Vindicated by the Court, Defined by the Word: The Nouthetic Rebirth
This is the second part in this series of articles about the historical background of the biblical counseling movement. Under this topic, we will be touching three chapters written by John MacArthur, David Powlison, and John Street.
Let us start with John MacArthur’s chapter, Rediscovering Biblical Counseling. I want to divide this chapter into six parts, excluding the introduction and the conclusion.
Introduction
Early History
Someone can make a case that biblical counseling originated in the Garden of Eden when God asked man about their spiritual condition after the fall. However, in the history of the church, the Puritans were known as “physicians of the soul,” and counseling was part of the ministry of the church designated as “soul care.” Earlier than the Puritans, we have Martin Bucer, John Calvin’s mentor, who wrote Concerning the True Care of Souls, a book about pastoral theology and biblical counseling. Nevertheless, in the current textbook under study, MacArthur started his historical background during the apostolic times. Numerous New Testament passages can be cited to prove that counseling has been a vital church ministry since the 1st century AD, and such a task was not confined to ordained ministry but to the whole body of Christ. Ability to counsel one another is a hallmark of spiritual maturity.
Integration
Unfortunately, between the 1950s and 1960s, attempts were made to integrate psychology with Christianity. “Fuller Theological Seminary pioneered doctoral programs in clinical psychology in 1965, aiming to ‘put the cross at the center of psychology.’" As a result, biblical counseling has been replaced with “Christian psychology.”
Rebirth of Nouthetic
A decade later, Jay Adams published his book, Competent to Counsel, in 1970. That signaled the rebirth of biblical counseling and later grew into a global movement and now has members in over 30 countries and operates in 30 languages.
A Legal Precedent
One curious story that happened in 1980 caught my attention. It was about a youth who committed suicide after receiving biblical counsel. As a result, a lawsuit was charged against the pastors in MacArthur’s church. Such a case is a first time in the history of American courts. If MacArthur lost that case, that would serve as a legal precedent and would place a church practicing biblical counseling in a risky situation. Counseling with biblical truth would be considered reckless and irresponsible, and any practitioner would “be held morally and legally culpable” (p. 5).
What I find interesting is the attitude of some in the secular media. The case dragged on for years; they seemed to enjoy demonizing the biblical counseling ministry of the church. False allegations were aired, such as giving advice “that suicide was a sure way to heaven.” However, when facts came out, the media lost interest in covering the case. It was later found out that the “young man was under the care of professional psychiatrists,” received “psychiatric treatment,” and had “every kind of therapy available” (ibid.).
The case was heard in three different courts, “and all three ruled in favor of the church” (ibid.). It was even “appealed to the United States Supreme Court,” but “the High Court refused to hear the case, thereby letting stand the California State Supreme Court’s ruling that finally vindicated the church” (ibid.). Moreover, the judges also affirmed that the church fulfilled its legal and moral obligations in helping the young man. “But even more important, the courts affirmed every church’s constitutional right to counsel from the Bible” (p. 6).
Three Lessons
In this story, we learn three lessons. One, there are professionals who don’t like the church doing the ministry of biblical counseling. As to the reason for such hostility, I suspect big money is involved. Two, there are experts who believe that the legitimate role of the church in handling difficult cases is to refer people to mental health specialists. Three, and I think the most important lesson is that this legal victory confirms “that secular courts have no right to encroach on the area of counseling in the church” (ibid.).
An Overview of Historical Background
| Period | Key Concept/Figure | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Apostolic Era | New Testament authors | The "one another" ministry |
| Reformation | Martin Bucer/John Calvin | Concerning the True Care of Souls |
| Puritan Era | "Physicians of the Soul" | Intensive, Scripture-based "Soul Care" |
| 1950s - 1960s | Fuller Seminary/Integration | Merging psychology with Christianity |
| 1970 | Jay Adams | The "Rebirth" of Biblical Counseling (Competent to Counsel) |
| 1980s | John MacArthur/Legal Battle | The Vindication of the church's right to counsel |
Influence of Psychology in the Church
Recalling the trial, what surprised John MacArthur was that the attack against biblical counseling did not come from the secular specialists but from professional Christian counselors. It disappointed MacArthur to hear evangelical counselors arguing before a secular court against the sufficiency of the Bible in dealing with people’s emotional and spiritual needs. This tells a lot about the extent of influence of psychology within the evangelical camp. To see such a low view of the Bible within the liberal camp is not surprising. But hearing it from the mouths of experts who claim to be evangelicals, it is but natural that those who still affirm the classic attributes of the Holy Scriptures as defined by the Westminster Standards be dismayed.
To prove the widespread influence of psychology within the evangelical, MacArthur observes:
The influence of psychology is reflected in the kind of sermons that are preached from evangelical pulpits, in the kind of counseling that is being offered over the radio airwaves, in the proliferation of psychologists who cater primarily to evangelical Christians, and in the books that are being offered by many evangelical publishers” (p. 6).
Christian literature, the media, and sermons testify that psychology feels at home within the evangelical church. No wonder the traditional counseling ministry of the church has been replaced by psychological and counseling clinics.
Erroneous Intellectual Presuppositions
If psychology is properly understood as “the study of the soul,” professionals whose worldview depends on naturalistic assumptions are incapable of implementing such a study. The soul is immaterial. As such, not only is it beyond their expertise, but they are also touching something that their naturalistic assumptions failed to provide. Only biblical counselors have the appropriate resources to study the subject because something immaterial such as the human soul is consistent within the biblical worldview.
Even though psychotherapy is not a unified school of thought, all branches of psychology share at least seven common ideas that are contrary to biblical anthropology:
Man is basically good.
The answers to people’s problems can be discovered inside them.
The past provides the key to understanding and correcting current problems in people’s attitudes and actions.
Evasion of personal responsibility.
“Human problems can be purely psychological in nature, unrelated to any spiritual or physical condition” (p. 7).
There are problems that can only be solved by therapy provided by professional counselors.
The religious resources such as the Bible, prayer, and the Holy Spirit are simplistic and insufficient in dealing with certain types of problems.
A few of the above ideas require careful distinction to avoid misinterpretation. Nevertheless, the majority in the above list contradict what the Bible teaches about man.
The idea of man’s basic goodness contradicts the doctrine of original sin. Romans 3:10-18 clearly describe the spiritual condition of man under the state of sin.
If it is really true that answers to people’s problems can be found within, then man does not need a savior; he is his own savior, with the aid of specialists, of course.
The problem with unearthing the past in search of a solution is that this is like opening old wounds that have been long forgotten.
By shifting the problem to someone else, this would perpetuate a victim mindset, and instead of helping the person in distress, this would make him all the more powerless to address his problems.
The confinement of some problems to purely psychological is problematic in itself. If psychology is dealing with the soul, human problems cannot be completely detached from spiritual roots.
As for the use of therapy, I have little quarrel with that if it is within the bounds of common sense and common grace.
To discredit the role of the Bible, prayer, and the Holy Spirit in solving problems, that to me, is tantamount to the rejection of resources provided by God Himself. No one understands man better than the One who created him. If any expert dares to claim that he is wiser than God, I would not wonder if the suffering person will remain in a miserable condition.
Based on what MacArthur observes, he concluded that many sincere Christians have no clear understanding of what biblical counseling is.
This ends our second part in this series of articles. You can find the first part here.