Why Some Biblical Counseling Is Only Half Biblical, Part Three
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009
Part Three: Embracing the Legacy of Comforting Biblical Counseling
My Premise
Some modern biblical counseling considers the seriousness of sin—sinning, but spends much less time equipping people to minister to the gravity of grinding affliction—suffering. When we provide counseling for sin, but fail to provide counseling and counselor training for suffering, then I am of the conviction that such biblical counseling is only half biblical!
The Myth: Dealing with “Suffering” Is Surely “Secular”
Here’s the myth we face when we say that we must deal with suffering as well as with sin:
“Oh, that’s just modern secular psychotherapy.” Or, “That’s obviously influenced by Freudianism.” Or, “No one ever said biblical counseling was about suffering until after the advent of modern humanism.”
Those are each myths.
Our first post in this series highlighted the theological necessity for dealing with suffering—failing to care for the suffering actually minimizes the universal impact of sin.
Our second post pondered just a few of many of the biblical mandates for dealing with suffering—such as Job; John 9:1-3; 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; Romans 12:15; and the occurrence of parakaleo over 100 times in the New Testament.
We could also add the Lament Psalms, the very character of God as the Father of the fatherless, David, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul. Elsewhere (see Soul Physicians
http://tinyurl.com/npfwsh) I have addressed an entire biblical theology of suffering—sufferology). Elsewhere I have spent over 100 pages outlining the Bible’s approach to helping the hurting (see Spiritual Friends http://tinyurl.com/nxbxes).The Reality: Dealing with Suffering Is Certainly Biblical
Dealing with suffering is certainly biblical.
Of course, one could say, “That’s just your flawed interpretation of Scripture.”
Could be. While God’s Word is inspired, perfect, and inerrant, none of our interpretations are.
So I’ve also spent over a quarter-century studying Church history: the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, African American believers (
http://tinyurl.com/nykc3h), women in Church history (http://tinyurl.com/ql8fqc), etc.Then again, we could run into yet another false accusation:
“So, you are saying that tradition is on the same par as inspired Scripture!”
No. Not at all.
I am simply saying that since all our interpretations of Scripture are errant, and since some claim that those who deal with suffering are unknowingly influenced by modern secular psychology, that turning to conservative believers pre-Freud could be a good reality check.
Church History Samplers of Comforting Biblical Counseling for Suffering
I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation (
http://tinyurl.com/ovw588) on the great Reformer, Martin Luther. What many do not know is that Luther was also a master pastor. He left us 1000s of letters of spiritual consolation where he comforted his world-wide parishioners so they could face suffering face-to-face with God.In my 359-page dissertation, 104 pages explore Luther’s work focused on suffering and sanctification. By comparison, 71 pages examine Luther’s work dealing with sin and sanctification. Luther, unlike some modern Christian counselors, accurately and adequately blended counseling for suffering and for sin.
In my book Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction (
http://tinyurl.com/nykc3h), we learn from the amazing legacy of Black heroes of the faith. As the title suggests, our brothers and sisters understood that biblical counseling must include comforting the suffering. Yes, they certainly care-fronted the sinning, also. Like we should, our African American great cloud of witnesses did both.In my forthcoming book Sacred Friendships: Celebrating the Legacy of Women Heroes of the Faith (
http://tinyurl.com/ql8fqc), we see women like Margaret Baxter, Susanna Wesley, Sarah Edwards, Susannah Spurgeon, and 47 others, consistently integrating comfort for the suffering and care-fronting for the sinning.Since this blog is long enough already, rather than quoting them, I have left links above to my works on Luther, African Americans believers, and women believers. Together this great cloud of witnesses insists that:
true, comprehensive biblical counseling has always been about the business of helping both hurting and hardened people through comforting and care-fronting with the goal of increased Christlikeness.
Where Do We Go from Here?
Tomorrow, I’ll provide an even broader Church history study, sharing briefly the works of Clebsch and Jaekle, McNeil, Oden, and other Church historians—who each conclude that comprehensive pastoral care has always dealt with both sin and suffering.
The next day I will address the question, “What then might it look like to train pastors and lay people to be soul physicians and spiritual friends who deal with both suffering and sin?”
*Note: Why I Am Addressing This Topic
All who have followed my ministry know that I am about bridge-building and not about wall-building. You might wonder then, “Bob, why blog about something that is surely to be controversial?”
Those who follow my ministry also know that I am about equipping God’s people to change lives with Christ’s changeless truth through comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed biblical counseling and spiritual formation.
Biblical counseling that fails to deal with suffering, fails the test of comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed biblical counseling. I would be a hypocrite to my calling if I remained silent.
Others might wonder, “Are you talking about a particular ‘model’ of modern biblical counseling, or about a particular person or persons who are writing today?”
No. I am not. This is not an attack against. These blogs are not directed toward any one person or group.
These blogs are directed to all of us—myself included—who love biblical counseling. They are for all of us—myself included—who need good Bereans to help us to assess how biblical or unbiblical our approaches to biblical counseling truly are.
I write to help, not to hurt. I write to equip, not to attack. I write to start a conversation, not to finish one.
Please join the conversation.
