Competent to Counsel

[Semper Fidelis]

Have been reading through this book by Jay Adams and, in the main, find it very insightful, especially given where the state of counseling was at the time of writing. For those who have read the book, what are your thoughts?

There are a few things I disagree with as he discourages the seeking of the "Why" of sinful behavior but a lot of that is in reaction to Rogerian counseling. That said, I think Owen's treatment of sin and temptation offers an appropriate explanation of the "Why" we sin and how to do battle with it that I think Adams tends to neglect. Other than that, I think he's got some very solid insights into the need to encourage and enjoin sanctification in believers through Biblical confrontation.

 

[Scott1]

It's been a long time since I was exposed to this book, and it was in a tangential way through Larry Burkett's Christian Financial Concepts (CFC) ministry. Mr. Burkett used some of Mr. Adams material in this book and had it in his reference list for CFC counselors.

Mr. Burkett used to say the way we handle material things is an outside indication of what is going on inside spiritually, and so financial problems are often a reflection of that. And can be, not always, but can be an indicator of all kinds of sin behavior problems. Financial counselling would often draw out other problems that were being reflected financially.

My recollection is the book was simple, and, at the time (1980's) it was a kind of new idea that sin is at the root of almost all problems. Not environment. Mr. Adams approach is not self esteem oriented, nor does it try to understand the deep recesses of behavioral patterns. As you know, modern psychology is often viewed from the standpoint of behavior determined by environment.

Mr. Adams flew right by all of that, and as I recall kind of separated out severe mental illness and didn't address that much at all, leaving most problems related to a sin problem that could be counseled out of.

Some would say this is simplistic, particularly "experts" who might have a vested interest in counseling vocationally, but it was kind of a groundbreaking concept at the time. I think it came to be called "nouthetic" counseling (a $64 word if ever there was one). And it was very positive in enfranchising non-professional counselors who could use basic biblical principles to help people.

As for general style and approach, compare with The Handbook for Christian Discipline. http://www.christianbook.com/handbook-of-church-discipline/jay-adams/9780310511915/pd/0511917 A few things in that book I don't think the author got quite right, a few things seemed annoying simplistic but in the main he did an excellent job bringing out a complex subject in a simple, understandable way. After reflecting a while, the book "grew on me."

You may find this counseling book the same way.

 

[rbcbob]

My recollection is the book was simple, and, at the time (1980's) it was a kind of new idea that sin is at the root of almost all problems. Not environment.

My copy was published in 1970. This work began the revolution against the Freudian infiltration of the Church. Much needed. That said the revolutionaries went on to establish the rebellion as an institution in its own right, operating outside the Church and independent of the elders whom Christ has given the chief care of souls.

Interestingly some of Adams' disciples have repented of this bypath and returned to see the Church and its pastors as the primary tenders of souls. See AGAINST Biblical Counseling - FOR the Bible by Martin and Deidre Bobgan

 

[Pergamum]

I was trained in secular counseling while in the army and was tempted to react to that by using Jay Adams.

But, I have found Welch and Powlison to be much more balanced and less bombastic. "Repent of your sin" is not the solution to everything in the mental realm.


Discerning Reader: Review of Competent to Counsel? by David Powlison

Christian counseling: Nouthetic vs. Biblical « depression introspection

 

[Curt]

"Repent of your sin" is not the solution to everything in the mental realm.

Amen.

 

[jwithnell]

I too read Mr. Adams work back in the 1980s. One trend I find peculiar. He advocated a spiritual or biological basis for many (if not all) problems encountered in counseling. Since then, we've seen great advances in treating the biological side. But I've recently read people who were influenced by his work, yet discourage using medications. It makes sense to me that where there's sin, deal with it. When there's a chemical imbalance, treat it medically.

 

[Jesus is my friend]

"Repent of your sin" is not the solution to everything in the mental realm.

Amen.

Would any solid Nouthetic counselor really say or believe exactly that?

