What Is Happening in the Biblical Counseling Movement?

This is a really interesting read. I hadn’t been paying attention to goings on within the BC movement, but it is not surprising that there is conflict. It was founded on conflict, and has always suffered from significant internal-consistency problems in its arguments.

The author pretty much blames the divisiveness in BC on its becoming ‘fundamentalist’ about BC affiliations rather than actual points of disagreement. Which about sums up the whole thought landscape (if it can be called that) everywhere the last decade. I would call it tribalism, not fundamentalism.

A sample…

The Association of Certified Biblical Counselors continues to marginalize and push out dissident voices to reflect the homogeneous ethos, temperament, and theological convictions of independent Baptists, dispensationalists, and Bible church leaders, as evidenced by the signatories of The Sufficiency Statement.⁴¹ The Association of Biblical Counselors (ABC), the Biblical Counseling Coalition, and the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF) are continuing to resource and support successful biblical counseling ministries among a broader evangelical audience.

The root of the conflict over the name “biblical counseling” and questions of identity, boundaries, and gatekeeping is the fundamentalist impulse to practice “second degree” separation. Many separatist-type biblical counselors are quite content to operate within their ministry silos. But for some, something still eats at them. They are unable to practice separation with a clean conscience if those identified as theologically “liberal” still call themselves “biblical counselors.” The Biblical Counseling Coalition represents the exact thing they cannot tolerate—cooperation and fellowship with “compromisers.”

What is the solution? They (evangelical biblical counselors) are not real biblical counselors. They are an infection, a zombie-virus.⁴² They are not historic biblical counselors.

So… humans continue to act like humans and demonstrate their need for growth in sanctification.

I would certainly like to see the debate become propositional again rather than identity-based. As long as people are focused what looks like what and sounds like what (all in reference to identities) rather what is true and what is not true, nothing will be solved.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that people on one side (such as Heath Lambert) continue to make very bombastic (and frankly silly) statements that don’t interact with substance. To compare trauma informed biblical counseling to mistress informed marriage was completely out of line, and I don’t think it is that uncommon. After the debate at the Rice Lectures, Lambert put out videos that did the same sort of things. Hopefully someone in that movement has the spirit of Adams (or at least the misconception of the spirit of Adams) to call him out on that nonsense. While my sympathies lie towards the position of ACBC, the rhetoric of some is shameful and should be repudiated and repented of.

This is a confusing fight. I don't really know what is at the core of the fight. What fundamentals are they fighting over? It seems to me to be more about what is "pure" biblical counseling and fighting against those who seek to change or influence it. I am not seeing anywhere where either group is deviating from the core doctrines of scripture. This seems to be more around practice and application. I know people on both sides of the fence. Pastor Heath is my pastor and I currently meet with a clinically informed biblical counselor. Both are pastors. Both hold to the fundamentals of the faith, both hold to the sufficiency of Scripture. I don't see the clinically informed counselors really pushing the fight, they are just seeking to practice and mold some science with counseling. I think we would all agree that there is a physical component of our struggles, especially with the mind, and there are biblical components of our struggles. Scripture even teaches this clearly. Just like there is with a cancer patient. One group seeks to use some clinically informed practices when it comes to things like trauma which have a strong physical component to it, along with Scripture, while the other group says, Scripture is sufficient and you don't need to inject clinical components into it. As someone who suffers from things like PTSD, I can say very confidently that the biblical counselors don't really understand things like PTSD and gloss it over with untrue statements about the condition and just fall back into "you need to control your mind", which is totally not how it works at all. And so I think people are just talking past each other in this argument.

Larry wrote: people on one side (such as Heath Lambert) continue to make very bombastic (and frankly silly) statements that don’t interact with substance.

Not usually a sign that someone has the truth on their side.

dgszweda wrote: This is a confusing fight. I don’t really know what is at the core of the fight. What fundamentals are they fighting over? It seems to me to be more about what is “pure” biblical counseling and fighting against those who seek to change or influence it. I am not seeing anywhere where either group is deviating from the core doctrines of scripture.

It is partly doctrinal and a lot ‘other.’ The doctrinal piece seems to me to be mostly about sufficiency of Scripture vs. general revelation and the relationship between the two. So, bibliology and epistemology. But there is another doctrinal piece not unrelated to the first: how do humans, and believers in particular, change? So, sanctification (soteriology) and anthropology.

