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.”

In my continued research, I read the current ACBC statement on licensure. While it rightly addresses the state-by-state issues related to ethics codes, the ACBC statement allows leeway for current licensed professional counselors to petition “to continue in progression with ACBC certification.” Nowhere does the statement address for-fee counseling as the concern with licensure. Nowhere does it address the word “client” relative to licensure. In fact, licensed counselors use the terminology of “counseling, counselor, and counselee” more often than the terminology of “client.”

So I have some 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 Lambert changed his position? If he has changed his position, is that change based on the for-fee nature of licensed counseling; is it associated with the word “client”?
Since ACBC’s statement on licensure allows for an appeal process for licensed professional counselors to continue toward ACBC certification, it would seem that you see licensure as a wisdom issue, depending on each state ethics code and on each counselor. Is that correct? Or, is it the current ACBC position that it is always a sin for a Christian to be a licensed professional counselor, or a licensed psychologist, or a licensed psychiatrist?
Since ACBC’s statement on licensure does not mention for-fee counseling or the word “client” as reasons for any hesitancy about licensure, since it allows for an appeal process for licensed professional counselors to continue toward ACBC certification, since licensed counselors use the word “counselee” as much or more than they use the word “client,” since Jason Kovacs is not a licensed professional counselor, since Kovacs agrees with Jay Adams’s definition of the word “client” (see below), what is your licensure-related concern with Kovacs’s use of the word “client”?

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?

These first two concerns (licensure-related concerns and for-fee-related 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, Kovacs is not licensed. Second, former ACBC ED, Heath Lambert, in an ACBC podcast, publicly affirmed his support for licensure. Third, ACBC’s current statement on licensure allows for an appeal process for licensed professional counselors to continue toward ACBC certification.

Jason Kovacs is criticized because Johnson and Perron associate “client” 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’s 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):

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 Jay Adams’s etymological usage of “client.”

“The word ‘client’ etymologically indicates ‘one who is dependent upon another’ and has as its root the Greek kluo, ‘to listen.’ This means that a ‘client,’ strictly speaking, is who one is dependent upon the information imparted by the counselor’” (Jay Adams quoted approvingly by Jason Kovacs).

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 by focusing biblically and historically.

Biblically: “Counselee” is not used in the Bible. It is an extra-biblical word. While Jesus is called the “Wonderful Counselor,” nowhere in God’s all-sufficient Word are we ever called His “counselees.” The Bible provides scores of words to describe those to whom Jesus ministered: little children, children, children of God, children of light, friend, sons, brethren, brothers, saints, sheep, lambs, prodigals, followers, disciples, saints, servants, believers, Christians, etc., but never “counselee.” The Apostle Paul is perhaps the greatest human soul care giver and physician of souls. Those he ministered to in the Bible are called heirs of Christ, brothers, children, disciples, followers, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, fellow members, etc. Never once did the Bible use the word “counselee” for anyone Paul ministered to.
Historically: Never once in 1,920 years of church history did any Christian ever use the word “counselee” for those to whom they ministered. The first known historical use of “counselee” in all of human history was in the secular Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Conference of the Association of American Universities in 1920. The word “counselee” then began appearing in the 1920s in secular literature for the person being professionally counseled. The word “counselee” was subsequently popularized in the world of secular therapy. At some unknown point in the 20^th century, some Christian first borrowed this secular term and applied it to Christian counseling, integrating the secular idea of “counselee” into a Christian context.

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,” is not in God’s all-sufficient Word. “Counselee” was borrowed from and integrated by Christians 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?

Summary Questions

I would ask these summary question of Johnson and Perron:

Since an ACBC podcast with Sean Perron and the Executive Director affirmed the role of Christians as licensed counselors, since the current ACBC statement on licensure allows for an appeal process for licensed professional counselors to continue toward ACBC certification, 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 an application question:

Rather than quibbling over the word “client,” how might you respond to Kovacs’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?”

Addendum: “Non-Wooden Sufficiency of Scripture”

After I posted this blog, Sean Perron posted on Twitter/X, doubling-down on his views. Among other comments, Perron made the statement that:

“If someone says the word ‘counselee’ isn’t technically in the sufficient Word and therefore I shouldn’t use it, they have misunderstood how sufficiency works. The sufficiency of Scripture is not that wooden. Jesus is our Wonderful Counselor, and therefore we are his counselees. It must logically follow.”

