The Christian Counseling Office: A Priestly Confessional Clinical Ministry Context
By Joshua Lennox, MA LMHC
The Christian Counseling office is significantly different from non-Christian therapy settings. Although some of the clinical interventions may look the same, below the surface there are vastly different ecosystems in effect. After counseling people of all beliefs and backgrounds over the last ten years it seemed necessary to me to attempt to distill down the essence of the Christian counseling ecosystem. The quick definition: a priestly confessional clinical ministry context. Over the rest of this article I hope to dissect this definition by God’s grace in a useful and clarifying manner.
Priestly
The Christian Counselor is a priest[i]. This is not because Christian counselors have an extra special spiritual endowment above other professions, but instead because every Christian is a priest. If this sounds radical, it is because it is; and the contemporary Church at times has detached itself from this essential reality. Charles Spurgeon when preaching about Peter’s biblical declaration in 1st Peter 2:9 that Christians are a royal priesthood stated it this way:
He (Peter) is not talking about ministers! He is not speaking of a certain number of men who have passed through many grades of office and are, thereby, qualified to wear robes of certain color- he is speaking of every believer and he calls every saint a member of “A holy priesthood!” Every Mary and every John, every peasant girl and every laborer that puts his hand to the plow, every servant of God in every capacity is a member of this “holy priesthood”-at least so Peter says, and Peter was not mistaken, for he spoke as he was “moved by the Holy Spirit.”[ii]
Commentating on the same verse H.A. Ironside states the following:
In Israel of old there were three special groups: the priesthood, the Levites, and the warriors. In the Church, or assembly of God, all are priests, to go unto God as worshipers; all are Levites, to serve their brethren in holy things; all are soldiers, to fight the good fight of faith. There is no separate priesthood now, no clerical order recognized by God as distinct from and with authority over those who are content to be called and call themselves mere laymen, or the laity. All believers are a holy priesthood, as we learn in verse 9, a royal priesthood also. We offer up the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name (Heb. 13:15). This was the real sacrifice, even in the days of types and shadows (Jer 33:11)[iii]
Let us not be content to stop with Spurgeon’s and Ironside’s statements on Peter’s words. If we are to see the reality of Christians as a Holy Priesthood we must take a closer look at biblical texts. Following, we will dive into a non-exhaustive survey of the concept in some biblical texts.
In Exodus chapter 19 we find the Israelites camped before Mt. Sinai as Moses meets with God on the mountain. God makes the following statement, and tells Moses to share it with the people of Israel:
5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”[iv]
What a mind blowing decree. That they would be a kingdom of priests? A holy nation? The same people who had little faith that God would provide for them as they grumbled their way through the wilderness, and wanted to return to slavery in Eygpt. This brings us to a very important point that Cyril Eastwood in his book The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful stated “The idea that the people of God should be a kingdom of priests was not a convenient human arrangement nor was it a product of the minds of men, it was God’s will. The statement is crystal clear: ‘Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests’ (Exod. 19:6)”.[v] Only God takes a broken empty vessel and forms it into a beautiful useable cup running over with priestly fullness.
Even though this was an astonishing decree, it was hardly a new concept. It had always been the case that God’s people would relate to him in service, sacrifice, and worship as priests. This service started as all things did in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:15 it states “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden to work it and keep it.”[vi] These two purposes “to work” and “to keep”:
…conferred on humans a basic task in this world. We are, in Hebrew terms, to ‘abad’ and ‘shamar’ the Garden. These two verbs from Genesis 2:15 – ‘abad’ and ‘shamar’ – are wonderfully common words. There is nothing mysterious or obtuse about them. They describe common activities. 'Abad' is the root of words related to service. As a noun it refers to a servant and as a verb it means ‘to serve’. ‘Shamar’, on the other hand, means ‘to protect’ or ‘to keep’.[vii]
Interestingly enough we find the Hebrew word ‘abad (work it) being used in both Genesis 2:15, and also Numbers 4:23 where the Gershonites are being selected by God to “do” (‘abad) service maintaining and carrying the tent of meeting where God resided in the midst of the Israelites. This sounds awfully similar to God residing in the Garden, and the work service instituted for Adam in Genesis 2:15. Secondly, the word Shamar in this passage also has an interesting parallel passage. In Numbers 6:24-27 we find that Aaron was instructed by God through Moses to bless the Israelites, and here is his blessing:
24 The Lord bless and keep you; 25 The Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you; 26 The Lord lift up his countenance on you, and give you peace.[viii]
The “keep” in verse 24 is this shamar found in Genesis 2:15. The idea that God’s keeping (shamar) of His children given in the blessing of Aaron, would be imaged in our “shamar” of creation around us. We are to reflect and image God in ministry duties as priests.
As the Biblical account moves along we see the example of Abraham. In Genesis 14 we see Abraham returning from the battle he entered to rescue his nephew Lot from captivity. He is victorious in his rescue, and also brings back all the goods that were taken from Sodom, and gives a percentage of spoils to the King of Salem. After his victory he is visited by the two kings, the evil king of Sodom, and Melchizedek a king of Salem who is a righteous king, and seen throughout history as a type of Christ, or foreshadowing of Christ. Genesis 14:18-19 states:
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. 19 He blessed him and said “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth.[ix]
First, It is absolutely clear that Melchizedek is a priest of the one true God. This is prior to an Aaronic /Levitcal priesthood, and can only be reconciled by the fact that God said in Exodus that they should be a kingdom of priests as a reminder to what was always in effect, not as some new information. Secondly, God through the biblical writer of Genesis (Moses) wanted the Israelites to see a parallel between their father Abraham, and a bestowed priesthood.
