Introduction:

Public Accusations Demand Public Cross-Examination

In his article, Bioenergetics & Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling: A Comparative Study and follow-up PDF, Omri Miles published serious accusations against half-a-dozen leading biblical counselors, including Dr. Mike Emlet. Miles seeks to associate these biblical counselors (who he labels “clinically-informed biblical counselors”) with Alexander Lowen’s bioenergetic therapy. Miles alleges that “at many important points” Emlet and other biblical counselors’ “theology of counseling” aligns “more with Bioenergetics therapy than with true biblical counseling.” He suggests that these biblical counselors have “substantial doctrinal differences…from historically faithful orthodox theologians…”

To grasp the gravity of such indictments, it is vital to understand that Lowen is a secular-materialist who bases his bioenergetic therapy model based on a godless, humanistic, materialistic, evolutionary worldview. According to Miles, Lowen “denies the existence of the immaterial soul, and doubts whether men live beyond their temporal earthly existence.”

Reader, be prepared. This is not a short blog post. This is a long-form article. When someone of the stature of Dr. Mike Emlet is publicly accused of having more in common with a secular therapist than with biblical counseling, and substantial differences from historically faithful orthodox theologians, those charges deserve a detailed evaluation.

Interacting with Miles 

I affirm Miles’s conviction that all biblical counselors build their counseling upon God’s all-sufficient Word.  I’ve publicly urged clinically-informed biblical counselors (CIBC) to be sure their counseling is theologically-saturated. I’ve encouraged them to ask and answer the questions:

1. How do we assure that our biblical counseling is being transformed by the Word of God rather than being conformed to the ways of the world?
2. Are we theologically-saturated informed biblical counselors? Or, are we theologically-shallow conformed biblical counselors?

While I affirm Miles’s conviction, I disagree with his accusations. I disagree with the methodology he uses to support his allegations. According to Deuteronomy 19:16-21 and Proverbs 18:17, public accusations demand public cross-examination. Therefore, I’m publicly responding with a theological analysis of Miles’s public charges against Dr. Emlet. I’m focusing on Emlet because Miles’s methodology is identical with each biblical counselor he accuses:

• Quote a snippet from Lowen;
• Quote an alleged similar snippet from a biblical counselor;
• Imply theoretical/theological continuity.

By examining whether Miles’s “comparative study” of Emlet is valid, readers can also assess the validity of Miles’s public charges against the other biblical counselors.

Biblical Counselors Know and Trust Mike Emlet 

You’ve heard people say it. “Our speaker today needs no introduction.” Then they give an introduction.

For biblical counselors, Dr. Mike Emlet needs no introduction. But here’s one anyway.

Dr. Mike Emlet has served for a quarter-century as a faculty member and counselor at CCEF—meaning he served alongside David Powlison for nearly two decades. Emlet earned his MD from the University of Pennsylvania and his M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary. Prior to joining CCEF, Mike worked as a family physician for eleven years. He has published numerous books and booklets used by thousands of biblical counselors, pastors, professors, students, counselees, and “people in the pews,” including CrossTalk, Descriptions and Prescription, and Saints, Sufferers, and Sinners. 

Miles Publicly Confronts Emlet’s Theological Foundation and Worldview 

Because of Dr. Emlet’s significant influence and long-standing respect in the biblical counseling movement, I was shocked when I read Miles’s accusations against Emlet. Miles is not simply saying Emlet has similar vocabulary to Lowen. He’s not simply stating that he thinks Emlet uses similar embodied practices as Lowen. Instead:

Miles is asserting that Emlet’s theology and worldview align with Lowen’s secular worldview.

If we found ourselves in a Deuteronomy 19:16-21 courtroom, then here, in Miles’s own words, is the proof of the nature of Miles’s public accusations:

1. Miles states that he was “struck by the philosophical (theological) similarities between” the secularist Lowen and biblical counselors like Emlet.
2. Miles alleges that he will “point out the unity of thought between” the “purportedly disconnected worldviews” of biblical counselors like Emlet and the secularist Lowen.
3. As previously noted, Miles purports that Emlet and other biblical counselors align theologically “more with Bioenergetics therapy than with true biblical counseling.”
4. As previously quoted, Miles suggests that Emlet and other biblical counselors have “substantial doctrinal differences…from historically faithful orthodox theologians.”
5. Miles identifies Emlet’s teaching with falsehood when he describes his purpose for writing about Emlet and other biblical counselors. “I am praying that the Lord will use the following resource to push readers back to the Scriptures, the only source that can produce true clarity and hatred for falsehood. From Your precepts I get perception; Therefore I hate every false way. — Psalm 119:104.”
6. Miles claims that “the similarity of thought [between people like Emlet and Lowen] concerning counseling is astonishing” (emphasis added).

There is no greater nouthetic confrontation of a biblical counselor than to make a public accusation of secular thought, theology, philosophy, and counseling worldview.

Astonished

I was astonished to hear such public accusations against Dr. Mike Emlet and other leading biblical counselors. However, rather than react, I chose to pray and ponder. I’ve done so since becoming aware of Miles’s public accusations on June 25, 2026. Now, over three weeks later, I’m prepared to provide Miles with some iron sharpening reflections.

Other biblical counselors were also astonished by Miles’s public accusations. On June 25, 2026, Miles tweeted about his article on X/Twitter. A day later, biblical counselor, Dr. Pamela Cubas, in a X tweet, provided this iron sharpening feedback to Miles:

“Omri, I can appreciate the effort you put into your writing, but the ‘evidence’ provided for your argument is weak. Most of the links don’t really support your hypothesis, in fact some of them made me wonder if they were a mistake, and many of the CIBC comparisons in your original article are taken out of context or they don’t prove what you claim they do. I would encourage you to reread it as a third-party reader with no agenda. I think you’ll see what I’m saying. Blessings.”

That day, Miles responded to Dr. Cubas, writing,

“Are you referencing the links in the post or the quotations in the notes or both? Would you mind citing specific examples? I’m willing to reconsider where I’m wrong or have misread the original texts…”

The Bible Is Sufficient to Teach Us How to Publicly Address Public Accusations

I’m thankful for Miles’s invitation to cite specific examples. Since Miles publicly expressed a humble willingness to reconsider his accusations against Emlet and others, I decided to examine his charges by studying Lowen (who I had never previously heard of), and comparing Lowen’s writings to Emlet’s writings.

Miles has previously made the same public promise to be open and responsive to feedback. I’ve offered feedback to him at least twice previously:

1. Can You Be a Christian If You Are Not an ACBC-Approved Biblical Counselor? Here I responded to Miles publicly questioning whether CIBC Christians would even inherit the Kingdom! I detailed seven areas of concern with this accusation.

2. Trauma, the Bible, and Extra-Biblical Resources: In this post, I responded to Miles and other ACBC leaders’ assumption that CIBC practitioners seek to be trauma-informed because they don’t trust the Scriptures. I detailed nine areas of concern with this accusation.

As mentioned earlier, since Miles’s accusations were public, I am seeking to apply the Scripture’s teaching on publicly cross-examining public charges.

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:16-21).

“In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines” (Proverbs 18:17).

You can read more about a biblical theology of public cross-examination here, The Bible Is Sufficient to Teach Us How to Publicly Address Public Accusations.

In publicly presenting this material in obedience to Deuteronomy 19:16-21 and Proverbs 18:17, my goal is to:

Provide a thorough investigation with detailed documentation and careful cross-examination in order to assess the legitimacy of Mr. Miles’s public accusations against biblical counselor, Dr. Mike Emlet.

