Brett Anderson

2

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell·35m

Brett, if your first principles remain divorced from the real world, they would fall into the 1 Cor. 13:2 level of usefulness...zero value. All theology may be important, but practical theology is not lesser. As such, your redirection back to first principles has communicated a significant deflection away from the real world application of how you would take your beliefs out of academia and into the counseling room. Meanwhile, the couple who believes in sufficiency, has a heart that is surrendered, has processed through their grief and surrendered it to God, is utilizing their platform to bless others, but still struggling with dysfunction remains unresolved...and you've been offended at the question. Even first level, you're offended because I challenged your assertion that you do not subscribe to "nuda scripture" but then have offered me nothing else but objection to the claim. So I will concede happily if you show me that it is not simply a theological point you can claim but never makes it out of the classroom and into real life. In the spirit of James 2, you're trying to show me your theology without works.

English

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7

0

18

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell·10h

As respectfully and discreetly as I can speak to this, many truly suffer sexually because of heart issues, but there is room for those who serve each other well from a healthy, loving heart and perspective, but still have significant struggles for varied reasons. Whether a young couple starting out, post childbirth, non medically related PE or ED, various levels of desire, coming from purity culture from ignorance and developing a bad framework and understanding, or a myriad of other reasons, sexuality can be rather complex and defeating for many Christian couples. If you are counseling a married couple through their sexual dyfunction exclusively from what the Bible says about sex...I'm really sorry for your counselees. Even "Intended for Pleasure" by Dr. Wheat included quite a few modest graphics and techniques that aren't found in Song of Solomon. Also, if they struggle but never bring it up, they are either suffering in silence, relying on the internet (not really a great plan), or going to a therapist because they have gleaned through your sessions that you aren't the right person to talk to about it. Biblical counselors should 100% be equipped to help both with the heart issues around sex as well as utilize healthy tools and resources to support what God has blessed and designed in marriage. I would love to see more who are committed to a biblical framework of counsel enter into this needed space.

I could never trust this mindset. In one breath it elevates psychology as the needed authority to frame physiological historical and relational dynamics and embodied complexities that Scripture alone supposedly cannot address. It builds a framework to justify its own necessity while shifting focus away from heart level beliefs, choices, moral responsibility, and Gods sovereignty (Prov 4:23; Mark 7:21 23). In the next breath it claims Scripture should “ideally” shape care. Yet the qualifier exposes the true position: Scripture is not sufficient; clinical skilled expertise is required as a complement. This denies the sufficiency of Gods Word for all soul care including trauma and sexual struggles (2 Tim 3:16 17; 2 Pet 1:3). Trying to unite a fallen modern / postmodern pseudo science with Christianity is ridiculous. It is a dangerous hybrid that undermines the gospels power for heart change in the local church. Folks, scripture is sufficient to explain the “complexities” and no soul care is ever accomplished by a hybrid approach that replaces the Holy Spirit. Jason’s rhetoric in these replies read as a marketing strategy more so than anything else. It’s as though he tried to fit as many categorical terms from a brochure to elevate himself and psychology. He definitely isn’t pointing to God’s authority, ability, and standard as the greatest good in this field.

English

1

18

1.5K

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·1h

@LucyAnnMoll @LowerLeavell Oh, it’s not mine. My oldest daughter (13) had GT from birth. She’s been a patient at St Jude since she was 18 months old. She was cured of GT this past summer through a bone marrow transplant. 🙂

English

0

2

23

Lucy Ann Moll@LucyAnnMoll·1h

@Isaiah45_7 @LowerLeavell I looked at your org. Very cool. Praise God for all the good work you’re doing.

English

@LucyAnnMoll @LowerLeavell

0

1

22

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·1h

GIF

QME

0

1

21

Lucy Ann Moll@LucyAnnMoll·1h

@Isaiah45_7 @LowerLeavell I understand your concern about definitions and first principles. My focus is on counseling application with hurting people, so I’m going to leave it there.

English

0

2

26

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·2h

That said, I hold man as embodied souls with material (body) and immaterial (soul/heart) aspects that mutually influence each other. But this is a high altitude perspective that needs to be nuanced. My replies to Joseph do indeed cover this. “I affirm that the body is fallen and bears the effects of the curse, and in this I gladly accept the empirical study of medicine as it studies God’s observable design in creation, examining anatomy, physiology, and the material world according to consistent, God-ordained laws. This aligns with common grace, even when practiced by unbelievers. However, I reject psychology as a common grace category because it does not study God’s design in the same objective sense; instead, it asserts autonomous human frameworks for the soul, mind, motivation, behavior, and suffering that are alien to biblical truth and function as a pseudo-science imposing competing categories rather than submitting to the Creator’s revelation.”

