When the Whole Person Keeps the Score

Biblical Language About the Body and Suffering

In a recent post, Matthew Statler seeks to present “biblical language about the body and suffering.” That is an excellent goal.

It is a goal I’ve pursued for more than forty years—every since I wrote my Th.M. thesis on how the Old Testament describes human beings and the human condition (Hebrew Anthropological Terms as a Foundation for a Biblical Counseling Model of Man).

The Bible, the Embodied-Soul, and Traumatic Suffering

In his post, Statler argues that the language of the body keeping the score lacks coherence. I don’t disagree. At times those writings can have a monistic focus—a body-only or a body-primarily focus. In other words, the body keeps the score language can be understood at times to miss the whole person—the embodied-soul.

These recent writings on the body and trauma have been a catalyst for me to ask a similar question to the one Satler is asking. I would word my goal a bit differently then “biblical language about the body and suffering.” I would word it as:

Biblical language about the embodied-soul and suffering.

Or, worded more expansively:

I am seeking to develop a comprehensive biblical, theological, and historical (church history) understanding of biblical teaching about the embodied-soul and suffering: how the whole person as a complex, intimately interconnected, interrelated body/soul responds to traumatic suffering.

More Score-Keeping

For some of my more recent works on this, you may want to see:

If you have time for only one article on this topic, then I would recommend this one:

10 Biblical Trauma Principles for Biblical Counseling: We Experience, Remember, and Respond to Traumatic Suffering as Embodied-Souls.

What Is the Embodied-Soul?

I will not repeat my teaching from those articles here. Instead, those articles serve as a foundation for some responses to and reflections on Satler’s article.

To have this conversation, we need to have some foundational understanding of what the Bible teaches about the embodied-soul. This summary on the embodied-soul provides an essential foundation for what follows:

The Embodied-Soul: God fearfully and wonderfully designed us as a comprehensive, complex unity of body/soul—embodied-soul—inseparably and intimately intertwined and intricately linked with a continual interaction, interconnection, and mutual ongoing effect flowing bidirectionally between our body/soul.

Engaging with Matthew: Areas of Agreement

Satler entitles his post, When the Body Keeps No Score: The Category Mistake at the Heart of Trauma Theory. There are areas of agreement that I have with Matthew…and areas of disagreement. Here are some areas of agreement:

Agreed: “Many are not asking whether trauma theory is biblical.” I would add: Many spend the bulk of their time fighting against trauma theory. They are not seeking to develop a comprehensive biblical theology of the embodied-soul and traumatic suffering.
Agreed: We need “biblical language about the body and suffering.” I would add, as I did earlier, “We need biblical language about the embodied-soul and suffering.”
Agreed: We need a coherent understanding of suffering.
Agreed: We need a biblically coherent understanding of suffering.
Agreed: The body alone does not “keep the score.” I would add: We never counsel only a body. We never respond to life only as a body.
Agreed: “When we let trauma theory frame the question, we inherit its confusions. When we let Scripture frame the question, we recover the person.” I would add: When we recover the person biblically, we recover the whole person—as an embodied-soul, not only as a soul. We never counsel only a soul. We never respond to life only as a soul.
Agreed: Sufferers are not “a passive recipient of nervous system states rather than a responsible agent before God.” I would add: The sufferers embodied-soul, including their physical brain and their nervous system does respond to and remember their suffering.
Agreed: “I am not denying that suffering affects the body. Scripture affirms this plainly.”

Engaging with Matthew: Some Areas for Further Discussion, Reflection, and Development

Rather than labeling this part “Areas of Disagreement,” let’s think of this as areas for further pondering. Let’s think of this section as iron-sharpening conversations.

Engagement #1: A Category Mistake

Satler speaks of a category mistake which identifies the body as the agent. That we can agree upon: it is a monistic view, a “body-only” view.

However, here’s my concern. Perhaps I am reading this initial article incorrectly, but Satler seems to trend toward the opposite monistic view: that the soul alone is the agent.

And he seems to trend toward monistic causation and monistic interaction: that causation is only one way—from soul to body. However, biblically, the person is the agent, and theologically the person is not just body, not just soul, but an embodied-soul intimately and indivisibly interacting and interconnected.

If I were sitting across from Matthew, I would want to know if he thinks the body affects the embodied-soul; the soul affects the embodied-soul; the whole person is affected by the whole of life. I’d want to discuss how we could avoid overreacting to body-only claims so that we do not move to an unbiblical extreme of soul-only claims.

Engagement #2: Agency

Satler speaks as if physiological interventions, or “somatic therapy,” by nature must ascribe to the body independent agency. Some secular writers may take that view; some secular writers may not take that view.

What is the biblical view? When a person engages in a physiological intervention, the whole person as an embodied-soul is the agent. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe physiological interventions as “embodied-soul interventions” that address the body as one aspect of comprehensively caring for the whole, united person as an embodied-soul.

The same Jesus who invites the weary to come to Him for rest for their souls (embodied-souls) (Matthew 11:28-30), also invites His physically weary disciples to “come away with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest” for their body (embodied-soul) (Mark 6:31-32; see also Luke 9:10).

Soul rest and body rest are equally spiritual. Soul rest and body rest equally demonstrate dependence upon God. In fact, because God designed us as embodied-souls, we are never more God-dependent than when we humbly choose whole-person, embodied-soul rest in Jesus. Surrendering our embodied-soul to the Lord is not surrendering to created things; it is surrendering to the Creator. It is whole-person dependence upon Christ.

