Just a few comments that may be of benefit to any who wonder about such things. They can’t understand, for instance, why Presbyterians pour water on someone’s head rather than immerse him.
Of course, there’s a reason—biblically!
The word Baptizo doesn’t mean “immerse” as some think. That is a kindred word, Bapto (used in Luke 16 where the rich man begs to have Lazarus dip [bapto] his finger in the water).
Tertullian tells us that the one thing that impressed the pagans in the early days of Christianity was how believers loved one another.
Is this factor still as impressive today? If not, why not?
On the other hand, is it even fair to ask these questions? After centuries of spreading the faith, and the leavening effect for good that it has had on those civilizations it has influenced, would the contrast be as great as in ancient times?
Or, on the other hand, has the major difference in our times and theirs only been in the technological advances that have occurred, so that the characteristic of Christian love still ought to stand out among modern pagans?
How about a word of caution from the apostle Paul that probably applies across the board to people in all sorts of churches—yes, even where the Bible is supreme.
Here is what he wrote under the moving of the Holy Spirit:
Every charge must be substantiated by the mouth of two or three witnesses (2 Corinthians 13:1).
Now, if that word were heeded among Christians, there would be far greater peace in their respective congregations.
There is nothing esoteric, confusing or difficult about the verse. There is no context to define it—except for the fact that the Corinthians were always at each other’s throats about something or other.
What is the reason for it?
“For what?”
For so many prominent Christians signing Colson’s ecumenical, Manhatten Declaration?
“Oh. Yeah, that’s where people from various religions—Greek Orthodox. Roman Catholic, Mormons, and Christians agree to stand together to fight the inroads of anti-religious movements into our American culture.”
I guess that you could put it that way. It’s a strange mixture of sorts.
“How can they—from their differing perspectives—do this?”
Well, they’re supposed to stand together only where they agree.
“But they don’t agree on fundamentals.”
Of course not! They disagree—radically.
“How did this come about?”
Frances Schaffer first conceived and promoted the approach under the title “Co-belligerents.” We would fight together for common causes.
Many things sound good, are repeated frequently enough, and are common enough to the speech of other Christians, that there is a tendency to accept and use them simply on that basis. Thee problem is—they may be wrong; quite wrong.
“Can you give me a for instance?”
Sure. Ever hear people say “Now that was a miracle!” or ‘The devil made me do it,” or . . . well, you name it.
“Yeah. I’ve heard both. The first sounds OK, but the second I have doubts about.”
You should have doubts—as a matter of fact, you should reject both as unbiblical statements.
“Really? Why?”
Because they are unbiblical.
“How about the devil made me do it? It seems like an excuse—that’s why I’m doubtful.”
It usually is just that whenever someone says so. But, it’s more important to understand that it’s wrong because it’s unbiblical. In I John 5:18 we are told that the Evil One cannot even “touch” a believer, let alone make him think or do something. He can tempt, put obstacles in your way, and so on; but he does all of this by means of his people—who are all around you. Now, they may have no ideas of his plans, and, may act unwittingly about what they are doing; nevertheless, if he’s working through them, they can become a roadblock or a temptation to you without even knowing it. Jesus once told some of such people “You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires” (John 8:44).
There are reasons and there are reasons. And, usually, it’s the reasons behind actions that make the difference. When Paul wrote “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8) he was getting at the heart of the matter. Those who are “in the flesh” are those who have only the unchanged human nature with which they were born. Such people (the unsaved) CAN DO nothing—absolutely nothing—of which God approves. He says in Proverbs that “even their plowing (i.e., their everyday work) is sin.”
“What if they do good things to help others—feed the poor, help old ladies across busy streets?’
Nope.
“I don’t understand that!”
It’s simple. The reason behind the action is vital. If God is not in the picture—if pleasing Him and obeying Him is not one’s ultimate motive (reason)—then a work, no matter how good its social effects may be, does not please God.
Paul prayed for the Philippians (1:9-10), saying,
I pray that your love will abound more and more in full knowledge and clear perception, so that by testing them you may discriminate between things that differ in order that you may be pure and free from impediments for the Day of Christ.
“It’s an interesting prayer. What do you think he was referring to?”
Gaining enough knowledge and clear understanding of God’s truth that they would be able to distinguish between truth and error and, thereby, would be able at the judgment to honestly say that they had believed and lived in accordance with it.
“There’s a lot to that.”
