Is Biblical Counseling At SBTS Biblical?
Is `Biblical Counseling` At SBTS Biblical?
By Keith Herron, Senior Pastor
Holmeswood Baptist Church,
There`s an old joke told among therapists that asks the question: "Why are there so many different psychological theories?" The answer: "It gives the therapist something to think about when the client is talking."
If that`s so, what do biblical counselors think about?
In February 2005, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary issued a press release stating their plan to alter its historic pastoral counseling program to "a more biblical counseling approach." This is a radical revision of the curriculum approach developed by Wayne Oates who taught there in the formative years of the emergence of pastoral counseling. More than that, the seminary has turned its back on a body of knowledge they claim was overly dependent upon science and not inclusive enough of biblical faith. In typical reductionistic style, they have reduced pastoral care and counseling to Freudian psychotherapy with no apparent understanding that pastoral counseling includes biblical faith in its understanding of the human condition.
The decision to change reflects Southern`s desire to make counseling a skill available to all pastors and not limited to what they call "the therapeutic guild." In short, the school will no longer prepare counselors for a serious practice of pastoral counseling that meets the credentialing process of state licensure. Instead, they claim to be preparing pastors "to help people conform all of their thoughts and behaviors to the authority of God`s Word."[1] By doing so, they remove themselves from such scrutiny and deepening the division between themselves and other bodies of knowledge and dialogue.
The leadership at Southern is clear: They are dumping the Oates approach in order to recover a sense of pastoral care based exclusively on the biblical text and differentiated from the psychotherapeutic model as it is widely taught. They claim psychotherapy is not a single scientific understanding of personality and is often contradictory and incoherent.[2]
The response to these claims of biblical purity for the healing process are countered by those who contend that Southern has created a false dichotomy between faith and science when they work collaboratively in the traditional pastoral care model as understood by Wayne Oates. According to Wade Rowatt, the effect of this dichotomy is to imply that pastoral care and counseling is not and has not been biblical.[3]
This decision sharpens the focus for the initial question: "How does biblical counseling differ from traditional pastoral counseling?" More importantly, the initial question gives way to the larger concern of whether this model of pastoral care and counseling is adequate in the face of such depths of pain, confusion and conflict. Can biblical counseling as described by the leaders at Southern Seminary be considered helpful or healing? Or is it instead counter-productive or even dangerous to the one in need?
Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at Southern, claims Southern is honoring its commitment to Sola Scriptura, the notion that only the scriptures are authoritative as a resource for counseling. Scripture claims its own authority in "all things that pertain to life and godliness." Through the oracles of God the man of God is "competent, equipped for every good work."
Critics hear this and wonder how one can simply ignore vast arenas of knowledge not included in the ancient texts. Vicki Hollon, the Executive Director of the OatesCenter responds, "They have created a proverbial straw man and their movement away from science reveals a lack of faith, or at least a fear that somehow science is outside the realm of God`s creation and domain."[4]
One may wonder how the Sola Scriptura viewpoint is sustained in the face of such daunting psychological needs as Bi-Polar Personality Disorder, Schizophrenia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and multitudes of other serious psychological conditions. One may further speculate about the terms used in diagnosis if the field of study currently taught is not included in the training of biblical counselors. How would a biblical counselor dialogue with a pastoral counselor if Sola Scriptura is the boundary of knowledge and all other sources of knowledge are disregarded?
The curriculum created by Wayne Oates trains pastoral counselors to combine the historical traditions and beliefs of the Christian faith with the widely varying tools of psychology that analyzes the human personality. In the new system displacing the Oates curriculum, will the story of Jesus and the demoniac be text enough to sustain them without causing undue harm to the one presenting themselves for help?
Southern Seminary`s decision was prompted by the notion that much of what causes persons to seek counseling from their pastor is due to the prevalence of sin. They contend that only the Bible adequately grapples with the problem of evil.
Most pastoral counselors would agree that human choice (the evidence of sin`s effects) is a major issue that must be considered in pastoral counseling. But to attribute every presenting issue of persons who come for counseling to sin is problematic for counseling. Pastoral counselors must learn to listen intently to the counselee before labeling someone`s concern as evidence of the presence of sin. Is depression the result of sin? Is it conceivable that anxiety disorders are the result of some poor choice or the presence of evil or is there some other attributive cause other than sin? Is the theological notion of sin adequate in explaining complex structures of the personality often governed by brain chemistry or traumatic events in childhood or familial or societal experiences?