So, if I were sitting across from Matthew, I would enjoy talking further about whether physiological interventions could biblically be conceived of as embodied-soul interventions where the body is not seen as an independent agent.

Engagement #3: “Ordinary Wisdom”

Satler speaks of “the ordinary wisdom of caring for the body through sleep, food, movement, and rest.” I agree with that…as far as it goes. Many of us have argued, contra traditional nouthetic counselors, that it is “within our lane” as soul physicians of embodied-souls to minister to the whole person, including via physiological interventions such as discussing sleep, food, movement, and rest.

I have also argued that the ordinary wisdom for caring for the body does not have to be locked in time. According to God’s Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28), we are commanded to continue to subdue the earth and continue to be “under-shepherds” and “under-scientists” who continually research and discover embodied-soul health-related wisdom.

Some have argued that since Jesus never specifically talked about breathing exercises, that we should not talk about that. However, we would not argue that the ordinary means of caring for the cancer-afflicted body are the same today as they were 2000 years ago. Nor would we argue that because Jesus did not provide us with knowledge about chemotherapy that we should not use it today. Nor would we argue against insulin because it was not invented in Bible times or mentioned by Christ.

Now, we can, and should, seek to discern whether a given neurologically-based intervention is actually helpful—such as “box breathing.” However, the “ordinary wisdom of caring for the body” can continue to expand as neuroscience advances are made in the connection between body/soul and embodied-soul health.

In Is Relief-Oriented Care and Counseling for the Body Sub-Biblical?, I address this further. I demonstrate from specific biblical passages that the Bible endorses by precept and example physiological interventions. I demonstrate from theological anthropology that the Bible endorses embodied-soul interventions. And, I demonstrate from church history, including the history of the modern nouthetic counseling movement, that Christians have always used the physiological knowledge of their day as part of a comprehensive approach to caring for one another. Christians have always engaged in physiological interventions and embodied care because they have always seen themselves as soul physicians of embodied-souls.

So, if Matthew and I were sharing a meal, I would want to know how we should decide where the “ordinary wisdom of caring for the body” starts and stops? Matthew lists “sleep, food, movement, and rest.” Why include those? Why stop with those? What are the biblical criteria for inclusion or exclusion? What are the neuroscience criteria for inclusion or exclusion? I’d want to explore where, in Matthew’s thinking, this “ordinary wisdom” about the Bible originates—where does Matthew find this “ordinary wisdom”? I’d want to ponder together, “So, you can talk to a counselee about sleep, food, movement, and rest. Let’s say I talk to that same counselee about their soul, their worship, their relationship to God and others, their beliefs, their actions, choices, motivations, and their emotions. Let’s say I then also talk to that same counselee about sleep, food, movement, and rest. Then, would it be outside my lane as a soul physician of embodied soul to refer them to a document I created about deep breathing? If so, by what biblical criteria is that one addition beyond “ordinary wisdom of caring for the body?”

Engagement #4: The God-Given Capacity of the Physical Brain

At least in this first article, I did not detect Satler addressing the God-given memory function/capacity of the physical brain. As I indicate in 10 Biblical Trauma Principles for Biblical Counseling, we do experience, remember, and respond to suffering in our bodies—in our embodied-soul. We may not choose to call this “storing” or “keeping the score,” but the Bible clearly indicates that the brain remembers.

God’s all-sufficient Word has a great deal to say about the vital importance of memory, and how our memory of past events influences us in the present. The Bible teaches that the whole person remembers: and that includes the memory capacity of the physical brain and the recollection and interpretive functions of the metaphysical mind.

Interestingly, throughout the Old Testament, Hebrew stereometric thinking uses the parts of the body as a metaphor for the whole person. The “bowels” experience compassion. The “kidneys” reflect, or hold, or respond emotionally. Even the “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) has embodied connotations of the throat or gullet: the place of breath and panting. (See: Hebrew Anthropological Terms as a Foundation for a Biblical Counseling Model of Man.)

While the Bible does not use the metaphor of the body keeping the score, the Bible does use metaphors of the body as the whole person. Why? Because the Bible presents a complex, comprehensive understanding of the interconnected, interacting whole person. So, biblically/theologically, the body indeed is intimately involved in remembering and reacting to what happens to the whole person.

Statler writes, “But the body is not a person. The person has a body.” Biblically, the person is an embodied-soul. Biblically, even the “soul alone” is not the person. God did not design us as disembodied souls. He designed us as embodied-souls (Genesis 2:7).

So, if Matthew and I were discussing these matters in person, I would be interested in exploring further how Matthew understands the role of the God-given capacity of the brain to take in input, “store” it, remember it, and interpret the memories of it. I would want us to explore what it means to see our response to suffering from the biblical perspective of embodied-souls.

It’s Not Trauma Theory That Drives This Discussion

For me, trauma theory is not what motivates this discussion. Instead, it is biblical theology that motivates my concern that we address both the body and soul—the embodied-soul—in our thinking about and ministering to those who have endured traumatic suffering.

I’m pretty sure Matthew would predominantly agree with that preceding paragraph. So, I’d want to know what it looks like for Matthew to minister as a soul physician of embodied-souls. I’d want to know if there is any place in Matthew’s approach beyond discussions of “sleep, food, movement, and rest” as part of comprehensive biblical embodied-soul care.