LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
The Need for Theology in Counseling
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
The Need for Theology in Counseling
From the beginning, human change depended upon counseling. Man was created as a
being whose very existence is derived from and dependent upon a Creator whom he must
acknowledge as such and from whom he must obtain wisdom and knowledge through
revelation. The purpose and meaning of his life, as well as his very existence, is derived and
dependent. He can find none of this in himself. Man is not autonomous.
“In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) says it all. Man needed God’s word from the
outset—even before the fall. His revelatory Word was necessary to understand God, creation,
himself, his proper relationships to others, his place and functions in creation and his
limitations.
Countrary to Carl Rogers’ views,1 which have been accepted as the preferred counseling
stance of so many ministers,2 man did not come from God’s hand with all the resources that the
would ever need prepackaged within. Instead of the “autonomous” being that Rogers (and his
system) contemplates as the ideal end product of non-directive counseling, the Bible teaches
that man was made for God (Rev. 4:11) and dependent upon Him (Acts 17:28). Man was
created as a dependent being. Any attempt to transform him into an autonomous being not
only constitutes rebellion against the Creator, but is bound to fail. The tragic circumstances with
which counselors deal bear unmistakable traces of this sinful rebellion which from the fall
onward has been the root of the bitter fruits of human chaos and misery. It is this basic
rebellion—thinking we can go it alone—that lies behind, and is the occasion for, so much
counseling. To offer more of the same (as do counselors who stress autonomy), therefore, is to
encourage more (not fewer) problems.
Whenever people try to live on their own (whether as the outworking of the sinful
propensities of their corrupted natures or as the result of following a system like Rogers’), they
must fail miserably. I mean that literally: they not only fail inevitably in the course of time (they
must, because they were constituted dependent creatures), but their failures bring misery upon
themselves and those around them.3
Man is dependent upon his Creator and Sustainer for all that he is, has and knows. He was
created for a life of joyful, grateful, dependence. It is upon the last one of these three elements,
in particular, that I should like to focus attention for a few pages: human knowledge.
From the beginning, God’s Word was a necessary factor in human existence; that need
did not begin with the fall. Man does not (and did not) live by bread alone; life requires a Word
from the mouth of God. Without that Word, a human being has no personal ability to
understand, make sense out of, or know how to use the world in which he lives. He doesn’t
know the ways of living with others, and he can’t properly relate to God. As the existentialists
have observed, such life is absured.
Life without God’s Word is absurd (it is sheer vanity, as the writer of Ecclesiastes put it)
because capacity for knowledge (understanding of facts, properly interpreted and related) is
derived, not native to human nature. That means that from the creation on, man was made to
be molded by counsel (which is the directive Word of another, given from the outside).4
Meaning, purpose and function depended upon this interpretive Word. General revelation (in
creation) itself does not provide any such interpretation. Without God’s Word, therefore,
misery was bound to follow. This was inevitable (among other things) because the universe
(and man within it) would be improperly interpreted. It would appear chaotic and absurd, and
human choices and decisions would be made on the basis of no solid standard. The plague of
relativism would descend upon man.
Human beings were created morally and physcially good. But the development of neither
side of man was complete. Perfection, while admitting of no flaws, allowed for advance (e.g.,
eating of the tree of life with its new effects). Adam, before the fall, had not yet reached those
states of perfection that are now attained (1) in the intermediate state at death,5 or (2) in the
final state when the body as well as the spirit attains resurrected perfection.6
Man’s relationship to God, then, was to be a growing one. In the garden he had only
begun to enter into the possibilities and potentialities of human existence. These all lay before
him. Further development of knowledge, experience, etc., was anticipated in such commands
as “be fruitful and multiply” and “subdue the carth.” How that first command would be
followed (with all of the consequent social and political implications of the conduct of human
affairs among a race), and what the subduing (or bringing under human control) of the earth
would produce in the course of scientific and political activities, would depend upon the
regulatory and interpretive revelation of God’s Word. Change, then, even developmental
changes in a perfect man, always depended upon God’s counsel.
