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That support was withdrawn and the Bobgans began to attack the BCM continually.[3]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: 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,
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.
Major 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]
Biblical counselors 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 predicted
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, 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.
Major 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 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.
Major 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.
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.