Are Biblical Counselors “Sin Maximizers”?
My good friend, David Murray, at his Head/Heart/Hand blog site has provided a number of thoughtful posts on a Christian way of thinking about mental illness. Of particular interest were David’s posts:
• Maximizing and Minimizing Mental Illness
• The Problem with Mental Illness
I’ve been in contact with David to share with him that I would be posting some interactive responses to his posts. If time and desire permits, David may be posting his own interactive responses to my interactive responses. If any of this occurs, our prayer would be that our readers not only have their minds stretched regarding these important issues, but also that David and I might model something of Christlike engagement with those we respect, but with whom we might have some level of difference of perspective.
An Important Note of Clarification as I Begin…
Though I am the Executive Director of the Biblical Counseling Coalition and a member of the BCC Board of Directors, I am not writing in either of those official capacities. I am purposefully posting these at my own RPM Ministries site so that they reflect my views and not any official views of the coalition.
Where to Begin…
There are so many important issues to discuss, not the least of which is, “What do we mean when we say ‘mental illness’?” It is vital that we define our terms and allow those we interact with to define their terms. Otherwise, we end up: 1.) talking past each other, 2.) generalizing, and 3.) mischaracterizing one another.
For reasons that hopefully will become apparent momentarily, today’s post will not begin with a definition of mental illness. For an excellent post that helps us to think through how we think through mental illness, I’d encourage you to read Dr. Jeremy Pierre’s post Mental Illness and the Church.
Labels Matter…
Instead of starting with a definition of mental illness, I’m going to start by interacting with a label that David Murray chose to use about biblical counselors and their “take” on mental illness. That label was “sin maximizers.”
I do not believe that sin maximizers is an accurate term to summarize biblical counselors. Because it is inaccurate, I believe it is unhelpful.
I understand that David was using the term in the specific context of mental illness maximizers versus sin maximizers. But even in that context, I do not believe that the opposite of being a “mental illness maximizer” is being a “sin maximizer.”
There are better alternatives, such as “sanctification maximizer,” or “shepherding maximizer,” or “grace/gospel/Christ maximizer,” or “compassionate, comprehensive whole person maximizer,” etc. All of these descriptors, I believe, are more accurate, more robust, and less pejorative ways of categorizing biblical counseling thinking about mental illness.
Putting Matters into Historical Context
In thinking about the modern biblical counseling movement, it is appropriate for us to consider the writings of Dr. Jay Adams, who in the 1970s launched nouthetic biblical counseling. Was Jay Adams, in his approach to counseling or in his views of mental illness, a “sin maximizer”?
I would argue, “No.”
Jay entered a culture where for a century the church had become something of a “sin minimizer.” Jay wasn’t the first or the only person to perceive this. Consider E. Brooks Holifield’s excellent A History of Pastoral Care in America. Holifield’s sub-title says it all: From Salvation to Self-Realization.
Holifield wasn’t a biblical counselor arguing for a nouthetic model. He was a historian. In that role, he traced the movement in American pastoral care away from a focus on sin, grace, and salvation, to a focus on self.
Even the world-famous secular psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, asked in his book by the same title, Whatever Became of Sin? A secular psychiatrist detected the drift away from sin…
Now, you may be saying, “Wait a second, Bob! This talk of sin is proving David Murray correct in his labeling of biblical counselors as sin maximizers.”
I don’t think so.
What I am doing is placing the rise of the modern biblical counseling movement within its historic and cultural milieu.
Yes, Jay was pulling a pendulum back. The church, not to mention the world, had swung the pendulum away from looking at life issues through a biblical grid of salvation, sin, and grace.
Jay’s Focus: Sanctification and Shepherding
But even within this context of sin minimizing, Jay’s ultimate goal was never the simple exposure of sin. Jay’s ultimate goal was the glory of God through the sanctification of His people through pastoral shepherding and one-another mutual care.
Consider the title of Jay’s most theologically-focus work, More Than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling. Jay saw that the church not only had lost a focus on sin and salvation; the church had also lost her focus on sanctification—on daily growth in Christlikeness through all the vicissitudes of life.
