A critique of Jay E. Adams' theology from a pneumatological viewpoint within Calvinistic theology.
Loading...
Date
1995
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Jay E Adams, who is Dean of the institute of Pastoral Studies and
Director of Advanced Studies at Westminster Theological Seminary
in Philadelphia, has developed what he regards to be a distinctly
biblical model of counselling. He calls his method nouthetic
counselling. This term is derived from the Greek verb noutheteo,
to admonish and the related noun, nouthesia, admonition.
Adams has developed his counselling model against a background
of a move to return the task of counselling and care to the
church. Although it was traditionally accepted that the task of
helping people with their personal problems, and particularly
behaviour change, was the ministry of the church, through the
increasing influence of the psychological sciences, this role was
steadily usurped. Instead of turning to the church with their
personal problems, people began to look even more to secular
psychologists for assistance.
In response to this, there was an attempt, from the late nineteen
twenties, to integrate the findings of the psychological sciences
with theology. These first attempts came from the more
theologically liberal sectors of the church. Evangelicals,
initially viewed this move with scepticism. However, over the
past twenty to twenty-five years, there has been a substantial
move towards an interfacing of theology and psychology among
evangelicals. One evangelical who has been an opponent of any
sort of integration has been Jay Adams. He is vehemently opposed
to integrating psychology and theology. Adams rejects the
findings of the psychological sciences. What sets nouthetic
counselling apart is Adams' insistence that counselling is the
distinct domain of Christians. On this basis he insists that
counselling be the work of ordained pastors and not the work of
psychologists and psychiatrists. Adams maintains that his theory of counselling is biblical. However, in this dissertation we attempt to show that nouthetic counselling is inadequate in two important respects. In the first place, it is maintained that Adams has an unbiblical
understanding of human nature. We will show that Adams has
ignored the inner, the deeper aspects of human nature, and in
particular the serious effects of sin on the will of man. Because
Adams has not understood human nature and human pathology, we
believe the solution he proposes is inadequate in that he
concentrates on outward behaviour. He assumes that outward
behaviour change leads to deeper, inward change.
In the second place, it will be argued that Adams has a limited
understanding of the Holy Spirit's role in the process of
behaviour change. Central to nouthetic counselling, is the place
Adams claims to give to the Holy Spirit. He insists that the Holy
Spirit is the counsellor, par excellence. He is adamant that
nouthetic counselling focuses on radical behaviour change and
that is what the Holy Spirit is concerned with. Adams equates
nouthetic counselling with the application of the process of
sanctification. It is Adams' understanding of the role of the
Holy Spirit in counselling and behaviour change that is the main
focus of this dissertation. In this connection we examine and
evaluate Adams' theory of counselling from a pneumatological
viewpoint within the context of Calvinistic theology. Nouthetic
counselling is analysed with reference to Adams' understanding
of the place of the Holy Spirit in the process of behaviour
change. We have attempted to prove that Adams is inadequate
because his counselling lacks a pneumatological dimension. What
we mean is that Adams has a very limited understanding of the
work of the Holy Spirit. Adams insists that the holy Spirit play
the central role in the process of behaviour change. However,
from a practical point of view, it is the Bible that has the
central place. Adams believes that the Holy Spirit works through
the Bible to bring a person to faith and to change that person.
For Adams, then, the Bible is absolutely crucial. The Holy Spirit
is mediated to the individual through the Bible. In other words,
Adams places the Bible between the individual and the Holy
Spirit. We will show that Adams imprisons the holy spirit in the
Bible. He ignores the direct working of the Holy Spirit in the
individual and the important part played by other means of grace
in the process of change. We have attempted to show that as a result, Adams' counselling is individualistic and problem centred. What Adams needs is a corrective. This corrective is to understand that the Holy Spirit
is not limited to the Bible. Although it is accepted that the
Holy Spirit works through the Bible, an important means of grace
to cause change is the community of believers. It is as people
are brought by the Holy Spirit into community they experience
radical change. This change comes through the mutual ministry of
caring and love in that community. We believe this is the
dimension that is missing not only from nouthetic counselling,
but, largely, from most other models of counselling. It is argued
that a truly biblical model of counselling takes seriously the
place of the community of believers in the process of behaviour
change. We have built on insights of Reformed theologians like
Hendrikus Berkhof and George Hendry to develop a pneumatological
corrective looking at the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the
church, the individual and the kingdom. This is a corrective that
we believe Adams needs to be truly biblical.
Description
Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of Durban-Westville, 1995.
Keywords
Calvinism., Theses--Theology.