Counseling in Two Minds
Texas theologue weighed in on the counseling curriculum change at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary I mentioned yesterday. Here's an excerpt:
Furthermore, I am astounded at how naive the Christian critics are and how truly "modern" they are. Psychology is simply not a neutral, objective, scientific discipline no matter how much its practitioners try to employ the same methodological rigor as the hard sciences. Psychology is very subjective. Psychologists are really theologians - and most of them are very bad theologians as they adopt views of anthropology, sin, and salvation that are very much contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Psychologists cannot really escape the influence of presuppositions, and secular psychologists begin with presuppositions that are unbiblical - a high view of man, a dismissal of the seriousness of sin, atheism or distorted views of God, etc. Therefore, attempts to integrate Christian theology with secular psychology will often result in syncretism. This is not to say that we have nothing to learn from secular psychology - because of common grace, unbelievers may sometimes be right. But we must adopt an approach to counseling that lets Christian theology drive the agenda - not vice versa.
What's to account for secular theories of human nature and motivation functioning authoritatively in the theorizing and practice of many well-meaning Christian therapists? Nancy Pearcey identifies a large part of the problem in Total Truth. In response to the question of how committed Christians can be so blind to inconsistencies between their vocational practice and their professed faith she answers:
Because they often undergo many years of professional training in a secular setting where they have no opportunity to develop a biblical worldview. In fact, they know that if they did express a biblical perspective, it would be a barrier to getting into most graduate schools. And so, most believers learn to compartmentalize their lives, absorbing the reigning secular assumptions in their field of study, while maintaining a devotional life on the side in their private time (p. 98).
Christianity ceases to be a unified, comprehensive framework for interpreting all of life. Instead, it functions only as a code of ethics or personal piety. When this happens, some other, unbiblical lens (or "story") inevitably takes over as Pearcey warns: The danger is that if Christians do not consciously develop a biblical approach to the subject, then we will unconsciously absorb some other philosophical approach. A set of ideas for interpreting the world [and that includes people] is like a philosophical toolbox, stuffed with terms and concepts. If Christians do not develop their own tools of analysis, then when some issue comes up that they want to understand, they'll reach over and borrow someone else's tools - whatever concepts are generally accepted in their professional field or in the culture at large (p. 44).
6 comments:
What an intriguing post. I attained a Masters in Counseling Psychology degree, and practiced as a substance abuse counselor for 9 years before getting saved. Now saved almost 2 years, I remain in the same profession.
My faith, and the accompanying study of the word, has forced me to re-eavaluate many of the concepts I was taught in grad school (including Maslow et al), and the tenets of 12-step programs that are so prevalent in my specialty.
While I believe that the Bible supercedes any mere secular explanation or prescription for human maladies, I'm not so sure that SOME secular concepts must be discarded simply because they are secular. Please note, I'm not saying that your post disagrees with this assessment.
However, the BIG question becomes: if counselors are not to "borrow someone elses" extra-biblical tools of analysis, exactly how much scripture must be included in any particular treatment/clinical perspective?
One of God's titles is the "Great Physician." I certainly believe that he can heal ANYTHING HE wills. However, I'm NOT so convinced that he doesn't sometimes expect us to visit a human doctor. God may guide the surgeon's scalpel, and give the med student the ability to learn medicine, rather than heal everyone through miracles.
Similarly, another of His titles is "Counselor." If we are comfortable letting God's hand guide the hand of the human doctor, could we not let Him oversee the functioning of a counselor?
On the whole, I agree with your applause of this school's attempts to "weed out the tares" of rampant, no-respect-for-God philosphies. The harder task will be to clearly define a Biblical set of "Analysis" tools.
One final comment/pondering: Much of the "wisdom literature" - ie. Ecclesiastes, Proverbs makes no Direct mention of Christ. Should the concepts and principles included in such books of the Bible be used as the basis for sound counseling? I believe so, even though they leave out direct mention of Christ, whom I consider the most important counselor of all.
Man, you've got me thinking. Thanks
I am very appreciative of SBTS move toward biblical counseling. I am also glad to see by the previous comment that your blog has people thinking about their positions. The best use I have found for my psychology degree is being able to argue in favor of biblical counseling from a position of knowledge. Thanks again.
Hmm, it seems SOMETHING is bringing this issue to the forefront of my awareness. This post was in the Rapture Ready forum that I often peruse. It asks some very penetrating questions about this issue. Actually, it doesn't ask questions, it spells out ways that much, if not all counseling, could be considered blasphemous.
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=200250
Tom, I'm glad to learn that I made you think. Thanks for returning the favor with your comments (in italics).
...if counselors are not to "borrow someone elses" extra-biblical tools of analysis, exactly how much scripture must be included in any particular treatment/clinical perspective?
