Court Upholds Explusion Of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality

Sigh.  It begins.  Rabid persecution of Christians in general in the US is just around the corner if this kind of crap is allowed.  The small band of militant homosexual leaders, which have been very organized and well-funded, has managed to overturn the most important freedom we have.  Unbelieveable how many believe these lies. 

You better write your Congressmen ASAP and let them know this is BS and that you vote at every level for freedom.

Yes, Jackie, as you wrote earlier, elections do have consequences.

Judge Steeh was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Question: Does the Bible ever command us to fight against persecution?  Does it ever command us to take a stand for our own civil liberties?  I seem to remember Jesus instructing us how to deal with when we are despised and rejected on account of His name.  Does anyone remember what that is?

Well, looks like Christians may have to quit sending their children off to heathen, pro-sodomite, Marxist schools to train and shape them.  There are good Christian schools available.  See that the devil’s hell holes don’t get any of your donations or children.  BTW, that should go for so called “churches”  too.

I have often thought on ‘her in is the patience of the Saints’.

And on the instructions with regard to the State, issued during the time of the Pagan Roman Empire.

This does not end well for the planet, or those on it.  But while we retain the vote, it is folly not to use it…..

herein not her in.  Silly spiel Czech.

Amen prophet Micaiah!

I don’t think the problem will be finding a Christian university but in achieving accreditation in order to pass the State boards required to practice.

I can not imagine that this will not be appealed.

It is true that there will be Christian Universities that one can send children, too. But the issue is that they are much more expensive and that not all can afford it. We all subsidize public universities like Eastern Michigan State.

This is a tough one.  If this Detnews article is accurate,

As part of her course work, Ward had refused to counsel homosexual clients, saying she believed homosexuality was morally wrong.

If so, I would support the expulsion if they truly tried to counsel her themselves in a gentle and compelling manner.

It’s possible, also, that Detnews is smearing her.  One wonders if - e.g., she did not refuse to counsel homosexual clients, but merely refused to counsel engaging in same-gender sex acts - there might be reason for legal action against the paper.

#10 - I wonder if she refused to counsel them to “explore their sexuality” vs. needing help dealing with having desire for an unnatural act.

Yoda would say “Tough times, these are, hmmmf”. 

So are counselors required by law to counsel whoever comes to them? Wilf implies that this is so - do counselors not get to decide which clients they can best serve? Can she not refer clients she doesn’t wish to counsel to another counselor? So if someone is not willing to counsel anyone who comes to them, the state can deny a graduate degree?

#3, Lk 22:36, NIV, He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

#3, Acts 5:29, 29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!
Tyrannical leaders are to be resisted.

This is actually just one of 2 current cases:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/georgia.gay.sensitivity.training/

I can’t wait for them to try this on a Muslim student who disagrees with homosexuality.  Muslim radicals will immediately respond by threatening the university, its leaders will cave (using the weasely “we have families to protect” excuse) and that will be the end of that.

[13]&[14] Captain, I think you would find that there is debate as to the meaning of Lk 22:36.  Many believe that the passage may be talking about a spiritual sword, that the disciple should be prepared to sacrifice what they have to better rely upon God and fight their spiritual foe, Satan. Under this understanding, Jesus’ response to them is a rebuke. Others who hold that it was a literal sword would ascribe it for protection against robbers.
 
I personally think the former interpretation is more in line with Jesus’ overall teachings on how Christians should act towards persecution (Matt 5:38-45, Lk 6:27-31, etc.) exemplifying how Christ endured the cross.  However, even if you take the literal swords model, then what you have is a passage that deals with defense from robbers.  I think you would need something more then this passage alone to make some sort of argument for Christians fighting in or out of the political arena for “freedom,” civil liberties or what have you.

As to your second verse, Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles did resist the council’s command not to proclaim the gospel. And then they submitted themselves to a severe beating.  Did they fight for their civil liberties then? No, they submitted themselves to persecution and then rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for Jesus.

