Why I think the teaching of "Boundaries" by Cloud & Townsend is not biblical. WARNING: LONG POST!

[quintessentialramble]

So, because in light of coming across the Boundaries book, I had a lot of reservations and hesitancy. I wanted to give it a chance, mostly because I wanted to truly reflect on where my pastor was coming from with practicing them. I became extremely concerned when I discovered they encouraged married people to divorce. But also, I recognized I really am codependent emotionally and thought maybe their teachings could really help. I truly want to understand, but I could not grasp it biblically at all. The more and more I researched, the more and more harm I saw caused by Henry Cloud's book. There is part of me that understands that loving one another can't be forced...I do get that, but I guess my concern is more along the path of knowing the Bible as it is, and I always question teachings that aren't straight from Scripture. A lot of these teachings about boundaries do make sense, but a lot do not make sense. I definitely over-analyze everything. I have researched this very carefully...and what I came across seems very shocking and unbiblical. However, I also really reflected on how sometimes boundaries are absolutely necessary. Physical boundaries, obviously...and obviously things like abusive relationships...so that's why I want to reserve any conclusions until I can discern conclusively.


“Finally, I want to address the matter of prayer and Bible in therapy. Some people conclude that a therapist who doesn’t pray or read the Bible with them is not doing what God called them to do. This is not always true. Let’s not confuse the spiritual disciplines with the elements of growth. If the elements of growth are present—grace and truth, time, the process, insight, confrontation, and love—that’s what counts. They are what heal us.

Often prayer and Bible reading are appropriate—they can very well fit with what God is doing and with the issue you’re working on. In certain situations, though, they can work against the therapeutic process: for example, some people, every time they get close to feeling an emotion, want to move to prayer to get away from their feelings. Or, when they have to admit to something bad, they avoid doing so by bringing God into it. The therapist has to evaluate what is helpful and what is not and must be given room to do that.” - Dr. John Townsend
https://www.cloudtownsend.com/christian-therapy/


What Is Good Christian Therapy? | Cloud Townsend Resources
www.cloudtownsend.com
by: John Townsend, Ph.D. What is good Christian therapy? If you’ve ever wondered, you’re not alone—many people have wanted to know. It’s important to know, because (as you’ll quickly see when you set out to find a therapist) there are some Christians who do bad therapy, and some non-Christians who do good therapy, and all kinds in ...

Scriptural references: Zero.



Dr. Henry Cloud Talks About Setting Boundaries (Part 1)
www.youtube.com

Scriptural references: One – Do not confront a mocker.


Dr. Henry Cloud Talks About Setting Boundaries (Part 2)

Scriptural references: One – Do not confront a mocker.


3/16/14: The Evil, The Foolish, The Wise
www.youtube.com
Pastor Sean Azzaro | Dr. Henry Cloud www.reallife.org

Scriptural references: Zero.



Dr Henry Cloud Leadership Boundaries HD
www.youtube.com
Uploaded for those who need closed captions. Original located at

.



Don't Be Afraid To Set Boundaries: Julie Hanks LCW on KSL TV's Studio 5 referenced from the guide. Scriptural references: Zero.



Don't Be Afraid To Set Boundaries: Julie Hanks ... - YouTube
www.youtube.com
Read more here Don’t Be Afraid To Set Boundaries: Studio 5 Does the fear of offending friends or family members keep you from setting boundaries? It's a timely topic w...



Setting Boundaries in Relationships - Patrick Doyle - theDove.us Scriptural references: Zero.



Setting Boundaries in Relationships - Patrick Doyle - theDove.us
www.youtube.com
Patrick Doyle, Counselor, talks about boundaries in relationships and answers these questions: How do you set healthy boundaries with friends or loved ones that bring ...



Unsafe Relationships- Counselor Patrick Doyle of Veritas Counseling - Focus Today Scriptural references: Zero.



Unsafe Relationships- Counselor Patrick Doyle of Veritas Counseling - Focus Today
www.youtube.com
Counselor Patrick Doyle of Veritas Counseling discusses how to have more emotional safety in relationships and what to do if you are in a relationship that is unsafe ...



