*Note: If you’re disappointed that I’m saying that some biblical counseling is only half biblical, then please read my comments at the end of my first post in this series: http://tinyurl.com/n8k799.

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 such biblical counseling is only half biblical.

Secluded in Our Ivory Towers

Though acknowledging suffering, it became an underdeveloped element of some biblical counselors. When they did address suffering, it often became “private preaching” with a moralistic, non-relational, directive bent.

Why did this occur? Preaching training, theological perspectives, views of the image of God, and personal sin issues all combined with the historical setting to “set up” early biblical counseling for movement away from the Church’s historic practice and the Bible’s comprehensive focus on sustaining and healing for suffering.

Non-Comprehensive Theological Training

Frank Lake, who we quoted in post one of this series, traces the neglect of suffering to a shift in the focus of ministry training.

“If theological training had not lost its Galilean accent on persons encountered by the roadside or on the roof tops, in favor of libraries and essays in the schools, it would be unnecessary to argue the case for pastoral listening (empathy) and dialogue (conversing with, not private preaching at).”

Secluded in our ivory towers, far from the gravity of grinding affliction, we lose our perspective and our sensitivity. Pastors taught in such settings are trained to preach at people. They then enter a parish with suffering people—people like Job and the man born blind in John 9. Lake describes what stereotypically occurs when pastors trained to talk at sinners are forced to face sufferers.

“The pastoral counselor, in spite of himself, finds himself tittering out his usual jocular reassuring prescriptions, minimizing the problem, and thumping in optimism or the need for further effort. He has the ingrained professional habit of filling every unforgiving minute with sixty seconds’ worth of good advice.”

Trained to preach, but not trained to counsel, many pastors, to this day, are ill-equipped to help the suffering. Theirs is an instinctive activism that revolts against a caring presence and words of comfort. They assume that a directive response is best for the pastor’s busy schedule, and that the preaching mode is best for the care and cure of souls. All of this, despite what the Bible and church history teaches.

Non-Comprehensive Theology

Another reason why some biblical counselors are ill-equipped to help the suffering relates to a non-comprehensive theological perspective. The early biblical counseling movement was launched based upon one version of Calvinistic, Reformed theology. However, it was not the comprehensive version practiced by the Reformers like Luther or by Calvin himself. Both Luther and Calvin had a comprehensive, compassionate theology that included a focus on sin and suffering and included a focus on creation, fall, and redemption.

Early pioneers in biblical counseling, reacting against the pendulum of liberalism, the social gospel, and secular psychology, added to it their focus on the fall, sin, and depravity. Such factors were a recipe for biblical counseling that failed to address suffering biblically.

Focusing on the fall, sin, and depravity, and not as much on creation and our original design, and not as much on redemption and dignity in Christ and deprivation and suffering, they defined and described counseling as confronting sin and minimized the scope of true pastoral ministry.

Non-Comprehensive Image of God

Additionally, some biblical counselors tended to focus on the “volitional” element in the Imago Dei. That is, when they considered the image of God in human beings, they focused on the will, actions, and behaviors (and in later years on motivation)—putting off and putting on right actions. As biblical counseling developed, it began to focus more on the mind—putting off and putting on a right thinking—mind renewal.

However, to this day, there is not as much focus on the relational aspects that the Puritan Jonathan Edwards called “the religious affections”—longings, desires, thirsts, etc. And, to this day, some biblical counselors consider emotions to be “the black sheep of the image bearing family.”

Valuing reason and action above affections and emotions, when they did address suffering, they did so with a focus on right actions and right responses in reaction to suffering, while minimizing the emotional and relational aspects of and responses to suffering.

Personal Sin and Sinful Fear

Since the Bible insists on comprehensive and compassionate ministry that both confronts the sinning and comforts the suffering, and we fail to do this, then part of the reason must be internal. That is, even given all the historical, cultural factors, we can’t blame externals for our failure to do what the Bible calls us to do—comfort the suffering.

The personal sin of the fear of man is another reason that some biblical counselors fail to address suffering. Preachers and pastors (and lay people) are terrified, scared to death, to enter hurts deeply. They are much more comfy behind the pulpit generalizing about life, then facing suffering people face-to-face and moving into their hurting lives.