Some reflections on Perron’s post.

First, “counselee” is not “technically” not in the Bible. Instead, “counselee” is not actually in the Bible.

Second, I’m not sure who said Perron “shouldn’t use it,” as I certainly said in my post that “counselee” could be used, and that I have used it.

Third, I followed up with Perron on Twitter/X. Here is part of my initial response.

Personally, I’ve used “counselee.” I’m sure I’ve used “client” from time to time. I’ve used “spiritual friend.” I’ve used “parishioner.” I’ve used “child of God.” I’m not hung up on one word. Increasingly, I’m using the concept of “soul care” for the pro bono personal ministry of the Word I do with pastors, biblical counselors, and missionaries. So, I tend not to call the people I minister to “counselees.” But if others do use that term, that’s okay with me.

Jesus is the Wonderful Counselor, and those He ministers to in the Bible are called by many names, such as: His children, little children, His sons and daughters, saints, followers, disciples, sheep, flock, lambs, learners, believers, servants, dearly loved, Christians, etc. Since Jesus used many words for those he ministered to, but never once used the word “counselee,” I’m not hung up on anyone having to use “counselee.” In today’s world, “counselee” has a clinical, professional sense of a client or even a customer. When Jesus spoke one-on-one with Nicodemus, he wasn’t in a fifty-minute appointment in an office with a counselee, customer, or client, but was in a caring relationship with a religious-but-unsaved Jewish man in need of a Savior. When Jesus spoke one-on-one with the woman at the well, he wasn’t in a meeting with a counselee, or a customer, or a client, but was engaged in a caring spiritual conversation with an irreligious-unsaved Samaritan woman in need of a Savior. Jesus says to us, “I have called you friends” (John 15:15); not, “I have called you counselees.”

Paul is perhaps the greatest human soul care giver, and those he ministered to in the Bible are described in many ways, such as: heirs of Christ, brothers, children, disciples, followers, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, fellow members, fellow citizen, fellow worker, member of God’s family, Christ’s workmanship, God’s temple, living stone, chosen people, etc. Since Paul used many words for those he ministered to, but never once used the word “counselee,” I’m not hung up on anyone having to use “counselee.”

To insist on the preference for a word—“counselee”—that is not in the Bible (while judging a fellow biblical counselor who sometimes uses the word “client”), when the Bible offers us a plethora of better words, is to move dangerously close to quarrelling about words (2 Timothy 2:14). Words matter. Words used by God’s Word shape our thinking about each and every issue. Insisting on the use of a word (“counselee”) that comes from the secular world of therapy is not an argument I would expend my time on.

Opening Pandora’s Box?

It is important that we trace and assess Perron’s logic of “non-wooden sufficiency” as his source for the use of the word “counselee.”

Perron’s non-wooden sufficiency illustration states that Jesus is the Wonderful Counselor, therefore, it must logically follow that we should be called His “counselee,” and we should call those we minister to our “counselees.”

As I’ve stated, I do not have a problem with the word “counselee.” However, historically and etymologically, “counselee” is derived from the secular world, not from the biblical world or from the world of church history. Modern Christians integrated “counselee” from non-Christians; they did not develop it from the Bible.

Among scores of biblical titles for Christ, is the title, “Wonderful Counselor.” The Bible provides scores of words to describe those to whom Jesus ministered, such as: little children, children, children of God, born of God, children of light, child of promise, friend, sons, brethren, brothers, saints, sheep, lambs, flock, accepted in the beloved, treasured possession, salt and light, , overcomer, forgiven prodigals, followers, disciples, learners, followers, saints, servants, believers, little ones, branch, bride of Christ, Christians, etc. However, never once in the sixty-six books of the Bible did God’s Word ever use the word “counselee” for those Jesus, or anyone else, ever ministered to.

