To begin, Andrew quotes Scripture in support of his position: “Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matt 7:17-18 NIV). He argues that psychology has its roots in “ancient philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato… At best, they believed in a god that was not involved in the affairs of men, and at worst they worshiped multiple pagan gods.” Using this basis as a springboard, Andrew writes that Sigmund Freud “was obsessed with sex and linked every problem of man to the sexual drive. This man had serious problems, even his most devoted followers admitted that.” Following his argument, because the root of psychology is substandard, the entire enterprise is therefore faulty; however, there are several aspects of his argument that are rooted in falsehood or misinterpretation.
First, Matthew 7:17-18 has nothing to do with psychology, nor can it be applied to a field of study. The context clearly indicates who this is talking about, which is false prophets (v. 15). This is made further evident by the fact that there is an allusion to Hell in verse 19, which is where many will go, not subject matters or fields of study. One could try to argue that this is a good application of the principle given here even if the original context does not demand this reading. This, though, also falters. Grasping God's Word (2020) notes, “The principle should be reflected in the text” (p. 30). Furthermore, it is stated, “...you are trying to see how the biblical author wanted his original audience to apply the meaning” (Duval & Hays, 2020, p. 244). A veritable author wants textual application to be based on the context of the passage itself. In order for Andrew to deploy this verse in a misleading manner, he must therefore ignore the original meaning that Jesus intended.
In addition, Andrew is incorrect about the history of psychology. Psychology has a very long history that does not just start with the Greeks. For example, “Early psychological thought in China was tied to a larger worldview organized around the number five” (King et al., 2016, p. 42). It has also been noted that “Early Chinese scholars stressed the importance of cognitive processes. In Chinese thought, the mind plays a dominant role, whereas the body acts as its servant” (King et al., 2016, p. 43). This is not to say that psychology starts with China, or that the Greeks did not influence anything; nonetheless, the outlook of China serves as just one of the many examples of the fact that humans have been looking at and analyzing their mind, emotions, and relationships for a very long time. Andrew is also incorrect about Freud and the modern scientifically rigorous form of psychology we have today. For more on that, see this article (Louisa, 2023).
Conclusively, If he did frame the history of psychology correctly, why should it matter that it came from Greek philosophers and pagans? Let us explore some history and theology just to see how abysmal the argument is here. Firstly, the Old Testament borrows from other pagan cultures all the time. For example, Exodus 21 uses material from the Code of Hammurabi (see also Hammurabi 209-214 compared to Exodus 21:22-24), Psalm 29 makes use of the Baal cycle (Jed Ostoich, 2000), and Paul quotes a text that worships Zeus as god and adds it to his theology about the one true God (Acts 17:27-18).
This is made worse if we think about the history of the Christian church. Philosophy, specifically of the Greek variety, has been applied by the church since the beginning. Early Christians used philosophy as an advantage in explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity. This consideration is significant because the Trinity is a prominent cornerstone of Andrew’s ministry, as shown on his ministries “our beliefs” page. If Wommack is going to be consistent with his argument, he should not be a Bible-believing Christian anymore.
“Many churches and ministries have resident psychiatrists on staff. This isn’t the approach Jesus took. He met the needs, all the needs of the people through the power of the Holy Spirit, and I believe He intends His church to do the same. They don’t have to depart and go to the world to get their emotional needs met. They should bring them to Jesus (Matt. 14:16-18).”
This is a flawed and dangerous argument; however, Andrew’s respectable framing of hospitality in the Bible is accurate. The church is an institution, one with Christ as its head, intended to care for the needs of the people. We see that it is written “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14 NIV). Jesus himself can provide for us as witnessed by his healing and, interestingly, the very verse Andrew quotes. However, does Jesus and the church always do this? Are we to exclude aid outside of God and his church? Heaven forbid! Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his infirmities did not invoke prayers or rely on the church; in contrast, Paul informed him to access something outside both of these means to remedy his health complications. Jesus could have met that need for Timothy and simply healed him; yet, the Christ who is wisdom itself chose not to act in this situation. God actively chooses not to meet every need. This errant idea that God will always cater to every need and wants the church to do the same is fallacious based on the clear testimony of Scripture.
Once again, Andrew misuses a passage of Scripture. The passage in question is Jesus’s miracle of feeding the five thousand. This is one of the many instances where Jesus provides physically and mentally for people. But what about when he does not? Did he not let John the Baptist get beheaded and not heal him (Mark 6:14-28)? Did he not let Paul suffer with affirmities in his eyes (Gal. 4:13-16)? You cannot quote one passage of Scripture to declare that Jesus contributes for all needs at all times while ignoring glaring examples to the contrary. This is not to say we should falter in trusting Jesus or that he will not provide. Yet, we see instances where he does and does not to his own discretion. God is mysterious in that way, and the faithful Christian should allow him to be so.
Andrew also holds a limited view of how God can sustain people. Is God unable to dispense his grace by means of a therapist? Is God restricted in giving humanity the trauma therapist or oncologist (i.e. a cancer doctor)? Does God outright refuse to work his Holy Spirit through people in these fields? Furthermore, this will never work practically. How will the church care for a person with schizophrenia without proper training obtained only by psychology? Christ may choose not to heal in his wisdom. If the church's way of taking care of them is to try to cast out the “demons” that won’t work. What will you do?
