Current Discussions in the Modern Nouthetic Biblical Counseling Movement (MNBCM) 

Recently, the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement (MNBCM) has been claiming that biblically counseling informed by the world’s research and ideas is a deviation from the history of the MNBCM. MNBCM leaders have stated that to be a clinically-informed biblical counselor (CIBC), or a trauma-informed biblical counselor (TIBC), or a neuroscience-informed biblical counselor (NIBC) is to depart from the past fifty years of the MNBCM.

This claim is historically false.

In today’s post, I begin collating historical information supporting the fact that the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement (MNBCM) has always been:

INC: Informed Nouthetic Counseling.

In today’s post, I begin to show, historically, that the modern nouthetic counseling movement has always been:

1. BINC: Behaviorism-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
2. SNINC: Science/Neuroscience-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
3. PINC: Psychology-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
4. CGINC: Common Grace-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
5. CBRINC: Co-Belligerent-Research-Informed Nouthetic Counseling

What I Am Not Saying 

I am not saying that the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement has been “integrationist.”

I do not believe that being informed by science, neuroscience, behavioral psychology, research psychology, psychological theory, common grace insights, descriptive research, trauma research/theory, or clinical research/theory makes a person an “integrationist.”

It is how one uses (or fails to use) God’s sufficient Scriptures as the lens by which to assess all extra-biblical information that determines whether one is an “integrationist.” It is how one views and uses the world’s research compared to God’s revelation in Scripture that determines whether one is an “integrationist.” See Scripture and Soul: How to Study the Bible for Biblical Counseling.

For more about being clinically-informed, while not being integrationist, see:

Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling.

Non-Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling.

What Is Redemptive Counseling / Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling? by  Nate Brooks, Tate Cockrell, Brad Hambrick, Kristin Kellen, and Sam Williams.

History Lesson #1: Jay Adams a BINC—Behaviorism-Informed Nouthetic Counselor

Some have opined that Jay Adams was more influenced by the culture of his day—behaviorism and its reaction against Freudianism—than Adams himself realized. Consider Mike Firmin’s 1988 Ph.D. dissertation for Bob Jones University: “Behaviorism and the Nouthetic Counseling Model of Jay E. Adams.”

Speaking of Adams’s first two works, Firmin noted that,

“The most influential psychological paradigm at the time of these two works was behavioral psychology. The year after Adams’s first publication, the American Psychological Association recognized B. F. Skinner, the famed behavioralist, as the most influential living psychologist. Moreover, with Adams having studied under the behavioral psychologist O. Hobart Mowrer, it is important to examine his model to discern whether the behavioral outlook influenced Adams’s perspective of what constitutes a biblical model of counseling” (2-3).

Fermin explained that Adams’s written respect for Mowrer,

“is consistent with the respect shown by other theological conservatives. For example, one study released in 1969, which was one year previous to Adams’ first book, revealed the following regarding the conservative perspective: ‘Favoring Mowrer’s position most were clergyman from the more theologically conservative denominations.’ Adams’ writings must be viewed in light of the era in which he wrote them, and the influencing factors of his day” (227).

Firmin concluded that Adams is not a behavioralist, but that there is a “bent” toward a behavioral emphasis.

“Examination of Adams’ model shows that it demonstrates a behavioral focus” (242).

Fermin sought to document his contention by examining a dozen core aspects of behavioral psychology’s theory and practice, and comparing them to Jay Adams’s nouthetic counseling theory and practice. For nearly twenty-five pages of his dissertation (242-265), Fermin details what he sees as overlap between Adams’s nouthetic model and Skinner and Mowrer’s behaviorism.

If Firmin used today’s language, he might have said that Jay Adams practiced BINC:

Behaviorism-Informed Nouthetic Counseling.

Adams consistently insisted that Mowrer was no more than a catalyst affirming what Adams already knew and deepening Adams’s commitment to further explore Scripture regarding our responsibility before God.

