I think it's good to know your bias. If you tend to be soft hearted or tend to take the blame, a therapist who wants to look at everything as you, the individual's, fault is not going to be helpful (I don't mean you here- I mean like, anybody). Like in psychoanalysis (and I'm not dissing it, or at least not trying to, I love the theory behind it) I've noticed that everything is attributed to the individual. If you have a conflict, it's ultimately related to an aspect of your character or functioning. But there are other schools of therapy that say social realities shape our experiences. Sometimes an annoying person is just an annoying person. So there are therapists and schools of therapy that would have a completely different explanation for the event. Who is to say which one is right or wrong. You can put your trust in them as you choose.

Yes, a balance between pushing and support is important. Yes, every relationship requires both.

But pushing and support also depend on how you understand the event, and how the T conceives of the intervention. A T can be one hundred percent validating of your feelings and reactions. The "challenging" or "pushing" part doesn't have to necessarily center on "seeing it from the other person's perspective." I mean, if someone tends to lack empathy, that would probably be a useful exercise to try in therapy. But "pushing" can be pushing one to brainstorm solutions to the conflict and implement them, or suggesting behavioral exercises (or breathing exercises, or whatever) that feel uncomfortable because it's the first time trying. At least that is my take on how to build trust. I would way way prefer that kind of balance, between being validating and trying to fix the problem.