Is the Bible Sufficient for the Work of Counseling?

Author: Jeremy Lelek

                                                                                 The Sufficiency Debate
Biblical counseling is currently going through a very interesting phase. Whereas historically, the distinction between biblical counseling and Christian counseling has been quite apparent, recent trends have begun to blur the once prominent differences between the two camps. Progressive models are being developed in which a redefining of biblical counseling has been proposed (Johnson, 2007; Jones, 2006). While this author is thankful that various scholars who embrace an integrated view of counseling are seeking to develop models that emphasize the Bible exceedingly more than historical Christian counseling approaches, it is still worthy to bring clarity to the various nuances that continue to exist between the two views. Arguably one of the most prominent areas of debate currently resides in whether or not the Bible is truly a sufficient source from which to develop one’s counseling worldview and methods. The following article will not examine both sides of the issue, rather it will offer a cursory analysis of why the Bible should indeed be considered sufficient for the work of counseling.
                                                                                    Is the Bible Silent?
To begin, it is important to examine whether or not the Bible is even a viable resource for understanding the human psyche (or soul). The classical premise of biblical counseling is that the Bible is sufficient to address any counseling issue with which a counselor or pastor may be faced. With all of the sophisticated diagnoses and theories that abound, many claim that such an assertion is far overreaching. A common argument often offered against the efficacy of the Bible for the work of counseling is that it does not mention modern diagnoses such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Major Depressive Episode, Tichotillomania, Encopresis, Borderline Personality Disorder, or Exhibitionism (APA, 2000). Others cite the fact that the Scriptures are silent on essential theoretical ideas such as repression, reaction formation, cognitive dissonance, unconditional positive regard, the identified patient, operant conditioning, neurological synapses, cognitive schemas, the id, ego, the superego, or Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The argument that emerges, therefore, is that with such a seeming shortage of data in Scripture as it pertains to the field of psychology and counseling how can one honestly conclude that the Bible is sufficient? To answer this question, it is important to go to the very source from which the sufficiency assertion is drawn, namely the Bible itself.
                                                                              Is The Bible Sufficient?
Paul instructed Timothy, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (I Timothy 3:16-17, ESV). The writer of Hebrews adds, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Paul is making the claim here that the Bible is indeed sufficient to make the man of God “competent” and “equipped for every good work”. He makes this claim citing those components in which the Bible makes one competent: “teaching”, “reproof”, “correction”, and “training in righteousness”, all essential components of the process of Christian counseling. Additionally, the writer of Hebrews points out the living nature of God’s Word and the capacity of Scripture to completely understand the heart (or psyche) of human beings. A brief overview of Scripture quickly reveals that it does indeed comprehend the details of human behavior and motivation as well as the complexities that often arise within relationships (Matthew 6:24; Romans 7-8; Ephesians 5: 22-33; Colossians 3:5; James 4:1-4;). Therefore, it appears rational to make the claim that if one begins with the Bible alone as the basis of his or her presuppositions of psychology, that the divine Scriptures may certainly be considered enough to make one competent to counsel (Adams, 1970; I Timothy 3:16-17). Of course, it is important to recognize that defining competence according to biblical criteria may not produce a construct that correlates completely the professional establishment’s definition of competence. This is actually expected since the antecedents of current models were not developed with the intent of defining competence from a biblical point of view. By this it is meant that the presuppositions drawn from the Bible, and upon which biblical counseling rests, may shape the idea of competence quite differently than that which has been proposed by secular professionals.
                                                                               Defining “Competence”
So, what may be considered competence in the realm of biblical counseling? Certainly, it would merit greater scholars than this author to propose a comprehensive definition of competence. However a simple observation may serve to illustrate the fact that depending on the presuppositions to which one holds, the concept of competence in counseling may vary.
For example, one of the arguments against the “sufficiency view” of counseling is that the Bible does not mention many of the diagnoses cited in the American Psychiatric Association’s (2000) diagnostic manual. Therefore the Bible cannot be sufficient. But that conclusion depends on one’s criteria for defining competence. If understanding psychiatric diagnoses is considered a necessary criterion for developing one’s definition of competence in counseling then competence by using Scripture alone does appear absurd, since modern terms of “psychopathology” are missing from its pages. In one sense, this assertion is correct, but only in the fact that the Bible does not address any of the modern diagnostic constructs developed and cited by the APA as they are stated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR (APA, 2000). However, a biblical perspective of counseling does not, by necessity, have to utilize such constructs in order to develop a comprehensive (and effective) approach to the counseling process.
To understand this more clearly, it may be helpful to view the two books (the DSM-IV-TR and the Bible) as separate lenses that serve to interpret the data being observed by a counselor. For example, when a counselor views behavioral symptoms through the lens of the DSM-IV-TR, the concept of the problem and even the language describing the symptoms is profoundly influenced. The counselor may conceptualize a particular counselee’s behaviors as elevated, expansive, irritable, inflated self-esteem, grandiosity, racing thoughts, distractibility, and excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have potential for painful consequences (e.g. engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments) (APA, 2000). By using the DSM-IV-TR as his or her criteria for understanding, the counselor may conclude that the person is experiencing a “manic episode”. The treatment methods, as a result, would likely revolve around addressing what is known in psychiatry as “Bipolar Disorder” (APA, 2000).
