(Loose ends and clarification)

In this article, it is our intention to deal with a few loose ends. Specifically, we would like to deal briefly with the concepts of Sin and the Medical Model and then conclude with a few words on psychology.

7.1. Sin is the Cause.

When the documentation regarding Counselling is reviewed, it is soon apparent that the Doctrine of Sin is central to the argument. In essence, three positions are evident, a) Sin is the cause; b) Sin might be the cause; and c) Sin is not the cause.

In relation to c), it must be noted that the denial of sin as causative is usually accompanied by an explicit and overt denial of sin as a reality. This is the position taken by the Secularists. It is a position that is completely at odds with Scripture. Thinking back to the Biblical worldview, we have God is, Creation, Fall …! It is the Fall, the entrance of sin into this world, that undoes the Creation and brings strained relationships, erroneous thought patterns, and faulty reference points into being. Similarly, some may use the term sin, but reinterpret it so that it comes to mean an innate dissatisfaction with oneself rather than being a state of lawlessness—rebellion against God’s Law (1 John 3:4). Thus, these views are to be rejected; having no basis in Scripture they should never be found in the Christian’s thought pattern.

In regard to b), some well-meaning folk choose to limit the extent of sin. They take the Bible’s statements concerning sin seriously; however, they end up, for various reasons, limiting the extent, power, and prevalence of sin. When this position is embraced, it inevitably leads to the adoption or quasi-adoption of c). The practitioner who limits the extent, power, and prevalence of sin, must, as a consequence, believe that the problem encountered can have its source elsewhere; therefore they must seek a corrective that either dismisses sin or which limits the prevalence and influence of sin.

It is at this point that we encounter the Medical Model in regard to psychology and counselling.[1] The Medical Model, in essence, renders the patient blameless and innocent. At its core, in very simplified terms, is the idea that problems come upon us from uncontrollable external sources. As these external sources were not rationally chosen by the individual, the individual can, therefore, refuse to accept any responsibility for either his exposure or the consequences of his exposure.[2] Think here of a man. He is fit and healthy. Upon going to work, he meets a friend who is ailing. The friend inadvertently sneezes on our man, contaminating him with the virus, causing our man to call in sick the following day. When questioned as to why he is sick, our man can reply, “It’s not my fault. Friend sneezed on me!”

In a similar way, the Medical Model looks for these external, uncontrollable, and unavoidable occurrences in the patient’s life as a means of explaining and healing the manifestations of “the virus” that has been unleashed upon him. Such factors may be parentage, environment, social status, religion, governmental, anatomical, or anything that comes into view.

The essence of the point can be refined down to this syllogism: Choice or Decision precedes responsibility; I did not choose or decide for option (…); therefore I am not responsible for option (…)! As can readily be seen, this is an extremely dangerous philosophy. Consider the fact, as one example, that all our significant beginnings in life are not chosen by us—our birth, our sex, our parents, our location, our government,[3] and so on. Thus, in a world where “personal choice” is the new god, absolution is given to the most wicked and depraved of individuals on the basis that they did not choose to be born … etc, etc, and so on ad nauseam!

The detrimental impact of this philosophy is evident all around us, especially in our so-called Justice System. How many people have not been punished or held to account because of this belief system? How many times have you heard of a crime committed, a person apprehended, only to hear that said individual is being sent for a “psychiatric assessment”? How often do you hear a litany of reasons as to why this person should not be held to account even though they are clearly guilty of the crime committed? How many times are irrelevant and extenuating circumstances brought forth in order to excuse guilt and lessen punishment? This is the Medical Model at work.[4] This is Man’s attempt to diagnose and treat himself apart from God. Therefore, when Christians adopt such a model, in part or in whole, to that degree they must abandon the truth as God has revealed it to us.