You may or may not align yourself with Jay Adams’ approach to people helping—but at least he was focused on people helping! The church of his day either ignored sin and salvation, or they talked about salvation from the pulpit, but refused to get involved in the daily messiness of life through personal ministry.
Those who chide Jay, sometimes fail to grasp what he was fighting against—a pastoral culture that either did not preach sin and salvation, or that did not seek to apply truth to life in the daily messiness of life.
Disagree with Jay’s approach if you want, but at least give him the due honor of calling pastors and churches back to the ministry of shepherding the flock. He called pastors and God’s people back to addressing daily life together—the Bible calls it sanctification. In an era when pastors were delegating the care of souls to secular psychiatrists and psychologists, Jay was calling the church back to mutual one-another soul care.
What’s in a Word?—“Nouthetic”
Consider Jay’s definition of nouthetic—to confront out of concern for heart change. Many act as if nouthetic counseling should be defined as: to confront.
That was never Jay’s model or practice. It was confrontation out of concern. And it was concern for change—heart change—sanctification.
Again, your model and practice of concern for heart change may be different from Jay’s, but let’s at least call it what it was—a model of sanctification maximizing, not a model of sin maximizing.
Jay believed Romans 5:20—“where sin abounds, grace super-abounds!”
Disagree if you want on Jay’s take on mental illness, but realize that our current call for the church to help the mentally ill is a full generation behind Jay’s call for the church to help people address their daily life struggles.
Here’s my opinion—many of those who chide Jay for his views on counseling in the church would not even be thinking about counseling in the church if not for Jay Adams.
Bob, When Did You Become an Apologist for Jay Adams?
I know what you’re thinking. No, I’m not an apologist for Jay. Jay doesn’t need my help. He does quite well in defending his approach to people helping.
I’m simply trying to put into historical perspective the rise of the modern biblical counseling movement. It was not a sin maximizing movement. It was a sanctification maximizing movement. It was a daily Christian life maximizing movement. It was a church one-another maximizing movement. It was a pastoral soul care and shepherding maximizing movement.
So, to my friend David Murray, I would say, “I don’t think that the opposite of mental illness maximizing was, for Jay Adams, sin maximizing. I think for Jay Adams the opposite of mental illness maximizing was and is sanctification and shepherding maximizing.”
Now, that still leaves open a very wide door for David Murray and others to interact specifically with how Jay Adams and “the first generation of biblical counselors” framed their view of mental illness. But at least the framing of Jay’s view would begin from an accurate labeling that comes out of a historic understanding of the prophetic call that Jay Adams was making to a church that had forsaken its calling to help struggling people.
Think about that. Doesn’t that change a lot? If someone sees Jay Adams and nouthetic biblical counseling as focused on confronting sinners and calling people diagnosed with mental illness “sinners,” that then frames the recommendations that are made.
If, on the other hand, someone sees Jay Adams and nouthetic biblical counseling as focused on calling the church—pastors and people—back to mutual one-another shepherding and soul care, that then frames the recommendations made to these sanctification and shepherding maximizers.
The Rest of the Story
When I started writing this morning, my intention was to ponder both Jay Adams’ approach to nouthetic biblical counseling and what some have called the “second generation biblical counseling” approach. Instead, in my next post I’ll ponder how this second generation might best be described. Hint: it’s not sin maximizing.
Join the Conversation
What do you think? Should we frame the opposite of mental illness maximizing as sin maximizing or as sanctification maximizing and shepherding maximizing?
RPM Ministries: Equipping You to Change Lives with Christ’s Changeless Truth
Bob, I appreciate that you are woking through this topic. I do think that we all have a tendency to rely on short-hand labels that obscure the complexity of real life and ministry.
When I read David Murray’s article, while I was appreciative of his concern with the whole person, I did feel that he painted Biblical counselors with an unnecessarily wide brush. I think that your suggestion of refining the label is a very helpful suggestion.
I am looking forward to reading the interaction on this.
Bob, good distinctions. However, I would love for you to take up the issue of some of the reasons David Murray and others (commenters on his posts) experience the minimization of mental illness. It would seem obvious to say we have a disconnect. On my own blog the most commented post I ever made had to do with mental illness: hundreds of comments of those who have felt that their mental illness was only treated through the lens of sin.
