Biblical Counseling

Is Confrontation Always What’s Needed? A Potential Pitfall of Nouthetic Counseling

Kirk E. Miller

Nouthetic counseling emphasizes the need to help people primarily by confronting their sin and offering what is perceived as Biblical correction. As the Logos Factbook defines it, Nouthetic counseling is “[a] form of Christian counseling emphasizing biblical teaching and confrontation of sin to address personal problems.”

Now, I’m not trying to broad brush all practices of Biblical—or Nouthetic counseling—as necessarily being guilty of this error. But I do worry that this emphasis on confronting sin as the remedy leads many to too quickly see confronting sin as the needed medicine in almost every pastoral encounter.

When the only tool one has is a hammer—when this is all one’s may trained in or attuned to look for—everything can look like a nail. One goes on the hunt for nails—or worse, creates them when one can’t easily find one.

Furthermore, when one perceives their primary job as sin-confronting, this can encourage one to be quick to make assessments (assumptions) in order to swiftly identify that sin that needs confronting. When one thinks their primary job is to confront, they’re more apt to become slow to listen and quick to speak (cf. James 1:19), since, of course, confronting requires speaking. And if it’s actually loving to confront (as indeed it sometimes is), we can give ourselves license to ungentle, blunt speech.

But contrast this one-size-fits-all approach to pastoral care with Paul’s wise words in 1 Thess 5:14: “[W]e urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.” Paul instructs different approaches to different people facing and experiencing different situations. Notably, consider his words about the fainthearted and imagine the effect that assuming confrontation is the one-size-fits-all, blunt-confrontation solution might have on this person.

And when we disciple others in this approach, we unwittingly train them to respond to others like Job’s friends (“There must be some sin at root here that’s to blame”)—whom God rebuked, we should remember.

The Harmful Simplicity of Reductionistic Theology

Kirk E. Miller

I take no issue with making the gospel central in all things (the church, preaching, the Christian life, etc.)

But one of the results of a malformed gospel-centeredness is a reductionistic theology that treats nearly every issue someone faces as a matter of sin to be dealt with. Sin is always seen, diagnosed, and treated as a root cause. Why? Because if the gospel is the solution to everything, and that gospel is primarily, if not exclusively, understood in terms of addressing sin, then sin is always the issue, and addressing sin with the gospel is always the solution.

I theorize we’re also susceptible due to a simplistic conception of total depravity. We give our doctrine of total depravity what we might call “maximalist” interpretive power. Yes, we are pervasively sinful (Isa 1:6). Total depravity is true. But, along with our simplistic gospel-centeredness, we misconstrue the doctrine of total depravity into a fixation on looking for sin everywhere. We misapply the doctrine of total depravity by searching for sin “behind every bush” and over-spiritualizing situations. But not everything is sin or is to explained by sin—at the very least, not exclusively so.

Added to this, training in pastoral counseling often focuses on teaching pastors how to address sin. So pastors are hardwired to approach situations in terms of sin and sanctification. Those are their default operating categories. The danger is, when you’re a hammer, you start to see everything as a nail.

I call all of this “reductionistic” because it takes true things (e.g., sin and a gospel that addresses it), but embraces these true things at the exclusion of other true things. For instance, someone comes to a pastor in suffering. But, instead of seeing their signs of trauma and affliction for what they are, the pastor diagnoses them as displaying a sinful refusal trust in God, rest in Christ, and obey the call to contentment. Instead of caring for the person and acknowledging their plight, they add insult to injury: they take someone who is suffering, and now further inflict them with wrongful condemnation. Often the suffering is ignored as not the “real” issue. Moreover, the sufferer may be treated as contentious or unrepentant when they (rightly) push back at the bad counsel.

The reality, though, is that humans are both sinners and sufferers. We are not only perpetrators of evil, but also victims to it. We not only sin; we are also sinned against. And the gospel meets not merely our sin but also our suffering. The good news (gospel) is not only that our sin is forgiven, but that Christ will undue the curse in all its effects—including evil and suffering.