Firmin was not alone in his assessment of Adams. Greg Gifford is Chair of Biblical Studies and Assistant Professor of Biblical Counseling at The Master’s University. In a post at the Biblical Counseling Coalition (Jay Adams’ Heritage: How Jay Adams Is Connected to the Father of American Psychology), Gifford summarizes who O. Hobart Mowrer was, and why he is important to modern biblical counselors.

“O.H. Mowrer was an American psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Illinois who lived from 1907 to 1982. He is known for behavior therapy and two-stage theory, something that had great significance in the ministry of Jay Adams. Mowrer was a man who was willing to challenge the status quo of then-modern psychological practices, much like Adams. Mowrer was one who did not see eye-to-eye with his behavioristic predecessors and was willing to publicly challenge and critique them—something that Adams appreciated in Mowrer.”

Gifford traces Adams’s counseling DNA to a string of behavioral counselors.

Beginning with William James in Figure 1, one can see the progression of his influence to Clark Hull. Note, O.H. Mowrer would have studied under Clark Hull, and Clark Hull was directly influenced by the writing and thinking of William James. William James influenced Clark Hull, who influenced O.H. Mowrer. Furthermore, of great significance for biblical counseling, Jay Adams studied directly under Mowrer and credits him for much of his counseling theory and practice. As seen in Figure 1, William James’s influence did have an impact on Hull, Mowrer, and eventually, Adams.

Gifford concludes:

After this teaching experience with Mowrer, Adams began his work in writing Competent to Counsel, which would be published just five years later in 1970. It was a landmark work that helped solidify Jay Adams’s emphasis on directive counseling, human responsibility, and—of course—what he would term “nouthetic confrontation.” Jay Adams was influenced by William James’s student—O.H. Mowrer—and that contrasting exposure helped Adams formulate what we now understand to be “biblical counseling.”

Heath Lambert, in The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams, joins Firmin and Gifford in wondering about the influences on Jay Adams. In a lengthy section on the need for “second generation biblical counselors” to develop a behavioral theory that includes motivations of the heart, Lambert quotes approvingly of George Schwab’s critique of Adams.

The stimulus for Jay Adams’s theory of habit also came from outside the Bible. Adams admits that what radicalized him—what set him free from Rogers and Freud—was the influence of particular secular psychologists, O. Hobart Mowrer and William Glasser. However, Adams claims that the Bible is sufficient for counseling and that all so-called psychological insights must stand the test of Scripture. Yet, some of his “Bible-based” theories and emphases seem almost identical to those of his secular predecessors. Was part of the “grid” through which Adams reads the Bible supplied by these secularists? (Schwab, 68, 79).

Lambert then concludes:

So then Schwab and Welch each agree that Adams’s model of habituation is unbiblical. In addition to this, Schwab establishes that the origins of Adams’s thinking were found in secular psychological theories, not in specific texts of Scripture. In other words, Schwab shows that the problem cited by Welch—of Adam’s understanding of the term flesh was imposed by Adams on the biblical text and actually derived from the influence of unbelieving people (72).

According to Donn Arms, Lambert expressed serious concerns about Adams’s model, including concerns about “behavioristic” counseling.

In one place or another in his book Lambert quotes them referring to Adams and his nouthetic model as “stoic,” “bombastic,” “indifferent to suffering,” “insensitive,” “harsh,” “ignores clear themes of Scripture,” “approaches counselees with a condemning, self-righteous spirit,” “cheap and platitudinous,” “unbalanced,” “legalistic,” “moralistic,” “behavioristic,” “immature,” “sees counselees in a monolithic way as sinners,” has a “stand above you as one who has arrived” character, and is “less than biblical.”

Heath Lambert further stated in his dissertation (The Theological Development of the Biblical Counseling Movement from 1988) that:

“Adams’s work underlines the important biblical truth of man as a responsible sinner…. Mowrer’s emphasis on responsibility awakened Adams to this crucial reality” (65).

For more on the history of Mowrer and Adams, see my post:

Meet the Man Who Influenced the Early Nouthetic Counseling Movement: O. Hobart Mowrer.