 

[Scottish Lass]

When there's a chemical imbalance, treat it medically.

Except even the "experts" can't be certain that it exists and/or causes the problems the drugs purport to treat. Listen carefully to the ad for any anti-depressant. "Depression may be caused by a chemical imbalance...." and then proceeds on as though the qualified statement were anything but.
Adams spends little time on the biological side because he expects a full medical workup to be done early on to rule out/deal with organic causes. If none are found, sin is a reasonable next place to work. He would far prefer hypothryroidism-caused depression to be treated medically. The synthetic hormone treats the root cause of the problem rather than covering it up. The same generally cannot be said for antidepressants.

 

[CDM]

I was glad to learn Mr. Adams advocating the Christian counselor to stick with the Bible, but there were a couple of things that concerned me. For the sake of space I will mention just one. I am concerned that having unordained people be trained in nouthetic counseling will undermine the pastoral ministry and the gospel it preaches. I do believe there is a danger in creating a class, like “counselor” within the Christian community. These counselors could be put into leadership positions that their churches have not called them to. Sure, one can hope that no office will be created to rival the elders but some within the congregation may seek this counselor out for advice or counsel while eschewing non-nouthetically trained pastor and elders. This circumvents the means of spiritual oversight that Christ has given the Church. These counselors become specialists in an area that pastors should be specialists in—biblical counseling.

Although, I agree with most of the presuppositions of the book, it was not without its faults. I was not impressed with the Adams use of Scripture. The different translations and paraphrases employed seemed self-serving. The Scripture seemed to be taken and repackaged in a way that would make his case more compelling. One particularly striking example is found in chapter ten (page 212) where the author addresses issues with communication:

“Into that idyllic situation [Garden of Eden] Satan introduced the first communication problem by casting doubt upon the Word of God. The Father of Lies (that is, the father of all communication difficulties) questioned the word of God [emphases mine].”

Lies are not “communication difficulties.” While this language may suit the author’s purpose for the chapter it is simply not what the Scripture teaches. Satan had no “difficulty” with the Word of God—he was manipulating it for his own purposes.

 

[Marrow Man]

A couple of things to add to the discussion. One, Dr. Adams (now at least) does put the counseling ministry back to the authority of the local church. He encourages pastors and elders ("someone with spiritual authority") to do the bulk of the counseling, although he does allow for lay counseling in certain situations (e.g., women counseling women); still, it is down under the supervision of the local session (or similar body). Second, saying that everything boils down to a "repent of your sin" approach is not an accurate representation. Third, he has at least one degree in Greek and often uses his own translation in commenting on the Scriptures. Finally, it's "Nouthetic Counseling," derived from the NT verb noutheteo, which means to admonish, confront, or instruct.

 

[he beholds]

I was not impressed with the Adams use of Scripture. The different translations and paraphrases employed seemed self-serving. The Scripture seemed to be taken and repackaged in a way that would make his case more compelling. One particularly striking example is found in chapter ten (page 212) where the author addresses issues with communication:

“Into that idyllic situation [Garden of Eden] Satan introduced the first communication problem by casting doubt upon the Word of God. The Father of Lies (that is, the father of all communication difficulties) questioned the word of God [emphases mine].”
Lies are not “communication difficulties.” While this language may suit the author’s purpose for the chapter it is simply not what the Scripture teaches. Satan had no “difficulty” with the Word of God—he was manipulating it for his own purposes.
Chris Mangum

I don't think he's twisting scripture here and I also agree that Satan did question the word of God--or at least may have, if this is an impossible thing to assert. Whether he truly understood God's word and promises, I don't know. But he certainly questioned Eve with it and cast doubt upon it for Eve.
The little I've read of Adams I've liked. And I like Elyse Fitzpatrick, a female nouthetic counselor.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"Repent of your sin" is not the solution to everything in the mental realm.