We are not Muslims. We are followers of Christ, let us emulate him before anything else. It is one to make ones life about proclaiming the truth to the world.  It is another thing to make ones life about imposing the truth on the world. The church is built on the blood of the martyrs, not the slain of the conquerors.

Cornelius,
I find myself in agreement.
We do not obey the state when it conflicts with God’s instructions, but we then accept, as part of our privelege, the punishment from the state.  We are to ount it joy when we are punished for doing good, not take up arms.

Not sure I’m mature enough to live that out all the time yet…...

It would be useful to have a link to the court decision.  The banner implies that the cause of the expulsion was the student’s moral disapproval of homosexual activity.  I doubt that that was the case.  A link to the court case would reveal the rationale of the court.  It may be that the court simply dismissed for some technical reason, like failure to state a cause of action.  Courts can resolve some things but not others.  I would be very surprised if the court had lent its imprimatur to the idea that a student could be expelled for having a position of conscience or religion that homosexual activity is not consistent with Scripture.

Part of our stewardship of the gifts God has given us is to use the resources that area available to every citizen of our nation.  We can vote, we can urge action, and we can, if we have the proper standing, undertake legal action, if it seems wise and prudent to do so.  Unlike the disciples in Roman times (and more recently in totalitarian states), we do not have to submit to an unelected authority.

Even Paul availed himself of his privilege as a Roman citizen, avoiding a kangaroo court in Caesarea by appealing to Caesar.  We have rights, and we can use them - not for ourselves, but for the sake of the Kingdom and to demonstrate its principles and values.

Paula #8, that is an old urban legend.  Nearly all the major Christian colleges are accredited, but even so, I have know several students who were graduates who had no trouble entering the professions,  especially if their GRE was at the top, which it usually is.
Rob Roy #9, yes this is always the problem with good education.  It usually is more expensive, but believe me there usually are good scholarships available if they are searched for.  Also, we have to do what is necessary.  Just because a soup kitchen is free, but they are dispensing poisonous food and we have already paid for it in taxes doesn’t mean we have to eat there or send our kids thers.  Truth and protecting our family always requires sacrifice.

I am definitely a liberal on the gay issues, but as a lawyer I profoundly disagree with the Court’s decision, and I find it quite frankly, offensive.  This lady was deprived of her First Amendment rights to freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Though I may disagree with this lady’s opinions there and many, many situations where she can be a very valuable counselor where the gay issues do not arise at all.  She is entitled to follow her conscience. The Federal Judge is out to lunch.

Prophet, I did not mean the college overall, I was referring to accredidation from the related professional council.  For example “The Council on Social Work Education.”

I can certainly foresee such councils growing more and more hostile to a Christian outlook on such issues as homosexuality.

P.S. This is from the Ohio State University College of Social Work Immersion Proposal.  Let the indoctrination begin.

“Objective Three: Increased commitment to social justice and advocacy will be measured by the Social Justice Advocacy Scale (SJAS) (Van Soest, 1996). The SJAS is an 80 item instrument with five sub-scales. The sub-scales assess advocacy behaviors on behalf of five disenfranchised groups (African Americans, other racial/ethnic minorities, women, gay and lesbian persons, and persons with disabilities). Higher scores on each sub-scale and the sum of each sub-scale are taken as a measure of increased commitment to justice and advocacy.”

The proposal makes for interesting reading.
http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=30800

DD (no. 21) can you link us to the decision?  I’ve not seen exactly what the court said.

Merely pulling enrollment and donation dollars will not protect our young people from this indoctrination or ‘re-education’.  Nor will these aversions stop the trend toward thought policing that these two cases indicate.  They are state funded institutions.  Our dollars just cannot compete with the monies garnered from taxation as long as taxes are obtained through threat of force.  Furthermore, there will come a day when the validity of Christian colleges and universities gets called into question by the state for being an educational haven for dissenters. Where is the ACLU?  Where is the Nation of Islam?  Resisting this should be right up their alley! 

