Let’s Keep Talking
January 14th, 2008[Editor's note: This is Dr. Ed Welch's second post for January 2008. In this post he attempts to uncover some important (but hidden) reasons biblical counselors and integrationist counselors have had differences. His hope is to keep the conversation going and to build the kind of unity that the SCP hopes to encourage.]
To be human is to stereotype. There is no getting around it. There is lots of data out there and there are times when we have to categorize without knowing all the details. To complicate matters, as sinners we bring our prejudices when we try to locate those who are different from ourselves. With this in mind, let’s keep the discussion going between biblical counseling and integrationist counseling (I realize that the category “integrationist,” itself, is a stereotype), and let’s proceed carefully. These two groups are next door neighbors on the Christian counseling spectrum, and they both strive to live under the authority of Scripture and let Scripture adjudicate differences. As the discussion moves forward we should expect sharpening and increased unity. That, indeed, is happening. Both Eric Johnson’s new book and the most recent SCP conference brought an irenic spirit to what has been a polarized history. With this attitude in hand, the present challenge is to accurately identify the differences.
Most of the past discussion has focused on the use of psychological literature, but it is unlikely that this is where the action is. Everyone agrees that some secular literature is more useful than others. Some literature has more glaring unbiblical assumptions, some has less. Perhaps a more interesting question would be a standard counseling response: “Why is integration/no integration a primary issue for you?” The concerns about integration or lack of it might just be a cover story. For example, I think there are times when the real issue is not the psychological literature, it is compassion. The perceived fault line is between sterile orthodoxy (biblical counseling) and basic human kindness (integration). If so, that is an important discussion, but it isn’t necessarily about the use of secular literature. A related discussion would suggest that the differences are between a monochromatic view of humans (biblical counseling) in contrast to something more full orbed and deep (integrationist counseling). This too could be a worthwhile discussion.
There are two other possible entrances into this discussion that I think might be useful. One is our doctrine of the person. Biblical counseling is sometimes thought to have one note on its guitar – sin. The reality is that Scripture provides a profound and rich anthropology. The challenge is how to access the biblical text for that data.
Another area for discussion is how integrationist counseling can have subheadings “Psychotherapy,” “Psychopharmacologic Treatments,” and “Spiritual Considerations.” (These are standard in much of the integrationist literature; they are directly lifted from a recent journal article). Biblical counseling, in contrast, goes with “Physical” and “Spiritual,” which suggests that what integrationists label “psychotherapy” can be folded into “Spiritual” for biblical counseling. My question is this: assuming that the aim within all Christian counseling is to allow Scripture to have interpretive authority, how does psychotherapy fit? Does it target the emotional sector of the person? But there is no need to develop a new category for such things because emotions can fit neatly into a spiritual-somatic view of the person.
Any thoughts that can help us identify significant issues?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I have been studying counselling theories, and are trying to find God’s view of these theories, so that I might use what is of His nature and help Christians with their spiritual walk. My pastor warns me to be wary of substituting psychotherapy with work of the Holy Spirit, which was the danger I was possibly getting myself into.
I guess there is the issue of man is spirit, who has a soul and lives in a body. Is psychotherapy dealing with the soul (i.e. the emotional health)?
Apologies that I have more questions than directions to look towards.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Response from Ed Welch,
“What I am suggesting is that the soul is not a separate anthropological compartment so it doesn’t need a different technology such as psychotherapy to treat it. Emotions, thinking, ruling beliefs, motives, imaginations . . . these are where the action is. When we create a new category for them, apart from the spiritual and our connection to God, we essentially are removing a huge slice of daily life from its spiritual roots. Instead, all these things and more are spiritual matters that take their cue from our underlying spiritual allegiances.”
January 17th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Toward a Christian Psychology
Scriptural integration will require secular philosophic and psychological ontology and epistemology clarified and re-constituted within the book of genesis. The non-scriptural psychological clarification of Freud, Jung, M. Klein, Bion, Grotstein, and others constructed within the philosophy of Hegel and Kant, constitutes the formulation of conventional theory. That highly qualified second cause understanding experience, within a mind lacking first cause salvation grace relational subjectivity with God, omits scriptural logic containing ontological unconscious and conscious coherence initiating psychological realities. The encompassing need to be born again, the internalized recognition of being a new creation in Christ, constitutes redemption structure in negation of lost communion with God, and capacity to dissociate from internal conflicted relational emotional history acquired in the loss arousal responses. Salvation grace faith enables recognition of one’s personal, original, ancestral, cultural, linguistic sin unconscious/conscious in a re-constituted Christian redeemed unconscious/conscious relational emotional construct. Secular humanitarian models, brilliant within their concept, lack God’s primordial relational grace inhering scriptural integration clarification. Healing structure initiates in relatedness with God and or Jesus and or the Holy Spirit. An overview of process portrays expression of conflict and fault founded within the personal original sin unconscious/conscious, exposed and clarified, utilizing second cause secular knowledge, then internalized into the redeemed unconscious/conscious relational emotional construct. The knowledge of secular humanitarian psychology and philosophy will continue its search and usefully inform within anthropological ontological need structure requiring scriptural integration.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Thank you, Ed. What you say does clarify the situation that is going in my head. Will need to examine the Bible with greater depth. Cheers!
January 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I am a student of psychology and a Christian. My question is whether a person should be concentrating so much on the self as they do in psychotherapy and more on Christ’s self and the putting on themselves Christ’s self? Isn’t this what the bible professes? I am trying to come up with some method of counseling that will put the Word at the forefront and bring a person closer to being within the body of Christ or Christ’s spirit (personality). I know that most of what comes out of my mouth must be the Word in counseling for it to be biblical, because I as just a counselor am not the healer but the Word and the Holy Spirit ultimately are the healers. Please email me with your comment on theses matters.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Comment from Ed Welch:
Mary,
There is an old guideline in theology: true biblical knowledge consists of knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of God. You can’t have one without the other. For example, I spoke with a man recently who surrounds himself with Scripture (radio, reading), and spends more time praying in a day than I do in a week. But he runs away from seeing himself, which means that he doesn’t want to bring the gospel into either his past pain or his present anger and self-righteousness.