Heath Lambert and the Southern Baptist Convention
Pastor Heath Lambert is in the midst of a series of blog posts about the sexual abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Today, he released Part 2.
While I am not a Southern Baptist, I am a biblical counselor who has written on sexual abuse counseling and who does a great deal of counseling with sexual abuse victims. So I follow these important issues in the SBC with interest.
In Part 2, Heath proposes three tests for discerning and interacting with others about how best to address the SBC’s sexual abuse crisis.
In my post today, I’m connecting one of Heath’s proposed tests to how we relate to and interact with each other in the modern biblical counseling world.
Heath’s Reasonableness Test
In relationship to the SBC’s sexual abuse crisis, Heath suggests the following. I quote him word-for-word.
The Reasonableness Test
Reasonableness is the ability to see the point of view of another and is a command in Scripture (Philippians 4:5). It is a crucial characteristic when good people debate complex matters. It is absolutely necessary in charting a safe path forward in the SBC on the issue of sexual abuse.
Every honest person admits that we have a problem that needs solving—that’s the integrity test. What is not so clear is what is required to solve the problem. Over the last few years, truly faithful men and women have disagreed about which solutions are best. It is entirely reasonable to expect good folks to disagree on complex matters. It is entirely unreasonable to accuse those with whom we disagree of being wicked and corrupt because they don’t like our proposed solutions.
A personal attack against someone who has a good-faith concern about a proposed solution can only come from an unreasonable person who doesn’t deserve the trust they desire to have.
Reasonableness and Unreasonableness in the Biblical Counseling World
As I read and re-read Heath’s reasonableness test, I could not help but think how helpful this test would be if we applied it as biblical counseling leaders. Here’s how I might word it for biblical counselors.
Reasonableness is the ability to see the point of view of another and is a command in Scripture (Philippians 4:5). It is a crucial characteristic when good people debate complex matters. It is absolutely necessary in charting a discerning truth-in-love path forward in the modern biblical counseling world as we discuss vital issues of counseling theory (theology) and practice (methodology).
Every honest person admits that we have biblical counseling disagreements that need addressing—that’s the integrity test. What is not so clear is what is required to solve the issues biblically. Over the last few years, truly faithful men and women in the modern biblical counseling movement have disagreed about numerous issues. It is entirely reasonable to expect godly Christian men and women to disagree on complex biblical counseling matters. It is entirely unreasonable to accuse those with whom we disagree with in the biblical counseling movement of being wicked and corrupt because they don’t like our proposed ideas about what makes biblical counseling truly biblical.
A personal attack against someone in the biblical counseling movement who has a good-faith theological conviction about biblical counseling can only come from an unreasonable person who doesn’t deserve the trust they desire to have.
Sadly…
Sadly, as I’ve read blog posts, articles, booklets, and books, and as I’ve listened to podcasts, teachings, conference presentations, and seminar presentations, I’ve read and heard many biblical counselors being, to use Heath’s term, unreasonable.
- We are unreasonable with fellow biblical counselors when we fail to see the point of view of another biblical counselor. Trained to listen well, instead, in these intramural counseling debates, we don’t listen well and we don’t fairly and accurately represent other biblical counselors. Of course, discernment is necessary and biblical. The question is, are we being biblical in our discernment?
- Note that we should follow this same reasonableness test with Christian Integrative Counselors, with those in the Christian Psychology Movement, and with secular counselors. Far too often, we present only the negative and weakest arguments of Christian Integrative Counselors and Christian Psychologists, rather than fairly representing their complete and complex views. Far too often with secular theory, rather than even carefully considering and biblically discerning any common grace concepts they may have, and rather than even considering any catalytic impact that may be useful in their writings, we distort their views, provide 100% negative critiques, and we use co-belligerent research to bolster our assessment, rather than using fair and balanced research.
- Sadly, there are documented instances of biblical counselors being “entirely unreasonable” by accusing those they disagree with in the biblical counseling movement (and in the Christian Integrative Counseling world and the Christian Psychology Movement) of being wicked and corrupt. In fact, there are instances of biblical counselors even calling into question the Christian commitment of fellow biblical counselors. In fact, there are instances of biblical counselors even calling into question the salvation of Christian Integrative Counselors and Christian Psychologists.
- Sadly, there are documented instances of biblical counselors launching public “personal attacks” and using mocking, derisive, divisive words against fellow biblical counselors who have good-faith theological convictions about biblical counseling. A person who launches such personal attacks is an “unreasonable person who doesn’t deserve the trust they desire to have.”
Biblical Principles for Engaging with Fellow Biblical Counselors and Non-Biblical Counselors
This is not the first time that I’ve addressed this issue of respectful, mature, truth-in-love biblical interactions among biblical counselors. Here are two links to recent posts on this important topic.
5 Biblical Counseling Principles for Addressing Disagreements Among Biblical Counselors
6 Types of Biblical Self-Examination Questions to Ask Before Criticizing Fellow Biblical Counselors
In Summary
Do we practice what we preach?
Or, to put it in biblical counseling terms,
Do we practice what we counsel?
We counsel careful listening. We counsel biblical conflict resolution. We counsel truth-in-love discernment. We counsel not being divisive. We counsel talking face-to-face with people with whom we have conflict. We counsel edifying speech. We counsel…. The list could go on and on. The question is,
In our biblical counseling interactions with one another, do we practice what we counsel?
Or, to use Heath’s term,
In our biblical counseling interactions with one another, are we reasonable or unreasonable?
I appreciate your emphasis on discernment. We can and should think critically about these topics and issues (both sexual abuse and the counseling movement), yet we should never become critical people in the process. Humility is key, and we must remember that we are called to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8) and in humility with our brothers and sisters (Philippians 2:1-4).
We can and should debate and discuss reasons, rationale, approaches, and yet not be dismissive of others. Thank you for your appeal to reasonableness.
“Do we practice what we counsel?” This question lies at the heart of Bob’s insightful reflection on interactions within the biblical counseling movement. Drawing inspiration from Heath Lambert’s Reasonableness Test in addressing the sexual abuse crisis in the Southern Baptist Convention, Bob applies a similar principle to the realm of biblical counseling.
Highlighting the importance of reasonableness, Bob underscores the necessity of understanding differing perspectives and engaging in constructive dialogue within the biblical counseling community. Just as Heath advocates for a respectful exchange of ideas in addressing complex issues, Bob emphasizes the need for biblical counselors to demonstrate empathy, discernment, and maturity in their interactions.
However, Bob also acknowledges a troubling trend of unreasonableness within the biblical counseling movement, characterized by personal attacks, divisive language, and the questioning of fellow counselors’ Christian commitment. This failure to adhere to biblical principles of conflict resolution and edifying speech undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the counseling ministry.
Bob’s call to action is clear: biblical counselors must strive to embody the principles they preach. By practicing careful listening, truth-in-love discernment, and respectful engagement, counselors can foster a culture of unity, mutual respect, and growth within the biblical counseling community.
Ultimately, Bob’s reflection serves as a timely reminder for biblical counselors to uphold the standards of biblical conduct in their interactions, both within the movement and beyond. Only through humility, grace, and love can counselors effectively minister to those in need and honor the teachings of Scripture in their professional and personal relationships.