We must speak out against this thought policing at every opportunity until we are prevented from speaking whether those opportunities be in a courtroom, in a blog, in the editorial section of the newspaper, on the street…  I seriously doubt whether writing our representatives will accomplish anything.  Anytime this household has done that, we have been very politely ignored.  But, perhaps you’ll have better results.  This country is going to hell in a rocket.  Let us not stand by silently and watch.  Let us speak and, always more importantly, pray!  Maranatha!

This is indeed a troubling and deeply disturbing judicial decision, if all is as it seems.  But even if it turns out that the federal judge just dismissed her case on a technicality, I think it’s fair to say that the handwriting is on the wall. 

Sooner or later, and probably sooner, overt persecution of Christians is going to start happenning more and more.  Covert stuff is already happening, not least in academia, but the trend lines are quite clear.  America, like all of Europe and North America, is in the process of reversing its traditional stance in support of Christianity and becoming more and more hostile to it.  Not indifferent or neutral, but openly and increasingly and aggressively hostile. 

We’ve moved from having an unofficial generic Protestant establishment in the so-called “mainline” American churches to Established Unbelief.  From a Christian culture to an unChristian culture that’s rapidly morphing into an anti-Christian culture.  Our proud American experiment in religious freedom and “the separation of church and state” has unexpectedly metamorphosed into the outright divorce of Christianity (in any biblical, authentic form) and public life.

We all see the symptoms of that momentous, fateful shift all around us.  No news there.  You know what I’m talking about.

But I’m not sure we’ve even started to grasp the far-reaching implications of that epochal sea change in western civilization.  I’m been brooding over that for years, and the more I ponder it, the more far-reaching I perceive those implications to be.  And the more I puzzle over it, the more radical and revolutionary are the demands I realize that our new minority social status puts upon us as followers of Christ in a post-Christendom world.

Not least for us Anglicans, given our state church heritage.  I’m afraid that we’re going to have to rebuild Anglicanism upon a whole new foundation in the 3rd millenium (if Christ tarries).  OK, I’ll modify that slightly.  The Church’s One Foundation hasn’t changed, it remains Jesus Christ our Lord.  Or as Ephesians 2:20 refines it, our permanent, unshakable foundation is the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.

But the first story of the towering church structures we’ve built over the last 1500 years has been the basic Christendom arrangement, that marriage of convenience initiated by Constantine and endlessly strengthened and reinforced ever since by other western leaders of both church and state.  And now the “rug has been pulled out from under us,” so to speak.

And that literally changes everything.  I firmly believe it necessitates a complete overhaul of the inherited ways of doing church that we’ve taken for granted for centuries and countless generations.

That’s THE GREAT CHALLENGE of our time.  All the rampant heresy and immorality we’re contending with, all the massive breakdown of Doctrine and Discipline is ultimately rooted in this fateful change in our relationship to the surrounding culture.  And alas, given our Constantinian, Erastian heritage as Anglicans, I’m afraid that we’re basically clueless about how to cope with such a huge and deeply unsettling and perplexing challenge.

So regardless of how this particular legal case arose or how it may play out on appeal (if appealed), that fundamental problem remains and must be squarely faced.  But if I’m even close to being right in my basic diagnosis of our real problem, i.e., our new post-Christendom status as a misunderstood, maligned minority in an increasingly hostile culture, then the reforms that are called for to help the Church not only survive but thrive in this scary new world amount to nothing less than…

you guessed it, a New Reformation.

And one that could easily make the 16th century Reformation look tame and mild in comparison.  I really mean that.

David Handy+

I second what David Handy+ just wrote.  Preach it, brother!

Thanks, MM (#27).
 
Your kind words are appreciated.  Sometimes, I feel like a broken record around here, and I know how that can grate and quickly become tedious.  So such encouragement is most welcome.

David Handy+

Branford:

So are counselors required by law to counsel whoever comes to them?

They aren’t.  However, the article says that she refuses to see gay clients - it doesn’t say, “some gay clients who would like to talk about the ins and outs of their sex lives,” so I am assuming it would also mean: “a gay client who is grieving the loss of his mother and for whom the issue of sexuality is not even on the radar in discussing this grief.”  I.e., any and all gay clients, no matter what the issue.
Is this the case, I most certainly understand and support the expulsion.
I rather believe, however, that the young lady is being “smeared” by the jounalist in question.
I wonder, for example, if a principled atheist gay person who refused to counsel Christians on struggles with faith, and ran into some dispute at the university, would be described as:
“Gay person who refuses to counsel Christians.”
If he were, I would most certainly protest at this very unseemly smear.

