Nouthetic Counseling and Discipleship Training

Brad Bigney shares a Biblical
Perspective on Worry and Fear

This weekend my pastor and I attended the third installment of NANC Counseling and Discipleship Training at Christian Family Chapel in Jacksonville, FL. Over three weekends, we received an introduction to the basics and fundamentals, and we hope to pursue more education in this area in the future. My former pastor, Brad Bigney, was one of the featured speakers. It has been wonderful to sit again before this man whom God used at a critical time in my life. Soon after I first met Brad back in 2000, my marriage fell apart and my wife and I were separated for two and a half years. We are walking miracles, now committed to our family and working hard to raise up our children in the ways of the Lord! We have received such mercy at the hands of our God, who not only forgave and accepted us, but also lives in us and transforms us by His Word. As I sat next to my current pastor, Craig Bowen, it struck me how perfectly God has provided for the care of my family under faithful servants of Christ.

The 30 hour NANC training course was amazing. Some of the other featured speakers were:

Randy Patten - Executive Director of NANC. He is a solid, hard-hitting preacher and teacher with vast counseling experience and lots of insightful lessons to share.
Stuart Scott - Associate Professor of Biblical Counseling at SBTS and Department Coordinator of Biblical Counseling at Boyce College. Dr. Scott served 10 years under John MacArthur at Grace Community Church. He is a pioneer in the art of Biblical Counseling and a man of great discernment.
Jim Newheiser - Pastor of Grace Bible Church of North San Diego County, CA and head of the Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship. He is a wise, balanced thinker.
Nicolas Ellen - Pastor of Community of Faith Bible Church in Houston, TX. He is a great speaker with energy and passion for the Truth!
Dan Gannon, MD and Pam Gannon, RN - This husband/wife team includes an orthopedic surgeon and a registered nurse who share valuable insights regarding medical issues in counseling. They are thorough and extremely helpful in their analysis of challenging topics.
Andrew Rogers - Pastor of Sunrise Community Church in Atlantic Beach, FL. He is a solid preacher and teacher with a gift for exposition and application.

A key concept shared by several of the speakers is the fact that humanity's problems revolve around two primary issues: sin and suffering. All suffering is a result of the fall, but not all suffering is the direct result of one's own sin. Often a counselor must confront sin, but sometimes he is simply called to offer comfort to an afflicted soul. The counselor is a fellow sinner and a fellow sufferer who desires to share God's grace. The goal is always to help the counselee to grow to become more like Christ, pleasing and glorifying God through the situation. NANC's overall perspective included a great deal of humility and nuance, while holding resolutely to the sufficiency of Scripture. Integrationist methods that attempt to reconcile secular psychology with Biblical theology were briefly critiqued, but the main focus was on the power and efficacy of the Word of God itself.

I have met a few people who have gotten a poor impression of nouthetic counseling. My suggestion would be to attend a NANC training course before believing any negative reports about what is taught. The things you actually hear might surprise you!

In conclusion, I highly recommend this training for any Christian who is interested in helping others and making disciples.

Needs & Neediness - Part 2

Editor's Note: this is a long and fairly technical article, mostly due to the complexity of the subject, and the logic and Biblical studies involved. I have highlighted the more edifying or devotional parts in red. For readers who are not particularly interested in all of the details, you may find it useful to skim through and read the red highlights.

Editor's Note #2: This series was written in response to a question posed by Barry Wallace at this post. Although I'm going to argue my case strongly, I still respect Barry's opinion and won't be surprised if he disagrees with me. I could be wrong. But let the reader take all of the evidence into consideration and make his or her own decision. We're working on a sub-point here, not the essentials of the Gospel or the basics of Christian orthodoxy - although those things certainly play a part in the discussion. And I have no doubt that Barry and I would be in perfect harmony regarding those matters.
Editor's Note #3: Sorry for the way this looks. There are a ton of bugs in the new blogspot text editor, and I can't get it to format correctly to save my life. I've decided to give up on the aesthetics and just post this the way it is.

In part 1, we established some of the linguistic parameters of the word "need."

1. A "need" is defined by its associated purpose. (for example, I need light in order to see)

2. We can only legitimately use the word "need" when there is a clearly defined relationship of dependency between the subject, the object, and the purpose. (for example, my eyesight depends on light, and without light it is impossible for me to see - SUBJECT: Eyesight; OBJECT: Light; PURPOSE: Seeing).

