Luke makes it clear that the reason why more Jews in Berea believed than those in Thessalonica is because, being noble in their attitudes, instead of arguing, they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things that Paul said were true (Acts 17:11-12).

This is an important fact that every Christian should remember—whenever you can get people to earnestly search the Scriptures as the Bereans did to see if the message you present is true, you will probably begin to see converts .

Don’t settle for telling people about your experience; get them checking up on what you say in their Bibles. It is the through the hearing of the Word that people are saved.

Notice, they didn’t search to see where Paul was wrong, but for where he was right. That was why they were called “noble.”

My suggestion is to get them reading the Gospel of John.

“Why John?”

Because the purpose for which it was written was to bring people to faith in Christ (See John 20:30-31). God uses what He has caused to be written for the purposes He had in mind when doing so. Probably more people have been saved by understanding and believing the teachings of this simple, but profound, Gospel than from any other portion of Scripture.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Love that has been perfected casts out all fear.

That is to say, all fear except the fear of God!

The fear of God is a fear that involves love. An element in fearing God is the fear that we will displease Him. To have Him look upon us with dismay because of our faithlessness, our succumbing to temptation, our willful stubbornness, is in one sense to fear God.

We also fear His Fatherly discipline and chastisement, as I said in our previous blog. We fear His words of rebuke. We fear His threats to lose our rewards. We fear God because we want to love Him, and we want Him to love us.

So, think of this—all other fears mean a lack of the fear of God. We fear men because we don’t fear God enough—otherwise, we’d follow Him rather than giving in to men. We fear death because we do not have enough of a love and desire to depart and be with Christ. We fear ostracism because we fear losing the approval of others more than we fear losing the favor of God. Turn all of these things around and you can see what the love of God is. And how it casts out all other fears.

So, if we are to fear God, we need to perfect our love for Him and His Son Jesus Christ. Then other fears will not trouble us. Why? Because we will know that we are in the good graces of God Himself—what else could count as much?

feedback@nouthetic.org

The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams
by Heath Lambert
Wheaton: Crossway, 2011
Reviewed by Donn R Arms

Most biblical counselors would dismiss the term schizophrenia as an unhelpful and confusing label. Heath Lambert has demonstrated, however, that the term has validity as a literary genre. The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams is a number of contradictory things. It is a respectful recounting of the contributions of Jay Adams and a collection of harsh and unkind epithets about the man and his followers. It is both a carefully researched Ph. D. thesis and grievous academic malpractice. It identifies important issues within the biblical counseling movement and embraces as authoritative shoddily constructed straw men. Lambert praises concepts he himself finds questionable, and confuses movement with maturity, differences with development, and provocation with progress. Upon a careful reading of this book, biblical counselors who are familiar with the issues reported here will be made both thankful and appalled.

Lambert has a genuine respect and appreciation for Jay Adams. It is evident in his first chapter in which he surveys Adams’ early writings and places them in the context of the times they were written. It is a careful and complete survey and serves as a great introduction to the man and his writings. In his conclusion, Lambert correctly points out that Adams has always welcomed a careful examination of what he has written and invited others to build on what Adams himself admitted was preliminary (although not tentative). Lambert does just that. He 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. It began as a Ph.D. project at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville where Lambert teaches. His purpose was to chronicle what he perceived to be the “development” of the biblical counseling movement in its “second generation” iteration. In Lambert’s mind, it was to be a continuation—a volume two—of a dissertation written by David Powlison in 1996 and later published in book form in 2009.[1] Powlison figures prominently in Lambert’s thesis as a molder and promoter of counseling theory in this “second generation” and is a focus of Lambert’s analysis—it is more a book about David Powlison and his friends at CCEF than it is about Adams. Because the only person Southern Seminary had on faculty with the academic credentials to supervise Lambert’s Ph. D. project was an avowed integrationist the powers that be at the Seminary sought out and hired an outside authority to oversee Lambert’s Ph.D. project—David Powlison! According to Lambert, Powlison

. . . has walked with me every step of the way through this project. Without his wisdom and care, this project would never have been written. Without his living example of Christlikeness, I would be much less that what I am. One of the greatest honors of my life was doing my doctoral work under his leadership. I am repeatedly thankful for his friendship, wisdom, and input (page 20).