Melchizedek- Priest of God Most High
Abraham- Abram of God Most High
The parallel in wording is absolutely striking. In addition, from a post-resurrection of Christ view, the fact that Melchizedek brought Abraham communion supplies of bread and wine is somewhat confirming of the idea that God has a bit of humor, and really seals the deal.
A quick note before we head any further. Some of these accounts are somewhat violent in nature, and in representing God as such also. Although we don’t have time to discuss all of the implications of this, we should note a few aspects to keep in mind while we read some of these stories.
1. We currently have a post-resurrection view of biblical history that individuals in Old Testament times would not have the benefit of.
2. A trajectory adjustment occurred from Old Testament to New Testament writing in light of Christ. For example “an eye for an eye” became “love your neighbor as yourself”. Another example is Old Testament capital punishment terms becoming excommunication terms in the New Testament.[x]
3. Christ had not paid for the penalty of sin yet.
4. God is Holy and cannot entertain unrighteousness.
These points are not exhaustive, or even close to helping in a study of Old Testament violence, but can at least provide some aid in the stories we will look at.
Further into the Biblical account we find the Israelite nation that God had promised to Abraham, multiplying in spite of intensive enslavement. God sends Moses and Aaron to liberate the Israelites from Pharaoh’s rule, and after ignoring all of God’s plagues of destruction upon the land, Pharaoh still won’t release them. So, God instructs Moses that he will kill all firstborns of man and beasts in the land. This particular plague is aimed at eliminating heirs in a kingdom that has come to worship the false god Pharaoh, and therefore showing his reign is not eternal. The way of escape from this plague provided for the Israelites is for each household to sacrifice a lamb. He tells Moses that the “…whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight”[xi] on the specified day. Once they kill the sacrificial lamb they are then to spread its blood on the doorposts and upper door section of their residence, because God had said “The blood shall be a sign for you on your houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.”[xii] This passage is so rich in content, however for our purposes we will just highlight how the priesthood of all believers was very much in effect that night. Each household of the Israelites had an interceding and sacrificing priest that night. They were carrying out their priestly duties based out of their calling, faith, instruction, and some healthy fear and trembling. When Moses later in the wilderness comes down from the mountain after meeting with God and says that they are to be a “kingdom of priests,” I wonder how many of them from varying ages and perspectives would have recalled the Passover night.
In the book of Job we see another example of the priesthood already in effect before the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. We read the following:
4 His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When the day of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually. [xiii]
Thus Job did continually. This echoes the perpetual priesthood statement that God gave to Aaron and his sons (Exodus 40:12-15), and Phinehas in Numbers 25:13, and a priest forever statement in referencing Christ and Melchizedek (Hebrew 5:6). Whether or not you believe Job was the first written book, or written later about the oldest content, regardless, this is another clear example. With us seeing Job, and the Israelite’s (at Passover) priestly duty carried out in the family setting it is of importance to note that:
The family unit is the dominant factor in Judaism, and not the pomp and ceremony which surround public display. Thus each Jew becomes a teacher, priest, and minister in his own domestic sanctuary, and by this means he is also a witness to those outside. It is his duty to equip himself for that sacred office. Surely if each member of the House of Israel became aware of his unique privilege, then every one of them would be holy and the Lord would be in the midst of them. It is along such lines that the original priesthood in Israel is to be understood.[xiv]
Job was just a priestly dad caring for the spiritual needs of his family. This family though was also community. It was not uncommon for a town or area to be based largely around familial ties, and therefore the priestly duties extend not just in a specific household, but to the extended family of God and other witnesses with whom the believer engages with throughout life.
Of the examples that we have briefly looked at it is clear that God’s plan was that humans would have direct access to God, and that their priesthood was based on the foundation of faith and calling. Vatja Vilimos, in his book The Theology of Divine Service in Luther rightfully states that “Faith is what constitutes Christian priesthood”.[xv] John Calvin complements this with his view that a Christian is a priest because they “find their ‘calling’ in God”.[xvi] We see this in Noah’s calling to build an ark, and His faith in actually carrying it out (Gen 6-7). We see this in Abraham’s faith being credited to him as righteousness (Gen15:6), and we see this when the Israelite families sacrifice a lamb and spread its blood on their doors to have God’s wrath pass over. We witness this also when Job the priestly dad, rises repeatedly to offer sacrifice on behalf of his children believing that God has the ability to accept sacrifice and extend pardon (Job 1).
So all of this thus far has been examining instances prior to the Levitical priesthood, and how during that period the priesthood of believers was always in effect. In the next section I would like to move forward and look at two particular examples during the period of the Aaronic/ Levitical priesthood to see how their priesthood was only a specific outworking of the general priesthood of all believers.
