Worldview and Identity

“It is not natural to see man as a natural product, it is not seeing straight to see him as an animal. It is not sane. It sins against the light, against the broad daylight of proportion, which is the principle of all reality” (Chesterton, G. K.)

An accurate worldview might best be defined as one that conforms to reality, or said another way, the one that harmonizes the makeup and/or the character of the human understanding as we know it. Upon years of study, the Orthodox Christian worldview appears to be the only view to withstand close scrutiny. The Bible tells us “God created man in His own image,…male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27, NASB). 

So when discussing worldview and identity beginning at the very beginning is a must, and in the beginning humans were created in a way as to reflect the character of the Creator of the entire universe and source of ultimate meaning. 

From the history books we can learn that prior to the settling of North America most cultures held a low view of the individual, and considered the individual secondary to the interest of the ethnic group. However, the multicultural worldview today is a direct descendant of the idea of ethnic group first and individual second. This type of collectiveness mindset has continued to cause major problems within the dominant culture that was based more on the individual first. Now it should be mentioned here that individual first ideas can be, and have been, equally destructive within the framework of worldview. 

The Bible teaches that all human beings have an eternal destination. It also teaches that all human beings will stand before God. On these two facts most professing Christians can, or should, be able to agree. My personal worldview is expressed foundationally by the facts that all human beings are equal before God, and all human beings are accountable to God for their decisions and choices. Any worldview that does not adhere to these foundational principles will most likely lead to destructive and derisive behaviors and beliefs. 

The proper Christian worldview recognizes humans as created in the image of God, that they have dignity, life is sacred, and there is meaning and purpose in every human life.

.

Culture

Culture can be defined as the sum total of all of the things held, or shared, in common within a group of people including behavior, language, ideas, values, customs, and overall way of life.

As suggested by Choudhuri (2012) there are different levels of culture from things a human beings have in common to things that are unique to an individual small group. Within the context of this journal, the societal culture is going to be the main focus even though the content may include other types of cultures to varying degrees. 

Culture has an impact on everyone, but the impact can be different from individual to individual. The view one has is primarily built upon their worldview which delineates their beliefs, values, and attitudes. While worldview is based on beliefs "about" things, there is also an identity factor that plays out in each person's life. Cultural identity is basically how someone views his or herself as a part of, or within a given culture. This identity can be developed through assimilation within the dominant culture, or they might choose their culture identification and recognize the influence of the dominant culture, but choose to remain part of a different culture. 

References

Choudhuri, D., Santiago-Rivera, A., & Garrett, M. (2012). Counseling and diversity. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Orientation to Culture / Diversity

The topic of diversity is a is an extraordinarily tough topic to address. The fact that Choudhuri (2012) uses the "fourth force" descriptive does not add much to the validity of her writing. If this sounds harsh, it is not intended to be harsh, but personal convictions about the destructive power of multiculturalism may lend to the perception of harshness. 

Counseling from a Biblical perspective should be something that tends to be a bit more narrow in focus, but should never be narrow-minded. Acknowledging cultural differences must be integrated into the counselor-client relationship. It would seem quite foolish to assume that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, race, country of origin, socioeconomic background, or just about any variable, to respond to a one-size-fits-all counseling approach. 

Counseling, with in the cultural context, requires a counselor to adapt certain approaches to therapy to fit the client. Cultural background should play a role in the decision-making of the counselor. However, what does seem somewhat unusual is to require a counselor to share a cultural heritage with a client. The previous statement may sound strange, but that seems to be thought process, although not necessarily stated as such, of the emic approach to counseling those of different cultures. Choudhuri (2012) explains the emic approach as one that requires a counselor to adapt the approach they use to the client, and if they cannot adapt they should create a new way to counsel the culturally specific client. On its face this sounds like a grand plan, but there seem to be some underlying assumptions connected to the emic approach. 

This approach could arguably be implying that a counselor is not equipped, using their tested methods, to counsel someone from a different culture because they, the counselor, are not from that particular background. Does this approach produce unity among differing groups, or does this approach add to the division that can, and does, exist between those from differing cultures? 

It would seem that an etic approach would be more reasonable when counseling those from differing cultures. The etic approach seems, on its face, to be compatible with a Biblical approach. The Biblical approach seems to work best when common ground (principles) can be found upon which to build a trusting and mutually helpful relationship. The Biblical approach is exemplified so well in the Book of Acts when the Apostle Paul goes to  Athens to proclaim God on Mars Hill. At Mars Hill he did not change his method or approach, but instead Paul found common ground with those he sought to win over. Paul, like any responsible counselor might, started with common ground and insight into their culture. He did not remain there though. He moved on to share the truth with those who were listening, "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things" (Acts 17:24-25, NASB). He may have started with cultural relevance, but he turned quickly to transcendent truth. This truth was foreign to the Athenian culture, but God can, and still does speak to people of every culture in the same manner.

References

Choudhuri, D., Santiago-Rivera, A., & Garrett, M. (2012). Counseling and diversity. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.

Philosophy of Cultural Diversity

Generally speaking, within the practice of counseling, race, ethnic groups, or cultural groups should not cause a counselor to have to make drastic, or even semi-drastic, changes to the way they conduct a counseling session. There are differing schemas that can provide mental images in which to "fit" someone into a specific category based on their culture and/or racial backgrounds. This is something, one might guess, that everyone does when they come into contact with someone different from themselves to any large degree.  

Biblically speaking, God's Word is very clear on the classification of His created beings, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27, NASB). Prior to this verse we find that the Bible opens with these words, "In the beginning, God" (Genesis 1:1, NASB). This should make clear that the starting point for any discussion of the philosophy of counseling people from diverse groups must be "In the beginning, God." To focus on the opening chapter of Genesis must be paramount to the person who sits in the counselor's chair. 

Technically speaking, for behavior to change there must be a change in how one thinks. Faulty thinking, from a CBT point of view, is the root of most problems that arise in someone's life. Albeit, there are developmental issues that can arise, but they too seem to be best corrected by changing how someone thinks. The almost default setting is to help someone reframe how they perceive an issue in order to develop a proper context for the issue. As someone better understands how their own view of the problem might be skewed, they are then better able to control the context of their thinking and develop a more correct frame of reference. 

Culturally speaking, there is no doubt that being raised in the south as a fourth generation Texan/Native American/German American/English American there could very well be some bias toward those that are different culturally and ethnically. That means controlling stereotypes is possibly one of the biggest obstacles that needs to be faced. To overcome this hurdle, one must make efforts to understand the client's worldview. There is a need to have knowledge of what influences the client's ideas and behaviors. With the knowledge there should be change in the way the client is viewed. Changing a stereotype is tough, but it can be done using what some call the bookkeeping model which simply means that as a counselor develops new insight into contradictory information they begin to incrementally change and adapt their presuppositions about the client.

References

New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.