So, to clear the academic hurdles for his Ph. D. Lambert was writing a paper that was largely about the man whose approval he had to have to earn his degree! Academically, this is incestuous and Southern Seminary should be ashamed. As a result, 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.

Lambert divides his critiques into three basic categories, how his “second generation” of counselors think about counseling, how they do counseling, and how they talk about counseling. In each area Lambert identifies specific issues on which his “second generation” subjects differ from Adams. Difference does not necessarily mean progress, however. While Lambert believes these differences are the result of growth and maturity in the movement, 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.

How Counselors Think About Counseling

Here Lambert identifies two areas where he believed Adams was deficient and lauds the “second generation” for correcting them. First is the issue of suffering. While Lambert admits that Adams did indeed address the issue in his early writings he concludes Adams did not say enough. This is a most curious criticism. While I have read countless articles from those critical of what Adams has said or written, this is the first case I can recall of someone criticizing Adams for what he did not say—complaining that Adams should have said more!

Lambert then instructs Adams that “the problems and struggles of people are not limited to sin alone” (page 57) as though this is what Adams taught. He quotes Ed Welch who makes a false dichotomy between those who are “pain counselors” and those who are “sin counselors.” Adams, according to Lambert, is one such “sin counselor” (page 60) whose perspective necessitated this correction from Welch:

Those who lean in the direction of minimizing pain, or calling for a stoic acceptance of it, are often more precise in their theological formations. But they may be guilty of ignoring important biblical themes and thus do not offer the full counsel of God to those who suffer.

So for Welch, “more precise theological formations” often hinders the counselor’s ability to “offer the full counsel of God.”

Adams, of course, believed no such thing. For Adams, every counseling problem is, at its core, a theological problem. For this reason, he included a lengthy discussion of the issue of misery, pain, and suffering in his book on Theology (More Than Redemption, pp.152-159). Adams also published a host of small books and pamphlets to use as handouts to counselee’s who were suffering (How to Handle Trouble, How to Overcome Evil, What to do When . . . series, Christ and Your Problems). He also produced a brief homiletical commentary on the book of 1 Peter (Trust and Obey) designed to help the Pastor teach his people about suffering.

Lambert quotes Lane and Tripp and commends their “effort to understand carefully the context in which the counselee exists” (page 62) as though Adams had been silent about such things. Adams’ lengthy sections about data gathering in his Manual do just that.

“It is wrong to approach a struggling brother or sister with a condemning, self-righteous spirit,” chides Paul Tripp (page 63). Jesus rebukes “the problem of ignoring suffering” scolds Ed Welch (page 63). “We do not want to communicate truths in ways that are cheap and platitudinous” (Tripp again). 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.

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). Lambert cites two articles that were published in the Journal of Biblical Counseling about ten years ago in which Ed Welch challenged Adams’ view of the “flesh” and sought to put forward an “alternative” view, an alternative view that was even more “unusual” and “innovative” than Adams’! Adams responded to the article in a letter to the editor in which he refuted Welch point by point. David Powlison, the editor of the Journal, refused to publish most of Adams’ response opting to run only a quarter of it and leaving out entirely each of Adams’ point by point arguments. On the page following the heavily redacted letter from Adams, the Journal ran an article which accused Adams of being a closet behaviorist and of himself deriving his model from secular psychologists—and Lambert agrees!

So then Schwab and Welch each agree that Adams’ model of habituation is unbiblical. In addition to this, Schwab establishes that the origins of Adams’ thinking were found in secular psychological theories, not in specific texts of Scripture. In other words, Schwab shows that the problem—cited by Welch—of Adams’ understanding of the term “flesh” was imposed by Adams on the biblical text and actually derived from the influence of unbelieving people (page 72).