In 1 Chronicles chapter 21 we received the account of King David sinning in response to Satan’s inciting, by taking a census of the nation of Israel. Regardless of why this was sin, the passage makes it very clear that it is sin. It shows that it was incited by Satan (v. 1), would bring guilt upon the Israel (v. 3), and is clear that “God was displeased with this thing, and He struck Israel”.[xvii] It doesn’t get too much clearer than that, David had sinned against God in ordering the census of Israel. So, David is given three pretty awful options from God, and decides upon 3 days of pestilence throughout Israel. At the end of this God relents from punishment of Israel, and gives David instructions through his seer Gad. David is instructed to go and raise up an altar on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. David negotiates with Ornan and purchases the property all the while the Angel of the Lord who brought the punishment to bear is standing present. It’s then that we are told that:
…David built there an altar to the Lord, and the Lord answered him with fire from heaven upon the altar of burnt offerings.27 Then the Lord commanded the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath. 28 At that time, when David saw that the Lord had answered him at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, he sacrificed there. 29 For the tabernacle of the Lord, which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time in the high place at Gibeon, 30 but David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the Angel of the Lord. 22:1 Then David said, Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offerings for Israel.[xviii]
What an extraordinary passage. David follows God’s call to build an altar and presents an offering upon it that God’s wrath devours. Pestilence is averted and sin dealt with. All the while David is from the tribe of Judah, a tribe with non-priestly duties. The offerings and sacrifices were given on a new altar apart from the ascribed setting of the tabernacle. This is an amazing foreshadowing of Christ the Great High priest also being from the tribe of Judah and not a “priestly” tribe. Christ displaying true and full priesthood on a cross outside of the set apart temple where sacrifices for the atonement of sin would have occurred in his day. We read of some of this in Hebrews Chapter 7 vs 11-16:
11Now if perfection was through the Levitical Priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.[xix]
This clearly shows that with David, and in Christ there was a different line of priesthood which was in operation from the beginning. It is a priesthood of all believers born out of Christ’s one true Great High Priesthood. Cyril Eastwood speaks to this fact when he states:
The position may be summarized as follows: Because Christians share in Christ’s High Priestly Ministry, they are all priests-yet they are not so for their own sake, but for others. Every Christian may offer the sacrifice of himself, may pray and preach, may take upon himself the responsibilities which belong to him as a member of the congregation. All this he may do because none of these things belong to the ministry (i.e. in its restricted sense) as a right. Priesthood belongs to Christ, and Christians possess it by their baptism and their faith, i.e. by sharing in what belongs to Christ. This priesthood is inward and spiritual and there is no other priesthood in the New Testament.[xx]
I would suggest in this article that it was the primary mode of priesthood in the Old Testament also, and that the Levitical priesthood was just a particular expression of it. Eastwood when quoting Luther’s view from Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms authored by G. Rupp presented Luther’s view as this:
When a minister is chosen ‘it is as though ten brothers, all kings’ sons and equal heirs, were to chose one of themselves to rule the inheritance for them all…they would all be kings and equal in power, though one of them would be charged with the duty of ruling.[xxi]
This is an incredibly useful way to conceptualize the Levitical priesthood, and even ministers/priests in local congregations to this day. They were not operating above, but out of the priesthood of all believers.
At this point we should probably take a moment and speak to one of the concerns that might be raised. If you are a woman reading through this you might be thinking, but these are all accounts of men, and I don’t happen to be a man. Does the priesthood apply to me? My response would be absolutely. Women share in Christ’s priesthood just as men. Although the Old Testament is primarily telling a story through male lineage, it does not mean that women are excluded from the story God was writing. There was priestly intercession by women when the Hebrew midwives disregarded the king of Eygpt’s instruction to kill the male Hebrew children, and instead sacrificed their potential safety and life by doing so (Gen. 1:15-22). One of the largest examples of the priesthood of all believers operating in Old Testament is Esther. As queen she interceded on behalf of the people of God, after the evil Haman talked the king into a decree to kill all Jews in the territory. In Esther chapter 4:16 we read of the instructions Esther delivers to Mordecai her uncle and the Jews in Susa:
16 Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish. 17 So Mordecai went away and did just as Esther had commanded him.[xxii]
In this passage we see that Esther’s priestly intercession included fasting, delivering spiritual fasting instructions to men and women (which were followed), and proceeding with the willingness to offer her life as a sacrifice of intercession if needed. This seems to be a clear example of a woman operating as priest, a priesthood that all believers share.
In further looking for women in this capacity we might make note of John Wesley’s view that:
“The priestly and prophetic offices are not separate… Preaching is an expression of the Christian’s priestly office. Preaching is eternal truth expressed through finite means. This priestly-prophetic office may be exercised either by a minister or a layman.”[xxiii]
If we accept this inclusion we also see more examples of women exercising their priesthood in the Old Testament accounts. Whether it was Miriam the prophetess leading women in worship (Exodus 15:20), or Deborah the prophetess giving Barak prophetic words from God and warrior instruction (Judges 4:14:16) it is clear that women were operating in these roles. Another striking example is the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22, 2 Chronicles 34). We find Huldah in an account where Josiah King of Judah is reigning. He is approached by his scribe Shaphan who reads him the book of law that the high priest Hilkiah had found while cleaning out the temple. King Josiah upon hearing the word of the Lord read and realizing Judah’s departure from God’s law, tears his clothes. He then commands Hilkiah the high priest, Shaphan, and a couple of others to go and seek out the prophetess Huldah because of his concern of God’s wrath. She delivers God’s word to them in a rousing prophetic sermon that would scare the socks of someone, and they go back and tell King Josiah. He then works on cleansing Judah from sin. So, what do you call the person that is giving God’s word and spiritual insight to the high priest and king? Maybe a priest’s priest? It is clear that she was exercising her prophetic gift out of the priesthood of all believers. It is also an amazing story of God’s use of women in his work, especially in earlier biblical times. With these Old Testament examples of women’s inclusion as priests, we will continue our trek through the biblical passages related to the priesthood of all believers.