So that people are aware, I am charismatic. I believe in spiritual gifts and the healing of these people; however, believing that God will automatically and willingly meet all of your needs in this life abrades against the testimony of Scripture and its multifaceted discussions regarding suffering. It also ignores the fact that sometimes God himself is the cause of said suffering (2 Cor. 12).
To continue this section, Andrew comments: “If the people will receive the truths of God’s Word, they don’t need any other help. If they won’t receive the Gospel, then in some cases, psychology is better than what they have.” This is blatantly misguided. Many people believe the Scriptures fully but suffer from a severe anxiety disorder, perhaps brought about by a trauma in their life. Telling them Jesus is an amazing healer of all biblical truth does not change the fact that they suffer anxiety because of their abusive, manipulative partner. “Accepting all the truths of the Bible” may not easily fix religious trauma but actually make it worse. Andrew is telling people that if they just believed the Bible, everything would be fine and they won’t need more help.
Here, Andrew moves into a discussion regarding language. “For one thing, the very word “psychology” reveals an anti-god approach. The word “psychology” comes from the Greek word “psycho”, which is a derivative of the Greek word “psyche” meaning “soul.” Psychology looks no deeper than the soul of man for answers.” Later he states, “The Greek word “psyche” was also the name of the Greek god of the soul. “eros” and “psyche” were lovers in Greek mythology. Who wants that?”
Here he commits something called the etymological fallacy. This is a fallacy by which you assume that the original meaning of a word or phrase is the present-day or “true” meaning (Duval & Hays, 2020, p. 167). A butterfly is not butter that flies, a pineapple is not an apple that grows on pine trees, and neither is psychology the study of the human soul precisely. Granted, this depends on how you define the term soul, but given something like behavioral neuroscience (i.e. psychobiology), a more comprehensive definition is in order.
This argument gets worse when you realize one keenly important detail. This term “psyche” or "ψυχή" is the very term used to describe God's soul in Matthew 12:18 (Wilkins, 2015). Does this make the New Testament evil? No, not at all. Another important aspect of linguistics pertains to word studies. In nearly every instance, words do not contain one objective standard or meaning (Patterson, 2016). For example, the English word “hand” can either refer to the part of the body, getting help from someone, or bestowing something onto someone. The semantic range of language implies that a single word can possess multiple definitions based on contextual study (Duval & Hays, 2020, p. 186). Therefore, the word itself is not distressing when referring to a god in mythology. Is Andrew going to condemn the Old Testament prophets for using a Hebrew word that once referred to a Canaanite God?
His next argument supposes that there are core beliefs in psychology that contradict the Scriptures. We will go through each of these in the last section of this article.
1: We are products of our environment. To start, psychology does not teach that we are merely products of our environment. For example, “The Psychology of Human Agency,” by APS Fellow and Charter Member Bandura, argues that humans “act on the environment; they create, uphold, transform, and even destroy their environment” in a “socially-embedded interplay between personal agency, and environmental influences” (Volpe, 2004). Genetics are also a factor. As Laura Baker (2015) puts it, “Human behavior is subject to genetic variations (p. 837).” Additionally, in arguing that Christianity contradicts psychology, he inadvertently displays his agreement with the topic. As the Apostle Paul says, quoting a pagan, “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character’” (1 Cor 15:33). Paul argues that your environment can affect you in negative ways and psychology concurs.
2: Humans are not responsible for our actions. Psychology does not say this. In fact, Dr. Ramni can still call narcissists “jerks” even though they are products of their environment, precisely because humans are believed to still be held accountable for their actions. No one thinks that just because one is a psychopath means they should not be in prison for murder. Obviously, I am not saying all psychopaths are murderers, it is just one example used to make the point. The statement also demonstrates a natural progression of the first statement he made. If the prior sentence was false, this is likely also fallacious just on its face.
3: This leads to placing blame for our actions on anything else but on us, making us victims. This follows from the first two statements, thus by proxy this too is false. Maybe people do this, but in most cases, psychologists do not.
4: Self-esteem is paramount. Self-esteem in psychology “...could be defined as the self-evaluation and descriptive conceptualization that individuals make and maintain with regard to themselves.” This is basically your view of yourself. As the article I quoted mentions, self-esteem is important, and the good news is that the bible agrees. For example, it is written “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! (2 Cor 5:17).” This is a place where Paul is teaching how believers should view themselves, which is by definition self-esteem! I am, because of Christ, holy, a partaker of the divine, free, and many other things. In essence, the NT teaches Christians self-esteem, a way of defining and conceptualizing themselves.
Despite being in ministry for fifty-five years, Andrew Wommack does not understand psychology, linguistics, Scripture, or theology. Andrew has shown how ignorant and perilous his beliefs are, two words that should not be associated with such an influential and long-standing “Christian”. I pray for him and those who have come to believe the ideas in this article that they may not be harmed mentally or physically by these dangerous teachings.
