5 Reasons It’s Past Time to End the Stereotypes about Biblical Counseling
I received an email recently sharing that a counseling professor at an Evangelical seminary said that a certain biblical counselor was “dangerous.” It wasn’t a compliment.
The Evangelical seminary prof teaches in a Christian counseling program that is integrative in perspective. The biblical counselor he was labeling is about the least “dangerous” person I know—both in terms of demeanor/love and in terms of his counseling model/approach.
If this comment were an outlier, I’d ignore it. But because I continue to hear such pejorative comments, I’m moved to address this persistent attitude.
Having many friends in the Christian counseling/integration world, I’d like to say to my friends:
“It’s past time to end the stereotypes about biblical counseling.”
Here are five reasons I believe it’s well past time…
First…Let’s Agree to Skip the Outliers
I understand that you can point to the “outliers” and those anecdotal testimonials that talk about a “harsh, simplistic ‘biblical counselor.’”
I could also point to the anecdotal testimonials that talk about a “Christian integrative counselor who used 99% secular thinking and sprinkled over it 1% out-of-context verses.”
But what do any of those outliers prove other than that any group has practitioners who claim to be a part of the group, but don’t follow the group’s true norms and practices?
I would think that my Christian counseling integrationist friends who value valid research would know better than to point to the outliers…
Second…Let’s Agree to Avoid Old Stereotypes
And I also understand that you can point to some old stereotypes, including books and articles, that may seem to validate your negative view of the modern biblical counseling world. But I’d ask my friends a couple of questions.
1. Are you taking into account the history behind the early biblical counseling writings—the fact that they were written to pull a pendulum back toward the Scriptures—a pendulum that was over 100 years in the making?
2. Are you taking into account not only the parts of those writings that may seem to you to be a tad shallow or naïve, but also reading the other copious pages of those books and articles that were and are indeed deeply insightful about the human condition?
3. Are you taking into account the early writings of the Christian counseling integration movement and the fact that some of those writings, read today, can seem shallow and naïve, lacking a comprehensive biblical understanding of people, problems, and solutions, and looking today less like “integration” and at times more like “syncretism”?
In other words, some of the old stereotypes were never true to begin with—when read within the historical context and read in the context of the chapter/book in which you find them.
Again, I would think that my Christian counseling integrationist friends who value in-depth research, historical context, and comprehensive assessment would produce more appropriate reviews of the biblical counseling world.
Third…Let’s Be Honest about Possible Biased Motivations
As you assess biblical counseling and as you talk to your students about biblical counseling, are you assessing with unbiased eyes—eyes not biased by professional turf wars?
What do I mean by that?
Let’s be honest, part of the “counseling wars” have been fed by turf wars. Some feel a competition for jobs as professors. If biblical counseling were to “win the day” in academia, where would the teaching jobs be for integrationist counselors, especially in seminaries? (Yes, I realize we could turn that question around and ask where would the jobs be for biblical counselors in academia if integrationist models win the day?)
Turf wars also relate to clientele. If biblical counseling wins the day, especially in the church, will there be enough paying clients for the licensed professional Christian counselor and psychologist?
Turf wars also, and perhaps predominantly, relate to ego issues. We all like to be right. We all have a competitive streak. We all want our profession to be held in high esteem. So, if biblical counseling done by equipped pastors and equipped lay people wins the day, then what happens to my profession as a Christian psychologist/Christian counselor/Christian professor? Where does the Christian who is not trained as a pastor, but trained as a psychologist or licensed professional counselor, find validation for his or her professional identity? (Again, I understand that question can be turned around and asked of biblical counseling professors and pastors…)
I would think that my Christian counseling integrative friends who value appropriate introspection and accurate self-awareness of potential motivations, would at least want to ponder what motivations might be driving some of the continuing pejorative stereotypes…
Fourth…Let’s Stay Current
Even if any of the stereotypes evidenced by the outliers or by some pieces of the early biblical counseling writings were true, I would think that my Christian counseling integrationist friends who love to stay current in their research, would…want to stay current in their research!
Are you reading what the biblical counseling world is producing these days?
As you read, are you reading with new eyes—eyes not jaundiced by outliers, prejudicial stereotypes, or professional biases?
Are you reading current comprehensive and compassionate biblical counseling books, blog sites, course syllabi, and articles?
Are you reading books like Counseling the Hard Cases, and Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling, and Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands, and How People Change, and Gospel Treason, and Putting Your Past in Its Place, and Redemption, and Give Them Grace, and Rid of My Disgrace, and Shame Interrupted, and Seeing with New Eyes, and so many more?
