Wisdom and the Holy Spirit

diverse and unexpected ways, and yet points Christ-wards. He states:

The Son is manifest in a single, paradigmatic figure, the Spirit is manifest in the ‘translatability’ of that into the contingent diversity of history. Freedom in the Spirit is uncircumscribed; and yet it always has the shape of Jesus the Son183

Having earlier introduced a biblical conception of the cosmic and pervasive activity of the Spirit, it would be consistent to assume the Spirit’s presence in the aforementioned activities. However, asserting the Spirit’s omnipresence is not tantamount to assuming that the Spirit is therefore the active agent in all endeavours, as the human and demonic spirits must also be accounted for. Slife, Stevenson and Wendt denote a view of pervasive Spirit as ‘strong theism’ as opposed to ‘weak theism’, where the activity of the Spirit is presumed to be limited in time (deism) and space (dualism). The amended Waverley Model diagram (see Appendix B) which this book proposes, better portrays the ‘strong theism’ position through opening up the ‘spiritual area’ by means of perforating the traditionally closed circles, and showing an open-ended connection with other areas of functioning and the outside world. The latter is left un-delineated precisely to prevent restriction of scope and to avert any temptation towards a dualist interpretation of the Waverley anthropological model.

This section further attempts to link Holy Spirit activity with ‘common phenomena’ via biblical wisdom. Whilst the moral framework of Old Testament wisdom concurred with covenant law, in general terms, wisdom was a much broader concept. Hilber describes biblical wisdom broadly as both creative and potentially unconventional. He argues reasonably that when referring to counselling interventions and techniques, in order to be deemed ‘biblical’, they need not be confined to those that are explicit in Scripture.

Crabb has taken a more restrictive view with regards to integrative possibilities: ‘Counselling models must demonstrate more than consistency

with Scripture, they must in fact emerge from it.’184 However, the view of biblical wisdom (its nature and function) that has been outlined earlier (Chapter 3) aligns itself with Hilber and thus concurs with his conclusion that the use of Scripture cannot in principle be deemed mandatory in order for an approach to be regarded as ‘biblical’. Furthermore, Hilber points out that wisdom, in its broadest biblical sense, is instruction and is often passed down verbally within families (Prov. 4:1). As such it was generally independent of written codes, ‘whether covenant law code, canonical wisdom literature itself, or New Testament imperatives’.185 It follows that a method of evaluating which activities in the counselling process are ‘of the Spirit’ and hence life-giving and worth pursuing, cannot be reduced to biblical proof text or precedent. Such reduction undermines the ongoing creative aspect of the work of the Spirit as has already been established in this book.

With regard to identifying ‘Spirit’ activity, Yong’s criterion for discernment involves recognition that there is a correlation of logos (word) and pneuma (Spirit) which constitutes all defined things. He states, ‘the former being a thing’s concrete forms and the latter being the thing’s inner habits, tendencies and laws’.186 Yong argues his case using numerous biblical examples where the activity of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from demonic spirits by reference to their impact upon the phenomenal world, ie concrete appearance or sensory perception. However, Boa argues for caution when using outward phenomena alone to delineate ‘spirits’, as manifestations can be derived from what he refers to as either ‘natural works’ or ‘spiritual power’. As a result, he helpfully adds, ‘true supernatural operations (the work of the Holy Spirit) must be distinguished not by the experiences alone but by the larger context of Christ-centredness and permanent character’.187

In light of this, Holy Spirit inspired wisdom would constitute anything which moves clients towards their divinely appointed function and purpose. This is evidenced from a Christological perspective by that which fosters life in all its fullness (John 10:10). The idea of ‘fullness’ is worked out using shepherd/sheep imagery, in particular the sheep being cared for by the shepherd and thus living contented lives. Kruse renders the existential application as either an enjoyment of a rich life in the here and now, especially

if linked with God, or to eternal life after resurrection (John 5:24–29). Kruse deems both possibilities as reasonable of the text. In this context, BeasleyMurray interprets the meaning of ‘full life’ as the gospel message – eternal life in God’s kingdom (inclusive of a current dimension). Elements of this ‘fullness’, for example high, low or mixed self-esteem (depending on one’s doctrinal stance), and their impact upon our humanity, will be interpreted by criteria that constitute doctrines relevant to any specific counselling endeavour. For example, this is why ideas regarding Scripture, sin and imago Dei become pragmatically significant for Christian counsellors and why they occupied a major part of Chapter 1. In order to make clearer the connection between doctrine and counselling goals and related methods, it is helpful to consider in more detail, as a case in point, the contentious issue of human self-regard, often rendered self-esteem. Opposing Christian perspectives and related counselling practices are the outworking of different doctrinal positions relevant to human anthropology. Many engaged in counselling (psychological or pastoral) or theological training will have had to think through this issue.

