivocally state that everyone of these is a man-centered pursuit, and therefore doomed to ultimate failure as it not only neglects God; but in almost every case is antithetical to God.  There is an old proverb used by a parent to a child which states: “show me your friends, and I will show you your destiny.” 

The point is, though it is our own actions which we are held accountable for, it is observationally true that there is a definite connection between those that we associate with and our own character, or lack of it.  Those that feel the necessity to be identified in the field of psychology display a presupposition, a vulnerability to be accepted within those ranks, and as such; display a lack of preeminence of God in their lives. 

This may be a display of spiritual blindness for those that are believers, or at the least call themselves so; or simply a bad choice (when a believer spends years in college studying psychology, they are highly invested; it is this investment that corrupts their discretion concerning God in His Word – life always comes down to choices).  Christ said it well (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13), “no man can serve two masters...” 

And for those that believe that man-made psychology has the answers to life; by necessity cannot believe that the Bible has the sole answer to the human condition.  I’ve met many professed believers who have convinced themselves that psychology is neutral; neither good nor evil.  This choice to be blind towards psychologies antithetical nature concerning that which is biblical – does not invalidate the condemnation that they will receive for such beliefs. 

There are those of us that attempt to play the role of Daniel, that of working within a corrupt system in order to fulfill God’s Will, without being corrupted ourselves.  However, this can only be done when one acknowledges that the system is corrupt, to begin with because it is opposed to God. 

It was Daniel and his three friends who stated that the dietary requirements of the King were wrong (because it violated God’s direction from His Word) and that God’s Word was superior.  They were braving, even breaching the subject that the current system could be incorrect, but they stood their ground for God; which is witnessed whenever they were persecuted at later points for refusing idol worship and violating God’s Word. 

And for those that attempt to mix psychology and the Bible, all you have to do is listen to their teachings in order to understand that they follow Roger’s presupposition of being “Client Centered” (which many popular modalities incorporate), as opposed to being “God-centered,” wherein they violate the Bible and biblical teachings at every juncture. 

It has, and will always be the analogy of “oil and water,” and as these individuals become more and more enamored in psychology, they harden their heart against God in the process; by hardening their heart against His Word. 

Having spent hundreds of hours, mandated by my licensure; as well as certification, to study many different forms of therapeutic approaches, along with their underlying tools; I can wholeheartedly say that they are man centered, man created, and unbiblical; even those calling themselves Christian psychology, and or Christian counseling.  I have always maintained a 4.0-grade average, while always on Dean’s list. 

Yet, to do so I have learned what to do, concerning test and assignments – I answer their questions according to what they have taught both in the classroom and text, not giving them my belief concerning their statements, but answering their statements according to their own presuppositions and understandings.

Yet, in the classroom or otherwise, I have never compromised my belief system; sharing with all that I disagreed with the psychological approaches, yet displaying that I understood what they had taught, though I disagreed with it. 

Those professors that adamantly disagreed with me were always held captive by the premise that higher education is to provide information that the student is to fully and completely understand, yet when it comes to his own practice, the graduate student is to utilize what he chooses to be the most efficient and effective forms of counseling.  They essentially made it so I could never be penalized for my antithetical views to their own presuppositions.

Psychology:
This is not to say that certain observations and tools used within psychology are not effective, and efficient – they are, worldly speaking  (in achieving humanistic ungodly goals – which in the end contaminate the soul).  Yet, if the observations are correct, it is not because they come out of psychology, but because psychology has observed human nature, and attempted to take credit for what was part of the development and workings of interpersonal relationships.  Let me give you an example.

Psychology gains its credibility based upon its observations (which are to be separated from their tools/treatment and conclusions), yet this does not mean that it is successful, but that it simply appears to be correct wholly based upon its observations, as compared to the end goal of helping an individual deal with problems.  The first problem with this statement is that who defines what the problem is, and how to deal with it, and what is the correct answer.

Psychology is man based and therefore man makes all these determinations.  Yet, one of these determinations is that the concept of God is a sign of emotional or cognitive sickness.  (However, the believer must seek all these answers in God’s Word according to God’s Will, which is always antithetical to man’s will and presuppositions, though man was created in God’s image; after his creation, through the act of willful disobedience and not trusting God in faith, man became a fallen creature that is corrupted through and through.  As they say, you cannot use a sick mind to cure a sick mind.) 

