3 Why Biblical Counseling and Not Psychology?

John Street

Biblically informed Christians ought to be sanctified skeptics. They should direct a justified cynicism toward any discipline or epistemological scheme that seeks obligatory authority as it relates to counseling of personal problems. A natural antagonism has always existed between biblical counselors and therapeutic practitioners because psychotherapeutic theories have aggressively encroached upon the jurisdiction of soul-care.¹ Christians are fully warranted in casting a wary eye in psychology’s direction for its Enlightenment-inspired dismissal of the Bible’s veracity and its carte blanche rejection of the jurisdictional authority which Scripture claims in the matters of the soul.

For the Christian counselor, the Word of God must be more than an interpretative grid for the acceptance or denial of psychological truth claims; it is the operative domain from which the counselor derives his/her functional and final authority,² being accepted as the determinative authority in anthropology. Scripture serves as the only reliable resource for the Christian counselor’s diagnostic terminology and remedy. The Word of God possesses the exclusive theoretical framework from which soul-problems can be properly interpreted and resolved.³ More importantly, it claims exclusive authority in defining the significance of and purpose for the life of man.⁴ When placed in juxtaposition with the counsel of man, the comprehensive superiority of the Word is unmistakable. God’s purposes in the life of man will prevail. The psalmist stated:

The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations;

He frustrates the plans of the peoples.

The counsel of the LORD stands forever,

The plans of His heart from generation to generation.

(Ps. 33:10–11)

THEOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY

The historical distrust and innate hostility between psychology and theology exist because each calls into question the legitimacy of the other’s Weltanschauung.⁵ The imperialistic intrusion of the psychotherapeutic into Christianity has attempted to undermine and redefine the supremacy of the Word of God among Christians. Nowhere has its effects been more intrusive and dramatic than in the ministry of the Word in relation to pastoral soul-care.

For over a century, graduate schools and seminaries have trained an army of pastoral students in a variety of psychologies under the label “pastoral counseling.” This training often assumed the tenets of some renowned psychologist or psychotherapist, or worse, taught an academic smorgasbord of psychological methods and theories from which the pastor could draw as he saw fit.⁶ Some of the most influential, early psychologies in theological graduate schools included the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud, the analytical psychology of Carl Jung, the non-directive psychotherapeutic counseling of Carl Rogers, the physiological psychology of the liberal theologian-turned-psychologist G. T. Ladd,⁷ and the existential psychology of Søren Kierkegaard. Pastors, trained under these psychologies, influenced an entire generation of parishioners to think and act according to the therapeutic instead of according to the gospel. Even the authorial intent of Scripture was replaced by a psychological hermeneutic that loaded biblical terminology with psychotherapeutic meaning. Where the Bible was not replaced by a psychology, it was redefined by it.

Few psychologists or psychiatrists today claim to follow these older psychologies exclusively. This underscores the fact that psychology is in constant flux and is far from being a mature science. Psychological theories are frequently replacing other psychological theories. In the spirit of German innovationism, academic psychology relentlessly quests for elusive insight, only to resign itself (eventually) to postmodern relativism. Sigmund Koch expressed his frustration with psychology when he wrote:

The idea that psychology—like the natural sciences on which it is modeled—is cumulative or progressive is simply not borne out by history. Indeed, the hard knowledge gained by one generation typically disenfranchises the theoretical fictions of the last . . . Throughout psychology’s history as “science” the hard knowledge it has deposited has been uniformly negative.⁸

Nevertheless, Christians continue to be taught the essentials of psychology overtly or inadvertently, in sermons, Sunday school lessons, marriage seminars, self-help books, radio programs, missionary training, and Christian universities. The principles of psychology are presented as though they were on the same authoritative level as Scripture and compete for its jurisdiction as the sole authority in determining the well-being of the soul. Mission organizations persist in using psychological assessment tools,⁹ built upon secular normality research of unbelievers’ attitudes and opinions, to determine the fitness and potential adjustment of prospective candidates. Furthermore, as John MacArthur has observed, “Over the past decade a host of evangelical psychological clinics have sprung up. Though almost all of them claim to offer biblical counsel, most merely dispense secular psychology disguised in spiritual terminology.”¹⁰ Many Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries have taken their psychology programs and relabeled them “Biblical Counseling Programs,” while maintaining an essentially psychological core of subjects. Because of this, Christians have good reason to be skeptical toward any type of counseling that is not thoroughly biblical.

