Psychology can never be more than a social science. The basic process for determining if something is a "disorder" or not is that a couple of guys do some research in a particular culture, region, people group, etc and test for responses to various kinds of stress. This stress may be induced by the researchers or may be self-reported by study participants. Then the researchers normalize the data and publish it in a "peer reviewed publication." This means a journal or magazine whose cheif editors have lots of letters after their names - showing that they are very smart and can be "trusted." Then all, most, or even some of an organization like the American Psychological Association (which represents a portion of all practicing psychologists and mental/emotional care workers) read the journal and decide if they agree or disagree with the conclusions of the researchers. If one of the readers feels strongly about it then they will make a motion at a meeting and people will vote on whether or not the study portrays reality. If the vote passes, viola!, the characteristic behavior is a disorder. Sometime later, someone can make a motion to remove the description of the disorder - vote carries - viola!, the study no longer reflects reality.
I support psychological research. I am generally in favor of peer reviewed journals. But I do not like people claiming more than their own rules of conduct will allow. The APA is a lot of western trained, political-minded, social scientists who have some level of knowledge of the behavioral characteristics of (usually) white Americans. This knowledge cannot be emperically confirmed by a majority vote and it cannot be universally applied to a global population through time. No matter what the APA would like you to believe about their "science."
Most may not know that the elections for 2005 President of the APA are done by mail and will close December 1. Among the candidates:
* Ronald F. Levant, EdD - believes that psychology is an emperical science on par with chemistry or physics and will fight to have psychology included as one of the medical disciplines automatically included in any federal legislation concerning the health care industry. He would also work to remove from membership in the APA those mental health care workers who do not identify with the majority opinions of the APA - thus increasing the homogenity of voices within the organization and, hopefully, increasing its political power in the national arena.
* Dr. Jerry H. Clark - who would work hard to take the APA "well beyond protecting 'women's right to choose,' to make it emphatically clear that limiting the population is the ongoing responsibility of everyone who has reached puberty." Yep.
The other three are not as bad - and even have some ideas that generally align with this post - but all assume that psychological help is a necessary and vital part of every person's life. Surprisingly to some, I agree with them.
Where I depart from psychology is in the method by which we ideally receive our mental/emotional care. This is the responsibility of the church. However, the church has simultaneously neglected its duties to foster emotionally secure community environments and gone along with the notion that "science-based" counseling is fundementally more legitimate than "bible-based" counseling. Psychological research has something to offer the Christian community, but like everything else, results and conclusions must be read in the light of scripture. Sin and sin's distorting effects are not accounted for in most "peer-reviewed" journals - when the data is reread without a bias against the supernatural element to personality and behavior new conclusions can sometimes be drawn. The APA - no matter how learned they might be - will always fight to protect their members clinical status and monetary security. This is a very natural bias that needs to be included in the evaluation of their positions and understood by the "unlearned" masses who are supposed to accept their decrees because they are the "experts in human behavior."
This is why I am thankful there are organizations like the American Association of Christian Counselors - who take the valid points of culturally-relevant psychological research and proper theology and train and advise all mental/emotional care givers in the most effective ways to provide that care. Not all "Christian counselors" can be trusted - either because they are liberal in theology and do not really trust the Bible, or because they are too anti-psychology and may distort care doing more harm than good. The members of the AACC are currently doing a good job of balancing all of the information God has allowed us to know and integrating it into acceptable strategies of care that both actually help the client and honor God.