fett on 13/4/2009 at 19:05
Quote Posted by demagogue
That's all a long detour, I know... But it comes right to this sort of issue. Here's a dangerous person. There's all this humanist literature about keeping dangerous people away from kids or vulnerable people, even if you want to get them into a reform mode (this sort of problem comes up in criminal/penitentiary policy contexts too; not just a Christian problem btw). But my point here is that these ideas also have an indigenous place in Christian thinking if you'd look, where it's not only non-threatening, but in fact it'd be anti-Christain
not to respect it.
True. But I also believe there comes a point where if a community is routinely ignoring these humanist concepts within their own mandates, there has to be some outside pressure for conformity. Now we're dangerously screwing with the separation of church and state (in the U.S. and E.U. at least...)
I think the government is so afraid of breaching that separation, that certain situations are allowed to run wild. This issue with background checks is the perfect example. Pastors take it upon themselves to decide if someone is "safe" to work with children, and there's absolutely no outside accountability if he's wrong. Why aren't churches held to the same standards as schools when it comes to this specific area? In my view, it would not infringe upon their religious freedoms, but only insure a standard of care that, as demagogue points out, is mandated by their own scriptures.
A related issue has to do with pastoral counciling. While pastors are held by law to the same confidentiality standards as professional counselors, they are
not required by law to have any training in counseling techniques, nor are they held to the same "responsibility to warn" guidelines as are professional psychologists and therapists. The reason being, most pastors consider psychology to be rooted in secular humanism (it is) and its methodology to run counter to Christian teaching (it does - love thyself vs. all have sinned, etc.). So the last thing they're going to do is refer someone to a professional therapist, or admit that the problem is too big for Jesus to handle.
Which is why they should be barred from offering therapy unless they have even remedial training to deal with mental disorders. Because to many pastors a "mental disorder" is merely a "demonic oppression" or the result of a guilty/sinful conscience that can be dealt with purely through spiritual means. In my view, the government/DHS should intervene lawfully in the church to require that pastors refer such people to professional therapists, before they hurt themselves or other people (as I suspect the case to be in the OP).
I say all this with a great deal of chagrin, because I was one of those pastors who taught people that psychology was misguided (though I was adamant that mood disorders and mental problems were medical, not spiritual issues). There is such a strong distaste and suspicion of the mental health profession in mainstream Christianity that members are seldom if ever referred for help. Pastors think that "with the help of the Holy Spirit", they are just as capable of helping people with these problems. It scars the shit out of me.
Beleg Cúthalion on 13/4/2009 at 19:46
Quote Posted by fett
I say all this with a great deal of chagrin, because I was one of those pastors who taught people that psychology was misguided (though I was adamant that mood disorders and mental problems were medical, not spiritual issues). There is such a strong distaste and suspicion of the mental health profession in mainstream Christianity that members are seldom if ever referred for help. Pastors think that "with the help of the Holy Spirit", they are just as capable of helping people with these problems. It scars the shit out of me.
If that's the status quo in the US (and I mean everywhere in the US) then my last pieces of doubt concerning the reasons for this deep cleavage between radical "Christians" and radical Againstallsortsofviciousreligionistsssss!!! just vanished. In fact I'm fed up with this thing after dealing with new atheist criticism of religion for more than half a year but what the hell...
fett's issue here is a bit more blurry because IMHO setting up rules meddling in church affairs or vice versa seems at least questionable to me... and I guess I back out of this, remembering how this doesn't really affect me here in Europe. :p Seriously, I'm too lazy now to think about anything. We have religious education at school for those who like/are sent there by their parents, which discharges us from the danger of uncontrolled "obligatorily" religious education.
Vasquez on 13/4/2009 at 20:11
End all religions.
Nicker on 13/4/2009 at 21:45
A very sad story, fett. There is something about crimes committed in association with churches that makes them seem all that much worse. The sanctuary violated, trust betrayed. That's just not supposed to happen in the house of god. I think you are right that there is a dangerous naivety which allows people with criminal intent to victimise the congregation or allows people with mental illness to go untreated, as long as they have professed faith.
I trace the problem to the conflicting messages of love and fear that forms the basis of Christian thought, or more properly, Christian emotions. Through my junior high and high school years I was a fervent born again Christian. The impact of that “rebirth” was deeply emotional and powerful. Since then, I have learned that this experience is not exclusive to Christianity and can be achieved through a number of practices under the rubric of many different spiritual paths. For the unprepared it can seem like a bolt from heaven - try it sometime.