Beyond Boundaries Webcast, Featuring Dr. John Townsend Scriptural references: Zero.



Beyond Boundaries Webcast, Featuring Dr. John Townsend ...
www.youtube.com
Zondervan presents the Worldwide Beyond Boundaries Webcast with author and speaker Dr. John Townsend. Beyond Boundaries, a six-session small group Bible stud...



John Townsend | Boundaries & Leadership - Part 1 – Scriptural References: Zero.



John Townsend | Boundaries & Leadership - Part 1
www.youtube.com
2012 FCCI Annual Conference. How Successful Leaders Guard Their Time & Energy.



Setting Boundaries With Your Adult Children -- Allison Bottke Scriptural references: One – Isaiah 43: Apart from Me there is no Savior; you are to be my witnesses.



Setting Boundaries With Your Adult Children -- Allison Bottke
www.youtube.com
The Full Circle Ladies speak with Allison Bottke about setting boundaries with your adult children ; Allison Bottke ; Author ; Book: "Setting Boundaries With Your ...

 

[quintessentialramble]

Scriptural references: Zero.




How to Set Boundaries. 5 Ways to Learn and Set your Limits
www.youtube.com
Learn How to Set Healthy Boundaries. Boundaries are literally where we end and another begins. If we do not know ourselves from another, we are not well.





In many of these Youtube videos, there is an overwhelming support from non-Christians, in particular atheists.


This is the website I was introduced to as a help for schizophrenia and bipolar, but happened to contain information from the Boundaries book: Boundaries Guide | 7 Cups Help Guides Now, granted, this is not the actual book, and it seems as though they simply cited the non-biblical information here; but it does concern me that perhaps people were trying to Christianize a psychological ideaology. Thus, I tried to get more insight.




Boundaries Guide | 7 Cups Help Guides
www.7cups.com
Find Help, Online Therapy & Free Counseling and Someone to Talk to while on the go! We are here to listen.




“The Bible does teach separation at times, but this is a concept far removed from "boundaries." We are taught to flee temptations (2 Timothy 2:22, 1 Corinthians 6:18), in order to avoid falling into sin and thus dishonoring God. We are to separate from false doctrine and those who cause division in the body of Christ (Romans 16:17-18, Titus 3:10), but again, the focus is on the honor of God and the care of others who may be easily deceived. Believers are holy, "set apart," consecrated to God. Yet even as we are called out of the world in this sense, and are no longer of the world, we must be the salt and light of the earth, ambassadors for Christ. There are times to discipline a fallen brother or sister, but always for his ultimate restoration and salvation (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5). None of this reflects the basically self-focused teaching of "boundaries." The idea must be rejected as unbiblical, and we must return to biblical categories for understanding and correcting sinful behavior, and for loving God and others. “ - http://www.christiandiscernment.com/Christian Discernment/CD PDF/Book pdf/15 Boundaries.pdf

"Friends. Beginning with the categories of compliant, aggressive, controller, and nonresponsive outlined earlier, the authors put together several combinations of these patterns to illustrate the friendship problems that can result from a lack of "boundaries." They define friendship as "a nonromantic relationship that is attachment-based rather than function-based" (p. 134). Although friendship has "no external commitment" as does marriage, "choice and commitment are elements of a good friendship" (p. 144). The authors state that friendships should be based on attachment rather than obligation: "The only thing that will keep them calling, spending time with us, and putting up with us is love. And that's the one thing we can't control." (p. 146) One of the major problems with their analysis is that biblically, we must be willing to extend love and friendship to people who need it, and this is an obligation to be fulfilled out of our love for the Lord. In friendships, as in other human relationships, the Christian is called to love God with all his heart, soul, and strength, and to love others as he already loves himself. The boundary-tainted analysis simply doesn't focus on God's command. Too often, these authors recommend that friends separate, or that one threatens to end the relationship. Their counsel ignores much 15 biblical teaching about requirements to initiate reconciliation, regardless of who is at fault."