On the other hand, the biblical counselor may view the very same behaviors through the lens of the Bible, and conceptualize them quite differently. As in the previous case, the lens (the Bible) will sharply influence the language and the conceptualization of the “diagnosis”. The behaviors viewed through this lens might be understood as anger, fits of rage, anxiety, selfish ambition, pride, fear, lack of self-control, drunkenness, sexual immorality, adultery, foolishness, folly, and idolatry. The ensuing methods of addressing these issues, and even the very goals of the counseling process would be shaped by biblical constructs (i.e., sovereignty, the Gospel, sanctification, grace, etc.), and would not necessitate the utilization of psychiatric labels or descriptors. Additionally, whereas the DSM-IV-TR would conceptualize the etiology (or cause) of these symptoms as primarily physiological or social, the Bible would conceptualize them primarily as spiritual. This emphasis would not ignore organic or relational influences, but would focus primarily on the origin of such “symptomology” as cited by Jesus in Matthew 15:19, namely the heart.
As such, the lens through which a counselor interprets behavior makes all the difference (the lens may be the DSM-IV-TR, but may also apply to such theoretical models such as Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Reality Therapy). The final result is that varying conclusions are made as to the nature and origin of the problem as well what is considered necessary to address it. The frame of reference (i.e., the Bible, the DSM-IV-R, or other models) shapes and interprets the symptoms being evaluated. Therefore, if the Bible is viewed as a valid lens for such work, and one’s presuppositions of human functioning originate from the Bible, then as far as competence goes, it could actually be debated that the one utilizing the DSM-IV-R alone for assessing an individual lacks the data necessary to offer competent counsel from a biblical worldview. Especially since the APA’s diagnostic manual is silent as it pertains to spiritual issues. The idea of “competence” depends upon the frame of reference from which the counselor is operating. If one views the problem from a biblical perspective, then the medical model becomes insufficient to offer a genuine cure. It all depends on which lens the counselor chooses to utilize as his or her primary guide. Competence is an important issue to consider as it regards the sufficiency of Scripture because it appears to this author an important variable to practically reinforce the presupposition of the Bible’s sufficiency for the work of counseling.
                                                                                    Concluding Thoughts
From this analogy, the necessity of understanding the psychiatric label of Bipolar Disorder diminishes. As illustrated, the Bible speaks to every symptom associated with this diagnostic term, but the categories and descriptions are very different. One example of that difference is that the Bible emphasizes the heart over physiology. That is not to say that a mind/body relationship is non-existent, but for the biblical counselor, the responsibility of tracing verifiable organic problems should be left to the medical professional. Biblical counseling does not hold as its goal to cure “Bipolar Disorder” (the label itself an abstraction), but seeks to find cure for the soul (thinking, believing, desiring, perceiving, feeling, behaving, etc.) through the person of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh (John 1:1).
This simple illustration illuminates the fact that the Bible alone is a potent source for understanding human beings. The overarching questions of psychology such as “Who is Man”, “Why does he do the things he does”, “What motivates him”, “What are the goals of change”, “What are the methods of change”, and “What is the origin of the problem” are all answered in its pages. As a result, from this author’s perspective, the need to harvest from secular models is unnecessary. Furthermore, essential constructs for biblical change are glaringly absent in the secular literature: constructs such as sovereignty, depravity, grace, sin, sanctification, worship, idolatry, salvation, and conformity to Christ, making secular models profoundly anemic in truly understanding man and the essentials of true human change and healing. Such a claim exposes the reality that to operate from the vantage point that the Bible is sufficient for counseling is to operate from a paradigm that completely reorients the entire process of counseling. From epistemology (Scripture or empiricism) to methodology from conceptualization to purpose, the sufficiency model of counseling is quite distinct and robust in its approach. Current arguments that cite biblical counseling’s lack of empirical data as a means to oppose this approach is to overlook this stark reality. The very construct of “sufficiency” reveals the epistemology of biblical counseling in that “knowing” truth does not depend on empiricism, but instead on the Bible (although biblical counseling would certainly encourage empirical study as a means of knowing and understanding).
                                                                                   Continuing the Dialogue
ABC has recently published several articles that have encouraged an intriguing dialogue among members as it pertains to the issue of the Bible’s sufficiency in counseling. In future editions, ABC will be publishing additional articles in which advocates on various sides will weigh in on essential issues emerging in Christian and biblical counseling (such as the sufficiency debate). This gesture is not meant to condone any other view than that to which ABC currently adheres (the sufficiency of the Bible), but is intended to sharpen critical analysis among our members who range in identity from laity to scholar. This platform will also serve as a wonderful opportunity among participants to model the person of Jesus (and spiritual maturity) as they engage in discussing vital issues with others who may hold strong opposing views. We welcome such opposing views as a means to sharpen one another for the glory of God in the pursuit of truth. Readers may join the discussion by clicking on available links at the end of each article that will connect them to a discussion board at which they will have the opportunity to post thoughts and comments. It is ABC’s hope that such an endeavor will be fruitful for all!
                                                                                             References
Adams, J. (1970). Competent to Counsel: Introduction to nouthetic counseling. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fourth Edition, Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
Fitzpatrick, E. (2001). Overcoming fear, worry, and anxiety. Eugene, OR: Harvest House.
Johnson, E. (2007). Foundations of soul care: A Christian psychology proposal.
Jones, I.F. (2006). The counsel of heaven on earth: Foundations for biblical Christian counseling. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.
The Holy Bible. (2002). English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bible.