The Crucial Issue I landed on from the six was number three: “We need to
clarify how human responsibility and suffering relate to one
another”(Powlison 2010, 241). This happens to be the exact concept that
I am currently debating in my Interdisciplinary Research class. This
concept intertwines the disciplines of the Old Testament and Psychology.
This crucial step requires the counselor to satisfy their need to introduce
sin and introduce it to the counselee for analysis of the issue they are
seeking counseling. Christian counselors must not fear secular counselors
or their secular education (Powlison 2010, 278). By the example of Moses,
Daniel and Paul, secular theory must be used to counter and prove the
words and meaning of the Bible. Sin is ultimately the problem in anything,
but how it is understood is what leads a counselee to a Christian or
secular base for therapy (Powlison 2010, 289-292). In the world of secular
counseling, “elaborate systems that rationalize sin by making people
fundamentally victims determined by forces outside their
control”(Powlison 2010, 246), take away the need for the counselee to
take responsibility for their moral choices. These contemporary victim
theories “ground our sins in our pain and our ‘needs’”(Powlison 2010,
247). What sin does to man is that it “exerts a systematic distorting effect
on thought and practice (Powlison 2010, 278).
Nouthetic counseling pulls from the theory of man being both responsible
for their moral actions and a sufferer from sin (Powlison 2010, 247). As
Adams quoted: “Sin is the product of flesh.” (Powlison 2010, 248) and is
cast upon man as a curse from God (Gen. 3:17-19). God then delivered
man by grace through Jesus Christ (John 3:16). Secular viewpoints allow
man to be a victim and give credibility to the excuses for negative actions.
While nouthetic theory gives “context within which both human
responsibility and Christ’s power to set free operate” (Powlison 2010,
248). According to the term describing the counseling style, the difference
between Biblical Counseling and Christian Counseling is precisely focused.
The counselor must decide if they advocate for the full authority of the
Bible or counsel within a Christian aspect versus word for word from the
Bible. The literal or the insinuated by Christ is what they must answer
(Powlison 2010, 274).
The other five crucial steps are essential to biblical counseling. I feel that
step three is the root of biblical counseling. If a counselee is Christian or
not has no bearing on the introduction of sin. While a Christian counselee
immediately relates and understand the introduction to sin, a non-believer
or secular counselee who is genuinely seeking help, opens to
understanding why to root of the problem is sin; or any other term they
may use in place of sin, i.e., karma, needs to be further explored to dive
deeper into the root of their problem. This provides an open dialog
between counselor and counselee that pushes immediate defensiveness
to the side. In return, this allows the counselee to be more comfortable
and open to the “two-fold solution”(Powlison 2010, 102) of Adams’
counseling method.
A crucial issue “in contemporary biblical counseling is to articulate the full
biblical view of both man and man’s situation in all its power, realism,
compassion, and subtlety. Then, by the grace of God, we must mature in
wisdom to practice counseling in the light of such truth”(Powlison 2010,
249).
References
Powlison, David.The Biblical Counseling Movement.Greensboro, NC: New
Growth Press, 2010.
