We have something new and exciting we’d like to share with you! It’s the new Oasis toolbar – once added to IE or Firefox, each time you shop at more than 1,300 stores (from Amazon to Zazzle!) a percentage of your purchase will automatically be donated to Oasis – at no cost to you (and you may even save money as the toolbar provides coupons and deals as well!). The toolbar also has a search box and each time you search the Internet, about a penny is donated to Oasis. If the links do not work for you, here is the url for direct download: http://www.goodsearch.com/toolbar/oasis-church.aspx
If you would like to Donate for the Conklin Roof Project, you can do so here also through Paypal. Thank you!
Last week I read an article titled, “3 Fail-Proof Rules for Creating a Viral Post” and I want to show how we (through my own stupidity and example) get played when it comes to Christian issues.
This morning a smart marketing friend of mine on Face Book posted (using twitter, and other social networking tools) a post titled; “dear john piper” and after an 2-hours (my last count) there were over 200+ responses between his blog, FB, and I imagine twitter – each!!! (yes, my post is in there too…. foot shaped mouth and all).
Here is the deal… We all got played and well by my smart marketing friend, Matthew Paul Turner. How? Let’s go through the “3 Fail-Proof Rules of Creating a Viral Post” mentioned above;
1. Freelance says, “Start with the Title.” If we look at this title, “dear john piper” most of us believers know who John Piper is, so a title like this is going to perk an interest for many of us, both fans and antagonists. What was it as a ‘fan’ that drew me? I have met John Piper (1 of 1000000000000000000 that he has met) at conferences, read many of his books, listened to him on audio, etc and think that vicariously, I have a pretty good idea of who he is, as a godly man and leader. I recently, for instance was struck, by how he responded to being baited to respond to another issue that Christians are all riled up about. Needless to say, Matthew created a GREAT title and I was hooked.
2. Freelance says, “Rule #1 – Disagree on a HOT topic.” When you read Matt’s post, he has done a GREAT job of disagreeing on such hot topics as John Piper, Reformed Theology and Addiction. Why are these three topics HOT…? Let me remind you;
a. John Piper is a MAJOR SPOTLIGHT Leader and Pastor – he has been in ministry long enough to receive a few ‘drive-bys’ in his time and because of his position (much to what we have done by putting him there rather than Jesus) I imagine he has ticked a few people off (just like we all do if we spend time with one another). Marketing for years has been taking pot-shots at those in the spot light as a tool to further themselves. How mortified we would be if we were exposed the same way. Scripture is clear however that part of being a leader (Jesus said a prophet is not welcome in his hometown for instance) is pot-shots at the expense of others for our own agendas.
b. Reformed theology debates have been going on since Biblical times. Because of indwelling sin, there will continue to be heated debates and because we are fallen and depraved some of us do not handle conflict or peacemaking very well and don’t realize how we miss-represent God, the Bible, and others quite frequently. What I will tell you is that I am reformed, and there are idiots on all sides of the spectrum, it just depends on who your reading. Side note: Is it not ironic that Matthew named his blog: “Jesus needs new PR”? Excellent marketing strategy.
c. Addiction – is a hot topic due to our psychologized evangelical message these days (as we have been discussing here at Oasis). This creates a disagreement because this topic is so
emotionally charged, as we all have been touched by ‘disorders’ in our lives and in answering the ‘why’ we have forgotten the ‘who’ and are looking for something/someone to blame and ‘addictions’ give us good language straight out of Genesis 3 that salves our consciences. I have always thought the language of ‘addiction’ and the way it is presented reminded me of a ‘bug zapper’, some innocent, pure, and perfect human walks by _______________ (fill in addiction) and ZAP, they are totally without hope and spiraling down out of control. We also like to think that we are the only ones who struggle with these things and “you just don’t understand, my mother did not hug me, my dad spanked me when I lied, and my classmates called me names that is why I am addicted to ______________________.” My favorite is, “that may have worked for you but it doesn’t mean it works for everyone.” One of the great skit parodies that was going around in Biblical Counseling circles some time ago was the Mad TV skit called, “Stop-It” that is humorous because it is not really that easy but there is a lot of truth in it at the same time. So good controversial topic Matthew.
