Statement on EMDR
For the last several years, interest has been growing in a counseling methodology known as EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing).
The elders of Truth in Love Fellowship and our auxiliary ministries (Truth in Love Biblical Training Center, Truth in Love Biblical Counseling, TILT: Truth in Love Today) appreciate the faithful and grace-filled examination by the Biblical Counseling Coalition (BCC)of EMDR and the conclusions they have drawn.
The Truth in Love family of ministries are in full agreement with BCC and have adopted the following "BCC Statement on EMDR."
The elders of Truth in Love Fellowship and our auxiliary ministries (Truth in Love Biblical Training Center, Truth in Love Biblical Counseling, TILT: Truth in Love Today) appreciate the faithful and grace-filled examination by the Biblical Counseling Coalition (BCC)of EMDR and the conclusions they have drawn.
The Truth in Love family of ministries are in full agreement with BCC and have adopted the following "BCC Statement on EMDR."
BCC STATEMENT ON EMDR
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS ABOUT EMDR
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy was first developed by Francine Shapiro in 1987 as a treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Her primary book on the EMDR therapy model is now in its third edition.[1]
1. EMDR functions as a whole system and comprehensive treatment regimen.
According to Shapiro, “It is vital that we view the therapy as a whole system” (p. 1). Though parts can be weighed separately, one cannot truly practice EMDR without accepting the system as a whole. The underlying philosophy, conception of human trouble, role of the therapist, treatment protocols, sequence of interventions, and everything else comes as a package deal.
2. EMDR draws from numerous theories and therapies of secular psychology.
The EMDR model is self-consciously integrated (in the secular therapy sense of the word), drawing from psychodynamic, Cognitive Behavioral, experiential, hypnotic, and family systems theories of therapy. Though Shapiro sees EMDR as an independent treatment model, she admits that it draws from numerous other perspectives. The sources of wisdom in EMDR, therefore, are all the authors of the contributing theories and therapies.
“EMDR brings together aspects of many major psychological orientations: the attention to etiological events underscored by psychodynamic therapy, the conditioned responses highlighted by behavior therapy, the beliefs of cognitive therapy, the emotions of experiential therapies, the body sensations of somatic therapies, the imagery work of hypnotic therapies, and the contextual understanding of systems theory” (p. 3).
3. The heart and soul of EMDR is the Adaptive Information Processing (AIP) model.
Shapiro views memory reprocessing as the distinguishing mark, as opposed to desensitization, which, in her mind, does not accurately express the emphasis of EMDR. AIP is the guiding theory of personality as well as the primary mechanism of change.
AIP regards most pathologies as derived from earlier life experiences that set in motion a continued pattern of affect, behavior, cognitions, and consequent identity structures. The pathological structure is inherent with the static, insufficiently processed information stored at the time of the disturbing event (p. 15-16).
AIP represents the general model that provides the theoretical framework and principles for treatment and an explanation of the basis of pathology and personality development. (p. 26)
Notice how AIP is not merely a technique, but a worldview, a practical anthropology. It explains people and their fundamental problems, and attempts to change people. AIP is presented as a means for “reprocessing memories” to move those memories from “dysfunctional” to “adaptive,” using bilateral stimulation techniques (like eye movement) to “access” the target memory, identify negative cognitions associated with that memory, and help the client embrace positive cognitions associated with the memory in order for it to adaptively move from short-term to long-term memory.
4. God and Scripture find no place in EMDR as presented.
The EMDR model does not acknowledge God, Christ, the Spirit, the curse of creation, human depravity, forces of darkness, redemption, regeneration, sanctification, future judgment, or eternal life. Faith working itself through love is not a goal. Alienation from God and reconciliation to God are not relevant dimensions. The sovereignty of God, the providence of God, the grace and mercies of Christ, the power of the Spirit, the transforming work of the Spirit, and the wisdom of the Word are not on the radar.
EMDR makes strong claims, “The amelioration of PTSD is accomplished when the victim comes to grips with the traumatic incident” (p. 19), without any reference to the Creator, Sustainer, and Author of life. “Coming to grips” is placed squarely in the domain of “psychological self-healing” (p.28) through EMDR guided information processing.
