Introduction
At nearly fifty
years old, the biblical counseling movement (BCM) has given most of its
attention to both internal development via continual reformation to the
biblical text and its ongoing turf war with secular psychology and the
integrationist movement. However, there exists another interlocutor, namely the
anti-biblical counseling movement (A-BCM) as it exists among conservative
Protestants who simultaneously reject psychology and the resultant
psychotherapies. This movement, beginning in late 1980s,[1]
has received little attention from within the BCM, likely due to its small size
and somewhat inflammatory approach. Despite any attention the A-BCM received in
the early 1990s, it is virtually now ignored by the BCM.
The leaders and
most vocal advocates of the A-BCM are Martin and Deidre Bobgan. Martin Bobgan
has a doctoral degree in educational psychology, and he and his wife have
produced a substantial number of books and articles which seek to refute the
existence of the BCM on biblical and theological grounds. The Bobgans
were initially supportive of the BCM, even collaborating with Adams on several
projects.[2] That
support was withdrawn and the Bobgans began to attack the BCM continually.[3] Despite
the A-BCM’s attempts, the BCM has enjoyed considerable success within many churches
and institutions. However, the A-BCM has made some inroads into several notable
churches and ministries. For instance, Martin Bobgan spoke against the biblical
counseling at C. H. Spurgeon’s own, Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.[4]
Additionally, the Berean Call, the ministry started by the late Dave Hunt, has
continued to promote the Bobgans A-BCM materials.[5]
While the Bobgan’s
book entitled Against the Biblical Counseling
Movement: For the Bible is one of many texts which voice opposition to
the BCM, this text articulates all of the major arguments of the A-BCM in a
single volume. This paper will interact with those arguments presented in Against
the Biblical Counseling Movement, demonstrating that the A-BCM’s major
objections are unfounded and predicated upon faulty logic and, in some cases,
legalism.
An Evaluation of A-BCM Objections
The A-BCM has
raised a series of objections that strike at the very heart of the BCM. Below I
have provided a summarization of each main objection followed by my own
critical evaluation.
Objection I.
Biblical
Counseling is Integrationism
Biblical counselors teach a novel form of “psychoheresy” (i.e.,
psychology) “by using the unproved and unscientific psychological opinions of
men.”[6]
Namely, biblical counselors engage in the same self-focused method of the
secular psychologies.[7]
BCM focuses on problems and not sanctification. “Biblical counselors too often
attempt to solve problems at the surface level, or they attempt to discover
something about the inner man through various methods of exploration.”[8]
The counselor-counselee paradigm is unbiblical and derived from the secular
therapeutic culture, and sets the counselor up as an expert.[9]
One to one counseling is unbiblical and also a takeover from secular therapy.
Charging for counseling is unbiblical and illegitimate.[10]
The BCM originated
as a theologically conservative and Calvinistic project which sought to recover
the ecclesiastical and institutional ground taken by an influx of secular
therapeutic practitioners within conservative evangelicalism.[11]
The BCM waged a “jurisdictional conflict”[12]
with psychology and psychiatry, as these disciplines encroached upon territory
formally occupied by those who recognized the Bible to be the sufficient means
of instruction for Christian soul care. This was a movement that sought to
recover the heart and soul of the inerrantist church through theological
polemics and the recovery of a positive model of counseling.[13]
While conservative
Protestantism had focused its efforts upon defeating the threats of modernity,
it had failed to adequately answer the psychological revolution of the
post-civil war era.[14]
The post war era brought with it a terrific need of biblical soul care. Instead
of meeting the needs of the public with a robust practical theology, the church
effectively handed over responsibility of its soul care to the new “science” of
psychology.[15]
In the aftermath of the great wars of the twentieth century, psychology had
solidified its place within the church. The BCM, taking its cues from its
Reformation heritage, sought to reform the church’s understanding of counseling
back to the teaching of Scripture; effectively dislodging psychology from its
place within evangelicalism.
