Egan and Reese make a distinction between challenging and confrontation, although both imply a somewhat adversarial relationship and both are used within psychotherapy. On the other hand, some theoretical approaches suggest that resistance is always a function of the therapist and that paying attention to the client’s readiness to change can prevent much needless confrontation. Consider those ideas as you answer the following questions:
When might it be necessary to use a challenge or confrontation with a client? Give a concrete example. Or, if you believe challenging is not appropriate, make a case for your position.
How do challenging and confronting fit with the skills and values we discussed in earlier chapters, such as communicating empathy and using active listening and reflection? Are these skill sets compatible or not? Support your contentions with evidence from the chapters or other sources.
Would there be situations in which it might be important to challenge or to not challenge because of ethical considerations or cultural diversity issues? Make a case either for challenging or not challenging by citing a specific situation and explaining your reasoning process with regard to your position on challenging.
A main persecutor of Christians, Saul of Tarsus tried to decimate the Church (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13, 23). Aside from Jesus, nobody affected the early church more than Saul, otherwise called the messenger Paul. This paper will look at the conditions and occasions inciting an energetic persecutor of the congregation to turn into the most powerful pioneer for the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. It will be demonstrated that the "calling" of Saul was a genuine change despite the fact that he was not moving starting with one religion then onto the next. His "calling" stressed change yet accentuated the conviction that the last articulation and expectation of Judaism had been conceived. Paul was brought into the world a Jew, and was a native of Tarsus where he was a tentmaker in terms of professional career. He got his rabbinic preparing in Jerusalem, under the educating of Gamaliel. As indicated by Paul's own record, he was a severe follower among Pharisees (Gal. 1:14, Phil. 3:5-6). Paul acquired Roman citizenship (Acts 22:2528), which was broadly conceded during the last piece of the Roman republic. Paul asserts in Acts 22:28, that he had been brought into the world a Roman native. This would imply that he had acquired Roman citizenship from his dad. Little is known about Pauls life preceding the occasions examined in Acts. He is first referenced in part 7 regarding the execution of Stephen. As per Acts 7:58, the observers laid their garments at the feet of a young fellow named Saul. Paul was a Pharisee, a noticeable youthful individual from that order. Saturated with the monotheism of the Old Testament Scriptures, he could just consider obscenity the cases of Jesus' trains that their Master was the Son of God. He could just scorn the issue of an actual existence that ended, as he thought, on a loathed cross and in a desolate tomb, instead of on a position of authority of brilliance. Concerning Pauls pre-Christian frame of mind to the gospel, one thing is sure; he was against it with his entire heart. In his biblical letters he discusses his past disdain for the congregation (Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6). His mistreatment of Christians was to him a sacred war. The main clarification that can be given of his abrupt inversion is that the risen Christ really appeared to him and by the sheer influence of His divinity, asserted the confidence and loyalty of the persecutor. Paul's transformation/calling to the "Way" occurred close to the city of Damascus. Four qualities hang out in the records of this occasion. Initially, Paul was effectively occupied with mistreating Christians and did not foresee his change (Acts 9:19; 22:416; 26:917). Second, the occasion that started the surprising change obviously was a disclosure of Jesus Christ made to Paul alone. Third, Soon after this disclosure Paul had contact with a specific Christian (Ananias) in Damascus who perceived Paul as a devotee to Christ by sanctifying through water him. Fourth, Paul was promptly called by Jesus to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:89; Gal. 1:1516; cf. Eph. 3:16). Paul's Damascus experience turns into the most renowned transformation/bringing ever. All of a sudden he is blinded by a light from paradise the light of the brilliance of Christ. His give up to Jesus was momentary and complete: What will I do, Lord? (Acts 22:10). He couldn't see on account of the greatness of that light (Acts 22:11), however he had just observed the light of the information of the brilliance of God even with Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6). The lord of this world could dazzle him never again. At his change/calling, Paul was instructed to open the eyes and divert them from haziness to light (Acts 26:18). Despite the fact that Paul was blinded after his experience with the Lord, Ananias laid hands on Paul, "something like scales" tumbled from his eyes (Acts 9:18), and he had the option to see. He had direct learning and experience of abandoning obscurity to light, and his order from the Lord was as clear as his recently recovered sight. Substance to imply Paul's visual impairment and recuperation as verifiable occasions, Luke wishes by a calm portrayal of deliberately chosen realities to clarify that Paul's gathering with Christ isn't to be classed with different dreams, anyway extraordinary, however is to be acknowledged on a standard with the other appearances of the Risen Lord. So Paul goes from contradicting God and abusing Jesus to joining the mistreated side. In the wake of going through a few days with the devotees at Damascus, Saul went into the