LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
A Biblical Counselor’s Assessment of Creation Therapy
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
Creation Therapy is a form of Christian counseling popularized by Richard and Phyllis Arno.
Creation Therapy is a therapeutic adaptation of Tim LaHaye’s temperament theory and is
currently taught and practiced by the National Association of Christian Counselors and its
affiliated ministries. This article demonstrates that despite being billed as a biblically derived
form of soul care, Creation Therapy is predicated upon several unbiblical presuppositions and
owing to these views, the resultant counseling methodology falls short of biblical soul care.1
Within ancient Greece, Hippocrates2 speculated that creation was comprised of four
elements, namely, earth, air, fire, and water. He further conjectured that the human
constitution mirrors the earth’s composition such that the human body functions upon the
basis of four “humors:” blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Hippocrates attributed good
health to a proper balance of the humors. Conversely, bad health or a bad state of mind was
attributed to a humoral imbalance.
Hippocrates’ theory would go on to dominate medicine for several millennia until the
scientific age dismissed it as a fanciful and dangerous myth.3 However, long prior to being
dispelled, Hippocrates’ theory would be developed into a primitive personality theory. Galen, a
second-century physician, extrapolated humoral theory and determined that there were four
personality types or “temperaments:” sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic.
The sanguine type was even-dispositioned, warmhearted, optimistic, and energetic. The
choleric was quick to action, assertive, and prone to hostility and anger. Depression, sadness,
and anxiety characterized the melancholic. The phlegmatic type was listless and lethargic.4
Several twentieth-century psychologists would build upon temperament theory, having
long since jettisoned its humoral aspects. Today, however, most of the major schools of
psychology prefer other explanations for human personality (e.g., social-cognitive and
psychodynamic theories).
Temperament Theory Finds a Place in the Church
In 1996, Tim LaHaye published Spirit Controlled Temperament, introducing temperament
theory to a Christian audience. His book resonated with evangelicals, eventually selling over
one million copies. To summarize, LaHaye’s presentation asserts several key principles of
contemporary temperament theory: “Temperament is the combination of traits we were born
with; character is our ‘civilized’ temperament; personality is the ‘face’ we show to others.”5
According to LaHaye, it is impossible for temperaments to change, but the Holy Spirit can
“modify” our temperaments such that they appear to be changed.6 Further, “We are all a blend
of at least two temperaments: One predominates; the other is secondary.”7 Lastly, LaHaye
introduced the “LaHaye Temperament Analysis,” such that people may discover their inborn
temperament blend.
LaHaye never attempted to find biblical justification for the four temperaments except to
assert: “In Proverbs 30:11-14 the wise man saw four kinds of people. About five hundred years
later, the four were given names by Hippocrates.”8 What LaHaye didn’t tell his readers was that
a contextual reading of Proverbs 30 reveals that the four kinds of people cited by the proverbist
refer to four varieties of wicked people:
There are those who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers.
There are those who are clean in their own eyes but are not washed of their filth.
There are those—how lofty are their eyes, how high their eyelids lift!
There are those whose teeth are swords, whose fangs are knives, to devour the poor from
off the earth, the needy from among mankind. (Proverbs 30:11-14)
The term translated “There are those” (Hebrew “dôr”) is literally translated “generation,”9
and refers not to four temperaments, but of four varieties of people who break God’s
commandments. The first group violates the fifth commandment; “Honor your father and
mother” (Exodus 20:12). The second group is guilty of hypocrisy, believing that they are “ritually
clean” (Hebrew “ṭāhôr”, cf. Deuteronomy 23:12–14), but are instead covered in their own
“excrement.” The third group is guilty of arrogance and pride, and the fourth group is guilty of
using speech to destroy others, especially the poor (cf. Proverbs 25:18).
