In yesterday’s post, we summarized and discussed 2 of the 3 main positions when trying to address the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling. You’ll remember that Crabb finds weaknesses in the first 2 positions. Here is the third (and the one Crabb promotes).Is the Bible a textbook for counseling?
Yes. Every question a counselor needs to ask is answered by both the content of Scripture and its implications.
For Crabb, the ultimate purpose of counseling is to improve relationships (both with God and with others). And he says ‘yes’ the Bible is a textbook for relational living. But he works out the issue of sufficiency carefully.
In a sentence, here is Crabb’s view: Biblical data support doctrinal categories which have implications that comprehensively deal with every relational issue of life. Let’s break that down…
(A) We start with exegesis of the Word. We study it deeply and carefully. But while exegesis is the starting point, it can never be the end in itself.
(B) We take the teachings of these various texts we study and organize them into broad statements of truth. These are doctrinal statements or categories. For example, if you open any textbook on systematic theology, you will find in the table of contents an organization of some doctrinal truths.
(C) Now when we encounter data from nonbiblical sources and when we encounter real-life problems from real people, we view (and explain) them in light of the biblical text and the categories and principles of theology.
(D) Finally, we must work hard to communicate God’s truth to people in ways they can hear and understand it. Crabb suggests that our own lives as counselors and pastors are the best examples or demonstrations of God’s power. We must enter into the life of another person, engage them in deep, profound, and intimate ways. We pour our life into them. And they see God’s truth lived out in us.
“Good exegesis and careful theology enable us to recite God’s truth to others accurately. Insightful reflection about the implications of those truths to real-life questions makes it possible to present truth with relevance. But only living the truth with growing consistency equips us to communicate with power.”
Now we have all three positions. What thoughts/observation/questions do you have?
Posts
8 comments:
I do beleive that the Bible is central to the answer to every question, but it more fully answers some questiosns more than others. Example: What do I do about a leakey faucet? The Bible gives us the idea that things should be in order and that this is a result of the Fall (in a very distant sense). That's about it for the Bible as a faucet manuel. From here on we must consult other sources to resolve this issue.
This a a pretty whimsical example, but I do feel that the Bible is the foundational source for all things, espicially counsleing, but it should probably not be our only or last source.
For restoration to occur in counseling, we need to provide God's Word in an understandable format in an enviroment than easily facilitates change (love, conpassion, etc). This takes deep involvement and time, some would call it committment. Committment to God's Kingdom.
-Stephen C
Aaron, I dont have anywhere I am going with this question other than pure curiosity.
How would Crabb (or you, or anyone else) feel the bible deals with those who have mental diseases. From a theological standpoint I would/could say it is a result of the fall. But how does the bible give us direction towards counseling/treating them? Or does it?
Just thinking.
David,
That's a good question. My take is this..... The majority of Christian counselors (Crabb included) would make a distinction between problems that are biological in origin and those that are not. The consensus seems to be that the Bible does not give us much direct guidance on treating physical ailments. Of the typical "psychological disorders," schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are examples of conditions that are often seen as being primarily biologically-based. There is a wide range of opinions as to which disorders are biologically caused and which ones are not.
My problem with this view is that I think it presents a false dichotomy. This line of thinking seems to be that either a disorder is caused by a biological problem or it is caused by a psychological (or spiritual) problem. But I don't think problems can be so easily divided. My guess is that nearly any psychological disorder you can name is caused by a blending of biological, psychological, and spiritual factors.
That muddies the waters when you start trying to make accurate assessments and provide effective treatments. But I think it is closer to the truth nonetheless.
Don't know how well that answers your question, though. Does that make any sense?
AN
David,
One other quick thought. There are a good number of people out there that believe ALL mental diseases are spiritual diseases. As such, ALL mental disorders should be treated as sinful conditions. They would claim that the Bible is sufficient to treat even schizophrenia, for example.
I haven't found this approach to be helpful or true to my understanding of Scripture. But those folks are out there.
AN
To me mental disorders for the most part are due to something that has happend to them in the past. I know that it is not always the case but I think that it is most likely the case. For example, my mom was diagnosed later in her life with depression. I have talked to her about her childhood and her life as a teen. When she was young her parents went through marriages like you would not believe and I believe that is a contributing factor in her depression. I believe deep down she has this idea that her life will turn out like that. I know depression is also due to hormone imbalance but I do not believe it is all due to the hormones.
This banter intrigues me to learn more about what actually I believe is the best method. For someone who does not think outside the box very well it does me good to hear different opinions and decide what I feel is best. There are so many different opinions and who is to tell one person that their opinion is wrong. Controversies could arise from simple issues like leaky faucets or more complex issues such as homosexuality. Now my personal view is that Crabb's third position is the best approach.
I do not claim to be a deep theologian nor a knowledgeable counselors; therefore, I accept the fact that I still have much to learn. Could I back up my opinion with sounds facts or data? Probably not in a huge debate but I am doing better about learning what I believe and why.
Thanks Dr. New and all those who posted comments.
Aaron, I know quite well they are out there. :)
I have seen people try to "cast the spirit of alcoholism" out of people, and the like. Scary stuff (theologically).
oh yeah---yes, your answer made sense.
thanks!
Post a Comment