Is the Word “Client” on the 2024 Naughty List?

It’s Christmastime

As I write, it’s Christmastime 2024. Most every Santa Claus movie mentions Santa’s “Naughty and Nice List.”

Well, in our modern biblical counseling world, the word “client” has made the naughty list.

Here’s what I imagine now—some will be upset with me, and put this blog post on their “naughty list,” because I’m being playful with my title and introduction. It’s Christmastime. Time for a little playfulness, right? Yet, it’s also time for some serious, factual, biblical reflection on our use of words and on our interactions with others.

Questions About the Word “Client”

So, who put the word “client” on the biblical counseling naughty list? What’s the background here?

A couple of days ago, biblical counselor Jason Kovacs humbly asked on Twitter/X,

“Biblical counselors, how do you help your clients access beauty? What role does beauty and the imagination play in your counseling practice?”

Several fellow biblical counselors responded with their practical suggestions. One counselor, Sean Perron, responded by questioning Kovacs’s use of the word “client.” Perron tweeted:

“One way is to not have ‘clients.’ Biblical counseling is for making disciples, not customers. I am confident you want to make disciples, but language is important. It communicates either a model that is therapeutic or biblical.”

Another counselor, Dale Johnson, then engaged Kovacs about his use of the word “client.”

So, believe it or not, there has been quite a bit of discussion on Twitter/X about whether it is valid for a biblical counselor to use the word “client.”

Quarrelling About Words

I’ll engage with all of this in a moment. But first, I want to acknowledge the danger of quibbling and quarrelling about words. Yes, words are important. And, also yes, God’s Word warns us about quarrelling about words.

“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen” (2 Timothy 2:14).

So, you ask, “Bob, why are you addressing this?” I’m asking myself the same question. As more than one person on Twitter/X said about this, “Are we really expending our energy on this?”

So why am I (reluctantly) blogging about this? In other tweets on other biblical counseling topics, Sean Perron has repeatedly said publicly that:

We should deal in facts and not in personalities. We should address issues forthrightly and not avoid them (paraphrased).

While I happen to think this issue about the word “client” is minor in comparison to much greater issues in our biblical counseling world, I am taking Perron up on his challenge for biblical counselors to deal in facts. And, I’m following Perron’s lead, quoted above, that “language is important.”

Dealing in Facts: The Bible and Theology

I’ve been dealing in facts with many major biblical counseling issues. For example, the biblical counseling world has been addressing common grace, embodied-souls, and traumatic-suffering. So I spent 18 months studying the Scriptures cover-to-cover, Genesis-to-Revelation, examining these topics. I have over 2,000 pages of single-spaced notes. I’ve used that material in many blog post and social media posts.

I’ve produced 15 blog posts totaling over 35,500 words on what the Bible and church history teaches about common grace.
I’ve produced 100 free resources on the embodied-soul, neuroscience, science, research, and traumatic suffering, likely totaling over a quarter-million words.
I’ve produced an 87-page document on 560 Biblical Passages on Embodied-Soul.
When Heath Lambert and Sean Perron posted about zombie-infected biblical counselors, I produced a 77-page biblical, theological response paper on What Makes Someone a Faithful Biblical Counselor?
When Sean Perron made a public charge against Nate Brooks regarding God as Father, I produced a 6,500-word biblical, theological, practical response.

I’ve been repeatedly publicly responsive to Perron’s charge that biblical counselors deal in biblical theological realities as we deal in facts and not personalities.

So, here we go, reluctantly, addressing the current biblical counseling debate:

“Is the word ‘client’ a valid term for biblical counselors to use?”

Three Overlapping Concerns

The nature of the issue/concern seems to keep morphing. Jason Kovacs makes a reasoned attempt to respond to one issue/concern, and then the concern is changed on him.

From reading their tweets, there seem to be three possible issues/questions that Sean Perron and Dale Johnson have been raising to Jason at various times.

Question/Concern #1: Does the word “client” communicate professional licensure—and is that wrong?

Question/Concern #2: Does the word “client” communicate a paid professional relationship (a paying “customer”)—and is that wrong?

Question/Concern #3: Is the use of the word “client” a wisdom issue, or is it an issue of right/wrong? If “client” is wrong, what is the best term to call those to whom biblical counselors provide counsel?

Let’s take these questions/concerns in order, and lets interact about them factually and reasonably.

Concern #1: Does the word “client” communicate professional licensure—and is that wrong?

When Jason Kovacs humbly asked Dale Johnson his opinion, Dale responded:

“If you are asking my opinion, the language of ‘client’ or patient communicates a professionalized relationship rather than the discipleship relationship we seek to foster in BC.”

In responding to a sincere question from Jason Kovacs about Jay Adams’s repeated use of the term “client,” Dale Johnson brought up licensure concerns.

