TC3 1

Running head: WILSON THEORY CRITIQUE

A Critique of a Theoretical Counseling Model

Hurt People Hurt People by Sandra D. Wilson, Ph.D.

Patrick King

ID # L22702933

Liberty University

Coun507_ B04_ 201020 Spring

Sub-term B
Deadline: 2/14/10
Instructor’s Name – Dr. James Eisenhower
Date of Submission 2/14/10
 TC3 2

A Critique of a Theoretical Counseling Model

Hurt People Hurt People by Sandra D. Wilson, Ph.D.

In her book, Hurt people hurt people, Sandra Wilson presents a theoretical self-help

model for dealing with residual childhood hurts and breaking generational patterns of hurting

others. This examination of Dr. Wilson’s approach to correcting maladjusted behavioral patterns

briefly summarizes both the theoretical and theological orientation of her proposed model,

considers the model in the context of Dr. Hawkins concentric circle theory of personality, and

presents a critique with regard to the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the approach.

Overview of theoretical orientation and process

The title of her book, Hurt people hurt people, more than adequately summarizes Dr.

Wilson’s (2001) thesis. Dr. Wilson (2001) asserts that no living being is exempt from the reality

of being deeply wounded, and consequently wounding others. From her perspective wounded

souls are at the root of most maladaptive adult behaviors (Wilson, 2001, p. 85). She suggests

that those wounds are the result of early childhood solutions to a real, or at the very least a

perceived, threat to an innate survival instinct. Dr. Wilson (2001) postulates that behavioral

patterns and personality develop over time as a result of repeatedly answering questions with

regard to a need for “trust, identity, and attachment” (Wilson, 2001, pp. 73-83).

Additionally, she suggests that a deep sense of binding shame, developed during

childhood, in response to demands for perfection and a misguided understanding of the word of

God, exacerbates adult life problems. Binding shame is a term Dr. Wilson (2001) uses to

describe a deep seated belief in one’s lack of value. She asserts that a person who is bound by

shame is fettered by a debilitating sense of being “worth less” (Wilson, 2001, p. 17) than others.

Many of life’s problems begin when the lies associated with binding shame begin to take root.

They are lies that stand in direct opposition to the word of God and contaminate all “perceptions,

choices and relationships” (Wilson, 2001, p. 18).

 TC3 3

Dr. Wilson (2001) asserts that child-like solutions to issues of “trust, identity, and

attachment” (Wilson, 2001,73-83) which are rooted in a deep seated sense of binding shame are

foundational to many adult life problems. In other words, children develop dysfunctional

behaviors designed for survival in reaction to emotional wounds that occur as a result of

interactions with family members who are themselves wounded and hurting individuals.

Although the solutions developed during childhood serve a purpose (survival) during the early

years of life, they serve only to create pain and hurt when employed as real life solutions during

adulthood (Wilson, 2001, p. 86). Those solutions, from Dr. Wilson’s (2001) perspective, can be

summarized as a “drive for perfection, denial of authentic needs, and denial of emotions”

(Wilson, 2001, pp. 108, 109, 111).

Dr. Wilson’s (2001) model for change is ridiculously simple, “Making and consistently

practicing new choices produces change” (Wilson, 2001, p. 87). Although she acknowledges

that our “change efforts have eternal significance only when they are empowered by the Holy

Spirit of God” (Wilson, 2001, p. 88), Dr. Wilson asserts that individual choice and responsibility

are key elements in the formula for change (Wilson, 2001, p.99).

Theologically supporting her position of “making new choices” (Wilson, 2001, p. 87) are

words penned by the apostle Paul in a letter he wrote the church in Corinth. He told the

Corinthian Christians to “put away childish things” (1 Corinthians 13:11). Dr. Wilson (2001)

suggests that putting away childish things requires “reviewing and reevaluating our childhood

perceptions and choices from a more mature- hopefully wiser perspective” (Wilson, 2001, p. 88).

It is the reviewing process that provides the necessary context in which new choices can be made

(Wilson, 2001, p. 92). Dr. Wilson (2001) postulates that through a dedication to “consistently

choosing truth” (Wilson, 2001, p. 102), in addition to “God’s Spirit energizing our

understanding, commitment, and process” (Wilson, 2001p. 103) change is inevitable. Of course,

part of that process is being able to wisely identify those things over which we have influence

and are able to change as opposed to those things we do not (Wilson, 2001 pp. 90-94).
 TC3 4

Additionally, “putting away childish things” (1 Corinthians 13:11) implies reevaluating

our understanding of God and bringing that understanding into alignment with biblical truth. Dr.

Wilson (2001) suggest that our understanding of God is skewed since our perceptions of God are

formed, in part, during childhood and greatly influenced by our view of our parents. Because of

sin as well as our parents reactions to their own wounded souls, our understanding of God is

distorted. As adults a childish view of God stands as a major barrier impeding our efforts toward

change. Dr. Wilson asserts that “our job as adults is to correct the distortion by learning the truth

about God” (Wilson, 2001, p. 179).

Ultimately, from Dr. Wilson’s (2001) perspective, change can be summarized by; 1)

identifying wounds caused by hurting people who have had a significant influencing role in our

life, 2) consistently making new choices, and 3) replacing a childish distorted view of God with a

biblically accurate understanding of God.

Strengths of Wilson

Dr. Wilson’s (2001) approach to healing is simple yet powerful. Her model provides a

great deal of room for addressing unhealthy behaviors with a tremendous amount of empathy.

