Or We Give Dr. Phil His Own Reality Check
Rev. Brian M. Abshire, Ph.D.

The International Institute for Christian Culture Popular “Life Strategist” Phillip C. Mcgraw PhD hosts the nationally syndicated series Dr. Phil that has become quite popular around our house; sort of an up-market alternative to the Jerry Springer Freak Show for those with weak stomachs and young children. We love watching him scold naughty people; Dr. Phil is well known for dealing with “real” issues in his signature “tell-it-like-it-is” style. Dr. Phil became famous as a human behavior expert from The Oprah Winfrey Show. Finding private practice unfulfilling (he says in his official bio that he didn’t have the patience for it) he co-founded Courtroom Sciences, Inc., a litigation consulting firm; which is how he met Oprah in the first place. Do you remember that flap a few years ago when Oprah was being sued by the cattle industry (and please, no cheap shots about Oprah’s weight and cows here-that’s just being mean)? Well, Dr. Phil’s company is an expert on jury selection, behavioral analysis and conducting mock courtroom trials. They met, she liked what she saw, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Let me be honest; I like Dr. Phil’s show and in many respects admire him. He doesn’t mince words when people act stupidly; which is a breath of fresh air to much of the mealy-mouthed nonsense we so often get on TV. Furthermore, he has that soft, educated Southern accent (well actually, Oklahoman and Texan; but you can’t expect us nasally New Englanders to recognize the fine distinctions between them), that lets him get away with saying the most confrontational things, without offending people. Quite frankly, I sit in awe when watching him lambaste people and they sit there lapping up every word. I on the other hand, can walk into a room of strangers and somehow offend half the people before even opening my mouth (and as soon as I do offend the other half). Perhaps it has something to do with “Southern” culture; ever run across that practice that some Southerners have of softening even the harshest criticisms by saying, “bless his heart?” “You know that girl has sat on more laps than a napkin, bless her heart” “Bubba Smith is the nastiest, drunk in town, bless his heart”

Well, I do not recall ever hearing Dr. Phil saying, “Bless your heart” but somehow he manages to use the same psychological dynamic in giving his “in your face” criticisms. In ALL my years of counseling, personal confrontation and writing, I have NEVER had the nerve to say DIRECTLY to people anything halfway as harsh as what Dr. Phil gets away with every day; I have had people sign up for life-memberships in the “I Hate Brian” club for simply “suggesting” that their “life-strategies” were “less than optimal.” Go figure; maybe it helps to have your own TV show, or maybe there really is something to that accent thingie. Since I worked hard to rid myself of my “Down Easter” twang years ago after leaving Maine, maybe I ought to move to the South and hire a dialect coach?

Dr. Phil’s official bio does not give specific details about which “school” of psychology he adheres to but I suspect that like most therapists today he takes an eclectic approach; i.e., picking and choosing from the various theoretical models and practices whenever it suits his purposes to do so. I also suspect that he has been most deeply influenced by Behaviorism and Reality therapy; simply from observing the counsel he gives to various people.

Behaviorism, though not terribly popular as a theoretical model these days, does provide a reliable, verifiable method of altering behavior by the appropriate use of reward and punishment. Recently, Dr. Phil recommended that a self-absorbed mother who incessantly talked about her problems try putting a rubber band around her wrist and snapping it whenever she was tempted to talk about herself. This is a classic behaviorist technique and so perhaps Dr. Phil subscribes to Behaviorism in some form.

However, Dr. Phil is more likely to respond to the outrageous behavior of one of his “guests” by saying, “What were you THINKING!” This is not said as a question so much as a “wake-up” call to bring the person back to “reality.” Hence, I suspect that Reality Therapy, as developed by William Glasser is probably central to his thinking and counseling.

Reality therapy emphasizes rationality and thinking over emotions, the present and future over the past, etc. Basically, Reality Therapy sees functional psychopathology as irresponsible human behavior and the goal of counseling is to help the client (not patient) learn how to act responsibly to meet their needs. The past is not explored to find “reasons” or “excuses” to justify the client, but rather as ways to demonstrate that previous irresponsible, irrational behavior have caused the present problems (See Baker’s Dictionary of Psychology). Therefore if you change the client’s THINKING and the BEHAVIOR that got him into problems in the past, he can avoid those problems in the future. This seems to pretty much sum up Dr. Phil’s approach to life problems.