Contrasted to the joy of my salvation was the dread I felt for my family and friends, condemned to burn in hell for eternity. I had to save them! I had to save everybody! What caring person would not? Their stubbornness in denying the plainly obvious truth, drove me to deeper despair and anger. Why couldn't they just shut up and accept salvation already?!
My pastor assured me I was not responsible for them, beyond bearing witness. He said that their torment would not touch me in heaven - but I also knew that Aquinas said that the suffering of the damned was the icing that made the cake of heaven all the more delicious. What's a believer to do?
From my own experience I can say that blending the message of love with the message of damnation creates enormous inner conflicts and these will express themselves in emotional life of the sufferer. (And yes, it is suffering.) I am certain that this conflict has been in the heart of many people justifying violence in the name of God. At the very least it adds moral and ethical ambiguity to the pathology of people already suffering from weak grasp on reality syndrome.
This conflict is compounded with a tendency in human behaviour, where lessons learned are attached to a particular emotional state. Tearful confession and contrition last only as long as the emotional state which caused them. The sobbing wife beater may be totally sincere about reforming, until he gets angry again.
The wow moment of rebirth may give someone pause enough to form a new paradigm of behaviour but for real change to take place the new habits of thinking and feeling must be formed in a state of mental and emotional sobriety. Those lessons can carry us through emotional storms in a way that mere epiphany cannot.
Starrfall on 13/4/2009 at 21:46
"In my view, the government/DHS should intervene lawfully in the church to require that pastors refer such people to professional therapists, before they hurt themselves or other people (as I suspect the case to be in the OP)."
The "lawfully" part would probably be the problem. I'd be really shocked if you didn't immediately have Free Exercise challenges to a move like that. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's scientologists, not christians, who are first to bankroll the lawsuits.
demagogue on 13/4/2009 at 22:54
@fett, ok you're much more interested in the policy and legal angles, what the state can/should do, rather than Church policy. Should have had my lawyer hat on.
I should link (
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012910) this paper again (Leiter's Why Tolerate Religion?), for a good critical discussion of why religion gets special treatment in constitutional jurisprudence, and why it isn't just subsumed under a general freedom of speech.
Well, there's what the law is and what it should be.
What it is, yeah, the separation of gov't and religion isn't just a political ideal that politicians hesitate to do (although it's that too), but it's also a very concrete legal barrier with very specific boundaries.
Usually the gov't is good about separating generally illegal activities from religions ones, so you can't smoke peyote because it's an illegal drug or slaughter without a license, even for religious reasons. Then there's more regulatory issues like this, especially that are in a less developed scientific regime (e.g., mental health in opposition to something like benzene poisoning where the science is quite developed) that are in a greyer zone ... and things like faith-based initiatives getting federal money that play in that grey zone. I think the gov't should stick to its guns on that kind of regulatory separation policy, so they shouldn't sponsor "regulatory" type initiatives (like validating churches as valid for mental health services). So on your point: "Which is why they should be barred from offering therapy unless they have even remedial training to deal with mental disorders", that should really be on safe ground under the establishment clause. I guess some problems come in when you get into what's considered "therapy". Like whenever someone dies in a school, they often bring in pastors as part of "therapy" services, and this is one place they could be sure to put in these kinds of restrictions, and require a pastor to refer a case to a professional if they are going to be given privileged status to come in, and I think there's a legal hook for that sort of thing. That's a good example, actually.
I'm not sure the gov't could require pastors to refer people to specialists generally when any nutcase comes to the church looking for answers (i.e., only church and not a public or hybrid public-church context) on pain of penalty because the gov't doesn't have great grounds for doing that to any private groups that don't claim "official" status as offering bone fide (in the scientific sense of the term) therapeutic services. What is the church advertising? Therapy based on peer-reviewed sound scientific principles, or spritual healing without any strong claim it's really about cell mutations and not really about God. I think the gov't is pretty liberal in letting the former pass because its part of a legal tradition that allows groups quite a bit of "puffery" room to inflate what they can do as long as they are literally saying, "this prayer and hand-laying session slows the catalyst rate of this enzyme by this process published in this peer reviewed journal." (This may be what some Christian groups
want to do, which to me itself seems a little funny they are so anxious to say it's really about cell mutation and not faith in God when you get down to brass tacks, but as long as they can't do it because it isn't a scientific process and reasonable people should understand that, they get the wiggle room.)
