Accusation:  What you are doing isn’t really unique. It’s only a species of Behaviorism.

This false charge has been made by those who have a propensity to lump together all things that sound similar. Their problem—and it’s a serious one—is that they read and think carelessly. They have little power of discernment; they do not know how to make valid distinctions. “Adams speaks of ‘behavior,’ he talks about ‘reward and punishment.’ Ergo, he is teaching behaviorism.”

But long before Watson or Skinner ever drew a breath God was speaking of behavior, reward and punishment. Dare we call Him a Behaviorist? Hardly. God regularly traces outer behavior to the “heart.” By heart, He means the inner person. Outer action is but a result of the inner thinking, determining, etc. Nowhere is changing the outer person alone a solution to man’s problems. Rather, that is Pharisaism. Since sin is a “inside job,” salvation must be too. Inner regeneration is necessary to produce outer changes that please God. Works (outer behavior) must flow from faith (inner belief); neither is sufficient without the other.

Moreover, in behaviorism, the goal is to reward the desired behavior immediately in order to make it stick. In the Bible, true reward is delayed until eternity (Cf. Hebrews 11:13-16; 24-27). And, God-pleasing behavior is governed not by manipulation and “control,” but by inner desire to please God. Always keep in mind 1 Peter 1:14b-15, 18-19:

Don’t shape your lives by the desires that you used to follow in your ignorance. Instead, as the One Who called you is holy, you yourselves must become holy in all your behavior…knowing that you weren’t set free from the useless behavior patterns that were passed down from your forefathers, by the payment of a corruptible ransom like silver or gold, but with Christ’s valuable blood.

See the difference? The conclusion? “Be deeply concerned about how you behave during your residence as aliens” (1 Peter 1:17). Nouthetic counselors will continue to do so!

feedback@nouthetic.org

Revived once more, the old Higher Life view of “abiding” in Christ has raised its head. Essentially, what it says is that if you “abide” (never exactly defined, but some sort of spiritual super-state of existence), then you will automatically receive all the blessings of sanctification instead of working for them by the power of the Spirit. A careful reading of the passage (esp., John 15:6) show that all who don’t abide (lit., “remain”—the passage is talking about eternal security—perseverance of the saints) will be sent to hell (thrown into the fire). If one does abide, he is urged to obey (notice how often the word “commandments” occurs in the passage). He will be pruned to bear fruit; but if truly in the vine, united to Christ (and not spuriously seeming to be so), he will be with the Lord forever. This commandment to “love,” don’t forget, is backed up by Jesus’ words, “If you love me keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

feedback@nouthetic.org

A modern marketing technique is to target the sort of people that your church wants to reach. The young, upper middle class is a common group, for instance. Hardly hear of anyone targeting the feeble and decrepit, however (unless they’re the moneyed sort)!

Is this targeting a biblical strategy?

Consider Paul’s words,

I am a debtor both to Greeks and Barbarians, to the educated and to the ignorant.
                                                                           Romans 1:14

Sounds like if you asked him to do so, he’d go on to mention just about every other sort of person. And, as we shall see, that’s just what he did. Can’t see the apostle targeting a certain group—can you?

In his congregations there were all types. People, for instance, who had qualifications for elders or deacons. Those who did not. The wealthy, and those who couldn’t afford lunch for the Love Feast.
James, also, was very careful not to make distinctions between the wealthy and the poor—both of which he served without respect of persons.

When you read Paul’s use of the word “barbarians,” don’t think of people like Atilla the Hun (though I believe Paul would have taken him on). The words “Greeks and Barbarians” in the Mediterranean culture of the day meant “everyone.” The word barbarian was used to describe everyone who wasn’t Greek or Roman. It comes from the sound that the Greeks used to describe what foreign languages sounded like: “bar bar bar.”

So, if you want to follow Paul’s strategy for evangelism and building churches, then you’ll target both the Greeks and the Barbarians in your community! Sound like the right kind of targeting?

feedback@nouthetic.org

“Tell me more.”

Sure you want to know?

“Definitely.”

OK. Here’s how it is: first, you exegete the passage.

“Whoa! What’s that big word mean?”

