CHAPTER ONE
THE NEED FOR THEOLOGY IN COUNSELING
From the beginning, human change depended upon counseling. Man was created as a being whose very existence is derived from and dependent upon a Creator whom he must acknowledge as such and from whom he must obtain wisdom and knowledge through revelation. The purpose and meaning of his life, as well as his very existence, is derived and dependent. He can find none of this in himself. Man is not autonomous.
âIn the beginning was the Wordâ (John 1:1) says it all. Man needed Godâs Word from the outsetâeven before the fall. His revelatory Word was necessary to understand God, creation, himself, his proper relationships to others, his place and functions in creation and his limitations.
Contrary to Carl Rogersâ views,1 which have been accepted as the preferred counseling stance of so many ministers,2 man did not come from Godâs hand with all the resources that he would ever need prepackaged within. Instead of the âautonomousâ being that Rogers (and his system) contemplates as the ideal end product of non-directive counseling, the Bible teaches that man was made for God (Rev. 4:11) and dependent upon Him (Acts 17:28). Man was created as a dependent being. Any attempt to transform him into an autonomous being not only constitutes rebellion against the Creator, but is bound to fail. The tragic circumstances with which counselors deal bear unmistakable traces of this sinful rebellion which from the fall onward has been the root of the bitter fruits of human chaos and misery. It is this basic rebellionâthinking we can go it aloneâthat lies behind, and is the occasion for, so much counseling. To offer more of the same (as do counselors who stress autonomy), therefore, is to encourage more (not fewer) problems.
Whenever people try to live on their own (whether as the outworking of the sinful propensities of their corrupted natures or as the result of following a system like Rogersâ), they must fail miserably. I mean that literally: they not only fail inevitably in the course of time (they must, because they were constituted dependent creatures), but their failures bring misery upon themselves and those around them.3
Man is dependent upon his Creator and Sustainer for all that he is, has and knows. He was created for a life of joyful, grateful, dependence. It is upon the last one of these three elements, in particular, that I should like to focus attention for a few pages: human knowledge.
From the beginning, Godâs Word was a necessary factor in human existence; that need did not begin with the fall. Man does not (and did not) live by bread alone; life requires a Word from the mouth of God. Without that Word, a human being has no personal ability to understand, make sense out of, or know how to use the world in which he lives. He doesnât know the ways of living with others, and he canât properly relate to God. As the existentialists have observed, such life is absurd.
Life without Godâs Word is absurd (it is sheer vanity, as the writer of Ecclesiastes put it) because capacity for knowledge (understanding of facts, properly interpreted and related) is derived, not native to human nature. That means that from the creation on, man was made to be molded by counsel (which is the directive Word of another, given from the outside).4 Meaning, purpose and function depended upon this interpretive Word. General revelation (in creation) itself does not provide any such interpretation. Without Godâs Word, therefore, misery was bound to follow. This was inevitable (among other things) because the universe (and man within it) would be improperly interpreted. It would appear chaotic and absurd, and human choices and decisions would be made on the basis of no solid standard. The plague of relativism would descend upon man.
Human beings were created morally and physically good. But the development of neither side of man was complete. Perfection, while admitting of no flaws, allowed for advance (e.g., eating of the tree of life with its new effects). Adam, before the fall, had not yet reached those states of perfection that are now attained (1) in the intermediate state at death,5 or (2) in the final state when the body as well as the spirit attains resurrected perfection.6
Manâs relationship to God, then, was to be a growing one. In the garden he had only begun to enter into the possibilities and potentialities of human existence. These all lay before him. Further development of knowledge, experience, etc., was anticipated in such commands as âbe fruitful and multiplyâ and âsubdue the earth.â How that first command would be followed (with all of the consequent social and political implications of the conduct of human affairs among a race), and what the subduing (or bringing under human control) of the earth would produce in the course of scientific and political activities, would depend upon the regulatory and interpretive revelation of Godâs Word. Change, then, even developmental changes in a perfect man, always depended upon Godâs counsel.
Man was created perfect, but that does not mean that he was ever able to live on his own. Perfection itself implies an acknowledgment of his dependence upon Godâs revelation. By counsel (he didnât decide to do it on his own) Adam named the animals. By counsel he dressed the garden. By counsel he learned of the trees in the garden and the proper use of them (as well as the possible consequences of misuse). All this came after creation, to a man who was made to be dependent on Godâs counsel for all his life, and who was capable of being changed and developed by that counsel.
That is the first crucial factor to grasp at the outset: man was created in such a way that for his own good, and Godâs glory, it was necessary to depend upon divine counsel and to be changed by it.