When the gov't does comes in giving a privileged status, though, the restrictions have better grounds. The gov't might be safer to have more "soft" initiatives that facilitate religious communities working with mental health specialists generally, though. That's another route in the legal grey zone with some good potential, and a way, if a good liberal is clever, to use the "faith-based" hooks to actually do some good. They definitely need to get a dialog going. This is sort of happening with religious and health communities with family planning (read: the abortion problem), at least a few states have tried experimenting with this kind of thing, but it's still rocky going. But it's a start, a model.
As for pastors getting some benefits of "councilor" status, like privilege from giving testimony, that's an interesting issue. From my understanding, the privilege is on different grounds than the "professional" ones, where the privilege protects the benefits of their "services". The religous privilege protects the "free exercise" from being undermined by potential public/official prejudice. But I see your point how in practice that might give pastors a feeling of official validation (a right) without official restrictions on it (a corresponding duty). I don't have a ready answer because I haven't thought about it, since you still have independent grounds for the privilege even with that business I mentioned above about gov't having grounds to get involved in "regulatory" matters separate from religion (which I'm not sure the priviliege largely applies to; are these things better characterized as "confessions" or "therapy session"?) Actually, focusing on that last question may be the hook you'd want to get into the law/policy to address this kind of problem. The more a practice is self-characterized as a therapeutic route, the more it's a regulatory matter the gov't has better grounds in the same manner as the peyote case; the more it's a relgious practice, the less grounds. And I actually think, if I remember my Bar exam study materials correctly, that there are some restrictions on the priest-privilege in just this sort of direction (edit: a little research, it depends on the jurisdiction; for some jurisdictions it seems priests/preachers can waive the priviliege without consent, which is more liberal than some other privilieges, but doesn't get to the problems fett mentions, and the law seems to be less developed on that problem).
fett on 13/4/2009 at 22:56
@ Nicker - very well said - I've experienced exactly what you're talking about but you've communicated it perfectly for those who haven't been there.
@ Starreh - I was hoping you'd weigh in here. Do you think it will ever come to a point where pastors or spiritual leaders who engage in "counseling" will be held to the same accountability as professional therapists re: responsibility to warn? How would it impact their ability to place leaders in the church? Does this sound like an essay question for a humanities 101 class? :erg:
Nicker on 14/4/2009 at 00:00
demagogue, Starfall et al:
It’s easy to anticipate that any attempt to legislate the examination and regulation of clergy and laypersons within churches, will not fly. Such changes will have to come from within and probably at the insistence of the congregation.
Fett mentioned how conflicted he felt when (wisely) denying enthusiastic but untested members from holding positions of responsibility, especially for children. I don’t think it would compromise the faith to observe that while being reborn is good, if you want to accept adult responsibilities you need to show evidence of being re-grown up as well. There’s no shame getting help for that outside the church.
fett on 14/4/2009 at 13:29
From CNN:
Quote:
A Sunday school teacher accused of killing a Tracy, California girl may also have raped the 8-year-old, authorities say.
Melissa Huckaby faces charges of kidnapping and murder in the death of 8-year-old Sandra Cantu.
"When she was booked, she was booked on charges of kidnapping and murder," Tracy Police Sgt. Tony Sheneman said on "Larry King Live" on Monday night. "And we're informed by the district attorney that she'll be charged with abduction, murder, rape with a foreign object and lewd and lascivious acts with a child."
So it's becoming more and more obvious that this woman was seeing a mental health professional for more than just shoplifting (does anyone *ever* get court ordered therapy for shoplifting???). I bet my collection of P-Funk CD's that when this whole story comes out, either the therapist or the grandfather/pastor knew she was a nutjob and didn't say shit to anyone.
Muzman on 14/4/2009 at 14:25
It's pretty common these days to go to counseling, particularly since she didn't go to jail. Usually about the only signs that anyone thinks are obvious indicators of potential violent behaviour are violent behaviour or extreme anger and other such things. If there weren't any red flags in the psych evaluation and they let her walk, then there weren't any red flags. The press will likely come up with some that sounds like it in hindsight, and the psych might agree. But we'll see.
Sadly, you can't lock up or exclude people on the slightest psychological pretext as it's a bit hit and miss, a bit long term observation. And we've tried it before once or twice and we ended up with a lot of dead people, The Bell Jar and Scientology. So let's not.
