John Bettler Responds to Jay Adams
It’s 1987. Almost twenty years have passed since Jay Adams launched the modern nouthetic counseling movement. John Bettler, a good friend of Jay Adams, is “the second ranking leader” in the nouthetic counseling world after Adams.
Adams has just written an article entitled “What About Emotional Abuse?” (Journal of Pastoral Practice, 8, no. 3).
Now, with Adams’s permission, good friend John Bettler writes, “A Response to ‘What About Emotional Abuse?’ (“Biblical Counseling: The Next Generation,” Journal of Pastoral Practice, 8, no. 4 (1987): 3-10).
Nouthetic Confrontation … of Nouthetic Confrontation
In his article, Adams nouthetically confronts the prevailing thinking of the day on the impact of parental emotional abuse on children. Adams focuses his critiques on Alfred Adler’s model and writings.
In reading Bettler’s 1987 article, we overhear one nouthetic counselor (John Bettler) offering nouthetic confrontation, not just to Jay Adams, but to the entire nouthetic counseling movement—to “the next generation.” That’s good. Those who give nouthetic confrontation ought to humbly receive and learn from such nouthetic confrontation and caution.
Relevant for Biblical Counselors Today
History does repeat itself. Today we read an increasing number of articles critiquing writings and models related to emotional abuse, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and trauma.
Bettler’s response to Adams’s article continues to be relevant today. Perhaps we—yet another generation of biblical counselors—could also heed Bettler’s three nouthetic admonitions.
We could listen and respond to his three words of nouthetic concern, caution, and gentle confrontation, and, if necessary, change. Afterall, this is the stated purpose of nouthetic counseling: confrontation out of concern for change.
Bettler’s 3 Concerns
In response to Adams’s article critiquing the prevailing notions about the impact of parental emotional abuse on children, Bettler shares his three concerns:
“I am concerned that in the hands of some of today’s generation of ‘biblical counselors’ these and other familiar themes can become so rigid that both truth and error may at times be distorted.
1.) In our haste to establish the antithesis between the unbelieving psychologist and the Christian counselor, do we at times distort what the nonbeliever says in order to make the differences appear sharper than they really are?
2.) In our zeal to establish biblical authority for all that we do, are we at times in danger of twisting the Scripture to say something that it doesn’t in reality say?
3.) And in our desire to avoid the negative impact of nonbelievers’ ideas upon the counselee, do we at times fail to acknowledge the seriousness of the counselee’s problem?” (3).
One-by-one, Bettler develops his three concerns. I’ll share the primary questions Bettler raises and his conclusions. For Bettler’s entire article, go here.
Concern #1: Are We Honest with Our Enemies?
A quick note: Bettler used the term “enemies.” I prefer to use the longer phrase, “those with whom we disagree.”
Bettler shares his first concern:
“The first question: in our zeal to demonstrate the antithesis between belief and unbelief, do we at times misrepresent our unbelieving enemy?
It is much too easy to misrepresent an enemy so that his position appears defenseless in the face of obvious biblical teaching. But we must strive in all integrity to represent our enemy not in his worst but in his best possible light so that the ringing criticism of Scripture is indeed powerful. That means we must know our enemy not a caricature of him-in order to deal with him effectively” (4).
Then Bettler shares his perspective, in which he disagrees with Adams’s assessment of Adler.
“My problem is, has Dr. Adams adequately and honestly represented his enemy? Does Adler hold to the kind of determinism that Jay says he does? Does Adler say that the child is locked in so that his self-concept can never change? My answer is, ‘No’” (5).
After analyzing Adler’s writings and Adam’s critique, Better comes to the following conclusion:
“What this means, of course, is that at a surface level Adler’s approach to the question of emotional abuse is the same as Jay’s. He is not an enemy but a friend” (6).
For Our Generation Today
Based upon Bettler’s 1987 critique, here are some questions we could be asking ourselves today.
- Are we honest about those with whom we disagree?
- Do we fairly and accurately present what others actually say and teach about counseling?
- Do we at times misrepresent or distort the counseling views of others?
- Do we highlight only our perceived negatives of the counseling positions of others, or do we seek to also highlight the strengths of their counseling positions?
- Do we strive in all integrity to represent the counseling views of those with whom we disagree, not in their worst light, but in their best possible light?
- Do we know and present the counseling views of those with whom we disagree, not in a caricature, but in actuality and reality?
Concern #2: Are We Honest with the Scripture?
Next, Bettler confronts an even more important issue—our use of Scripture as we assess the views of those with whom we disagree.
