Public Disagreements: Good or Bad? Wise or Unwise?
Some people cringe at some of the public disagreements among biblical counselors.
Some biblical counseling leaders just want us to “all get along.” Or they will say, “Let’s just focus on ministering to people.”
Other people say they learn a lot while reading these public disagreements.
Some biblical counseling leaders believe that, “Respectful public discussions is ministry to people.”
In summary:
Some people believe that public discussions of differences between biblical counselors is unhelpful and unwise.
Some people believe that public discussions of differences between biblical counselors can provide iron-sharpening content for all biblical counselors.
A Brief History Lesson on Nouthetic Disagreements
But today’s post isn’t primarily about the “rightness or wrongness” of public disagreements among biblical counselors. Instead, today’s post is:
A brief history lesson on disagreements between nouthetic biblical counselors over the past 50 years.
I will provide a snapshot sampler of 50 years of nouthetic counseling disagreements. We might even say:
Nouthetic counselors have always publicly nouthetically confronted one another.
Some Snapshot Samplers…
Once upon a time, NANC counselors vehemently disagreed with each other publicly and privately. Here are just a few examples.
Note: These are just a few samplers “off the top of my head,” of potentially 100s of examples of nouthetic counseling leaders publicly disagreeing with each other.
Historical Example #1: Powlison and Welch Publicly Criticize Adams on “The Flesh”
David Powlison, who was on the NANC BOD at the time, disagreed numerous times in writing with Jay Adams’s theological anthropology of the flesh. Powlison also oversaw and affirmed the publication of Ed Welch’s strong disagreements with Adams’s views of the flesh. See: How Theology Shapes Ministry: Jay Adams’ View of the Flesh and an Alternative, Journal of Biblical Counseling, 20:3, 2002.
Historical Example #2: Adams Publicly Responds to Welch
In response, Adams wrote a lengthy letter to the editor of the Journal of Biblical Counseling. Only a brief excerpt of that letter was published by JBC. See: Letter to the Editor by Jay Adams, JBC 21:2, 2003. Adams began by sarcastically thanking Welch.
“I wish to thank Ed Welch for his comments on my view of ‘flesh.’ It gives me the opportunity to squelch some of the erroneous ideas that may be floating around.”
Then Adams added,
“Now, it is fortunate that Ed admits that I might ‘disavow’ some of his conclusions. I certainly do! In fact, I disavow most, if not every one, of them.”
Historical Example #3: Powlison’s Public Writings on Adams’s Behaviorism
Powlison wrote copiously disagreeing with his perception of behaviorism in Adams’s model, focusing instead on matters of the heart. You can find such writings in JBC and in Powlison’s book, The Biblical Counseling Movement: History and Context.
Historical Example #4: Adams Responds
Adams responded copiously, stating that Powlison and others misunderstood, misrepresented, and mischaracterized his counseling. Here is one example of many: Behaviorism?
Historical Example #5: Lambert on Adams and “First Generation” Biblical Counselors
Heath Lambert (who became the NANC/ACBC ED) wrote an entire dissertation/book with large sections strongly disagreeing with Adams and “first generation” biblical counselors. See: The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams. Also, at the end of today’s blog you can read extended quotes from Donn Arms about Lambert’s dissertation.
Historical Example #6: Arms Nouthetically Rebukes Lambert
Adams’s right hand man, Donn Arms, responded vehemently to Lambert’s dissertation by saying Lambert was a secular Rogerian therapist (an early accusation of being zombie-infected!!!). See, Donn Arms’s Book Review: The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams. I’m not sure that after you read this you will call it a “book review.” Perhaps it could be labeled a “book smackdown”! Also see, Heath, Jay, and Donn…And Mischaracterizing Fellow Biblical Counselors. Again, at the end of today’s blog you can read extended quotes from Donn Arms about Lambert’s dissertation.
Historical Example #7: Powlison and Adams Disagree Publicly on Idols of the Heart
Powlison wrote extensively on idols of the heart, including here in his classic JBC article: Idols of the Heart and Vanity Fair. Adams wrote extensively publicly disagreeing…in no uncertain terms. For example, in Heart Idols?, Adams provides salvo after salvo:
“Contrary to what you will hear in many counseling circles today purporting to be Christian, the way to help people solve their problems does not lie in discovering some idol(s) in their hearts.”
“It is foolishness—not to say presumption—to claim to be able by some technique or other to be able to know what Scripture teaches that only God can know!”
“Why, then, is this idea so prevalent among Christians who counsel? A good selling job has been done it seems.”
“I warn you against adopting this approach in which such silly things as calling ‘over-sleeping’ an idol are ‘discovered.’”
Historical Example #8: Progressive Sanctification
Nouthetic biblical counselors have vehemently debated the nature of progressive sanctification, focused on the gospel imperatives and the gospel indicatives. Here’s one example by Donn Arms, Gospel Indicatives/Gospel Imperatives. Arms was not shy about sharing his opinion.