This means, for example, that:

  • Although the Bible tells us to cast our cares on God (1 Peter 5:7), it also leads us in lament (complaint) to God (see the Psalter). Apparently the two are not mutually exclusive!
  • Or again, God is sovereign, but humans are also responsible. God’s sovereignty is not an excuse for inaction and resigning ourselves to evil and injustice. Sovereignty isn’t the same as fatalism; God uses means.
  • Yes, we are to forgive those who sinned against us (Eph 4:32). Yes, God will ultimately judge when Christ comes again (Acts 17:31). But God also establishes means for provisional justice in this life too (e.g., Rom 13:1–7). These are not mutually exclusive.
  • God works all things for good for those who love him (Rom 8:28). Yet among the things he works for good are things that are evil (see vv.35–39). Just because he works something for good does not mean it itself is good—and we don’t need to pretend that it is! These, too, are not mutually exclusively.

We could go on…

Why this matters? Bad theology makes for bad counsel. More pointedly, bad pastoral theology makes for pastoral malpractice—even spiritual abuse.

Changing Unwanted Thoughts (with Esther Smith)

Kirk E. Miller

Are you burdened by anxious thoughts? Does your mind race uncontrollably? Are you prone to ruminate? Maybe you are wearied with thoughts of hopelessness, self-deprecation, unpleasant mental images, or a range other unwanted thoughts. At some point or another, all of us experience some form of mental anguish or distress. In this episode, Esther Smith, seasoned counselor and author of A Still and Quiet Mind: Twelve Strategies for Changing Unwanted Thoughts, provides us a multi-faceted, Biblically-integrated approach for dealing with the battles in our minds.

Access the episode here. (Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and more.)

A Biblical Theology of Psychotropic Medication

Kirk E. Miller

The following outlines are portions from two presentations given for the course 6710 Counseling in Theological Perspective: Faith & Practice taught by Dr. Rev. Stephen Greggo at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, October and November 2014.

The two presentations (part 1 and part 2) addressed a case study of a specific (fictional) individual. My group was selected to address matters related to the use of psychotropic medication and discipline.

The first presentation raised concerns. For example, some of the more theologically oriented concerns regarding the use of medication included the following:

  • Not taking responsibility for one’s actions (sin).
    • In the use of medication, have we mislabeled sin as illness? Are we treating sin as non-sin?
    • By treating an issue as illness, do we eliminate the Christian claim of human responsibility?
  • Sanctification – Does medication conflict with the Christian view of change?
    • What is genuine, God-honoring change from a Christian perspective (sanctification)? And how is that sort of changed accomplished?
    • Is change resulting from medication that form of change, an expression of sanctification? Or should we distinguish the two?
    • And if distinguished, how should a Christian view change resulting from medication, since it is not necessarily the change of sanctification? Is to be avoided, seen as good but yet superficial, etc. What?

A Christian Interface Approach to Psychology and Clinical Counseling

Kirk E. Miller

The following is a paper submitted to Dr. Rev. Stephen Greggo in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course 6710 Counseling in Theological Perspective: Faith & Practice at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, November 2014.

[You should note, we were required to select a doctrinal statement as a starting point in laying out our theological convictions.]

This paper seeks to present a distinctively Christian interface approach to counseling and psychology. It will (1) begin by presenting relevant theological convictions, (2) tease out interface implications, and (3) conclude with brief ministry applications.

Theological Convictions

I have selected the London Baptist Confession of 1644 as my doctrinal statement. As a Reformed Baptist, this confession faithfully represents my theological convictions. However, due to its brevity, this section elaborates upon certain theological topics that are central to my interface approach.

Revelation. Christian theology speaks of two modes of divine revelation. ‘General’ or ‘natural revelation’ refers to God’s revelation of truth “to all persons at all times and in all places” (‘general’) through ‘natural’ means such as “nature, history, and the constitution of human beings” (e.g., conscience).[1] ‘Special revelation’ is that which is communicated to particular persons (‘special’) through supernatural means such as divine speech, unique events of divine intervention, and the divine incarnation.[2] Due to man’s fallen condition, general revelation’s efficacy diminishes as man suppresses truth known through general revelation (the noetic effect of sin; see Rom 1:18-32), intensifying the need for special revelation. As God’s direct and explicit revelation, Christian scripture (special revelation) holds the place of highest authority (sola scriptura).[3]

Continue reading →