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.