Thank you! It is ironic that this supposedly ‘biblical’ approach neglects the best resources in the tradition. Personally, I’ve found Luther tremendously helpful for dealing with scrupulously/OCD. Luther makes two moves that I think help do something like Acceptance Therapy or CBT.
First, he makes the basic move you suggest of distancing himself from the thoughts going through his head. Luther does this by having a very active sense of the devil’s temptations. Thus for Luther, you can’t identify yourself with your thoughts. This is such a basic Christian idea, I’m surprised the stuff you cite doesn’t go there.
Second, Luther is able to defang the power of the ‘bad thoughts’ through his theology of grace. If you read his Table Talk he will answer scrupulous thoughts by acknowledging them and then taking comfort in God’s grace:
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!”
There is also some delightful advice in the Table Talk that flies in the face of the morbid self examination that the Biblical Counselling approach you cite recommends:
“When you are assailed by gloom, despair, or a troubled conscience should eat, drink, and talk with others. If you can find help for yourself by thinking of girl, do so.”
Absolutely, which is why it always gets my knickers in a knot when people accuse Luther of moving the emphasis to the “inner” and the “subjective”. His theology “snatches os outside of ourselves”
This was excellent and I think is incredibly valuable reading for anyone who has experienced the "if only I just exclusively and non-behaviorally use my mind some more..." solution to the problem of using their mind too much.
The first time in my adult life I heard Paul on Mars hill preached in detail, the pastor explained that it may be that Paul was so unsuccessful converting many of the Athenians because he made too many concessions to their own philosophy and didn't explain fallenness and the atonement of Christ. Possibly.
I do resonate with "what hath Jerusalem to do with Athens"
Your last section and admonition is very wise and I don't deny that your diagnosis of the motivating fear here (atheism) is a factor. At the same time, the spiral between phenomena and scripture (yes, both part of reality) gives rise to a thickening, coalescing lens that perhaps you call "wisdom" and another calls "worldview" that is a kind of a hermeneutical come-along (a hand operated ratchet winch) that relieves our having to examine everything from first principles every time we encounter some aspect of facticity. It helps us gaze at things like the struggle for life, the one that tells us death is required for development, and say, "no; despite appearances, I'd prefer having a lack of scientific credibility to an intractable theodicy problem...." Phenomena just can't be saved without theory and theory can't be derived neatly from phenomena. It requires life alongside the paraclete to become someone who sees rightly.
The Nouthetic model is primarily about confronting sin. ACBC still follows this model.
When Statlers counseling inevitably fails to help sufferers of OCD, I can’t help but wonder what the counselee will be left believing about God and themselves.
If you really want to get your blood boiling with how inadequate ACBCs approach is to counseling, check out the article about sexual consent I wrote a response on:
Thank you! It is ironic that this supposedly ‘biblical’ approach neglects the best resources in the tradition. Personally, I’ve found Luther tremendously helpful for dealing with scrupulously/OCD. Luther makes two moves that I think help do something like Acceptance Therapy or CBT.
First, he makes the basic move you suggest of distancing himself from the thoughts going through his head. Luther does this by having a very active sense of the devil’s temptations. Thus for Luther, you can’t identify yourself with your thoughts. This is such a basic Christian idea, I’m surprised the stuff you cite doesn’t go there.
Second, Luther is able to defang the power of the ‘bad thoughts’ through his theology of grace. If you read his Table Talk he will answer scrupulous thoughts by acknowledging them and then taking comfort in God’s grace:
“So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: "I admit that I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know One who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God, and where He is there I shall be also!”
There is also some delightful advice in the Table Talk that flies in the face of the morbid self examination that the Biblical Counselling approach you cite recommends:
“When you are assailed by gloom, despair, or a troubled conscience should eat, drink, and talk with others. If you can find help for yourself by thinking of girl, do so.”
His focus on looking to your baptism, to the objectivity of the sacrament, is also very very helpful.
Absolutely, which is why it always gets my knickers in a knot when people accuse Luther of moving the emphasis to the “inner” and the “subjective”. His theology “snatches os outside of ourselves”
<3
This was excellent and I think is incredibly valuable reading for anyone who has experienced the "if only I just exclusively and non-behaviorally use my mind some more..." solution to the problem of using their mind too much.
“I know what the solution to overthinking is! Think more and better!”
"I can't believe I didn't think of that!"
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
The first time in my adult life I heard Paul on Mars hill preached in detail, the pastor explained that it may be that Paul was so unsuccessful converting many of the Athenians because he made too many concessions to their own philosophy and didn't explain fallenness and the atonement of Christ. Possibly.
I do resonate with "what hath Jerusalem to do with Athens"
Well said, Susannah. And I enjoy the little glimpses of your inter-marital communication. ; )
Your last section and admonition is very wise and I don't deny that your diagnosis of the motivating fear here (atheism) is a factor. At the same time, the spiral between phenomena and scripture (yes, both part of reality) gives rise to a thickening, coalescing lens that perhaps you call "wisdom" and another calls "worldview" that is a kind of a hermeneutical come-along (a hand operated ratchet winch) that relieves our having to examine everything from first principles every time we encounter some aspect of facticity. It helps us gaze at things like the struggle for life, the one that tells us death is required for development, and say, "no; despite appearances, I'd prefer having a lack of scientific credibility to an intractable theodicy problem...." Phenomena just can't be saved without theory and theory can't be derived neatly from phenomena. It requires life alongside the paraclete to become someone who sees rightly.
The Nouthetic model is primarily about confronting sin. ACBC still follows this model.
When Statlers counseling inevitably fails to help sufferers of OCD, I can’t help but wonder what the counselee will be left believing about God and themselves.
Yeah. I mean the failure and inapplicability is so extreme that I can only think that in a way the damage will be limited. I hope.
If you really want to get your blood boiling with how inadequate ACBCs approach is to counseling, check out the article about sexual consent I wrote a response on:
https://melneufeld.substack.com/p/power-differentials-and-biblical?r=5jzo07&utm_medium=ios
I am not sure it's all that helpful in confronting sin either, since most people for whom boilerplate solutions work will never seek counseling.
Thank you for this!