In that post, I quote Jay Adams on Mowrer:

“I read some of Mowrer’s works, including The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion, and The New Group Therapy, which he had just published. These books astounded me. Mowrer had gone far beyond my own thinking. He was flatly challenging the very existence of institutionalized psychiatry. He stated outright that the current psychiatric dogmas were false.…”

“Reading Mowrer’s book, The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion, as I said, was an earth-shattering experience.…”

“From my protracted involvement with the inmates of the mental institutions at Kankakee and Galesburg [where Adams’s spent six weeks, 24/7, studying under Mowrer], I was convinced that most of them were there, as I said, not because they were sick, but because they were sinful.…”

“I came home deeply indebted to Mowrer for indirectly driving me to a conclusion that I as a Christian minister should have known all along, namely, that many of the ‘mentally ill’ are people who can be helped by the ministry of God’s Word” (Competent to Counsel, xiv-xviii).

While acknowledging his interaction with Mowrerian concepts, Jay Adams denied that he was “integrating” Mowrer. In Competent to Counsel, Adams states:

“Let me append one final word about Mowrer. I want to say clearly, once and for all, that I am not a disciple of Mowrer or William Glasser (a writer in the Mowrer tradition)…. Their presuppositional stance must be rejected totally. Christians may thank God that in his providence he has used Mowrer and others to awaken us to the fact that the “mentally ill” can be helped….

Historically, Jay Adams was informed by the behavioral psychology of his day. In tracing this history, I am not saying that Jay Adams was an integrationist. Just like I would not make a blanket claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are integrationists. 

History Lesson #2: Jay Adams a SNINC—Science/Neuroscience-Informed Nouthetic Counselor 

The following historical documentation first appeared in my post Jay Adams, Nouthetic Counseling, and Neuroscience.

On pages 96-97 of Competent to Counsel, Adams uses his understanding of 1970s neuroscience (“the nervous system”) to say: “The Nervous System Corresponds to the Nouthetic Approach” (p. 96/Header). Adams proposes that there are two sides to the human nervous system. One side is emotional and involuntary. The other side is associated with problem-solving and voluntary action and has to do with behavior (p. 96).

“Something might be said about the human nervous system with respect to behavior and feeling in counseling. There are basically two sides to this system. One side is emotional and involuntary. The other side, associated with problem-solving and voluntary action has to do with behavior. The importance of this fact is that it is in the client’s behavior that changes can be made directly, because behavior, in contrast to emotion, is controlled by the voluntary, not the involuntary side of man. Emotional states flow secondarily from the behavioral or the voluntary system. The former involves the involuntary control of visceral and vascular emotional responses, whereas the latter involves action responses by the skeletal musculature. Communication between both the nervous systems must be supplied by sensory pathways of the central system. There is a close relationship or a connection between the two so that they can’t really be divided as precisely as one might on paper” (96-97).

Then Adams concludes with this summary implication for nouthetic counseling from his understanding of 1970s neuroscience/nervous system studies:

“While there is no direct voluntary access to the emotions, the emotions can be reached indirectly through the voluntary system, because extensive fiber overlappings in the cortex allow unified correlation of the two systems. Voluntary behavioral alterations will lead to involuntary emotional changes. It is important to understand, therefore, that feelings flow from actions” (Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 97). 

From the start of the modern nouthetic counseling movement, the founder, Jay Adams, at the very least used “nervous system studies” or “neuroscience” as illustrative and supportive of his nouthetic model of counseling. Adams used these studies at least in a catalytic way, if not more.

Jay Adams was neuroscience-informed.

Adams does not cite footnotes for his views on pages 96-97. Elsewhere in Competent to Counsel, Adams cites many footnotes related to other topics. Adams does not make any statement on pages 96-97 about any limitations of the scientific method or any potential biases.

While Adams did not cite any footnotes for his views on pages 96-97 of Competent to Counsel, much of the wording overlaps in many ways, and at times is nearly identical to, O. Hobart Mowrer’s writings in Learning Theory and Personality Dynamics. On pages 236-245, Mowrer supports his “two-factor learning theory” through a description of the “two distinct nervous systems” (238).