Biblical
counseling is the practical and timely application of the Bible’s teaching to
the life of someone who has problems, questions, or some kind of trouble.[16] Biblical
counseling is not the proclamation of the facts of the Christian faith in the
abstract, but the particular application of biblical truth to specific events,
persons, and things.[17] Therefore,
biblical counseling has existed long before what we know today as the BCM. What
Adams began in the 1970s was merely a return to the cure of souls that
had been a fixture within the church for millennia. That the BCM wasn’t
innovating may be seen in its dependence upon the soul care of English-speaking
puritanism, the reformers, and even the patristic writers.[18] Hence,
any claim that the BCM is merely a twentieth-century novelty, or that it is
contrary to the church’s tradition of soul care is misguided and dependent upon
a mischaracterization of the BCM from the outset.
The theological
and methodological vision laid by Adams in the 1970s has been built upon,
refined, and even corrected by the BCM itself.[19]
Although much development and reformation continues in the third generation of
the BCM, the presuppositions and general principles of the movement have
remained unchanged. At its root, the fundamental presupposition of the BCM is a
theocentric worldview expressed in the historic Reformed faith and its
commitment to a high view of the Triune God. Unlike liberal Protestantism, with
its subjugation of biblical revelation to the acids of modernity, or the modern
therapeutic culture, which founds its presuppositions on the transient ground
of moral individualism, Reformed Protestantism has received the canon of
Scripture as the only sufficient and infallible rule of human faith and
practice. As a product of Reformed thought, the BCM has always been predicated
upon the reformation principle of Sola Scriptura.[20]
Thus, from its inception, the BCM has sought to make the contents of its
counseling biblical.
Given this
presupposition, biblical counselors seek to address the issues of their
counselees using a theological lexicon and a biblical worldview. The content of
biblical counseling is Scripture, and its shape imperatival. While there is a
time for listening and the gathering of information regarding a situation,
biblical counseling is directive, giving concrete applications of biblical
truth to a person’s life. Thus, the notion that biblical counseling is
“self-focused” is an inexcusable mischaracterization. Not only can one survey
the literature published by biblical counselors in the last fifty years and see
that this assertion is untrue, but even the most cursory examination of the BCM
refutes such a claim.
The Bobgans claim
that the biblical counselors focus on “problems and not sanctification,” and that
biblical counselors have baptized the problem-centered approach of
psychotherapy. This objection is curious since there are numerous apostolic
examples of problem-focused counsel. The apostle Paul spent the first four
chapters of 1 Corinthians writing about his reader’s problems, but he was
simultaneously focusing upon sanctification. Hence, it is a false dichotomy to
suppose that focusing on people’s problems is contrary to sanctification. Moreover,
even if one were to ignore the biblical examples, it would be a genetic fallacy
to suppose that since psychotherapy utilizes a problem-centered model, it is
therefore wrong.[21]
Addressing someone’s pornography addiction through the specific application of
the Bible’s teaching on idolatry is not “surface level” problem solving.
Applying the Psalms to the heart of the depressed such that they find solace in
communion with God is not superficial problem solving. Rather, biblical
counseling is always imperatival and has sanctification as its goal.[22]
Because of the
existence of the counselor-counselee paradigm, the Bobgans have accused the BCM
of integrationism. To these charges it must first be observed that the Bobgans
have gone beyond what is written in Scripture to make these arguments.[23]
There is no text prohibiting the use of “counselor” language. Rather, the
language of “counselor” and “counselee” reflects a biblical category of
function among God’s people. Scripture depicts those who give wise counsel as a
great asset,[24]
and the apostle Paul engaged in one on one counseling among the believers in
Ephesus.[25]
Second, the notion
that biblical counselors are assumed to be experts by all who seek their
counsel is misguided. Rather, one seeks the aid of a counselor because he
believes that the counselor has wisdom sufficient for the task. A Christian who
struggles with doubt wouldn’t likely seek the counsel of a new believer, but
one who is mature and who has weathered the affliction of this life and is yet
faithful. While upholding the importance of ordained churchmen as especially
responsible for counseling, the BCM has always asserted the need for
every believer to become a biblical counselor.[26]
The rationale one
would use in order to sell a book on the subject of counseling to Christians
(e.g., the many books the Bobgans sell to Christians for profit), is the same
rationale one would use in charging a fee for counseling. The Scripture warns
of those who peddle God’s truth for a profit,[27]
but it does not prohibit either Christian writers, ministers, teachers, or
those whose vocation is counseling from charging a fee for their labor.