PSYCHOLOGY IN THE BIBLE?

Some believe and even teach that the English term “psychology” is of biblical extraction because of its transliterated Greek original. It is a compound consisting of two Greek words, psychē (soul, mind)¹¹ and logos (word, law). The united etymology of this word became the study or science of the mind or soul. Actually, this word has closer etymological ties to Classical Greek than to New Testament Koinē Greek.¹²

The word “psychology” does not occur in the Bible, even though there are endless eisegetical efforts to discover the presence of its earliest meanings. Reading ideas of modern psychology into the biblical term psychē is like equating the contemporary idea of dynamite with the New Testament Greek word dunamis.¹³ D. A. Carson referred to this as a “semantic anachronism.”

Our word dynamite is etymologically derived from images/nec-a.jpg (power, or even miracle). I do not know how many times I have heard preachers offer some such rendering of Romans 1:16 as this: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the dynamite of God unto salvation for everyone who believes”—often with a knowing tilt of the head as if something profound or even esoteric has been uttered. This is not just the old root fallacy revisited. It is worse: it is an appeal to a kind of reverse etymology, the root fallacy compounded by anachronism. Did Paul think dynamite when he penned this word? . . . Dynamite blows things up, tears things down, rips out rock, gouges holes, destroys things.¹⁴

In the first century, Paul was not thinking of the explosive type of dynamite invented by the Swedish industrialist, Alfred Nobel (A.D. 1833–1896), and patented in 1867. He was thinking of the supernatural salvific ability of God the Father. The tendency to assume a contemporary word meaning and impose it upon a biblical word, often in hopes of claiming a dynamic insight or legitimizing a questionable practice, is a common, misleading ploy of interpreters today. In fact, reading various contemporary meanings back into the inspired text, foreign to the authorial intent, is a treacherous postmodern phenomenon.

Therefore, Scripture’s usage of the term psychē does not biblically validate the supplemental practice of psychoanalysis in Christian counseling.¹⁵ Nor can overtones of psychoanalytic theory, such as the superego, id and ego, be found latently in this term. Yet, it is not uncommon for Christians, psychologists, and others to read neo-Freudian notions of a layered subconscious into the biblical word, psychē.

Furthermore, the typical bifurcation between the soul and the spirit made by some Christian psychologists cannot be biblically sustained. One Christian psychiatrist offered this explanation: “The soul is the psychological aspect of man, whereas the spirit is spiritual. . . . The mind alone lies in the psychological aspect of man and not the spiritual.”¹⁶ Such an artificial distinction grows from reading psychological meaning into biblical terms. Both “soul” and “spirit” speak of the same intangible aspect of the inner man, the part of man that only God sees. A concordance study of psychē shows that when Scripture uses the term “soul” in relation to man, it refers to that aspect of the inner man in connection with his body. When it uses the term “spirit,” it is that aspect of the inner man out of connection with his body.¹⁷ No distinction exists in Scripture between the psychologically oriented and the spiritually oriented inner man.

The whole of the inner man comes under the dominion of the spiritual. In this arena the Bible reigns not only as a sufficient source for addressing soul-problems, but also as the supreme source. As Agur plainly warned in Proverbs, “Every word of God is tested; / He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. / Do not add to His words / Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.”¹⁸ Importing late twentieth century psychological significance into biblical English (or the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek for that matter) denies the divine intent of its authorship. In fact, anachronistic efforts to legitimize psychotherapeutic practices among Christians by appealing to similar biblical terminology are linguistically fallacious, presumptuous, and misleading.

Using the Bible to justify psychological practices can only be attempted through the broadest of definitions. One author painted his definition with wide strokes before he described the psychological insights he saw in Matthew 5: “But the study of character, the aspects of its well-being, and the change of character for the better seem to be a sort of psychology and psychotherapy in a broad sense of these words.”¹⁹ “Broad sense” implies “simple sense,” or something lacking the complexity of contemporary psychological research. Christian psychology views Scripture as the “fountainhead of Christian ideas, including psychological ones.”²⁰ In other words, the Bible is good for introductory thoughts and the germination of new ideas, but it is not sufficiently comprehensive to give substantive assistance to the intricacies of serious soul-problems. Scripture, according to so-called Christian psychology, is a primitive catalog of Christian character development and change; psychology and psychotherapy, however, provide exhaustive ideas for refining character and promoting well-being. So the “fountainhead of Christian ideas” merely moistens the palate but does not quench deep thirst. Supposedly, additional psychological canals must irrigate Scripture’s trickle of truth if the counselor is to assuage the thirsty soul-problems of life. According to Christian psychology, the Sermon on the Mount has a form of pathology, personality distinctives, and therapeutic involvement, but only in an unsophisticated composition.

