Star Trek and Biblical Counseling? Now That Is Really Integration!!! 

I love Star Trek. I love biblical counseling. I love getting to integrate them together in the title of today’s guest post!

In Star Trek lore, the Kobayashi Maru is a training exercise designed to place cadets in a no-win scenario. No matter what they do, they cannot possibly complete their mission safely.

The No-Win Scenario 

First introduced in the 1982 film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the phrase Kobayashi Maru has entered the popular lexicon as a reference to a no-win scenario.

I’m using Kobayashi Maru as a reference to a no-win scenario in some of our current biblical counseling conversations. The target is constantly moved; the rules of engagement are repeatedly changed; no matter what you do or say; you are wrong. Our guest blogger illustrates this no-win scenario using the idea of “circular reasoning.”

A Guest Post by Biblical Counselor Joseph Leavell 

What’s been said so far are my words. What comes next are words from my biblical counseling friend, Joseph Leavell.

Joseph is a teacher, counselor, and blogger with an M.A. in Biblical Counseling from The Master’s University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart, Rebekah, since 2001, and together they have 4 children. Formerly a pastor, Joe is Level 2 certified with ACBC and is the Director of Biblical Counseling of Arizona.

Joe recently posted a fascinating Twitter/X tweet thread about current conversations in the biblical counseling world—conversations about science, research, common grace, and the sufficiency of Scripture. I thought Joe “nailed it”! So, with his permission, I am re-posting Joe’s tweet thread.

Joe’s Introduction: Circular Reasoning in the Biblical Counseling Movement

As I’ve watched both ends of recent biblical counseling conversations unfold over the last few months, there is a circular reasoning in the biblical counseling/common grace discussion that has never made sense to me.

I’ve seen it show up repeatedly in blogs, videos, and back-and-forths on social media. It would do WONDERS to reconcile my mind around this issue and bring clarity to the discussion for those of us seeking to biblically weigh the arguments if the loop in logic were closed. While the conversations vary, the basic back and forth goes something like this…

Joe’s Dialogue Between Two Biblical Counselors

Group 1: “The Bible is sufficient, but we are not anti-science. Good science of the body is fine.”

Group 2: “Here’s some science of the body. Is this OK?”

Group 1: “The problem isn’t science. It’s that you presented junk pseudo-science. These other scientists say it’s suspect.” [Note from Bob: This is called “the co-belligerent” use of science—where you use science that debunks other science.]

Group 2: “OK, well I don’t want that. Here’s some well-established science. Is this OK?”

Group 1: “The problem is that secular psychologists have twisted the good science and are using it to push humanism to the point they’re indistinguishable and tainted. Your sources are anti-Gospel.”

Group 2: “Here is that same science without its tainted humanism through a Gospel-lens.”

Group 1: “Now you’re integrating and overlaying secular psychological practices into biblical counseling and creating a new integration. You’ve still got some residual humanism by using these and have left sufficiency and now we have to separate!”

Group 2: “Whoa whoa…help me understand! So the problem is that using a source from an unbeliever is irredeemable? Do you have to be a Christian to make scientific observations then? Science done by unbelievers is always inescapably faulty and will move us away from sufficiency?”

Group 1: “No, God’s common grace does allow unbelievers to make true and beneficial observations. But even if we find them, they’re unnecessary and unhelpful to the task of discipleship. Scripture covers all of this so it’s not in our purview. Scripture is sufficient.”

Group 2: “Granted. We do not need this evidence to show what God has done or to live a godly life. I agree! Scripture is sufficient! However, just like with astronomy, God does not give full descriptors of His creation of the stars and planets in Scripture. We can learn more about God’s creation by looking through telescopes, even ones made by unbelievers, and come to a more thorough biblical/doxological conclusion about the world He has made. Is that OK to do with the human body and the brain?”

Group 1: “Totally! We are not anti-science. Good science of the body is fine.”

Group 2: “OK cool! Here’s some science.”

Group 1: “No…see, that’s not good science…”

And the circle continues…

Joe’s Conclusion 

I truly believe it would serve everyone well if this logical circular argument was closed.

End of Joe’s Comments…More Thoughts by Bob 

I responded to Joe on Twitter/X, saying,

“Spot on. I would add a section on co-belligerent research”—research that discredits other research.

Here is what I would add to the circular reasoning dialogue…

Group 1: “We believe in research. Look at all this research that says that all the science we disagree with is wrong.”

Group 2: “Oh, so it was an unbeliever who did that research about bad science. I thought you said research from unbelievers was tainted?”

Group 1: “Well, unbelieving research against science that we are also against agrees with our biblical interpretation. So since we see it agreeing with our view of the Bible, it is legitimate for us to use.”

Group 2: “Oh, so you are redeeming research from unbelievers. Is that integration?”

Group 1: “No. Of course not. Unbelieving research that agrees with the Bible is an example of God’s work even in an unbeliever’s life where they stumble upon the truth.”

Group 2: “Oh. You mean common grace.”

Group 1: “No. It is God’s sovereignty. We never said an unbeliever could not do descriptive research. And total depravity doesn’t mean that everything an unsaved person does is totally wrong; it means that every area of an unbeliever’s life and thinking are impacted by sin.”

Group 2: “Right. You’ve just described historic Reformed thinking on common grace.”

Group 1: “The modern biblical counseling movement has decided to redefine common grace. Didn’t you read the article where we decided that?”

Group 2: “I can still be a member of the modern biblical counseling movement if I believe classic Reformed theology on common grace. Right?”

Group 1: “No. Now you must agree with our new definition and application of common grace to be a member in good standing of the modern, historic, classic biblical counseling movement. Go read the article.”

Group 2: “How is your approach to biblical counseling classic and historic if you now have a new, novel definition of common grace that is different from classic, historic Evangelical Protestant Reformed theology?”

Group 1: “We trace our historic biblical counseling all the way back 50 whole years to Jay Adams. And he agrees with our new definition of common grace. Take our word for it.”

Group 2: “Well…okay… So, let me make sure I understand this. So, by your new definition of common grace, you can use co-belligerent research by unbelievers, because it agrees with you. Help me to understand how this fits with your view of sufficiency of Scripture. Was all this co-belligerent research by unbelievers that agrees with you ‘necessary’? If not necessary, why even cite this tainted unbelieving research to support your position. Isn’t the Bible enough to sufficiently support your views against this ‘bad’ science?”

Group 1: “No. That would make us anti-science. We already told you we are pro-science.”

Group 2: “Okay. Can you share with me any specific pro-science research you use in biblical counseling—not counting co-belligerent research?”

Group 1: “Show us any research you use.”

Group 2: “Well, you didn’t answer my question, instead you asked me a question. But for the sake of our discussion, here are three examples of scientific research that I use in my biblical counseling. Example 1: ____. Example 2: ____. Example 3: ____.”

Group 1: “You’re integrating pseudo-science!”

And the circle continues…