My friend and fellow biblical counselor, Sean Perron, recently publicly responded to several of my Twitter/X tweets. In one response to me, Sean said,
“The new integrationists are actually integrationists. Despite what they claim. If they want to dispute this, they need to produce arguments of substance in response to this essay: https://fbcjax.com/first-thoughts/six-crucial-confusions-of-the-new-integrationists/ .”
In another public response, Sean wrote,
“Hi Bob, none of Heath’s essays have mentioned you. I was referring to the New Integrationists in this essay. It has been over six months and they have not responded.”
Here are my public responses to Sean and his claim that those he calls “new integrationists” must respond to one of Heath’s podcasts in order to prove they are truly biblical counselors.
1. Heath’s Post on Six Crucial Confusions Is Not the New Norm.
Sean, since we all believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, we can all agree that one extra-biblical human document—one podcast by one person—Heath—does not obligate anyone to view that document as the new standard to which every biblical counselor must submit or respond. Heath was not writing from any official capacity within the ACBC. Heath was not writing as someone holding any official leadership role in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Heath was a guy doing a podcast.
One of Heath’s six areas is “confusion about the integration of integrationists.” This is an important conversation, and, as I note below, the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty do address this issue. The nature of integration has been debated by biblical counselors and Christian integrative counselors for over half a century. Surely you are not now saying that unless everyone agrees with Heath’s new definition of “the integration of integrationists,” then they are all outside the bounds of true biblical counseling.
Another of Heath’s six areas is “confusion about the stakes.” This is another valid conversation. However, Heath cannot single-handedly appoint himself the arbiter who alone can define “the stakes.” Again, surely you are not implying that everyone has to agree on the exact wording of the exact stakes in this conversation in order to be identified as real biblical counselors.
Another of Heath’s man-made areas of confusion is “confusion about the ‘integration’ of biblical counselors.” Here Heath disputes statements documenting that leading biblical counselors “integrate.” This has been a much discussed issue since the 1970s, and continues today. For example, in 1988, Mike Firmen wrote his Ph.D. dissertation for Bob Jones University on the issue of whether Jay Adams integrated behaviorism: “Behaviorism and the Nouthetic Counseling Model of Jay E. Adams.” I’ve catalogued additional examples of those who addressed whether Jay Adams integrated any extra-biblical materials. In 2023, Greg Gifford, the editor of the ACBC’s Journal of Biblical Soul Care, addressed this issue in, How Jay Adams Is Connected to the Father of American Psychology. Gifford states:
“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.”
“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.’”
Is Dr. Gifford also implicated by Heath as confused “about the ‘integration’ of biblical counselors”?
In 2003, The Journal of Biblical Counseling published an article by George M. Schwab (Ph.D. Old Testament Professor at Erskine Theological Seminary) entitled, “Critique of ‘Habituation’ as a Biblical Model of Change.” In the article, Schwab compares Adams’s conceptual ideas with those of Mowrer and Glasser. Commenting on Schwab’s assessment of Adams’s approach to habituation and his understanding of the biblical term “flesh,” Heath Lambert remarks:
“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 Adams’s understanding of the term ‘flesh’ was imposed by Adams on the biblical text, and actually derived from the influence of unbelieving people” (The Theological Development of the Biblical Counseling Movement from 1988, 73-74).
Is Heath implicated by Heath as confused “about the ‘integration’ of biblical counselors”?
Given these examples, surely, you are not saying that in order to be a true biblical counselor, everyone must have the identical assessment as Heath about whether any biblical counselor has ever integrated anything?
The manuscript version of Heath’s podcast is 7,036 words. If my calculations are correct, there are just nine Bible passages in this entire document. One is by integrationists Stanton Jones and Richard Butman, one is by biblical counselor Nate Brooks, two are by biblical counselor David Powlison, and just five are by Heath. By comparison, Nate Brooks’s book Identifying Heart Transformation: Exploring Different Kinds of Human Change is 111 pages and engages with 401 biblical passages, which is about four Bible references per page. In Heath’s podcast manuscript he has what would be the equivalent of one Bible reference every four pages. In other words, Nate Brooks’s book is sixteen times more Bible saturated than Heath’s podcast manuscript. As another pertinent example, my blog post, 6 Biblical Counseling Convictions, includes 118 biblical passages. That is equivalent to 11 Bible references per page—forty-four times as Bible saturated as Heath’s post. I’m not saying that counting verses necessarily proves one person is more biblical than others. Here’s my point:
A 7,036-word extra-biblical document by one man with five Bible references hardly is the new norm to decide who believes in the sufficiency of Scripture and who does not.
2. If We Want to Identify a Biblical Counseling Statement as a “Litmus Test,” We Have One: The Biblical Counseling Coalition Confessional Statement.
Of course, the Bible is what ultimately sets the boundary line for biblical counseling. But if we are looking at an extra-biblical statement, then the Biblical Counseling Coalition Confessional Statement is an excellent summary statement of the essence of biblical counseling. It was produced collegially and collaboratively by over fifty biblical counseling leaders, including Heath. I’ve documented Heath’s involvement, under my leadership, in the development of the Biblical Counseling Coalition’s Confessional Statement. Sam Williams, SEBTS Biblical Counseling Professor, was one of the six steering committee members for the BCC CS. Brad Hambrick, another SEBTS Biblical Counseling Professor, was among the fifty biblical counseling leaders who contributed to the BCC CS.
