Powlison on the Counseling Revolution

I always benefit from the writing of David Powlison. Today was no exception. Here are a few excerpts from his four-part article, "Cure of Souls (and the Modern Psychotherapies)" (JBC 25:2):

Warning against the use of caricatures and heated language in legitimate disputes with other Christians:

Sneering obliterates all discussion of profound issues. God's children are rarely edified by scathing words. When we look at each group through the worst of the other's language, both groups appear shamefully disreputable. Reckless and factious words fail the test of constructive, gracious, gentle speech to which God binds us and by which He will examine us (Eph. 4:15, 29; 2 Tim. 2:24f; Matt. 7:1-5). In fact, there are some true bashers and heretics around. But provocative language and sweeping generalizations usually serve to provoke, nurture, and justify the worst tendencies in human nature, not the further outworking of our redemption. It is always good policy to interact with the best representatives of a point of view, not the worst representatives. We feel self-righteous when we post and posture next to our caricatures. We must listen, think, and argue well when we engage a thoughtful disputant.

Then, Powlison seeks to counter caricatures of biblical counseling and integrationist models of Christian counseling,

So-called psychology bashers - those who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for generating a comprehensive counseling model - do fundamentally disbelieve the modern psychologies, taking them to be systematic counterfeits and pretenders in the final analysis. They believe tha thte Bible fiercely resists syncretism. But they still claim that something can be learned from the psychologies: wrong does not mean stupid; error must borrow elements of truth to be plausible; God often allows observant and persuasive error to expose lacunae, crudities, and distortions in His own children's thinking and practice. That Scripture is 'sufficient' to transform us never means that the Bible is 'exhaustive.' It does not mean tha thte Bible's message for us is accessed and communicated only through proof-texts. All application of Scripture demands tha twe engage in a theological and interpretive task. Good, true, faithful theology is closely grounded in the text, but often says a somewhat differnt thing than the text says, because it speaks to a different set of questions. Face-to-face ministry must use the Bible in the same way; ministry is not simply a matter of inserting proof-texts into conversation. All minsitry demands sensitivity and flexibility to the varying conditions of those to whom one ministers.

Though one might find some exceptions, most supposed psychology bashers are not anti-counseling. Most work to develop and practice loving and effective cure of souls as the alternative to secular or quasi-secular psychotherapy. The debate is not whether or not to counsel; the debate is about what sort of counsel to believe, what sort of counseling to do, what sort of cure to offer.

So-called psychoheretics - those who believe that Scripture does not intend to be sufficient for generating a comprehensive counseling model - do see an essential role for the secular psychologies. Psychological disciplines offer some sort of necessary truth; psychological professions offer some sort of necessary and valid practice. But the so-called psychoheretics still claim that the Bible must provide the final authority. That Scripture is not sufficient does not mean the Bible is irrelevant or that it ought to be subordinated to secular psychologies, but that the Bible itself mandates looking and learning from outside. The Bible itself resists biblicism.

Though one can find exceptions, most supposed psychoheretics are not out to swallow the camel of secularity and foist it on an unsuspecting church. Many work to critique the secularity of the modern psychologies and to screen out what seem to fail the test of Scripture. Why do they become psychologists? Glaring defects in the church's current understanding and practice are the main reason they expend time and effort to do hard study of human beings. In this culture, that often means to study psychology. Where else is one permitted and disciplined to gaze steadily into the complications and miseries of the soul? Where else do defective relationships come under scrutiny? Where else can one be taught to probe the details of life lived, and then to offer timely and patient aid? Theological and pastoral training typically does not look closely enough or get hands-on enough to engender case wisdom and a patiently probing counseling process.