Like Adams, Mowrer, twenty years earlier, described two sides to the nervous system. One side is the autonomic nervous system which mediates the emotional (visceral and vascular) responses. These visceral, vascular, emotional responses “are beyond direct control” (238). The other part of the nervous systems, according to Mowrer, is the central nervous system, which mediates behavior and which may be brought under voluntary control through habit/habituation (238).

Also like Adams, Mowrer, twenty years earlier, described the extensive fiber overlapping in the cortex. Mowrer quotes Fulton saying, “In the cortex there is extensive overlapping between autonomic and somatic motor representation, making possible unified correlation between the reactions of the two systems” (245).

In What About Nouthetic Counseling? (1976), Adams talks further about the legitimate role of science, neuroscience, and psychological research.

“I have profited greatly, for instance, from the results of the work done at the Harvard sleep labs (and elsewhere). This sleep study I consider to be a valid and worthwhile enterprise for psychology. Indeed, I wish all psychologists would go back to such work…. I would not oppose psychiatrist either if they were doing the important medical work that it is necessary to do to help people whose behavior is adversely affected by organic causes.

As early as 1976, Jay Adams affirmed the role of embodied-soul soul neuroscience research. Adams rightly believed that the organic body keeps the score, that matter matters.

In Competent to Counsel, Adams explicitly shares his perspective on science, the Bible, and counseling:

“I do not wish to disregard science, but rather I welcome it as a useful adjunct for the purposes of illustrating, filling in generalizations with specifics, and challenging wrong human interpretations of Scripture, thereby forcing the student to restudy the Scriptures” (xxi).

Jay Adams was science-informed. 

Since Jay Adams used his understanding of 1970s neuroscience, science, psychological research, and psychiatric studies of the body/brain in his foundational books, what does that imply about the nouthetic counseling way of viewing and using neuroscience and science? What does Adams’s use of neuroscience in the 1970s suggest about how biblical counselors might view and use neuroscience today?

Historically, Jay Adams was informed by the neuroscience and science of his day. In tracing this history, I am not saying that Jay Adams was an integrationist. Just like I would not make a blanket claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are integrationists.

History Lesson #3: Nouthetic Counseling PINC—Psychology-Informed Nouthetic Counseling 

From the very outset of the MNBCM, Jay Adams insisted that nouthetic counselors value psychology. In, What About Nouthetic Counseling? (1976), Adams writes:

“Question: ‘Don’t you think that we can learn something from psychologists?’ Answer: ‘Yes, we can learn a lot; I certainly have. That answer surprised you, didn’t it? If it did, you have been led to believe, no doubt, that nouthetic counselors are obscurantists who see no good in psychology’” (31).  

Adams then acknowledged that even as early as 1976, others saw evidence of nouthetic counseling being psychology-informed—without Jay even realizing it. Adams, of course, disagreed. 

“Or perhaps you have been told that they [nouthetic counselors] are sadly self-deceived persons who, while decrying all psychology, take many of their ideas from psychologists without knowing it. Both ideas are preposterous” (31).

In How to Help People Change, Adams specifically states that it is legitimate for nouthetic counselors to be psychology-informed.

“Is there a relationship between Christian counseling and legitimate psychology then? Yes, of course. But let me make it clear what that relationship is and how it can be developed most fruitfully. I have said that the relationship is not a necessary one. Christianity has survived, and often survived well, without any such relationship for centuries. That means that the relationship must be occasional and expediential. Where it may be expedient to bring the two together, and according to biblical principles it is possible to do so, the Christian counselor may wish to make use of information garnered by legitimate psychological activities (36-37).

In 1993, Jay Adams, John Bettler, and David Powlison gathered for an interview on the 25^th anniversary of the launch of the MNBCM. You can read that interview here: “25 Years of Biblical Counseling: An Interview with Jay Adams and John Bettler Conducted by David Powlison.” 

In the course of the discussion, Adams, Bettler, and Powlison suggest 6 “R” words that could label what nouthetic counselors do with secular psychology:

1. Recycle It
2. Reinterpret It
3. Reshape It
4. Reconcile It
5. Redeem It
6. Recast It 

I summarize their discussion here: 6 Words Describing What Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling Do with Secular Psychology.

