Christian Integrative Counseling and Biblical Counseling: Continuing the Conversation 

Sometimes the best part of a blog post—the “real meat”—is found in the comment string. I think that’s true regarding my recent post 5 Reasons It’s Past Time to End the Stereotypes about Biblical Counseling.  

I’m pasting below comments from Aaron and my replies to Aaron. 

What Is the Dividing Line Between Biblical Counseling and Christian Integrative Counseling? 

Aaron Wrote: 

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 pejorative 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 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 

My Response to 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!). 

Aaron’s Response to My Response: 

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 research 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 

My Response to Aaron’s Second Comment: 

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 included “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/  

Aaron’s Third Comment:

Aaron

My Response to Aaron’s Third Comment:

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 says 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

Join the Conversation 

How would you describe the difference/divide between what makes someone a “biblical counselor” and what makes someone a “Christian integrative counselor?” 

RPM Ministries: Equipping You to Change Lives with Christ’s Changeless Truth