Have you actually read Adams' book or, as you say, you were tempted to read it but did not. One cannot get past the first Introduction to dispel the myth that he ever advocates such a thing. I'm not saying his method has no issues but that is a gross mischaracterization of his work.

I was glad to learn Mr. Adams advocating the Christian counselor to stick with the Bible, but there were a couple of things that concerned me. For the sake of space I will mention just one. I am concerned that having unordained people be trained in nouthetic counseling will undermine the pastoral ministry and the gospel it preaches.

Are you referring to Adams' work here or derivative works (like the BCF) that made it more of a "manual" approach to the ideas presented? Again, I've only read 7 Chapters so far but it is clear that Adams insists throughout that counseling is within the Church and that the means of grace are essential to the work. He sees "counseling" of one to another more along the lines that we would exhort one another to love and good works. In fact, if anything, I've seen Adams criticized for his insistence that counseling is a work of the minister. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Maybe I'm missing something.

Rich, I have read much of Adams. He is helpful. However his comments on mental health are a bit extreme. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is more balanced in this aspect. See his books 'healing and the scriptures' and 'spiritual depression'. Lloyd-Jones actually calls Adams 'a reactionist' in the area of mental health. Also Eric Johnson's book 'Foundations for soul care' also points out some of the weaknesses of Adam's approach.

I suffer from Aspergers Syndrome so this is a very relevant issue for me.

 

[timmopussycat]

Maybe I'm missing something.

Rich, I have read much of Adams. He is helpful. However his comments on mental health are a bit extreme. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is more balanced in this aspect. See his books 'healing and the scriptures' and 'spiritual depression'. Lloyd-Jones actually calls Adams 'a reactionist' in the area of mental health. Also Eric Johnson's book 'Foundations for soul care' also points out some of the weaknesses of Adam's approach.

I suffer from Aspergers Syndrome so this is a very relevant issue for me.

Actually MLJ's criticism of Adams seems to arise from a misreading of Adams. If I recall correctly MLJ criticized Adams for rejecting any orgainic origins of mental illnes but Adams in fact does no such thing. That note aside, the MLJ book "Healing and the Scriptures" is extremely helpful. To give but one highlight- somewhere in it can be found MLJ's method of distinguishing between psychological and spiritual conditions, something that can be very helpuful to ministers and lay helpers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Maybe I'm missing something.

Rich, I have read much of Adams. He is helpful. However his comments on mental health are a bit extreme. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is more balanced in this aspect. See his books 'healing and the scriptures' and 'spiritual depression'. Lloyd-Jones actually calls Adams 'a reactionist' in the area of mental health. Also Eric Johnson's book 'Foundations for soul care' also points out some of the weaknesses of Adam's approach.

I suffer from Aspergers Syndrome so this is a very relevant issue for me.

Actually MLJ's criticism of Adams seems to arise from a misreading of Adams. If I recall correctly MLJ criticized Adams for rejecting any orgainic origins of mental illnes but Adams in fact does no such thing. That note aside, the MLJ book "Healing and the Scriptures" is extremely helpful. To give but one highlight- somewhere in it can be found MLJ's method of distinguishing between psychological and spiritual conditions, something that can be very helpuful to ministers and lay helpers.

Right. I keep reading in the above:

1. That Adams attributes all psychological problems with sin
2. He rejects organic problems as a root of some psychological problems

Before he even gets into counseling itself, he dispels, unequivocally, both of the above charges.

I know that no matter what I say after this, that I'm going to be seen as unquestionably supporting Adams in everything but I just have an allergy to misrepresentation of others' views even when they differ from my own. If we're going to criticize a view then let it be upon the basis of truth and not factual misrepresentation.

If I could summarize what Adams has a problem with, it is the idea of mental illness as a category of a problem that falls in a third category between the way the Scriptures characterize our interpersonal problems and those problems that arise from organic or biological roots. That is to say that even the "medical community" struggles with clearly defining what mental illness is as evidenced over the controversy swirling around the creation of the DSM-V. None of these issues are simple but Adams is not completely shooting from the hip in some of his experience.

