Why Some Biblical Counseling Is Only Half Biblical!
Part Two: Whatever Happened to Suffering?
*Note: If you find yourself upset that I am saying that some biblical counseling is only half biblical, then I would ask you to be sure to read my comments at the end of this blog post. Thanks!Part Two: Whatever Happened to Suffering?
My Premise
Some modern biblical counseling considers the seriousness of sin—sinning, but spends much less time equipping people to minister to the gravity of grinding affliction—suffering. When we provide counseling for sin, but fail to provide counseling and counselor training for suffering, then I am of the conviction that such biblical counseling is only half biblical!
Whatever Happened to Sin?
Some might object, “So, are you watering down sin? Are you saying that Christ came to heal our suffering and not to save us from our sin? Are you saying that our primary problem is our suffering rather than our sin?”
No. Actually, anyone who omits suffering in their biblical counseling is watering down sin!
Unlike the Church Fathers, unlike the Reformers, unlike the Puritans, and most importantly, unlike the Bible, we tend to make Christ’s victory over sin predominantly individual and personal, rather than also corporate and cosmic. Christ died to dethrone sin. Christ died to defeat every vestige of sin. Christ died to obliterate every effect of sin—individual, personal, corporate, and cosmic—including death and suffering, tears and sorrows, mourning, crying, and pain.
That’s why twice in Revelation, John shares the blessed promise that, “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4; see also Rev. 17:7). Christ died to defeat every enemy, every evil, including the devil who holds the power of death (Hebrews 2:14-15), and the last enemy—suffering and death (1 Corinthians 15:25).
Yes, of course, in the evangelism and discipleship process, our first joy is helping someone who does not know Christ to surrender to Christ so his or her sins are forgiven. And, of course, as we disciple one another we want to help each other to grow in their victory over sin’s tentacles.
Whatever Happened to Suffering?
However, our calling from Christ is also to minister to one another concerning sin’s effects—including suffering. That’s why we are called to weep with those who weep (Romans 12:15). That’s why we are called to comfort one another (nine times in 2 Corinthians 1:3-11). That’s why the New Testament calls us to a parakaletic ministry (to come alongside to help, comfort, and encourage one another in suffering). That’s why the New Testament uses the word parakaletic over 100 times!
Christ’s Cross defeated our deprivations—the evils we suffer, and our depravity—the sins we commit. Frank Lake explains Christ’s victory over both:
“The very powers of evil, standing in the shadows behind ‘the mystery of iniquity’ and ‘the mystery of suffering,’ were dethroned by Christ’s active, obedient submission to their onslaught. Therefore, He reconciles to God by His Cross not only sinners, but sufferers. Not only memories of culpable sin which condemn the conscience, but the memories of intolerable affliction which condemn faith as a delusion, these too are confronted by the fact of Christ’s Cross. These passive evils, which are not of the soul’s own making, are not accessible to a pastoral care which can talk only in terms of the forgiveness of sins. Such sufferers are usually not insensitive to their status as sinners. They have sought God’s forgiveness. But, like Job, they complain of the comforters whose one-track minds have considered only the seriousness of sin, and not the gravity of grinding affliction” (Lake, Clinical Theology, pp. 24-25, emphasis added).
Lake makes several astute points.
1. Academic Theology: As we have said, Christ’s died to defeat sin and sins’ effect—death and suffering, depravity and deprivation.
2. Spiritual Theology: “Passive evils” are what some today called “innocent suffering.” Not that anyone is innocent (or sinless), but that some suffering is not directly due to our own personal sin: the woman who is raped, the child who is abused, the cancer patient, the parents of a dying child, the victim of a drunk-driving accident, etc.
3. Pastoral Theology: Counseling such individuals, they typically understand that they are sinners. They want to know if their pastors, counselors, and spiritual friends understand that they are sufferers! If we do not, if we preach them a sermon on sin, then we are like Job’s miserable counselors with their false theology that God is a tit-for-tat God and that every incident of suffering is directly related to one’s personal sin. (See John 9:1-3 for Jesus’ theology of innocent suffering/sufferers.)
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be known as a miserable counselor. I want to be known as a comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed biblical counselor!
Frank Lake again explains what that looks like.
“Clinical pastoral care has, as its introduction, the task of listening to a story of human conflict and need. To the extent that our listening uncovers a situation which borders the abyss or lies broken within it, we are nearer to the place where the Cross of Christ is the only adequate interpretative concept” (Frank Lake, Clinical Theology, pp. 18-19).