In the book of Isaiah we find a passage in which Christ reported himself as the fulfillment of (Luke 4:17-21). It states:
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the Lord has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; 2 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn[xxiv]
Ed young in his commentary on Isaiah states the following about this passage:
Our Lord read this passage in the synagogue at Capernaum and remarked that “this day is the prophecy fulfilled in your ears”. Although Christ does not explicitly declare that He is the speaker, it is difficult to interpret otherwise, for the work described is such that only God can accomplish; it is Messianic.[xxv]
In this passage we have a prophetic view of the Messiah coming in Christ as High Priest. Righting wrongs, healing, preaching etc… Then shortly after in the same passage after we have heard what the Messiah is like, the author at God’s direction reminds what the child of God are like. In verse 6 the passage states “But you will be called the priests of the Lord; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God.[xxvi] Edward Young comments on this passage that:
Reflecting upon the promise of Exodus 19:6 the prophet announces that as for you, i.e. the inhabitants of Zion and members of the Church, ye shall be called the priests of the Lord. The Church of the new covenant possesses no outward priesthood, but every member is a priest before God and needs no human mediator other than the God-man Jesus Christ. The offerings that each priest brings are spiritual, for each is to present himself as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1)[xxvii]
This amazing passage in Isaiah 61 shows the parallel between Christ’s priesthood, and his followers sharing in his priesthood. This should be a clear reflection for us that as Christ did, we are to bring good news to the afflicted, bind up the broken hearted, and comfort those who mourn as we share in his priesthood. Even the Catholic Church who still maintains a distinct priesthood from the priesthood of all believers (most protestant churches, and I would suggest the New Testament would disagree on this distinction) has this to say in their Catechism:
Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men”.[xxviii]
And,
Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king.[xxix]
Realizing that the Old Testament priests were only offering a “stay of execution”[xxx] through there prefigured sacrifices, and that the true sacrifice would be Christ’s once and for all sacrifice as the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, it is important to realize that the Old Covenant priests were in the same boat as all of the priesthood of God’s people.
Let us continue our journey into some of the New Testament texts that speak to our topic at hand. In Luke chapter two we see Jesus being presented at the temple according to the Law of Moses. Simeon a righteous man who the Holy Spirit had told he would not see his death until he had seen the Messiah, comes into the temple and blesses Jesus the Messiah. Then in the passage we read about Anna showing up to this moment:
And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.[xxxi]
I don’t know about you, but Anna seems like someone I would like to hang out with. We are told that she has been a widow for a long time, and has dedicated herself to the Lord through the sacrifice of fasting and prayer day and night in the temple. She comes into the setting as Simeon is blessing the Christ child, and she begins to give thanks to God and speak of Christ to all. It certainly paints the picture of a grandmotherly priest preaching the gospel to all the individuals who will listen to her who show up in the temple. May we be like Anna who is imaging Christ, and displaying the priesthood in action. This brings me to another point about women in ministry. If you are a woman and you go to a church that holds to a male eldership, you are still to be preaching. Once that Sunday sermon ends, you, just like every other Christian is to be preaching Christ to those around, just like Anna in the temple. You are to deliver God’s counsel and direction to those who seek you out in counseling and other settings just like Huldah. We as priests (both female and male) are to preach in word and deed; Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. This is a preached word for all, including our spouses, children, bosses, counselees, and all we find in our lives.
1 Peter chapter 2 is the next passage we find ourselves in. Although we have already touched on this passage there is still more for us here. In chapter 2 verse 4 it states:
As you come to him (Christ), a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourself like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.[xxxii]
This passage of course reaffirms the priesthood of all believers, but it also does something to define what the church actually is. The church is not four specific walls, but instead the believers or “living stones”, being founded on the chief cornerstone of Christ. It is because of this that the person who has faith in Christ finds their vocation as a divine vocation, and their daily actions always enjoined to the Church. Cyril Eastwood confirms this in his statement that:
…the priesthood of believers to be understood as a spiritual privilege, a moral obligation, and a personal vocation. The spiritual privilege is freedom of access to the presence of God; this implies a moral responsibility to the corporate fellowship of the Church through which the believer has learned of his spiritual privilege. It also carries with it the responsibility of regarding his secular vocation as the sphere in which his priesthood is exercised.[xxxiii]
Although Eastwood uses the term “secular vocation” in this statement, he makes it very clear that for the Christian only one vocation exists :
It follows that the People of God are endowed with a single vocation. The term ‘secular vocation’ is a contradiction in terms. Luther and Calvin agreed that there is only ‘divine vocation’ although it may be exercised in various spheres of life.[xxxiv]
This idea has been lost in some church settings, and completely misunderstood by the government and legal system at times. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will create a resurgence of understanding in this.
Further on in the passage Peter wrote, we see that he doubles down on the idea that all believers are priests:
…you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of the darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people, once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.[xxxv]
As we can see Peter is completely clear on this point, and is solely reminding and reinforcing a reality that had always been the case. You, believer in Christ, are chosen, a priest in the priesthood, and a member of a holy nation. It is hard to fathom at times, but it is the truth. It is quite worth dwelling on, and working toward living more and more deeply in that truth.
So, we have traced the concept of all Christians as priests from the Garden of Eden all the way into the New Testament. Hopefully the concept has started to burrow into the fabric of your thought and hearts. As I hope to have shown that every Christian, and in particular, Christian Counselor, is a pries. It is now natural that we would talk about the content of their counseling sessions as confessional material.
Confessional
Since the Christian Counselor is a priest, it follows that the counseling session is a confessional setting. This is shown in two primary ways. First, the Christian counseling session is confessional because it deals with the confession or sin, shame, guilt, doubt, etc… to God and before man. It makes little difference if the client is a Christian or not, as we will see in the second case. But, before we get there, we should look at the seal of the confessional that underlies our premise. The Roman Catholic Church in some of their writings has this to say:
In the "Decretum" of the Gratian who compiled the edicts of previous councils and the principles of Church law which he published about 1151, we find (secunda pars, dist. VI, c. II) the following declaration of the law as to the seal of confession: "Deponatur sacerdos qui peccata p nitentis publicare præsumit", i.e., "Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed", and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer. Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), binding on the whole Church, lays down the obligation of secrecy in the following words: "Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance" (see Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles" at the year 1215; also Mansi or Harduin, "Coll.conciliorum"). It is to be noted that neither this canon nor the law of the "Decretum" purports to enact for the first time the secrecy of confession.[xxxvi]
So what do we gather from this long excerpt. First, it is incredibly important to have freedom of speech and absolute privacy when dealing with the care of souls. Secondly, it is so important, that there were very harsh penalties if it was broken, a priest would no longer be a priest. Most interestingly, I find the comment that neither of these sources purport to report that this is a new idea, but instead just a recording of what was already believed. The whole confessional process was not invented in 1151 or 1215 rather, I believe we find it much earlier in biblical New Testament thought.
