Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.6)
(Beware the Poison Well)
6. Oil and Water.
In part five of this series, we showed that there is absolutely no common ground between the Biblical worldview and that of the Humanist. We concluded by pointedly showing that the denial of the Biblical worldview was nothing short of an overt attack upon the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.[1] We therefore labelled the denial of the Biblical worldview, or parts thereof, as either heresy or apostasy. The use of such strong terms was deliberate, for we desire the brethren to truly understand what is at stake in this discussion.
Understand, please, that we are not discussing two equally valid systems for assessing, viewing, and treating Man. We are exposing the war that exists between God’s view and diagnosis of Man and Man’s view and diagnosis of Man. On one side there is God’s view – the view of the Holy, Righteous, Infinite, Eternal, Creator. On the other side is Man’s view – the view of a fallen, corrupt, finite, rebellious, creature. These views are gulfs apart; they are irreconcilable! These views are like oil and water; they simply do not and cannot mix.
Yet, what we find are genuine Christian folk who are passionately committed to the idea that oil and water not only can mix, but should mix. They are convinced that they can find a way to combine oil and water, eliminating all tensions, and thus create a harmonious synthesis between the two. With respect to these folk, this is a fool’s errand. It is, as we saw in Part Five, an attempt to mix light and dark; Christ and Belial; righteousness and lawlessness.
This brings us to a discussion of the supposed Christian counsellor. If psychology and psychiatry[2] are inherently evil, then the pertinent question must be, “What then of the Christian Counsellor?”
Before answering this question, we need to make two points for clarification. First, we need to underscore the fact that every Christian who is able in the Word of God is indeed competent to counsel.[3] Second, when we speak of the ‘Christian counsellor’, we have in mind the professional who is, if you will, competing with the Elders of the Church for business.
Turning our attention to the question at hand, it is our contention that the Christian counsellor, almost universally, will have undergone training in the Secular science of Psychology. To the extent that such a person has imbibed the false Humanistic doctrine and worldview, to that extent they have tried to alter and are in conflict with the Biblical worldview. It is, in essence, that simple.
Now, it must be understood that capacious tomes have been written on this subject, so our little work will hardly scratch the surface. However, we do hope to make ground by focusing upon worldviews, presuppositions, and theologies.
6.1 The Christian Counsellor’s First Thoughts: In trying to understand a person’s position, it is always beneficial to understand his basic presuppositions or worldview elements. This is the same for any discussion involving theology. When we come to this debate on secular counselling techniques and its place in the Church (especially), people are often confused by the use of the generic term “Christian”. Yet, we must ask, “What does the word Christian mean to the author in such discussions?” Our heart would thrill at the thought that in our day this term meant that all Christians shared all Biblical truths and all things in common, but, sadly, this is not the case.
As a result, we need to understand the theological positions of the authors involved in this debate. We need to, if you will, understand their brand of theology or Christianity. Hence, it should come as no surprise and no coincidence that there is a theological divide involved in this present debate. The divide to which we refer is, generally speaking, between the Reformed (anti) and Arminian (pro) camps and it is so because they possess different views of both Scripture and Man.
The Reformed[4] person believes that Man is, through sin, totally depraved (Total Depravity). This term does not mean that Man is as bad as Man can be, but, rather, that every part of his being is impacted and corrupted by sin. Consequently, the unregenerate, unrenewed mind cannot think correctly. This mind has a bias against God and is in no position to accurately process thoughts about God or Man.[5] We would even go so far as to say that the regenerate man must work hard at learning to think aright.[6] Through regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit the Christian now has the ability to think aright, but this is not necessarily a guarantee that he will think aright.[7] Therefore, the Christian’s thinking, indeed Man’s thinking, must always be measured by God’s revelation (Scripture) as the final standard of correct thought.[8]
The Arminian does not share this position. He holds to a more mild view of sin and generally believes that Man’s reason remains untouched by sin. Hence, you often see the exaltation of reason within his system. In evangelism, this belief displays itself in the providing of information to the lost and in pressing him for a “decision”. In other words, the sinner is urged to exercise his mind and choose to be removed from his current estate of rebellion by rationally deciding to accept the sacrifice of Jesus. In regard to our current discussion, it presents as a willingness to give excessive credibility to the reasoned arguments of the unregenerate, or to Man in general, and to view Man’s sin condition as if it does not impede Man’s ability to realise God’s truth when he finds it.[9]
Therefore, it is of absolute importance, in a debate like this, that the Christian asks himself what any author means when he uses the words “Christian” or “Biblical”. It may sound silly, but many are duped by deceptive terms. The words “Christian” or “Biblical” are emblazoned upon the cover of the latest and greatest, thus many unsuspecting Christians pick up and read the contents; but are those contents truly Christian and Biblical?