I'll be straight that I think most reaction to him and his view of sin has to do with his unabashedly Calvinistic view of the Fall of Man. It makes sense to me that semi-Pelagian Christians are going to be repulsed by any suggestion that sin would be at the root of psychological problems. Of course, when Jay Adams notes the effects of the Fall, the reductionist response to that would be "how can you have someone repent of that?" In fact, recognizing that sin is the root of death and misery is a different category altogether than direct moral culpability in a particular sin but I think that is lost on many who criticize him unfairly. Again, I don't mind the criticism but it's hard to spit out the seeds that are mixed in that betray a theological framework and miss the center of the mark from what I've seen.

I'm reading him with interest not because I intend to just template him into my own counseling but because he does have some interesting and valid observations about the physical and psychological effects when one actively suppresses the conscience. I don't think we wrestle with human suffering deeply enough and it's easy to default to medical models for medical illness we cannot put our fingers on and criticize any notion that the healing of some deep problems may come at the end of spiritual growth and wrestling under the means of grace for years. I don't think I'd be so quick to place my finger on the solution to a problem through a confrontational method but, correspondingly, I'm not going to quickly abandon a Biblical anthropology for seemingly easy medical and professional answers which, upon close observation, don't really solve deep-seated problems but have a complex enough taxonomy that one is deceived into trusting that the professional has the answer.

 

[rbcbob]

Rich, I greatly appreciate Adams. We owe him a debt for his bold stand against the psychobabble which ruled the 20th century. I am also pleased to learn from Marrow Man above that Adams has a healthy regard for counseling to begin in the church with the elders.

In an earlier post I wrote:

the problem is that Psychiatry has played fast and loose with research, diagnosis and treatment of "behavior problems" for over one hundred years. The etiology of what is now called ADHD tracks back to its earliest nomenclature of Minimal Brain Dysfunction. In the absence of any verifiable biological disease the DSM acknowledged, for instance, that how Ritalin affects the brain and alters the behavior is not known. Problems of behavior are moral problems which may or may not have associated biological factors. The commonplace practice of hitting upon a psychotropic drug which will yield the desired behavior change may well be judged in the future to be malpractice.

 

[Marrow Man]

One of the first things that Adams and nouthetic counselors often do after an initial counseling session is send the counselee to a medical doctor to make sure that the cause of the problem is not organic (or to treat it medically if it is organic). I'm shared at least one of these stories on the PB before, but the misrepresentations still persist.

A lady began experiencing wild mood swings one day and did not know the reason. She came in for counseling, and the suggestion was NOT "repent you sinner." She was sent to an MD for a physical -- and the result was that a tumor was discovered on one of her ovaries. It was causing her hormones to go wild. The tumor was removed, and the problem was solved. If she had gone to a secular counselor, what would have happened? It's entirely possible that they would have put her on some psychotropic medication, which would have done little or nothing for the organic cause of the problem, and she would be dead today.

In another instance, however, a counselor sent a counselee to an MD for a physical. The MD asked why she was there, and she mentioned the problem she was having (depression or something of the sort). Oh, he responded, if that's the problem, I'll just write you a prescription. So, when the counselee returned to the counselor the following week, she was already on antidepressants. That's the very sort of thing Adams and company want to prevent.

 

[py3ak]

One of the first things that Adams and nouthetic counselors often do after an initial counseling session is send the counselee to a medical doctor to make sure that the cause of the problem is not organic (or to treat it medically if it is organic).