BOUNDARIES: POLITICAL OR PERSONAL? - Christian Discernment
www.christiandiscernment.com
1 BOUNDARIES: POLITICAL OR PERSONAL? Critique of Boundaries, by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend An increasingly popular "buzzword" among psychologists (and their followers) is "boundaries."





That website is quite a long read, but is biblically backed, and in my view, seems a lot closer to Scripture than Boundaries.
This is a condensed version of the main points of the critique: Unbiblical Boundaries of Self


Unbiblical Boundaries of Self-Protection - Unofficial
www.psychoheresy-aware.org
An increasingly popular "buzzword" among psychologists (and their followers) is "boundaries." This one concept is used to explain and correct a huge range of human behavior.





Again, here we see another author who is against the teachings of Cloud:
“In spite of the authors’ claims, Scripture never commands people to develop boundaries, or take control of their lives. So where did the authors’ get the concept of boundaries? They got it from psychology. For example, on page 39, the authors write, “man’s most basic need in life is relationship.” They repeat this assertion on page 66 where they say, “Our deepest need is to belong, to be in relationship…” The idea that man must have his needs met in order to experience fulfillment began with Maslow.According to Scripture, man’s most basic need is not relationship, but regeneration, and the forgiveness of his sins. The authors’ view of man is that he is a needy psychological receptacle that must be filled with “relationship,” so that he can set proper boundaries in relationships with others. In contrast, the biblical view of man is that he is a depraved sinner who needs to be forgiven and born again (Rom 3:9-23; Eph. 2:1-3). Man’s receptacle is not empty. Instead, it is overflowing with pride, selfishness and wickedness. These sinful motivations manifest themselves in all man’s relationships, which inevitably lead to conflict and alienation. In short, man does not have a “boundaries” problem; he has a heart problem (Mark 7:21-23). Only adherence to the heart-changing gospel of Jesus Christ can cure him. “ - Pastor Rick's Musings: Boundaries: A Book Review


Pastor Rick's Musings: Boundaries: A Book Review
pastor-ricks-musings.blogspot.com
Boundaries is not an easy book to understand or digest. This difficulty is due to the authors’ intentionally integrating, and syncretizing biblical truth with psychology.





In this website, one of the comments really strongly made me question Henry Cloud as a reliable teacher.
“Anonymous said...

I was in Dr. Cloud's Facebook group, and was asked to provide a testimonial for the site because I was "so helpful." The next week, after voicing spiritual concerns and mentioning the bible, AND some of the advice he gives, I was kicked out of the group, my email and twitter following blocked and NO ONE will give me a reason why. I was not being inappropriate, and the only thing I did was bring God/Bible into the conversation.

The man is violating standard psychological ethics practices, and does NOT practice what he preaches about "having difficult conversations." DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS MAN, nor follow his teachings. The Bible does indeed talk about boundaries, but not in the way he approaches it. Christ, for instance, was tired and drew away from the crowds to get time to Himself. A boundary. We ARE to care for others, but not for things they can do for themselves - ie. If a man can work, but doesn't, he shouldn't eat. God holds us all accountable for our own decisions and actions. He's clear about that throughout the word. But Cloud's "hammer" is psychology" so everything looks like a nail.”


Another:

“Very well said, Therese.The Gospel of Jesus Christ goes all the way, past any humanly devised boundaries. Boundaries is one of those false gospels that Paul warned about in Galatians 1. There is certainly some truth if there if one looks carefully to find it. I believe all Truth is God's Truth no matter where it may be as was written about by Frank E. Gaebelein in his book, The Pattern of God's Truth:

[https://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Gods...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=PBQCMERZNTE8WF8BAAKY

But why look for God's Truth in and among other other teachings that are clearly suspect? Only a Christian who is not well grounded in the Truth of the Word of God would yield to allowing themselves to be drawn in more and more into accepting and believing Truth that is contaminated by association with the doctrines of men. Jesus warned his disciples about that in Matthew 15:8, 9:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Boundaries is a mix of doctrines of God and doctrines of men, like putting different fruit into a blender to create a smoothie, very delicious but later you really have little idea what the original ingredients were. Boundaries is a Christian smoothie. But it is not the only one, there are more.