Many Christians find that of all the branches of Psychology and Counseling, Reality Therapy is the most consistent with a Biblical worldview. Dr. Jay Adams studied under O Hobart Mowrer, who wrote the preface to Glasser’s first book. Mowrer had seen great success in dealing with severe “mental illness” by simply calling people to take responsibility for their actions, repent of their selfish behavior and get on with life. Adams though is NOT a “psychologizer” and instead went back to the Scriptures to see why this approach worked so effectively. His “nouthetic” approach to counseling was thus an attempt to bring a fully, Biblical worldview to bear on people having severe problems in life.

But getting back to Dr. Phil, to understand his popularity, and why so much of what he says, makes sense, we have to realize that basically, psychology has replaced religion in popular American culture as providing meaning and purpose in life. In the great wars between religion and science that took place in the 19th century, religion lost due to the apparent power that science gave to man. The physical sciences developed technology that revolutionized human life, and therefore, many adopted the “myth” that science could solve EVERY problem. The Materialists and Humanists of the 19th century were optimistic that carefully controlled scientific experiments would unlock the secrets of life.

At the end of the 19th century, a Viennese doctor named Freud was working with severally disturbed patients in various hospitals and institutions. Over time, he developed a personality theory that had the advantage of pushing God completely out of the picture. Sin was a destructive myth; people were not responsible for their actions, because they were traumatized by early learning experiences. Freud’s theories swept through the academic world and were given scientific credibility, even though none of his “research” was verified by the classic principles of the scientific method. I would argue that Freud became popular just because he justified irresponsibility; from the time of Adam in the Garden blaming first Eve and then God for his sin, rebellious men have sought to flee from taking responsibility for their own actions.

Freud therefore was accepted into the scientific community and for over fifty years his methods were studied and used; at times almost exclusively. Eventually of course, because it was based on a faulty picture of human nature, “Freudianism” fell out of favor because well, it didn’t work. Patients underwent years of “therapy” and never got any better. The dismal failure of Freudian Psychoanalysis was SO well known, it was even given its own “light-bulb” joke; “How many Psychoanalysts does it take to change a light-bulb? Only one, but it takes a long time, cost a lot of money, and the light-bulb really has to want to change.”

However, Freud’s theories managed to effect the transition of people turning from their priest or pastor for help and guidance, to the professional psychiatrist or psychologist (a psychiatrist is an MD who specializes in “mental illness” while a psychologist is a PhD-psychiatrists can prescribe drugs-psychologists just talk).

Now, while Freud was theorizing about the traumas associated with over-strict potty training and unresolved oedipal complexes, Pavlov, Watson and then Skinner were trying to do “psychology” more “scientifically.” Working with laboratory animals (governments at the time had a problem with scientists carving out portions of people’s brains to see what made them work; a practice later known as “lobotomies” and was actually adopted as a solution to many mental “illnesses”), they all made significant discoveries about the way that animals learned. Since they, with the vast majority of the scientific community accepted some form of evolutionary theory, man was seen as just another animal. Therefore the reward and punishment techniques that could make a dog drool on hearing a bell, or pigeons pick out a simple melody by giving it a grain of corn when it accidentally struck the right note was offered as an empirical alternative to Freud’s theories. Behaviorism therefore became quite popular for a number of years.

Eventually though, even this “scientific” approach failed to offer satisfactory answers to the human condition; was man nothing more than a drooling dog? World War I had ended the optimistic hope that science would be man’s savior; the same science that had promised so much in the 19th century fashioned the machine guns, and developed the poison gas that killed millions during the “Great War.” However, Freud had been successful in moving men away from Christianity and therefore they still sought answers from “science.” Carl Rogers provided one.

Rogers was at first a divinity student at a theologically Liberal seminary, but who later transferred to the psychology department of a neighboring school. His answer was that all our problems came from inadequate socialization methods. It was not man that was the problem, but the environment. People had all the answers already INSIDE themselves, but a bad environment had confused and abused them. “Therapy” thus consisted of having the patient learn to love and accept himself just as he is usually by “active listening.” Since the patient had all the answers inside himself, “active listening” was the process of simply affirming or re-stating everything the patient said so that there would be no implied criticism or judgment. Over time, the patient would discover his own sense of self-esteem, and hopefully, his own answers.