NRA and others, perhaps the book of Daniel will be a continuing inspiration, guide and comfort in the times we have entered.

Here’s two links to another example just in the news:

“Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom”

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

“Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.”

“Former PCUSA minister fired for teaching
Catholic stance on homosexuality”

http://layman.org/news.aspx?article=27360

“According to an article in The News-Gazette, a University of Illinois professor of religion was dismissed due to an anonymous student complaint over teaching the Catholic Church’s belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong.”

The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics.

This statement might shed some light.

Her opposition to homosexuality got her into trouble, however, when she enrolled last year in a practicum course that involved counseling real clients in a university-operated clinic. When she encountered a client who wanted to be treated for depression—but previously had been counseled about a homosexual relationship—she asked her faculty supervisor whether she could refer the client to another counselor, explaining that her religious views precluded her from doing anything to affirm the client’s homosexual behavior.

  From here. 

If you guys let this sort of thing happen, you will find first yourselves being pushed out of the US mainstream…. and once you have been marginalized you will get vilified as an extremist homophobic minority.

HOWEVER: What I can’t understand with the people who try to expel Christians from public roles over our moral beliefs about homosexual behavior is that there are plenty of sexual behaviors that THEY think is is acceptable to see as immoral (for instance incest, polygamy, bdsm)!! 

Would they also expel someone from a course because that person was unwilling to counsel someone in one of those types of relationship? 

Why is homosexuality protected and other disordered forms of sexual relationship not protected?

#33 - so it looks like the guy wanted to be treated for depression but she wouldn’t treat him because he’s a homosexual.  Am I reading that right?

If it had been someone wanting to be treated for depression but the counselor wouldn’t treat him because he’s a Christian, would that be OK?

Yes, Charles, I think that would be okay. I guess I’m still confused - if a counselor is working in private practice, it seems to me they can refuse to treat whomever they want, even if they’re Christian, homosexual, or anything, as long as they refer that person to another counselor. Are counselors required by law to treat anyone who comes to them? This seems like indentured servitude - I have no problem with a professional working in private practice having their own restrictions for whatever reason on who they treat, as long as they refer. I might disagree with them, I might think they are a less than compassionate person, but it would be their right.

#35 - As long as the counselor referred him to a therapist who worked with Christians, that would be fine.

Thanks, Jackie.
Yes, she is being unfairly smeared in the other article which makes her sound flamingly anti-gay.
She was being very reasonable in expecting the student to wish for affirmation of same-gender sex acts and realizing that when this time came, there would be a conflict of interests in her counselling that particular client.
Suppose I feel compelled to engage in street evangelism, but have doubts as to whether this is ethical or beneficial, and live in a society which roundly endorses street evangelism, and expects such behavior always to be encouraged.  If a counsellor who believes that street evangelism is perfidious is assigned my case, he is most certainly being very generous if he asks if he may refer my case onto someone else, and is most certainly not imposing his belief on me.
I looked at some of the article comments - in other articles on this issue - there were sometimes hudreds, sometimes more than a thousand - many of the commenters were close to irate and were accusing this young woman of “imposing her views.”  If anywhere there is an imposition, it is upon this young woman.
This is deceit, this is smearing, this is bigotry.

Charles, Branford - around #33 -

No, the student wasn’t simply refusing to see any and all homosexuals.  This was a homosexual client with a depression, but who had a background in counselling regarding a homosexual relationship.  The student suspected that she might be expected, for some reason, that a special affirmation on her part would be expected for same-gender sex acts.  We don’t know about the case file - it could be the client wasn’t at all in doubt about his or her sexuality, and that the counselling on the relationship was not at all about the nature of same-gender sex acts.  We don’t know if this was “hyper-sensitivity” on the part of the student, being too scrupulous in asking if there might be a conflict of interest here.  We don’t know if it’s a case of clerical laziness ... not reading the file really, seeing the word “homosexual” and then grabbing the big “ANTI-GAY” stamp and sending her file over to the re-education department - i.e., classifying any and all cases of a person asking questions regarding potential conflicts with gay clients as “ANTI-GAY” and in need of belief modification.

