One hundred years ago our forefathers in the faith were waking up to the fact that the machinery of their denominations and conventions had been taken over by theological liberals or “modernists” as they were called then. The denominational seminaries, funded by the Rockefeller fortune, had also fallen—due in large part to the inattention given them by the conservatives or “fundamentalists.” Under the leadership of men like W. B. Riley, T. T. Shields, and A.C. Dixon the conservatives began to organize pastors in the Northern Baptist Convention with mixed results. Finally, in 1922, they came together with a plan to smoke out the liberals and defeat them on the floor of the convention which was to be held in Indianapolis. They concluded that the adoption of a well-defined doctrinal statement that spelled out exactly what the convention believed would paint the liberals into a corner and require them to declare publicly what they believed about the “fundamentals” of the faith.
At the convention, W. B. Riley made a motion that the Northern Baptist Convention pledge itself to the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833). The conservatives were lined up to vote in favor, and they believed they were finally poised to have their victory over the liberals. The liberals were not to be out-maneuvered, however. Cornelius Woelfkin, the liberal pastor of the Park Avenue Baptist Church in New York City, stood and offered a substitute motion “that the New Testament is the all-sufficient ground of our faith and practice, and that we need no other statement.” His clever defense of his motion convinced a number of conservatives that a vote against his motion would amount to a vote against the New Testament itself! Conservatives were not going to vote against the Bible, so Woelfkin’s motion passed 1264 to 637.
The deflated conservatives never again came even that close to success in making the liberals clearly declare what it meant for them to be “Biblical” and subsequently began their exodus from the convention to form new associations and schools.
This thin slice of church history came to mind when The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors dropped the word “nouthetic” from the name of the organization. No, I don’t mean to insinuate that those who propose this name change are theologically like those liberal Baptists a century ago, and while it was probably not their intention to use the word in the same way our liberal ancestors did, the fact remains that “biblical” is a much broader term than the word “nouthetic” and allows for a far greater number of counselors to camp under its banner.
Now, of course, we all want to be biblical in our counseling, our theology, and our practice. Being biblical is noble—it is Berean! But while we all want to be biblical, the term itself is nebulous. It gives no precise indication as to what exactly we believe the Bible teaches on any given subject. It only communicates that we agree with it—whatever it is.
As we look over the Christian counseling landscape today, we see that almost everyone who is a Christian and does counseling claims to be biblical in what they are doing. Integrationists like Larry Crabb, Gary Collins, Eric Johnson, Tim Clinton, Archibald Hart, and Paul Meier all said that what they are doing was “biblical.” Neil Anderson, who found demons under every rock, claimed to be “biblical.” Charles Solomon avowed that his Exchanged Life approach was “biblical.” Gary Chapman claims his Love Languages are “biblical.” Tim LaHaye pronounced his temperament analysis to be “biblical.” Kevin Leman believes his birth order nonsense is “biblical.” James Dobson is confident his pronouncements about self-esteem are “biblical.” Openly and aggressively integrationist institutions such as Liberty University and Dallas Seminary shamelessly label their degree programs “Biblical Counseling.”
There is no such ambiguity about the word “nouthetic.” It is a term that has fences around it—well defined by the foundational books written by Dr. Adams. It is confused only by those who are too lazy to read Competent to Counsel, those who would willingly be confused, or those who desire to confuse others.
This is not to say that the term “nouthetic” encompasses everything Dr. Adams teaches or practices. No Lutheran believes everything Luther believed. The term “Calvinist” applies to a system of doctrine, not everything Calvin believed. Methodists do not follow in lockstep behind all that John Wesley believed. I worked closely with Dr. Adams for over 25 years, and after countless long conversations, I still can’t land where he landed on church polity and infant baptism. Upon glorification, one of us (or perhaps both) will learn that we misunderstood what the Scriptures teach on these issues. Still, when NANC was founded in 1975, the term “nouthetic” was almost unanimously adopted by the founding board in order to clearly identify what they meant when they claimed to be “biblical” counselors. The only dissenter was Dr. Adams himself, who was concerned that the use of his term would make the movement more about him than it would the Scriptures.
The move away from the specific term “nouthetic” to the more general term “biblical” does not clarify; it obfuscates. It allows for greater inclusiveness. It reduces to a lowest common denominator. It enables NANC (now ACBC) to identify with, and perhaps even attract, those who cannot or would not embrace Adams’ “nouthetic” view of sanctification, what he means by the “sufficiency” of the Scriptures, his exegetical precision, or his insistence upon orthodoxy on the important theological issues that intersect with biblical counseling such as the sovereignty of God, the cessation of supernatural gifts, and a rejection of all things mystical.
The name of our organization (The Institute for Nouthetic Studies) includes the word “Nouthetic” as well, and I have it stitched onto the polo shirts I wear. Several years ago at Christmas my daughter gave me a vanity plate for my pickup bearing the word “nouthetic.” I get questions about it everywhere I go, and I have never considered it a burden. It has opened the door to a number of wonderful conversations. I even had one person pull up beside me at a stop light and ask what it meant. I gave a two-sentence explanation before the light turned green!
If you find explaining the term difficult, let me help. Next time you are asked, try this:
It is derived from the word the Apostle Paul used in the Greek New Testament to describe the kind of counseling he did. We use it to communicate that our counseling flows from our understanding of what Paul and the other biblical writers taught.
Now, if that quick explanation elicits more questions, GREAT! I have a two-minute version, a five-minute version, and a ten-minute version. If there are still more questions, I can launch, with great glee, into my thirty-minute lecture! If, however, one does not himself understand what it means, it would indeed be difficult to explain it to others.
But regardless of how heavy a lift it may seem for some to explain positively what we mean by “nouthetic” counseling, it is a far lighter load than explaining negatively what we are NOT when we use the term “biblical.” With the use of this broader term, it becomes necessary to clarify that we are NOT like the scores of others who use the term “biblical” promiscuously. That will be true, of course, only if we really are different and want to be seen as different.
So how about it? Isn’t it time we reclaimed our birthright and describe ourselves once again as nouthetic counselors?