If they do come face-to-face with a suffering soul, it is much easier, much safer, to see counseling as problem-solving and to treat the soul as if it is a car engine to be fixed or a computer virus to be eliminated, then it is to relate soul-to-soul. Teach truth. Exhort right response. Talk. But weep with those who weep? But listen empathetically? But enter deeply? But sustain? But climb in the casket?

We can explore externals, but the reality is, the bottom line is, when pastors, spiritual friends, and biblical counselors fail to engage in biblical sustaining and healing for suffering—it is a sin.

Where Do We Go From Here

So far we’ve seen what we should do: care-front sinning and comfort suffering. So far we’ve seen why we have not done so: historical, cultural, theological, and personal factors that led to a minimizing of sustaining and healing for suffering.

Next we’ll explore how the minimizing of suffering negatively impacts Body life—the natural, ongoing, daily one-another ministry of God’s people in the church.

*Note: If you’re disappointed that I’m saying that some biblical counseling is only half biblical, then please read my comments at the end of my first post in this series: http://tinyurl.com/n8k799.

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 such biblical counseling is only half biblical.

Pulling Back the Pendulum . . . Too Far . . . One Way

Recall the situation pastors faced in the 1960s when hurting parishioners walked into their pastoral office. You could turn to secular psychology to address their personal issues. Or, you could ignore their personal issues and just keep preaching from the pulpit theology unrelated to life.

Those individuals who revived modern biblical counseling returned to the shepherding task of the personal ministry of the Word. However, when they pulled back the pendulum:

1. They feared that anything other than confronting sin would be a return to the social gospel.

2. They feared that focusing on life’s hardships might easily encourage evasion of moral responsibility and blame-shifting.

3. They feared that “empathy,” “non-directive responses,” and “passive listening” would be a capitulation to liberalism and secular psychology.

They pulled back the pendulum to the shepherding task of the personal ministry of the Word and to a focus on moral responsibility and sin—for which we all should be thankful.

Their pull went too far, was one-dimensional, and fear-based—from which we should all learn.

It is never biblical to ignore any part of our biblical calling out of fear that someone might respond in an unbiblical manner to our biblical ministry.

We do not have to shift blame to past traumatic experiences in order to be a biblical emphathizer, encourager, and hope-giver. It is not blame-shifting to recognize the biblical truth that being sinned against causes pain (2 Samuel 13, the lament Psalms, etc.). It is not blame-shifting to empathize with, console, and comfort our suffering parishioners and spiritual friends.

Our Calling to a Fuller Shepherding Response

Given the climate in which they lived, pioneers of the return to biblical counseling saw suffering as an occasion for revealing either faithfulness or sinfulness. That much we can applaud.

Their response, however, was primarily one-dimensional. They exhorted moral responsibility through the directive teaching of biblical principles. They viewed suffering exclusively as an occasion to warn against sinning. They explored suffering chiefly to discover sinful responses, to determine what responses would be morally appropriate, and to exhort such morally appropriate actions and behaviors.

However, the Bible and Church history demand a much fuller shepherding response to suffering and sufferers. It includes, but is not limited to:

1. Weeping with those who weep (Romans 12:15).

2. Comforting those who hurt (2 Corinthians 1:3-11 and over 100 occurrences in the New Testament of parakaleo—comfort and encouragement).

3. Sharing not only Scriptures but our very own souls—our selves—relational connection (1 Thessalonians 2:8).

4. Relating with the mutual care modeled within the Trinity (John 1, John 17).

5. Bearing one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:1-4).

6. Encouraging one another and scores of other compassionate “one another” passages.

7. Sustaining empathy and compassionate commiseration (the opposite of Job’s miserable counselors—Job 3-42) modeled by the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, women throughout Church history, African American soul care-givers, etc.

8. The collaborative application of Scripture emphasizing the use of passages such as the Psalms of Lament in a consolatory manner as Martin Luther and countless heroes of the faith did.

