A Theological Inconsistency 

I find a common mindset in our modern biblical counseling world to be theologically inconsistent. Here it is:

The same biblical counselors who condemn clinically-informed biblical counselors (CIBC) and trauma-informed biblical counselors (TIBC) for assessing trauma research, frequently cite anti-trauma researchers.

The theologically inconsistent mindset says,

“We love anti-trauma research that agrees with us, regardless of whether their research is founded on non-Christian biases.”

“We deny the validity of pro-trauma research that disagrees with us because their research is founded on non-Christian biases.”

“Yeah, we’re against clinically-informed’ unless, of course, the clinical information comports with what we already believe!”

The Sufficiency of Scripture, the Regenerated Mind, and Both/And Research 

Personally, since I believe in the sufficiency and authority of God’s Word, and since I believe in the regeneration of the redeemed mind, I therefore believe that Christians can use God’s Word and their redeemed reason to assess both pro-trauma research and anti-trauma research.

Total Depravity, God’s Sovereign Common Grace, and Both/And Research 

Personally, since I believe that total depravity impacts all research of all unbeliever, and since I believe that God’s sovereign common grace positively influences all unbelieving researchers, I therefore believe that Christians can use God’s Word and their redeemed reason to assess both pro-trauma research and anti-trauma research.

The Theologically Inconsistency of Co-Belligerent Research 

Historically, the modern nouthetic biblical counseling movement has frequently used co-belligerent research—one-sided research that only supports someone’s preconceived ideas, and that only present a negative assessment of the research of others. Here’s the theological problems:

• Total depravity impacts the anti-trauma researcher just as it impacts the pro-trauma researcher.
• God’s sovereign common grace impacts the pro-trauma researcher just as it impacts the anti-trauma researcher.

See, Biblical Counseling and the “Co-Belligerent” Use of Research.

ATIBC and ACIBC 

Some biblical counselors use the acronyms TIBC and CIBC. For those who are anti-trauma-informed, it seems appropriate that they use the labels:

• ATIBC: Anti-Trauma-Informed Biblical Counselors
• ACIBC: Anti-Clinically-Informed Biblical Counselors

These ATIBC/ACIBC leaders are just as “informed” by secular research as are CIBC/TIBC leaders.

TIBC/CIBC leaders consistently base their theory on God’s all-sufficient Word, and consistently use God’s authoritative Word to assess trauma research.

A Current Example 

Many anti-trauma-informed biblical counselors (ATIBC) cite works by Michael Scheeringa, such as The Body Does Not Keep the Score. I believe it is fair to read his anti-trauma research (I read his writings; I follow him on Twitter/X).

But again, why is his research protected from and exempt from the effects of the fall? Read him. Assess him. And…read and assess pro-trauma researchers. Be informed by both.

Don’t simply be informed by and naively accept co-belligerent anti-trauma research. Instead, assess the secular theoretical foundation of anti-trauma writers like Scheeringa, and take into account their secular training and practice.

Scheeringa’s Secular Psychotherapy Commitment 

In his article in Psychology Today, How Can Psychotherapy Help Me Change?, Scheeringa notes his commitment to “psychotherapy” in his practice. In this same article, he explains the goal of his model:

“Making the unconscious conscious with psychodynamic therapy causes enormous, life-changing benefits across nearly every activity of living.”

Scheeringa further describes the nature of successful psychotherapy:

“The mind is cunning, and it does not give up the unconscious easily. Exploration of the unconscious requires a year of weekly psychotherapy, probably several years, extraordinary commitment for self-change, and strong self-reflective capacities.”

Imagine if a pro-trauma researcher so clearly described the Freudian nature of their psychotherapy model. Imagine how anti-trauma-informed biblical counseling (ATIBC) leaders would negatively respond, declaring that this Freudian psychotherapy foundation and secular ideology prove the research bias of the trauma writer.

Scheeringa’s Secular Education and Training; Secular Psychiatric Practice 

I could not find anything on Scheeringa’s website about any faith perspective. I did find much about his secular education, secular training, secular psychiatry practice, and secular clinical work.

Secular Education/Training: From his website, we learn about Scheeringa’s secular education and training:

• Secular BA
• Secular MD
• Secular Psychiatry Residency
• Secular Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Fellowship
• Secular Training in Infant Psychiatry

Secular Psychiatry Experience: From his website, we learn about Scheeringa’s secular work experience:

• Secular Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry at LSU
• Secular Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, Kennedy Krieger Institute
• Secular Adjunct Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
• Secular Medical Director, The Family Center, Kennedy Krieger Institute
• Secular Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, Tulane University School of Medicine
• Secular Associate Professor with tenure, Psychiatry, Tulane University School of Medicine
• Secular Clinical Associate Professor, Pediatrics, Tulane University School of Medicine
• Secular Professor, Psychiatry, Tulane University School of Medicine
• Secular Remigio Gonzalez, M.D. Professorship of Child Psychiatry, Tulane
• Secular Vice Chair of Research, Psychiatry, Tulane
• Secular Venancio Antonio Wander Garcia IV MD Chair of Psychiatry, Tulane​

Secular Clinical Practice: From his website, we learn about Scheeringa’s secular clinical practice experience:

• Secular Clinical Work at Child Counseling Associates
• Secular Clinical work at the Tulane University Behavioral Health Clinic
• Secular Kid Catch Foundation: A secular non-profit foundation committed to better access to quality secular mental health care for children.

All of this education, psychiatry experience, and clinical practice is fine. I have a secular Ph.D. in Counselor Education (I also have a BA in Bible and Pastoral Ministry, and a Th.M. in Theology and Pastoral Ministry). For four years, I worked in a secular mental health inpatient unit (I also ministered for forty years in church, para-church, and seminary settings). So what’s the point? Here it is, in question form:

Is there anything in Michael Scheeringa’s secular education, secular training, secular psychiatry work, and secular clinical practice that suggests it is better for biblical counselors to based their anti-trauma views on his anti-trauma research, than for other biblical counselors to read and assess the research of pro-trauma researchers?

An Area of Agreement 

I found this quote, prominent on Scheeringa’s site, to be interesting:

“Trauma does cause emotional and behavioral problems in many victims.” 

So, even this anti-trauma researcher argues from his research that trauma is real—with real emotional and behavioral effects on sufferers. Biblically/theologically, I agree with that assessment.

The Bible consistently teaches that traumatic suffering can have lingering effects on the embodied-soul. See: 10 Biblical Trauma Principles for Biblical Counseling: We Experience, Remember, and Respond to Traumatic Suffering as Embodied-Souls.