Again, since this view of human nature is in conflict with “reality;” the therapy was usually long, expensive and ineffective. However it WAS popular with therapists because they didn’t have to offer any actual answers! And it was popular with patients because it again, conveniently let them off the hook. But eventually, it failed because people were hurting, and no matter now good they became at “loving” themselves, it never really solved the problem. How could it; the Bible is clear that the basic human problem is not a lack of self-love, but an excess of it! But “professing to wise, they became fools”

And of course we could go on; therapeutic technique after therapeutic technique was tried time and time again but all miserably failed because ultimately all were based on erroneous theories about the nature of man. When Reality Therapy came on the scene in the mid-1960’s it offered concerned counselors a technique that actually seemed to work. People came in with serious problems, and by giving them a “reality check” the counselor could actually help them put their lives back together. However, most psychologists never bought into it for a couple of reasons.

First, Reality Therapy is so simple; you do not need a PhD in Psychology to counsel. After spending a small fortune and years of your life obtaining a prestigious academic degree, it is kind of hard to admit that it was all a waste of time.

Secondly, and more importantly, it violated a fundamental belief of modern culture; that men are responsible for their own actions. People WANT to blame someone else, and Psychologists who earn hundreds of dollars a session MUST provide the customer with what he wants, or they will go somewhere else. Psychology may be a new religion, but it is also in competition with every other religion out there. If you depend upon “patients” to earn a living, then they must either actually be helped by your counseling (which of course, studies have repeatedly shown that just as many people get better WITHOUT therapy as get better WITH therapy) or you must keep the customer happy so he comes back. And to get them to come back, you have to tell them what they want to hear.

It is significant to note that the only group to readily adopt Reality Therapy were social workers, school counselors and the like whose livelihood did not depend on long term patients with medical insurance. They faced real problems every day when people made a mess out of their lives. They did not have years to work through all the previous gripes, complaints and misfortunes and therefore Reality Therapy offered a fairly quick means of steering people back on track.

It is interesting that Dr. Phil admits he did not have the patience for therapy; his average guest gets a five-ten minute segment where the problem is explained and he offers his solution! Now granted, he has an entire organization of counselors behind him who do the actual “dirty” work. But even so, perhaps one of the reasons Dr. Phil is so popular is that he caters to the “quick fix” mentality that is assumed to be the inalienable right of every American. Every television show has a problem that can be resolved in 22 minutes +commercials. Ever watched one of those “family” shows where the parent has a 60 second conversation about some enormous problem the child has, and SOLVES the problem with a word or two of “wisdom?” Dr. Phil caters to this same mentality; and where there is a market, some enterprising entrepreneur will find a way to meet it.

Now do not get me wrong; I am NOT criticizing Dr. Phil for providing what the customers want; in fact I am a little envious that nobody has ever offered ME a TV show! Hey, I can be JUST as “in your face” as Dr. Phil; and once I work on that Southern accent bit, I am sure that people will LIKE me instead of sticking pins in little fat dolls with red beards!

But Reality Therapy also has a fatal flaw and I suspect that this is why Dr. Phil is dispensing his “wisdom” in little driblets on TV rather than working in full time counseling. He admits upfront he does not have the patience for counseling; why is that? Could it be that even when you point out the irrationality of people’s behavior and show them a much more reasonable and responsible way to live, that MOST people refuse to change?

You see the real human problem is not “bad thinking” but sin. Every person is born with a sinful orientation, wanting to be his own god. This sin nature affects every area of a person’s life, including his mind. Men therefore think badly, because the very essence of their nature is autonomy from God. Oh, with the proper controls, internal and external, we can inhibit certain manifestations of this sinful nature-but only Christ can change the heart, and therefore the life of the person.

In our modern, hedonistic and individualistic culture, we have successfully torn down the public barriers to most sins giving men the false belief that they can live life on their own terms. Fornication, adultery, homosexuality, massive consumer debt, etc., have all now become “life-style” choices. When these sins cause a complete and total breakdown of a person’s life, Dr. Phil and his colleagues can offer some help; but it is like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. You cannot change a man’s life until you change his heart.