My purpose is not to adjudicate intentions, but to examine methodology. Miles claims to seek to compare Lowen’s secular biogenetic therapy with biblical counselors. I will contend that his method amounts to quote mining. However, comparative analysis succeeds or fails based upon whether authors are represented according to their prevalent theological worldview, dominant themes, stated commitments, and broader corpus rather than via isolated quotations purported to be parallel to isolated quotes of others. It is my thesis that:

Comparative theological analysis must compare theological systems, not isolated quotations. 

Comparative theological analysis must compare systems, not snippets.

If Miles’s methodology were entered into evidence, the issue would be:

1. Should theological comparisons of counseling models be made by juxtaposing isolated quotations that are purportedly similar?
2. Or, should theological comparisons of counseling models be made by actually comparing and contrasting the definitive theory/theology and practice/methodology of the practitioners? 

The question is not,

“Can a sentence from Emlet about the embodied-soul be placed beside a sentence from Lowen about the body and a purported similarity be inferred?”

The question is,

“Are Emlet’s comprehensive theological anthropology of the embodied-soul and his thorough biblical theology of embodied sanctification similar to or dependent upon Lowen’s secular-materialistic body-focused worldview?”

To accomplish the goal of a fair and balanced adjudication, this article presents six “exhibits.”

1. Exhibit #1: A Theological Comparative Analysis: Contrasting Lowen and Emlet’s worldview across eight theological categories.
2. Exhibit #2: A Quote Comparative Analysis: Cross-examining Miles’s claim that the selective quotes from Lowen and Emlet demonstrate that they inhabit and exhibit a similar counseling worldview.
3. Exhibit #3: Biblical Foundation: Documenting in detail who and what Emlet builds his theological anthropology upon—Lowen or Scripture.
4. Exhibit #4: Theological Depth: Assessing whether Emlet builds his view of the body/embodied-soul on Lowen or on a Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation theological anthropology.
5. Exhibit #5: Historical (Church History) Alignment: Demonstrating that Emlet’s views on the body/embodied-soul align with traditional Christian theological anthropology.
6. Exhibit #6: Miles’s Parallelomania: Exposing the nature of Miles’s approach—quote mining “parallelomania” versus theological comparative analysis. 

Exhibit #1: 

A Theological Comparative Analysis Contrasting Alexander Lowen’s Bioenergetic Model with Mike Emlet’s Biblical Counseling Model

Consider again Miles’s stated purpose and his focus on exposing theological concerns about CIBC:

“In this comparative study, I am simply seeking to point out the unity of thought between two presumably or purportedly disconnected worldviews by letting them tell us in their own words what they believe about ideas pertinent to counsel. Bioenergetics renounces adherence to any particular religious system, denies the existence of the immaterial soul, and doubts whether men live beyond their temporal earthly existence. Clinically-informed Biblical Counseling, on the other hand, claims the Bible is it’s [sic] sole interpretive authority. But the similarity of thought concerning counseling is astonishing” (emphasis added).

“It is the fruit of my ongoing engagement with Bioenergetics and Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling literature. In reading authors from both perspectives, I have been struck by the philosophical (theological) similarities between the two” (emphasis added).

Notice that Miles says he is focused on “unity of thought,” and “worldviews,” and what counselors “believe about ideas pertinent to counsel,” “similarity of thought concerning counseling,” and “philosophical (theological) similarities.” It would have been valuable to read Miles’s article had he developed the theological comparative approach he introduces, rather than relying primarily on comparisons of selected quotations. In this article, I’ll focus where I wish Miles had focused:

I’ll engage with Miles not by comparing snippets of quotes from Lowen and Emlet, but by examining Lowen and Emlet’s worldviews to produce a theological comparative analysis.

In the comparative chart below, you will see side-by-side comparisons of Lowen and Emlet’s theology/theory of:

1. The Source of Authority (Bibliology, Epistemology)
2. The Nature of the Body/Embodied-Soul (Theological Anthropology)
3. The Primary Problem (Hamartiology)
4. The Source of Change (Soteriology)
5. The Means of Change (Soteriology)
6. The Goal of Counseling (Soteriology)
7. The Role of the Body/Embodied-Soul in Counseling (Soteriology)
8. The Role of the Personal Ministry of the Word (Bibliology, Epistemology)

Carefully read the theological comparative analysis.

• Consider whether you detect a “unity of thought” between Lowen’s worldview and Emlet’s, or whether you discern significant discontinuity between the worldview of these two authors.
• Consider whether you detect an astonishing “similarity of thought concerning counseling,” or an astonishing contrast between Lowen’s secular model and Emlet’s biblical counseling approach.
• Consider whether you detect “philosophical (theological similarities),” or a vast divergence of theological presuppositions.

Note: These are concise summaries. For a comprehensive understanding of Emlet’s theology of embodied-souls see, A Biblical Rationale for Embodied Spiritual Practices. This chart is taken primarily from that article. Also see Emlet’s other works, including, CrossTalk, Descriptions and Prescriptions, and Saints, Sufferers, and Sinners. 

Theological Comparative Analysis #1: The Source of Authority—Epistemology, Bibliology 

Lowen: Lowen’s sources of authority are clinical observation, the psychoanalytic tradition, Reichian bioenergetic theory, and human experience. Lowen understands the nature of self and the human personality in terms of the human body.

Emlet: Emlet’s source of authority is God’s all-sufficient Word. He builds his counseling upon a scriptural Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation theology of embodied-souls. Emlet understands people through God’s Word—the Creator defines the creature—we are image bearers who are created (and then fallen) embodied-souls.

Theological Comparative Analysis #2: The Nature of the Body/Embodied-Soul—Theological Anthropology (People/Creation/Anthropology) 

Lowen: In Lowen’s secular-materialistic worldview, the soul is derived from the body. We are evolved bodies. The body is the source from which the human faculties of soul, mind, and spirit arise, and without the body, the spiritual does not exist. We are organisms driven by biological energies and instincts. The body is the primary locus of therapeutic investigation.

Emlet: In Emlet’s scriptural worldview, the embodied-soul is derived from God. We are God-created embodied-souls—intricately interconnected body/soul, brain/mind. Body and soul are intertwined as we relate to God and others. The whole person is the focus of counseling, including a concern for the physical because our spiritual lives are not disembodied.

Theological Comparative Analysis #3: The Primary Problem (Problems/Fall/Hamartiology)

Lowen: The primary problem is bodily alienation, which at its base is “the estrangement of the person from his body.” The problem is emotional repression and “muscular armor” that blocks life energy, inhibits expression, and disturbs energy flow.

Emlet: The primary problem is spiritual alienation from God due to the fall/personal sin (Colossians 1:21-23; Ephesians 2:11-13; Ephesians 4:18; Romans 5:10). Though the body was created “very good,” the impacts of the fall are holistic in scope and consequences (Genesis 3). The ravages of the fall extend to every aspect of our being, including our bodies (Romans 8). 

Theological Comparative Analysis #4: The Source of Change (Solutions/Redemption/Soteriology)

Lowen: Ultimate change is via somatic therapy—body work. Personal change occurs through human self-effort via accessing and discharging repressed emotions.

Emlet: Ultimate, eternal change is through Christ and Christ alone. In Emlet’s biblical counseling, personal change occurs progressively through a growing personal relationship with Christ through the personal ministry of the Word—where life and Scripture meet.

Theological Comparative Analysis #5: The Means of Change (Solutions/Redemption/Soteriology) 

Lowen: Change is brought about by releasing blocked energy; achieving energetic flow; and through self-expression.

