Dear Editors,

I write this letter to address a recent contribution to the Sword & Shield magazine regarding the Institute for Reformed Biblical Counseling (IRBC). In this article Samuel Vasquez brings three charges against the IRBC:

1. It is “unbiblical.”

2. It is “not Reformed.”

3. It is “very deceptive.”

Having taken the basic training course offered by IRBC, I can confidently say that all of these charges are untrue in their representation of the organization. Mr. Vasquez has judged rashly based on a series of false premises and a misunderstanding of what IRBC actually seeks to do in the sphere of biblical counseling. If this topic is indeed “ripe for some lively discussion and some biblical examination,” at the very least it ought to be based on correct information.

With regard to the charge that the IRBC is “unbiblical,” Mr. Vasquez errs in his broad and generalized characterization of biblical counseling. Though he may be correct in his description of the organized movement that began in the 1970’s, he misses the important fact that this movement has since morphed into many different parachurch organizations with divergent purposes and practices. To characterize Biblical counseling as a single movement and assume that the IRBC subscribes to the various statements and practices he criticizes is unfounded. For instance, the “integrationist” approach that accepts and uses secular science alongside the Bible in an uncritical fashion is one that IRBC explicitly rejects. The IRBC in its training makes very clear that the Bible is sufficient and the source to which all believers—including Christian counselors—must turn for their wisdom and advice. The role that the IRBC actually assumes is to show believers how and where the Bible speaks to various sins and afflictions that impact the life of God’s children. Its purpose is not in any way to subvert the Bible or replace it with secular psychology and philosophy. This charge is false regardless of whether one agrees with the application or interpretation of specific Bible passages promoted by the IRBC for counseling.

In his charge that the IRBC is “unbiblical,” Mr. Vasquez also takes issue with the statement, “All truth is God’s truth.” In all reality, the statement is a basic Christian truism that cannot be controverted. If something is genuinely true, then it has its basis in God’s being, for Truth is one of the attributes of God. That being said, I understand Mr. Vasquez’s discomfort with this statement because it has been so badly abused by theistic evolutionists and others who desire to elevate the findings of secular science alongside of or above Scripture. This includes some—but certainly not all—forms of Biblical counseling. But the IRBC does not intend this error by quoting the statement. It is committed to the primacy and authority of Scripture as the ultimate source of truth and the only standard by which any science or philosophy can be tested. To suggest that the IRBC sees psychology or any “wisdom of man” as an equal to Scripture is simply untrue. Anyone who questions this contention is encouraged to obtain the syllabus for the basic training course or speak with the organization’s director.

With regard to the charge that the IRBC is “not Reformed,” Mr. Vasquez bases his entire argument on an anachronistic view of history and God’s providence. The argument is that since the practice of biblical counseling “in its present format” was not present during the Protestant Reformation or in any of the creeds or church order, it must not be Reformed. This argument is deeply flawed because it neglects the providential development of biblical learning that has occurred since the Reformation. Every one of the “seven steps” identified on the IRBC website has its basis in Scripture, notably from the book of Proverbs. That these biblical principles are organized and restated in a systematic fashion for practical use in counseling is no different than the development of systematic theology to explain and defend the various theological truths of Scripture. The church since the Protestant Reformation has continued, by the guidance of the Spirit, to develop doctrine according to biblical principles for the glory of God. So too, the Spirit has guided the church in development of biblical counseling practices to correct and comfort believers of every era who have been sinned against or are struggling with their own sins. To suggest the application of these principles during the Reformation should look exactly the same as it does today is to neglect the parallel development of sin and evil in this world since the time of Calvin and Luther. A careful, systematic and thorough development of biblical practices to help believers has always been a concern for Reformed churches throughout history.

