Whatever Happened to the Bible, Part 2: My Reply to Pastor McKeever’s Reply
Joe McKeever said, on June 29, 2011 at 11:20 am (Edit)
Utter nonsense, my friend? You attack my article in your blog. Why didn’t you send your thoughts to me? You attack it for being directed to laypeople, but if you had bothered to check out my blog you’d see everything on it is directed toward pastors and church leaders. Crosswalk (and others who picked it up from my blog) put the spin on it they chose. In fact they called it “7 things we get wrong about worship” when there are no 7 things in there we get wrong. I had named it something like “Worship: Getting it all wrong.” — There is a mean spirit in your attitude, my brother.
Joe,
My missionary daughter whom I am very close to sent me the article thinking that I would be impressed with it—I also suffered the wrath of her displeasure as well. But remember, my article is addressed to “WE.” I reread the article, and if there was a place where I said “Joe is ridiculous,” rather than a reference to your statements, I missed it. I do not mean to say that stupid ideas equal stupid people; “we” all espouse stupid ideas from time to time (however, I retract the statement regarding the idea that you are “clueless,” I simply don’t know that about you based on the one article you wrote and would definitely ask your forgiveness accordingly).
Though my use of words reflects my frustration with the lack of practical application that leads to hopelessness in our day—I meant nothing personal toward you. BUT, the fact remains, that in our day, instruction has been replaced with spiritual sounding truisms that only address symptoms and not the core problem. In my own life just the other day, I was counseling with a pastor who was laying the ground work in regard to a trial in my own life. I found myself thinking: “Ok, I feel better, BUT WHAT NOW? Feelings don’t last, but new ways (specifically, God’s way) create a new path that’s perpetual and produces peace. In fact, good instruction did come, and the effects of the application have had a profound and powerful impact in the lives of my family.
Joe, your counsel to Christians who go to a church that has weak leadership is: “You can still bring your offering.” What does that mean? It sounds good, but how do we bring an offering (and what exactly is the offering? Worship? What’s worship? Today’s Christians don’t even have a working definition of what sanctification is—do your own survey) in the midst of a bad church situation?
Dr. Jay E. Adams, the father of contemporary biblical counseling, often shares his experience regarding the reaction of many Christians in our day that come to realize their biblical role in sanctification: “You mean, there is something ‘I’ can do?! I didn’t know, I thought all I could do is pray and hope for the best.” Which “hoping for the best” usually leads to HOPELESSNESS. We live in an age where following God’s instruction is supposedly an affront to the instructor! That is why your implication that all actions
(“Evangelism & Discipleship, Giving & Praying, Grow Out of Worship; Not the Other Way Around”) flow from “worship” is VERY upsetting to me. Joe, what in the sam-heck does that even mean? If we have to do worship before we do truth—we better know exactly what worship is. You are making “worship” something other than doing truth, so what exactly does worship look like? You don’t say—you just throw the term around like an idol that means anything to people that they want it to mean. That’s what idols are all about—they’re nebulous and open to our own self-serving interpretations. This is a HUGE problem among Christians today: spiritual sounding truisms that mean all things to all people and affect a fill in the blank yourself teaching prism.
Joe, as far as going to you privately: you made the statement publicly. With all due respect, you have no problem with the thirty-plus comments that were also public and were not addressed to you privately. I am the only one that had a problem with your post, and that should be private? Forgive me if I am uncomfortable with that. Besides, it’s not a Matthew 18 issue—it’s a 2Cor.10:5 issue.
Joe, I deeply appreciate you referring to me as a brother and I gladly return the same to you, but let us bring in-depth, practical God-breathed instruction that is full of hope back to the church, and not the spiritual neo-novelties of the day.
Paul
Clearcreek Chapel’s “All in the Family”
“I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.” ~ Robert Brinsmead
Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio is a good representation of the kinship between all of the elements in our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). One of the joys of this ministry is reconnecting family members with long-lost relatives. It is intriguing to see how remnants of the genealogy chart are all gathered at the bottom—thirty-something years later, but with family members like Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens (the original patriarchs) missing. Heartbreaking.
