Part One
It is clearly represented, and made known to the reader early in his book that Adams believes all biblical counseling must be directive. This is the basis for his method of counseling, which he terms "nouthetic."Nouthetic counseling, he explains, comes from the New Testament word for counseling: "nouthesia," and implies scriptural direction. Adams goes on to say the meaning is: "to give advice or direction." He continues to say, "that any counseling that is non-directive is a contradiction, biblically speaking." If it were that Adams kept only to the definition of nouthetic counseling, as to the giving of advice or direction, I would fully agree. However from what I understand at this point in his writings, is that Adams’ method of giving advice and direction, seems to only be confrontative in style. It is with this confront- ation style of Adams method for counseling that I have a problem with accepting as the only type of counseling used in Scripture. Or that it is the only one to be used by the counselor. Adams writes: "...in order to do biblical counseling, the human counselor must know the good counsel of the Scriptures, and develop those skills by which he may confront others directively in deep concern." While it is true a counselor must know the Scriptures, and to develop his skill in their usage, this makes it sound as though the bible is to be used as a weapon. Skillful wielding of the sword of the Word can kill, but must be used to give Life to the counselee.
While the word direction can mean an order, command or regulation, it also refers to instruction about how to do something. It seems that Adams method of counseling is with the former definition. If that is the case, then this definition is in contradistinction to that of giving advise. Nowhere is advise used with reference to an order or command. No one would advise an order. However one could easily give advice concerning the best direction to follow, to point the way to an intended goal, or to lead by example. It is with this in mind, that I think is what the definition of directive counseling really means, and how it should be used.
If by directive counseling, Adams were to mean that of giving advise, or direction in the sense of explaining biblical principals involved, and not just in a confrontative manner, then I would have to agree non-directive counseling would be a contradiction, even an oxymoron.
Now, when Adams refutes Rogers, Freud, and Skinner for the wrong methodology and assumptions about human beings, Adams does admit there is a "common grace of God, where unbelievers stumble over aspects of truth in God’s creation." This he explains: "must only be seen from the vantage point of a biblical foundation where the Christian counselor may take note of, evaluate, and reclaim the truth dimly reflected by the unbeliever so long as he does so in a manner consistent with biblical principles and methodology." Although, Adams does not place much value on non-biblical counseling, I am inclined to give credit to any counseling that helps a counselee, even though incompletely. Surely secular methods are not what a Christian counselor should wholly adopt, nor would one reasonably expect a secular counselor to knowingly adopt biblical principles, but I believe God can work through secular counselors for the good of the counselee. If someone is hungry, does it matter who gives him bread to eat? May it be that he goes to a Christian counselor for Living Bread.
Dr. Crabb in his book: "Effective Biblical Counseling" endorses a method he terms as: "spoiling the Egyptians." By that he means, one can: "profit from secular psychology if we carefully screen our concepts to determine their compatability with Christian presuppositions." Dr. Crabb is careful to warn, "this can be a risky task, and is by no means free of real danger." The counselor must guard against "admitting concepts into our thinking which compromise biblical content."
I am aware it may only be my personality that is not usually confrontative in nature that might be the difficulty I have with Adams approach. Adams says: "The method must mold the personality, not the personality molding the method." However I don’t see all what might be termed counseling in Scripture as being confrontative. I think to adopt only a confrontative style of counseling has a greater danger of becoming legalistic. The Pharisees were confrontative in their judgments down to the letter of the law, but missed the life giving Spirit of the Word. Paul writes: "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."(2 Cor. 3:6)
If by directive counseling, the confrontative style is meant, there are times when it is best used, but not only so, for not everyone responds well to that approach. It might be better to adapt the counseling method to the personality of the counselee. In other words, when the integrity of the Scriptures is in question, and the counselee is distorting the truth to fit his own lifestyle, then it would be best to confront them directly with balanced truth.
We can see an example of a confrontative method in Scripture where Nathan the prophet confronts David with "thou art the man." (2 Sam. 12:1-14) Other places include, Jesus’ rebuking the religious leaders as in Matthew 23:13-39. Again we see in Acts 8:18-24, where Peter confronts Simon for wanting to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is always proper to take a stand for Truth, but Truth cannot be forced on anyone, it must be received. There is a saying that goes: A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.
A non-confrontative approach might best be used when the counselee is seeking advise or direction based on a biblical perspective. It can be assumed the counselee is aware the counselor is going to give such direction based on biblical principals if the counselor is known to be a pastor. In such a situation, the counselor may not need to do more than to give instruction as to the Scriptural principles that may apply to the counselee that he might follow, and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict where needed. Surely it must be the Holy Spirit who is to lead and guide us into all Truth, and to convict and reprove of sin. The counselor must be prepared to let the Holy Spirit do the convicting of the counselee. Much of the teaching of Jesus I see as non-confrontative in nature. If we are to consider many of His parables, they are principles of the Kingdom that were meant to teach truth to some, and hide truth from others. When Jesus told these parables, He let the hearers own hearts convict themselves. Consider also the story of the good Samaritan. Jesus tells the story in such a way that the hearer can apply the principle to his own neighborly encounters.
When we look at many of the miracles Jesus did, were they not purposed to teach a lesson on principles of truth? Take the miracle of the feeding of the multitude in John chapt. 6. Did He not use this later to teach the followers He is the Bread of Life? When Jesus healed in the temple on the Sabbath, was He not using the occasion to also teach the Religious leaders He is the Lord of the Sabbath?
Love must be the motivating factor in all our counseling to be the most effective. Love for God. Love for His Word. Love for the counselees who come for help. If that is our focus, then this love will choose our method by which we best serve the solutions to the counselee’s problems. Tough love that confronts, or compassionate love that bears oneanother’s burdens. In Luke 13:34 we find Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and the condition they are in, wanting to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks under the protection of her wing. When we are ready to weep, we are ready to counsel.
AMEN.