I do not think writing a book will eradicate Boundaries, although a few people might notice. Even if Billy Graham would have preached against it, Boundaries would still retain a following, because our human side wants to accept rational explanations for the problems of life and Boundaries does seem to offer rational solutions to relationship problems. The answers that we find in the Bible are not always rational, they are more difficult to accept and to implement, but they are the right ones, and will always be proven right in the end, even if in the beginning they might not seem to make sense.

For those of us who have been stung by what Boundaries has done to us and our families, we need to continue keep our eyes focused on Jesus, and on Him alone, the Author and Perfecter of our faith [Hebrews:12;2] He had more reasons by far than any of us to feel cheated and betrayed, and He was, but he stayed the course, right to the end. Amen. “


Anonymous said...

Now and then on the radio, I listen to the authors dish out "advice" ....the past two times I listened to them I was a bit surprised as to what their advice was...shameful.

1. they suggested to a man to sign divorce papers...WHAT??? - they spoke with this guy for less than 5 minutes, he had stated that his wife called him controlling & they implied by not signing the papers he was proving that..even though he had started biblical (real biblical) help & had been getting closer to God.....hummm..they offer a weak faith solution to a comfortable me focused wide path to nowhere but deeper into self.

2. today a woman called in, her brother is gay - his lifestyle was condemned by his parents & parents church. Their solution BOTH for her and him...what he has experienced is Toxic & he needs to remove himself and start taking "antibiotics for the parent & church toxicity" via a more lenient church & certainly get away from the toxic parents!! ...all this advice with in 3 blocks of driving time in my car...hummm again weak faith. I have an idea they view the path a a very WIDE one. If you ask me, they appear very arrogant, world first focused know it psychologists & use scripture as profit, promotion and a cover for dishing out advice that can only lead someone deeper into the world...I believe in grace - what I don't believe in is weak faith & I don't like wolves in sheep's clothing posed & ready to take another down with them...one day they will account for sending folks on a uturn when what they were seeking was truthful guidance in a time of pain and weakness.
Vicki

 

[quintessentialramble]

Summary:
The main purpose of "Boundaries" is to eliminate "toxic" people from your life.
This has 3 major flaws: 1. It places the boundary-setter on a self-righteous pedestal, unable to see their own sin; 2). It refuses reconciliation where there has been no attempt of resolution; 3.) It places on judgment on non-Christians and makes them scared to "come as they are."
So do I believe that people should just get away with anything? No, that's not what I'm saying. But Christians are not the law enforcers; we already have a judicial system for that. There is a time to not allow someone into your life, such as a pedophile, or an abuser; this is understandable; but the problem with boundaries is that it teaches you can set any boundary that suits you, and this is in no way biblical.

When we say God has boundaries, what we've actually done is put God in a box and put a boundary on how God works. God is boundless, unimaginable, without limits. Even those boundaries that you DO have to set with pedophiles or abusers, God even reaches out to them.

For a time I actually conceded that maybe God has a boundary for the unbeliever, but looking back on my pre-saved years, I find that even this is not true. God tried getting my attention several times through friends or funeral services, and even my salvation story was a complete miracle; when everyone else placed a boundary on me, God removed all the boundaries to get a hold of me.
If you really think about it, we are ALL toxic to God. What if God placed a boundary on all of us, and decided He didn't want a relationship with us? We would feel abandoned, hopeless, lost. God does not do this, and from what I can gather, neither should we treat others this way.

 

[LoricaLady]

Just letting you know.... So many of us have stumbled onto the wrong forum. The purpose of this forum, in small lettering on the first page here, is to ask Christians for Advice. Nothing awful will happen to you for posting here, but I have seen in the past that some mod will come along and move the string to another, more appropriate, forum.

 

[quintessentialramble]

Just letting you know.... So many of us have stumbled onto the wrong forum. The purpose of this forum, in small lettering on the first page here, is to ask Christians for Advice. Nothing awful will happen to you for posting here, but I have seen in the past that some mod will come along and move the string to another, more appropriate, forum.