Not only that, credit is not being given where credit is due; for example, Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology, which pumped new life into the centrality of the objective gospel (aka Gospel Sanctification and New Covenant Theology) after it received a brutal beating from Walter Chantry and others on the left side of the chart, is never mentioned at T4G, TGC, and SGM gatherings, even though the primary disciples of Jack Miller (Tim Keller and David Powlison) are major players in those movements. Could it be because the Sonship label was shot full of holes by Jay Adams and Chad Van Dixhoorn on the right side of the chart? It would really do my heart good to see the Sonship label proudly displayed at the 2012 T4G. I mean, we’re talking family here.
Though I will be writing about many of these bottom-of-the chart family reunions, Clearcreek Chapel is an excellent specimen. The “elder” in charge of their “adult education” is Christian radio personality Chad Bresson, who authors a blog dedicated to Geerhardus Vos. Bresson is a member of the Earth Stove Society which promotes New Covenant Theology. Bresson has recently posted a lengthy article on eighty elements of New Covenant Theology followed by four articles on the writings of Graeme Goldsworthy. Also, a post by Bresson that articulates how New Calvinists interpret the Bible using a lengthy excerpt from the writings of Robert Brinsmead drew a lot of heat from some readers: http://goo.gl/qbeS4 .
Bresson was a recent speaker at the John Bunyan Convention which is a yearly conference that fictitiously uses the name of Bunyan to promote New Covenant Theology (NCT). This year’s conference included two primary figures of NCT, Fred Zaspel and John Reisinger. The conference was held at Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA and I have not ascertained whether or not it is a Continental Baptist church which are a small fellowship of NCT churches that split from Reformed Baptist circles over the NCT issue. The debate that fueled the split was primarily between the father of NCT, Jon Zens, and Walter Chantry. Reformed Baptist protestants staunchly proclaimed NCT to be Antinomianism and were not the least bit apologetic about the accusation. Jon Zens is now in the background, probably because of his close association with the likable, but controversial Robert Brinsmead.
While Bresson shows Clearcreek’s kinship with Jon Zens, Brinsmead, and Goldsworthy, the Chapel leadership as a group focuses heavily on David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart ( http://goo.gl/8UnBe ) and John Piper’s Christian Hedonism. In fact, the pastor of Clearcreek is a well known rabid follower of John Piper. It is my understanding that Piper’s Christian Hedonism is presented yearly in the adult Sunday school class. Paul David Tripp is a frequent speaker there and the Chapel was one of the pilot churches that “tested” Tripp’s book How People Change, which is based on Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change.
The common thread that ties all of the family members together is the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). This core thread (COG) was primarily developed by Brinsmead and Zens. Though it includes what Brinsmead describes (in our interview) as a collection of jewels, there is no doubt that Brinsmead and Zens formulated the basic systematic theology that makes its present-day life possible. In regard to any such system prior to the Forum, Brinsmead stated: “I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.”
COG states that all spiritual growth comes from contemplating the gospel outside of us. Any truth that is placed in the same priority at any given time is said to eclipse Christ. Inside considerations (the inner us [subjective]) would be included, which relegates the new birth to a position of insignificance—paving the way for the total depravity of the saints, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you,” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (coined by Jack Miller and aped excessively by Jerry Bridges). As this foundational thread (system) has weaved through contemporary church history, it has been endowed with an explanation of how it is experienced (Christian Hedonism); how it applies to life (Heart Theology); its view of covenants (New Covenant Theology); and an interpretive model that enables outcomes that fit together logically (The Goldsworthy Trilogy [research on how the Dutch Reformed movement and Vos may have influenced Goldsworty is still pending]).
In an introduction to a Christian Hedonism class at Clearcreek Chapel, Chad Bresson said, “This is what makes us unique.” While one wonders why the goal is to be unique, we all can agree that it’s family that makes it all so special.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 9: Three Men Who Stood Against New Calvinism
“Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,”
“….they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism.”