9. The healing permission to and encouragement to grieve as those who have hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

It is simply not biblical enough to say, “Oh, of course we deal with suffering,” and then to “deal with it” simply by exhortation to moral behavior. Such is not a comprehensive, compassionate, biblical, historical shepherding response.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In subsequent posts, we’ll consider why, though acknowledging suffering, it became an underdeveloped element of biblical counseling, and why such counseling became private preaching with a moralistic, non-relational, directive bent.

Theological perspectives, personality issues, preaching training, and views of the image of God all combined with the historical setting to “set up” early biblical counseling for movement away from the Church’s historic practice and the Bible’s comprehensive focus on both sustaining and healing for suffering and reconciling and guiding for sinning.

Recently Moody Press released Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. The “Emergent Church” (EC) is a name given to a loosely knit “group” of Christians who see the church emerging out of its tryst with modernism and emerging into and beyond the post-modern era. Because of its very post-modern way of thinking/being, definitions become nebulous. If you want to learn more, read the book. I highly recommend it.

Salvation and Eternal Life

My thoughts today relate to one aspect of emergent thinking: salvation and eternal life. As is true with much in the EC, they tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Listen to what one EC leader, Spencer Brooks, says about salvation. “I am discovering to my wonder, joy, and amazement that I have mistakenly placed the emphasis of the good news on the eternal. In the Gospels . . . people could become a part of the Kingdom of God . . . not a heavenly dwelling but the place where God is King.”

Let that quote percolate in your mind while we read what another EC leader, Brian McLaren, shares about the kingdom versus salvation. He claims that the stuff of our evangelistic tracts—“God’s grace, God’s forgiveness . . . the free gift of salvation”—is, at best, only a “footnote to a gospel that is much richer, grander, and more alive, a gospel that calls you to become a disciple and to disciple others, in authentic community, for the good of the world.”

Come Let Us Dialogue Together

I could dissect these quotes (excuse me, in the EC, people don’t dissect, they dialogue and converse—so I could converse about these quotes) from many perspectives. However, given my passion for church history and given the EC’s hatred for modernity, here’s the point. The EC would have us believe that the church’s focus on salvation as something you get in the future rather than as something you are now is a result of Enlightenment modernism.

I have news for them . . . long before the Enlightenment, Christians focused on both—salvation as a future gift and as a present reality. Again, I could share much more about this both/and focus. But since the EC denigrates the focus on salvation-equals-eternal life, and since they claim this is a thoroughly modern facet of Christianity (and, therefore, evil to its core—bad, really, really bad), dialogue with me as we briefly focus on their historical fallacy.

Historical Fallacy

As many of you know, I have studied church history for over a quarter century. The church fathers, the desert mothers, the medieval scholastics and the medieval mystics, the Reformers and the Counter-Reformers, men and women, black and white and brown all lived today in light of tomorrow. They all emphasized salvation as the future hope that sustains us now. Yes, the Kingdom had already broken in. Yes, they wanted to live differently now. But, they only survived and thrived because they remembered the future—salvation as their future, eternal hope.

Writing Sacred Friendships: Listening to the Voices of Feminine Soul Care-Givers and Spiritual Directors, my co-author, Susan Ellis, and I have over 1,000 pages of research notes. More than 1/3 of those pages highlight salvation as our future, eternal, heavenly hope. Now, it is possible, I suppose, that all of these godly women, living pre-Enlightenment, could have all gotten it wrong all the time. But that’s not really the point. The EC folks insist that salvation as eternal life later and not only or primarily as eternal life now, is modern. That is, it started in the 1700s with the Enlightenment.

Hmm. Someone should tell the female martyrs of the first and second centuries, like Perpetua, that they were impacted by a movement that did not start for another 1,500 years! Someone should tell the desert mothers of the second through fourth centuries that they were influenced by a movement that did not start for another 1,300 years! Someone should tell the women of the Reformation that they were infected by a movement that did not start for another 100 years!

Before we contextualize the nature of these women’s eternal hope, dialogue with me about another group of historical believers who also focused on salvation as eternal hope. Many of you know that I co-authored with my African American friend, Karole Edwards, Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction. Granted, some of these African American believers lived after the Enlightenment (though some lived before it). However, historically there is no evidence that enslaved African American Christians had any exposure to Enlightenment thinking. But guess what? These non-Enlightenment African American believers highlighted salvation as a future eternal hope.