It is these observations that give psychology the credibility with the masses, who are biblically illiterate as a whole.

Let me give you an example concerning its observations. 

Anyone could observe a dog.  How they eat, how they sleep, how they bark, how they interact with other dogs and other animals; their ability to think through complicated situations, and what they need to survive both in the human world and animal kingdom.  Anyone that has spent any amount of time documenting and studying their behavior would in time be able to predict certain conclusions based upon patterns.

This is where psychology has gained its credibility, such individuals as Kevin Leland, who came up with the observation of personality traits according to birth order, who merely studied humanity until patterns emerged – anyone could do it.  Time after time certain observations made in psychology gain credit merely because patterns are identified and understood concerning conclusions.

This is where the credibility of psychology comes in, wherein the patients listening to the practitioner is amazed; yet, these observations have been present for all of the humanity, studied in what was formerly referred to as philosophy (Greek: for the “love of knowledge”), which has always dealt with the makeup of man and his relationship to his Creator and environment. 

Yet, psychology (Greek: for the “study of the soul”), which is still in the infancy of development (less than 200 years old), merely utilizes tools of previous philosophers and scholars concerning the observation of man and his behaviors in order to come to conclusions.

Yet the problem is, utilizing the allegory of the dog, is that by those observations one could make predictions of behavior; yet these predictions would never explain the origin of the dog, the true inner makeup of the dog, the dog’s future, nor evaluate the correctness of its behavior.

The first problem is psychology begins with the premise that man is an animal, and for those Christians that try to mix psychology and Christianity do so while corrupting the presuppositions that are innate to all forms of psychology (there are over 250 modalities, types of psychology), by defying foundational presuppositions, and the Bible as well.

One such example is the common denominator within a majority of those psychological modalities which are currently popular, is what is referred to as “client-centered” (man-centered) in their approach.  However, the Christian must be God-centered in his belief system. 

Man-centered psychology believes that all the problems that man may have are answered from within them (each person has their correctness inside) and that the counselor strives to help them find those answers within themselves, only as a facilitator; yet always guiding the client towards ungodly presuppositions, claiming that their services are benign; wherein reality they have eternal consequences.

The field of psychology has always begun with certain presuppositions; rather stated, hid, or even known by some of its current practitioners.

There are many types of psychology; consequently, there are many different groupings of these presuppositions.  A random listing might consist of Determinism, Experimentalism, Reductionism, Naturalism, and Relativism.  Others might also add Materialism, Evolution, Empiricism, Humanism, and even Occultism.

Therefore, it is only according to the guiding principle and foundation of the Bible that anything in psychology can be loosely handled – such as, what is referred to the observation of “Thinking Errors,” which are simply patterns of excuse making and rationality, in order that a person can rationalize negative behavior which we as Christians call sin.

ADDED
Some of these observations MAY be correct – and as such dealing with them on their own basis is as far as one should go; going any further concerning the simple observations, that of utilizing psychological remedies or treatment, do so by violating Biblical principles in the pursuit. 

Recognizing these observations, these patterns; can become beneficial only in pointing out these deficiencies, which biblically speaking are acts of sin; to the individual so as to confront their sense of denial. 

It is in confronting denial that these tools hold any validity, yet from this point it is the Bible and only the Bible that has the answers.  The Bible is full of Scriptures which speak about the confrontation of denial, especially noted whenever you find the phrase “… did what was right in his own eyes.”

 The Following is a short Essay on “Thinking Errors”:

The following is used with Texas inmate populations – and is meant to serve as an example only.  

Note: that this is merely a presentation, not an endorsement.

THINKING ERRORS

Introduction
Inborn to all humans is the desire to think we are right.  The thief will always rationalize his larceny, the liar his fabrication, and the adulterer his indiscretion.  As the foregoing illustrates, we even devise new words that sound less offensive and attempt to soften our wrong doings. 

Even if our pride compels us to admit we are wrong because we are caught red-handed, and we supposedly assume responsibility for our actions, internally we still justify why our wrong actions were really legitimate. 

Some examples of those internal justifications are, “well that’s just the way I am,” or “everybody knows I have a bad temper, it just gets the best of me,” or “that was what I was taught,” “everyone has a bad day every so often,” or even, “well my heart was in the right place.”  However, these excuses are just that, excuses; and with repeated use seem to affect their consciousness out of existence.