“This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.”
A friend referred me to a lively discussion going on at the Pyro blog concerning John Piper’s (Piper is a New Calvinist) ongoing association with Rick Warren. It’s not about Piper’s theology, it’s about who he associates with. I’m I here right now? What is more obvious than the fact that New Calvinism came forth from the womb crying, “anomia”? That was the predominant contention of one of the men who stood against New Calvinism. As we work through New Calvinism’s short history using the Gospel Sanctification/Sonship genealogy chart, let it be noted that the movement ran into two major contentions during its development.
Walter J. Chantry
Chantry occupies much of the subject matter of Zens’ historical essay. During New Calvinism’s early development in Reformed Baptist circles, Chantry launched a fervent offensive against Zensology. And most notably—Chantry called it out as being Antinomianism. Chantry’s first sortie came in 1978; Zens writes the following:
“In 1978 and 1979 the opposition to the articles in BRR accelerated (accompanied also by a number of positive encouragements!). Walt Chantry, a leader among the “Reformed Baptists” in the northeast, wrote a brief letter and accused me (without providing any documentation) of propagating “neo-dispensationalism” and “neo-antinomianism” (July, 1978).
I spent hours at the Vanderbilt Library in Nashville researching ‘antinomianism,’ and documented in my lengthy reply to Walt why I repudiated it. I re-sent Walt my articles that disturbed him, and asked him to underline any sentences that bothered him, and told him that I would be glad to consider any points he wished to make (August, 1978). No reply was ever received.”
Chantry’s second sortie, according to Zens, was in 1979:
“At the Summer, 1979, Reformed Baptist Family Conference Walt Chantry delivered some messages on the ‘Kingdom of God.’ In them he attacked the positions of the Reconstructionist movement and BRR. Walt suggested that our position carried with it a denial that there is only one people of God and one way of salvation, a denial that the O.T. is relevant for now, and a denial that the heathen are sinners (because they are not “under law”). While he quoted from the Reconstructionists, he never once cited anything from BRR to document his strong accusations.
In my reply to these tapes (August, 1979), I tried to show Walt that he had totally misconstrued what I believed. Since Al Martin introduced these tapes by announcing that the substance of Walt’s messages would be put into book form, I pleaded with Walt in my reply to not go into print with these misrepresentations of my position.
Walt replied, but still made no attempt to document his allegations (September, 1979). His displeasure was obvious:
‘It is clear that some major shifts have been made. And your
new categories have sown confusion in our churches — not about what we shall call Biblical teachings. Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . What has been put into print has been damaging to the cause of Christ . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,
Walter J. Chantry, Pastor.’”
Interestingly, Zens’ articles defending his position against Chantry were coincided with a series of articles by Robert Brinsmead in Baptist Reformation Review. Zens’ stated it this way:
“A sort of (unintended) culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]:”
Notice that the foremost figure of the Australian Forum, Robert Brinsmead, was used to defend Zens’ position against Chantry in regard to “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel.” Without a doubt, this phrase later became known as “New Covenant Theology” which was coined by Zens in 1981, according to Dennis Swanson.
Pastor Al Martin
According to Zens:
“In February of 1980, Al Martin presented an emotionally charged message on ‘Law and Gospel’ to a pastor[‘]s’ fellowship in Canada. In it he echoed the charges Wa[lt]if Chantry – ‘neo-antinomianism,’ ‘de facto dispensationalism,’ ‘nothing is regulative for the Christian but the N.T. documents,’ ‘Moses no longer has any valid function in the church of Jesus Christ.’
