LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Biblical Counseling Model
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
10/2022
Biblical Counseling Model
The biblical counseling model adheres to the idea of the special revelation of God, as
expressed in the Bible, for practical life application (Scott, 2012). This is not to say Scripture is
the only source of information in the process of counseling. A great deal of biblical analysis of
information is considered by the counselor, but the Bible is seen as the unfailing and
authoritative truth (see John 4:21-24; 8: 31-32; 2 Corinthians 13:5-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17;
Collins, 1993; Powlison, 2010a; Scott, 2012). The Apostle Paul indicated in his letter to the
Colossians that his goal in communicating with the people was to influence spiritual maturity
(see Colossians 1:28; Crabb, 2013). Through spiritual maturity, the Christian is equipped to dive
deeply into the purpose of their life: worship and service. Spiritual and psychological maturity is
the main approach of biblical counseling (Crabb, 2013). Biblical counseling differs greatly from
other forms of therapy as the focus is on the care and cure for the soul (Powlison 2010a).
Leading figures identified in the biblical counseling movement include Jay Adams, Larry
Crabb, Wayne Mack, Frank Minirth, Paul Meier, David A. Powlison, Paul Tripp, Steve Viars
(Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002; Powlison, 2010b; Scott, 2012). The biblical counseling movement
essentially started with the anti-psychiatry work, Competent to Counsel by Jay Adams, which
spearheaded the nouthetic (i.e., Greek noutheteo, “to admonish”; verbal, directive, and
instructive confrontation) counseling movement (Crabb, 2013; Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002;
Johnson, 2010; Powlison, 2010b). Adams argued against contemporary forms psychotherapy
and psychiatry, claiming they were too secular and opposed to Christianity (Johnson, 2010). For
this form of counseling, the Bible was seen as satisfactory for the needs of God’s people and
pastors were to be the principal counselors in their communities (Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002;
Johnson, 2010; Powlison, 2010b; Scott, 2012).
The primary focus of biblical or nouthetic counseling was on personal accountability and
repentance of sin, as most problems addressed in secular forms of psychotherapy are rooted in
some form of sin, and seeking Christ. Adams wrote numerous articles and books on the subject
of nouthetic counseling, and founded or assisted in the formation of organizations and journals
(e.g., Journal of Pastoral Practice in 1977, Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation
[CCEF] in 1968, Journal of Modern Ministry in 2005; Johnson 2010). Critics of this view of
Christian counseling argued that this approach was too narrow and confrontational, Scriptures
did not hold relevance for those whose problems were not specifically addressed in Scripture,
those who were outside of the church, non-believers, and proponents of modern psychology
who saw the value of in the science of psychology (Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002; Johnson, 2010).
Crabb (2013) argued, that while he believes the central goal of biblical counseling is spiritual
maturity, there are other ways to achieve that goal than only through confrontational
approaches (e.g., gentle support, encouragement, empathetic listening, exploration, reflection,
clarification, and acceptance); however, confrontational approaches can be utilized when
necessary for the situation.
Basic assumptions of the biblical counseling model include: (a) Christ-like character of the
counselor in ministering the Word of God (e.g., Matthew 22:37-40; John 17:20-26; Ephesians
5:1; 1 John 2:1-11), (b) faith of the client (i.e., lasting change can only happen when the believer
has faith in Christ and seeks to bring God the glory; see John 4:1-42; 1 Corinthians 2:14;
Ephesians 2:11-13; Titus 3:1-7; see also Crabb, 2013), (c) spiritual resources (e.g., the Holy
Spirit, the Word of God, local church community for spiritual growth, salvation, and
sanctification; see John 17:17; Romans 1:16-17; Galatians 6:1-2; Ephesians 4:15-16; 2 Timothy
3:12-17), (d) influence of the past (e.g., freedom from personal sin and the sin of others to live
in the truth; see John 8:31-38; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Romans 12:21; Titus 2:11-14), and (e) the
whole person (e.g., physical and spiritual; see 2 Corinthians 4:16-18) (Scott, 2012). Additionally,
a belief in the Christian worldview of acceptance of the creation and gospel, specific application
of God’s Word, and the Holy Spirit are enough to assist clients with their issues (Scott, 2012).
As the primary goal of biblical counseling is spiritual maturity, interventions and techniques
are designed that assist the client in their journey of spiritual growth (Crabb, 2013; Powlison,
2010a, 2010b; Scott, 2012). Crabb (2013) described his seven-stage approach to biblical
counseling as a basic game-plan for the counselor to follow; however, Crabb emphasized the
importance on the therapeutic relationship and making allowances for the diversity of the
client and their needs.
The seven stages of Crabb’s (2013) biblical counseling approach include: (1) identify
problem feelings, (2) identify goal-oriented (problem) behavior, (3) identify problem thinking,
(4) change the assumptions or clarify biblical thinking, (5) secure commitment, (6) plan and
carry out biblical behavior, (7) identify spirit-controlled feelings. Scott (2012) described the
importance of structured and applicable homework assignments being essential for client
change. Suggested homework assignments include: devotional reading, listening or watching a
Bible study of sermon series (e.g., Joyce Meyers, Beth Moore, Joel Osteen, Kerry Shook),
reading Scripture, or completion of a certain task between sessions. There is an expectation
from God of the client to work on and apply one or more of these tasks into their lives if they
say they are a believer (see Luke 3:7-14; John 13:13-17; Philippians 2:12-13; 1 Timothy 4:7-10;
James 1:22-25; Scott, 2012).
