When considering how and when to confront sin in a client's life the counselor must first
decide whether a trusting relationship has been established and if the client is willing to
accept confrontation (McMinn, 2011). The counselor may want to consider the value of
confronting the sin or the severity of the sin. Essentially, if a sin may potentially cause
immediate harm to others or severe harm to the client then the counselor may want to
address it more quickly. However, if a sin does not cause immediate harm to others or
severe harm to the client the counselor may consider first establishing a trusting
relationship with the client and confront the sin in a future session. Confronting sin when
the client is not willing to accept the confrontation can be detrimental to the client-
counselor therapeutic relationship. Therefore, the counselor must carefully choose when
and how to confront sin.
a a a a a a a a Choosing how to confront sin may be even more crucial then the 'when' (McMinn,
2011). Each method presented by McMinn (2011), has its own value and there are times for
each method to be used. When the counselor decides that the client is not ready to have
their sin confronted the counselor should choose to the not confronting method. This
method should focus on building rapport with the client and exploring areas in which the
client requires help or areas in which the client is struggling on a mental or emotional level.
The silence method is best utilized with clients who may be fragile and quick to become
defensive or for those who are strong in their analysis of self. By being quiet and not
affirming or denying the client's opinion the counselor is pushing the client to analyze their
own actions and thoughts and come to a conclusion by themselves. McMinn (2011)also
states that this method is often used with clients who are seemingly dependent on the
counselors opinion.
a a a a a a a a a The pondering method allows the client to hear what the counselor is
understanding from the discussion and causes the client to re-think or clarify what they
meant (McMinn, 2011). This method is more direct than silence as the counselor is
questioning the honesty of the client's statements without directly asking a question. By
doing this the client is forced to clarify exactly what is meant which may lead to a
realization of their own sin. Questioning allows the counselor to more directly confront the
client by directly exploring the clients own values. This method continues to allow the client
the autonomy to think through and express what their values are on a specific topic.
Questioning is more concise and narrows the topic of discussion. As McMinn (2011) states,
counselor should be extremely careful when considering to implement the direct censure
method. As this method is very confrontational, counselors should be confident in the
strength of the therapeutic relationship with the client. Clients who are willing to hear, open,
accepting, and trusting of the counselor's opinion and view point will be able to benefit
from this method. However, those who do not trust the counselor or are unwilling to accept
this form of confrontation will be at risk for a damaged therapeutic relationship.
a a a a a a a After considering each method closely I believe that there are times for counselors to
use each method accordingly. Counselors may combine these methods and may decide to
use the outside-in or inside-out approaches to best suit the needs of their client. I believe
that counselors should be careful in how they address sin and when to confront. However, I
do not believe that counselors should be scared or unwilling to confront sin. As a Christian,
pastoral counselors have a duty to hold other Christians accountable for their actions.
References
McMinn, M. R. (2011). Psychology, theology, and spirituality in christian counseling. Tyndale
House Publishers.
