Bob Kellemen of RPM Ministries http://www.rpmministries.org/, promoted his book “Equipping Counselors For The Local Church” in this video in 2011, in which he describes his aim is to saturate the church with counselors. 
    However, this is an integrative approach nevertheless, i.e., mixing secular psychology with the Bible, which is an oxymoron and a slap in the face of God.
God hates mixtures of His Word with man’s wisdom.
See: Jacob Prasch article at Moriel Ministries about mixtures that God hates:
http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/understanding_the_mixture.htm.
Quote from above:
“In an age where pop psychology is masquerading as biblical doctrine things can become very confusing. Today we hear so much about things being a mixture of truth and error, or carnal and spiritual, good and bad, or even godly and demonic. To make matters worse, we are too often being given mixed signals. Instead of giving a clear indication of what the signals actually mean so many of our pastors and once respected leaders are now telling us things like “the light is neither red nor green but amber” – leaving us suspended in a limbo not knowing whether to go or to stop. Arriving at a right doctrinal position and discerning things in a biblical manner in times like this has become more and more difficult for many sincere believers genuinely wanting to know the truth so as to do what is right. But in an increasingly complexed maze like this, the first and foremost question is to ask “What does God say about mixture in his word?” “


2 Corinthians 6:14-18 MKJV
(14) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?
(15) And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
(16) And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
(17) Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you
(18) and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.


Deuteronomy 22:9-11-Mixture Forbidden:
9 “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.
10 “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.
11 “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

Three laws are given back to back that are so different, yet strangely identical. God is saying not to mix things.
Lev. 19:19 You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
In other words, God hates mixture, and wants us to avoid it even in insignificant ways. Why? Because little compromises always end up leading to worse compromises.
Does God really care if you plow with an ox and a donkey together? Yes, because they are quite literally unequally yoked. In the same way, God hates it when a believer yokes together with an unbeliever:
2Cor. 6:14-16 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?…
Does God really care when a garment is made of two materials? He seems to, especially considering that he wants us to be the same, cut from the same cloth. He hates it when people bless and curse with the same mouth.
James 3:9-10 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
Does God really care about breeding two kinds of cattle? It would seem so, since He definitely hates it when people combine Christianity with paganism:
1Cor. 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
Is two kinds of seed being sown really that big of a deal? I don’t know, but I do know that God hates it when people attempt to pursue Him and money simultaneously:
Matt. 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
When you mix, you get corruption. Take for example when you mix hot and cold. What do you get? Lukewarm.
Rev. 3:15-16 “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
God wants our lives to be marked by holiness and oneness, not mixture.

See: http://www.truewoman.com/revive13/, which will appeal to and focus on women’s “needs” and ministry goals. What kind of “help” will these women receive this time with the backing, influence and recommendation of Kellemen?

 This is the same Nancy DeMoss who taught the women in attendance at a recent True Woman conference to draw and pray inside “chalk circles”; see our post here: https://ratherexposethem.org/2013/06/nancy-leigh-demoss-hearts-revived-but.html.

Jim Savastio has twelve sermons on Sermon Audio about “The Bible and Psychology” here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=1120321823.

Richard Ganz of http://richardganz.com/, born Jewish, convert to Jesus Christ, discusses at length about “Psychobabble” his book, and the language of psychoheresy:

See and hear all 16 sermons at Sermon Audio:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4200795512.

Christian Discernment has a very revealing article on the subject, explaining how unbiblical it is to charge for counseling, why it is the normal duty of pastors to counsel biblically, and without charges within the church, and without integrating secular worldly psychological methodologies.
    By inference, we have been wondering how many pastors instead bow out of messy traditional “soul care” encounters and refer congregants to outside counselors for paid services. What kinds and amounts of kickbacks/referral fees do these “poorly paid” and under-appreciated/ un-appreciated, narcissistic pastors receive? Do they report this income? Have you ever seen these “referral fees” listed in any church annual report under “pastoral remuneration”? Are they instead deftly itemized under “tithes and offerings” and offset by the “bank charges/bounced check” expense category?
See: http://www.christiandiscernment.com/Christian%20Discernment/CD%20PDF/Theology%20pdf/Fees%20Counseling%20Paper.pdf.

From Christian Discernment:
http://www.christiandiscernment.com/Christian%20Discernment/CD%20PDF/Book%20pdf/33_Meyer_Critique.pdf.

From Christian Discernment:
Alcoholics Anonymous compared to the Christian approach:
http://www.christiandiscernment.com/Christian%20Discernment/CD%20PDF/Book%20pdf/14%20Chart%2012%20Steps.pdf.
Response to 12 Steps:
http://www.christiandiscernment.com/Christian%20Discernment/CD%20PDF/Book%20pdf/07%20%20Response%20to%2012%20Steps%20Christian%20Setting.pdf

Biblical Discernment Ministries of J. Beard has the following article: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/nanc/nanc.htm, reprinted in full here:

National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC)*

Biblical or Psychological?

–  The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC) is a fellowship of Christian pastors and laymen who have banded together to promote and develop “counseling that is thoroughly grounded in the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice.” The stated purpose of NANC’s founding (1975) was “to certify counselors and counseling centers, to build a referral network of trustworthy counselors and institutions, to provide fellowship with others who stand in the mainstream of biblical counseling, and to provide continuing education.” Though NANC was founded by anti-psychological integrationist Dr. Jay E. Adams (the widely recognized “father” of the “nouthetic” Biblical counseling movement), and though NANC continues to verbally proclaim an anti-integrationist position, its cross-pollination over the years with the integrationist Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF), the neo-evangelical, psychologically-oriented General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC), and the psychologized ministries of John MacArthur‘s Master’s Fellowship, have left it slowly sinking in a psychological quagmire. (NANC’s 14-member Board of Trustees has only four members affiliated outside these three organizations, and NANC’s director, Randy Patten, is the former head of the Indiana GARBC.)

–  We also have a problem with Jay Adams’ nouthetic method: nouthetic counseling is a law-oriented confrontational type of approach. In his booklet, Godliness Through Discipline, Adams states: “Liberty comes through law, not apart from it. Godly, commandment-oriented living comes only from Biblical structure and discipline.” In Competent to Counsel, Adams says: “Nouthesis presupposes a counseling type of confrontation in which the object is to effect a characterological and behavioral change in the counselee. Nouthetic confrontation, in its Biblical usage, aims at straightening out the individual bychanging his patterns of behavior to conform to biblical standards. Personality change in Scripture involves confession, repentance, and the development of biblical patterns” (p. 46). (Emphasis added.) The nouthetic theory of working to change a person’s personality by establishing patterns of living from the outside in, is the heart of the problem with counseling in general and specifically with NANC (Miles Stanford, 11/94 paper on Biblical counseling).

