Biblical Counseling and a Theology of Scripture (2)

April 7, 2016  David Murray   4 comments

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts reading through A Theology of Biblical Counseling, The Doctrinal Foundations of Counseling Ministry by Heath Lambert (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

Yesterday we examined Heath’s explanation of the sufficiency of Scripture, although we noted that the language was not clear enough nor consistent enough to know whether he was asserting that Scripture always has something to say or that Scripture always has everything to say.

Perhaps it will become clearer now in pages 38 and following, where Heath begins to examine critiques of biblical counseling, especially the critique offered by his own Southern Seminary colleague, Dr. Eric Johnson.

Eric Johnson’s Position

Heath states Dr. Johnson’s position on page 39ff:

1. “Johnson…does not believe that the Bible is sufficient for the work of counseling”

2. “He argues that the Bible is sufficient only for salvation and doctrine.”

3. “His point is that it is a serious error to argue that Scripture provides sufficient resources for the work that counselors do.”

4. Johnson believes “Protestant Christian theologians have argued for Scripture’s sufficiency only in the categories of salvation and doctrine.”

Heath explains that Dr. Johnson bases his views upon a certain understanding of Reformation history. Dr. Johnson says that Catholics and Protestants debated the source of Christian authority, with the Roman church arguing that its own teaching and tradition was essential to understanding the Scriptures, whereas the Protestants believed that Scripture alone was sufficient to interpret the Scriptures.

High Stakes

In taking on Dr. Johnson’s view, Heath leaves us under no illusions about how high the stakes are:

“Johnson’s critique goes to the heart of the biblical counseling movement. The faithfulness – even the existence – of the movement is at stake in a critique like this” (40).

Heath commends the Reformers for the courageous way in which they defended the sufficiency of Scripture in their day, but warns,

“Threats against God’s truth did not end at the Reformation…The greatest threat today to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture from attack by those who believe the Bible is not a sufficient resource to help when life’s challenges confront a person” (40-41).

Heath does accept Dr. Johnson’s argument that the the debate today is somewhat different to that of the Reformation:

“The Reformation debates were primarily about the sufficiency of Scripture in relation to the doctrinal debates with Catholics. Today the counseling debates about the sufficiency of Scripture relate to whether it is appropriate or necessary to use secular systems of thought in counseling” (40).

However, Heath argues that although the issues are different, the underlying principles are the same. He insists that today’s debates about the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling have been addressed in the past in that confessional statements have not only addressed the sufficiency of Scripture for doctrine, but the sufficiency of Scripture for living the Christian life.

Confessional Support

Heath then quotes the Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith on the sufficiency of Scripture and concludes that they not only teach the sufficiency of Scripture for doctrine but also that the Bible was “equally sufficient for the matters of life, which would include the types of issues addressed in counseling today” [emphasis mine] (42).

Five Debatable Areas

This produces five areas of debate:

1. What are “the types of issues addressed in counseling today”?

2. Is the “sufficiency” language of the Protestant reformation and its confessions applicable in the same way to the sufficiency debate in counseling?

3. Is the Bible equally sufficient for doctrine and the types of issues addressed in counseling today?

4. Has Heath stated Eric Johnson’s position with sufficient accuracy and comprehensiveness?

5. Is what Heath says here consistent with earlier statements about secular sources like psychology being sometimes “true,” “helpful,” and “welcome” for various counseling purposes (26, 27, 30)?

I’d like to answer these questions over the coming days as we continue to read through the book, but let me address the first one today.

Debatable Area 1: What are “the types of issues addressed in counseling today”?

I think it would be helpful for us to know exactly what are the types of counseling issues that Heath has in view here. A few pages back, he said that the sufficiency of Scripture was under “attack by those who believe the Bible is not a sufficient resource to help when life’s challenges confront a person” (40). So, I’m assuming that the “types of issues addressed in counseling today” are “life’s challenges.” Which leads me to my tenth question:

Question 10: Is Scripture a sufficient resource for a life-challenge like, say, autism, or developmental delay, or bi-polar disorder? Or, to put it another way, is it “equally sufficient” for these matters of life as it is for doctrine?