Are you visiting and researching and learning from biblical counseling blog sites such as those by Paul Tautges, Brad Hambrick, Grace & Truth by the Biblical Counseling Coalition, and so many more?
Are you researching and learning from biblical counseling ministries such as CCEF, NANC, ABC, IBCD, IABC, Faith BCTC, and so many more?
Are you aware of, researching, and reporting on the cutting-edge, compassionate, comprehensive biblical counseling ministry in churches such as Faith Church in Lafayette, IN, Harvest Bible Chapel in the Chicago area, Denton Bible in Denton, TX, Capitol Hill Baptist Church in DC, Parkside Church in OH, Christ Chapel in Fort Worth, TX, Grace Evangelical Free in KY, Sojourn Community Church in KY, The Summit Church in NC, and so many more?
Fifth…Let’s Avoid Pejorative Labels
When I hear that a wise and winsome biblical counseling leader has been called “dangerous,” I have a one-word response: “Seriously?”
Come on, we can do better than that. We can love better than that. We can represent one another better than that.
Let’s eschew labels. When we have legitimate differences that are not induced by outliers, stereotypes, biases, or outdated research, then let’s present our ideas robustly…and without the pejorative labels.
…Let’s Keep the Conversation Going…
Readers of my blog—both from the biblical counseling world and from the Christian counseling world—will find today’s post a tad different. My regular readers know that I spend very little time focused on “what I’m against” or on “criticizing.” I spend most of my time attempting to post a positive presentation of the rich, robust, relevant, relational nature of Scripture.
I don’t want today’s post to be representative of my Changing Lives blog at RPM Ministries. However, I do think this is a conversation worth starting. As biblical counselors and Christian counselors, of all people, we should be able to communicate and we should be able to accurately represent one another without pejorative, biased, inaccurate stereotypes.
And, as I’ve noted a couple of times in today’s post, yes, I recognize that as biblical counselors we need to skip outliers, avoid old stereotypes, be honest about possible biased motivations, and stay current when we research and seek to represent our perspective on Christian integrative counseling.
So, let’s continue the conversation in constructive ways…
Join the Conversation
How might outliers, stereotypes, biased motivations, and outdated research be negatively impacting the accuracy of assessments of the modern biblical counseling movement?
How might outliers, stereotypes, biased motivations, and outdated research be negatively impacting the accuracy of assessments of the modern Christian counseling integrationist movement?
RPM Ministries: Equipping You to Change Lives with Christ’s Changeless Truth
Bob, this is a great perspective. Thanks for your ministry!
I like this statement: “Let’s eschew labels. When we have legitimate differences that are not induced by outliers, stereotypes, biases, or outdated research, then let’s present our ideas robustly…and without the pejorative labels.”
Too often the exceptions are allowed to define a viewpoint, allowing for strawman arguments to be created.
Thank you for the timely post!
Thanks for your article. Biblical counselor still laugh at by these people as simpleton.
Bob, I agree with all your points. It is what prompted me to write “Building Bridges with Biblical Counselors” back in 1995 (after a year of hearing these same pejorative comments). I appreciate the fact that you also point out that the labels can go the other direction too, from biblical counselors to christian integrative counselors.
Seems to me that one solution for biblical counseling is to do a better job (or to continue to promote an already existing effort) to police itself and to define the outliers as not legitimate or representative. Too often, both groups tend to spend more time pointing out the errors of the other side instead of pointing out the errors of its own side.
I recall Ed Welch’s AACC presentation where he responded to one who criticized biblical counseling. He spent a good deal of time admitting the portion of truth the nay sayer had to say.
Thanks again.
Phil,
Thanks. I appreciate your ministry and your irenic spirit.
I agree that there is a place for addressing weaknesses in our own approaches. I’ve presented and written on that for years, including in my work on “12 Dreams for the Future of Biblical Counseling.”
By God’s grace, I’ve seen most of those dreams developing in the past decade or so.
So, for me, I don’t have much time to give to criticizing the views of others or even to a lot of self-criticism of the BC world. The limited time and energy I have, I want to give to positive presentations of the richness of God’s Word. That’s why this post was an anomaly for me.
That said, the BC world is committed to iron sharpening. A large part of the motivation to launch the Biblical Counseling Coalition was so that we could talk honestly with one another–including about areas we need to address and strengthen. So, I believe the BC world is “policing” itself (to the extent that any huge movement can do so). And I believe we are working to communicate best practices, such as through the BCC’s Confessional Statement and through our recently-released book “Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling.”