Emlet: Growing in Christ is a whole-person experience. The Christian hope is not to escape the body, but to use our bodies as vessels of worship and service (Romans 12:1). In His plan of redemption, God doesn’t jettison the body as though the purest worship is only “soulish.” God’s people have always been invited to bring their entire selves into His presence.

Theological Comparative Analysis #6: The Goal of Counseling (Solutions/Redemption/Soteriology) 

Lowen: The goals of bioenergetic therapy are emotional discharge; bodily expression; and release of blocked energy.

Emlet: Biblical counselors seek to compassionately minister God’s Word to saints who sin and suffer so they can glorify God by loving God and others on their sanctification journey.

Theological Comparative Analysis #7: The Role of the Body/Embodied-Soul in Counseling (Solutions/Redemption/Soteriology) 

Lowen: Bioenergetics is body-focused therapy. The body is central; the body is the repository of conflict; the body is the means through which healing occurs.

Emlet: Biblical counseling is embodied-soul-focused ministry. The Bible provides warrant and directives for the use of our bodies in relationship with God in everyday discipleship. Discipleship is embodied, linking the mind with eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and hands. Regular bodily practices tutor the hearts of God’s people toward Him and His kingdom.

Theological Comparative Analysis #8: The Role of the Personal Ministry of the Word (Epistemology/Bibliology) 

Lowen: There is no role for God’s Word. No role for the personal ministry of the Word. Scripture is not constitutive, authoritative, or norming within Lowen’s therapeutic system.

Emlet: Our focus as biblical counselors is to bring the truth and perspective of God’s Word to bear on the particulars of our counselees’ lives, remembering that they are embodied people—embodied-souls. Scripture, whether encountered in private or in corporate settings, is meant to be as nourishing and as necessary to us as daily food.

A Summary of Each Model: Astonishing Fundamental and Foundational Theological Anthropology Differences 

Miles’s claims that “the similarity of thought [between people like Emlet and Lowen] concerning counseling is astonishing.” This comprehensive theological comparative analysis between Lowen and Emlet documents in detail how astonishing it is that Miles would publicly charge Emlet with a “similarity of thought” with the secular-materialist, Lowen.

The contrasts between Lowen and Emlet are substantial and persuasive.

• Their source of authority could not be more different from each other.
• Their theoretical anthropology foundations could not be more different from each other.
• Their understanding of the problem could not be more different from each other.
• Their understanding of the solution could not be more different from each other.
• Their goal of counseling could not be more different from each other.
• Their approach to counseling could not be more different from each other.
• Their view of the body versus the embodied-soul could not be more different from each other.

It is not academically sound to propose a simplistic syllogism like:

Lowen talks about the body and uses bodily interventions. Emlet talks about the body and uses embodied-soul interventions. So they are aligned in theoretical foundation.

It is academically valid to state:

Lowen recognizes embodied realities based upon humanistic perspectives. Emlet recognizes Scriptures as presenting embodied-soul realities.

Lowen is a secular therapist of the body. Emlet is a biblical counselor of embodied-souls.

Exhibit #2:

A Quote Comparative Analysis—Bioengineering the Evidence 

If this were a Deuteronomy 19:16-21 trial, then the second exhibit presented to the judge and a jury of peers would be a comparative analysis of Miles’s claim that his selective quotes from Lowen and Emlet demonstrate that they inhabit and exhibit a similar counseling worldview. Remember: Miles is not simply claiming there is similarity of language between Emlet and Lowel. He is claiming that they have an astonishing similarity of thought, theology, philosophy, and counseling worldview.

Entering the Two Selectively Chosen Quotes into Evidence 

Miles categorizes his allegation under the header of “The Person Is His Body.” He then quotes Lowen saying:

“Bioenergetics rests on the simple proposition that each person is his body. No person exists apart from the living body in which he has his existence and through which he expresses himself and relates to the world around him. It would be foolish to argue against this proposition because one could be challenged to name a part of himself that is not a part of his body. Mind, spirit and soul are aspects of every living body. A dead body has no mind, it has lost its spirit, and its soul has departed.”

To support his claim that Emlet espouses a Lowenian worldview, here’s the quote Miles mines from Emlet’s twenty-five-page CCEF article:

“Citing the Reformed theologian John Murray, Mike Emlet writes, ‘You don’t just have a body; you are a body. Your body is not an appendage. It is part of the essential you.”

Reading these two quotes, we ask, “Are Lowen and Emlet saying the same thing? Are they coming from the same theology/worldview? Is their theology the same? 

The evidence answers, “No. Not at all.”

Entering Miles’s Quote into Evidence 

Miles himself provides the greatest argument for the vast theological differences between Lowen’s secular view and Emlet’s biblical position. Miles writes:

“Readers should not confuse what Lowen is teaching about the mind, soul, and spirit with the biblical concepts. When Lowen says that ‘Mind, spirit and soul are aspects of every living body,’ what he means is that these are not separable from a person’s physical/material self. In fact, in Lowen’s worldview, the body is the source from which these other human faculties arise, and without the body, the spiritual self does not exist. ‘Perception is a function of the mind, which is an aspect of the body. The living body has a mind, possesses a spirit and contains a soul,” and “Does the living body have a soul? That depends on how one defines the term ‘soul.’ … I regard soul as the sense or feeling in a person of being part of a larger or universal order. Such a feeling must arise from the actual experience of being part of or connected in some vital or spiritual way to the universe. I use the word ‘spiritual,’ not in its abstract or mental connotation, but as spirit, pneuma or energy. I believe the energy in our bodies is in contact and interacts with the energy around us in the world and in the universe’ (Bioenergetics, page 61, 66-67). Ibid., 42-43” (emphasis added).

As the theological comparative analysis in Exhibit #1 demonstrated, and as Exhibits #3, 4, and 5 will further document:

• Emlet does not teach that the soul is an aspect of the body.
• Emlet does not teach that the body is the source of the soul.
• Emlet does not teach that body and soul are inseparable. He teaches that at death during the intermediate state, they do separate—awaiting the final redemption of the body (Romans 8) and the final reunification of the body and soul (1 Corinthians 15).
• Emlet does not teach that the body “contains” a soul.
• Emlet does not teach that the soul is “the sense or feeling in a person of being part of a larger or universal order.”
• Emlet does not teach that the soul “must arise from the actual experience of being part of or connected in some vital or spiritual way to the universe.”
• Emlet does not teach that “the energy in our bodies is in contact and interacts with the energy around us in the world and in the universe.”

Miles himself plainly documents in detail that Lowen’s view is unbiblical and is nothing akin to Emlet’s view of the embodied-soul. Exhibit #3, which enters into evidence what Miles omitted, further proves this dissimilarity between these two quotes and between these two worldviews.

Exhibit #3:

Biblical Foundation—Emlet Is a Mile Deep and Wide Biblically

Why would Miles, on the one hand, demonstrate the unbiblical nature of Lowen’s view of the body/soul, while then, on the other hand, imply that Emlet aligns with the “new age-like” teachings of Lowen? To answer that question, we must consider Emlet’s biblical foundation that Miles omits when he selectively quotes Emlet out of context. To do this, we present our third exhibit: the biblical foundation undergirding Emlet’s theology of the body/embodied-soul.

Recall the miniscule slice that Miles quotes from Emlet’s twenty-five-page article:

“Citing the Reformed theologian John Murray, Mike Emlet writes, ‘You don’t just have a body; you are a body. Your body is not an appendage. It is part of the essential you.”

