Dale Johnson: This week on the podcast, I have with me Marshall Adkins. He serves as an assistant professor of biblical counseling at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri. He’s also an ACBC certified counselor. He’s married to Rachel, and they have three children. Marshall, it’s such a pleasure to have you with me here at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. It’s good to get to have you here on the podcast today, brother.
Marshall Adkins: Thanks, Dale. It’s great to be here. Thanks for having me on.
Dale Johnson: Now, we’re going to talk today about integration, and we’re going to talk about it in a very particular way. Most people, when they hear integration, sort of think one monolithic style, but that’s actually a faulty way of thinking about integration. Whether we’re talking about the secular world or we’re talking about the Christian attempt to do integration, there are lots of different types and styles. I would say that it’s on a spectrum of distinctions and differences in the ways in which integrationists approach knowledge, information, technique, methodology and so on. So, I want to start by acknowledging that what we’re talking about is on a spectrum. I think we’re going to clarify that as we work through this. And let’s start by just asking, What is Christian integration? How is that different from Biblical Counseling in the way that we think about that?
Marshall Adkins: The first thing—maybe we could step back and see is that integration is not only being done by Christians. So oftentimes, you know, we’re thinking about and talking about Christian integration as biblical counselors and engaging with Christian integration. But integration is a broader project than that in the secular field because, in the search for a single theory or school of thought—whether it’s a personality theory or a theory of abnormal psychology or a psychotherapy—there really is not a consensus that can be found in the secular literature. There’s not really an expectation that a consensus will be found. There’s not an optimism around finding that single unifying theory. And so, what this has left this secularist with is eclecticism and the secular project of integration. Which is, you know, there are lots of ways that they go at it. Maybe we’ll talk a little bit about some of those ways as we move on here. But there are ways that even secular schools go about the integrative project. Now getting more specific with Christian integration. Again, as you mentioned, it’s brought it’s a spectrum, but maybe a fair way to describe Christian integration is just by representing them this way: They are seeking to say that the Bible is authoritative, the Bible is important, but the Bible doesn’t contain everything that we need to develop a counseling model and a counseling methodology, and to clarify the goals of counseling. Instead, they would see that the modern psychologies also provide an important and necessary, even essential, contribution to counseling. So, most in the Christian integration, most are professing Christians, of course. And we don’t doubt that for a minute the sincerity of their profession of faith. But they are not coming at this thinking that the Bible is sufficient, that the Bible contains a comprehensive counseling model. Instead, they would see these two sources of information: you have Christianity on the one hand, and you have the modern psychologies on the other. And we have to have both of these in some meaningful way to develop a model of soul care.
Now, we could say a few more things. For example, related to Christian integration is Eric Johnson and his book Foundations of Soul Care. Eric Johnson is a Christian Psychologist. He talks about conceptual integration. Underneath conceptual integration, he distinguishes between interdisciplinary integration and worldview integration. So let me see if I can just make this as simple as I can. Interdisciplinary Integration is probably what we most often think of when we think of Christian integration. That’s where you’re taking Christian theology, Christian doctrine, and the Bible, and you are integrating them as the term suggests. You’re blending it with the theories of the modern psychologies. That’s been widely and strongly represented in classical integration. Now, the other conceptual model of integration that Eric Johnson points to is worldview integration. And this would be represented, for example, by Stan Jones and Richard Bachman. In this, they’re doing something slightly different. It’s still under the banner of integration. In fact, most integrationists would point to Jones and Bachman as strong representatives of integration. But they would take this sort of two-stage approach, where they’re trying to carve out of a theory everything that’s inconsistent with Christianity in terms of its assumptions, its worldview commitments, and then taking what remains and then theory is based upon Christian assumptions, from a Christian worldview. But again, whether you’re doing this sort of interdisciplinary, combining Christian theology with modern psychology, or if you’re taking the more of the worldview approach, like Jones and Bachman, both are seeing the important role in their view of both the modern psychologies and Scripture in Christian Theology. If you just want to learn more about and to think more about this, a good place to go may be the Five views [1] book, where they’re actually going through five perspectives on the relationship between Christianity and psychology. That would be a place to go where you can learn. The biblical counseling view is represented in that volume by David Powlison. Of course, that would be the one that I would recommend, but the other views would give you a helpful place to at least see what they’re saying in a volume like that. Now, contrasting that with a Biblical counseling perspective. Of course, as biblical counselors, we believe that the Bible contains comprehensive resources for counseling. So, when we think of our counseling model or where we could use a framework and system, it’s derived from Scripture. And when we think of our counseling methods, the strategies, the interventions, the techniques, those are derived from Scripture, the application of Scripture. The goal that sets our agenda, anticipated outcomes, and the goal of our counseling is from Scripture. And so, we are seeing the Bible as presenting and containing a comprehensive model for counseling.