I guess I would ask, “From your perspective, what should the CC/Integrative world be doing to “police itself” and to address this nagging issue of pejorative attacks on the BC world?” I know you’ve said you agree with my list. I’m just wondering if you have any additional insights.
Thanks again.
Bob
Bob,
Good words. Thanks for them. I hope this question doesn’t take the conversation on too much of a tangent….
As one who was trained from the integrationist perspective (and, frankly, as one who in my younger years might have also used perjorative terms like “dangerous” for too many folks from the nouthetic perspective), I have grown in my appreciation for the work by many biblical counselors. And I have have noticed, I think, a growing willingness from people in both perspectives to listen to each other, learn from each other, and, well, just be nice to each other.
It was quite easy for me a decade or so ago to find the dividing line(s) between those in the nouthetic and the integrationist “camps.” It doesn’t seem quite so easy to me anymore. That’s a long way to go to simply ask this question…… In your mind, is there a dividing line? If so, what it is? When/where does a person become clearly identified as belonging to one world or the other?
This is more than an intellectual exercise for me. I teach undergrad psychology and counseling classes – and we take time to discuss these perspectives. Your answer to this question will help me portray biblical counselors in a more honest, less stereotypical light.
Thanks!
Aaron
Aaron,
What a great question and well-worded, to-the-point.
While none of us likes to think about divisions and dividing line, your question brings reality into the picture—there are differences.
Can I answer it briefly in a blog post comment response? Not really. I teach a 3-semester-hour course where we spend 40 hours together discussing that question/issue. We talk robustly about deep and important issues like “common grace,” “the imago Dei,” “the noetic effect of sin,” a continuum of integration/non-integration/sufficiency of Scripture, “descriptive research versus theory-building and prescriptive diagnosis/care/cure,” etc., etc., etc.
Since I don’t have 40 hours, here’s my “Readers Digest” response to your question:
“Does a person build their comprehensive, compassionate understanding of people, problems, and solutions from their in-depth exegetical work in God’s Word applying His Truth to daily life struggles, or, does a person build their understanding of people, problems, and solutions from secular sources, or does a person integrate a biblical understanding of people, problems, and solutions with a secular understanding of people, problems, and solutions?”
Most people agree that “descriptive research” and “scientific study” are legitimate areas of exploration. The dividing line appears to be when it comes to “theory building” and “diagnosis/prescription.” Do we build our theory of people, our diagnosis of problems, and our prescriptions of “soul-u-tions” from God’s Word or from man’s word or from some combination? Do we trust what the creature says about the creature, or what the Creator says about the creature? Do we build our model of “people-helping” on Christ’s gospel of grace or on something else, something more?
Part of the issue, too, is what actually happens in theory-building. Unfortunately, some folks who claim to be “integrationists” don’t really integrate much Scripture at all. You read their books or listen to their lectures or observe their counseling and it’s very little, if any, theological foundation. And I’m not talking about how much they quote or do not quote Scripture. I’m talking about where their ideas about people, problems, and solutions come from. These may be the “outliers,” but they certainly represent a dividing line. If a Christian integrationist counselor builds their model on a biblical understanding of people, problems, and solutions, then I think “they’ve crossed the line” into being a biblical counselor—by the definition I’m using in this reply.
On the other hand, for some biblical counselors, we are wrong if our approach is “one-verse-one-problem-one-solution” rather than an in-depth wisdom understanding of lovingly relating the Gospel to life. We’re also wrong if it is “Scripture and no soul.” Paul says in 1 Thess. 2:8 that he was delighted to give both the Scriptures and his very own soul to the people he cared for because they were dear to him. So, any counselor worth the title of “biblical/Christian counselor” needs to build his/her own life on God’s Word/gospel, share his/her own soul sacrificially and lovingly, and build his/her approach to people-helping on a robust, relevant, rich, relational biblical understanding of people, problems, and solutions.
Again, that’s only my “Readers Digest” response (and without once stopping to proof-read or edit!). I hope that I’m not guilty of stereotyping or highlighting outliers.
How would you answer the question, Aaron? I’d benefit greatly from your response and from responses from other Christian integrative counselors—so that I am understanding you well and representing you accurately.
Bob
PS: Your initial comment about it being harder to tell the dividing line is interesting. Perhaps that is because more biblical counselors are being more robust in theory-building from Scriptures and are more open to understanding the descriptive scientific research. And perhaps because more Christian integrative counselors are spending more and more time in the Word developing robust biblical understandings of people, problems, and solutions (again, when they do, I think that by definition they “become” or “are becoming” biblical counselors!).