Man was created perfect, but that does not mean that he was ever able to live on his
own. Perfection itself implies an acknowledgment of his dependence upon God’s revelation. By
counsel (he didn’t decide to do it on his own) Adam named the animals. By counsel he dressed
the garden. By counsel he learned of the tress in the garden and the proper use of them (as
well as the possible consequences of misuse). All this came after creation, to man who was
made to be dependent on God’s counsel for all his life, and who was capable of being changed
and developed by that counsel.
That is the first crucial factor to grasp at the outset: man was created in such a way that
for his own good, and God’s glory, it was necessary to depend upon divine counsel and to be
changed by it.
If man had obeyed God’s counsel faithfully, he would have been changed into a being
possessing the eternal life that somehow inhered in (or was symbolized by) the tree of life.7
But something happened that led to the misery we have already mentioned: man turned
from God’s counsel to heed Satan’s counsel. In doing so, Adam attempted to achieve
independence of God and to assert his own autonomy. He accepted the false counsel to eat
and the lie upon which it rested: “You will be like God, knowing good and evil” (knowing good
and evil is an expression that means knowing everything8). Following false (evil) counsel
plunged mankind into sin with all its miseries.
The Adamic rebellion only pointed up the futility of any such attempt at autonomy.
Confusion and heartache resulted, humanity was subjected to fear, ignorance and death, and—
as it turned out—man had not become autonomous at all. He had only exchanged a holy,
beneficent and liberating counsel for a devilish, demonic, enslaving one. In following Satan’s
counsel, he lost the freedom and capacity to do good and to follow God’s good counsel. He
became a slave of sin and Satan. In opting for Satanic counsel, he once more demonstrated (in a
perverted way) the very facts of his creation:
(1) he was dependent upon oustside counsel;
(2) he was capable of being changed by counsel.
Only (tragically) the counsel that he chose to follow brought misery and slavery rather
than the promised joy and freedom.
It is clear, then, that from Adam’s time on there have been two counsels in this world:
divine counsel and devilish coun
sel; the two are in competition. The Bible’s position is that all counsel that is not revelational
(biblical), or based upon God’s revelation, is Satanic. When counsel is given by those who align
themselves with some other counsel than God’s the counsel that is given is called “the counsel
of the ungodly” (Ps. 1:1). Both the counsel and those who give it are ungodly. It is ungodly (1)
because it competes with and tries to overthrow God’s counsel, (2) because it is inspired by
Satan and (3) because (intentionally or otherwise) it is given by those who rebelliously side with
the devil. Over against such counsel (and in direct opposition to it) the psalm places God’s Word
(vs. 2).
Throughout the course of human history both godly and ungodly counsel always have
been present, vying for man’s acceptance. The history of individuals, families and even nations,
has stemmed directly from whichever one of these two counsels was followed. There is no third
counsel, as the psalm clearly indicates. There are just two ways to go: Satan’s way or Go’s way.
Man has no counsel that is strictly “his own.”9 If he rejects God’s counsel, whatever counsel be
follows instcad turns out to be Satan’s counsel. Man was made to follow another’s counsel; he
will do so. He cannot throw off his dependency. Knowingly or unwittingly he always depends
upon Satan or God. He was made to be motivated and molded by counsel.
At the beginning, man walked and talked with God in the cool of the day. Doubtless, God
counseled him at such times. The pre-fall fellowship was unbroken and entirely open, and the
counsel consisted of positive, good, beneficial revelation calculated to develop man’s full
potential. As he was growing under such counsel, he began to grasp something of the potential
of language to bring about order and to express concepts. He saw this in his classification of the
animals. He experienced something of the joys of the satisfaction and fulfillment of work as he
kept the garden according to God’s instructions. He tasted the sweet fruit of understanding and
fellowship as he talked with God and communicated with his wife Eve. He discovered that
God’s counsel was clear, uncomplicated and plain: “eat from all the trees but one.” In singularly
unmistakable words, God indentified and labeled the forbidden tree, “the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil.” He even located it for Adam: “[It] is in the middle of the garden.”
And with equal clarity and explicitness He warned, “Don’t eat from it or the very day that you
do you will die.” This counsel was neccessary for man’s well being. He was dependent upon it
and was held responsible for obeying it. Man was a responsible being. It was God’s counsel,
true and plain; therefore it was good.
