# Nouthetic vs. Integrative Counseling



## Romans922 (Sep 26, 2007)

I think I will develop a poll. Are you Nouthetic, Integrative, or somewhere in the middle?


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

It's really difficult to answer this question if you don't define your terms. For instance, what does "strict nouthetic" look like? How do you define it?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Sep 26, 2007)

I chose "Other (Please explain)" because that is what I would like you to do


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

Almost strict nouthetic. I do allow for medication, although I admit Americans might have gone off the deep end on it.


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

There are really only two options here. If you're not for strict nouthetic counselling then you must be allowing for some degree of integration of modern psychological methods. I find it hard to believe that reformed counsellors would allow for integration of any kind. 2 Cor. 10:1-6.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 26, 2007)

What I was doing was trying to give a spectrum from Strict Nouthetic to Fully Integrative.

Strict Nouthetic, I would probably say is held by Jay Adams, so if you know how he counsels then thats it. Integrative seeks to have a Christian foundation but is not afraid of looking and adapting to the research of non-Christian psychologists to do their counseling better. I guess that is how you would put it. Now obviously each integrative counselor would be different depending on what type of Christian foundation one had.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> What I was doing was trying to give a spectrum from Strict Nouthetic to Fully Integrative.
> 
> Strict Nouthetic, I would probably say is held by Jay Adams, so if you know how he counsels then thats it. Integrative seeks to have a Christian foundation but is not afraid of looking and adapting to the research of non-Christian psychologists to do their counseling better. I guess that is how you would put it. Now obviously each integrative counselor would be different depending on what type of Christian foundation one had.



Okay, that helps a bit. Where would you put CCEF and fellows like David Powlison, Ed Welch and Paul Tripp?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 26, 2007)

I voted nouthetic but closer toward the middle. I think we can discerningly benefit from the research of psychology. There are characteristics of human communication and behavior which we can learn through general revelation. But any presuppositions of psychological methods and research would have to be corrected by Scripture and appropriately filtered.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 26, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > What I was doing was trying to give a spectrum from Strict Nouthetic to Fully Integrative.
> ...



Isn't Paul Tripp nouthetic? I don't know.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 26, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I voted nouthetic but closer toward the middle. I think we can discerningly benefit from the research of psychology. There are characteristics of human communication and behavior which we can learn through general revelation. But any presuppositions of psychological methods and research would have to be corrected by Scripture and appropriately filtered.



Don't listen to him. Both me and Patrick are fire-breathing nouthetics 


(the scottish guy was supposed to be flaming)


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Isn't Paul Tripp nouthetic? I don't know.



The reason I asked is because the CCEF school has been critical of Adams on certain points. For instance, David Powlison indicates several areas of concern in his dissertation. How much does one have to agree with Adams to be classified as "strict nouthetic"?


----------



## westminken (Sep 26, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > What I was doing was trying to give a spectrum from Strict Nouthetic to Fully Integrative.
> ...



I suppose you could put the CCEF guys in the almost strict category. I have had classes with Dr. Welch and he seems to not be totally against medication in certain situations. That is where I am, in the almost strict category.


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> How much does one have to agree with Adams to be classified as "strict nouthetic"?



I think one would have to agree with the principle that the Scriptures thoroughly equip the man of God to deal with every problem. Adams' minimum five points are (1.) A biblical understanding of the counselee's problem, stemming from, (2.) A clear understanding of the Holy Spirit's telos in scriptural passages appropriate to both the problem and solution, and (3.) A meeting of man's problem and God's full solution in counselling, according to (4.) the formulation of a biblical plan of action, leading toward (5.) commitment to scriptural action by the counselee.

I find it difficult to believe that reformed Christians would see an area of neutral ground on the basis of general revelation when dealing with the psyche of man. The Scriptures are very clear as to man's state by nature, the fall, and renewing grace.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 26, 2007)

Pastor Winzer, I think the "almost but not..." distinction is for those who agree with brother Adams main point but also see that those like Ed Welsch have a point. The main distinction being that SOME isues are organic in origin. 

