What is the best book that you’ve ever read on the assassination of President Garfield? For me, and I only know of one, it’s Destiny of the Republic, a great book by Candice Millard.
Did I just deny the Bible’s authority and sufficiency?
After all, God has written history. He’s certainly a better author, but when it comes to books actually written on President Garfield, I have to give the award to Mrs. Millard.
I’ll confess that I feel a bit uneasy with that last paragraph. I’ve been heavily trained in the biblical counseling movement and within Reformed evangelicalism. Such pedigree means that I believe with all my heart that God is the best in everything. I still believe that to be the case, but there is a misstep in application here that I believe does great injustice to our view of biblical counseling and the sufficiency of Scripture.
Heath Lambert’s Misstep
Eric Johnson has, I believe rightly, critiqued the use of scriptural sufficiency among some within the biblical counseling movement. Johnson has argued at length that when Protestant Christian theologians have argued for sufficiency it is in matters of salvation and doctrine. He calls this “salvific doctrinal sufficiency”. That’s a fancy way of saying that if you want to know how to please God then Scripture is sufficient. Piper would share a similar view:
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”). The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. (here)
Lambert takes issue with Johnson here. He notes that “the faithfulness—even the existence—oft he movement is at stake in a critique like this” (Lambert, 40). He then seems to refer to Johnson as one of whom “it has become the task of the biblical counseling movement to defend the sufficiency of Scripture from attack by those who believe the Bible is not sufficient resource to help when life’s challenges confront a person.” (41)
Lambert goes on to argue for the Bible’s progressive, completed, formal, and material sufficiency. Material sufficiency means that “the Bible tells us everything we need to know from God about any topic” (48). He then proceeds to argue that “we mean that the material sufficiency of Scripture extends to the subject matter of counseling.” (48)
But note Lambert’s definition of counseling: “Counseling is a conversation where one party with questions, problems, and trouble seeks assistance from someone they believe has answers, solutions, and help.” (13) To combine these thoughts, if one person has a dilemma of “hearing voices” then the Bible tells us “everything we need to know from God about any topic” to provide “answers, solutions, and help.”
This is where I believe Lambert has not answered the critique of Johnson. Johnson is saying that the Bible doesn’t speak of it’s own sufficiency in this way, neither does historic Protestantism. It never claims for itself to be the best book on finding help when you are hearing voices. If you want to know what God says about hearing voices the Bible is the best book to turn. If you want to know how to please God if you’re hearing voices the Bible would also be the best place to turn. But if you’re wanting to know about the causes and cure for hearing voices, the Bible does not make this claim for itself. And that is where I disagree with Lambert (and many within BCM). To my knowledge, he has not sufficiently argued that the Bible speaks this way of itself.
But, this doesn’t have to dishevel the entire biblical counseling movement. Let me explain.
A Way Forward
Lambert acknowledges “there is nothing about the embrace of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling that requires someone to reject the presence of others sources of knowledge outside the Bible.” (53) Though, I’d argue that Lambert later undercuts this assertion, it’s helpful for him to say that one does not by necessity have to reject outside help.
In my mind all of this centers around asking a wrong question. I think for many the question becomes “is it necessary to use outside sources in counseling”. I will be specific. In order to provide help and healing for someone hearing voices is it necessary to use something other than the Bible?
I do not believe I will ever say yes to that question. I say that because help and healing is ultimately found in a Person; namely, Jesus Christ. A person hearing voices can be given help and healing simply by an encounter with the risen Christ. And I would also argue that the ultimate responsibility of a believer in a counseling moment is to point to Christ (using Lambert’s inclusive definition of counseling).
But in my mind this is framing the question the wrong way. Of course Christ is ultimate in help and healing. Of course, pointing to Jesus is our greatest goal. The real question, and how this relates to sufficiency, is whether or not in a given counseling moment the Bible claims for itself supremacy of place.
I come to you for healing in PTSD. What I mean by that is that I want the night terrors to stop and I want to somehow get some help within my body. Whenever I encounter certain situations I want to stop having a fight or flight response.
Imagine first that I’m an unbeliever. As a biblical counselor you rightly believe that my real issue is sin and a fractured relationship with Jesus. I come to you with wanting the night terrors to stop and you put those on hold for a moment in order to help me see Jesus clearly. By the grace of God, I’m converted. I would argue that substantial change and healing and help is going to be given. You don’t have an encounter with Jesus without this. The night terrors might even stop for a season.
But what if they don’t? And what if I keep coming back to you for help with night terrors. As a biblical counselor you are going to help me answer the question, “how can I best please God whenever I’m battling night terrors”? We can pray together for God’s help. We can even try to assess things biblically and see if I have unresolved guilt or issues within my past that need to be biblically handled. And the Bible is the A-plus, number-one, fully sufficient resource for doing this very thing.
But the night terrors continue. My body still goes into fight or flight response in certain situations. Does the Bible have supremacy of place in handling night terrors? It does have supremacy of place in helping me come to Christ the ultimate Healer. It does have supremacy of place in helping me know how to please God in the midst of this trial. But I would argue it does not have supremacy of place, and does not claim to have supremacy of place, when it comes to being cured of night terrors.
What if there have been proven methods for helping a patient no longer have night terrors? Is it denying the sufficiency of Scripture to use these? Of course not. Nor is it denying the sufficiency of Scripture to say something like, “The Body Keeps Score is the best book written on dealing with trauma”.
I don’t mean that ultimately. You can be healed of the effects of PTSD and still fall short of the glory of God. You still need ultimate help and healing from Christ. But you can experience healing—at least in the “my night terrors have stopped” type of way. And The Body Keeps Score may actually be better at providing that type of healing. And saying this is not denying what is meant historically by the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
Conclusion:
In sum, I think we err if someone comes to us wanting help with night terrors and we only pursue getting those to stop. Obeying Christ with night terrors means more than just “I was healed of the effects”. And the Bible is fundamental in this endeavor and is sufficient in this endeavor.
I also think we err if someone comes to us wanting help with night terrors and we only give them the Bible and never actually address the actual help they came to us for. People are holistic beings. Christ aims to heal the whole person. (And will eventually) I do believe the Bible may be incredibly helpful in this regard. In fact, it may be all that is necessary. But I also believe there are other resources which may even be primary at this level of healing.
We do not want to diminish the Bible. But we also do not want to make claims for the Bible that it’s not making for itself. Ultimately, our healing and help is found in Jesus Christ. And he spit on the ground and rubbed mud in a dude’s eye. Let’s be a little less condemnatory of methods folks are using to provide help. But let’s also not be satisfied with muddy-eyed healing when Christ aims for the ultimate healing which comes from union with Him.
—
Photo source: here
