Déjà vu All Over Again 

Dale Johnson and ACBC are unrelenting. In podcast after podcast, Dale and his guests declare that clinically-informed biblical counseling (CIBC) is not true biblical counseling. Each time they follow a familiar pattern:

• ACBC, Dale, and their Truth in Love podcast guests fail to provide documented quotes from CIBC leaders to substantiate their claims against CIBC.

• ACBC, Dale, and their podcast guests make statements about CIBC that CIBC leaders are not making

I’ve documented this multiple times, including just a few days ago in Using Ernie Baker’s 7 “S” Words to Assess Whether CIBC Is Truly BC.

In that ACBC podcast, Ernie and Dale never quoted any CIBC leaders, yet they consistently characterized CIBC in ways that CIBC does not describe itself.

Is There Neutral Ground in Counseling?

ACBC, Dale, and guest Keith Evans just did it again in Is There Neutral Ground in Counseling? At the start of the podcast, Dale cues things up with a clear statement that they are discussing CIBC:

“And so, as we talk about some of these debates, you know, biblical counseling versus clinically informed…”

Dale doubles-down at the end of the podcast, once again naming CIBC as his target, while also admitting that they address CIBC consistently:

“We’ve written about this, the clinically informed biblical counseling. It’s really not a new Reformation and may, in fact, be what some would consider to be a counter-Reformation, moving us all in the wrong direction.”

What are Dale and Keith claiming that CIBC believes that requires us to see CIBC as “moving us all in the wrong direction”?

“Now, we’re talking about this concept of neutral ground, and a lot of people are debating this concept now. How do we think about extra-biblical material? Is it really neutral? Is it untainted from secular sources? How do we think about utilizing those types of things in the counseling room? Are we starting at a neutral base?”

I would ask Dale and Keith some questions:

• Can you show documented quotes where CIBC leaders are saying that extra-biblical material is neutral?
• Can you document quotes where CIBC leaders are saying extra-biblical materials are untainted from secular sources?

These conversations are important. They should be important enough to provide primary source documentation.

Dale’s Set-Up 

Dale sets up the entire conversation as if CIBC leaders believe that extra-biblical material is neutral and untainted. However, Dale and Keith failed to document that. In fact, you can document the opposite. I documented this in Using Ernie Baker’s 7 “S” Words to Assess Whether CIBC Is Truly BC.

In that post, I documented with multiple quotes in context that CIBC leaders understand and teach the truths of total depravity and the noetic effect of sin. They also teach the truth of God’s sovereign common grace. Teaching both sets of theological concepts, CIBC leaders consistently teach that we must use the lens of all-sufficient Scripture to assess all extra-biblical material. See, for example, What Is Redemptive Counseling / Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling?

Keith’s Set-Up 

Keith follows Dale’s model of making undocumented claims. Carefully read this long quote from Keith. Then notice my follow-up questions.

“What’s at stake is so much more than mere methodology. It’s an understanding of the human person. Are they a bundle of symptoms and trauma responses, or is this person a moral, created in God’s image, covenant being, fallen in Adam, redeemed only in Christ, right? Like that’s one of the things that’s at stake. How do we understand the human person?

Then what’s the problem? What’s the chief issue that this person is facing? Merely suffering? I mean, we are sufferers, but we’re not merely sufferers. We’re not merely sufferers that just have bodies that are going wrong, and need some methodological interventions for helping our bodies, but we’re also sinners who sin, and we need to have an understanding of true worship, that we’re created as worshipful beings to worship the triune God, and that sanctification is prescribed by God, as far as here are the means that God uses in order to make us more and more holy, and be conformed to the pattern and image of Christ.”

• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders see the human person as a “bundle of symptoms and trauma responses”?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders disagree with your statement that human beings are moral beings, created in God’s image, covenant beings, fallen in Adam and redeemed only in Christ?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders teach that the problem is that we are “merely sufferers that just have bodies that are going wrong”?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders disagree with your statement that we are sinners who sin and need to have an understanding of true worship, and that sanctification is prescribed by God
• Keith, are you saying that sanctification is not embodied sanctification? If so, what do you do with 100s of biblical passages, including Romans 12:1-2?

Keith continues. Please read these quotes from Keith. Then please read the follow-up questions.

“It’s a matter of authority as well. Is Scripture our authority and final authority, or is Scripture coming alongside clinical theories? Where are those clinical theories, if we’re going to be quite honest, end up setting the agenda as opposed to the final authority of Scripture?

And then ultimately, what kind of change is to be expected? Are people just going to be stable? I’m not against stability, but is our goal mere stability and symptom management, or is our goal holiness and Christlikeness, even in the midst of instability and struggle and difficulty? So, there’s a lot at stake here, Dale, more than just mere methodology.”

• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders deny that Scripture is our final authority?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders claim that Scripture and clinical theories stand side by side as anything close to equal?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders claim that they set up clinical theories in opposition to the final authority of Scripture?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders say that their goal is “mere stability and symptom management” rather than their ultimate goal being “holiness and Christlikeness even in the midst of instability and struggle and difficulty”?