I realize this may be the due diligence that one can expect of a counselor, but it is as well to bear in mind that it is not necessarily that simple. It's not as though there were no conditions difficult for doctors to diagnose. Of course if a doctor can't diagnose them, in all probability neither can a counselor; but for that reason it is prudent to bear in mind that a doctor's note of a clean bill of health does not guarantee that counseling is the answer. Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

 

[lynnie]

We knew an effective counselor who used to say that the hard line Adams crowd had a perspective on human nature that reduced it pretty much down to sin and idols of the heart. But, there is a strong biblical theme that we are hungry and thirsty people, and you don't repent of being hungry and thirsty, you learn to start drinking pure water and eating real food. There are so many biblical promises of God feeding the hungry and filling the thirsty. I know a hard line Adams guy now who is so into repenting of sin that he does not seem to minister to people how to eat and drink. People need help with basic things like bible reading and prayer, which meetings to go to when they are busy and have kids, even how to fellowship in basic ways like how much of your inner life to talk about and to who. It is both, repenting and eating/drinking.

One excellent thing from that book is how marriages would be helped if wives ( or husbands) would do basic Matthew 18. I've met women who refuse to go to the elders but instead gripe all day about hub to their girlfriends. And I know one woman who went straight to the elders, they stepped in, and the marriage was saved. He makes some good points that basic bible passages about conflict certainly apply equally to marriage and must be obeyed.

 

[SRoper]

One of the first things that Adams and nouthetic counselors often do after an initial counseling session is send the counselee to a medical doctor to make sure that the cause of the problem is not organic (or to treat it medically if it is organic).

I realize this may be the due diligence that one can expect of a counselor, but it is as well to bear in mind that it is not necessarily that simple. It's not as though there were no conditions difficult for doctors to diagnose. Of course if a doctor can't diagnose them, in all probability neither can a counselor; but for that reason it is prudent to bear in mind that a doctor's note of a clean bill of health does not guarantee that counseling is the answer. Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

That's always been my issue with Nouthetic Counseling, at least my own experience with its practitioners. It seems to assume that doctors can infallibly diagnose and treat organic problems. What if the woman in the story had lived in the 19th C? The doctor would not have found the tumor, and she would undergo counseling for an apparently spiritual problem.

Yes we can only act on the information we have, but we need to have some humility that we don't always know what's going on inside a person--whether physically or spiritually.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

Agreed. I think human suffering is an extremely complex problem. I think Job demonstrates that it is very easy to jump to counsel (in the case of Job's friends) and the reasons for suffering are often inscrutable. I do think Adams offers a critique of counseling where counselors jump to quick conclusions about matters. There is tremendous wisdom and prayer needed.

When James encourages that the Elders pray for the sick there is not a sense in which the elders are there to pray simply to pinpoint a cause but to come alongside and be involved in the suffering of a beloved member of the congregation. Prayer is a means of grace to encourage and for the wise to be in the presence of mourning to simply turn to God Who has reasons why even terrible things are afflicting the soul or body of a man that is beyond our ability to solve. I think, in fact, that our desire to find a definitive medical or spiritual answer to suffering belies a basic trust that God calls us unto in the Book of Job as He challenges Job to stand up to the One he is accusing.

The real problem of suffering and sin is that a Holy God actually does not simply judge human sin through the suffering man brought into the world but answers it in Christ. We have the answer that God provided in the Cross that the root of human suffering has been answered but have to wait, in faith, for the consummation when suffering will finally cease.

I've been reflecting lately as I've been praying for Church members whose parents are in their later years of life and are experiencing the loneliness of the loss of a spouse or the death of friends even as their bodies fail them. I've reminded myself that my later years might be filled with great sadness and that I will not necessarily experience "golden years" of happiness up to death. My hope is not that this life will provide ultimate satisfaction and deliverance from pain or sadness but that my joy is rooted in the Age to Come.

 

[Scott1]

I've been reflecting lately as I've been praying for Church members whose parents are in their later years of life and are experiencing the loneliness of the loss of a spouse or the death of friends even as their bodies fail them. I've reminded myself that my later years might be filled with great sadness and that I will not necessarily experience "golden years" of happiness up to death. My hope is not that this life will provide ultimate satisfaction and deliverance from pain or sadness but that my joy is rooted in the Age to Come.