English

1

7

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·2h

I see this is shifting into whataboutism, which I’m not interested in pursuing. My post that Joseph shared and commented on focused specifically on first principles, but he has taken this discussion in a different direction. My focus remains this: Application cannot arbitrate first principles. Scripture alone establishes the principles that govern faithful application. To properly address the scenario you raised, we would first need to unpack the first principles underlying your doctrinal framework, including but not limited to the doctrine of God, Scripture, soteriology (nature and capacity) and the biblical definition of the heart, man’s moral responsibility in the Creator-creature distinction, and how you biblically define “material and immaterial.” Scripture may or may not align with the terms used in your previous replies. Then, even if proven in one way or the other, you would have to submit to an interpretation of scripture that establishes meaning and first principles (this is the primary objection by secular psychologist. They see the moral good but do not submit the source of the good). We then would have to address the counselee’s doctrinal understanding in order to determine root causes, for circumstances (no matter how severe—such as being diagnosed with vaginismus) do not negate moral responsibility of stewardship. If the first principles are wrong the counselor is placing the counselee in a framework that has eternal consequences at worst and just grieves the Holy Spirit at best. This is the point of my post: Shared language does not mean shared meaning. Our first principles determine whether meaning is truly shared. Until those are addressed there is no use jumping to application where many turn to psychology based frameworks instead of biblical truth. Or they do it through a hybridization both. Asking me if I see the material and immaterial connection is an ambiguous question.

English

0

1

31

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·3h

@Shawnihensler You should have started from this question.

English

1

30

Shawni@Shawnihensler·3h

@Isaiah45_7 What role would you say experience/extra biblical knowledge should play in determining application?

English

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7

0

1

43

Shawni@Shawnihensler·3h

The logical end of this perspective means that a single person could do premarital counseling just as effectively as a married person. A childless person could counsel on parenting. As long as you know Scipture that’s all that matters. It sees the Bible as a manual.

I could never trust this mindset. In one breath it elevates psychology as the needed authority to frame physiological historical and relational dynamics and embodied complexities that Scripture alone supposedly cannot address. It builds a framework to justify its own necessity while shifting focus away from heart level beliefs, choices, moral responsibility, and Gods sovereignty (Prov 4:23; Mark 7:21 23). In the next breath it claims Scripture should “ideally” shape care. Yet the qualifier exposes the true position: Scripture is not sufficient; clinical skilled expertise is required as a complement. This denies the sufficiency of Gods Word for all soul care including trauma and sexual struggles (2 Tim 3:16 17; 2 Pet 1:3). Trying to unite a fallen modern / postmodern pseudo science with Christianity is ridiculous. It is a dangerous hybrid that undermines the gospels power for heart change in the local church. Folks, scripture is sufficient to explain the “complexities” and no soul care is ever accomplished by a hybrid approach that replaces the Holy Spirit. Jason’s rhetoric in these replies read as a marketing strategy more so than anything else. It’s as though he tried to fit as many categorical terms from a brochure to elevate himself and psychology. He definitely isn’t pointing to God’s authority, ability, and standard as the greatest good in this field.

English

3

385

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·3h

By this logic the person determines sufficiency treatment, not the Word of God or the Holy Spirit. To reduce it to the absurd, counselors must be homosexual to counsel those struggling with homosexuality. Heaven forbid we promote only homosexual pastors in order to check that box of sufficient care.

GIF

Shawni@Shawnihensler

The logical end of this perspective means that a single person could do premarital counseling just as effectively as a married person. A childless person could counsel on parenting. As long as you know Scipture that’s all that matters. It sees the Bible as a manual.

English

4

123

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·3h

@Shawnihensler * Thank you for sharing my post

English

1

14

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·3h

@Shawnihensler Application cannot arbitrate first principles. Scripture alone establishes the principles that govern faithful application.

English

0

1

47

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·3h

Often, especially on X, it is the foolish one who gets more likes and public agreement. Yet, we need to read this verse in the context of what eternal success and wisdom is as defined by Scripture instead of defining it on the popular vote, even within our own tribes. Do not allow the world to define what it means to be successful. Do not give the authority to yourself either. Allow only the Scriptures to reveal the path of success. Allow the Word to humble you to a point of never claiming to be successful. Reserve that truth to be declared by Christ alone on the day you meet him. I remind myself of this on each Father’s Day. It is yet to be determined if I am a good father.