5. EMDR is framed according to psychodynamic and humanistic anthropology.
The basis for human troubles begins in the past with traumatic events and dysfunctionally stored traumatic memories. The solution is found inside the person. Personal empowerment, human resiliency, and positivity prevail. The goals are to, “help liberate the client from the past into a healthy and productive present,” and “transmute negative experiences into adaptive learning experiences,” and restore traumatic events, “into memory in an adaptive, healthy, nondistressing form” (p. 2), with self as the Savior substitute.
Human beings are not weak, sinful, dependent creatures living with cursed bodies in a cursed world alienated from their Creator and desperately awaiting the redemptive mercies of the risen Christ of the Bible. They are strong, virtuous, self-sufficient creatures victimized by traumatic events and needing to be convinced of their potential and power in the midst of random, painful circumstances. Though biblical counselors affirm a God-given degree of “resilience” in people, the EMDR model places it’s confidence in people for their healing and thriving.
6. EMDR is physiology-sensitive.
EMDR gets the body involved in the counseling process. It recognizes the effects of trauma on our physiology and the importance of physiology in counseling for trauma. It relies on the work of Van der Kolk and other research clinicians to understand the role of the body in storing trauma and the role of the body in restoring adaptive responses to traumatic events.
“The hypothesis is that the procedural elements of EMDR therapy, including the bilateral dual attention stimuli, trigger a physiological state that facilitates information processing” (p. 27).
7. The basic therapeutic intentions of EMDR are compassionate.
The EMDR model is being applied as an attempt to help suffering people in their suffering. The intentions are not evil, but coming from a desire to relieve people overwhelmed by traumatic response to traumatic events. The stories of gruesome war experiences, severe abuse, and other traumatic events are real, and the concerns of EMDR practitioners are personal and kind.
They are doing the best they know to do with man’s wisdom. Shapiro’s observations are astute. Her interventions are thoughtful. Within the EMDR model, she is a master practitioner who has logged thousands of hours trying to help people.
8. EMDR is methodologically clear and concrete.
The EMDR therapeutic system is specific, practical, and regimented. It offers “protocols” and concrete “prongs” of approach. The methodologies are extensive, detailed, and organized. Over the years it has been responsive to clinical feedback in order to develop the methods.
PARTICULARLY RELEVANT PORTIONS OF BCC CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
Though a number of sections in our BCC confessional statement apply to our understanding of EMDR, we will focus on a handful. Here are a few that seem most relevant at this stage:
“All Christian ministry arises from and is anchored in God’s revelation—which is both the written Word (Scripture) and the living Word (Christ). This is true for the personal ministry of the Word (conversational and relational ministry which our culture calls ‘counseling’) and for the various public ministries of the Word. In light of this core conviction about Christ-centered, Word-based ministry, we affirm the following central commitments as biblical counselors” (p. 1).
“When we say that Scripture is comprehensive in wisdom, we mean that the Bible makes sense of all things, not that it contains all the information people could ever know about all topics. God’s common grace brings many good things to human life. However, common grace cannot save us from our struggles with sin or from the troubles that beset us. Common grace cannot sanctify or cure the soul of all that ails the human condition. We affirm that numerous sources (such as scientific research, organized observations about human behavior, those we counsel, reflection on our own life experience, literature, film, and history) can contribute to our knowledge of people, and many sources can contribute some relief for the troubles of life. However, none can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices. When systems of thought and practice claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition, they compete with Christ (Colossians 2:1-15). Scripture alone teaches a perspective and way of looking at life by which we can think biblically about and critically evaluate information and actions from any source” (Colossians 2:2-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17)” (p. 2).
“We point people to a person, Jesus our Redeemer, and not to a program, theory, or experience. We place our trust in the transforming power of the Redeemer as the only hope to change people’s hearts, not in any human system of change. People need a personal and dynamic relationship with Jesus, not a system of self-salvation, self-management, or self-actualization (John 14:6). Wise counselors seek to lead struggling, hurting, sinning, and confused people to the hope, resources, strength, and life that are available only in Christ” (p. 3).