Despite his attempt, LaHaye’s iteration of temperament theory has absolutely no biblical
(or scientific) basis. The Bible never states that our “temperament” is determined by our
heredity and it never teaches us that our sin is ultimately a result of weakness brought about by
our temperament.10 The Bible doesn’t even acknowledge the category of “temperament” as Jay
Adams observed:
[LaHaye’s] categories came from paganism, not from Scripture…Surely the framework for a
system of counseling ought to arise from biblical exegesis, not from pagan Greek philosophy…
11
LaHaye’s theory is little more than a pseudo-scientific form of biological determinism
baptized into Christianese; the resurrection of ancient pagan folk-psychology dressed in church
clothes.
Creation Therapy
Richard Arno and his wife Phyllis are credited with designing their own Christian alternative
to secular psychology. This method, entitled “Creation Therapy,” is essentially a therapeutic
adaptation of LaHaye’s temperament theory. It includes a fifth temperament, the supine, which
is alleged to refer to a conscientious and servile person.
Like LaHaye, the Arnos claim that mankind has an inborn temperament that “determines
how he reacts to people, places, and things.”12 This “inborn” and immutable temperament is
cited in distinction with the belief that “people are born as blank slates,” a viewpoint the Arnos
claim was originated by Thomas Aquinas. This is a completely spurious claim as Aquinas held an
anthropology that was thoroughly in line with Christian orthodoxy. In attributing the doctrine of
tabula rosa to Aquinas, the Arnos have misunderstood this concept, having taken it to mean
that the human mind and character are formless at birth. This, however, is a simplistic
mischaracterization since Aquinas’ point in the relevant literature is that man is dependent
upon his senses to give content to his experience and to express his intellect.13 Moreover,
Aquinas had a conventional doctrine of original sin: “Christ alone excepted, all men descended
from Adam contract original sin from him.”14
The Arnos claim Creation Therapy is “the mechanism by which man is given the ability to
find balance between body, soul, and spirit, allowing him to be the best that God created him
to be.”15 The Arnos allege that their system identifies one’s “temperament needs” such that
those needs can be met so that “all areas of the inner man” may be in “perfect balance.”16
Character defects and sinful predilections are recast by the Arnos as “temperament
weaknesses.” Indeed, the language of sin and grace is nearly absent from Creation Therapy.
Once a counselee’s “temperament blend” is identified, counsel is issued upon that basis.
Following the example of LaHaye, the Arnos developed the “Arno Profile System” (APS)17 to
help people identify their inborn temperament. The APS is essentially a coopted version of the
FIRO-B test produced by humanist and psychologist, William Schutz. Schutz introduced a theory
of interpersonal relations entitled “Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation” or FIRO.
He argued that every person has three interpersonal needs: inclusion, control, and affection,18
and then developed a fifty-four question test (i.e., FIRO-B) in order to measure persons
according to their three interpersonal needs. The Arnos recast the FIRO-B to fit their iteration of
temperament theory calling it the “Arno Profile System.”
Having obtained a copy of the APS, I examined the questions to determine if this test was a
legitimate means of gathering data such that meaningful and relevant counsel could be
provided. What I found was a series of surface-level questions that are largely irrelevant to the
problems faced by those seeking godly counsel. The test consists of fifty-four questions which
may be answered with one of six choices ranging from “never” to “usually.” The questions in
this test are designed to divulge what a counselee thinks about himself as it pertains to his
temperament (e.g., “I let other people control my actions,” and “I like people to invite me to
things”).
The APS is alleged to disclose what “temperament blend” the counselee has as it relates to
Schutz’s three categories of inclusion, control, and affection. Once one’s temperament analysis
is conducted via the APS, a creation therapist then attempts to issue counsel upon the basis of
the set of preconceived attributes that are associated with the counselee’s temperament. As
one National Christian Counselors Association (NCCA)19 certified counselor put it,
“Temperament holds the answers to every relationship problem.”20
The trouble with this methodology is obvious: NCCA counselors are not counseling people,
but are instead counseling temperaments. Instead of gathering data to truly understand who a
counselee is and what he or she is facing, creation therapists merely find out which
temperament boxes their counselee fits in so that canned responses can be offered to address
the counselee’s problems. Such a methodology has more in common with astrology than
biblical Christianity.