Thanks, I have no problem with it being moved...probably didn't look hard enough but didn't see one for debate on beliefs. I am open to hearing what others think though.

 

[Sketcher]

I'm not going to do the whole thing here. Too much stuff. This stood out though:

“Finally, I want to address the matter of prayer and Bible in therapy. Some people conclude that a therapist who doesn’t pray or read the Bible with them is not doing what God called them to do. This is not always true. Let’s not confuse the spiritual disciplines with the elements of growth. If the elements of growth are present—grace and truth, time, the process, insight, confrontation, and love—that’s what counts. They are what heal us.

Often prayer and Bible reading are appropriate—they can very well fit with what God is doing and with the issue you’re working on. In certain situations, though, they can work against the therapeutic process: for example, some people, every time they get close to feeling an emotion, want to move to prayer to get away from their feelings. Or, when they have to admit to something bad, they avoid doing so by bringing God into it. The therapist has to evaluate what is helpful and what is not and must be given room to do that.” - Dr. John Townsend
https://www.cloudtownsend.com/christian-therapy/

Is there a problem with this? In the example, the client is misusing religion to run away from the problem the therapist is supposed to help him face and treat. The Biblical way to go about it in keeping with the example is to admit to the bad thing, and take responsibility for it. And if it is sin, bring it to the cross (Rom 7:21-25, 1 Jn 1:9). And if it's not sin, grow to be wiser so as to not repeat it (Eph 5:15-17). If something in a client is making them too scared or weak to do that, the therapist's job is to help fix that problem.

Summary:
The main purpose of "Boundaries" is to eliminate "toxic" people from your life.
This has 3 major flaws: 1. It places the boundary-setter on a self-righteous pedestal, unable to see their own sin; 2). It refuses reconciliation where there has been no attempt of resolution; 3.) It places on judgment on non-Christians and makes them scared to "come as they are."
So do I believe that people should just get away with anything? No, that's not what I'm saying. But Christians are not the law enforcers; we already have a judicial system for that. There is a time to not allow someone into your life, such as a pedophile, or an abuser; this is understandable; but the problem with boundaries is that it teaches you can set any boundary that suits you, and this is in no way biblical.

When I read Boundaries, the purpose I gleaned from it is not the elimination of toxic people from your life, but the elimination of toxic behaviors by people in your life. When someone keeps hurting you, but you're afraid to say anything so the resentment festers and festers until the relationship blows up, or the other person has died, eliminating the chance of reconciliation face to face. Stuff like that isn't right to have in the church, and it's not going to escalate to the level where legal authorities would become involved. Their recommendations seem to be centered on the goals of prevention, repentance, and reconciliation.

When we say God has boundaries, what we've actually done is put God in a box and put a boundary on how God works. God is boundless, unimaginable, without limits. Even those boundaries that you DO have to set with pedophiles or abusers, God even reaches out to them.

For a time I actually conceded that maybe God has a boundary for the unbeliever, but looking back on my pre-saved years, I find that even this is not true. God tried getting my attention several times through friends or funeral services, and even my salvation story was a complete miracle; when everyone else placed a boundary on me, God removed all the boundaries to get a hold of me.

But God loved you too much to leave you the way you were. That is what they would call a boundary. If God truly had no boundaries, he wouldn't have bothered to get a hold of you to get you to believe in Jesus - outside of whom there is no salvation - another boundary. He wouldn't have needed to summon Peter to Cornelius's house to bring Cornelius the message of Jesus. And speaking of Jesus, if he had no boundaries, he would have washed Peter's hands and head rather than just his feet, he wouldn't have gotten in nearly as many dust-ups with the Pharisees and Scribes, he wouldn't have left crowds of yet-unhealed people to teach and heal in other places, he wouldn't have even drawn the line at 12 Apostles or selected Peter, James, and John as the Inner Three, he would have let the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons follow him, and then there's what he taught about who gets into Heaven and Hell, and how no one can cross between them. Oh, and then there's the nature of Jesus, the hypostatic union. To deny that Jesus has any boundaries in any sense to me sounds like denying he had a physical body.

