Category: Professional issues

Biblical Counseling v. Christian Psychology: A Biblical Counselor Responds to a Case of School Refusal

photo-1437603568260-1950d3ca6eab_opt
Last week I posted the case of a young child with school refusal. I treated the child without relapse and wondered how a biblical counselor would conceptualize the case. I was especially interested in how Health Lambert would respond, because Lambert recently wrote a document titled Ninety-Five Theses for an Authentically Christian Commitment to Counseling. Lambert is the executive director of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors and promotes biblical counseling which is to say counseling that relies on solely on the Bible for the answers to the problems addressed in counseling.
To date, Lambert has not replied to my requests. Instead, I am happy to include the case conceptualization of Tim Allchin, a biblical counselor in Chicago who runs a ACBC approved training site. Tim’s response to the case came from his comment on the original post.

Biblical Counseling v. Christian Psychology: The Series

The question in the original post has now grown into a series. My plan is to present the original case again here along with Tim’s comments. I will make some brief comments.  Then I plan to present a conceptualization by a Columbus, OH Christian psychologist A.J. McConnell on Tuesday. I will also comment on A.J. contribution. Then on Wednesday, I will provide the rest of the story. I will describe how the case turned out and raise some questions about the Ninety-Five Theses. On Thursday, I will wrap up the series.

A Case of School Refusal

Last week, I wrote about the following case:

A mother and her second grade son attended the first session together. The father was at work. A meeting with them revealed that the youngster was afraid to remain in his school classroom. The boy attended a local public school and had never been afraid to go to school before. However, within the first month of school, his pattern was to enter school and remain in his classroom. After just a few minutes, he bolted from the room to the school office seemingly in terror and asked for his parents. This had been going on for about a month nearly every day. He remained in school on days his class attended field trips or out of class activities (e.g., library days). The parents had tried alternating morning rides to school and his father had carried him back into the classroom on multiple occasions only to have the same result. He bolted from the class looking for his parents.
On examination, the boy had male typical interests, played rough and tumble sports, was tall for his age, and was socially popular. He had never displayed separation anxiety beyond the norm prior to this year. In all respects except the fear of remaining in his classroom, the boy and his family (one older female sibling) seemed entirely normal and unremarkable from a mental health standpoint. The parents were leaders in their Christian church and the boy happily attended Sunday School and had professed a belief in Jesus as his Savior.

I sent a link to the post to the executive director of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors Heath Lambert via Twitter with hopes that he might respond in keeping with his Ninety-Five Theses. Dr. Lambert did not reply but biblical counselor Tim Allchin did via the comments section of the post. I appreciate the care he put into his answer and I have reproduced it below.