–  NANC holds an annual conference each year where “Biblical counseling” aficionados gather to attend plenary and workshop sessions over a 48-hour period; the meetings purport to deal with a wide range of counseling issues. Typical of the agenda and speakers at such conferences was the 1994 NANC Convention held 10/3/94-10/5/94 at NANC headquarters in Lafayette, Indiana. [NANC moved its headquarters to Indianapolis in February of 2002.] It featured five plenary session speakers and 23 workshop speakers. John MacArthur was one plenary session speaker (two messages), as was psychologizer Wayne Mack of the Master’s College (formerly of CCEF) and CCEF’s director/Adlerean psychologizer John Bettler. Of the 28 speakers on the program, four were from MacArthur’s ministries, five from CCEF, and eight from GARBC-affiliated churches. [In addition to the annual conference, NANC’s other recurring events include its On-The-Road Training Conferences, One-Day Symposiums, Parenting Conferences, and Couples Conferences.]
The 2002 Convention was held in Rolling Meadows, Illinois; plenary speakers included John MacArthur and the ecumenical Charles Ware. NANC recognized 22 newly certified Biblical counselors, bringing the total to 275 certified counselors, with over 250 persons in the process of certification. At its 2001 Convention, NANC announced that there are now only 16 states that have no NANC-certified counselors. Also in 2001, NANC expanded its Trustee Board by one member — adding former MacArthur assistant Lance Quinn. The 2003 conference is to be held in Little Rock, AR (at Quinn’s church). Scheduled plenary speakers include NANC director Randy Patten and psychological integrationist David Powlison. 
–  Prior to the 10/88 NANC Convention held in St. Louis (and in prior years as well), NANC sponsored a 10-hour, one-day training seminar teaching pastors and lay counselors the use of the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (TJTA) test. (The TJTA is a psychologically-based personality test that has been proven to have no adequate statistical validity in either measuring personality traits nor in using such results to successfully predict marriage compatibility, occupational fitness, child success in school, etc., etc. (See the Bobgan’s book Four Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing, pp. 131-172, for an excellent analysis of the worthlessness of personality testing.) Prerequisite for the course was a degree in Social Sciences (i.e., sociology or psychology!) or a seminary degree. Worse yet, the TJTA course was taught by Lloyd Jonas, a board member of NANC! This is just one example of NANC declaring one view (anti-psychology/anti-integration) and practicing another (encouraging NANC member use of a psychologically-based personality test). This difference between what NANC says and their true beliefs pervade the organization. [At the 2001 NANC Convention, Jonas was named to the “Academy of NANC,” a very prestigious ranking. In NANC’s 26 year history, only four people have been named to this position. This position is reserved for those who have distinguished themselves in significantly advancing the cause of Biblical counseling, especially through training others. Lloyd has started and developed seven church-based counseling centers and was one of the founding board members of NANC.]

–  NANC publishes a bimonthly newsletter, The Biblical Counselor (circulation 14,000). Its 7/93 issue carried an article by CCEF’s Adlerean director, John Bettler: “Towards a ‘Confession of Faith’ on the Past.” The article, though short, gave enough information to reveal Bettler’s integration of Adlerean psychology that it should have invoked a protest immediately after its publication. A call to NANC’s Executive Director a few months after the appearance of the article revealed that there was not even one complaint. Therefore, we think it is fair to say that there has been wholesale acceptance of psychological integration, exemplified by Bettler’s teachings on the past, among those affiliated with NANC who call themselves Biblical counselors.

In the Fall 1990 issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, there was an article titled “Alfred Adler’s Influence on the Three Leading Cofounders of Humanistic Psychology.” Perhaps someone should write an article titled “Alfred Adler’s Influence on Biblical Counseling.” Yet, NANC board members Jay Adams and David Powlison (CCEF), as well as others affiliated with NANC, have publicly stated their belief that Bettler’s teachings about using the past are Biblical (see Bobgan: Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible, Chas. 5 & 6). NANC, therefore, has obviously joined the rest of the integrationists who call themselves Biblical.
–  The psychological leanings of NANC can also be readily ascertained by examining its Resource List and Catalog; numerous books and tapes from a bevy of neo-evangelical psychologizers fill the pages:Linda Dillow, Ed Wheat, Ed Buckley, Lou Priolo, Lloyd Jonas, John MacArthur, Wayne Mack, Stuart Scott, Ed Welch, David Powlison, John Bettler, Charles Ware, Dorie Van Stone, etc. The teachings of many of NANC’s “resources” are not only antithetical to the Bible’s, but in some cases, are identical to those emanating from psychology.
One example of many is Lou Priolo, a long-time NANC counselor and head of an Atlanta Biblical counseling center. He has written a psychologically-oriented book titled The Complete Husband (1999); i.e., with regard to the specific talk and interaction between a husband and wife, the instruction/teaching given in The Complete Husband is essentially the same as in James Dobson‘s What Wives Wished Their Husbands Knew about Women. That is, where the rubber meets the road (desirable, “Biblical” talk and behavior), there is no essential difference between what the two books teach, other than the fact that The Complete Husband actually facilitates/invites the wife to accomplish what Dobson’s book says she may have difficulty doing due to the husband’s resistance and sin. Dobson’s book has building the wife’s self-esteem at its goal. Priolo’s book tells the husband to do the things that will facilitate what Dobson wants wives to do in order to have their husbands build their wives self-esteem. Most “Biblical Counselors” will agree that it is sinful to behave in ways that  build self-esteem, using Dobson’s methods or any similar methods. Therefore, there must be something radically wrong with the teaching in Priolo’s book. The same behavior cannot be both sinful and righteous. 

–  Two of the many criticisms we have of the so-called Biblical counseling movement is the charging of fees and the separation of counseling from the Biblically ordained ministries of the church. NANC can be criticized on both these counts. Charging fees is totally unbiblical and those Biblical counselors who do so should be taken to task. Any such predators on Christians, who are suffering problems of living and crying out for help, should be put out of business. And, that’s what it is! — A ministry turned business to produce an income for the counselor at the expense and disadvantage of the person being counseled. For how many more years will church leaders hear so-called Biblical counselors close in prayer and ask, “Will you pay by cash, check, or credit card?” before utterly condemning such a 20th century, never-heard-of-before church practice?