Similarly, what is meant when a writer speaks of the “authority of Scripture”? Does he mean an absolute authority or is this a qualified authority? Is it an authority to all men or just Christians? Is Scripture our authority on all to which it speaks (speaking by statute or principle to everything) or only on the topic of salvation? Equally, what is a “committed” Christian? Someone committed to the general concept of Christianity; someone who holds tightly to every tenet revealed in Scripture; or someone who has simply ‘committed’ their life to Jesus?
These questions are by no means irrelevant as we discuss this topic. In the following discussion you will read these terms. Those supporting the use of psychology will assign authority to Scripture. They will speak of “committed” Christians. They will even quote from Scripture. Thus, you need to have a gatekeeper over your heart and mind. First, you need to make yourself aware of what each author means when he uses the terms listed. Second, you need to understand the Scriptures quoted in their context to see if they really say what is being claimed.
6.2 The Presuppositional Slide: When we start at any position other than that which is Biblical, we will, of necessity, miss the mark—the Biblical goal. This is as true for the Christian as it is for the non-believer. Our knowledge is based in revelation, God’s revelation. When we fail to allow God to be the Revelator then we begin to assume that role ourselves. When we take over that role we will begin to paint ourselves, fallen Man, in a much better light than we deserve.
This is seen ultimately in the Humanist position. However, it is also seen in the position of Christians who reject the Reformed or Biblical worldview. The intrusions are often subtle, but they are there and they will be seen by the way in which they inevitably ascribe too much credence to Man’s ability, too little authority to God’s word,[10] and are antagonistic to those who seek to hold to a truly Biblical position. To illustrate these points, we will look to those who, claiming to be Christian,[11] espouse the use of psychology and psychological techniques:
A) Gary Collins[12] – Like most in this category, Gary Collins does have some good things to say. However, the simple reality is that whilst he tries to speak highly of Christianity and the Bible, he can never veil the fact that psychology is his key weapon. Throughout, psychology is constantly and consistently exalted.
When starting out, Collins makes a very apt point:
No counsellor is completely value free or neutral in terms of assumptions. We each bring our own viewpoints into the counselling situation and these influence our judgements and comments whether we recognize this or not.[13]
When Collins makes this point, it leads us to believe that he is aware of the depths and richness of this fundamental and universal principle, and how it will be worked out and expressed by all, especially the unregenerate. Such words fill us with an innate hope that he understands that the “carnal mind is enmity against God” (KJV) and that it therefore has an antagonistic bias against God and His standards. It makes you think that he is helping to guard the principles of Christianity against defilement. Yet, this is not the case. Just a few pages on, we read:
In the following chapters, the writings of social scientists are frequently cited on the assumption that all truth comes from God, including truth about people whom God created. He has revealed this truth through the Bible, God’s written Word to human beings,[14] but he also has permitted us to discover truth through experience and the methods of scientific investigation. Discovered truth[15] must always be consistent with, and tested against, the norm of revealed Biblical truth.[16] But we limit our counselling effectiveness when we pretend that the discoveries of psychology have nothing to contribute to the understanding and solution of problems.[17]
What happened to assumptions? Well, they are very much on display, just not in the way we had hoped. What we see are Collins’ assumptions, namely, that the unregenerate mind can rightly discover and interpret the data around him; that the Bible needs supplementation; and that psychology is right and acceptable.
In fact, the very next paragraph starts with, “Let us accept the fact that psychology can be a great help to the Christian counsellor.”[18] Why? Why should we accept this proposition as a fact? Where is the evidence from the Bible – measuring discovered truth against revealed truth – that tells us that psychology is acceptable?[19] There is none. We are simply expected to shelve the revelation of God for the conviction of Gary Collins.
Tragically, what is displayed here is nothing less than the subjugation of the Bible to the tyrannical whims of Man. Having totally misunderstood the role and impact of presuppositions, assumptions, Collin’s, rather than elevating Scripture, has seen Its colours lowered. We may say that rather than protecting the jewel of Scripture, Collin’s unlocked the cabinet, grasped it in his hands and, then, with one careless act, fumbled the jewel, dropping it to the floor, shattering it.[20]
Do you not believe us? Then let us consider the rest of this paragraph, penned by Collins:
How, then, do we wade through the quagmire of techniques, theories, and technical terms to find the insights that are truly helpful?[21] The answer involves our finding a guide—some person or persons who are committed followers of Jesus Christ, familiar with the psychological and counselling literature, trained in counselling and in research methods (so the scientific accuracy of psychologists’ conclusions can be evaluated), and effective as counsellors. It is crucial that the guides be committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, both as the standard against which all psychology must be tested and as the written Word of God with which all counselling must agree.[22]
Wow! Do you note the vacillations and contradictions? Do you see the double standards?
To sharpen our focus, let us consider the following analogy. You want, as a young Christian, to delve into counselling as a serious vocation. You approach a wise, committed follower of Jesus Christ. You outline your intentions. His reply, ‘My son, have nothing to do with secular psychology. If this is your God given passion, go to seminary.’ What will be the reply? “Oh, sorry wise one. I just checked the criteria again. Whilst I admit that you are a wise, faithful Christian, indeed the most faithful I have ever known, I note that my guide must also be aware of the current counselling literature and trained in the scientific method. As you do not possess these extra skills, I must assume that you are biased and therefore not able to guide me adequately in these issues. Thank you. Sorry for wasting your time.”