“We believe that biblical counseling is fundamentally a practical theological discipline because every aspect of life is related to God. God intends that we care for one another in ways that relate human struggles to His person, purposes, promises, and will. Wise counseling arises from a theological way of looking at life—a mindset, a worldview—that informs how we understand people, problems, and solutions. The best biblical counselors are wise, balanced, caring, experienced practical theologians (Philippians 1:9-11)” (p. 3).
“We believe that both genuine change of heart and transformation of lifestyle depend upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-16:16; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Biblical counselors know that it is impossible to speak wisely and lovingly to bring about true and lasting change apart from the decisive, compassionate, and convicting work of the Spirit in the counselor and the counselee. We acknowledge the Holy Spirit as the One who illuminates our understanding of the Word and empowers its application in everyday life” (p. 3).
“We believe that wise counseling should be transformative, change-oriented, and grounded in the doctrine of sanctification (2 Corinthians 3:16-18; Philippians 2:12-13). The lifelong change process begins at salvation (justification, regeneration, redemption, reconciliation) and continues until we see Jesus face-to-face (1 John 3:1-3). The aim of wise counseling is intentional and intensive discipleship. The fruit of wise counseling is spiritually mature people who increasingly reflect Christ (relationally, rationally, volitionally, and emotionally) by enjoying and exalting God and by loving others well and wisely (Galatians 5:22-6:10)” (p.3).
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT EMDR
In light of our summary observations viewed through these confessional statements, we conclude:
1. EMDR is not a biblical counseling model or methodology.
To the degree that a counselor is practicing the principles of EMDR, that counselor is not practicing biblical counseling. This does not render EMDR entirely evil or useless, it simply locates the EMDR system outside the bounds of biblical counseling. It cannot be “redeemed” in the sense that it enables a person to receive life-giving truth from Scripture. The EMDR worldview and the biblical worldview are not compatible. To the degree that we break it apart and reconstruct it with biblical categories and aims, it ceases to be EMDR.
2. Scripture helps us appreciate certain aspects of EMDR, while being neutral about other aspects of EMDR, while opposing still other aspects of EMDR.
There are aspects of EMDR that agree with biblical counseling, like the importance of genuine care and compassionate conversation. There are aspects of EMDR that do not infringe upon or contradict the work of biblical counseling. For instance, bilateral stimulation to aid memory retrieval, location, and placement, assuming such a methodology is empirically isolated and validated. We might, for example, learn something from the body-sensitivity of EMDR therapy. Then there are aspects of EMDR that flatly contradict and oppose the ministry of the gospel in the lives of people, like the Adaptive Information Processing model, which happens to represent the heart and soul of the EMDR system.
3. EMDR is fundamentally God-less, Christ-less, and Spirit-less.
This should be deeply concerning to all of us. The gospel has no place. Personal experience trumps Scripture. Sufferers are offered hope in themselves, in “functional processing” of memories that highlights their own ability and strength. There are interesting observations and helpful tips throughout, but all of it built upon a foundation of human wisdom. It joins the long list of therapeutic models that “ring our bells” with astute observation, powerful case studies, and practical methodologies, but fails to grapple with what truly matters. Simply inserting Scripture and gospel truths does not change the therapeutic paradigm.
4. The scientific methodology behind EMDR is not strong.
Though many studies have been conducted and articles written on EMDR, the sample sizes are small, the control groups poorly conceived, the results inconsistent, and bias runs rampant. Effect sizes are all over the map. The absence of strong scientific foundation does not invalidate EMDR, it just means no one should claim that EMDR has serious empirical support.
Pragmatism (“it works”) seems to be the final basis. Data is largely self-report, using within model benchmarks, and only “empirical” in so far as quantitative studies exist. Like most psychotherapy research, these studies raise as many questions as they answer, and cannot possibly evaluate the actual interaction between soul and body or brain and mind. From time-to-time Shapiro claims a basis in neuroscience that assumes neurological and physiological factors that are impossible to measure (p. 37).