The apostle Paul
gave a specific justification of earning a living from the ministry in 1
Corinthians 9:1-18. In this pericope, Paul sought to exemplify the doctrine of
Christian liberty. In their earlier correspondence, the Corinthian church had questioned
Paul regarding eating meat offered to pagan idols.[28] Within
the relevant era in Corinth, most butcheries incorporated a token pagan ritual
and therefore a diet of meat generally connoted an assent to paganism.[29]
Recent converts, having been introduced into an entirely exclusive theology
wherein the Christian God is the only suitable object of devotion and worship,
would have naturally struggled with parsing through whether eating meat was
tantamount to a return to their old way of life. Paul addresses this issue by recognizing that “idols are nothing in the
world” (8:4), and that believers are free to eat meat, but must temper their
liberty when around those whose consciences are weak. It is on the heels of
this discussion that Paul gives an illustration of this principle. In 1
Corinthians 9:4-5, Paul noted that in the same way, one has the freedom to eat
or drink or to take a wife, those in the ministry have a “right” (Gk. exousia)
to earn their living from the ministry. In the case of the church in Corinth,
Paul chose not to exercise this right for strategic reasons (vv. 12-13). It is
certain, however, that Paul did receive payment from other churches.[30]
Thus, we may discern from Paul’s example that charging for work in the ministry
is up to the liberty of the individual believer and his conscience.[31]
It is legalism to assert, as the Bobgans do, that it is unlawful or unbiblical
to charge for biblical counseling.
Objection II.
Specialized
Education in Biblical Counseling Unnecessary & Unbiblical
The BCM movement is guilty of making pastors feel intimidated
because of a lack of specialized training in biblical counseling.[32]
The Bobgans reject the notion that any specialized education should be offered
for those who are seeking to become equipped to engage in counseling. If
pastors 100-300 years ago could “preach the Gospel and teach the Word
concerning the on-going walk of the believer in sanctification,” and they didn’t have specialized education,
no one needs such training today. Biblical counseling training serves to
intimidate pastors, making them feel inadequate for ministry.
As previously
noted, the BCM is a resurgent movement which has sought to recapture the the ecclesiastical and institutional ground taken by psychology and psychiatry
practitioners. An examination of conservative Bible colleges and seminaries
demonstrates that most do not teach the sufficiency of Scripture for soul care,
but the necessity of secular theories and the accompanying methodologies.
Hence, there is a great need for a return to the all-sufficient resources of
Scripture for soul care, and that is precisely what the BCM has sought over the
length of its existence.
It is only within
the context of a dearth of true practical theology that one can describe
biblical counseling training as “specialized.” Most seminary training focuses
its curriculum upon the public ministry of the Word through teaching and
preaching, but very little on the private ministry of the Word (i.e.,
counseling).[33]
“The typical seminary curriculum has just one counseling class in
100-credit-hour master of divinity degree.”[34] It
is a mischaracterization to assert that the BCM is attempting to add some new
form of training otherwise unknown to seminarians.[35] Rather,
biblical counseling training a return to biblical theology for Christian soul
care. Furthermore, it is more likely that any pastoral intimidation is due to a
lack of fluency with psychological diagnoses given the culture’s slavish
devotion to the psychotherapeutic establishment. Biblical counseling
effectively demystifies the psychological lexicon, viewing human problems
through a biblical framework.[36] Even
if one were to grant that biblical counseling training is some sort of
specialty, there is no biblical text which prohibits one from gaining
extraordinary knowledge in the care of souls.
Objection III.