There is no justifiable reason to charge for such counsel, and any Biblical counseling ministry that charges a price is unbiblical. Whether one agrees with Biblical counseling or not, it is a ministry. It is designed to minister the Word of God empowered by the Holy Spirit by one who knows Christ to one who will receive it. It is unbiblical to require a direct charge for such a ministry. There is no example in Scripture that justifies charging a fee for ministering the Word of God by the grace of God to a brother or sister in Christ. (Someone might protest that a minister is paid a salary, but that is a false analogy. The true analogy would be charging someone a fee to attend church. We hope no one would even think of doing that!)

This “pay-for-service” makes any Biblical counseling grossly unbiblical. A simoniac is “a person who practices simony,” and simony is “the buying or selling of sacred or spiritual things.” Charging fees for counseling is a prime example of charging for a church ministry. Filthy lucre (1 Pe. 5:2) is the great financial fuel that drives both the psychological and Biblical counseling movements. Without the charging of fees or the hope of receiving payments in the future for those being trained, the Biblical counseling movement would be decimated. If every Biblical counselor stopped directly charging and receiving fees, it would literally cripple the movement as it currently exists.

–  Faith Baptist Church in Lafayette, Indiana (a GARBC-affiliated church) is the home of Faith Baptist Counseling Ministries, and until February of 2002, was the home of NANC. The former director of NANC, the late Dr. William Goode, was also senior pastor of Faith Baptist Church. Dr. Bob Smith, the head of Faith Baptist Counseling Ministries, is a member of Faith Baptist Church and a member of the boards of both CCEF and NANC; he also set up the so-called Biblical counseling program at John MacArthur’s Master’s College. Former NANC Director Goode has said:

“The basic position of NANC is that the ideal in Biblical counseling model is one where troubled people receive counseling from their pastor and or church family. We would not tout Faith Baptist Counseling Ministries or CCEF to be ‘the ultimate Church sponsored model.’ They are training centers. A church where pastor and people are involved in counseling is the ultimate model” (letter on file).

The dictionary definition of Pharisaic is: “1. of the Pharisees; 2. emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law; 3. pretending to be highly moral and virtuous without actually being so; hypocritical.” Does Goode’s remark sound Pharisaic?

NANC would say, “We’re not ‘the ultimate church sponsored model,’ but it’s okay because we ‘are training centers.'” But, can’t any “Biblical counseling” center separated from the church be a training center and thereby justify its existence? Both NANC and CCEF approve of charging fees for counseling. Maybe the fees are also justified by virtue of being a “training center.”

Whether one is dying in the hospital or “dying” from the sins and heartaches of life, there is absolutely no Biblical reason to charge for ministering to one another in the Body of Christ. Goode would not have dared directly charge the members of his church for worship services or for private pastoral consultation or for hospital visitation. He wouldn’t have dared even suggest or hint at “cash, check, or credit card” for ministry in his church. Nor would he have dared attempt to justify charging for worship services and pastoral care by making his church a “training center.” Then why dare charge for ministry given at Faith Baptist Counseling Ministries? Why does NANC not only approve but encourage such practices?

Because NANC participates in and supports the extracting of money and the degrading of the Biblically ordained ministries of the church, we recommend against the organization. We think it has drifted too far for too long to be salvageable. The principles and practices of NANC weaken the position of the church, the role of pastors, the role of church leaders, and even the ability of lay people to minister to one another. The church of Jesus Christ is clearly worse off because of the seriousness of these practices. (Adapted from “Biblical Counseling: Simoniacs and Pharisaics,” PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, January-February 1995, pp. 1,3.) [It is reported that as of 1/1/95, Faith Baptist Counseling Ministries no longer charges counselees for counseling. Nevertheless, NANC maintains its close affiliation with CCEF (has members on CCEF’s board and vice versa), which reaps over $500,000 annually in counseling fees and continues to derive over 50% of its income from counseling fees. Therefore, for whatever reason FBCM stopped charging counseling fees, it is not so opposed to the practice as to separate from an organization that literally survives on it.]
–  NANC claims to be “on the leading edge of holding up the Word of God as not only inerrant, but also sufficient.” Underneath this statement are a number of serious issues and questions, all having Biblical implications. None have been discussed at NANC annual meetings, and probably will never be discussed at NANC. Below are seven issues as examples of what NANC is unwilling to discuss publicly: 

• Charging for Biblical counseling. 
• Separated-from-the-Church Biblical counseling centers. 
• The use of words such as counselor, counselee, and counseling, which are borrowed from secular counseling and are not found in Scripture as they are generally used and practiced by Biblical counselors.
• Women counseling men. 
• Men counseling women. 
• A Biblical counselor counseling a husband or wife in the absence of the other spouse. 
• Participation in insurance reimbursement plans by those Biblical counselors who qualify, which necessitates using practices within their license, mental health designations for reimbursement, and psychological write ups for continued counseling. 

–  It is as though Biblical counseling has become a life raft in the sea of psychobabble, psychotechniques, and psychoheresy. And the life raft crowd is working hard at making their craft appealing to those who are floating along on the flotsam of psychology. Nevertheless, the Biblical counseling life raft continues to be tossed to and fro in that sea of psychoheresy. Thus, believers should get out of the sea and stand on the solid rock. Believers do not need either what the world offers or NANC’s facsimile thereof.

A church does not need to have a “counseling ministry” or a “counselor training program” for believers to minister to one another according to Scripture. After all, what did believers do for almost 2,000 years before the Biblical counseling movement and NANC’s promotion of it? They ministered to one another through encouragement, admonition, discernment, comfort, counsel, compassion, prayer, and discipleship. This happened among believers from the inception of the church, because God’s people believed and acted according to the Word of God by the very life of Christ living in and through them by the Holy Spirit. Those who wish to remain faithful to Scripture and the sufficiency of Christ should depart from “Biblical counseling” and NANC and simply minister to one another in the mercy and grace of God without the title of “Biblical counselor.” After all, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God are our true counselors.

