LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
THEOLOGY AND 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
THEOLOGY AND COUNSELING
If theology is the answer to eclecticism in counseling, it is important to know what theology
is. Some people who think they understand theology may not, and others may have a very
feeble acquaintance with it.
What is theology and what is its relationship to counseling? Briefly, let me answer those
two questions first, then I shall expand on one or two aspects of those answers.
In its simplest form, theology is nothing more or less than the systematic understanding of
what the Scriptures teach about various subjects. Biblical passages concerning any subject—let
us say, the teaching of the Bible about God—are located, exegeted in context, placed into the
stream of the history of redemption and their teachings classified according to the several
aspects of that subject (God’s omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, for instance). Within
each classification, these teachings are compared to one another (one passage supplementing
and qualifying another) in order to discover the total scriptural teaching on this aspect of the
doctrine. Each aspect, likewise, is compared to other aspects in order to understand the total
scriptural teaching about that question (and various subjects also are studied in relation to each
other for further amplifications and modifications according to the light that one subject throws
upon another). Thus, simply stated, theology is the attempt to bring to bear upon any given
doctrine (or teaching) all that the Bible has to say about it. Biblical theology also notes the
development of special revelation particularly in relationship to the redemptive work of Christ.
And the individual theologies of the various writers of biblical books must be studied and
related to one another too.1 All of these elements are of concern to us in this book.
Let me partially demonstrate how theology can influence practical living by one brief
example. In John 14:13, 14, Jesus says, “I will do whatever you ask in My name. … If you ask Me
anything, I will do it.” By itself, that statement seems to constitute a carte blanche in prayer.
(And too often those who have little concern for theology have taken it that way; they have
preached and counseled, saying, “Whatever you want you can get by praying for it.”) As a result
of a failure to use t
heology in the exegesis of the passage (asking, for instance, “What does the important
qualification, ‘in My name,’ mean—how is the phrase used elsewhere?”2 and, “What other
qualifications do other Scriptures place upon prayer?”), many Christians have been misled and
have been deeply disappointed when they tried to use prayer as an open sesame to unlock
their problems and satisfy their desires. They discover—the hard way—that prayer doesn’t
work that way. Adequate theological study would take into account such passages as John
16:23, 24, 26, 27; Philippians 4:6, 7; James 4:2, 3; 5:15–18 when referring to John 14:13, 14. The
qualifications in these references—even if not mentioned to the counselee—must be known
(and kept in mind) by the counselor whenever he speaks about John 14:13, 14, so that he will
not convey a wrong impression (i.e., an atheological, simplistic one) to the counselee.
In the example just given I have begun to show one of the principal relationships of
theology to counseling. Because his counsel is dependent upon biblical principles, a Christian
counselor (like a Christian preacher3) must understand all that the Scriptures say on a given
topic in order to give fully biblical direction to their counselees.
One of the principal problems with which counselors must deal (often as a complicating
problem) when seeking to help counselees is the problem of counselee frustration and
discouragement.4 Much of the apathy encountered stems from the failure of counselees to
understand the Bible theologically. As the result of quite faulty understanding of the Bible, they
take all sorts of actions (like using prayer as a rabbit’s foot) that fail. Then, on the one hand,
either doubts about God and the trustworthiness of the Scriptures or, on the other hand,
doubts about themselves (“may be Paul could do it, but I’m not Paul”) arise. Such apathy,
stemming from discouragement and doubt, is avoidable. Exegesis, with a theological
dimension, theologically ministered with careful qualifications communicated in preaching and
counseling, could have led to entirely different results. So, where the counselee already has
received basically untheological instruction, counselors should anticipate (and look for)
complications to original problems that stem from faulty solutions. And, it is imperative that the
counselor approach such counselees in full consciousness of what theology can do to help.
In the counseling process, not only is it necessary to have a theological (i.e., a full-orbed,
systematically understood) orientation toward the Scriptures to avoid misleading counselees
and to correct errors in the thought and practice of counselees, but it is vital also to have this
orientation in order to communicate truth authoritatively. The counselor who himself is
theologically unsure will communicate his biblical insecurity in the way that he speaks to
counselees (and in the way that he writes about counseling). Authoritative proclamation of the
Word in preaching and in counseling (not authoritarian5) grows only from a sound knowledge of
theology. It was because the scribes and Pharisees were speculative rather than theological in
their thinking (cf. the Talmudic mentality) that Christ’s authoritative teaching stood out in such
stark contrast to theirs: “He taught them as an authority and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:29).
The scribes based their teaching not upon an exegetical and theological understanding of the
Bible, but upon the contradictory debates, ramblings and speculations found among the body
of materials called the “traditions of the elders” which so often made the clear intent of various
passages of no effect (viz., Mark 7:13).
It doesn’t surprise me, therefore, that Christian counselors today lack authority; there is so
much speculation and so little theological depth among them.
Typically, the self-appointed Christian “professional” has spent years studying psychology
at the graduate level, but has little more than a Sunday School (or, at best a Bible school)
knowledge of the Bible. That is woefully inadequate for a full-time counselor or teacher of
counseling! Theological principles and method take not only time to develop and learn, but on
top of that it takes years of hard effort in applying them to the study of the Scriptures to yield
the kind of satisfying results that are needed in counseling.
