The fact that it took me three years to read this probably could tell you a lot. Originally, I started out reading this book for a counseling course that I was taking, but never finished the book even though the course is long done. But, I was determined to finish reading it, however long that took. Once I got past the first part, it started to become more engaging for me. The first part is about the historical background of biblical counseling and the reading was pretty dry - the first chapter being written by John MacArthur and the third chapter written by John Street.
The third chapter by John Street, "Why Biblical Counseling and Not Psychology?" went a step further where I found myself flabbergasted at the way that he set up his argument: There was at least one time in this chapter, where Street would quote an opposing source, and then reiterate it with the words "In other words...", then proceeding to add words to what they were saying in what I felt like was a presumptuous way. For example, here is a quote he referenced from a Christian psychologist:
"'Despite its wealth of information about human beings, their universe, and their God, the Bible is not intended to be a psychology textbook...the Bible does not tell us about...the developmental stages of infancy, the fine points of conflict resolution, or the ways to treat dyslexia or paranoia. Psychology focuses on issues like these.' [Then Street responded with:] In other words, the biblical text is a shallow and imprecise psychology and must only be seen as the starting gate of a more informed therapeutic." (35). I do not see the former person as saying that Bible is imprecise or shallow psychologically, so I felt that Streets 'in other words' summary was an unfair assessment of the former's view.
Another issue I had was when John Street also brought up the story of Phineas Gage and how textbooks explain that his traumatic brain injury took him from being a "responsible, hardworking, mostly moral, and smart employee" (37) to "a cussing, carousing, irresponsible man who could not hold down a job or maintain good relationships with others. According to the theories in most psychology texts, the association areas of the cerebral cortex of Mr. Gage's brain were destroyed, an area where higher mental processes like thinking, language, memory, and speech occur. [Street interjects -] In other words, the texts make a case that morality is not a spiritual issue after all; it is an organic issue...The cases of traumatically brain-injured people like Phinehas Gage and others prove nothing. Again, psychology has made associations that appear to be related to causes, but there is no direct cause and effect between injury and immoral behavior." (38). I disagree with him on the case of Phinehas Gage - I think it is clear that messing with the brain (as TBI's tend to do) can create adverse effects and behavior. And I don't think that that's just psychologists saying that, but actual doctors as well. Street said that those textbooks teach that morality is determined in the brain, and with that I would disagree, but I certainly think there is a God-given restraint and regulation within our brain function.
The book significantly improved for me when I got to Wayne Mack's chapters - I thought these were well-done and very practically helpful and convicting. This rating is probably one star higher because of those chapters. The end of the book has a Personal Data Inventory Form example that counselors can use, which I thought was beneficial as well. I think it would be good to read more books from Wayne Mack. There are a lot of great biblical counseling materials and books out there nowadays, and so I would probably recommend something different than this one.
Overall, I would agree with a lot of what John Street (and the other authors in the book stand by) - that the Bible is sufficient and fully capable of guiding us in of life and godliness, that psychology is a secular pseudo-science, and that we need to offer biblical counseling to people rather than psychology. So the framework and the theological basis of this book is solid, I just had a few qualms with it - and that was probably more likely to happen when there is a book with more than one author.