Navigating Psychiatric Medications: A Biblical Perspective

Recently, I watched a video addressing psychiatric medications from a Christian perspective. It is one that represents what many would call an “integrationist” approach, viewing these medications as potentially legitimate tools within a biblical framework. The presentation was pastorally warm, theologically engaging, and clearly delivered by someone who cares deeply about suffering people and the authority of Scripture.

Yet as I listened, I found myself troubled, not by the speaker’s heart, but by questions the message raised that it didn’t fully address. My purpose here isn’t to attack a brother in Christ, but to think carefully together about issues that affect how we care for struggling souls. These are questions we must wrestle with, precisely because the stakes are so high.

What the Speaker Got Right

The presentation made several important points:

• We are body-soul creatures, and attention to both aspects is warranted
• God intends to relieve suffering through Christ’s work
• God also transforms suffering for believers’ sanctification
• Medications can be used idolatrously (making them ultimate rather than God)
• Medication decisions require wisdom, prayer, and discernment
• There’s no universal rule applicable to all people at all times

These are biblical truths worth affirming. The speaker rightly rejects simplistic formulas and acknowledges both the relief and the redemptive aspects of suffering.

Where Questions Emerge

My concern centers on three interrelated issues:

The evidence base for psychiatric medications, the expansion of “common grace” theology, and what these mean for faithful pastoral care.

The Evidence Problem

The speaker frames psychiatric medications as “gifts of God’s common grace” that may bring “some measure of relief.” But this raises crucial questions about what these medications actually do.

Consider what recent research reveals:

On diagnostic testing: Unlike other medical conditions, psychiatric diagnoses have no objective tests. There are no blood tests, brain scans, or other biological markers that can diagnose depression, anxiety, or other mental health conditions. Diagnosis remains entirely symptom-based, relying on patient self-reports and clinical observation.

On the “chemical imbalance” theory: Major research reviews have found no clear evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin or other neurotransmitter imbalances. The “chemical imbalance” concept—heavily promoted in pharmaceutical marketing since the 1990s—lacks scientific validation. Researchers cannot identify what a “normal” level of any brain chemical should be, making it impossible to measure an “imbalance.”

On medication approval: The FDA approves antidepressants based on trials lasting only 6-8 weeks. Among clinical trials reviewed, 88.5% lasted 12 weeks or less, and none exceeded one year. Yet in real-world practice, the median duration of antidepressant use is approximately 5 years, with 25% of users taking them for over a decade—representing about 8.8 million American adults. This represents a massive gap between the evidence base and actual prescribing patterns.

On the mechanism of action: We don’t clearly understand how psychiatric medications work. If they’re not “correcting an imbalance,” what are they doing? Dr. Peter Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist who has testified as an expert witness in numerous cases, argues that these medications work primarily through brain-disabling effects rather than by correcting deficiencies.

These aren’t fringe claims. Even mainstream psychiatric literature acknowledges the absence of diagnostic biomarkers and the gaps in our understanding.

The Common Grace Question

The speaker grounds his position partly in “common grace,” the Reformed theological concept that God bestows undeserved blessings on all humanity, which enables unregenerate people to discover genuine truths about creation.

Historically, common grace referred to things like:

• God’s providential care (rain, harvest, seasons)
• Restraint of sin’s full effects
• Unregenerate people’s ability to discover truths about the created order
• Cultural developments in art, science, and civil society

Traditionally, this meant Christians could gratefully receive an unbeliever’s discovery about mathematics, agriculture, or how the human body fights infection.

But in recent years, “common grace” has been stretched to justify incorporating secular psychological theories and therapeutic techniques into Christian counseling. The argument runs: “Since God gives common grace truth through non-Christians, we should learn from secular psychology and let it inform our counseling.”

This represents a significant theological shift. There’s a crucial difference between:

• Using a discovery about how creation works (like antibiotics treating bacterial infection)
• Adopting a framework about the soul, sin, spiritual change, and therapeutic methodology

The latter makes authoritative claims about the very domain where Scripture claims to be sufficient. When we appeal to common grace to justify psychiatric medications, we need to demonstrate that these interventions reflect discovered truths about how God designed humans to function, not pharmaceutical experimentation justified after the fact by theological language.

If medications work by mechanisms we don’t understand, to address conditions we can’t objectively diagnose, to correct imbalances we can’t measure, approved on short-term trials but used long-term, can we confidently call this “stewarding creation” under common grace? Or does this stretch the concept beyond recognition?