Tim Allchin
I serve at the director of the Biblical Counseling Center in the Chicago area which is an ACBC certified training center. We have nearly 200,000 hours of counseling experience on our counseling team. However, I don’t speak for Heath Lambert or ACBC officially so this is some of my thoughts. I also speak as a father of adopted children and often hearing the stories of other adopted children in families that are part of our lives. I remember the separation anxiety in my own children upon returning to regular work after we completed adoption and having to work through this with them. I know as a parent this is heart-wrenching at times. As a biblical counselor, I have often worked with children through anxiety, (some with similar circumstances to the case study), and recognize the complexity of human experience in a fallen world. I am firmly committed to the idea there is no better anchor than Christ that an anxious soul can cling to for comfort, peace and relief. Additionally, there is no more reliable guide to the human experience than the scriptures.
My general approach:
In this case, we have physical, emotional, habitual patterns that all interact with the spiritual life of the child and the parent. My starting point would be to gather data on all of these areas from both the child, school teacher and the parent. The child’s fear is a mixture of thoughts, actions and desires that need to fleshed out to understand what possibly triggers this type of response. My working assumption would be that some sort of traumatic experience is likely the genesis of this behavior. I would want the child and parent to know that even a child’s beliefs determine actions, resulting in feelings that either escalate or calm. We need to work from both the outside-in and eventually from the inside-out.
A couple other points I would make clear:
1. We would look at good science to determine and evaluate exercise, rest, nutrition. Additionally, we believe that a life of consistent structure and spiritual encouragement patterns help children and adults thrive. Additionally, a biblical counselor would not oppose all medication in a case like this but it wouldn’t be our first, or likely even second recommendation. We would seek to make progress in thought patterns and structural changes before medicine.
2. We would work with parents to seek to help the child put simply actions steps into place on a consistent basis.
3. Relationship with a child is key to the counseling process. Things like art, music and play are bridges into a child’s world and we would likely use them to build trust.
4. Biblical Counselors have written no less than 10 books on fear and anxiety over the past decade. We would do research into the observations of others who have worked with people over several decades now that biblical counseling has been practiced faithfully in the North American church context. A faithful biblical counselor doesn’t wing it, he studies what God has to say and how others have faithfully ministered the word to those in these contexts. In our own center, we have counseled 1000’s of hours with kids and 10,000’s of hours with the issue of anxiety and panic attacks. Those who paint all biblical counselors as amateurs likely haven’t ever talked to a serious student of biblical counseling. Perhaps I’m too defensive here, but I often see that mindset in threads in these types of articles.
Below would be a bit of the process that I would think through:
First a biblical counselor would seek to gather data:
I would seek to help them identify emotions, behaviors, habits, beliefs, and heart motivations.
What do they desire most of all? (3 Wishes/Changes Game)
What is NOT said? (Avoiding talk of certain people or topics)
HOW is something said? (Tone, emotions)
Data gathering with kids questions or open-ended sentences
Second, a biblical counselors seeks to determine Action Steps that help a child function in a way that pleases God:
Particularly with boys, we would seek to have a physical redirect when anxiety takes over. I have assigned things like stress balls, legos, physical exercise (jumping jacks, push-ups etc.), appropriate yard work/cleaning projects. Second, I have them select one verse about how God cares for them in difficulty and write it on a card and place it in their pocket and seek to have them review to redirect their mind from anxiety to truth. Third, I let them know that the adults around them are going to help them when those anxious moments come, not be critical of them. We want to help them grow. Fourth, I will have do a simple journal so they can learn to articulate what they were thinking. I often remind parents that the debrief after a difficult moment is the most important time to reach the heart of a child.
Additionally, I am going to have conversations about the following with a christian family is being counseled:
What does the Bible say he needs to “put off” regarding fearful behaviors that lead to disobedience? (Repentance)
What does the Bible say he needs to “put on” to better love God and neighbor as self? (Replacement)
What is the child’s response to things out of his control?
What changes are eventually able to be brought under Holy Spirit and self-control? (Heart attitudes, thoughts and
actions)
What developmental assets does a child have that could support them through this struggle?
I want to determine if any of these are triggers for their anxiety: Because all biblical stories point back to Christ, I want to demonstrate examples of others in scripture who struggle with anxiety and how they found hope in the promises of God. Possible triggers are (not all of these are really plausible in the case study you laid out but they could be in others):

  • False concept/doctrine— “God has abandoned me.” “I’m all alone”- Elijah “Everybody hates me.”
    “I can’t…”
    • Reaction to an event — death, abuse, loss, disappointment, expectations unfulfilled
    • Guilt — run and hide like Adam & Eve. Pr 28:1; fear of punishment. Ps 51
    • Comments from others — accept others’ view of me-fat, ugly, stupid; “You’re no good/worthless/destined to fail.”
    • Change of health — actual diagnosis or fear of diagnosis
    • Change in a relationship — a wrong relationship caused anxiety; divorce; separation. Php 4:1-4
    • Feeling out of control — Failure to focus on God’s sovereign control in the midst of my chaos. Ps 55:22
    • Stress/tiredness/illness — Elijah – 1Ki 19; David. Ps 42:5,11; 46; 49:15
    • Lose of temporal security — job, spouse. Ps 48:14; 50:15; 60:11-12
    • A thought — Fear of man – Ps 56:3,4; Fear of lost salvation Ps 51:12; 74:12; Fear of circumstances. Ps 62:5-8

I welcome interactions, critique, push-back and challenge and will seek to learn from others as I read.

Some of what Allchin offers here is very consistent with what many professional counselors do. Of course, the emphasis on biblical thinking and repentance as a part of a cure is not.
I can’t speak for Mr. Allchin, but I imagine he will read any comments left for him. Please make them constructive and polite. Tomorrow, Christian psychologist A.J. McConnell will provide his conceptualization of this case.
To read all posts in this series, click here.

How Would a Biblical Counselor Handle This Case?

photo-1473508476344-269a87b502ee_optOn Monday, I wrote about the conflict between adherents of biblical counseling and Christian psychology. Biblical counseling denies the role of psychology in counseling while Christian psychology (as proposed by former Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Eric Johnson) uses the research and insights of psychologists to enhance counseling.
In the recent post, I mentioned a document titled 95 Theses for an Authentically Christian Commitment to Counseling. The document was written by Heath Lambert, a SBTS professor and executive director of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors. Lambert said that the theses were written to stimulate debate. This post and future posts on the topic are written as a response to the theses.
I want to start by discussing the following statements and present a case study. I intend to send this post to Dr. Lambert and will post any response he sends.