One can imagine the situation in a few years with polyamory.  “I’m depressed because my husband is having an affair” - Christian counselling student responds with, “I’m sorry, I won’t be able to tell this lady to just lighten up a bit and find a toyboy, could someone else take this case please?”  Counselling department responds: “HATRED FOR POLY HUSBAND, RE-EDUCATE!”  Newspapers respond to the case: “Fundamentalist Christian zealot expelled from university for hateful persecution of polyamorists.”

I still think the court decision might be helpful in providing context, but I’m too primitive in my internet skills to find and link it.  But there’s a great deal of talk around this issue without knowing exactly why the court dismissed her lawsuit.  From what is available to us here, the part I don’t understand is the “affirmation” concept.  Is that a term of art in the psychological counselling world?

NoVA, you’re very right about the court case.  The defendant may have filed inappropriate charges for the actual event that occurred, there is so much that we don’t know.

It’s clear, however, that some of the media - I’m thinking particularly of the article which said “she refused to counsel gay students” - have been complicit in setting off a riot of comments expressing a strong sense of highly prejudicial sentiment against a person explicitly described as a Christian, due to deceptive reporting which seems to have actually intended to provoke such sentiments.

I can’t draw any particularly meaningful conclusions about the legal action and the university, but I can draw conclusions about the media.

The actual opinion is here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mied.238278/gov.uscourts.mied.238278.139.0.pdf

Haven’t read it.

FYI, federal court decisions in the last 3 years or so (and going forward) are available for free through PACER, but you do have to register, know how to find what you’re looking for, and have some case information (it’s not text searchable, and it’s per court).

OK, I read it.
Seems that she was canned after asking to refer a student wishing council for depression who was homosexual - and publicly refusing to be affirming of homosexualism. 

Reads to me like the ‘faculty’ couldn’t get her on academics, so they got her on their interpretation of the ‘code of practice’, her ‘brand’ of Christianity was too judgemental, loving the saint and hating the sinner (according to one of the members of the faculty).  (40% of real life pros refer clients, she asked to do so, and was canned).  She refused to get ‘her views adjusted’, and she was out.

I don’t get why her position wasn’t one of ‘arbitrary enforcement’ or some such, as referring is clearly allowed by the code.

Finally.  Thanks for the link, DavidH.  I’ll get around to reading it.  Bo- I was more interested in the court’s reasoning for dismissal.  I’ll take a look when I have more time. 

Can anyone help on this concept of “affirmation”?  Is this a clinical term or is it a religious expression?  Is the woman saying that treatment might be deemed “affirmation” in a religious sense?  If so, I think she is fairly confused.  Healers treat the afflicted without being called upon to judge the conduct that led to the affliction.  If there is some clinical method called affirmation that requires the therapist to endorse a condition or lifestyle against his/her internal beliefs, that may change the story a bit.

I’ll be very surprised if the school’s complaint is that the student does not wholly approve of homosexuality, and is unwilling to encourage its practice.

Reasons for dismissal as I understood it, enlightenment welcomed if I’ve missed it: - The restrictions on the applicant’s actions didn’t violate ‘free speech’.

The ruling by the committee that she take ‘sensitivity training’ so that she could be able to provide services to homosexuals was not a violation of ‘free exercise’ as it was 1) only training, and would not have forced her to violate her conscience, 2) not a religious belief that prevented her from providing service.

Her free speech was respected, according to the ruling, when her position revealing papers received high marks.  Her actions (refusing to see a person whose previous visit was homosexual acts related) wasn’t protected as ‘speech’ (it was part of her ‘professional behaviour’)nor under the ‘free exercise’ clauses, as the refusal was not, according to her testimony before the committee, theologically based. 