 

[quintessentialramble]

In the example, he is stating in some cases you actually should not read the Bible or pray with the client...at all. From a christian perspective, this doesn't make sense. Sure, there may be structure to what they're doing, as in this is the time for talking about emotions, and this is the time for prayer, but in the first paragraph, the author makes it clear he doesn't plan on implementing the Bible or prayer at all in certain cases. He is essentially saying, let's focus on love and healing, without praying or reading the Bible. This would suggest that his source of wisdom is coming from either psychology or self-wisdom, and not God.

 

[Sketcher]

In the example, he is stating in some cases you actually should not read the Bible or pray with the client...at all. From a christian perspective, this doesn't make sense. Sure, there may be structure to what they're doing, as in this is the time for talking about emotions, and this is the time for prayer, but in the first paragraph, the author makes it clear he doesn't plan on implementing the Bible or prayer at all in certain cases. He is essentially saying, let's focus on love and healing, without praying or reading the Bible. This would suggest that his source of wisdom is coming from either psychology or self-wisdom, and not God.

And in some cases, I believe that's true. Sometimes you have to completely sidestep a poisoned notion of religion to get to the problem that you have to treat so that they look at religion and spirituality in a healthy way. Let's say that you're paid to treat someone who delusionally believes that he is Jesus. How are you going to use Scripture and prayer to treat that? If you have a way that really works, then there are quite a few people in mental institutions that you could easily free by reading the right passages and praying the right prayers.

 

[ValleyGal]

Based on almost everything you've said here, I have to think you did not actually read the book, which repeatedly refers to scriptures to back up their assertions.

The main purpose of "Boundaries" is to eliminate "toxic" people from your life.

Not really. The purpose of boundaries is to help co-dependent people and people-pleasers to learn new and healthier ways of interacting with others who are not so healthy.

This has 3 major flaws: 1. It places the boundary-setter on a self-righteous pedestal, unable to see their own sin;

Not really. Someone who sets boundaries is admitting that they are not perfect and need help to function in a healthy way with others, which enables them to take ownership of their own contribution to dysfunction. It does so by defining what "is me" versus what "is not me."

2). It refuses reconciliation where there has been no attempt of resolution;

Not really. Giving voice to my own limits on what I do and don't accept from others actually is one step towards reconciliation. Example: "I would be glad to discuss this when we are both able to do so in a calm way and without calling each other names." The boundary is that I do not accept being called names or being all worked up when trying to discuss something. Discussion is conducive to reconciliation; name-calling is not.

3.) It places on judgment on non-Christians and makes them scared to "come as they are."

Not really. "Come as you are" does not mean "remain as you are." And "come as you are" is not for intimate relationships with just anyone. Choosing intimate relationships is actually an exercise in boundaries because you are determining what kind of character, personality, skills, interests, etc, are those that suit you. "Come as you are" is intended for the very beginning of a relationship with The Lord... and it supports that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. But through transformation by the Holy Spirit, we do not remain as we were. Instead, we mature in faith, just as intimate relationships mature in their love. Relationships are not static.

but the problem with boundaries is that it teaches you can set any boundary that suits you

Not really. The Bible gives us all kinds of guidelines of appropriate boundaries. They are the principles he's given us for righteous living and relationship. His boundaries are good for us.

There are a lot of things you say in your posts that suggest you have not actually read the book. If you had, you would see that there are scriptures to back all of it up, that it's about knowing where you end and another person begins, what you are and are not responsible for and to, when to say yes and when it's okay to say no, how to take responsibility for your own feelings and behaviour, how to tactfully hold someone accountable and be responsible for their own feelings and behaviour, how to understand how we influence each other and what kinds of influence we want to allow, how to let the good into relationships and keep out the bad, and a whole lot of other healthy ways of functioning. All of it Biblical.

Setting boundaries is not about setting them on other people's behaviours. It's about setting them on your own. Example: "You are welcome to yell and tantrum all you want because I disagree with you, but I do not have to sit here and listen to it. When you are able to discuss this rationally, then I will be willing to talk." There is nothing unbiblical about that.