A straw man? No. What we want you to readily see is that Mr. Collins has sown his assumption (presuppositions) into the fabric of his advice. Neatly woven together are the concepts of Biblical authority and the correctness of psychology. Immediately, anyone following this advice is going to look to fulfil both sets of criteria, follow both threads, if you will. Consequently, the advice of the wise Christian, who sees no place for psychology based in the revelation of God’s word, is nullified.
Similarly, what do we make of the two standards? First, we are to be “trained in counselling and in research methods (so the scientific accuracy of psychologists’ conclusions can be evaluated)” and then we are to “be committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible … as the standard against which all psychology must be tested.” So which is it? Which is the final test—Bible or scientific method? If the Bible shows that psychology is an unwarranted intrusion upon the teachings of God, for what do we need the scientific method? If the scientific method is untrustworthy or open to abuse,[23] precisely because those who employ it are not neutral, being biased against God,[24] then should we not go straight to Scripture?
Then comes the curly question, “What if science and its methodology prove the Bible wrong?”—at least that’s what the Secular scientist might claim, as in the case of Evolution. Who will decide? What triumphs, God’s Book or Man’s microscope? After all, a man cannot have two masters and a man cannot have two authorities. This is a very sound Biblical principle.[25] Therefore, having noted that all men have “assumptions” that will influence them, why does this brother discount the fact that some of those assumptions are going to be the negative assumptions of God is not, Evolution, Enlightenment, and Humanistic Utopianism rather than the Biblical worldview of God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption? The further question then must be, “How do these people, functioning according to these false assumptions, provide more reliable and superior explanations than those revealed by God?”
Lastly, in proving our point, it must be noted that Collins speaks of three forms of “pastoral” input, namely, Pastoral Care, Pastoral Counselling, and Pastoral Psychotherapy.[26] These are ranked in order of speciality. Thus, “pastoral care” is the broadest and most general category. Notably, in regard to “pastoral counselling” Collins has this to say: “As defined traditionally, pastoral counselling is the work of an ordained pastor.” Similarly, in speaking of the “pastoral psychotherapist”, we are told that this is “the work of a trained specialist” and, as a consequence, it “will rarely be mentioned in this book”.
Now the obvious question is this: “In a book on “Christian counselling”, where the ordained pastor and Christian counsellor are placed squarely in the middle category, who are these chaps that occupy the highest position as the “trained specialists?” If the book on Biblical counselling truly and absolutely espouses God’s revealed truth as the sovereign evaluator of all thought and processes, then why is psychotherapy not covered in the book? Is this a tacit confession to the effect that the Bible does not speak to all areas; or that Man in his wisdom has figured out a few things that God did not or could not; or possibly it is an acknowledgement that God simply forgot to put some things in Scripture?
In brining this discussion on Gary Collins to an end, we will provide one practical example that highlights how psychology triumphs over Scripture. In discussing anger, Collins states:
Anthropological studies have shown that people from different cultures get angry over different issues and express their anger in different ways.… One counsellor who works with angry teenagers concluded that “in nearly every situation, there was at least one parent who was also a very angry person.” By watching others, children and adults both learn when and how to be angry. (Proverbs 22:24-25 is then quoted)[27]
Now, upon reading this, you will be thinking to yourself, ‘that all seems pretty straightforward, so where is the problem?’ Well, the problem is in the fact that Scripture is brought in at the end to justify, or baptise, the Secular research.
To be fair, Collins has made some valid and Biblically correct statements up to this point. He notes that anger is a part of God’s character and, therefore, rightfully a part of Man’s character. He notes that anger is not always sinful, but that it can quickly become such. Thus, the real criticism is that he did not stop when he was standing upon the Word of God. He had to keep going and delve into the Humanist perspective.
Hence, Collins arrives at a point in which he gives us the five main “causes” for anger: Biology[28]; Injustice[29]; Frustration; Threat and Fear; Learning. With the exception of the second category, Injustice, it should be understood that these categories are those that would occasion negative sinful outbursts. Note, please, the absence of sin and the corrupt heart of Man as the poisonous root from which the anger arises. Yes, all of these can be triggers that tempt us to an outburst of anger, but none of them are really the cause of anger. After all, anger is a reactive emotion
In seeking to expose this issue, we have highlighted the fifth cause, Learning. The point is very simple: Why do we need the Anthropologists and Psychologists to tell us what the Bible has already made plain? If the Bible says that anger is at times wrong (James 1:20) and that this wrong behaviour can be learned (Psalm 37:8; Proverbs 16:32); if Scripture tells us that the right path is self-control (Ephesians 4:31; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6); if the Scriptures tell us that humility (Proverbs 15:33; Proverbs 22:4; 1 Peter 5:5) is the greater state of being, why then do we need the Secular sciences?