Never once in 1,920 years of church history did any Christian ever use the word “counselee” for those to whom they ministered. Classic books on the history of Christian soul care such as Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective, Classical Pastoral Care, Physicians of the Soul, A History of the Cure of Souls, and A History of Pastoral Care in America reveal the names of care givers and recipients of care. As a sampler: care givers were pastors who shepherded their flock/sheep; they were soul physicians ministering to pilgrims in need of soul care and spiritual healing; they were comforters consoling the sorrowing, grieving, and hurting; they were reconcilers of broken sinners; they were spiritual guides of saints on a journey; they were, according to Luther, to be like a mother with her children; they provided “devil craft” for those tempted by Satan, they were spiritual directors for inquirers, disciples, and learners; they were soul care givers for troubled people with a wounded conscience in need of sustaining, healing, reconciling, and guiding; they were ministers to parishioners and members; they were one-another ministers to brothers and sisters in Christ; they were confessors of penitents. Throughout church history, the recipients of soul care were many things; however, they were never counselees.

The first known historical use of “counselee” in all of human history was in the secular Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Conference of the Association of American Universities in 1920. The word “counselee” then begins appearing more in the 1920s in secular literature for the person being professionally The word “counselee” was subsequently popularized in the world of secular therapy. At some unknown point in the 20^th century, some Christian first borrowed this secular term and applied it to Christian counseling, integrating the secular idea of “counselee” into a Christian context. According to the Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, “counselee connotes a person seeking help from a professional counselor implying the payment of a fee. The minister who calls the recipient of pastoral care or counseling a counselee relies on secular disciplines for name and structure. The term implies the helper’s superior knowledge; limited, contractual relationships with the person; and monetary payment for counseling. The term lacks ecclesiastical referents, and the secular rootage makes the spiritual dimension of pastoral counseling seem superfluous.”

According to Perron’s non-wooden sufficiency model, modern biblical counselors should use the word “counselee,” which is never used in the Bible, or in church history until the advent of modern secular therapy, and was invented and popularized by non-Christians, and then integrated by Christians.

I’m not sure that logic even constitutes common grace, much less sufficiency of Scripture. As Jay Adams would ask, “How did the church survive for 1,920 years without the secular invention by non-Christians of the word ‘counselee’?”

If you, me, Perron, or anyone else wants to use “counselee,” that’s fine. But let’s not make the theological argument that using a secular term originated by non-Christian educators in the 1920s, then used by secular therapist beginning in the 1920s, and later integrated by Christians from non-Christians in the 20^th Century, is somehow related to, dependent upon, required by, or supported with the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture—“wooden” or “non-wooden.”

This concept of non-wooden sufficiency, as Perron is illustrating it with “counselee,” allows for secular concepts and vocabulary to trump biblical concepts and vocabulary, and moves in the opposite direction of Perron’s recent statements on the limits of common grace. It appears that in Perron’s desire to argue for biblical counselors using the secular word “counselee,” he may have inadvertently opened the proverbial “Pandora’s Box” for anyone to integrate the Trojan Horse of secular concepts into biblical counseling.

Misunderstanding and Misapplying Sufficiency

In raising the issue of non-wooden sufficiency, Sean Perron is addressing an important theological concept. Jordan Steffaniak, in his article, What Does Sufficiency Mean?, explains what theologians mean when they talk about the nature and scope of sufficiency. He even describes how sufficiency, rightly understood, deals with “the wooden sense” of “something being in the Bible” in an “absolute/word-for-word only” sense. Steffaniak also summarizes the dangers of abusing the doctrine of sufficiency.

“But it [sufficiency] is liable to be abused like any other doctrine. And it’s liable to be misunderstood in both liberal and conservative directions. We can end up rejecting it or we can end up expanding it beyond its proper scope.”

It appears to me that Perron has either misunderstood, or misapplied, in both directions, what theologians mean by wooden or non-wooden sufficiency.

Expanding Sufficiency Beyond Its Proper Scope

First, as I summarized above, I believe Perron has mistakenly expanded sufficiency beyond its proper scope. Here’s how.

In order to win an unnecessary argument over whether “client” or “counselee” is the better word, and by insisting on the secular word “counselee,” Perron has allowed secular concepts and vocabulary to trump biblical concepts and vocabulary. This moves in the opposite direction of his recent statements on the limits of common grace. Perron is arguing from modern practice back into Scripture, and making one modern word woodenly wrong and another modern word woodenly correct. In doing so, he may have inadvertently opened the proverbial “Pandora’s Box” for anyone to integrate the Trojan Horse of secular concepts into biblical counseling.

