I am a college dropout.
I am not a Beauty School dropout, for some reason I was able to finish that program. But I couldn’t persist through the endless sessions of cut and paste at the Art Institute long enough to obtain a degree. Hence, I am not allowed to call myself an Interior “Designer.”
The reason I went to school in the first place was because our industry is taking a strong stance toward “professionalism.” The ranks of women who, after watching Trading Spaces or HGTV, ran out and helped their friends and family decorate their homes apparently diminished the role of “legitimate” designers. I wanted to make sure I was working within the realm of the credible. Besides, we didn’t have cable and I never watched those shows.
Several quarters into the program, however, it occurred to me that school had little to do with a secret design knowledge unknown to the average housewife and more to do with the per credit hour fee. Which was outrageous. I kept waiting to find out how the placement of candlesticks could threaten the life of a homeowner or which wall finish was the most dangerous to use in a child’s playroom. Never mind the risk of falling from a plastic toy slide, it was the paint fumes that were most hazardous.
Suffice to say that, as much as the industry would like to legitimize, decorating is not hazardous to the average homeowners health.
Now pay attention, I’m gonna take a large leap here (picture that yellow plastic slide and me on top)
A similar correlation can be made in reference to psychology.
One of the questions I often ponder is, “who let Freud in the church?” There is no force of nature that could persuade a body of believers to allow an atheist such as Darwin to influence the programs of a ministry. Yet the atheist Freud is to whom we refer our congregation’s deepest soul needs. For the past 100 years Christians have willingly deferred soul care from the institution with “the only authoritative source for counseling wisdom (the Holy Spirit speaking through the Word of God)” to the psychotherapist and expect he would fulfill “the role of a priest, and expect and demand of him that he shall free them from their distress.”
I believe the answer to my question falls somewhere in that thought above about professionalism. By redefining the issues of sin and fallen man and giving them instead a medical identity, early atheist forefathers of psychiatric thought removed the problem (and therefore the cure) from the power of the local church. “Specifically, in our time and place, secular psychology has intruded into the domain of biblical truth and practice. Secular theories and therapies substitute for biblical wisdom and deceive people both inside and outside the church.”
And if you remember anything about Freud or Skinner or Jung, that was exactly their intention. “Psychotherapists must occupy ourselves with problems which, strictly speaking, belong to the theologian.” Carl Jung (Oops! I quoted Jung again!)
I think if I said that housewives are completely qualified (without a degree) to decorate both their own as well as their friends and families homes you would smirk – and agree. I wonder if also I claimed that believers are completely qualified (without a degree) to counsel, admonish and encourage people in distress for the purpose of changing the human heart what the response would be.
“The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.” Psalm 33:10-11