Dale Johnson: This week on the podcast, I have with me Marshall Adkins. He serves as assistant professor of biblical counseling at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, and he’s also a certified counselor with ACBC. He’s married to Rachel, and they have three children. Marshall, it’s good to have you back, brother, on the podcast to talk about the subject of civic righteousness in the context of counseling and how we think about that. So, welcome to the podcast.
Marshall Adkins: Thanks, Dale. It’s great to be on.
Dale Johnson: Marshall, one of the things I think would be helpful for us to acknowledge—and I say this all the time in my teaching when I’m talking about those who do integrated practice—you don’t come into counseling or have an interest in counseling and try to help people because you hate them, right? You don’t move into a work like this, where you’re going to hear people’s problems because you think you’re going to manipulate them, or you’re going to harm them. That’s never the goal. Tell me how you think about that, because as we talked about this subject and obviously, it will become a critique of how we think about others that we might disagree with. We’re not saying that what they’re doing is intentionally moving in a direction of harm. So just give your thoughts about that idea.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah, I think that’s really important. You know, when we’re talking about Christian integrationists, Christian psychologists, or those who claim to be local counselors that would disagree with the way I’m presenting these things today, I think it’s important to acknowledge that these are our brothers and sisters, who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And that we agree on a lot more than we disagree about. But these are still important issues, so we never want to undermine that we’re talking about brothers and sisters, who we have no reason to believe that they don’t love Jesus and really want to help people. And then, having said that, having stated that we don’t doubt their love for Christ, we don’t doubt their sincerity toward wanting to help people, and care for people well, then we can move on to have more substantive conversations about the areas that we’re disagreeing about.
Dale Johnson: Now, this week, I want us to focus on this concept that’s been thrown around about civic righteousness and how we’re to think about civic righteousness as it relates to counseling, biblical counseling in particular. And so, I want to start by giving a definition, as is our custom, in what civic righteousness is. Then I want us to also think about that in the context of biblical counseling. So, let’s start with a definition and go from there.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah. When we think about civic righteousness, we’re thinking about the relative good that unbelievers can do. So, you know, of course, we understand that Scripture teaches that unbelieving man, apart from Jesus Christ, is totally depraved. And at the same time, we recognize that unbelievers are able to be good neighbors, they’re able to be good co-workers, and there’s a relative good that an unbeliever is able to do. So, how do we make sense of that? How do we account for that? And then what do we call that? And so oftentimes, when you’re identifying that relative good that unbelievers are capable of doing, you’re thinking about the category of civic righteousness. And you know if you think about it in Scripture, in Luke 6, Jesus talks about the idea that unbelievers can love, they can do good, they can lend. So, Jesus is acknowledging that there is a relative good that the unbeliever can do even in their depravity apart from saving faith.
Dale Johnson: Yeah, Isaiah even talks about righteousness that unbelievers do. Now, we’re not talking about how that’s accounted before God, right? But there is an acknowledgement, for example, like Jesus describes here in the passage you mentioned in Luke chapter 6. He’s commending or even acknowledging that unbelievers have the ability to love those who love them back. He sang a distinction for we who believe and follow after Him. We’re able to love even our enemies, those who don’t love us back. We’re able to give even to those who we should expect nothing in return from. So, he’s distinguishing this idea; he’s acknowledging there’s a righteousness, even in Matthew 20:5, where Jesus is acknowledging the righteousness of the Pharisees. He says, if your righteousness does not exceed that of the Sadducees and Pharisees, you will all likewise perish. He’s acknowledging that there is some semblance of righteousness. There’s the appearance of that, which is good. Jesus describes this as washing the outside of the cup. So, Jesus is not denying the idea that, you know, there are people who are doing things that have an appearance of good. And from man’s perspective, man looks at the outward appearance from man’s perspective. Jesus is acknowledging, okay that’s true. But we have to always understand this from God’s perspective. The conclusion, as I mentioned, from Isaiah is that man’s righteousness is like filthy rags, the Bible says. Jesus is contrasting here in Luke chapter 6, it says the love that I’m talking about is different because the type of love I’m describing is approved by God. God doesn’t approve the love of the unbeliever, even though they love other people that love them back. So, He’s making a distinction here.
