Could you please point the the strengths and weaknesses in this argument?

Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) and narrative therapy (NT) share many similarities. They both want to explore the stories of the client's life, make heavy use of questions, and utilize similar techniques such as exception questions. However, one difference between SFBT and NT is the primacy of behavioral correction in SFBT versus cognitive corrections in NT. I realize that Goldenburg et al. (2017) compared SFBT to the Mental Research Institute's (MRI) approach and stated that MRI was more behavioral while SBFT was more cognitive when comparing the two. While it may be true that SFBT is more cognitive focused than MRI, SFBT is still much more behavioral focused than NT. Many of the questions that Goldenburg et al. stated that the SFBT therapist would ask were directed at behaviors. For instance, one question they stated the SFBT therapist would ask was, "What might the two of you do to make a small change ...?" This does not seem like a question the NT therapist would ever ask. Goldenburg et al. also stated that SFBT therapists would try to start new behavior patterns in the clients by offering formula tasks and giving behavioral homework assignments. It seems highly unlikely that the NT therapist would engage in these two activities.

NT therapist would be much more likely to ask questions that allow the client to further tell their story. From what I could find in Goldenburg et al. (2017), there was not a single example question that asked the client to do something. Rather, the questions were tailored to get the client to think about their situation and describe it in different terms. For example, an NT therapist could ask, "How were you able to trust your own thoughts or desires?" Therefore a difference between SFBT and NT would be how SFBT is more behavioral focused than NT, which is more cognitive focused.

A second difference between SFBT and NT is how dysfunction arises. SFBT holds that dysfunction arises due to faulty attempts at problem solving (Goldenburg et al., 2017). NT maintains that dysfunction arises due to the way a family thinks and talks about a problem. They both address how a family thinks of the problem and attempts to help the family think of the problem differently. However, SFBT, unsurprisingly, attempts to help the family find solutions to their problems by finding goals to live toward. NT attempts to help the family by changing how they talk about the problem. NT attempts to isolate the problem from the family by externalizing the problem. SFBT does not seek to externalize the problem as much as change the actionable approach a family takes to solve a problem. SFBT maintains that there is a proper key to solving a problem and families ought to work toward the goal of finding that key. NT on the other hand does not aim for any key, per se, as much as it helps families navigate the stories of their lives. NT therapists help clients find liberation by assisting them in finding the subjugated plots in their stories and living in those instead of the stories imposed on them by others or culture and they have come to internalize (Goldenburg et al., 2017).

In summary, the first difference between SFBT and NT is how much more SFBT emphasizes behavior than NT. The second difference is how they seek liberation from the problem. SFBT seeks liberation through finding the right behavioral key, while NT seeks liberation through the clients telling the stories of their lives differently.

Both approaches can be supported by Scripture. For the sake of brevity I will only focus on NT's approach. The NT idea that the problem is (at least partly) external is supported by what God said to Cain about how sin is crouching at the door for him, but it was his job to master it (New International Version, 1978/2011, Genesis 4:7). We are not the sin, but we do succumb to the sin. We may be selfish, but not because selfishness is an immutable part of who we are, but because we give in to the temptation of selfishness. Even Paul's discussion of sin living in us (New International Version, 1978/2011, Romans 7:7-25) can support the externalization of the problem (i.e., sin). Paul stated that sin lives in us, but that does not mean we are sin. Just as a virus may live in a body, and yet is separate from the body, so sin may live in us, and yet still be separate from us.

Where NT falls short is its attempt to remove blame. While sin may be external from us, it is still our shortcomings that cause us to give in to sin. Therefore, we are not blameless. Allowing a person to lay aside any fault is unhealthy and unrealistic. Imagine appearing before a judge and saying, "Your Honor, Hurry was telling me to speed. Therefore, I should not be held liable for my actions." That person would be in for a reality check. But a Christian perspective allows the speeder to realize that while she may have been speeding, she does not have to give in to hurry. She can enact the self-control that God has blessed her with and reject what hurry is telling her to do. What is more, she can be forgiven, cleansed, and restored by a loving God.