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.

Lambert continues this section by citing Powlison’s “Idols of the Heart” construct as a further “development” or maturation in the area of motivation only to challenge Powlison’s understanding later in chapter six.[3]

How Biblical Counselors Do Counseling

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.

Our service must not have an “I stand above you as one who as arrived” character (Tripp, page 96).

Tripp is also quoted as advocating “sacrificial” counseling.

Tripp goes so far as to say that people who do not invest sacrificially in those to whom they minister are ‘selfish’ and ‘thieves’ (page 93).

Lambert misses entirely the irony of a lecture about sacrifice from someone who charged $85 per session for such “sacrificial” counseling when he worked at CCEF while scolding others who have never charged a dime for counseling.

Lambert correctly points out that “Adams believed that his counseling approach was fundamentally loving. He believed it was loving to confront people with their sin and give them resources to change” (page 92). Still, 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.” Adams often likened the difference to encountering a friend who was working under the hood of his car. Someone comes along and upon sizing up the situation leans on the fender and tells the shade tree mechanic he understands how difficult his task is. Indeed, he once had a starter motor go bad and understands the frustration. He tells the mechanic how sad he is about the motor, affirms him in his efforts, and tells him he will check on him again next week. The nouthetic guy, however, takes off his coat, rolls up his sleeves, crawls under the car, and helps guide the socket onto the nut while the mechanic turns the wrench.

Suffering counselees do not need a new friend, nor do they need a hug. They need someone who will offer them solid help in dealing with their situation. Commiserating is not counseling.

How Biblical Counselors Talk about Counseling

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. He recounts several events in Adams’ life when Adams did interact with his critics and rightly points out that Adams concluded it was a waste of time. It was not Adams’ tone nor his demeanor that alienated the integrationist, however, it was his message! For Lambert “the biblical counseling movement has a responsibility to engage an atheistic society and the surrounding culture” though he does not explain why. For Adams, the believer has a responsibility to evangelize, not engage—proclaim, not dialog. The theologian has nothing to learn from a Mormon. An astronomer has nothing to gain from the astrologer. Biblical counselors can hope to find no help from the secular psychologist. Those who seek to influence their integrationist friends find they become influenced instead.

It should be noted, however, that Adams did seek to understand secular psychology and during the middle ‘60s devoured the psychological literature of the day—genuinely hoping to find some help. He found none. We have those books in our library here at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies and Adams’ careful interaction with them can be seen in the copious notes and arguments found in the margins. Still, his heart was inclined toward winning the integrationist, not condemning him.

In 1972 Adams reviewed a book written by an integrationist by the name of James Hamilton in which he tried to show how pastors could incorporate the conclusions of psychology into ministry. That book has descended into well-deserved obscurity but the final paragraph of Adams’ review is classic.

Sad, sad it is to read a book like this—Hamilton is so close, yet so far. If the basic problem stems from the fact that he is yet in transition, let us pray that it will not be long before the waters part and he crosses over to the promised land. Dr. Hamilton, please believe me, the crossing is neither wet nor muddy, and the grapes on the other side are sweet.

Several observations about Lambert’s book are in order. First, this is not a book about “the biblical counseling movement after Adams” at all. It is a book about CCEF. For Lambert, the “second generation” of biblical counselors consists solely of those who travel in the CCEF orb. The only counselor quoted outside that orb (though, like Adams, he once served on the CCEF board) is Wayne Mack—who should more accurately be categorized as a “first generation” counselor. There is nothing here but passing references to NANC, the Master’s College, Faith Baptist Church, Adams’ own Institute for Nouthetic Studies, or any number of other biblical counseling institutions. Other authors and teachers including George Scipione, Lou Priolo, Stuart Scott, Martha Peace, Mark Shaw, Jim Berg, and the Journal of Modern Ministry do not seem to be a part of Lambert’s “second generation.”

Second, the post-Adams era has not yet begun! Jay Adams did not die in 1988. During this time frame Adams has continued to write, often opposing the same “developments” or “progress” Lambert cites as positive.

