There is a pastoral crisis unfolding in evangelical and conservative Christian churches across the country, and it is happening with the best of intentions. In an effort to take sin seriously and honor the authority of Scripture, many well-meaning pastors, biblical counselors, and lay leaders have adopted a framework that treats mental illness as primarily — or exclusively — a spiritual problem rooted in individual sin. The person struggling with crippling anxiety is told their fear is a failure of faith. The individual suffering from major depression is counseled to repent more deeply. The man paralyzed by OCD is asked what he is worshiping instead of God.
The intention is sound: bring Scripture to bear on human suffering. The execution, however, is theologically incomplete, clinically harmful, and — perhaps most painfully — deeply shaming to the people who need the church’s compassion most.
Before proceeding, a critical clarification is in order. The argument of this article is not that mental illness is never a spiritual issue. It clearly can be. Sin has genuine psychological consequences — guilt, relational rupture, disordered desires, the habitual patterns that reshape the neural architecture of the brain over time. Personal sin is real, spiritually significant, and clinically relevant. Pastoral care that ignores the spiritual dimension of human suffering is not merely incomplete; it is unfaithful to the whole counsel of God.
The argument here is more precise: to categorically deny the biological, neurological, and non-volitional dimensions of mental illness is equally harmful to the person suffering as the secularist’s denial of the spiritual dimension. The secular clinician who reduces depression to a serotonin deficiency and the pastor who reduces it to a faith deficiency have made the same category error in opposite directions — they have each collapsed a complex, integrated human reality into a single explanatory frame that cannot bear the weight placed upon it. A faithful Christian anthropology must hold the whole person together: body and soul, neurobiology and sanctification, medicine and prayer. This is not a compromise position. It is the theologically rigorous one.
The Theological Problem: Confusing Original Sin with Personal Sin
The framework that collapses mental illness into individual sin reveals a truncated reading of the Genesis narrative. There are, in theological terms, two critically distinct categories that the biblical counseling movement often fails to hold in careful tension: original sin and personal sin.
D. A. Carson, in his landmark work on human suffering, argues precisely this point. In How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil, Carson insists that while suffering does have a relationship to sin in the broad cosmic sense, this does not mean that every instance of suffering maps directly onto a specific moral failure. Suffering belongs to a fallen world — not always to a falling person (Carson, 1990). The distinction matters enormously.
Personal sin refers to the individual volitional acts of transgression that Scripture calls us to confess, repent of, and turn from (1 John 1:9; Acts 3:19). These are real, they matter eternally, and they carry genuine psychological consequences — guilt, relational rupture, the searing of conscience.
Original sin, however, is different in kind. When Adam and Eve chose autonomy over communion in Genesis 3, the consequences were not merely moral. They were cosmic and comprehensive. The entire created order was subjected to futility (Romans 8:20). Thorns, death, pain in childbirth, the groaning of the whole creation — these are not the consequences of any individual’s personal rebellion. They are the wages of the fall inherited by every human being simply by virtue of being born into a world that is not as it was meant to be.
Sandra Richter, in The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament, illuminates this cosmic scope of the fall with particular clarity. Richter frames the narrative of Genesis 3 not merely as a moral episode but as the catastrophic unraveling of the sacred space God had designed for human flourishing — the garden as a template of shalom, now irreparably disrupted (Richter, 2008). The implications of this for pastoral anthropology are significant. If the fall fractured the entire created order — the relational, the physical, the social, and the ecological — then it fractured the neurological substrate of human consciousness alongside everything else. The brain is not an island exempt from the reach of Genesis 3.
The body — including the brain — was subjected to that curse. To acknowledge this is not to minimize personal sin. It is to read Genesis 3 carefully.
What Jesus Said About Suffering and Sin
Perhaps no passage more directly confronts the reflexive tendency to blame suffering on personal sin than John 9, the account of the man born blind. When the disciples encountered him, they asked the very question many contemporary biblical counselors implicitly assume: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). This was not a fringe theological position. It was the dominant assumption of first-century religious culture — that behind every affliction lay a specific moral failure.
Jesus rejected it categorically: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).
