Page 139 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 8

Foundational Discussions in Christian Psychology

Sam Berg (Canada)

Comment to Sam Berg, D.Min.
is a Registered
“Human Embodiment Marriage and
Family Therapist
as Soulfulness. “ in Canada, and
a Clinical Fellow
and Approved
Professor Daniel Louw has written a thoughtful Supervisor in the
and provocative paper presenting a holistic, bi- American Asso-
blical, and Christocentric vision of the human ciation of Mar-
being. He begins with a critique of the histori- riage and Family
cal, Christian theological anthropology of the Therapists.
sinfulness of the human being, and through a He currently serves as the Director of Coun-
listing of the rich biblical vocabulary concludes selling Services at The Caring Place, a faith-
that the Bible presents not a depiction of hu- based counselling center in Regina, SK.
mans as ontologically sinful, but as such in their Previously, he was the Co-ordinator of the
decisions and actions. This leaves room for an Marriage and Family Counselling program
appreciation of original goodness as declared by at Briercrest Seminary at Caronport, SK. He
God in Genesis 1. The declaration presents not has served the counselling profession in se-
only God’s evaluation of his creation, but his de- veral board positions.
light in it, and this delight forms the ground for Article by Sam:
the appreciation of its beauty. http://emcapp.ignis.de/7/#/44
Several pieces of the paper evoke further
thought. First, his notion of stereometric thin-
king (a new word for me) is an explanation of lock (The Doctrine of Humanity, InterVarsity
how the whole person may be viewed, as we Press, 1996) has pointed out we bear the image
understand the parts superimposed upon each of God as individual humans, as male and fe-
other and each contributing to the visualization male together, and as the collective human race
of the whole. Pertinent to this is the sexual diffe- (perhaps another place where we need to think
rentiation between male and female. I especial- stereometrically).
ly appreciated his discussion of pornography in All of this of course presents us with the que-
this context as an objectification of the human stion, “So what?” Better, we must ask how this
being, perhaps even a dis-integration of the ste- understanding of humanity might be applied in
reometric quality so that the genitals become our pastoral and counselling work. Here, Louw
toys rather than organs of creativity, not only in presents a vivid and compelling description of
the concrete sense but also in the metaphoric the aesthetic telos of the stereometric view, in
sense. his “V” list. I found this to be a fulsome descrip-
In this regard, I have a couple of questions for tion of a vision of the “good life” that all those
professor Louw. First, it would have been in- involved in the sacrificial ethic of ministry to
teresting to read of his thoughts on the “one others must have. Even though we recognize
flesh” result of the male/female union, and wh- that our pastoral involvement in live of those
ether and how this fulfills further our soulful we are called to serve is always incomplete, we
embodiment. This consideration raises for me must nevertheless have an understanding of
the related questions of how sexual diversity as what the end result of our work might be. His
described in the LGBT literature may be evalu- description of Vocation, Virtue and value, Visi-
ated in light of stereometry. Additionally, while on and hope, Volition and courage, and Vitality
he hints at communality (I greatly appreciated and embodiment, provide such a telos. The last,
his linking of communality and communion), vitality and embodiment, brings his argument
it lead me to wonder about how the nephesh full circle.
might be understood communally. As Sher- Thank you, Professor Louw.
138