Now I will attempt to show how and why these linguistic parameters - and Scripture - make the concept of "emotional needs" an illegitimate illusion. At the same time, I am going to be very careful to affirm that we have real needs similar to those usually touted as "emotional needs." Thus, it's not surprising that so many people embrace the emotional needs model of human behavior. The aim here, however, is to apply very precise Biblical thinking to the topic.

What is an "emotional" need? 

First, let's look at how secular psychiatrists talk about emotional needs (note the purpose and dependency in these statements) . . .

. . . our emotional needs often define the finer points of our relationships. Psychologist Dennis Sugrue says we must acknowledge those emotional needs before we can find someone who can fill them. "A need for intimacy, for sexual gratification and satisfaction, a need to be honored and understood and even accepted by our partner, these are all important aspects of who we are. Each of us has our own way in which these needs must be met in order to feel happy and secure" says Sugrue , an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical School . . .  (Source: medicinenet.com)

But the happiness and security of a Christian come from God, not another person. Professor Sugrue apparently recognizes a potential problem with the psychological view and goes on to say this . . .

"If you are looking to a partner to make you feel worthwhile, to make you feel happy, to rescue you from a bored or unhappy life, if you are seeking someone to make you feel complete or whole -- well then you have some work to do, because these are needs that are never going to be met by any one other than yourself." (Source: medicinenet.com)

So, what distinguishes emotional needs that should be met by others from "work" that we must do ourselves? The professor does not elaborate on this distinction. Notice that the focus in this approach is on the assumption that one needs to feel a certain way and must depend on others to make this happen.

Now let's look at the approach taken by a Christian psychologist, Dr. Willard F. Harley, who authored the well known book, His Needs, Her Needs. Dr. Harley offers the following definition . . .

What is an emotional need? It is a craving that, when satisfied, leaves you with a feeling of happiness and contentment, and, when unsatisfied, leaves you with a feeling of unhappiness and frustration. There are probably thousands of emotional needs. A need for birthday parties, peanut butter sandwiches, Monday Night Football, I could go on and on. Some people have some of those needs while others have different needs. If you feel good doing something, or if someone does something for you that makes you feel good, an emotional need has been met. (Source: http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3300_needs.html) 

Now, that's a broad definition! Note carefully the number of Biblical references used to support this astounding claim. According to Dr. Harley, you and I are just brimming with oodles and oodles of "needs" all the time. We're slaves to our "cravings" and whatever makes us "feel good." And apparently the people who have the misfortune of being in proximity of demanding black holes of "need" like us are supposed to be fulfilling our cravings continually. 
A Few Problems . . .
-The term "emotional need" implies that in some way I depend on emotions. This is a huge problem, because reliance on emotion for anything is a road to disaster. Emotions are unstable by definition, and we must avoid every inclination to become dependent on them. Being reliable is not the job of an emotion because it is designed to be an effect rather than a cause.

-The term "emotional need" also implies that some legitimate (i.e. God-ordained and God-sanctioned) purpose can only be fulfilled after the presence of specific emotions has been established. This again is a huge problem, because it makes a legitimate purpose, for which man bears a responsibility, dependent on something that is inconstant (and often downright volatile) by definition.

We should grant, a la John Piper, that emotions play a key role in some of the commands God has given us. After all, how does one "shout for joy" without the involvement of feelings? However, we must not think the source of these Biblically mandated emotions is outside of God and His Word. Nor are these commands to be interpreted as beginning with emotion. Nor may we ever say that God commands us to make another person feel a certain way; rather, we are commanded to choose, think and do things which will inevitably result in particular emotions becoming increasingly present in us. As a specific focus for this article, we will show that obedience to marriage-related commands is never in any way dependent on emotions.

Note: we are not minimizing the significance of feelings. Rather, we are attempting to view them in their proper Biblical role, as intended by their Creator - nothing more, nothing less.

What's the Purpose?

It has been said that a man must love his wife because this is her greatest emotional need. As a corollary, it has been said that a woman must respect her husband because this will meet his greatest emotional need. Let's examine these claims carefully.

