Note: I started to delete this post. It just seemed like too much of a rant. I’m not comfortable ranting (at least in public). Over the years, when people find out I’m Christian counselor, I’ve been accused of: 1) not being a real Christian, 2) not being a real counselor, 3) in general, just getting it all wrong. So when I found a post from someone who’s writing I’ve come to respect praising a group of people (nouthetic counselors) who don’t respect the work I do, I reacted. Anyway, here it is…
Jollyblogger (David Wayne) writes about Christian counseling from one particular point of view: nouthetic counseling. He starts off talking about Jay Adams and Competent to Counsel and then moves on to the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF).
I am actually a fan of Adams. I read Competent to Counsel in high school in the 70′s and it help shape my desire to go into the counseling field. But I can’t really call myself a nouthetic counselor: it just seems too simplistic. I will admit I have only a passing familiarity with the folks at CCEF, having read some journal articles over the years. Looks like I have more reading to do.
It’s not just that the approach appears simplistic (“Take two bible verses and call me in the morning.”), but my encounters with nouthetic counselors have been quite negative; I have been on the receiving end of antagonism and judgment simply for introducing myself. (I think I’m a nice guy. I usually ask that you get to know me before you decide you don’t like me.)
I do like to pay attention to criticism, no matter how rudely delivered. I never know when the critics might actually be right. Below is an excerpt of a “pledge” one nouthetic counselor in my area has on his promotional materials. Maybe it’s me, but I think the implication is that other “so-called Christian counselors” (like me) are guilty of doing the things he pledges not to do.
“We shall provide Christian counseling without the psycho-heresies, psycho-babble, drug abuse, and unbiblical methods some therapists use.”
Boy, it’s hard to argue with that. I can’t imagine anyone intentionally deciding to use psycho-heresies or psycho-babble. Drug abuse? I’m not in favor of it. Unbiblical? Aye, there’s the rub. Who gets to define “unbiblical methods”. I think my methods are centered in bibical principles but I never get the opportunity to explain my positions (remember the instant antagonism mentioned above?).
It seem to me the very fact I studied psychology at a state university (never mind that I also went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary… at the time the most conservative of the six Baptist seminaries) and am licensed by the state automatically puts me in the heretic/unbiblical category.
“We shall do our best to keep your church members in your church.”
That goes with out saying. (Unless your church includes a bunker and cache of automatic weapons.)
“We shall keep client information confidential.”
Doesn’t everyone?
“We shall promote Jesus Christ as the Great Counselor and His Infallible Bible, as our main resource.”
Again, I think even those of us who are “integrationists” promote Jesus as The Counselor.
“We shall provide counseling as a ministry service to area churches, pastors and their members as inexpensively as possible, not fleecing the churches, members, state, nor insurance companies.”
I find this the most offensive of all the “pledges”. This one’s not just my imagination: the implication is clear that anyone not providing “free” counseling is fleecing people and churches as well as committing insurance fraud.
I used to get angry when pastors would “confront” me about charging for counseling when nouthetic counselors would provide it for free. Then I moved through a phase where I would give an Economics 101 lecture: nothing is free. You give me office space, support staff, and “monthly support” and I won’t charge your church members either.
Now, I just smile and tell them I’ll provide free counseling for their congregation when they move out of the parsonage and give up their salary. (So far, no one has taken me up on that.)
“We shall not needlessly prolong the number of sessions nor do we recommend drugs.”
“Needlessly prolong(ing)” sessions is a legitimate complaint for some counselors.
Never recommending medication? I could respect this more if they never took or recommended any medication. But the idea that it’s okay to take medications for some problems but immoral or unbiblical to take med’s for other (psychiatric) problems is either hypocrisy or ignorance.
“We shall strive never to undermine your church’s doctrinal beliefs.”
I have every reason to believe the individual who wrote these pledges keeps this promise. Some nouthetic counselors I have met would have to amend the pledge to read “…never to undermine those doctrinal beliefs that are correct and biblical.” and of course, they get to be the ones in charge of defining “correct”.
“We shall insure that our counselors are seminary trained.”
Good! Do they also have some kind of training in differential diagnosis? Or, crisis management? Or, in recognizing signs and symptoms of depression or child abuse?
“We shall work with your church and pastor in every way possible.”
Again, Good!
“We shall give God the glory for all success.”
As He should have. (Although, I did once joke with a pychiatrist friend of mine that when our mutual clients get better it’s because I’m brilliant… and when they don’t it’s because he messed up the medications.)
To be fair, I’ve only met a handful of nouthetic counselors. I realize I’m painting with broad brushstrokes. But, and this is a key point, I still don’t know what these guys (above)believe! This particular group has been to seminary (so have I), give God the glory (so do I), and are not con-men out to fleece the church (neither am I). About the only difference I can find is I believe medication might be helpful while they appear to believe any psychotropic medication is abuse.
I began by saying I’m a fan of Jay Adams. I am. I also believe in Larry Crabb’s concept of “spoiling the Egyptians”. That is, while I start with a biblical, Adamesque approach, I’m also willing to take from the behavioral sciences those things that work. Integrating psychology and theology with the understanding that in the event of a conflict, theology always wins out.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
This is an enlightening article for me. I have been up against the wall with counselors at a church I formerly attended. Yes I have my self sinned. The only problem is, as mentioned above the counselors get to decide what is biblical and what is not. In my case I have a cheating spouse. I have biblical grounds for divorce. However because my soon to be ex does not want to be divorced the counselors and the church will not support me. It gets better. Not only will they not support me but they feel it is their biblical right as the heads of the church to do what ever is necessary to make my life more difficult, unless I forgive her and reconcile. Even to the extent of making lies by omission and false truths to benefit my stb ex-wifes position. You see I truely am in a tight spot when a man cannot devorce an unfaithful spouse even though the bible states unfaithfulness as an exception. How do we combat this sort of poor counseling? How can we combat this sort of injustice? My family and friends know the truth. The church knows the truth and yet they feel they have the right to make false accusations based on heresay. Please help me if you can. Their statements may cause me to loose share custody with my children, and I am not to blame for the situation. I am just a father who loves his kids and needed to stand up for himself. Thanks JD
J: I obviously don’t have enough information in a blog comment to make a really informed response. But let me say three things.
First, if your wife is no longer cheating, wants to reconcile, and is willing to work on having a truly great marriage, why wouldn’t you want to stay married?
Second, re: the church leadership acting on half-truths and only one side of the story. The only way I know to combat that is with direct confrontation; gently pointing out the error in deciding before they have all the facts and then telling your side of the story.
Finally, I don’t know where you live or what the local family court Judges are like, but no Judge I know would allow third party hearsay to influence custody decisions.