It seems that, in the mind of these men, the Bible needs to be ratified by some scientific means before it can become truly authoritative. If science is needed to establish the Bible as “Authoritative”, then by logical extension “Science” must be more authoritative! After all, is it not the king who bestows titles? However, this begs the question, if Man gives the Bible its final authority, cannot Man take that authority away again at any time? Similarly, if Man gives the Bible its authority, then Man really is the final authority and not the Bible.
B) Lawrence J. Crabb[30] – As with Gary Collins, Lawrence Crabb speaks of the Bible as that which is authoritative, yet he is found to opine the validity of psychology: “I do not want anyone to interpret this chapter as a cavalier dismissal of secular psychology. I believe psychology as a thoroughly secular discipline (like dentistry or engineering)[31] has real value. My concern is to identify the basic assumptions about people and their problems implicitly advocated by secular psychology, and in the light of Scripture to see these assumptions as totally inadequate as a reliable, fixed framework for counselling. Only Scripture can provide the needed structure. Psychology’s efforts, while enlightening in many ways, are about as useful to the counsellor in search of an absolute foundation as floating anchors are to a ship in stormy waters.”[32]
Here again, we are confronted with the disappointing. If secular psychology is fundamentally flawed at a presuppositional level, having no worthy “absolute foundation”, then why should we accept it as a valid discipline? Why trumpet that which is foundationally flawed?
The impotence of these statements is highlighted when we realise that the paragraph before stated:
Christians sometimes are quick to support anyone who degrades the wisdom of man and asserts the sufficiency of Scripture as a base for all thinking. Dismissing all secular thinking as profitless denies the obvious fact that all true knowledge comes from God.[33]
Are you able to see the confusion? As with Collins, Crabb takes aim at any Christian who denounces secular thinking and in doing so undertakes to exalt the secularists and their mental abilities. However, he then turns on the secularists and tells them that their system has no “absolute foundation”. Hence, the message these men proclaim is that mixture and compromise are the only way forward. One cannot believe Scripture alone or psychology alone. One must believe a combination of the two. Once more, then, we are confronted with the destruction of Scripture by those claiming to uphold the Bible as their only authority.
What do we make of Crabb’s claims? To put it simply, they are unBiblical. Scripture states: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.” So then let no one boast in men.”[34]
The Apostle Paul did not think the secularist had any worthwhile contribution to make. The Apostle does not esteem the ruminations of fallen Man as worthy of holding our attention. Paul did not think that a halfway house of compromise was the way forward. In point of fact, Paul’s advice, summed up, is, ‘Turn from the so-called wisdom of Man unto God, the true fount of Wisdom.’ Paul does not, in any way, ridicule the Christian who clings to God’s word as sufficient, but rather takes aim at the secularist who believes he can reason accurately apart from God and His revelation.
In abandoning the Biblical position, Crabb, as with Collins, finds himself always subjecting the Bible to the views of Man or crowing that secular psychology is acceptable because it agrees with Scripture. To show this we will highlight just one instance of Crabb’s confusion:
Ellis calls this the A-B-C Theory of emotion: A (what happens to you) does not control C (how you feel); B (what you say to yourself about A) is in fact directly responsible for C (how you feel). Although the arguments continue unabated, there is plenty of psychological evidence to support this third point I wish to make: how a person thinks has a great deal to do with what a person does and how a person feels. Scripture, the Christian’s final authority,[35] supports the belief that psychologists are right when they emphasize the importance of thinking. (Crabb then quotes Proverbs 23:7 and alludes to Romans 12:2.)[36]
Much could be said concerning this paragraph, but we will zero in on the subordination of Scripture to secular thought. Do you see how Scripture is used to justify the fact that the “psychologists are right” in regard to the theory being posited. No doubt this is a perverted attempt to claim authority for the Bible, but it is a vain attempt that backfires. Why? Simple—the recent claims of psychology are trumpeted as innovative and the ancient truths of the Bible are rallied as a secondary source. It is the Bible that agrees with psychology and not psychology that has simply reformulated the ancient truth revealed in Scripture. As Scripture predates psychology, Crabb could have ditched all the natter regarding psychology and simply said, Thus saith the Lord…! He could have listed Proverbs, Romans, and a host of other texts that prove conclusively, without any reference to psychology, that Man’s thought patterns are vitally important. In point of fact, had he studied some of these other texts, he would have been far more reticent to speak so highly of fallen Man’s rational ability to discover truth apart from God.[37]
This is the idolatry of our age. So enamoured are we with Man and his rational ability that we have once again listened to the great evil – did God really say? – have elevated Man to the place of God – knowing good from evil – and instead of turning to God for wisdom, we now turn to ourselves. Evangelicals no longer lean upon God’s word as their only authority. Now we have research, science, and a host of other disciplines, like psychology, erected as idols in our streets, unto which we bow, supplicating them for direction, prosperity, and life.
The scene is sickening; yet there is worse. Worse? Yes, worse! With our idolatry has come a terminal intolerance of God’s word. When we are made to feed upon God’s word, we are like children made to choke down brussel sprouts.