The Practical-Pastoral Issue

Here’s where I find myself in qualified agreement with those who say medications might occasionally provide a helpful “interruption.”

I have personally observed rare cases where a medication intervention seemed to break a destructive cycle long enough for a person to engage in the real work of healing by establishing new patterns, addressing root issues, rebuilding relationships, and growing in faith. In such cases, the medication functioned as a temporary interruption, not a long-term solution.

But this raises an important question: If medications are meant to provide temporary space for genuine change, why are so many people taking them for years or even decades?

The disconnect between short-term FDA approval and long-term prescribing ought to concern us. It shows we’ve shifted from “medication as temporary help” to “medication as chronic management,” often without clear evidence that this serves people well.

What Wisdom Requires

So, where does this leave us? Not with simple answers, of course, but at least with better questions:

We must be honest about what we know and don’t know. We don’t have objective tests for mental illness. We don’t have proof of chemical imbalances. We don’t have long-term studies supporting decades of medication use. Acknowledging these gaps isn’t being anti-medical; it’s being truthful and accurate.

We must be careful with theological categories. “Common grace” is a precious doctrine, but it doesn’t automatically baptize every human intervention as a gift from God. We need to demonstrate that medications represent genuine discoveries about creation’s design, not assume it because they’re widely used.

We must distinguish relief from healing. Temporary symptom reduction isn’t the same as biblical transformation. An improved mood doesn’t necessarily equal growth in perseverance, trust, hope, or love —the very fruits the presenter correctly identified as mattering.

We must count the cost. Every intervention involves trade-offs. The presenter acknowledged that medications don’t help everyone and may have significant side effects. But we need to press further: What are the long-term effects of brain-altering drugs? What happens when people try to stop? What are we communicating about the nature of human problems and God’s solutions?

We must hold together compassion and conviction. Suffering people deserve our tenderness, not our judgment. But true compassion doesn’t avoid hard truths. Sometimes the most loving thing is to help someone see their struggle in a biblical framework rather than a medical one, even when that feels far more difficult in the moment.

A Different Framework

Rather than starting with “medications might be gifts of common grace,” what if we started here:

• Human beings are made in God’s image—body and soul united
• We live in a fallen world where suffering is real and varied
• God provides multiple means for addressing our struggles: His Word, His Spirit, His people, prayer, confession, repentance, spiritual disciplines, and sometimes medical intervention for genuine physical disease
• Wisdom requires discerning what kind of problem we’re facing and what kind of help truly serves (see 1 Thessalonians 5:14)

From this framework, psychiatric medications don’t automatically belong in the “helpful medical intervention” category simply because they’re prescribed by doctors. We must ask more penetrating questions:

• What problem is this medication actually addressing?
• Is this fundamentally a spiritual struggle being medicalized?
• Are there alternatives that address root issues rather than just symptoms?
• What does long-term dependence on brain-altering drugs communicate about where real help is found?

Moving Forward

I don’t claim to have all the answers. I recognize godly, Bible-believing Christians hold different views on these matters. I’ve tried to avoid being polemic and instead offer clarity on issues that deserve careful thought.

But I am increasingly convinced that the evangelical church’s embrace of psychiatric medication, often with only slight hesitation and a nod toward “wisdom,” has not served us well. We have too quickly accepted secular psychiatry’s categories, diagnoses, and solutions, baptizing them with “common grace” language without sufficient scrutiny.

Suffering people deserve better. They deserve the full riches of Scripture applied with skill and compassion. They deserve the truth about what medications actually do and don’t do. They deserve help that doesn’t just manage symptoms but addresses root causes. They deserve the hope that in Christ, through His sufficient Word and by His Spirit’s power, genuine transformation is possible.

This doesn’t mean medications are never appropriate. But it does mean we need to approach them with much more caution, much more biblical discernment, and much more confidence in God’s revealed wisdom than contemporary Christian culture typically demonstrates.

May God give us all wisdom to care well for struggling souls, to honor His Word’s sufficiency, and to trust His power to transform, not just relieve, the suffering of His people.

---

My hope in writing this is not to wound but to help us think more clearly together about matters that deeply affect people we love. If you disagree, I welcome thoughtful engagement. If you agree, let’s together pursue wisdom in caring for souls.