From what I’ve been taught, affirming the dignity and worth of all clients is part of what is required of professional care, affirming their choices is not required, but the line gets fuzzy when you’re asked to leave your own values behind and work with the values expressed by the client.

Does an MD treating a patient who acquired AIDS in a homosexual encounter “affirm” the conduct in the sense that this woman uses the term?  I still am confused about why she thinks treatment=affirmation, unless, in therapeutic psychology circles there’s some technical content to the term “affirm” that lay people aren’t aware of.  If not, then she seems starkly unfit this profession and was fortunate to have found this out early in her career.  There are probably a number of areas where her spiritual gifts could make a positive difference in people’s lives.

Does an MD treating a patient who acquired AIDS in a homosexual encounter “affirm” the conduct in the sense that this woman uses the term?

An interesting thought.  The problem is though, even if we regard diseases of the soul in the same fashion as we regard diseases of the body, we still have to treat the diseases of the soul as well, diseases. 

If a counselor doesn’t regard homosexuality as a spiritual disease, then they’re going to diagnose their client’s problems on other things, like e.g., false guilt, society’s attitudes, or “(not) just being oneself.”  And the treatment would be different than the treatment offered by a Christian counselor. 

In similar fashion, if someone with AIDS had a case of walking pneumonia, it’s possible that they might be “diagnosed” with a cold, and prescribed a placebo along with chicken soup and over the counter medicines.  What would you, NOVA, think we should do with such a doctor? 

(yeah, me too).

So it’s a question of correct diagnosis vs incorrect diagnisis. 

But .. you already knew that, when you “asked” your “question.”

Moot - It’s a different calculus if someone goes to a priest than if one goes to a doctor.  Generally speaking, and MD will not be expected to treat ills of the soul.  If your point is that a homosexual depressive patient is not properly treated by a psychiatrist or a psychologist unless religious counselling is offered, I suppose I would disagree.  I am still trying to get to the core of this woman’s issue, however.  If the accepted clinical protocols call for some kind of “affirmation” of a patient’s conduct, and she is unable, as a matter of conscience, to provide that, then she is in the wrong career path.  Alternatively, if she views medical or psychological treatment of an illness or condition as implicitly extending moral approbation, my take is that she is simply wrong.  If she feels that way, the conclusion would again be that she is in the wrong field for her (and for her potential patients).  However, if she is being hounded from the profession because her private religious beliefs are unpalatable to others, she has my utmost support and sympathy,  I simply cannot yet discern from the reporting that that is the case.

[49] NoVA Scout

If the accepted clinical protocols call for some kind of “affirmation” of a patient’s conduct, and she is unable, as a matter of conscience, to provide that, then she is in the wrong career path.

Upon what are the “accepted clinical protocols” predicated?  Modern Psychology and the Christian faith operate from very different anthropologies.  She is being told “Check your Christian anthropology at the door, and presume it is false in your professional life.”  Upon what authority is she being told to do this?  Upon the authority of modern psychology and its contrary presuppositions about the nature of man.  To say she is on “the wrong career path” is thus to simply say “I agree with the anthropology of modern psychology over against the anthropology of man as revealed by the Creator of man.”  Which shocks me not at all.  That’s exactly what I would have expected you would say. 

carl

If this woman has in mind to have a practice that is specific to Christians, what difference does it make?  She was being honest, stuck to her principles.  She could have lied, “treated” the patient until she was done with her course, but did not.  Almost makes me question if she was set up by being sent the gay patient.

The freedom from religion specifically Christian movement is trampling on the religious freedom of many.  Reminded of the poor couple out west who had a wedding photograpy business and refused to do a lesbian wedding.  They were successfully sued by the lesbians and it was upheld. 

The first amendment is being outwitted by the judicial process. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

Also, David Handy+/New Reformation Advocate’s post at #26 was excellent!