We probably need to own that some of our teaching has led to this distortion (either in ourselves or our followers).
Phil,
I really respect your ministry and your balance of truth and love. I do plan to address David’s ideas about what the “sin maximizers” can do differently. But as my first post makes clear, I don’t think we can answer that question well if we are mis-labeling biblical counselors. So that’s where I think the conversation needs to start.
As to the issue of hundreds of comments from folks who have felt their mental illness was only treated through the lens of sin…that’s very sad. Yet…wouldn’t we really need to engage each of those individuals to hear their stories, know their issues, and know what type of counsel they received and from whom? I could share scores of anecdotal testimonies from people who have gone to “integrationist Christian counselors” and then come to “biblical counselors” and say that their Christian counseling experience was horrific for a number of reasons. I don’t find those “anecdotal wars” all that helpful, especially when one “camp” uses them against another…without having specifics in mind that help us to really know what happened. Honestly, I don’t even like mentioning them in this reply to your comment.
I do promise to interact with each of David’s suggestions for the “sin maximizers.” I know you know that I’ve not shied away from trying to speak the truth in love to my fellow biblical counselors about issues of suffering/parakaletic/comforting of the hurting. Nor have I shied away from trying to speak truth in love to my friends who are Christians who counsel but need to do more to build their approach from a biblical foundation.
Thanks for engaging with my post.
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for your response. Yes, I don’t think that we should fight anecdotal wars either. However, I do think we ought to be willing to try on the criticisms of others, even if they are ill fitting. As a director of a program, I hear that some of my graduates have xyz problems (so say individuals from other programs). In truth, I think their criticism is a distortion but when I am able to step back, I can see some ways where our program is not as balanced as I intend it to be.
Maybe the problem is not so much biblical counselors vs. professional counselors (I’m not much for the maximizers label, not helpful) but some of the theological foundations that supports distortions one direction or the other.
I see this issue that you are raising as also true on the topic of meds. Everyone has an opinion on the relative value of psychiatric medications. Some are based on “studies” and some are based on anecdotes. We can use both to support our positions (whether pro or con). Which ever position we take (i.e., tendency to point out the weaknesses of meds; tendency to point out their helpfulness), it probably reveals something about our view of human nature and faith. Would you agree?
Phil,
I agree 100% that we have to be open to feedback from our friends and our critics. David Murray is a friend, and I want to engage his feedback. In turn, his openness to my feedback could model how we can learn from each other. When I chaired the counseling/discipleship department at Capital Bible Seminary, we had every graduate evaluate us, had alums evaluate us, had churches, para-church groups, people ministered to by our grads evaluate us, etc. It’s absolutely necessary.
And I absolutely agree that our theological models, in particular our view of God, Christ, grace, sin, salvation, sanctification, and human nature (originally created, fallen, and redeemed) influence our perspective on how we define people, problems, and solutions, including how we define and address mental illness and how we perceive the role of medication. As I’ll point out in the next post, the biblical counseling world has a very robust view of the mind-body connection and that impacts how we assess these issues. I would also say that good, comprehensive research plays an important role relative to how effective (note I did not simply say how “appropriate”) medication might be for various issues (but that would take a book, not a blog post comment response, to nuance).
Bob
Bob,
Thank you for your ministry. Your writings have been a blessing to me. I am slightly confused by your post though. When I read David’s post “Double Dangers” I did not think of you or many other Biblical Counselors I know as “sin maximizers”.
In his first two paragraphs under that heading, I felt that David identified the “sin maximizers” as the 5% who deny the possibility of mental illness. The other 95% of those he knows fall somewhere else on the spectrum. His point seemed to be that of those 95% “some of them” give the “impression” that they are “sin maximizers.” He then offered suggestions to them on how to avoid giving that impression.
Of course I may be misunderstanding David, but I believe that he would agree that all Biblical Counselors are “sanctification maximizers.” Yet, some of those (5% of those he knows) are “sin maximizers.” It is this sin maximizing (the denial that the Fall has effected the physical nature of our minds) that is one of his “Double Dangers.” I don’t believe that he would see an emphasis on sanctification as a danger.