H. A. Ironside, in his expository commentary on John’s Gospel, observed that the disciples’ question reflected a sincere but misguided theological instinct — the impulse to locate a guilty party behind every instance of human suffering. Like Job’s three friends before them, the disciples assumed that the righteous do not suffer without cause. Ironside noted that Jesus’ response fundamentally redirected the question: rather than engaging the logic of retribution, Christ moved immediately to mercy and action (Ironside, 1942/2006). This, Ironside suggested, is the model for the church — not theological speculation about the cause of another’s pain, but the compassionate work of bringing healing in Christ’s name.
This passage does not eliminate the connection between sin and suffering at the level of original sin. It eliminates the assumption of a direct, personal, one-to-one causal relationship between individual moral failure and specific instances of suffering or illness. That distinction is precisely the one the church so often collapses.
The Brain Is Part of the Body, and the Body Is Fallen
Here is a peculiar inconsistency that frequently appears in congregational life: pastors and biblical counselors who would readily acknowledge the legitimacy of a brain scan showing a tumor will nonetheless dismiss the legitimacy of a brain scan showing the neurobiological markers of depression, anxiety, or schizophrenia.
This is not a principled theological distinction. It is an arbitrary one.
A. W. Tozer, writing with characteristic prophetic directness in The Knowledge of the Holy, observed that the law of mutation and decay belongs to a fallen world — that disorder, entropy, and brokenness are the signature of creation under the curse (Tozer, 1961). If we take seriously what Tozer understood about the comprehensive effects of the fall on created reality, there is no principled reason to exempt the brain — the most complex organ in the human body — from that same fallenness. God’s immutability stands in stark contrast to a created order that groans and strains under the weight of what was lost in Eden. That groaning is biological. It is neurological. It is real.
The same brain that produces cognition, memory, and the capacity for worship is also the organ that — when dysregulated by genetics, trauma, inflammatory processes, or neurotransmitter dysfunction — produces the symptoms we classify as mental illness. Depression is not merely “sadness.” Major depressive disorder involves measurable disruptions in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, altered serotonergic and dopaminergic activity, hippocampal volume reduction, and identifiable patterns of prefrontal cortical dysregulation (Maletic et al., 2007). Anxiety disorders involve measurable hyperactivation of the amygdala, dysregulation of the fear-extinction circuit, and altered cortisol reactivity (Shin & Liberzon, 2010). These are not metaphors. They are biological realities consistent with what Scripture describes as a world subjected to futility.
To acknowledge that the fallen body is subject to cancer, autoimmune disease, and neurological disorders — but to insist that the fallen brain is immune to biological dysfunction — is a theological inconsistency the church should correct. As Carson rightly observed, our situation as fallen creatures means we have forfeited any right to a life of unbroken ease and comfort, and that suffering — including physical, neurological suffering — is the shared condition of all who live between Eden and the new creation (Carson, 1990).
The Brain/Mind Problem: Where Biblical Counseling’s Framework Strains
To engage this debate fairly, we must acknowledge what the biblical counseling movement has gotten right — and where its own internal logic creates a problem it has not fully resolved.
Jay Adams, the movement’s founder, was not as unsophisticated about biology as his critics often suggest. In a 1992 lecture later published in the Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, Adams explicitly engaged the neuroscience research of his day, argued against Gnostic tendencies that demean the body, and insisted that the body and spirit constitute what he called a “duplex” — two things folded together, not separated. Adams argued that “the union of ‘mind’ or spirit with the body forms a functioning unit oriented toward the material world” (Adams, 1992, Part One, p. 23), and he concluded his engagement with neuroscience research by urging: “As Christians I think we need to do serious thinking about these matters” (Adams, 1992, Part One, p. 24). Adams never flatly denied that biology matters, and even acknowledged in The Christian Counselor’s Manual that counselees presenting with certain psychological symptoms should begin with “a good medical checkup,” since underlying organic causes — tumors, chemical malfunctions — were legitimate considerations (Adams, 1973, p. 384).
