The Sufficiency of Scripture: Reviewing the Review
My friend, David Murray, has been reviewing, chapter-by-chapter, the Biblical Counseling Coalition’s first book: Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling. To read a post that links to David’s reviews of the Introduction and Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, go here.
As one of the editors of the book, and as a chapter contributor to the book, I’ve appreciated, benefited from, and learned from David’s reviews. David is a deep thinker, a Christian leader with a shepherd’s heart, an experienced author himself, and a godly man with a kingdom focus.
David Reviews Chapter 6
Recently, David posted the latest chapter review in his series—Chapter 6, The Sufficiency of Scripture by Steve Viars and Rob Green. You can read David’s review here.
David begins his review with a glowing recommendation for the book as a whole. He then continues in a gracious, positive manner by stating encouraging aspects of chapter six, including the fact that one of the co-authors—Steve Viars—made this a very personal chapter by weaving in the story of his special-needs son, Drew. David lists several other positives about the chapter.
Then, as any good reviewer will do, David turns his attention to suggesting “a couple of areas that need a bit more thought.” That’s a very gracious way to explore perceived weaknesses and to propose further thinking.
Why My Review of David’s Review
Some may wonder, “Bob, why review David’s review, especially if it contains some perceived weaknesses? Won’t this just make more people aware of some negatives about a book you co-edited?”
I’m okay with that. I hope many people read David Murray’s Head, Heart, Hand blog every day. More than that, the Biblical Counseling Coalition, in our Confessional Statement states several times that we want to learn from the critiques of others.
But there’s a second reason I want to review David’s review. I think it may be a microcosm of something all of us have a tendency to do when we assess an individual’s or a group’s writing. I think this tendency especially shows itself when the group is perceived to have a history of weakness related to a given topic. I’d summarize this tendency like this:
We sometimes see what we are looking for and we sometimes fail to see what we do not expect to see.
Let’s put this in the context of Steve and Rob’s chapter.
The biblical counseling movement has historically been critiqued by others as not being robust enough in their presentation of the sufficiency of Scripture. Further, it has been critiqued by others as not thinking through clearly enough the relationship of sufficiency to physical issues. And it has been critique as not thinking through robustly enough matters of suffering.
(See my two recent posts about an upcoming BCC book that focuses further on these issues here and here.)
Because Steve and Rob have been open and responsive to this past critique, they related the Scripture’s sufficiency to physical weaknesses and limitations. Some people call this the nature issue. They also related the sufficiency of Scripture to people who suffer, to people with a painful past. Some people call this the nurture issue.
They asked:
“Is the Bible sufficient to help us to respond in a godly way to all of life—including physical weaknesses/limitations and past and present suffering?”
Note that they did not ask, “Does the Bible tell us everything we need to know about the body, medication, and the impact of suffering on the complex mind-body interrelationship?”
In fact, they specifically acknowledge that the Bible does not do that (p. 90).
Summarizing David’s Suggestions
In general, David did not feel that the authors emphasized enough about the physical body.
For example, David suggested that the authors needed to explore further the relationship of “a physical element to at least some of our affections at least some of the time.” He continued, “I’d like to have seen a greater recognition here that at least some feelings, at least some times, have at least some physical component to them that requires more than Scripture to fix.” He wondered if Drew “takes some medications which, to some degree, helps stabilize him?” Later David proposes, “Another part of our imaging Christ is in caring for our bodies, which also involves researching training programs, diets, nutrition, etc.”
The implication is that Steve and Rob in this chapter (and, by inference, the book as a whole) do not address (at all or robustly enough) physical issues and medication….
David then accurately quotes Steve and Rob saying, “But God has given him (Drew) and us a Bible that is sufficient. He truly offers all we need for life and godliness.”
David then says, “No doctors? No medications? No scans? No physical therapy? No child health experts? Of course not. That’s why such statements should be followed with important clarifications and negations.”
Here we have more than implication. We have a clear assessment that Steve and Rob in this chapter (and, by inference, the book as a whole) did not have any clarifications about doctors, medications, etc.
Now, it’s been over a year since I read Steve and Rob’s chapter. So, when I read David’s review, I kept thinking, “Didn’t Steve and Rob address that? Didn’t they address this? Didn’t they say that also?”