In other words, some need to repent, some need medication, and some need to have the deamons cast out.

Most just need to repent. (in my opinion)


----------



## MW (Sep 26, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Pastor Winzer, I think the "almost but not..." distinction is for those who agree with brother Adams main point but also see that those like Ed Welsch have a point. The main distinction being that SOME isues are organic in origin.



If it's organic then its related to physical influences, and hence falls outside the sphere of psychology. I don't think Adams would have a difficulty with medication at this point, since the Scriptures pronounce all things created by God to be good and to be used for the well-being of man.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 27, 2007)

granted.

However in the common parlence That nuance is often overlooked. Hence my vote for "...with modifications".


----------



## Theoretical (Sep 27, 2007)

As I see it, psychology is useful at categorizing and labeling symptoms, but its prescribed treatment regimen completely fails at addressing the heart issues underlying it, and is in fact a wrecking ball of disaster. Essentially, it can be useful for serving as a lexicon.

At my job I spend the whole day reading medical records and summarizing them into narrative form. It's very saddening how many people will get depressed after some physical ailment strikes or hardship happens, get drugged up and go to therapy, and become almost shadows of their former selves.

The real problem I have with psychology is that unlike biology, geology, chemistry, or physics is that when you approach psychology with Christian presuppositions, it's no longer psychology at all. Biology, geology, chemistry, and physics still stand, mostly recognizable (for the most part) as disciplines whether or not one brings Christian or non-Christian worldviews to them. Psychology is completely unrecognizable.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > I voted nouthetic but closer toward the middle. I think we can discerningly benefit from the research of psychology. There are characteristics of human communication and behavior which we can learn through general revelation. But any presuppositions of psychological methods and research would have to be corrected by Scripture and appropriately filtered.
> ...



You call yourself a presuppositionalist. I thought for sure you, my theonomic brother, would love to plunder the Philistines.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 27, 2007)

There is a spectrum in Nouthetic/Biblical Counseling (the term nouthetic is falling out of favor, esp. those closer to the center). The Bobgans, for example, are the most strict, i.e. they won't even charge a fee for counseling because it's too close to the psychology model, and they have written polemics against Biblical Counseling at the Masters College and CCEF.

The Institute of Biblical Counseling and Discipleship in San Diego, where I've sat in on classes, and Jay Adams are still in the Bobgan's good graces, so they would probably be the next most strict. After that would be the Masters College, CCEF, Southern Baptist Seminary, and most of the others.

There's a spectrum among integrationists too. I audited a class at Capitol Bible Seminary, which is integrationist, and true to the name, Bob Kelleman will use Biblical Counseling materials as well as other material. Other places, like Talbot and Fuller, will be more strictly psychology.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 27, 2007)

Not to totally sidetrack the thread, but for the nouthetics out there, what do you see as the roll of un-ordained Christian counselors in either the believer or unbeliever's life? Is this a position (counselor) that a believer should seek to attain for pay? Is this something pastors and elders should handle as part of their calling to shepherd the flock? Should churches with the financial capacity employ a counselor (ordainer or unordained)? If a counselor has his own practice outside of a church, who's authority is he under?


----------



## elnwood (Sep 27, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> Not to totally sidetrack the thread, but for the nouthetics out there, what do you see as the roll of un-ordained Christian counselors in either the believer or unbeliever's life? Is this a position (counselor) that a believer should seek to attain for pay? Is this something pastors and elders should handle as part of their calling to shepherd the flock? Should churches with the financial capacity employ a counselor (ordainer or unordained)? If a counselor has his own practice outside of a church, who's authority is he under?



All Christians are (or ought to be) counselors in the lives of other Christians. Pastors and elders ought to take the primary responsibility for counseling as part of their oversight, but have the flexibility to delegate and refer to another pastor or counselor or counseling center that works in conjunction with the church.

