I have written some on different forms of Christian counseling. My wife is a Board Certified Clinical Chaplain and Board Certified Pastoral Counselor, as well as a Diplomate in Pastoral Supervision. Obviously, she is more of an expert on this topic than I am, but I am the one who likes to write.

Anyway, I was reading dissertation, I believe came out of Liberty University, speaking of different forms of Christian counseling, and it referenced a “Powerpoint “presentation that I created years ago to give a flavor of the different forms of counseling in Christian circles. The writer seemed to find that presentation useful, but gave a comment that I found odd. He said that some of the forms of counseling that I described are “Biblical” and some are not.

<Insert Cartoonish Over-reaction Here>

I avoid using the term Biblical for pretty much all Christian ministry because it is often used as a “Gatekeeper” term. “Oh, THIS form of worship is ‘Biblical,’ unlike THAT one which isn’t.” Or perhaps, “This type of church planting is good unlike that other one because this is ‘Biblical.'”

In counseling this is an especially egregious use of the term “Biblical” because often it is used to reduce counseling to almost meaningless.

—At its worst, “Biblical Counseling” becomes verse-dropping. “Oh, you are feeling depressed, well then read THIS verse.” “If you have are struggling with anxiety, you need to read this verse that says we are supposed to be ‘anxious for nothing.'” This is so far short of a “Biblical use of Scripture” that it is almost “anti-counseling.” Frankly, if this was counseling, then the counselor should be replaced by a Nave’s Topical Bible, or perhaps a Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

—Almost as bad is some versions of Nouthetic Counseling. At its best, this is perfectly fine. Confrontation, Concern, and Change (See more here). There are times when confrontation with God’s Word is appropriate. However, often (according to Scripture) it is not. When someone is disconsolate, the Bible doesn’t say to confront with Scripture. It says (II Cor. 1) that we are to give comfort reflecting the comfort we have received from God. When someone is weak, we are not supposed to confront them with Scriputure— rather, we are supposed to ‘bear one another’s burdens,’ and ‘comfort one another.’ Sometimes Nouthetic Counseling has drifted into behavioristic focus, and emphasis on person sin (what the counselee has done) rather than sin done unto them, or the ravages of living in a sinful, broken world. Does that make it always wrong? No. but if the model becomes a Bed of Procrustes, forcing counseling into that vein, it becomes sub-Biblical.

Good counsel needs the whole of Scripture rather than just one method, or a few verses. And this problem of “Biblical” doesn’t simply apply to counseling.

Consider Church Discipline. I have seen Church Bylaws that essentially say, “We apply Matthew 18 to Church Discipline.” I have no problem with that, but some suggest that applying Matthew 18 is Biblical Discipline. It most certainly is not. I have seen people who have learned to “game the system” by knowing how to do bad things in the church context and get away with it by living in the cracks of Matthew 18. That is the problem of confusing “Matthew 18 Discipline” with Biblical Discipline. I can’t hep but think that Jesus would jump in on this and say, “I didn’t replace the whole of Scripture with three verses” on the topic of discipline in the community of faith.

There are descriptions of what is Biblical fund-raising, Biblical church-plainting, Biblical missions, Biblical worship, and more. Often the term “Biblical” means something like, “Oh… we have found a verse or more that we can say our ___________ is based on.” In other cases, it is “Someone in the Bible did it this way, so we are doing thing Biblical, if we can see connections between what they do, and what we are doing.” Is that comforting? I suppose. I do think that Barnabas and Paul gave a good model for pioneer missions, but just repeating what they did could be inappropriate in a very different context. After all, even Paul and company did adjust to different contexts (sometimes successfully and sometimes less so).

So what is Biblical?

#1. Biblical ministry is based on truth. But if all truth is God’s truth (I know people who don’t like the feel of that statement, but it is still true) then one does not have to apologize for gaining from all of God’s truth.

#2. Biblical ministry is based on good theology. Good theology draws from the whole of Scripture… not just from a concordance or topical Bible.

#3. Biblical ministry is contextual. The Bible, unlike many other works thought of as holy scriptures, was created in more than one culture. As such, we know that good ministry looks different in different contexts. As such, we know (or are supposed to know) that Biblical does not simply mean “Do ministry exactly like the Jews did in 7th century BC in Jerusalem” or “Do ministry exactly like Hellenistic Jews and Greeks did in 1st century Corinth.” Arguably, if we copy things exactly in a completely different culture (21st century Philippines, for example) we are definitely NOT being Biblical.

#4. Biblical ministry is in line with the Great Commandment. As important as the Great Commission is, it is an application of the Great Commandment. That also means that it is subservient to the Great Commandment. Biblical ministry that is not focused on love (of God and others) is not Biblical, no matter how big vision or big numbers the work is.