Third, where is the scholarly examination of CCEF and the important issues related to their counseling paradigm? Wouldn’t the reasons for Adams’ and his nouthetic co-workers’ wholesale resignation from the CCEF board in the ‘90s be an important topic for examination? What about the rejection of Adams’ view of progressive sanctification, the embrace of Jack Miller’s Sonship theology, and the resultant sub-orthodox view of sanctification? There is no evaluation of the impact of CCEF’s embrace of an Historical/Redemptive hermeneutic on their counseling model. How about the influence secular training in psychology has had and the perceived need for counselors to understand all that the psychological world has to offer? The last CCEF annual conference was devoted to exegeting the DSM-IV, not the Scriptures. For Lambert, “second generation” CCEF has had only a salutatory impact on the biblical counseling movement.

Forth, 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.”

Finally, to demonstrate how heavily the influence of David Powlison weighs on this book, note the tone Powlison sets in his Foreword. Referring to the biblical counseling scene today Powlison claims that

We should be good at counseling—caring, skillful, thoughtful . . . But more often than not, we have been poor and foolish, rigid or inept. The pat answer, snap judgment, brisk answer and quick fix are too often characteristic. Where is the patient kindness? Where is the probing concern and hard thought? Where is the luminous, pertinent truthfulness? Where is the flexibility of well-tailored wisdom? Where is the unfolding process? Where is the humanity of Jesus enfleshed in humane, humble, sensible people (page 13)?

This is a breathtaking perspective. After 40 years of teaching, writing, and counseling this is the view from the CCEF tower of the biblical counseling world today. Unskilled, inept, uncaring counselors populate the landscape. What is the antecedent of his pronoun “we?” Is it simply a literary device? Hyperbole? If this is an honest assessment of his own counseling should he really be teaching others? Does Powlison really have this kind of condescending view of the majority of counselors today? Is it any surprise then, that Lambert would pick up and embrace his mentor’s jaundiced view in this book?

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?

Heath Lambert is a promising young man whom I count as a friend. I like him. I don’t like his book. His seminary failed him in this project by placing him under, requiring him to have the approval of, and permitting him to function far too close to an influential figure whose close proximity to the project has obscured Lambert’s view of the entire landscape. I expect, that as more years and further experience gives him better perspective, we will see some helpful things from his pen. I will be looking forward to reviewing them.

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.

Today we welcome guest blogger Lou Priolo. Lou is a long time friend, author, counselor, and conference speaker. Check out his regular blog site at www.loupriolobiblicalcounseling.com.

To my way of thinking, the place of the doctrine of justification in the believer’s life is much like the operating system on a computer. I’m a PC guy. My personal computer operates under a Windows operating system. Windows is always up and running, but most of the time, it runs in the background. I don’t see it. I can go for days without looking at it (although I know it is functioning as long as the other programs are operating properly). Occasionally, I have to go to the control panel to troubleshoot a problem, make some minor adjustments, or defrag my hard drive, but I don’t give it another thought because I have faith that it is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is with my justification. It is always up and running. Though I am not always consciously thinking about it, everything I do flows from it. Indeed, I could do nothing without it. But there are many other things I am called to do (there are many other responsibilities God calls me to fulfill) on which I must diligently focus my attention. Although I am very grateful for it, I cannot allow myself to be distracted by checking the stability of my operating system of justification every five minutes.

But what about the growing number of those who say that we must (or should or ought to) “preach the Gospel to ourselves every day?” If by Gospel they mean the entire ordo-salutis: effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification,[1] and glorification—the whole enchilada—there is not a problem (other than the fact that the Bible doesn’t exactly command us to do this). But if, like so many seem to be espousing today, they take a reductionist view of the Gospel—reducing it to justification (or to adoption) alone—there is a problem.