If I have a legitimate need for respect from my wife, what is the related purpose, and is it true that this purpose cannot be fulfilled in any other way than by a feeling that she is respecting me? In other words, what is the purpose of marriage, and how is it fulfilled? Clearly, the primary purpose of Christian marriage is to illustrate the Gospel, the story of Christ's love for His Church. For this purpose to be fulfilled, there must be several things: one man and one woman, for starters. There must also be love. And there must be respect. No problems there. But there must also be some disrespect, and there must sometimes be a lack of love. I'm sure I've just shattered someone's dream. Sorry, but it's true. I'll try to explain . . .

Does my wife's occasional (or extended) disrespect nullify the ability of my marriage to reflect Christ's love for His Church? Certainly not. Rather, it makes the picture that much more real, and it provides me with an opportunity to express an even greater love than I ever could if my "emotional need" for respect was continually and perfectly being filled. Christ died for a Church that had NO RESPECT for Him, and rather chose to kill Him. That is ultimate disrespect, and yet it is an essential element of the Gospel story. Christ died for sinners, evildoers and wretches. And if we didn't continue to struggle with sin after conversion, we would surely swell up with something even worse: Gospel-shrouding pride and cross-stifling self-righteousness!

Does my occasional (or extended) failure to effectively show love for my wife nullify the ability of my marriage to reflect the Church's high view of Christ? Certainly not. Rather, it makes the picture that much more real - not because Christ fails in any way to love the Church, but because the Church so often doubts her Lord's love for her. My very real lack of love for my wife elicits in her the same opportunity for faith and obedience that is produced in the Church whenever she feels that Christ's love for her is inadequate (though this feeling is unwarranted). Under suffering and strain, believers become fearful, and we sometimes lose sight of the imperishable love that undergirds us. But faith continues on through these times, through the dark night of the soul and on into the renewed brightness of morning. Eventually we rediscover the undying love that was always there. Likewise, a wife finds great blessing in Christ as she perseveres under the sufferings wrought by a hard-headed and hard-hearted husband (to be clear, I am not speaking here of abuse, but unfulfilled desires).

So, rather than diminishing the Gospel picture that is portrayed through Christian marriage, failures in love and respect become occasions for the Gospel to shine that much brighter! The trouble with the "emotional needs" teaching is that it implies I must feel Christ's love in order for the Gospel's purpose to be fulfilled in my life. It implies that He must feel my respect in order for the Gospel's purpose to be fulfilled through Him. And I am woefully incapable of producing those feelings in Him!

I am grateful that Christ loves me faithfully even when I fail to respect Him. I am grateful for the times I have continued to trust Him, even though I didn't feel His love. I am also grateful for the times I have been able to love my wife in spite of her struggles with submission. And I am exceedingly grateful for the Gospel's work in her, enabling her to respect me even when I have fallen terribly short of the mark in my love for her.

There is a very legitimate and real need for love and respect, in order for the Gospel picture to be portrayed in marriage, and there is also a legitimate need for their opposites. Without failure there can be no illustration of grace, forgiveness, and growth. The positive side of this equation is provided by God Himself, and the negative side - the failure - is supplied by us. Taken together, all of this paints the very best picture of the Gospel. None of this has anything at all to do with the emotions produced in one spouse by the conduct of the other. In fact, it is precisely at the times when I don't feel respected by my wife that I am most tempted to sin against her - and it is precisely at these times that my demonstrated love for her, springing from a reliance on God's grace and not from a dependence on my emotions, is most powerfully portraying the Gospel. In short, the ability of my marriage to illustrate the Gospel depends more on God's grace than it does on my emotions. In fact, with God's grace in view, my emotions become quite irrelevant to the purpose of marriage.

Emotional needs are neither legitimate nor real. They simply do not exist, because there is nothing Biblically essential that depends on the feelings generated by my response to another person's actions. Scripture calls me to obediently love my wife, with or without a feeling of respect from her. It calls her to respect me, with or without the feeling that I love her. This is why Ephesians 5 contains marital instruction in the form of commands, and not a single mention of emotions or feelings. 

With all of this in mind, let's consider this text, which might be considered definitive on the topic of needs:

II Peter 1:1-4 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust (Gk. EPITHUMIA - more on this word later).

