rom Us:
This issue we have taken on the subject of the modern revolution in the area of counseling. So perhaps a good distinction to make at the outset is that of the difference between counsel and counseling.
Counsel is a word that is content-oriented. When someone seeks counsel, he is looking for information or advice or teaching. But the word counseling is process-oriented. When someone seeks counseling, they are often not looking for answers at all, but rather for someone to nod their head at the right moments with their fingers splayed together. "Yes, I understand. Go on."
Now of course, counsel cannot be dispensed all at once -- there must be some sort of process to teaching. And the process of counseling cannot be content-neutral. The counselor must say something sometime (as long as it is non-judgmental and non-threatening).
Nevertheless, the distinction between the two approaches ought to be plain. A biblical counselor is someone who gives counsel; that is, he is a teacher. And as with all biblical teachers, his counsel must be based on the Word, come from the Word, and be in the language of the Word. Only in this way can he prevent setting himself up as an authority in his own right.
So this issue you are cordially invited to get out your Bibles and examine with us the world of modern counseling.
From You:
[For Nancy Wilson] I am sure it is Nancy Wilson's intent in her "Respect Letter" to base all her points on Scripture . . . Where in Scripture does it say a woman must not share her problems with her extended family? . . . Often talking out a problem has the very postive effect of lessening its importance and diffusing its potential destructive impact. Let's not heap any more guilt upon these young mothers who have so much to cope with in this modern world. Do not take away their closest support group.
Douglas Wilson replies: It is not our position that problems within a marriage must never be shared with anyone. The authority of a husband is not absolute; this issue's "Femina" addresses this in greater detail. So you are of course correct that when something is seriously wrong, a woman can and should seek help from those she trusts, including members of her extended family.
A far more common problem (and the one Nancy was addressing in her column) is the problem of freely talking about
ordinary problems within the marriage, without any proper consideration of the biblical duty of respect. But women may no more publicly disrespect their husbands (for the sake of venting) than a husband may publicly show a lack of love for her. Our duties in marriage are not determined by our desire or need to talk, but rather by the plain teaching
of Scripture.
[For Chris Schlect] The tone of your review [of Hal Lindsey and the Restoration of the Jews] seems to imply that dispensationalists believe that God is going to fulfill His end-time program for Israel apart from their conversion to Jesus Christ. We have never taught such a thing . . .God will first bring back His people to their land in unbelief because the Bible teaches that (Ez. 36-37). Then He will cause them to look upon Him whom they have pierced and they will be converted (Zech. 12:10). The current situation in Israel certainly fits the Biblical pattern . . .
If one is not going to be consistent in interpreting the Bible literally (i.e. Israel means Israel and church means church), then he should take the more extreme view which you advocate . . . But in doing this, you adopt a replacement theology, which has historically, not always but usually, led to anti-Semitism.
Chris Schlect replies: Scripture is to be interpreted only according to itself, and I don't believe dispensationalism is consistent with how the Bible presents itself. This is expecially true with regard to the identity of God's people -- Israel and the Church. Just because these are two different words we should not presume that they refer to entirely different things. Consider the many passages in the Old Testament which refer to Israel which are applied to the church in the New (e.g. Dt. 31:6/Heb. 13:5; Is. 28:16/1 Pet. 2:6, etc.), and that Christians are called "Jews" (Rom. 2:29), and that unfaithful descendants of Abraham are not true Israelites (Rom. 9:6). These and other passages show that the Church is now Israel. To say that the Church is not Israel would be a failure to allow Scripture to interpret itself. Not only is this "literal" hermeneutic not consistent with Scripture, it has a hard time being consistent with itself. You cite Zech. 12:10. Does this mean a resumption of animal sacrifices which are acceptable to God (Zech. 14:21)?
Perhaps this view of Israel and the Church has historically been used to defend anti-Semitism, but it does not follow that this is an anti-Semitic view.
The Bible's teaching on headship and submission in the home has historically been used to defend wife abuse, but this does not mean that we should reject (as
some argue) the New Testament teaching on marriage roles. We must not allow truth-twisters to drive us away from biblical teaching. Thus anti-Semitism is
wrong, and the Church is Israel now.
[For Wes Callihan] Regarding "Poetics": Perhaps I am a cultural illiterate, but I see little value in perusing the works of Gibbon, Plato, or the Iliad. With volumes of Owen, Flavel, Baxter, Bunyan, etc. still unread, who has time for the counsel and musings of the ungodly? Churchill and Thucydides are not the men I draw my guidance from as to what is "water." Christ is the fountain of living water, and it would seem the polluted streams of secular thought are a poor place to employ one's time when the nectar of godly minds focused on our precious Savior are begging to be read, with, I might add, far more profit. We ought to be redeeming the time, because "the days are evil."
Wes Calihan's reply is this issue's "Poetics".