Turning our attention to proposition a), we are left with this as the only tenable position based on God’s revelation. Sin is, has been since the Fall, and will be until Christ’s return, the root of all Man’s problems. As soon as this statement is made, one can hear the vociferous choir of dissent warming in the background. “What about …? Explain this …? Science has proven …!” and an assortment of related questions and exclamations. Even the well meaning Christian will chime in with, “I read in John 9 of the blind man. Jesus disciples asked, ‘Who sinned?’ and Jesus said ‘No one!’ so how do you claim that sin is always the root of Man’s problems?”

In answer to such opposition, it must be remembered that we are primarily talking worldviews and presuppositions. In regard to John 9, the specific answer is that the disciple posed a ‘cause and effect’ question based on their outlook to life. This man is blind. Blindness is an abnormality. Abnormalities occur as a result of God’s judgement of sin[5]. Thus, they logically asked, ‘who sinned?’ Jesus, in answering with the word “neither”, does not say that sin is not present, that sin did not cause the man’s blindness, nor that the man is sinless. Jesus’ answer simply denies the assertion made. In this case, the blindness is not attributable to a specific sin by the man or his parents. Yet, as we know from Scripture, blindness comes to men physically as a result of sin and indeed such physical blindness becomes a metaphor for of our sinful estate – spiritual blindness.[6]

Here, it is important that we distinguish “sin” from “personal guilt”. All men are sinners – their beings are ravaged by sin. The world has been radically altered by the entrance of sin – chaos instead of peace; estrangement rather than fellowship. However, this does not necessarily mean that when something bad / chaotic befalls a person that the person is paying the penalty for a personal infraction. Examples are that of Job and of the man in John 9, currently before us. Neither of these men was considered to be “personally guilty” or to be paying the penalty for a “personal infraction”. In fact, just the opposite is true in both cases. These men underwent trial in order that they might learn a substantive truth concerning God. However, that does not mean that “sin” was not present in terms of being an exploitative defect. The man of John 9 was blind. Blindness does not occur in perfection. Job’s children died, his livestock were stolen, his servants slain. Death, thievery, and murder are abnormalities caused by the entrance and presence of sin. Hence, the absence of personal culpability does not mean, by any stretch, the absence of sin.

It is important that this point be grasped. Those who rail against men like Jay Adams, often do so because of the emphasis placed on sin. However, their rants are fuelled by the misconception that sin equals personal guilt. Now, to be sure, in some cases personal guilt is also present, however, in all cases sin is present.

This leads us to consider another informative aspect of John 9. When Jesus instructs His disciples ‘that neither the man nor his parents had sinned’ causing the man’s blindness, Jesus does us the courtesy of explaining the situation and ending the drama. Says Jesus, in effect, “This man is blind in order that God will be glorified.” This statement is profound, to say the least, and is worthy of some attention.

Consider Jesus’ statement in light of all that has been discussed in this series so far:

• God is; (Jesus affirms the fundamental starting point of the Biblical worldview.)
• God has a plan; (God is Sovereign.)
• God’s plan involves men; (Man is governed.)
• God’s plan involves men whether they understand that or not; (God works through men for His glory even in the most adverse circumstances.)
• God’s glory supersedes Man’s glory. (Man is always the creature and must glorify his Creator.)
• God displays His glory, design, and purposes in His sin affected creatures. (God works in, with, and through fallen Man in order to better display the awesome wonder of His Being.)

If we try and put these points into a sentence, it would read something like this: “Though sin has entered the world and severely marred Man as a consequence, diminishing him greatly, yet God’s power, plans, and purposes are by no means diminished or thwarted; allowing God, the absolute Sovereign, to display His glory through and in such marred creatures.”

          This may sound like we have forgotten the topic in hand and wandered off in to a vague theological discussion. Not so. Throughout this series, we have laboured the point of presuppositions, of letting the Bible speak, and of judging all things by God’s revelation. We even went so far as to challenge the reader to understand what Christian writers mean by the terms “Biblical” and “authoritative”. We did so precisely because they are important and that importance is now on display.