It means to so interpret the passage that you obtain as the result of your work nothing more than, nothing less than, and nothing other than what the Holy Spirit intended you to obtain from it. In other words, you understand its meaning and purpose and how it applies. You know what the Holy Spirit was up to when he had the writer pen the words.

“Wow! All of that in one word?”

I guess I could have said it briefly, but I wanted to get just about everything into it.

“No wonder it helps to have one word rather than to have to say all of that every time.”

Yep. Technical terms are helpful that way. But there’s a danger in them too. People think they know what the term means when they are only vague about it. Or they use it to disguise what they really mean – which is something else. The liberals will tell you they exegete too. But they can’t (honestly) say that what they do fits my description of exegesis. So it works both ways.

“Yeah. Now what comes next?”

I think that we’ve gone far enough for one shot. I’ll just mention a couple of other things to whet your appetite. Next, you have to find the corresponding situation in your life or the lives of those to whom you will be preaching, so that you don’t force any application that the Spirit didn’t intend. “And then?”

Then, you want to be able to suggest possible implementations of the passage.

“Huh?”

That is to say, some suggested ways that the Spirit’s purpose in the passage may be actually put into effect in life.

“Wow! And you haven’t even begun to put it into form yet?”

Right. That’s for another day.

“Good.”

feedback@nouthetic.org

In Hosea 4:6, we read, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (HCSB).” It was not because they had no access to it, but (as the rest of the verse says) because they “rejected” it.

The statement has to do with a nation. But it is just as true of those purporting to be “God’s people” as a congregation, as a household or as individuals.

Lack of Knowledge—and, in particular, the willful lack thereof, is a serious matter. Christianity is not fundamentally an emotional religion although emotion plays a secondary and derivative part in it. It is a religion propagated by teaching. It is a religion of truth. It is a religion of propositions. It is a religion that is logical. It is a religion of a Book. It is, primarily, a religion in which everything depends upon a message—the Gospel. Apart from knowledge of and belief in the vicarious death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, there is no Christianity—regardless of what may be taught in its name.

In Hosea, not only the people in general, but the prophet, the priest and the individual are singled out. God says that since they rejected Him, He will reject them.

That is a tragic fact. But how true it is of so many in this land where the message of salvation is widely spread by word of mouth, TV and radio, the printed page. There is no excuse for not knowing it; there is less excuse for rejecting it once one does know.

Knowledge has to do not merely with the communicating of facts. In the passage, as elsewhere in Scripture, it refers to facts believed, and acted upon—what some have called “experimental knowledge.” It refers to acceptance, ready compliance and dependence upon the message that is preached.

Counselor, your counselee will not be helped unless he first knows the truth—then accepts is as true and that upon which he depends for his life and eternity. Don’t assume more than you should. Be certain that he understands and trusts basic Christian knowledge of the truth.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Often, I’ve been charged with being critical of others. But I have hardly been charged with being critical of those in the basic Nouthetic counseling camp. Yet, interestingly enough, I find that, as of late, some of these very persons have had little hesitation out attacking my writings—and even me personally. This is perfectly all right so long as what they say is accurate and the system that they propose (indeed, there seems to be such a system growing) is, indeed, genuinely an improvement over what I have set forth. But to “advance” is not always an advantage. The question is—what direction is this new way of counseling taking?

I see several serious deviations taking this “new” system back to a number of the old unbiblical ways that we thought we had put to bed. Let me mention but a few.

First, exegesis is minimized, and in its place we discover an emphasis on feelings, a superficial use of the Scriptures, “getting to know people,” and the lot. One whole book, for instance, is based on a faulty, superficial, misinterpretation of Ezekiel 14. Here was a people, being carried away into Babylon, largely because of its worship of the images of false gods rather than Yahweh. Yet their devotion to these images was so strong that what they could not do physically, they were doing spiritually—they were carrying away images of them in their hearts (Ez. 14:3,4,6,7) .

Throughout Ezekiel, true images of genuine false gods of the time, (such as Moloch) are in view. The first half of His book is consumed with condemning such idolatry. As a result, God’s “four sore judgments” (v.21) were about to fall upon them. Yet, they persisted in spite of Ezekiel’s last minute warning to repent and turn their faces from such idols (v.6).