5. EMDR may at times “work” in relieving specific symptoms.
For example, EMDR may help lessen symptoms of anxiety before boarding a plane and giving a public speech. Real people have been helped with the alleviation of real symptoms, but it’s hard to tell how this sets EMDR apart from other forms of intervention. At the same time, we would never call this kind of help “transformation” or “healing.”
Adaptive processing leads to the conclusion: “I’m in control … I’m a good person … I can handle it… I’m safe now” (p.58). Though self-reported “level of disturbance” may go down, we would not call this good progress. Successful treatment produces a greater sense of self-sufficiency, which is a goal of EMDR, and yet completely antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. EMDR seems to “heal wounds” superficially, as in the days of Jeremiah, “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11). In Christ, we offer something far better.
6. Though EMDR is not biblical counseling, it may provide a limited, important degree of usefulness for some Christians under some circumstances.
It is possible to envision a follower of Jesus Christ benefiting from aspects of EMDR treatment designed to address specific and overwhelming traumatic memories over a limited period of time while receiving more comprehensive care from ministers of the gospel applying Scripture patiently and thoughtfully.
We need to be careful here. We are not implying that everyone could benefit from EMDR or that it should normally be considered in situations of severe trauma. Rather, a particular believer under particular circumstances without other options might be served by EMDR therapy for the achievement of limited, short-term goals related to recovery from trauma.
We might say the same thing about drug and alcohol rehab centers or treatment facilities for a severe eating disorder. We would deny the value of the system as a whole and various aspects of the system while affirming the need for a kind of specific help only available from that system. We want to leave room for Christian freedom and discernment in the body of Christ.
Perhaps there will be a day when biblical counseling experience, training, resources, and ministries are developed enough and widespread enough to tackle a wider range of traumatic response on a larger scale, but for now, we could use more work developing a comprehensively biblical counseling model for addressing the whole gamut of suffering related to severe trauma. This is not about the sufficiency of Scripture, but the insufficiency of our resources in bringing the Scripture to bear on each and every situation.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Though numerous recommendations could be offered for us to pursue as Council members, we will limit them to a few significant areas.
1. Let’s develop winsome, critical analysis and wise, comprehensive alternatives.
When we speak about EMDR, we need to be winsome, careful, and rooted in Scripture. We need to do the hard work of deconstructing the model in order to understand the parts and the whole through the lens of Scripture.
Then we need to present a Christ-centered, biblically rich, and comprehensive alternative that is sensitive to the issues in play. We should not be enamored with EMDR. We should be enamored with Christ, with His grace, with the transforming power of the Spirit operating through faith. Whenever we communicate, whether it is our position on EMDR, or any other issue, we need to do so humbly, concretely, and compellingly.
2. Let’s pursue relationships in the BCC that improve our practices.
When we hear fellow members of the Council say things about EMDR with which we disagree, we should call them directly and talk it through humbly. After we make sure we understand their words and perspective, we can then present a gracious, thoughtful response and be ready to discuss it.
If we receive concerns from a Council member about our position, then we should be humble and receptive to their concerns. This is why the BCC exists. It is one of tremendous privileges we enjoy as members of the Council, to sharpen and learn from one another.
3. Let’s advance our work in the area of trauma care in biblical counseling.
We should be asking ourselves: do we care well for brothers and sisters who suffer from trauma? Are we doing the hard work of listening, thinking, praying, studying, counseling, training, and writing in order to convey the riches of redemption applied to trauma, the glories of the gospel applied to trauma, the slow, patient, wise ministry of the Word for sufferers of trauma? How often do we take one specific memory at a time, slowing down, listening well, discerning the stumbling blocks, the particular pitfalls, the way terror operates in the moment, the effects on the body, the expressions of the body, the falsehoods darkness feeds upon, and scores of other dimensions in play, in order to bring a relevant, powerful gospel promise to bear on one dimension, and another gospel truth to bear on another dimension, in order to prove the steadfast love and faithfulness of the Lord one step at a time, one memory at a time? Can we improve in our writing, equipping, and ministry as we care for those suffering the effects of traumatic experiences?