3. Freelance says, “Rule 2 – Inject humor into your piece” – Matt does this really well and your so endeared with the guy that we are tempted to overlook the disrespectful and unbiblical way in which the topics are presented and slanted. Humor disarms us, and many times humor is because, we identify with something in a cartoon, joke, or skit/movie that has connotations in real life. Matthew’s intro is in actuality exposing his REAL views and topics through the guise of humor. If you can get people to laugh, it disarms them and is a bridge to building on other things. Have you ever noticed that we like comedians because they make us laugh about life, but in their humor they are also exposing us to their worldview and exposing ours. In marketing, humor can go a long way. All of us have humorous TV commercials (here is mine), for instance, that without realizing, brands their product in our mind as well. What is Matthew branding for us?
4. Freelance says, “Tell them it is a secret, even if it is not.” Matthew does this by BOLDING his main point in the post and exposing the core of his post. The ‘secret’ is that Matthew has all the information about addictions, and what the Bible says about them and John Piper does not. The ‘secret’ is that Matthew is using a subtle marketing technique to turn our hearts against a brother in Christ and by the end of the article (if your a fan) you want to shoot Matthew, or in my case was ‘addicted’ to setting him straight (actually the Bible calls that “answering a fool according to his folly”) and I fell for it. If your ‘addicted’ to being an antagonist against Piper – you can jump on the band wagon and use coarse language and anyone who challenges your position, you tell them they don’t understand grace (Romans 6:1 is a perfect understanding of grace in this particular case). Finally, the ‘secret’ is coming off like an authority when your not. Matthew is NOT an M.D. or a Counselor… he is a writer but the ‘secret’ he presents inadvertently pass him off as an authority in these areas. A great tool of marketing.
So brother & sisters, you got duped and welcome to the club, so did I. Below this article is the responses that I sent; 1) personally and first to Matthew by email 2) commented on his FB page with, and also posted on his blog.
I received permission from Matthew to draw attention to his posting. It is not my intention to discredit my brother in any way. What I am calling us to do, and Matthew gets to be the example, is to be more discerning with what we read, and how we respond. For all I know, Matthew doesn’t believe any of the things he wrote, and he read the same “Freelance” article I read last week and just wanted to drive traffic to his site. Christians however are called to be different than the world, and even in business, or marketing, this call includes us to think about what we do in cyber-space.
I need to go back and re-read Keeping the Peace – Writing E-mail that will not Stir up Conflict and Polemic Theology – How to Deal with Those who Differ from Us as I have much work to do in this area… and for when I forget the gospel as shown by my response below…
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
Psalm 19:14 (ESV) or said another way…
Let the words of my mouth , the writings on my blog, face book page, twitter updates, and other social networks and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight,O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.
—————————-Derek’s big ole fish hook response ———————————————–
Did you contact Dr. Piper personally with this before you posted it out to the world?
I was just wondering because it is clear that you take the bible seriously and Mt 18:15 – Gal 6:1-2 would appear to be in order here. We really do a good job ’slamming each other’ as Christians by not giving each other charitable judgments or respecting one another enough to address it biblically FIRST before we hit send. I am just curious in if you contacted him as I searched your site and could not find a response or attempt to write to him personally before it went public.
Regarding ‘porn addiction” I would point you to perhaps calling it a disorder…. a disorder of worship… no one held a gun to that … person’s head and said, “I am going to shoot you and your family if you don’t look at this porn…” That individual made a conscious and culpable decision. The “sickness” model tends to give people NO hope when scripture is clear that “such were some of you.” Being free of Porn for 10+ years through SettingCaptivesFree.com, revealed the truth to me that I had a disorder of worship… I was worshipping something other than Christ… telling myself the lie that God could not meet my needs, and I needed to meet that need myself. 1 Thes 4 is also clear that we should abstain from sexual immorality and you’re saying that God has given an impossible command? Does God give impossible commands? Thanks for allowing me to comment…
In conclusion, let me say that I am not a Piper acolyte, or Driscoll acolyte, etc… I am a Jesus acolyte… and it does grieve me that believers think it is appropriate to disagree publically without respecting one another privately first (some of you are going to think that I am doing the exact thing here), further in lieu of Pastor Piper’s status, he is worthy of double honor and 1 Timothy is clear that when we disagree with leaders, how to approach them. I also know a good way to drive traffic to a site is to put something controversial out there (got me….. for instance) and let it go… I wonder if perhaps this might have been handled differently… perhaps even biblically.
