![\"\"](\"https:\/\/watchman.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/watchmen-information-service-scaled-7.jpg\")
<\/h1>\n<\/h1>\nThe following material is drawn from the core curriculum of St. Andrew\u2019s OCC, Institute of Theology<\/strong>. It is distributed with permission as a preview for prospective students, to raise awareness about the ongoing political and cultural context, and to foster constructive dialogue between professionals on the place of Christian alternatives in a predominantly secular climate. While some voices in society advance extreme claims, our Institute emphasizes a measured, balanced approach<\/strong>\u2014a principle that continues to guide all of our teaching.<\/p>\n Many of the textbooks referenced herein are also used across course modules in the Institute\u2019s programs in Health, History, Law, Theology, and Peace Studies<\/strong>. This article is therefore presented as an academic preview of ongoing theological research<\/strong>, and should be engaged with in that spirit.<\/p>\n Nothing in this article is intended to diagnose, treat, or cure<\/strong> any disease or mental condition. The material is provided solely for theological, historical, and academic study<\/strong>. Students and readers are encouraged to approach the topic critically and thoughtfully, as they would with any serious field of scholarly inquiry.<\/p>\n Missouri is often held up as a conservative, Christian state. Yet even here, in the heartland, the machinery of secular psychiatry was written into law in ways that supplanted the Church\u2019s historic role as caretaker of souls. In 1963<\/strong>, Missouri adopted Chapter 552 of its criminal code<\/strong>\u2014the first statutory authorization for court-ordered psychiatric evaluations.<\/p>\n Until then, Missouri relied on the ancient M\u2019Naghten rule of insanity<\/strong>, which was invoked only when a major crime had been committed<\/em> and a defendant claimed they did not know right from wrong. For civil cases, probate courts could adjudicate someone insane. Beyond these extremes, the ordinary care of troubled souls\u2014whether in grief, despair, or moral struggle\u2014was entrusted to pastors and churches<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The 1963 statute changed that balance dramatically. Judges were newly authorized to order \u201ccompetency\u201d evaluations by psychiatrists (and later psychologists), often without any substantiated allegation of misconduct. What had been a pastoral, community, and spiritual responsibility was suddenly transferred to a secular professional class whose institutional roots traced directly to corporate philanthropy.<\/p>\n For centuries, the cura animarum<\/strong> (\u201ccare of souls\u201d) was entrusted to the Church. Clergy offered confession, counsel, and correction. Pastors knew their flocks personally, guiding them through Scripture and sacrament. The biblical mandate is clear:<\/p>\n \u201cIs any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord\u201d<\/em> (James 5:14<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n \u201cBrethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness\u201d<\/em> (Galatians 6:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Before 1963, Missouri\u2019s reliance on the M\u2019Naghten rule<\/strong> and civil probate proceedings<\/strong> shows that the state recognized only two narrow categories for mental incompetency: criminal insanity in major offenses, or extreme civil incapacity. Everyday struggles were not the state\u2019s business. They were the province of churches, families, and communities.<\/p>\n This is not merely nostalgia\u2014it is history. For generations, Missouri thrived under this model, with pastoral care<\/strong> and community accountability sufficient to address the needs of souls.<\/p>\n Wider Academic and Theological Consensus<\/strong> Secular Voices Confirm the Problems with Psychotherapy<\/strong> Hans Eysenck<\/strong>, in Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire<\/em>, denounces psychoanalysis as unscientific speculation rather than testable science<\/strong>, arguing Freud\u2019s methods have set back psychology by decades.<\/span> Wikipedia<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson<\/strong> argues in Against Therapy<\/em> that psychotherapy can become emotionally tyrannical<\/strong>, with therapists imposing their worldview and distorting patients\u2019 realities.<\/span> Wikipedia<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Richard Bentall<\/strong>\u2019s Doctoring the Mind<\/em> demonstrates that psychiatric treatments have largely failed<\/strong>, with no clear improvement in human welfare; he warns of coercion and pharmaceutical overreach.<\/span> Wikipedia<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Tomasz Witkowski and Maciej Zatonski, in Psychology Gone Wrong<\/em>, chart numerous instances of fraud, pseudoscience, inflated efficacy claims<\/strong>, and ethical abuses within psychotherapy.