In my reply to Pastor Martin, I had to ask him just how he would document his sweeping charges, and why he had to resort to such high charged emotionalism (e.g., saying that we encouraged people to ‘stop their ears to Moses,’ and ‘they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism,’ March 25, 1980). I further said:
As Pastor D.M. Canright said, ‘men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the position of their opponents fairly.’ . . . You do your position no help by saying that BRR has put a ‘concrete barrier’ between the two Testaments, and that ‘nothing is carried over.’ No, Pastor Martin, such biased sentiments cannot be documented in BRR. If your position is right, then please manifest a Christian, brotherly approach in stating the position of your opponents fairly (3/25/80). No reply was ever received from Pastor Martin. One of the pastors who attended this presentation in Toronto,
James Shantz, wrote a letter to Al Martin in which he said, ‘I continue to be greatly dismayed by your lecture on Law and Grace, as I have continued to study it on tape. Your declaration that BRR . . . is teaching antinomianism reveals that you yourself have not carefully studied all the materials.’ Further, Shantz wrote a lengthy paper, ‘The Puritan Giant and the Antinomian Ghost,’ in which he raised a number of questions about traditional Reformed theology.’”
Dr. Jay E. Adams
One must now look to the other side of our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ). The doctrine cooked-up by Brinsmead and Zens had several points of entry into Westminster Seminary. I am in the midst of the research, but: Zens was a student there; both Present Truth and Baptist Reformation Review had a wide readership at Westminster; Michael Horton was infatuated with the Australian Forum, and at least one writer says the Forum framed much of his theology/ministry; in fact, the Australian Forum formally met with the Westminster Faculty; students from Westminster attended a church where Zens was a Sunday school teacher; it is likely that Westminster’s present infatuation with Geerhardus Vos came via the Australian Forum and Jon Zens.
Jack Miller, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, took the basic concept of sanctification by justification alone and put his own twist on it: Sonship Theology. More research is needed, but it appears that New Covenant Theology was dieing out on the Reformed Baptist side (thanks to Walter Chantry?). Continental Baptist presently have a very small following. However, New Covenant Theology found new life among Presbyterians via Jack Miller and Westminster Seminary. Notwithstanding, the movement encountered fierce opposition in Presbyterian circles, most notably from Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book in contention against it: Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course Timeless Text 1999. I must say, the intestinal fortitude of Presbyterians in standing against Sonship Theology is very impressive—if not refreshing.
Which is why the nomenclature was dropped as the movement was forwarded by disciples of Jack Miller: Tim Keller and David Powlison. Therefore, for several years, the movement had no name. Christians knew it was something, and that it was attached to like elements, but there was simply no way to identify it. Worse yet, it seems that “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel,” giving it a sort of hands-off protectionism. Finally, the movement was recently named “Gospel Sanctification” by protestants and the label seems to be sticking. The movement itself has recently begun to accept the “New Calvinism” label. But still, identification is a major problem and the movement deliberately hides behind the confusion.
Recently, Jay Adams has added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog where he writes articles against the movement. In one such article, Adams recently stated: “This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.” The fact that Tim Keller and David Powlison are major figures in the New Calvinist / Gospel Sanctification movement speaks for itself. The popular slogans among New Calvinist, “You must preach the gospel to yourself every day,” and, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you” where coined by Jack Miller. But those from the top of the genealogy chart are also present in today’s New Calvinism; for example, G. Goldsworthy, one of the original Australian Three, wrote the “Goldsworthy Trilogy” which is the New Calvinist authority on gospel-centered interpretation.
paul
Wed. Night Bible Study Makes Jay Adams Look Less Radical
“That’s his words, not ours. Therefore, our group concluded that even with our limited knowledge of biblical counseling, we could, in fact, help this Christian—and more than the ‘experts’ that he cited in the article.”
An extraordinary article was published in Christianity Today and published online yesterday ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/schizophrenic.html ). It is the testimony of a Christian struggling with Schizophrenia. The article, printed out, is six pages. I took the article with me to our church’s Wed. night Bible study and used it for open discussion.
After passing out copies to each parishioner, I informed them that we would be reading through the article together and stopping for discussion when warranted. As facilitator, I opened with the following question: “Is God’s word sufficient for just the ‘normal’ problems of life, or is it useful for deeper problems?” I then began reading as the others followed along.