While secular psychologists contemptuously dismiss the Bible as an archaic and mistaken psychology, their Christian colleagues desperately labor to prop up its fledgling therapeutic with an apologetic of psychological naivete. Christian psychologists often act embarrassed, like the illegitimate child of its larger, more sophisticated psychological family: the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). Driven by a deep desire to impress its more affluent parents, it ignominiously acknowledges the dangers of total reliance upon the Bible. Organizations such as the Christian Association of Psychological Studies (CAPS), and to a lesser extent, the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC), have viewed psychology as a supplemental resource to the Bible. As one Christian who functions as a psychologist explained:

Despite its wealth of information about human beings, their universe, and their God, the Bible is not intended to be a psychology textbook. . . . The Bible does not tell us about . . . the developmental stages of infancy, the fine points of conflict resolution, or the ways to treat dyslexia or paranoia. Psychology focuses on issues like these.²¹

In other words, the biblical text is a shallow and imprecise psychology and must only be seen as the starting gate of a more informed therapeutic. The APA sneers at Christians who are “deluded” with religious myths but finds the myths potentially helpful if the Christian psychologist does not take his Bible too seriously when dealing with them. Trying to keep one foot in the Bible and another in the intrusive discipline of psychology presents a precarious balancing challenge. Those who do not slip from the Christian faith are often torn apart. Subjugating Jesus and the disciples to an early, unrefined psychology undermines the Christian’s complete confidence in the Bible, and this subjugation is, at best, a tacit acknowledgment of an alleged biblical insufficiency.

PSYCHOLOGY IN THE DICTIONARY

What is psychology? Although a common and often used term, its connotation is misleading. Popular and scholastic definitions cover a wide semantic continuum from scientific research to therapeutic theory and practice, from the biological to clinical mental health. Systems include biopsychology, experimental psychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, clinical psychology, social psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and cross-cultural psychology. In addition, an assortment of psychotherapeutic theories drives many of the psychological systems: psychodynamic, humanistic, existential, family systems, cognitive-behavioral, and postmodern psychotherapy. As mentioned earlier, the brief history of psychology is littered with an untold number of discarded models. In other words, psychology is far from being a unified discipline. It would be better to refer to “psychologies,”²² since a plethora of theories and systems, current and past, abound.

The more common and basic definition of psychology used by the overwhelming majority of teaching institutions maintains a close connection between psychology and science. According to these institutions, “Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes.”²³ But is this true? Is psychology a scientific discipline? If it is scientific, how can anyone object to its truth-claims? The initial chapters in most freshman-level introductory psychology textbooks draw heavily upon the natural sciences: biology, biochemistry, neurology, the limbic system, the endocrine system, and sensory organs. However, the remaining chapters of the book often move farther and farther from the hard sciences into personality theory, motivation, emotions, human development, sexual orientation, abnormal psychology, social psychology, and psychotherapies.

Serious questions arise concerning the true scientific nature of psychology as greater reliance is placed upon the so-called “behavioral” sciences. Much of the espoused scientific evidence is no better than opinion research. Psychology’s relationship to the natural sciences is like margarine’s relationship to real butter. Margarine looks and spreads like the real thing, but anyone who tastes it can tell the difference. Karl Popper detected a major problem in psychology when he wrote, “Psychological theories of human behavior ‘though posing as sciences,’ had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science. . . . They contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in testable form.”²⁴ A similar note of caution from Scott Lilienfeld concerns the practice of mental health:

Over the past several decades, the fields of clinical psychology, psychiatry, and social work have borne witness to a widening and deeply troubling gap between science and practice (see Lilienfeld, 1998, for a discussion). Carol Tavris (1998) has written eloquently of the increasing gulf between the academic laboratory and the couch and of the worrisome discrepancy between what we have learned about the psychology of memory; hypnosis; suggestibility; clinical judgment and assessment; and the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of mental disorders, on the one hand, and routine clinical practice, on the other.²⁵

Herein lies an epistemological problem at the heart of the a priori truth-claims of psycho-science: it is not as scientific as it claims to be. If psychology and psychiatry maintained a strict code of cause-and-effect science instead of research built on causes that appear to be related to effects, they could be credible authorities for biblical pastors and counselors. However, when psychology encroaches upon biblical territory by claiming jurisdictional authority in the counseling arena of what man “ought” to do, it is usurping God’s domain. Psychology’s illegitimate efforts cannot come to absolute conclusions about life, since at its heart psychology is only one fallible man telling another fallible man what to do. Arrogance abounds in such an environment. Only the divinely inspired Word of God has authority to do that.