Very well said!

Nor is the antidote to such mind-altering medication. Rather, it is involvement in Christ's Body which does not disappear with time, and the love and comfort of its community, and faith, born of the spirit, that increases over time.

 

[jayce475]

Healthcare teams and doctors spend hours upon hours trying to give some diagnosis based on the DSM, but may not be able to give diagnostic labels. For the most part, if one would bother to read the DSM, it is choke full of behavioural descriptors which are then used to derive a diagnostic label. Yes, some cases of mental illnesses may have clear cut organic causes (meaning that a structural dysfunction has definitely caused the symptoms) but these are not the majority. Most, especially depression and attention deficits, fall into the realms of uncertainty, in that there may be observable chemical imbalances but there is no way to determine that these are the cause and not the result/co-occurrence. Who then is to say that the root of the issue is not spiritual in nature? I have encountered kids who hit their parents and showed extreme forms of disobedience. The parents then sought solutions from the team and gained some measure of consolation from a diagnosis of ADHD. It was as though it was not the child who was disobedient, but the ADHD monster within that caused the problem.

 

[Marrow Man]

We knew an effective counselor who used to say that the hard line Adams crowd had a perspective on human nature that reduced it pretty much down to sin and idols of the heart.

I'm not sure who exactly this counselor was describing as "the hard line Adams crowd," but Adams himself would not use the terminology of "idols of the heart," and in part it led to the rift between him and the CCEF folks.

That's always been my issue with Nouthetic Counseling, at least my own experience with its practitioners. It seems to assume that doctors can infallibly diagnose and treat organic problems. What if the woman in the story had lived in the 19th C? The doctor would not have found the tumor, and she would undergo counseling for an apparently spiritual problem.

You experience is obviously different, but I don't know anyone who has even suggested that doctors can "infallibly diagnose and treat organic problems." Sometimes they do in God's providence, and that's great. But plenty of folks trust certain medical professionals and others to diagnose mental disorders by using the subjective guide of the DSM-IV (or V now I guess). Though I doubt folks would think it is infallible. But that wasn't the point of the story. There are those who claim that Adams doesn't believe in organic causes for problems, which is a false claim.

I realize this may be the due diligence that one can expect of a counselor, but it is as well to bear in mind that it is not necessarily that simple. It's not as though there were no conditions difficult for doctors to diagnose. Of course if a doctor can't diagnose them, in all probability neither can a counselor; but for that reason it is prudent to bear in mind that a doctor's note of a clean bill of health does not guarantee that counseling is the answer. Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

Once again, I don't know of anyone in these circles who would claim that either of these is an exact science. The point of the story was simply to dispel the myth that Nouthetic Counselors like Dr. Adams do not believe in organic causes. The ironic thing, though, is that I do see many folks treating certain segments of the medical community as "infallible" when dispensing certain medicines for certain psychological ailments. It is assumed that there is an organic cause (because science tells us so), and little or no thought is given to determining whether these things may be spiritual in origin.

 

[ChristianTrader]

One of the first things that Adams and nouthetic counselors often do after an initial counseling session is send the counselee to a medical doctor to make sure that the cause of the problem is not organic (or to treat it medically if it is organic).

I realize this may be the due diligence that one can expect of a counselor, but it is as well to bear in mind that it is not necessarily that simple. It's not as though there were no conditions difficult for doctors to diagnose. Of course if a doctor can't diagnose them, in all probability neither can a counselor; but for that reason it is prudent to bear in mind that a doctor's note of a clean bill of health does not guarantee that counseling is the answer. Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

That's always been my issue with Nouthetic Counseling, at least my own experience with its practitioners. It seems to assume that doctors can infallibly diagnose and treat organic problems. What if the woman in the story had lived in the 19th C? The doctor would not have found the tumor, and she would undergo counseling for an apparently spiritual problem.