          John 9 clearly educates us on a number of important issues, not least of which, in regard to counselling, is the fact that in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted in order to display God’s glory. We might take this one step further and say: in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted by God as a means of showing Man his spiritual bankruptcy and his need of God’s salvation’ which can also be, at times, a precursor to God graciously bestowing that salvation. Examples of this can be found in Naaman the Aramean (2 Kings 5), Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel 4:34-37); these pointing forward to and culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ, Messiah, and the testimony that, “He healed them, so that the multitude marveled as they saw the dumb speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel” (Matthew 15:31).

Therefore, when we deny the Biblical worldview, and the fact that God is, we not only deny the doctrine of sin, but we deny God as the Sovereign. In denying God as Sovereign, we deny the fact that Man’s afflictions have a higher purpose and end than just that of “hardship”. In God’s providence, that affliction may lead to a gracious encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and to the bestowal of life eternal.

Think this through. If God is not and the Fall never happened, as the Secularists espouse, then there is no genuine and absolute explanation for suffering and of why things go awry in this world. This means that a person’s affliction can have no higher end than that of being a personal affliction. That is it. There is no superior purpose, grand scheme, or big picture. It also means that there is no hope in the form of a higher Being’s interposition. The only hope comes from a fallen Man who is afflicted in the same manner as you are.

Hence, we must understand that man’s insistence on “Choice” is just an echo and reverberation from the Garden. It is Man again asserting that he has the right to be Sovereign over his own life. It is Man once more opposing God’s sovereignty.

In John 9, we witness a man who had been “blind from birth”. He had spent years without the ability to enjoy the aspects of life that others took for granted. Think of this. He never experienced something as simple as his mother’s smile or her eyes light up when he had achieved something significant. He ended up begging in the streets. This was his life and his existence. Decades[7] of darkness, fear, disappointment. Then, one day, there is movement beside him. He hears a conversation. The voices of strangers? Maybe not. Possibly he had heard this voice before preaching a better message. Next thing he is touched. A stranger has put mud on his eyes. He is now commanded to go to the pool of Siloam and wash. He does so without question. As the mud disappears from his eyes, he is overwhelmed by light. For the first time in his life he sees!

All of the agonies that this man faced now pale. He has come face to face with God’s true prophet, Jesus Christ. His physical blindness has been removed. He receives sight, physically and spiritually. He knew God was behind his blindness and his sight. Now is God glorified, because this man believes in Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God! Now is God glorified, for this man’s seeing becomes a testimony to the truth of Jesus’ claims.

The point is very simple. By Divine providence this man was born blind because of sin and corruption which entered through the Fall. This man was appointed a time; a time to be born, a time to wait, a time to be healed, and a time to be freed. All of these times were appointed by God and for His glory. Read John 9! Note Jesus’ words, “We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.” The blind man was one of God’s works! Just as Jesus came at the appointed time,[8] so this man was, by God’s sovereign power, appointed a time and an affliction. His time coincided with Jesus’ time. Saviour and sinner meet by Divine providence and the sinner receives the gifts of healing and salvation. God is glorified. God’s Saviour, Jesus, is honoured and worshipped.

The blind man’s affliction led him to a direct and compassionate encounter with Jesus. In the end, nothing is said of his years of affliction, he simply rejoices at meeting the Son of Man and bows in worship.

The pointed question for us moderns is, “How many people miss out on healing and freedom, true healing and freedom, because the Secular model does not allow for sin or the fact that people may suffer in order that God would be manifestly glorified when they are healed by Jesus, Son of Man and Son of God?” By removing God, the Biblical worldview, and the doctrine of sin from modern counselling, we remove the Divine response and answer to sin. Therefore, such counselling is ultimately useless because it will never declare the one true answer, Jesus Christ.

7.2. Psychology.

The second point of clarification that needs to be made is that psychology, in and of itself, is not wrong. Throughout this series we have resisted making this clarification in order to drive home a significant point. We questioned Jay Adams stand against psychiatry whilst allowing for psychology. We did so in order to make the same point: psychology has been hijacked!