Another problem arises with the science of psychology. Even if psychology withdrew from its pseudo-scientific subjectivism and fully relied upon the natural sciences, it would still draw inaccurate conclusions. Why? The a priori presupposition of the overwhelming majority of natural sciences is an evolutionary one. Freud (A.D. 1856–1939) was a Darwin devotee. All the psychological textbooks since his time, graduate and otherwise, espouse that man is an evolved animal. Psychological research studies about the biology of man interacting with his environment are frequently based on animal studies. For example, concrete inferences were made concerning the emotional attachment between a child and his mother through the study of how infant monkeys became attached to soft, warm terry-cloth “mother-monkeys” instead of to wire “mother-monkeys” who gave milk.²⁶ The obvious assumption is that human infants, because of their evolutionary heritage, are identical or remarkably similar in development to infant monkeys in their attachment-responses. From these foundational studies that garner considerable credibility, psychologists establish sweeping developmental standards that affect governmental and educational child-welfare policies. Even more importantly, therapeutic advice given to parents is based upon the same evolutionary research.

Evolutionary biopsychology defines man as nothing more than the sum total of his chemical components. An understanding of the advanced complexity of the highly evolved animal called man, illuminates what makes him tick. Every psychology textbook has an account of the unfortunate mishap of Phineas Gage, the twenty-five-year-old railroad employee, who in 1848 had a one-inch-diameter metal spike driven through his skull while blasting rock. Remarkably he lived, but he was a radically changed man. Before the accident, he was a responsible, hardworking, mostly moral, and smart employee. After the accident he transformed into a cussing, carousing, irresponsible man who could not hold down a job or maintain good relationships with others. According to the theories in most psychology texts, the association areas of the cerebral cortex of Mr. Gage’s brain were destroyed, an area where higher mental processes like thinking, language, memory, and speech occur. In other words, the texts make a case that morality is not a spiritual issue after all; it is an organic issue. According to them, man is moral because his brain has evolved over millennia from a central core (the “old brain”) to a higher reasoning capacity in the cerebral cortex (the “new brain”). What was destroyed in Mr. Gage’s brain was a portion of the highly evolved association areas of the cortex where morality is determined. Then the question must be asked, “Is morality an issue for biology and not the Bible?” Will organic solutions suffice? Could pedophiles be given a pill in the future to stop their molestation of children? Would a prescription end the thievery of a kleptomaniac? Maybe drugs could be added to the water supply to finally rid society of criminals? Evolutionary biopsychology focuses in this direction.

The cases of traumatically brain-injured people like Phineas Gage and others prove nothing. Again, psychology has made associations that appear to be related to causes, but there is no direct cause and effect between injury and immoral behavior. A strong relationship is made because evolutionary psychiatry is committed to a materialistic worldview that assumes the uniformity of natural cause in a closed system. Sudden changes toward wickedness, like that evidenced by Gage, are also evident in cases where no brain damage has been sustained. Conversely, some who have suffered serious brain damage to the associational areas of the brain have not changed morally. Regardless, the sheer trauma of such an accident could sufficiently expose wickedness in the heart of someone like Gage who had suppressed it previously.

Often, years of hostility and anger can surface in a counselee who had previously lived a rather moral lifestyle. As Ed Welch explained, an injury can make it harder to think clearly and resist latent wickedness: “When affected by underlying sin, cognitive problems are often translated into childish behavior, unwillingness to be taught, irresponsibility, impulsiveness (especially financial), unusual emotional fluctuations, depression, and irritability.”²⁷ Trauma only magnifies the need to keep the heart pure. Elderly counselees who are suffering from early forms of Alzheimer’s or dementia will often have a difficult time restraining ungodly desires, especially if the inner man has not been nurtured over the years. Biblical counselors believe in a uniformity of natural cause in an open system. This means that these problems have supernatural/spiritual dimensions. The supernatural work of the Spirit of God through the Word of God can bring about a renewed life of holiness and righteousness in spite of brain damage or disease. Evolutionary materialism ends in nihilism, devoid of such hope.