C) Derek Tidball – We reference Tidball as an example of how we no longer want to stomach that which is purely Biblical. Says he:
Jay Adams has, without a doubt, made an enormous contribution to the revival of a biblical pastoral theology. He has restored the confidence of many in their role as pastors, as distinct from being psychologists with a religious hue. He has restored, too, the confidence of many in the Bible as a sufficient and relevant textbook to deal with man’s problems. He has restored confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring about changes in people’s lives. He has uncovered man’s basic problem as being that of sin for which he is responsible, rather than being a problem which lies in his environment or heredity. He has put feelings in their right context, which is quite an accomplishment in a culture which has been termed by Christopher Lasch ‘the culture of narcissism’. And he has swept through much of the unnecessary and pretentious paraphernalia of the medical perspective which has laden counselling down. He has not been afraid to point out when he thought that the emperor had no clothes. What is more, he has shown a concern to relate his counselling to his doctrine and to place it firmly within the Church.[38]
How did Jay Adams do all this? Is he an Oracle? Does he have an IQ above that of any other man? No, Jay Adams is a man who read his Bible and saw what God revealed therein. Jay Adams simply took God at His word, then took God’s word and applied God’s word. In short, Jay Adams simply believed God and expected that God’s word would do that which He said it would do. The result of this faithful application of God’s word to the pastoral and counselling arena produced the results outlined.[39]
Now, the curious among you are saying, “Hang on Murray. This was meant to be about choking on God’s word. I do not see choking, but rather lauding.” Yes, you have observed correctly. At this point, Tidball is playing excellently. His stroke play is unmatched. However, he is now on the final green. One simple put to take the trophy. Oh no, there is sweat on the brow. The palms are greasy and tingling. He cannot grip the putter properly. Oh no, can you feel the choke coming?
Tidball continues:
In spite of this there remain a number of major weaknesses in his approach which so blemish it as to render it seriously defective as an evangelical pastoral theology.
Duck! If you thought spiting coffee was bad, you do not want to be here for the brussel sprouts!!!!
Please grasp this. A man who by God’s grace turned people to Scripture; who was the instrument by which men stood up as pastors, realising that they could have confidence in the authority, breadth, depth, and sufficiency of Scripture; who was used to turn pastors from psychological lackeys into true Biblical counsellors; who helped Christians to see, understand, and rely upon the power of the Holy Spirit; who, applying Scripture, penetrated the false philosophies of the day – this one, such a man as this, has a “seriously defective” pastoral theology that is, in essence, useless to the Church!
My friends, this is choking par excellence. Worse, it is the full-blown repudiation of Scripture.
Which secular psychologist is going to esteem Scripture? Which secular psychologist is going to give Christian pastors a fundamental confidence in the Bible? Which secular psychologist is going to cut through the false philosophies of our day? Which secular psychologist is going to triumph the wonder and power of the Holy Spirit? The answer is, none of them! Neither are the Christians who have enslaved themselves to the false belief system of secular psychology.
Why, then, does Tidball make such harsh comments against Adams and take such a strong position? Precisely because he is a slave! Says he:
The pastor, then, must not forsake his distinctive role. He is a minister of God’s grace, not a purveyor of psychological acceptance. This is not to deny a genuine role for good psychotherapy or to pretend that a pastor has nothing to learn from the psychologist regarding his counselling technique.[40]
In these words from Tidball, we witness the great vacillation. He first builds up the pastor and distances him from psychology only to then tell him to go to the psychologists and learn their techniques. The problem here is that when you go to the psychologist, you are not just learning his techniques; you are learning his presuppositions upon which those techniques are based. Think of driving as an example. An individual wishes to earn more money for his family, so he decides to become a truck driver. In order to practice his skills and to learn a driving technique, he goes to the local racetrack and takes lessons in a formula one race car. What would be the outcome? One very ordinary truck driver! The technique he learned was based upon the vehicle involved – race car – and therefore upon certain presuppositions relevant to that vehicle. Thus, he was taught how to drive – technique – a fast, light, low, short vehicle with a sequential gearbox[41] when he was heading out to drive a slow, heavy, high, long vehicle with a crash box![42]
Consequently, in giving the advice that he does, Tidball automatically robs Christians of all the advantages that he outlined in regard to Jay Adams methodology. The reason for this, as we have just explained, is that Tidball is teaching a technique that is not relevant to the particular vehicle he is driving.
Conclusion:
In looking at these three men, all of whom are pro psychology, we can see similar themes running through their works. Whilst they all try to uphold the authority of Scripture, they ultimately fail, not only in this regard, but also in regard to the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture. All of these men, in one way or another, conclude that the best way forward is to have a mixture of Scripture and psychology. The problem with this is that Scripture always loses out to Secular psychology.
