Christian Integrative Counseling and Biblical Counseling: The Conversation Continues 

Aaron and I have been continuing our conversation about “Christian integrative counseling” and “biblical counseling.” 

The conversation string started from my post 5 Reasons It’s Past Time to End the Stereotypes about Biblical Counseling.  

It then continued with three interactive comments/responses in Christian Integrative Counseling and Biblical Counseling: Continuing the Conversation.  

One person commented that he has appreciated that the interaction between Aaron and I has been “grace and truth” rather than “hammer and nail.” I like that. It is just as important how we speak about counseling (in love) as what we say about counseling (truth). If we can’t discuss counseling by speaking the truth in love/grace, then we shouldn’t be counselors. 

In today’s string of comments/responses, Aaron and I work hard to understand each other and to clarify where there may be continuing misunderstanding. We also both press each other to be specific. I hope you benefit from listening in on our conversations… 

Seeking to Understand and Clarify 

My Response to Aaron’s Third Comment (Repeated from Yesterday’s Post for Context): 

Aaron,

I’ve enjoyed our interaction also. In fact, I’m going to cut and paste them into tomorrow’s blog post as a blog unto itself! I think our interaction can be instructive for others also. 

As you’ve seen an increased valuing of descriptive research in the BC world, I’ve seen an increased valuing of biblical theology/exegesis in the CC world for developing a theory of people, problems, and solutions. 

You ask a good clarifying question about what is the exact role of descriptive research if not to help build a theory of people, problems, and solutions. 

Let me try to illustrate… In my book, “God’s Healing for Life’s Losses,” I outline the “DABDA” model of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance). I would say that is “descriptive research.” Ross and her co-workers studied typical responses to grief and came up with that summary description (that even secular researchers disagree with at times…).

That descriptive research has a catalytic impact on me. I sat back and said, “So, if this is sometimes how people typically tend to respond to grief and loss in a fallen world according to the research, then what does the Bible say about how people could respond to grief and loss through Christ’s healing hope? I then went to the Scripture, literally cover to cover (Genesis to Revelation) to study a biblical “sufferology”—a biblical theology of grief, loss, healing, hope. I developed a biblical understanding of the person in grief, a biblical diagnosis of healthy and unhealthy grieving, and a biblical model of people-helping—how to help people to move biblically through a grief to grace to growth journey. 

So…I valued the descriptive research and said, “If denial is a first stage, what would a biblical response be?” My answer, in part, was “candor and lament.” My answer came from my study of Scripture, not from the descriptive research. 

Good research provides/offers valuable observations about life. It describes what is (though never perfectly). That is helpful to the biblical counselor. However, it cannot provide an authoritative understanding of people, diagnosis of problems, or prescription of cure. 

Again, if you are saying that is what you do, then I would describe you as a biblical counselor in terms of conviction/practice. On the other hand, if you are saying that you not only integrate descriptive research but also the world’s perspective on people, problems, and solutions, then at least to some extent, you would fit into a “category” of a “Christian integrative counselor” by my definition. 

So “the line” that you ask for, in my thinking, in a real brief summary, is not a line related to descriptive research, but a line related to theory-building: people, problems, solutions.

Here’s another illustration—this one from teaching. The program I launched requires 10 classes in Bible, theology, and principles of Bible study. We want to teach our students “how to fish” not just “give them a fish.” We then require 10 courses in biblical counseling—where we model for our students how to use the Scriptures to develop a theory of people, problems, and solutions, and how to speak the truth in love. Compare that to some Christian integrative programs where students spend little time comparatively in the Scriptures and much time comparatively in the secular research. The actual curriculum of a counseling program says a great deal about the convictions of the professors. What are students spending the bulk of their time reading, studying, and learning? Are students being taught how to use the Scriptures to build a biblical approach to people, problems, and solutions? That’s where the “rubber meets the road.” 

Hope that helps a little. 

Bob 

Aaron’s Fourth Comment: 

Yes, that does help. And perhaps the dividing line is just as firm as it ever was. To try and cut to the chase, here’s my understanding of our discussion so far: You seem to be be confirming what I have been teaching about biblical counselors. Namely that at a philosophical level, biblical counselors find zero benefit from using anything not found in Scripture. There is nothing outside of the Scriptures that can or should help a counselor in diagnosing or treating clients. 

So the dividing line is at zero. At the point a counselor acknowledges that someting not derived directly from Scripture could be of benefit in diagnosing and treating, then the person becomes an integrationist. 

That’s a rather pointed comment / observation. But (1) I’m working toward being precise, and (2) I’m up against dinner time with the fam. 

I have one other train of thought to chase down, but that comment will have to wait until later this evening. 

Thanks Bob, 

Aaron 

My Response to Aaron’s Fourth Comment: 

Aaron, 

I know you were being concise, but I’m not sure it is precise, or at least not precisely how I would say it. I would not “own” that summary that you just crafted. I believe that even my quick statements here are much more robust than your summation. That might be like my saying, “So, what you are saying is, the Scriptures are not sufficient for understanding people, problems, and solutions, instead, we need the psychological wisdom of the world in order to help people live well and wisely.” That may be concise, but I don’t think it’s precise. In other words, I would caution that we not make a statement of precise/concise belief out of an off-the-cuff blog comment response. 