The clear implication is that there is no legitimate purpose pertaining to life and godliness for which the ultimate dependence is on anything other than God and His Word. Relating this to our discussion, the respect of my wife is a product of God's work in her through the Gospel, and my love for her is also produced by His love for me.  A Biblical marriage is one in which both partners are drawing strength and comfort directly from God, and then sharing the benefits of that relationship with one another. Union with God is primary, marital union is secondary. The alternative is idolatry. 
There is no problem with saying, "A Christian marriage cannot fulfill its primary purpose without love from the husband and respect from the wife." God's marriage plan involves many legitimate needs and purposes. The husband is needed. The wife is needed. The Gospel is needed. Love is needed. Respect is needed. The fact that these components are needed is Biblically true and undeniable, and there are purposes and dependencies tied to each of them. But to call any of these components an "emotional need" is another thing entirely. Emotions aren't needs and needs aren't emotions.

Biblical sanctification is intended to change our basis of decision-making from an emotionally-oriented pattern to a command-and-promise-oriented path. It is designed to lead us away from a focus on what other people aren't doing for us, and toward a discovery of what we can and should do for them (in response to what He has done for us). Indeed, a lifestyle in which we "take up our cross daily" assures us that we will suffer. When I stop depending on my wife's respect - and the wonderful feelings I have when I am basking in the glow of it - I get the privilege of dying to self and finding a new life in Christ. This is the life of divine power and grace that is sustained by heaven's authority and is free from the uncertainties of earth-life. I must not demand that my wife fill me up with good emotions, for she is as undependable as I am. Relying on God means there is abundant supply and nothing essential is missing, ever. I have to die to my idolatrous dependence on her, and live in full dependence on Him. If the feeling that my wife respects me is not an "emotional need," what is it? The last word from the passage quoted above is not there by accident. That which corrupts the world also corrupts man's understanding of psychology - and it corrupts good marriages, too.

Distinguishing Needs from Desires

Bear in mind that Dr. Willard F. Harley defined emotional needs as "cravings." This is the perfect word for what we falsely call "emotional needs." a "need" and a "craving" are two entirely different things. Anything I need in order to create a feeling is nothing more than a craving! There is a huge difference between a legitimate spiritual or physical need and the mere "craving" of a sinful heart.

Let's compare the two:

Needs are a matter of fact. Desires are a matter of will.

Needs are objective. Desires are subjective.

Needs are fixed by purpose. Desires are subject to change by the whims of the human heart.

Knowing the difference between the two is essential, but certain universal sinful tendencies lead us to confuse them.

Idolatrous desire/lust/coveting (a.k.a. craving) leads us to think of mere desires as needs. For example: "I need a cigarette."

Self-sufficient Pride leads us to think of actual needs as mere desires. For example: "I don't need God!"

For believers, legitimate "needs" are of no great concern, for we have a Great Father who cares for us with great affection. Consider our Lord's reassurances in this regard . . .

Matthew 6:8 ". . . your Father knows what you need before you ask Him."

Matthew 6:31-32 "Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear for clothing?' For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things."

On the other hand, dealing with our "desires" or "lusts" (a.k.a. cravings) is a key theme related to Christian growth in the New Testament. Consider these examples . . .

Mark 4:19 . . . but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires (Gk. EPITHUMIA) for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts (Gk. EPITHUMIA)

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting (Gk. EPITHUMIA) of every kind . . .

Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts (Gk. EPITHUMIA).

Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gk. EPITHUMIA).

2 Timothy 2:22 Now flee from youthful lusts (Gk. EPITHUMIA) and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires (Gk. EPITHUMIA) . . .

It is significant that the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) uses the word EPITHUMEO for "coveting" in the 10th commandment (cf. Romans 7:7). EPITHUMEO is the common Greek verb for "to lust" (i.e., have strong desire for something, not necessarily sexual). EPITHUMIA is the equivalent noun.

Addressing an Objection

A significant objection to the view presented here is this: if man is made up of physical, spiritual, and emotional components, and there are clearly defined and Biblically legitimate physical and spiritual needs, doesn't it follow that there can be (yea, should be) emotional needs as well? While this objection sounds entirely plausible, it is grounded in a mistaken view of the psyche and therefore draws a false conclusion.

The word "psyche" comes from the Greek word PSUCHE, which means "soul." Psychologists are students of the soul, and are therefore dealing in an area of concern directly addressed by the Bible. They typically disagree with God's Word and are therefore flat wrong. But let's examine Scripture's view of the PSUCHE, or the "psychology" found in Scripture. 

