A Philosophy of Christian Counseling

A few years ago I had the opportunity to make a "Philosophy of Christian Counseling" in outline form. I just came across it again, and I thought you might find it helpful and interesting to interact with.

Philosophy of Christian Counseling Outline

(Note: This philosophy of Christian counseling outline does not claim to be so comprehensive as to address every problem that may be experienced by men and women; rather, it acknowledges that many of the problems faced by people living in today’s world are caused, or at least fueled, by a refusal (whether conscious or not) to take responsibility for one’s own actions in the context of relationships with others. With this being said, however, it should always be remembered that in helping others who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, the rule for conduct should generally be compassionate concern rather than confrontational criticism.)

1. Mankind’s Problem: People are deceived by themselves and others, because they would naturally rather hide behind a lie than be vulnerable and take responsibility for their own actions.
   
   1. People are born into this world with innate tendencies, character, and temperament (nature); in addition, they are also shaped through their family of origin, through early childhood experiences, and through traumatic events (nurture).
      
   2. Given this interaction between nature and nurture, people are led to act and make decisions that are nevertheless real choices for which they are responsible before God and others.
      
   3. Because human beings are finite creatures both in knowledge and potential, they inevitably make mistakes that result in damage to their relationships with God and other people.
      
   4. Healthy Response to Mistakes: For the healthy person, mistakes that result in damage to their relationship with God and others are responded to through acknowledging their mistake, taking responsibility for the damage that resulted, and asking for forgiveness in a genuine manner.
      
   5. Unhealthy Response to Mistakes: For the unhealthy person, mistakes that result in damage to their relationship with God and others are responded to through denial, deceit, and blame-shifting. Rather than being vulnerable and taking responsibility for their actions, unhealthy men and women choose to be deceived both by themselves and others in believing that someone or something else is to blame for their choices, whether God, other people, their biological predisposition, or their environment.
      

2. Ramifications of Mankind’s Problem: In order to conceal the lies they have accepted and avoid addressing the damage they have done in their relationships with others, people continue to deceive both themselves and others, thus spinning a web of lies and complicating their problem.
   
   1. Once a person has chosen to hide behind the lie that someone or something else is responsible for the choices they have made, they will be forced to continue telling more lies in order to cover their first lie and avoid addressing their initial problem.
      
   2. As men and women begin embracing more lies, they actually begin to convince themselves that the false version of reality that they are constructing is true; thus, many people come to a point in life where they no longer are able to separate truth from falsehood in terms of their relationships with God, their family, and their friends.
      
   3. In spite of their self-deception, many around those who are hiding behind lies are often able to recognize this subtle falsehood; indeed, it is often easier to recognize fault in others than in oneself.
      
   4. As a result of the intricate web of lies that people develop in order to avoid personal responsibility, attempts to help on the part of others are often viewed as personal attacks, and in this way an even greater rift can be created in relationships that would otherwise be healthy and productive.
      

3. Solution to Mankind’s Problem: As a result of their complicated self-deception, people must begin untangling the mistruths they have accepted and led others to believe by acknowledging the truth, by taking responsibility for the damage they have done, and by seeking forgiveness from those whom they have offended.
   
   1. Step One: The first step that must be taken by a person hiding behind lies is to genuinely acknowledge the truth that they are ultimately responsible for themselves. Leading others to embrace this first step must be done gently and tactfully, for those who are hiding behind a lie are often not aware of their own self-deception.
      
   2. Step Two: The second step that must be taken by a person hiding behind lies is to take responsibility for the root issue which they have been concealing. This person needs to recognize that they have damaged relationships with others (whether God, family, friends, etc.) through their actions, and accept the consequences that are due to them for their mistakes.
      
   3. Step Three: The third step that must be taken by a person hiding behind lies is to seek forgiveness from the party they have offended in a genuine manner. In seeking forgiveness, a person should not try to offer explanations or excuses for the mistakes they made, but they should instead recognize the harm they have caused to others and seek reconciliation with the offended party.
      