–  In conclusion, for the reasons stated in this report (and in our reports on CCEF, MacArthur, and GARBC), we believe that those at NANC have compromised the clear message of Scripture and have sold their birthright for some psychological pottage. What was meant for NANC to be a solution to the influx of psychology into Christianity has drifted into a compromise with it. What was meant to be a return to Biblically-based pastoral care and mutual ministry slid back into a reflection of the very problem it was meant to solve. We need more, not less, separation from secular psychology and all those who have attempted to integrate it. NANC has done nothing more than taken Biblical principles and molded them into a twentieth-century format to provide a replacement/alternative for psychological counseling. This has encouraged and facilitated a therapeutic mentality and given credence to a technology of change. Instead, Christians should be encouraged to minister to one another through the Word of God, the guidance and enabling of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible-based ministries of the local church (Bobgan: Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible, pp. 117-118 & 168-191).

*For a good overview of what is wrong with the Biblical counseling movement in general, see Martin and Deidre Bobgan’s book Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible, EastGate Publishers, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110. Some of the information in this report has been adapted and/or excerpted from this source. This report should be read in conjunction with BDM’s report on CCEF; BDM reports on John MacArthur and GARBC will also give background information concerning the people and organizations closely affiliated with NANC.

Biblical Discernment Ministries – Revised 2/2003

Biblical Discernment Ministries of J. Beard has the following article at: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/ccef/bibor.htm, reprinted here in full:

CCEF-East*

Biblical or Psychological?

–  CCEF-East, now located in Laverock, Pennsylvania, was founded in 1968 in Hatboro, Pennsylvania. Key in its founding and in the initial development of its Biblical counseling principles (dubbed “nouthetic counseling” and defined as confronting the believer with the Word of God for the purpose of change) was co-founder Dr. Jay E. Adams. Eight years after the establishment of CCEF, Dr. Adams left Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he was a faculty member, and after an approximately six year “writing” period in Georgia, took a similar position with Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. Apparently due to the lack of the direct influence of Dr. Adams at CCEF after 1976, and under the leadership of CCEF’s co-founder and Adlerean director, John Bettler, the faculty and course offerings at CCEF have become increasingly psychological in nature. (See the sub-reports detailing CCEF-East faculty member’ credentials and association memberships, and an analysis of CCEF-East’s course offering descriptions.)
–  CCEF was founded primarily because of Jay Adams’ concern that pastors needed a site where counseling was actually taking place, where they could learn to counsel, and then return to their congregations. (Last year [fiscal 1993] almost ten thousand counseling sessions were conducted at the Laverock headquarters and its Bethlehem, Princeton, Cherry Hill, and Reading branches. This is a part of our objection to CCEF; it operates as a para-church ministry, outside the authority of any local church.) CCEF has grown as an institution under John Bettler’s leadership. Besides training counselors for degree programs at Westminster and at Biblical Theological Seminary, CCEF offers short-term Certificate and Diploma programs for pastors and other church workers, and conducts workshop and week-long Summer Institutes.
In the process, CCEF has become big business bringing in big money. In CCEF’s fiscal year ended 8/31/94, CCEF received more than $395,000 in total contributions, up from $248,000 in fiscal 1993. This 60% increase was apparently the result of CCEF’s aggressive fund raising efforts — in October of 1993, CCEF started LAUNCH 2000, a $500,000 capital campaign to expand its programs and facilities (Spring 1994 Pulse). CCEF also charged more than $427,000 in counseling fees in fiscal year 1994 (versus approximately $550,000 in fiscal 1993), and received educational/seminar income of approximately $250,000 (versus $270,000 in fiscal 1993). From over $1.1 million dollars in total 1993-94 revenue, CCEF paid its faculty and staff over $750,000 in salary and benefits! (Fall 1993 Pulse and from CCEF’s Form 990 federal tax returns).
[Counseling fees for 1996 approximated $500,000 once again, a portion of which were reimbursements from insurance companies for psychological services rendered. Ed Welch, the Director of Counseling Services at CCEF, is a licensed psychologist, expected by the insurance companies to function within the scope of his license as a psychologist by providing psychological services to his clients, and he must even provide mental health labels for the treatment.]
–  John Bettler has been CCEF-East’s full-time director since 1974. Since Bettler is in charge of CCEF, he must bear final responsibility for its psychological integrationist position. Bettler is a member of the North American Society of Adlerean Psychology (NASAP) and a clinical member of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT). These organizations are purely and simply psychologically-oriented groups. (See the attached “Faculty Credentials and Associations” sheet for more details on these two organizations — why would anyone supposedly committed to “Biblical counseling,” instead of psychological counseling, be interested in belonging to these organizations, meeting their requirements for membership, or even attending their conferences?)
NASAP calls itself “the home of Adlereans,” reflecting it as an association that patterns its counseling methods after the teachings of humanistic psychologist Alfred Adler (1870-1937). Bettler’s bent for Style-style integrationism became quite clear at CCEF-East’s June 1993 Summer Institute. Bettler delivered three messages on “Dealing with a Person’s Past.” [Bettler reiterates these teachings in “Towards a ‘Confession of Faith’ on the Past” (The Biblical Counselor, July 1993) and in “Counseling and the Problem of the Past” (The Journal of Biblical Counseling, Winter 1994, pp. 5-23).] Bettler’s argument for exploring the past and his proposed use of the past in counseling not only reveal his Adlerean background, but show his commitment to integrating Adler without even referring to Adler or crediting him in any way.
In his third message from “Dealing with a Person’s Past,” Bettler employed the typical integrationist technique of taking a psychological concept, changing its name to disguise its origin, and then distorting Bible verses to show that this concept has been in the Bible all the time, but not heretofore recognized as such without the help of the “Christian” psychologizer. Bettler borrows godless psychologist Alfred Adler’s concept of “style of life,” renames it “manner of life” (“a person’s creative interpretation [Adler again] of past influences … the way of doing things that you return to again and again”) and teaches that this is what Paul meant in Eph. 4:17-23 [NASB] (rather than “sin”)! But since Bettler does not credit Adler in any way, those unfamiliar with Adler’s teachings are led to believe that Bettler’s proposed use of the past comes solely from Scripture. Instead, Bettler twists Scripture to support his Adlerean beliefs. For example, in his final talk, Bettler says:

“If you’re going to do counseling, you’ve got to know the person’s ‘manner of life’ … the way he has processed all of those things that have happened to him and brought him into a ‘style of life’ [an Adlerean slip?]. He needs to repent of the wrong kinds of conclusions and ‘styles’ he’s developed over the years. … It’s pretty dangerous to give assignments [to counselees] if you don’t understand ‘manner of life’ [not sin patterns?].”

