Category Archives: Biblical Counseling

Do I Really Need to Concern Myself With the Law

21 Saturday Aug 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, law

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

I am finishing up what will be a book on “intersection” of legal issues and pastoral counseling. One question I have received has been the extent to which government may seek to regulate biblical counseling, whether by state mandate or by private lawsuit (which is in effect a petition to the government to exercise its power in a particular instance). Below, is a draft Preface to answer that question.

Yes. If you do not, you will not be able to minister well to others. Some counselees will be involved in legal disputes, divorces, criminal proceedings; you will need to understand their circumstance to help them.

But you also need to concern yourself with the law because the culture is changing: And as the culture changes, so does the law. The relatively amicable relationship Christian ministry in general and Christian counseling in particular had with the culture and law is changing: quickly and fundamentally. 

The first thing we need to understand about the law is that the law is an expression of culture. If we return a few decades in our history, homosexual conduct was a crime in the United States. In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law prohibiting sodomy. Yet, less than 20 years later in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the same Court found such laws to be unconstitutional. 

The words of the Constitution did not change between 1986 and 2003, but the culture did change.  When we think about the law, we need to realize that the law is an expression of the culture. If the culture changes, the laws will change. 

So, when we think about the law, we need to think about the law as it relates to the broader culture. We need to understand where the law stands today, but we also need to be prepared for the where the law will be tomorrow. 

A detailed consideration of the culture and the legal system would be well-beyond the scope of this work. Yet, there are some things we must consider. In 2013, Albert Mohler wrote of “A Moral Revolution at Warp Speed.” (Albert Mohler, Jr., “A Moral Revolution at Warp Speed,” Albert Mohler, December 11, 2013, https://albertmohler.com/2013/12/11/a-moral-revolution-at-warp-speed-now-its-wedding-cakes.) That moral revolution has been moving steadily through the legislatures and courts. 

As this book is being finalized, decisions in the federal courts and decisions in legislatures are finding that “erotic liberty” (to use Dr. Mohler’s phrase) is of more social value than First Amendment rights to speech or religion. I have spoken with some of the most well-informed attorneys as to First Amendment law who are dumbstruck at what has been said and done. 

There are well-known cases of Christian wedding photographers who have asked to be exhibited from being coerced to participate in same-sex weddings. A wedding (as opposed to a bare marriage license) for a Christian is a religious rite which serious theological consequences. In the recent decision of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, et al, _____ F.3rd _____ (10th Cir. 2021) the appellate court found that the law which prohibited a Christian wedding photographer from refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding was a content-based restriction on speech and that compelled speech by the photographer.

Only in the most extraordinary circumstances have the courts permitted such laws to stand. Under the law, the most-vile racist speech and pornography is protected. But in this decision, the 10th Circuit held that erotic liberty of same-sex couples was such remarkable importance that the state could compel the speech of a Christian to approve of the marriage, “we hold that CADA satisfies strict scrutiny, and thus permissibly compels Appellants’ speech.”

Think for a moment. We allow “conscientious objectors” to avoid war – which can entail the very existence of the nation – to refuse on the ground of a religious objection. We cannot compel a Nazi to speak well of Jews. But the government can compel someone to approve same-sex marriage. 

You may think, “Yes, but the government will not try to concern itself with what is done in a church.” In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School (6th Cir. 2010) 597 F.3d 769, the appellate court found that an ordained minister had the right to make a complaint to the EEOC and the church which fired the plaintiff was not permitted to rely upon the “ministerial exception.” When the church appealed the decision, the United States government argued that the state had the power to determine whether there really was a proper basis to fire the minister. The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit, but the federal government was on the other side. 

There are well-publicized instances of the state taking a child away from a parent who wished to protect their child from what is called “transition,” but is sterilization and amputation of healthy body-parts, the poor child believes the body to not be who they “really” are.

You may think, “Yes, but I am a biblical counselor in a church, not a photographer at wedding, I’m not making a hiring decision, I’m not a parent who has lost her child to sterilization.”  If this begins to sound like Martin Niemöller’s famous lines, “First they came for the Communists …,” you should realize that they are not that-far from you.

Consider this: There are state laws which prohibit licensed therapists from counseling minors against same sex attraction and behavior.

As will be discussed below in chapter 2, the activity which you undertake in providing counsel is functionally identical to conduct of a licensed counselor. I want you to imagine that a high school student, the child of a family in the church is brought to you, unwillingly, by the parents of a child. The parents ask you to “fix” their child. You gently and patiently explain to child that the Scripture has very clear instructions on sexual behavior. You explain that a very strong desire to do something, even an inability to not understand how one could not desire to do a thing, does not make a thing right in the eyes of God. You sympathize with the difficulty this will be for them, but counsel against this sin.

This teenager, who already resents his parents, goes to the local “human rights” attorney, who then sues you for (1) practicing psychotherapy without a license, and (2) violating the fundamental policy of the state. You will be brought before a judge, who must be re-elected to maintain her pension, and a jury who belongs to the culture at large and which thinks you at best outdated. Your scriptural counsel will be called hate speech. 

Wait, you will say, the government will not concern itself with what a pastor says to his congregation! This would ignore instances, such as the mayor of Houston (through an outside group) subpoenaing the texts of sermons of local pastors to look for “troublesome” language.

And so, you lose at the trial court. You then bring your case to the 10th Circuit, say (who already believes Christians must be compelled to approve of same-sex marriage). 

We need to understand where the law is today, and where the law will likely be tomorrow. There are many fine attorneys who have advocated on behalf of the freedom of religion. Some of those attorneys have contributed to this book. We know that God is sovereign. 

However, we also know that God expects us to exercise wisdom. “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.” (Prov. 22:3) This book is not meant to cause fear, but rather is a call for the exercise of wisdom. Since most biblical counselors will not have legal experience, we written this book to give what we have experience.

New Creatures in an Old Creation

25 Tuesday May 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Mortification, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

All human beings are born into the wrong world. As we look more closely and consider the particulars, we see we are born into the wrong time and the wrong place; the wrong city and the wrong century. Sometimes it seems we are born into the wrong family and are born with the wrong skin.