In James chapter five we find this statement addressing practical Christian living: “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working”[xxxvii] This book was written by James, Jesus’ brother, and is possibly the earliest written New Testament book. This means the idea of confession within the priesthood of all believers was an instruction from New Testament beginnings. So in this verse we see the idea of Christians as priests confessing mutually to each other, and priestly interceding on behalf of each other in prayer. The hearers of this letter would have recalled earlier scripture that would have tempered or eradicated their sharing of these confessions such as:
You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor, I am the Lord[xxxviii]
When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise.[xxxix]
He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy conceals a matter. Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory[xl]
He who conceals a transgression seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates intimate friends.[xli]
Prepare plans by consultation, and make war by wise guidance. He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, therefore do not associate with a gossip.[xlii]
For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.[xliii]
It is clear with these previous verses that the seal of the confessional did not materialize out of thin air. Instead, these would have been some of the driving biblical principals underlying the foundation of the seal, and applicable to James’ statement to confess to one another. Another underlying foundation for James’ hearers would have been their understanding of God’s treatment of sin when he spoke through Isaiah and Jeremiah in very difficult periods of Israelite’s exile. God states through Isaiah and Jeremiah:
I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.[xliv]
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them”, declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more”[xlv]
Does God really forget sin? The answer to this is, in a sense, both yes and no. Of course God’s memory is not faulty! Instead God chooses not to hold the sin of his children against them. He may remember their sin for some spiritual discipline or growth purpose, but for any other purpose he “forgets”. With the attempt of God’s children to image him to the world, and for our purposes confession, it becomes clear that the seal of the confessional was not just some invention of the Middle Ages.
Martin Luther believed this also when advocating against the errors of the Catholic Church believing that:
… confession could be made to any Christian, not just to the priest. This applies to both open and to hidden sins. Furthermore the brother or sister could grant absolution as surely as it had in the past been granted by the priest.[xlvi]
This shouldn’t sound so extraordinary given our survey of Biblical narratives to this point. He is clearly advocating for the priesthood of all believers, and just rephrasing the verse out of James chapter 5. In regards to God “forgetting” our sin, Luther connects this to the seal of the confessional when he speaks of a specific case when asked if the seal should be broken when a person confesses to a horrible crime such as infanticide. Here is his answer:
By no means! For one must distinguish between the authority of the church and the authority of the state. The woman did not confess to me but to Christ. But what Christ keeps secret I, too, must keep secret and simply deny that I have heard anything. If Christ has heard anything, He may Himself say so. But during the absolution I should privately say to the woman: You harlot, never do that again.[xlvii]
In this example Luther thankfully points out that confession is ultimately between the individual and God with no priest necessary other then the great High Priest Jesus Christ. This is clear throughout scripture whether we see King David stating it:
I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.[xlviii]
Or, the Apostle John writing to the churches in Asia Minor saying that:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.[xlix]
These passages as well as others make clear the fact that forgiveness is only distributed by God, and the priest is just a representative of God confirming that fact.
We arrive now at the second way in which the counseling office is confessional. This one makes us take a look at the overall story of redemption written in the Bible. So, we will head into a short overview of this.
In the beginning God places Adam and Eve in a perfect environment, and gives them one rule. At Satan’s tempting, they break the rule God gives them. As a result, sin and death enter the world not just for and in them, but for every subsequent human. The world becomes something it was not suppose to be. Death, sickness, crime, broken relationships, etc…become the norm. After this, a pattern emerges. God’s people continually say they will follow him, and then fail to do so. It is shown again and again that they cannot bridge the divide between imperfect sinful humanity, and God in his perfection and righteousness. In God’s abounding and steadfast love God gives them (and us I might add) opportunity after opportunity to come to him. Also, because sin separates us from God, God instituted a sacrificial system that prefigured his Son coming and shedding his blood on our behalf, a stay of execution as we discussed earlier. Finally after some time, the people of God who were looking for the coming Messiah, who would once and for all take away the sins of the world, were satisfied in their quest. Jesus left heaven and came down to earth as a baby. He lived a perfect life that we could not live, He died as the perfect sacrificial lamb for us, paying the penalty of our sin that we could never on our own atone for. He rose from the dead conquering Satan, sin, death, etc… and extended/extends forgiveness to those who would place their faith in him. He then ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. So what does all of this have to do with confession? Well every person Christian or not that enters the Christian counseling office is confessing with the chorus of all believes that they cannot do it themselves. If they were not confessing this they would never enter the counseling office. They are admitting with the chorus of believers that they need someone outside of themselves to intervene and intercede on their behalf. This is a confession of the need for Christ and his gospel whether or not the person entering counseling recognizes it.