4. Let’s learn from outside models without importing false ideas or values.
When we read the various observations, findings, assessments, and case analyses of experienced EMDR practitioners, there are things we can learn. Here are a few examples:
Scripture is the only source for primary, authoritative beliefs and values. We should be enamored with it, and with nothing else. Other models and methodologies will come and go as the world pays attention to the latest this or the latest that in the marketplace of psychotherapeutic ideas. But God’s words anchor us to what has always been and always will be. Scripture is the only permanent source for our beliefs and values (Isaiah 40:8).
[1] Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and
procedures, 3rd ed.
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS ABOUT EMDR
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy was first developed by Francine Shapiro in 1987 as a treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Her primary book on the EMDR therapy model is now in its third edition.[1]
1. EMDR functions as a whole system and comprehensive treatment regimen.
According to Shapiro, “It is vital that we view the therapy as a whole system” (p. 1). Though parts can be weighed separately, one cannot truly practice EMDR without accepting the system as a whole. The underlying philosophy, conception of human trouble, role of the therapist, treatment protocols, sequence of interventions, and everything else comes as a package deal.
2. EMDR draws from numerous theories and therapies of secular psychology.
The EMDR model is self-consciously integrated (in the secular therapy sense of the word), drawing from psychodynamic, Cognitive Behavioral, experiential, hypnotic, and family systems theories of therapy. Though Shapiro sees EMDR as an independent treatment model, she admits that it draws from numerous other perspectives. The sources of wisdom in EMDR, therefore, are all the authors of the contributing theories and therapies.
“EMDR brings together aspects of many major psychological orientations: the attention to etiological events underscored by psychodynamic therapy, the conditioned responses highlighted by behavior therapy, the beliefs of cognitive therapy, the emotions of experiential therapies, the body sensations of somatic therapies, the imagery work of hypnotic therapies, and the contextual understanding of systems theory” (p. 3).
3. The heart and soul of EMDR is the Adaptive Information Processing (AIP) model.
Shapiro views memory reprocessing as the distinguishing mark, as opposed to desensitization, which, in her mind, does not accurately express the emphasis of EMDR. AIP is the guiding theory of personality as well as the primary mechanism of change.
AIP regards most pathologies as derived from earlier life experiences that set in motion a continued pattern of affect, behavior, cognitions, and consequent identity structures. The pathological structure is inherent with the static, insufficiently processed information stored at the time of the disturbing event (p. 15-16).
AIP represents the general model that provides the theoretical framework and principles for treatment and an explanation of the basis of pathology and personality development. (p. 26)
Notice how AIP is not merely a technique, but a worldview, a practical anthropology. It explains people and their fundamental problems, and attempts to change people. AIP is presented as a means for “reprocessing memories” to move those memories from “dysfunctional” to “adaptive,” using bilateral stimulation techniques (like eye movement) to “access” the target memory, identify negative cognitions associated with that memory, and help the client embrace positive cognitions associated with the memory in order for it to adaptively move from short-term to long-term memory.
4. God and Scripture find no place in EMDR as presented.
The EMDR model does not acknowledge God, Christ, the Spirit, the curse of creation, human depravity, forces of darkness, redemption, regeneration, sanctification, future judgment, or eternal life. Faith working itself through love is not a goal. Alienation from God and reconciliation to God are not relevant dimensions. The sovereignty of God, the providence of God, the grace and mercies of Christ, the power of the Spirit, the transforming work of the Spirit, and the wisdom of the Word are not on the radar.
EMDR makes strong claims, “The amelioration of PTSD is accomplished when the victim comes to grips with the traumatic incident” (p. 19), without any reference to the Creator, Sustainer, and Author of life. “Coming to grips” is placed squarely in the domain of “psychological self-healing” (p.28) through EMDR guided information processing.
5. EMDR is framed according to psychodynamic and humanistic anthropology.
The basis for human troubles begins in the past with traumatic events and dysfunctionally stored traumatic memories. The solution is found inside the person. Personal empowerment, human resiliency, and positivity prevail. The goals are to, “help liberate the client from the past into a healthy and productive present,” and “transmute negative experiences into adaptive learning experiences,” and restore traumatic events, “into memory in an adaptive, healthy, nondistressing form” (p. 2), with self as the Savior substitute.