As a biblical counselor, I find value in descriptive research and even in proverbial observations like the clustering of symptoms and the labels that go with that. I am open to learning what treatment interventions seem to be more beneficial in at least addressing symptoms. I believe in common grace. I understand the “catalytic” value of being well-read and well-versed. However, none of that can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices. 

Here’s how the Biblical Counseling Coalition worded it in a 375-word summary (still quite a lot more to say) about Scripture and Counseling: 

We believe that God’s Word is authoritative, sufficient, and relevant (Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 4:4; Hebrews 4:12-13). The inspired and inerrant Scriptures, rightly interpreted and carefully applied, offer us God’s comprehensive wisdom. We learn to understand who God is, who we are, the problems we face, how people change, and God’s provision for that change in the Gospel (John 8:31-32; 10:10; 17:17). No other source of knowledge thoroughly equips us to counsel in ways that transform the human heart (Psalm 19:7-14; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3). Other systems of counseling aim for other goals and assume a different dynamic of change. The wisdom given by God in His Word is distinctive and robust. He comprehensively addresses the sin and suffering of all people in all situations. Wise counseling is an insightful application of God’s all-embracing truth to our complex lives (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Philippians 1:9-11). It does not merely collect proof-texts from the Bible. Wise counseling requires ongoing practical theological labor in order to understand Scripture, people, and situations (2 Timothy 2:15). We must continually develop our personal character, case-wise understanding of people, and pastoral skills (Romans 15:14; Colossians 1:28-29). When we say that Scripture is comprehensive in wisdom, we mean that the Bible makes sense of all things, not that it contains all the information people could ever know about all topics. God’s common grace brings many good things to human life. However, common grace cannot save us from our struggles with sin or from the troubles that beset us. Common grace cannot sanctify or cure the soul of all that ails the human condition. We affirm that numerous sources (such as scientific research, organized observations about human behavior, those we counsel, reflection on our own life experience, literature, film, and history) can contribute to our knowledge of people, and many sources can contribute some relief for the troubles of life. However, none can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices. When systems of thought and practice claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition, they compete with Christ (Colossians 2:1-15). Scripture alone teaches a perspective and way of looking at life by which we can think biblically about and critically evaluate information and actions from any source (Colossians 2:2-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). 

As a Coalition, two dozen of us are now working on a new book on “Scripture and Counseling: God’s Word for Life in a Broken World.” This will be a comprehensive, yet still not exhaustive, statement of a biblical counseling perspective on the sufficiency/necessity/authority/profundity of Scripture. 

I would state the bottom line much more practically: where does a counselor spend his time in building an approach to people, problems, and solutions? 

I’m going to spend exhaustive time in God’s Word, cover to cover, seeking to understand, for example, anxiety—a people, problem, solution Creation/Fall/Redemption biblical approach. I’ll look at other research. I’ll stay current, but my focus is on understanding how the gospel narrative of redemption provides wisdom for living in our broken world. If a person does that and seeks to relate the gospel, in all its fullness, to life, in a loving, compassionate, wise way, then I would call that biblical counseling. 

If, instead, the counselor spends large percentages of his time in secular thinking/philosophy/psychology about people (who we are), problems (what went wrong), and solutions (how heart change happens), and spends some lesser, more limited, less robust time in seeking to understand a spiritual/practical theology of the issue, then I would not call that a “biblical counseling” model/approach. 

I have a few of questions for you, ones that I think would be good for any Christian integrative counselor to think through and respond to. 

1. You provided your one-sentence summary of what you heard me saying about my approach (that I said I would not say that way). What would be your one-sentence summary of your approach to understanding people, problems, and solutions? 

2. When you are teaching a Christian counseling class, let’s say on anxiety, where do you focus your study/preparation for the class? How do you equip your students to understand and help the person struggling with anxiety—where do you focus their study/preparation? What role does Scripture have in the class? 

3. When you are facing a new counseling issue for you, let’s say, OCD. Where do you focus your study/preparation to understand this issue and the person struggling with/against it? What role does Scripture play in your seeking to understand the person/issue/problem/solution? 

4. With that new counseling issue, what role does Scripture play in shaping how you interact with the person? What role does Scripture play in your actual interactions? How do you apply a scriptural understanding of people, problems (the OCD issue), and solutions in the counseling sessions? 

5. If you could not find any secular writings on OCD, would the Scriptures “be enough” for you to develop a comprehensive, compassionate approach to helping this person? 

Feel free not to answer, as I’m sure this interaction already turned into more than either of us originally assumed. They can be rhetorical questions for further thought. I do think that a counselor’s foundational approach to counseling is shown in answering these four questions. 

Okay…time to check on how my team is doing in our family fantasy baseball league! 

Bob 

Join the Conversation 

What would be your one-sentence summary of your approach to understanding people, problems, and solutions? 

What sources do you turn to in developing your understanding of people, diagnosis of problems, and prescription of solutions? 

RPM Ministries: Equipping You to Change Lives with Christ’s Changeless Truth