There certainly is; but life isn’t simple. That’s why we have to spend time studying the Scriptures so as to be able to distinguish things that differ—after all, everything that glitters isn’t gold.
Could such things really happen to Nouthetic Counseling? You’d better believe it! Indeed, it’s already happening—big time. Speaking of “times,” don’t fail to discern the signs of the times. Former strongholds and even fountainheads of such counseling, no longer use materials distinctly identified as Nouthetic. It’s not that they need more up-to-date information (such data just aren’t appearing from third generarionists). No, the problem is that proponents of the big tent are hesitant to be too closely associated with “those worthy pioneers” (as they might possibly characterize them in a charitable fashion in certain circles), who, though they may have suited their times, are now out of touch with ours. If they wish to drag along behind, fine. Bit if they fail to do so, they will eat our dust! One thing is sure—they can no longer be trusted to lead the way.
There is no longer an imperative to be biblical in the radical sense of declaring that which differs from Scripture “unbiblical,” and to emphatically state that those who espouse such unbiblical views, are “wrong” (or even “harmful” to their counselees). Instead, a highly questionable camaraderie has been growing in which all sorts of supposedly biblical (or Christian) counseling is tolerated (if not condoned and encouraged). Any strong vocal antithesis toward error in counseling that yet exists will be found among those prehistoric types who still believe in conking such dinosaurs over the head when they get too close to the cave. The third generation will have none of this impoliteness.
What does all of this mean? We are told that these are new times. That, curiously, seems to be the new interest. Rather than the antithetical stance Nouthetic Counseling has taken in the past toward eclectic error, we now must approach those who hold to eclectic views of various sorts and team up with them as much as possible. It’s time for bridge-building; rapproachment.
But this isn’t a matter of refinement, maturing, or meeting the changes of a new and different time. The eclectic issue has been with us from the beginning. Consider Aaron’s golden calf, where he threw gold into the fire and “out came” the calf. The calf’s existence was not a call to abandon Yahweh, or His faith. It was intended as a help to undergird and foster it. But, instead, what emerged was a new religion that God condemned. The Samaritans wanted to join the returning Jews who were rebuilding their city. But, uncharitable as it may have seemed on the part of Nehemiah to refuse their offer of help, he wisely did so anyway, doubtless recognizing that his action would create hostility for years to come—as, indeed, it did. Why, then did he do so? Because he understood what it seems that some of our well-meaning “big tent” friends fail to recognize—when you build bridges, traffic moves in both directions. And it has been demonstrated again and again in the Scriptures, and over and over during many centuries since, that the more influential traffic is that which is incoming rather than outgoing. The history of the church has been a history of weakening through compromise by affinity. Naturally, no one intends to compromise; rather, he hopes to win those who disagree with the truth. But you can’t do this by joining them. As soon, as one begins to become buddy-buddy with some who hold views diverse from the Scriptures, he discovers that (in spite of that fact) there are some really “nice” integrationists. And the more buddy-like that they become, the more he is influenced in all sorts of ways by them. All of this is not to say that one must be hostile toward them. Nor is there a need to cease “converting” them to the “Nouthetic Faith” (I hope you understand my factious use of these terms). But the notions of converting and unifying are incompatible. And, it would seem that this fact has been lost by those seeking to adjust to these “new times!”
Second generation biblical counselors? When I hear people speaking that way, I wonder where some of them have been for the last generation? In their attempt to move away from Nouthetic Counseling—call it what you will—I am somewhat amused at the way they view things. Perhaps this is because there are many who are so young that they have little perspective upon the history of the biblical counseling movement. They believe that whatever existed when they came upon the scene was the first generation—primitive, without guidance, lacking finesse, and unsystematic, to which they probably have an obligation to bring newer refinements and insights.
Because of their shortsightedness, I am pleased to help them obtain a realistic and more historically-accurate view.
The fact is, our self-tagged “second-generation” counselors are nothing of the sort. They are what, more accurately, might be called the third generation or, more precisely stated, the heirs and recipients of an already-refined second generation of biblical counselors that, practically speaking, makes them nothing less than a third.
What am I talking about, and how do I justify such terminology?