Conscious
A person can rationalize many bad behaviors with their mind but their feelings are not convinced, in spite of the fact that they drown their emotions and refuse to listen to their guilt or shame.  After repeatedly refusing to listen to their emotions (Guilt, shame, remorse, conviction, values, principles, or beliefs), their conscious becomes hard, rigid, scarred and non-pliable. 

They misuse and abuse their conscious to the point that they can not live with themselves if they allow themselves to own up to the wrong that they repeatedly do and plan to keep doing.  To do otherwise, they would be incongruent, inconsistent, and fake with a double standard in the way they live their lives.  The rationale they use to live with themselves is called denial.

They misuse and abuse their conscious to the point that they can not live with themselves if they allow themselves to own up to the wrong that they repeatedly do and plan to keep doing.  To do otherwise, they would be incongruent, inconsistent, and fake with a double standard in the way they live their lives.  The rationale they use to live with themselves is called denial.

Denial
Denial is the defense mechanism that we use to protect something that is wrong.  It is the way we excuse the negative behavior and wrong thinking.  It will either, present a reason that our wrong actions or thinking was really right or divert attention from the real issue at hand, which is, we are wrong.  When humans find themselves in a difficult place of trying to hide or excuse the wrong behavior, denial is the perfect tool with many forms that empower it.

t will either, present a reason that our wrong actions or thinking was really right or divert attention from the real issue at hand, which is, we are wrong. 

When humans find themselves in a difficult place of trying to hide or excuse the wrong behavior, denial is the perfect tool with many forms that empower it.

With use, denial becomes automatic and we are not even aware of it or how it has tainted our thinking.  Some have given denial an acronym that spells out denial.  Don’t Even kNow I Am Lying.  Denial not only hinds and protects our bad behavior, but it hinds itself. 

It is the worst wrong of all wrongs because its job is to hind all other wrongs covertly.  Denial goes beyond being just a tool, to become a technique and a lifestyle.  The reason for this is because of the habituation that becomes a part of our defensive rationale, which in turn corrupts our thinking process.

Denial goes beyond being just a tool, to become a technique and a lifestyle.  The reason for this is because of the habituation that becomes a part of our defensive rationale, which in turn corrupts our thinking process.

Denial assumes many faces, which when habitually practiced becomes ways of thinking, they are called, “Thinking Errors.”

Thinking Errors
It has been wisely said that negative thought processes can perpetuate problematic behavior and result in the generation of negative consequences rather than assisting in our problem solving and the creation of alternative solutions to our daily dilemmas.  Some common thinking errors are:

Anger  Is usually a secondary emotion that hides or is a reaction to a primary emotion: fear, jealousy, or envy.  It can also be a mental reaction to rejection, resentment, greed, self-centeredness or other negative thoughts or events.

Assuming  Thinking I know what others need, want, expect, or think, without asking them if I am correct.  Usually, leads to anger. 

Catastrophizing  Assuming the worst has or is going to happen.

Generalizing  Making assumptions about people based on limited Information. 

Blaming  Making others somehow responsible for my behavior.  Usually used in conjunction with Victim Stance. 

Closed Channel  A strong, single focus of thought that wipes out other options for action.  I do not hear or see the things that might change my mind. 

Cut off & Corrosion  A strong, single focus of thought that sets itself up as the only choice to a pending decision.  We find reasons to do what we wanted to do all along by discrediting all other options.  This is a legalistic rationalization designed to have only one answer to a question, ours. 

Excuse Making  The habit of finding reasons why we did not do something we should have done or said we would do. 

˜Euphoric Recall  Thinking of only the past “good old days,” without remembering the bad that followed.  We don’t focus on the outcome of negative behavior and consequently don’t deal with or thinking about possible negative consequences that occurred, and can occur again.

Isolation  The belief that it is irresponsible or wrong to ask for help or support.  We think that people are either in control or are controlled by others and we try to manipulate rather than ask for what we need.

Justifying   The habit of finding reasons for what we do.  Why our behavior is logical and correct.

Lack of time perspective  The desire for Instant Gratification.  An unreal expectation of how long something should take in light of our desire to have it prematurely. 

Lying  A habitual behavior for some, lying is used as a defense to confuse, distort or take the focus away from the liar’s behavior. 

Commission  Making up things that aren’t true.

Omission  Leaving things out…only speaking part of the truth.

Assent  Pretending to agree to stop an argument or something incompatible or to look good.