Marshall Adkins: That’s right, and you know, it takes us back to the difference between saving grace and common grace. So, it’s only a result of God’s restraining grace that the unbeliever isn’t as evil in practice as they possibly could be. God restrains the full outworking of sin in the world through common grace, but that is not regenerating. It’s not renewing the heart. It’s not enabling them to do works that are pleasing to the Lord. That’s the saving grace, when we are regenerated. In Ephesians 2, when we are granted new spiritual life, then we are able to perform these good works that contribute nothing to our justification. Our justification is on the basis of the merits of Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And having been justified by faith, having been united to Christ by faith, then the believer is able by the power of the Spirit to do good works in obedience to the Word of God, empowered by the spirit, that glorify God. Contrast that with the relative good that unbelievers do, and maybe one of the things that we could look at here that would expand on this a bit more is the way the Westminster Confession of Faith articulates this in chapter 16. Chapter 16 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is of good works, and here is what the Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands and of good use both to themselves and others, yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the Word nor to a right end of the glory of God, they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God and yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.” Again, that’s from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Just notice the way the confession is describing this here: there are works done by unbelievers that have an external conformity to God’s commands. There’s an external conformity to the biblical command, and these works can even be of good use both to themselves and others. There can be horizontal again relative good, relative value to what they’re doing, yet the confession says these are sinful and cannot please God. Why is that? Well because, as you already mentioned and articulated, it’s because these works are not proceeding from a heart that’s purified by faith. Secondly, they’re not done according to the Word, in a manner that is according to the standard of God’s Word. And finally, they’re not done to the right end, that is, to the glory of God. So, there is no neutrality. Even the relative good of the unbeliever is counted before God as sinful and displeasing to Him because it’s not done from a heart that is regenerate. It’s not done according to the standard of God’s Word. It’s not done to the goal of glorifying God. Now, the confession goes on to say that while these works can contribute nothing to our justification, the neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God, according to the confession. So, we can acknowledge there is horizontal value in the relative good that unbelievers do, and I’m sure this is where we’re going. This is something that’s become really important in counseling conversations.
Dale Johnson: Yeah, that’s exactly where I want to go because some people are listening up to this point, and they’re thinking, “Man, I’m not sure how this even relates to counseling, and I don’t think I disagree with anything that you just said. It sounds like you’re representing what the Bible expresses. You’re demonstrating that confessions have agreed with this in the past.” So, talk a little bit about how this topic of civic righteousness has come up related to this practice of biblical counseling and even the goals of biblical counseling.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah, it’s a really important conversation. I have talked to integrationists before, and we’ve talked about their therapeutic practice. And sometimes what I’ve had articulated to me, is that a Christian counselor is in a clinical setting, using tools from secular psychology to bring about civic righteousness. And maybe the way that you could articulate this is that it’s thinking about counseling in a clinical context using what they would call common grace resources. Which I think is a problematic use of common grace—a problematic understanding and application of common grace. But they’re in a clinical context, they’re using what they’re calling common grace resources to aim at the goal of civic righteousness. Now, this scenario emerges—maybe because they’re in a context where they can’t talk about the gospel, or it’s in a context where the counselee has rejected the gospel. And then the counseling moves toward, instead of it being a ministry of the Word, it is now using the resources of some sort of psychotherapy framework to bring about some sort of civic righteousness in the unbeliever. And that becomes the trajectory of counseling. And I think that’s problematic for a lot of reasons.
Dale Johnson: Think about that in relation to biblical counseling. So, this idea of the goal of biblical counseling—that would be, as you articulated, that’s in the camp of integrationism. And it’s clearly in the camp of integrationism because biblical counseling states a different purpose, a different goal, the primary aim being sanctification. If what we’re pursuing as an extension of the church is the ministry of the Word, that we’re aiming at what God would produce, to give God’s counsel. Which means we’re giving God’s counsel in what He approves as being good, in which we have to deal not just with the outward man but the inward man, the heart. But we can’t be satisfied just simply by helping someone pursue outward righteousness. Because if we’re giving counsel that we believe is from God, God’s counsel from His Word, a ministry of the Word, and we’re pursuing sanctification. These goals actually are on a collision course. What we would say is that to promote—not just acknowledge that, yes, there is civic righteousness out there, but now to promote civic righteousness as a proper goal, rather than sanctification—is actually something that we’re encouraging someone to clothe themselves in a righteousness other than Christ. And that could further harden the hearts of an individual in relation to God, thinking themselves as okay. So, that’s how we would distinguish in this case, as you mentioned, speaking to Integrationists in the past. You see this distinction, so talk a little bit more about the distinction of the goals and the purposes of biblical counseling and how the promotion of civic righteousness might be problematic.
Marshall Adkins: I think that’s what’s sort of new, at least new to me, is that recently integrationists have talked this way up until now. What’s new today is that there’s some who would want to call themselves redemptive counselors or clinically informed biblical counselors, who are making arguments that counseling can ensue in this way. Where if the gospel cannot be proclaimed, then we can begin to pursue civic righteousness. I think they would carefully want to assimilate techniques from other counseling theories and then use those techniques with this unbeliever to bring about civic righteousness. And what you’re saying is that abandoning the way biblical counselors have, from Scripture, thought about the goal of counseling. The goal of counseling is evangelism and discipleship. So sometimes we talk about, you know, like pre-counseling evangelism; if you’re meeting with an unbeliever, your aim is evangelism. To proclaim Christ to them, to use the presentation problem as an occasion to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. And so, you know, the goal is evangelism and discipleship. So, conversion and sanctification, all to the glory of God. If you’re making civic righteousness the goal of counseling, that’s doing something very different than biblical counselors have done. And then thinking about methodology, counseling according to Scripture is Spirit-empowered, gospel-centered, conversational ministry and this is doing something different than that. This is borrowing techniques from other therapeutic frameworks to aim at some other goal than God’s goal of sanctification for His glory. So, I think that it’s problematic for those reasons. One other thing that I would raise here that has been concerning to me is the way the person and the work of the Holy Spirit. The way the Holy Spirit is introduced as having an operation in these clinical contexts apart from the proclamation of the gospel, apart from the ministry of the Word. And when I’m looking at like John 16, the Holy Spirit’s coming to glorify Jesus and to convict the world of sin and righteousness. Where in this clinical context, this ministry of common grace, as some would articulate it within a goal of civic righteousness, it seems as though they are saying that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit to cultivate civic righteousness in the unbeliever. And you know, Paul said that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God, and he’s proclaiming Christ in the strength that God supplies for the conformity of Jesus Christ for those that he’s ministering to be conformed to Christ’s Image. So again, I go back to the fact that counseling is a Word-based ministry. It’s centered on the gospel; it’s done in the power of the Spirit, and its goal was always conformity to Jesus Christ.