At times, it is hard to distinguish the Arnos counseling methodology from immoral
manipulation. For example, when counseling “the Melancholy,” the Arnos insist that the
counselor approaches the counselee with “intellectual superiority,” since people who have a
melancholy temperament are “rebels.”21 They further instruct their counselors that “It is
imperative that you establish your superior intelligence to this person.”22 The Arnos suggest
letting melancholic counselees “see your credentials” and that, “If they have a higher
educational degree than you do, let them know that you have 25 years of experience.”23
Additionally, the Arnos require that their counselors “never confront a Melancholy counselee
with their mistakes.”24 Not only is this approach manipulative, it is also utterly unbiblical. Jesus
and His apostles taught that it is right to confront a brother with his sin in order to establish
reconciliation, repentance, and righteousness (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Timothy 5:20).
From the perspective of secular psychology, the APS/FIRO-B test fails to live up to the hype.
In 2003, the Buros Center for Testing, the reputable testing organization of the University of
Nebraska, evaluated the FIRO-B. The evaluation revealed significant deficiencies: The FIRO-B
“appears to fall short of the mark due to flaws in conceptualization and implementation.”25
In his text, Case Studies: Epistlemological [sic] Validation of the Arno Profile System:
Temperament Studies, Alex Appiah, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, has attempted to
mount a defense of temperament theory and the APS by demonstrating their efficacy via case
studies. What this book demonstrates is precisely the opposite. In one case, Appiah writes of a
woman named “Daniella” who sought counseling because of depression and anger. After
having run her through the APS, Appiah then reviewed Daniella’s “inborn” temperament traits
with her. Appiah then counseled her to adjust her life to fit these traits. For example, according
to the APS, Daniella is “Melancholy-Compulsive in the area of Control.” Appiah then concluded
that Daniella “Has a compulsive need to ‘appear’ competent and in control.” He then counseled
her to “learn to submit to authorities while maintaining control of her own personal life.”26 Not
once did Appiah appeal to the Gospel nor its implications for this woman’s life. Never was the
rich treasury of biblical wisdom applied to her anger and depression. Daniella was never
confronted with her sin and her need for grace. Daniella’s counselor was focused upon the
results of the APS and not the reality of her life.
Is the Arnos’ System Biblical?
Whereas the Arnos have asserted that their theory is rooted in the Bible and is completely
in harmony with the Christian faith, Creation Therapy, like that of LaHaye’s temperament
theory, is completely absent of biblical support. The only text Arnos have attempted to marshal
to demonstrate the biblical nature of their theory is, unsurprisingly, Proverbs 30:11-14. As
noted above, this passage says nothing about temperaments but instead characterizes those
who break the commandments of God within the context of the writer’s life. So too, the Arnos
have engaged in proof-texting in order to demonstrate that the human temperament is
comprised of inclusion, control, and affection. They have cited a handful of texts (e.g., Ezekiel
18:31; Luke 1:46-47; 1 Corinthians 2:10) all of which say nothing about temperament nor
inclusion, control, or affection—psychological categories that are completely foreign to the
biblical text.
To put it plainly, there is absolutely no biblical justification for any part of temperament
theory or the Arnos’ system. Whereas the Arnos make much of the fact that they reject modern
psychotherapies,27 their system is rooted in the backward thinking of an unbelieving worldview
(i.e., that of Galen and those who would build on his theory), and it is thoroughly influenced by
secular psychology. For example, the Arnos appropriated the introvert/extrovert paradigm
popularized by the occultist and psychologist C. G. Jung.28 Much the same can be said regarding
the Arnos appropriation of the language of “self-esteem.” By implication, the Arnos’ counseling
methodology implies that the Bible is insufficient to equip the church for the good work of
counseling (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Specifically, Creation Therapy presupposes that the Bible
insufficiently teaches the doctrine of anthropology and counseling methodology.29 Instead of
the genuinely godly counsel given by Christ and the apostle Paul, the Arnos and the NCCA, give
counsel from a baptized version of an ancient and long-discredited personality theory.