CIBC Leaders Agree with Keith and Dale 

Rather than finding quotes that disagree with them, if Dale and Keith would do their biblical counseling homework, then:

They would consistently find CIBC leaders agreeing with them.

For example, CIBC leaders agree with Keith that they are “not against stability” so they are not against helping embodied-souls find some level of physical stability as a subset of their overall goal of sanctification in the midst of suffering. As just one example, see, ABC Mission and Beliefs.

CIBC leaders have the same goal of embodied-sanctification that ACBC Fellow, Bob Somerville, highlights in his book about his own suffering. Over a dozen times Dr. Somerville emphasizes God’s physical care for Elijah as one legitimate aspect of the whole-person care for Elijah as an embodied-soul. (See, When a Biblical Counselor Battles Depression.)

Does Van Til Agree with Dale and Keith?

Next, Keith and Dale bring up Van Til’s understanding and application of common grace. Keith and Dale make a couple of moves in this discussion that, at best, provide a partial understanding of Van Til.

First False Move: First, they highlight what theologians call “the antithesis” which is Van Til’s focus on total depravity, fallenness, and the noetic effect of sin. However, they fail to highlight Van Til’s actual teaching on common grace. And, they fail to acknowledge the numerous times that Van Til’s actual application of common grace is very different from the ACBC application. You can read numerous examples of this here: 

Cornelius Van Til: “Zombie-Infected”?

Second False Move: Second, Keith uses anxiety as an example, and talks about secular thinking about anxiety. Keith makes two false moves here. First, he implies that secular thinkers see anxiety only or primarily as embodied. That’s not accurate. Second, Keith implies that CIBC leaders naively capitulate to this supposed monistic/materialistic view. Keith shares:

“But a clinical frame is going to see anxiety as a dysregulated nervous system or a conditioned trauma response or a maladaptive survival strategy. So, the simple observation of this person is anxious is colored by the lenses that we are wearing when we’re observing that anxiety. And if we’re wearing clinical lenses, that’s going to shape our outlook and our response. And if we’re wearing biblical lenses, well, that of course is going to shape our understanding and our response as well.”

Time for some more questions for Keith.

• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders simply frame anxiety as “a dysregulated nervous system or a conditioned trauma response or a maladaptive survival strategy”?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders put on clinical lenses and take off biblical lenses so that the secular/clinical lens controls their vision of a biblical understanding of anxiety?
• Keith, are you saying that the Bible teaches that anxiety is only a soul issue? Are you saying that we are just souls rather than embodied-souls?

Van Til in His Own Words

Additionally, toward the end of the podcast, Keith implies disagreement between Van Til and Kuyper/Bavinck regarding the extent of the usage of common grace insights. The facts dispute Keith’s interpretation.

You can learn about Van Til’s agreement and linkage with Van Til and Kuyper/Bavinck here:

Van Til, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Biblical Counselors: WWCT?—What Would Cornelius Think?

For over 100 pages of engagement with primary source material on how Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Van Til, Powlison, and others applied the doctrine of common grace to extra-biblical material, see:

Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians.

To understand how Van Til and Powlison applied both the antithesis and common grace to biblical counseling and extra-biblical material, read:

How David Powlison Taught His Students to Think Like Cornelius Van Til.

Back to Dale 

Next, Dale says,

“And some people would describe, even I would say, unbelievers can notice certain true things about human behavior. That’s certainly true. Some people would argue then we should simply take the insight that an unbeliever gives and leave the worldview out as if it’s untainted.”

Now some follow-up questions for Dale.

• Dale, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders “argue then we should simply take the insight that an unbeliever gives and leave the worldview out as if it’s untainted”?
• Dale, isn’t it true that CIBC leaders consistently recognize that the lens of Scripture must assess any potential helpfulness of an extra-biblical insight because CIBC leaders recognize the issue of noetically tainted worldviews?
• Dale, how are CIBC leaders doing something different from Adams, Bettler, and Powlison, as documented here: 6 Words (Recycle, Reinterpret, Reshape, Reconcile, Redeem, Recast) Describing What Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling Do with Secular Psychology?

Do CIBC Leaders Get Infatuated with Playing with the New Shiny Toy? 

Dale asks Keith to wrap up with a series of warnings about the dangers of CIBC. Keith responds with the following imagery about how naïve CIBC leaders look at neuroscience:

“Oh, we found something new and shiny, and this is the answer to life’s problems. What’s more important is faithfulness and fidelity to the Scriptures.”

My questions for Keith.

• Keith, as an academician, can you document any quotes that demonstrate that CIBC brothers and sisters in Christ are enamored with “new and shiny” worldly answers to life’s problems? Keith, as a seminary professor, do you believe that it is academically acceptable to use imagery like this to characterize fellow Christian leaders?
• Keith, is it academically truthful to claim that CIBC brothers and sisters in Christ find new and shiny neuroscience ideas to be more important than faithfulness and fidelity to Scripture? If so, can you document quotes where they claim this to be so?