If a new or immature believer does not yet have the faith to believe once and for all that God has truly justified him, he would do well to “preach the Gospel of justification to himself every day” until his faith is mature. But to require me to “preach that gospel to myself daily” is to relegate me to the “O ye of little faith” society (which membership I would be only too happy to acknowledge if I thought it were true in regard to my justification). But the truth is that I believe God. I took Him at his Word when He said that He justified me. By and large, I walk around 24/7 with a righteousness consciousness that flows from my faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Even in the midst of my sin, I fully believe that I stand righteous and clean before my Lord (that I am still a son who is loved and accepted by my Heavenly Father) because I have been once and for all justified by faith in His blood. Indeed, my absolutely favorite Bible verse is Romans 4:8, “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not take into account.” Consequently, I have little desire to spend precious moments every day laying anew a foundation that has already been laid for me. Nor do I think that the foundation on which I am building my life somehow needs daily reinforcement. My foundation is firm! I would rather (and I believe the bulk of Scripture directs me to) spend my time building upon that foundation by growing in love, in holiness, and in good works. (I don’t believe we should have a reductionist view of the concept of grace either—grace is more than unmerited favor—it is the supernatural ability and desire that God gives His adopted sons and daughters to obey Him.) And yes, of course, I realize that I can do none of this apart from the Spirit’s enabling power, and that my motivation for working so diligently on my sanctification is out of a heart filled with gratitude for what Christ has done by justifying me (not to mention thanksgiving for a myriad of other mercies with which He has blessed me).

This is not to say that there aren’t moments in my life when, because I am overwhelmed with the guilt of a particular sin, I have to take a bath in Psalm 32, 103, and Romans 3–5 for a few days in order to personally appropriate that justification which I forensically know is mine but that seems to have eluded me experientially. Nevertheless, these moments of weakness (concerning my faith) thankfully for me have been the rare exception rather than the rule.

Of course, there are many other exceptions that could be cited of people who may rightly be encouraged to take a daily booster shot of the Good News of justification. Perfectionistic people, for example, or legalistic individuals, or those who struggle with certain eating disorders are typically those who don’t comprehend justification and its implications on their lives and therefore would do well to review (indoctrinate themselves with) that part of the Gospel until they are fully assured that what God has promised He is able to perform.

So, this is certainly not to imply that there is something wrong with meditating on Christ and what He has done in regard to one’s justification. Indeed, such meditation serves as our greatest motivation for cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the progressive sanctification process. Thus, it is certainly a good thing to do. But, it is the insistence by some that we are all obligated to do this daily that has prompted me to speak out about what I believe amounts to an unbiblical approach to sanctification.

Meditating on what Christ has done by justifying us is not, from the human perspective, what brings about our progressive sanctification (it is not the scriptural modus operandi for or the practical key to it). Obeying Christ’s commandments (in the power of the Spirit and from a heart that is properly motivated) is what does. Understanding justification (and being appreciative for it) is our primary motivation for sanctification, not a principal means of it.

So again, for those whose faith is weak (momentarily or chronically), or who do not understand or properly value the precious doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, or for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity. And for the rest of us, meditating on our justification and being thankful to God for it is a fine and proper thing to do.[2] But for one Christian who struggles with (or is weak in) his faith to tell those of us who don’t that we are obligated to daily do what his lack of faith or knowledge (or perhaps lack of humility) impels him to do is presumptuous, if not legalistic. And for teachers and preachers of the Word who want to encourage others to meditate on the blessedness of being justified more regularly than perhaps they do in order to be properly motivated to obey God, for such teachers to not clearly delineate the biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification and thereby synchronize them in the minds of their hearers, is to put a stumbling block before those saints whom they are wanting to help walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. The Gospel is more—much more—than justification by faith alone.

Some have had difficulty in equating the two. But let’s take a look at the situation. There are similarities and differences. Here are a few of each.