The Nature of Counseling and the Content of Scripture
6. When people experience difficulties as they live in a fallen world, they require wisdom about life to help them face these problems (Prov 19:20).
7. The wisdom to confront life’s difficulties is most often communicated in conversations our culture refers to as counseling.
8. The issues of concern in counseling pertain to problems people face as they relate the difficulties in their life to the faith and practice described in Scripture.
9. Because counseling problems concern the very same issues that God writes about in his Word, it is essential to have a conversation about the contents of the Bible to solve counseling problems.
10. The subject matter of counseling conversations is the wisdom needed to deal with life’s problems, and so counseling is not a discipline that is fundamentally informed by science, but by the teaching found in God’s Word.
11. When the Bible claims to address all the issues concerning life and godliness, it declares itself to be a sufficient and an authoritative resource to address everything essential for counseling conversations (2 Pet 1:3-4).
12. Christians must not separate the authority of Scripture for counseling from the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling because, if Scripture is to be a relevant authority, then it must be sufficient for the struggles people face as they live life in a fallen world (2 Pet 1:3-21).
13. The authority and sufficiency of Scripture for counseling means that counselors must counsel out of the conviction that the theological content of Scripture defines and directs the conversational content of counseling.
14. The Bible teaches that the person and work of Jesus Christ provide God’s sufficient power to solve every problem of humanity so, according to Scripture, he is the ultimate subject of every counseling conversation (Col 2:2-3).

According to the statements above, a Christian approach to counseling should address life’s difficulties, and involve the Bible and Jesus Christ alone as the solutions to all problems. At the outset, we might have a disagreement about the proper subject matter for counseling. I accept the reality of mental and emotional disorders and believe that counseling conversations may also involve techniques and information which do not come directly from the Bible. But I am getting ahead of myself. Let me first present the case (some identifying details have been changed).

A mother and her second grade son attended the first session together. The father was at work. A meeting with them revealed that the youngster was afraid to remain in his school classroom. The boy attended a local public school and had never been afraid to go to school before. However, within the first month of school, his pattern was to enter school and remain in his classroom. After just a few minutes, he bolted from the room to the school office seemingly in terror and asked for his parents. This had been going on for about a month nearly every day. He remained in school on days his class attended field trips or out of class activities (e.g., library days). The parents had tried alternating morning rides to school and his father had carried him back into the classroom on multiple occasions only to have the same result. He bolted from the class looking for his parents.
On examination, the boy had male typical interests, played rough and tumble sports, was tall for his age, and was socially popular. He had never displayed separation anxiety beyond the norm prior to this year. In all respects except the fear of remaining in his classroom, the boy and his family (one older female sibling) seemed entirely normal and unremarkable from a mental health standpoint. The parents were leaders in their Christian church and the boy happily attended Sunday School and had professed a belief in Jesus as his Savior.

I realize this puts any respondent at a disadvantage. I have the details and know how the case turned out. However, I am curious to know if this kind of situation would be taken on by a biblical counselor. Given the statements concerning the sufficiency of the Bible to handle all problems, I wonder how a biblical counselor would begin and what kind of interventions would be considered.
If I don’t hear from ACBC, then I will give my best guess about how a biblical counselor would respond based on the 95 theses, and then explain how I responded, and why I think this case is relevant to the discussion about biblical counseling and Christians in psychology.
To read all posts in this series, click here.

The Nashville Statement and Same-Sex Attraction

Nashville logoDespite many critical reactions, the Nashville Statement continues to attract signers. The creators of the statement hoped to draw a line in the church sand and they apparently have succeeded.
The statement is divisive regarding the moral status of homosexual acts and desire. It isn’t surprising for the signers to consider same-sex sexual behavior to be sinful. This was already widely known. However, the statement draws a more controversial line when it declares same-sex attraction to be sinful even if never acted upon and asserts that same-sex attraction can be eliminated by following Jesus.
Article 12 of the statement says:

WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord.
WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin.