<\/span> Wikipedia<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n Making Monsters<\/em>, by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, exposes how recovered memory therapies<\/strong> led to false memories and wrongful accusations\u2014showing how therapy can propagate harmful cultural moral panics.<\/span> Wikipedia<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n In October 1963<\/strong>, Missouri enacted Chapter 552<\/strong>, the \u201cMental Responsibility Act.\u201d For the first time, it authorized:<\/p>\n \u00a7552.020<\/strong> \u2013 Court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine \u201cfitness to proceed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n \u00a7552.030<\/strong> \u2013 Rules for the insanity defense (NGRI).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n \u00a7552.040<\/strong> \u2013 Post-verdict commitments.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n This was new law\u2014not the extension of any ancient Missouri tradition. By statute, psychiatrists were placed in the role once held by pastors. Over the years, amendments broadened this authority to include psychologists<\/strong>, whose presence in the courts is itself the product of mid-20th-century institutional engineering.<\/p>\n The 1963 law did not arise in a vacuum. It came after decades of national philanthropic initiatives, particularly by the Rockefeller Foundation<\/strong>, which transformed psychology from an academic curiosity into a clinical, institutionalized system with power over schools, hospitals, and eventually courts.<\/p>\n From the 1930s through the 1950s<\/strong>, the Rockefeller Foundation poured millions of dollars<\/strong> into psychiatry and psychology. Its stated goal was to integrate psychiatry into medical schools, hospitals, and public institutions<\/strong>. Funding flowed to elite universities\u2014Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, McGill, and Duke\u2014where entire psychiatric departments were created or expanded with Rockefeller grants. These were not small research stipends; they were structural endowments that shifted the academic landscape, ensuring psychiatry would become a dominant clinical authority<\/strong> rather than a marginal theory.<\/p>\n By underwriting fellowships, chairs, and institutes, Rockefeller created a new professional class of psychiatric experts whose influence quickly spread from universities into schools, courts, prisons, and social agencies<\/strong>. This was a manufactured authority, built not by organic demand, but by philanthropic engineering<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This philanthropic expansion was not ideologically or financially neutral. Rockefeller\u2019s fortune was derived from Standard Oil<\/strong>, and by the mid-20th century oil byproducts were widely used in the production of pharmaceuticals. Thus, the same family funding psychiatry\u2019s rise also profited from the mass prescription of petroleum-derived medications<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This represents a structural conflict of interest: by promoting psychiatry and psychology as clinical authorities, Rockefeller philanthropy created both the supply of experts<\/strong> (trained psychiatrists and psychologists) and the demand for treatments<\/strong> (medications tied to the oil industry).<\/p>\n Rockefeller influence extended into the law itself. The Foundation quietly funded the American Law Institute (ALI)<\/strong>, which drafted the Model Penal Code (MPC)<\/strong>. This model legislation emphasized treatment-oriented criminal law, including psychiatric interventions and competency evaluations. When Missouri adopted Chapter 552 in 1963<\/strong>, it was not innovating from state tradition; it was importing a Rockefeller-funded national template.<\/p>\n Beyond education and law, Rockefeller exercised influence through press outlets and public narratives<\/strong>. By the early 20th century, Rockefeller-connected interests held sway over major newspapers and philanthropic journalism boards. These platforms consistently framed social issues in ways that advanced technocratic \u201cscientific\u201d solutions<\/strong> while marginalizing religion.<\/p>\n A striking historical parallel emerges with Bolshevik Russia<\/strong>. In the years following the 1917 Revolution<\/strong>, Soviet propaganda systematically portrayed Christian clergy as enemies of progress, obstacles to science, and threats to the state. Through newspapers, pamphlets, and show trials, Christian voices were silenced. This propaganda preceded the mass extermination of believers<\/strong>\u2014with historians estimating over 60 million Christians killed or imprisoned<\/strong> in the Soviet system across decades of terror.<\/p>\n While Rockefeller was not a Bolshevik, the tactics overlapped<\/strong>: both used the press to reshape public perception<\/strong>, sidelining the Church in favor of secular \u201cscientific\u201d authority. For example, in 1915<\/strong>, Rockefeller-influenced newspapers ran alarmist headlines about the alleged destruction of \u201c6 million Jews\u201d in Russia\u2014headlines which scholars now recognize as early propaganda tools. Whether or not one accepts every figure, the fact remains: Rockefeller-linked media were actively using emotive mass-atrocity framing<\/strong> to push for technocratic interventions, much as Bolshevik media did to justify suppressing Christianity.