English

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell

2

77

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

Application cannot arbitrate first principles. Scripture alone establishes the principles that govern faithful application. The topic has always been defining first principles. You have failed to understand that the framework Jason asserts must be addressed according to first principles. What does the sufficiency of scripture actually mean? It is this question alone that must be discussed BECAUSE I hold (and state in the shared post) Jason holds to a common language but holds a different meaning. And it is this that causes the primary issue of disagreement. Your “whataboutism” is off topic, and yet I addressed in in pointing back to the main topic and how it sets the trajectory to answer application. Good grief.

What's interesting here is that I haven't once advocated for a psychological answer. I'm not an integrationist, nor am I clinically informed. I'm simply asking for your approach so it might give answer to your accusation that I've built a strawman argument. You've told me a lot of what you wouldn't do and what not to do in regards to psychology, but you've been very light on what one should do as a biblical counselor. You've made the claim that you are not saying "solo Scriptura" but also haven't shared what these extra-biblical frameworks look like, in to make your position clear. Your strongest point was that you would direct them to a good theology of suffering...which is important, but then you went back to attacking psychology as NOT the answer without answering what you would do to alleviate that suffering as a biblical counselor. Any thoughts? Frankly, you've done nothing but proven my point with each subsequent response. I'm seeking hard to give you the ability to bring clarity. Thank you for the interaction!

English

2

136

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

I’m not stepping into your framework, Joseph. You quoted my post, meaning the topic of discussion starts there not in your “whataboutism.” I’ve tried ti redirect you but instead of seeking clarity you reduce what is given to a further absurdity. Joseph, application cannot arbitrate first principles. Scripture alone establishes the principles that govern faithful application. The topic has always been on defining first principles. You have failed to understand this.

English

4

61

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell·4h

What's interesting here is that I haven't once advocated for a psychological answer. I'm not an integrationist, nor am I clinically informed. I'm simply asking for your approach so it might give answer to your accusation that I've built a strawman argument. You've told me a lot of what you wouldn't do and what not to do in regards to psychology, but you've been very light on what one should do as a biblical counselor. You've made the claim that you are not saying "solo Scriptura" but also haven't shared what these extra-biblical frameworks look like, in to make your position clear. Your strongest point was that you would direct them to a good theology of suffering...which is important, but then you went back to attacking psychology as NOT the answer without answering what you would do to alleviate that suffering as a biblical counselor. Any thoughts? Frankly, you've done nothing but proven my point with each subsequent response. I'm seeking hard to give you the ability to bring clarity. Thank you for the interaction!

English

0

197

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

@LucyAnnMoll @LowerLeavell Lucy, I’m just now seeing your post. I believe my full conversation with Joseph answers your scenario.

English

0

35

Lucy Ann Moll@LucyAnnMoll·6h

@LowerLeavell Reducing sexual pain to “just heart issues” misses reality. God made us embodied souls. Faithful counseling applies Scripture and uses wise, appropriate tools to care well for the whole person.

English

0

7

93

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

Joseph, I’m moving on. I’ve given you more than enough. To anyone else reading this conversation: Folks, circumstances do not negate moral responsibility. The stewardship of suffering remains a moral responsibility before Christ for both the sufferer and the church body called to bear burdens with them. To direct the suffering Christian to psychology does not relieve that burden; it risks misdirecting care rather than carrying it in a way that honors Christ. It can also, in practice, diminish the role of the body of Christ as the ordinary means God uses to bear burdens in the life of the church. There are a couple ways integrationists often raise concerns about the ACBC framework here. First, they argue that if Scripture has been applied and struggle continues, this indicates a limitation in the model or in sufficiency itself. They may describe this in terms of “blind spots,” locating the issue in the counseling framework rather than in the counselor’s depth, wisdom, or faithfulness in application. In contrast, ACBC affirms that Scripture itself is sufficient, while recognizing that counselors can fail to apply it fully, wisely, or patiently. Second, they appeal to difficult or persistent cases and conclude that the counselee requires “specialized” care that goes beyond what Scripture provides. This effectively introduces a functional limitation on sufficiency, even while affirming it in principle. In doing so, they affirm the sufficiency of Scripture in theory while narrowing its scope in practice. Persistent difficulty, however, does not indicate a deficiency in Scripture. It more often reveals the need for more careful, thorough, and persevering ministry of the Word within the body of Christ. How one defines the sufficiency of Scripture, the nature of the heart, and the practice of biblical counseling must be governed by Scripture itself. Scripture alone has authority to define these concepts. Some dismiss this as “doctrinal parsing” and attempt to move quickly from doctrine to practical application. But this separation is artificial. Doctrine inevitably shapes practice, especially in counseling.