The third charge Mr. Vasquez makes, that the IRBC is “very deceptive,” demonstrates his lack of understanding about the organization and operation of IRBC. The primary misunderstanding is that the IRBC is itself a counseling organization, which is incorrect. In fact, the IRBC functions as a vehicle for training counselors and disseminating written materials on Biblical counseling but does not directly oversee counseling. Instead, it has helped various Reformed congregations to organize individual The Shepherd’s Way counseling centers that are directly overseen by the consistory of each church. In that way the specific doctrines and practical positions that are espoused by each congregation can be implemented through ecclesiastical oversight of counselors. This explains why denomination-specific doctrinal and practical issues, such as divorce and remarriage or Federal Vision theology, are not mentioned on the IRBC website. What the IRBC fundamentally requires is a belief in the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and adherence to either the Reformed or Presbyterian confessions. Specific positions derived from or taken in addition to these confessions are directed by the consistories that oversee The Shepherd’s Way counseling centers. This is not deceptive, nor is it improperly ecumenical. No one is required to compromise their beliefs or those of their denomination by taking the IRBC training class or receiving counseling from an IRBC-certified center. It is possible that the IRBC website is not sufficiently clear on this distinction, but that does not rise to the level of deception, which implies intent to mislead and is not at all proven by Mr. Vasquez.

Mr. Vasquez believes that the Bible is sufficient. In this he agrees completely with IRBC. This is a Reformed perspective. But Mr. Vasquez does not seem to think that the application of Scripture through the practice of biblical counseling belongs to anyone outside the special offices of the church. While it is certainly true that pastors and elders are specifically called to counsel other believers, Scripture makes absolutely clear that all those who are spiritually minded are called to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:1, 2). When biblical counseling is done correctly, this is its purpose. Such is the goal of IRBC—training believers how to bear one another’s burdens through the reproofs, rebukes, exhortations and encouragements of Scripture. This belongs to the office of believer in the PRC and any other Reformed denomination. If that is our calling, ought we not learn how to do it well?

With respect,

Brendan Looyenga

REPLY

I would like to respond to the letter from Mr. Looyenga in three ways. First, I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Looyenga for taking the time to read my article and write a follow-up letter. Second, I would like to address some of his concerns with my position against the IRBC. And third, I would like to challenge Mr. Looyenga to broaden his perspective concerning the dangers of the biblical counseling movement, Christian psychology, and philosophy within the Protestant Reformed Churches.

I would like to begin this discussion with a quote from a letter by Paul the apostle to the saints who were at Ephesus. “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love” (Eph. 4:1–2). This is our calling from the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God, which I hope would guide our writing on this controversial topic. We can be clear, concise, and precise, but we can also speak the truth in love. We can also at times be bold and blunt, as Luther was, but it must be for the edification of the body of Christ and for God’s glory. With that being said, I would like to reiterate my appreciation for the letter by Mr. Looyenga, and I hope to respond with some clarifications and a few challenges in this process.

In order to address the areas of concern with the IRBC, I made a concerted effort to present both sides of the issue by extensively quoting from the IRBC website. I appreciate the support I received for the inclusion of the footnotes for reference purposes. I have prayed, read scripture, and done extensive research on this matter. I do not promote the idea that I am an expert in this field or that I have more knowledge than most on this research topic. I purposely recommended Martin and Deidre Bobgan because I do consider them to be experts in these fields of study and for the research data presented.

Mr. Looyenga made the recommendation to speak to the director of the IRBC. I sat down and had lunch with Dr. Jeff Doll for almost two hours, and he gave me a manual that the IRBC uses for training elders. My concern with the IRBC is that it promotes the same philosophy that Prof. Richard Mouw holds to concerning his promotion of common grace. The IRBC on its website states that “all truth is God’s truth,” but then it goes on to explain that this truth can be found in unregenerate, profane authors; this truth is given by the Holy Spirit to unbelievers, and if we despise this truth wherever it can be found, we despise the Spirit of God. The IRBC promotes the notion that we study these profane authors using the lens of scripture. The problem here is that this type of philosophy has implications that must be taken to their logical conclusions. When one begins to study the methods of psychotherapy, Christian psychology, and biblical counseling, then one goes back to the study of scripture using a different type of lens.

Dr. Richard Mouw promoted his theory of common grace in his book He Shines in All That’s Fair and in a debate with Prof. David Engelsma. He used the example of a counselor helping someone overcome his alcoholism and a therapist helping a couple reconcile from marital unfaithfulness. Neither case resulted in the conversion of the counselee, but Dr. Mouw used these two examples as a powerful display of God’s grace. He referred to them as common grace ministries. Abraham Kuyper also promoted the false teaching of common grace and explained that philosophy was the fruit of common grace. Herman Bavinck came to the point in his life where he began to doubt holy scripture, in part due to his love for the wisdom of the world, including psychology.