Situational Pomposity

Now, let’s contextualize this motif of salvation as future eternal hope. In letter after letter, in journal entry after journal entry, in martyrdom report after report, in repeated conversion narratives, in repeated slave narratives—in other words—everywhere, suffering women and African Americans looked to their future eternal salvation as their only hope to survive and be sustained through the horrible abuse they were enduring.

Now, here’s the point. The leadership of the Emergent Church is predominantly lily white, upper class, affluent, well-to-do, country-club-like, and male. In terms of their experience of life, they have had it made in the shade. They have lived the good life. So, it is so easy for them to say, “Thinking about salvation as future eternal life is selfish, shallow, and modern!”

Well, historically it is hardly modern.

And personally, experientially—it is hardly shallow.

Instead, for the oppressed, the suffering, and the persecuted it is pre-modern and it is deep. It reaches from before the dawn of time into time to give all those who are currently oppressed a future hope so they can draw a line in the sand of retreat, so they can survive, and, yes, through Christ’s grace, so they can thrive.

Biblical Sanity

Eternal life for the great masses of persecuted and suffering Christians has always been both/and. It has always been salvation later and the strength to live for Christ now in light of the future hope.

Isn’t it fascinating that this emergent idea of salvation only as a now thing did not emerge from an oppressed people. It is easy for those living a life of ease to say that “the free gift of salvation” is only “a footnote to a gospel that is much richer.” Oh yeah? Take some time to read the plethora of primary sources where pre-modern, non-Enlightenment Christians clung to the biblical view of salvation as an eternal future that gives hope for today.

So perhaps when you mix one part life-of-ease and one part historical-inaccuracy (and one part diminishing-original-sin . . . but that’s a blog for another day) you bake a fluffy cake that claims it is sinfully modern and shallow to emphasize the Gospel as focusing on eternal salvation later. But let the yeast of suffering and history infiltrate that mix, and your cake crumbles.

Applying Church History to Ministry

What has motivated my twenty-five-year study of church history? My passion for relating truth to life. I want to learn from that great cloud of witnesses how they applied God’s truth to human relationships.

Guess what? With suffering people 100% of the time soul physicians helped them to find healing hope by looking candidly at misery now in light of a future where there will be no more tears.

The EC in all things claims to want to be relevant. Relevance has been elevated by the EC to God-like status.

Okay, someone explain to me how in the world it is relevant to suffering people to jettison an other-worldly, future-worldly perspective?

The EC also claims that in all things they want to express concern for the least of these. In fact, they correctly define one aspect of kingdom living as active compassion on the least of these.

Okay, someone explain to me how in the world it is compassionate when the “most of these” (the affluent) jettison an other-worldly, future-worldly perspective that for 2,000 years has been the only perspective which has brought sustaining comfort and healing hope to “the least of these”?

Truth Really Does Matter

You see, truth really does matter. Historical truth matters. Biblical truth matters. I have no qualms with the EC folks reminding me that salvation ought to impact how I live today. I agree 100%.

But I have big problems with anyone telling me, and telling suffering Christians that our future salvation, our eternal life are the crumbs off the table. I’m sorry, but those “crumbs” have nourished hurting hearts and hungry souls since the Cross.

Take away “God’s grace, God’s forgiveness, and the free gift of salvation” and you rob and abuse every sinner who ever lived—which is every person who ever lived except our Savior—the one who promised us eternal life for now and for forever.

Those who read my Blog and my books know my conviction that history is relevant today. Even more, they/you know my conviction that the history of spiritual care is relevant to how we relate to one another today.

Today, I’m going to prove it.

The Bears’ Crisis

Most of my readers will be unaware of the “crisis” with the Chicago Bears’ football team brought on by one of their best players, Tank Johnson. A week ago, police raided Johnson’s home, finding a cache of firearms. Booked and released on bond, he awaits a trial. It is America: Johnson is innocent until proven guilty/convicted in a court of law.

Problems mounted and tragedy ensued two days later when Johnson’s body guard was murdered in a shooting at a local Chicago bar.

You ask, “How in the world does this relate to the history of soul care???”

Keep reading.

Tanking Tank?