Dale Johnson: And Marshall, I think the last bit that you talked about is really critical when we talk about the goals, the framework. If I’m dealing with an unbeliever, the goal is evangelism. I want to use that particular issue that the Lord is using in their life right now, to put pressure on them, to show them their inadequacies, with a responsibility to show them the beauty of the gospel, how they themselves are inadequate, and how everything the world has to offer is inadequate to meet whatever is being demanded of in their life at this particular moment. Traditionally, we’ve called that evangelism; Pre-counseling is evangelism. And then for the believer, the aim being sanctification is we believe that is the appropriate, proper aim. And so, that does set biblical counseling apart. And when you frame the counseling system in that way, you see the depth of the riches of the beauty of the way and wisdom of Christ applied then to those particular aims. When you set out distinct aims or different aims, that’s where now integration begins to appeal. They say in some way as if we have some sort of problem that is not described or defined in the Bible. That’s when I would then say is outside the curse of sin upon humanity, and then we start looking for remedy and answer in other places. And to be fair, they look for it in such a way as to say, “Well, the Bible doesn’t give mandate this. And the Bible does not speak specifically against something. So, we think we can incorporate that within the world view without damaging the worldview,” is the basic idea. And so, that’s helpful as we distinguish that not all Christian integration is the same. What you were describing, I think, with Johnson and Boatman is very helpful and that’s the typical integration that we see, where people want to maintain a Christian worldview, but they also want to adopt other techniques, methodologies and so on. The second question I want to work through is that integrationists have lots of similarities, and this is why sometimes it’s hard to distinguish what they mean. But talk about some of the different approaches to an integrational counseling. What are some of the types of integration? What are the similarities and distinctions of those types of integration?
Marshall Adkins: Going back aways to what we said before, a lot of work has been done in Christian integration. So, it’s, you know, been developing since about the middle of the 20th century, the latter half of the 20th century for sure. A lot has been written, and there are a lot of frameworks schemes of how to articulate the differences between integrationists and that spectrum that we’re talking about. But for our time together, I really want us to maybe talk about, if you’re okay with it, a chapter in Jones and Bachman’s book, Modern Psychotherapies, where they talk about something that they term ‘responsible eclecticism.’ And in responsible eclecticism, they identify four sorts of approaches to the integrative task and ways that integration happens. You also see these four appear in other places, for example, Gerald Cory’s book, which is a secular book that outlines the modern psychotherapies.
Dale Johnson: Now, flesh that out because a lot of people may not know who Gerald Cory is. So, we’ve talked about Jones and Bachman, professors long-term, very well respected in the integrated world. Gerald Corey…
Marshall Adkins: who to is to my knowledge and not a professing Christian. So, he is representing more of your broad secular approach to the modern psychotherapies. He’s offering a survey of these psychotherapies…
Dale Johnson: And the book that you’re referring to is actually on its 11th or 12th edition, I can’t remember now. So, this is a very well-respected book that would be used in some intro to psych, or set-up at a secular University. So, he proposes a very similar idea of eclecticism that you’re mentioning here.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah. And because, as we mentioned earlier, there’s sort of been an abandoning of the search for a single theory. And so now, eclecticism or this integration project is what we’re what we’re looking at in the wider counseling world. And so the first one that Jones and Bachman presents is something they call technical integration. The best way maybe to describe technical integration is the counselor who really doesn’t have a commitment to any sort of school of thought. They’re not really theory-driven. Instead, they’re looking at, “Okay, what’s the presentation problem of my counselee? What are the interventions that have been demonstrated to bring the immediate and most effective forms of relief to the sort of person who has had this sort of problem?” And so, it’s very pragmatic in that way. And again, they’re not recognizing that these methods or these interventions are really grounded in and tied to specific schools of thought. They’re more taking this, what’s sometimes called, an evidence-based approach, and they’re just looking at the outcomes. “If it works, let’s use it.” So, that’s the technical integration. Another form of integration would be common factors, where they’re not really emphasizing so much techniques or theory but just seeing what is true across the board in terms of shared common factors. Then they adopt those sorts of common factors because there’s this underlying belief that if it’s found across the spectrum of the schools of thought of psychotherapy, then there must be something to them, right? So, your common factors.
