Need some advice about Trinity Seminary

I think the specific criticism was that as a helping profession, clergy training should include some in-person components, which is a reasonable point to raise. You can't become a social worker or a licensed mental health counselor through 100% online coursework, even though you can do the majority of your learning online. There is always an experiential component to ensure you're actually able to deliver support to people face to face. Is it possible to become an ordained minister without ever actually ministering to people face to face? (Honest question - I have no frame of reference for clergy training or education.)

 

It's a good point. My answer is that ministerial education by distance affords students the opportunity to remain in their current ministry setting under the tutelage of their local church. Most churches in my tradition have a general expectation that some form of internship occur in addition to formal education (usually an MDiv). I think that is probably true for much of evangelicalism. Distance ed, then, conforms to that expectation. Moreover, some schools even arrange their distance programs to include the relevant local church and the associated responsibilities of the student into the program. That is true for the big players (e.g., Liberty; SBTS; etc.) and small smaller ones too. As for the comparison with counseling or therapeutic vocations, most of those programs do not include a practical component (even in brick and mortar context) since local licensure boards require so many hours under supervision in an actual practice. Same idea, but the theoretical components (i.e., the degree program) can be done online legitimately.

 

Levicoff has experience but doesn't seem keen to keep adding to that experience or to integrate new information into his worldview.

There was a time where earning an "online degree" put you at a disadvantage. There was a time when you might rightly feel you needed to hide the fact that you never set foot on campus lest you incur some sort of work related penalty. Now? My company, Fortune 500 though they may be, is not typically on the cutting edge of many (non-Tech) things. And yet we recognize online education and a good number of our executives have degrees that were earned at least in part via distance learning. The era of "Online degrees are garbage" went out once you could no longer make the distinction. There is no transcript notation in many cases. And there is, functionally and legally, no difference between a B.A. in Psychology earned online or on campus from the same school.

Levicoff did some interesting research and contributed well to the conversation of distance learning and non-traditional learning in higher education. So did Rich. The difference is that Rich is one of the first to admit that the landscape has changed since some of that groundbreaking research and that more study could yield even more findings. Levicoff doesn't want more study or to learn new things, it seems.

And I could accept and appreciate that, even if I disagreed with it, except that Levicoff posts quickly turn into how every school being discussed is a disgraceful scam and only an idiot would ever choose it. He's come out and said that Union was great when he went but by the time Rich Douglas went it was already in the crapper and now it is a joke. Notice the trend? If Levicoff does something it was smart and clever. Someone else does the exact same thing? Well, you're a moron for doing it, somehow. Details to follow later once he finds a way to create a distinction of how his approach was brilliant and clever and yours was ill-conceived and stupid.

 

Ministers are not licensed mental health professionals. They're not even trained to be pastoral counselors. Ironically, because of the pandemic, Liberty has started offering digital ministry programs. Not only are there more online church services, but the healthcare field, including mental health, is utilizing telehealth more often. Obviously, Levicoff's very brief residency for his hodgepodge doctorate did nothing for his people skills.

 

-sigh- I posted something here in the wrong thread...

 

And neither did years of his subsequent career, "The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Trucker." Frankly, I don't have a clue as to what could have changed that... A person has to want it. Otherwise, it doesn't happen. Dr. Steve obviously didn't. His choice. So be it.

 

Apologies to the late Alan Sillitoe.

 

Most states recognized the inherent counseling role in pastoral ministry and most graduate professional degrees (MDiv) require significant counseling coursework. That is, ministers aren’t licensed because their exempt for state regulation and yet they tend to do an awful lot of counseling and so-called “mental health” work.

 

States are recognizing people's First Amendment right to practice their religion of choice. That means that R. Kelly's unqualified pastor could provide inadequate counseling while R. Kelly was raping children and not be held accountable. If a person is going to counsel outside of their ministry and charge a fee, they need a license. You don't need any credentials or training to counsel a congregation; it doesn't mean that you're qualified to provide mental health services. Any ethical minister will send their congregant to a licensed professional for a serious mental health issue. Your average MDiv program, unless it has a counseling or chaplaincy concentration, is not filled with significant counseling coursework.