Keith then doubles-down:

“You know, I often think if we just spent more time studying the Scriptures, if we spent more time knowing how to rightly apply that to people, how much more useful we would be, how much more useful our people would be, as opposed to chasing whatever is the newest, you know, shiny advancement in the field today. So that would be the first one.”

• Keith, are you saying that CIBC leaders are “chasing whatever is the newest, you know, shiny advancement in the field” rather than maintaining fidelity to Scripture? If so, can you document quotes that demonstrate your claim?
• Keith, are you claiming that your colleagues in biblical counseling at schools like SEBTS are not studying Scripture and not applying Scripture to people’s lives? If so, can you engage with What Is Redemptive Counseling / Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling? in order to academically assess that claim?

Keith continues by asserting that:

“Next, once neutrality is granted, like if we say, okay, this is neutral ground and we can import some things, then authority shifts. I mentioned it in one of the previous answers, but then Scripture actually plays a shoulder-to-shoulder role, like a neutral role with whatever the observations of the day happen to be. And that’s a really dangerous shift because then scripture is no longer setting the terms. It merely negotiates the terms. And I think that that’s a really significant compromise.”

• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders grant neutrality to extra-biblical information?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders place Scripture in a shoulder-to-shoulder role with worldly observations and/or neuroscience research?
• Keith, can you document quotes where CIBC leaders say that Scripture no longer sets the terms, but merely negotiates the terms with extra-biblical information being seen as co-equal to Scripture?

Keith then wraps up with a statement that claims to have the power to read the motives of the heart of CIBC leaders.

“I think that we feel embarrassed at points that we’re like too basic or, you know, there’s the sense that we’re just kind of simplistic or backward. That’s not the case at all. Yeah, we might not be chasing after whatever the current innovations are, but that’s OK. Let’s chase after integrity, integrity to the Scriptures and the means of counsel that the Lord has given to us. And if the world thinks that we’re dumb because of that, well, so be it. That’s fine. I’m happy to be seen as dumb and basic if I don’t compromise God’s Word.”

• Keith, based upon scriptural passages like 1 Corinthians 4:5 and Hebrews 4:12-13, how do you biblically justify your claim to have the ability to know the motives of the heart of CIBC leaders?
• Keith, can you document any evidence that embarrassment is what motivates CIBC leaders’ use of the Bible to assess extra-biblical information?
• Keith, can you document that CIBC leaders are “chasing after whatever the current innovations are”?
• Keith, can you document any evidence that CIBC leaders are not chasing after the integrity of Scripture?
• Keith, can you document any evidence that CIBC leaders are afraid of the world thinking they are dumb and basic?
• Keith, both David Powlison in his dissertation, and Heath Lambert in his dissertation, presented documented areas where the modern nouthetic counseling movement should grow—away from simplistic biblical interpretations and applications. Are you disagreeing with Powlison and Lambert? Is it possible that CIBC leaders, rather than fearing that the world might see them as simplistic, are concerned that the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement has at times actually been biblically simplistic? Is it possible that CIBC leaders are agreeing with Powlison and Lambert (and even Adams) in using extra-biblical information as a catalyst to return to Scripture to assure that our understanding and application is not simplistic, but richly and robustly biblical?

One More

Dale then adds the undocumented accusation that CIBC leaders are sinfully enticed by new and flashy worldly toys. He says, in conclusion, clearly talking again ab out CIBC leaders:

“As we consider the things that are publicly being talked about and the enticement of trying to chase after something that is new and flashy, it does have implication on the way we think theologically and so in the way that we practice in the counseling room and what is being imported genuinely, whether we intend it to or not.”

• Dale, can you document quotes that demonstrate that the unseen motives of the hearts of CIBC leaders are “the enticement of trying to chase after something that is new and flashy”?
• Dale, based upon scriptural passages like 1 Corinthians 4:5 and Hebrews 4:12-13, how do you biblically justify your claim to have the ability to know the motives of the heart of CIBC leaders?
• Dale, can you document quotes that demonstrate that CIBC leaders do not think theologically about extra-biblical information?
• Dale, would you be willing to engage with the primary source documentation provided here about how CIBC leaders do think theologically about extra-biblical information?

Undocumented Inuendoes: Where Are the Quotes? Where Is the Documentation? 

Just like in Dale’s interview with Ernie Baker, so here in Dale’s interview with Keith Evans,

We discover scores of undocumented inuendoes.

We find zero quotes documenting what they claim about CIBC leaders.

Thus, the title of today’s post:

Undocumented Claims: Documenting ACBC’s Approach to CIBC 

Two final questions:

• ACBC, Dale, Ernie, and Keith, can you explain how you can claim to be presenting accurate, academic, fair, and balanced claims against CIBC when you do not document your claims with quotes?
• ACBC, Dale, Ernie, and Keith, if you disagree with CIBC leaders, would you consider at least quoting them in context when you are making claims about them?

If ACBC, Dale, Ernie, and Keith would take the issues they raise and actually read, in context, what CIBC leaders are saying, then they would find tremendous areas of agreement—especially in the fundamental area of always using our all-sufficient Bible to assess any and all extra-biblical information.