The author writing his testimony opened with the following statement:
“I used my cane to hit the handicapped door opener. My hands shook and shadows danced on the wall. In the back of my mind, I saw train tracks. My head lay on the rail. A whistle blew, and I closed my eyes. It blew again and again. My eyes were shut tight. I was anxious and scared. Do suicides go to heaven?”
The parishioners seemed to be catching-up a little bit on this unorthodox Bible study I sprang on them, so I offered another interpretive / discussion question:
“If you were waiting for your car to be serviced at the auto repair center, and the person sitting next to you saw you reading your Bible, and asked that question, would you have an answer?” One member said “yes” and offered a pretty good theologically sound answer, which prompted my next question: “That’s good, but I’m wondering, should we see this as a divine appointment? Should we ask him, ‘what is going on in your life that would prompt such a question?’ I’m wondering, is this how a lot of people get saved? Is this how churches grow? Isn’t the gospel, if you think about it, problem centered?” The group agreed and suggested that such opportunities should be used to gain involvement in people’s lives. After all, this guy needs hope, right? And what does the Bible say about that? “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1Peter 3:15).
While waiting for his doctor, the author shared what he was thinking:
“I sat in a comfortable leather chair. I thought of the life I could have lived. The life I lost.”
Here was my next question to the group: “If this Christian expressed this thought to the apostle Paul, what do you think Paul would say to him?” A deacon in our church immediately suggested some thoughts on Philippians 3:8 where Paul said he considered his past life rubbish when compared to the gospel—so, “what’s so special about this guy’s past life?” Hmmm, interesting thought, no? The deacon’s wife then pointed to Philippians 3:13,14: “But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” At this point the group was very engaged and insightful observations from the Scriptures started coming in rapid fire. The group agreed as a whole that this line of thinking was not a helpful focus for our not so hypothetical counselee. We continued to read:
“A small, balding man in penny loafers came to greet me. He wore a Harris Tweed jacket with no tie—a failed attempt to set his patients at ease.”
We did not park long here, but I suggested that our counselee doesn’t know what the intentions of this doctor was in how he dressed. But, let’s say that it was his intentions; how does the counselee know it didn’t work for others? And would that be necessarily wrong? Could this indicate more unbiblical thinking? Probably. I then brought back to mind the author’s opening statement and directed the group to Philippians 4:8,9:
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
In light of this passage, should the counselee be thinking (the word is actually more along the lines of “dwelling”) about his head being on a railroad track with a train approaching? In fact, was that “true”? Are those thoughts “lovely”? The group’s response: “Obviously not.” Then came my next question regarding what Paul said the results of right thinking and right doing would be (“And the God of peace will be with you.”):
“We would all agree that this Christian needs “peace,” but does this promise pertain to our counselee even though he’s schizophrenic?” Their answer: “Absolutely!” Hmmmm, interesting.
Then came a very light moment, and a lightbulb moment when we discussed the first question the therapist asked our counselee:
“Well, David, how do you feel?”
My facilitating question was: “In light of what we have discussed, shouldn’t the doctor’s question be ‘How are you thinking—rather than ‘How are you feeling?’ If one knows how this Christian is thinking—wouldn’t his feelings be a given?’”
The group wholeheartedly agreed via laughter. Their smiling faces also seemed to say, as they rechecked the manuscript: “Doctors get paid for this?”
We then continued to read:
“It took me a moment to collect my thoughts. “I still see shadows everywhere. They seem to watch me. Whenever I close my eyes I see myself without a head. Sometimes it feels like invisible knives are swirling around me. The medicine is making it hard for me to walk, and often I feel like I am falling when I am just standing still. The suicidal thoughts are getting better. Just ideas, no actual plans.”
