Nouthetic Counseling Defended: A Reply to Ganz

This paper is to reply to Ganz's critique of Carter's (1975a) analysis of Adams’ theory of Nouthetic Counseling. It begins with a further analysis of Adams’ thoughts. Several weaknesses were noted in Adams thought: omission of central biblical concepts, rejection of common grace, a theologically inadequate view of the fall, uncritically using psychological concepts yet claiming to be exclusively biblical, ignoring psychology as phenomena and a rhetoric which is confusing. Ganz's comments were then responded to in detail. At many points Ganz did not appear to understand the nature of the original analysis and reacted to a label he placed on my original analysis.

Nouthetic Counseling Defended

This paper is an analysis and refutation of John Carter's article entitled, “Adams’ Theory of Nouthetic Counseling,” in which Carter attacked Jay Adams’ nouthetic counseling as being inadequate and unbiblical. Carter's accusation of Adams as being close to a “full-fledged” behaviorist is also refuted. Further examined are Carter's attack of Adams’ theory of man, Adams’ counseling model, process, and technology. In all of these areas, Carter either misunderstood or misrepresented Adams and in places contradicted his own argument. A further analysis is made of Carter's understanding of authority and ecclesiology.

Adams’ Theory of Nouthetic Counseling

Adams’ theory of nouthetic counseling was analyzed with reference to the nature of man, view of pathology, the counseling model, the counseling process, and the counselor and his techniques. Biblically, Adams’ theory is found to be inadequate. It views man almost entirely in behavioral terms and fails to incorporate such biblical concepts as heart, soul, spirit, and flesh. Adams also fails to provide a biblical basis for building his theory around the word noutheteo. Psychologically, Adams offers no emperical support for his theory and seems unaware of the methodological and research problems involved in supporting his claims of success. Adams’ criticism of Rogers and Freud shows a lack of knowledge of primary sources, and his uncritical positive bias toward Mowrer and Skinner reflects an uncritical presuppositionalism. Finally, he has no theory of motivation or theory of personality.