The debate in Chicago sports pages now is whether or not Tank should be tanked by the Bears. Some say that the Bears should get Tank some help and get him back on the team. Others say that the Bears are embarrassing (emBEARrassing, perhaps?) themselves by keeping him around.

In fact, ever-bitter and biting Chicago Tribune columnist, Rick Morrissey, lampoons the Bears and questions the integrity of their head coach (Lovie Smith) and general manager (Jerry Angelo). Here’s what Morrissey has to say:

“I’d like to say Tank Johnson should have been sent packing by now, but I’m afraid he would take that to mean he should pack some heat. Why Johnson isn’t already a former Bear is a complete mystery, unless it’s that the organization likes being embarrassed, disrespected or played for a fool by its players. Or unless it’s that coach Lovie Smith has sold his soul for a chance to win a Super Bowl. . . . If Smith is concerned the rest of the team will think he has deserted Johnson if he waives him, then he has no concept of right and wrong. He should be very concerned right now that his team and his city believe he has no spine. If Johnson does play again this season, it will show exactly how far Smith will go to win games. . . . I see an opportunity for Smith and general manager Jerry Angelo to show they have trace levels of principles” (Chicago Tribune, http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-061216morrissey,1,3518618.column?coll=cs-bears-headlines accessed December 19, 2006).

Don’t get me started on the arrogance of Morrissey daring to question whether Smith has “trace levels of principles.” And don’t get me started on Morrissey totally misunderstanding the little matter of Unions, Contracts, and Procedures, not to mention that little issue of “innocent until proven guilty.” Because, moving in those directions would move this Blog to the Sports’ page and off the “Truth for Life” Blog page.

How History Replies to Tank’s Story

But do get me started thinking with you about how the history of soul care and spiritual direction might offer some guidance in this debate over how a team (organization, family, friends) might want to respond to an issue like this.

Those who would follow only the soul care (sustaining and healing) side of historic spiritual care, would insists that Tank Johnson should not be tanked. He should be cuddled, coddled, encouraged, grieved with, and rehabilitated.

Those who would follow only the spiritual direction (reconciling and guiding) side of historic spiritual care, would, like Morrissey, call for Tank’s instant removal from the team. He should be confronted, busted, exposed, exhorted, and released.

However, those who follow both the soul care and the spiritual direction side of historic spiritual car, would, like Lovie Smith and Jerry Angelo, attempt to sustain, heal, reconcile, and guide Tank Johnson. They, like Tank’s friends on the Bears, are grieving with Johnson over the death of his friend. They are recognizing also that they have a social, family, organizational responsibility to “get Tank help.” They are not “winking at his problems” nor “excusing his sins.” However, they see him as a human being who is messed up and causing messes and needs healing.

At the same time, people like Lovie Smith, Jerry Angelo, and Johnson’s Bears’ teammates, also understand that Johnson needs to be disciplined. And, he has been. He has been deactivated from his livelihood. Further discipline, within the confines of NFL Union contractual obligations, are being discussed and considered. He certainly is being confronted, both publicly and privately. He is also being guided; he is being given the sort of counsel, direction, and advice necessary to clean up his life. He has been told in no uncertain terms what right behavior and wrong behavior is in his specific situation. The law has been laid down; he has been told what is acceptable and unacceptable activity.

I am not an apologist for the Chicago Bears’ organization, nor for Lovie Smith or Jerry Angelo. That’s not my point. Nor am I claiming that they are somehow consciously following historic sustaining, healing, reconciling, and guiding. Of course not.

I am saying, that we can map their response, and the responses suggested by others, such as the serpent-tongued Morrissey, using the GPS of sustaining, healing, reconciling, and guiding.

Every encounter with another human being involves some combination of sustaining, healing, reconciling, and guiding. The question always is, “What is the most effective combination and implementation of each in a given situation?”

Yep, Tank Johnson and the Church Fathers do relate. Yep, history is relevant today. Yep, the history of soul care and spiritual direction do help us to make wise people decisions today.

Tags: Biblical Counseling, Christian Counseling, Church, Discipleship, Equipping, Kellemen, Ministry, Pastors, RPM Ministries, Soul Care, Spiritual Direction, Spiritual Formation