Is psychology a scientific discipline? The answer to this previously posed question is, at best, debatable. Certainly, there are aspects of this discipline that carefully use rigid scientific reasoning. Even then, however, the a priori presuppositions necessary to bring about some meaningful significance are blatantly evolutionary. Psychology is better viewed as a philosophical system of thought disseminated as a materialistic worldview that expresses itself variously as behaviorism, humanism, determinism, existentialism, epiphenomenalism, and simple pragmatic utilitarianism.

Biblical counseling is not a scientific discipline either. And, does not claim to be, even though it is quick to affirm valid medical science and biological research as applied to genuinely organic problems. Biblical counseling fully acknowledges that its epistemology grows out of a theistic presupposition of a self-revelatory Creator who “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3). The Bible is not an encyclopedia of counseling topics that lists every particular counseling problem, but it does contain sufficient revelatory data to establish an effective worldview framework for the diagnosis and remedy of every soul problem. An extended explanation by David Powlison illustrates this point:

Biblical counselors who fail to think through carefully the nature of biblical epistemology run the danger of acting as if Scripture were exhaustive, rather than comprehensive; as if Scripture were an encyclopedic catalogue of all significant facts, rather than God’s revelation of the crucial facts, richly illustrated, that yield a world view sufficient to interpret whatever other facts we encounter; as if Scripture were the whole bag of marbles rather than the eyeglasses through which we interpret all marbles; as if our current grasp of Scripture and people were triumphant and final. Integrationists view Scripture as a small bag of marbles and psychology as a large bag of marbles. The logic of integrationist epistemology is this: Put the two bags together, weeding out the obviously bad marbles in psychology, and you have more marbles.²⁸

Some biblical counselors err in believing the Bible is the whole bag of marbles. On the other hand, Christian psychologists with an integrationist epistemology do not believe that the Bible has sufficient marbles for soul-care. In fact, they believe that by adding the larger bag of psychological marbles to the mix, they will be able to play a better game of marbles. They increasingly rely, however, upon the psychological marbles that are distorted and misshapen by a foreign worldview. Their biblical marbles are eventually marginalized by their integrationist epistemology. With skewed vision, they cannot weed out the bad marbles, much less play an effective game. Powlison asked, “Is the Bible a bag of marbles or the all-sufficient eyeglasses of truth—with lots of illustrative marbles—by which God corrects our sin-tainted vision?²⁹

The difference between biblical counseling and Christian psychology is a worldview issue. Biblical counselors believe the counselor needs new glasses. Christian psychologists believe the counselor needs more marbles. When the Bible is the Christian counselor’s corrective lens, he has a sufficient worldview perspective, with abundant illustrative material, to reinterpret biblically all human experience for soul-care.

BIBLICAL COUNSELING IN THE BIBLE

Does the Bible justify this counseling worldview? If so, can the biblical counselor trust assertions drawn from research in the natural world? A carefully reasoned justification exists for not only prioritizing the Bible in one’s counseling schema, but also making it the reliable resource for the Christian counselor’s etiology of the soul. As such, the Bible provides the diagnostic terminology and remedy, as well as the theoretical framework, from which soul-problems are properly interpreted and resolved. Not only do the noetic effects of sin cause the counselor to wrongly interpret soul-problems, they also encourage the selection of wrong categories for understanding the significance of these soul-problems, beginning with the counselor’s view of God and extending to the counselor’s view of man.

The Bible, and not psychology, should set the determinative categories for understanding theology and anthropology. For example, Scripture contains no hint that man struggles with a “poor view of self” or “low self-esteem.” Yet this idea has been the rubric of a considerable amount of Christian pop-psychology. The theoretical source material came, not from the Bible, but from secular psychologists like William James, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, and Abraham Maslow. In fact, biblical anthropology teaches that man loves himself too much, and if he loved God and others as much as he already loves himself, he would have a better life.³⁰

In addition, no justification for personality classification as a major determining factor in interpersonal and marital conflict can be found in Scripture. A psychological etiology of such problems causes Christians to focus on the wrong issues, avoiding the critical matter of the idolatrous heart that needs to change. Classification categories of personality have nothing to do with the Bible, rather they find their inspiration in ancient Greek mythology.³¹ Mythology aside, personality in the Bible is fluid and not an intact characteristic. An avid student of the Bible should be able to distinguish psychological claims, both new and ancient, from the authoritative criteria of God’s truth. Similarly, the Christian counselor should not only refer to scriptural truth in counseling, but to reason from it.

