As a pastor, you just don't have much time to read.  I understand that quite well.  So, it's not surprising that the most common question I get asked is, "If I have time to read just one book on biblical counseling, what should it be?"

Here is my choice:  Paul Tripp's Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands.

Using Christ's example, Tripp describes four basic steps (Love-Know-Speak-Do) that show believers how to use God's word to help others.  The book covers lots of helpful topics such as: identifying with the sufferer; clarifying responsibility; asking 'heart-piercing' questions; etc.   

I was reminded recently that the Evangelical Christian counseling landscape is about as diverse as the colors in a crayon box.   So, I thought it might help to read a paragraph that describes the type of counseling we do at Capitol Hill Baptist church.  I don't have the time (nor space) to go into an extensive explanation of biblical counseling, but will list a few resources below if you wish to think more about this topic.  So here it is....

The type of counseling I do is referred to as “biblical counseling.”  My goal is to erect from the Bible a model and method to wisely help people in their problems. As a biblical counselor and pastor, I seek to build strong relationships and help people to apply the gospel in ways that are meaningful and direction-giving. My counseling is shaped by a Christ-centered view of human life as found in the Christian Scriptures, which takes seriously the physical, social, and developmental nature of our difficulties. I believe that people can be healed, strengthened, and built up as they grow in their relationship with Christ. However, this doesn’t happen apart from our personal dependence on Him and seeking of His help.

This paragraph is a summary of items written by myself and faculty at CCEF & SBTS, with adjustments made by elders at CHBC. 

Article References for further reading:  David Powlison's "Affirmations & Denials: A Proposed Definition of Biblical Counseling" (JBC, 2000, Vol 19, no. 1); Ed Welch's "What is Biblical Counseling, Anyway?" (JBC, 1997, Vol 16, no. 1). 

Book References for further reading: Tim Lane & Paul Tripp's "How People Change"; Paul Tripp's "Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands"; David Powlison's "Seeing with New Eyes".

Mark, if I can place myself on your coattails...again...like, as if, I didn't live there anyway...um...I've been thinking about that same distinction between the gospel and its implications for several months as well, and the phrase that keeps bouncing around in my head is "theological impatience." It's easy to become impatient with the slow work of heart transformation that characterizes the already/not yet processes of the new covenant. The problem w/justification by faith alone, if you're impatient, is that it doesn't necessarily yield action immediately. In God's mysterious already/not yet economy of redemption, it yields action gradually and increasingly because these actions are the result of born again, nascent, and growing desires, not external (e.g. old covenant) structures. Theological impatience, however, wants to see good actions right away, and so it draws the implications of the gospel into the gospel. It resorts to law, moralism, legalism, because law is always the quickest way to yield action.

The social gospel is a clear example of theological impatience, where Christians want to draw caring for the poor into the gospel itself. Some of the political and social emphases of the New Perspective and the Emergent church are other examples of theological impatience. And of course Rome's idea of a progressive justification is another instance of theological impatience, demanding as it does that good works happen right there at the threshold of conversion, i.e. as that which gets you over the threshold. In general, I guess we could say that any form of syncretism is an instance of theological impatience, because the salvation of syncretism always starts with, "You! Now! Act!" instead of "Praise God! Jesus Acted!" I suppose any form of over-realized eschatology is the same.

What theological impatience is in all of these instances is a valuing of the gift more than the giver. Like the child who ignores the hand written card and rips into the gift, the theologically impatient are more gung ho about the benefits of the gospel than the gospel (and the gospel's end, God) itself. It also, as I suggested, runs the risk of legalism. This is what happens whenever we take our emphasis away from a completely, entirely, pure, 100 percent, absolute, no compromise focus and trust in an alien--outside of us, foreign, strange--righteousness (passive and active)--a righteousness from God, by faith, from first to last.

In this sense, I think the most theologically patient theologian today must be John Piper. He recognizes, of course, that transformed, fruit-filled, kingdom-seeking, good-deeds accomplishing, salty, light-on-a-hill lives flow from hearts that prize God more than all his gifts.

Here are three things Bob Kauflin says keeps us from addressing one another in the way Paul commands:
1) Singing songs that lack biblical substance or doctrinal depth.
2) Thinking that “worship” means closing my eyes, raising my hands, and blocking out everyone else around me.
3) Singing alone.
What's he talking about?! Read the whole thing.

HT: Thabiti

OK, I've been wanting to write this one for months but haven't made time.  I'm just going to give it to you very simply, boiled down and brief.  No time for longer argumentation. 

THESIS:  It is very important to [mentally] divorce the gospel from its implications and entailments.  [Do NOT divorce these in your life and practice--that is James 2 hypocrisy!]

That's it.  I could give reasons and explanations and examples, but that's it.