David Powlison, the movement’s most gifted second-generation voice, similarly acknowledged in Seeing with New Eyesthat the mind/body relationship is genuinely complex. He offered the historic rule of thumb in biblical counseling — “See a doctor for your body. See your pastor, other pastoral counselors, and wise friends for your heart, soul, mind, might, manner of life, and the way to handle suffering” — while also acknowledging that the possible interrelationship of mind, body, brain, and soul remained underdeveloped in his own framework (Powlison, 2003, p. 238). This candid self-awareness is commendable. It signals that the movement’s most careful theologian recognized the framework as incomplete at precisely this juncture.
Edward Welch, in what remains the biblical counseling movement’s most direct engagement with the question, devoted an entire book to it. In Blame It on the Brain?, Welch distinguishes between what he calls genuine brain disorders and “problems rooted in the heart,” arguing that psychiatric problems are “always spiritual problems and sometimes physical problems” (Welch, 1998, p. 106). Welch acknowledges that the brain “expresses differences in behavior at the chemical level” — but then makes a move that reveals the conceptual strain in the framework: he argues that the brain does not cause these differences; it merely reacts (Welch, 1998, p. 110).
This is where the biblical counseling brain/mind distinction becomes philosophically and scientifically untenable — and where it causes the most pastoral harm. The claim that the brain “reacts but does not cause” is not a finding of neuroscience. It is a philosophical assertion imported into the interpretive framework to preserve the priority of spiritual causation. Contemporary neuroscience does not support a clean causal hierarchy in which the heart, as the volitional-spiritual center, consistently precedes and determines neurological states. The relationship is bidirectional, recursive, and far more integrated than that framework allows. The amygdala does not first receive a spiritually disordered impulse and then produce fear. In individuals with anxiety disorders, the amygdala hyperactivates in response to stimuli that would not trigger the same response in neurotypical individuals — and this differential reactivity is measurable, heritable, and responsive to pharmacological intervention entirely independent of spiritual intervention (Shin & Liberzon, 2010).
To Welch’s credit, his framework is far more nuanced than a simple equation of mental illness with personal sin. But the brain/mind distinction he draws — functionally separating a spiritual “heart” that originates the real problem from a brain that merely expresses it — creates a conceptual category error. It presupposes a dualism between soul and brain that neither Scripture nor neuroscience actually supports.
What Scripture teaches is not that the soul is the real person and the body merely expresses it, but that the human being is a unified creature — what Adams himself rightly called a “duplex” — whose spiritual and physical dimensions are so profoundly integrated that separating them into clean causal layers is neither exegetically warranted nor clinically workable. The Apostle Paul’s lament in Romans 7 — “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Romans 7:19, ESV) — is a description of a profoundly integrated struggle in a profoundly fallen creature, not a clean contest between a sinful will and an innocent body. The groaning of Romans 8 is the groaning of the whole person in a broken, embodied existence.
The biblical counseling movement has done genuine service to the church by insisting that the spiritual dimension of human suffering must not be evacuated from pastoral care. That insistence is correct and important, and this article affirms it. What the movement has not yet fully reckoned with is that the physical and neurological dimension of human suffering equally cannot be evacuated — and that attempting to preserve the priority of “heart” causation by demoting the brain to a merely reactive organ does not square with what we now know about how God made human beings, or with what happened to those human beings in Genesis 3.
To put it plainly: the pastor who tells a depressed congregant that their problem is always a spiritual one, and the secular psychiatrist who tells that same congregant that their problem is only a chemical one, have each committed the same error from opposite sides. They have each mistaken a part of the truth for the whole of it.
The Cultural Dimension: Why This Error Persists
Mark Sayers, in his cultural analysis of post-Christian Western Christianity, has observed that the Western church has an almost reflexive tendency to absorb the assumptions of its surrounding culture — including the culture of self-mastery, individual willpower, and the belief that human beings are essentially perfectible given the right conditions (Sayers, 2016). This cultural mythology, Sayers argues, seeps into the church in subtle but powerful ways.
When that perfectibility myth fuses with a sincere theology of personal responsibility, the result is exactly the framework described above: the assumption that mental illness is primarily a problem of insufficient effort, insufficient faith, or insufficient repentance. John Mark Comer, collaborating with Sayers in cultural analysis of the Western church, has similarly identified how the assumptions of secular culture shape Christian anthropology in ways Christians rarely recognize (Comer, 2021). The body is minimized. The spirit is everything. And so the idea that the flesh — including the brain — might malfunction for reasons entirely independent of the person’s spiritual choices becomes almost unthinkable.