“Let’s have this discussion. It is a vital issue. Those who have resurrected this quietist or contemplative view of sanctification are identified by a number of labels these days—Sonship Theology, New Calvinism, Gospel Sanctification, Christian Hedonism. But regardless of the label, it must be clearly identified as outside the borders of truly biblical counseling.”
Historical Example #9: Bettler Disagrees with Adams on Emotions
John Bettler was Jay Adams’s original right hand man. Yet, Bettler and Adams often disagreed publicly. For example, in 1987, Adams had just written an article entitled, What About Emotional Abuse? In response, Bettler writes, A Response to ‘What About Emotional Abuse? (Biblical Counseling: The Next Generation), Journal of Pastoral Practice, 8, no. 4 (1987): 3-10). 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.” Bettler is concerned that Adams and his followers might misrepresent those with whom they disagree. For a summary, see, 3 Nouthetic Cautions About Nouthetic Critiques of Others.
Historical Example #10: Medication
I’ll be briefer with the rest of these examples…
There have been public debates for 50 years in the modern nouthetic counseling movement about the use or non-use of psychotropic meds.
Historical Example #11: Schizophrenia
Debates among nouthetic counselors about whether schizophrenia is brain-related have continued up to today—including a recent heated public debate between Dr. Charles Hodges and Daniel Berger that played out on Facebook.
Historical Example #12: “Fear Is Not Sin.” “Fear Is Sin.”
There continue to be debates today among biblical counselors like Ed Welch and Sean Perron about fear and sin.
Historical Example #13: Depression and Bi-Polar Disorder
Again, we find long-standing debates among NANC/ACBC counselors on the cause and treatment of depression and bi-polar disorder.
Historical Example #14-1,000!
The list is almost endless.
The Instinct to Identify and Confront Perceived Error
Historically, nouthetic biblical counseling was birth as a response to the perception of psychological error entering the church. Nouthetic biblical counseling was birth with a chosen focus on a word (noutheteo) used just 11 times in the New Testament and always in the context of warning against error.
In summary:
Historically, embedded in the DNA of modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement is the instinct to identify and confront error.
It is no wonder that nouthetic folks have debated and disputed each other—many times heatedly—throughout the 50-year history of the modern nouthetic counseling movement. Nouthetic folks have always practiced public mutual noutheteo. It is in their blood. It is in their DNA.
Healthy Public Disagreement and Unhealthy, Unholy Public Disagreement
I am not saying that all of this disagreement throughout the 50 years of the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement has been healthy. Nor am I saying that all of it has been unhealthy. So far, I am simply identifying the reality that disagreement is embedded in the nouthetic DNA. What we need to consider is what differentiates healthy from unhealthy disagreement?
Healthy public disagreement is humble. It is willing to learn from those we disagree with. It engages in face-to-face, iron-sharpening-iron conversations with those with whom we disagree. It is careful to accurately characterize others. It addresses issues rather than label or accusing people. It engages in detailed biblical, theological, and historical (church history) evidence.
Unhealthy and unholy public disagreement is arrogant. It is unwilling to learn from those we disagree with. It mischaracterizes the views of others. It labels and accuses others with loaded, pejorative words like “unbiblical,” “integrationist,” “neo-integrationist,” “so-called biblical counselor,” “zombie-infected.” It makes generic, broad statements rather than dealing in detailed biblical, theological, and historical arguments.
Here are some posts about healthy and unhealthy public disagreements.
5 Biblical Counseling Principles for Addressing Disagreements Among Biblical Counselors
6 Types of Biblical Self-Examination Questions to Ask Before Criticizing Fellow Biblical Counselors
Are We Reasonable or Unreasonable in Our Interactions in the Biblical Counseling Movement?
2 Very Different Ways of Reading People We Disagree With
How Biblical Counselors Could Engage Matthew LaPine’s the Logic of the Body
10 Conversation Stoppers in the New “Conversation” Playbook
Powlison’s Counsel on Communicating Constructively Concerning Counseling Conflicts
Beware of Relational Heresy While Addressing Perceived Doctrinal Heresy
3 Nouthetic Cautions about Nouthetic Critiques of Others: From John Bettler
16 Self-Assessment Questions to Ask Ourselves as We Evaluate Other Counseling Models
My Point Today
My point today is less about the nature of public disagreements among biblical counselors.
My focus is more about the historical fact of public disagreement among nouthetic biblical counselors.
And, my point today is that when done in a healthy way:
There is nothing inherently wrong or unwise about biblical counselors publicly disagreeing.
Public disagreements among biblical counselors that is done humbly, wisely, lovingly, biblically, theologically, historically, accurately, carefully, can provide positive iron-sharpening-iron conversations that are beneficial to the readers.
Yes, there is a legitimate “ministry-by-public disputation.”
There is no reason to say, “I am too busy doing ‘real ministry with real people’ to engage in public disagreements.”
Healthy public disagreements are “real ministry for real people.”
Lambert, Adams, and Arms
As I promised earlier, here are some more detailed quotes from Lambert and Arms about Lambert’s book on Adams. You can find these quotes distilled here: Heath, Jay, and Donn…And Mischaracterizing Fellow Biblical Counselors. After reading these (shocking, brutal) quotes, I’m confident you will see that nouthetic biblical counselors have a long history of intense public disagreement.