While she does not excuse one from responsibility for adult choices, actions, and behaviors, she

does offer an explanation and acknowledges the impact of influences beyond individual control

in developing maladaptive behavioral patterns. In this way Dr. Wilson’s (2001) model lends

credibility to Dr. Hawkins concentric circle theory of personality by validating the impact of that

which Dr. Hawkins calls “Temporal Systems” (Hawkins, 2009b). Although Dr. Wilson (2001)

is primarily addressing the need for healing to take place in the circle Dr. Hawkins identifies as

the soul, it could be argued that Dr. Wilson places almost an equal amount of weight on the past,

present, and future influence of interactions with temporal systems; particularly the family. As

one addresses the deep wounds of the soul and progress toward a greater sense of spiritual and

psychological health, the foundation is laid for healthier functioning among the various temporal

systems.
 TC3 5

In spite of the simplistic nature of the model, Dr. Wilson (2001) has developed an

extremely effective multitasking approach to moving one toward a greater sense of health. Her

model makes room for understanding and addressing human behavior from a psychological (and

perhaps even a sociological) perspective, as well as theological and spiritual perspectives.

Additionally, Dr. Wilson’s (2001) therapeutic approach paves the road to that which Dr.

McMinn (1996) calls a “healthy sense of self”(McMinn, 1996, pp. 45-54). McMinn (1996)

suggests that there are three primary elements that are integral to psychological and spiritual

health; an “accurate sense of self, an accurate sense of need, and healing relationships”

(McMinn, 1996, pp. 45-58). As one trudges through painful memories and addresses their child-

like understanding of God, self and others in addition to consistently make new choices, all three

elements of health as identified by McMinn (1996) are effectively strengthened.

Weaknesses of Wilson

Dr. Wilson’s (2001) approach to healing the wounded soul seems to be so effective that it

is difficult to find any glaring weaknesses. The approach is a unique blend of tender-hearted

empathy and painfully necessary psychological surgery. It is a call to confront childish defenses

and courageously declare the truth. It is not merely an acknowledgement that the Holy Spirit

simply plays a role in the healing process, but rather a complete reliance on the Holy Spirit. It so

effectively allows the counselor to multitask and assist a client’s movement toward spiritual and

psychological health that any weaknesses mentioned seem to be somewhat trivial. However, in

spite of the apparent effectiveness of the approach it could be argued that Dr. Wilson’s model is

somewhat limited with regard to non-believers. The approach, it seems, assumes the spiritual

orientation of the counselee to be a Christian who is interested and motivated to live in

compliance with the word of God. However, given the teachings of the bible with regard to the

utter futility of a journey through life absent of a relationship with Christ, this particular critique

is relatively meaningless.

Application
 TC3 6

Although, as I previously mentioned, I believe Dr. Wilson’s model for change, “making

and consistently practicing new choices produces change” (Wilson, 2001, p. 87), is somewhat

simplistic, I find her approach to be very powerful. I believe the approach allows the counselor

to effectively multitask (consider the presenting problems from theological, psychological, and

spiritual perspectives) as well as strengthen all the elements McMinn (1996) suggested are

crucial for psychological and spiritual health. As this is the case I cannot think of any reason not

to use Dr. Wilson’s (2001) approach. I thoroughly appreciate the fact that her approach does not

offer excuses for maladaptive behavior, but instead offers explanations. The emphasis the

approach places on personal responsibility as well as the work of the Holy Spirit in the change

process resonates well with me. Dr. Wilson’s (2001) approach offers hope. Healing is not only

possible, but it is completely probable for those who are willing to put in the difficult and

sometimes painful work required by the process.

 TC3 7

References

Hawkins, R. (Speaker). (2009b). Hawkins model for guiding the counseling process.

McMinn, M. R. (1996). Psychology, theology, and spirituality in counseling. Carol Stream:

Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Wilson, S. D. (2001). Hurt people hurt people: Hope and healing for yourself and your

relationships. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers.

 TC3 8

GRADING GUIDELINE FOR THEORY CRIT1QUES

COUN 507/PACO 600 Theology and Spirituality in Counseling
The following represents an additive template for grading. Instead of beginning with 100 and
losing points for errors, you begin with a 0 and earn points for your work In determining your
grade, three questions will be asked.

QUESTION VALUES TOTAL 100 POINTS

HOW DID IT RUN THE COURSE? Question Value: 35 Points

 Submitted with correct cover sheet located on Blackboard and
Grading Guideline for Theory Critiques pasted correctly? Score: 5 points
 Evidence of proof reading? Score: 15 points
(Minimal typographical, grammatical, punctuation errors, no
unnecessary pages, paragraphing/sentence structure is proper and
without awkwardness, body length is not more than 4 pages)

 Followed current APA Guidelines (headers, margins, spacing,

numbering, font, referencing titles correctly with initials, italics,
and appropriate use of lower case letters, etc.)? Score: 15 points

HOW DID IT HANDLE THE SOURCE(S)? Question Value: 15 Points

 Citations are properly referenced? (A minimum of 4
appropriate citations per author under review) Score: 10 points

 APA Reference list? Score: 5 points

DOES THE WRITING HAVE FORCE? Question Value: 50 Points

 Content reveals an organized interaction that specifically
addresses the assignment with clarity and coherency? Score: 30 points

 Clear, insightful, rich interaction with subject matter? Score: 10 points

 Conclusion reveals thoughtful summarization and application? Score: 10 points

Grade: ____________