Bettler should have been up front about his use of Adlerean psychology. Since his teachings are an excellent example of integration (euphemized as “recycling” at CCEF), he should have identified them as such, both for the sake of honesty and for the purpose of demonstrating how “recycling” works to supplement and interpret Scripture with the wisdom of men. Bettler “recycles” Adler’s style of life theories and thus integrates the idea of repentance. Bettler’s teaching about “manner of life” implies that God does not have the means to transform a person from darkness to light without the insights gleaned from Adler and other theorists who seek to peer into the soul and fix it from the inside out. Bettler goes outside Scripture to find a psychological system that purports to do the inner work. Bettler’s doctrines of using the past to discover a counselee’s “manner of life” did not come from careful Biblical analysis, but from proof-texting with Adlerean notions. (See Chapter 6 of Bobgan: Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible [pp. 119-162] for a more thorough analysis of Adler’s teachings and Bettler’s integration of them.)
[In the Fall 1990 issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology there was an article titled “Alfred Adler’s Influence on the Three Leading Cofounders of Humanistic Psychology.” Perhaps someone should write an article titled “Alfred Adler’s Influence on Biblical Counseling.” Jay Adams, David Powlison, and others affiliated with CCEF have publicly stated their belief that Bettler’s “recycled” teachings about using the past are Biblical (“25 Years of Biblical Counseling,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling, Fall 1993; and “From the Editor’s Desk: Do You Use This Journal?,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling, Winter 1994). They have obviously joined the rest of the integrationists who call themselves Biblical. (CCEF’s desire to devise a form of Biblical counseling that will fix the inner man is what apparently made Adlerean/Maslowian/Freudian psychologist Dr. Larry Crabb so appealing to CCEF. See the report summarizing Bettler’s 10/91 message delivered at the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors [NANC] Convention in Lafayette, Indiana, wherein Bettler indicates his fondness for Crabb’s teachings.)]
–  David Powlison is a Lecturer in Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and is the editor of The Journal of Biblical Counseling (formerly The Journal of Pastoral Practice — it has a circulation of about 1100, distributed in 48 states and 26 foreign countries.) Powlison is also a highly regarded faculty and counseling staff member at CCEF-East. But, because of the subtlety of his methods, he is in our opinion, one of the most dangerous psychologizers of all — Powlison claims to be within the mainstream of nouthetic/Biblical counseling, yet he writes, speaks, and teaches an integrationist agenda.
For example, in 1984 Powlison wrote an article titled, “Which Presuppositions? Secular Psychology and the Categories of Biblical Thought” (Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 12, No. 4 [1984]: 270-278). (This article is still being recommended for reading by various members of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors [NANC], of which Powlison is also a board member, and by faculty members at John MacArthur‘s Master’s College.) Powlison erroneously writes that psychology is true science, that there is considerable value in looking for truth and “insights” in psychological systems of thought, and that psychology is worthy of “creative integration” with theology. This article clearly affirms Powlison as an integrationist who finds value in using psychology in counseling.
In another article, “Crucial Issues in Contemporary Biblical Counseling” (Journal of Pastoral Practice, Vol. 9, No. 3 [1988]: 53-78), Powlison details his plan to “redeem error” from the secular counseling theorists. It sounds like he’s saying that we are to search through secular theories and therapies to discover what truth they have found but distorted, and then undistort them according to the Bible. Powlison’s plan to “redeem error by placing distorted bits back within their proper biblical framework,” is just a fancy way of saying he’s really an integrationist. In fact, on page 76 of “Critical Issues …” Powlison comes right out and says he is: “… we, of all people, are the ones who successfully will ‘integrate’ secular psychology … reframe everything that psychologists see and hold dear into biblical categories.” Powlison concludes the article by authoritatively quoting from a personal letter from John Carter of Rosemead Graduate School of Psychology. Carter is as clear an enemy to Biblical counseling as one could find. But this would be consistent with Powlison’s integrationist position.
[In this same “Critical Issues …” article cited above, Powlison even disparages Jay Adams’ position on psychology. Through selective (and clearly deceptive) quoting from Adams’ book Competent to Counsel (p. xxi), Powlison would have us believe that Jay Adams is also an integrationist and a psychologizer. On page 74 of “Critical Issues …” Powlison contends that Adams agrees with him that “there is a legitimate role for psychology” in nouthetic/Biblical counseling! See also page 30 of “Critiquing Modern Integrationists” (The Journal of Biblical Counseling, Vol. XI, No. 3, Spring 1993) and page 366 ofIntroduction to Biblical Counseling (MacArthur, Mack, et al., 1994), wherein Powlison again selectively and deceptively quotes Adams from Competent to Counsel to make it sound like Adams believes that “psychology can be a ‘useful adjunct’ to biblical counseling … ‘for the purposes of illustrating, filling in generalizations with specifics’ and … ‘challenging wrong human interpretations of Scripture, thereby forcing the student to restudy the Scriptures.'” What Adams actually says on page xxi of Competent to Counsel is that science could be a “useful adjunct,” not psychology. We know that Adams is not speaking of psychology as science (unlike Powlison) because Adams’ last sentence of the paragraph (which Powlison conveniently leaves out of what he quotes in all three articles) says, “However, in the area of psychiatry, science has given way to humanistic philosophy and gross speculation.” (See also Adams’ footnote to this sentence.) Powlison’s misquoting of Adams once could be forgiven, but misquoting in the same way three times must be viewed as highly questionable at best and dishonest at worst. (Although Jay Adams is supportive of CCEF-East and its staff and programs, we are still reluctant to label him an integrationist or a psychologizer in the same class as a Powlison or a Bettler. However, if Adams remains on CCEF’s Board after reading Against Biblical Counseling, Chapters 5 and 6, then one can draw no other conclusion.)]
While others have integrated in a non-Biblical way, Powlison and CCEF think they will be the ones to integrate in a Biblical way! Powlison does not see that he is advocating out and out integration because he sees it as a superior/Biblical form of integration! Knowingly or not, Powlison has provided an academic, not Biblical basis, for psychological integration. Somehow he believes it is possible to incorporate psychological ideas and techniques into Biblical categories in such a way to avoid integration. That is nonsense! And, in our opinion, anyone who holds this point of view cannot rightfully call himself a “Biblical counselor.” After reading Powlison, one can come to no other conclusion — Powlison is an integrationist. [See also Powlison’s contribution to the Michael Horton edited book Power Religion (“Integration or Inundation,” specifically pp. 212-213) for more of Powlison’s accommodations to integrationists.]
Powlison’s articles are a sad testimony to what is wrong with CCEF. CCEF contends that we must explore the “neglected riches” of psychological theories and therapies in order to find bits of distorted gems to use to construct a form of counseling that is fully Biblical. Without such an integrated model, Powlison and CCEF assert that nouthetic counselors will appear to be superficial and poorly equipped to deal with matters of heart motivation and human suffering. Powlison and CCEF have compromised the clear message of true nouthetic counseling and have in effect denied the sufficiency of Scripture! [See Chapter 5 of Bobgan: Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible (pp. 109-117) and/or the two PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries critiques on CCEF/David Powlison for a more thorough analysis of Powlison’s integrationist teachings. See also “CCEF Catalog Course Descriptions” for analysis of Powlison-taught courses CC42 and CC44.]
–  David Powlison was once an active member of COR (Coalition on Revival), a Reconstructionist/Dominionist organization dedicated to a social gospel/activism agenda that proposes to impose Biblical standards (e.g., Old Testament law) on unbelieving peoples and institutions. Powlison was also a Steering Committee member of COR. COR has stated that “Unity of the Body of Christ in any city as non-optional,” thereby making it necessary to “rebuild [a] city’s entire society upon the Bible.” COR says that its documents (see below) were created “to give the Church a proper foundation,” and that “nodenomination, church, organization, or mission can completely fulfill its God-assigned tasks unless it stands firmly on the biblical truths represented in these documents … the Church must stand on these truths or remain ineffective” (July 1997, “The Vision for the Coalition on Revival”).
As an indication of what the people affiliated with COR believe, the following is from a brochure announcing the 12th Annual Northwest Conference for Christian Reconstruction. Does this not sound like a different gospel? With this unbiblical world view, is Powlison the kind of man qualified to do “Biblical counseling”? (All emphases added):

