A Public Question

A friend on X (Twitter) recently asked,

“I see you don’t use ‘clinically-informed’ or ‘trauma-informed’ labels. I’m curious, practically, what would you say is the key difference between your approach to #biblicalcounseling and those who self-identify as ‘clinically-informed’?

Good question. I’ll tweak the question a bit:

“Why don’t you use the labels ‘clinically-informed’ or ‘trauma-informed’ to describe your biblical counseling?”

#1: I Respect My CIBC Friends

First, I want to be clear that I have great respect for my CIBC friends and their approach to biblical counseling. Please notice what I say here: “their approach to biblical counseling.” There is no reason to question the fact that people like the biblical counseling faculty at SEBTS, and CIBC leader (and BCC Council Board member), Jason Kovacs, are indeed biblical counselors. Many CIBC leaders have publicly shared robust descriptions of what they mean by “clinically-informed biblical counseling.” For example:

• Read the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty statement here: What Is Redemptive Counseling / Clinically Informed Biblical Counseling?

• Read Brad Hambrick’s statement here: What I Mean by Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling?

So, I can choose not to use a certain label without it meaning that I demean the users of that term or the biblical counseling model they follow.

I also respect my CIBC friends enough to encourage them to be sure that the “biblical” in their “BC” remains authoritative, as it certainly does for the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty, and other CIBC leaders like Jason Kovacs. See, Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling: 3 Reflections and 2 Recommendations, and see: Ponderings About Being a “____-Informed Biblical Counselor.”

By the way, I respect my anti-CIBC friends enough to challenge them to think and love biblically. See: Non-Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling: 2 Reflections and 4 Recommendations, and see: 8 Questions for Biblical Counselors Who Are Against Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling (CIBC).

If you would like a collation of resources about CIBC, you could go here: 15 Resources About Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling (CIBC).

#2: There Are a Lot of Labels I Don’t Use 

I also have never taken on the label of “nouthetic counselor,” even though I was weaned on nouthetic counseling. As I examined the Bible and church history, I found the label “nouthetic counseling” to be limiting—built primarily on one word used only 11 times in the Bible, focused on confronting sin, and with a heavy dose of a behavioral focus. I respect my nouthetic counseling friends, while eschewing that label.

Some folks these days are using the new label, “classic, historical biblical counselors.” I also choose not to use that label, as a fifty-year-young modern Western movement is not classic, as I indicate here.

#3: Labels Can Be So Current That They Soon Become Cringe-Worthy 

There is nothing novel/new about Christian soul care givers engaging with current concepts. It has occurred consistently throughout church history, as Tilden Edwards notes:

“Historically the Church always has utilized the current psychology of its culture. However, what it has borrowed, it has modified and transformed in the light of its own tradition. But if there is no deep awareness of the experiential, developmental anthropology of the tradition, then there is no real mutation, just a whole-hog graft. If the graft takes, it tends to take over. Sooner later then the Church loses its unique experiential wisdom for the society; it finds itself more and more absorbed as an expedient base for someone else’s ‘revelation,’ unqualified by its own” (Spiritual Friend, 32-33, emphasis added). 

As Adams, Bettler, and Powlison explained, the question is, do Christians redeemed these psychological concepts, or do the psychological concepts take over? Our attempts to stay timely can lead to our losing our focus on timeless truth.

I would make an additional point:

Even if we redeem secular concepts, many times our attempts to remain current lead rather quickly to us soon being behind the times.

If you are old enough, think back to the 1980s/1990s and how many Christians jumped on the “co-dependent” bandwagon. How relevant do those Christian books seem now?

Or, think back even further to the 1970s/1980s, and Christians jumping on the “four temperament” fad. Again…cringy now.

Go back centuries and we find John Calvin using the concept of “the four humors” that was popularized first by Hippocrates and later by Galen. Even Calvin became dated…

The list is almost endless: repressed memories, enneagrams, attachment theory, existential therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, behavior therapy with habituation, de-habituation, and re-habituation (popular in Jay Adams’s day), etc., etc., etc.

We pay a price when we follow fads, especially since we Christians seem to be about a decade behind the world’s fads. By the time we address them, the world has moved on to a new “in” concept. We need to be careful that we are not simply chasing what is current.

I sometimes wonder if “trauma-informed” will soon fade away and be replaced by the newest shiny concept. Please, do not hear me minimizing traumatic suffering. Long before “trauma was in,” I was teaching about “biblical sufferology” in books like Soul Physicians and God’s Healing for Life’s Losses. But here’s my point:

One of the reasons I choose not to modify my biblical counseling model with “trauma-informed” is my belief that the interest in this concept will wane—and be replaced with something new. While I will always want to address trauma/suffering biblically, I do not want to label my approach with a term with such a short shelf life.