So…I went back to reread their chapter….
What I Think David Somehow for Some Reason Missed…
On the second page of their chapter (page 90 of the book), Steve notes that Drew has been to dozens of doctors, specialists, neurologists, therapists, and consultants. Isn’t that a clear clarification?
Why say, “No doctors? No medications? No scans? No physical therapy?”
Someone who reads David’s review without reading Steve and Rob’s chapter will clearly get a mistaken impression of what Steve and Rob actually said or did not say.
On page 93, Steve explains that Drew has abnormalities in the development of his brain. He addresses the objective brain tests that demonstrate this. Steve and Rob address diminished physical capacities and the impact of suffering and then relate these to the inner person—an honest, comprehensive approach—nature, nurture, and heart.
Steve and Rob make the clear statement, “It is undeniable that our bodies impact us in all sorts of ways” (p. 98). And, “We all live in a body that is cursed by sin and impacts our choices on a daily basis” (p. 98).
They then address our nurture. “Our challenges are greatly magnified when we consider the power of our environment—the people and circumstances around us in both the past and present. Bible writers repeatedly encourage us to approach such challenges with authenticity and candor, acknowledging our past hurts and present suffering” (p. 98).
They summarize all of this as: nurture (sin-cursed world) and nature (sin-cursed body) and inner person (active worshipping heart) (p. 99).
Steve and Rob also discuss the role of psychological research (p. 105).
Aren’t those clarifications and negations? Why quote Steve and Rob without presenting the context in which their quote was given? The chapter did not ignore medication, doctors, scans, tests, experts, and psychological research.
To critique the chapter, one has to keep the laser focus of the chapter in mind. Remember my summary:
“Is the Bible sufficient to help us to respond in a godly way to all of life—including physical weaknesses/limitations and past and present suffering?”
One also needs to review the chapter in the context of the entire book. Steve and Rob were not asked to say the final word on nature/nurture/heart and the Bible.
Just as a few examples (among 28 chapters):
• Chapter 7 examines an anatomy of the soul/body looking at who we are as comprehensive embodied souls embedded in a fallen world.
• Chapter 8 explores, in even greater detail, nature/nurture issues.
• Chapter 9 discusses the impact of sin on the human personality and predicament.
• Chapter 26 presents a compassionate biblical “sufferology”—how we minister to those who are suffering.
• Chapter 27 highlights biblical counseling and our emotions.
• Chapter 28 examines the complex mind-body connection—written by a Christian psychiatrist. It concludes with a testimonial of a biblical counseling leader who, in a holistic response to his depression, took anti-depressants.
So, I have to scratch my increasingly-balding head when I read David saying:
“No doctors? No medications? No scans? No physical therapy? No child health experts? Of course not. That’s why such statements should be followed with important clarifications and negations.
Steve and Rob addressed all of that. The book addressed all of that.
Am I Just a Defensive Editor and Friend?
As much as I know my heart (and I’ve asked a couple of trusted friends to help me to assess my heart response to David’s post), I don’t think I am responding out of defensiveness as an editor. I don’t think I am responding out of loyalty to Steve and Rob—both dear friends.
I’m writing because I wonder if David has done what I know I have a tendency to do. I see what I’m looking for, what I expect to see. I don’t see what I don’t expect to see. I assume that a past characterization of an individual or group is true now. I critique a group for something and then I don’t’ allow them to grow beyond my critique.
I don’t think Steve and Rob’s chapter is perfect. I certainly don’t think my chapters in Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling are perfect. But I do think Steve and Rob more than adequately addressed what David says they did not adequately address.
So What?
My personal “take-away” is:
I want to be more careful to read others with open eyes.
Now, David may read my review of his review and disagree. That’s okay. It won’t be the first time that David and I have agreed to disagree and remained loyal friends. Perhaps I’ve not read David’s review with open eyes. I stand ready to have my eyes opened.
Join the Conversation
What is your personal “take-away”?
RPM Ministries: Equipping You to Change Lives with Christ’s Changeless Truth
Thank you for taking the trouble of thoroughly reviewing the original record as well as David’s comments. I know that I have a prejudicial tendency to read what I want to read and I’ve been duly challenged by your comments in that regard. Equally, I am often too lazy to take the time and care that is required to patiently and fairly examine and respond to challenges.