This is the trouble of the Fall: We were created for a Garden, but we were born into a wilderness. We created with dominion over creation, to keep and care; but we are born under domination, in world of dominion run amuck. We were created royalty and live as serfs. We were created to live forever and born with a body programmed to fail. Everywhere, the cosmos may have space for us to live, but at the same moment contains snares which catch and kill. Even the sun and the water present danger as we need them both.

If the trouble were merely external, perhaps we could bear it with equanimity. But we are born subject to irrational, deceitful desires:

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 

Ecclesiastes 9:3 (ESV) 

There is the default to human existence. You need do nothing to achieve madness, or sorrow, or death. As Ms. Dickinson wryly wrote:

Because I could not stop for Death – 
He kindly stopped for me 

It takes no effort to die.

There is no solution to this trouble within the scope of this creation. The brokenness of the creation cannot be mended from the inside. It as if one is an ancient wooden ship in the heart of the sea while the hurricane roars and the planks break and the water charges in. How will you mend the breach? You cannot come to shore and prepare the wood and patch the break.  You will be able to make planks from water as you will be able to remedy the world. 

The One who has cursed the whole is greater than all the creation besides. The certainty of the end will not be moved. 

And us, we cannot look to us to escape this doom. The insanity of my heart will never be repaired by my insane heart. The efforts of your insanity will not cure me. How will the mad ever cure the mad?

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.

“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”

“How do you know I’m mad,” said Alice.

“You must be, said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”

And the enemy Death stands as the absolute bar. It will not be avoided. Even if someone managed to drag their corpse 1,000 years into the future, Death would still be waiting. At 1,000 years more, Death would have been there first. 

And what of those 2,000 years? Will the depraved heart be avoided? Will time finally make you good and wise? Will you rise above the common lot of humanity? 

Since no one here gets out alive, the only solution must be to somehow find a door out. The Creation being under a curse; the sentence in stone, irreversible.  As Thomas Brooks wrote centuries ago, “This world at last shall be burnt for a witch.”

No remedy could come from ourselves, we being too weak, too contingent, too mad. The remedy of God is not spare the present evil, but to rescue us from the same:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 

Galatians 1:3–4 (ESV). We receive papers to become citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20). We are made “new creatures” and are reconciled to God in this new identity:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 

2 Corinthians 5:17–21 (ESV). And we, as new creations, reconciled to God, bearing the righteousness of Christ await the New Creation, the New Heavens and the New Earth where sin, sorrow, death have been forever put away. “Behold,” says God “I am making all things new.” (Rev. 21:5)

And yet, despite such good news, a difficulty remains. We are rescued, but not yet. We are bound for the Promised Land, and we are living in the wilderness. We are made new creatures, but at present hold an earnest expectation of our full inheritance. A now which tarries over a “little while” (and O how that “little while” can seem), we are grieved with various trials.

We are going to the New Creation, but we are present in the Old. The scent of death still clings to everything we possess. The Creation is doomed and everywhere shows signs of groaning, as it too awaits its redemption.

That is a trouble indeed, but it is not the worst trouble we face in our new status. We are new creations, and yet seemingly not. It can seem more that we have awakened to a heightened sense of trouble, rather than having been delivered. As Thomas Manton wrote, “We are not yet out of gunshot till we come to the end of our race, and are conquerors over all opposition.” (Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 20 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 79.)

Think of this more carefully. We are plainly said to be set free from sin:

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 

Romans 6:5–10 (ESV) Here he says that we have been set free from sin. And in just another few sentences he will write, “For sin will not have dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (Rom. 6:14) We look to John’s first letter and read, “By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

And it seems by logic that being a New Creature, I should look the part. And yet, John also writes, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). If we have no sin upon salvation, then why the detailed instructions to all the churches? Why are we told that if we confess our sins, we will be cleansed? 

Perhaps we need to stop and consider the utter depth and persistence of sin. Someone may consider themselves to be freed from sin. Have you avoided even the thought of lust or anger? Can you say that you have loved God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength? Do you love your neighbor as yourself? And what of enemies? Do you love them. Do you pray for them? Do you bless them?  And have you done this utter humility without the tinge of pride? Has all been for God’s glory, alone?

You see, sin sticks more closely to the new creature than may have at first seemed possible. This is why the Scripture records sin even in the best of saints. Luther in his first Thesis wrote, “The whole life of believers should be repentance.”

How then has this serpent managed to find his way into the life of the New Creature? Where does this monster make its den? Paul says it clings to us as flesh. And what could be nearer than flesh? James shows the danger in our own desire:

14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. 

James 1:14–15 (ESV) And so, Paul writes to the Romans whom he said were freed from sin to murder sin:

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 

Romans 8:12–13 (ESV). This whole thing becomes seemingly more confused. How will this take place? There are myriad of issues and errors which can arise as we contemplate this instruction. But there is one which I particularly wish to consider: We cannot put sin to death without a change of identity.

Let us ignore for a moment the many things which are present in this command and look carefully at this element: The death of sin is not merely the death of this or that desire, this or that behavior. It is not as if a perfect being will be revealed if I merely scrub off the mud. 

Sin is far more dangerous and damaging than that. To be this New Creature means something far more profound that teaching me manners and buying me new clothes. It means becoming someone else — and yet to become whom I was created to be. It means to shed sin and shame in a manner for more fundamental than can easily be understood. 

The Scripture uses words life-death, resurrection and burial, renewal. Look at these seemingly simple words:

9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Colossians 3:9–10 (ESV)

You could read this and see the old self is put off, the new self is put on, I now just need to tidy-up. But look more carefully at verse 10: to be the New Self is to be in the process of transformation. The New Self in possession today is not the end but the beginning. The mortification of sin, the forgetting those things which lie behind and pressing on, is a process of becoming something else. 

If you come to grips with this idea, it is disorienting. Perhaps we think of the person who has led a dramatically chaotic life who comes to Christ, gets a job, and gives to others and marries and raises children. Certainly, there is a radical-change, and we all appreciate it and give God glory for such a thing. 

But what I am saying here is that the depth of the change is far deeper than giving up the most damaging of overt behaviors. We must give up an idol of self which is more fundamental in our thinking than we easily understand.