If man had obeyed Godâs counsel faithfully, he would have been changed into a being possessing the eternal life that somehow inhered in (or was symbolized by) the tree of life.7
But something happened that led to the misery we have already mentioned: man turned from Godâs counsel to heed Satanâs counsel. In doing so, Adam attempted to achieve independence of God and to assert his own autonomy. He accepted the false counsel to eat and the lie upon which it rested: âYou will be like God, knowing good and evilâ (knowing good and evil is an expression that means knowing everything8). Following false (evil) counsel plunged mankind into sin with all its miseries.
The Adamic rebellion only pointed up the futility of any such attempt at autonomy. Confusion and heartache resulted, humanity was subjected to fear, ignorance and death, andâas it turned outâman had not become autonomous at all. He had only exchanged a holy, beneficent and liberating counsel for a devilish, demonic, enslaving one. In following Satanâs counsel, he lost the freedom and capacity to do good and to follow Godâs good counsel. He became a slave of sin and Satan. In opting for Satanic counsel, he once more demonstrated (in a perverted way) the very facts of his creation:
(1) he was dependent upon outside counsel;
(2) he was capable of being changed by counsel.
Only (tragically) the counsel that he chose to follow brought misery and slavery rather than the promised joy and freedom.
It is clear, then, that from Adamâs time on there have been two counsels in this world: divine counsel and devilish counsel; the two are in competition. The Bibleâs position is that all counsel that is not revelational (biblical), or based upon Godâs revelation, is Satanic. When counsel is given by those who align themselves with some other counsel than Godâs the counsel that is given is called âthe counsel of the ungodlyâ (Ps. 1:1). Both the counsel and those who give it are ungodly. It is ungodly (1) because it competes with and tries to overthrow Godâs counsel, (2) because it is inspired by Satan and (3) because (intentionally or otherwise) it is given by those who rebelliously side with the devil. Over against such counsel (and in direct opposition to it) the psalm places Godâs Word (vs. 2).
Throughout the course of human history both godly and ungodly counsel always have been present, vying for manâs acceptance. The history of individuals, families and even nations, has stemmed directly from whichever one of these two counsels was followed. There is no third counsel, as the psalm clearly indicates. There are just two ways to go: Satanâs way or Godâs way. Man has no counsel that is strictly âhis own.â9 If he rejects Godâs counsel, whatever counsel he follows instead turns out to be Satanâs counsel. Man was made to follow anotherâs counsel; he will do so. He cannot throw off his dependency. Knowingly or unwittingly he always depends upon Satan or God. He was made to be motivated and molded by counsel.
At the beginning, man walked and talked with God in the cool of the day. Doubtless, God counseled him at such times. The pre-fall fellowship was unbroken and entirely open, and the counsel consisted of positive, good, beneficial revelation calculated to develop manâs full potential. As he was growing under such counsel, he began to grasp something of the potential of language to bring about order and to express concepts. He saw this in his classification of the animals. He experienced something of the joys of the satisfaction and fulfillment of work as he kept the garden according to Godâs instructions. He tasted the sweet fruit of understanding and fellowship as he talked with God and communicated with his wife Eve. He discovered that Godâs counsel was clear, uncomplicated and plain: âeat from all the trees but one.â In singularly unmistakable words, God identified and labeled the forbidden tree, âthe tree of the knowledge of good and evil.â He even located it for Adam: â[It] is in the middle of the garden.â And with equal clarity and explicitness He warned, âDonât eat from it or the very day that you do you will die.â This counsel was necessary for manâs well being. He was dependent upon it and was held responsible for obeying it. Man was a responsible being. It was Godâs counsel, true and plain; therefore it was good.
In contrast to Godâs counselâa counsel that was simple, plain, true and beneficentâSatan introduced a counsel that complicated, confused and contorted Godâs truth. The third chapter of Genesis tells the sad story.
The first question in history was asked by Satan: âHas God saidâŚ?â (vs. 1). By this question, Satan attacked Godâs Word, i.e., Godâs good counsel. âPerhaps His counsel is not so simple, so plain or so beneficent as it seems,â he intimated. The initial question, however, did not constitute a direct attack upon Godâs revelation; Satan is much too subtle to do that. Instead, to begin with, he merely cast doubt upon Godâs counsel. He questioned Godâs Word and His plain intentions. He has never ceased doing so. Ever since, the method has proved effective.