Parachurch Counseling Centers and Counseling Ministries Within
Churches Unbiblical
Any “biblical counseling ministries that operate outside the
church, those that function as separate entities inside churches, and all
organizations that train biblical counselors for ministries that are visibly
separated from the biblically ordained ministries of the Church”[37]
are unnecessary and unbiblical. “A step forward for those in the biblical
counseling movement would be to discontinue all biblical counseling centers
that operate outside of a church.”[38]
From its inception
to the present day, the BCM has stressed the need for the local church to be
the means of meeting the counseling needs of believers.[39] The
BCM has never been a movement which has emphasized any form of ministry outside
of the local church. Adam’s initial model of biblical counseling affirmed the
need for every believer to counsel,[40]
but emphasized the ordained minister as the quintessential counselor of God’s
people.[41] The
BCM has always recognized that “The authority for counseling is granted through
Christ’s Church.”[42] One
can see the BCM’s commitment to the supremacy of the local church in its
correlation of biblical counseling and church discipline.[43]
The presupposition
underlying the Bobgan’s rejection of any parachurch counseling organization is
a rigid definition of the church that is itself unbiblical. When the Bobgans
say “discontinue all biblical counseling centers that operate outside of a
church,” they are implying that “church” means what Christians do in a building
on Sunday and other worship times. This definition, however, is too narrow to
be biblical. While the Scriptures do use the term “church” to speak of a local
fellowship (Rom. 16:5), the Bible also speaks of the church in provincial terms
(Acts 9:31), and even the church catholic (1 Cor. 15:9). Powlison and Lambert
note that “The diverse use of the term church in the Bible provides a
strong biblical justification within which Christians may organize themselves
to serve in activities we call parachurch.”[44]
The local church
is clearly the focus of the redemptive efforts of the Triune God on earth, and
therefore, parachurch ministries should serve at the pleasure and for the good
of the local church. Parachurch ministries which either compete with the
church, or are completely outside local church authority are indeed unbiblical.
However, if a parachurch organization exists serve and complement the local
church and its mission, its ministry is legitimate:
The centrality of the local church congregation is actually an
argument for principled parachurch ministry—so long as such ministries direct
their energies toward the church’s thriving. That is so for seminaries, prison
ministries, and international missions societies. It is so for counseling
ministries and every other form of faithful and useful parachurch organization.[45]
The BCM has made
use of parachurch ministries which recognize the supremacy of the local church.
Biblical Counseling parachurch ministries do not, as the Bobgan’s have
asserted, replace the local church. Ironically, the Bobgans run a parachurch
organization (i.e., “PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries”), and even implicitly
support the role of other parachurch organizations such as seminaries.[46]
It would stand to reason, therefore, if parachurch counseling ministries are
unbiblical, then so are parachurch anti-counseling ministries. Additionally,
there is no biblical imperative, whether explicit or implicit, which precludes
the existence of parachurch counseling ministries. Hence, the Bobgan’s
objection to parachurch counseling is, like their objection to making a living
from the ministry and the existence of biblical counseling training, predicated
upon an extrabiblical prohibition.
Conclusion
It has been shown
above that the three main objections raised by the anti-biblical counseling
movement depend upon mischaracterizations of the BCM. So too, the A-BCM’s
objections to earning a living from counseling ministry, biblical counseling
education, and the existence of parachurch counseling ministries go beyond what
is written in Scripture, even landing in bald legalism. Particularly in the
case of earning a living from the ministry, there is a clear didactic text
which has specifically precluded the Bobgan’s objections. Yet, the Bobgan’s do
not hold their objections consistently, as they act in conflict with these
objections by the very existence of their own ministry.
The BCM is founded upon the bulwark of biblical
sufficiency and has ably sought to expand the vision first articulated by Adams
to local churches throughout North America and beyond. It is a movement that,
while undergoing continual reformation, remains committed to fidelity to the
biblical text and the local church.
[3] E.g., Martin
& Deidre Bobgan, Competent to Minister: The Biblical Care of Souls
(Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Pub., 1996); Against Biblical Counseling: For
the Bible (Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Pub., 1994);
Stop Counseling! Start Ministering! (Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate Pub.,
2011); Counseling the Hard Cases: A Critical Review (Santa Barbara, CA:
EastGate Pub., 2016).
[6] Bobgan, Against Biblical Counseling, 100.
[13] The
initial work was Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel: Introduction to
Nouthetic Counseling (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), and continues
with recent efforts such as Powlison’s work in Eric L. Johnson ed., Psychology
and Christianity: Five Views, 2nd Ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2010).
