A Hairs Breadth from Nouthetic Counseling
Nouthetic counseling, as expounded by Dr. Jay Adams, is a method of Christian counseling wherein believers are directed to lovingly confront people out of deep concern, in order to help make the changes that God requires.[1] Its distinction from Christian counseling more generally, which integrates psychology into the Christian counseling practice, is that the counsel is limited strictly to what may be found in the Bible.[2] Adams settled here after coming to the conclusion that science has largely given way to humanistic philosophy, and gross speculation in the realm of psychiatry.[3] Played out, this line of thinking would posit that since diagnosis such as ADHD, ADD, adjustment disorders, schizophrenia, and all of the many others the DSM-5 enumerates are not expressed specifically in Scripture, they ought to be considered nothing more than a collection of pseudoscientific assumptions and psychosomatic phenomena. Now, how they label something as psychosomatic when such a notion isn’t found in Scripture, I cannot tell you. From what I can tell, they would have to participate in psychological practice to even make that assumption.
The Scriptural thought process behind Nouthetic Counseling maintains that to accept counsel that isn’t specifically found in the Word of God is to walk in the counsel of the wicked, stand in the way of sinners, and sit in the seat of scoffers (pulling from Psalm 1:1-3). Furthermore, it would also be to walk in the counsel of the wicked to offer psychological counseling, not just to receive it, because the methods originate from man-made philosophies that are at times in direct contradiction to Scripture. The doctrinal reasoning for Nouthetic counseling is rooted in the aim to preserve a lofty view of the sufficiency of Scripture. These reasons are both very well intentioned, and I certainly see where someone might reach those initial conclusions, especially if they have limited experience in psychological study or practice.
Nonetheless, I think the Scriptural and doctrinal reasoning for adopting the Nouthetic approach each fall short. First, their application of Psalm 1:1-3 is based on a couple faulty presuppositions. First, it presupposes that one cannot separate the method from its origin. I do not believe that to use psychological methods, one has to adopt the philosophy that brought those methods about. If a murderer tells me the sky is blue, I am not going to cease believing that the sky is blue on account of him being a murderer. Further, by agreeing with him that the sky is blue, I’m not co-signing the man’s philosophy. If a Rogerian humanistic psychologist has a helpful method for active listening or helping the client feel listened to, I don’t have to adopt Carl Rogers congruent theory in order to utilize that in a session or two (although I realize Rogers would not do so for only a session or two, but rather have that as a purposefully permanent posture. Christian counsel has to be given. This is merely an example). Rather, I would utilize this method in light of Scriptures such as, Proverbs 18:13, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame”, or Proverbs 18:2, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion”.
Secondly, and perhaps taking a step back, I disagree with the blanket presupposition that all psychological methods/claims originate from the psychologist who is most known for expounding them. Secularism has always relied on its piracy of the Christian worldview. Anytime they assert a behavior as a moral “ought”, or an immoral “ought not”, they steal from the Christian worldview, the only worldview that offers a consistent absolute moral standard. I don’t assume them to be doing any differently, or to suddenly be original regarding psychological method. That said, the integration of psychology and theology is merely a matter of reclaiming Christian truth from the vain philosophy that stole it. The world has always had a knack for stealing from a Christian worldview where it lacks. This is just another one of those areas.
Where psychological methods are truly married to the philosophies that claim it, rather than cases of being Christian principles stolen and warped by the world to fit its preferred direction of discipling, they should be tossed entirely. There should be much prayer and discernment, consulting the Word to know when this is the case. Great caution should be exercised. For the most part, I do believe though that Scripture provides not only the remedy, but a perfect “how” to go about the remedy. Where psychology aids that it should be welcomed. I believe what Gary Collins once wrote in his book, Psychology & Theology: Prospects for Integration, “psychology built on Christian presuppositions is academically legitimate and behaviorally meaningful"[4], and that, “If we assume that God is the source of all truth, then there will be no conflict or contradiction between truth revealed in the Bible, and truth as revealed in nature. To use an old phrase, Gods Word and Gods world do not contradict.”[5]
I must also address the way in which I believe doctrinal reasoning for the Nouthetic approach, though nobly intentioned, falls short. Once more stated, the claim of the Nouthetic viewpoint is that to pull from psychology in our Christian counseling, is to reject the sufficiency of Scripture (or at least a lofty view of it). This doctrine, as expounded by The Wesleyan Discipline, is as follows:
We believe that the books of the Old and New Testaments constitute the Holy Scriptures. They are the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine. We believe that they contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Both in the Old and New Testaments life is offered ultimately through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and humanity. The New Testament teaches Christians how to fulfill the moral principles of the Old Testament, calling for loving obedience to God made possible by the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit.
This is paragraph 218, labeled under article 5 within the Articles of Religion section titled, “The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation”. I affirm this but have an even more strict view of the sufficiency of Scripture that goes further. Not only do I believe that Scripture contains all things necessary for Salvation, I believe it to be sufficient in that there is no need for further special revelation beyond it. This is a much loftier view of sufficiency than your average joe, and even I don’t think in such a way as the Nouthetic view attempts to make this doctrine out to be.
It is a nonsensical claim that any observable truth outside of Scripture is a lie, and that to espouse it is to reject the sufficiency of Gods Word. I bought Kalie a couple of the Joana Gaines cookbooks. Scripture offers no wisdom whatsoever on how to make the perfect oatmeal chocolate chip cookies. If Kalie uses Joanna’s recipe for oatmeal chocolate chip cookies, is she rejecting the sufficiency of Scripture? Is Scripture not enough for my Kalie that she must go elsewhere for such knowledge? No! Scripture doesn’t claim to be sufficient in that way by any means. People often try this angle with their theology regarding creation as well. But just as Holy Scripture is not a recipe book, it is not a science book or psychology book either.
Despite the aforementioned differences, I am actually quite close to the Nouthetic approach in some of its other, much more crucial presuppositions. Although my philosophy of counseling is a very cautious integrationist perspective, like the Nouthetic counselor I hold to the presupposition that the inerrant Word of God is the authoritative source of truth and wisdom. I also believe that we are fallen people living in a fallen world, and therefore the problems we face such as anxiety, depression, fear, doubt, lust, anger, unforgiveness, and anything else someone may be seeking help for are direct consequences of that sin nature we have. By this I mean that ultimately, the diagnosis is always of sinful origin. This is true whether in regard to our fallen state of being, the fallen condition of the world, or perhaps the counselee is engaged in some sinful practice. The remedy is progression in sanctification. Therefore, the goal of Christian counseling is to aid one’s fellow believer in obedient submission to that sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in their life. In these much more fundamental truths of the counseling endeavor, I believe we ministers who shoulder this responsibility are far more alike than different.
CITATIONS
[1] Jay Adams, “What is Nouthetic Counseling”, Nouthetic.org, Mid-America Institute for Nouthetic Studies, 2021, https://nouthetic.org/about/what-is-nouthetic-counseling/.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), 176.
[4] Gary Collins, Psychology & Theology: Prospects for Integration (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1981), 9.
[5] Collins, 15.