Yes we can only act on the information we have, but we need to have some humility that we don't always know what's going on inside a person--whether physically or spiritually.

How would you have had a 19th C, Jay Adams to have dealt with such a situation?

Also, I think everyone admits that physical/chemical problems can lead to emotional problems but what about Spiritual/Emotional fixes leading to physical/chemical improvement? Or does everyone believe that this is a one way street only?

CT

 

[py3ak]

Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

Agreed. I think human suffering is an extremely complex problem. I think Job demonstrates that it is very easy to jump to counsel (in the case of Job's friends) and the reasons for suffering are often inscrutable. I do think Adams offers a critique of counseling where counselors jump to quick conclusions about matters. There is tremendous wisdom and prayer needed.

When James encourages that the Elders pray for the sick there is not a sense in which the elders are there to pray simply to pinpoint a cause but to come alongside and be involved in the suffering of a beloved member of the congregation. Prayer is a means of grace to encourage and for the wise to be in the presence of mourning to simply turn to God Who has reasons why even terrible things are afflicting the soul or body of a man that is beyond our ability to solve. I think, in fact, that our desire to find a definitive medical or spiritual answer to suffering belies a basic trust that God calls us unto in the Book of Job as He challenges Job to stand up to the One he is accusing.

The real problem of suffering and sin is that a Holy God actually does not simply judge human sin through the suffering man brought into the world but answers it in Christ. We have the answer that God provided in the Cross that the root of human suffering has been answered but have to wait, in faith, for the consummation when suffering will finally cease.

I've been reflecting lately as I've been praying for Church members whose parents are in their later years of life and are experiencing the loneliness of the loss of a spouse or the death of friends even as their bodies fail them. I've reminded myself that my later years might be filled with great sadness and that I will not necessarily experience "golden years" of happiness up to death. My hope is not that this life will provide ultimate satisfaction and deliverance from pain or sadness but that my joy is rooted in the Age to Come.

That's a beautiful post, Rich. All Christians, but especially those who will engage in the work of counseling, need to understand as clearly that Psalm 88 is also a reflection of Christian experience, and indeed, that our sinless Head gave us those words. How thankful we can be that it is not the sum of Christian experience, and that we have been given ways to mitigate the pain and difficulty here; but they are merely mitigations. Pain and sorrow are an intrinsic and inevitable part of the present constitution; but in the new heavens and the new earth, they will be no more. Weeping may endure for a night - but joy cometh in the morning, in the dawn of God's new day when the sons of God will again shout for joy at the new world God has made.

 

[Marrow Man]

All Christians, but especially those who will engage in the work of counseling, need to understand as clearly that Psalm 88 is also a reflection of Christian experience, and indeed, that our sinless Head gave us those words. How thankful we can be that it is not the sum of Christian experience, and that we have been given ways to mitigate the pain and difficulty here; but they are merely mitigations. Pain and sorrow are an intrinsic and inevitable part of the present constitution; but in the new heavens and the new earth, they will be no more. Weeping may endure for a night - but joy cometh in the morning, in the dawn of God's new day when the sons of God will shout for joy at the new world God has made.

Wonderfully put, my friend.

 

[SRoper]

Neither medicine nor the care of souls are exact sciences.

Agreed. I think human suffering is an extremely complex problem. I think Job demonstrates that it is very easy to jump to counsel (in the case of Job's friends) and the reasons for suffering are often inscrutable. I do think Adams offers a critique of counseling where counselors jump to quick conclusions about matters. There is tremendous wisdom and prayer needed.

When James encourages that the Elders pray for the sick there is not a sense in which the elders are there to pray simply to pinpoint a cause but to come alongside and be involved in the suffering of a beloved member of the congregation. Prayer is a means of grace to encourage and for the wise to be in the presence of mourning to simply turn to God Who has reasons why even terrible things are afflicting the soul or body of a man that is beyond our ability to solve. I think, in fact, that our desire to find a definitive medical or spiritual answer to suffering belies a basic trust that God calls us unto in the Book of Job as He challenges Job to stand up to the One he is accusing.