This is a very eye-opening interview. While Adams, Bettler, and Powlison suggest that nouthetic counselors should recycle, reinterpret, reshape, reconcile, redeem, and recast secular psychology, they never use the “R” words of “reject.”

And here’s an excerpt from David Powlison’s perspective on biblical counseling and secular psychology from How Does Scripture Teach Us to Redeem Psychology.

“Look for the good. To make true sense of the psychologies, our critical thinking must intentionally look for the good. This has to be underlined. Sectarian contentiousness only sees the bad, and does not produce redemption. But as in all the other mixed cases needing redemption, there is good in Psychology:

• • Secular researchers and clinicians know reams of significant facts about people and problems, about strengths and weaknesses. (We may not have noticed or known some or many of those facts. In encountering psychological information, I’m listening, so tell me anything and everything you know about everybody and anybody.)

• • Secular theories seek to answer crucial questions and address hard problems. (We may not have thought to ask those questions or address those problems. I want to take to heart hard questions that need answering.)

• • Secular therapies often embody helpful skills in knowing, in loving, and in speaking so as to catch the ear of strugglers. (We may be relatively clumsy. O skillful God, make me more probing. Make me more patient and kind. Make me more able to speak constructive words, according to the need of the moment, that I might give grace to those who hear.)

We gain much and lose nothing by being appropriately attentive to and appreciative of their strengths.”

In Critiquing Modern Integrationists, David Powlison discussed how biblical counselors interact with secular psychology.

“This is not to say that biblical counselors should ignore or dismiss the various secular psychologies” (24). 

“Every wise biblical counselor engages in lifelong empirical research, informally if not formally. In this process psychologists, sociologists, historians, counselees, the non-Christians who live next door, USA Today and Agatha Christie may contribute to our grasp of the styles and how they develop. Often in counseling or reading—and even in our own repentance!” (21).

“Biblical counselors who fail to think through carefully the nature of biblical epistemology run the danger of acting as if Scripture were exhaustive, rather than comprehensive; as if Scripture were an encyclopedic catalogue of all significant facts, rather than God’s revelation of the crucial facts, richly illustrated, that yield a world view sufficient to interpret whatever other facts we encounter; as if Scripture were the whole bag of marbles rather than the eyeglasses through which we interpret all marbles; as if our current grasp of Scripture and people were triumphant and final” (32).

Historically, the three leading figures in the MNBCM were informed by descriptive secular psychology research and by secular psychological theories. In tracing this history, I am not saying that Jay Adams, John Bettler, and David Powlison were integrationists. Just like I would not make a blanket claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are integrationists.

History Lesson #4: Nouthetic Counseling and CGINC—Common Grace-Informed Nouthetic Counseling 

In Affirmations and Denials: A Proposed Definition of Biblical Counseling, David Powlison clearly affirmed the sufficiency of Scripture for biblical counseling. He also clearly affirmed the potential usefulness of extra-biblical literature.

“We deny that the Bible intends to serve as an encyclopedia of proof texts containing all facts about people and the diversity of problems in living.

We affirm that God’s providential common grace brings many goods to people, both as individual kindnesses and as social blessings: e.g., medical treatment, economic help, political justice, protection for the weak, educational opportunity. Wise counseling will participate in and encourage mercy ministries as part of the call to love.

We affirm that numerous disciplines and professions can contribute to an increase in our knowledge of people and how to help them. Scripture teaches a standpoint and gaze by which believers can learn many things from those who do not believe.

We deny that secular disciplines and professions are entirely benighted by the intellectual, moral, and aesthetic effects of sin. The operations of God’s common grace can cause unbelievers to be relatively observant, caring, stimulating, and informative.” 

The Biblical Counseling Coalition’s Confessional Statement was unafraid to nuance this issue—promoting both the sufficiency of Scripture and the usefulness of common grace insights.

 “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.  

In 9 Reformed Theologians on Common Grace, I quote leading Reformed thinkers on the role of common grace insights. Here’s a sampler from John Calvin.