“Another concern of mine, as I survey current trends among biblical counselors, is a tendency to twist not only our enemy’s position but even more dangerously to twist Scripture to substantiate one’s conclusions. Wanting so desperately to be biblical, we often search the Scripture ardently to find a text that proves whatever position we are establishing. At times those verses are hard to find, so we latch on to any passage that bears some similarity to the subject at hand. When we do this, we are in danger of missing the primary purpose of the passage and in the process might make the Scripture say something it never intended to say (6, emphasis added).
Bettler notes that Adams used Luke 2:40-52 in an attempt to show that the Bible disagrees with Adler’s perspective on the impact of parental emotional abuse. Bettler then presents his strong assessment, “In reality the passage has nothing at all to say about abuse” (7).
After exegeting and explaining the true purpose and focus of Luke 2:40-52, Bettler concludes:
“Jay’s use of the passage illustrates an important point. It’s just that that point is not the purpose of the text…. But it is to say that we ought to be very careful to discern the true purpose of any text before we use it even in an illustrative way, lest we rob the Scripture of its authority” (8).
For Our Generation Today
Based upon Bettler’s 1987 critique, here are some questions we could be asking ourselves today.
- In seeking to critique the counseling views of others, do we twist Scripture to substantiate our critique?
- Do we view Scripture through the grid of our counseling model, or do we view our counseling model through the grid of Scripture?
- Rather than studying Scripture in context, do we find proof texts that we take out of context in order to critique the counseling views of others?
- In critiquing the counseling positions of others, do we miss the purpose of biblical passages and make Scripture say something different than God intended?
- In seeking to build a case for scriptural authority, do we rob Scripture of its authority by twisting it to fit our counseling views so we can triumph over the counseling views of others?
Are We Honest with the Counselee’s Problem?
Bettler now moves to a relational concern—the counselor’s concern for the counselee’s struggles. Bettler says it like this:
“A third area of concern is that we not become so careful to preserve the purity of a Christian approach to problem-solving that we neglect the problem itself. To be sure, secular approaches to the question of abuse are wanting. But let us not spend all of our energy correcting the abuses so that we fail to see the problem” (8-9).
Bettler next develops a biblical theology of the impact of parental emotional abuse on children. Based upon his scriptural work, Bettler concludes that parental emotional abuse is a vital concept that nouthetic counselors must address:
“It is my opinion that neglectful parents do abuse their children, if not physically then verbally, by withholding the godly responsibility for nurture and correction. I believe it is important for biblical counselors to address this problem and develop ways to minister to the children of these parents and not to trivialize the problem by arguing against the failures of certain secular approaches” (9).
For Our Generation Today
Based upon Bettler’s 1987 critique, here are some questions we could be asking ourselves today.
- Are we more concerned with critiquing “wrong” views of abuse, suffering, and trauma than we are with caring for people who are facing abuse, suffering, and trauma?
- Are we so focused on our “version of the truth” that we miss God’s compassionate concern for and comfort of the suffering, abused, and traumatized?
- Do we spend more energy nouthetically correcting the wrong approaches of others than we do compassionately caring for the hurting?
- Are we developing comprehensive biblical approaches to suffering, abuse, and trauma that see people holistically as embodied-souls—impacted in body and soul by suffering, abuse, and trauma?
- Do we trivialize the problem and pain of suffering, abuse, and trauma by arguing against the failures of certain secular approaches?
Bettler’s Conclusion
I’ll conclude with Bettler’s conclusion.
“…there has been an understandable and necessary emphasis upon how we are not like the secular counselors or those Christians who seek to combine psychological authority with the authority of Scripture.
But in our passion to establish that antithesis, it is my belief that many biblical counselors have been unfair to their enemies, often unfair to the text of Scripture, and also unfair to the enormity of problems that counselees bring.
If biblical counseling is to survive, it must deal with the enemy where he is strongest, not weakest. It must construct a hermeneutic that allows the Scripture to speak and does not twist the Scripture to prove predetermined points. And it must be sensitive to the hurting issues of our counselees—hurts that are very real in spite of the misconceptions that may surround them” (10, emphasis added).
More Like This
If today’s post resonates with you, then perhaps you’d also enjoy:
5 Biblical Counseling Principles for Addressing Disagreements Among Biblical Counselors
I’ve also crafted a shortened version of today’s post. You can find it here:
16 Self-Assessment Questions to Ask Ourselves As We Evaluate Other Models of Counseling
Trackbacks/Pingbacks