This is, ironically, a form of functional Gnosticism: an implicit belief that matter doesn’t really matter, that what happens in the body is less real and less theologically significant than what happens in the soul. It is not the historic Christian position. The Incarnation itself — God taking on a fully human body — declares the theological significance of embodied existence. The resurrection — Christ rising in bodily form — declares that the body matters to God’s redemptive plan.
Sayers has also rightly noted that a church shaped by this kind of thinking will inevitably struggle to offer genuine presence and healing to the most vulnerable people in its pews — precisely because it lacks the theological categories to understand what they are experiencing (Sayers, 2019). Anxiety is reframed as unbelief. Depression is reframed as ingratitude. Obsessionality is reframed as idolatry. And the person suffering goes home unchanged but now carries the additional weight of spiritual shame.
What Research Tells Us About Biology and Mental Illness
The past three decades of neuroscience have established with considerable rigor that many mental health conditions have robust biological components that exist independent of a person’s spiritual state, moral choices, or quality of faith.
Genetic heritability studies have consistently demonstrated that conditions such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder carry significant heritable components — in many cases exceeding 70–80% heritability (Sullivan et al., 2012). An individual may inherit a predisposition to severe depression the same way they inherit a predisposition to hypertension or Type 1 diabetes. Neither reflects a personal moral failure, and neither is addressed exclusively through spiritual means.
Structural and functional neuroimaging studies have identified consistent neurobiological signatures across mental health conditions. Individuals with PTSD show measurable changes in amygdala reactivity, hippocampal volume, and prefrontal regulatory capacity that persist long after any precipitating trauma (Bremner, 2006). Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder show hyperactivation in the orbitofrontal-striatal circuit that responds to pharmacological and behavioral intervention in measurable, visible ways (Saxena & Rauch, 2004). These are not signs of weak faith. They are signs of a fallen neurological system.
Psychoneuroimmunological research has further demonstrated that inflammatory processes — including those triggered by chronic stress, infection, and early adverse experiences — contribute meaningfully to the onset and course of depression and anxiety (Miller & Raison, 2016). The body’s stress-response systems, shaped by genetics and early environment, do not ask a person’s permission before they malfunction.
None of this research denies that sin has psychological consequences. None of it denies that spiritual practices — prayer, Scripture, community, confession — have genuine and measurable positive effects on mental health (Koenig, 2012). Richter’s framing of the fall as the disruption of shalom — the comprehensive peace and wholeness for which human beings were designed — is actually quite consistent with the neuroscientific literature on how chronic stress, relational rupture, and environmental disorder shape the developing brain (Richter, 2008). The fall broke shalom. The neurological consequences of that rupture are real, measurable, and often heritable. What the research establishes, clearly and cumulatively, is that mental illness cannot be reduced to personal spiritual failure without doing violence both to the science and to the sufferer.
The Pastoral Harm of Getting This Wrong
Carson’s framework for understanding suffering is instructive here. He argues that one of the primary sources of pastoral devastation among Christians is false expectation — the belief that faithfulness insulates a person from suffering, or that suffering therefore signals faithlessness (Carson, 1990). When that false expectation is applied to mental illness specifically, the consequences are predictable and severe.
Shame compounds suffering. The person already struggling under the weight of depression now carries the additional burden of believing their suffering is evidence of spiritual inadequacy. This is not an abstract concern. Research consistently demonstrates that religious shame around mental health is a significant barrier to help-seeking behavior among evangelical Christians (Hankerson et al., 2015).
People stop disclosing. When congregants learn that sharing a mental health struggle invites pastoral correction rather than compassionate support, they learn to hide. Churches that are most vocal about mental illness being a sin problem are often the churches least likely to know how many of their members are suffering in silence.