Donn is always so gracious and thoughtful concerning this ole’ man. I don’t want to “fuss at him for mentioning my health,” as he supposed I would. Rather, I want to thank him, and continue to ask for your prayers. Growing old (now 81) has problems, but it also has compensations. Just think—I don’t have to travel to get my message out to you wherever you are. I don’t have to even make any more tapes, though, if I get better—which is possible—I may want to do so. There is already more on tape that we have which is not currently available. One series has to do with preaching. I hope that it is the sort of course that many of you will want to take when it does become available. I think it could be quite helpful. After all, I have been known for teaching counseling, obviously, but not for teaching preaching. Yet, in actual class hours at two seminaries where I taught, the bulk of my instruction was in preaching. Because I thoroughly believe that you can’t rightly separate the one from the other, I have made this series on video, and hope that someday we may have the resources to put it out there as well as our counseling materials.
While I counseled ten hours a day for two days a week for several years, I also pastored churches in which I preached regularly and spent much time thinking about preaching. I also designed and headed a doctoral program in preaching at Westminster Seminary in California, and the lectures that are on tape are part of what was used in that program, though in a somewhat modified and simplified form. At the moment we do not have the resources to make them available to the public, but we hope that someone will eventually make it possible to provide them.
So—fuss at Donn? Far from it. I thank him for the opportunity to discuss these matters and to request your prayers.
Blessings,
Jay
Beginning tomorrow we will be posting, in three parts, a new article written by Dr. Adams which appears in the most recent issue of the Journal of Modern Ministry. I will not comment on it further here other than to say it is a significant article that speaks to some important issues in the biblical counseling movement today. Do not miss it!
The first question I am usually asked when people correspond with me is, “How is Dr. Adams?” The best way I know to answer that is in words similar to those of the Apostle John to Gaius. My wish and prayer would be that his health would be as sound and prosperous as his soul. While Jay has had to significantly cut back on any travel and public speaking engagements he continues to study and write. Please pray with us about his health. Many days he is in continual pain which makes any physical activity very difficult. I know I risk being fussed at for writing about Jay personally but for the sake of those who love Dr. Adams and want to pray for him I’ll take the heat.
God is prospering the Institute these days. We continue to get new students regularly in spite of the fact that we do very little advertising beyond this blog and our website. We are so thankful for the technology that has enabled Jay to have an ongoing teaching ministry to hundreds of students even though he is not able to travel. Be sure to check out our website for complete information about how you can study under Dr. Adams in the comfort of your own home.
Lately, I’ve been re-reading Horatius Bonar’s Fifty-Two Sermons. The book is out of print, but a friend of mine found it on the internet and graciously bought and gave it to me. Of course, I am impressed all over again with the content. But there is something more that I can’t help mentioning.
“What’s that?”
Two things, actually.
“What are they?”
Matters of form—or style, if you will.
“What was impressive?”
First, the use of repetition. Again, in sermon after sermon, you can hear the building of his point to a crescendo as he repeats, not the same thought, but words or phrases (usually the latter) leading up to that thought.
“What’s the second thing?”
A friend of mine had the habit of replying to a why-type question with the words, “Why not?” I’d say, “Phil (not his real name), why don’t we have lunch together at the Greek restaurant on Friday?” His reply would likely be, “Why not?”
Now, that really isn’t an answer, though he used it as such. He meant, of course, “Sure, let’s do so.” But there is always something about those two words, used in that manner, that makes me uneasy. They cause me to wonder whether there is a full commitment on the part of the one uttering them.
Indirect answers such as this can get people off the hook if, when considered in the light of a subsequent problem, the persons making them refer to the fact that they never really said “Yes.” Now, Phil never used the phrase that way, or ever tried to back out of something he agreed to by calling attention to the fact that he never gave me a positive response. With him it simply had become a habitual, common expression. And, I confess, I’ve caught myself using it as well. It was just the uneasiness that it conjured up that made it a problem (a slight problem) for me.
Many consider that the only things that matter are those that have earthly consequences. But in God’s plan of things, He created both the temporal and the eternal, the physical and the spiritual. Others who see this connection between the two have a different view of how things matter.
These two fundamental ideas comprise two various different philosophies which, when seriously adhered to as guides for thought and conduct, lead to two quite distinct ways of life.
That is why some fix their concerns upon the preservation of all that they can in this life. They have only one world, only one life to live. And they intend to make the most of it.
On the contrary, Christians have two worlds, both important, but one more important that the other. Indeed, it is thought by some that all the Christian cares about is the world to come. Pie in the sky when you die bye and bye, if you will. Not true. An informed Christian knows that he can begin slicing the pie right now! He sees both worlds as inseparably linked. What happens in the one affects what happens in the other.