So as we can see the counseling setting is confessional in these two particular spiritual senses for believers and non-believers. Interestingly enough the secular world has affirmed the importance of a confessional context in counseling settings also. For example, Bollas and Sundelson in their book The New Informants which talks about the erosion of privacy in psychotherapy state the following:
Psychoanalysis cannot function if the patient does not have complete confidence that what he says to his psychoanalyst is privileged.[l]
And,
Absolute confidentiality permits the patient to harm the objects of his internal world and in so doing to express fully in the presence of the analyst the precise nature of his mental conflict.[li]
And finally,
When a person seeks pastoral counseling, legal advice, or a medical examination, it is understood that he or she has the right to a private consultation, one safeguarded against intrusion at all costs. Knowing that the consultation is strictly private, the individual is free to disclose anything he needs to and in turn to gain help from a qualified professional…The right to such privacy is vital to the function of verbal freedom, which is understood across these important disciplines-law, the clergy, and in some cases medicine-as essential to the possible salvation of a soul in its carnal, theological, or secular world. Salvation is not guaranteed. But each person has the right to seek a professional for a privileged discussion that might lead to his or her redemption.[lii]
It is not only in psychoanalysis that we see the importance of absolute confidentiality in the healing profession. The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of medical practice and ethics states the following:
Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.[liii]
If the medical field and secular psychotherapy have upheld in their origins the necessity of absolute confidentiality to these degrees, how much more should a Christian counseling office? Shouldn’t our offices be ones of spiritual and emotional refuge? And although I (we) lawfully abide and participate with mandatory reporting requirements, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t view them as an absolute intrusion, and violation of our client’s privacy, and a detriment to the context necessary for spiritual and emotional healing.
Clinical
The Christian counseling office needs to be clinical. This does not mean white coats and impersonalized treatment. This simply means it needs to be informed and learned. The Christian counselor should avail themselves to the research, data, and counseling interventions that God through his common grace has allowed Christian and non-Christian persons to discover. We as Christians should not bury our heads in the sand and ignore the advances of science and behavioral sciences. John Calvin when writing about science as God’s gift spoke to this stating:
Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall nether reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the spirit of God.[liv]
He then goes on to say:
Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God. [lv]
We are not to disregard truth where we find it, and neither should the Christian counselor. Truth, and the learning of truth, is the definition of clinical. As a practical example, this means that as well as looking at spiritual reasons and contributions for anxiety we would include physical and psychological interventions as well. This might look like sending the client to get their thyroid tested by their doctor, suggesting exercise or progressive muscle relaxation, and explaining and encouraging identification and fighting of cognitive distortions. This would be in parallel, and in addition to, any spiritual or biblical exploration of anxiety.
Ministry
Well, we finally reach the last section of this exploration. If the Christian counselor is a priest as we have seen, and as a result their practice is to be confessional, then their work can only be most accurately described as ministry. Since ministry is the primary context of the Christian Counseling office we need to look at the implication this has in some particular areas.
Hope
One of the primary features of the counseling ministry is the promotion of hope in spite of circumstances. This is because hope is not salvation from problems, psychotropic medications, a better marriage, feeling less anxiety or depression. Hope in its essence is a person.[lvi] A person, who came to earth on our behalf, lived a perfect life, died on our behalf, and rose from the dead establishing true Hope as eternal. Hope is the person Jesus Christ, who is alive and well, and invested in inviting all to himself. Hope incarnate. If our ministry is not grounded and facilitated in the hope found in Christ and his work, then we have greatly erred, and the error will come at great spiritual and psychological costs.
Function of the Church
As looked at in a previous section, the Christian counseling office ministry is a direct function of the Church carried out by one of its priestly ambassadors whether it is carried out in a particular church or a secular office building. I won’t speak to this much, as it was already addressed. However, as I am writing this I find myself in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis, and as a result, a clear example of the secular world misunderstanding this has presented itself. Governor Jay Inslee, of Washington State, in his attempt to limit death and health difficulty for the people of Washington placed a number of bans on people gathering. The ban stated that it “…will immediately ban all gatherings of people for social, spiritual and recreational purposes.”[lvii] Although I can understand the practicality and brevity of the statement, it is based on a complete misunderstanding of the church. A spiritual gathering occurs when a person opens their Bible in the morning and the Holy Spirit instructs him/her of its meaning. It is also occurring when a family gathers to sing songs of worship, or does a Bible study. The list could go on and on. Allowing for the brevity and news bite format of the order of instruction, it is still clearly based on a misconception of the true reality of the Church. A reality that people, not buildings, are the Church of God.
Information
Given our previous discussion on confession, it is important that the Christian counselor prayerfully and carefully decided how information is maintained and protected in the counseling office. The primary mode of the medical model, which is often times adopted by counselors, is actually quite non-confessional and not protective of information. Insurance companies get information. Some insurance systems are beginning to require all providers to use electronic notes in their system; so what this means is that your podiatrists nurse could log into your mental health records, and read through your notes. This seems hardly protective or confessional. Medical and counseling records are being used for court purposes, and other purposes that have nothing to do with their intended counseling purposes, and to the great detriment of clients. The Christian counselor will have to wrestle with this. Will they accept insurance, and how will they navigate the insurance system? Will they release case notes to that company if demanded? Will you take notes during the session? What will you place in a note on file? Who will you release that information to and why? If the plan is to attempt to operate priestly and confessionally, the medical model of information use cannot be adopted wholesale. It should be stated that this will vary depending on where you are practicing, or if you are working in the middle of a secular agency. The level of confessional enactment in your work may vary compared to private practice. However, that doesn’t mean that this shouldn’t be thought through, and that some adjustments can’t be made.