I bring this up is because so many authors and speakers are dismissive of the God-Man-Christ-Response (which is composed of repentance and faith) presentation of the Gospel, as neglecting this or that.  And they get great rhetorical points by sweeping the neglected duty into the definition of the Gospel itself.  While I would often agree with what the author or speaker means to encourage, I think it's very important to distinguish the unchangeable, essential Gospel--that news through which Christ can be received by faith as our Savior--from its many implications and entailments. 

I can't resist, and then I've got to get back to my sermon!  One reason for the significance of this--we can get agreement with many others on this or that implication or entailment of how we should live or think, even though those friends might find the Gospel itself offensive.  We know non-Christians are by nature at enmity with God [James 4:4; Eph. 2:1-10], and that the fleshly mind cannot understand the things of the Spirit [I Cor. 2:14].  Is it any surprise then if our non-Christian friends, and the least mature Christians applaud most for the implications of the Gospel, and are most uncomfortable when we're talking about the Gospel itself?  Let's debate the Gospel's implications; let's agree about the Gospel itself.  Let's keep our definition clear and sharp.  Look at what we read as "of first importance" (I Cor. 15:3). 

I just had to get that out.  Now, back to Luke 23.

Something Mark also does on a consistent basis when offering criticism is follow it up with a word of encouragement. I've heard many people precede statements of criticism w/positives ("You're really good at this, but..."), whereas Mark consistently follows criticism w/positives. That way, he leaves his listeners with an encouraging word ("You're really bad at this, but I'm amazed by what God has been doing in your...").  I'm always amazed when I walk away from Mark feeling encouraged, and then I stop and realize that he just rebuked me for something. But at that point, the feeling of encouragement translates into wanting even more to take the rebuke to heart. The principle at play, as Mark suggested in his fifth point, is that we humans are more willing to hear the rebukes of people who we know are for us. Ending with encouragement helps people to see that you are for them.

In our own service reviews, we talk about trying to model giving godly criticism and receiving godly criticism, giving godly encouragement and receiving godly encouragement.  Because of some of my own mistakes, and reflections on them, I offer the following suggestions on how to give godly criticism.

Proverbs 26:27 says "A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin."  I think that Christians, and especially pastors, should have words which reflect hearts of wisdom and love toward those we speak to.  And it's in reference to those obligations and opportunities we have (and out of my own mistakes in doing this well!) that I offer the five points of criticism. Here are several ideas on HOW criticism is best offered:

1.  Directly, not indirectly.  If you're anything like me, you might have a temptation to imply something, to presume something, to do anything to avoid a direct confrontation.  Be very careful, however, before adopting this pattern, especially in criticism.  If you're not careful, you'll have people regularly looking at your words and asking themselves what you "really mean."

2.  Seriously, not humorously.  Again, I might want to give some piece of advice through a humorous aside, but I probably am giving criticism this way because of my own fear of man.  I want them to like me, and so I don't want to directly confront them.  I want to be able to dismiss my own words if their cost proves higher to me than I had estimated.  And humor can appear to be a useful vehicle for this.  I can disown the words I've spoken, explaining them merely as humor if they're not received well.  I should know better.  I should know that if something is worth correcting, I should show respect to the other person by taking it seriously.  I should never joke about something I'm really concerned about in someone else, without first having spoken seriously to them about it.

3.  As if it's important, not casually.  Similar to the previous point, but distinct, is the idea that the other person deserves me to give a certain level of importance to the issue, or I probably shouldn't be offering them correction at all.  Eleazar Savage has a wise section (pp. 487-490) in the book of books (Polity) on minor offenses that we as Christians should simply bear with in each other.  Don't use up the other person's emotional energy on criticizing them if the matter isn't really very significant.

4.  Privately, not publicly.  A remark around other people could have negative effects on other people's opinion of the one you are offering criticism to.  You probably won't have the opportunity to follow up with all of them about the nature and reasons of your criticism.  Your friend will probably only struggle more with fear of man issues, having those confused with the merits of the criticism you have offered.  Now your friend may well be left open to the Evil One tempting him to be distracted by what this or that person will think of him.  You honor your friend better by offering the criticism in private.

5.  Out of love for them, not to express your feeling or frustration.  It's interesting how my "honesty" can sometimes be inspired by my own frustration.  Good criticism should not be "my frustration"-driven, but "your need" driven.  If I ever offer a friend criticism it should be in the time and manner that will best serve them, not that is most convenient and emotionally satisfying for me.  One way we show that love is by sincerly encouraging them (not flattering them) in areas where God's grace is clear in our friend's life.  The more they can believe that we mean this for their good, that we love them, and see real good in them, the less open they are to pridefully dismissing our criticism.