Your comments have a much broader application. Once someone has offended me and I’ve “forgiven” them. I expect them to offend me again in the same manner. Like you wrote. “I don’t allow them to grow…” Oh to have the grace for others that God has for me.
That’s a great point, Karen. Yes, in all of life, we need Christ’s grace to love and forgive others as we have been loved and forgiven by Christ.
Love the takeaway insights — all so true. We tend to ignore the personhood (the ‘in His image’) part of others and treat them as almost inanimate accessories to our lives (is this encounter working for me and my plan or do I need to take charge here ?). So we ‘fill in’ their thoughts and motives before they are even done speaking or acting. Most of us know someone who interrupts and completes others’ sentences — often quite inaccurately as to the other person’s intent at the moment. Better a chaos we think we control than allowing a situation where we submit in humility to what God is doing in us and others (see “don’t allow them to grow” above). And if they resist our “friendly takeover,” we may escalate our attempt to control, based on our own particular control style. This is why we must be intentional (which includes an appropriate flexibility) about our relationships, studying and praying about how we can bring a more Christlike heart to them as the Word and Spirit do a work in us. A lot of critiquing of the work of others’ work that I see could benefit from this (and would be much more beneficial to the readers for whom it is intended). Those of us still at the entry point of learning about Biblical counseling need to see more than repeated positions and internecine warfare (or too many protests that there really isn’t any).
Gavin,
Thanks for your reflections and how you extended the application.
You are right that “internecine warfare” does exist in the biblical/Christian counseling world. I’d like to think that David and I try to model our interactions in such a way that it is not warfare but iron sharpening iron. Warfare hurts. Iron sharpening helps.
I also like to think that David and I try to model at least a 90/10 focus. That is, at least 90% on a positive presentation of what we believe about ministry. And then less than 10% focused on critiques of others. I certainly would not want to leave the impression that David is “critical” or has a “critical spirit.” He is not/does not. David models mature speaking truth in love.
I know that too much bickering can be discouraging to people who are new to the issue and we all just want to get along. I do think the 10% iron sharpening is useful to the Body.
Bob
Very nice. Thanks.
Hi Bob,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you. I’ve been doing a bit of therapeutic fishing this week! Always appreciate your charitable responses to critique. I’d like to post a longer review of the review of the review, but let me just make a couple of “holding” comments.
First, my review of this chapter was originally twice as long and contained much more serious and severe critique than the one I published, especially concerning the second and third parts of the chapter. However, I decided at the last moment to chop off that, partly out of respect for you and Steve, partly because I felt that to add to my major critique in the review would be to “pile on,” and partly because I did not want to divert attention away from my main concern as expressed in my review.
However, by chopping it in half, I probably chopped my case in half too! I’ll revisit that over the next week or so and maybe when taken all together the case will spare your poor head more scratching!
By way of “holding” may I say a couple of things. First, as you say in your response, this is THE area that Biblical/nouthetic counseling has been most critiqued over the years. Here, then, in the gold-standard book on counseling of recent times, is a massive opportunity for crystal clear clarity, for smashing caricatures, for setting the record straight. And, in my view (and it’s only a personal opinion) it was missed. If someone like myself can miss it, someone who is a friend of Biblical counseling, someone who considers himself a Biblical counselor, what hope for others? I think it’s worth pondering if the chapter could have been clearer.
Second, if what you say are clarifications and conditions really are clarifications and conditions, then why summarize it all with: “But God has given him (Drew) and us a Bible that is sufficient. He truly offers all we need for life and godliness.” If what you point to in the other parts of the chapter are clarifications and conditions to this statement, then what does the summary statement actually mean? What does “sufficient” really mean here? What does “all” really mean here? What does “life and godliness” really mean? Either they don’t mean what they have historically meant in these debates, or else this is an empty slogan that is being used more as a dog-whistle than anything else.
We all know that it’s statements like this that have caused so much confusion in the church when dealing with complex human problems. Knowing this, it would have been much more accurate, helpful, and constructive to immediately follow it by clearly saying something like: Now, of course, by that we do not mean that the Bible alone is all we need when dealing with physical, cognitive, social, problems, etc.
