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.
c c c c c c c 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.
c c c c c c c c 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.
c c c c c c 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.
