Clyde M. Narramore 와 Jay E. Adams의 相談理論 比較연구 = A comprative study on the counseling theory between clyde M.Narramore and Jay E.Adams

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The contemporary counseling theories have their own characters and have developed with different patterns depended upon psychiatry and psychology.
But, unhappily these theories are used inadequately by Christians and ministers under the name of Biblical counseling theories without the light of Bible.
Our modern emphasis on personal wholeness, human potential, and the freedom to be ourselves has quietly shifted us away from a burning concern for becoming more like the Lord to more primary interest in our development as person which, we are implicitly promised, will need to our development as person which, we are implicitly promised, will need to our happiness. In such situstion, it is very useful to do comparative sturdy on two scholars (Narramore and Adams) to us for establishing the basis of Biblical counseling theory.
This paper deals with the differences of their theories in their relation to the contemporary non Christian counseling theories, focussing on their well-known books, that is, Psychology and Counselling (Narramore) and Competent to Counsel(Adams).
The contents develop with chapter by chapter such as: 1. sketch on their characters, 2. comparative study on their theories, and suggestion of discussion. It includes
1) the conception and starting point of counseling,
2) the qualification and ethics of counselor,
3) relationship between counselor and counselee, and
4) the counseling method and the position of psychology in counseling
In conclusion Narramore's counseling theory is very similar to Rogers and Hiltner, who insist non-directive or reflective counseling method that the role of counselor is only a expert to encourage, and a catalyst of solving problems. Rogerian theory and therapy is based upon the idea that all men have adequate knowledge and resources to handle their problems.
That, naturally, offers an optimistic outlook for counselors. Even the counselee himself have such knowledge. The basic assumption is that persons with unsolved problems simply have not beet living up to their own potential. Latent within them lie the solutions to all of their problems.
They have the potential to do right. As a matter of fact, Rogers believes that at his core man is good, not evil. Adequate resources are there, built in. The task is to plug these in: to release the power. A counselor only evokes from the counselee all of the answers that lie down there inside. There is, than, a basic belief in the goodness and autonomy of man.
God is not needed by Rogerian counselor. According to Narramore's concept of man fully boxed and packaged with all of resources in himself can lead to no other conclusion. His approach, therefore, must be rejected.
Instead, Adams says that man is totally responsible before God. Christians believe that God is sovereign and works His will in man: yet man must use his divinely appointed human agency under the providence of God. Nevertheless, in the use of human agency Christians recognize their utter dependence upon God's resources. God alone can regenerate him, instruct him, and empower him by His Spirit through the Scriptures. Man is responsible, but he is responsible to use these valid means directed and provided by God. Among these is the help of directive ceunselors using nouthetic confrontation. Human personality is not violated by the program and plan of God. God makes resources beyond the counselee available in His word by His Spirit through the various channels of Grace (help).
Adams suggests 'Biblical Counseling' or 'Nouthetic Counseling' and returns Christian counseling to its original position. We believe for authentic biblical counseling, as he told, must
1) discover the motivation with the Bible,
2) accepy the presupposition of the Bible,
3) have the frome of the biblical objectives, and
4) be developed systematically according to the principle and practise the Scriptures give a model and order of counseling
But, this does not mean that all contemporary clinical results must be rejected. Rather, it means that we must reflect the meaning Bibles does say about the problems among the various counseling theories and methods.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Abstract
• Ⅰ. 序論
• 1. 硏究의 意義 및 目的
• 2. 硏究의 方法 및 範圍
• Ⅱ. 내래모어 (Clyde M. Narramore)와 아담스(Jay E. Adams)의 周邊 硏究
• 1. 내래모어
• 2. 아담스
• Ⅲ. 相談理論의 比較硏究 및 問題提起
• 1. 相談의 槪念 및 出發點
• 2. 相談者의 資格 및 倫理
• 3. 相談者와 被相談者의 關係
• 4. 相談의 方法論과 心理學의 位置
• Ⅳ. 結論
• 참고문헌