We give up this self, we crucify this self – not in the self-abnegation of mysticism, but in the utter transformation of new life in light of the Resurrection of Christ. 

I have seen that one reason mortification is so impossible and some much good counsel goes to waste and so many believers struggle dejectedly with sin is that we seek to mortify sin without mortifying self; we seek to remain ourselves and merely shed our sin. But we are called to become something new.

Go back to that language of New Creation. It is not a promise that we will be ourselves with a ticket to the Promised Land. It is a promise that we are and will become something which we were not before. 

And so rather than simply seek to hammer away at persistent sin by resistance, we are called up to become someone for whom such sins are unthinkable. Sin should be as strange to us as cuddling a porcupine or drinking lava.

How then is this new identity – because it is nothing less than a new identity – formed?

Developing Theological Tools for Biblical Counseling to Evaluate Psychological Propositions

09 Tuesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

(The following is a draft introduction for an article for the Journal of Biblical Soul Care.)

An underlying issue when considering the application and usefulness of any proposition or theory from what is called “psychology” lies with the nature of the theological commitments which make possible or which are inherent in any such proposition of theory. By means of this essay, I hope to begin to provide some tools for the analysis of psychologies. 

To take the simplest example, one must begin with some rather remarkably non-Christian presuppositions and commitments to hold that the psychology of Freud or Jung constitute accurate views of the human being. Indeed, both Freud and Jung (to cherry-pick two examples) require explicit commitments about God to be received as accurate theological constructs. Merely read Freud’s The Future of an Illusion or anything by Jung on the collective unconscious and you will see you are in the midst of a fundamentally non-Christian worldview.

One could easily contend that I do not need to swallow whole Freud’s wish-fulfillment theories of God to find his discussion of the unconscious useful. Nor must I follow Jung into his introduction to the Tibetan Book of the Dead to find something useful in his consideration of the shadow-self and the integration into wholeness. 

But to think that I can lay hold of one proposition and not drag along other commitments is naïve. It is like picking up a twig tangled in web with a spider and her eggs hitching along for the ride. This is not to say that we can never consider an observation made by a non-Christian. But such an interaction requires substantial nuance. 

From a biblical perspective, there must be biblical justification for the use of such “foreign” doctrines.[1]

There are a couple of theories which have been advanced to support such interaction. One theory has been reliance upon the supposed scope of common grace. However, as I have demonstrated in the prior to essays, there is no basis from common grace to support a wholesale appropriate of assured results of modern academic or clinical psychology broadly stated. I proposed a three-tiered structure of various types of psychology, ranging from physiological, sociological observation, and finally clinical theories. I proposed varying degrees of use we could make of this work.

The other major justification for integration[2] is based upon the example of Solomon who unquestionably interacts with traditional wisdom form Egypt in the book of Proverbs.[3]

This interaction of Solomon with non-Israelite wisdom has been raised specifically as a point in the discussion of the “integration” of biblical counseling and secular psychologies. John Hilber, having reviewed the use of “foreign” sources of wisdom in the drafting of his proverbs, made the following conclusions: 

The implications of these examples for the question of integration in counseling are significant. First, some situations call for expertise from specialists within the covenant community, namely, professional counselors. Second, wisdom is creative and often unconventional. Methods of counseling intervention are not limited to those techniques that can be derived explicitly from Scripture. Third, the use of the Bible in counseling is not mandatory in order for the counseling to be “biblical.”[4]

The argument that Solomon’s usage justifies any usage I determine to make is problematic, because it presumes that I have the wisdom of Solomon so as to know what and how to proceed.  Here is selection from another Egyptian sage, what should a wise Christian do with this?

    Trust not a brother, know not a friend,

    Make no (5) intimates, it is worthless.

    When you lie down, guard your heart yourself,

    For no man has adherents on the day of woe.[5]

Do I accept it? Do I reject it because it contradicts the Bible elsewhere? If I reject because it contradicts the Scripture, then what do I do with propositions which are ambiguously related to Scripture. But perhaps this example from Charles Dickens will make the matter more clear. Solomon compares the diligent to the ant. What about bees? Bees certainly are a good example:

‘Thankee, sir, thankee,’ returned that gentleman. ‘And how do YOU like the law?’ ‘A–not particularly,’ returned Eugene. ‘Too dry for you, eh? Well, I suppose it wants some years of sticking to, before you master it. But there’s nothing like work. Look at the bees.’

‘I beg your pardon,’ returned Eugene, with a reluctant smile, ‘but will you excuse my mentioning that I always protest against being referred to the bees?’ 

‘Do you!’ said Mr Boffin. 

‘I object on principle,’ said Eugene, ‘as a biped–‘ 

‘As a what?’ asked Mr Boffin. 

‘As a two-footed creature;–I object on principle, as a two-footed creature, to being constantly referred to insects and four-footed creatures. I object to being required to model my proceedings according to the proceedings of the bee, or the dog, or the spider, or the camel. I fully admit that the camel, for instance, is an excessively temperate person; but he has several stomachs to entertain himself with, and I have only one. Besides, I am not fitted up with a convenient cool cellar to keep my drink in.’ 

‘But I said, you know,’ urged Mr Boffin, rather at a loss for an answer, ‘the bee.’

‘Exactly. And may I represent to you that it’s injudicious to say the bee? For the whole case is assumed. Conceding for a moment that there is any analogy between a bee, and a man in a shirt and pantaloons (which I deny), and that it is settled that the man is to learn from the bee (which I also deny), the question still remains, what is he to learn? To imitate? Or to avoid? When your friends the bees worry themselves to that highly fluttered extent about their sovereign, and become perfectly distracted touching the slightest monarchical movement, are we men to learn the greatness of Tuft-hunting, or the littleness of the Court Circular? I am not clear, Mr Boffin, but that the hive may be satirical.’ 

‘At all events, they work,’ said Mr Boffin. 