Spiritual formation is undermined. Ironically, the framework intended to protect theological seriousness often produces the opposite effect. When a person with a biological anxiety disorder is told to pray more and trust God more — and their symptoms do not remit — the predictable conclusion for many is that their faith is insufficient. The church has inadvertently created a framework in which neurological dysregulation becomes evidence against God’s faithfulness. Comer, in Live No Lies, warns that deceptive ideas about who we are and what our struggles mean can produce exactly this kind of spiritual deformation — not because the person lacks faith, but because they have absorbed a false narrative about the nature of their condition (Comer, 2021).
People delay or refuse effective treatment. When mental illness is framed as an exclusively spiritual problem, the implied treatment is exclusively spiritual. For someone with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, delaying evidence-based treatment is not spiritually courageous. It is medically dangerous.
The mirror error is equally harmful. It must be said just as clearly: the church that overcorrects and reduces mental health care entirely to psychiatry and pharmacology has made an equal and opposite mistake. The congregant who is told that their anxiety is only a chemical imbalance and that therapy will fix it has been given a story that is also incomplete. The spiritual dimension — the soul’s orientation toward God, the weight of unconfessed sin, the hunger for transcendence, the significance of prayer and community — is not a supplement to clinical care. For the Christian, it is inseparable from it. A genuinely integrative approach holds both without collapsing either.
A More Faithful Framework: Integrating the Fall, the Body, and God’s Common Grace
A theologically robust approach to mental illness holds together what Scripture holds together. It does not require choosing between taking sin seriously and taking biology seriously.
The fall was comprehensive. Sin entered a world that was “very good” (Genesis 1:31) and subjected every dimension of creation — including the neurological substrate of human consciousness — to decay, disorder, and death (Romans 8:18–23). Richter’s work on the Eden narrative helps the reader grasp the scope of what was lost: not merely moral innocence, but the entire ecosystem of shalom — relational, physical, psychological — within which human beings were designed to flourish (Richter, 2008). Carson reminds us that this cosmic fallenness means suffering is the shared condition of all creatures living between Eden and the new creation, and that not every instance of suffering is the direct consequence of personal sin (Carson, 1990).
Personal sin remains real and clinically relevant. It would be equally wrong to suggest that personal sin never contributes to psychological suffering. Patterns of deception, relational sin, unconfessed guilt, addictive behaviors, and the habitual choices that shape neural pathways over time all have genuine psychological consequences. A competent Christian clinician holds both realities simultaneously — honoring the body’s biology without excusing the soul’s choices.
God’s common grace includes medicine and science. Tozer, for all his mystical intensity, understood that the God who discloses Himself through Scripture also discloses Himself through the creation He made (Tozer, 1961). Psychopharmacology, evidence-based psychotherapy, and neuroscience are not secular intrusions into spiritual care — they are expressions of common grace through which God often provides relief to suffering people (James 1:17). A church that refuses to acknowledge this is not being more faithful. It is being less wise.
The church must cultivate presence over prescription. Sayers argues that renewal in the Western church will come not from better strategies but from deeper presence — a return to the incarnational, embodied reality of God’s people genuinely dwelling with those who suffer (Sayers, 2019). This means sitting with the depressed person without rushing to explain their condition away. It means accompanying the anxious person to their psychiatrist appointment without shame. It means saying, clearly and without embarrassment, that their brain may need help that a small group cannot provide — and that this does not mean God has failed them or that they have failed God.
Compassion is not the same as minimizing sin. Recognizing that a person’s depression has neurobiological roots does not mean abandoning the call to sanctification. It means meeting people where they are — which is precisely what the Incarnation modeled. As Tozer wrote in The Pursuit of God, the God who draws near to us is “always receptive to misery and need, as well as to love and faith” (Tozer, 1948, p. 82). The God who took on flesh, who wept at Lazarus’s tomb (John 11:35), and who bore the full weight of human suffering in His own body understands that the fallenness of the body is not a character flaw. It is a wound.
Conclusion: A Both/And, Not an Either/Or
The church has an extraordinary opportunity to be a place of genuine refuge for people suffering from mental illness. That opportunity is squandered when theological frameworks, however well-intentioned, shame the suffering into silence and send the struggling away without help.