To be honest—it is not “accepted clinical protocol” to affirm a client’s conduct.  It is a violation of counseling ethics—the ethics of the counselor—to “affirm” what the counselor deems to be unhealthy and dysfunctional conduct.  It does not, in fact, matter what the APA says, for instance.  What matters is that the counselor not violate his or her ethics.  If a counselor believes that a client’s conduct with regards to money, for instance, is unhealthy and dysfunctional, the counselor—regardless of whether *other* counselors would agree with him or her—is not required to “affirm” that client’s conduct.  He or she may—and certainly will—affirm the person as made in the image of God—but not the conduct.  There is no “standard” that requires a counselor to affirm or not affirm certain behavior.  In fact, some behavior may be “right” in one person and “wrong” in another. 

Now—it may be that the counselor chooses to not address the client’s conduct with money.  The counselor may determine—in his or her professional opinion—that other matters are far more important to address than the client’s unhealthy conduct with money.

This is, frankly, the way that God treats us.  God does not always deal immediately with all of our sinful behavior—He often deals with root causes from which spring the surface wicked behavior.  In the matter of same-sex sexual relationships, such conduct often springs from some very serious underlying childhood and relational and identity issues. 

The counseling relationship is a very significant one—and as with parents or other authority figures—counselors do act in a smaller way “as God does” and in His image.  That’s why choosing a counselor is *extremely* important—you are submitting and committing yourself to someone who will hold an immense amount of power and authority over your life [if you’re actually committed to a helpful counseling relationship] and it’s important that the two of you share at least a similar foundational worldview.  Of course, this doesn’t always happen—and all is not lost if so. 

Fortunately, God has so made us that we are often assisted by deeply flawed human beings—it is very possible, for instance, that a kind, gifted, committed pagan or Buddhist counselor can assist others in dealing with significant issues.  As the old experiment with lighting on the assembly line demonstrated, it’s often merely the attentiveness, commitment, and focus of other human beings that improve a person’s functionality.  Though all of us have various theories about “how humans work” and psychology is no exception, studies have shown that regardless of most of the theories from which a counselor operates, improvement can occur with any of them—whether behavioral or Freudian or Frankl’s logotherapy—and the supposition is largely that it is the relationship that matters more than the theory.

At any rate, a counselor may choose not to address the sexual relationships in a gay man or woman immediately.  However, the counselor needs to be clear and up-front what his or her take on behavior is—that is also an ethical duty.  Generally speaking, if a client reveals towards the beginning of the relationship that he or she is gay, the counselor needs to be clear that he or she will be treating that client from a worldview that precludes same-sex sexual relationships.  The same thing would be true for a client who is up-front that he or she is committing adultery and the counselor has a worldview that precludes adultery.  It’s not the job of the counselor to “change” the adulterer.  The adulterer has many sins and unhealthy issues.  From that point, it is the adulterer’s choice to decide if he or she will continue in a counseling relationship with the counselor who holds such a worldview.  From a personal standpoint, it would be unlikely that I would seek help from a counselor, for instance, whose worldview affirms that people should be “open and free in their sexual relationships.”  And yet—such counselors *do* exist.  It’s the client’s job to carefully discern and interview potential counselors to see at least the foundation of their beliefs and values.

This is fairly common stuff.  Some counselors won’t treat, say, conservative activists who come to them for help—that violates their personal ethical duty.  Some won’t treat KKK clansmen.  That’s fine.  In the same way, some counselors won’t help child abusers or those with various other issues.  There are times when a counselor terminates a relationship—Scott Peck mentions a few instances where he did such a thing in his book People of the Lie.

The most unethical thing would probably be for a counselor to *pretend* to accept that same-sex behavior is “okay” and then treat the client in a sneaky or calculated way from a Christian worldview.  But both counselor and client are free to choose—some gays very deliberately choose counselors who operate from a Christian worldview, even if they do not want to deal with their ssa.  Others choose counselors who operate from a Christian worldview *because* they wish to deal with their ssa.  The counselor needs to be honest, and let the chips fall where they may.

Just articulating these thoughts to clear up a few misconceptions.

I know next to nothing about modern clinical psychology, Carl.  My questions were of the “if, then” variety without any particular certainty about the “if” part.  I’ve been trying to bet to the bottom of the “affirm” element of what the woman herself says is the problem.  My central point is that I don’t think any particular affirmation is involved if a health care professional treats an illness or condition.