But it ought to be possible to get along on the doctrinal points because there is genuine ambiguity as to where the boundaries lie between special revelation and general revelation. I don’t even like the word ‘boundaries,’ myself, because truth doesn’t work that way. It is unified because of its relationship to God (1 John 5:6, Ps 31:5). There has also long been a lot of secondary doctrinal differences in how sanctification works for those who believe—sometimes without people/groups treating each other as heretics.

Because we live in/with physical bodies in a physical world, it should also be clear that sanctification is going to involve some kind of interface between internal matters of the spirit/mind/heart and “nonspiritual” matters of the body and the material world. And do we have chapter and verse on exactly what that handshake looks like in every situation? We do not. So a great deal of the territory of counseling and mental health and discipleship and teaching is applicational. It involves taking Scripture to situations/realities not specifically/directly addressed there and using wisdom and judgment and so on to identify what constitutes obedience.

There is no escaping transitions from Scripture to not-Scripture in the work of counseling. The implications of that really shouldn’t be so controversial.

(To put it another way: There is always “integration” between Scripture and general revelation. Always. It is not a question of to integrate or not to integrate. It’s a question integrating well or integrating poorly.)

"(To put it another way: There is always “integration” between Scripture and general revelation. Always. It is not a question of to integrate or not to integrate. It’s a question integrating well or integrating poorly.)"

So what are the Biblical Counselors saying the clinically informed Biblical Counselors are not integrating well? What specific examples do they provide? I can't seem to find much.

I see things like addressing trauma through clinical approaches diminishes diagnosing sin and addressing the heart. The challenge I have is that trauma is often not sin. I find that Biblical counseling simplifies everything to sin. I don't understand how we can look at cancer and say that needs to be addressed with medicine, but someone with PTSD needs to only be addressed through Scripture and controlling their thoughts.

dgszweda wrote: So what are the Biblical Counselors saying the clinically informed Biblical Counselors are not integrating well? What specific examples do they provide? I can’t seem to find much.

I don’t think I can respond adequately to that. There have been varying degrees of thoughtfulness. I stopped reading on that a couple decades ago, though, mostly. Back when I did read the BC criticisms on that topic, they were mostly generalities. Saying this or that was “integration” was supposed to end the argument, as was waving the “sufficiency of Scripture” flag.

Maybe there are stronger arguments now. I am not up to date.

It seems like a healthier place for the debate to go is to look at what the boundaries of the Sufficiency of Scripture are, and why they are where they are. We all know you can’t look up a verse to find out how to fix your Achilles tendinopathy. So there is a boundary there. Why, and what are the implications for other fields of study and ways of helping people?

Sufficiency is upstream of integration, it seems to me. Work through that and you are are in a better place to navigate how disciplines and studies from general revelation relate to Scripture—how they integrate.

I see things like addressing trauma through clinical approaches diminishes diagnosing sin and addressing the heart. The challenge I have is that trauma is often not sin. I find that Biblical counseling simplifies everything to sin. I don't understand how we can look at cancer and say that needs to be addressed with medicine, but someone with PTSD needs to only be addressed through Scripture and controlling their thoughts.

I do not think we should view PTSD as sin, but we should be aware that how we react to PTSD has the potential to be sinful. For example, it is not sin to have cancer nor to take chemo and to feel sick from the chemo. While feeling sick from the chemo, we may me more susceptible to a short fuse. That however does not excuse us lashing out at those around us simply because the chemo is making us feel sick. The same can be said about PTSD, ADHD, or a whole list of other conditions.

It is also true that when we know someone is on chemo therapy, we tend to show extra grace toward them. In a similar way, we can show grace toward those with PTSD and ADHD once we understand the challenges they are facing. The reality, however, is that every one of us has our own set of "baggage" and reasons for struggling with sins that so easily beset us. That is why it is so important to show grace to others who are striving to avoid sin while sometimes struggling to overcome it. We should be able to show love and grace and to come along side without excusing sin.

It should also be noted that PTSD, ADHD, etc do not automatically lead to sin, and we should distinguish between labeling the struggles as sin vs the ungodly reactions to those struggles which are sinful. The problems come on the extremes when the condition is called sin or when the condition is used to excuse sin.

I am feeling more and more inclined to try to simplify rather than complicate these issues. There is so much we cannot know about another's internal struggle. I feel there is often too much time spent trying to get into someone else's head instead of just addressing what is right and wrong in our reactions regardless of what is going on inside someone else's head, heart, or lymph nodes. Having said that, if there is medical help, we should strive to love each other enough to try to help each other get that help. That is part of the grace of coming alongside and being there through the struggle while also holding each other accountable through the struggle. Often knowing we are not alone is some of the best therapy we can get.