Once again, even in this selective quote, Miles is inadvertently helpful as he rightly notes that Emlet cites John Murray, not Lowen. John Murray (1898–1975) was one of the twentieth century’s most influential Reformed systematic theologians. From 1930 until his retirement in 1966, Murray was Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he helped shape generations of Reformed pastors and scholars alongside colleagues such as Cornelius Van Til. A committed confessional Presbyterian, Murray was known for his careful exegesis, theological precision, and unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture and the Westminster Standards. Although Murray maintained the historic Christian distinction between body and soul, he strongly emphasized the essential unity of the human person and the centrality of bodily resurrection in biblical anthropology.

So, if Miles were on the stand being cross-examined, we would ask,

“Are you saying John Murray was influenced by the secular worldview of Lowen?”

Miles fails to provide the whole quote from Emlet and Murray. We now enter it into evidence.

“Our bodies are part of God’s good creation, but at times, the church has downplayed the importance of the body compared to the soul. Yet diminishing the role of the body is not biblical. Reformed theologian John Murray reminds us, ‘Man is bodily, and therefore, the scriptural way of expressing this truth is not that man has a body but that man is body.’ Consider that. You don’t just have a body; you are a body. Your body is not an appendage. It is part of the essential you” (46, emphasis added).

Emlet introduces his quote and ends his quote saying our bodies are “part of” God’s good creation. Emlet is no Lowenian materialist. He is a soul physician of the embodied-soul.

Murray: A Mile Deep and Wide Biblically

Emlet quotes Murray’s classic article, “The Nature of Man.” In context, Murray is discussing the biblical doctrine of humanity from Genesis rather than engaging later philosophical debates over dualism or physicalism. He argues that Scripture presents human beings as embodied creatures from the very beginning. Immediately surrounding Murray’s famous statement, “man is body,” he teaches that:

• Humanity was created from the dust of the ground.
• Bodiliness is therefore essential, not accidental, to human nature.
• Consequently, Scripture ordinarily speaks of a person as body rather than as someone who merely possesses a body.
• This means the material aspect of humanity is intrinsically good because it belongs to God’s original creation.
• The body is not a temporary shell, prison, or expendable container for the real self.

In no way was Murray advocating materialism or denying the distinction between body and soul. In his article, he affirms that humans survive bodily death in the intermediate state, and he discusses how Matthew 10:28 distinguishes body and soul. Murray’s anthropology is best described as holistic dualism (to use later terminology), not Cartesian or Platonic dualism. His statement “man is body” is intended to reject the idea that the body is a detachable appendage or an inferior prison of the soul—not to deny the soul’s existence or its distinction from the body.

Both Murray and Emlet were writing to refute Platonism, Gnosticism, and Christian doctrinal error. They were standing against the ancient and modern philosophical view that treats the body as an afterthought at best or something inherently evil at worst.

By asserting that “man is body,” Murray reminds readers that God explicitly formed the physical body of Adam before breathing in the soul (Genesis 2:7). The physical frame is a fundamental element of the original, “very good” creation. Saying a person merely “has” a body implies that the true human self exists strictly as an immaterial ghost inside a machine.

Murray and Emlet highlight how the Bible views human actions holistically. Sins committed physically are not just detached physical actions; they are sins of the self. Likewise, worshipful obedience is expressed bodily (Romans 12:1-2). Additionally, if the body were just a temporary possession, salvation would simply mean the soul escaping to heaven forever. However, Murray and Emlet emphasize that because man is body, final salvation requires the physical resurrection of the dead” (Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 15).

Murray and Emlet agree with the psalmist—they agree with God. “For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust” (Psalm 103:14). Murray and Emlet align with LaPine, who poetically describes us, “Human beings are groundlings, or ‘from the ground’ (Gen. 2:7)” (The Logic of the Body, 254).

Emlet’s Consistent Biblical Foundation

Bioenergetics rests on the proposition that each person is his body. Emlet is not saying that. Emlet maintains the Bible’s comprehensive teaching on embodied-souls. On the same page as the quote shared by Miles, Emlet specifically states,

“Of course, we are not only bodies. Such a view skews our anthropology in a different but equally damaging way that an overemphasis on the soul does” (46, emphasis added).

In a footnote to the quote partially highlighted by Miles, Emlet writes:

“This article’s focus on the body is not meant to displace the primacy of the heart in relation to God. The ultimate (resurrection) hope for a decaying body is a heart renewed in Jesus Christ. The heart (spirit) is the wellspring of life (Proverbs 4:23). Without Christ our hearts are desperately wicked ( Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:23). Through the Holy Spirit our hearts are made new (Ezekiel 36:26–27; Titus 3:4–7), we turn to Christ in repentance and faith, our sins are forgiven, and we are freed to serve Christ. But life in Christ transpires in a bodily context (Galatians 2:20); it is that context that occupies our focus for this article” (46, emphasis added).

If Miles were called to the witness stand, he would be asked to explain why he chose to omit these significant quotes. Miles would also have to answer for numerous other omissions. For example, Emlet emphasizes the biblical truth of embodied-souls again in his conclusion:

“We must avoid treating fellow image bearers as souls without bodies (or bodies without souls for that matter)! If we are only souls, Christ died and rose in vain because the incarnation is a mirage. If we are only bodies, Christ died and rose in vain because the idea of resurrection is insanity in a universe that is purely material” (69, emphasis added).

Emlet’s contrasts are vital:

• Lowen’s error is reductionism downward: the person becomes the body.
• Emlet fights against a disembodied approach because it risks reductionism upward: the person becomes the soul abstracted from creaturely embodiment.
• Emlet and Scripture resist both reductions. Human beings are embodied image-bearers, embodied worshipers, embodied sufferers, embodied disciples, and embodied saints.

Emlet does not contend that biblical counselors should become therapists of bodies. Nor does he believe that Scripture calls us merely to be soul physicians of souls. Rather, Emlet carefully explains how Scripture presents us as ministers to embodied-souls, whose spiritual lives are lived in and through creaturely bodies created by God, affected by the Fall, redeemed in Christ, and destined for resurrection.

What else does Miles omit from Emlet’s twenty-five-page article? He omits all of the Bible, theology, and church history that Emlet quotes, cites, references, and builds his theological argument on.

• Emlet quotes, paraphrases, or references Scripture 108 times in his twenty-five pages.
• Emlet quotes theologians, Christian writers, and biblical counselors twenty-eight times.
• Emlet quotes a neuroscientist one time.
• Emlet quotes secular psychologists zero times.
• Emlet quotes Lowen zero times.
• In fact, as far as I can tell after an extensive online search, Emlet has never once anywhere in his writings ever quoted, paraphrased, or referenced Lowen or bioenergetic therapy. (Note: After I published this article, Dr. Emlet confirmed, that he had “never heard of Lowen and bioenergetics.”)

This is astonishing. Miles characterizes Emlet as aligned with the secularist Lowen, yet Emlet references Lowen zero times and secular psychologists zero times. More importantly, Emlet engages with Scripture over one-hundred times and with Christian authors over two dozen times. Emlet consistently denies a materialistic body-only perspective, instead presenting a biblical embodied-soul model. That’s not alignment with Lowen’s worldview. It’s drastic disagreement.

Exhibit #4:

Theological Depth—Emlet: Is a Mile Deep and Wide Theologically 

When Miles quotes Emlet, he omits much of the quote, omits all of Emlet’s biblical foundation, and omits the comprehensive theological thesis of Emlet’s article: a Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation biblical theology of biblical counseling and the embodied-soul. Therefore, we submit for the judge and jury the fourth exhibit: Emlet’s theological depth, which documents that Emlet builds his view of the body/embodied-soul on theological anthropology, not bioenergetic therapy. A few sampler quotes, out of hundreds, will suffice to document the biblical-theological (theological anthropology) focus of Emlet’s article. 