Biblically, man is divided into two parts: material/physical and immaterial/invisible. The material/physical part is called the "body," while the immaterial/invisible part is called "soul" and/or "spirit." Some like to divide these into body and soul/spirit (two parts - known as the dichotomist view), while others are inclined to divide them into body, soul, and spirit (three parts - the trichotomist view). There are also other views, but our purpose is not to address these hair-splitting questions, for only the Word of God is a razor sharp enough to divide between soul and spirit. Perhaps there is a paradox in this.

Generally speaking, Scripture refers to the inner man, the immaterial/invisible part, as the "soul." When we speak of spiritual needs, we are talking about the needs of the inner man, the soul (or the soul/spirit, if you will). The inner man contains the three aspects of personality: mind, emotion, and will. The mind perceives, the will decides, and the emotions respond. To whatever degree there are legitimate, Biblical needs associated with these, they fall under the banner of spiritual needs, and they are all meant to be fulfilled by God Himself. Seeking another source is the essence of idolatry, and this is typically the path that is followed in the "emotional needs" paradigm offered by modern psychologists and Christians who adhere to their ideology.
Emotions are indicators of our thought processes and circumstances. They are the thermometer of our heart, as it were, while our minds and wills are the thermostat. In this analogy, our circumstances can be compared to the weather, and our hearts to a very inefficient HVAC system. Our minds and wills can be perfectly sound, but our emotions drag along, responding to yesterday's events or last week's pressures, or last year's life-altering event. Our minds and wills could be in outright rebellion to God's command, but our emotions might not figure it out and begin processing the facts until tomorrow. Or we may merely think of doing right or wrong, and find our feelings pulling us powerfully toward acting on those thoughts. But no matter how you slice it, emotions aren't needs and needs aren't emotions. Our need is not so much to experience particular emotions, as it is to pay attention and understand the effects they have upon us, and then to crucify the depraved desires which would lead us to idolize emotional experiences. As powerful as these emotions and desires are, the mercy of God is our only hope in this. So, rather than preach about emotional needs, preachers ought to feed us with the Gospel and lead us more and more to Christ as our ultimate and eternal Source of everything.

NOTE: If you read this entire article, give yourself a pat on the back and some much-needed (oops! I mean rightfully-desired) rest.

Needs & Neediness - Part 1

Editor's Note: I suppose the recent post on "Hogwash, Bad Hermeneutics and Psychology" was provocative. This article will go a little further in explaining exactly what might be wrong with an "emotional needs" approach to marriage, relationships, and life in general. This is a more or less formal response to a good question asked by Barry Wallace in response to the earlier post.

Affirming Neediness

Neediness, in-and-of-itself, is not a bad thing. God made us needy. He made us to need, more than anything else, HIMSELF. This was true even for Adam before the fall, when he enjoyed the blessedly pure life of innocence. God had made him naturally dependent on God, and the entrance of sin only proved that dependence. This has caused all sorts of problems for us, because when we reject God we start stuffing all sorts of other things into the big empty void of neediness that was designed for Him to occupy. He made that spot for Himself, but we've filled it with everything good and bad that isn't God. It's called idolatry, spiritual adultery, and (more generally) sin. Grace found in repentance is the wonderful path back out of this accursed situation, and grace is especially reserved for the needy. It is offered to the poor in spirit, those who break under the weight of sin, and those who come to God in abject defeat and total surrender. It's for the lowly and it's for the broken-hearted and it's for the needy. This kind of neediness is explicitly called "blessed." (Matthew 5:3-6). Interestingly, the words "hunger and thirst for righteousness" in Matthew 5:6 are an expression of want-and-need in perfect harmony. We're blessed when we finally begin to want what we need.

So, neediness is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a very good thing. God made us needy so that we would be continually drawn to Him. This is effectively illustrated by the way our children are born in utter helplessness. What a magnificent bond is formed as a baby learns to receive EVERYTHING from its parents. It's part of the reason why we must be born again, and why we are instructed to become like little children.

Defining Neediness

The idea of "need" is built on two related concepts: dependency and purpose. In other words, for anything to be a "need," it has to be something on which the needy one depends, and it has to have some legitimate purpose tied to it. Neediness implies a relationship of dependence and a purpose to be fulfilled. The legitimacy of the need is determined by the legitimacy of the purpose and by a clearly defined relationship of dependence.