Instead the chapter seemed to follow what appears to me to be a common pattern: Overstate the Bible’s case for its own sufficiency, misrepresent then critique others who integrate non-Biblical help with some problems, and then make the case for integrating non-Biblical help with some problems. It’s a strange and confusing way to reason.
Praying with you for more open eyes.
David,
Glad you enjoyed and were refreshed by your time away.
Reading your comment here, it still seems to me that you are taking Steve’s comment out of the context of the chapter and the book. It is as if all the preceding clarifications made in that chapter are ignored as well as ignoring all of the follow-up chapters that provide additional clarification.
The concluding summary you suggest is one I would agree with and I believe Steve and Rob would agree with. The question is, given all the preceding comments that said the same thing, was such a comment necessary. In hindsight, given that you did not connect the preceding comments to that summary, sure, it could help to say it again. But the point of my post–my review of your review–was to make clear to readers of your review that Steve and Rob’s chapter and the rest of the book, said that in copious ways.
For readers who want a robust biblical counseling development of the sufficiency, relevancy, necessity, profundity, and authority of Scripture, I would encourage them to keep their eyes open for the upcoming book I referenced in this blog post: Scripture and Counseling: God’s Word for Life in a Broken World.
One other concern I have with the general issue of questioning how BCers word the sufficiency issue…folks tend to say the case has been overstated or under-clarified. But I rarely see those folks making their own statement. I rarely see those folks providing a positive presentation of how they specifically turn to God’s Word to develop a comprehensive model of people, problems, and solution. I rarely see a positive presentation of how they use God’s Word compassionately to interactively apply the Bible to people’s lives in the personal ministry of the Word. I encouraged folks several weeks ago in a multi-part blog series to do just that. But I did not receive a single response. It’s one matter to critique a view that you see as not clarified enough. It’s another matter to actually craft a positive, robust presentation of sufficiency.
When no such presentation is made, I begin to wonder with some people how they even define sufficiency or whether they actually practice it… If all they do is critique other presentations of it but fail to put out into the market place of ideas their actual way of viewing and using Scripture in the personal ministry of the Word, then what do they build their approach upon?
I’m thinking you have crafted such a view, David (though I can’t find one in my brief search). I would enjoy reading it. And, in light of your review of this 5,000-word chapter, I’d enjoy seeing how you would craft a 5,000-word (basically just five blog posts) summary of the robust sufficiency, relevancy, necessity, profundity, and authority of Scripture for life in a broken world, including in those 5,000 words any necessary clarifications/qualifications. Tenor and tone are difficult to pick up in writing…mine is an honest tone of interest in reading how you would have written such a chapter (and in reading any positive, robust presentations you’ve already penned of how you view and use the Scriptures in developing a model of people, problems, solutions, and soul care).
With you, I pray that we will all have open eyes to one another–hearing what the other is saying in context. And most importantly–that we will have open eyes to God’s truth.
Bob
Bob,
This is so kind and well-written. Knowing Steve and Rob personally, I know those guys embrace medical care especially for organic reasons so I would never assume what David assumed in his critique. I know those guys well and know their hearts on that issue. Anything they write is understood by me differently because I have a personal relationship with them.
I think the same is true for the Bible. Because I have a personal relationship with Christ, the Word is always loving to me even when it pricks my heart with truth bringing conviction and tears.
I have been pondering the Christian writing world lately. I think we all make several errors when reading the writings of others. Here are two extremes I fall prey to myself: First, we don’t believe the best and we reject what some say because they don’t fit in our preferred camp. Second, we make icons out of people and believe everything they write rather than being Bereans when they do fit in our preferred camp.
I have good friends who are Calvinists and Arminians. I have good friends who are Presbyterians and Baptists. I have good friends who are skinny and fat. I think you get the picture. I try to learn from everyone and love everyone though I admittedly fall way short of that goal too often than I’d prefer to admit. I am trying to see with new eyes and I am trying to know the writers on a personal level when possible. If that’s not possible, I believe the best.
Thanks for this reflective writing because I need it for my own heart,
Mark