Creation 

Emlet explains his theological foundation in his introductory comments:

“To be ‘spiritual’ is not some otherworldly, disembodied experience of God, but a real flesh-and-blood existence lived in concrete ways of obedience before him. We see this throughout Scripture. In this article, I will show the biblical basis for such attentiveness to our bodies as we live as image-bearing worshippers of God. I will explore the central role that bodily existence and bodily practices have from creation to consummation. Then, more briefly, I will consider some implications for our lives as both followers of Christ and as counselors” (45, emphasis added).

Speaking of creation and the embodied-soul, Emlet writes:

“We should be concerned with the body because the way God designed our normal human existence is that our spiritual lives are not a disembodied affair. Body and soul are intertwined as we relate to God. Growing in Christ is a whole-person experience (45, emphasis added).

Quoting Job 10:11 and Psalm 139:13-14, Emlet explains:

“We are flesh-and-blood beings, bodies personally knit together by our sovereign and loving God. This is our starting point for understanding the biblical view of the body” (46, emphasis added).

Emlet builds his approach—his thinking, theology, worldview—on the wisdom of the Word, not on the worldly “wisdom” of Lowen.

Fall 

Under the Fall and the embodied-soul, Emlet states,

“While Scripture clearly teaches the critical role of our bodies in obeying God, Jesus also says that both words and actions ultimately flow from the heart (Matt 15:18). What is in the heart comes out in bodily practices. If I honk my car horn repeatedly in frustration amid slow-moving traffic, that bodily action is an overflow of my angry, impatient heart. However, we might also say that there is a bidirectional relationship between our hearts and bodies. Certainly, our loves, desires, and wants influence what we do with our bodies. But the reverse is also true. Our repeated practices of righteousness or unrighteousness—concrete acts of love or hate—shape the dispositions of our hearts” (49, emphasis added).

Notice again the non-Lowenian balance. Emlet is neither prioritizing the body nor saying the body is exclusively important. Instead, he highlights the soul/heart, while maintaining the Bible’s comprehensive teaching on the embodied-soul.

Redemption 

We could quote Emlet’s entire section on Redemption and the embodied-soul—all of which Miles omitted somehow. However, these representative quotes will have to suffice.

“The Christian hope is not to escape the body but to use our bodies as vessels of worship and service, both in this life and in the life to come. This is seen clearly in Romans 12:1: ‘I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.’ Paul exhorts us to use our bodies for the goal, the endpoint, of worshipping God.” (49, emphasis added).

“In his plan of redemption, God doesn’t jettison the body as though the purest worship is only ‘soulish.’ God’s people have always been invited to bring their entire selves into his presence. It’s striking to consider in Scripture just how much of what God prescribed for his people in their worship involved bodily practices. In fact, what we see throughout Scripture is a pattern of what I’ll call ‘multisensory discipleship.’ These embodied practices are embedded in the covenant God makes with us and help us to taste and see that he is good (Ps 34:8). Our relationship with God is earthy and fleshy in the best sense of these words! Let’s look more closely at the embodied practices that God prescribes both in the Old Testament and New Testament that are formative in knowing him.” (49-50, emphasis added).

“These somatic aspects of life in Christ are important to recognize because they have been neglected at times. But nothing I have written here bypasses the soul, as if our bodies allow unmediated access to our father in heaven or bodily practices automatically result in sanctification. New life in Christ comes through the renewal and cleansing of our hearts by the blood of Jesus Christ. We are new creatures because we have new hearts through the work of the Holy Spirit. We live by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). And yet, engaging the bodily context in which we live is critical for our spiritual formation even as we trust that God the Holy Spirit is working in us ‘both to will and to work for his good pleasure’ (Philippians 2:13)” (58-59, emphasis added).

In what world are these quotes even in the same universe as Lowen’s worldview? Surely anyone reading Emlet’s article—including Miles—would clearly detect Emlet’s incessant emphasis on the Bible’s comprehensive theology of the embodied-soul—the heart, soul, mind, inner person and the body, brain, outer person.

Emlet concludes his section on Redemption and the embodied-soul with a focus on Christology.

“John 1:14 says, ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ This is the foundation for everything I’ve said so far. Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, is himself an embodied soul. He is fully human. And he is fully God. He is God incarnate” (59).

“This is the strongest apologetic for highlighting the continuing importance of the body—Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had a body and has one still” (60).

Emlet does not develop his thinking based on Lowen. Emlet develops his theological anthropology based upon theological Christology. 

Consummation

Miles also fails to include any of the many Emlet quotes about Consummation (The Glorified Body) and the embodied-soul. Here are some important samplers.

“We are destined to die, and our bodies will return to the dust. But for believers in Christ, this is not our final condition. Jesus’s resurrection was a first fruit of our own resurrection to come. Our ultimate hope is resurrection, not a disembodied state. This also proves the created goodness of bodies. We get to keep them, but as they were meant to be in all their splendor!” (60, emphasis added).

“Scripture does support the existence of an intermediate state between death and resurrection where human beings exist temporarily as souls without bodies (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 16:19–31; 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23). But this is not our final state nor is it our ultimate hope. See Westminster Confession of Faith 32 for more details” (60, emphasis added).

In these quotes, it is important to note Emlet’s explicit biblical theology of the intermediate state. Miles references (but says nothing about) 1 Samuel 28:11-14 in a failed attempt to support his contention that Emlet has an unbiblical view of the body. It appears that Miles tries to use this passage to claim that Emlet fails to understand the dissolvability of the body/soul at death. Not so. Clearly, Emlet understands the intermediate state. Miles’s selection of 1 Samuel 28:11-14 as a supposed proof text is irrelevant to Emlet’s theological-practical point because Emlet is not discussing the intermediate state between death and resurrection. Emlet is focused on the here-and-now where no biblical counselor has ever counseled a disembodied soul.

Lowen is a secular somatic therapist. Emlet is a scriptural soul physician of embodied-souls. Emlet’s worldview of the body/embodied-soul is worlds apart from Lowen’s worldview. One must wonder how Miles missed this reality and why he omitted these truths….

Contrasting Understandings of People 

Lowen is a secular somatic therapist. Emlet is a scriptural soul physician of embodied-souls. Emlet’s scriptural worldview of the body/embodied-soul is worlds apart from Lowen’s secular worldview of the body.

Exhibit #5:

Historical (Church History) Alignment Emlet Aligns with Standard Christian Theological Anthropology

Miles accuses Emlet of having substantial doctrinal differences from historic biblical counselors and from historically faithful orthodox theologians. In Miles’s mind, it is secular of Emlet to say, “you don’t just have a body; you are a body. Your body is not an appendage. It is part of the essential you.” To the contrary, this is standard Christian theological anthropology about the nature of the embodied-soul—as exhibit five verifies.   

Traditional Christian anthropology rejects a materialistic view—that we are only bodies. It also rejects an “angelism” view—that we are only souls, or souls trapped in bodies. It rejects Platonic and Gnostic dualism. Instead, Christian anthropology, like Emlet, sees us as embodied-souls. Church history has valued the body and has used various terms to describe the intricate interconnection between body and soul:

• Biblical holism
• Holistic functionalism
• Embodied-souls
• Duplexity
• Psycho-physical unity
• Psycho-somatic whole
• Psycho-physical interactionism
• Holistic dualism
• Dualistic holism

The various views on the body-soul relationship have distinctive labels. According to Murphy:

• Lowen’s view might be called, “Eliminative/Reductive Materialism: The person is a physical organism, whose emotional, moral, and religious experiences will all ultimately be explained by the physical sciences.”
• Some Christians follow “Nonreductive Physicalism: The person is a physical organism whose complex functioning, both in society and in relation to God, gives rise to ‘higher’ human capacities such as morality and spirituality.”
• Murray, Emlet, and the theologians quoted below might be called any of the terms listed above, including biblical holism or “Holistic Dualism: The person is a composite of separable ‘parts’ but is to be identified with the whole, whose normal functioning is as a unity” (Whatever Happened to the Soul?, 24–25).