[15] There
exists significant reason to doubt the credibility of psychology as a
legitimate science given its inability to follow standard scientific
procedures. Subsequently, there is good reason to question the validity of the myriad
of psychotherapeutic modalities which are themselves predicated upon
experimental psychology. John Horgan has noted that in 2015 more than half of
100 studies published in “major psychology journals” had failed a replication
test “despite painstaking efforts to re-create the original experiments.” John
Horgan, 07/01/2016, “Psychology's Credibility Crisis: the Bad, the Good and the
Ugly,” Scientific American Mind, 27.4, 18. In his book length
evaluation, Dr. Brian M. Hughes has noted, “Second-rate replication records,
paradoxical paradigms, enigmatic measurement practices, cryptic statistics, and
unconvincing sampling conventions all stand as ubiquitous reminders of why
psychologist’s enthusiasm should be tempered.” Hughes concluded that although
psychology “considers itself agile at producing authentic insights about the
human psyche,” psychologists should instead “feel torrents of collective
embarrassment running down their spines.” Brian M. Hughes, Psychology in
Crisis, (New York: Red Globe Press, 2018), 119. Cf. Alex B. Berezow, 07/13/2012,
“Why Psychology Isn’t Science,” Los Angeles Times; Michael J. Formica,
08/16/2008, “The Failure of Psychology and the Death of Psychotherapy,” Psychology
Today,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/enlightened-living/200808/the-failure-psychology-and-the-death-psychotherapy.
Accessed 09/05/2019.
[17] Some
critics of the BCM have wrongly characterized it in reductionistic terms,
claiming that biblical counseling is about merely identifying sin and giving
the counselee a few Bible lessons. E.g., Darlene Parsons, 12/15/2017, “Biblical
Counseling Training: Inadequate Education, Problematic Resources and Questionably
Educated Leaders,” The Wartburg Watch,
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2017/12/15/biblical-counseling-training-inadequate-education-problematic-resources-and-questionably-educated-leaders/.
Accessed 09/03/2019. See also Kathryn Joyce, 06/14/2017, “The Rise of Biblical
Counseling,” Pacific Standard,
https://psmag.com/social-justice/evangelical-prayer-bible-religion-born-again-christianity-rise-biblical-counseling-89464.
Accessed 09/03/2019.
[18] Mark
A. Deckard, Helpful Truth in Past Places: The Puritan Practice of Biblical
Counseling (Fearn, UK: Mentor, 2010); Fraser, Developments in Biblical
Counseling, 91-107; T. Dale Johnson, “A Case for Religious Liberty in Soul Care
From a Historical Perspective,” The Journal for Biblical Soul Care, 1.1,
34-55; Timothy J. Keller, 1988, “Puritan Resources for Biblical Counseling,” Journal
of Pastoral Practice, 9.3, 11-44; Jeremy Lelek, Biblical Counseling
Basics: Roots, Beliefs, Future (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2018),
9-11; John F. MacArthur et al., Introduction to Biblical Counseling
(Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1994), 21-43; David Powlison, 2008, “Looking at the
Past and Present of Counseling,” 9Marks Journal, 5.6, 18-21; Cf. John
Weaver, The Failure of Evangelical Mental Health Care: Treatments That Harm
Women, LGBT Persons, and the Mentally Ill (Jefferson, NC: McFarland &
Co., 2015), 20.
[22] Adams
wrote, “Biblical change is the goal of counseling.” Jay E. Adams, A Theology
of Christian Counseling: More Than Redemption (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1979), 234. See also Lambert, A Theology of Biblical Counseling, 292; Robert W.
Kellemen, Gospel-Centered Counseling: How Christ Changes Lives (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 260; and Stuart Scott’s work in Stephen P.
Greggo, Timothy A. Sisemore eds., Counseling and Christianity: Five
Approaches (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 167-70.
[35]
Welch, referring to the Christian gospel and the Scriptures, has suggested that
intimidated pastors “Already know the most helpful truths” See Edward T. Welch,
12/17/2018, “Five Encouragements for Pastors Intimidated by Biblical
Counseling,” 9Marks, https://www.9marks.org/article/intimidated/.
Accessed 09/04/2019.