Having sown seeds of doubt10 about Godâs Word by questioning it, Satan did not hesitate to continue by distorting it. He misstated Godâs command: âHas God said that you may not eat from every tree of the gardenâ (vs. 1)? This corruption of truth (typical of the way that Satan throughout history has continued to distort Godâs truth through his willing servants) was intended both to confuse and to challenge Godâs gracious gift of all the trees but one. What once had been plain and simple, he now tried to confuse and complicate. Eveâs response seems to indicate that she was not totally taken in by this approach, but possibly also reveals that she was sufficiently influenced to the point where she altered the commandment by adding the words, âneither shall you touch it.â11
Finally, because he had made inroads by doubt and distortion, Satan was able to attack Godâs counsel directly. At this point he turns to his last ruse: outright denial. That a progression is intended is almost certain.12 Satanâs assertions that eating would not produce death, and that God forbade eating because He did not want man to be like Him (i.e., autonomous, free of dependence upon God for knowledge and counsel) amounted to calling God a liar and a cheat and attributed bad motives to Him. These three attacksâdoubt, distortion and denialâwere designed to lead to distrust. Satanâs object was to create distrust in Godâs Word.
Through the years the situation has not changed appreciatively. Basically, Satan always has concentrated upon this progression as his principal tacticâwith great effectiveness. And as you can see, the attack has been upon Godâs Word.
In counseling, this fact has been more than evident; it has been glaring. Within the church the sufficiency of Scripture (Godâs written Word) has been challenged. Distrust in Godâs way, His verity, etc., has been propagated by those who have set up rival systems offering different counsel (still) purporting to open menâs eyes in one way or another, and still offering autonomy. Satanâs approach has not varied; nor has his success in duping the sons of Adam.
The church, throughout the years, like Adam and Eve, either has been deceived by Satanâs counsel or has found itself in conflict with it. There is no neutral ground. Compromise or conflict are the only two alternatives. We are (hopefully) now beginning to emerge from an era of compromise. Hence the present need for conflict with the counsel of the ungodly. For a long time Satanâs deceitful counsel has prevailed in the church; only during the 70s has a successful challenge been mounted.
Now, at such turning points it is not unusual to discover Christians who unwittingly continue to side with the enemy, and who fight against their brothers when they try to defend and promote the cause of Godâs truth in counseling. Frequently this results from good motives, wrongly directed. Yet, their influence is tragic. They not only set back helpful counsel, but confuse many who are in transition. Still, it is not the persons, as persons, whom we must challenge, but their teachings. In bringing such a challenge to the churchâs sad compromise with the competition, it is time to proclaim the relevance of the first psalm, with its plain contrast between the counsel of the ungodly and the counsel of Godâs Word. Let us look at verse 1.
The tragedy set forth in that psalm again appears in the progression of compromise with evil (Satanâs old tactic, gradual defection from Godâs truth, is plainly marked out). First, the compromiser âwalksâ in the âcounselâ of the ungodly. That is to say, he begins to listen to pagan advice and counsel. He approves of falsehood, mistaking it for truth; he begins to confuse and intermix the two. He defends error, calling it truth. âAll truth is Godâs truth,â he declares. Soon he is found âstandingâ in the âwayâ of sinners. Intellectually accepting Satanic counsel leads to living according to it. This is sin; he takes the sinful way. He is seen standing in the path of sinners, believing what they believe, doing what they do, saying what they say.13 At length, he is a leader of those who scoff at biblical truth; he âsitsâ in the seat of the âscornful.â
There are Christians today who are so caught up in the views and practices of unbelievers that in their writings they spend more time attacking those who attempt to set forth biblical positions that those who oppose them. They often go to great lengths to defend ungodly counsel.14
This might seem incredible if we did not understand how it comes about. The progression of compromise tells us. No Christian sets out to pervert and deny Godâs truth; the process is gradual. It happens in stages, not all at once. That is the warning of Psalm 1. Such compromise with ungodly counsel, therefore, can happen both to counselors and (sadly) to those who are counseled by them.15
It is important to note that neither Genesis 3 nor Psalm 1 leaves any room for a third, neutral counsel. One of Satanâs ruses (as an angel of light) is to convince those who claim theological sophistication to accept error under the slogan, âAll truth is Godâs truth.â Under that banner nearly every error in the book has been blamed on God!
Of course all truth is Godâs truth. But there is only one touchstone for determining whether a given statement claiming to be true is, indeed true: Does it square with Godâs standard for truthâthe Bible?
And, when compromisers talk about all truth as Godâs truth, they call it âcommon grace.â They abuse this concept too. They mean by such use that God revealed truth through Rogers, Freud, Skinner, etc. God does, of course, restrain sin, allow people to discover facts about His c...