‘Ye-es,’ returned Eugene, disparagingly, ‘they work; but don’t you think they overdo it? They work so much more than they need–they make so much more than they can eat–they are so incessantly boring and buzzing at their one idea till Death comes upon them–that don’t you think they overdo it? And are human labourers to have no holidays, because of the bees? And am I never to have change of air, because the bees don’t? Mr Boffin, I think honey excellent at breakfast; but, regarded in the light of my conventional schoolmaster and moralist, I protest against the tyrannical humbug of your friend the bee. With the highest respect for you.’[6]

You see, it is not so simple as it may seem.  

Beginning in this essay the goal will be to take a closer look at the propositions of “psychology” broadly stated and provide tools for detailed evaluation. The criteria I proposed for reliance upon common grace as a basis for interacting with secular psychologies, while useful (I trust) is not sufficient. 

It is the thesis of this examination that our utilization or examination of any “secular” proposition begin with the nature of the theological commitments which make the proposition possible. If that is unclear, and I admit it will take some unpacking, I trust the actual work of examining theological commitments will be made plain as we work through the types of information offered to us by “psychology.”

In proceeding with this examination I will assume familiarity with the previous two essays as proceeding chapters in a long argument concerning the relationship between Biblical Soul Care and the work of other men and women having been done concerning what can broadly be stated as psychology. “Psychology” includes far more than the work of modern “scientific” psychology, and entails a great deal of work done by explicitly Christian thinkers pertaining to pastoral work and theology.

I will examine psychology under the three-tiered categorization which I posited in the previous essay (fully granting all of the limitations of a broadly stated categorization) and will examine the theological commitments in the following areas: Epistemology, Anthropology, Teleology, and Methodology.  The last three make a neat acronym, ATM. I could offer “TEAM”, but that acronym does not follow the levels of analysis which are necessary to make this work properly. The best I could do is EAT’M,  which one can use if it helps!

The Importance of Understanding the Theological Basis for Facts and Observations

Facts are not merely about to picked-up as so many pebbles on the beach. The very decision to look for facts, what facts to look for; the determination of the beginning and ending of a fact as a segregable unit of information; et cetera are all determined by some prior commitment. 

As a practical matter, we rarely consider the nature of our knowledge. We look at the world, draw conclusions, et cetera without intensive thought on the matter. Unless and until we need to communicate with someone who operates on a different basis and with a different set of presuppositions, we do not even need to consider the nature of our knowledge. 

The scope of commitments and the nature of knowledge is not perfectly identical between any two human beings. However, the difficulty in communicating in most instances amounts to slight “misunderstandings.” As we expand the number of differences between any two humans, the degree of difficulty increases. The task of “translation” needs to be further formalized.

We understand this need for translation when it comes to language, moving between Spanish and English, for instance. But we are also aware of the need to engage in the task of cultural translations. 

What I am proposing here is the work knowledge translation as move between a biblical and a non-biblical worldview. If we were to reject every instance of  information which was not expressly derived by those holding a biblical understanding of reality, it would be impossible to function in this world. Yet, if we unquestionably receive all “so-called knowledge” without critical analysis, we will find our souls poisoned by the rankest heresies. 

The Four Basic Issues of Knowledge:

In the essay, “Epistemology and the Mirror of Nature,” Michael Williams lists out four perennial issues concerning the nature of knowledge:

1. The analytical problem. What is knowledge? (Or, if we prefer, what do we, or should we, mean by “knowledge”?) For example, how is (or should) knowledge be distinguished from mere belief or opinion? What we want here, ideally, is a precise explication or analysis of the concept of knowledge.  

2. The problem of demarcation. There are two sub-problems here. The first concerns whether we can determine, in some principled way, what sorts of things we might reasonably expect to know about? Or, as is sometimes said, what are the scope and limits of human knowledge? Do some subjects lie within the province of knowledge while others are fated to remain in the province of opinion, or even faith? Since the aim here is to draw a boundary separating the province of knowledge from other cognitive domains, we call this the “external” boundary (or demarcation) problem. But there is also an internal boundary problem. We may wonder whether we should think of knowledge as all of a piece Or there importantly different kinds of knowledge: for example, a priori and a posteriori knowledge?

3. The problem of method. How is knowledge obtained or sought? Is there just one way, or are there several, depending on the sort of knowledge in question? (Here the problem of method interacts with the internal demarcation problem.) Furthermore, can we improve our ways of seeking knowledge? 

4. The problem of skepticism. Given the existence of seemingly intuitive skeptical arguments, why suppose that knowledge is even possible? 196

We cannot deal with all of these problems in these essays. But what you must understand is that even the very fact of knowledge has become an increasingly difficult problem for everyone.  

Some Examples of How Presuppositions Effect the Content of Knowledge

Let us we perform an experiment and we consider only are searching for something which we can see with our eyes. We flip a switch; a light goes on. Since we have not utilized any mechanism which can “observe” electricity, we have no fact of electricity. And thus we conclude that some magical substance which does not move through physical space causes the light to go on when we flip the switch.

The example is obvious, because we “know” what we are looking for – electricity. But that is the point; it is only when we know what to look for that we can find a thing. A thing which is not sought will not be found. 

Or what of this example involving Jesus:

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,”

Luke 11:14–15 (ESV). Much of the original audience for Jesus’ miracles had difficulty knowing what to make of this man. The fact of the exorcism was not in dispute – the understanding, the meaning of the event was profoundly disputed. In order to understand the event which everyone observed, one must begin with some other body of knowledge, presuppositions which underlay the observed event. Understanding those presuppositions is critical if we are to evaluate the meaning of a report from this exorcism.

Let’s take a look from the perspective of Michael Williams’ four question: If I have been present at the event, what “knowledge” do I actually possess. How can I go about determining what there is to know about this strange circumstance? Do my senses provide sufficient knowledge? How and should expectations or presuppositions fill out my “knowledge.” Should I consult such expectations or should use some other skill? What is the beginning and ending of the “facts” at issue?

Imagine speaking to two different observers. One person says God has visited Israel in the work of this prophet Jesus of Nazareth (his Divinity being an even more difficult matter to comprehend). Today this prophet cast out a demon. A second observer says that Satan is deceiving the people through all manner of lying miracles. If we imagine a more skeptical observer we would have this report: Today a person suffering from a psychosomatic psychological delusion immediately snapped out of his self-inflicted insanity at the suggestion of a remarkably persuasive man.

