I’ve been sharing some videos on YouTube recently to help you think through approaches to pastoral counselling. However, I’m still aware that for some, there will be a question about whether or not we should be even attempting this kind of thing
In fact, there are, I think two risks. On the one hand, there can be an over confidence in our ability to counsel and on the other an under confidence.
From the over confidence side, there can be a speediness to offer something that sounds to the hearer like professional Counselling sessions. This can reflect an overestimate of our human abilities and an underestimate of what’s involved. If we see counselling simply as pointing out where someone’s sin is and giving them a bit of Scripture memorisation to do then we will think that’s easy and we can do it. If from a charismatic perspective we think that it is simply about a bit of prayer and prophetic insight, then again we will think there is nothing to it.
It is helpful then to remember what a counselor is doing, what they have and don’t have. The key things are this.
First, they will be trained in a particular methodological approach. This will involve a specific theory about how to do things but also training in how to actively listen and interpret what someone is saying, to observe etc.
Secondly, the training will come with accreditation to say that someone has observed them and signed them off as competent in this area. It also means that they will have made particular commitments in terms of ethical and professional standards.
Thirdly, they will have ongoing supervision meaning that they will have someone checking in to ensure that they are continuing to meet those standards.
All of those things come together to give you a level of confidence in your counsellor. However, there is more to it than that. Alongside that there will be two other factors. First of all, some will have further training and more importantly a specialized focus in a complex area of mental and emotional health. This might be in child development, trauma or something else.
Secondly, we focus a lot on therapists and counselors who will have a level of training in psychology but there is also a disinct profession around psychiatry and that starts from a medical perspective and is crucial in terms of understanding the medical and physiological impact on a person’s emotional health. This will include competency around medication.
What this means, I believe is that a simplistic view is going to miss those needs and opportunities. A pastor is unlikely, unless it was their prior professional field to have expertise through training and experience in medical matters, nor in deep seated specialized issues such as trauma. They may have bothered to develop a level of general awareness in such areas and may have even had some basic training in them but that is not what a trauma victim needs. Incidentally, they are probably going to need more than what a generalized secular counsellor can offer at that stage too.
However, this can lead to the under confidence side of things, that ends up saying that we don’t do counselling at all.
I was interested to read this article by my friend Steve Kneale. I’m not sure if, though suspect that one of the articles he is referring to is an earlier one from me.
I would highlight three misapprehensions that could arise from Steve’s quote from his forthcoming book. Note, I’m not saying that Steve himself has those misapprehensions. He is answering a different question and wanting to show that the application of God’s word is pastoral, which I agree with. However, I think that there are these are areas where misunderstanding can develop.
First, he talks about the concept of pastor as counsellor being a new thing. As I’ve observed previously, it is far from novel, although the language of “counsellor” may be newish (even still it has been knocking around for a good 100 years and more.
Secondly he talks about the counsellor as being one who simply listens and reflects. Whilst this is perhaps an element of counselling and some counselors focus heavily on methodologies that are non-prescriptive and minimize intervention, it is not the case that all methodologies avoid advice and are non-prescriptive. Crucially though, I think the difference from what a pastor does and what a secular counsellor does is the source of authority in the counsel. In secular counselling, to some degree, it is the counselled who has authority. However, actually it is the philosophy that underpins the approach. Skillful questioning can still direct a person into a preferred conclusion. In fact we begun to see the difference here with coaching and mentoring. Indeed, trained and skilled counselors can find mentoring and coaching hard because they don’t necessarily see how subtly directive their methods are! The pastor has another authority, God’s Word. It is crucial to remember that we are not to give our own opinions as advice. A pastor may be able to learn something from the posture of the counsellor. There is often a benefit in helping a person to find the answer for themselves not imposed from us on the outside but not drawn from within. Instead, they encourage a person to discover themselves what God’s word has to say.
Thirdly, Steve talks about the counsellor being there to help a person order their emotions. However, counselling may well, as in with CBT be focused as much on thoughts and behaviours, recognizing how the three link up. The other side of the coin is that pastors should be very much concerned with the ordering of emotions, or affections. Our preaching is meant to be to the affections and so too our counsel this is why I made the point that your therapist will be your pastor because you submit your affections to them and their beliefs.
Now, the bottom line is this. Some people may be uncomfortable with the word “counselling” due to being able risk of confusion. I think though it has been used long enough and also the secular world is as likely to use the word “therapy”. Even then, as I’ve argued before, there is a sense in which what we do has a true therapeutic nature but I’m happy to leave that word to the secular world.
However, I don’t think it really matters what you call it. Indeed, I suspect that what most people mean by “he is not pastoral” is nothing to do with an assessment of their technical counselling abilities and more a comment on one or more of the following: tone – are they perceived as warm, one to one ability as opposed to just preaching to a crowd and offering practical application as well as being able to convey knowledge. Those issues are worth discussion in their own right.
Crucially though, I would want to encourage everyone in a church to have a confidence in their competency to counsel, to be able to listen to others and to be able to take them to God’s Word for his advice to see not just behaviours but thoughts and feelings reordered. There is a proactive responsibility on pastors for this too. However, we should recognise our limitations and that there will be times when a person needs more specialized, focused care.
Faithroots 