Minimizing  Trying to make negative actions, events or behavior appear small and trivial. 

Power Thrust  Using loud or aggressive behavior or emotional manipulation to get our way.  Often there is a threat of violence of some type. 

Perfectionism  Expecting everything to be done our way or else it is wrong.  Generally, our expectations are extremely high. 

Rationalization  Any and every attempt to say what I am doing is ok, because…. 

Shifting Focus  Directing attention away from our behavior or ourselves, onto a different person or situation.

Suggestibility  Going along with someone else’s idea when we know it might not be right.  We do this to look good or be liked; it also gives us someone else to blame if it goes bad.

Super-Optimism  Refusing to entertain the possibility of any negative outcome to our ideas, plans, or actions.  Other people get caught in or suffer the consequences… not us.

Uniqueness  Feeling that we are different from everyone else.  We are special, entitled to whatever we want or rationalize we deserve.  We don’t deserve the same negative consequences as others do.

˜Victim Stance  We believe that bad things always happen to us and that we are always the victims, we always lose.  Our behavior seems to beg for the help of others, but we find reasons that the help that is offered will not work.  Because we are the victim we are not responsible for what happens and we always avoid the responsibility for anything.

˜Zero State  A state of mind where all options for positive change are unavailable.  We are helpless, hopeless and can see nothing that can save us.

The Rationale of Utilizing Thinking Errors
Thinking errors concretionize (go from something fluid, flexible, and deliberate; to something rigid, petrified, and automatic) with use, and so corrupt our thinking process, that our belief system is polluted.  We become what we think.  If we lie all the time, we must rationalize it, and therefore we keep lying about being a liar (because a liar is one who practices lying) to ourselves as well as everyone else.

Therefore, since it took practice to become a liar, it takes practice to un-become a liar.  The same is true about thinking errors.  As it took habituation for thinking errors to become embedded in our lives, it will take the habituation of stopping the thinking errors, for us to start to think more healthily (honest and true).

Consequently, the first step is to identify thinking errors.  The list above is for this purpose, to help you find and acknowledge thinking errors in your life.  The following tool should help accomplish this in an effective, user-friendly, and thorough manner.

Correcting a Thinking Process so as to Change a Belief System
RIP is an acronym that stands for Realize-Identify-Practice.  RIP is used to aid in burying your old (untruthful and therefore, self-defeating) thinking errors, which corrupt your belief system (worldview), and help in creating a new (truthful and therefore, self-affirming) belief system.

The Solution

Realize.  It has been said that realizing something is wrong is 50% of solving the problem, at this point, you see there is a problem; it is at this painful point that your choice to have eyes to see.

Identify.  From here, you must recognize how the problem is manifesting itself, what particular way is it showing itself, what exactly are you doing?  At this point, you must focus your eyes so as to identify the precise thinking (or behavior) so you can correct it from happening again.

Practice.  Finally, you must choice to prepare for not doing it again by practicing in your mind what is wrong, and what is right and committing to it:

1. Telling yourself it was wrong thinking; because you can see what it was denial.
2. Identifying the exact type of denial.
3. Exposing to yourself what it was and that your choice to not let it continue.
4. Concretionize (make real and solid) your commitment to correct this thinking error by putting it to paper, and thereby examining and dissecting it, piece by piece.  This is the stage of change, where you tell yourself that you will not continue in this thinking error because you can see it is a lie (use a Think Error sheet to dissect and understand your denial).
5. At this point, you must confess to someone who you have been lying to yourself and others; you told a lie now tell the truth.  Back yourself into a corner, by confessing you are choosing not to continue to use this lie to rationalize your behavior.

Conclusion
Change is not easy, especially in your thinking process, but it is possible.  How many times have you changed your mind about something, hopefully, a lot, otherwise you must be perfect, and it is this kind of thinking that must be changed the most, pride. 

We must humble ourselves enough to allow ourselves to become people of change.  For it is people who are constantly changing for the better that are becoming better people. 

If you want to keep on living in denial, being the only one who really believes the lies you keep telling others and yourself, looking like a fool to the world, not growing as a person, being self-centered, serving only your own purposes, staying a child; then go ahead, there are prisons, jails, halfway houses, hospitals, mental wards, and homeless shelters, that you can spend the rest of your life (all of these places are good and necessary, but they are only meant to be temporary, not permanent) in.