 

You're wrong. There are multitudinous counseling ministries which are distinctly Christian in terms of their approach and the content of their counsel. They too are exempt from any licensure requirements in every state. The "church" is not merely limited to what Christians do on Sunday morning or in the pastor's study. As for the average MDiv, every MDiv from a legitimate school I have ever seen has at least four practical theology courses dealing directly with soul care whether from the pulpit or in private. And, you're erroneously assuming that every Christian accepts the category of "mental health" (many of us don't) and you've evidently not read much on the counseling wars and the biblical counseling movement. The issues aren't black and white as you suppose.

 

Actually, friend, YOU are wrong.

In all 50 states if you are a minister providing counseling to members of your church incidental to your role as a member of clergy, you're golden.

The moment you start charging a fee for counseling services you need a license in at least a handful of states. In NYS, interestingly, pastoral counseling is seen as license exempt. This has more to do with hazy jurisdictional lines because of overlapping scopes of practice among mental health practitioners (e.g. if I hold myself out as a psychotherapist without a license, who, exactly is responsible for holding me accountable when we have four separate state boards overseeing various iterations of psychotherapist?)

Maine, however, licenses pastoral counselors. With an M.Div. and some CPE you can be licensed and enjoy the same license privileges as a mental health counselor. But you need the license. It has nothing to do with "disctinctly Christian" content. It has to do with what you are actually DOING. Otherwise, one could simply hold themselves out as a "Christian Physician" and practice their distinctly Christian brand of medicine without a license. If your practice slides into the realm of practicing counseling without a license, even Jesus won't be able to save you from state regulators.

 

Actually, the relevant laws generally refer to charging a fee that is at or above market rate. Recently, I met with an ADF attorney on this very matter. If a counseling ministry is organizationally under the authority and commission of a local church, that ministry is exempt for state regs. related to licensure and its associated laws. Moreover, the term "minister" is not defined by the states nor federal government and, therefore, because churches are within the purview of their authority to identify who is and is not a minister, churches are able to circumvent state regs. Most laws, however, are sufficiently ambiguous so as to preclude your conclusion. For example, my home state exempts "a clergyman, priest, minister, rabbi or practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which the person belongs and settled in the work of the ministry, provided the activities that would otherwise require a license as a professional counselor are within the scope of ministerial duties" (Connecticut General Statutes 383c Sec. 20-195bb, italics added ).

I should also add that your statement about a "Christian Physician" is misguided and a category error. Care of the soul is an explicitly theological matter unlike care of the flesh.

 

Right, so I think you're missing what is being said here. No one is saying that ministers cannot provide counsel.

However, there are individuals who are not operating a church. They are renting an office space with a waiting room that looks, by all appearances, like a doctor's office and holding themselves out as counselors providing counseling services to the general public.

Therein is the rub. If I walk into my church and want to talk to my pastor because my marriage is on the rocks that is, to quote your quote, "within the scope of ministerial duties." If I rent an office in a medical office building and say I'm a pastoral counselor then, generally, you're on shakier territory.

Now, in NYS, it is indeed allowed. Because, as we've said, you slip between the cracks.

For the states that have licensed pastoral counselors, however, those cracks have been sealed and thus your statement that "in all 50 states..." is false. Even if we just look at Maine, that's one state that thought it better to close the gap and license pastoral counselors.

And while healing of the spirit is fully within the purview of a minister of any denomination, healing of the mind is not. Many ministers are more than capable of making that distinction and knowing which boundaries to observe. Many others, sadly, are not.

 

I don't think I am missing anything as I have given considerable thought to both your comments and the issues-- I am both an ordained churchman and a counselor who oversees a counseling ministry. If a church establishes a ministry that is in a different location than their church building and offers, say, biblical counseling, and charges nominal fees that are substantially below market rates, and ensures that their counselees are aware that they are receiving biblical counseling, there is absolutely nothing illegal about that in any state.