Before you criticize the book, you might want to read it.

 

[quintessentialramble]

Based on almost everything you've said here, I have to think you did not actually read the book, which repeatedly refers to scriptures to back up their assertions.

Not really. The purpose of boundaries is to help co-dependent people and people-pleasers to learn new and healthier ways of interacting with others who are not so healthy.


Not really. Someone who sets boundaries is admitting that they are not perfect and need help to function in a healthy way with others, which enables them to take ownership of their own contribution to dysfunction. It does so by defining what "is me" versus what "is not me."


Not really. Giving voice to my own limits on what I do and don't accept from others actually is one step towards reconciliation. Example: "I would be glad to discuss this when we are both able to do so in a calm way and without calling each other names." The boundary is that I do not accept being called names or being all worked up when trying to discuss something. Discussion is conducive to reconciliation; name-calling is not.


Not really. "Come as you are" does not mean "remain as you are." And "come as you are" is not for intimate relationships with just anyone. Choosing intimate relationships is actually an exercise in boundaries because you are determining what kind of character, personality, skills, interests, etc, are those that suit you. "Come as you are" is intended for the very beginning of a relationship with The Lord... and it supports that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. But through transformation by the Holy Spirit, we do not remain as we were. Instead, we mature in faith, just as intimate relationships mature in their love. Relationships are not static.


Not really. The Bible gives us all kinds of guidelines of appropriate boundaries. They are the principles he's given us for righteous living and relationship. His boundaries are good for us.

There are a lot of things you say in your posts that suggest you have not actually read the book. If you had, you would see that there are scriptures to back all of it up, that it's about knowing where you end and another person begins, what you are and are not responsible for and to, when to say yes and when it's okay to say no, how to take responsibility for your own feelings and behaviour, how to tactfully hold someone accountable and be responsible for their own feelings and behaviour, how to understand how we influence each other and what kinds of influence we want to allow, how to let the good into relationships and keep out the bad, and a whole lot of other healthy ways of functioning. All of it Biblical.

Setting boundaries is not about setting them on other people's behaviours. It's about setting them on your own. Example: "You are welcome to yell and tantrum all you want because I disagree with you, but I do not have to sit here and listen to it. When you are able to discuss this rationally, then I will be willing to talk." There is nothing unbiblical about that.

Before you criticize the book, you might want to read it.

I read the non-Christian version by the same author. Which, in and of itself, is a major red flag. I asked my pastor for a copy of the Christianized book so I could study it and reflect on how he sees things; and he refused to let me borrow one, as a boundary.
Also, one doesn't have to look too far to see how Dr. Cloud instructs people further into sin. The most notable example is when a man asked him if he should sign divorce papers because his wife called him controlling, Dr. Cloud instructed him to sign the papers---despite not encouraging counseling, sitting down and talking to the other person involved, maybe?
The second most notable example was when a woman called in and Dr. Cloud encouraged her to remove her mother from her life because her mother didn't like her wedding.

The very basis of the book is to create a "dividing line" which in and of itself is directly contrary to Scripture saying "let there be no divisions among you." In many cases, the book simply talks about setting a boundary while maintaining the relationship. This is fine. But more often than not, his solution is cutting people out of your life with little to no effort of resolution. His actions speak louder than his words, if you ask me.

 

[quintessentialramble]

"and it's not going to escalate to the level where legal authorities would become involved. "
Actually in of the videos I posted he actually encourages lawsuits.

 

[GandalfTheWise]

Here's the summary as I see it, drawing heavily from the psychoheresy-aware.org site and their thousands of pages of writing on the subject. I'll freely admit I didn't have the time or inclination to read it all, but I skimmed through hundreds of pages to try to get an accurate picture of what they were promoting. As far as I can tell, most of the criticisms in the OP and following posts are basically repeating much the same thing.