“Why aren’t there more people who approach counseling biblically?,” people often ask me.
The answer is that there are so few persons in the field who are adequately prepared
theologically to do so. I am not saying that they are ill-intentioned; to the contrary, there are
even some examples of valiant attempts to use what little understanding exists in proper ways
—but these attempts simply fall apart from the outset because of the frightful exegetical and
theological inadequacy.6 How can a counselor who doesn’t even possess the word “exegesis” as
a part of his everyday speaking vocabulary, who has never read Berkhof’s text on theology, who
knows nothing of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, and who doesn’t even understand the
problems of theological reflection upon the truths of the Scriptures, begin to develop a biblical
system? The very idea is absurd.
In this book, I am assuming at least the basic theoretical theological adequacy of the reader
(acquired either before reading, or as he moves along). So I am not trying to teach theology
(obviously it isn’t possible or desirable to avoid some such teaching; but what I mean is that I
cannot turn this volume into a basic textbook of systematic theology). What I am trying to do is
(1) to demonstrate the counselor’s need for theology, and
(2) to show how theological themes have important (I might say vital) implications for
counseling theory and practice.
N.B., it is not possible (even for an unbeliever) to do counseling that is really untheological.
All counseling, by its very nature (as it tries to explain and direct human beings in their living
before God and before other human beings in a fallen world) implies theological commitments
by the counselor. He simply cannot become involved in the attempt to change beliefs, values,
attitudes, relationships and behavior without wading neck deep in theological waters. I have
shown 7 that these theological commitments may be conscious or unconscious, biblical or
heretical, good theology or bad, but—either way—they surely are theological.
If this be true, it is important (1) to become aware of one’s own commitments and the
grounds for arriving at and for holding them, (2) to make revisions of these and any future
commitments consciously on the basis of satisfactory biblical theology, and (3) to study
theology continually for further implications of truths that will lead to a more biblical sort of
counseling and will lend a proper sort of authority to that counsel.
Thus, in summary, I may say that the relationship between counseling and theology is
organic; counseling cannot be done apart from theological commitments. Every act, word (or
lack of these) implies theological commitments. On the other hand, theological study leads to
counseling implications. The attempt to separate the two must not be made; they cannot be
separated without doing violence to both.8 The separation is as unnatural (and as perilous) as
the separation of the spirit from the body. Paraphrasing James, we may say that counseling
without theology is dead.
1 For more on these views, see Competent, pp. 78ff.
2 In this reviewer’s opinion because of two reasons: (1) simplicity; (2) supposed lack of risk.
3 The Westminster Standards put it well when they speak of sin and misery in close nexus.
Counseling has to do with these two elements: sin, and its consequences.
4 God’s Word is frequently called counsel; viz., Ps. 119:24; Prov. 25:30, etc.
5 Heb. 12:23.
6 Phil. 3:21.
7 Cf. John Murray, Collected Writings (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1977), vol. 2, pp. 48ff.
8 Notes from lectures by Meredith Kline; but see also ibid., pp. 50ff.
9 Cf. John 8:34–44. Thinking he is free, man expresses by word and deed his utter slavery to sin:
attempted autonomy itself is the clearest possible evidence of the fact of his discipleship to
Satan.
10 Interestingly, the Bible indicates that there is a moral rather than an intellectual base for
doubt (James. 4:8).
11 It is also possible, of course, that these words reflect a fuller form of the commandment.
However, in the context, where the significance of other distortions is the point, it is likely that
this addition indicates a growing change of attitude on Eve’s part toward God and His Word.
12 And this further argues for finding significance in Eve’s form of quotation (cf. previous
footnote). Cf. the progression found in Ps. 1:1.
13 Often a desire to be accepted by the world as “scholarly” plays a part in this.
14 Cf. my monograph, The Power of Error.
15 Cf. Lectures, pp. 28–37.
16 For more on common grace, see my Matters of Concern, pp. 89ff.
17 This is not theory alone. London, for instance, reports that Wolpe cured a man’s anxiety over
homosexuality by persuading him to disavow his religious beliefs (London, op. cit., p. 120). E.
Fuller Torrey (op. cit.) points out that “Jesus was one of the first intended victims of psychiatry.”
He says, “Between 1905 and 1912 four books were published in an attempt to prove that Jesus
was mentally ill,” p. 81. Hundreds of similar examples show that the competitive nature of
pagan systems is basically anti-Christian.
1 Not that their basic theological beliefs differ, but frequently their use of terminology does.
These differences must be harmonized.
2 For example, in John 15:21.
3 I have touched on the relationship of preaching to counseling in Matters of Concern, pp. 1, 2.
4 See relevant passages in the Manual concerning the importance of hope.
5 Cf. the Manual, pp. 15, 16; Lectures, pp. 135ff., 187, for a discussion of the distinction between
authority and authoritarianism.
6 Actually, such attempts often result in more harm than good; the superficial, untheological use
of the Bible confuses and discourages counselees (as well as misrepresents God by
misunderstanding the teaching of the Bible). One of the saddest failures of all is to appoint such
psychologists as professors in theological institutions to teach prospective ministers of the
Word. In the end, they teach them how not to use their Bibles in counseling.
7 Cf. What About Nouthetic Counseling?, pp. 37–39. If the reader has any doubts about this
matter, I urge him to read this discussion.