Recently for instance Piper was baited into commenting on two other pastors and he graciously, humbly, and biblically pointed us back to the Cross…. I highly recommend it to us all: http://5ptsalt.com/2009/05/15/piper-addresses-mark-driscollmacarthur-issue-at-basics-conference/
We really love our controversies don’t we? 1 Tim 1:5-7, 2 Tim 2:24-26 (and we don’t have to read these verses either)…
One popular writer has advocated “spoiling the Egyptians.”12 By this he means that Christians should take from the social sciences whatever “truth” has been discovered and bring it into their schema of Christian counseling. No doubt this writer intended to simply use this figure of speech in an allegorical sense. However, the allegory fails to do justice to the clear meaning of the biblical text from which the concept is taken. In the biblical text (Exodus 12:35–36), this spoiling of the Egyptians was clearly a matter of borrowing material things, not socio-cultural concepts. In fact, when the Israelites did borrow such concepts they built a golden calf and an idol, and God punished them for it.
Several years ago, apologist and theologian Cornelius Van Til astutely anticipating the sufficiency debate, drew from the Scripture an illustration that is consistent with sound biblical exegesis and warned against turning to the world for any basis of knowledge. He wrote:
To illustrate our attitude to modern science and its methodology we call to mind the story of Solomon and the Phoenicians. Solomon wished to build a temple to the covenant God. Did he ask those who were not of the covenant to make a blueprint for him? No, he got his blueprint from God. …But was there nothing useful to do for those who were not of the covenant? Not at all. The Phoenicians were even recognized as being far more skillful than the covenant people in fashioning and trimming the timbers… Solomon used the Phoenicians as his servants, not his architects. Something similar to this should be our attitude to science. We gladly recognize the detail work of many scientists (yes, even social scientists) as being highly valuable… But we cannot use modern science and their methods as the architects of our structures of Christian interpretation.13
When Van Til speaks of Christian interpretation, he is not talking about the interpretation of Scripture, though his premise also applies there, but rather about the Christian interpretation of life. All the sciences, especially the social sciences, are very much involved in the interpretation of life. When Carl Rogers worked with a client from the viewpoint that the client had within him the answer(s) to his problems, he was interpreting life. When Maslow set before us the goal of self-actualizing, he was interpreting life. When Aaron Beck and a host of other cognitive-behavioral therapists saw the change of cognitive structure and structured behavioural change as the key solution to life problems, they were interpreting life.
Van Til’s position becomes poignant when we begin to realize that the adoption and adaption of the non-Christian conceptions of life, whether derived philosophically or through scientific methodology, is placing this interpretation of life on the same level as revelation.14 Yet Scripture indicates that it alone is capable of making the person of God adequate (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Only the Bible can fully equip a Christian and enable him to perform every good work (that includes conducting one’s life and profession within acceptable limits – the limits of Christlike character).
As we were doing research for this chapter, we observed an interesting phenomenon. When the church was dealing with the issues of inerrancy and authority, a number of Christian writers who took an integrationist stance wrote convincingly that the Scriptures take precedence over all scientific data. There are dozens of volumes available on the inerrancy debate. But ever since the church’s focus shifted from inerrancy to sufficiency, very little has been written in support of Scripture’s preeminence. A literature review of the last ten years yielded several articles by John MacArthur, which were variations on his book Our Sufficiency in Christ (1991). Other resources included How to Help People Change by Jay Adams (1986); The Sufficiency of Scripture by Noel Weeks (1988); Psychology, Theology and Spirituality by Mark McMinn (1996); and Self-Help or Self- Destruction? by Chris Thurman (1996). There have been numerous articles on integration, but we expected to find many articles on sufficiency, and the discovery that so little had been written heightened our determination to produce this book.
12-Larry Crabb, Effective Biblical Counseling (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 47–52. Crabb suggests a model for Christian counseling that combines nouthetic confrontation with paraklitic comfort and exhortation (pp. 147–48).
13-Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Evidences (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1976), p.67.
14-See Mark McMinn, Psychology, Theology and Spirituality, p. 25. Writing as a representative of the American Association of Christian Counselors, McMinn reflects on the struggle of Christian counselors on the issue of sufficiency, though he does not use this term. McMinn acknowledges that “a Christianized form of therapy can be built on flawed, misleading and damaging worldview assumptions.” Nevertheless, he later admits on page 34, “Most of us do not want to replace our theoretical commitments to behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, family systems, and other forms of therapy.”
Edward E. Hindson and Howard Eyrich, Totally Sufficient (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, 1997).