The different events were the result of three different sets of presuppositions.[7]

Consider this example draw from psychology. A study determines that Finland is the happiest country in the world, and that some aspect of Finnish society causes this happiness.

Happiness is certainly not contrary to the Scripture or orthodox Christianity. Now consider these remarkably different understandings of happiness. The Puritan Thomas Manton writes:

Christians, a man that flows in wealth and honour, till he be pardoned, is not a happy man. A man that lives afflicted, contemned, not taken notice of in the world, if he be a pardoned sinner, oh, the blessedness of that man! They are not happy that have least trouble, but they that have least cause[8].

Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, begins with a series propositions of what makes a person “blessed” (supremely happy): poor in spirit, meekness, sorrow, hunger and thirsting after righteousness, being persecuted. Compare those prerequisites for happiness with this academic conclusion from John Reich, Emeritus Professor at the University of Arizona:

Based on clinical interviews and self-report measures I’ve initiated and studied, I believe that happiness is being aware not only of the positive events that occur in your life but also that you yourself are the cause of these events–that you can create them, that you control their occurrence, and that you play a major role in the good things that happen to you.[9]

I am not here to contend with Dr. Reich. What I merely mean to underscore is that Jesus and John Reich have fundamentally different understandings of what constitutes and causes “happiness.” Thus, when I consider the Finnish report on happiness, I need to understand the basis of what is even meant by “happiness.” 

Or consider perhaps the clearer example a dinosaur bone. In recent years, much to the surprise of the paleontologists who have found them, dinosaur bones and fossils have shown up with remarkably well-preserved soft tissue. In some cases, proteins have been retrieved from the remains. That is the fact. But the meaning of the fact is a point of some contention. Does this mean that the bones are not 65,000,000 years old; or does it mean that the mechanics of tissue preservation have been wrong and that such tissue can does resist the grinding of time? The answer to that question rests upon other foundations and presumptions.[10]

Thus, when we consider some proposition from academic psychology or therapy, we cannot start with the ultimate proposition. Rather, we must understand the theological cradle in which that fact was laid. To start with the wisdom of Amenemope does not help us understand what that wisdom means or even what sayings of the dead sage or even wise. 

We need not necessarily shy away from consideration of the Egyptians’ learning; but also need to as wary of their words as we would a serpent in our arms.

One further example may help here. 

The Arians and the Son is Like the Father: The whole history of this matter can be found any competent church history. Briefly, there were those in the early church (the heretics later known as Arians) who held the Son was like the Father. In Greek, the pertinent word was homoiousios. The church however, at the Council of Nicea, concluded this was wrong: The Son was the same substance as the Father, homoousios. 

For the average pastor busy dealing with the troubles of a congregation the difference between the two: like and the same, separated by a single letter, likely seemed insignificant. Of course the Son is like the Father, it is the nature of sons to be like fathers. But the real issue was whether the Son and the Father were of the same “ousia” (and so that I do not take a topic from which I may never return, I will leave the matter there and direct you to competent theologies). The “average” pastor would most likely not known what he was dealing with. The Arians, who supported the Son is like knew better. As Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes: 

In many ways Arianism was more aware of the nuances of the trinitarian problem than its critics were. It compelled them, in turn, to avoid the oversimplifications to which church theology was prone.[11]

If an average pastor accepted the language of like rather than same, he had set his theology on a disastrous trajectory. The Arians knew what they were doing; but it took work to teach the orthodox what was at stake.[12] A similar problem presents itself when dealing with non-biblical accounts of human psychology. We need to understand precisely what we have before us.

Before we can take hold any “fact,” “conclusion,” or “study,” we first need to understand precisely the nature of what we have before us.

[1] From the perspective of biblical soul care, the counseling of a fellow human being is not merely the mollification of emotions, the easing of pain, the relief of depression. We are not in the therapeutic business of helping people feel better as an end in itself. We have the overarching duty of making disciples. All other things must be subordinated to glorifying God and enjoying him forever. A psychological practice that ameliorated the troubled conscience of an adulterer and left him without repentance would be good therapy and a disaster for soul care. Thus, when we make use of some proposition beyond the bible we must be careful that we do engage in syncretism. 

[2] One could simply decide they would integrate non-Christian and biblical principles into counseling without any particular theory or justification. But, should one seek to justify that use from a biblical perspective, the two options are common grace or the example of Solomon. I have seen variants, but in the end these variants are simply restatements of either of these theories.

[3] See discussions regarding the Proverbs of Amenemope, and Prov 22:22–24:22. See, e.g., “Discovery and Debate Over the Relationship to Proverbs” Richard Halloran, “Amenemope, Instruction of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016);” Rowland E. Murphy, Proverbs, vol. 22, Word Biblical Commentary, “Excursus on the Book of Proverbs and Amenemope” (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 290;  John W. Hilber, “Old Testament Wisdom and the Integration Debate in Christian Counseling,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 411.

[4] John W. Hilber, “Old Testament Wisdom and the Integration Debate in Christian Counseling,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 420 (fn. omitted).

[5] Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–), 136.

[6] Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend. 

[7] Another way in which we could think of these circumstances is under the rubric of “social imaginary,” a term coined by Charles Taylor. He defines this briefly as “the way that we collectively imagine, even pre-theoretically, our social life”. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 146. As he develops this concept it comes to mean that which could conceive to be possible.  My great grandmother, an American Indian born in Texas, taught me that if you cut your hair while the moon was waxing it would grow back better than if you cut your hair when the moon was waning. I cannot even conceive of that being potentially true, but my great grandmother could not conceive of the world operating otherwise.

[8] Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2, “Twenty Sermons” (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 188.

[9] John Reich and Ed Diener, “The Road to Happiness,” Pyschology Today, July 1, 1994, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199407/the-road-happiness.

[10] For a discussion of such issues, begin here: David F. Coppedge, “Evolutionists Gloss Over Implications of Dinosaur Tissue Remains,” Creation Evolution Headlines, December 22, 2020, https://crev.info/2020/12/evolutionists-gloss-over-implications-of-dinosaur-tissue-remains/.

