Christian ethics in any field of applied ministry are both conformative and transformative. Conformation refers to a minimal standard of rule-directed behavior that guides right action in any given circumstance. Conforming to the letter of the law—adhering to the requirements of just action—defines the threshold of accepted ethics and is the required standard of competent behavior in ministry. Falling below this minimal standard—whether by design or by negligence—constitutes unethical behavior, wrongdoing which must be avoided or cured. Conformative rules for Christian counseling practice are now embodied in the new AACC Christian Counseling Code of Ethics. Transformation, on the other hand, illuminates the idealstandard—that which the law of love compels. Transforming love—yielding to the spirit of the law—is inspirational, spiritual, virtuous, delightful, evoking the best that the Holy Spirit can produce in us toward another. It is a standard of excellence toward which we should all strive as helpers and to which we can sometimes attain. It is that holy place where we are released from our self absorption by the Holy Spirit, set free to love and serve others as better than ourselves. Nearly all counseling —all ministry for that matter—takes place somewhere in the ethical zone between conformation and transformation, between justice and love. Both are considered in the three vignettes that follow.
*Vignette 1*: Sexual Misconduct? Your new client comes on referral—specifically requesting a female therapist—from someone you’ve known from a distance as a respected colleague for many years. The new client tells you that she’d seen her former therapist for about six months and that he had terminated therapy and referred her after admitting how attracted he was to her—so much so that he could no longer remain objective as a therapist. Two days ago, you’re told, the former therapist called the client to inquire about her referral and invited her to a local restaurant for coffee to “discuss things.” Your client tells you she accepted this invitation. She thinks he may make a romantic move on her when they meet, and she is quite ambivalent about it—both anxious and excited. What, if anything, should you do about this relationship? Your first question, in conformative ethics analysis, should be: Has the threshold of sexual misconduct been breached? Section 1-131 of the AACC Code forbids sexual and romantic relations with former clients, including termination and referral in order to pursue such relations. Was the therapist’s statement of his attraction to the client an admission gone too far? Was termination necessary? Was it done correctly? Was the invitation for “coffee” appropriate? Is there any evidence of a pattern of misbehavior —that the former therapist has previously been in a similar predicament? Even if you conclude that a sexual boundary line hasn’t been crossed here, is it likely to be breached without your intervention? If you conclude that a wrongful breach has occurred or will occur unless you intervene, you may be subject to various reporting duties or client interventions depending on the law of your resident state. If your client has been victimized sexually, she has various remedies— in-house complaint, professional association complaint, state licensure complaint, or civil lawsuit—that she can pursue against her victimizer, and the state may pursue independent criminal prosecution.1 Any such action can be disruptive to your client’s clinical progress and goals, so it is important to review all options with your client and to seek her consent for any actions you may take on her behalf.2 Balancing clinical and ethical/legal goals in this highly charged arena is a fine art that requires much patience and wisdom. As in many ethical dilemmas, a strictly conformative rules analysis may not lead you to Perfection is unattainable in practice and to believe otherwise only leads to self-delusion. the best path of action.3 The transformative call in this case might lead you to a two-way communication with your client and her former therapist. Ideally, it may be best to help work through your client’s ambivalence in counseling, including her feelings and reactions to being terminated, and for the reasons expressed. Suggesting that it may be better to communicate by letter, or even phone, rather than face-to-face could help avoid a tempting situation for both. If your client consents, you may want to write or call the former therapist to inform him that the referral has been joined and that you would like copies of his client record. By doing this, you would also be communicating nonverbally that you are benignly watching what is going on. Love may be able to pull this one back to safety before two people pitch themselves over the precipice.