Let me make some needed clarifications. The problem is not the study of psychology as a field of research; the problem is using the methodologies of psychotherapy to replace or supplement the preaching, teaching, and counsel from scripture. According to the Bobgans, the methods implemented within the biblical counseling movement do not produce different results than secular or Christian psychotherapy. Secular psychotherapy is not based on science. Biblical counseling is not based on science. There are no brain scans that can diagnose a particular supposed mental health disorder. There are no blood tests or X-rays or any medical tests that are used specifically to diagnose, treat, or prescribe psychiatric drugs. In other words, there is no medical pathology that comes with the file of a mental health patient specifically regarding his supposed mental illness. These theoretical methods are not only unscientific, but also they are ultimately both man-centered and problem-centered. These methods are not Christ-centered or unto the glory of God, as they purport to be. In the field of psychotherapy there are over five hundred forms of therapy, the latest being cognitive behavioral therapy for depression. There is a plethora of theories and authors concerning Christian psychology and Christian psychiatry. As I mentioned in my article, there is the biblical counseling movement. This term does not refer to a single organization or a single entity but includes the nouthetic counseling movement, the Biblical Counseling Coalition, the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, and the Institute for Reformed Biblical Counseling.

In contrast to the development of orthodoxy found in the essentials of the historic Christian faith, such as the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Creed of Chalcedon, and the Reformed three forms of unity, philosophy, psychotherapy, Christian psychology, the nouthetic counseling movement, and the biblical counseling movement have produced contradiction, confusion, conflict, and chaos. The creeds and confessions are a summary of the fundamental truth of scripture. They are founded and grounded in Holy Writ. The methodologies used in nouthetic-biblical counseling are theories of man concerning scripture and using scripture for proof-text purposes. Today there is controversy among the nouthetic counselors and the biblical counselors. Nouthetic counseling and the supposed scriptural teachings of Jay Adams are being highly criticized for attributing everything to sin and for the counseling method of confrontation. Jay Adams’ methods have caused great damage to the body of Christ, and they have caused more harm than good, according to some in the opposing camp. Biblical counselor Dr. Heath Lambert has gone on the attack against Christian psychology and its interpretation of scripture. Biblical counselor Paul David Tripp has gone public on YouTube concerning his opposition to calling a man on two legs a homosexual. He stated specifically, “I want homosexuals in my church.” He also publicly announced his new membership in Epiphany Fellowship Church, otherwise known as Woke Church. He promotes the racial justice movement as a gospel issue. He recommends everyone read the book by his new pastor, Dr. Eric Mason, titled Woke Church: An Urgent Call for Christians in America to Confront Racism and Injustice. The social justice movement promotes the philosophies of cultural Marxism, critical race theory, and intersectionality. This amalgamation of psychoanalysis and philosophy is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would like to recommend to Mr. Looyenga that he broaden his scope of reading and study the development of the philosophy / psychology / Christian psychology / biblical counseling. I also recommend studying the history and impact on society, mental health, the school system, the judicial system, marital relationships, family relationships, and especially the church. These systems and theories of man have failed in every aspect of our culture. They have failed in the world, and they are failing in the church. We must be very careful with the diverse contradictory theories of the biblical counseling movement. I recommend Mr. Looyenga study how ministers within our Protestant Reformed Churches give confusing and contradictory messages in their lectures, pamphlets, and journals. Some recommend Christian psychology and Christian psychiatry found at Pine Rest Christian Mental Health. Some recommend only biblical counseling. Some recommend secular psychologists and psychiatrists and their books. Some promote a Reformed or Christian self-esteem. Today, our Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary has made the unprecedented decision that all potential students for the ministry must take a psychological test. This is a tragedy in the history of Protestant Reformed Churches in America. May God be merciful to us and grant us grace to see the danger of the biblical counseling movement as the deceitful wisdom of man and turn us back to the sufficiency of scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I conclude this discussion, as I began, with scripture. 

32. And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barack, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33. Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

34. Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

35. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

36. And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

37. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

38. (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40. God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb. 11:32–40)

By grace alone, in Christ alone, according to scripture alone, for the sake of the truth,

Samuel Vasquez