When I first read this, it sounded like a condemnation of both same-sex attraction and behavior. It also seems like the authors and signers believe same-sex attraction can be “put to death” or eradicated. Although reparative therapy is nowhere referenced in this statement, this sounds like the authors expect same-sex attracted people to be able to kill their attractions by religious means.
The statement was authored by the Committee for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Writing for CBMW, Denny Burk confirmed my reading of the statement. About Article 12, he said:

The Nashville Statement leaves no room for such revisions nor does it leave ambiguity on the question. But we are not merely reasserting what the Bible says about the moral status of homosexuality. We are also saying that the gospel of Jesus of Christ offers hope for those laboring under the power of this particular temptation:

Elsewhere, Burk has been even more clear that same-sex attraction is inherently sinful. In his article, Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?

When a person feels themselves experiencing an attraction or a desire toward a person of the same sex, what is their responsibility before God at that point? Is a desire for sexual activity with a person of the same sex a morally benign desire? In the terms that Jesus teaches us, it is always sinful to desire something that God forbids. And the very experience of the desire becomes an occasion for repentance. And it is pastoral malpractice to tell someone who is feeling a sexual attraction for a person of the same sex that they need not repent. In the moment they feel their sexual desire aroused in such a way—in that moment—they must confess the desire as sinful and turn from it. (p. 108)

Burk answers his article’s question in the affirmative.

So how do we answer the question, “Is same-sex orientation sinful?” Insofar as same-sex orientation designates the experience of sexual desire for a person of the same-sex, yes, it is sinful. Insofar as same-sex orientation indicates emotional/romantic attractions that brim with erotic possibility, yes, those attractions too are sinful. Insofar as sexual orientation designates an identity, yes, that identity too is a sinful fiction that contradicts God’s purposes for his creation. (p. 114)

What’s the Problem Here?

Whether one affirms same-sex orientation or not, Article 12 is problematic on empirical grounds. First, efforts to eliminate same-sex desires, religious or not, haven’t been effective. Burk wrote in his blog post that the Nashville Statement “offers hope” for same-sex attracted people. Based on nearly 20 years of research and clinical experience with GLB people, I believe the statement offers false hope based on wishful thinking. It is the rare person who credibly reports that their same-sex attractions are “put to death.” This experience, if it can be believed at all, is the infrequent exception rather than the rule. The Nashville Statement promises much more than is true for the majority of Christians I’ve encountered who have tried to follow these teachings. For many, the result is discouragement, depression, suicidal wishes, and a rejection of the faith. There is no reason to sugarcoat this. It is a denial of reality to do so.
Burk offers consistent doctrinal reasons for his position on orientation when he says that it is “sinful to desire something that God forbids.” However, I question his analysis of the meaning of desire. In fact, I question whether or not we can know for sure what Jesus had in view when he taught that a married man who lusts for another woman has committed adultery. I am not certain that we can judge the modern concept of sexual orientation by this illustration. Was Jesus teaching about sexual orientation or was he teaching about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Mt. 5:20) and the continuity of the moral law? I doubt Burk will take the rest of this teaching in Matthew 5:29-30 just as literally as he does verse 28.

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (emphasis added)

If Jesus is speaking literally, then why doesn’t the Nashville Statement affirm elective organ and limb donation as the appropriate pastoral response to illicit sexual desire?
None of the signers would sign up for such pastoral advice. However, they have agreed with a pastoral response which offers false hope and not much else. So no matter what one believes about the morality of same-sex sexual acts, the Nashville Statement affirms a view of sexual orientation and change that has been discredited and encourages pastors to mislead their same-sex attracted congregants. Along with other problems, this is reason enough to reject the Nashville Statement.
If people want to sign a statement, perhaps they could consider this one.

Biblical Counseling v. Christian Psychology at SBTS (UPDATED with Apology from Heath Lambert)

UPDATE: Heath Lambert issued a statement in response to the controversy over Eric Johnson, SBTS, and the conflict between biblical counseling and Christian psychology.

In sum, Lambert denies any pressure on SBTS to get Johnson fired. He does acknowledge that he spoke unkindly about Johnson in the video which is embedded in the original post below. Finally, Lambert continues to believe his view of Christian counseling is superior to Dr. Johnson’s.

The petition remains unchanged. Lambert contradicts the petition on the point about Johnson’s departure from SBTS. I think the ball is now in the hands of the petition writer to respond.

I am working on my response to Lambert’s 95 Theses.

(Original Post)

For as long as I can remember, there has been conflict between psychologists and theologians. Representing different ways of approaching knowledge, religion depends on revelation and scientifically informed psychology depends on research. For me as a psychology professor at a Christian college, the tension is just another day at work.