Integration Model
The integration model of Christian counseling combines psychology, theology, and
spirituality in a way that is flexible and fluid to the current counseling situation and is thoughtful
of the client’s needs at that moment (McMinn, 2012). The integrative model was built on the
Christian worldview of general revelation (i.e., God’s truth revealed throughout creation; see
Genesis 1-2; Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:16-17) and special revelation (i.e., God’s
truth revealed through Scripture and the life of Jesus Christ; see 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews
4:15; 2 Peter 1:20-21); however, in this model it is recognized that these sources of truth are
not always equally influential throughout life (Collins, 1993; Jones, 2001; McMinn & Campbell,
2007). The counselor’s commitment to a Christian worldview and to think biblically provide the
context of for analyzing psychological thought (Jones & Butman, 2011; Pascoe, 1980).
Those who have made contributions to the Integration Model include: John D. Carter, Gary
R. Collins, Stanton L. Jones, Mark R. McMinn, Bruce Narramore, David Pecheur, L. Rebecca
Propst, and Siang-Yang Tan (Clinton & Ohlschlager, 2002; Jennings, Davis, Hook, & Worthington,
2013; Jones, 2010). Richards & Bergin (2005) discussed how spiritual and religious perspectives
had been integrated with many mainstream theoretical orientations such as cognitive and
behavioral therapies (e.g., Anderson, Zuehlke, & Zuehlke, 2000; Backus, 1985; Jennings, Davis,
Hook, & Worthington, 2013; Knabb, 2012; McMinn, 1991; Pecheur, 1978; Propst 1981; Tan
1987). Vande Kemp (1986) noted the first known use of the term ‘integration’ was by a German
immigrant to the United States, Fritz Künkel in 1953 for the Journal of Psychotherapy as a
Religious Process.
Since that time, the term ‘integration’ has been, for better or worse, used to describe the
process of combining psychology and religion theology (Stevenson, 2007). The Christian
Association of Psychological Studies (CAPS), originally developed by Dutch Reformed pastors,
theologians, and mental health professionals, is the last of several organizations that were
created in the late 1940s and 1950s for the purpose of communicating about faith, religion, and
mental health. Their purpose was to apply their Christian worldview to the process of
counseling (Stevenson, 2007). In 1946 Division 36 of the American Psychological Association
(Psychology of Religion) was developed and has helped pave the way for the relevance of the
psychology of religion to be part of the discussion of mainstream psychology (Reuder, 1999;
McMinn & Hall, 2001; Stevenson, 2007).
Basic assumptions of the integrative model include: the imago Dei, all truth is God’s truth
(i.e., “the unity of truth”), the Bible does not fully provide all that is needed to understand the
human condition completely, and that psychological research is of value (Carter & Narramore,
1979; Jones, 2010). There are three parts to fully understanding the concept of the imago Dei:
(a) structural/substantive (i.e., humans are created in the image of God, have a spirit, are
capable of rational thought superior to the created order); (b) functional (i.e., are a reflection of
God); and (c) relational (i.e., are in relationship with God) (see Genesis 1:26-30; Anderson,
Zuehlke, & Zuehlke, 2000; Carter & Narramore, 1979; Entwistle, 2015; Entwistle & Moroney,
2011; Jones, 2010; McMinn, 2012; McMinn & Campbell, 2007). Human motivation is derived
from these three domains of the imago Dei, which are assumed to come naturally, as God
intended; however, humans live in a fallen world and may require assistance in the form of
therapy (McMinn & Campbell, 2007).
McMinn & Campbell (2007) identified three intervention domains, and associated
techniques, that relate to the views of the imago Dei: (1) symptom-focused (i.e., functional
view), (2) schema-focused (i.e., structural view), and (3) relationship-focused (i.e., relational
view). Drawing from key concepts from cognitive and behavioral therapies, symptom-focused
interventions concentrate on clients learning new skills for improved functioning (McMinn,
2012; McMinn & Campbell, 2007). The purpose of skill building is for the counselor to help the
client identify maladaptive thought patterns that lead to feelings of distress, by changing these
problematic thought patterns with new thinking and behavioral skills, with the idea of
alleviating symptoms of distress.
Schema-focused interventions dive deeper and concentrate on how one views,
understands, and makes meaning of the world around them (i.e., personal worldview or core
beliefs; McMinn, 2012; McMinn & Campbell, 2007). Core beliefs are what carry each person
through their lives. Each person’s worldview is unique and individual, even within the same
culture. The core beliefs are impervious to change and are not likely to be associated with any
particular life event. Relationship-focused interventions call attention to the therapeutic
relationship and how the therapist can assist the client in developing a new way to view their
world (McMinn, 2012; McMinn & Campbell, 2007). Attention is paid to deep relational wounds,
unresolved conflicts, and character issues. Despite the brokenness of the human therapist,
there is a calling to sit with people in their deepest and darkest times, to help them experience
healthy relationships and grace that they may not have otherwise experienced. This experience
happens because humans are relational beings and made in the image of God (McMinn &
Campbell, 2007).
Although similar in some aspects, the biblical counseling and integration models have their
differences. Both models see humans as being created in the image of God (i.e., imago Dei),
place profound emphasis on Scripture and Christian worldview, and have similar interventions
and techniques (Clinton & Ohlshlager, 2002; Collins 1993; Crabb, 2013; Jones & Butman, 2011;
McMinn & Campbell, 2007; Scott, 2012). The biggest differences in these two models concern
views on psychology and religion. The integrative approach values the contributions of the
science of psychology and spirituality, whereas the biblical approach adheres to the belief that
the Bible is the only authoritative truth (Carter & Narramore, 1979; Collins, 1993; Crabb, 2013;
Johnson, 2010; Jones, 2001, 2010; Jones & Butman, 2011; McMinn & Campbell, 2007; Pascoe,
1980; Powlison, 2010a, 2010b; Scott, 2012). The focus of this paper will concentrate on the
fusion of biblical counseling and integration.