synagogues and strongly broadcasted Jesus, that he is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Krister Stendahl contends that a legitimate understanding of Romans 7 demonstrates that Paul, as an unwavering Jew, had encountered no battle or blame sentiments that would have driven him, through disappointment with the law, to go to Christ… .Neither did he experience the ill effects of a thoughtful still, small voice… ..Stendahl likes to see him as somebody who did not surrender his Jewishness for another religion in any case, rather, as a Jew who was given another work in administration of the Gentiles. The portrayal, in Acts, of Paul's unexpected change making a course for Damascus is essentially the production of Luke; Paul's biographer. Luke's depiction of Paul isn't unprejudiced history either, for it was proposed to perform the early church's adventure from Judea into the gentile world. Somehow or another Luke makes light of Paul's cases, however he utilizes Paul's life and mission to show the fate of Christianity. A considerable lot of an incredible subtleties originate from Luke since most personal subtleties are missing from Paul's own letters. Luke's portrayal of Paul's change draws on the Hebrew Bible for subjects of prophetic calling, paralleling the charging of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5-11) and Isaiah (Isa. 6:1-9). Paul's "calling", and extreme transformation to Christianity, portrays the definitive change Paul experienced. Not exclusively was Paul's change/calling wonderful concerning his perspective on Jesus, however in his disposition toward Gentiles. Judaism is notable for its exclusivist disposition. It was unlawful for a Jew to have association with one who is uncircumcised. Alongside his change he got a prophetic commission to change over the gentiles. It is lacking to talk possibly regarding Paul's conversionas on the off chance that he were moving starting with one religion then onto the next; and in like manner possibly as far as his callas in the event that he were proceeding in an unaltered confidence. The transformation call mix accentuates both progression and change. Stendahl challenges the suitability of transformation language since Paul has not changed religions, that is, he never abandons loyalties to the God with which he started. While the appropriate response may appear to be clear enough, working with Stendahl's presumptions muddles the assignment; and besides, Luke no place unequivocally characterizes transformation, nor gives a reliable example of passage into the congregation. When he specifies the methods by which one joins the gathering, he is commonly adjusting account partitions which exhibit the overall impacts of lecturing. He does, in any case, offer adequate material for us in any event to think about the idea of a changed association with God, and ask whether the change establishes transformation. In spite of the fact that we usually name this experience Pauls change, this should be possible just all things considered, for around then Judaism and Christianity were not yet isolate religions. In actuality, Paul changed brands of Judaism, changing from Pharisaic to Christian Judaism. One of the principle ways that Luke exhibits Saul's changed association with God is to demonstrate this adjustment in gathering affiliations. That is, while not an end in itself, his new corporate personality focuses to a definitive reality supporting his change. What is clear is the way that the gospel message is starting to reach out past Jerusalem and Judea. Paul occupies that universe of Christianity which he once attempted to eliminate through the murdering of Stephen. Be that as it may, it was Stephen and his circle, not Paul, who propelled a mission to Gentiles. Paul's evangelist venture isn't encircled in all inclusive statements, all things considered in Acts 1:8 (to be my observers) and Acts 9:15 (to convey my name). In Acts 22 and 26, Paul is coordinated to affirm explicitly about what he has seen and heard making a course for Damascus. The teacher charge to lecture "before lords" in Acts 9:15 is Luke's expectation of the manner in which he shut Paul's open service by having Paul lecture before King Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32), and it is suggestive of a Pauline appearance before Caesar (cf. Acts 23:11, 25:10-12 and 27:23-24.) Since Paul is the extraordinary evangelist to the Gentiles, it is suitable that his transformation/call quickly go before the overall spread of the gospel. Thus, Luke presents it preceding the development of the gospel into the Gentile world, as the end to the Palestinian mission. What were the outcomes of this occasion for Pauls religious philosophy? The most troublesome inquiry to comprehend was, What effect does the Christian Gospel have on the idea and recognition of the Law (Torah)? This inquiry is as yet questioned today. The fundamental issue is that Paul is by all accounts wavering between two ideas of law, a Jewish idea and his own Christian idea. Paul considered his new idea the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). The law outlined the Scriptures in another manner, by viewing the adoration direction as the shared factor. "For the entire law is satisfied in single word: you will love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14). As Paul endeavored to comprehend Christian religious philosophy, the Damascus occasion gave a sudden response to an old Jewish inquiry: Is God the God of Jews as it were? It is safe to say that he is not the God of gentiles moreover? Since Christ requested Paul to lecture the gospel to the gentiles, Paul could now answer strikingly: Yes, of Gentiles too End When perusing Acts, one is struck by the promptness of Paul's action as a theological rationalist and scholar for the Christian people group after his transformation (Acts 9:20-22, 28-29). >GET ANSWER