One way that tension shows up is in the practice and teaching of counseling. Some counselors insist that the Bible is all that should be used in counseling whereas other Christians believe that psychological research should inform selection of techniques. A skirmish in that conflict appears to be taking place at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

According to a petition gathering steam, Christian psychologist Eric Johnson was fired from his position as a professor at SBTS (see also this Twitter thread). The petition claims that Johnson was on the wrong side of an ideological dispute with Heath Lambert, executive director of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors. The petition begins:

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, under the leadership of Dr. Albert Mohler, has decided to fire Dr. Eric Johnson after 17 years of ministry in Christian scholarship and soul-care. His termination was not due to differing Christian beliefs or failed morality but rather due to pressure from an outside organization, the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC), and its leader, Heath Lambert.

The petition is anonymous but I have gotten confirmation of some details from sources in a position to know. Although president of the seminary Albert Mohler has not yet responded to an inquiry, Johnson confirmed without explanation that he won’t be teaching at SBTS after this semester. It is also true that Lambert has had very negative things to say about Johnson’s work. For those who want all the inside baseball, watch this video of Lambert blasting Johnson’s work and theology.


My primary interest in this matter isn’t about a personnel matter at the seminary. Those details will probably remain private. Rather, I want to focus on the conflict between so-called biblical counselors and Christian psychology. While I don’t know what Mr. Lambert’s role was in Johnson’s situation, it does seem clear that Lambert sees himself as a reformer of counseling conducted by Christians.

In the spirit of the Reformation, Lambert recently released “95 Theses for an Authentically Christian Commitment to Counseling.” In this document, Lambert offers a challenge to “secular therapy” for the “purpose of debate.”

I plan to take Lambert up on his offer. While I agree with Lambert that the topic is timely and important, I disagree with his general approach. In future posts, I will outline why I believe that his key claims are incorrect and if followed to the letter could be harmful.

In the mean time, I wish Dr. Johnson well and hope that he finds a suitable location for his work.

To read all posts in this series, click here.

A Real Life Reason to Reject the Nashville Statement

Nashville logoLast week I wrote some reactions to the Nashville Statement on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The statement was written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and has been the focus of much controversy since it was released a week ago.  I thought the statement missed the mark in several ways, but the one I want to highlight with this follow up post is the Nashville Statement’s claim about disorders of sex development.
After my post on the Nashville Statement came out, I received the following email from Lianne Simon. Lianne is an intersex individual who tells her story on her website and also accompanies Dr. Megan DeFranza (PhD, theology, Marquette University) on speaking engagements regarding intersex conditions and theology. They manage the website intersexandfaith.org. Simon gave me permission to use her email:

In your Patheos post you said, “Practically, the Nashville signers don’t give us a clue how people Jesus referred to here can “embrace their biological sex.”
I think their intention is fairly clear. Sex is strictly binary to the signatories. Gender identity is entirely ‘adopted’ rather than rooted in biology. Therefore, intersex people must have a biological sex (i.e. male or female) that is confused or obscured by their disorder. So. the statement
“…and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.”
means that intersex people should embrace the sex assigned them by doctors and accept the medical treatment involved.
This is the way I, as a Christian intersex person, understand their position. As do my intersex friends.
We are castrated by doctors, undergo cosmetic sex assignment surgeries without our consent, are given hormones, lied to, have secrets kept from us, and made to live in shame–all in the name of their bloody binary view of sex.
That’s what their statement means to us.
They not only approve, they’re demanding that we embrace the evil that’s being done to us.
And if we object to the binary sex forced upon us, then we’re rejecting God’s plan and departing from the faith.
Kind regards,
Lianne Simon
www.intersexandfaith.org
www.liannesimon.com

Simon’s story is fascinating and well worth reading. She wrote a detailed response to the Nashville Statement at her website. She provides a human face to the topics covered in the Nashville Statement. I hope the signers will reconsider their pronouncements about disorders of sex development in light of Lianne’s life.
The part of the Nashville Statement Lianne referred to is below:

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.
WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Lianne’s story provides a real life foundation for my criticism that the guidance offered by the Nashville Statement is uninformed and inadequate. She concludes her blog post with this:

I’m grateful that the Nashville Statement says that we who are intersex are “created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers.” But I’m troubled that this affirmation appears to require us to give up our bodily integrity and embrace some doctor’s guess at what sex God meant us to be.
Understand this—your Nashville Statement drives intersex people away from the Gospel.

The real world of sexuality is not as neat and clean as portrayed by the signers of the Nashville Statement. I hope Lianne’s story provides a caution to those who marginalize those who have been dealt a hand they didn’t ask for.