<\/p>\n The result was a public climate where religion was increasingly cast as obsolete<\/strong>, while psychiatry was hailed as modern, neutral, and necessary. Yet neutrality was a myth: both in Russia and America, the effect was to weaken the Church\u2019s authority<\/strong> and to empower secular ideologies that sought to dominate the care of souls.<\/p>\n By funding psychiatry, influencing legislation, and shaping the press, Rockefeller philanthropy created a cultural system biased against Christian soul-care. Ministers who once shepherded their congregations through spiritual and moral struggles were now sidelined. Courts, hospitals, and schools defaulted to secular \u201cexperts.\u201d And because this system was birthed from conflicted financial interests and ideological disfavor toward religion<\/strong>, it cannot be presumed neutral.<\/p>\n Just as Soviet propaganda paved the way for the brutal persecution of Christians, Rockefeller\u2019s \u201csofter\u201d propaganda displaced the Church in America through law and medicine. In both cases, the result was the same: the marginalization of Christianity<\/strong> in the very sphere\u2014soul-care\u2014where it had historically been entrusted.<\/p>\n Today, Missouri\u2019s Chapter 552 allows compulsory evaluations even where there is no substantiated allegation of misconduct<\/strong>. Estranged family members can weaponize the statute to harass relatives, seeking control over assets or reputation. The bitter irony is that such petitions may be made by individuals themselves impaired by addiction or malice, yet the law empowers them to unleash secular experts on innocent family members.<\/p>\n This presents a double injustice<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Innocent citizens are deprived of the pastoral care historically entrusted to the Church.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n They are forced instead into the hands of a professional class financially and institutionally conflicted.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Christian scholars Martin and Deidre Bobgan put it succinctly:<\/p>\n \u201cFor scientific reasons alone and for biblical reasons alone, Christians should never be sent to a psychologist. Don\u2019t go there, don\u2019t go voluntarily.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Their warning underscores both the scientific weakness and the biblical incompatibility of compulsory psychology.<\/p>\n Even though churches are not explicitly named in Missouri\u2019s statutes, constitutional protections demand they remain equal (if not primary) alternatives.<\/p>\n Neutrality<\/strong> \u2013 Courts may not privilege secular psychology over pastoral care.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Least Restrictive Means<\/strong> \u2013 Under Missouri\u2019s RFRA (RSMo 1.302), if a believer\u2019s faith forbids psychology, the state must allow pastoral alternatives unless a compelling, substantiated cause is shown.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Buffer Zone<\/strong> \u2013 Churches should be recognized as the first line of intervention<\/strong>, especially when no proven misconduct exists. This prevents harassment and respects history, where the Church fulfilled this role successfully for centuries.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Missouri\u2019s 1963 adoption of Chapter 552 was not a natural outgrowth of its legal tradition. It was the product of Rockefeller philanthropy, corporate conflicts of interest, and a national legal template<\/strong> designed to replace the Church with secular psychiatry.<\/p>\n This history demands scrutiny. Courts cannot treat Chapter 552 as a neutral inheritance when it was birthed from bias and conflict. The First Amendment and Missouri RFRA require that citizens retain the right to reject compulsory evaluations in favor of faith-based care.<\/p>\n The Church was sufficient for Missouri before 1963, and it remains sufficient today. The task now is to restore awareness, assert liberty, and reestablish the Church as the rightful guardian of soul-care in the face of secular encroachment.<\/p>\n Before 1963, Missouri\u2014and much of the United States\u2014entrusted ordinary matters of soul-care to pastors and ministers<\/strong>, with secular law intervening only in rare cases of serious crime under the M\u2019Naghten rule<\/strong>. This long-standing practice deserves recognition today, especially in civil or family disputes where there is no substantiated allegation of misconduct<\/strong> and no criminal charge.<\/p>\n Courts may rightly hesitate to rely on ministers for adversarial functions like cross-examination. However, in such cases the parties themselves can agree (by contract between themselves, or in mediation, in a MOU) to certificate-based discipleship or counseling programs<\/strong> offered by churches. These programs can document progress, provide assessments of participation, and furnish reports of completion or achievement. In this way, they satisfy the spirit of evaluation without forcing Christians into unbiblical and often abusive compulsory psychology.