Furthermore, certification organizations have arisen over the last thirty years to return Christians to Bible-based, not-for-profit, church-sponsored, counseling ministries. Notably, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC)³² is the grandfather of such organizations created to assist the church in developing and maintaining excellence in biblical counseling. The term “nouthetic” is derived from the New Testament word that means, to warn, admonish, or counsel. NANC has been extremely influential in helping churches create counseling ministries built upon a biblically consistent counseling model.

THE PSALM 19 PARADIGM

The weight that the Bible carries in the counseling process is beautifully illustrated in Psalm 19. It has been called “the Psalm of two books,” because the first half presents God revealing Himself in the created domain (general revelation), and the second half presents God revealing Himself through the Word (special revelation). A careful study of the Psalm, however, demonstrates that David did not change topics in the middle of his writing. Psalm 19 is a psalm of one not two books.

General Revelation

The first half of this psalm theologically describes the scope and extent of general revelation (vv. 1–6). Our shepherd/poet introduced the psalm with a riveting display of the glory of God in the heavens by stating, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God” (v. 1). God’s glory is painted in brilliant colors across the sky. David asserted that the cosmic design and power of the universe places His resplendent glory on display like an unfurled banner stretching from horizon to horizon. The Hebrew word for “glory” originally carried the more literal connotation of “weight” or “heaviness.” The later more extended meaning developed into the concept of “importance” or “glory.” As a person’s eyes scan the glimmering night sky he is able to understand the weightiness or importance of Almighty God. General revelation elicits breathless awe for the raw intelligence of the omnipotent Creator.

Next, in synonymous parallelism, there is a restatement of the same idea in the second line using different words. David said, “And their expanse is declaring the work of His hand” (v. 1). Each of the main verbs in the first two lines, “telling” and “declaring,” use the Hebrew aspect indicating an ongoing action. God’s glory is constantly being displayed by the created world around us.

Verse two continues to highlight the ongoing duration of nature’s work in demonstrating God’s glory for man to see. “Day to day pours forth speech, / And night to night reveals knowledge.” “Pours forth” is a verb that means “bubbles forth.” Like a bottle of soda that gushes when shaken and released, natural revelation is under pressure to bring to the forefront God’s glory.

Without a word being spoken, this is accomplished. The English Standard Version has a superb translation here: “There is no speech, nor are there words, / Whose voice is not heard” (v. 3). The King James Version inserted the word where—“where their voice is not heard,” and thereby confused the meaning. The emphasis of this verse is not the location of the message; it is the language of the message. God is able to get the essential message across without the use of a single verbal utterance. Through nonverbal communication, people from all cultures and all languages have the capacity to understand that Almighty God exists in all of His weighty importance.

The first part of verse four reinforces the message: “Their line has gone out through all the earth, / And their utterances to the end of world.” No one can escape this powerful nonverbal message, because it extends to the horizon. People cannot hide from it, and they cannot run from it. Everyone is visually bombarded with God’s might and unrivaled creative design.

Then, in emblematic parallelism, David extended the reader’s understanding of the role of general revelation with the use of two vivid images: the bridegroom and the strong runner (vv. 4–6).

In them He has placed a tent for the sun,

Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;

It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.

Its rising is from one end of the heavens.

And its circuit to the other end of them;

And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The sun is compared to a determined bridegroom stepping from his tent to claim his bride. It has a predetermined course as it comes forth each morning from the veil of darkness with God’s glory promising a fresh day. The sun also runs its course from one end of the heavens to the other like a strong man; it does not stop and no one can stop it. So a good runner keeps focused on the goal of finishing the race like the sun is focused on completing the course that the Creator has given it. All of this determination, ordered movement, regularity, and power is abundant evidence of the glory of God.

The description does not end there, because a subsequent verse (6) indicates that no one can escape the influence of God’s glory in creation: “And there is nothing hidden from its heat.” Still using the analogy of the sun, the psalmist emphasized that everyone can feel the heat of God’s glory. Even the limited sensory world of one who is blind, deaf, and mute has the capacity to feel the ebb and flow of warmth from the rhythmic setting and rising of the sun. People with “subaverage intellectual functioning” or those with profound retardation (IQs 39 and below) are significantly impacted with the basic message of the presence of God and His glory. That is the penetration power of this nonverbal message. Clearly, general revelation was intended to put God’s power and creative design on display.

