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.
No comments:
Post a Comment