Addressing Sin
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.
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.
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.
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.