1. Both preacher and counselor seek to bring a message from God to those who listen.
2. Both use the very same Source from which to gather that message—the Bible.
3. Both confront those to whom they minister with truth that is intended to change their lives.
4. Both give examples of what the Bible is talking about to show
   a.  What they are talking about.
   b.  How truth can be applied in life.
   c.  Ways in which it may be implemented.
5. Both are interested in bringing about change through the Spirit using His Word, and not through psychological means.
6. Both are committed to one end in all they do—the glory of God.
7. Both use the Scriptures to direct, rebuke, urge, persuade, inform and convince their listeners.
8. Both speak differently when addressing believers and unbelievers.
9. Both are interested in one end for those to whom the minister—that their lives may please God.
10. Both avoid using gimmicks to bring about the desired results.

How do they differ?

1. One speaks in a louder volume than the other (ordinarily).
2. One addresses a wide variety of people at the same time, whereas the other addresses a specific person or persons at one time.
3. One speaks, but does not receive, verbal feedback as the other does.
4. One does not discuss matters, while the other must do so.
5. One is more general in what he says that the other who can be more specific and personal.
6. One is concerned with the same basic issues over a period of time, while the other takes up a variety of topics during the period.
7. One involves written assignments while the other usually does not.
8. One speaks as a part of a worship service, while the other deals only with the problems presented in a less formal setting.
9. One acts more as a herald while the other as a coach.
10. One may seek immediate interaction among those present while the other expects eventual change of that sort.

These items are only a few of the similarities and the differences between the two. But you can see from them that they are very much alike in goals and methods, and that the differences are due largely to the distinct settings in which the communication of God’s truth takes place. Clearly, the two supplement, support and complement each other, each supplying a dimension that the other cannot. The two, in tandem, approximate each other and each is deficient apart from the other.

feedback@nouthetic.org

How about a discussion of schism? Does that sound interesting? Among other things, in my discussions with a group of pastors recently, we touched on the subject. One of the comments made was the fact that, in some cases (I’d guess in most), congregations wait too long to act, and, therefore, end up having someone split their churches. It is always bad to put up the traffic light after the fatal accident!

Paul was clear about the urgency of the matter:

Reject a factious man after the first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

In Titus 3:10 he made it clear that quick action is called for when someone is noticed in the corner with a number of persons in secretive discussions. He said whenever a factious person is discovered, counsel once or twice, and if there is no positive response, get rid of him. There was to be no delay or long drawn out process in which there is time for him to continue his nefarious work. He is to be confronted, and unless there is a positive response (which I assume means repentance), there is to be no more delay.

Take to heart what Paul advises. Few things can be as devastating to a church than when someone succeeds in splitting it.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Sorry, your charge doesn’t hold water. Just because I refuse to use the jargon of the field, because I write for pastors and elders in language they can easily read, and since I do not hide ignorance behind half-understood or esoteric terminology, there are those who think that what I have to say is simplistic. I claim that my writings are simple, not simplistic.

I have spent a lifetime attempting to put difficult matters into easily understood language. My students at two seminaries will vouch for the fact that I always strongly urged simplicity and clarity in preaching. I have taught that the second cousin to truth is clarity and the brother to lying is obscurity! It is my belief that by hard work, anything—once understood—can be made simple and intelligible. It is with that conviction in mind that I always sit down to write.

Because I do not theorize, speculate, or hypothesize, there are those who think what I say is unscholarly. I admit to the charge, if that is what scholarship is all about. But, wait a minute! Ask yourself, “Would Jesus have stood up to the charge?” His clear, simple language was so different from the rabbis that people were amazed at what He had to say. But because what He said was simple, that does not mean that it was simplistic. It was at once simple and profound. I try to be a speaker and writer who is as fully in that tradition of Jesus as possible.

The same concern drove Paul who, in writing to the Colossians, asked for prayer so that “I may proclaim” the truth “clearly, as I ought to.” I consider myself equally obligated to set forth God’s truth clearly. I think that it may be fairly said that though others may not always agree with me, they understand why they don’t because they understand what I have written.

Akin to the charge of simplicity is the companion charge of proof-texting. Apart from the fact that there is a correct way to proof-text, as Jesus and the apostles showed us, I deny the charge as made. What I deny is the claim that I give the Scriptures short shrift, taking passages out of context, making them say what they were never intended to say, and the like. That is what is usually meant by proof-texting.