Now, the book in question, “uses” the Ezekiel passage to set forth the fallacious idea that these idols were being manufactured in the hearts of the rebellious Jews, and that, rather than idols representing false pagan gods, the passage supports the concept of the human heart being the source of sin-specific idols of those who produce them. So, totally failing to do the exegesis of the passage necessary to proclaim God’s truth, the passage is “made” to support an unbiblical view which (certainly) was the furtherest thing from Ezekiel’s mind when he wrote. And, a view that leads counselors in a wrong direction.

That view, largely being propagated by another brother, who does little, if any, true exegesis of passages, but largely intellectualizes (playing around with nuances of various sorts), has been spread all over the counseling world. Among other things, the concept makes Scripture (with little use of the same) teach that we are allowed to search out the idols specific to each person in order to counsel him (whether it be an idol of laziness, lust, or whatever). Of course, the Ezekiel passage has no such counseling construct within it (nor does any other passage). And it teaches absolutely nothing about human beings manufacturing heart idols. Indeed, the Bible teaches quite another concept that is contrary to this view: it denies the ability of others to know another person’s heart.

Let’s examine a few verses with reference to this concept. First, at the dedication of Solomon’s temple, in his prayer, he emphatically affirmed that God “alone” knows human hearts (1 Kings 8:39). Moreover, God tells us that man looks on the outward appearance [man’s territory], but that He looks on the heart [His territory] see 1 Samuel 16:7. Even Paul was cautious not only about judging others’ hearts, but even about judging his own (See 1 Corinthians 4:3-5). These are only a few of the consistent teachings of Scripture about the same thing. Man has the right to ask others what their desires are but, as in Paul’s case, even one’s own assessment is questionable. We can watch, and listen, but we cannot discover another’s heart problems. Moreover, as we have seen, to discover individual idols, within a complex person who isn’t sure of himself (as Paul said), again, seems quite presumptuous.

Much more could be said about other aspects of this developing system, which contains elements of redemptive-historical speculation replacing exegesis, and of Gospel sanctification—rather than sanctification of Spirit-enabled effort—must be reserved for another place. For now, let me simply warn you that the names of at least 4-5 rather prominent persons have become associated with the new system, so you ‘re likely to encounter its tenets soon, if not later. All I want to say now is beware. It’s adoption will destroy your counseling ability, and you are likely to discourage your counselees as well as yourself.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Often, I’ve been charged with being critical of others. But I have hardly been charged with being critical of those in the basic Nouthetic counseling camp. Yet, interestingly enough, I find that, as of late, some of these very persons have had little hesitation out attacking my writings—and even me personally. This is perfectly all right so long as what they say is accurate and the system that they propose (indeed, there seems to be such a system growing) is, indeed, genuinely an improvement over what I have set forth. But to “advance” is not always an advantage. The question is—what direction is this new way of counseling taking?

I see several serious deviations taking this “new” system back to a number of the old unbiblical ways that we thought we had put to bed. Let me mention but a few.

First, exegesis is minimized, and in its place we discover an emphasis on feelings, a superficial use of the Scriptures, “getting to know people,” and the lot. One whole book, for instance, is based on a faulty, superficial, misinterpretation of Ezekiel 14. Here was a people, being carried away into Babylon, largely because of its worship of the images of false gods rather than Yahweh. Yet their devotion to these images was so strong that what they could not do physically, they were doing spiritually—they were carrying away images of them in their hearts (Ez. 14:3,4,6,7) .

Throughout Ezekiel, true images of genuine false gods of the time, (such as Moloch) are in view. The first half of His book is consumed with condemning such idolatry. As a result, God’s “four sore judgments” (v.21) were about to fall upon them. Yet, they persisted in spite of Ezekiel’s last minute warning to repent and turn their faces from such idols (v.6).

Now, the book in question, “uses” the Ezekiel passage to set forth the fallacious idea that these idols were being manufactured in the hearts of the rebellious Jews, and that, rather than idols representing false pagan gods, the passage supports the concept of the human heart being the source of sin-specific idols of those who produce them. So, totally failing to do the exegesis of the passage necessary to proclaim God’s truth, the passage is “made” to support an unbiblical view which (certainly) was the furtherest thing from Ezekiel’s mind when he wrote. And, a view that leads counselors in a wrong direction.