The real problem of suffering and sin is that a Holy God actually does not simply judge human sin through the suffering man brought into the world but answers it in Christ. We have the answer that God provided in the Cross that the root of human suffering has been answered but have to wait, in faith, for the consummation when suffering will finally cease.

I've been reflecting lately as I've been praying for Church members whose parents are in their later years of life and are experiencing the loneliness of the loss of a spouse or the death of friends even as their bodies fail them. I've reminded myself that my later years might be filled with great sadness and that I will not necessarily experience "golden years" of happiness up to death. My hope is not that this life will provide ultimate satisfaction and deliverance from pain or sadness but that my joy is rooted in the Age to Come.

Thanks for this post, Rich.

You experience is obviously different, but I don't know anyone who has even suggested that doctors can "infallibly diagnose and treat organic problems." Sometimes they do in God's providence, and that's great. But plenty of folks trust certain medical professionals and others to diagnose mental disorders by using the subjective guide of the DSM-IV (or V now I guess). Though I doubt folks would think it is infallible. But that wasn't the point of the story. There are those who claim that Adams doesn't believe in organic causes for problems, which is a false claim.

I totally agree that Adams does not ignore organic problems. The problem I've run into is that there is a hidden assumption that doctors can determine organic causes with certainty. It's ironic because Nouthetic counselors are very skeptical of much of psychiatry, but if a family doctor has ruled out an organic cause, then, there you go, the problem must be spiritual.

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

How would you have had a 19th C, Jay Adams to have dealt with such a situation?

Also, I think everyone admits that physical/chemical problems can lead to emotional problems but what about Spiritual/Emotional fixes leading to physical/chemical improvement? Or does everyone believe that this is a one way street only?

CT

To answer your first question, I think it's best to come along side the whole man rather than trying to parse things into organic=physicians, spiritual=counselors. One consequence of the latter approach is that you have a sort of Nouthetic-counciling-of-the-gaps; as medical science advances it's tending to find more and more organic causes for things. Instead we should see that often the same problem needs to be approached from both the medical and spiritual side.

I think physical-spiritual is often two-way but not to the extent that we have mind-over-matter. Being totally in line with scripture spiritually is not going to make an ovarian tumor go away.

 

[cajunhillbilly53]

I remeber Jay Adams from Westminster. He was a character for sure. A lot of his personality went into his books. He is a forceful kind of a guy. A force of nature LOL

 

[Pergamum]

"Repent of your sin" is not the solution to everything in the mental realm.

Have you actually read Adams' book or, as you say, you were tempted to read it but did not. One cannot get past the first Introduction to dispel the myth that he ever advocates such a thing. I'm not saying his method has no issues but that is a gross mischaracterization of his work.
.

I've read many of Adam's books and I read Competent to Counsel twice (because I thought I reacted too negatively against it the first time, the second time I felt more assured in my estimation that Dr Adams tried to swing the pendelum too far back the other direction and discounted too much of the physical as well as the many legitimate uses of psychology). I find in Welch and Powlison more balance and a less caustic tone.

Modern secular psychology turns everyone into a victim, Adams, in over-reaction appears almost to turn everyone into a perpetrator.

Here is a quote from the link that I provided above that illustrates that dangers of downplaying the physical (or giving the medical/physical side lip service only):

I have a friend who suffers from PTSD—he endured a lot of trauma as a child—and his symptoms worsened after his experience with a Nouthetic counselor who simply told him that he was the one in the wrong and that he needed to repent of his sin. Although he currently attends a seminary that strongly teaches NC, he is in the extreme position where he feels that no good can come out of it, even with a Bible-based approach that would include the Nouthetic method.