1. They correctly note that secular psychology bases itself on non-biblical principles.
2. They seem to believe that *all* Christian counseling is rooted in secular psychology and is therefore unbiblical and to be avoided. They seem to believe that even the concept of counseling is unbiblical and contrary to scripture. In their minds, it appears impossible for any form of counseling to be used in the church.
3. They explicitly believe that *all* problems faced by believers can be addressed by normal interactions within the body of Christ. This was stated in different places.
4. They explicitly believe that no special study or training in counseling should be used by Christians. This was stated in different places.

From my observations, they have a litany of reasons why every book by any Christian that uses or encourages counseling in any shape or form is unbiblical and wrong. They basically believe that any pastor or church that encourages counseling in any form is acting in an unbiblical manner. They explicitly encourage Christians to minister to each other (which is a good thing) but they seem to think that every Christian is equally competent to give good advice and assistance. My opinion is that is ludicrous. I've been a Christian for over 40 years and have at times heard absolutely ridiculous and harmful advice given over the years. Take a look through many threads on this site or other Christian sites and consider how spiritual or helpful some posts are. There are some good ones; but there are some that are not. As far as I can tell, this is what is being advocated.

To me, this seems to be a rather extreme view that runs counter to many testimonies of how God used Christian counselors in various ways to minister to many people. Most Christians realize that individual Christians with extensive experience and gifts in particular areas are frequently used by God to minister to other Christians.

 

[quintessentialramble]

The article isnt saying that counseling is unbiblical, its saying self love is unbiblical, which is what the vast majority of counselors, Christian or not, teach. Its saying you cant love someone else until you love yourself. This is not what the bible teaches. It teaches that you already take care of yourself, and are to love others as you already love yourself. It's basically saying that self love is a twisting of the scripture.

 

[quintessentialramble]

Also, take note, Dr. Cloud uses this teaching BECAUSE he feels like he is more spiritually mature than other believers (i.e.doesnt sin as much), but then encourages divorce and division within family, basically breaking the ten commandments. This is why I'm incredibly suspicious of people who say they're "spiritually mature." Because most of the time, they clearly arent.

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been moved from Christian Advice to My Two Cents Worth.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Amittai]

I read the non-Christian version by the same author. Which, in and of itself, is a major red flag. I asked my pastor for a copy of the Christianized book so I could study it and reflect on how he sees things; and he refused to let me borrow one, as a boundary.
...

That's ingenious, because not being a doormat and not obliquely and heavily implying others should be doormats, is healthy for humanity as a whole.

Anyone wanting religious sanction might be seeking legalism as a cloak to place a sacred veneer on a situation.

As you're not on the point of a divorce, leave the married to interpret this as they want.

Valley Gal says: Someone who sets boundaries is admitting that they are not perfect and need help to function in a healthy way with others, which enables them to take ownership of their own contribution to dysfunction. It does so by defining what "is me" versus what "is not me." Wouldn't you want to give them the chance?

 

[quintessentialramble]

That's ingenious, because not being a doormat and not obliquely and heavily implying others should be doormats, is healthy for humanity as a whole.

Anyone wanting religious sanction might be seeking legalism as a cloak to place a sacred veneer on a situation.

As you're not on the point of a divorce, leave the married to interpret this as they want.

Valley Gal says: Someone who sets boundaries is admitting that they are not perfect and need help to function in a healthy way with others, which enables them to take ownership of their own contribution to dysfunction. It does so by defining what "is me" versus what "is not me." Wouldn't you want to give them the chance?

The original Boundaries book is not about marriage...at least not directly; though he later created a series of books targeted to specific demographics, including marriage, kids, and some others. The original, however, is just for all relationships. So, my request to understand had nothing to do with marital status.

 

[Olmhinlu]

My reading of Boundaries was not that it had anything to do with other people. It seemed to be specifically about showing that we can't control other people - we can only control ourselves I.e. I can't make you do X, but I can do Y. If I'm afraid to do Y because I think you might do Z, that's my problem. IIRC, it was basically about taking responsibility for your own life.

There was a lot to go through in your posts. It is good to be discerning, but I thought a lot of your points were frivolous.

Do you have the audio of the divorce recommendation that has so bothered you?