Human beings are not weak, sinful, dependent creatures living with cursed bodies in a cursed world alienated from their Creator and desperately awaiting the redemptive mercies of the risen Christ of the Bible. They are strong, virtuous, self-sufficient creatures victimized by traumatic events and needing to be convinced of their potential and power in the midst of random, painful circumstances. Though biblical counselors affirm a God-given degree of “resilience” in people, the EMDR model places it’s confidence in people for their healing and thriving.
6. EMDR is physiology-sensitive.
EMDR gets the body involved in the counseling process. It recognizes the effects of trauma on our physiology and the importance of physiology in counseling for trauma. It relies on the work of Van der Kolk and other research clinicians to understand the role of the body in storing trauma and the role of the body in restoring adaptive responses to traumatic events.
“The hypothesis is that the procedural elements of EMDR therapy, including the bilateral dual attention stimuli, trigger a physiological state that facilitates information processing” (p. 27).
7. The basic therapeutic intentions of EMDR are compassionate.
The EMDR model is being applied as an attempt to help suffering people in their suffering. The intentions are not evil, but coming from a desire to relieve people overwhelmed by traumatic response to traumatic events. The stories of gruesome war experiences, severe abuse, and other traumatic events are real, and the concerns of EMDR practitioners are personal and kind.
They are doing the best they know to do with man’s wisdom. Shapiro’s observations are astute. Her interventions are thoughtful. Within the EMDR model, she is a master practitioner who has logged thousands of hours trying to help people.
8. EMDR is methodologically clear and concrete.
The EMDR therapeutic system is specific, practical, and regimented. It offers “protocols” and concrete “prongs” of approach. The methodologies are extensive, detailed, and organized. Over the years it has been responsive to clinical feedback in order to develop the methods.
PARTICULARLY RELEVANT PORTIONS OF BCC CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
Though a number of sections in our BCC confessional statement apply to our understanding of EMDR, we will focus on a handful. Here are a few that seem most relevant at this stage:
“All Christian ministry arises from and is anchored in God’s revelation—which is both the written Word (Scripture) and the living Word (Christ). This is true for the personal ministry of the Word (conversational and relational ministry which our culture calls ‘counseling’) and for the various public ministries of the Word. In light of this core conviction about Christ-centered, Word-based ministry, we affirm the following central commitments as biblical counselors” (p. 1).
“When we say that Scripture is comprehensive in wisdom, we mean that the Bible makes sense of all things, not that it contains all the information people could ever know about all topics. God’s common grace brings many good things to human life. However, common grace cannot save us from our struggles with sin or from the troubles that beset us. Common grace cannot sanctify or cure the soul of all that ails the human condition. We affirm that numerous sources (such as scientific research, organized observations about human behavior, those we counsel, reflection on our own life experience, literature, film, and history) can contribute to our knowledge of people, and many sources can contribute some relief for the troubles of life. However, none can constitute a comprehensive system of counseling principles and practices. When systems of thought and practice claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition, they compete with Christ (Colossians 2:1-15). Scripture alone teaches a perspective and way of looking at life by which we can think biblically about and critically evaluate information and actions from any source” (Colossians 2:2-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17)” (p. 2).
“We point people to a person, Jesus our Redeemer, and not to a program, theory, or experience. We place our trust in the transforming power of the Redeemer as the only hope to change people’s hearts, not in any human system of change. People need a personal and dynamic relationship with Jesus, not a system of self-salvation, self-management, or self-actualization (John 14:6). Wise counselors seek to lead struggling, hurting, sinning, and confused people to the hope, resources, strength, and life that are available only in Christ” (p. 3).
“We believe that biblical counseling is fundamentally a practical theological discipline because every aspect of life is related to God. God intends that we care for one another in ways that relate human struggles to His person, purposes, promises, and will. Wise counseling arises from a theological way of looking at life—a mindset, a worldview—that informs how we understand people, problems, and solutions. The best biblical counselors are wise, balanced, caring, experienced practical theologians (Philippians 1:9-11)” (p. 3).