<\/p>\n Such contractual recognition respects the law\u2019s concern for accountability, while also honoring the believer\u2019s conscience and the historic role of the Church. It represents a practical middle path<\/strong>: robust Christian discipleship as a lawful and ethical alternative to compulsory therapy in cases where no wrongdoing is proven.<\/p>\n In 1963, Missouri adopted Chapter 552 of its criminal code, which authorized for the first time court-ordered psychiatric evaluations. Since then, similar statutes have been widely expanded, even into family law disputes where no crime has been committed and no misconduct substantiated. These laws, however well-meaning, raise profound constitutional concerns<\/strong>. They risk compelling self-incrimination, overriding religious liberty, and displacing the Church\u2019s historic role as the caretaker of souls.<\/p>\n This article examines the constitutional violations<\/strong> at stake, the principle of the rule of law<\/strong> as it places \u201cthe People\u201d above both legislature and judiciary, and the interim solutions<\/strong> that churches can offer to meet the spirit of statutory law without furthering unconstitutional coercion.<\/p>\n The Fifth Amendment declares that no person \u201cshall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\u201d Psychological and psychiatric evaluations frequently require the subject to disclose thoughts, motives, and family dynamics under compulsion. These disclosures can then be used in reports or proceedings against them. Even in civil or family settings, such forced statements violate the principle of non-self-incrimination<\/strong>, because they effectively pressure individuals to testify against themselves outside the normal safeguards of court procedure.<\/p>\n For Christians, voluntarily submitting to compulsory psychology is not a neutral act. It represents, in the words of Martin and Deidre Bobgan, a surrender to \u201cpsycho-heresy,\u201d trusting a secular priesthood where Christ entrusted the Church. Forcing believers into this process violates both the Free Exercise Clause and Missouri\u2019s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RSMo 1.302)<\/strong>, which requires the state to use the least restrictive means and to respect sincerely held religious objections.<\/p>\n New statutes are not supreme law; the Constitution is. Legislatures may pass laws, but it is the duty of courts\u2014bound by oath\u2014to weigh them against the Constitution. Court-ordered evaluations represent a sphere where judicial deference to statute has sometimes ignored these higher constitutional protections.<\/p>\n The rule of law<\/strong> in America does not mean blind obedience to statutes. It means that the People<\/strong> are supreme. Article I, Section 1 vests legislative power in Congress only by delegation from the People. Article VI confirms that \u201cengagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution\u201d remain valid\u2014including the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Mayflower Compact, many of which explicitly invoked the advancement of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n Federalist Paper No. 78 makes the principle unmistakable: \u201cthe power of the People is superior to both the legislative and judicial branches.\u201d<\/em> This foundational truth, echoed by U.S. Courts themselves, reminds us that legislatures and judges are not masters of the People but servants under their supreme law. When court-ordered psychological evaluations violate fundamental rights, they step outside the legitimate authority of government.<\/p>\n While litigation and petitions for redress may ultimately be required to resolve these constitutional defects, there are practical interim solutions<\/strong> available now. Judges should not be placed in the position of ruling for or against faith, but they can recognize that churches historically provided soul-care and should be allowed to offer equivalent alternatives.<\/p>\n One workable model is the development of certificate-based Christian discipleship or counseling programs<\/strong>. These programs:<\/p>\n Provide structured ministerial guidance, discipleship, and reconciliation practices.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Offer certificates of participation or accomplishment that satisfy the spirit of statutory requirements for accountability.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Can be agreed upon voluntarily by parties (through contract, mediation, or MOU) as an alternative to compulsory psychology.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Such programs ensure that no person is coerced into surrendering their constitutional rights, while also addressing legitimate concerns for structure, accountability, and progress in family or civil disputes.