Collins tells us that Scripture is Man’s final authority, but then we must also have access to counselling techniques and the scientific method. Collins tells us that if we ignore psychology then we “limit our counselling effectiveness”. This is tantamount to saying that if we base our counselling only on Scripture then we have a “seriously defective” approach. Sound familiar?
Crabb tells us that the Scripture is the Christian’s final authority, but then adds that a dismissal of man’s wisdom as profitless is, in our words, incorrect and foolish. The real sting comes when you examine the context of his comment and note that he is in fact denigrating those Christians who believe in the sole sufficiency of Scripture. His point is simple, you must not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture if that means dismissing the wisdom of men – fallen men, unregenerate men. Lastly, we remember Tidball’s slaying of Adams. Why was Adams executed? Because he would not yield the sufficiency of Scripture to the secular discipline of psychology. Tidball’s denunciation of Adam’s position as “seriously defective” is based on little more than Adams’ refusal to accept that secular psychology is a legitimate for the Christian.
Ultimately, every one of these men has betrayed Scripture. Despite all their pleas for balance; all the rhetoric concerning the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, they all end up making the same point – Scripture is not sufficient for a complete pastoral theology or as the basis for genuine and effective counselling. Scripture alone is deficient. Scripture must be added to by these learned men of psychology. This is why we see Scripture being dragged in by the scruff of the neck to show the correctness of the psychologists and anthropologists. Yet the reality is that the psychologists and anthropologists are simply affirming what Scripture has always taught.
Returning to our opening illustration of oil and water, we are confronted with the inherent problem. Whenever we attempt to mix two incompatible elements, only two options are available: a) we must remain in a constant flux, a state of perpetual agitation, so that the elements stay seemingly combined; or b) the minute agitation ceases, the elements begin to separate. When separation takes place, one element will naturally be subdued by the other.
What we have witnessed in the three men surveyed is a failed attempt to mix oil and water, darkness and light, psychology and Scripture. As soon as they stopped their agitation, the oil floated to the top, burying and suppressing the living water of Scripture.
One can think of no better conclusion than to quote Scripture, in this case the Apostle Paul: let God be found true, though every man be found a liar![43]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Obviously, many other areas are also attacked. However, as Jesus is the pinnacle of God’s revelation and work, then any attack upon Jesus must automatically have consequence for all that He represents.
[2] Some Christians, like Jay Adams (Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p 12; n 3), take aim at psychiatry and not psychology. Adams gives his reasons for this. However, elsewhere he calls psychiatry “the illegitimate child of psychology” (p 1). To this author, the illegitimate child is the product of an unlawful union. In this the child should not be blamed for its parentage; the parents should. In short, it was the illegitimate nature of secular psychology that opened the door for psychiatry and any subsequent abuses.
[3] “Preeminently, a nouthetic counsellor must be conversant in the Scriptures.” Adams Competent, p 61. Whilst Adams and this work focus upon the pastoral aspect of counselling, there is a recognition that true counselling can be given by anyone who knows the Scriptures. We see this type of counselling in Scripture passages like Matthew 18:15-17; James 5:19-20; Proverbs 15:5. However, as the Text of Matthew 18 shows, there comes a time when the counsel of brethren must give way to the counsel of authority – tell it to the Church! This is right, as we have argued earlier in this series, and reflects the fact that, ultimately, true counselling belongs to those authoritatively commissioned men that Jesus has placed in leadership within His Church.
[4] As you will have gathered, this current series of articles assert the truth of the Reformed position over that of the Arminian and are therefore designed to guard against the creep of Arminian thought into Reformed circles. In fact, it is this very design that gave rise to this series. The catalyst, as you will remember, came from an article published from within a Reformed denomination, which hinted at the fact that the Church needed trained counsellors to help the Elders. Upon reading this, we were reminded of a minister in another Reformed denomination who proudly washed his hands of pastoral counselling in favour of sending these people to a “Christian counsellor down the road”. All this made the alarm bells ring, for it showed categorically that Reformed people are digressing from their professed presuppositions and are no longer content with the Sovereignty and Authority of God and His Word.
[5] Romans 8:7-8.
[6] Romans 12:1-3.
[7] We believe this to be so precisely because the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity does not exempt any aspect of Man’s being (Jesus excepted) from the fall. Therefore, Man’s reason is tainted, corrupted. We need to learn to think again, just as we need to learn to love, worship, and obey again – living up to God’s revealed standards of these things. Learning to think God’s thoughts after Him is as much a part of sanctification as learning to deny the flesh. That is exactly why Paul insists that we be transformed by the renewing of our minds. After all, what is Paul’s point if our minds are not in need of renewing because they have not been severely affected by the fall? C.f 2 Corinthians 10:5.
[8] The Reformed insistence on Total Depravity is balanced by our view of Scripture as absolutely necessary to reveal truth. Because man is blinded by sin, he must have the Light of God’s Word. On the other hand, the Arminian view of Partial Depravity, giving credence to Man’s mental abilities, lessens Man’s dependence of Scripture.