“We believe that both genuine change of heart and transformation of lifestyle depend upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-16:16; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Biblical counselors know that it is impossible to speak wisely and lovingly to bring about true and lasting change apart from the decisive, compassionate, and convicting work of the Spirit in the counselor and the counselee. We acknowledge the Holy Spirit as the One who illuminates our understanding of the Word and empowers its application in everyday life” (p. 3).
“We believe that wise counseling should be transformative, change-oriented, and grounded in the doctrine of sanctification (2 Corinthians 3:16-18; Philippians 2:12-13). The lifelong change process begins at salvation (justification, regeneration, redemption, reconciliation) and continues until we see Jesus face-to-face (1 John 3:1-3). The aim of wise counseling is intentional and intensive discipleship. The fruit of wise counseling is spiritually mature people who increasingly reflect Christ (relationally, rationally, volitionally, and emotionally) by enjoying and exalting God and by loving others well and wisely (Galatians 5:22-6:10)” (p.3).
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT EMDR
In light of our summary observations viewed through these confessional statements, we conclude:
1. EMDR is not a biblical counseling model or methodology.
To the degree that a counselor is practicing the principles of EMDR, that counselor is not practicing biblical counseling. This does not render EMDR entirely evil or useless, it simply locates the EMDR system outside the bounds of biblical counseling. It cannot be “redeemed” in the sense that it enables a person to receive life-giving truth from Scripture. The EMDR worldview and the biblical worldview are not compatible. To the degree that we break it apart and reconstruct it with biblical categories and aims, it ceases to be EMDR.
2. Scripture helps us appreciate certain aspects of EMDR, while being neutral about other aspects of EMDR, while opposing still other aspects of EMDR.
There are aspects of EMDR that agree with biblical counseling, like the importance of genuine care and compassionate conversation. There are aspects of EMDR that do not infringe upon or contradict the work of biblical counseling. For instance, bilateral stimulation to aid memory retrieval, location, and placement, assuming such a methodology is empirically isolated and validated. We might, for example, learn something from the body-sensitivity of EMDR therapy. Then there are aspects of EMDR that flatly contradict and oppose the ministry of the gospel in the lives of people, like the Adaptive Information Processing model, which happens to represent the heart and soul of the EMDR system.
3. EMDR is fundamentally God-less, Christ-less, and Spirit-less.
This should be deeply concerning to all of us. The gospel has no place. Personal experience trumps Scripture. Sufferers are offered hope in themselves, in “functional processing” of memories that highlights their own ability and strength. There are interesting observations and helpful tips throughout, but all of it built upon a foundation of human wisdom. It joins the long list of therapeutic models that “ring our bells” with astute observation, powerful case studies, and practical methodologies, but fails to grapple with what truly matters. Simply inserting Scripture and gospel truths does not change the therapeutic paradigm.
4. The scientific methodology behind EMDR is not strong.
Though many studies have been conducted and articles written on EMDR, the sample sizes are small, the control groups poorly conceived, the results inconsistent, and bias runs rampant. Effect sizes are all over the map. The absence of strong scientific foundation does not invalidate EMDR, it just means no one should claim that EMDR has serious empirical support.
Pragmatism (“it works”) seems to be the final basis. Data is largely self-report, using within model benchmarks, and only “empirical” in so far as quantitative studies exist. Like most psychotherapy research, these studies raise as many questions as they answer, and cannot possibly evaluate the actual interaction between soul and body or brain and mind. From time-to-time Shapiro claims a basis in neuroscience that assumes neurological and physiological factors that are impossible to measure (p. 37).
5. EMDR may at times “work” in relieving specific symptoms.
For example, EMDR may help lessen symptoms of anxiety before boarding a plane and giving a public speech. Real people have been helped with the alleviation of real symptoms, but it’s hard to tell how this sets EMDR apart from other forms of intervention. At the same time, we would never call this kind of help “transformation” or “healing.”
Adaptive processing leads to the conclusion: “I’m in control … I’m a good person … I can handle it… I’m safe now” (p.58). Though self-reported “level of disturbance” may go down, we would not call this good progress. Successful treatment produces a greater sense of self-sufficiency, which is a goal of EMDR, and yet completely antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. EMDR seems to “heal wounds” superficially, as in the days of Jeremiah, “They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11). In Christ, we offer something far better.