But being a rationalist, Dr. Phil teaches that the key is in the mind; we would argue that in “reality,” it is in the soul. So even when he gives good, rational, responsible advice, often his clients will not take it-because in their heart they want to be as God, determining good and evil for themselves.

Sadly, I can understand his frustration. Over the years in all the counseling cases that have come through my office, I have seen the same dynamic at work in some professed “Christians.” Their life is a mess, their marriage a disaster, their children little hellions. And in God’s Word, there are answers; REAL answers for bitterness, jealousy, frustration and angst. And like Dr. Phil, I have attempted to show Christians the irrationality of their previous actions, the immorality of the choices they made. But I have also tried to provide a comprehensive, Biblical solution that will not just ease their suffering but provide an “effective strategy” for life.

And in all those years, and with all those cases, basically two things happened; SOME people listened, made the changes and went on to live a life rich and meaningful, full of joy and rewarding relationships. But sometimes, people just walked away. Unlike Dr. Phil, who seems to be loved, even when he is at his harshest, some of the “Christians” who came to me for counseling and refused to listen to God’s Word wanted to “kill the messenger.” Other Christians supported them, and therefore the significant changes that COULD have occurred, did not. (This dynamic may help to explain why more and more Pastors refuse to do counseling; if you offend people by pointing out their sin, you risk an explosion in the rest of the church)

Cynically, I have sometimes wondered if such people were actually saved; how could someone whose heart has been changed by the Holy Spirit REFUSE to listen to His Word? We all sin, we all fall short of the glory of God, we all fail one another every day; but surely if Christ is in our heart we ought to be humble before God, and one another? Surely we ought to be able to “confess our sins, one to another?” And surely we ought to be dedicated to “stimulating one another to love and good deeds?” So why is it that so many “Christians” live in daily defiance of God’s most basic principles of relationships, of resolving problems with one another? If it were merely ignorance of God’s principles (and few enough pastors teach on these things), then surely, when we HEARD them, our hearts would leap for joy! For if Christ is in our heart, we hate our sins and want to forsake them. If we are trapped in loveless marriages with dysfunctional families and frustrated by a lack of meaningful, loving relationships, surely when someone shows us God’s way of living, then we ought to rejoice at the great blessings God has prepared for us! How could a person with a regenerate heart not repent of their failure to live God’s way and eagerly strive each day to grow in grace and godliness?

But sadly, and all too often, “Christians” reject God’s ways, and will actually hate those who stand for them. They will live frustrated, bitter lives, always seeking to blame someone, or something else (usually the pastor-OK, I admit a little bitterness myself here), when the real fault is an autonomous heart and a haughty spirit. And the world, seeing that “Christians” are just as selfish, bitter and nasty as everyone else, will turn away from the faith and continue to look to psychology, or new age philosophy or some self-help guru in search of an answer.

I am not sure that I have an answer for the above problem, other than to “speak the truth in love” and hopefully encourage the saints. Life isn’t really so difficult you know; just love God, and love your brother. Be patient and kind, “not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead-for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.”

I do believe firmly though, that when Christians rediscover true, covenant living, and learn how to handle their conflicts and problems Biblically, that we will see a great resurgence of Christian faith and ministry in the world. As the world drowns in the cesspool of self-destructive human depravity, God will use that to quicken His elect and bring them to saving faith. As God’s people adorn the glorious gospel of grace by living in humble submission to Him, demonstrating Christ in our acts of charity and mercy, He will use it to draw all men to himself.

Dr. Phil is in “reality,” the best of what the world has to offer. Whether he realizes it or not, he depends upon a Christian worldview and a Christian consensus on morality and “reality” that he never publicly acknowledges (I do not have a clue as to his own religious beliefs-though I suspect that he has some kind of evangelical background). His popularity surely has something to do with his own winsome personality and unquestioned abilities, but also because within the limits of his own “theology” he is as close as the world gets to the truth.

But we who know Jesus Christ as Lord and receive His divine Law-word ought to know and do better. Only we have the “reality” that can save men’s souls and restore their lives. Is it not time we start LIVING in such a way that the pagans will flock to US for answers?

Originally Published July 25th, 2003