The aim of the article is to argue against a few problem aspects in narrative therapy practice from the perspective of Patristic anthropology. The author focuses on several parallel issues in the practical implementation of the method, which gives an opportunity to discuss the methodology to solve essentially important conceptual issues. The assumption that merely replacing the dominant narrative with the more promising alternative can solve a client’s crisis issue is put into doubt. The thesis common in classic narrative therapy that ‘the problem is the problem [of the narrative], but the client is not the problem’ (Differentiating the Client, 2024) is revisited. A simple replacement of the narrative may be a temporary solution, since it affects only the surface of the narrative, only the shell composed of a sequence of external events, but narrative therapy in its classic form as a long-term solution to the identity crisis fails.