Difference between nouthetic and integrationist counseling

[MW]

Similarly, most popular accounts of Phineas Gage describe him as having undergone profound personality changes because of his injury. He is often reported as having permanently lost his inhibitions, so that he started to behave inappropriately in social situations. Some reports state that became violent and "uncontrollable", and even that he started to molest children.

And how did this make the man think that God does not exist or that God will not judge his actions? Capacity and characteristics of thought might change. But the things which are thought are driven by personal factors for which the person himself is responsible.

 

[Pergamum]

Matthew:

Do you believe that the mentally deficient are just as guilty as the mentally sound and will be judged the same way for the same actions on the day of judgment?

Person A is mentally sound and healthy and punches a stranger. Person B has been judged an imbecile from birth and cannot read despite adulthood and has the thoughts and impulse-control of a young child, and punches a stranger. Are they to be judged the same?

Physical states and capabilities matter when it comes to moral guilt and responsibility. One's mental capacity impacts one's responsibility. Moral responsibility is linked to sanity and mental capacity.

 

[MW]

Person A is mentally sound and healthy and punches a stranger. Person B has been judged an imbecile from birth and cannot read despite adulthood and has the thoughts and impulse-control of a young child, and punches a stranger. Are they to be judged the same?

Suppose a young child punches a stranger, what then? The judgment is the same, but the way it is addressed and rectified depends on the capacity of the individual.

Physical states and capabilities matter when it comes to moral guilt and responsibility. One's mental capacity impacts one's responsibility.

The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

 

[Pergamum]

Person A is mentally sound and healthy and punches a stranger. Person B has been judged an imbecile from birth and cannot read despite adulthood and has the thoughts and impulse-control of a young child, and punches a stranger. Are they to be judged the same?

Suppose a young child punches a stranger, what then? The judgment is the same, but the way it is addressed and rectified depends on the capacity of the individual.

Physical states and capabilities matter when it comes to moral guilt and responsibility. One's mental capacity impacts one's responsibility.

The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Suppose an infant flails about and hits its mother, knocking her to her death over a cliff. Is the judgment to be the same?

Intentionality and moral capacity both seem critical when assigning guilt.

 

[MW]

Suppose an infant flails about and hits its mother, knocking her to her death over a cliff. Is the judgment to be the same?

Intentionality and moral capacity both seem critical when assigning guilt.

A life is lost and it could have been avoided by a change of action. Educating for morally responsible action is the important thing. The infant must be educated according to his capacity. Diminished capacity does not alter the need for instruction or remove accountability for the action. "Capacity" and "content" are two different things.

If it were otherwise we could not affirm that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The process from that point might be slower or faster depending on the individual, but we must be committed to the process. Diminished capacity might require more work, that is all.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

It is not merely my critique. I am sure the movement has done its best to revise that view and distance itself from its image of being highly confrontational, and yet confrontation is part of the package as a whole.

I understand. But it is either Adam's you are critiquing or "the movement". This abstract movement of your design that has to accept the "whole" package does not line up with the following:

Galatians 6:1

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

or

Ephesians 4:2

With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love

I would not say these verses are "confrontational".

 

[Pergamum]

Nicholas,

I think my critiques are mostly with Adams. And even then, more with his earlier writings than his later. And even then, only with certain aspects of his teaching. Overall, we must thank God for this pioneer.

My position is as follows:

(1) Chemicals/hormones/genetics/biology play a role in one's mental state.
(2) Confronting sin may have its place; but sympathizing with the sufferer is often warranted.
(3) Secular science has contributed to our knowledge of the mind and thought. Secular science can offer insight into psychology. The insights of general revelation can be incorporated into psychology. Is the Bible sufficient? Yes. Is the Bible sufficient for cardiology, or engineering, or chemistry or auto mechanics? Well...that is a different question.
(4) I think mental illness actually exists and is not merely a fictitious social construct. While our society is "over-psychologized" and "over-medicated" and while the DSM is perpetually changing and some new disease springs up every few years (like ADHD), there is such a thing as mental illness. And some medications and therapies besides talking to a pastor are sometimes warranted.

I am not sure if I would be labeled an "integrationist" or not. I am suspicious of Dr James Dobson, for instance and Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages, and many others (most others) - but I think Adams simply over-stated his case. I am a big fan of Welch, Powlison, and Tripp.

Thanks for your interactions.

 

[Pilgrim]

Perg,

I think the cartoon is a crude straw man. Honestly I don't see much further basis for discussion if you continue to insist that it accurately represents Adams, much less CCEF, Kellemen, Lambert, etc. I don't know that there is quite as much distance between the two generations as you seem to imagine. You appear to be more accepting of secular psychology than at least some of the 2nd generation is. It seems that the main differences are more of an acknowledgement of suffering and an acknowledgement that SSRI and similar medication can be helpful in some cases, albeit apparently on a much more limited basis than integrationists and secularists. SBTS got rid of their integrationist counseling department and brought in Stuart Scott (who came from Masters) and Lambert.

Many psychologists and psychiatrists have acknowledged that what they do has considerable overlap with religion or theology and that they have basically intruded on a realm that used to be considered religious before the likes of Freud came on the scene. And I think we would all admit that much of what they've come up with is utterly incompatible with the Bible. But too many Christians insist on equating those fields with orthopedics or cardiology, as the cartoon does. Do you know of anyone who argues that some aspect of modern orthopedics or gastroenterology is unbiblical?

WRT Dr. Murray, I have to admit to being somewhat disappointed (and even somewhat shocked) at a few of the posts I've seen from him on this general subject, especially given the fact that he is at PRTS. I have to admit to not knowing a great deal about PRTS and I haven't read a ton of Murray in general. Admittedly I had a certain conception of what to expect from someone writing under the "Puritan" banner. The Puritans were known as physicians of souls. I identified much more with Dr. Kellemen's posts in that regard. I think that Dr. Kellemen's educational and vocational background should be noted when it comes to his evaluation of psychiatry, psychology, etc. One could certainly argue that he is wrong, but he's certainly no stereotypical "fundie Bible-thumper" with some piece of paper from a dubious Bible college. But many would nonetheless say that the cartoon applies to him and anyone that he trains.

I also think the "abrasiveness" thing can be somewhat overemphasized. (They say that Athanasius was abrasive.) People suffer for various reasons. Some of it is self-inflicted, some not. A confrontational approach is called for in some cases. By that I mean what Nicholas pointed out. But even that is often reacted to with cries of "Legalism!" and so on. "Who are you to judge?" It is much easier to go off and take some pills that are diagnosed after a 20 minute visit instead.

In many of Adams books on counseling and related issues (More than Redemption comes to mind) he stated that he had not had time to be as thorough as he would have liked but he put them out anyway in an attempt to help. He hoped that others would come behind him and take up the cause. Certainly he has agreed more with some of those who followed than others.

 

[MW]

And some medications and therapies besides talking to a pastor are sometimes warranted.

What drug gives a person thoughts of a gracious God? Medications and therapies are not going to address the person's intellect and will in forming beliefs.