That view, largely being propagated by another brother, who does little, if any, true exegesis of passages, but largely intellectualizes (playing around with nuances of various sorts), has been spread all over the counseling world. Among other things, the concept makes Scripture (with little use of the same) teach that we are allowed to search out the idols specific to each person in order to counsel him (whether it be an idol of laziness, lust, or whatever). Of course, the Ezekiel passage has no such counseling construct within it (nor does any other passage). And it teaches absolutely nothing about human beings manufacturing heart idols. Indeed, the Bible teaches quite another concept that is contrary to this view: it denies the ability of others to know another person’s heart.

Let’s examine a few verses with reference to this concept. First, at the dedication of Solomon’s temple, in his prayer, he emphatically affirmed that God “alone” knows human hearts (1 Kings 8:39). Moreover, God tells us that man looks on the outward appearance [man’s territory], but that He looks on the heart [His territory] see 1 Samuel 16:7. Even Paul was cautious not only about judging others’ hearts, but even about judging his own (See 1 Corinthians 4:3-5). These are only a few of the consistent teachings of Scripture about the same thing. Man has the right to ask others what their desires are but, as in Paul’s case, even one’s own assessment is questionable. We can watch, and listen, but we cannot discover another’s heart problems. Moreover, as we have seen, to discover individual idols, within a complex person who isn’t sure of himself (as Paul said), again, seems quite presumptuous.

Much more could be said about other aspects of this developing system, which contains elements of redemptive-historical speculation replacing exegesis, and of Gospel sanctification—rather than sanctification of Spirit-enabled effort—must be reserved for another place. For now, let me simply warn you that the names of at least 4-5 rather prominent persons have become associated with the new system, so you ‘re likely to encounter its tenets soon, if not later. All I want to say now is beware. It’s adoption will destroy your counseling ability, and you are likely to discourage your counselees as well as yourself.

feedback@nouthetic.org

Note: The following essay is an excerpt from Dr. Adams’ as of yet unpublished manuscript entitled Adams’ Answers…Objections from Critics.

I want you to know that I do not enjoy criticizing others who have gone wrong in their counseling. I believe, however, that this criticism is fair and honest—and needed. But “too critical?” How can one be too critical of those who misrepresent our Lord Jesus Christ? Take for instance the “need” pyramid of Abraham Maslow that has led to much wrong thinking and even serious misinterpretation of Scripture on the part of “Christian” counselors. When the self-actualization, self-esteem movement came along, there were many who hopped on board. In order to justify using this non-Christian, unbiblical belief system, there were those who taught that God had to redeem us because we were so valuable to him. This theology, which bases the saving death of Christ upon our supposed great worth, flatly contradicts the biblical teaching about grace. There was nothing in us to commend us to God; our redemption issued purely out of His undeserved mercy and goodness.

Moreover, in order to square the Bible with Maslow’s thought, many declared that there are three great commandments: to love God, neighbor, and self. Self-love is presupposed in the command to love others as one already loves himself. There is no need to learn self-love; we have too much of it already. Our problem is to learn to love our neighbor in the same way.

Indeed, to posit three commandments (the third non-commandment being more basic than the other two since one supposedly cannot love others until he learns to love himself) directly clashes with Jesus’ words, “On those two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22: 40). In the context Jesus also distinctly refers to a first and second commandment, but never to a third.

Now the question had to do with being too critical of others. Am I too critical? I don’t think so! When such irresponsible use of the Word of the living God is published and sent into all parts of the church, it is necessary to expose it for what it is—a cover up for the eclectic practices of those who claim to be doing Christian counseling, but are not. Unless the public is made aware of such practices, they may buy into them and go astray. It is important to attempt to counter false teaching and Scripture twisting at every level where it has been proclaimed whenever possible. Those of us who are ordained to the ministry of the Word are called upon to defend God’s flock from false teachers within and without the church environs. This is a duty often neglected. It is time to call on the carpet those who intentionally (or otherwise) misuse Scripture and represent what they are saying as God’s truth (when He said no such thing). Ideally, the denominations to which they belong ought to be knocking on their doors to do this. But since they are not, someone who cares for the flock of God must do it—even if he is raked over the coals for doing so.

feedback@nouthetic.org