#4: My Label Has Many More Modifiers: GCCCTSCHIRFRASPOESBC 

Recently, someone who I don’t know said to me on X (Twitter), seemingly sarcastically,

“Bob, don’t ever let anyone accuse you of being too concise.”

I find it fascinating that some “classic biblical counselors” chide those they deem outside their “camp” for not responding robustly to their critiques. However, then when you respond robustly, more than a few chide you for being “too wordy.” Can’t win.

I will admit, that like David Powlison, I like to thoroughly develop my position. So, if I abbreviated my label, it would be anything but concise!

• GCCCTSCHIRFRASPOESBC: Gospel-Centered/Christ-Centered, Theologically-Saturated, Church History-Informed, Relationship-Focused, Research-Aware Soul Physician of Embodied-Souls.

I suppose I could have entitled this post, “Why I Am a GCCCTSCHIRFRASPOES Biblical Counselor”!

For a more comprehensive explanation of my approach, see, 6 Biblical Counseling Convictions. For a very comprehensive development of my biblical counseling model, see, Gospel-Centered Counseling: How Christ Changes Lives.

While there are some elements of CIBC thinking that I concur with—including some of those expressed by the SEBTS faculty (see above)—even those elements would only be one part of my more expansive, robust description of my biblical counseling approach.

#5: Our Modifiers Are Important

The modifier(s) we place before “biblical counseling” are important, even vital. Modifiers communicate our convictions about our approach to biblical counseling. This is why clinically-informed biblical counselors are repeatedly needing to define what they mean and do not mean by “clinically-informed.” And rightly so.

I choose not to make “clinically-informed” a modifier of my model. Instead, I choose other modifiers:

• Gospel-Centered/Christ-Centered: I choose to make “Gospel-Centered/Christ-Centered” the first modifier of my model. I want Christ and His gospel of grace to stand at the center of and as the foundation for everything I do as a biblical counselor. (Note, I believe this is why the SEBTS BC faculty also call their model “Redemptive Counseling.”)

• Theologically-Saturated: I choose to make “Theologically-Saturated” the next modifier of my model. If our biblical counseling is not theologically-saturated, then the world’s information and input will take over. Instead of being theologically-saturated clinically-informed biblical counselors, we risk becoming clinically-saturated counselors. “Theologically-saturated” is my way of saying, “Biblically-informed,” or “Biblically-Saturated.”

• Church History-Informed: I choose to be informed by church history. Even before I am informed by common grace, I choose to be informed by saving grace—by those who have been regenerated and redeemed by the saving grace of Christ. The great cloud of historical Christian soul care givers (from the past and living today) provide iron-sharpening wisdom for us as we develop our biblical counseling approach.

• Relationship-Focused: I choose to modify my biblical counseling approach with “Relationship-Focused” because Christ calls us to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and to share both Scripture and soul (1 Thessalonians 2:7-8).

• Research-Aware: Only after these primary modifiers do I then describe my biblical counseling approach as “Research-Aware.” I’ll develop this aspect more in a moment.

• Soul Physician of Embodied-Souls: Biblically, we are not just souls, not just bodies, we are a complex, interconnected, interrelated unity of body and soul—embodied-soul. And, long before anyone used the term “biblical counselor,” church history used terms like soul physician, soul care giver, and spiritual director. Following the Bible and church history, I see myself as “a soul physician of embodied-souls.”

#6: “Research-Aware”: Why “Research”? 

Why “research”? I could have used any number of synonyms, such as:

• Common Grace-Aware
• Neuroscience-Aware
• Science-Aware
• Descriptive Psychology Research-Aware
• Psychological Theory-Aware
• Clinical Methods-Aware (or Clinically-Aware)
• Clinical Theory-Aware (or Clinically-Aware)

I also could have been much more specific, because for any issue I am doing counseling, I seek to become “aware” of thinking about that issue:

• OCD Research/Thinking-Aware
• Anxiety Research/Thinking-Aware
• Sexual Abuse Research/Thinking-Aware
• Embodied-Souls Research/Thinking-Aware

If I am counseling someone dealing with phobias, in addition to a foundation of being theologically/biblically-saturated, I am going to read what other Christians say about phobias. I’ll read neuroscience information on phobias and treatment. I’ll read secular psychology theory on phobias (like Adams, Bettler, and Powlison would do).