[11] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 200.

[12] A similar sort of naivety is apparent in the relationship of contemporary Christians pastor when they interact with not merely psychology of various sorts, but the contemporary espousals of “critical theory” in its various forms. Even the supposedly well-informed make statements that are either foolish, overly simplistic, or simply cynical deceptions. 

Offering Counsel to One Troubled by “Conspiracy Theories”

12 Tuesday Jan 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

A theory is an explanation for a series of facts: these are ways to connect various facts into a comprehensible whole. The theory is useful because it makes sense of the world; it reduces anxiety at one level – but it also refocuses the anxiety on some appropriate response (usually a political response). 

If you confront the theory directly, then the discussion becomes whether the theory is true or false. That will (1) prove to be next to impossible; (2) completely sidetrack your counsel.

Let us assume that this theory is true, and there are nefarious forces at work in the world and that such forces have power. That is nothing new in the history of the world. We do live on the planet that murdered Jesus. What do we do? What is the solution?

When we break this down in terms of the elements of the theory the counseling responses are something you already know. First, there is response to anxiety. Rather than trying to figure out the precise evil machinations of evil people (we know the trouble of the human heart), we should remember the goodness, knowledge, and power of God. Paul wrote about contentment while imprisoned by Rome. Thinking about the theory only causes greater anxiety. Yes, we should be wise, but it is not wise if it creates sinful fear and unnecessary preoccupation of our attention. Phil. 4:8-9

Second, the theory suggests a future course of action. While not counseling complete passivity in response to political problems and while being thankful for common grace means to restrain evil, we need to realize that these responses are at best provisional and limited. Putting more effort into trying to get wild boars to behave like bunnies will always ultimately fail; it will never resolve the anxiety nor fix the world. Yes, we should work for good in the world, but always remember the fixed limitations.In the end only the change of a heart of stone for a heart of flesh will change one. If you are worried about the evil in the world, then we should use those tools which respond to evil. 2 Cor. 10:1-7.

Finally, always be careful to show grace to someone who is deeply concerned about the wrong in the world. They are fearful; you bring comfort. And teach them useful hymns

This is my Father’s world:

O let me ne’er forget

That though the wrong seems oft so strong,

God is the Ruler yet.

This is my Father’s world:

Why should my heart be sad?

The Lord is King: let the heavens ring!

God reigns; let earth be glad!

He is well aware, after all, when is the time for what is causing us depression to be removed

14 Wednesday Oct 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Let us not take this with a grain of salt; instead let us learn also from this the highest values, and when we fall foul of some disaster, even if we are suffering grief and pain, even if the trouble seems insupportable to us, let us not be anxious or beside ourselves but wait on God’s providence. He is well aware, after all, when is the time for what is causing us depression to be removed—which is what happened in her case as well.

It was not out of hatred, in fact, or of revulsion that he closed her womb, but to open to us the doors on the values the woman possessed and for us to espy the riches of her faith and realize that he rendered her more conspicuous on that account.… Extreme the pain, great the length of grief—not two or three days, not twenty or a hundred, not a thousand or twice as much; instead, “for a long time,” it says, for many years the woman was grieving and distressed, the meaning of “for a long time.”

Yet she showed no impatience, nor did the length of time undermine her values, nor the reproaches and abuse of her rival; instead, she was unremitting in prayer and supplication, and what was most remarkable of all, showing in particular her love for God, was the fact that she was not simply anxious to have this very child for herself but to dedicate the fruit of her womb to God, offer the first fruits of her own womb and receive the reward for this fine promise.

John Chrysostom Homilies on Hannah 1.

 John R. Franke, ed., Old Testament IV: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 195.

Be careful when telling others to “trust God”

12 Sunday Jul 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Ministry

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

There is sort phrase which Christians use, carelessly and often harmfully. I have seen and heard it used with great sincerity and without content or comprehension. 

When faced with another’s overwhelming struggles, whether it is some loss or an immediate problem as crushing and quotidian as paying bills or watching children, we counsel one-another to “trust God” or “rely on God.” We are “turn over” our problems to God. 

The more ambitious will add a reference such as Philippians 4:6-7, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything with prayer and thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God which passes understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.”

In counseling people, a preparatory question is, “What have you done about your circumstance?” To which the most common answer is, “I prayed and Philippians 4 didn’t work.”

The trouble which such an understanding of the work of God in human trouble is that distorts and discourages us.

If you are going to start an automobile, you need gasoline the tank and a functioning motor and a charged battery and you must turn the key and so on. Now imagine one who put gasoline in the car and then sat in the car waiting for it to start. We would think such a person crazy. And yet this is how we seem to think troubles work with God. 

Prayer is critical in the process of relying upon God but it is not the only thing. 

When you have a trouble, your reliance upon God is a reliance upon me. If I am here, and I can help, then I am part of that answer to prayer. The proposition is plain and common throughout Scripture. Perhaps we don’t see the connection because we have a tendency to compartmentalize the aspects of the Christian life in such a way that we don’t see the interrelated nature of the Church’s life. 

In 2 Corinthians 1, Paul tells the Corinthians that in the midst of suffering God has given comfort to Paul so that Paul can give comfort to them. 2 Cor. 1:6. God is going to comfort them by means of Paul comforting them.  

In Matthew 25, Jesus tells the story of judgment day when he will reward those who cared for the needy, because caring for the hungry or naked or the one in prison, they were caring for Jesus.

Paul in Galatians 6:2 writes, “Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” 

James writes in the second chapter of his letter that if you see a brother who is need of clothes and food and you say, “Be warm and filled” but you do not give him food and cloths, your faith is dead.

The point could be multiplied for pages. 

To rely upon God is to rely upon the people of God, too. 

Yes, can miraculously solve problems. And yes, God does give fortitude through unbearable trials. 

But that is no excuse for me to neglect you. If you are to rely upon God in the midst of your trial, and I say that to you, then I must necessarily implicate myself. And I must necessarily see how easily I fail here.

And lastly, just to show how persistent sin can be, there is an equal sin in helping others.

Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Chapter 2.1 (Discipleship and Therapy)

21 Tuesday Apr 2020

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Freud, Theology of Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Chapter Two

The Impoverishment of Western Culture

There is an implicit claim here that symbols function as a mechanism by which a culture gains ascent over the various individuals in the culture: the means by which the superego functions. A curious question which is left unanswered is “Why symbols?”

We could argue that symbols point to the transcendent, but a proposition of Freud must be that there is no real transcendent. Why then any sort of desire or inclination in that direction? That is left unanswered. We simply learn that Freud provides us a mechanism to strip out the symbols.

We then learn that essentially Western Culture developed by means of suppressing sexual desire. (40) The control over sexual desire was the high water mark of character.

Since there is no objective morality, only pragmatics, there is no particular need for such suppression except in and so far as it is functional for the culture.

On an aside, I have noticed that the treatment for “sexual addiction” is distinction amoral in this regard. The problem is not whatever inclination, but rather whether there are negative consequences for following such an inclination.

There is an unstated morality which is present in this: Desires are inherently good. That is a moral equation in the guise of amorality. But if it were truly amoral there would be nothing better about indulging or refraining. Moreover, personal happiness could not be relevant, because anyone else’s concern for your well-being is also irrelevant.  In short, the moral question is really not as absent as some pretend. It is always there; the difference is where does not draw a line?

But back to Freud: The “analytic attitude”, the aim of “therapy” is always at the distinct individual. There is no reason to “cure” any sort of desire; because what makes Mr. X happy is necessarily good.  “Well-being is a delicate personal achievement”. (41)

This is taken as an ethical demand upon “therapy”. We start with the idiosyncratic evaluation of the patient and seek to assist in achieving that end.

That is fundamentally antithetical to the Christian demand. In Matthew 28, Christ places a solitary command upon the Church: “make disciples”. The process of disciple making is “teach the to observe all that I have commanded.”

Now one can reject the proposition that Christ spoke or that Christ spoke these words. That is an honest position, and the position of Freud, for instance. But for one to claim to be a “Christian” and also take a position that Freud has a contribution on this issue is perplexing.

The position of the Scripture is not terribly confusing. Yes, there can be knotty issues, but those are not the main. The center of the road is abundantly clear.

What is confusing is when someone proposes that there is any sort of integration possible at this key point. No one is contesting the ability of anyone to make observations about the relative frequency of X behavior. But when it comes to this question of the fundamental presuppositions, What is a human being, What is the purpose of a human being, What is necessary for human beings to change: those issues are beyond compromise or “integration”. When we get to presuppositions, those are questions of grammar.

In the English and German language, the sound “gift” has a fundamentally different meaning. In English you get one at Christmas. In German, it is “poison”.

Discipleship and therapy are similar in that both involve words and directions and people who know something is wrong. “Gift” sounds the same in English and German. But O the difference!

As a final note, if you are at all curious about the matter of the importance of “presupposition”, I must direct you to my brothers at:

Domain for Truth: https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com

 

Paul Baynes, Brief Directions Unto a Godly Life, Chapter Seventeen

09 Thursday Apr 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Paul Baynes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here: http://wp.me/p1S7fR-24t

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: DIRECTIONS FOR THE WEAK CHRISTIAN

Now that a believer is defined, the godly life described, and the helps thereto adjoined, it remains in the next place to direct the weak Christian in the right use of means. For those duties of godliness are not left to men sometimes to be practiced and at other times neglected; nor are means to be only used generally but not particularly; means must be used daily and throughout each day.  This does not mean that one must do the same things every day, but rather that all evil should be avoided every day; and such good done every day as in our calling and life shall be occasioned.

Daily Intake of God’s Word

First, therefore, the believer must have direction for his life every day out of God’s Word. 1 Peter 1:17, 4:2; Hebrews 3:14, Luke 1:75.

a. The Scripture commends us to a certain course of walk in with God and a particular direction of our lives. Psalm 119:9, Proverbs 10:9, Galatians 6:16.  This must be kept and daily followed by us. Proverbs 21:14, 1 Timothy 5:10, Psalm 119:97, Psalm 91:15, Acts 24:16 & 24:7, Psalm 145:2. Therefore, Christians must be guided by some daily directions in the leading of their lives.

b.  Furthermore, many parts of a daily direction as will sufficiently direct a man are found enjoined in the Word of God; these instructions are be used daily. In prosperity, James 5:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, James 2:23. In afflictions, James 1:5; 2 Chronicles 20:34; Lamentations 3:27, Psalm 32:6, 2 Samuel 15:26, Luke 9:23, Deuteronomy 33:12, Matthew 26:41. Among the helps for prayer, Psalm 55:16, Psalm 119:164, Proverbs 6:22. For watchfulness, Psalm 119:97. For reading, Joshua 1:8. And as for public hearing, Proverbs 8:33, Acts 2:46.

c. Besides, if we consider the danger that follows the neglecting of this direction, by taking unlawful liberty, that there will be reason to stir us up to embrace this truth; for, first we are caught presently with the deceitfulness of sin some way or other. Matthew 26:41, Hebrews 3:13, 2 Timothy 4:5, Proverbs 28:13.

God Corrects

Secondly, God himself though he keeps his children from many evils while they desire it, yet if they be secure, he leaves them to themselves does punish their sin as he does other men’s. 2 Samuel 7:1,; 2 Chronicles 16:9, Proverbs 10:9, Psalm 89:3. And we all know that Satan watches for any opportunity to hurt us. Matthew 13:44, Matthew12:44.

Rise When You Fall

That this daily direction is the best means to keep us well – while we are well—and to raise us up when we fall.

Daily Care

That the very Ten Commandments teach us daily exercise. Three commandments make mention of particular days; and the commandments are generally applicable on all days.

No Time to be Careless

God has forbidden us to consider any day’s time for which we may be careless. Galatians 4:10, Colossians 2:16, Hebrews 5:8.

Our Citizenship is in Heaven

And lastly, that our whole daily conversation must be in heaven Philippians 1:27 & 3:20.