The nub of the debate is this: in the light of the metanarrative of Scripture (creation, Fall, redemption etc) how should humans think of themselves? There are those who interpret Scripture in a manner that leads to the conclusion that humans should esteem themselves highly because they are made in God’s image. One of the major voices in the 1980s ‘Self-esteem movement’ was Robert Schuller, who declared the values of self-esteem to be the ‘new reformation’.188 Conversely, critical voices such as Adams, Vitz and Bobgan and Bobgan argued their case based on Scripture and regarded self-love as heresy. Commenting on Paul’s writings, Adams asserts: ‘Nowhere does he say we should feel good about ourselves because we exist, because we were made in the image of God, or even because, in Christ we are made perfect in God’s sight.’189

Others have adopted a middle ground. McGrath and McGrath, from a perspective of integrating a biblical and psychological approach, argue that Christian confidence (self-esteem in this context) ‘rests totally upon the cross of Christ’. However, they agree that some psychotherapeutic approaches can

be useful (despite the fact that they do not rest upon biblical assumptions) – their book aims at ‘resolving these tensions’.190 Stott, having noted the two sides of the debate and relevant influential factors supporting the polarised views, tries to avoid a self-regard that is too high or too low, but which represents a ‘sober judgment’. For Stott, like McGrath and McGrath, the cross of Christ supplies the answer: ‘it calls us both to self-denial and to selfaffirmation’.191 Stott most helpfully eliminates the dilemma of self-love or loathing by pointing out that the self is not one simple entity. Additionally, Stott asserts that, rooted in creation, we may esteem the part of ourselves which images God, but that at the same time, due to the Fall (the image defaced), we are to ‘deny, disown and crucify’ that part which no longer reflects (images) Christ.

As regards the Waverley Model, it is logical to assume that self-esteem constitutes a key issue. Compared to Crabb, Hughes has explicitly added selfesteem as an additional core spiritual longing, although as has been argued earlier (see Chapter 2, ‘Hughes’ and Crabb’s Relationality’), this difference does not represent as deep a divide as may first appear. Hughes’ position sits most easily with that of Stott, as like Stott, Hughes links the value of a high self-esteem to the context of creation and imago Dei. Again, like Stott, he gives weight to the impact of the Fall in deriving a doctrine of depravity (see Chapter 1, ‘Depravity’) and a turning to the cross of Christ and the power of redemption by which our true image (and esteem) may be restored.

The question posed earlier (how to discern Holy Spirit inspired wisdom) may be answered when the following criteria are fulfilled: any counselling issue, if approached firstly in a way that is methodologically consistent with Christian ethics and secondly is pursued towards specific goals and outcomes which are Christologically consistent, could in principle be regarded as aspects of ‘life in the Spirit’. For instance, work on issues such as sexuality, family life, desire for love and belonging could, if the previous criteria are met, constitute such Holy Spirit inspired wisdom. However, given what has been said earlier relating to three distinctive positions relating to selfesteem, it would necessarily follow that the lines between what is considered Christian and anti-Christian and hence ‘of the Spirit’ or not, will be drawn

very differently. The example of self-esteem clearly demonstrates how our basic assumptions (core doctrines) eventually ‘trickle down’ to concrete practices in counselling, as each therapist attempts to work in ways they believe are consistent with their version of a Christian world-view. Therefore, a Christian counsellor who holds a doctrine of sin which includes original innocence (both corporate and individual) is likely to positively evaluate aspirations and methods like that of Bradshaw. He wants to reconnect clients with their ‘inner child’, and hence experience a ‘homecoming’ which is assumed to be healthy. Cooper sums up the position well:

In fact, psychological problems [including low self-esteem – my addition] are always related to a distrust in this basic organismic trustworthiness. We need to stay out of nature’s way and allow each person to be self-directing. There is no innate selfishness, selfcenteredness or inordinate pleasure-seeking. Thus we need to reconnect with the vitalities of this inherent self-actualizing tendency.192

Alternatively, those who assume some form of original sin, and the resultant sleight upon a pure, good, innocent self (and related esteem) would be less likely to regard purely self-directed methods as yielding ultimate health. This is because they would regard our nature itself as more complex and contradictory, rooted in conflict as opposed to instinctive harmony within the self and towards others. Indeed, for Niebuhr, the core of human original sin is pride and its manifestations of many kinds (he offers four) including self-sufficiency and self-glorification. This inherent state of affairs yields inordinate self-love (esteem) which is thus regarded as part of the problem, not the cure.

In any given case, it will be necessary to make judgments regarding whether ‘this client’ at ‘this specific juncture’ of their development has an overtly narcissistic self-regard or an undervalued sense of self. The latter may be more likely to occur where there has been significant abuse (sexual, physical or otherwise) through which a ‘self as object’, or self without value or dignity/respect has been communicated and internalised. Our doctrinal position, whilst offering a general starting point (assumption), needs to be