Non-directive counselling

In general and in counselling do not talk about what the other person ought to do or should do. Talk about how they see what they need to do. This is non-judgmental in that it helps them assess themselves.
 
A counseller in the past would have assessed. It was assumed that assessing is not judging. But when people can assess themselves, it is hard to deny that assessing was just judgement brought in the back door.

Non-directive counselling is about helping people to find their own direction in life. You are an instrument in their self-discovery - you are not the person finding the right path for them.

Non-directive counselling is the only real form of counselling there is!

The counsellors will not be responsible for any decision made by the clients. The decision must not be influenced by the counsellors. The counsellors will keep spiritual, religious and moral guidance out of their agencies. Instead they help the clients to think about the different choices they can make and to choose the one they think is the best. It is always up to each individual client to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

People worry about non-directive counselling and how it can work in situations that seem to raise moral issues. For example, if somebody is planning to commit suicide or beat up his or her spouse. Would it be professional misconduct for the counsellor to try and give direction?
 
The fact is that the choice a person makes can only be made by them. It not for you to choose if somebody can have an abortion or choose suicide. You choosing is oppression and if these things are evil oppression is evil too.

Some say that non-directive counselling does involve the counsellor giving direction. Examples are given of when a counsellor brings up a certain possible solution to the persons' problems. This can influence the clients to make a particular decision. But who is making the influence? The person cannot be influenced unless they let themselves be. This overlooks the fact that influence is very underhand. The influencer does not want you to see how you are being played.

Non-directive counselling is godless for it ignores the rule that obedience to God comes first even if it hurts God's servant. Also, if the counsellor influences the client, this is should not be intentional. The counselling is based on the client influencing herself or himself.

Carl Rogers

Carl Rogers was clear that we must when counselling avoid giving the message, "I like you only if you are thus and so." And naturally you must also avoid the more subtle, "You are bad in these ways, good in those." Rogers is a clear example of why love the sinner and hate the sin is bad and why people feel threatened by it.

Rogers was clear the therapist should be able to answer, "True for me" when asked to think about the following statements.

"I feel no revulsion at anything the client says".

"I feel neither approval nor disapproval of the client and [their] statements - simply acceptance".

"I am not inclined to pass judgment on what the client tells me."

Yet despite that, the therapist will perhaps without being aware, make judgements of the person. Trying to be neutral about the person can also be judgemental. "John told me he wants to beat up children and says he hates them and wants to hate them." Saying, "I am neutral", implies that you are aware of a personality problem and you invoke neutrality as a way of trying to deny that awareness.
 
You should just be neutral. Trying is judgemental for it shows you have to make the effort to get rid of your judging.

Interestingly, Roger's work which warns about reducing the person to one or two qualities tells us that even something general such as, "You are the best", is just another way of reducing a person to one thing about them. Its a degrading objectification. Looking at Mary and seeing only her patience is not seeing her as a person.

Rogers argued that a therapist must accept the client totally and unconditionally. In other words it does not matter what the client says or does. The argument was that this stopped the client being defensive and hiding anything that was best talked about. A client who feels judged or that their deed will be judged will not open up well. The client sees the deed as saying something about herself or himself as a person so this again is another rejection of love the sinner and hate the sin.

Roger's views became very mainstream. This soon turned God into a therapist in the line of Rogers and Jesus into a counsellor. Society started to treat itself as a group therapy entity.

Yet Rogers was insistent that we come into the world with instincts about right and wrong which are shaped by the kind of environment we are part of. As we learn the instinctive attraction to right and wrong and our sense of these things develops.

Rogers never intended his methods to become standard except when undergoing therapy.

CONCERNS: Some clients will be religious. We hope that regulations about non-directive counselling are not about protecting religious evil and other such things. Remember that the message it gives is that religion should be treated only as a matter of opinion. That is a denial of religion for religion does not act or think like it is only opinion! Religion claims that it cannot be left at anybody's doorstep and must come into the therapy room.
 
A therapist with strong beliefs in oppressive religious scriptures or a domineering God is clearly not fit to practice. There is a risk.

NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING

NLP is not about you as a moral entity but you put yourself at the mercy of the practitioner. If they are immoral or amoral then they will induce that into you. It is about you losing a lot of your moral self to feel better and to feel more successful.  This was a respected approach at one time and its a scandal how the Church got funding and access to vulnerable people while opposing it.

John Grinder and Milton Erickson its engineers seem to think that mind control as in cult fashion is only bad if it hurts but good if it makes you more productive.  This is bizarre logic for trying to control somebody like a hypnosis subject is still trying to control.  Cults that program people to be good are still evil cults.