The following sampler quotes document Emlet’s alignment with historic Christian theological anthropology. Neither I nor Emlet agree with everything each of the following authors write. While many are Reformed Evangelical theologians, these collated quotes cover a wide spectrum of what the church has historically said about the body/soul—the embodied-soul. Compare them to Emlet, who sees our bodies as part of God’s good creation:

“You don’t just have a body; you are a body. Your body is not an appendage. It is part of the essential you” (46, emphasis added).

1. John Murray: “Man is bodily, and therefore, the scriptural way of expressing this truth is not that man has a body but that man is body” (Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Systematic Theology, 25, emphasis added).
2. Greg Allison: “This book is about human embodiment. Simply put, embodiment is the condition of being a body or having a body” (Embodied, 13, emphasis added).
3. John Kleinig: “We human beings are not just spirits, like the angels, nor animated bodies, like the animals, but are embodied spirits, or, if you will, spiritual bodies. We do not just have bodies, we are bodies” (Wonderfully Made: A Protestant Theology of the Body, 4). “Human beings do not possess a body or a mind; they are both bodies and minds. They cannot be reduced to either of these” (9, emphasis added).
4. John A. Robinson: “Man does not have a body, he is a body. He is flesh-animated by soul, the whole conceived as a psycho-physical unity” (The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, 14, emphasis in original).
5. Deitrich Bonhoeffer: “A human being is a human body. A human being does not ‘have’ a body—or ‘have’ a soul; instead a human being ‘is’ body and soul” (Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall, 77, emphasis added).
6. Todd Wilson: “We have a deficient theological anthropology, a failure to do justice to the true nature of the human personality, to take seriously that we are not just souls inhabiting bodies, or minds connected to brains. Rather, we are embodied and even incarnate creatures. To put it bluntly, we don’t have bodies—we are bodies” (Tending Soul, Mind, and Body, 113, emphasis added).
7. Joel Green: “It is axiomatic in Old Testament scholarship today that human beings must be understood in their fully integrated, embodied existence. Humans do not possess a body and soul, but are human only as body and soul” (Whatever Happened to the Soul?, 158, emphasis added).
8. Herman Bavinck: The body is “just as constitutive for the essence of humanity as the soul(Job 10:8-12; Ps. 8; Ps. 139:13-17; Eccles. 12:2-7; Is. 64:8)” (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:559, emphasis added). “It is of the essence of humanity to be corporeal and sentient” (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:559, emphasis added). “The soul and body together make the essence of a person, a peculiar sensory-spiritual essence that is called man’” (Foundations of Psychology, 143).
9. Kevin Vanhoozer: “Biblical scholars agree that such terms as body, soul, and spirit are not different, separable faculties of man but different ways of viewing the whole man” (Tending Soul, Mind, and Body, 56, emphasis added).
10. Kelly Kapic: “Whatever soul and body designate, biblically and theologically they are intended to present a holistic portrait; here is a human person” (Embodied Hope, 47). “We are embodied, and we present ourselves to each other corporeally” (49).
11. Wheeler Robinson: “The Hebrew idea of the personality is an animated body, and not an incarcerated soul” (The Christian Doctrine of Man, 8, emphasis added).
12. Anthony Hoekema: Speaking of sarx, often translated as “flesh” in the New Testament, but also used of the body, he writes, “it may be used of man as a whole…. it looks at the whole person.” Talking about “fleshly sins,” Hoekema writes, “We should understand it as sins committed by the whole person.” “The human person must be seen as an embodied soul or a ‘besouled body’” (Created in God’s Image, 216, emphasis added).
13. Clarence B. Bass: Speaking of soma, frequently translated in the New Testament as “body,” he defines the body as “the whole person as an entity before God, the whole man as an entity before God…. Thus it is clear that the body is used to represent the whole man, and mitigates against any view of man as existing apart from bodily manifestation, less it be during the intermediate state” (ISBE, 1:529, emphasis added).
14. John Cooper: “I follow Scripture, most traditional theology, and almost all current thought in emphasizing the unity of human nature, its essential bodiliness, and resurrection as the final Christian hope. All things consider, therefore, the biblical view of the human constitution is some kind of ‘holistic dualism…. Biological processes are not just functions of the body as distinct from the soul or spirit, and mental and spiritual capacities are not seated exclusively in the soul or spirit. All capacities and functions belong to the human being as a whole, a fleshly spiritual totality’” (Body, Soul and Life Everlasting, 70, emphasis added).
15. E. Ladd: “Recent scholarship has recognized that such terms as body, soul, and spirit are not different, separable faculties of man but different ways of viewing the whole man” (A Theology of the New Testament, 457, emphasis added).
16. Rudolph Bultmann: “Paul used soma (‘body’) to characterize the human person as a whole” (Theology of the New Testament, 10, emphasis added).
17. Robert H. Gundry: “In the OT body and soul do not contrast. Man is an animated body rather than an incarnated soul” (Soma in Biblical Theology, 119, emphasis added).
18. Ed Welch: “The whole person consists of body and heart Both are essential, and neither can function in the material realm in isolation from the other” (Blame It on the Brain?, 2^nd Edition, 36).
19. Jay Adams: “The union of ‘mind’ or spirit with the body forms a functioning unit oriented toward the material world” (The Biblical Perspective on the Mind-Body Problem, Part One, 22). “This union of body and spirit, rather than called ‘dichotomy,’ as some people call it (meaning ‘to cut into two’), I would rather call ‘duplexity,’ (which means two things folded together, two things brought together). Dichotomy speaks of taking the two apart, and we might call that what happens at death (you are dichotomized), but what you are now is a duplex person” (23). “It might be correct to say that the spirit has a mind as the body has a brain…. At any rate, this duplexity, functioning in man, this body/spirit thing called ‘soul,’ has been scientifically observed…” (23, emphasis added). “These problems [of trying to divide body and soul] cannot be solved either by Skinnerian reductionism: man is only an animal (all is organic), or on the other hand by simplistic categorization: the nonorganic is the province of the pastor; the organic is the province of the physician” (The Christian Counselor’s Manual, 438, emphasis in the original).
20. David Powlison: “We must address the problem of bifurcating body and soul…. A common way of describing the scope of biblical counseling is to say that it addresses ‘non-organic problems of living….’ But I’ve always had two problems with this particular way of describing what we do and don’t do. In the first place, this way of putting it over-bifurcates soul and body. In reality, ‘non-organic’ or ‘functional’ problems are always incarnate, and ‘organic’ problems are always spiritual’” (Quoted in, Physiological Interventions and Relief-Oriented Care for the Embodied-Soul in Biblical Counseling).
21. Martin Luther: “In his commentary on Galatians, Luther speaks at some length about ‘incarnate faith.’ By his use of this evocative phrase he means that God never deals with us in a disembodied way…. Faith in Christ always issues in bodily acts” (cited in Kleinig, Wonderfully Made, 85-86, emphasis added).
22. Michael Horton: “The movement toward holism is encouraging for a theology interested in how the body qualifies human agency. A holist will already be motivated to pay attention to this contribution” (Christian Faith, 377).
23. Matthew LaPine: “Human beings are groundlings, or ‘from the ground’ (Gen. 2:7)” (The Logic of the Body, 254). “Strictly speaking, a human being is not a soul, nor a body, but the soul and body together, a composite” (44).
24. Louis Berkhof: “It is not the soul but man that sins; it is not the body but man that dies; and it is not merely the soul, but man, body and soul, that is redeemed in Christ” (Systematic Theology, 192).