“I can’t speak for Jay, but if you’re referring to ‘Competent’ you need to consider that licensure did not begin until 1976 and that book was written in 1970. We are dealing with a different scenario today with licensure and state statutes that guide professionalized counsel.”

So, for Johnson, the conversation about “client” has morphed into professional licensure issues. Wanting to follow the facts, as Perron has insisted, I researched ACBC podcasts on licensure. I found an ACBC podcast (Truth in Love 128) where Perron interviewed Heath Lambert—when Lambert was the ACBC Executive Director. Here’s what Lambert said about Christians pursuing licensure.

“I’ve never said that Christians should not be licensed by the state. I want Christians to be licensed by the state. This is what thesis affirms, “The only authentically Christian motivation for pursuing a state license to counsel is the missional desire of making Christ known to all people in all places, especially in those places where the authority of the state allows only licensed individuals to talk to troubled people.” There are doors that are closed to you as a counselor unless you’ve got a state license. That means there are people who need to hear the gospel who are dying in their sins and they will never hear about Jesus unless somebody gets behind that closed door, that locked ward on a mental institution, or in that counseling center that only hires people who are licensed by the state, there are people who are dying in trespasses and sins who will never hear the gospel if you don’t get back there.”

So I would have some sincere questions for Dale Johnson as the ED of the ACBC, and for Sean Perron who interviewed the past ACBC ED.

When Heath Lambert was ACBC ED, he approved of Christians being licensed: “I want Christians licensed by the state.” Has the ACBC changed its official position on Christians as licensed counselors? If so, could you point to where that official change has been published? If it has changed, is that a wisdom issue of, “be careful due to state regulations which vary from state to state”? Or, is licensure now deemed by ACBC to be a sin issue? If so, where has this position been developed, supported biblically, and publicly communicated?
If ACBC has not changed its official position on licensure, then could you help us to understand why you say it would be wrong to use the word “client” because it reflects professionalized licensure counseling?

Concern #2: Does the word “client” communicate a paid professional relationship (a paying “customer”)—and is that wrong?

I’ve already quoted Johnson (above) opining that it is wrong to use the word “client” because of its connotations related to professionalize counseling. I’ve also already quoted Perron (above) opining that “client” communicates “customers.”

Wanting to be responsive to Perron’s insistence that we follow the facts, I did a search of ACBC-approved training and counseling centers. I found that there are ACBC-approved counseling centers that charge a fee for counseling—beyond just a suggested donation.

So I would have some sincere questions for Dale Johnson as the ED of the ACBC, and for Sean Perron who raised the issue of “customers” in biblical counseling.

According to ACBC, are these ACBC-approved counseling centers who charge for counseling engaged in “professionalized relationship” with “customers”? Is that, according to ACBC, wrong? Or is it a wisdom issue?
If it is a wisdom issue, then why is Jason Kovacs being singled out, while ACBC-approved counseling centers that charge a fee for counseling are not being mentioned?

To me, these first two concerns seem the most important. And, they seem to be applied inconsistently.

Jason Kovacs is criticized because “client” is associated by Johnson with licensure. First, I don’t believe Jason is licensed. Second, former ACBC ED, Heath Lambert, publicly affirmed his support for licensure.

Jason Kovacs is also criticized because “client” is associated by Johnson and Perron with for-fee counseling, yet ACBC-approved centers do for-fee counseling.

Concern #3: Is the use of the word “client” a wisdom issue, or is it an issue of right/wrong? If “client” is wrong, what is the best term to call those to whom biblical counselors provide counsel?

This third area is “tricky” because it gets into quibbling over how people use and define words. To address this question, I first want to provide some context from the Twitter/X interchanges between Kovacs, Johnson, and Perron.

Kovacs repeatedly seeks clarification, asking Johnson and Perron if he understands them correctly. Kovacs repeatedly gave Johnson opportunities to explain Johnson’s use of the word “client,” but I never saw Johnson or Perron ever give Kovacs any opportunity to explain his use of the word “client.”

Likewise, Kovacs raised the historic issue (see below) of Jay Adams’s repeated use of the word “client.” Johnson sought to explain that away historically. Yet, again, Kovacs was not ask to share his meaning behind his use of the word client. (Kovacs did explain this—but no response or recognition was ever given to his explanation.)

Kovacs raised the issue that Johnson used the word “client” in some of his ACBC podcasts. When asked about these usages, Johnson publicly encouraged people to listen to the podcasts. Wanting to be factual and responsive, I did so. I found the following quotes from ACBC Podcast 310.