In contrast to God’s counsel—a counsel that was simple, plain, true and beneficent—
Satan introduced a counsel that complicated, confused and contorted God’s truth. The third
chapter of Genesis tells the sad story.
The first question in history was asked by Satan: “Has God said …?” (vs. 1). By this
question, Satan attacked God’s Word i.e., God’s good counsel. “Perhaps His counsel is not so
simple, so plain or so beneficent as it seems,” he intimated. The initial question, however, did
not constitute a direct attack upon God’s revelation; Satan is much too subtle to do that.
Instead, to begin with, he merely cast doubt upon God’s counsel. He questioned God’s Word
and His plain intentions. He has never ceased doing so. Ever since, the method has proved
effective.
Having sown seeds of doubt10 about God’s Word by questioning it, Satan did not hesitate
to continue by distorting it. He misstated God’s command: “Has God said that you may not eat
from every tree of the garden” (vs. 1)? This corruption of truth (typical of the way that Satan
throughout history has continued to distort God’s truth through his willing servants) was
intended both to confuse and to challenge god’s gracious gift of all the trees but one. What
once had been plain and simple, he now tried to confuse and complicate. Eve’s response seems
to indicate that she was not totally taken in by this approach, but possibly also reveals that she
was sufficiently influenced to the point where she altered the commandment by adding the
words, “neither shall you touch it.”11
Finally, because he had made inroads by doubt and distortion, Satan was able to attack
God’s counsel directly. At this point he turns to his last ruse: outright denial. That a progression
is intended is almost certain.12 Satan’s asscrtions that eating would not produce death, and that
God forbade eating because He did not want man to be like Him (i.e., autonmous, free of
dependence upon God for knowledge and counsel) amounted to calling God a liar and a cheat
and attributed bad motives to Him. These three attacks—doubt, distortion and denial—were
designed to lead to distrust. Satan’s object was to create distrust in God’s Word.
Through the years the situation has not changed appreciatively. Basically, Satan always
has concentrated upon this progression as his principal tactic—with great effectiveness. And as
you can see, the attack has been upon God’s Word.
In counseling, this fact has been more than evident; it has been glaring. Within the church
the sufficiency of Scripture (God’s written Word) has been challenged. Distrust in God’s way, His
verity, ect., has been propagated by those who have set up rival systems offering different
counsel (still) purporting to open men’s eyes in one way or another, and still offering autonomy.
Satan’s approach has not varied; nor has his success in duping the sons of Adam.
The church, throughout the years, like Adam and Eve, either has been deceived by Satan’s
counsel or has found itself in conflict with it. There is no neutral ground. Compromise or conflict
are the only two alternatives. We are (hopefully) now beginning to emerge from an era of
compromise. Hence the present need for conflict with the counsel of the ungodly. For a long
time Satan’s deceitful counsel has prevailed in the church; only during the 70s has a successful
challenge been mounted.
Now, at such turning points it is not unusual to discover Christians who unwittingly
continue to side with the enemy, and who fight against their brothers when they try to defend
and promote the cause of God’s truth in counseling. Frequently this results from good motives,
wrongly directed. Yet, their influence is tragic. They not only set back helpful counsel, but
confuse many who are in transition. Still, it is not the persons, as persons, whom we must
challenge, but their teachings. In bringing such a challenge to the church’s sad compromise with
the competition, it is time to proclaim the relevance of the first psalm, with its plain contrast
between the counsel of the ungodly and the counsel of God’s Word. Let us look at verse 1.
The tragedy set forth in that psalm again appears in the progression of compromise with
evil (Satan’s old tactic, gradual defection from God’s truth, is plainly marked out). First, the
compromiser “walks” in the “counsel” of the ungodly. That is to say, he begins to listen to
pagan advice and counsel. He approves of falsehood, mistaking it for truth; he begins to
confuse and intermix the two. He defends error, calling it truth. “All truth is God’s truth,” he
declares. Soon he is found “standing” in the “way” of sinners. Intellectually accepting Satanic
counsel leads to living according to it. This is sin; he takes the sinful way. He is seen standing in
the path of sinners, believing what they believe, doing what they do
, saying what they say.13 At length, he is a leader of those who scoff at biblical truth; he “sits” in
the seat of the “scornful.”
