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.
b b b b b b b 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.
b b b b b b b b 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.
b b b b b b b 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.