The Bible does not teach that each human being has an unchanging and innate
temperament. Rather, the expectation of Scripture is that Christians would change
comprehensively according to the Spirit’s ministry of sanctification. Instead of seeking to
identify our inborn temperament to understand ourselves and our needs, the Bible directs us to
live a God-focused life wherein Jesus is our greatest treasure. The Triune God calls forth, “listen
to me” (Isaiah 51:1), “turn to me” (Isaiah 45:22). Scripture never directs those who are afflicted
to look to themselves to understand or solve their problems.
The ad-hock attributes associated with the various temperaments are completely baseless
and recast human identity in a two-dimensional framework that is neither realistic nor
pragmatic. Whereas the Arnos believe that their theory is the key to giving godly counsel, they
depart from the biblical text to derive its content. Like psychology and psychiatry, temperament
theory originates from the unbelieving world and is fundamentally man-centered.
The Arnos’ have asserted that sin is essentially brought about as a result of unmet
temperament needs.30 Subsequently, recognizing these needs, fulfilling them, and maintaining
a balance will result in individuals refraining from falling “into an area of temperament
weakness.” This paradigm, however, is also completely unbiblical. The command of the New
Testament is not to get our “temperament needs” met, but to deny ourselves and follow Christ
(Matthew 16:24). Man’s sin is brought about most fundamentally by the idolatry of self and is
only corrected by trust in the one true God and a denial of self. Christianity then is an exercise
in delayed gratification: Putting to death our selfish desires (Galatians 5:24), setting our minds
“on things above, not on things that are on earth” (Colossians 3:1), and patiently awaiting our
glorious reward, namely, Christ Himself.
The way of the cross is for the present; glory and reward will come only in the future when
Jesus comes to reign. Discipleship means certain death.31
Unlike Creation Therapy, the Christian faith calls us to conformity to the image of Christ,
and that conformity requires comprehensive change. Our desires, needs, character, personality,
minds—indeed everything that we are must change and be conformed to Christ. Thus, whereas
Creation Therapy aims to teach counselees to ‘know thyself,’ the Christian faith teaches
counselees to set aside themselves and to know God.
Creation Therapy is predicated upon a trichotomist anthropology which asserts that
mankind is a “triune being…made up of body, soul, and spirit.”32 According to the Arnos, the
soul includes the human’s intellect, will, and emotions (cf. Schutz), and it is “in the soul” that
the Arnos have located temperament.33 Plainly put, the Arnos’ trichotomist anthropology is
wrong. When God created man, He created him from two components: breath and dust
(Genesis 2:7).
When we examine the manner in which the terms “soul and “spirit” are used in Scripture, it
is clear that these are synonymous and refer to the same immaterial component. For instance,
Mary’s famous song, the Magnificat, states, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices
in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). Mary’s statement is a classic example of synonymous
parallelism indicating that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are interchangeable. John 12:27 records
Jesus as saying, “Now my soul is troubled.” In an entirely similar context, John 13:21 states,
“Jesus was troubled in his spirit.” Jesus uses soul and spirit synonymously when he says that we
are body and soul (Matthew 10:28) and body and spirit (Matthew 26:41). Both the soul and
spirit are characterized within Scripture as the immaterial component of man (Luke 24:29; 1
Corinthians 2:11). While there are many more examples we could appeal to, suffice it to say
that these terms are used synonymously. So too, lexicons uphold the interchangeability of
“soul” and “spirit.” Taking these terms as they are found in the New Testament, the term
psuchē (i.e., “soul”) is defined as “life on earth in its animating aspect making bodily functions
possible—life, life-principle, soul.”34 The term pneuma (i.e., “spirit”) is defined as “that which
animates or gives life to the body.”35
Given the above, when we analyze the two principal texts marshaled in defense of
trichotomy (i.e., 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12), there exists little reason to interpret
these two verses as teaching an anthropology otherwise unknown in the New Testament.