Some things are needs by definition, but are not tied to a legitimate purpose. For example, I need alcoholic beverages in order to get intoxicated - but that doesn't make alcohol one of my legitimate needs. I would have to need to get drunk for that to be the case. Often a need is merely assumed, but the legitimizing factor (an established relationship of exclusive dependence) is missing. For example, I think I need my job in order to make ends meet, but in actuality it's money that I need (and if we take it a step further, it's not even money I need, but the food and shelter and other things I buy with the money). I think I need a car in order to get to work, but that's not true - I only need a means of transportation (it could be a bus, a bicycle, or even my two feet). Let's consider a few more examples of apparent needs for the sake of discussion . . .

• My wife needs food and water in order to live.
• My guitar needs strings in order to make resonant music.
• My car needs oil in order to operate properly.
• My friends need my encouragement in order to fight sin.
• My cell phone needs a battery charger in order to operate continuously over time.
• My driveway needs to be swept in order to look nice.
• My mind needs a steady dose of Scripture in order to maintain Biblical thinking.

To qualify as a genuine need, the subjective purpose has to be truly dependent on the object.

• My wife can't live without food and water (at least not for very long).
• My guitar can't make resonant music without strings (at least not in any way I can conceive. It does make a fairly good sounding drum, though).
• My car can't operate properly without oil (although someone may be able to suggest an alternative to oil that works just as well).
• My friends can't fight sin without encouragement (but they can get this encouragement from many different places, not just from me).
• My cell phone can't operate continuously over time without a battery charger (and a battery, and a reliable source of energy, and a person to plug it in - needy little device, eh?).
• My driveway can't look nice (in my opinion) without being swept (although there might be an alternative option - what about spraying it down with water?).
• My mind can't maintain Biblical thinking without a steady dose of Scripture (although the dose can come from many different sources: reading, listening to the Bible, sermons, reciting from memory, a friend's encouragement, emails, even blogs).

As you can see from this list, defining actual needs can be tricky and complicated. Often, we imagine needs where they don't exist, and it requires a logical process of deduction to drill down to the actual dependence and purpose involved. Who ultimately determines whether my driveway needs to be swept? Who decides that it looks nicer that way? What are the consequences of not sweeping a driveway? It isn't going to crumble to pieces because there are a few leaves on it. Ultimately, I determine the driveway needs to be swept because I want it swept. This one is purely a matter of compulsion driven by opinion (that's another way of saying desire), and there's no real need here at all. Maybe I just "need" to be less picky about the appearance of my property.

On the other hand, my wife's need for food and water is undeniable. She can't live without these basic essentials. Our central and most defining need is equally clear and unquestionable: GOD.

Man's need for God is radical. We depend on Him for our very existence. We depend on Him for everything related to our existence. Apart from Him we can neither exist nor exist well. And it's not actually what God provides that we need the most - it's God Himself. This truth is foundational.

Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

In part 2, we will examine the differences between needs and desires, explore the way purposeful dependence relates to our emotions, and we will attempt to further define God's appointed means for the meeting of our various legitimate needs.

Hogwash, Bad Hermeneutics and Psychology (with a bit of poison in the Kool Aid as an added bonus)

Here's a pop quiz for the Bible scholars in our audience:

Identify where this verse talks about your emotional needs . . .

Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

What's wrong? Couldn't do it? You may just need to be less theologically strict in your interpretive methods.

The pastor of a Southern Baptist church in my area can help you. Attendance at his church is around 5,500. In a recent sermon titled "What a Man Needs", this pastor stated the following:

"God has wired a man in such a way that his greatest emotional need is respect."

The preacher builds his thesis on the following logic:

P1 God's primary command to a wife is to respect her husband.

P2 God's primary command to a husband is to love his wife.

C Therefore, a wife's primary emotional need is love. and a husband's primary emotional need is respect.

The implied reasoning: we can define a person's emotional needs by the commands God gives to others.

This sounds sensible enough in our cozy, americanized, pop-psychology-influenced church culture. But there might be a few problems to consider before we drink too much of the Kool Aid . . .

This type of thinking is drawn directly from the "Hierarchy of Human Needs" developed by atheist/humanist Abraham Maslow. This hierarchy is a primary resource that is used extensively by psychologists - including many who call themselves Christians and market their books to the Church.