Like Emlet, every one of these two dozen theologians and biblical counselors affirms the strongest possible view of embodiment without abandoning a biblical distinction between body and soul. Many use almost identical language to Emlet’s “you don’t just have a body; you are a body. Your body is not an appendage. It is part of the essential you.” In some cases, the theological vocabulary differs slightly, but the recurring conviction is remarkably consistent with and supportive of Emlet’s view: Bodily existence belongs to what it means to be human before God. Human beings are embodied persons. The body is not a detachable accessory to the “real self.”

Miles is wrong. Emlet does not follow Lowen.

Emlet follows the Bible.

Emlet follows the traditional Christian view of the body/embodied-soul as espoused by Christian theologians and biblical counselors like Murray, Allison, Kleinig, John A. T. Robinson, Bonhoeffer, Wilson, Green, Bavinck, Vanhoozer, Kapic, H. W. Robinson, Hoekema, Bass, Cooper, Ladd, Bultmann, Gundry, Welch, Adams, Powlison, Luther, Horton, LaPine, and Berkhof.

Emlet is not speaking idiosyncratically. His theological anthropology is not novel. He is standing in a long, diverse theological tradition. His viewpoint on the body/embodied-soul is not distinctive to him or to CIBC. It is traditional Christian anthropology. Emlet maintains astonishing doctrinal agreement with historic biblical counselors and with historically faithful orthodox theologians.

The Court Takes a Brief Recess: Reviewing the Situation

Our Deuteronomy 19:16-21 courtroom cross-examination now takes a brief recess. During this time we can review the evidence presented thus far.

A Case Study

This cross-examination is not simply about defending Mike Emlet. It is about asking whether theoretical linkage between counseling systems should be made by juxtaposing isolated quotations or by comparing whole systems of thought in their theological context.

This article is a case study in comparative theological analysis in biblical counseling.

Recall that the question is not: 

“Could someone collate purportedly similar words about bodily interventions and embodied-soul interventions?”

The question is,

“Do Lowen and Emlet share the same worldview, the same biblical-theological anthropology?”

The Case Has Been Made

The evidence has repeatedly disproved Miles’s accusation that Emlet aligns theologically “more with Bioenergetics therapy than with true biblical counseling.”

1. Exhibit #1: A Theological Comparative Analysis: Across eight theological categories, Lowen and Emlet share zero worldview commonalities.
2. Exhibit #2: A Quote Comparative Analysis: An assessment of the actual quotes from Lowen and Emlet proves that they have diametrically opposed views of the body—even in the selective quotes purported to indicate similarity of thinking.
3. Exhibit #3: Biblical Foundation: Emlet never quotes Lowen or any other secular psychologists, but he engages with Scripture over 100 times while quoting theologians and biblical counselors over two dozen times.
4. Exhibit #4: Theological Depth: While Miles entirely omits Emlet’s theological focus, Emlet provides a comprehensive biblical Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation theological anthropology of the body/embodied-soul.
5. Exhibit #5: Historical (Church History) Alignment: Emlet’s view of the body aligns with the standard Christian theological anthropology of embodied-souls, as evidenced by the writings of two dozen theologians and biblical counselors.

By each evidential standard, and by the standard of Deuteronomy 19:16-21, Miles’s public accusation against Emlet has already been proven false.

Before the Case Is Closed: One Issue Remans 

Given the preponderance of evidence provided in Exhibits #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5:

• How and why did Miles get it so wrong?
• What might explain such misrepresentation of biblical counselor Dr. Mike Emlet by Mr. Miles?

Miles’s misrepresentation is not explained by concepts such as “comparative study,” “comparative analysis,” or “comparative theological analysis,” because Miles did not do those. Instead, he did quote mining. There’s actually a term in academia for what Miles did, and we address it next in our sixth exhibit. The term is “parallelomania.”

Exhibit #6:

Miles’s Parallelomania

After the brief recess, we hear the words, “All rise. The court is again in session.”

Dr. Emlet’s defense attorney now enters into the court records Exhibit #6: Miles’s Parallelomania. He calls to the witness stand Samuel Sandmel who introduced the concept of “parallelomania” in 1961 in the Presidential Address Given Before the Society of Biblical Literature. On the witness stand, Sandmel warns researchers against exaggerating supposed similarities between documents, ideas, or movements. He provides this technical definition:

“Parallelomania is that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.”

Sandmel argues that responsible scholarship must ask broader questions:

• Do the systems share the same worldview?
• Are the similarities superficial or substantive?
• How extensive are the differences?
• Are the parallels isolated, or do they characterize the entire corpus?
• Is there evidence of influence, borrowing, or dependence?

Parallelomania: When Resemblance Is Manufactured

We can adapt Sandmel’s concept of parallelomania to counseling studies and to Miles’s approach to Lowen and Emlet.

Parallelomania in counseling studies involves the construction of artificial similarities based upon overstating isolated superficial verbal resemblances between counselors from different approaches, while minimizing or ignoring their stated theological commitments, anthropologies, and doctrines of change, thereby manufacturing an appearance of affinity that the broader corpus does not sustain.

Parallelomania is the tendency to overdo supposed similarities and to proceed as though those engineered resemblances imply theoretical dependence, conceptual identity, and shared origins.

Parallelomania occurs when isolated statements are extracted from their controlling theological framework, juxtaposed with statements from another system, and then treated as evidence of substantive affinity despite the authors’ explicit differences in anthropology, epistemology, and doctrine of change. 

Exhibits #1-5 have demonstrated the many problems with Miles’s parallelomania. 

• He overdoes supposed similarities and proceeds as though surface, artificial resemblance implies conceptual identity and/or shared origins.
• He exaggerates superficial verbal resemblances while ignoring profound theological differences.
• He inaccurately matches dissimilar practices based upon supposedly similar wording.
• He detaches these dissimilar practices from their stated theological purposes in order to create the appearance of similarity.

The issue is not that profound similarities have been identified. The issue is that Miles has manufactured false equivalence based upon dissimilar wording while ignoring the massive worldview differences. Miles has constructed artificial parallels through selective, incompatible, mismatched quotations. He misrepresents Emlet and other biblical counselors through isolated statements detached from hundreds of pages that directly contradict Lowen’s understanding of the body, somatic practices, and worldview.

Examples of Rigorous Comparative Theological Analysis 

I appreciate the academic concept of comparative theological analysis in biblical counseling. Dr. Mike Firmin, in his 1988 Ph.D. dissertation, Behaviorism and the Nouthetic Counseling Model of Jay E. Adams, provided a lengthy comparative analysis of Adams’s work and those of secular behavioral psychologist. You can read about that here: Meet the Man Who Influenced Jay Adams and the Modern Nouthetic Counseling Movement: O. Hobart Mowrer.

In that comparative analysis, Firmin:

• Carefully engaged with the anthropology, hamartiology, and soteriology (view of people, problems, and solutions) of Adams and behavioral psychologists.
• Quoted in context both what Adams affirmed and what he denied.
• Detailed Adams’s theological framework and the theoretical framework of behavioral psychologists.
• Provided lengthy in-context quotes from Adams and from behavioral psychologists.