I ask you, does the charge stand under scrutiny? How many other counselors have translated the entire New Testament, the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Psalm 119? How many others have written commentaries on all of these books? When you look at the shoddy exegesis that is so prevalent among eclectic “Christian counselors,” you will find more than enough proof-texting together with poor exegesis at its worst. I cannot accept this irresponsible charge from those who, themselves, are prime examples of what they decry. Indeed, it is time for those who hurl these missiles to reconsider their own feeble efforts at using Scripture.

When Scripture is so casually handled, when its teaching is equated with the flawed statements of men without any recognition that the two are radically different, when hermeneutics is not only a word hardly understood but a science whose fundamental principles are persistently violated, it is time for the practitioners of such an “art” to cease and desist calling names!

In other words, I challenge those who love to bypass the teachings of Nouthetic counselors on the basis that what we write is too simplistic, to come to grips with the major arguments that we set forth. That is certainly a fairer, and more “scholarly” way to go about things than to ignore these as “too simplistic” to give the time of day. It is amazing how often objectors use the ad hominem approach rather than grappling with the issues. Let’s stop that sort of thing and begin to talk sensibly, simply. One, not so insignificant issue, is how to present truth! Another has to do with the target audience for whom we write. Should we write to impress other “scholars,” or to help those who are ministering to God’s flock? Think about it!

The Christian’s basis for counseling, and the basis for a Christian’s counseling is nothing other than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Bible is his counseling textbook.

“Why?” you ask. “After all, the Christian doesn’t use the Bible as his basis for scores of other activities in which he engages—such as engineering, architecture, music—so why should he insist that the Scriptures are the basis for counseling?”

The answer to that question is at once both simple and profound (because of its simplicity don’t miss the profundity of its implications). The Bible is the basis for a Christian’s counseling because it deals with the same issues that all counseling does. The Bible was given to help men come to saving faith in Christ and then to transform believers into His image (2 Tim. 3:15). The Holy Spirit uses it as an “adequate” instrument that He says has the ”power” to do so. That, in substance, is what these verses say.

But note, too, in these verses God assigns this life calling of transforming lives by the Word to the “man of God” (a phrase Paul picks up from the Old Testament designation for a prophet and uses in the pastoral epistles to refer to the Christian minister). And, let me repeat, the Holy Spirit strongly declares that the Bible fully equips him for this work.

So then, it is because counseling—the process of helping others to love God and their neighbors—is a part of the ministry of the Word (just as preaching is ) that it is unthinkable to use any other text (just as it would be unthinkable to do so in preaching). A ministry of the Word is not when it is based on substitutes.

The Bible is the basis for a Christian’s counseling because of what counseling is all about (changing lives by changing values, beliefs, relationships, attitudes, behavior). What other source can provide a standard for such changes? What other source tells us how to make such changes in a way that pleases God?

That is why other foundations for counseling must be rejected. Not only are they not needed (the Bible is adequate—the unique One, Who is the counselor proved that by His own counseling ministry), but since they seek to do the same sorts of things (without the Scriptures and the Spirit), they are also competitive.

God doesn’t bless His competition! Nor does He bless disobedience to His Word by His servants.

As future ministers of the Word, be just that—only that, and nothing else but that—ministers of the Word! Do not forsake the Fountain of living water for the cracked cisterns of modern counseling systems.

This short article first appeared in Kethiv Quere, the student publication of Dallas Theological Seminary, in 1977.  It was later reprinted in Jay’s book Theology of Counseling.

Adams, J. E. (1986). A theology of Christian counseling: More than redemption (xiii–xiv). Grand Rapids, MI: Ministry Resource Library.