This statement evoked some questions in our minds: Does wrong thinking lead to bad feelings, and do those bad feelings then start to produce further negative thinking, with further negative feelings? The counselee is now using “[it] seems” and “it feels” as if we can almost see the downward spiral right here in this manuscript. Also, can the drugs really do the counselee any good while he is thinking this way?
We continued to read:
“Dr. Stanley nodded and scribbled something on my chart.
‘I see. I think you are doing better than the last time we met. How are you spending your time?’
‘I sleep most of the time. When I’m awake I play my Xbox. Sometimes I read and listen to music.’
‘Do you get out of the house much?’
‘No.’
I directed the group back to Philippians 4:8,9. Is this “doing” (sleeping and Xbox “most” of the time) advisable for this counselee right now? Again, regardless of his condition, does the promise of these verses and James 1:25 still stand? We think it does.
I then directed them to page two and read the following from what the author wrote:
“A little knowledge can be a frightening thing. I soon realized, for instance, that psychiatrists often go to school for 24 years so they can prescribe drugs that, according to some research, are only marginally better than a placebo. Almost all antidepressants increase the recipient’s risk for suicide. Why did I trust these people? Why did I pay $160 an hour to see them?”
That’s his words, not ours. Therefore, our group concluded that even with our limited knowledge of biblical counseling, we could, in fact, help this Christian—and more than the “experts” that he cited in the article.
Others who were reading ahead brought up another important issue from the following excerpt:
“While some members of our conservative church were supportive, it was amazing how often our questions were met with skepticism and hostility: ‘Are you secretly gay?’ ‘Do you have some unconfessed sin?’ ‘Are you possessed by a demon?’ ‘How dare you question God!’ The range of suspicions was staggering.”
Regarding this excerpt—our group’s conclusion: 1. Counseling /discipleship must be done the right way. 2. This is indicative of Job’s three friends: “C’mon job, confess your sins—you will be healed and we can all go back home.” 3. Christians must resist laziness in regard to helping other Christians (i.e., quick fixes and pat answers). 4. Christians must be gentle, humble, willing to sacrifice self, and willing to invest in others.
In, or around 1972, Jay Adams published a book entitled “Competent to Counsel.” The book introduced a radical concept to contemporary Christianity; namely, that the average Christian has what he needs in the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures to help others with the deep problems of life. Today, Dr. Adams and Donn Arms offer training that equips Christians to do just that through the Institute of Nouthetic Studies ( www.nouthetic.org ). Our church’s men’s ministry is implementing this training into our curriculum. We trust that it will make us better husbands, better fathers, better ministers of the word, and better evangelist. In Adams’ introduction to the program, he suggests that Christians have more in their discipleship bag than what they think—after Wednesday night, we would have to agree. Also, Dr. Jay’s contention is not looking so radical after all.
What We Don’t Need
We don’t need counseling that taints the “pure milk of the word” ( 1Peter 2:2) with those who ask the wrong questions (“How do you feel” verses “What do you think”). Though feelings in the Christian life are very important, the primary purpose of medication is telling in regard to other counseling disciplines. Neither should God’s word be tainted with those who make feelings the primary discipline through which all other spiritual disciples flow (i.e., John Piper). Nor do we need to solicit ancient philosophers and look for God’s truth in everything that crawls upon the Earth (i.e., CCEF). Furthermore, we do not need to integrate mysticism with the pure milk (i.e., NANC). Moreover, those who cry “Christ-centered counseling, NOT problem centered counseling” miss the point: the gospel itself is problem-centered. The good news addresses two major problems: sin, and separation from God. We are ambassadors on an alien planet, and those in the kingdom of darkness look for relief from their pain, and the happiness Christ talked about in the Sermon on the Mount—but they often do not understand the source of that pain.
Lastly, this excerpt, “Doctor, it has been three years. Will I ever get better?….’you need to accept that you will always be this way’ (the statement by his doctor was never refuted by the Author),” gives us pause because Romans 8:37 says, “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.” Certainly, Jay Adams is right; we have to believe that Christians have more hope in our bags than that!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment