# The "Office" of Counselor?



## Boosterseat_91 (May 20, 2013)

This was a sort of sub-question that came up in this discussion: http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/women-speaking-conference-79087/#post1000691.

My question is where do we get the idea that there should be an exclusive "office," so to speak, of a counselor? I mean, counseling requires accountability and is a form of instructive or positive discipline. This type of instruction, as far as I know, is only proper for a head to teach those under his headship. So for like marital counseling one would go to a pastor who (1) has the authority to teach and (2) can hold one accountable because he has the authority to exercise church discipline in the case of unrepentance. Nouthetic counseling (which is the only biblical type of counseling) binds a person's conscience in teaching what is lawful and what is unlawful according to Scripture. Obviously, anything that binds a person's conscience is only to be done by ordained ministers (outside of the family which the father can bind those under him) which would exclude women and even non-ordained men who don't have authority to teach.

So wouldn't counseling be considered one function of a pastor rather than an exclusive "office" in an of itself that can be held by anyone?


----------



## lynnie (May 20, 2013)

so, uh.......

.... if older women are to _teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.._ .....you don't think a woman can do that as a counselor? 

How about Romans 15:14? _I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another_. The instruct there is admonish or neuthetic counseling. 

I don't want to minimize that elders guard the flock, and they need to know that your marriage is on the rocks and you kid is suicidal and your finances are down the toilet and you are depressed or having panic attacks, etc. Yes, go to them. But please don't put everything on the pastor. We are a body, a family, one another. God works through the many membered body. I never met a pastor yet that had time to do all the counseling himself. Either folks in the congregation help with that load such as financial or premarital counseling , or it happens just with life together, or they farm it out for the heavy duty cases like PTSS.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 20, 2013)

Lynnie I understand your point that we all have duties and responsibilities to each other, but is there biblical support for an OFFICE such as "counselor"?

I say no. I say Elders and Deacons are the only two "offices" in a church.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 20, 2013)

lynnie said:


> so, uh.......
> 
> .... if older women are to _teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.._ .....you don't think a woman can do that as a counselor?
> 
> ...



Well, I believe these accounts about older women teaching younger women and the members of the body instructing one another need to be interpreted in light of the clear Scriptural teaching that only those ordained elders in the flock have the authority to bind a church member's conscience. Older women teach generally by godly example and they could only teach doctrinally according to the church's standards. But this is not the same thing as a counselor. A "marriage counselor" for instance, would be trying to resolve whatever issue there was in the couples' relationship. This would require (1) pointing out the sins that are occurring (2) giving binding teaching about how they ought to resolve that sin and (3) accountability/discipline for unrepented sins. No woman, in fact, no one but an elder can do this.

I don't see how admonishing one another is equivalent to nouthetic counseling, which again, seems to require authority to bind the consciences of those in the counseling in order to resolve the issue. That's basically saying that every church member is a nouthetic counselor which I certainly don't believe and does away with the idea of a particular counselor position anyways. I believe their should be a plurality of elders which they could divide the duties amongst so that it is not all a burden on one man.


----------



## Romans922 (May 20, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> light of the clear Scriptural teaching that only those ordained elders in the flock have the authority to bind a church member's conscience



The Lord alone is lord of the conscience. God and His Word is the only thing that can bind a man's conscience.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 20, 2013)

Romans922 said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> > light of the clear Scriptural teaching that only those ordained elders in the flock have the authority to bind a church member's conscience
> ...



I do not mean that elders can bind you to unbiblical things. But elders must bind the sheep to biblical teachings. This means if there's heresy, they suppress it or sin (which has to be defined and the elders have to bind the members to that) that needs to be disciplined, they discipline it. They cannot bind our conscience to unbiblical things or cause us to sin against our conscience. God has granted to the eldership of the church the ability to bind and loose - the keys of doctrine and discipline.


----------



## Caroline (May 20, 2013)

Okay, this is one of those threads that I don't even know what to say about. But I will say this. If any of you ever encounter a church that tells you that you can only discuss serious matters with the pastor or his buddies, and that you cannot speak to a woman about issues (even if it is a personal matter that involves sexual discussion), and that no one except the pastor can define what sin is, then please run fast and run far. Don't walk. Run.


----------



## reformedminister (May 20, 2013)




----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Caroline said:


> Okay, this is one of those threads that I don't even know what to say about. But I will say this. If any of you ever encounter a church that tells you that you can only discuss serious matters with the pastor or his buddies, and that you cannot speak to a woman about issues (even if it is a personal matter that involves sexual discussion), and that no one except the pastor can define what sin is, then please run fast and run far. Don't walk. Run.



I don't think my question is being understood correctly. Discussing a matter with other church members is one thing but receiving counsel with the expectation to implement that counsel and change the situation is another thing altogether. I am assuming that when a person seeks out a counselor, they seek them out not only to discuss matters but to get authoritative teaching on what the problem is and how to fix it and be held accountable to that. For instance, if a drunkard became a member at a church and had repented but still struggled with alcohol, I would not tell him to be a part of "alcoholics anonymous" but to get accountability from an elder. No church member can given accountability since no church member can exercise church discipline when that sin is taken up again. This is the reformed Presbyterian understanding of accountability.

As Presbyterians, we believe that the elders have the authority to explicate the Word of God. Not all church members are teachers - we don't believe in the "me and my Bible" type thing. If you covenant to a church, you agree to uphold that doctrine and the matters of sin that are defined by that church will bring you under discipline should you choose to participate in them. God defines sin in His Word which is interpreted by the church leaders which is why documents such as the Westminster Standard are so important.

I have to note that I am rather surprised by the Presbyterians in this thread since all I am saying is the understanding of the Westminster Standards regarding the role of church leaders vs. church members.


----------



## Caroline (May 21, 2013)

Leah, I think we all understand the function of church discipline. I doubt any of us consider counselors to hold church office. It is just a really bizarre question and an extremely odd reasoning. People have all kinds of accountability. I have a friend who has installed software on his computer that emails his wife a copy of every website he looks at to hold him accountable for his internet use, and yet I don't think he would say that his wife is in authority over him. Accountability is often voluntary, not coerced. And people may seek counseling for a variety of reasons, even just to get some advice on difficult situations. Nor is anyone necessarily bound to follow the advice of a counselor. I sometimes ask advice of friends and then decide not to follow it if my evaluation was that it was poor advice (even well-meaning). Various pastors and elders are at varying levels of ability in counseling and may themselves need advice on certain matters.

I'm not even someone who goes to counselors myself. When I need advice on various things, I often call my pastor--he is an intelligent guy who used to be an accountant, so he can help out with a lot of things--spiritual, financial, etc. But if I need advice on editing a manuscript, I don't take it to him. Intelligent as he is, he is not an editor. The same is true of general life struggles. If I had been infertile, I doubt I would call him for advice either--that is a topic with sexual overtones, and he has nine children, so I don't think he can relate. I would ask him for prayer, but I don't think I'd ask him for advice on that. 

But the creepy thing here is that anyone would try to put sweeping restrictions on who someone can talk to. That's a primary symptom of a cult. As a general rule, it is never a good idea to go to a church that attempts to restrict who you can talk to and what you can say. Also be wary of restrictions on what you are allowed to read, and especially a general discouragement of education. Cults are always afraid of information. If the pastor is the only one who can define sin and he (and his closest associates) are the only ones to whom you may speak about any of your problems so that they can "hold you accountable"... that's just a weird situation. People have a right to seek out advice for their problems from people other than the pastor. They have a right to have friends and discuss issues with their friends. They should be able to voluntarily make themselves accountable to someone other than the pastor for various issues, if that is helpful to them. 

God's Word defines what sin is. My pastor does not. My pastor explains God's Word, and I trust him enough to generally believe him, but he is not infallible. And I say that as someone who strongly supports her pastor and believes in obedience to the pastor. But if my pastor started saying that my daughter was sinning by wearing sandals, I'd start explaining to HIM what sin is. (Not that my pastor would do that, of course--but I have attended a church in which the pastor did exactly that and more.)

I believe in church authority, but I don't think we have to ring that bell in absolutely every situation. Church leaders that have to know everybody's business all the time and refuse to let anyone get advice from any other source are poor leaders and probably not qualified to lead.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Caroline said:


> Leah, I think we all understand the function of church discipline. I doubt any of us consider counselors to hold church office. It is just a really bizarre question and an extremely odd reasoning. People have all kinds of accountability. I have a friend who has installed software on his computer that emails his wife a copy of every website he looks at to hold him accountable for his internet use, and yet I don't think he would say that his wife is in authority over him. Accountability is often voluntary, not coerced. And people may seek counseling for a variety of reasons, even just to get some advice on difficult situations. Nor is anyone necessarily bound to follow the advice of a counselor. I sometimes ask advice of friends and then decide not to follow it if my evaluation was that it was poor advice (even well-meaning). Various pastors and elders are at varying levels of ability in counseling and may themselves need advice on certain matters.
> 
> I'm not even someone who goes to counselors myself. When I need advice on various things, I often call my pastor--he is an intelligent guy who used to be an accountant, so he can help out with a lot of things--spiritual, financial, etc. But if I need advice on editing a manuscript, I don't take it to him. Intelligent as he is, he is not an editor. The same is true of general life struggles. If I had been infertile, I doubt I would call him for advice either--that is a topic with sexual overtones, and he has nine children, so I don't think he can relate. I would ask him for prayer, but I don't think I'd ask him for advice on that.
> 
> ...



I think the only reason you find this question odd is because you do not accept the Presbyterian understanding of accountability and church leadership. If a church document defines singing hymns during the worship service as a sin, then you would be disciplined for singing hymns during a worship service. If the church does not, then you would not be disciplined for it. While I believe Scripture teaches it is a sin, yet I have no authority to discipline anyone in my church for it and since my denomination has left it up to each church leader to decide, my church leaders have decided that hymns are ok and therefore would not discipline those who sing hymns in worship. This is what I mean the churches must define what sin is. Absolutely the Bible is the sole authority on what sin is - but Scripture must be interpreted and that authority is given to the church leaders. Plurality of elders and the accountability they have amongst themselves and the people above them in the presbytery and general assembly prevents abuses. But ultimately if you're at a church and you talk to a pastor about an issue that that church says is sinful and you believe it not to be or vica verca, you have to submit to it regardless in your vows of church membership, accept that you will be disciplined for disobeying it, or leave that church. Submitting to it doesn't mean compromising your views - for example, I stand with the congregation but do not sing along with the hymns which is fine because I am not creating a disruption in church and not violating my conscience.

Any counseling that involves matters of sin I think should only be taken up by a pastor. Accountability does require someone to have authority over you because if that sin entraps that person again, then the person he is held accountable to needs to have the biblical means to bring him back to repentance which is church discipline which can only be done by church elders. For instance, I cannot hold my husband accountable to not looking at p0rnography - I can encourage him not to do it and observe if he does, but there's nothing I can do if he falls back into that sin. Forgiveness cannot be granted without repentance - that would be very unloving. Love would take up biblical means so that that person would be lead to repentance. The idea that church members can hold one another accountable in issues of sin is a very individualistic mindset that does not fit in Presbyterian theology.

It's interesting that counselors do not hold a church office and yet as Christians, we want those counselors to have the authority to teach, hold someone accountable, and exercise discipline if necessary. Those are all functions only of the church office. So it seems it is treated as a church office, just not explicitly affirmed to be so. If a counselor only gives advice that can be rejected or accepted, then he is clearly not teaching Scripture which is the final authority on all matters and cannot be rejected. But what I'm dealing with is Christian counselors. Secular counselors are clearly unbiblical. If a Christian counselor is expected to teach Scripture and have binding authority, then, it seems we are treating it as a church office that can be held by anyone. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Caroline (May 21, 2013)

I'm afraid you do not understand the Presbyterian understanding of accountability and church leadership, Leah. I'm not going to continue to pursue an argument that is clearly futile in its persuasion. However, I would advise you to seek out a better understanding. No pastor or elder in my Presbytery would uphold the definition you give it.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Caroline said:


> I'm afraid you do not understand the Presbyterian understanding of accountability and church leadership, Leah. I'm not going to continue to pursue an argument that is clearly futile in its persuasion. However, I would advise you to seek out a better understanding. No pastor or elder in my Presbytery would uphold the definition you give it.



Ok, well that's what my Pastor taught. Dr. Kenneth Talbot in the RPCGA. This is the understanding of the Westminster Standards. Clearly you have different presuppositions which, as you state, will not allow us to agree on this issue. And that doesn't surprise me about the OPC, they tend to be weak on historic Presbyterianism.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Btw, it's not that the fact that only church leaders have authority to teach shows the "cultish" idea that is afraid of information. It's because of God's law that does not allow false teaching, heresy, and blasphemy that only those ordained are allowed to teach and bind men's conscience. It's quite ridiculous to compare this to a cult.


----------



## Caroline (May 21, 2013)

Again, Leah, please refrain from painting everyone who disagrees with you as being against the standards. The OPC has a long history of upholding the standards. You may disagree with the OPC, their acceptance of Christian counselors in certain situations, etc, but not because the OPC fails to study the standards.

Let's let this go, though. I am glad that you appreciate your pastor, and I'm sure his advice is excellent. It is why I seek out the advice of my own pastor rather than that of a Christian counselor.

PS By the way, some OPC professional counselors are ordained ministers. Rev. Andy Selle is a member of our Presbytery, and generally well-respected as a counselor. Perhaps that puts you more at ease.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Caroline said:


> Again, Leah, please refrain from painting everyone who disagrees with you as being against the standards. The OPC has a long history of upholding the standards. You may disagree with the OPC, their acceptance of Christian counselors in certain situations, etc, but not because the OPC fails to study the standards.
> 
> Let's let this go, though. I am glad that you appreciate your pastor, and I'm sure his advice is excellent. It is why I seek out the advice of my own pastor rather than that of a Christian counselor.
> 
> PS By the way, some OPC professional counselors are ordained ministers. Rev. Andy Selle is a member of our Presbytery, and generally well-respected as a counselor. Perhaps that puts you more at ease.



Saying that one does not have the reformed Presbyterian understanding is the same thing as saying one is against the Standards. The question is who's right? I didn't really want to get side tracked into this, but chapter 30 of the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly teaches what I've been saying about church leadership. Also, the fact that the Westminster Standards even _exist_ is proof of what I've been saying about the elders interpreting Scripture and needing to define what sin is. The acceptance of counselors who aren't elders is just one application of a principle. But if they disagree with this principle, then they do in fact disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I appreciate your input thus far. I think it just shows that this is simply an application of one's principle in church leadership, so consistent Baptists will disagree with me and inconsistent Presbyterians will disagree with me it seems. I certainly don't have it figured out, but something is just not adding up. It's not really personal, I just want to develop a consistent view.


----------



## Philip (May 21, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> And that doesn't surprise me about the OPC, they tend to be weak on historic Presbyterianism.



This is a serious charge against a denomination that has been second to none in the defence of the Westminster Standards in the last century.

You have an odd definition of counselling here. Counselling, to you, involves a binding of the conscience such that not following said counsel would warrant church discipline, yet I don't see that being the case in the majority of counselling situations I've seen. Indeed, when I think of counselling, I am thinking of people struggling with depression (where accusing them of sin confirms their depression and leads to despair) or those making tough choices (I sought counsel while deciding where to go to seminary, but none of the pastors I talked to bound my conscience) or those struggling with grief (and I include here grief over brokenness). If I had, for instance, not followed the counsel of my pastor in choosing seminary (and actually, I didn't apply to one of the seminaries he suggested---and there was good reason) would that have warranted church discipline? I doubt it.

As I said, I think your definition is odd. I take counsel from all kinds of sources. If I want counsel regarding academics and what to write a paper on, is my pastor the person to go to? No.

So here's the definition I would give: counsel is advice informed by a scriptural worldview. It can happen that a counsellor is wrong in such advice for a number of reasons: the advice may be good generally but bad in a specific circumstance; the advice may fail to account for other things; it may even be that God just has another plan. When someone has come to me for counsel (thankfully a rare occurence) I try to spend more time listening than speaking, because often the person needs to unburden him or herself more than they need my advice.


----------



## DeniseM (May 21, 2013)

Ladies(Caroline and Leah),
I believe you have more in common here than you may have considered. Would you agree that if I am having some trouble with my husband(say we are having a disagreement on some point and I am having trouble submitting to his authority) which is not of a nature in which one of us could be said to be sinning in our actions, just a general disagreement, that it would be ok to talk through this and seek wisdom from one of the ladies at church that I respect and believe to be a godly woman? I can't see a problem with going to a more mature Christian friend for this sort of counseling.

On the other hand, say that there is a marital problem in which one of the spouses is sinning against the other. This kind of problem, if it cannot be resolved quickly by the couple themselves in a biblical way, can and should be brought before the elders. This kind of problem would require the couple to seek counsel of the elders and may even lead to the necessary discipline of one or both of the spouses. 

Can we agree that there is a 'kind' of counseling that can appropriately be sought from those within the church that have our best interests in mind, and that there are other situations that require a different 'kind' of counseling that must be received from those ordained to the office of elders?

In love and charity,


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Philip said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> > And that doesn't surprise me about the OPC, they tend to be weak on historic Presbyterianism.
> ...