Ironically, what Perron is doing is actually wooden sufficiency. Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) explained that wooden sufficiency involves being “dreadfully servile to the letter.” It is wooden-sufficiency to claim that the word “client” is associated with secular counseling and, therefore, is not biblical, while simultaneously claiming that another word—“counselee”—that is also associated with secular counseling, is biblical. It is wooden sufficiency to claim that because Jesus is called the Wonderful Counselor that, therefore, it is only logical that we are His “counselees,” and “counselee” is the officially preferred word used by modern biblical counselors.

I have no need to be wooden about this. Personally, while I tend not to use either word “client” or “counselee” much anymore, I am fine with people using either word, especially when they define the word—like Jason Kovacs does. I do not believe that a word must be in Scripture in order to be useable by Christians. As I’ve said, we should all be careful unless we sin against the biblical command not to quarrel and quibble about words (2 Timothy 2:14). I am fine with allowing Jason Kovacs to use “client” as he occasionally does. I am fine with Sean Perron using “counselee,” as long as he does not woodenly demand that his modern secular word is the preferred word for all biblical counselors.

Narrowing Sufficiency in an Unbiblical Way

Again, ironically, Perron’s reference to non-wooden sufficiency enlightens us to how Perron and others are narrowing sufficiency in an unbiblical way. For instance, Francine Tan, in her ACBC Journal of Biblical Soul Care article, states,

“Thus, I propose that biblical counselors ought to revisit how we define CG and make a few qualifications to the traditional Reformed view of CG…. CG should not be understood as the positive contribution made by unregenerate men through discoveries, insights, or ‘good deeds’” (Common Grace in Debate, 84).

To understand sufficiency of Scripture, biblical counseling, and common grace, as taught by Reformed theologians, I would encourage you to read this 35,500-word collation of primary source material: Common Grace and Biblical Counseling. To understand how Perron and Tan are unbiblically narrowing the theological meaning of sufficiency, we first need to understand what Reformed theologians actually mean by the concept of wooden sufficiency. To summarize this, we’ll return to Steffaniak’s article.

It is significant that theologians use this concept of non-wooden sufficiency to build a biblical-theoloogical case for the value of natural theology and the potential usefulness of common grace insights. Steffaniak illustrates repeatedly how Reformed theology teaches that there is useful information in nature discerned through God’s common grace which is not found explicitly—word-for-word in a wooden way—in Scripture.

For instance, Turretin argued at length against the Socinians “who deny the existence of any such natural theology or knowledge of God…. The orthodox, on the contrary, uniformly teach that there is a natural theology, partly innate (derived from the book of conscience by means of common notions) and partly acquired (drawn from the book of creatures discursively).”

Perron misapplied non-wooden sufficiency by woodenly insisting on his preferred modern, secular word (“counselee”) for those ministered to by biblical counselors. Reformed theologians, on the other hand, encourage us to use the theological concept of non-wooden sufficiency to beware of unbiblically limiting God’s sovereign use of common grace.

I am thankful for Perron reintroducing us to non-wooden sufficiency, even if he misapplied the concept. Given the current discussions in the biblical counseling world about common grace, it would be beneficial if we understood the Reformed idea of non-wooden sufficiency. It would assist us in understanding the biblical relationship between common grace, natural theology, and the sufficiency of Scripture.

The Bottom Line: Revisiting the Biblical Counseling Naughty and Nice List

“Client” and “counselee” are words equally drawn from the secular world. Let’s stop quibbling about either word.

Arguing that one word should be on the biblical counseling naughty list and the other word on the biblical counseling nice list is quarrelling about words (2 Timothy 2:14), straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24), neglecting the more important matters of God’s Word (Matthew 23:23), and judging others while ignoring the log in one’s own biblical counseling eye (Matthew 7:1-5). In our personal ministry of the Word, and in our public ministry of the Word, let’s emphasize the more important matters of God’s all-sufficient Word—justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23).