6. Though EMDR is not biblical counseling, it may provide a limited, important degree of usefulness for some Christians under some circumstances.
It is possible to envision a follower of Jesus Christ benefiting from aspects of EMDR treatment designed to address specific and overwhelming traumatic memories over a limited period of time while receiving more comprehensive care from ministers of the gospel applying Scripture patiently and thoughtfully.
We need to be careful here. We are not implying that everyone could benefit from EMDR or that it should normally be considered in situations of severe trauma. Rather, a particular believer under particular circumstances without other options might be served by EMDR therapy for the achievement of limited, short-term goals related to recovery from trauma.
We might say the same thing about drug and alcohol rehab centers or treatment facilities for a severe eating disorder. We would deny the value of the system as a whole and various aspects of the system while affirming the need for a kind of specific help only available from that system. We want to leave room for Christian freedom and discernment in the body of Christ.
Perhaps there will be a day when biblical counseling experience, training, resources, and ministries are developed enough and widespread enough to tackle a wider range of traumatic response on a larger scale, but for now, we could use more work developing a comprehensively biblical counseling model for addressing the whole gamut of suffering related to severe trauma. This is not about the sufficiency of Scripture, but the insufficiency of our resources in bringing the Scripture to bear on each and every situation.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Though numerous recommendations could be offered for us to pursue as Council members, we will limit them to a few significant areas.
1. Let’s develop winsome, critical analysis and wise, comprehensive alternatives.
When we speak about EMDR, we need to be winsome, careful, and rooted in Scripture. We need to do the hard work of deconstructing the model in order to understand the parts and the whole through the lens of Scripture.
Then we need to present a Christ-centered, biblically rich, and comprehensive alternative that is sensitive to the issues in play. We should not be enamored with EMDR. We should be enamored with Christ, with His grace, with the transforming power of the Spirit operating through faith. Whenever we communicate, whether it is our position on EMDR, or any other issue, we need to do so humbly, concretely, and compellingly.
2. Let’s pursue relationships in the BCC that improve our practices.
When we hear fellow members of the Council say things about EMDR with which we disagree, we should call them directly and talk it through humbly. After we make sure we understand their words and perspective, we can then present a gracious, thoughtful response and be ready to discuss it.
If we receive concerns from a Council member about our position, then we should be humble and receptive to their concerns. This is why the BCC exists. It is one of tremendous privileges we enjoy as members of the Council, to sharpen and learn from one another.
3. Let’s advance our work in the area of trauma care in biblical counseling.
We should be asking ourselves: do we care well for brothers and sisters who suffer from trauma? Are we doing the hard work of listening, thinking, praying, studying, counseling, training, and writing in order to convey the riches of redemption applied to trauma, the glories of the gospel applied to trauma, the slow, patient, wise ministry of the Word for sufferers of trauma? How often do we take one specific memory at a time, slowing down, listening well, discerning the stumbling blocks, the particular pitfalls, the way terror operates in the moment, the effects on the body, the expressions of the body, the falsehoods darkness feeds upon, and scores of other dimensions in play, in order to bring a relevant, powerful gospel promise to bear on one dimension, and another gospel truth to bear on another dimension, in order to prove the steadfast love and faithfulness of the Lord one step at a time, one memory at a time? Can we improve in our writing, equipping, and ministry as we care for those suffering the effects of traumatic experiences?
4. Let’s learn from outside models without importing false ideas or values.
When we read the various observations, findings, assessments, and case analyses of experienced EMDR practitioners, there are things we can learn. Here are a few examples:
- Slowing down
- Focusing our attention
- Thinking carefully about our process of caring and counseling
- Being alert to the physiology alive in the room
- Listening carefully to feedback in order to improve our approach
Scripture is the only source for primary, authoritative beliefs and values. We should be enamored with it, and with nothing else. Other models and methodologies will come and go as the world pays attention to the latest this or the latest that in the marketplace of psychotherapeutic ideas. But God’s words anchor us to what has always been and always will be. Scripture is the only permanent source for our beliefs and values (Isaiah 40:8).
[1] Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and
procedures, 3rd ed.