Take Care

Therefore, as a man that has a long journey to travel will not count it sufficient to merely notice whether he is going east or west, but rather will take particular note of the way; so ought we to learn wisdom since we have a long pilgrimage. We must not content ourselves with generalities, but rather we must pay attention to the particular means – which may help us forward in the kingdom of heaven.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: THE CHRISTIAN LIFE MUST BE LIVED EVERY DAY

Now it follows to show what is daily direction is. It is to gather together certain rules are God’s Word, that which we may be enabled every day according to the will of God with sound peace.

There are the following of such direction as they will and constant effort to please God in all things every day as long as we are to the peace of our own conscience and glorifying of God. And the description is to be observed:

That it is called an endeavor only, because perfection is neither required of God nor to be looked for in the best Christians. Thus such places as, Psalm 119:1, Luke 11:28, which to require perfection are to be expounded by those that speak of endeavor, such as, Chronicles 28:7, Hosea 6:3, acts 24:16. But this is an inseparable fear of the fear of God, and must be in our hearts continually.

That this endeavor must be hearty, not constrained or hollow, but constant, that we faint not, but hold out therein.

Whereto it tends, viz, to please God in all things. Luke 16:13, Colossians 1, Hebrews 13:18.

Lastly, that this must be daily and continued to the end. Acts 24:16, Proverbs 4:26, Acts 26:7 2 Corinthians 1:13.

The Ncessary Parts of Daily Directions are These Eight.

1. First every day we should be humbled for our sins, as through due examination of our lives by the law of God we shall see them. Psalm 5:3, Ephesians 4:26; Job 1:5.

2. Every day we ought to be raised up in assured hope of forgiveness: of them by the promises of God in Christ; this is never separated from the former, Acts 2:38, Hosea 14:2-3. The words “this day” in the Lord’s Prayer teach us at least this much.

3. Every day we ought to prepare our hearts to seek the Lord still and keep them fit ndnd willing thereto. Hebrews 3:12, Deuteronomy 5:29, Proverbs 4:8.

4. Every day we must strongly and resolutely arm ourselves against all evil and sin, fearing most of all to is offend God.

5. Every day we must nourish our fear and love of God and joy in him more than in anything and endeavor to please him in all duties as occasion shall be offered. 2 Thessalonians 3:5.

6. Every day our thanks be for benefits received and still certainly hoped for. Lamentations 3:23, Psalm 118:7, Psalm 103:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:18.

7. Every day we ought to watch and pray for steadfastness and constancy in all these Ephesians 1:17.

8. Every day hold and keep our peace with God, and so lie down with it. 2 Corinthians 1:12, Philippians 4:4, 1. Thessalonians 5:16.

These are all necessary, as without which we can never be safe, we could never taste of true joy. But here are two extremes to be avoided in conceiving [thinking about] of them.

First, that we think it not sufficient to regard these duties, some one time in the day; for we must have this present with us, and our hearts seasoned with them throughout the day. Second, that we do not take occasions from hence to shake off our callings, or to neglect any part of them. For in our ordinary and meanest [least important] works, we may and must serve God by doing them in faith, not for carnal respect only: and avoiding the common sins that profane ones join with them.

Why Would the State Seek to Regulate Biblical Soul Care?

04 Saturday Apr 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This is the introduction to a lecture which I will be giving at the ACBC Conference this fall . Since this is an early draft, some or all of this may be rewritten, revised, or simply rejected. But I often think things through by writing them out. Since this is a draft, if you do happen to have an opinion, I would be happy to hear it so that I can make the necessary changes. 

 

The answer to this question will be a bit complex, for two reasons. First, the question concerns the interaction of law and religious practice. Second, the culture as a whole is the process of a fundamental shift; and, as the culture shifts so does the law. Therefore, to answer this question I will need to build an argument in sections, block-by-block.

The Quick Answer

There is an easy answer to this question; it is unpacking the elements which will take time. The State seeks to regulate Biblical Soul Care, because we look like Cognitive Behavioral Psychologists who use religious language for certain predetermined ends.  We are just scoff-laws who simply refuse to take the licensing examination and abide by the agreed-upon ethical standards.

The State is completely unconcerned with the fact that we use the Bible, call ourselves Christian, ask people to pray or any similar aspect of our counsel. As I was preparing for this lecture, I read a blog entry on Scientific American concerning the use of tarot cards and astrology as the basis for psychotherapy.

The author plainly favors what he labeled “evidence based” therapies of the more traditional form. And yet ended with the following observation:

Research into the brain and mind, I have argued on this blog and elsewhere, has yet to produce truly persuasive theories of and treatments for mental illness. As a recent essay in a British psychiatric journal argues, “it is still not possible to cite a single neuroscience or genetic finding that has been of use to the practicing psychiatrist in managing [mental]  illnesses despite attempts to suggest the contrary.”

This failure helps explains why people still turn to Freudian psychoanalysis, although it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and to an even older mind-therapy, Buddhism. And it explains why many people in distress turn to astrology, tarot cards and other pseudoscientific methods. May they find the solace they seek.[1]

But rather than dunk on our psychiatrist friends, I wish rather to make another point. A perfectly reputable psychiatric source is willing to accept – at least tolerate – the use of pseudoscience in the practice of psychotherapy. If you read the post yourself, you can find citations to other reputable practitioners who are willing to permit the use of admittedly unscientific methods because merely being convinced that it will help is usually enough to bring some relief.

Therefore, if you want to talk about Jesus and prescribe a course of prayer, you are free to do so. But, we only ask that you get a license first.

And in a world where hairdressers need official training and an occupational license, we should not be surprised that something as significant as dealing the human heart requires some standard.

Thus, we should not be surprised that the State would seek to regulate therapists no matter what they use as the basis for their therapy. And so, if a pastor wants to preach and pray and engage in rituals, he may. But -as the representative of the State will say -if that same man wants to start engaging in therapy, he should be regulated. He can engage in his religion without a license; but therapy, that is for the State to regulate.

[1] John Horgan, “Astrology, Tarot Cards and Psychotherapy,” Scientific American (blog), February 24, 2020, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/astrology-tarot-cards-and-psychotherapy/.

Introduction to Biblical Counseling, 20-25 (Depression and Anger)

29 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,