{"id":885,"date":"2016-03-04T17:24:55","date_gmt":"2016-03-04T06:24:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/?p=885"},"modified":"2016-03-04T17:53:30","modified_gmt":"2016-03-04T06:53:30","slug":"of-shepherding-shepherds-pt-7","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reformationministries.com.au\/blog\/2016\/03\/of-shepherding-shepherds-pt-7\/","title":{"rendered":"Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.7)"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Loose ends and clarification)<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

7.1. Sin is the Cause.<\/span><\/p>\n

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)<\/span> Sin is<\/u><\/strong><\/span> the cause; b)<\/span> Sin might be the cause; and c)<\/span> Sin is not<\/em><\/span> the cause.<\/p>\n

In relation to c)<\/span>, 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<\/em>. 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<\/em>, Creation<\/em>, Fall<\/strong> \u2026! 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<\/em>, but reinterpret it so that it comes to mean an innate dissatisfaction with oneself rather than being a state of lawlessness\u2014rebellion against God\u2019s 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\u2019s thought pattern.<\/p>\n

In regard to b)<\/span>, some well-meaning folk choose to limit the extent of sin. They take the Bible\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

It is at this point that we encounter the Medical Model in regard to psychology and counselling.[1]<\/a> The Medical Model, in essence, renders the patient<\/em> 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]<\/a> 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, \u201cIt\u2019s not my fault. Friend sneezed on me!\u201d<\/p>\n

In a similar way, the Medical Model looks for these external, uncontrollable, and unavoidable occurrences in the patient\u2019s life<\/em> as a means of explaining and healing the manifestations of \u201cthe virus<\/em>\u201d that has been unleashed upon him. Such factors may be parentage, environment, social status, religion, governmental, anatomical, or anything that comes into view.<\/p>\n

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 (\u2026); therefore I am not responsible for option (\u2026)! 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\u2014our birth, our sex, our parents, our location, our government,[3]<\/a> and so on. Thus, in a world where \u201cpersonal choice\u201d 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 \u2026 etc, etc, and so on ad nauseam<\/em>!<\/p>\n

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 \u201cpsychiatric assessment\u201d? 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]<\/a> This is Man\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Turning our attention to proposition a)<\/span>, we are left with this as the only tenable position based on God\u2019s revelation. Sin is, has been since the Fall, and will be until Christ\u2019s return, the root of all Man\u2019s problems. As soon as this statement is made, one can hear the vociferous choir of dissent warming in the background. \u201cWhat about \u2026? Explain this \u2026? Science has proven \u2026!\u201d and an assortment of related questions and exclamations. Even the well meaning Christian will chime in with, \u201cI read in John 9 of the blind man. Jesus disciples asked, \u2018Who sinned?\u2019 and Jesus said \u2018No one!\u2019 so how do you claim that sin is always the root of Man\u2019s problems?\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u2018cause and effect\u2019 question based on their outlook to life. This man is blind. Blindness is an abnormality. Abnormalities occur as a result of God\u2019s judgement of sin[5]<\/a>. Thus, they logically asked, \u2018who<\/strong> sinned<\/em>?\u2019 Jesus, in answering with the word \u201cneither\u201d, does not say that sin is not present, that sin did not cause the man\u2019s blindness, nor that the man is sinless. Jesus\u2019 answer simply denies the assertion made. In this case, the blindness is not attributable to a specific sin by the man or his parents<\/em>. 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 \u2013 spiritual blindness<\/em>.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Here, it is important that we distinguish \u201csin\u201d from \u201cpersonal guilt\u201d<\/span>. All men are sinners \u2013 their beings are ravaged by sin. The world has been radically altered by the entrance of sin \u2013 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 \u201cpersonally guilty\u201d or to be paying the penalty for a \u201cpersonal infraction\u201d. 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 \u201csin\u201d was not present in terms of being an exploitative defect. The man of John 9 was blind. Blindness does not occur in perfection. Job\u2019s 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<\/em> does not mean, by any stretch, the absence of sin<\/span>.<\/p>\n

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<\/em> personal guilt is also present, however, in all<\/strong> cases sin is present<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This leads us to consider another informative aspect of John 9. When Jesus instructs His disciples \u2018that neither the man nor his parents had sinned<\/em>\u2019 causing the man\u2019s blindness, Jesus does us the courtesy of explaining the situation and ending the drama. Says Jesus, in effect, \u201cThis man is blind in order that God will be glorified<\/em>.\u201d This statement is profound, to say the least, and is worthy of some attention.<\/p>\n

Consider Jesus\u2019 statement in light of all that has been discussed in this series so far:<\/p>\n