To help the reader understand, allow us to draw a parallel with anthropology. If you open a standard systematic theology, you will usually find the term anthropology or a reference to ‘the doctrine of Man’. Anthropology, as a term, is derived from the Greek and means the study of Man (words about Man). When found is the context of theology, the study of Man is first of all passive. A picture and understanding of Man is given to us based on the paradigm God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It is this revelation that shows us what, who and why Man is.

If you compare this Biblical anthropology with the anthropology of modern universities, you will find little similarity. Modern anthropology does not or rarely discusses morals. God does not factor into the equation. Religion is defined as how “this” people understood the concept of god and worshipped in that context. The study is not based in revelation, but upon evolution. If you want an up close example, watch an episode or two of the television series, Bones.

In the same way, psychology, meaning a study of the soul (words about the soul), as it is commonly understood, has forsaken all Biblical roots. It is no longer a passive study that first listens to God’s revelation and then deals with Man in light of that revelation. No, this modern concept denies God from first to last. That is why we have, throughout this study, maintained the rage against psychology as understood by most people. The degradation is so radical and so complete that the Christian concept of psychology really needs a new term.[9]

In short, Biblical psychology is moral. As such, it accords perfectly with the point made above, sin is the cause. Biblical psychology, being moral, also means that it is based in law, God’s Law to be specific, and thus refers to an ultimate, absolute, and objective standard that is applicable to every Man. Sin is a transgression of God’s Law. Having transgressed, Man now fosters his state of rebellion by developing relative and subjective standards of morality by which he judges his own actions as ethical or not. This is not abstract theology, it is reality. It is the source of Man’s pain. Man, rejecting God’s Law and rule, seeks now to find happiness, contentment, and purpose by his own hand. However, he cannot escape the intrinsic fact that he is a created being living in his Creator’s world. He is an image bearer and everything he looks at in this world reminds him of God’s claims upon him. It is this that leads the soul of Man into conflict and which leads to anguish. In other words, Man, the image bearer now fallen, cannot escape God. Man thus invents false standards of morality that accord with and appease his conscience, yet none of these avail, for they only lead him into greater conflict within himself. Man is moral. He was created by a moral God. Man’s rebellion brings conflict, internal conflict, which cannot be ameliorated by the self-manufacture of morals that are more to his liking.

This point is clear when we consider the Bible’s view of psychology in comparison to that of the moderns. Adam and Eve, created in perfection, fellowshipped with God. They were both naked. Neither felt shame. They lived in the open. When Man rebelled, they immediately felt shame and they hid from God and each other. Their shame lead them to the inadequate measure of sowing fig leaves together and this simple act belied the fact that their mindset had been radically altered.

You see, my brethren, Man’s dual relationship with himself individually and corporately was always dependent upon his relationship with God. When Man sinned against God all other relationships were broken. Man’s path to restoration could only be in reconciliation to God. However, Man, now being left to a morality of his own making, rationalised that as he now felt shame in the presence of Man he could alleviate his shame by sewing fig leaves together. Phew! Disaster avoided. Man was content in the presence of Man – well that was until God turned up! Then Man had to go scurrying for cover and seek for himself an even greater “fig leaf” that would hide him from God.

When we look at the Biblical narrative, we see that fallen Man was content with a morality of his own making and a remedy to his conflict that was of his own design (sewn fig leaves). However, when God arrived on the scene in the fullness of His righteousness, Man’s efforts were shown to be futile. The lesson is simple. Why does modern psychology distance itself from God? Why does modern immoral psychology prevail? Because fallen Man, despite all his so-called advances, is still shown to be sewing fig leaves together and hiding behind them. The fig leaves seemingly work well in regard to Man’s relationship individually and corporately and Man is pleased with the level of peace this gives him. However, Man is keenly aware that God’s Almighty Eye penetrates fig leaves and thus Man erects signs which state, “God not allowed!” Man becomes hostile when he hears mention of the fact that God is in the vicinity because he knows that God’s Light will dry out the leaves and His Breath scatter the dried fragments, leaving Man, once more, naked and without excuse.