Dale Johnson: So, no matter how we sort of lay this out, it could be a couple of different issues, and I want to get some more into the techniques and methods that we’re describing here. But before we go there, I want to think a little bit about if we still say that our aim of counseling is sanctification, but we’re promoting civic righteousness as a means. Then that’s a different goal altogether, okay? And so then second, if we say you know our aim is still sanctification, but we’re going to use common grace insights to accomplish this. Then we’re saying that God is accomplishing sanctification by some other means than the Word and the power of the Spirit. And so we have to be cautious and careful. I think it’s very important that we distinguish, what is the work of the Holy Spirit? You mentioned in John 16 and John 15:26 that one of His primary roles is to testify of Christ. And so, His work is a constant in man testifying of Christ. He’s using this sword of the Spirit to testify and then conform individuals to Christ. And so, this is an important distinction when we talk in biblical counseling: that the Word is necessary. That Jesus is necessary. That the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary. We even go so far as to say the most important person in the counseling room is the Holy Spirit. But we have to understand that if we’re promoting His work and His change in the counseling room, then we have to use His tool, which is the sword of the Spirit. And so, what we’re starting to see is some distinction that there are others who think that there are worthy goals in the counseling room. We just have to come back to the reality that biblical counseling is based upon a function of the church to wield the Word and minister the Word to those who are broken and hurting, to shepherd people the way that Christ came to shepherd people—which is to mend the broken-hearted. We believe fully that it’s the Word of God, and the power of the Spirit that accomplishes that work and that the primary goal to accomplish that is sanctification. That remains true for us when we describe to find and talk about biblical counseling, and what that means is I can appreciate civic righteousness in someone or a social good in someone. But how can I be content? Because God is not content with that in a person, right? The way He sees them, as He would still declare them as being before Him, as unrighteous. So, in my conscience, as I’m working with a person, I know there’s more that’s in disrepair with them. And so, I want them to see themselves as God sees them, and it’s hard for me to cease that process until I think we come to a place like that. To me, that’s becoming faithful and that’s most loving, kind, and caring because I want them to see themselves in reality, which is to see themselves in relation to God. And so, I want to move into maybe talking a little bit more about some of the techniques and methods. So, what about using some counseling techniques and methods. Sometimes they’re called common grace insights, but these techniques and methods from other counseling systems, especially if they seem to help somebody or to bring relief from different symptoms that people are experiencing, talk a little bit about that, Marshall.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah, one of the ways that as biblical counselors that we’ve thought about and articulated this—and this isn’t original to me—is to say that techniques are not neutral. They are embedded in and growing out of systems, out of therapeutic frameworks, and they make sense within the system that they came out of. They’re aiming at a particular goal. And so, what we’ve articulated up until now is that the goal of biblical counseling is sanctification. What you clearly articulated earlier, and we’ve been talking about here for a few minutes, is that the Word of God, in the power of the Spirit, ministered to the counselee is what God uses to sanctify. And so, there are no methods. There are no techniques. There’s nothing that God has provided, outside of Scripture, that is necessary to do that work of making His people more like His son.
Dale Johnson: Or bringing the lost to himself.
Marshall Adkins: That’s right. It comes back to what is the goal, and what has God provided in terms of the means to reach that goal? And He’s provided those resources in His Word, by His Spirit, through the gospel of His Son. And so, I think once you clarify the goal of counseling, it’s not just to bring about temporary relief. I’m not pragmatically looking at what I can use to bring about the quickest, most efficient form of relief. Instead, it’s zooming out, helping this person see God and see themselves in the circumstances through the lens of Scripture, so that we can enter in and do compassionate Christ-centered, faithful care. We’re pointing them to Christ, we’re pointing them to His Word, and we’re coming alongside and ministering well to them in a way that’s aiming at their growth in Christ, their discipleship, their sanctification for God’s glory.
Dale Johnson: Very well said, and I think it’s helpful for us to be reminded of these things and not to get confused when we think about, you know, words like civic righteousness. And that’s recognizing, okay, those things we’re acknowledging in the same way Jesus did, but we find ourselves in the same way as Christ—not content with that where He teaches in more fullness, to pay attention to, to focus on what the will of God is and how God sees individuals, and people. That’s what we’re aiming at. So, I think well said today, Marshall. Thanks for helping us think through this topic that’s come up and really guiding us from the Word and how we think about this topic of civic righteousness.