At this point a question must be asked: “What does the Bible say is God’s intended pedagogic role for general revelation?” One Christian psychological integrationist has said, “All truth is certainly God’s truth. The doctrine of General Revelation provides warrant for going beyond the propositional revelation of Scripture into the secular world of scientific study expecting to find true and useable concepts. . . . Again, let me insist that psychology does offer real help to the Christian endeavoring to understand and solve personal problems.”³³ While it is certainly true that “all truth is God’s truth,” it is also true that “all error is the devil’s error.”³⁴ So the sentiment “all truth is God’s truth” reduces the argument to reduction ad absurdum and begs the question. Another Christian psychologist held to a reductionistic view of the Bible by maintaining, “That as God’s statutes in scriptures are binding upon His people, His ‘statutes’ or fixed patterns within the framework of heaven and earth are binding upon the whole of the cosmos.”³⁵ Then he proceeded to suggest that just as the authors of Proverbs appealed to natural phenomena, so the Christian psychologist can do the same in determining psychological “quasi causal” laws for life. Not only does this place the psychologist on the same level as the writers of inspired Scripture, but it nullifies the warning of Proverbs 30:5–6 about adding to the unique Word of God. No one questions the many benefits of natural revelation for mankind, including discoveries made through the natural sciences and medical research. Even then, these discoveries may have measured application to the one who believes in the sanctity of life because God created people in His image (for example, abortion and fertility technology). But when the metaphysical bridge into the soul is crossed by an encroaching psychology, what does Scripture identify as the role of general revelation?

According to Psalm 19 the role of general revelation is to impact all men with the supreme glory of God. An ordered Creator with design and might exceeds one’s imagination. The apostle Paul understood the role of general revelation and declared, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

A major problem hinders general revelation’s role, however, in that it can be totally ignored or even misunderstood. This omnipresent, powerful message can be distorted and censored. Again Paul explained God’s anger, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” (Rom. 1:18–19). Man’s heart can never be neutral about the truth. In his unrighteousness, man is opposed to God and any fundamental knowledge of God. Often the problem with psychology is not its untrustworthiness but man’s. Information derived from the natural world is static information that can be twisted and obscured by the deceitful cunningness of the sinful heart.

Special Revelation

Now this is the point of Psalm 19: Far greater than all general revelation is the glory of God revealed in His Word, because the Word transforms the heart of man. Ronald Barclay Allen commented on this psalm, “I believe that it is the teaching of this movement of the Psalm that God reveals His glory more fully in His Word than in all of creation [author’s emphasis].”³⁶ General revelation fulfills its duty by rendering man without excuse, but it can never yield transforming, authoritative truth for soul-problems because it can be resisted and dismissed. Active and living truth is needed for that—divine, authoritative truth that can convert the soul.

The entire psalm pivots on verse seven which declares, “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” “Restoring” is the same word often translated as “converting,” “reviving,” or “turning back.”³⁷ God’s Word is perfect, in the sense that it is ideal or perfectly suited for man; the soul that has been warped and deformed by sin and serious problems can be reshaped by its power. As Hebrews says, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). This text is not saying God’s Word divides the soul from the spirit, but that it divides the soul in parts and also divides the spirit in parts, so much so that it gets down into the thoughts and intentions (or motivations) of the heart. Information from general revelation can never hope to do that. The occasional helpful insights provided through research on things like sleep disorders, visual perception, and organic brain disorders will never approach the power of the Word of God for change. The Word of God is matchless within the jurisdictional domain of the soul.

Using psychology for soul-care is like dressing cancer with Band-Aids. It may temporarily relieve the pain or even mask the symptoms, but it will never penetrate the issues of the heart like God’s Word.

Some may argue that the passage is only speaking about unregenerate men, and does not apply to Christians who are being counseled. However, this is not the case. Even though a broader application can be made to the unbeliever, the final eight verses of Psalm 19 (vv. 7–14) describe the sanctifying power of the Word of God in the life of the believer. And if it is true that the Word of God is greater in bringing about the glory of God in man than general revelation, then why would the Christian want to return to the simpler and more fundamental truths of general revelation when he has a far greater life-transforming truth at his disposal?

Notice the effect of the Word in man’s life: “restoring the soul,” “making wise the simple,” “rejoicing the heart,” “enlightening the eyes,” “enduring forever,” and it is “righteous altogether.” The first five characteristics are participles, meaning the Word of God refreshes life, grants depth of insight, renders joy to the heart, opens the eyes of understanding, and will never be outdated. Where else can a person go to find counsel like that? They express the ongoing ministry and relevance of the Word of God. The sixth characteristic is a summary statement conveying the idea that the Word of God is capable of producing comprehensive righteousness.