How has the evangelical community arrived at this point? There are a number of factors that have contributed to the current dilemma. It is not the purpose of this book to trace the historical development of our present crisis; however, there is one issue that is essential to consider. It is the issue of scientific methodology, which has been extremely beneficial to the human community. There is no one alive today who would voluntarily wish to return to the prescientific era. The technology available to us in the medical sciences alone is cause for us to rejoice that the Lord has allowed us to live in this day and age. But many have endeavored to adapt scientific methodology to the social sciences, bringing about an unfortunate side effect. These individuals have given psychology the aura of the exactness of biology, chemistry, and the other hard sciences. This supposed credibility has too often translated debatable findings into truth. Phenomenological observations have become laws. “It seems to be true that…” has become “it is true that…” Unfortunately, many times it has been Christians who have been more prone to “deify” these findings, and not the secular community. It is not uncommon today to hear Christians substantiating the concepts of psychology. Many Christians accept these concepts without any comprehension of whether they are biblically valid. For example, it is quite common to hear a Christian say, “I am a recovering alcoholic,” or “I am co-dependent.” They accept these conditions as having the same credibility as the substitutionary atonement of Christ. In doing so, these Christians embrace symptoms as conditions and end up locking themselves into living with these symptoms for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, they never learn to deal with the root problem of their symptoms, which is sin.
Edward E. Hindson and Howard Eyrich, Totally Sufficient (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), 19–20.
What has happened to the modern Christian professional? Whether in the counseling professions, the practice of medicine, or in research, ministry, or education, many Christian professionals have adopted the modern mindset of the world in which they live and have been trained. Theologian John Murray rightly observed that we need to “beware of the controlling framework of modern thinking lest its patterns and presuppositions become our own, and then, before we know it, we are carried away by a current of thought and attitudes that makes the sufficiency and finality of Scripture not only extraneous but akin to our way of thinking.”10 An interesting dichotomy has arisen in the church today.
During the 1970s a very successful organization developed under the leadership of James Montgomery Boice and several others: the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. This organization produced a cohesive, scholarly, and distilled document that cogently states the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Shortly after the final document was issued, it became evident that evangelicals could not relax in their defense of the Bible because the battle soon shifted its focus to the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Today there is a dichotomy in the church on two levels. First, we have a church that professes to believe the Bible is inerrant, but it is not sufficient for matters of faith and life. It is not difficult to find evidence of this dichotomy. Survey, for example, the extracurricular offerings in many churches. On Sunday morning these churches uphold the Bible and its message of salvation through faith in Christ, but during the rest of the week there is a smorgasbord of self-help groups that meet to aid the Christian in his struggles with anything from worry to homosexuality. If you attend any of these self-help groups, you will discover that many offer advice that does not even come close to being biblical in nature. There is a dichotomy between the pulpit and the self-help groups, seminars, and classrooms within our own local churches.
Second, we have a church that professes to believe in an inerrant Bible that is sufficient for justification, but not for sanctification. Sid Galloway, who works closely with counselors in hospital settings, gave an example of this at a recent counseling convention. He reported about a conversation he had with one of his co-workers about the issue of biblical sufficiency. At one point Sid said, “I know you believe the Bible is sufficient for justification, but do you believe it is sufficient for sanctification?” After some discussion, the co-worker admitted that he did not believe that the Bible was sufficient for sanctification. This dilemma is not true for all psychologists who are Christians. Psychologist Chris Thurman writes: Obviously…God helps us by providing truth in the form of His Word, the Bible. We don’t have to wonder what the most important truths (true truth) in life are because God divinely inspired mortal man to write them down for our enlightenment and application. In a world where so much nonsense is passed off as wisdom, we don’t have to be confused or in the dark about what truth is. If people need the truth to be set free, the Bible is God’s way of giving us the truths we must believe for true freedom in life.11 The focus among evangelicals has shifted from inerrancy to sufficiency, and this shift has created a dichotomy with profound effects. The logical implication of this dichotomy is the concept that the Bible is sufficient to gain passage into heaven, but it is insufficient to deal with life on this earth.
10-John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), p. 22.
11-Chris Thurman, Self-Help or Self-Destruction? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), p. 167.
Edward E. Hindson and Howard Eyrich, Totally Sufficient (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), 18–19.