There are Christians today who are so caught up in the views and practices of unbelievers
that in their writings they spend more time attacking those who attempt to set forth biblical
positions that those who oppose them. They often go to great lengths to defend ungodly
counsel.14
This might seem incredible if we did not understand how it comes about. The progression
of compromise tells us. No Christian sets out to pervert and deny God’s truth; the process is
gradual. It happens in stages, not all at once. That is the warning of Psalm 1. Such compromise
with ungodly counsel, therefore, can happen both to counselors and (sadly) to those who are
counseled by them.15
It is important to note that neither Genesis 3 nor Psalm 1 leaves any room for a third,
neutral counsel. One of Satan’s ruses (as an angel of light) is to convince those who claim
theological sophistication to accept error under the slogan, “All truth is God’s truth.” Under that
banner nearly every error in the book has been blamed on God!
Of course all truth is God’s truth. But there is only one touchstone for determining
whether a given statement claiming to be true is, indeed true: Does it square with God’s
standard for truth—the Bible?
And, when compromisers talk about all truth as God’s truth, they call it “common grace.”
They abuse this concept too. They mean by such use that God revealed truth through Rogers,
Freud, Skinner, etc. God does, of course, restrain sin, allow people to discover facts about His
creation, etc., in common grace (help given to saved and unsaved alike), but God never sets up
rival systems competitive to the Bible. And God doesn’t duplicate in general revelation
(creation) what He gives us by special revelation (the Bible). That is not common grace.16
You can be sure that it is not the result of common grace that two rival ways of counseling
exist side by side! God cannot be charged with such contradiction. His common grace is not
responsible for false teachings by Freud (man is not responsible for his sin), Rogers (man is
essentially good and needs no outside help), or even Skinner (man is only an animal, without
value, freedom or dignity). It is nearly blasphemous to claim (as a number do) that such
systems, full of errors, falsehoods and anti—Christian teachings, are the product of God’s
common grace! Imagine God, in common grace, through these systems, leading people to
believe that their problems can be solved apart from Christ! Systems designed to do (apart
from the Scriptures) what the Scriptures themselves claim to do are not the product of
common grace. This theological language cover is but another of Satan’s distortions.
Compromisers—who spend more time studying Freud’s views of human misery than the
Apostle Peter’s—trip and fall over such language and place stumbling blocks in the way of
others. Only those who ruminate upon God’s Word, day and night, will resist such temptations
to compromise. The Christian counselor must be radically into studying the Scriptures, or he too
will be deceived.
It is improper to conceive of Freud, Rogers and scores of others like them as great
benefactors of the church, near Christians, or persons from whom we can learn much. No;
rather, we must see clearly that they have come peddling the wares of the enemy. They are his
agents. They offer systems, counsel and a way of life opposed to biblical truth.17 Their views are
not supplemental, but outright alternatives. Surely, they themselves see this clearly enough,
and make no bones about it. They plainly say that there is no place for God or His Word. How is
it, then, that some Christians are virtually blind to this fact?
In the final analysis, the answer to that question is this—Christians are duped into the
acceptance of pagan thought and practice in counseling when they do not think theologically.
Because so many who have assumed places of leadership in Christian counseling have
little or no training in theological thought, they have become involved in compromising the
faith in various ways. Because their backgrounds are marinated with clinical psychology and
psychiatry, it is not surprising to find that this is so. The shallow (and often shoddy) theological
thinking exhibited in some of their books, the ease with which they slip into syncretizing, the
almost total lack of exegesis (or its results) that is so apparent, are all unmistakable watermarks
of the problem.
Theology—a truly large dose of exegetical, biblical, systematic theology—alone can
change this situation. Nothing less can keep today’s Christian counselors from rushing in to
borrow all sorts of things from the latest vendors of such paltry products. Otherwise they will
succumb to the successors of Freud and Rogers just as their fathers patronized them. Only
when Christians begin to think consistently from the whole of the Scriptures on any given point
(i.e., when they think theologically), will they reject eclecticism in counseling. That is why I have
written this book. It is an attempt to encourage theological thinking in relationship to
counseling. My hope is that it will help to turn the tide.