<\/p>\n The broader problem remains: compulsory psychological evaluations represent a systemic constitutional violation<\/strong>. But until such statutes are corrected or repealed, Christians and courts can pursue non-confrontational alternatives<\/strong> that honor both conscience and law. By recognizing church-based programs as equivalent in spirit, courts can avoid infringing rights while still addressing disputes.<\/p>\n Ultimately, restoring the Church to its historic role is not only a matter of faith but of constitutional necessity. The People are sovereign, the Constitution is supreme, and no statute can override these foundations.<\/p>\n Academic Note The following material is drawn from the core curriculum of St. Andrew\u2019s OCC, Institute of Theology. It is distributed with permission as a preview for prospective students, to raise awareness about the ongoing political and cultural context, and to foster constructive dialogue between professionals on the place of Christian alternatives in a predominantly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":158483,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"seo_booster_metabox":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[20,3555,13,3584,3552,3689,3570,3566,3571,3582,3553,3597,3568,3572,22,3567,3586,3587,3551,3550,3583,31,3581,3563,3569,3575],"tags":[1157,4027,1886,550,4065,2803,1246,3886,2077,4066,2424,3866,4067],"class_list":["post-158453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-babylon-politics-nwo-vs-christendom","category-christian-israel-nationalism","category-covenantal-sovereignty","category-ecclesiastical","category-fighting-communism-cdl","category-good-news-of-the-kingdom","category-health-institute","category-humanitarian-projects","category-law-institute","category-legitimist-philosophy","category-literature","category-news","category-peace-institute","category-perpetual-confederation","category-pharmeceutical-industry","category-priory-of-salem","category-protectorates","category-public-representation","category-red-genocide","category-red-invasion","category-sovereignty-intl-law","category-special-reports","category-state-assemblies","category-templar","category-theology-institute","category-usurped-incorporated-states","tag-america-a-christian-nation","tag-america-christian-laws","tag-america-theocracy","tag-authority","tag-biblical-ministers","tag-big-pharma-covid","tag-christian-law-in-america","tag-christian-theology","tag-conspiracy-theory","tag-does-the-church-need-psychology","tag-pastoral-counselling","tag-psychology","tag-rockefeller"],"yoast_head":"\nDisclaimer<\/h3>\n
The 1963 Turning Point: How Rockefeller Philanthropy Replaced the Church with Clinical Psychology in Missouri Law<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\nI. Introduction<\/h3>\n
\nII. The Historical Role of the Church<\/h3>\n
\n
This critique of psychology is not confined to one institution or a handful of authors. Across numerous Christian universities and seminaries, entire courses are now dedicated to the question \u201cDoes the Church Need Psychology?\u201d<\/em>\u2014with students often required to write extended papers demonstrating the superiority of biblical counseling over psychological counseling. Commonly assigned texts include Martin and Deidre Bobgan\u2019s PsychoHeresy<\/em><\/strong> alongside John MacArthur\u2019s Our Sufficiency in Christ<\/em><\/strong>, Ashamed of the Gospel<\/em><\/strong>, and The Vanishing Conscience<\/em><\/strong>. This widespread academic engagement shows that opposition to psychotherapy is neither fringe nor outdated; it is a recognized stream of serious theological scholarship, consistently affirming that Christ\u2019s Word is sufficient, while psychology is contradictory, speculative, and corrosive to the Gospel.<\/p>\n
Criticism of psychotherapy isn\u2019t confined to religious thinkers\u2014it also comes from respected secular scholars and researchers. For example:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\nIII. The 1963 Shift: Chapter 552<\/h3>\n
\n
\nIV. Rockefeller\u2019s Role in Creating the System (Expanded)<\/h3>\n
1. Funding Psychiatry into Power<\/h4>\n
\n2. Conflicts of Interest: Oil and Pills<\/h4>\n
\n3. Shaping the Law: Model Penal Code<\/h4>\n
\n4. Control of the Press and Cultural Propaganda<\/h4>\n
\n5. A Systemic Bias Against the Church<\/h4>\n
\nV. Religious Freedom Concerns<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\nVI. Why Churches Must Remain on Equal Footing<\/h3>\n
\n
\nVII. Conclusion<\/h3>\n
Addendum 1:<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Restoring the Church\u2019s Equal Role<\/h3>\n
Addendum 2:<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Rule of Law, Constitutional Rights, and Church-Based Alternatives to Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluations<\/h1>\n
Introduction<\/h3>\n
\nI. The Constitutional Violations<\/h3>\n
Fifth Amendment: Compelled Self-Incrimination<\/h4>\n
First Amendment: Religious Liberty<\/h4>\n
Legislative Overreach and Judicial Duty<\/h4>\n
\nII. Rule of Law and the Supremacy of the People<\/h3>\n
\nIII. Interim Solutions: Restoring Churches to Equal Footing<\/h3>\n
\n
\nIV. A Path Forward<\/h3>\n
\nRelated Articles<\/h3>\n
\n