Despite the glaring contradictions between secular psychology and biblical theology, the evangelical church has had a thirty year love affair with psychology. MacArthur observed that “evangelicalism is infatuated with psychotherapy. Emotional and psychological disorders supposedly requiring prolonged analysis have become almost fashionable.”7 Why has this shift occurred? First, we must blame the modern church itself. Alien and anti-Christian ideologies have come and gone for centuries. But today’s church is almost devoid of a clear-cut theology of any kind. Sermons are punctuated with a conglomeration of conflicting ideas regarding the very nature and task of the church itself. Christians in search of solutions for their problems have brought them into a theologically illiterate church that has accepted those insights unwittingly and uncritically. Second, we must recognize the failure of the twenty-first-century church to make the Scripture relevant to the needs of individuals and families. It was not uncommon twenty to thirty years ago for people to attend church regularly but never hear a biblically relevant message on such issues as dating, marriage, family, divorce, singleness, or even personal spiritual growth. A number of popular Christian speakers and writers (such as Clyde Narramore, Henry Brandt, Tim LaHaye, Bill Gothard, and James Dobson) noticed this vacuum and began ministering to those in need. Soon terms like “Christian counselor” or “Christian psychologist” began to appear and found acceptability within Christian circles. Christianity Today recently observed that “popularizers such as authors James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and Larry Crabb convinced a whole generation of evangelicals that God cared about their psyches as well as their souls, opening the door for a marriage between theology and therapeutic thought.”8 As a result, the church became involved in a debate over methodology in counseling. Jay Adams called for theologically trained counselors to fill the vacuum. Larry Crabb replied that it would take more than theology to fix damaged psyches and argued for better psychological training. Paul Meier and Frank Minirth began popularizing Christian psychiatry. Eventually, addiction recovery models became popular in evangelical circles. More and more Christians began seeking professional licensure in order to guarantee third-party insurance payments for their counseling services. The Christian counseling movement exploded, with clinics popping up everywhere: Rapha, Alpha Care, Minirth-Meier, and so on. Christian call-in programs came to fill the radio dial. Myriad books have been written. Counseling advice became available everywhere. 7 John MacArthur, Jr., Our Sufficiency in Christ (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991), p. 20. 8 Steve Rabey, “Hurting Helpers,” Christianity Today, 40:10 (Sept. 16, 1996), p. 78.
Edward E. Hindson and Howard Eyrich, Totally Sufficient (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers, 1997). 15.
Scientific
|
The Biblical
|
| The fact of the matter is that the education of professional scientists is just as narrowly focused as the education of any other group of professionals, and scientists are just as likely to be ignorant of scientific matters as anyone else. | “Is psychology really a science?” No it isn’t. But few pastors are willing to take the time to examine the evidences, consider the implications, confront the deceptions, and inform their people.
|
The Word of God For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. —Romans 1:20–23.
Ed Bulkley, Why Christians Can’t Trust Psychology (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 1993). 46.
I have heard that those who practice biblical counseling are unsympathetic, mean-spirited, and callous. Is this true?
Biblical counselors are certainly none of these things. In truth, they are just the opposite. Biblical counselors want to come alongside counselees in concern and love as they address the problems. They want to help individuals find biblical solutions; they encourage change for God’s glory primarily but also for the counselee’s own benefit. The apostle Paul serves as a good model for biblical counselors. He reminded the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:20) how he had not held back anything in his teaching that was profitable for them. He had even gone house to house in order to minister to them. Then in verse 31 he shows the spirit of humility in his heart as he says, “Night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish (nŏuthĕtĕō) each one with tears.” Even though Paul had to admonish these people and tell them the truth, he was not unsympathetic, mean-spirited, or callous with them. Another passage illustrating Paul’s compassion is 1 Thessalonians 2:7–9. There he makes the point with his readers that he was gentle with them ( v. 7), and that he had imparted not only truth to them but his own life (v. 8). Paul was known for speaking the truth, but speaking it in love (Eph. 4:15, 29). And that is what a biblical counselor does. The counselor establishes involvement in the life of the counselee and gives hope that the person’s problem can be overcome. Many counselees have never experienced this type of caring confrontation. They have never experienced true concern and compassion—traits that are essential prerequisites of a nouthetic counselor. (Carey Hardy)
John MacArthur, F., Jr, Wayne A. Mack and Master’s College, Introduction to Biblical Counseling : Basic Guide to the Principles and Practice of Counseling, Electronic ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1997, c1994). 364.