What about the world of other needs pastoral counselors may face? Is it rational to think that sin is the causative factor for all of them? If the counselor is limited to Sola Scriptura, how much help can honestly be offered? Surely the counselor will be tested to find sin in every counseling relationship.
The cultural oddity of Southern`s decision is most pronounced when considering the fundamentalist position of gender hierarchy based on the Bible. The new program will teach women to counsel other women because of the emphasis on the Titus 2 teachings on the gender roles of men and women. Consequently, Southern has extended a strict patriarchalism as demonstrated in the radical teachings of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (housed on the Southern campus) to the new counseling program. Randy Stinson, Executive Director of the CBMW, has been rehired by Southern as Assistant Professor of Gender and Family Studies for the newly adopted Biblical Counseling Program.
Southern Seminary admits they will seek out women as candidates for this program but suggest it will be for the purpose of counseling women. If only men are qualified to be pastors, does this imply they cannot counsel women but must have a woman counselor on staff to handle this indelicate job? As an aside, who will train the women who will teach women to counsel women?
Professor Sam Williams further argues, "Christians should engage in a serious study of God`s emotions in Scripture and develop `a theology of emotion.`" In that study, one will reportedly discover and emulate God`s thoughts as one`s own. "Good theology should lead us not only to think God`s thoughts after him but also to feel God`s feelings after him," says Professor Williams.
Apart from the speculation of who can know for certain what God`s emotions might be, how is this useful for the one in pain? Should one be instructed how to feel in response to their problematic circumstances? Is this emphasis an interest in controlling emotions rather than dealing constructively with the causes for the feelings being honestly experienced?
Dealing with emotions can be helpful in a therapeutic relationship, but should one be instructed how and what to feel by the counselor or should the emotions be a trail followed to discover the sources of pain or frustration?
"The care of souls" has been a guiding image for the work of ministry that occurs in a counseling relationship between counselor and client. Additionally, the counselor is guided by ancient tradition that implores the counselor to "do no harm." That is, the counselor should offer a level of help that is professional and informed to the best abilities the counselor can bring to serve the one in need.
Apparent in this decision is the presumption that the field of pastoral counseling is biblically faulted and counter-productive to the will of God. The chosen course correction at Southern Seminary is to dump the old curriculum that is based on a blend of the fields of psychology and pastoral and biblical theology.
Has the person in need been well served by this decision? When the counselor ignores vast bodies of knowledge and experience, has the person in need been adequately helped? Must the Bible always stand in opposition to other truths or can a mutually respectful dialogue be discovered that can elevate the truth found in both?
In summary, the extension of the fundamentalist agenda to reshape the entirety of Baptist thought has reached the counseling ministry of the church. Southern Seminary`s response is more akin to the proverbial ostrich sticking its head in the sand of human need rather than facing the depths of struggle that many persons endure. The compelling ethical need to "do no harm" is at best naïvely ignored. Those who seek out the healing of God for the mental and psychological ills that plague them will ultimately find little help and possibly more confusion to the chaos they are already suffering.
An inherent danger of "doing harm" in the name of a blind Biblicism makes this announcement doubly-dangerous. Innocent persons seeking a counselor who will include the rich resources of biblical faith can be victimized by a blind faith that intentionally severs itself from the resources of a long tradition of caring for persons utilizing the tools of pastoral care and counseling.
A tool is only as effective as the one using it. Southern Seminary`s withdrawal from the training of ministers who can effectively use such pastoral resources seems silly in light of what`s tragically forsaken and what`s piously gained.
Footnotes
[1] David Roach quoting Stephen Wellum, "Biblical View of Counseling Examined in Theology Journal," Baptist Press, 2/26/04
[2] David Winfrey quoting Russell Moore, "Southern Seminary Nixes Pioneering Curriculum for `Biblical Counseling,`" Associated Baptist Press, 2/22/05
[3] Winfrey quoting Wade Rowatt, ABP, 2/22/05
[4] Winfrey quoting Vicki Hollon, ABP, 2/22/05
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