I’m already wishing we were visiting over coffee rather than trying this via blog post comments.
Your first “Reader’s Digest” response (God’s Word OR secular sources) is interesting. It does offer a clear dividing line – and, after all, I did ask for one. But in my experience, very few people truly fall into either of the two categories you offer. I know few biblical counselors who completely reject “secular” sources of knowledge. And, in my opinion, even the ones who claim to do so actually don’t. They use knowledge/insight outside of Scripture, they just aren’t aware how often (or the manner in which they do). And I know few Christian counselors who build their understanding of people/problems without God’s Word and who don’t attempt to apply God’s Word to the lives of their clients.
So, I have heard (and used) this “dividing line” you have described in the past. But I’m wondering if it is still practically helpful. I think the “either/or” language has to give way to something else. Maybe the labels for “biblical counseling” or “Christian counseling” are a matter of degree, not kind. We would both likely be comfortable describing a clinician whose theory-building and application is 99% Scripture and 1% secular reserach as a “biblical counselor.” But what about the clinician whose theory-building and application is 80% Scripture and 20% secular research? 60%/40%? You get the idea.
If we agree that both biblical counselors and Christian counselors love God’s Word, believe that it has the power to change people’s lives, and are committed to relying on the Holy Spirit…..
If we agree that both the biblical counselor and the Christian counselor can and should “build his/her own life on God’s Word/gospel, share his/her own soul sacrificially and lovingly, and build his/her approach to people-helping on a robust, relevant, rich, relational biblical understanding of people, problems, and solutions”…….
Then there seems to be much common ground to work from. So much common ground, in fact, that it makes me wonder about the dividing lines we’ve all maintained for so long.
Those are my immediate “reader’s digest” thoughts anyway. Hope they weren’t a rambling mess.
Aaron
Aaron,
I agree that sitting across the table sipping some coffee would be a better environment…
I also agree that it is not typically (unless we are talking about the outliners) a 100% either/or, but typically a matter of degree. That’s why I wrote, “or some combination.”
I also agree that none of us is as pristine in approach as we might like to think.
However, when you start saying “80% Scripture and 20% research,” I think you may be “mixing categories” at least by my definition above. I don’t believe it is being an integrationist to say that I value valid descriptive scientific research. Biblical counselors have done so from Jay Adams onward.
The issue is 80% Scripture and 20% secular understanding of people, problems, and solutions (or whatever % you want to make it). It is a philosophical/theological issue and conviction that is central to my “dividing line.” Does the fallen mind in a fallen world have the capacity to accurately understand fallen people, diagnose heart problems, and prescribe heart solutions? At a conviction level, the biblical counselor says, the Scriptures are sufficient and authoritative and robust to richly and relationally understand people, diagnose problems, and prescribe solutions.
So, if at the level of conviction and in actual practice, you are saying that 100% of your theory building (people, problems, solutions), to the best of your ability to remain pure in theory building, is based upon Scripture, but you also respect descriptive scientific research, then I would say that you hold to the convictions and practice of a biblical counselor.
The Christian integrative counselor, by my definition above, is committed at the conviction level to the value of blending or adding to (at some percentage/level) his scriptural understanding a secular understanding of people, problems, and solutions. That doesn’t make them my enemy. I’ve said in this post that they are my friends. It doesn’t mean they love the Lord or people less than me. It does mean that we have a dividing line philosophically/theologically/practically when it comes to our convictions about our approach to understanding people, problems, and solutions.
Since time and space are limited, it may be helpful to refer you and other readers to some recent posts where I develop this thinking more:
https://rpmministries.org/2013/06/7-sufficiency-of-scripture-interactions/
https://rpmministries.org/2013/06/ancient-philosophy-and-modern-psychology-cover-the-same-terrain/
https://rpmministries.org/2013/06/wisdom-for-life-in-a-broken-world/
I’ll take a sip of coffee and listen to your response…
Bob
Perhaps this gets to the heart of issue for me. Or at least speaks to my confusion / misunderstanding of the biblical counseling approach. I think I have witnessed biblical counselors growing in their recognition of valid descriptive scientific research. You seem to indicate this is true for you. You seem to being saying in the comment above that you value and respect scientific research.
However, at the same time, you seem to me to be saying that valid scientific research has no place whatsoever in your approach to understanding, diagnosing, and treating clients.
If this is true – that scientific research has no place – then I’m not sure what you mean by “valuing” and “respecting” scientific research. If this is not true, if in fact scientific research does have a place (even a very small one) in helping you understand, diagnose, and treat clients – then I think it means the dividing line between the two camps is getting blurry. (Which I don’t mind, by the way).