Another option to counselors is to operate out of the priesthood of all believers, and hold to a confessional seal in their counseling office. This is the idea that the information from the counseling session is only for the counseling purposes, and not for any other purpose. This may mean saying no to requests for records in light of your policy, and grounding your refusal in your 1st amendment religious freedom rights in spite of state or federal laws/mandates to do otherwise. Interestingly enough, even some secular associations still hold to this high regard of confidentiality. For example, The American Psychoanalytic Association states the following in their Ethics Document:
All information about the specifics of a patient's life is confidential, including the name of the patient and the fact of treatment. The psychoanalyst should resist disclosing confidential information to the full extent permitted by law. Furthermore, it is ethical, though not required, for a psychoanalyst to refuse legal, civil or administrative demands for such confidential information even in the face of the patient’s informed consent and accept instead the legal consequences of such a refusal.[lviii]
They do make note of the possible negative outcomes if one chooses to do this though:
Refusal of such demands for confidential information, while ethical, may have serious consequences for the patient, e.g., loss of benefits, loss of a job opportunity, etc., which may cause the patient to take some legal action against the member. The fact that refusal is ethical is unlikely to protect the psychoanalyst in those circumstances, unless the member has made his or her position clear both at the onset and throughout treatment. Even with these clarifications a degree of exposure may remain.[lix]
At one point in their ethics document they even go further when speaking about mandatory reporting saying that “…a psychoanalyst may also refuse to comply with local reporting laws if that psychoanalyst believes that to do so would seriously undermine the treatment or damage the patient.”[lx] Although they do admit that severe consequences could result. It saddens me though, that a secular association like this holds more to the confessional than any of the Christian association’s ethics documents that I have found. This should not be so.
Also, it is important to note that there is no ministry apart from risk.[lxi] There was risk when Christ walked straight to the cross on our behalf. There was risk during the reformation when simply adhering to correct biblical belief would get you martyred, and there is risk in ministry today in 2020. If we are avoiding all risk, we are probably avoiding ministry also.
Medical Model
When viewing counseling as ministry, it is important that we speak briefly about the medical model that at times has seemingly tried to take over the counseling world. Although we want to accept truth where we find it; the Christian Counselor cannot accept biological psychiatric philosophy wholesale. This is for a couple of reasons. First, Salvation comes from Jesus Christ, not a pill. Second, the whole biological psychiatric view blames your problems on your biology. This viewpoint of biological psychiatry tends to:
“…blame the body” for disturbed behavior, rather that the family or society. This perspective lets the social surround escape unscathed from any blame or responsibility, no matter how much psychological disorder is in its midst. The inherent bias in a reductionistic biological psychiatry is that no one-not even the afflicted individual-is accountable for his or her behavior, because abnormal behavior is presumed to have some impelling pathopysiological cause. Human choice and values are negated…”[lxii]
This should be an important caution to us, because spiritually interpreted; this model discounts the trauma of being sinned against, and the trauma we afflict on others and ourselves. These are not allowable exclusions in a counseling ministry. John Steinbeck in his 1961 book “Travels with Charley” spoke to this problem in a general sense. He was traveling across America and stopped to visit a Church service one Sunday in Vermont. He writes:
The service did my heart and I hope my soul some good. It had been long since I had heard such an approach. It is our practice now, at least in the large cities, to find from our psychiatric priesthood that our sins aren’t really sins at all but accidents that are set into motion by forces beyond our control. There was no such nonsense in this church.[lxiii]
May we in our counseling work and lives not join the chorus of the psychiatric priesthood, but solely the Priesthood of Christ.
Finally, our last consideration is that the medical model in counseling does not provide a cure. In fact, “Despite vigorous laboratory investigation, no psychiatric disorder has thus far been “cured” by medication, not even manic disorder where lithium treatment has been so helpful”.[lxiv] This should give us pause. This does not mean that medication is useless or should never be used, nor should a person feel guilty or shamed for using psychiatric medications. However, we cannot encourage our clients to place their faith in something that has returned poor results compared to other areas of medicine. Which, might also cause them to attribute their problems in their life to a non-verifiable organic malfunction (i.e. chemical imbalance), rendering their ability for improvement less likely.
Decision making
Decision making in the Christian ministry context of counseling should be made primarily through prayer. Prayer should be a discipline that grounds and goes before you in your counseling work. With prayer in place, it is important that decisions in everyday be rooted in the Christian counselor’s identity as a priest. That means that when an issue arises, questions like “what is the priestly or pastoral response to this?” should supersede questions like “what is the legal risk involved in this”?
Conclusion
We have reached the end of our exploration together. My hope is that I was able to cement the idea that the Christian counselor is a priest, that as a result the counseling context is confessional. That the work should be clinically informed, and that it is most aptly labeled ministry. I will leave you with one final concept. While meditating on the idea of the sacrament of communion, and the words that Christ gave to his disciples: “This do in remembrance of me”, it is clear that we as Christian counselors (and Christians in general) need to hold these words close. We need to recognize that when we counsel, when we parent, when we witness to a neighbor in behavior and speech, when we eat, when we laugh, when we weep, and participate in all the other fullness of life we are to do these things “in remembrance of Him”. And, as a result of doing so the sacrament of communion blossoms into a sacramental fullness of living in communion with Christ. This is the life of a priest.
[i] The use of the term Priest includes both male and female. Although I grammatically would like to include woman believers, Priestess was not included as it generally depicts participation in non-Christian religious practices. The Biblical text also uses Priest as terminology for all believers.
[ii] Spurgeon, Charles H. Sermon 3266 The Priesthood of Believers. Chapel Library: A ministry of Mount Zion Bible Church. https://www.spurgeongems.org/sermon/chs3266.pdf Delivered 1864. Accessed 1/23/2020
[iii] Ironside, H.A. 1968 (7th Printing). James and Peter Neptune, New Jersey. Loizeaux Brothers Inc.
[iv] ESV Bible Online. www.esv.org https://www.esv.org/Exodus+19/ Accessed 1/23/2020 Exodus 19:5-6
[v] Eastwood, Cyril. 1963. The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful: An investigation of the doctrine from Biblical times to the Reformation. Minneapolis, MN. Augsburg Publishing. Pg 23
[vi] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 2 Genesis 2:15
[vii] Bouma, Rolf. A Science and Religion Commentary: Genesis 2:15. The Ministry Theorem. Pg. 2 2012 http://ministrytheorem.calvinseminary.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Genesis_2_v15.pdf
[viii] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 115 Numbers 6:24-27
[ix] Ibid pg. 10 Genesis 14:18-19
[x] First heard this explained by Richard Platt in lecture around 2009 in Ballard, WA.