“But if the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloths” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.ii.16). 

“When we so condemn human understanding for its perpetual blindness as to leave it no perception of any object whatever, we not only go against God’s Word, but also run counter to the experience of common sense” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.ii.12).

In Cherry-Picking David Powlison, I collate quotes of note from Powlison where he affirms the usefulness of extra-biblical literature. Here’s a sampler. In a 1988 article, Powlison further develops the crucial need for contemporary biblical counselors to appreciate secular psychology.

“Perhaps it seems a paradox, but the final crucial issue for contemporary biblical counseling is the need to define more clearly the nuances in our relationship to secular thinking. The relationship of presuppositional consistent Christianity to secular culture is not simply one of rejection. Half of what biblical presuppositions give us is a way to discern the lie that tries to make people think about themselves as autonomous from God. But the other half of what biblical categories do is give us a way of appreciating, redeeming, and reframing the culture of even the most godless men and women” (5).

In a 2018 article, Powlison had even more to say about the benefits of common grace insights for biblical counseling.

“But it is a true common grace that secular theories and practices always retain an instinct for the first word in that definition of human flourishing: love. Like most thoughtful people and most religions, they value human kindness and certain other aspects of person-to-person goodness. They witness and grieve the pain and misery caused by bad behavior, bad feelings, bad thoughts, and bad experiences. They know that caring for others is better than narcissism, arrogance, manipulation, revenge, and self-righteousness. To be cherished is far better than to be despised. Hope is far better than despair. Safety is far better than danger. Sanity and realism are far better than paranoia and delusion. Treating others well and being treated well is far better than all forms of using, misusing, mistreating, abusing, and betraying. A constructively purposeful life is far better than a pointlessly self-destructive lifestyle. To be part of the solution is far better than being part of the problem. And so forth!”

Historically, the MNBCM was informed by common grace insights. In tracing this history, I am not saying that the MNBCM was integrationists. Just like I would not make a blanket claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are integrationists.

History Lesson #5:Nouthetic Counseling and CBRINC: Co-Belligerent-Research-Informed Nouthetic Counseling 

The MNBCM has always used co-belligerent research. Jay Adams launched the MNBCM using co-belligerent research from O. Hobart Mowrer.

Co-belligerent research is the decision to use research that agrees with my preconceived notions. In the biblical counseling world, co-belligerent research involves:

• Using research that denies the viability and value of research. Quoting a secular researcher debunking another secular researcher. Waging war against a common enemy by quoting those who we might otherwise disagree with.

• Quoting, using, and accepting researchers who are anti-research, scientists who are anti-science, neuroscientists who are anti-neurosciences, psychologists who are anti-psychology, and psychiatrists who are anti-psychotropic medications, anti-psychiatry, and anti-DSM.

In several posts, I’ve written about nouthetic biblical counseling using co-belligerent research:

1. Biblical Counseling and the “Co-Belligerent” Use of Research

2. Theological Inconsistency in the Biblical Counseling Use of Research?

3. Biblical Counseling and Scientific Research

4. 10 Biblical Counseling Concerns About “Bad Therapy”

Historically, the MNBCM has been informed by co-belligerent research from non-Christian sources. In tracing this history, I am not saying that the MNBCM was integrationists. Just like I would not make a blanket claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are integrationists. 

In Summary 

The modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement has always been “INC”: Informed Nouthetic Counseling. Historically, the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement has been informed by behaviorism, science, neuroscience, psychology, common grace, and co-belligerent research. It has always been: 

1. BINC: Behaviorism-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
2. SNINC: Science/Neuroscience-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
3. PINC: Psychology-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
4. CGINC: Common Grace-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
5. CBRINC: Co-Belligerent-Research-Informed Nouthetic Counseling 

It is historically inaccurate to claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are a deviant form of modern biblical counseling. Since the modern nouthetic biblical counseling world has always used research and information from the world, it is inconsistent to claim that clinically-informed biblical counselors are “zombie-infected” because they use research and information from the world, which they assess through the lens of Scripture.