My worry is sin
__I cannot excuse it;
__I confess it and seek Your pardon, Lord.
__You have told me not to worry
__but (rather) to pray,
__to thank You (even for this trial),
__to work on today’s responsibilities
__and to rely on You
__for the outcome.
That’s hard under the present circumstance,
__You will have to help me
__to learn how
__to do these things,
So that
__by practicing
__what You have taught
__through Word and deed
I too may be able
__to count it a joyful thing
__when I fall
__into every sort of testing.
May I learn to see the sun
__shining above the storm,
__and by the eye of faith
__discern those shafts of light
__that break through the clouds
__to beam
__knowledge, self-control, endurance,
__godliness, brotherly-kindness
__and love
__into my dark life,
_________________for Christ’s sake,
_____________________Amen

Most marriages develop their characteristic patterns not by design but by drift. Courses of least resistance, following one’s own desires and the like, in time develop into patterns. But you will never drift into God’s pattern. It will come only by repentance, by prayerful understanding, and by conscious decision to follow it. That decision must be backed by a continued, daily awareness of what you are doing and a repetitive effort to realize God’s design in all you do.

You must choose between drift and decision. Decide now to reshape your marriage according to God’s great plan set forth in the pattern of Christ and His church. If you do, your marriage will be blessed more and more as it grows (not drifts) into the shape designed by God.

• Conclusion of a chapter Jay was invited to write for a book on marriage that was rejected by the book’s editor. It was eventually published in the Journal of Pastoral Practice (Vol. X, No. 1, 1989, pp. 38-44).

In 1 John 5:16, John wrote that if you see someone committing a sin that leads to death (the KJV goes on to say) I don’t say you should pray about that. On the surface, that sounds strange, doesn’t it?

Well, it is strange. Why shouldn’t you pray for him?

Because of the kind of sin he committed-one that leads to death. What sin is that? To answer that isn’t the purpose of this posting. I want to concentrate on that word “pray” or “ask,” as some have it.

There are two distinct words in the Greek—

One, aiteo means “to ask for, or pray.” That’s not the word used here.

The other is eratao, which means “to ask about, inquire.” It is used here.

The verse doesn’t say not to pray, but rather not to go about trying to dig up all the dirt behind his sin unto death! A very important exhortation we need to stress often to overly curious people and gossips.

For more information about this passage and 49 others (shameless plug alert), see my recent book, Fifty Problem Passages Explained.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Perhaps I should contact you more often.  But there is little to say that I haven’t already said on the disks that you are watching. But, perhaps, a word of encouragement is what some of you need.

Life is full of activities—God has designed things that way; so that’s good! But it does mean that if you are going to do anything worthwhile that takes time and effort, you probably must schedule your work. If you’re having trouble finding time, then you must look for it—it’s there.  We all have 24 hours a day—it just depends on how we cut the pie!

Notice JESUS HAD A SCHEDULE. Often it is pointed out that His hour had not yet come.  But when it did, He said He came for that hour. If Jesus thought it important to set times for what He was doing, don’t you think we might do so too? I suggest that if you’re having some difficulties, that you set aside about two hours at least once a week, and work on the course at hand.

Blessings as you study,

Jay

Thank You, Lord,
__for the work You have given
__me to do.
__Few things satisfy so much
__as to know
__when night falls
__that by Your goodness
__I have been able
__to pursue some task
__to a satisfactory conclusion.
Forgive me
__for complaining,
__for protesting,
__for stalling
__along the way.
And enable me to complete
__today’s projects
__in a manner
__that pleases You,
That at the end of this day
__Christ may be glorified,
__and I may be able
__to stretch my weary limbs
__with that tired,
__but satisfied feeling
________As I give thanks again.
_____________In Christ,
______________Amen

“What is it with preachers anyway? They never seem to get enough! Week after week, there they are up there in front of us prodding us to get with it in doing this, believing that, having a new attitude about . . . If you can exhort a person about anything, they’ll find a way to do it. They’re never satisfied. What a change it would be if some day they would just get up and compliment us!”

Is it right for preachers to always be urging people on to greater heights? Would it be wise for them to take a rest now and then from doing so?

Read the rest of this entry »