Then moving on thirdly to the theoretical integration. Theoretical integration is where the counselor is open to blending two schools of thought. Now, this is where they actually talked about syncretism, because in their view, syncretism is not where you are mixing worldly ideas with God’s truth. That’s the way I would understand syncretism. Syncretism for them is when you are doing a sloppy job at combining theories. So, they’re trying to at least come out with something that is intelligible because, as we know, there are radical differences between these schools of thought and psychotherapeutic approaches. They’re trying to take bits and pieces from here and from there. But they want to do so in a way that is coherent. They put it together, where, in their view, it’s not syncretistic. But again, in the theoretical is where you’re sort of blending these schools of thought. We could dig into each of these and provide examples and so forth, but the idea would be, for example, under theoretical, you could take Christianity and something like cognitive behavioral therapy, and you could blend the two and come out with something. With the thought that you might call this Christian cognitive behavioral therapy, where you’re blending two schools of thought.
Dale Johnson: You know, where Aaron Beck would say what you’re doing is not cognitive behavioral therapy, because you’re actually implementing principles that are not specifically associated with CBT. Then we’re a Christian who’s trying to use the Bible in some way, but also look and say you know you’re incorporating elements of CBT. So that’s not that’s not legitimately what we’re looking at as a pure CBT. That’s the theoretical approach. We’re going to blend these two things together, and really it creates something very new in its approach. I would call that syncretism but mean it in a different way, maybe than Johnson and other men are describing it.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah, and even secularists do this. Again, these are not just Christian integration categories, you know, we talked a long time ago, even in this podcast, about emotionally focused therapy. Emotionally focused therapy would be an example of theoretical integration because the primary theorist, Susan Johnson, she’s taking things from systems theory, from Gestalt therapy, and from humanistic theory. She is sort of blending these together, but in a way that is coherent in their view and not syncretistic as they define syncretism. At any rate, let’s make a move into the last one here, assimilative. Assimilative is where you are committed to a specific school of thought. You’re open to incorporating or assimilating from other theories or schools of thought, but you want to remain committed to your school of thought and sort of fold these in a way that is coherent without changing your fundamental approach. You want to stay committed to your school of thought, and so assimilative is, I think we’re, and as we just step back and look at these together… I think all of these could present opportunities for us to become syncretistic in the sense of combining worldly wisdom with God’s wisdom, worldly wisdom with God’s truth. But I think that when we look at this last one, assimilative integration, I think it even presents a particular threat to those of us who are biblical counselors, because there might be a way that you could be committed to biblical counseling, committed to Christianity, your logical categories, your theological categories, and have an openness to assimilate or adopt and use methodology strategies from other systems of counseling. And I think as of recently, we actually are even seeing this more overtly presented by some that are on the more progressive end of biblical counseling. This could look like, as an example, a biblical counselor who wants to use the empty chair technique. Or a Biblical counselor—I mean, just pick the intervention, pick the method, you want to borrow something from behavioral therapy from behavior therapy, or EMDR, where you’re taking, some sort of intervention from another school of thought. And you want to remain a Biblical counselor, but you want to see that, snag it, and assimilate it or redeem it into your approach to soul care.