Is there any difference between biblical counseling and Christian psychology or Christian counseling?
At a superficial glance, it would appear that a biblical counselor and a psychotherapist who is a Christian do many of the same things. Both converse with people; both care about people; both get to know people; both are interested in motivation, thoughts, emotions, and behavior; both explore the various pressures in a person’s situation; both give feedback; perhaps both talk about Jesus or a passage of Scripture. So how do they differ? To understand how Christianized psychotherapy differs from biblical counseling it is necessary to look closely at what each practices and teaches. Here are some of the distinctives of each.
Perspective of the Bible and its contribution to counseling. Most Christian psychologists view the Bible as an inspirational resource, but their basic system of counseling, both theory and methods, is transferred unaltered from secular psychology. Most are frankly and self-consciously eclectic, picking and choosing theories and techniques according to personal preference. In contrast, biblical counselors follow the Bible’s view of itself as the source of a comprehensive and detailed approach to understanding and counseling people (2 Tim. 3:15–17; 2 Pet. 1:4). Some Christian psychotherapists use few Scriptures; others use many. But frequency of citation is much less important than the way passages are used—or misused—and in the vast majority of cases the passages cited are completely misused. There is a dearth of contextualized exegesis (a critical interpretation of a text) and an abundance of eisegesis (interpreting a text by reading one’s own ideas into it). Biblical counseling is committed to letting God speak for Himself through His Word, and to handling the Word of Truth rightly (2 Tim. 2:15).
Perspective of God. There are many aspects of God that Christian psychologists routinely ignore. In particular, His sovereignty, holiness, justice, kingly authority, and power are virtually unmentioned. The fatherly love of God is the great theme of these psychotherapists, but detached from the entirety of who God is, this love becomes the unconditional positive regard of a great therapist in the sky, indistinguishable from classic liberal theology. Biblical counseling follows the Bible and seeks to minister the love of the true and living God, whose love deals with sin and produces obedience (1 John).
Perspective of human nature and motivation. Almost every Christian psychologist espouses some variety of need theory. Needs for self-esteem, for love and acceptance, and for significance tend to dominate. If these needs are met, it is believed that people will be happy, kind and moral; if not met, people will be miserable, hateful, and immoral. Christian psychologists borrow their motivation theory directly from humanistic psychology. Scripture flatly opposes such need theories because it teaches that sinful human motivation roots in various cravings and lusts (Gal. 5:16–24, Eph. 2:3; James 1:14–16; 3:13–4:12). Scripture teaches that God changes our desires and that godly motivation is rooted in the desire for God and godliness. If people crave self-esteem, love, and significance, they will be happy if they get it and miserable if they don’t, but they will remain self-centered in either case. On the other hand, if people desire God (Ps. 42:1f; 73:25), God’s kingdom (Matt. 6:9–13; 6:33; 13:45f), godly wisdom (Prov. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:22), and resurrection glory (Rom. 8:18–25), they will be satisfied, joyous, obedient, and profitable servants of God.
Perspective of the gospel. For most Christian psychologists, Jesus Christ is the meeter of built-in psychic needs and the healer of psychic wounds. The love of God at the cross simply portrays how valuable one is to God in order to boost self-esteem and to meet the need to be loved. But in the Bible, Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God crucified in the place of sinners. The love of God actually demolishes self-esteem and the lust for self-esteem. It produces, instead, a great and grateful esteem for the Son of God, who loved us and gave His life for us—the Lamb of God who alone is worthy. The love of God does not meet our lust to be loved as we are. It demolishes that deluded craving in order to love us despite who we are and to teach us to love God and neighbor (1 John 4:7–5:3).
Perspective of counseling. Christian psychologists tend to view counseling the same way secular psychologists view it: as a professional activity without any necessary connection to the Church of Jesus Christ. A client with a felt-need engages a professional for help in attaining goals of personal adjustment, emotional happiness, stability, self-fulfillment, and the like. But biblical counselors follow the Bible and view counseling as a pastoral activity. Their counseling aims at progressive sanctification and must communicate the true contents of Scripture. Biblical counseling connects logically and structurally to worship, discipleship, preaching, pastoral oversight, use of gifts, church discipline, and other aspects of life in the body of Christ. (David Powlison)
John MacArthur, F., Jr, Wayne A. Mack and Master’s College, Introduction to Biblical Counseling : Basic Guide to the Principles and Practice of Counseling, Electronic ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1997, c1994). 362.