The BCC Confessional Statement engages with eighty biblical passages. That’s approximately nine biblical passages per page, which is thirty-six times more Scripture saturated than Heath’s podcast manuscript.
Sean, if you insist that those you accuse of being “new integrationist” must engage with some human document to prove they are true biblical counselors, then the Biblical Counseling Coalition Confessional Statement would be the much better document, rather than one podcast by one person—Heath—with five verses.
3. The SEBTS Biblical Counseling Faculty Has Produced a Substantive Document That Addresses the Issues Raised in the Various Zombie Posts.
If I am not mistaken, Heath’s post about Six Crucial Confusions was posted on May 20, 2024. I believe Heath’s first zombie post was on May 13, 2024. On July 8, 2024, about three months after these zombie posts began, the biblical counseling faculty of SEBTS posted their document, “What Is Redemptive Counseling/Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling?” That document includes, “Ten Commitments of Redemptive Counselors / Clinically Informed Biblical Counselors.” This twelve-page, single-spaced document substantively addresses the issues raised in the zombie posts:
1.) Scripture, 2.) Sufficiency, 3.) The use of Scripture in counseling, 4.) Engagement with secular psychology, 5.) The legitimacy of working towards civic righteousness (a core aspect of the Reformed theology of common grace), 6.) The context of counseling, 7.) Terminology, 8.) Care for the body and soul, 9.) Learning, and 10.) Ethos.
In their conclusion, the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty specifically state:
“Our goal has been to write ten convictions that speak directly to recent questions that have been raised about the beliefs and practices of RC/CIBCers.”
Clearly, they address the sort of questions raised throughout Heath and Sean’s “summer of sufficiency.” They discuss: the sufficiency of Scripture for biblical counseling; the Bible’s teaching on extra-biblical literature; definitions of integration, nouthetic counseling, and biblical counseling, including distinguishing their approach from the Christian integrative counseling approach; common grace; the Bible and sanctification; their biblical assessment of CBT; their biblical assessment of psychological labels; their biblical understanding of embodied-souls; and more…
It simply is inaccurate to claim that the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty have not substantively engaged with the core issues raised in various zombie posts.
4. The SEBTS Biblical Counseling Faculty’s Publication on Biblical Counseling Are an Excellent Source for Assessing Their Biblical Counseling.
In addition to the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty’s substantive response to the zombie accusations, one could read other central biblical counseling texts written by SEBTS biblical counselors. I’ve already referenced Nate Brooks’s Identifying Heart Transformation: Exploring Different Kinds of Human Change.
One could assess SEBTS biblical counseling professor Kristin Kellen by reading her co-authored book, with SBTS professor Dr. Robert Jones and Faith Bible Seminary Biblical Counseling Chair Rob Green: The Gospel for Disordered Lives: An Introduction to Christ-Centered Biblical Counseling. This book has endorsements by leading biblical counselors such as ACBC Fellow Howard Eyrich, ACBC Executive Director Dale Johnson, and RTS Christian Counseling Chair Jim Newheiser.
Brad Hambrick has numerous published books along with 100s of public blog posts that one could assess.
5. Are Biblical Counselors Required to Respond to Every Fellow Biblical Counselor Who Questions Their Credibility?
Over a decade ago, Donn Arms wrote a scathing review of Heath’s book on the history of biblical counseling. Among many criticisms of Heath, Arms writes,
“While Lambert believes these differences are the result of growth and maturity in the movement, a careful examination of Lambert’s evidence often reveals a departure from what is biblical and helpful and is a retreat back to the mindset of the pre-nouthetic Rogerian practices of our forefathers which Adams inveighed against over 40 years ago.”
Sean, must Heath publicly respond to this accusation, posted on Jay Adams’s website, by a leading nouthetic biblical counselor, that Heath is a “Rogerian” before Heath can prove he is truly a biblical counselor? Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I’ve done a Google search and have not seen a public response by Heath to Donn Arms’s accusation that Heath has departed from “what is biblical” and retreated back to “the mindset of the pre-nouthetic Rogerian practices.”
6. Maybe That Face-to-Face Meeting Might Still Be a Point of Wisdom.
Sean, your responses to me began when I interacted about Heath’s most recent podcast where he opines that it is biblical to publicly confront the public writings of others without first meeting face-to-face. My recent call for a face-to-face meeting did not say there must be a meeting. Instead, I suggested then, and I continue to suggest now, that meeting face-to-face in a moderated setting could be wise and helpful. In my post, I documented the wisdom principles that support my suggestions that people at least consider meeting in person (just as I have offered to meet with you).
If I were to update that post, I might add this:
Perhaps the SEBTS document “What Is Redemptive Counseling/Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling?” could be a main point of interaction in a face-to-face moderated meeting.
Perhaps the BCC Confessional Statement could be a main point of interaction in an in-person meeting.
7. In Summary
Here’s a brief summary of my main points:
- A 7,036-word extra-biblical document by one man with five Bible references is not the new norm to decide who believes in the sufficiency of Scripture and who does not.
- It goes against the sufficiency of Scripture to claim that the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty must respond to one man’s extra-biblical document to prove that they are truly biblical counselors.
- It is inaccurate to claim that the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty have not substantively engaged with the core issues raised in the various zombie posts.
