Biblical Counseling?

I am constantly amazed at the depth of my ignorance related to the general irrationalness of American society. I keep running into things where my immediate reaction is “you have got to be kidding me!”

This time around it was a passing reference on the game show “Wheel of Fortune” which I will confess I sometimes watch while wolfing down dinner. By way of introducing herself a contestant said that she was pursuing a degree in “Biblical Counseling.” I looked at my wife and asked “what the hell is biblical counseling?” But she didn’t know either. So I fired up my trusty PC and looked it up on the web.

It appears to be psychological counseling encumbered by biblical correctness and, as far as I can tell, looks very, very, dangerous. Essentially these people toss out all of modern psychology and psychiatry where it conflicts with biblical interpretation.

Allow me to quote from the covenant of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC), an organization that certifies biblical counselors.

“We deny that secular theories and practices are manifestations of General Revelation or Common Grace. We affirm that they are, in fact, attempts to substitute the “discoveries” of rebellious human thought for the truths revealed in Scripture, and are, therefore, in competition with a proper interpretation of General Revelation and with biblical counseling. They cannot be integrated with the Faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

I don’t know much about psychology but I think I would hesitate tossing out Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner and Carl Rogers wholesale. The word “Nouthetic,” by the way, comes from the Greek verb “noutheteo” often used by Paul and interpreted as either to admonish, to correct or to instruct.

I found some of the justifications for tossing out modern psychology illuminating. So here are some quotes from a page on “Biblical Counseling.”

“Conventional psychiatry believes that mental illness exists.”

Yeah, are you saying that it doesn’t? Actually, that’s precisely what they seem to be saying.

“Most problems stem from a faulty relationship with God.”

Really? So does that mean that you can predict the existence or absence of mental problems based upon someone’s relationship with God? How does one determine what someone’s relationship with God happens to be? Is there a database of God’s relationships that I’ve overlooked?

“Man is not a higher form of animal but rather a creation of God.”

Oh well, so much for the sciences of biology, paleontology, zoology, astronomy, cosmology and geology.

“According to the Scriptures man is responsible for his behavior.”

In general this is accurate as long as one is competent to understand the potential consequences of that behavior and the difference between right and wrong. Biblical counseling however appears to accept this as an unconditional statement. The last I looked, that wasn’t the accepted medical opinion.

“Mankind at the core is sinful, inherently evil.”

This is total bullfeathers. Mankind is nothing at the core other than an advanced form of animal bred by natural selection to have strong survival and reproductive instincts. The instincts are good; the available paths one may follow to satisfy those instincts are labeled by society as either good or evil. These definitions are enforced by sanctions that are essentially the behavior modification strategy talked about by Skinner.

Then we go into what are called “presuppositions” critical to biblical counseling. This is what they’re calling them and not me so first let’s consider the definition of “presupposition” which is “to believe that a particular thing is true before there is any evidence of it.”

This means that these people are counseling mentally disturbed individuals based upon axioms that have absolutely no evidence of being correct. Freud and Skinner may have been wrong but at least their theories had some basis in evidence and experimentation. If you don’t consider this dangerous I’d like to know why?

“The Bible is the inspired, inherent Word of God, the final authority regarding faith and practice (II Timothy 3:16,17). It thoroughly equips for living.”

Let’s start with the fact that the authorship of II Timothy, one of the three pastorals, is open to debate. While traditions, and most conservative Christians, firmly attribute the authorship of the letter to Paul, critical scholarship places the authorship in doubt.

Then let’s consider what the quote actually says.

II Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

I don’t see the conclusion following from this quote. The passage is simply saying that scripture is useful for moral instruction and even I wouldn’t debate that. Note that “useful” does not in any way imply complete or “final authority” regarding practice. Nor does the passage in any way imply that scripture “thoroughly equips for living.” This is another example of heroic eisegesis forcing the text to say what one wants it to say.

“Man's basic problem is a sin problem (Romans 1, Jeremiah 17:9, Isaiah 53:6, Psalm 51)”

No man’s basic problem is not a sin problem. That has got to be the single stupidest idea in all of Christianity. The concept of “sin” has undoubtedly caused more grief for mankind than all other causes put together. What defines sin anyway? Paul said that sin was defined by the law but righteousness was defined by faith and grace rather than simple obedience to the law. In other words, if you broke the law you sinned, but if you obeyed the law you got absolutely nothing unless you also had faith.

Paul, in Romans, spins a complex, at times downright illucid, tapestry trying to explain the relationship of sin, the law and faith. Paul does take the position that man is by nature corrupt. Of course Paul also takes the position that sexual relations are a bad thing and that marriage should only be for those that can’t control themselves. That sort of leaves any and all of Paul’s opinions more than a little suspect.

As for Jeremiah, Isaiah and Psalm 51, we have more heroic eisegesis. Psalm 51 is David’s lament over committing adultery with Bathsheba and addresses his own personal corruption. It has absolutely nothing to do with mankind in general.

Isaiah 53:6 is in the middle of the Suffering Servant passages and simply laments that all of the people have turned away from God and as a result God has laid upon the Suffering Servant of Israel punishment for the unfaithfulness of the people. Specifically this probably refers to the siege of Jerusalem and capture of King Manassah by the Babylonians.

Isaiah 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Jeremiah 17 is a lament, and a threat, because the people of Judah have turned away from God and established altars to false gods. This is a specific, and not a general, indictment about acts that are about to be rectified by King Josiah so, again, I don’t see this as leading to the supposed conclusion.

“Man was created for God's pleasure, as a morally responsible being.”

You mean I’m a toy? Gee whiz, imagine that? If God exists, and is responsible for the creation of the universe, then I am indebted to him for the gift of life. But I am not obligated to exist merely for his amusement nor do I think that would be his purpose. Again I find the pettiness of the deity assumed by fundamentalist Christianity absolutely appalling. If I were God I’d be terribly insulted, or, perhaps more likely, highly amused.

I find the entire concept of people attempting to treat folks in mental distress based upon biblical presuppositions while disregarding all of modern psychology and psychiatry absolutely horrifying. This strikes me as the psychological equivalent of faith healing. The fact that these people actually believe in this approach doesn’t excuse the harm that they may be doing. A faith healer merely betrays the individual he claims to heal. It’s unlikely that person’s infirmity is going to endanger someone else. This however is a whole different kettle of fish. Someone with mental problems may very well be a danger to people other than himself.

Hopefully I’m over reacting here, but I’m really afraid that I’m not.