A counselor can receive financial compensation if the demand for that counselor's time is so much that he or she cannot adequately be provided for otherwise. A counselor is under the authority of his or her own elders, and is working under the oversight of the elders of the counselee.


----------



## westminken (Sep 27, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> Not to totally sidetrack the thread, but for the nouthetics out there, what do you see as the roll of un-ordained Christian counselors in either the believer or unbeliever's life? Is this a position (counselor) that a believer should seek to attain for pay? Is this something pastors and elders should handle as part of their calling to shepherd the flock? Should churches with the financial capacity employ a counselor (ordainer or unordained)? If a counselor has his own practice outside of a church, who's authority is he under?



I will try to answer your question the best I can. The role of an un-ordained Christian counselor should be as an ambassador of Christ to both the believer and unbeliever always pointing the counselee to the grace of God that Christ purchased for His people on the Cross. Is this a position that should seek pay for their services? If the counselor has attained a graduate degree from a school such as WTS Philly or any other graduate school and has been licensed by the state in which they live OR they choose not to be licensed for whatever reason then yes they should be paid for their services. This will probably cause some people here to cring but counseling is a vocation like any other trained vocation. YES, pastors and elders should have an active role in counseling and shepherding their flocks. However, I see no reason not to refer people to a counselor if the pastor feels that another person would be able to help the person better. The question about churches is probably more sensitive. I have to say that the decision should be left to the Session or other church authorities to make that decision based on the needs of the local congregation. Personally I see no reason not to if church feels that it may be needed. Finally, the authority that a practicing counselor is under is God and that should trump anything. 

Hope this helps. When I first started seminary I developed a passion for biblical counseling and thought that maybe where God was calling me. Since then, my calling has been made more clear and my passion has been redirected to the local church and as a future gospel minister.

Anyway, I hope I have answered your question.


----------



## bradofshaw (Sep 27, 2007)

westminken said:


> Finally, the authority that a practicing counselor is under is God and that should trump anything.
> .



Thanks for the response! I guess this is a question with any para-church ministry, but I'm interested in what the mechanism is. Everybody is under the authority of God, even a pastor, but pastors are directly under the authority of presbytery. So a counselor is a member of x church. He is part of a counseling center which is completely independent of his local church. How does x church go about overseeing the counsel it's parishioner is giving?

I suppose you could ask the same of any number of mission boards, relief centers, or schools which have as their primary purpose to be evangelistic and discipling.


----------



## westminken (Sep 27, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> westminken said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, the authority that a practicing counselor is under is God and that should trump anything.
> ...



I suppose the counselor, if practicing independently, could voluntarily put himself or herself under the auspices of their session. However, most group counseling centers have a board of directors, which could be laymen, and the ones that I am familiar with in Dallas have a ministerial board, which are pastors and other counselors. So, practically that is how I have seen things work.


----------



## goretorade (Sep 29, 2007)

I think the real issue between nouthetic and intergrational counseling is the issue of human morality, or better yet the topic of sin and total depravity. We can learn from pop psychology but it is more the vocab that people are coming to us with rather than learning how to counsel people. I have never interacted with any one trained in phychology who understands and sees the need to deal with sin, and most of the intergrational stuff is almost the same way. Nouthetic counseling understands that at heart of all problems is the sin problem, and the goal is progressive sanctification. The tools in this process are the Word of God, the Spirit of God, and prayer to God. But this comes from a guy who attends a school with a strict nouthetic counseling program


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 2, 2007)

We had a nice discussion about it here a little while back. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/nanc-certified-counselors-8293/

I have had a bit of experience with this issue. Bruce and I go back and forth over this issue in the link above. You may be able to glean something from this discussion or you may not.

I voted Like Patrick. But I am not a big fan of Doctors medicating with prozac or the like just to stop the depression. It dulls the spirit and removes guilty feelings that are healthy. It also seems to remove an active conscience from a persons psyche. That is my experience with people over the years.


----------