Personally, I believe that Scripture is a sufficient resource for the spiritual dimensions of life-challenges like that. The question is really asking if the biblical counseling movement is asserting more than that.

  • http://www.baylightcounseling.com/ Joshua Waulk

    Dr. Murray: I appreciate your interaction w/Dr. Lambert’s new book. I’m attempting to read along w/you as best I can. For this particular post, and to your Q#10 in particular, I would note that each of the three issues you set forth as examples (autism, developmental delay, and BPD) are, where they are truly occurring, biologically-driven medical issues. That is, they would probably be best understood as having their origin in an organically driven process and therefore must be treated medically by medical doctors.

    While counseling of any type may be very helpful, I cannot imagine any present-day biblical counselor suggesting that counseling alone would be a sufficient course of action in these types of cases–helpful and perhaps as believers we might suggest necessary for the care and encouragement of the soul–but not sufficient in and of itself. In fact, I would suggest that the need for medical treatment in these types of cases flows out of a well-formed biblical worldview that understands the needs of both body and soul–and here, in these scenarios–we see the sufficiency of Scripture to gladly (responsibly) refer the person/family to a medical doctor and to gladly work with and assist in their care for those components which are non-physical.

    This is commensurate with my training and education as an ACBC counselor and has been my practice of soul-care. I feel no tension or “competition” as it were between shepherding a person’s heart (which the BPD sufferer surely needs as much as anyone), and seeing to it that they receive the bodily care which may be required from those professionals whose job it is to do just that.

    • David Murray

      Joshua, thank you for taking the time to comment and for your thoughtful and helpful words. Because of the cognitive nature of autism and developmental delay, I think you’d find that most medical doctors would not see autism and developmental delay as “biologically-driven medical issues.” Rather, they would probably refer to psychologists who specialize in child development and special needs, some of whom do tremendous work with seemingly hopeless cases. But that’s OK, your principle is the same for medical doctors and psychologists, I presume.

      I agree with your view of the sufficiency of Scripture, especially the way you apply it differently depending on the issue, but I think that puts both of us at odds with Heath’s presentation of that doctrine, at least in parts of the book, where he speaks of Scripture being equally sufficient for doctrine and for life challenges like those above (p. 42), and also some of his statements in earlier parts of the book (eg. http://headhearthand.org/blog/2016/04/04/a-theology-of-biblical-counseling-some-questions/).

      Once again, thanks for the input, Joshua, and God bless your counseling ministry.

      • http://www.baylightcounseling.com/ Joshua Waulk

        You’re right, most medical doctors would refer autistic children and those w/developmental delays for psychological help, but that’s largely because the pathologies aren’t well understood and so there is insufficient medical help to be applied (but the belief is, and I think correctly, that both are very tightly connected to a true disorder of the brain’s function). As a biblical counselor, where autism and/or developmental delays are the diagnosis, I would certainly not attribute the child’s/person’s difficulties to a rebellious heart.

        Personally, I would refer the family to a specialist trained in techniques (techniques that I would also suggest are not at all at odds w/Scripture) that have been shown helpful for the one who is struggling. I may very well have a role to play in helping families in such cases, but the techniques for specific issues related to autism and developmental delays simply aren’t my lane and I’m fine with that.

        (I’m also thinking of occupational therapy, which my own son required when he was very young. In his case, we trusted in the sovereignty of God over all of his life, and thanked Him for the physical help he received. As his motor skill delays were improved, the emotions/frustrations of his heart were relieved. I don’t think that any of that, in any way, undermined what I believe to be true when I hear the phrase “sufficiency of Scripture.”)

        • David Murray

          You put it very well, Joshua. Thanks for thinking this through with me. Your own son’s example is helpful too. Appreciate very much your clarity.