Also notice the adjectives in reference to the Word of God, which is variously described as perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, and true counsel. The synonyms for the Word of God demonstrate how its counsel should be approached. These synonyms include the law of the Lord (Torah), testimony, precepts, commandment, the fear of Yahweh, and the judgments of Yahweh. In other words, God’s truth is not optional. It is not a set of His suggestions. If the Word is to have the rightful impact upon the counselee’s heart, it must be approached with utmost reverence and not with the cavalier attitudes of many evangelicals. When this is done, the counselee will find its aftertaste sweet (v. 10).

Verses 11 through 14 encompass the final movement of the psalm. The radical impact this Word has had upon the life of David becomes evident. He opened his life to show how he had been transformed by the counsel of God, thereby glorifying God. David pointed out that apart from Scripture not only do people misunderstand the universe of general revelation, but they also misunderstand their own soul-problems. Apart from the written Word, David asked, “Who can discern his errors?” (v. 12). This rhetorical question evoked a strong answer—No one can! David prayed, “Acquit me of hidden faults. / Also keep back Thy servant from presumptuous sins; / Let them not rule over me” (vv. 12–13). Hidden faults are the unknown sins of the soul, while presumptuous sins are the known sins. Presumptuous sins have an enslaving quality to them; they will assume an enslaving domination in the counselee’s life (for example, sexual lust, gluttony, drunkenness, or rage). These are the sins done in full knowledge of their sinfulness, and yet they are compulsively committed anyway.

Scripture identifies sin as the chief (not the only) problem of man for counseling. Other contributing factors include both organic problems and sins committed by others. These sins by others, against or around the counselee, have a direct impact upon the counselee (for example, rape, incest, physical abuse, financial irresponsibility, hatred, anger, and jealousy). All counseling matters result from the wickedness of a sin-cursed and demon-infested world (James 3:14–16). But even in cases of unjust suffering, how does the counselee’s heart respond?³⁸ When the Word of God has its way, the counselee walks free from guilt. David announced boldly, “Then I shall be blameless, / And I shall be acquitted of great transgression” (Ps. 19:13).

His final prayer was to be acceptable before God (v. 14). He knew this would be true only if both his actions, “the words of my mouth,” and his desires, “the meditation of my heart,” were pleasing to God. The Lord was this counselee’s “rock and Redeemer.”

THE CRITICAL QUESTION

Far greater than all the universe of general revelation is the glory of God revealed in His Word, because it alone transforms the heart of man! So the question remains, Why biblical counseling and not psychology? The answer must necessarily be that the Word of God reigns supreme in the jurisdictional domain of the soul where psychology trespasses and seeks to usurp authority. Only the Word of God can effectively instruct believers concerning how to glorify Him.

In keeping with David’s sentiments in Psalm 19, Christians have always understood this chief aim of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. This can only be accomplished through the Word of God. All the psychotherapies and psychologies of man will never sanctify the heart to such high and noble purposes. In fact, the rudimentary core of all psychologies is self—living for the welfare and enjoyment of self. Most psychological remedies cater to self with messages of loving self more, esteeming self, and pampering self. All psychologies see this as their “chief end,” and, tragically, the Christian psychologies have also been dramatically infected with it.

Furthermore, general revelation will never yield absolute, universally authoritative truth on which the counselee can confidently base the welfare of his/her soul. Why? Because that was never its intended purpose. By its very nature, it cannot express a complete picture of God, much less His will for His creatures. On the deficiencies of general revelation John Calvin commented, “It is therefore clear that God has provided the assistance of the Word for the sake of all those to whom he has been pleased to give useful instruction because he foresaw that his likeness imprinted upon the most beautiful form of the universe would be insufficiently effective.”³⁹ Natural revelation is impotent when it comes to changing the soul. As David so poignantly described in Psalm 19, God delivered to man a more powerful revelation that is capable of penetrating the deep recesses of the soul and not only redeeming him but instructing him in righteousness so he could glorify and enjoy Him forever. Every counseling problem hangs on these fundamental facts. The Scriptures are the key to what makes life life! The Lord asks a rhetorical question that needs no answer, “Do not My words do good / To the one walking uprightly?” (Mic. 2:7).