The argument of this article is not that mental illness is never a spiritual issue. It sometimes clearly is, and the biblical counseling movement has rendered genuine service to the church by insisting that the soul’s relationship to God is never irrelevant to human suffering. The argument is that to categorically deny the biological, neurological, and non-volitional dimensions of mental illness is equally harmful — a mirror error that produces its own form of pastoral damage. Just as the secular clinician who reduces the suffering person to a bundle of neurons has missed the image-bearing, soul-possessing dignity of the human being, so the pastor who reduces the suffering person to a spiritual failure has missed the embodied, neurologically complex, biologically vulnerable creature that God actually made.
Mental illness is not always a spiritual issue. It is often — significantly, measurably, biologically — a consequence of living in a world that fell, with bodies that are fallen. Carson said it plainly: suffering exists along a spectrum that includes personal sin, but it also includes innocent suffering, social evil, and the simple conditions of existence in a broken world (Carson, 1990). The church does not honor Scripture by ignoring these distinctions. It honors Scripture by holding them carefully together.
The faithful response looks something like what Jesus modeled in John 9 — what Ironside rightly described as moving past theological speculation to the compassionate work of bringing healing to real people in real pain (Ironside, 1942/2006). The church does not have to choose between theological fidelity and clinical compassion. The most faithful path — the most thoroughly Christian path — holds both, refusing to reduce the image-bearing, biologically fallen, spiritually significant human person to any single explanatory frame.
If you are navigating the complex intersection of faith and mental health, you don’t have to carry the weight alone. At Centennial Park Counseling, our team provides faith-integrated, clinically sound therapy that honors both your spiritual journey and your biological design. Reach out to our Grand Rapids office today to schedule a confidential appointment.
References
Adams, J. E. (1973). The Christian counselor’s manual. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing.
Adams, J. E. (1992). The biblical perspective on the mind-body problem. Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, 6(1–2), 1–30.
Bremner, J. D. (2006). Traumatic stress: Effects on the brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.4/jbremner
Carson, D. A. (1990). How long, O Lord? Reflections on suffering and evil. Baker Book House.
Comer, J. M. (2021). Live no lies: Recognize and resist the three enemies that sabotage your peace. WaterBrook.
Hankerson, S. H., Watson, K. T., Lukachko, A., Fullilove, M. T., & Weissman, M. (2015). Ministers’ perceptions of church-based programs to provide depression care for African Americans. Journal of Urban Health, 92(4), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9956-y
Ironside, H. A. (2006). John (Ironside expository commentary). Kregel Academic & Professional. (Original work published 1942)
Koenig, H. G. (2012). Religion, spirituality, and health: The research and clinical implications. ISRN Psychiatry, 2012, Article 278730. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/278730
Maletic, V., Robinson, M., Oakes, T., Iyengar, S., Ball, S. G., & Russell, J. (2007). Neurobiology of depression: An integrated view of key findings. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 61(12), 2030–2040. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01602.x
Miller, A. H., & Raison, C. L. (2016). The role of inflammation in depression: From evolutionary imperative to modern treatment target. Nature Reviews Immunology, 16(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2015.5
Powlison, D. (2003). Seeing with new eyes: Counseling and the human condition through the lens of Scripture. P&R Publishing.
Richter, S. L. (2008). The Epic of Eden: A Christian entry into the Old Testament. IVP Academic.
Saxena, S., & Rauch, S. L. (2004). Functional neuroimaging and the neuroanatomy of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 27(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2004.01.004
Sayers, M. (2016). Disappearing church: From cultural relevance to gospel resilience. Moody Publishers.
Sayers, M. (2019). Reappearing church: The hope for renewal in the rise of our post-Christian culture. Moody Publishers.
Shin, L. M., & Liberzon, I. (2010). The neurocircuitry of fear, stress, and anxiety disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.83
Sullivan, P. F., Daly, M. J., & O’Donovan, M. (2012). Genetic architectures of psychiatric disorders: The emerging picture and its implications. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13(8), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3240
Tozer, A. W. (1948). The pursuit of God. Christian Publications.
Tozer, A. W. (1961). The knowledge of the holy: The attributes of God, their meaning in the Christian life. Harper & Row.
Welch, E. T. (1998). Blame it on the brain? Distinguishing chemical imbalances, brain disorders, and disobedience. P&R Publishing.