English

1

40

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·7h

As directly as I can put it, and at this point unconcerned with preserving your respect, your latest replies reveal far more about your own approach to the topic and to me than they do about any supposed “doctrinal parsing” on my part. To caricature my framework as “go see a doctor for your sexual dysfunction; I only deal with matters of the heart” is not only a gross distortion; it is insulting. That is the main reason I tried to give you an opportunity to try again. Do you habitually reduce your opponents’ positions to absurd strawmen in order to control the narrative? It certainly appears that way, even if passively. So no, you do not have the right to assign me a position I have not taken. And, no, you do not have my framework right. When a pastor and his wife come with bowed hearts yet continue to struggle with sexual dysfunction, I do not abandon them to extra-biblical systems. And, I especially do not turn them to psychological systems. I hold the Scripture before them as the mirror of God’s design for them in their specific context. It exposes any heart idolatry, unbelief, or sinful patterns; it calls them to repentance and faith in Christ; and it directs them to walk in obedience by the power of the Holy Spirit in the context of the local church. It also encourages and validates where they are walking after the Holy Spirit in faith. The stewardship of their suffering is purposeful, not only in their lives but also in edifying the church body. They have an opportunity to be a light in their weakness. The church has the opportunity to be a light in carrying their burden. The goal is the glory of Christ, and psychology is not needed. I hold psychology actually subverts this. We agree that the body is fallen and can suffer real physiological brokenness, which is why I said that a competent medical evaluation aligns with common grace. But once organic causes are excluded, psychology offers no legitimate competing framework for the soul. It is not a neutral tool that falls under the category of common grace. To reduce the rejection of psychology here to a “solo Scriptura” label is truly revealing. It’s honestly reads more like a passive aggressive ad hominem. Again, you seem to reduce your opponent to categories and not actually address the content that leads you to believe such a claim. The Word of God, applied by the Spirit through the ministry of the local church, is sufficient to address the whole person in this context, in this specific scenario. So, back to my original reply to your reduction: Scripture is sufficient to address the “complexity” in this scenario. No biblical counselor is so limited in their foundation as to use “only” the sexual contact points (the topic of sex) found in Scripture. You’ve only doubled down on a reductio ad absurdum and added a straw-man argument in doing so.

English

0

2

165

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·8h

I’m thankful @jasonkovacs shared your post. Even though he does not think the medium of X is conducive to fruitful dialog, his sharing provides an opportunity to not only see your reductionist argument but my full explanation on why I distrust his counseling framework. Thank you both for sharing so this can be read by others.

English

45

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·9h

Joseph, I’m going to give you an opportunity to rethink your reply in light of what I wrote above. You’re free to delete it, reframe it, and address the content of my framework differently. Your reduction reveals you have not thought through my content and your scenario seems to fail in understanding how I’ve already addressed this.

English

0

103

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·8h

@baptist_news This is really just an article that hates Calvinism, in that it conflates Wilson and Mohler on that distinction. One can reject Wilson (as I do) AND praise God for using Mohler in the SBC (which I do).

English

34

Baptist News Global@baptist_news·1d

"Don’t underestimate uber-Calvinist/Christian nationalist Doug Wilson. Recent Southern Baptist Convention history demonstrates how someone who seems far outside the mainstream eventually can wield exorbitant strength." bit.ly/4ecQwht

English

0

1

144

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·8h

@ReallyOldLife It is really just an article that hates Calvinism, in that it conflates Wilson and Mohler on that distinction. One can reject Wilson (as I do) AND praise God for using Mohler in the SBC (which I do).

English

19

D G Hart@ReallyOldLife·11h

maths? 16 million vs. 345 million? "In other words, if Al Mohler can become the most powerful person in the SBC, Wilson could significantly influence American politics." baptistnews.com/article/if-you…

English

0

2

175

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·8h

So good!! pulledporkperfection.com

English