This is vital, because in comparative analysis, an author’s position should be derived from their stated theological anthropology rather than from isolated statements abstracted from their theological framework with a claim of supposed similarity. 

The article you are now reading is another example of comparative theological analysis. It has gone far beyond mere quote mining. Instead, it has compared and contrasted extensive theological categories and worldview concepts—allowing both Lowen and Emlet to truly describe what they actually believe about counseling.

A Test for Genuine Comparative Analysis

Here’s the test for actual comparative studies:

If you remove the isolated quotations, and instead compare epistemology, anthropology, hamartiology, and soteriology, how much resemblance remains? If the answer is little or none, then the purported similarities were not built upon comparative analysis but upon parallelomania.

Reading the test results reveals that Miles’s practices parallelomania, not comparative analysis. Miles creates an illusion of equivalence based upon quote mining, rather than documenting actual equivalence based upon careful theological analysis.

• The issue isn’t merely that Miles reached incorrect conclusions; but that his supposed comparative method lacks sufficient theological and historical controls to distinguish purportedly similar wording from actual shared worldviews.
• The issue is not simply false equivalence between similar practices; it is the construction of artificial parallels through selective quotation.

Purported Similarity Is Not Genealogy

When comparing Lowen and Emlet,

• The focus should be theological anthropology, not whether Lowen and Emlet each wrote the word “body.”
• The issue isn’t even whether some physiological interventions are found in both secular and Christian contexts. The issue is whether Emlet has adopted the worldview, anthropology, hamartiology, and soteriology of secular somatic therapists—and clearly he has not.
• The fundamental issue is not whether Lowen and Emlet both recognize embodied realities. The fundamental issue is whether Emlet recognizes the biblical truth of embodied-soul realities—and he clearly does.
• The issue is not simply false equivalence between similar practices; it is the construction of artificial parallels through selective quotation.
• The alleged similarities are artifacts of selective quotation and categorical abstraction rather than genuine conceptual parallels.

This is the heart of our objective to Miles’s purported comparisons:

Miles is not comparing counseling theory; he is attempting to associate mere quotations even when the theological anthropologies are entirely distinct.

Shared words do not prove shared anthropologies.

Comparative theological analysis must compare systems, not snippets.

Emlet is not saying what Lowen is saying. They are speaking about different realities altogether. Lowen speaks about bodies, evolved over time, defined by secular thought, and healed by energetic release—bodily expression is curative. The body itself is the locus of therapeutic transformation. Emlet speaks about embodied-souls created by God, defined by Scripture, and sustained, healed, reconciled, and guided by Christ—the gospel alone is curative. The whole person is the focus of biblical counseling.

These are not similarities needing qualification. They are drastically different truth claims.

In Summation: The Heart of the Matter 

Combined, these six exhibits encapsulate the heart of the matter:

What is our source of authority for understanding people and how we minister to them?

These exhibits address each issue:

• Emlet’s Source of Authority: God’s Word.
• Emlet’s Understanding of People: The Bible’s theological anthropology which teaches that people are embodied-souls.
• Emlet’s Approach to Ministering to People: Comprehensive biblical care involves ministry to the whole person—including physiological interventions such as sleep habits, deep breathing, or “grounding.”

Even the title of Emlet’s article, from which Miles quotes, highlights the importance of each of these three issues:

A Biblical Rationale for Embodied Spiritual Practices.

For Emlet, since God designed us as intertwined, interconnected, interacting embodied-souls, then attending wisely to embodied realities is not capitulation to a materialistic, body-driven worldview. Instead, it is a biblical application of theological anthropology. Miles, on the other hand, opines that engagement in physiological interventions means capitulation to a secular, materialistic worldview.

I agree with Emlet:

It is vital for biblical counselors to develop a biblical theology of embodied-souls and physiological interventions.

That’s why I’ve produced 161 Resources for Counseling the Whole Person: Soul Physicians of Embodied-Souls. It’s why I published the long-form article Physiological Interventions and Relief-Oriented Care for the Embodied-Soul in Biblical Counseling. In it, I provide a biblical-theological study of physiological interventions for embodied-souls, including how Jay Adams, David Powlison, numerous other “classic” biblical counselors, and numerous Christians throughout church history have engaged in physiological interventions.

Since Emlet, I, and other biblical counselors have produced robust biblical, theological, and historical (church history) resources on biblical counseling and physiological interventions, it would be appropriate for  Miles to engage with these biblical arguments. In fact:

It would advance the conversation much further if we compared the words and practices of Miles, Emlet, Kellemen, and other biblical counselors to the Word of God, instead of comparing them to the word of Lowen.

In summation, here’s Miles’s logic:

Lowen and bioenergetics talk about the body and somatic interventions. Emlet talks about the body and physiological interventions. Therefore, Emlet is secular in his theology of counseling like Lowen.

In summation, here’s the theological analysis:

Lowen focuses on the body—he is a secular materialist. Emlet focuses on the Bible’s teaching (theological anthropology) about the whole person: the embodied-soul. Therefore, Emlet is a Christian theologian-counselor. He is a Christian soul physician of embodied-souls.

Applying God’s All-Sufficient Word 

Recall the biblical principles and process of public cross-examination for public accusations from Deuteronomy 19:16-21.

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Based upon the thorough investigation provided by the six exhibits presented in this cross-examination, I summit that:

Miles’s public accusation against Emlet is false. The evidence finds Dr. Emlet not guilty on all counts. Emlet is not guilty of theological similarities with Lowen. He is not guilty of unity of thought with Lowen. Not guilty of worldview alignment with Lowen. Not guilty of aligning theologically with bioenergetic therapy. Not guilty of aligning theologically more with bioenergetic therapy than with true biblical counseling. Not guilty of substantial theological differences from historically faithful orthodox theologians. Not guilty of falsehood.

I take Miles at his word when he publicly promised that he was willing to reconsider where he is wrong or has misread the original texts if someone provided specific examples. This document has done so.

Miles, I request that you give this cross-examination due consideration. I further request that the public accusation be retracted and recanted. If not, Deuteronomy describes what should occur.

1. One believer makes a public accusation against another believer.
2. A thorough public investigation occurs.
3. If the accuser is proven to have giving false testimony, then “do to that false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party” and “purge the evil from among you.”

What did Mr. Miles propose be done to Dr. Emlet? Miles wrote:

“I am praying that the Lord will use the following resource to push readers back to the Scriptures, the only source that can produce true clarity and hatred for falsehood. From Your precepts I get perception; Therefore I hate every false way. — Psalm 119:104.”

Therefore, according to Deuteronomy 19:16-21, we could pray the following for Miles:

• That this public cross-examination pushes Miles back to the Scriptures.
• That this public cross-examination produces true clarity and hatred for falsehood in Miles and his writings about Mike Emlet and other biblical counselors.
• That Miles will hate every false way—including the falsehoods proclaimed in Miles’s false accusations against Mike Emlet and other biblical counselors.

The Rest of the Story 

I’ve developed two additional articles—a Part Two and Part Three, if you will.

Part Two broadens the case. It even more fully engages the issue of whether physiological interventions are secular or scriptural. It demonstrates that Lowen’s model is body-only somatic therapy based on a materialistic worldview. It documents that the historical biblical-theological model is embodied-soul psychosomatic care based upon a scriptural theological anthropology.

Part Three turns the method back upon itself. It applies Miles parallelomania to the writings of Jay Adams. The same method of quote mining can make Adams appear secular and Lowen-like. The problem is not Emlet or Adams. The problem is Miles’s methodology. If the method proves that the founder of nouthetic counseling is functionally secular, then the method itself is suspect.