This has been good for me, Bob. I reviewed my last couple of comments and I hope they haven’t come across as antagonistic. You have been thoughtful and helpful in your repsonses. This dialogue will help me put a fresh face to the discussions I have with my students in class.
It also makes me want to resurrect my old blog.
Aaron
Aaron,
I’ve enjoyed our interaction also. In fact, I’m going to cut and paste them into tomorrow’s blog post as a blog unto itself! I think our interaction can be instructive for others also.
As you’ve seen an increased valuing of descriptive research in the BC world, I’ve seen an increased valuing of biblical theology/exegesis in the CC world for developing a theory of people, problems, and solutions.
You ask a good clarifying question about what is the exact role of descriptive research if not to help build a theory of people, problems, and solutions.
Let me try to illustrate… In my book, “God’s Healing for Life’s Losses,” I outline the “DABDA” model of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance). I would say that is “descriptive research.” Ross and her co-workers studied typical responses to grief and came up with that summary description (that even secular researchers disagree with at times…).
That descriptive research has a catalytic impact on me. I sat back and said, “So, if this is sometimes how people typically tend to respond to grief and loss in a fallen world according to the research, then what does the Bible say about how people could respond to grief and loss through Christ’s healing hope? I then went to the Scripture, literally cover to cover (Genesis to Revelation) to study a biblical “sufferology”–a biblical theology of grief, loss, healing, hope. I developed a biblical understanding of the person in grief, a biblical diagnosis of healthy and unhealthy grieving, and a biblical model of people-helping–how to help people to move biblically through a grief to grace to growth journey.
So…I valued the descriptive research and said, “If denial is a first stage, what would a biblical response be?” My answer, in part, was “candor and lament.” My answer came from my study of Scripture, not from the descriptive research.
Good research provides/offers valuable observations about life. It describes what is (though never perfectly). That is helpful to the biblical counselor. However, it cannot provide an authoritative understanding of people, diagnosis of problems, or prescription of cure.
Again, if you are saying that is what you do, then I would describe you as a biblical counselor in terms of conviction/practice. On the other hand, if you are saying that you not only integrate descriptive research but also the world’s perspective on people, problems, and solutions, then at least to some extent, you would fit into a “category” of a Christian integrative counselor” by my definition.
So “the line” that you ask for, in my thinking, in a real brief summary, is not a line related to descriptive research, but a line related to theory-building: people, problems, solutions.
Here’s another illustration–this one from teaching. The program I launched requires 10 classes in Bible, theology, and principles of Bible study. We want to teach our students “how to fish” not just “give them a fish.” We then require 10 courses in biblical counseling–where we model for our students how to use the Scriptures to develop a theory of people, problems, and solutions, and how to speak the truth in love. Compare that to some Christian integrative programs where students spend little time comparatively in the Scriptures and much time comparatively in the secular research. The actual curriculum of a counseling program say a great deal about the convictions of the professors. What are students spending the bulk of their time reading, studying, and learning? Are students being taught how to use the Scriptures to build a biblical approach to people, problems, and solutions? That’s where the “rubber meets the road.”
Hope that helps a little.
Bob
Yes, that does help. And perhaps the dividing line is just as firm as it ever was. To try and cut to the chase, here’s my understanding of our discussion so far: You seem to be be confirming what I have been teaching about biblical counselors. Namely that at a philosophical level, biblical counselors find zero benefit from using anything not found in Scripture. There is nothing outside of the Scriptures that can or should help a counselor in diagnosing or treating clients.
So the dividing line is at zero. At the point a counselor acknowledges that someting not derived directly from Scripture could be of benefit in diagnosing and treating, then the person becomes an integrationist.
That’s a rather pointed comment / observation. But (1) I’m working toward being precise, and (2) I’m up against dinner time with the fam.
I have one other train of thought to chase down, but that comment will have to wait until later this evening.
Thanks Bob,
Aaron
Aaron,
I know you were being concise, but I’m not sure it is precise, or at least not precisely how I would say it. I would not “own” that summary that you just crafted. I believe that even my quick statements here are much more robust than your summation. That might be like my saying, “So, what you are saying is, the Scriptures are not sufficient for understanding people, problems, and solutions, instead, we need the psychological wisdom of the world in order to help people live well and wisely.” That may be concise, but I don’t think it’s precise. In other words, I would caution that we not make a statement of precise/concise belief out of an off-the-cuff blog comment response.
