A Provocative Facebook Post
Recently, Pastor Mark Williams, who oversees a nouthetic counseling site on Facebook, posted the following opinion on his nouthetic site and on his personal Facebook page.
“Don’t call yourself a biblical counselor if you do not believe the simple truth that God’s Word provides us with all that we need for soul care. To take on that title and then integrate humanistic philosophies and theories into your methodology gives people a false view of what biblical counseling is supposed to be. If you do not want to stick with the Bible, why would you want to call yourself a biblical counselor in the first place?”
Mark knows his audience well. He received a lot of brief, positive replies such as, “Preach!” “Amen!” “Truth!”
Responding to a Perceived Invitation
Mark’s comments include a question. Perhaps it was a rhetorical question, perhaps an invitational question.
I’ll be taking it as invitational and interact with Mark’s post.
I Agree…in Part…and I Have Six Follow-Up Questions
Mark and I would agree about the dangers of integrating humanistic philosophies and theories into our prescriptive model of counseling. In fact, everyone I know who claims the title of “biblical counselor” agrees about the dangers of integrating humanistic philosophies and theories into our prescriptive model of counseling.
The rub, of course, comes when the rubber meets the road (pun intended). How do we as counselors actually apply Mark’s opening and closing phrases?
Mark’s Phrase 1: In practice, what does it mean to believe and apply “the simple truth that God’s Word provides us with all we need for soul care”?
Mark’s Phrase 2: In practice, what does it mean to “stick with the Bible”?
I’ve let Mark know about this post. I’d enjoy interacting further with Mark about clarifying questions such as:
- What do Mark’s phrases imply about any potential value in descriptive research and evidenced-based research evaluated under the lens of Scripture?
- What do Mark’s phrases imply about any potential usefulness of neuroscience evaluated under the lens of Scripture?
- What do Mark’s phrases imply about treatment methods and physiological interventions related to our being embodied-souls evaluated under the lens of Scripture?
- What do Mark’s phrases imply about any potential catalytic use of secular thinking where secular theory drives us to examine biblical principles more deeply?
- What might Mark’s phrases imply about how Jay Adams read copiously in the writings of atheistic secular behavioral psychologist O. Hobart Mower and spent six weeks 24/7 in a training group with Mowrer? Clearly Mark (and Jay) would vehemently deny that Adams did any integration. So, if a biblical counselor today read copiously the writings of a secular psychologist or neuroscientist and spent six weeks in a training group with that person and then evaluated all of that under the lens of Scripture, would that be outside the bounds of Mark’s descriptions?
- What might it mean to apply Mark’s phrases in light of biblical/theological truths such as the Creation/Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1-2), the imago Dei, common grace, the noetic effect of sin, general revelation, special revelation, the sufficiency of Scripture, the Bible’s teaching on the role of science and research, the Bible’s teaching on God’s design of us as embodied-souls, the Bible’s teaching on the impact of the fall on our embodied-souls, etc.?
Who Was Mark Addressing?
I’m unclear how Mark might answer any of the six questions above since Mark does not identify who he is addressing. Clearly, Mark has in mind several (many, myriad) people and groups who fail his test of truly being biblical counselors.
Who are these folks that Mark believes disingenuously claim the title “biblical counselor”? Maybe Mark’s pointed statements are aimed at anyone outside Mark’s “group” or “tribe” or “nouthetic kin”? The “others” who don’t think and act in conformity to Mark’s group?
Might Mark consider them “legitimate biblical counselors” if they agreed with his statement but valued descriptive research, neuroscience, embodied-soul physiological interventions, the catalytic place of secular thinking, and evaluated all of these under the lens of biblical/theological truth?
By the Way…
By the way, I didn’t take Mark’s comments personally. I did not take Mark as talking to me or about me. I have never met Mark. I have never had a conversation with Mark. Several people forwarded his post to me, and I thought I would interact with it a bit…
I’m quite comfortable in my “biblical counseling skin.” If someone wants to say I am an outsider to their group and that I’m not a biblical counselor by their definition, they are free to say that. I’ll likely disagree with their definition. I’ll support my disagreement with the Bible and church history. I find conversations like this stimulating, catalytic—they challenge me to think deeply, biblically.
Biblical Counseling or Nouthetic Counseling?
When I read Mark’s statement, I thought of a parallel statement that someone might ask a nouthetic counselor like Mark.
“Why call yourself a ‘biblical counselor’ if you develop your model from the founder of modern nouthetic counseling and you oversee a nouthetic counseling group? If your model was developed with an emphasis primarily on the word noutheteo used just eleven times in the Bible, and translated by Jay Adams with an emphasis on nouthetic confrontation of sin, then why call your model ‘biblical counseling’? Why not call it ‘nouthetic counseling’? If no one else in nearly 2,000 years of church history ever built their model of Christian soul care, pastoral counseling, or biblical counseling upon the word noutheteo, then why call your model ‘biblical counseling’?
I understand the typical answers to this and the usual pushback.
“Jay used more than just noutheteo.”
“Jay called his model by several names including nouthetic counseling, biblical counseling, and Christian counseling.”
I get it. I hear you.
Please hear me. My point is not to make any assessment of whether Jay Adams’s nouthetic counseling model is good, bad, indifferent, biblical, unbiblical, Christian, etc. I’m making the simple point, that I’ll develop further in a moment, that the modern nouthetic counseling movement is not identical historic Christian soul care.
I appreciate Mark and others highlighting the “nouthetic” title in their groups and ministries. That language clarifies the focus of their counseling theory and practice. I think it would be helpful if more people and groups who are committed to Jay Adams’s model would use the nouthetic counseling label for themselves.