   4. In the future, when this person who has hidden behind lies makes mistakes that result in damage to relationships with God and others, they should direct themselves to follow these three steps of acknowledging the truth, taking responsibility for their actions, and seeking forgiveness rather than shifting blame elsewhere, so that further damage does not result in their relationships.
      

Merry Christmas!

For Christmas this year, I wanted to share this video with you as a special treat-I hope you enjoy it!

Why A Heart For The Gospel Should Lead To A Heart For The City

Before I moved to Portland back in 2003, I spent about eight years living out in the country. Whether you've ever lived in the country or not, it has a lot to offer: open spaces, distant neighbors, breathtaking views, and more flora and fauna than the zoo can boast. I wasn't even excited about living in the country at first, but over time it grew on me. As a result, when it came time for me to move to Portland and begin college, I was torn. On the one hand I was excited about beginning my studies at Multnomah Bible College, and on the other hand I sort of dreaded the thought of leaving the country and moving into the city.

With the passing of these past six years, however, everything has changed. Not only am I thankful that I live in an urban center, but I am also convinced that God has placed me (along with all other believers in this city) here to develop me as a disciple of Jesus Christ and provide me with opportunities for ministry.  But how did this change happen?

My change in thinking really came about through discovering God's plan for redeeming the nations and bringing them to faith in Jesus Christ as I studied the Scriptures in-depth. As I intentionally and rigorously studied the Bible over these past six years, I found that not only does the heart of God beat for seeing people come to faith in Jesus Christ, but He is also intensely interested in redeeming entire nations and people-groups. This certainly doesn't mean that every individual composing any particular people-group will be saved, but it does mean that God will not rest until people " from every tribe and language and people and nation" come to an obedience of faith toward God in Jesus Christ.

But how does this relate to having a heart for the city? To my surprise, as I studied the New Testament and church history, I found that the church of Jesus Christ has always tended to spread to urban centers first, and only to outlying rural areas second. In the book of Acts, for example, we see the Apostle Paul intentionally targeting the cultural, religious, and political centers of the Roman Empire in his work of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. He certainly passed through rural regions on his journeying from city to city, but the majority of his work was focused on the urban centers. Likewise, as we look to the pages of church history, we find that this trend continued with Christians being located primarily in the cities until the establishment of Christianity as a legal Roman religion upon the ascension of Constantine to the throne. And this makes sense: if you want to really have an impact upon a nation, you would target the cities first, and only after that the surrounding countryside. It is unlikely that a movement beginning in the country will muster enough influence to change the city, but it is very likely that a movement taking root in the urban centers of a nation will slowly began to influence an entire nation.

So if Christianity has always tended to target urban centers in the process of evangelization and discipleship, what's the need for this blog post? I do truly believe now that a heart for the gospel should lead to a heart for the city. But in recent decades this hasn't always been apparent. At least in the United States, there has been a gradual but definite shift as "ghetto-ization" has led minorities into the inner city and white middle-to-upper class people to the suburbs and out into the country. As this "exodus" has happened, churches have tended to follow their congregations. And I can demonstrate this with an anecdote: where are the majority of mega-churches in your city located? Are they located in the inner city, or in the suburbs? At least in my city, they are all in the suburbs! As those who are able to do so have left city centers, the church has tended to follow, so that the cities have been left to those ministries dedicated to ministry to minority ethnic groups, social justice efforts, etc. This trend is very backwards in my opinion, but it is nevertheless a reality in our nation.

So how should a heart for the gospel lead you to have a heart for the city? My intention behind this post is definitely not to make you feel guilty if you live and minister in the suburbs or in a rural setting; it is very possible that God has placed you there for a purpose. But as we move into the future as the people of God and try to strategically plan how to impact our nation with the gospel of Jesus Christ, we need to keep our sights fixed on the city. America will not be taken for Jesus Christ through political campaigns, building stronger families, reforming our churches, or emphasizing correct doctrine (as important and necessary as all of these things are); instead, the only way that we will see our nation become a place that truly shines as a "city set on a hill" is through being intentional about targeting our cities as the crux of culture and incarnating the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ through our work there.