As a biblical counselor, I find value in descriptive research and even in proverbial observations like the clustering of symptoms and the labels that go with that. I am open to learning what treatment interventions seem to be more beneficial in at least addressing symptoms. I believe in common grace. I understand the “catalytic” value of being well-read and well-versed. However, none of that can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices.
Here’s how the Biblical Counseling Coalition worded it in a 375-word summary (still quite a lot more to say) about Scripture and Counseling:
We believe that God’s Word is authoritative, sufficient, and relevant (Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 4:4; Hebrews 4:12-13). The inspired and inerrant Scriptures, rightly interpreted and carefully applied, offer us God’s comprehensive wisdom. We learn to understand who God is, who we are, the problems we face, how people change, and God’s provision for that change in the Gospel (John 8:31-32; 10:10; 17:17). No other source of knowledge thoroughly equips us to counsel in ways that transform the human heart (Psalm 19:7-14; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3). Other systems of counseling aim for other goals and assume a different dynamic of change. The wisdom given by God in His Word is distinctive and robust. He comprehensively addresses the sin and suffering of all people in all situations. Wise counseling is an insightful application of God’s all-embracing truth to our complex lives (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Philippians 1:9-11). It does not merely collect proof-texts from the Bible. Wise counseling requires ongoing practical theological labor in order to understand Scripture, people, and situations (2 Timothy 2:15). We must continually develop our personal character, case-wise understanding of people, and pastoral skills (Romans 15:14; Colossians 1:28-29). When we say that Scripture is comprehensive in wisdom, we mean that the Bible makes sense of all things, not that it contains all the information people could ever know about all topics. God’s common grace brings many good things to human life. However, common grace cannot save us from our struggles with sin or from the troubles that beset us. Common grace cannot sanctify or cure the soul of all that ails the human condition. We affirm that numerous sources (such as scientific research, organized observations about human behavior, those we counsel, reflection on our own life experience, literature, film, and history) can contribute to our knowledge of people, and many sources can contribute some relief for the troubles of life. However, none can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices. When systems of thought and practice claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition, they compete with Christ (Colossians 2:1-15). Scripture alone teaches a perspective and way of looking at life by which we can think biblically about and critically evaluate information and actions from any source (Colossians 2:2-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
As a Coalition, two dozen of us are now working on a new book on “Scripture and Counseling: God’s Word for Life in a Broken World.” This will be a comprehensive, yet still not exhaustive, statement of a biblical counseling perspective on the sufficiency/necessity/authority/profundity of Scripture.
I would state the bottom line much more practically: where does a counselor spend his time in building an approach to people, problems, and solutions?
I’m going to spend exhaustive time in God’s Word, cover to cover, seeking to understand, for example, anxiety–a people, problem, solution Creation/Fall/Redemption biblical approach. I’ll look at other research. I’ll stay current, but my focus is on understanding how the gospel narrative of redemption provides wisdom for living in our broken world. If a person does that and seeks to relate the gospel, in all its fullness, to life, in a loving, compassionate, wise way, then I would call that biblical counseling.
If, instead, the counselor spends large percentages of his time in secular thinking/philosophy/psychology about people (who we are), problems (what went wrong), and solutions (how heart change happens), and spends some lesser, more limited, less robust time in seeking to understand a spiritual/practical theology of the issue, then I would not call that a “biblical counseling” model/approach.
I have a few of questions for you, ones that I think would be good for any Christian integrative counselor to think through and respond to.
1. You provided your one-sentence summary of what you heard me saying about my approach (that I said I would not say that way). What would be your one-sentence summary of your approach to understanding people, problems, and solutions?
2. When you are teaching a Christian counseling class, let’s say on anxiety, where do you focus your study/preparation for the class? How do you equip your students to understand and help the person struggling with anxiety–where do you focus their study/preparation? What role does Scripture have in the class?
3. When you are facing a new counseling issue for you, let’s say, OCD. Where do you focus your study/preparation to understand this issue and the person struggling with/against it? What role does Scripture play in your seeking to understand the person/issue/problem/solution?
4. With that new counseling issue, what role does Scripture play in shaping how you interact with the person? What role does Scripture play in your actual interactions? How do you apply a scriptural understanding of people, problems (the OCD issue), and solutions in the counseling sessions?
5. If you could not find any secular writings on OCD, would the Scriptures “be enough” for you to develop a comprehensive, compassionate approach to helping this person?
Feel free not to answer, as I’m sure this interaction already turned into more than either of us originally assumed. They can be rhetorical questions for further thought. I do think that a counselor’s foundational approach to counseling is shown in answering these four questions.