“The Christian Reconstruction movement believes that the Bible contains not only a message of personal salvation through the blood of Christ shed on the cross, but also a comprehensive law structure which is alone able to provide a just basis for society. It is committed to the view that sovereignty and thus government belong to God, and that all delegated government, whether to family, church or state (civil government), is to be exercised in obedience to the law of God’s covenant. Furthermore, salvation involves every aspect of man’s life and thus also the relationships he sustains to the world around him. The exercise of dominion in accordance with the terms of God’s covenant is therefore basic and vital to the Christian faith. To neglect this is to deprecate the extent of Christ’s victory at Calvary.”

That Powlison has no problem identifying with this movement is a bit disconcerting to say the least. (For details of COR’s unbiblical strategy for “taking the world for Christ,” see COR’ documents titled A Manifesto for the Christian Church, Forty-two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian World View, and Twenty-five Articles of Affirmation and Denial on the Kingdom of God. These three documents, along with COR’s 17 Sphere/World View Documents, make up what COR calls its “20 COR World View Documents.”)
–  At one time, CCEF-East distributed and recommended materials from a mail order catalog entitled Christian Study Services. (The Christian Study Services organization was closely affiliated with CCEF, if not outright owned and operated by CCEF, but “went out of business” in 1991. From 1983-1991, the catalog referred to here was available to anyone interested in ordering from it.) Significant is the fact that a large number of the books in the catalog were authored by avowed psychologizers (e.g., Crabb, Hoekema, Narramore, Solomon, Wright, Minirth & Meier, Collins, Dobson, LaHaye, Tournier, Trobisch, etc.) — a full 30% of the total offerings in the combined “General Subject Index” and “Recent Books of Interest” sections of the catalog were books that specifically profess and teach a psychological gospel! Worse yet, many of these psychologically-oriented books were noted as “especially helpful for counseling assistance” or as “must have books”!
–  At CCEF-East’s 1990 “Summer Institute” (The Summer Institute of Counseling Studies, held each summer for three to five days each in San Diego and Philadelphia), CCEF’s director, John Bettler, spoke on the topic of “Sex in the Sanctuary,” in which he gave credence to the idea that pastors can become sexually “addicted” (which thereby implies that personal responsibility is not a factor in such “addictions”). (See 12 Steps to Destruction: Codependency/Recovery Heresies, by Martin and Deidre Bobgan, EastGate Publishers, Santa Barbara, CA, 1991, 247 pages, for the Biblical view of such so-called addictions.)
Other CCEF featured speakers have included Larry Crabb (in 1988 and again in 1989) and Paul Vitz (in 1988). Crabb’s model of counseling is primarily a psychological system of unconscious needs that supposedly motivate all behavior; this system has been derived from Freudian (the “unconscious”) and humanistic (a hierarchy of needs) psychology, with great emphasis on so-called emotional needs. Since there is no question that Crabb has been an integrationist from his earliest writings to the present, why did CCEF invite him, listen to him, and then invite him again? Wouldn’t one exposure to Crabb be enough? As for well-known integrationist Paul Vitz, he proudly testifies of being a Roman Catholic, and believes that Jung, Freud, etc. were correct in their descriptions of human behavior, but that Jesus is the answer because “Jesus is the anti-Oedipus” (Journal of Psychology and Theology: Vol. 12, No. 1, 1984). Vitz wrote: “… in the long run I believe it will be possible to ‘baptize’ large portions of secular psychology; that is, to use what is valid in them, while removing their anti-Christian threat” (The Christian Vision: Man in Society, Lynne Morris [ed.], 1989, p. 80). CCEF said they were “especially pleased to have him [Vitz]” speak there. It is also true that Fuller Graduate School of Psychology was pleased to have him speak there. It’s understandable why integrationists would be “pleased to have him,” but why a professing anti-integrationist institution?
–  CCEF-East publishes a quarterly newsletter, Pulse. The Summer 1990 issue published an article composed of excerpts from a May 9, 1990, talk to a CCEF Alumni Conference by CCEF-East faculty member, counselor, and certified social worker (A.C.S.W.) Leslie Vernick. Her talk dealt with “scriptural guidance for counseling adults who were sexually abused as children” (“When Sexually Abused Children Grow Up, What Do the Scriptures Say to Them?” Summer 1990, Pulse). The article is an amalgamation of psychology and Bible, with many Freudian psycho-subtleties, such as ventilation techniques for repressed emotions, the probing for influences from the so-called unconscious past, etc. In this article, Vernick not only misrepresents the research on sexual abuse of children, she also promotes her own psychological ideas and mutilates Scripture to “prove” her position. By her Freudian orientation and psychological methodology and language, she demonstrates a great commitment to psychology and a woeful lack of commitment to the Scriptures for dealing with problems of living. The mere fact that CCEF chose to publish Ms. Vernick’s article, let alone its policy to employ such a person as a teacher and counselor in the first place, is a clear indication of just how far down the psychological road CCEF has traveled. (For a more in-depth analysis of the Pulse article by Vernick, see the Bobgan’s Fall 1991 PsychoHeresy Update and/or Chapter 5 of Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible, pp. 106-108.)