Dale Johnson: And I would describe that personally as being syncretistic because what you’re doing is you’re sort of dismissing the world view from which that intervention comes and what they’re trying to accomplish with the anthropology as they define it and having a certain goal as they define it. Then you bring in the technique to accomplish something that you think will bring, maybe not the same thing in EMDR as Francine Shapiro hopes will come out, but even having some sort of biblical goal. You think, well, if you incorporate those techniques, and then you try to use that, even for a stated biblical goal, you’re saying that that thing can accomplish what the Holy Spirit has been inadequate to accomplish, and that’s where my concern gets at. If we start now using techniques in such a way to accomplish something that the Holy Spirit should be accomplishing in a person’s life through the means of the Word by faith, instead of using a technique that we think now empowers us to accomplish something in a Redemptive type of way, that becomes a huge concern. So, I think these categories are helpful. It’s helpful not to think about integration in terms of monolithic; every integration is the same; it’s helpful to see some of those distinguishing factors. And again, we’ll go back to how the secular world describes eclecticism in much the same way that a secularist would integrate. You know, maybe their primary mode—which might be a CBT or an EMDR—And then for other types of problems, they might say, Well, this is a helpful thing in my tool belt that I can use in some other way. There are different ways that even a secularist would do that. And this is what Corey describes in his chapters on eclecticism. When he’s describing different ways that therapist should consider some theories in some approaches as helpful with certain types of problems, and so on. This language of toolbox or tool belt is what comes to the forefront. We’re now going to pick different things in a primary way that we think are helpful for certain types of problems. And so, this is the direction that we’re describing. We think it’s helpful to distinguish in this way and modern Christian integrationists have used exactly the same categories as what secularists have used. And I think we’re seeing some of this impact in the biblical counseling movement as well. People are thinking we can be consistent in our worldview, and yet still borrow from techniques and in some other way. This ultimately leads to a syncretistic approach. And so, I think this is helpful, Marshall. I want to finish if we can, maybe with a more practical question. So, okay, you’ve told us about integration, you’ve described the spectrum of Christian integration, and you’ve given us categories that distinguish the differences on the spectrum of integration. Why do we have this conversation in the first place? Well, because we care about the local church. We care about God’s people. So why does this conversation matter for the local church? For us as biblical counselors? Yes. And even as we think about those who are in the counseling room coming to us. Why does it matter for them as well?
Marshall Adkins: It’s great because, you know, that is our heart. We want to pursue the glory of God, the good of His people, the strengthening of His local church, and counseling in sue at the local church. So, as you are having those one-another-conversations, as you’re engaging in counseling ministry… you are a counselor. You know, as we often say, the question is: What sort of counselor will you be? Are you going to turn to the sufficient Word of God for your counseling framework, for the methods that you use, for faithful application of the Scripture, concrete application of the Scripture, and for the goal of your counseling? Or are you going to turn to some other framework? Some other theory? And as you mentioned to do so does not improve your counsel; it actually makes it unfaithful. It diminishes it. It’s becoming worldly wisdom with God’s truth, and that’s going to be a lingering threat that we have to be discerning about. Because even now, I think there are some who are using the doctrine of common grace as theological justification to say that “the Bible presents my model of counseling.” They would say, “But there’s also things out there that we can learn from and harvest in terms of the practice and the way we’re thinking about counseling, problems and counseling solutions.” And when you begin to bring those sorts of things in now, you are in syncretism. You are blending two things that don’t belong together. And so, I think we want to continue to be discerning, continue to aim for the glory of God, and the good of His people, by building our counsel on the sufficient Word of God, Spirit empowered Word based ministry to the people of God. And do not become dissatisfied with the school of thought, if we can talk to call it that. The framework of Scripture, but instead deepen the well of biblical wisdom and biblical practice and not become tempted to look elsewhere for the help that we need to counsel people.
Dale Johnson: You know, Marshall, as I think about what you just described, I can’t help but think about the way we discern problems. Either if we think that something is not in the Scripture that we think would be helpful, either we think that God did not display something very specifically to the human condition in a way that was helpful or that we have now more modern, complex human problems that do not appear in the Scripture to which God has not addressed. And I think either of those two options either speaks to the character of God, where He did not give us the things that we need for life and godliness. Or on some level, the human experience has changed from the time that God describes how humans are to relate to Him and how humans are to find meaning, value, and purpose specifically in Him, despite the circumstances that they find themselves in this world. Those two propositions to me are difficult to square with the Scripture, and it sounds like it would be more helpful or most helpful. But in many ways, our starting place is not the Scripture to describe human experience. It becomes some other factor that describes a complexity of humanity that maybe we’re saying the Bible didn’t describe. And so, therefore, God did not speak to that particular problem. Any thoughts? And maybe a last word as you think about what I proposed.
Marshall Adkins: Yeah, I again, I think it’s going back to realizing that God has comprehensively provided everything that we need for our model, our method, and our goal in counseling. And there’s nothing lacking in the Scriptures. If we are to be faithful ministers of the Word of God and interpersonal ministry, that ministry must emerge from faithful application of the Word of God with prayerful dependence on the Spirit to work in the heart of the person and through the ministry that we’re providing to them. And so, it’s to the Scriptures that we returned. And in the power of the Spirit that we counsel for the end of our counselee, becoming more like the Son of God.