Okay…time to check on how my team is doing in our family fantasy baseball league!
Bob
I’m back. Is my previous post – short as it was – an accurate enough description?
As for my last train of thought (or two)… Regarding the philosophical divide between the two camps – I think I understand. I appreciate the deep love for and commitment to Scripture I see in biblical counselors. In fact, I have learned much from them and have been challenged by them. I agree with biblical counselors on the issue of the authority of Scripture. I don’t personally know any Christian counselors who would deny the authority of God’s Word. Where it speaks, it is authoritative. Absolutely. The dividing line sounds to me to be one of sufficiency, then (depending on how one defines the word). I think I’m hearing you say that the dividing line is on this simple yes/no question: Is there any reason to utilize information outside of Scripture in our theories/methods of diagnosing and treating people?
Here’s my last observation/question. I wonder if this philosophical commitment is tenable in practice. By that I mean this – I think that biblical counselors do use information outside of Scripture in practice. I think biblical counselors make decisions about what to do, where, when, why, & how, using extra-biblical information to do so. They use their previous experiences, common sense, and even intuition to help them decide whether to ask a question, offer sympathy, or confront. To help them determine if a “diagnosis” fits. To help them find a way of communicating that meets clients where they are. To help them decide the most effecient methods for different clients with the same given issue. To use a conflict resolution activity that is most likely to succeed. You get the idea. I understand I’m speaking for biblical counselors here, and that may not be fair. But if biblical counselors use this type of extra-biblical information to assist them (at least a little bit) in diagnosing and intervening, then why not put this type of extra-biblical information to the test. When we put it to the test, then we give it another name – scientific research.
The acceptance of scientific research in its descriptive form but rejection of it in its prescriptive form has always seemed odd to me. If prescriptive scientific data cannot be trusted because of our “fallen minds in a fallen world,” then descriptive scientific data cannot be trusted either. We have the same fallen minds in the same fallen world in both cases.
Please hear me carefully. I do not completely trust scientific, extra-biblical data either, and for the very same reasons. I try to pay attention to them very cautiously and always in subordination to what I find iin Scripture. But I do not reject them completely.
*Deep breath* As I look over the words of this and my last comment or two, I sense that they may sound more accusatory and critical than I intended. I’m sorry for that. These are honest questions. I hope you’ll take my comments and questions in the spirit I intended.
For what it is worth, Bob, I have your two books “Soul Physicians” and “Spiritual Friends” on my office shelf. I have referred to them on more than one occassion to help me teach my classes at CBC.
Thanks for the dialogue. I just happened to find this post today via Twitter. I’ll try to stop by more often.
Aaron
Bob, my last post was made before my computer refreshed and I had a chance to review yours. I’ll read and digest it. Thanks again for the dialogue.
Aaron
Aaron,
I’ll try to keep this response a little more brief since you are digesting my post with the four or five questions.
Your most recent post asked about what we might call “descriptive research that addresses prescriptive treatment.” That’s an important question and I may craft a whole blog on it (someone could craft a whole book on it!). But I want to go back the big picture and the practical outworking (which my 5 questions are “getting at”).
Big Picture: How does a counselor build a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices–on God’s Word, on man’s reason (not research but worldview, philosophy of people, problems, solutions), or on a combination?
Practical Outworking: Where does a counselor spend his/her time–examining Scripture, studying man’s wisdom, or a combination?
There are surely variations on a continuum regarding how various counselors would answer those two questions. I think that’s the continuum (perhaps not the “dividing line”) between a “biblical counselor” and a “Christian integrative counselor.”
Again, the Biblical Counseling Coalition’s Confessional Statement nuances it like this:
When we say that Scripture is comprehensive in wisdom, we mean that the Bible makes sense of all things, not that it contains all the information people could ever know about all topics. God’s common grace brings many good things to human life. However, common grace cannot save us from our struggles with sin or from the troubles that beset us. Common grace cannot sanctify or cure the soul of all that ails the human condition. We affirm that numerous sources (such as scientific research, organized observations about human behavior, those we counsel, reflection on our own life experience, literature, film, and history) can contribute to our knowledge of people, and many sources can contribute some relief for the troubles of life. However, none can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices. When systems of thought and practice claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition, they compete with Christ (Colossians 2:1-15). Scripture alone teaches a perspective and way of looking at life by which we can think biblically about and critically evaluate information and actions from any source (Colossians 2:2-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
So, perhaps rather than looking for a dividing line, we might want to be asking: How would you describe the continuum between the theory-building approach (what sources a counselor uses or combines to develop a worldview about people, problems, and solutions) of a “biblical counselor” and of a “Christian integrative counselor”?