Then in the Fall 1990 issue of Pulse, which followed the issue mentioned above, under a headline asking “Does Your Childhood Abuse Still Hurt?,” CCEF’s main office announced “a new counseling program … Group counseling.” And the group leader was Leslie Vernick! A phone call to CCEF also revealed that Vernick recommended the AA model of 12-Steps, and that she planned to use a 12-Step type of spiritual approach with this new group! It was also revealed that Vernick recommends for women who have suffered abuse The Wounded Heart by Dan Allender (Larry Crabb’s associate at IBC in Colorado) and The Door of Hope: Recognizing and Resolving the Pains of Your Past by Jan Frank. Evidently, CCEF must be in agreement with the books and the 12-Step group therapeutic approach to permit this. Yet at the same time, they claim to understand the dangers of psychological counseling. [Amazingly, this rank integrationist [Vernick] is not only still on CCEF’s staff, but she also writes for CCEF’s academic journal! (e.g., “Getting to the Heart of the Matter in Marriage Counseling,” The Journal of Biblical Counseling, Vol. 12, No. 3, Spring 1994, pp. 31-35).]
–  Ed Welch is another CCEF-East staff member (Director of Counseling) whose ties to the psychological counseling world are greater than to Biblical counseling. He is a member of the American Psychological Association and is a licensed psychologist. Welch claims that he maintains this membership and license in order to maintain access to secular organizations and their publications that he would not otherwise have. This seems a weak argument, but even so, if CCEF really stands for Biblical counseling, why list an organization on your “résumé” which stands for problems of living being solved by anything but the Bible? Does not listing this affiliation and license communicate some commonality and professional credibility? “Such affiliations represent more than a thread of compromise with the promoters of psychological counseling theories and therapies; it demonstrates a lack of full confidence in the biblical way” (PsychoHeresy Update, Winter/Spring 1992, pp. 3-4, and Against Biblical Counseling, Chapter 5, p. 106). [Welch has also mentioned before that he is favorably impressed with the work of C.J. Jung, an anti-Christian and occultist! (message at a 6/87 CCEF-West conference); and that he “appreciate(s) lots of things that Larry Crabb has done” (message at the 1987 CCEF-East Summer Institute).]
–  One of our many concerns about CCEF is that one of their counselors (Leslie Vernick) recommended the Alcoholics Anonymous model of 12 Steps and used a 12-Step type of approach. In response to that criticism, David Powlison responded, “I can’t imagine any CCEF staff person mentioning the 12 Steps, since we ruthlessly critique it” (letter from Powlison, 1/29/93, emphasis added).
Two books have been co-authored by CCEF’s Director of Counseling, Ed Welch, and were published in 1995. The book titled Addictive Behavior is written for the “counselor,” and the book titled Running in Circles: How to Find Freedom from Addictive Behavior is for the “counselee.” Both books are supportive of 12-Step programs and recommend some of the very books against which Christians should be warned.
In Running in Circles, Welch and his co-author, Gary Steven Shogren, discuss support groups (pp. 85-86). They conclude: “To almost all Christians who ask me whether they should go to a Twelve-Step group, my answer is “yes.” The benefits will outweigh the disadvantages” (p. 87). The “Resource List” in Appendix A, the books listed in their section “For Further Reading,” and their list of “Recovery Devotional Guides” are more than enough to condemn this book for Christian consumption. Without an appropriate warning, Appendix B displays “The Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions of AA.”
The book Addictive Behavior includes an “Addiction and Recovery Books” section, listing many of the same recovery books as are listed in Running in Circles. One of the many bad examples of what they recommend in both books is Melody Beattie’s book Codependent No More. Here is the description given in Addictive Behavior: “The most popular of the codependency books. The problem is control, the treatment is self-love. Also by Beattie, Beyond Codependency” (p. 190). Not a word of warning. Not a suggestion here that there is anything wrong with self-love as the treatment.
Welch’s blatant support of the 12 Steps certainly does not support Powlison’s contention that “we ruthlessly critique it.” (Source: November-December 1995, PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter.)
–  In CCEF-East’s most recent Course Catalog (published in early-1991, but updated each “school year” with inserts of current course offerings), CCEF includes a section titled, “What Others Say About CCEF” (pp. 5-7). Included are the following testimonies about the value of CCEF’s training program: (We assume that the views these individuals have about Biblical counseling would be compatible with those of CCEF, or why else would their endorsements be in the catalog? See also Against Biblical Counseling, pp. 116-117, for documentation of CCEF’s listing with other integrationist counseling organizations in paid counseling directories.]

