Questions at the Crossroads: The Care of Souls & Modern Psychotherapies – David Powlison

Introduction

David Powlison’s essay critically examines the intersection of modern psychotherapy and the biblical care of souls, primarily highlighting two positions: COMPIN (Comprehensive Internal biblical sufficiency) and VITEX (Vital External secular contribution). Powlison urges the church to reclaim its central role in soul care, advocating a sufficiency-focused, Scripture-rooted approach while acknowledging the informed use of secular insights.

Affirmation: The Sufficiency of Scripture & Core Theological Priority

Powlison’s approach lies in upholding the sufficiency of Scripture for understanding human nature and directing change. First he says to build a biblical model; second critique secular models; third, learn from them. The Bible provides exhaustive grounding in human sin, suffering, renewal, and ultimate transformation via Christ. Care grounded in Scripture taps into divine authority, a resource secular models cannot access. Powlison warns against “sectoring” spiritual versus psychological issues. Everything about human beings is theological because Scripture portrays the psyche as intricately tied to sin and redemption. This integrated view restores the counselor’s role, emphasizing true holistic care.

Caution: Overreliance vs. Uncritical Importation

Another vital insight is Powlison’s critique of uncritical integration (VITEX) that allows secular models to drive the counseling paradigm, merely adding superficial spiritual layers. This warns Christian counselors against adopting a psychotherapeutic structure first and then bolting on biblical content. Indeed, counsel rooted in Scripture is compromised when secular worldviews redefine identity or pathology before turning to the Bible. The primary lens for understanding needs, motivations, and change must be based in Scripture. Secular theories should be filtered through a “biblical grid,” evaluated, and appropriated only insofar as they resonate with theology.

Affirmation & Tension: Learning from Secular Psychology

Powlison encourages counselors to study secular psychological theories to be informed, not ignorant. This resonates deeply; knowing language like “attachment theory,” “habit loops,” or “anxiety triggers” helps me to meet people wherever they are. A client describing panic attacks or faulty self-talk is best helped by someone who can bridge their experience to biblical truths. Psychological tools can enhance empathy, pastoral insight, and application; however, Powlison carefully frames this tertiary use as useful, but subordinate. Secular models can clarify issues, destigmatize spiritual struggles, or offer analogies, but they should never determine the ultimate remedy. The gospel; Christ’s cross, repentance, and Spirit transformation must remain central.

Pastoral Implications: Incorporating Psychological Tools with Wisdom

We must assess secular tools biblically. Breathing exercises or CBT techniques may calm, but primary spiritual care must follow: confession, gospel truth, Spirit-filled practices. We can also use secular language when helpful; terms like “fight‑or‑flight” or “cognitive distortions”, but always redirect to gospel realities: “Let us come boldly…” (Heb. 4:16). As counselors we should avoid dependency on secular paradigms. Tools are aids, not replacements for the Scriptures. The Bible must not just supplement therapy; it must drive it. Spiritual Counselors should be theologically grounded and able to converse in both biblical and psychological vocabularies, guiding souls toward Christ, not merely symptom relief.

Disagreement: Tension over Practice in Severe Cases

One area of tension arises in severe mental health contexts. Powlison’s COMPIN acknowledges secular insights but warns against overreliance. While Spiritual counselors are primary soul caregivers, situations involving organic or biochemical issues—e.g., bipolar disorder, PTSD with physiological triggers, may require medical assessment alongside spiritual care. I affirm Scripture’s sufficiency for spiritual transformation, but also believe God provides through medical and psychological science. Counsel that refuses outside referral could become harmful; therefore, a wise pastoral caregiver recognizes limits and encourages collaboration between medical professionals, community, and the church—while maintaining spiritual oversight.

Conclusion

Powlison’s essay is a clarion call for biblical theology to reign in soul care. I affirm his hierarchy: Scripture first, critique second, secular learning third. I agree strongly that psychological tools can aid empirical understanding and communication, but must remain under Scriptural authority. From a pastoral perspective, being psychology-informed enhances ministry relevance, but never replaces Spirit-worked transformation through the gospel. Where I diverge slightly is the application in more complex mental health situations: counselors should respond with theological integrity while embracing the broader resources God has given medical, and psychological communities; so long as the foundational gospel message remains central. In sum, Powlison provides a necessary theological anchor, a needed corrective to secular drift, and a balanced invitation to informed discernment in pastoral care.

Ze Selassie

zelovesbible.blogspot.com

zeselassie.blog

http://www.linkedin.com