Bob
Well, I didn’t do a very good job of indicating so at the beginning, but this is the direction I was hoping we would eventually head. I agree that there are legitimate differences in the way Christians do counseling. But shifting the discussion from “dividing line” to “continuum” is much more satisfactory to me. I mentioned in my first comment that I’ve had growing difficulty finding / utilzing a “dividing line.”
This is idealistic of me, I know. But if we can agree there is a continuum, then perhaps someday we can eliminate (ok – drastically reduce) the need for camps. If it is a question of degree, not kind, then we are all in the same camp. On the same continuum.
This speaks directly to your original post. We are all more likely to use stereotypes, pejorative labels, and such when we are in different camps. We can’t escape the “us” vs. “them” mentality. We engage in the turf wars you speak of. Each side will continue to build its empire, sometimes at the expense of the other.
If you agree that there is a continuum, then hypothetically at least, it would be possible for someone to be legitimately identified as BOTH a biblical counselor AND and integrationist, no? If not, then we are back to “dividing line” conversations and the constant temptation to stereotype, label, and belittle those on the other side of us.
Maybe the common ground is difficult to find. Maybe a biblical counselor would say, “extra-biblical insight plays a miniscule part in helping be develop a theory and practice for helping people. And maybe a Christian counselor would say, “extra-biblical insight plays a minor role in helping me develop a theory and practice for helping people.” And maybe the gap between miniscule and minor is too great to bridge. I just wish it wasn’t.
Aaron
Aaron,
Glad we’re making more progress!
At the end of the day, my “concern” relates back to the 5 practical questions from my earlier response–what is the counselor actually doing/where is the counselor actually turning in developing a theory/practice for people helping?
If it is miniscule or minor, you’re right that there is little dividing line. But when whole counseling programs and whole counseling books focus much more on secular sources than biblical ones, that’s when I get “concerned.” And I’m not saying at all that you do that.
Given the number of Christian counseling books I’ve read where there is little in-depth exegetical/theological foundation, I don’t think this is just an outlier. And I’m not one to point an accusatory finger. I’d rather reach out an inviting hand and say, “there is a better way–where you can probe the Scripture’s redemptive narrative and develop a robust, rich, relevant, relational approach.”
But a person won’t do that until: 1.) they acknowledge that perhaps their current approach is not as Scripture-saturated as they thought, and 2.) someone teaches them the art of searching Scripture for real-life, in-depth truth for life.
I don’t want to stop our unity movement here, but let me give you a concrete example about the real-life difference. As an editor for “Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling,” I put together the Scripture index and the author index. If I had included every text that was exegeted/applied and every author from church history who was quoted, the index would have been as long as the book! So, I did a test–some descriptive research. I looked in the index of half-a-dozen leading Christian integrative counseling texts–texts that covered similar terrain as to our book. Some had barely a Bible quote, much less a thorough exegesis of the text. Some had barely a quote from any Christian current or ancient, yet 100s of quotes from secular authors. And these quotes weren’t just research-based; they were theory-laden. And they were then “baptized” with a “sprinkling” over of a verse here and there, but not robustly examined from a Christian worldview. I’m not saying every Christian counseling book is like that, but I am saying that all 6 leading books that I researched were like that.
That’s where my “concern” comes into play. We can graciously discuss the minor or miniscule stated convictions. But what happens in real life when students are taught, when books and articles are written, and when people are counseled?
I want to shout from the rooftops a positive message that the Bible is richly relevant and we can mine it for treasures of wisdom for life in a broken world. The more that a person shouts that and lives that in actual practice as a professor or counselor or pastor, the more I would say, “that’s a biblical counseling approach.”
I hope you hear my heart in this. I’m not against anyone. I’m for the richness of the Bible’s gospel narrative/redemptive story robustly examined and lovingly applied to broken lives.
Thanks again for the conversation. It has been stretching for me. I appreciate your graciousness and your patience.
In Christ’s Grace,
Bob
Bob,
Thanks so much for your balanced statements here. It is refreshing to hear this perspective. I happen to believe that God has placed in the church individuals (like wise Pastors and well-trained/advised lay leaders) that often can be of more help then the “professionals” just by investing their life in someone who needs help. With the truth well in hand, and discipleship as a focus, much of the difficulty that individuals face can be cared for. I still lean on the very practical, biblical wisdom I received from Pastors and lay mentors from the early days of my life. That says something about the way God has formed the church to have impact.