An Exclusionary Statement
As I read Mark’s statement, it seemed to me that if he wanted to communicate the exclusive nature of his understanding of counseling, then perhaps it would have been better to use the word nouthetic. Maybe Mark could have written:
“Don’t call yourself a nouthetic counselor if you do not believe the simple truth as outlined by Jay Adams that God’s Word provides us with all that we need for soul care. To take on that title of nouthetic counselor and then integrate humanistic philosophies and theories into your methodology gives people a false view of what nouthetic counseling is supposed to be. If you do not want to stick with the Bible, and use the Bible as Jay Adams did in nouthetic counseling, then why would you want to call yourself a nouthetic counselor in the first place?”
I could give an “Amen” to that statement. I’d be quite fine with Mark saying,
“You folks out there who do not practice Jay Adams’s model of nouthetic counseling—you are not nouthetic counselors.”
Perhaps another way to put this is,
“If Mark’s model is focused on modern nouthetic counseling, then why does Mark decide who is in or out of the larger group of historic biblical counselors?
Who Gets to Define “Biblical Counseling”?
This gets to the question,
“Who gets to define ‘biblical counseling’?”
I addressed this question in greater detail here: When Did Biblical Counseling Begin? My major points in that post were:
- Biblical counseling pre-dated the modern nouthetic counseling movement by nearly 2,000 years.
- The modern nouthetic counseling movement is not identical with historic pastoral care, one-another ministry, soul care, and biblical counseling.
In summary:
You don’t have to align with the modern nouthetic counseling movement in order to be a biblical counselor.
Unfortunately, here’s what often gets communicated.
“If you don’t align with my version of nouthetic counseling, then you’re not a real biblical counselor. You’re a ‘so-called biblical counselor.’ You’re really an integrationist!”
The Biblical Counseling Coalition
Over a dozen years ago, back in 2010, I had the honor of facilitating a group of three dozen biblical counseling leaders (from numerous biblical counseling groups and from around the world) who worked in unity for nearly a year to develop the Biblical Counseling Coalition’s Confessional Statement. This collaborative group of biblical counseling leaders (including David Powlison, Steve Viars, Randy Patten, Jeremy Pierre, Kevin Carson, Kevin Hurt, Robert Jones, and many more) were seeking to define or describe “biblical counseling” as envisioned and practiced by the modern biblical counseling movement. We summarized this lengthy Confessional Statement with this affirmation:
“When people ask, ‘What makes biblical counseling truly biblical?’ We unite to affirm:
Biblical counseling occurs whenever and wherever God’s people engage in conversations that are anchored in Scripture, centered on Christ and the Gospel, grounded in sound theology, dependent upon the Holy Spirit and prayer, directed toward sanctification, rooted in the life of the church, founded in love, attentive to heart issues, comprehensive in understanding, thorough in care, practical and relevant, and oriented toward outreach.
This was our collaborative attempt to communicate,
“This is what the modern biblical counseling movement is all about. If you align with these views, then join us in advancing the cause of the modern biblical counseling movement.”
What Makes Biblical Counseling Truly Biblical?
I’ve written extensively and comprehensively about what makes biblical counseling biblical. Here are some summarizing posts:
I also have longer statements (books) about what makes biblical counseling truly biblical.
Here’s my 16-word summary from 6 Biblical Counseling Convictions. As biblical counselors we are:
- Gospel-Centered, Theologically-Saturated, Relationship-Focused, Church History-Informed, Research-Aware Soul Physicians of Embodied-Souls
While these are my deeply held convictions, here’s what I would not say:
“Don’t call yourself a biblical counselor if you are not a gospel-centered, theologically-saturated, relationship-focused, church history-informed, research-aware soul physician of embodied-souls.”
That would make my conceptualization of biblical counseling the guardrail for everyone on the planet.
Here’s what I would rather say instead:
“Like the Christians in Acts 17 who examined even what Paul taught, be a ‘good Berean’ and examine what I say. Test my 6 Biblical Counseling Convictions using God’s Word. Show me biblically where I need to change, grow, develop, and mature my thinking about biblical counseling.”
For Context: My 50-Year Nouthetic Counseling History
I was introduced to and discipled into the modern nouthetic counseling movement before most of my readers were born! It was 1974. I was a new believer. Pastor Bill Goode was then at Grace Baptist Church in Gary, Indiana. A year later he would transition to Faith Baptist Church in Lafayette, Indiana and then soon after launch the nouthetic biblical counseling ministry at Faith.
I still recall Pastor Goode introducing this new “nouthetic counseling” to me and others at Grace Baptist. I recall him walking some of us youth through case studies and training us to be nouthetic counselors.
I have a long history with the modern nouthetic counseling movement. I respect Jay Adams and Pastor Goode and their desire to see Christians counsel one another.
In the fifty years since I was discipled into the modern nouthetic counseling movement, I have done a lifetime of study of the Scriptures and of the history of Christian soul care. Beginning in 1981, I stopped calling myself a “nouthetic counselor” and started using terms like “biblical counselor,” “soul physician,” “spiritual friend,” and “Christian soul care giver.” These terms more closely identify the biblical and historical (church history) approach to one-another ministry and the personal ministry of the Word that I believe, practice, and teach.
Why This Response Post? An Invitation for Mutual Iron Sharpening
I’d enjoy the opportunity to talk to Mark about his original post and to have him interact with me about this follow-up post. I’d especially be interested in Mark’s reflections on my six follow-up questions (see above). I’ve already invited Mark to send me a blog post that I could post at my RPM Ministries site so he and I could continue this discussion.
These issues about who is “in” or “out” of the modern biblical counseling movement have been around for over fifty years now. They are not going away. So, perhaps some respectful public interaction would be helpful. Perhaps they could model how two brothers in Christ lovingly discuss and disagree. Perhaps they could be iron-sharpening-iron interactions for Mark and me, and for all who read our interactions…