*Vignette 2*: The Impaired Helper After 30 years of church ministry as a pastoral counselor—including 12 good years at your present church—you are enfeebled by the onset of a chronic illness and a stubborn depression. After a number of clinical and ethical lapses, it is clear to you that you can no longer minister full time without risking your parishioners’ well-being and your own health. You approach your employing church about reducing hours for six months and using church old_resources for rest and restoration, but you are denied. Your employing pastor argues that the church cannot “afford it,” and he disbelieves the legitimacy of your condition, challenging you “to get it together.” You are stunned and confused, then you become angry. What recourse, if any,do you have? Admitting our failings and weaknesses—or honestly facing them when confronted about them by others—is a most difficult thing. Penetrating our delusional views of self-perfection and unremitting goodness is too often a shattering experience. God will shatter it if necessary to complete our redemption from sin, but he would much rather have us disciplined to confession and repentance. If it is true that honesty is better than practiced perfection, it is because perfection is unattainable in practice and to believe otherwise only leads to self-delusion. Section 1-250 of the AACC Code holds that “Christian counselors acknowledge that sin, illnesses, mental disorders, interpersonal crises, distress, and self-deception still influence us personally—and that these problems can adversely affect our clients and parishioners. When personal problems flare to a level that harm to one’s clients is realized or likely, the Christian counselor will refrain from or reduce those particular professional-ministerial activities that are or could be harmful. During such times, the counselor will seek out and use those reparative old_resources that will allow for problem resolution and a return to a fully functioning ministry, if possible.” When not possible due to employer resistance, section 5-212 instructs a pattern of direct negotiations, then mediation, then arbitration, and finally binding arbitration to attempt resolution. Don’t seethe in avoidance or take on a solitary fight. Bring others into the process and seek a just resolution. If your employer remains recalcitrant, the transformative way is suggested (see AACC Code sections 5-310ff). After all peaceable means for resolution have been exhausted, state your intention to pursue your healing path, and make it plain to your employer and your church board that this is your choice. This path calls you to the higher ethic of Christ, one that must be pursued with the utmost humility, eschewing all triumphal arrogance. Define your action in the least costly way to the church, declare your adherence to all other employment rules, and be prepared to pay whatever costs may be exacted. Your actions may challenge your church to change its policies and practices—to become much more staff friendly. Then again, you could lose your job. Job loss, however (or resignation to maintain your control of the process), may be exactly the prescription needed for you and could open even better doors for ministry in the future. The costs to your parishioners should be counted seriously, though, as this is not an easy or clear decision.
*Vignette 3*: Teacher-Student Dual Relations As Professor of Counseling and Clinical Director of your M.A. program’s practicum sequence, you have overall supervisory authority of the students working in various practicum sites around your city. One of these students is also your graduate assistant, a fine young man you’ve spent many hours with who has done significant research and writing in the papers and presentations you’ve done the past two years. Unfortunately, his practicum has not gone well, and he is angry about the way he’s been treated at the agency. The site supervisor has called you to request a three-way meeting because he is seriously thinking of giving your student an unsatisfactory grade for the practicum. What do you do with this request? Section 2-122 of the AACC Code states that those “relations that harm or are likely to harm students and trainees, or that impair or are likely to distort the professional judgment of supervisors and teachers shall be avoided.” This rule suggests, as an up-front preventive step, that a teacher/supervisor should not mix counseling supervision with a grad assistantship or other close relationship. Foresighted avoidance of some dual and multiple relationships will also avoid much heartache and trouble in the future of those relationships. When you are already in this deep, you must then analyze whether you can remain objective in the case at hand—unbiased enough to render a supportable judgment either way. Can you be a fair mediator between your student and the site supervisor? Will you be believed by the on-site clinician if you side with your student? What if the record supports the supervisor and you must steer the student to another practicum or to something other than counseling? If possible, you should use your relationship as a strength to influence your student in the right direction; whether or not your student is receptive to your influence at this point reflects the problems with dual relationships. The transformative call is to be a peacemaker —to attempt a reconciliation between student and site supervisor that meets the objectives of both. Here, supernatural intervention may be required, so prayer for yourself—to be given the right spirit and the right words at the right time—for both parties, and for the time of meeting is in order. If your dual relationship with this student has too far contaminated your peacemaker’s role (and some dual relations can be justified—see section 1-142), then it may be incumbent on you to recuse yourself and refer the matter to another faculty member for mediation and judgment.
*The Christian Counselor’s Golden Rule* This Christian counselor’s application of the Golden Rule is adapted from Romans 13:8-10, with apologies to New Testament scholars. I use it in my speaking and consulting min- Relations that harm or are likely to harm students and trainees, or that impair or are likely to distort the professional judgment of supervisors and teachers shall be avoided. is try to synthesize and express the cardinal values and core rules of Christian counseling ethics. This statement integrates both conformative and transformative challenges in the best way—revealing the perfect relationship between law and love.
Christian counselor, hear this: Do not be indebted to any client or parishioner, except the debt to love them. For if you love your counselees you honor Christ and you complete your professional and ministerial call. You know the rules of counseling and pastoral care: Do not in any way harm or exploit those Christ has sent to you for help. Do not engage in any form of sexual misconduct with your counselees, whether current or past. Do not, as far as it is possible with you, let them kill, threaten, or harm themselves or anyone else. Do not steal your clients’ money or disregard your time with them. Do not envy, or look down on, or dismiss, or manipulate, or speak demeaningly to your counselees. In fact, to sum it up and state it conclusively: Practice the Golden Rule in your helping ministry with all wisdom and grace. Love your counselees as yourself. Don’t do anything to your counselees or those they love that you wouldn’t want done to yourself. For love does no wrong to any counselee. Therefore, to love your counselees as Christ loves you is to fulfill all your obligations—all your moral-ethical-legal duties—as a Christian counselor.
George Ohlschlager, J.D., LCSW, is the Executive Director of the American Board of Christian Counselors, affiliated with AACC.