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. Many have publicly shared robust descriptions of what they mean by “clinically-informed.” 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 model they follow.
I also respect my CIBC friends enough to encourage them to be sure that the “biblical” in their “BC” remains authoritative. See, Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling: 3 Reflections and 2 Recommendations.
#2: There Are a Lot of Labels
To continue...read the full-length post originally published on this site.