[xi] New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. La Habra, CA. 1998. Pg. 54 Exodus 12:6
[xii] Ibid. Pg 54 Exodus 12:13
[xiii] New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. La Habra, CA. 1998. Pg. 411 Job 1:4-5
[xiv] Eastwood, Cyril. 1963. The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful: An investigation of the doctrine from Biblical times to the Reformation. Minneapolis, MN. Augsburg Publishing house. Pg. 19
[xv] Eastwood, Cyril (1962) The Priesthood of All Believers: An examination of the doctrine from the Reformation to the present day. Minneapolis, MN: The Epworth Press. Pg. 27
[xvi] Ibid. Pg 72
[xvii] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 416. 1 Chronicles 21:7
[xviii] Ibid. Chronicles 21:26-22:1
[xix] New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. La Habra, CA. 1998. NT Pg. 197 Hebrews 7:11-16
[xx] Eastwood, Cyril (1962) The Priesthood of All Believers: An examination of the doctrine from the Reformation to the present day. Minneapolis, MN: The Epworth Press. Pg. 45
[xxi] Eastwood, Cyril. 1963. The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful: An investigation of the doctrine from Biblical times to the Reformation. Minneapolis, MN. Augsburg Publishing house. Pg. 231
[xxii] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 407-408 Esther 4:16-17
[xxiii] Eastwood, Cyril (1962) The Priesthood of All Believers: An examination of the doctrine from the Reformation to the present day. Minneapolis, MN: The Epworth Press. Pg. 233
[xxiv] New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. La Habra, CA. 1998. OT Pg 620 Isaiah 61:1-2.
[xxv] Young, Edward (1972. Reprinted 1992) The Book of Isaiah Volume 3. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI Pg.458
[xxvi] New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. La Habra, CA. 1998. OT Pg 620 Isaiah 61:6
[xxvii] Young, Edward (1972. Reprinted 1992) The Book of Isaiah Volume 3. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI Pg. 462-463
[xxviii] Pope John Paul II. 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd edition. Doubleday publishing. USA. Pg. 429 Catechism 1544
[xxix] Ibid. Pg. 430 Catechism 1546
[xxx] This is a term I heard in a lecture in Ballard Washington around 2009 by Dr. Richard Pratt of Reformed Theological Seminary.
[xxxi] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 1021-1022. Luke 2:36-38
[xxxii] Ibid. Pg 1209 1 Peter 2:4-5
[xxxiii] Eastwood, Cyril (1962) The Priesthood of All Believers: An examination of the doctrine from the Reformation to the present day. Minneapolis, MN: The Epworth Press. Pg. 80
[xxxiv] Ibid, Pg. 255
[xxxv] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg.1209 1 Peter 2: 9-10
[xxxvi] New Advent. www.newadvent.org http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm Acessed 3/3/2020
[xxxvii] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 1207 James 5:16
[xxxviii]New American Standard Bible. The Lockman Foundation. La Habra, CA. 1998. OT Pg. 99 Leviticus 19:16
[xxxix] Ibid. pg 534 Proverbs 10:19
[xl] Ibid. Pg. 535 Proverbs 11:13-14
[xli] Ibid. Pg 540 Proverbs 17:9
[xlii] Ibid Pg. 543 Proverbs 20:18-19
[xliii] Ibid. Pg. 548 Proverbs 26:20
[xliv] Ibid. Pg. 604 Isaiah 43:25
[xlv] Ibid. Pg 659-660 Jeremiah 31:33-34
[xlvi] Bush, J. & Tiemann, W. The Right to Silence: Privileged clergy communication and the law. Nashville, TN. Aingdon Press. 1964. 2nd edition 1989. Pg. 64
[xlvii]Plass, Edward, What Luther Says, Vol. 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1959. Pg. 333
[xlviii] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. By Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. 2007 Pg. 551. Psalm 32:5
[xlix] Ibid. Pg. 1216. 1 John 1:9
[l] Bollas and Sundelson. The New Informants: The betrayal of confidentiality in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.
Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc. 1995. Pg. 59
[li] Ibid. Pg. 77
[lii] Ibid. Pg. 74-75
[liii] National Library of Medicine. www.nlm.nih.gov/ https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html
Acessed 3/27/2020
[liv] Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion Vol 1. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminister Press. 1960 Sec. 2.2.15. Pg. 273-274
[lv] Ibid. 274
[lvi] This idea was most inspired in me by hearing Paul Tripp speak, although I can’t at the present time find any source to cite regarding this.
[lvii] Governor of Washington. www.governor.wa.gov https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-announces-stay-home-stay-healthy%C2%A0order Acessed 3/27/2020
[lviii] American Psycholanalytic Association. www.aspa.org https://apsa.org/code-of-ethics Acessed 3/27/2020. Section 2. 4:1
[lix] Ibid. Endnote 1
[lx] Ibid. 2.4.8
[lxi] Bush, J. & Tiemann, W. The Right to Silence: Privileged clergy communication and the law. Nashville, TN. Aingdon Press. 1964. 2nd edition 1989. Pg. 20.
[lxii] Ross, C and Pam, A. Psuedoscience in Biological Psychiatry: Blaming the body. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1995. Pg. 3
[lxiii] Steinbeck, John. Travels With Charley: In search of America. New York, NY: Penguin Books. 1962. Pg. 77-78
[lxiv] Ross, C and Pam, A. Psuedoscience in Biological Psychiatry: Blaming the body. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1995. Pg. 41