The intention of this article starts from struggling and confusing ambiguities between general psychology and christian counseling. As a pastoral counselor I have encountered lots of psychologists and christian counselors who have used psychological counseling methods without figuring out the identity of christian counseling. Starting this ambiguous identity of Christian counseling, I presuppose two categories which interrupt and make confusion to Christian counseling. First presupposition is that contemporary society has emphasized the role of ‘the self’in which we have been recognized the possibilities and potentialities of the self. The possibility of self has shaped incredibly the identity of counselor and provides the positive self images which make christian counselors lean on totally themselves not the eternal. Second thing is that we christian counselors have trusted too much on counseling methodologies rather than focusing on or trusting on christian faith. In these processes it seems to me that we have lost so many christian heritages such as tradition, theology and so on. Theology, especially, is the product of christian struggles to identify who are humans and God, and it has continued for more than 2000 years. To be effective christian counselors we need and reflect this heritage in which our christian ancestors struggled for christian identities. In this sense I select theologian Paul Tillich who thought most deeply about depth psychology and theology to connect the both sides for the understandings of human. His answering theology, first of all, is based on human predicaments in which we humans have showed various symptoms. In this perspective his definition of human is that we humans have the potentiality which has been named as the image of God. But, simultaneously, it always has temptations which have attempted to be free from one’s boundary and finitude. Our human boundary and finitude have been called in his theology as unbelief, hubris and concupiscence. In addition, he indicates that psychological methods and ways are needed for effective counseling. But these elements should not be considered as first rather than preparing the space for the ultimate concern. The difference between christian counseling and general counseling is that christian counseling should consider the participation of Ultimate Concern who embraces and transcends the limitations of counselors. During the counseling, we need to invite first the participation of the Ultimate Concern and other counseling methodologies should be consider as the secondary sources. This attitude is the major difference. As we have reflected christian heritages, comparing with psychological understandings of humans and methodologies, we christian counselors will have effective and affluent resources for christian counseling.
The intention of this article starts from struggling and confusing ambiguities between general psychology and christian counseling. As a pastoral counselor I have encountered lots of psychologists and christian counselors who have used psychological counseling methods without figuring out the identity of christian counseling. Starting this ambiguous identity of Christian counseling, I presuppose two categories which interrupt and make confusion to Christian counseling. First presupposition is that contemporary society has emphasized the role of ‘the self’in which we have been recognized the possibilities and potentialities of the self. The possibility of self has shaped incredibly the identity of counselor and provides the positive self images which make christian counselors lean on totally themselves not the eternal. Second thing is that we christian counselors have trusted too much on counseling methodologies rather than focusing on or trusting on christian faith. In these processes it seems to me that we have lost so many christian heritages such as tradition, theology and so on. Theology, especially, is the product of christian struggles to identify who are humans and God, and it has continued for more than 2000 years. To be effective christian counselors we need and reflect this heritage in which our christian ancestors struggled for christian identities. In this sense I select theologian Paul Tillich who thought most deeply about depth psychology and theology to connect the both sides for the understandings of human. His answering theology, first of all, is based on human predicaments in which we humans have showed various symptoms. In this perspective his definition of human is that we humans have the potentiality which has been named as the image of God. But, simultaneously, it always has temptations which have attempted to be free from one’s boundary and finitude. Our human boundary and finitude have been called in his theology as unbelief, hubris and concupiscence. In addition, he indicates that psychological methods and ways are needed for effective counseling. But these elements should not be considered as first rather than preparing the space for the ultimate concern. The difference between christian counseling and general counseling is that christian counseling should consider the participation of Ultimate Concern who embraces and transcends the limitations of counselors. During the counseling, we need to invite first the participation of the Ultimate Concern and other counseling methodologies should be consider as the secondary sources. This attitude is the major difference. As we have reflected christian heritages, comparing with psychological understandings of humans and methodologies, we christian counselors will have effective and affluent resources for christian counseling.
I. 들어가는 말 II. 폴 틸리히의“중심된 자기”(the Centered Self) 개념: 자기의 존재론적 양극성(Ontological Polarity III. “중심된 자기”(The Centered Self)의 제한성: 불신(Unbelief), 교만(Hubris), 욕정(Concupiscence) IV. “중심된 자기”개념의 한계성과 가능성 관점에서 본 기독교상담의 정체성 회복 V. 나가는 말 참고문헌