I'm curious, what exactly is an "emotional need?" Aren't emotions a response of the body-and-mind to internal and external circumstances? Do I need to feel a particular way? What do my emotions have to do with a command from God to my wife?

I'm not saying emotions aren't powerful and important (they certainly are), but I question the very idea that "needs" can be attached to them. Our feelings can't be directly controlled by us, but they can be influenced and eventually changed by our thinking, and by our circumstances (whether relational or incidental). God's commands are meant to teach us how to think and what to do. They're not meant to ascribe needs to our fluctuating emotions.

So what is meant by the idea that I have an "emotional need" for respect that can only be met if my wife behaves a certain way? Does it mean I lack something essential simply because my circumstances aren't ideal? What happened to the teaching that Christ is the One who meets my needs? Why is the burden of my emotional stability placed on my wife's shoulders? Why is she manipulated into obedience by my ever-changing feelings? And where does God say marriage is about meeting each others' emotional needs? I thought it was a picture of Christ and the Church? What need does He have for my respect? Isn't it my role to glorify Him by my obedience and service, without regard to my feelings at any given moment?

Ephesians 5 contains many straightforward commands, but no list or description of anyone's needs. These needs exist only in the mind of the preacher. It's the same kind of self-focused, reverse-logic hermeneutic that drives a preacher who should know better to say, "the command to love your neighbor as yourself means you can't love others until you love yourself." In this way Christ's clear command, "love your neighbor," is turned on its head and made into a murky admonition to "love yourself." May God have mercy on us, and forgive us for sending people on a futile quest for more self-love. It's like looking for water in an ocean. God is calling out to us, saying, "Come up on shore, come out of that briny, turbulent sea of self-love, and draw freely from my refreshing artesian wells. Then share my water with others. Sure, you're going to smell like salt for awhile, and you may even find yourself body surfing in that unsatisfying sea water. But once you've tasted fresh water you'll know the difference and you'll long for what satisfies your thirst. You'll become more like Me and learn to delight in serving others rather than yourself." Meanwhile, culturally blinded pastors are pushing their flocks further out to sea, with promises of fulfillment for those who dive deeper into the illustrious love of self.

There's nothing inherently wrong with emotions. There's nothing inherently wrong with desiring respect or love from others. There's nothing at all wrong with the the kind of self-love that causes one to turn away from evil. But there is something very wrong with twisting the commandments of God into psycho-babble and failing to declare the truth as it is found in the text. There is something desperately wrong when church leaders validate the idolization of desires, the deification of feelings, the shifty blame game of invented emotional "needs" and the manipulation of a spouse through this world's hollow and deceptive philosophy. The Word of God should not be turned into humanistic drivel.

We're all loaded with emotional desires - this is what drives most of my struggles with sin, I think. I want something to happen, I want to be treated a certain

way, I want to have a feeling of significance and pride, I want to be appreciated and esteemed by others - and I'm willing to go against God's directives to get these things. To call these desires "needs" is both dangerous and unbiblical. Normal human desires very quickly turn into idolized demands, and this doesn't qualify them as needs. It makes them SINFUL God-replacements.

Recently, I've had numerous discussions with various people about nouthetic counseling and psychology. Nouthetic counseling isn't perfect. But in my experience, pastors who are influenced by the nouthetic approach don't fall for all of this psychologized Scripture twisting. They teach the commands and promises of God, not the self-focused idolatry of made-up "needs."

I'd suggest the following alternative to eisegetically reading emotional needs into the text.

P1 God's primary command to a wife is to respect her husband.

P2 God's primary command to a husband is to love his wife.

C Therefore, the best way to glorify God in the role of a husband is to love your wife; and the best way to glorify God in the role of a wife is to respect your husband.

After all, this is why we're here, isn't it?

A nice byproduct of glorifying God in this way is . . . your spouse will probably be more emotionally healthy and satisfied in the relationship. Both of you will enjoy marriage more. But let's not ever make this the focal point. Let's keep the focus right where God has it: ON HIS GLORY.

I must love my wife as Christ loved the church - without regard to her respect for me or my feelings about her behavior - because this glorifies God. I must do this out of love for God, and love for her, and in response to His love, and not for my own selfish ends. Isn't this the kind of love that moved Christ to the cross?