Thank you for your input. I know that the definition of counseling is an important aspect of this discussion. Even with counsellors, there's a distinction between seeking counsel and going to a counsellor - obviously we don't go to a counselor every time we need counsel depending on what the issue is. Perhaps the things I am defining as counseling are more specifically accountability. I'm obviously not trying to say that if you have a computer problem, car problem, etc. whatever issue it is no matter what you have to go to your pastor and only your pastor! I'm trying to focus on the areas that involve matters of sin and biblical teaching (ie. marriage counseling, struggles with drinking or any besetting sin, even depression can be a sin, etc.). These types of counseling seem to be an application of accountability. Church membership is optional, but accountability is not because once you become a church member you are accountable to your elders and the doctrines you've vowed to. So perhaps that accountability aspect is more specifically what I am referring to. These types of counseling would warrant church discipline if the advice is not taken.

Depression was an interesting one you brought up because that certainly can be a sin. It's not the same as when we are grieved over our sins or being sad because of the loss of a loved one or something like that. But to be habitually depressed for a long length of time may be evidence that one is not truly trusting in Christ who is the joy of our salvation in all situations. There's a time even when our mourning for a loved one should end - not that we won't be sad when we think about it - but to have that attitude like "so and so is dead and not my life is not worth living" is clearly a sinful attitude that needs wise and patient counsel from an elder.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Ladies(Caroline and Leah),
> I believe you have more in common here than you may have considered. Would you agree that if I am having some trouble with my husband(say we are having a disagreement on some point and I am having trouble submitting to his authority) which is not of a nature in which one of us could be said to be sinning in our actions, just a general disagreement, that it would be ok to talk through this and seek wisdom from one of the ladies at church that I respect and believe to be a godly woman? I can't see a problem with going to a more mature Christian friend for this sort of counseling.
> 
> On the other hand, say that there is a marital problem in which one of the spouses is sinning against the other. This kind of problem, if it cannot be resolved quickly by the couple themselves in a biblical way, can and should be brought before the elders. This kind of problem would require the couple to seek counsel of the elders and may even lead to the necessary discipline of one or both of the spouses.
> ...



I think what I've been trying to say is that counseling that involves sin should only be sought from an elder, not a counsellor distinct from an elder who has no authority to discipline sins if need be. Other areas that are adiaphora are fine to go to other church members. Or if I see that I'm struggling with a particular sin toward my husband, I think it would be fine to ask another lady maybe how she dealt with that sin, etc. But if it comes to a point where they are problems in the marriage when you would go seek marriage counseling, my question is should this be done by an elder or by someone non-ordained apart from the church? This, I think, is a point of accountability that belongs to the eldership of the church.

They way I see counsellors is that they are often given areas that need to belong to the elders - aka areas of sin in a person's life that cannot be resolved by that person/couple themselves. If these areas are taken away from counsellors and given to elders, then what does that leave for a person who is in the position of counsellor? I can't think of anything really, but I'd be glad to hear if you thought of something.


----------



## Philip (May 21, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Depression was an interesting one you brought up because that certainly can be a sin.



Most of the depressed people I've known would be thrown into doubt about their salvation if they were told what you just said. Rebuke would drive them into the sin of despair---and depression and despair are not the same thing. When one is crying to God in their dark night of the soul, is that because they are in sin? Or because God is testing them?



Boosterseat_91 said:


> Church membership is optional



No it's not. Admission to the table in contingent on membership and we are commanded to do this in remembrance.



Boosterseat_91 said:


> So perhaps that accountability aspect is more specifically what I am referring to. These types of counseling would warrant church discipline if the advice is not taken.



I just don't know that accountability is always exclusively an issue for the elders. We are all to hold each other accountable and to bring things to the attention of the elders.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (May 21, 2013)

Philip said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> > Depression was an interesting one you brought up because that certainly can be a sin.
> ...



In the context of counseling, depression should obviously be dealt with in a very gracious and loving manner. But the Puritans confirmed, I agree that depression can be sinful. It's definitely not sinful in every case and that would need to be discerned.

And by church membership being optional, I meant that church membership at a particular church is optional. If you can't agree with that church then you must be a member elsewhere. But you decide whether or not you will be a member at a particular congregation and submit to that congregations doctrine and rules.

If someone personally sins against us, then we are to confront them according to Matt. 18:15 and following and try to get reconciliation. If it's a lifestyle that's sinful, though, we do take it to the elders like you said but that's because only the elders can hold someone accountable.


----------

