The Book Depository CrossTalk by Michael R Emlet

Author: MaggieDee

Rating: 5

Review: This book addresses the problems encountered when trying to help and minister to people using the scriptures as a one size fits all solution. It challenges the reader to consider how well we listen and ask ourselves are we too eager to offer a quick fit solution? It addresses the real question of how we can apply scripture to real life problems, understanding the context of particular texts.

Author: Redeemed

Rating: 1

Review: Michael Emlet comes from a long line of well-meaning, but mistaken, practitioners of the school of Integration--attempting to combine the philosophy of this world with Biblical counseling. Like all those before him, he has failed miserably. He doesn't understand that a presupposition of dependence upon God's solutions for life’s problems and an autonomous dependence upon man's solutions to man's problems cannot co-exist. They are in competition with and opposed to each other. “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship does light (spiritual understanding) have with darkness (spiritual ignorance)?” (II Corinthians 6:14). Emlet, who is not a particularly good writer, seems incapable of making up his mind whether this is a book on counseling or a book on Bible interpretation. He does neither any sort of justice. For genuine expertise on both of these subjects, you would be far better served reading Jay Adams' "Competent to Counsel" and Bernard Ramm's "Protestant Biblical Interpretation." This book is imprecise, and filled with far too much emergent language, especially the constantly annoying "Narrative" and "Plot line" which he unnaturally forces onto the Bible. The Bible does have narratives, but it also contains other literary devices. I would ask Mr. Emlet, what exactly is the narrative of the book Proverbs or Ecclesiastes? The Bible is not a grand narrative. I hardly believe God referenced Aristotle's dramatic structure when he wrote the Bible, and I don't think "what story do you find yourself in?" is really a relevant or meaningful question at all. This emergent take on the Bible is one of the reasons a lot of Christians in the church are so unfamiliar with the actual words of the scripture. We can't pretend as if knowing someone's alleged grand scheme of the Bible substitutes for actually knowing the specifics. Emlet seems enamored with novel ideas, suggesting that counselors are better advised to use obscure, difficult texts rather than familiar straight-forward ones (which he calls "ditch" passages). Of course his "ditch" passages are perfectly fine for him to use. He consistently disregards his own advice. As an alleged expert in Bible interpretation, he completely misses the difference between a person's position in Christ and his condition in Christ, especially in his use of the healing of the leper (Mark 1:40-45). He puts forth his novel idea of using the doctrine of clean and unclean, or the doctrine of the temple to encourage someone who is in a marriage crisis. Do you really think that's what they need to hear? By the time you finish that exposition, eyes are glazed over and hope is gone. Wouldn't they be better served helping them understand passages that deal directly with their issues (Emlet's discredited "ditch" passages)? Emlet is a believer in Bipolar disorder, depression (as an organic disease) and ADHD, despite the growing avalanche of evidence that neither actually exists. There is no x-ray, blood sample, brain scan, tissue sample, urine analysis or any other medical test to confirm any single cell in the human body is invested with such maladies. As a physician, and man of science, he should know better. He should know there is a difference between an analogy and an actual biological disease. He tries to integrate secular psychology with Biblical counseling to develop a more "balanced way." More balanced with what? Are the Scriptures alone imbalanced? Hardly. I'm wondering how CCEF has moved so quickly from the solidly biblical position that Jay Adams (it's founder) insisted on, to this current psychobabble tolerance under David Powlison's leadership. It makes me wonder what's going on at Westminster--have they departed from the Scriptural commitment of its founders J.Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til, Robert Dick Wilson, etc.? Jay Adams must be heartbroken. Jay has forgotten more Biblical counseling that Michael Emlet will ever learn. My guess is that CCEF wanted someone on staff with an MD degree and then hurriedly tried to legitimize Emlet with a M.Div at Westminster. A seminary degree does not teach you everything you need to know about the Bible. It just gives you the tools to accelerate your learning over the next 40 years when a church or Christian organization pays you to study. His byline: "This book is an antidote to 'take two verses and call me in the morning'" is an arrogant, veiled attack on the sufficiency of the Scriptures. This aspirin analogy, of course, is poking fun at a physician's unwillingness to take action. A patient calls his doctor after office hours are over and describes his symptoms over the phone. Making a judgment that the malady is not life threatening, the doctor's goal is to keep the patient comfortable through the night until his office opens in the morning when he can examine the patient more thoroughly and then take appropriate action. So, he treats the symptoms only, until the next day when he will actually deal with the problem. The revealed Word of God is not some cheap, low-level painkiller to be used until the sufferer can get real help from psychology. Of course, this cliché assumes that the genuine solution to a person's problem is psychological therapy, which has never been proven to solve anything. So, let's give people a Bible verse or two to hold them over until we can spend hours drudging up an excuse from the past that will justify our sin, irresponsibility or proclivity to pamper the flesh. On the contrary, when a relevant passage of Scripture is suggested, it is the GENUINE medicine. It is the means by which God brings a solution to the human condition. What's even more encouraging is that it begins immediately to achieve an effective work in the life of the afflicted, assuming his response to the Word is appropriate. This aspirin philosophy of the Scriptures assumes that Bible solutions are shallow. It pokes fun at those who would be so simplistic as to take God's Word literally and assume it has any efficacious properties for today's complex problems. How arrogant to assume the God who spoke the incredibly complex universe into existence and sustains it by His power and design, cannot express wisdom that will effectively address man's problems at their core. Can you imagine having a physical audience with God, the wonderful mighty counselor, and having Him tell you exactly how to deal with your problem, and then leave His office and say, "Now, let's go to the psychologist and see what he can add to make the counsel I've just received from God Himself even better and more balanced?" That's ludicrous to even consider. The good news is that God has expressed in written form (II Peter 1:3-4) the only answers to the human condition. The Scriptures are not Band-Aid solutions--they are radical surgery that transforms useless lives into strong, intentionally living followers of Jesus. His Word not only tells us what to do, but also has a positive effect ITSELF. "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men (as is all psychobabble), but as it actually is, the WORD of God, which is AT WORK ("energeitai," to energize or to set in operation) in you who believe" (I Thessalonians 2:13). The Word of God is not, as Emlet suggests, just some cold, dusty words written on a page. The Writer of Hebrews tells us what we have in the Bible: “For the Word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The phrase “alive and active” in the Greek refers to something that is living and mighty in operation. “alive” is the Greek word zon, which means it is not powerless, inert or dead. The Scriptures are invested with personal attributes of God here. God is also alive and active, often using His own Word as the means of effecting change. Not only is the word of God alive and active, but it is (unlike psychology) all-penetrating and searching. It is through this Word that God promises the real thoughts and intents of a person’s thinking will be brought to light. “So, My word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11). The Holy Spirit declares that God’s word is creative, and achieves results. Every word that God reveals is set on a prosperous course, guaranteed by God Himself. Because His Word is accompanied by a divine energy, it will not return until it has achieved the desired results of the Sender. It never fails to produce the effect, which He intends. All the truth which God reveals is perfectly suited to produce a Godly effect on the hard and sterile hearts of men, much as the rain produces on the hardened earth. No such guarantee accompanies the vain, empty promises of psychology. These descriptions of God concerning His Word are a far cry from an aspirin. God’s Word is a powerful change agent. It’s not that the Scriptures have been tried and found wanting, but that they haven’t been tried. Honestly, Emlet comes across as a novice in counseling. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but I know no other way to say it. My guess is that his Biblical counseling experience is limited. I found this book practically useless. I'm giving it one star because it's the lowest grade I am allowed to give. My suggestion to Mr. Emlet would be this: before you write, have something worthwhile to say. Don't waste our time and money regurgitating tired, worn out psychological dogma. Joe Buonassissi Fort Collins, CO