I’ve read some biblical counselors who chide people for reading beyond the Bible, saying, in essence,

“Life is a zero-sum game. You only have so much time. Any time spent reading extra-biblical literature is time spent away from reading the Bible.”

Well, maybe folks who make such comments spend too much time watching TV or something. I found/made the time to do a Genesis-to-Revelation biblical study of embodied-souls, while also making time to read what other Christians, and what non-Christians, say about the brain, body, mind, neuroscience, science, etc.

I don’t pit God’s sovereign saving grace against God’s sovereign common grace.

I don’t pit God’s special revelation against God’s general revelation (though I do use God’s special revelation to assess any common grace general revelation information).

#7: “Research-Aware”: Why “Aware”?

Why “aware”? I’m not sure if there is a huge difference between “Research-Aware” and “Research-Informed.” To me, the key is,

“What do we do with the information that we become aware of?”

I want to, like Powlison, use the new eyes of Scripture to assess that information. Like Calvin, I want to use the spectacles of Scripture to evaluate that information. Then, I might reject it as unbiblical and unhelpful. Or, I might assess it as part of God’s sovereign common grace gift of providence and redeem it like Adams, Bettler, and Powlison.

Because I believe in the noetic effect of common grace, because I believe in God’s sovereignty over every inch of His creation, because I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture to authoritatively assess all information, because I believe that common grace glorifies God, and because I believe in the ability of the redeemed person’s new mind to assess extra-biblical information, I do not live in fear. I do not fear being “research-aware,” or “common grace-aware,” or “neuroscience-aware,” or “OCD-aware.”

The modern nouthetic counseling movement was not afraid of being informed. Historically, the modern nouthetic counseling has always been “INC”: Informed Nouthetic Counseling.” It has always been:

• BINC: Behaviorism-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
• NINC: Neuroscience-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
• SINC: Science-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
• PINC: Psychology-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
• CGINC: Common Grace-Informed Nouthetic Counseling
• CBRINC: Co-Belligerent-Research-Informed Nouthetic Counseling

#8: “Clinically-Informed”?: Too Narrow, Too Broad, Too Soon 

I suspect that my SEBTS BC faculty friends—Nate Brooks, Brad Hambrick, Kristin Kellen, Tate Cockrell, and Sam Williams—would perhaps agree with much of what I’ve written in this post. I’m sure they would word some of it differently. I respect the Redemptive Counseling, CIBC ministry that they have. Yet, for me, I do not choose to make “clinically-informed” the modifier for my approach to biblical counseling.

First, I see “clinically-informed” as too narrow. As I’ve said, I want to be informed by or aware of a lot of categories: neuroscience, science, common grace information, research, descriptive research, OCD, anxiety, etc., etc., etc. (This is also why I would not use “trauma-informed”—I want to be aware/informed about a wide range of real life issues.)

Second, in some ways, “clinically-informed” is too broad. What is meant by “clinical”? Is that theory? Is that methods? Is that neuroscience? Is it psychology? Psychiatry? This is why CIBC folks, as I noted earlier, are needing to repeatedly define and describe what they mean and don’t mean by CIBC. Of course, this repeated refining does lead to increased clarity about what they mean by “clinically-informed.”

Third, for me, perhaps the most important reason I don’t use “clinically-informed” is that it is too soon as a modifier. As I said above, I don’t want “clinically-informed” as my first modifier. I want people to know, right up front, that “Gospel-Centered/Christ-Centered” is my modifier for biblical counseling. I want people to know, right off the bat, that “Theologically-Saturated” is central to my biblical counseling model.

#9: We Can Use Different Terms without Being “Tribal” 

Tribalism is rampant in America. And, since we American Christians seem to latch onto every fad, tribalism is rampant in American Christianity.

• Tribalism gives a great benefit of the doubt to people I deem to be in my group.

• Tribalism harshly judges people deemed to be outside my group.

• Tribalism sees only the strengths of people in my group.

• Tribalism highlights only the weaknesses of people outside my group.

• Tribalism operates under the conviction that if a disfavored person (someone deemed outside my “in” group) asserts something, it must be vigorously disputed, regardless of the facts or whether what was said is plausible.

• Tribalism follows the instinct to filter information through the grid of “my group good; your group bad.”

Those who are critical of CIBC could learn from it: 8 Questions for Biblical Counselors Who Are Against Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling (CIBC).

While I choose not to use “clinically-informed,” I continue to learn much helpful biblical counseling theory and practice from my CIBC brothers and sisters. In fact, I would be glad to offer “guest posts” from any of my CIBC friends—engaging with this post, and describing why they choose to describe themselves as CIBC.