I Have Seen The Light

Distinguishing Between Cultural And Biblical Views Of Masculinity

The company that makes "Dockers" pants just came out with a new "man-ifesto" aimed at encouraging men to step up and take their rightful place as men who act in a masculine way in society (which by a strange coincidence means wearing their pants). The "man-ifesto" states: 

Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well.  Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone.  Men took charge because that’s what they did.  But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men.  Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khaki’s and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny.  But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for.  The world sits idly by and cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street.  For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes.  We need grown-ups.  We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency.  It’s time to get your hands dirty.  It’s time to answer the call of manhood.  It’s time to wear the pants.

This declaration definitely attracted a lot of attention, with some hailing it as a call to return to a proper view of masculinity, others decrying it as sexism, etc. If you are interested, you can view the "man-ifesto" in its' original context here. 

After reading this manifesto I've got to say that I appreciate a lot of what it had to say. It is certainly true that gender roles and distinctions have become so blurred in our society (largely due to the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism) that there is no longer much meaningful difference between men and women. Men have begun to assume roles once largely assumed by women, and vice-versa. 

And if you stop to think about it, this is a pretty ironic situation. What people tried to achieve for women through feminism-a (re)newed appreciation of women, their rights, dignity, and contributions to society-was actually what they sacrificed in the pursuit of their goal. Why-because women don't inherently have rights, dignity, and contributions to make toward society? Not at all! Instead, the distinctive rights, dignity, and contributions of women toward society were given up because in the pursuit of feminism's goals, the basic idea postulated was that "women need to be doing the same kinds of things as men in order to be valuable and have worth". By phrasing the discussion in these terms, people pursued equal rights for women and sacrificed any distinctiveness and identity that women have simply in being women and doing the things that come naturally for women to do. So on this count, I definitely have to agree with the people at Dockers that something is radically wrong with our understanding of gender roles and distinctions.

On the other hand, I was also a little disturbed by the way this declaration seemed to paint the picture of masculinity that men need to re-embrace. Based on reading this manifesto, it seems that being a "real man" includes wearing pants (preferrably Dockers!), opening doors for women, helping old ladies across the street, not going to discos, not drinking lattes, not eating from salad bars, and not using plastic forks! I believe that some of these things are what men should be doing as gentlemen-namely opening doors for women and helping ladies across the street-but I would have to say that I couldn't care less about the rest of these items in terms of defining masculinity. And the evident result of American men abandoning this view of masculinity as set forth by the advertisers over at Dockers is a genderless society, a crumbling world, misbehaving children, and old ladies who can't get across the street. I recognize that some of this ad may be tongue-in-cheek, but they are really raising some pretty serious issues either way.

So what's my big problem with this manifesto? I want to re-affirm that I do appreciate the spirit behind this declaration: there are appropriate and important distinctions between men and women, and the observance of these distinctions determines the health and ongoing sustainability of society and culture. But I'm concerned that this manifesto is more of a call back to a 1950's cultural understanding of masculinity than it is of a call back to a biblical view of masculinity. By a "1950's cultural understanding of masculinity", I'm talking about the view of a real man presented in the media (television, radio, movies, newspapers, and magazines) of post-World War II America in which a man was someone who was primarily defined by working long hours to pay for lots of material goods for his family, eating lots of red meat, getting dirty with his buddies in pick-up games of football and baseball on the weekends, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man who does any or all of these things; but this is just one expression of what it means to be a man rather than something that necessarily comes from the Bible.

My point in all of this is to show that we need to be careful and wise in how we embrace what at times seem to be movements in our culture toward a more biblically-defined morality and view of society. I really have no problem with the Docker's ad in general, but if we understand the picture of masculinity that Dockers is presenting as normative or biblical we would be very, very mistaken indeed. To properly understand masculinity, we would need to go back much, much further than 1950's Americana to the very pages of Scripture themselves...