[9] As you will see in the following critique, much is made of this fact by those in favour of psychology. The constant refrain is that Man can see and willingly embrace God’s truth when he discovers it by use of the scientific method. Our contention, discussed in more detail at that point, is twofold. First, that statement seems to run contrary to the Biblical data—Man suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Second, and in line with the Biblical data, we see the scientific method used to attack God’s truth and to justify Man’s rebellion—evolution and homosexuality being two current examples.
[10] It is very much worth noting that there is generally a subtle absence in the following quotations in regard to the authority of Scripture. You will read that Scripture is the “Christian’s” final authority, but you will not read the overt statement that the Bible is “Man’s” final authority. In other words, the Bible is everyone’s final authority, whether a person or institution chooses to recognise this fact or not. One of the reasons that Secularism has grown is because of this reductionist view of Scripture. Too many have been allowed to say, in essence, “I am not a Christian, so those Biblical standards do not apply to me!” The real tragedy here is that the Church has simply accepted this as true and begun to reiterate the error.
[11] This is not a denial that they are indeed Christians.
[12] Gary R. Collins, Christian Counselling: A Comprehensive Guide (Milton Keynes: Word Publishing, 1988).
[13] Collins, 17. (Italics added.) The only problem here seems to be that Collins limits this concept to counselling. If he is right in making this a ‘general’ statement, and he is, then the quotation must also include and be relevant to the scientist. Looking through a microscope does not reveal truth; it reveals a fact that must then be interpreted. The scientist’s personal position in understanding will then influence that interpretation – Is he an evolutionist, a believer in Intelligent Design, or is he a Creationist? If he is a Christian, is he a Romanist, Deist, Arminian, or Reformed? Does he subscribe to Theism or is he a Christian humanist?
[14] Credit where credit is due—at least Collins’ acknowledges that the Bible governs Man and not just Christians. However, our joy is short lived and fleeting!
[15] Note here, please, the fault in logic and understanding. Truth is not discovered, it is revealed. Experience can never be the final arbiter of truth in a fallen world, neither can science. We must have revelation. Experience and science, as previously noted, simply give us facts. It is only revelation that gives us righteousness; the rightness of those facts.
[16] Collins’ rightly acknowledges that God’s word governs human beings. He states that all must be measured against Scripture. Our question is: “What of those who do not believe Scripture and refuse to submit their scientific findings to God’s revelation?” Again, there seems to be the simple proposition that anyone—God’s Word to human beings—can read and rightly interpret the Bible. Then there is the subtle inference that, having worked out their schema and measured it by the scientific method, they will submit it to the Bible for final critique and judgement. Returning to our question: Will the unregenerate mind submit his schema to Scripture’s judgement? Keep in mind, please, when answering the question, that some deliberately develop schema in direct opposition to Scripture precisely because they wish to be free of Scripture’s demands (Psalm 2:1-3).
[17] Collins, 22. Emphasis added.
[18] Ibid, 23.
[19] Please also note that emotion and experience are to be regarded more highly than revelation. If God has revealed His truth in the Bible and that is the touchstone to which we must return, what then is the point of emotion or experience? Must a truth be experienced before it actually becomes truth? Does implementing the many possible realities of a principle only then validate the principle? The answer is no. One does not need to steal to confirm the validity of, “Thou shalt not steal”. The whole point of revelation is so that you have a reliable guide. Think here of your GPS navigator. You programme your GPS so that you will be taken to your destination. When the voice says, “Turn left in 500 meters”, you immediately turn right or you turn up every other street. This will, in your experience, validate the directions given. This is most definitely emotional and experiential. Yet, so is driving 500 meters and turning left. Following the commandment is also experiential validation. The point is that we do not need to disobey the command in order to know that the command was indeed correct. We can obey the command and still know, absolutely, that it is correct.
[20] The true application of presuppositional thought would realise that the dead heart cannot think life. In Biblical terms, the carnal mind is hostility against God. Thus, the unregenerate will not think high and lofty thoughts for the glory of God. His thoughts will in fact lead away from God and to the exaltation of self (Jeremiah 17:9). How then are these thoughts meant to teach us to live God’s life by God’s law in God’s world? Collin’s had the right idea at the start—an idea that should have kept him on track. However, not truly understanding the application of his statement, he has minimised it to simply apply to some vague personal choices.
[21] “Truly helpful” is now the criterion; not Biblical, Scriptural, God-honouring.
[22] Ibid, 23
[23] Understand well that Mr. Collins is admitting this when he states that you need to be trained so that you can tell when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. This is his criterion, not ours. It is his admission that both the results of “scientific method” and “all psychology” are in need of verification. Think this through please. Do you need to place such caveats on a person when you tell him to read the Bible?
[24] James 4:4; 1 John 2:15 (Remember that the “World”, in Scripture, often, as here, refers not to a terrestrial ball, but to a pattern of thought that is opposed to God and His Law ); Proverbs 15:9; Proverbs 11:20; Psalm 14:1-3.
[25] Matthew 6:24.
[26] Collins, 16 – 17.
[27] Collins, 125.