When Paul wrote, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your
whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1
Thessalonians 5:23), we ought to recognize that he “accumulates terms to express
completeness, a common idiom.”36
Hebrews 4:12 states, “For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the
thoughts and intentions of the heart” While virtually all trichotomists point to this text as
evidence for their view, the term translated “division” (Greek. “merismos”) and its New
Testament cognates always refer to the dividing up or distribution of the same thing.37 For
instance, Hebrews 2:14 speaks of “gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed (merismos) according to
His will.” Matthew 27:35 states, “And when they had crucified Him, they divided (dimerizo) His
garments among them by casting lots.” Here, as in every occurrence of this verb, it is a single
object that is being divided or better, distributed (cf. Luke 11:17-18; John 19:24).
Academic Chicanery
In researching the Arnos, I attempted to examine their claims to considerable doctoral-
level education credentials. Richard Arno claims to possess a “D.Psy.” from Faith Theological
Seminary, a Ph.D. from Andrew Jackson University, and a D.D. from Jacksonville Theological
Seminary.38 Phyllis Arno also claims to possess a Ph.D. from Andrew Jackson University.
My curiosity was piqued since “D.Psy” is not a recognized abbreviation for the degree of
Doctor of Psychology. To no avail, I attempted to locate the institution which issued this degree.
I then attempted to verify the Arnos’ Ph.D.s from Andrew Jackson University (AJU). This
institution underwent a name change and is now New Charter University (NCU). NCU/AJU is a
nationally accredited business college, offering only degrees in business and communications
via distance education. Noticing that the school does not currently offer doctoral degrees, I
inquired of NCU and asked the registrar if the school ever had a doctoral program. I was told
that neither NCU nor AJU has ever had a doctoral degree program. Given that “Doctor of
Divinity” is generally considered to be an honorary degree within the U.S., I’ve concluded that
there is little reason to countenance the Arnos claims to doctoral-level education.
After developing creation therapy, the Arnos established the NCCA. This group provides
training, credentials, and degrees for those who desire to practice Creation Therapy. One can
earn a “Bachelor of Arts in Christian Counseling” from the NCCA by completing a mere fourteen
courses!39 In the U.S., baccalaureate degrees require the equivalent of four years of full-time
study. I contacted a school that is authorized to administer NCCA programs to inquire how long
it would take for someone to earn a Bachelor of Arts from NCCA. I was told that one could earn
this degree in as little as one year of full-time study. Needless to say, NCCA academic
requirements are exceptionally substandard and meet the definition of a “diploma mill.”40
Conclusion
Like LaHaye, the Arnos have done the church a great disservice in purveying a completely
unbiblical approach to helping hurting people. While the Arnos have sought to uphold the value
of their modality by touting Creation Therapy’s effectiveness, their counseling method is
antithetical to Scripture. Creation Therapy is not founded upon a thoroughgoing exegesis of the
Bible, but the pagan presuppositions of Galen and those who would build upon his misguided
theory. While the Arnos claim that Creation Therapy is “A Biblically Based Model for Christian
Counseling,” its tenets (e.g., the category of “temperament”) are entirely foreign to the biblical
text.
Functionally, the Arnos’ system is detrimental to those that receive its counsel since it does
not accord with the Bible’s teaching. As shown above, NCCA counselors do not counsel people,
but temperaments. The Arnos’ system commodifies people and their problems, recasting them
in a two-dimensional temperament framework.