“One of the particular areas I think it’s good for us to talk about is, what do we do in areas where there are moral conflicts that differ in what we think as the counselor and maybe the values of the client? Because last week we talked about the therapeutic relationship that it’s important that we as the counselor respond to the client in their values and help them to empower themselves on the basis of their values.” (Dale Johnson, Truth in Love, 310, The Challenges of the Therapeutic Relationship.)

“Before we go there, we’re certainly not saying that the client or the counselee’s values are unimportant, they are actually very important.” (Dale Johnson, Challenges of the Therapeutic Relationship, Truth in Love 310, May 10, 2021).

I want to be fair to Johnson. So I would ask,

In the podcast, you use “client” and “counselee” interchangeably, without a negative connotation to the use of “client.” How is your use of “client” different from Jason Kovacs use of the word?
As you are being given an opportunity to defend or define your use of the word client, would you give Jason Kovacs that same opportunity?
From your first-hand reading of Kovacs in context, could you summarize how he defines and uses the word “client”?

Additionally, in the Twitter/X thread, Jason Kovacs indicated that Jay Adams used the word “client” 100s of times in Competent to Counsel. Here’s Johnson’s response (repeated from above):

“I can’t speak for Jay, but if you’re referring to ;Competent’ you need to consider that licensure did not begin until 1976 and that book was written in 1970. We are dealing with a different scenario today with licensure and state statutes that guide professionalized counsel.”

Since Johnson raised the valid issue of historical context for Jay Adams’s remarkably frequent use of the word “client,” let’s focus factually there. Historically, “client” was already a professionalized term used widely in the 1940s-1970s in secular Rogerian counseling. Jay Adams was well aware of and was opposed to professionalized Rogerian counseling. Yet Adams still used the term “client” 100s of times.

So why use “client”? Kovacs and Adams use “client” for the same reason. Kovacs explained on Twitter/X that he agrees with Adams’s etymological usage of “client” as one who listens to (biblical) information shared by the counselor. On the other hand, Perron’s association of “client” with “customer” is actually the opposite of the etymology of each word.

A “customer” is defined by the transaction. It is a relationship only insomuch as a transaction takes place. Contrast this with “client.” The word “client” comes from the Latin clientem, meaning “follower.” This is thought to be a variant of clinare, “to incline, bend.” This means a client is someone who leans on you for advice. A client is defined by their trusted relationship with you. A client may have one or many transactions with you, but the relationship is lasting. If we’re going by etymology and common usage, then if you’re in the transaction business, you have customers. If you’re in the relationship business, you have clients.

What about the word “counselee”? Let’s focus factually and historically here. “Counselee” is not used in the Bible. The first known use of the word was in the 1920s. The word “counselee” comes directly from the world of secular therapy. Do a search, and you’ll find that, “A ‘counselee’ is a person who is receiving professional counseling.” While Jesus is called the “Wonderful Counselor,” no where in God’s all-sufficient Word are we ever called His “counselees.”

If we are concerned with legal ramifications, in the United States, “counselor” and “counselee” are state sanctioned regulated terms used in the realm of licensed professional counseling. So we don’t escape legal/professional/licensure issues by running away from “client” and running to “counselee.”

Again, I want to be fair to Johnson and Perron. So I would ask them,

How is Adams’s use of “client” in an era of professionalized Rogerian counseling, different from Jason Kovacs simply asking biblical counselors how to help their “clients” better grasp the beauty of God?”
Like Jay Adams, Jason Kovacs sometimes uses “client,” many times he uses “counselee.” Have you offered Kovacs an opportunity to define and defend his use of the term “client”?
What word is biblical for the recipient of focused biblical counseling? The word “counselee,” which is not in God’s all-sufficient Word, comes directly from the secular world of therapy. Does that make it irredeemable? Is “client” irredeemable? If we can’t use “client” or “counselee” because of associations with professionalized, licensed, for-fee counseling, then what word is acceptable to ACBC? Or, are we quibbling about words, and should we leave this as a wisdom issue for each biblical counselor to determine in their context before God?

Final Summary Questions

I would ask these summary question of Johnson and Perron:

Since an ACBC podcast with the Executive Director affirmed the role of Christians as licensed counselors, since ACBC-approved centers charge a fee for counseling, and since Johnson and Adams have used “client” in an era when “client” represents for-fee professionalized relationships, why is Kovacs’s use of “client” singled out?
Why is Kovacs not offered the opportunity to define and contextualize his use of the word “client”?
Might it be best to leave the use of word choice as a wisdom issue?
Might it be wisest to save our social media time and energy for conversations (not just monologues but dialogues) about vital matters of theology such as common grace and embodied-soul care?

And a final question:

Rather than quibbling over the word “client,” how might you respond to Kovac’s original question? “Biblical counselors, how do you help your clients [or counselees or soul-care-recipients] access beauty? What role does beauty and the imagination play in your counseling practice?”