Bo, 46, I don’t think you’re off-base on finding an actions vs. speech distinction here.

But I think there are a few things that make this a case that isn’t going to be won by the student, in the district court or on appeal:

  - She knew what was expected and freely signed up.  It’s not like the ACA Code was secret and sprung on her.

  - The governmental defendant (the university) is just a middle man.  They didn’t create the ACA Code.  They’re just trying to do training for a professional field, and they have to follow the ACA Code to keep their accreditation.

  - The Court can’t solve the student’s real problem.  It can’t rewrite the ACA Code—partly because that’s not a court’s job, and partly because private entities (like the professional groups that create such standards) are in a very different constitutional position than governmental actors.

  - She was training to be a high school counselor.  The prevailing wisdom is that teenage years are a particularly confusing time, involving particularly tangled circumstances, including in the arenas of love and attraction.  The focus on teenagers adds something to the idea that affirmation (or at least a lack of judgment) is needed.  This is a distinction from the circumstances Sarah discusses.

  - And finally, she was flagrantly refusing to treat a class of people (homosexuals) that have some protected legal status.

These are not necessarily ranked by importance, and I’m engaged in identifying issues / factors here, not expressing my views on them.

It’s a different calculus if someone goes to a priest than if one goes to a doctor.

I never said they were completely equivelent, I simply supposed it for the sake of argument.  Here:

The problem is though, even if we regard diseases of the soul in the same fashion as we regard diseases of the body..

and then made a point about correct and accepted diagnostics. 

If the accepted clinical protocols call for some kind of “affirmation” of a patient’s conduct, and she is unable, as a matter of conscience, to provide that, then she is in the wrong career path.

Actually, no.  But she would be in the wrong counseling program. 

However, if she is being hounded from the profession because her private religious beliefs are unpalatable to others, she has my utmost support and sympathy,  I simply cannot yet discern from the reporting that that is the case.

Of course you can.  Anyone can:

In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

In other words, she would not counsel patients in matters contrary to her beliefs, and the university determined that she needed to change her beliefs, then expelled her from their counseling program  because she did not comply.

David H,
Thanks, with referral being an option under the code (used by 40% of professionals at one time or another) wouldn’t the young lady have a case based on ‘selective enforcement’ if the group weren’t on the ‘protected list’?
NoVA Scout - if the medical doctor didn’t tell the patient that engaging in homosexual acts were a risk to the public health he’d rightly be in trouble, and he would likewise be a failure if he didn’t advise homosexual patients of the dangers of there activities.  He is first concerned with the body, and not the mind.  He need not affirm the patients lifestyle. 

Psychological practise requires affirmation of the person - and that includes all aspects of their self-identity that are not disordered.  (the trap is that the shrinks determine what is ‘disordered’ not scripture).  Since the APA doesn’t recognize homosexuality as a ‘disorder’ if you treat a homosexual under APA guidelines, you may not ethically be anything other than affirming of that part of their self-identity.

I’ll never be a psychologist, a BA in psychology will be more than enough of that land of the fancy dance for me….

The way in which the APA decided not to recognize homosexual practice as a manifestation of a “disorder” is a fascinating tale of activism and coercion, recounted elsewhere.

The fact that the APA doesn’t recognize homosexual practice as disordered doesn’t mean that it isn’t disordered. Porneia is as porneia does.

We’re agreed, but according to ‘professional ethics’ a shrink has to refer clients that they think are ‘disordered’ in that way and the ‘disorder’ is the problem, rather than trying to help them (if the client doesn’t manifest the ‘recognized’ ‘identity disorder’). 

The young lady in question in the case didn’t see the patient, so couldn’t tell if the problem was due to the ‘unrecognised disorder’ or some other, so she wasn’t at the point professionally recognized as a legitimate need to refer.  Had she seen the patient, and determined that the problem wasn’t related to the ‘disorder’ she could have help with the problem, if it were related to the ‘disorder’ not recognized by the APA, she could have legitimately refereed the patient.