From this perspective I believe that David and Dr. Pierre’s posts dovetail nicely.
I also appreciate the direction that you are trying to take this discussion. Sanctification is the issue because it is the subject that addresses our fallenness. That is why “mental illness maximizing” (denying the presence of sin) and “sin maximizing” (denying the pervasive effect of the fall on us physically) are ends of the spectrum to be avoided by the “Spiritual Friend.”
Otto
Otto, Thank you for your very helpful and gracious comments. I agree that David would have no problem with sanctification maximizing. Now whether David thinks sanctification maximizing and shepherding maximizing are the essence of 95% of biblical counselors…that would be an interesting discussion.
I read his opening line differently. He says: The vast majority (95%+) of biblical counselors I speak to accept the existence of “mental illness” to some extent. However, some of them are (understandably) so afraid of losing biblical categories of “sin,” “redemption,” “sanctification,” etc., that they sometimes give the impression that there is no such thing as “mental illness,” or that it’s so extremely rare that it’s hardly worth a cursory glance.
It is the some of them within the 95% that are the focus of the rest of the post.
Whether it is 5% or some % of the 95%, my point is to clearly identify the heartbeat of biblical counseling–it is not taking joy in maximizing sin. It is taking joy in glorifying God through shepherding people toward Christlikeness. If David and I agree that 95% of biblical counselors take joy in glorifying God through shepherding people toward Christlikeness, then I’ll be delighted! And if David believes that 95% of biblical counselors “get it right” regarding mental illness, I’ll be surprised.
The other point of the post is to communicate that I’m not sure that sin maximizer is a helpful label…especially if people do not understand who is being given this label. The other even more nuanced perspective that I hope to develop in future posts is that some of us who do delight in sanctification maximizing may have some legitimate concerns with the mental illness labeling. Just because we have some legitimate concerns, does not make us sin maximizers. It was that impression which I am hoping to clarify further. Bob
Dr. Bob.
Thanks, great post. Being an MABC student, and having to really study Jay Adam’s writings, he was The pioneer in this movement. There are far to many caricatures, of his style of counseling. To understand the audience he was writing to gives you the flavor of his writing. Also, maybe in a later post you could comment on Dr. Laura Hendrickson’s writings and talks on Brain disorder, compared to mental illness, and also what Dr. Ed Welch writes on “Blame it on the Brain”. (maybe ill do some work on that myself).
Scott, I’d love to read your thoughts on Laura and Ed. In my Wednesday post I do highlight Laura’s chapter in Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling.Bob
Really interesting article here. I didn’t know much about the Biblical counseling movement. However, David Murray’s post didn’t leave me with the impression that he was trying to criticize Biblical counseling. The terms he used, “sin maximizing” and “mental illness maximizing,” are both fairly negative-sounding because they describe the extreme ends of a broad spectrum. I imagine that most people (including Biblical counselors) fall somewhere in the middle, leaning toward one side or the other.
I do agree, though, that counseling can address spiritual issues without being all about sin and guilt. I recently finished treatment for depression with a wonderful Christian counselor. It focused on addressing lies I’d believed and harmful thought patterns. But most of all it helped me face the pride that drove my perfectionism, which in turn caused much of my depression. Yet my counselor managed to do this in a very gracious way that never made me feel condemned but caused me to continuously run to Christ for grace. On the other hand, she also encouraged me to deal with physical issues that tended to exacerbate the problem by getting enough sleep and keeping my blood sugar stable (which I guess is more like something a “mental illness maximizer” to use David Murray’s term would do).
Elizabeth,
I’m glad your counselor provided a wonderful focus on grace and on the physical body. It sounds to me like your counselor was neither a sin maximizer or a mental illness maximizer. Rather, she was a grace maximizer without being a body minimizer.
I’m also glad that this post helped you to learn more about biblical counselors. There are some stereotypes out there and my desire in the first three posts has been to show what biblical counselors really say and do. My post Monday showed that biblical counselors are sanctification and shepherding maximizers. My post Tuesday shows that biblical counselors are Christ/grace/gospel maximizers. My post for Wednesday discusses the way biblical counseling focuses on compassionate, comprehensive care for the whole person–body and soul.
Bob