Let's take the State of Maine as it demonstrates my point: Licensure regulations do not apply "to the activities and services of any priest, rabbi, clergyman, including a Christian Science healer, or minister of the gospel of any religious denomination when performing counseling services as part of religious duties and in connection with a specific synagogue or church of any religious denomination" (MRS Title 32, §13856). Maine's ad hock licensure for a "pastoral counselor" is not to be confused with someone operating a ministry under the direct supervision of a local church or denomination. Rather, the license is more applicable to what most consider chaplaincy vocations.

 

The states are in the business of regulating evidence-based practices that can cause significant harm to the public if performed improperly, not the millions of different spiritual beliefs that are protected by the Constitution. The central nervous system is an actual thing. Most religious people in the U.S. recognize science to varying extents. Most natural and behavioral scientists are religious or spiritual.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether a theology degree program has hands-on training. It's an unregulated field. Not even people within the same religion can come to a consensus on many issues, which is why denominations and sects exist. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as there isn't physical harm done. Unfortunately, governments haven't been good at protecting people from psychological harm.

 

Here's a legal opinion from John Cornyn when he was the AG of Texas. Someone wrote his office concerned about Universal Life Church ordinations and people using them to circumvent licensing laws. He stated that a decision cannot be made solely on the mode of ordination. He makes it pretty clear that clergy must be providing services to their organizations within their capabilities and regular duties as clergy. If your practice is indistinguishable from a psychology practice, then you might be violating the law. He also referenced restrictions under the professional counseling board.

At least in Texas, it would be ill-advised to open up a counseling practice, charge fees, treat conditions that are beyond your education and training, and claim exemption from licensing requirements because you're offering "Christian counseling."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/49cornyn/op/2002/pdf/jc0535.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6g-qSopv2AhVQnWoFHWeFBuQQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1dNMOPz1YI365P86G49uXJ

 

I like it. Should be the iron-clad rule everywhere - including where I live (Ontario Canada). Stop the hacks and quacks in their tracks.

 

Well, stop some of them. Others just morph around it like an amoeba.

If I were inclined to be a pastoral/christian counselor and wanted to skirt the law I would probably rent an office space and put a chapel in it. Put up a sign that said "Christian Wellness Center and Chapel" and do as I darn well pleased knowing that even states that are taking a harsher stance are going to look at that, realize it could reasonably be argued that it is, in fact, a church and probably not want to take up the fight.

But for the laziest of quacks? Absolutely.

That all being said, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with Christian counseling or life coaching or any other talking to help profession as long as it doesn't cross the line into attempting to treat mental health conditions. The other big no no from me would be if one is using this seemingly clinical setting to inflict psychological damage by way of conversion therapy or the like. Of course, even if you ban that, states would have a difficult time penetrating church doors. The purpose of these protections, though, is to prevent church doors from looking remarkably like secular clinician doors so as to mislead.

 

Indeed. The kind of people I'd like to stop are the ones with, e.g. an unaccredited religious-mysterious-metaphysical-or-such Ph.D. on their business cards, to attract the unwary. I'm told that there are some "unregulated" areas of counselling in my province.

All too easy for quick-buck "con-counsellors" to bilk "clients" by infiltrating other fields that are regulated. Regulation is a funny thing. You need pharmaceuticals regulated (by prescription) but you don't want to need scrip for aspirin or a vitamin pill. (And we here in Canada came perilously close to that some years back - but it was nixed.)

"Unregulated" counsellors? I think that bar is a bit low. And I also suspect the "religious exemption" provisions in the US are likely more often milked than respected. But what do I know? I'm an atheist - a Godless heathen. No - not a pagan - an irredeemable heathen. I don't qualify for religious exemption .... do I?

 

It is a common misconception to assume that state licensure necessarily means quality counseling services. It doesn't. There are all sorts of bizarre, occultic, and unscientific practices that occur in regulated clinical practices in North America. I've seen it first hand but don't take my word for it. See for example Scott O. Lilienfield et al. eds., Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (New York: The Guilford Press, 2003) or William D. Kelly Jr., 2009, “The Effectiveness of Reiki as a Complement to Traditional Mental Health Services,” Northcentral Univ., Ph.D. Diss or Jennifer S. Dagia, 2017, “How Psychologists Experience and Perceive Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR),” Chestnut Hill College, Psy.D. Diss.