Some samplers from Donn Arms about Heath Lambert’s criticisms of Jay Adams…
“…a careful examination of Lambert’s evidence often reveals a departure from what is biblical and helpful and is a retreat back to the mindset of the pre-nouthetic Rogerian practices of our forefathers which Adams inveighed against over 40 years ago.”
“The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams [Lambert’s dissertation/book] is a number of contradictory things. It is … a collection of harsh and unkind epithets about the man and his followers. It is … grievous academic malpractice. It … embraces as authoritative, shoddily constructed straw men.” “He [Lambert] seeks to identify specific areas where, in his view, Adams’ work was deficient—even erroneous—and marshals support for his conclusions by quoting as authoritative those who do not share his deep respect for Adams—many of whom have misrepresented Adams, and questioned his integrity, character, and scholarship.”
“As a credible scholarly work The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams was doomed from the beginning.”
“…while Lambert is willing to critique, criticize, and at times condemn Adams and his ‘first generation’ writings, there is only praise and commendation for Powlison and his ‘second generation’ colleagues. In most of the book, Adams serves as a foil, a warden from whom the ‘second generation’ has been able to free the movement. Lambert quotes some outrageous things these ‘second generation’ men have written about Adams and his followers as though they are authoritative and gives them a pass.”
“Over and over again these straw men about Jay Adams and his followers are served up and Lambert cites them as authoritative. He questions none of it. Instead, their observations are cited as ‘progress’ within the biblical counseling movement rather than condemned as the slander that they are.”
[Note: Arms is criticizing Lambert for co-belligerent research, which is, sadly, still very common in the biblical counseling world today. In his co-belligerent research, Lambert is, according to Arms, only quoting people who agree with Lambert’s pre-determined view. See more on this here: Biblical Counseling and the Co-Belligerent Use of Research.]
“The second issue Lambert cites is that of motivation and he begins the discussion with the claim that ‘Adams’ view of the dynamics of sin is unusual.’ In fact, he claims ‘it is a theological innovation’” (page 67).
“This ‘second generation’ view of motivation is hardly progress. It is a view of the heart that Adams has been criticizing and opposing for the last 20 years. This is not building on Adams’ work, it is a rejection of it.”
Under the header of “How Biblical Counselors Do Counseling,” Arms writes:
“Here Lambert seeks to make the case that ‘second generation’ counselors have advanced in their methodology by rejecting Adams’ tendency ‘to obscure the importance of building loving relationships with counselees’ (page 88). Here again Lambert quotes as authoritative those who paint Adams as a harsh, uncaring, authoritarian counselor.”
“Lambert concludes the chapter by comparing Adams to Job’s counselors ‘. . . who had a monolithic view of Job as a sinner. They ministered to Job in a static and ultimately unhelpful way. Their counsel failed because they did not identify with Job as a sufferer or seek to minister to him accordingly.’”
“Lambert has demonstrated here that there is a stark difference between Adams and the CCEF orb. The difference isn’t one of development or maturity as Lambert postulates. The ‘second generation’ approach is a retreat, a throwback to pre-nouthetic times when relationship trumped truth and commiseration with a counselee was called ‘counseling.’”
Next, under the header of “How Biblical Counselors Talk About Counseling,” Arms says of Lambert:
“In this chapter Lambert seeks to make the case that Adams drew the wrong conclusions from his failed attempts to interact with secular counselors and integrationists.”
“Lambert has, probably unwittingly, demonstrated the distain many in the CCEF orb have for their founder. In one place or another in his book Lambert quotes them referring to Adams and his nouthetic model as ‘stoic,’ ‘bombastic,’ ‘indifferent to suffering,’ ‘insensitive,’ ‘harsh,’ ‘ignores clear themes of Scripture,’ ‘approaches counselees with a condemning, self-righteous spirit,’ ‘cheap and platitudinous,’ ‘unbalanced,’ ‘legalistic,’ ‘moralistic,’ ‘behavioristic,’ ‘immature,’ ‘sees counselees in a monolithic way as sinners,’ has a ‘stand above you as one who has arrived’ character, and is ‘less than biblical.’”
“Twenty years ago one could read and hear countless secular and eclectic counselors scorch Adams for his views and the caricatured portraits they painted of him. One does not hear so much of it from that camp today. Today, they have been replaced by Adams’ ‘friends.’”
“Hear then, Lambert’s conclusion to the whole matter. Comparing Adams and his ‘first generation’ counselors to the CCEF ‘second generation’ Lambert concludes that ‘The movement is more thoughtful; it is more caring; it is learning to speak more wisely and loving to outsiders—the movement is more biblical’ (page 159). Does any of this really sound wise, or caring, or more loving? Indeed, is this more biblical than Jay Adams?”
And Donn Arms’s final words:
“My advice to the reader? Buy this book and see for yourself. Just be careful not to read it too close to an open flame. Straw men are easily combustible.”