Therefore, we have maintained the rage against secular psychology because it has forsaken its Biblical roots. Biblical psychology is a welcome asset. It works with Elders because it is born out of Scripture. Biblical psychology understands sin and its effects upon this world and all in this world. Biblical psychology equips Elders to fulfil their God-given task as under-shepherds.

What true psychology does not do is supplant Elders and usurp their role. What true psychology does not do is force Elders into a holding pattern until something better comes forth from our secular universities. What true psychology does not do is label Eldership as passé—a concept of the past that is no longer fit or viable for the modern world. Christian, if your view of psychology suggests, hints at, or actively seeks the reality of any of these positions, even if it is not marketed in those words, then you are peddling a blasphemy. You need to repent because you are attacking the Church of Jesus Christ and seeking to inject into it nothing less than idolatry.

Elders, if you are peddling these concepts, then you are actively pulling the rug from under your own feet. You are destroying the very foundation on which you are to stand. You are part of the problem and not part of the cure. Repent. Believe God and take Him at His word. Reject the world’s philosophy and cling to that which has been taught by Christ. Jesus is the Church’s Head. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. Jesus knows what is best for His blood bought sheep.

Is it not time we took these words to heart: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.[10]

Shepherding Shepherds Part 8 (The Last in the Series)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is to be pointed out that the Medical model applies to c) as well. See Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p xvi-xvii for a brief discussion on the Medical Model.

[2] Here, we need to understand that most of the problems encountered by us are not actively chosen by us. So this is not the point of contention. The true point of contention is our accountability to and for the way we respond. Biblically, we are accountable for how we respond to any situation, whether it is of our choosing or not. This truth is summed up in the old adage, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right!’ In the Medical model, excuses are proffered on the basis that the individual did not choose what has befallen them or that, in the case where it is their own action that caused the grief, there was yet another catalyst that must be viewed as the prime cause.

[3] We often see this mentality expressed, in regard to the government, by the phrase, “Don’t blame me, I did not vote for them!”

[4] The Medical Model has been superseded in some ways today, but the basics remain. The supersession has to do, not so much with a change in philosophy, but with the way this philosophy has become endemic to society. Blame-shifting and excuse-making are rife.

[5] Deuteronomy 28:28.

[6] Note that in Matthew 23:16-26 Jesus labels the Pharisees as “blind” five times.

[7] Commentators debate over this person’s age. The phrase “he is of age” is claimed by some to mean that he had attained to 30 years of age; others to 13 years of age. It would seem that the person was older rather than younger from other facts. He was known to the people (v8). He is referred to as a “man” when there are a number of Greek words that could be applied if he were a child. This “manhood” seems to be evident from the man’s situation (begging) and his ability to reason with the Pharisees. Similarly, it is hard to conceive of parents so readily abandoning a 14 year old and leaving him at the mercy of these voracious Pharisees.

[8] Galatians 4:4.

[9] The term “Christian psychologist” is misleading because it does not equate to Biblical psychology, but to a dualistic or pluralistic position in which Christian principles are injected into a secular discipline or, more correctly, where secular principles are injected into a Biblical discipline. Think back to our illustration regarding Christian education in Part 2 of this series. Christian education is not the combination of a person who is a Christian and who also has a degree in education from the local university. No, a Christian teacher and a Christian education are those things that flow from, uphold, and apply the Christian worldview. Thus a true Christian education for example, will be given when the faithful mother, without a degree teaches her child that this world was created by God in six days. Christian education is not that which is taught in the Christian school by the teacher with a degree from a prestigious university when he says that God created via evolution or by long ages. So too, Christian psychology must begin with the Biblical worldview and its consistent application; not with the counsellor and what degrees he possesses.

[10] Proverbs 3:5-6.