Judy Blore — Formerly managed a Ronald McDonald House and is now a counselor for BASIS, a “Christian bereavement ministry.” Counseling at BASIS is clearly psychologically-oriented, despite the facade of Christian terminology and claims to the contrary. For example, BASIS uses the “five stages of grief” in counseling the bereaved, a psychological scheme developed by transpersonal New Age transpersonal psychologist and occultist, Elizabeth Kübler-Ross; BASIS also recommends books by pop psychologist Dr. James Dobson.
Jerry Falwell — This neo-evangelical, psychologizer, televangelist, and pastor says that he commends CCEF for their “commitment to biblical counseling and their desire to equip the church to counsel.” Being that Falwell is one of the strongest proponents of the integration of psychology and the Bible in the entire professing evangelical church, CCEF’s solicitation and use of Falwell’s endorsement of CCEF’s supposedly Biblical counseling program is shocking. Falwell heads a major university and two correspondence schools that offer highly psychological curriculums (i.e., Falwell advertises Liberty University’s School of LifeLong Learning [LUSLLL] as “The PSYCH CONNECTION,” and in October, 1989, established the Liberty Institute for Lay Counseling [LILC], in order to train laymen interested in helping “victims” with a multitude of “psychologically damaging afflictions.”) Falwell also endorses the highly psychological, Rapha Hospital Treatment Centers. If LUSLLL, LILC, and Rapha are examples of what Falwell considers to be institutions that offer “Biblical counseling,” then what kind of counseling is he really endorsing at CCEF? [Rapha is an organization that heavily promotes Alcoholics Anonymous, 12-Step codependency/recovery programs as a “Christian” methodology for the cure of “dysfunctional” relationships. Rapha specializes in the “treatment” of so-called codependent and/or addicted Christians by employing an amalgamation of Adlerean/Maslowian need psychology and the Bible. Falwell is quoted as saying that, “It has been good to know that we now have a place to refer persons we counsel who are in need of hospital care for emotional, spiritual and substance abuse problems.”]
Joseph K. Newmann — Clinical Psychologist at a Veterans Administration Medical Center in Tennessee. Newmann claims that when he became a Christian in 1979, CCEF afforded him the opportunity to “integrate” his psychological “counseling training and experience with [his] newfound faith.” Newmann says that, “God graciously led me to CCEF” and “left a real mark on myprofessional work“! It sounds as if Newmann is thanking CCEF for providing him the training necessary to amalgamate the godless teachings of psychology with the Bible! That CCEF’s training (see companion report on CCEF course offerings) could facilitate such a godless endeavor (the integration of psychology and theology), and that CCEF’s director is so proud of it that he publishes Newmann’s laudatory comments about the CCEF program, speaks volumes about the true psychological nature of CCEF’s training and counseling. [Apparently one of the concepts taught Newmann at CCEF was the value of psychological/personality testing. Newmann uses the Millon Behavioral Health Inventory in his work at the VA, despite its proven poor validity (seeFour Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing, Chapters 8-10).]

–  Two of the many criticisms we have of the so-called Biblical counseling movement is the charging of fees and the separation of counseling from the Biblically ordained ministries of the church, especially to the extent of ones geographically separated from the church. CCEF can be criticized on both these counts. Charging fees is totally unbiblical and those Biblical counselors who do so should be taken to task. Any such predators on Christians who are suffering problems of living and crying out for help should be put out of business. And, that’s what it is! A ministry turned business to produce an income for the counselor at the expense and disadvantage of the person being counseled. For how many more years will church leaders hear so-called Biblical counselors close in prayer and ask, “Will you pay by cash, check, or credit card?” before utterly condemning such a 20th century, never-heard-of-before church practice?
There is no justifiable reason to charge for such counsel, and any Biblical counseling ministry that charges a price is unbiblical. Whether one agrees with Biblical counseling or not, it is a ministry. It is designed to minister the Word of God empowered by the Holy Spirit by one who knows Christ to one who will receive it. It is unbiblical to require a direct charge for such a ministry. There is no example in Scripture that justifies charging a fee for ministering the Word of God by the grace of God to a brother or sister in Christ. (Someone might protest that a minister is paid a salary. But that is a false analogy. The true analogy would be charging someone a fee to attend church. We hope no one would even think of doing that!)
This pay for service makes any Biblical counseling grossly unbiblical. A simoniac is “a person who practices simony,” and simony is “the buying or selling of sacred or spiritual things.” Charging fees for counseling is a prime example of charging for a church ministry. Filthy lucre (1 Pe. 5:2) is the great financial fuel that drives both the psychological and Biblical counseling movements. Without the charging of fees or the hope of receiving payments in the future for those being trained, the Biblical counseling movement would be decimated. If every Biblical counselor stopped directly charging and receiving fees, it would literally cripple the movement as it currently exists.
CCEF would say, “We’re not ‘the ultimate church sponsored model,’ but it’s okay to charge fees because we ‘are training centers.'” But, can’t any “Biblical counseling” center separated from the church be a training center and thereby justify its existence? As said earlier in this report, CCEF receives about $500,000 annually for counseling fees. Maybe these fees are also justified by virtue of being a “training center.”
Because CCEF participates in and supports the extracting of money and the degrading of the Biblically ordained ministries of the church, we recommend against the organization. We think it has drifted too far for too long to be salvageable. The principles and practices of CCEF weaken the position of the church, the role of pastors, the role of church leaders, and even the ability of lay people to minister to one another. The church of Jesus Christ is clearly worse off because of the seriousness of these practices. (Adapted from “Biblical Counseling: Simoniacs and Pharisaics,” PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter, January-February 1995, pp. 1,3.)
–  In conclusion, for all the reasons stated in this report, we believe those at CCEF-East have compromised the clear message of Scripture and have sold their birthright for some psychological pottage. What was meant for CCEF to be a solution to the influx of psychology into Christianity has drifted into a compromise with it. What was meant to be a return to Biblically-based pastoral care and mutual ministry slid back into a reflection of the very problem it was meant to solve. We need more, not less, separation from secular psychology and all those who have attempted to integrate it. We believe Biblical counseling should be opposed, particularly para-church Biblical counseling as practiced at CCEF. CCEF has done nothing more than taken Biblical principles and molded them into a twentieth-century format to provide a replacement/alternative for psychological counseling. This has encouraged and facilitated a therapeutic mentality and given credence to a technology of change. Instead, Christians should be encouraged to minister to one another through the Word of God, the guidance and enabling of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible-based ministries of the local church (Bobgan: Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible, pp. 117-118 & 168-191).

* Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation, 1790 East Willow Grove Ave., Laverock, PA 19118. CCEF-West in San Diego, CA is under the same general “CCEF umbrella” (formerly termed a “branch” office by CCEF-East), but operates as an independent entity under the directorship of George Scipione. Other CCEF branches are located in Bethlehem, PA (Mike Bobick), Princeton and Cherry Hill, NJ (John McConaughy), and in Reading, PA (Earl Cook). The comments in this report, unless otherwise stated, do not necessarily apply to all CCEF branches, although the Bethlehem, Princeton, Cherry Hill, and Reading branches are certainly much more closely tied, operationally, to Laverock than is CCEF-West (although Scipione [CCEF-West] is on CCEF-East’s Board of Directors).
[Some of the material in this report has been adapted and/or excerpted from Chapters 5 and 6 of Martin & Deidre Bobgan’s 1994 book, Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible (EastGate Publishers, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110). We have also drawn from two special reports written by Martin Bobgan (“A Critique of CCEF-East” [31 ppgs.] and “A Second Critique of CCEF-East: A Response to David Powlison” [24 ppgs.]), also available from EastGate/PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries in Santa Barbara. Readers should consult these materials for even more details and analysis of CCEF-East’s psychological leanings.]

Biblical Discernment Ministries – Revised 12/97