Sin and suffering—they both offer us the opportunity to provide wisdom found only in the Gospel. When we skirt our biblical counseling responsibility to minister to the suffering, we limit the limitless power and infinite relevancy of the Cross of Christ.
When we talk about the sufficiency of Scripture but in practice deny the relevancy of Scripture to address human suffering, then we have watered down sin and we have diminished the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ!
When we understand the Cross of Christ, then we practice biblical counseling that combines the sufficiency and the relevancy of Scripture and that unites counseling for the sufferer and for the sinner.
Where Do We Go from Here?
Tomorrow we’ll start addressing the following vital questions.
*So, has anyone else in Church history ever said we must focus on both sin and suffering?
*So, what would it look like to focus on both sin and suffering?
*So, what’s your definition/description of truly biblical counseling?
*Note: Why I Am Addressing This Topic
All who have followed my ministry know that I am about bridge-building and not about wall-building. You might wonder then, “Bob, why blog about something that is surely to be controversial?”
Those who follow my ministry also know that I am about equipping God’s people to change lives with Christ’s changeless truth through comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed biblical counseling and spiritual formation.
Biblical counseling that fails to deal with suffering, fails the test of comprehensive, compassionate, and culturally-informed biblical counseling. I would be a hypocrite to my calling if I remained silent.
Others might wonder, “Are you talking about a particular ‘model’ of modern biblical counseling, or about a particular person or persons who are writing today?”
No. I am not. This is not an attack against. These blogs are not directed toward any one person or group.
These blogs are directed to all of us—myself included—who love biblical counseling. They are for all of us—myself included—who need good Bereans to help us to assess how biblical or unbiblical our approaches to biblical counseling truly are.
I write to help, not to hurt. I write to equip, not to attack. I write to start a conversation, not to finish one.
Please join the conversation.
3 comments:
I understand the premise of your post and I don't want to appear to be challenging that. But I would like to see if you could be open to seeing the "man born blind" story in John 9 in a different light.
“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
(John 9:1-5 KJV)
So most people who read this come away thinking that Jesus is saying that the reason why this man was born blind was so "that the works of God should be made manifest in him".
I've never believed that a man had to be born blind so that "the works of God could be made manifest". Then I came to the realization of a slight punctuation problem that leads to the confusion. So if we read the same verse punctuated differently (which the punctuation wasn't inspired by God but placed by theologians and translators anyway):
“And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.
But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
(John 9:2-5 KJV)
Now of course verses 6 through to the rest of the chapter goes into Jesus actually healing the man, the Pharisees not believeing it and kicking the man out of the synagogue and on to the street and Jesus having to come back in and explain it to them further in Chapter 10.
So the alternate reading of John 9:3-4 makes it appear that Jesus did not immediately answer the question until after he had healed the man. The answer to why the man was born blind is actually in John 10.
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10
So this may or may not affect your call for balance in counseling, which I am not a counselor, but it should give people more comfort to know that the reasons behind what they're going through may not include sin on their part and definitely has nothing to do with God can get some glory out of it, or working something out in their life.
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:”
(1Peter 5:8 KJVS)
Sometimes people suffer for no other reason than there is a Devil. Of course I just realized that I should not have used 1 Pet 5:8 as an example of this phenomenon since it's actually saying that Satan is actually seeking someone that he may devour implying that there are some that he may not devour.
But if you are suffering, “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
(James 4:7 KJVS)
Let me know what you think, or if I'm totally off my rocker here.
Interesting possible interpretation. If it were true, I think it supports the concept of "innocent suffering" just as much, if not more, than the "traditional interpretation" of John 9. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Catching up on my blog reading, and this was a series I did not want to miss.
Mankind is full of suffering, much of it not the "fault" of the person doing the suffering.
A biblical counselor who does not address suffering outside of the realm of "the sin that I did that got me here" is failing miserably to truly minister to others.
This world is geared toward suffering of all kinds, and we as ministers of the Word, grace and peace have got to know how to present a correct and loving response to suffering.
I feel so strongly about this topic that I taught an entire seminar on the topic. I find the usual methods biblical counselors want to use and approaches many take to be just inadequate in the face of deep suffering.
I sure don't claim to have arrived on this topic either!
Post a Comment