[28] The only exception is the category of biology. In his book, Collins gives the example of a boy who had sudden and seemingly random outbursts of anger, after which he was extremely apologetic. In the end, it was found that the problem was related to eating bananas. There was something in the banana that was interacting with his brain’s chemistry to produce a negative result. (p 124) In a fallen world, we must be open to such possibilities. However, living in a fallen world, it also becomes easy for true sin to be excused by the application of a psychological label. For example, as a young man one rarely heard of ADD/ADHD. Once this “syndrome” was labelled, the labelling machines were put into overdrive to the point where all sorts of discipline issues were excused by this label. Psychologist will contend that ADD/ADHD is not a discipline issue. We would simply point to the fact that since discipline has been frowned upon and nearly outlawed, cases of ADD/ADHD have become prominent and seem to be increasing. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/digital-pandemic/201308/why-the-increase-in-adhd; http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html) We also contend that there are other factors to be considered. However, our main contention is that Secular psychology seeks to excuse that which the Bible calls sin and to cover it with a fancy label. Christians must beware of this practice.
In other words, we must maintain that sin is the root cause of all our problems – we did not have faulty brain chemistry in Eden – regardless of the question of personal sin. By maintaining this focus on Man’s genuine problem, we are far more likely to help men in their time of need. Christian psychologists are apt to comment that “persevere and pray” are not legitimate strategies. Here, we would simply say that neither is, “Stop eating bananas!”
[29] Injustice is the only example of a situation in which anger can be positive and not sinful. Generally this would be categorised as “righteous indignation”.
[30] Lawrence J. Crabb, Basic Principles of Biblical Counselling (London: Marshall Pickering,1985; reprint 1989)
[31] At the start of this article, we spoke about worldviews and what people mean by their words. Here is an example. Crabb calls dentistry and engineering “secular disciplines”. More will be said on these comparisons later in this series, for now, please note the strong emphasis upon the bifurcation of the world into the Secular and Sacred. Whilst the term “secular” generally refers to that which has no reference to God or religions that believe in a ‘god’, we do need to ask whether or not disciplines like those mentioned are truly secular. In other words, are these disciplines founded upon the basic tenet, God is not!—for that is the true definition of secularism. Equally, the old Sacred / Secular division is not a Biblical one. Scripture speaks of the basic tenets of the worldview as that which carries the day, not of the enterprise itself. In other words, two men can undertake the same discipline with the same passion; one to righteousness, the other to unrighteousness.
[32] Crabb, 29-30. Emphasis added.
[33] Crabb, 29.
[34] 1 Corinthians 3:19-21. C.f 1 Corinthians 1:20ff.
[35] Once more, we draw your attention to comments made at the start of this article. Remember how we asked people to strive to understand what authors meant when they use words. This statement is one more example. See how Scripture is limited to being the Christian’s final authority, when in fact Scripture is Man’s final authority. This is not just a poor choice of words. It reveals the authors central belief. Sadly this concept – Scripture is for Christians only – is gaining currency. Some years ago, at a Bible study, a visitor made this exact point, and vehemently so, stating that the Bible did not speak to unbelievers. “Danger! Danger! Will Robinson!” The outworking of this theory is that the Christian must take the secular data and see if it accords with Scripture, if it does not, the Christian must abandon it. So far, so good. What of the secularist? Is he free to simply espouse his theory ungoverned and unrestrained? According to this theory, the answer is, yes. Biblically, however, the answer is, No! The point of Scripture is that we measure all thoughts against God’s revelation. If the thought espoused is something contrary to Scripture the Christian does not abandon it on purely pragmatic grounds. No, he rejects it because it is a falsehood, a lie, a blasphemy. As such, all men are called upon to reject such untruths and to cease and desist from spreading them (Proverbs 12:22).
[36] Crabb, 85.
[37] For your consideration: James 1:27; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Genesis 6:5; Psalm 10:3; Psalm 94:8-11; Proverbs 12:5, 15, 26; Isaiah 55:7; Mark 7:21-23.
[38] Tidball, pp 238-239.
[39] This article is not to be understood as endorsing everything that Jay Adams has espoused. Rather, it is an illustration of how a man who built a methodology upon Scripture is systematically attacked by those who, in reality, deny the sufficiency of Scripture. Adams should be commended for taking a stand on and in Scripture and for demonstrating its sufficiency for counselling and pastoral work. In fact, his denigration should trigger alarm bells.
[40] Tidball, p.268. Emphasis added.
[41] A sequential box is usually a paddle or stick shift that moves in two directions, forward and back. The driver cannot choose a particular gear (for example he cannot move from first to third in one shift), he must move through the gears in sequence– 1,2,3,4,5. Moving the paddle makes the shift in the gears take place, thus taking pressure of the driver to coordinate the change accurately.
[42] A crash box is so named because it does not have a synchromesh system to help match gear speeds. Thus, the driver must match road speed and engine revs or be confronted with much grinding. A crash box requires skill and coordination.
[43] Romans 3:4