I don't see this is as a qualitative issue of how many verses or overt biblical references should be included in the course of counseling in order for it to qualify as biblical. That would be a proof-texting approach that seeks to find and prescribe a verse for every imaginable situation. That's exactly the kind of piecemeal approach to the Scriptures I've been warning against.
For me, the critical issue is whether the views of human nature, motivation, and process of change I'm operating with arise from the teaching of Scripture taken as a whole. In other words, systematic theology is essential to truly biblical counseling. Too frequently, the concepts and categories of secular philosophies of life are authoritative and biblical verses are then tacked on so as to offer "biblical support."
It's often noted that Paul, when speaking to Jews, quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures with which they were familiar. However, when interacting with Gentiles, as on Mars Hill, Paul did not quote Scripture. It's clear, though, that the content of his preaching was biblically rich. When it comes to counseling, I think the goal is to be biblical in our thinking and practice. That may not be identical with quoting Scripture.
One of God's titles is the "Great Physician." I certainly believe that he can heal ANYTHING HE wills. However, I'm NOT so convinced that he doesn't sometimes expect us to visit a human doctor. God may guide the surgeon's scalpel, and give the med student the ability to learn medicine, rather than heal everyone through miracles.
Similarly, another of His titles is "Counselor." If we are comfortable letting God's hand guide the hand of the human doctor, could we not let Him oversee the functioning of a counselor?
The Scriptures don't present themselves as being authoritative and sufficient for addressing physiological problems while they do make that claim as it regards the heart or the soul, so I don't think the analogy is a good one.
Of course God is sovereign over all things, overseeing both the physician and the counselor, but that doesn't mean that we are justified to employ all means in order to accomplish good ends. We are responsible as believers to strive as best we can to reflect God's revelation in our thinking and living.
Much of the "wisdom literature" - ie. Ecclesiastes, Proverbs makes no Direct mention of Christ. Should the concepts and principles included in such books of the Bible be used as the basis for sound counseling? I believe so, even though they leave out direct mention of Christ, whom I consider the most important counselor of all.
I suspect you were thinking that since Christ isn't named in the wisdom literature and yet it can be used in counseling, we are therefore able to employ secular therapeutic theories which likewise don't name Christ. If so, the difficulty with such reasoning is that we know the wisdom literature is part of the divinely inspired corpus which is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). Likewise, we know that the Old Testament Scriptures, regardless of whether they make explicit mention of Christ, bear witness to him and are ultimately about him. Thus, Jesus interpreted the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures beginning with Moses and the Prophets (Luke 24:26). Therefore, the wisdom extolled in the wisdom literature, is personified in Christ "whom God made our wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:30) and "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3).
Given your training and experience in substance abuse counseling I'd like to recommend a resource, Ed Welch's book, Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave. I'd appreciate hearing your reaction to it.
Thanks again for reading and writing.
Thanks for your encouraging comment, Rosemarie. I think you're making good use of your degree. Keep it up!
kp:
thanks back at 'ya for the clarification and civil discussion. Allow me to clarify (civilly) even further.
As far as I can tell, we have no disagreement as to the fact that a biblical PERSPECTIVE must be the basis of anything that dares call itself "biblical" counseling. If my client's goal, or my hidden goal FOR them, is self-actualization, neither of us should tell ourselves that our sessions have a Christian agenda.
I think my difficulty concerns the grey areas where the wisdom of the world PARTIALLY overlaps God's view. For example, much of the 12 steps of AA are consistent with the Bible (submit to His authority and control of your life), but when those same steps describe that higher power as "God - as you understand him," it seems to almost invite idolatry. So, does the Bible Counselor throw out the 12-steps altogether, or retain the aspects that DO align with scripture?
Furthermore, since many denominations and individuals interpret scripture differently, which denominational perspective can the biblical counselor lean on to keep his counseling "pure?"
In me earlier comment, I deliberately gave examples of using Biblical concepts that did not specifically make reference to "the name above all names." You correctly pointed out that it's the underlying CONCEPTS that must be adhered to, not the words themselves. Gee, why does that sound familiar? Oh, I remember - the Pharisees!
Clearly, this is a topic that is near to both our hearts. Your profile lists you as a pastor/student. The fact that you are concerned with the issue at all makes me believe that counseling need not contradict the Christian life. If fear is the beginning of wisdom, I shudder at the thought of meeting my maker, and having Him tell me that I've steered anyone away from Him.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll be reading it, and I'll get back to you once I'm done.
Meantime, you can be sure that you've got a regular visitor to your blog. Thanks for using your writing to advance the Kingdom. Correct that - I'll thank God for using you.
My prayer for both of us is that, quoting scripture or not, we both follow Paul by keeping it "biblically rich."
Humbly,
Tom
Post a Comment