Beyond the Clinical Hour
How Counselors Can Partner with the Church to Address the Mental Health Crisis
By James N. Sells, Amy Trout, and Heather C. Sells
IVP Academic, 264 pages, $28
Convinced that the mental-health crisis in America outstrips the available number of trained therapists in the United States, James Sells, Amy Trout, and Heather Sells argue that a partnership between clinics and churches could extend the healing efforts of both communities.
Arguing that the “divorce” between the two has left people alienated from one or the other, the authors suggest that a “family reunion” is possible, especially if a new culture is created, based on “(1) biblical theology and Christian thought, (2) supervision, (3) consultation program evaluation, and (4) ethics and economics.”
As someone who has spent considerable time in both the academy and the church, I could not escape the impression that though the authors are interested in what a partnership of this kind could do for the church’s ministry, their primary concern has more to do with extending the reach of the clinic. Indeed, that concern may well explain the book’s title and subtitle.
For that reason, clergy who read the book may well be forgiven for feeling that — in addition to all of the other challenges facing the contemporary church — the authors are proposing that they shoulder the mental-health crisis as well. It is one thing to appropriate psychological insights into one’s efforts at pastoral care and to recognize the value of identifying health-care professionals who can assist parishioners whose needs exceed the training that clergy accumulated. It is another thing to suggest that pastors structure their ministry with an eye to integrating their ministry with that of the clinic.
It is also difficult to imagine that the mental health community is prepared for this effort. Though the authors seem to be aware of the challenges, they never confront differences in the worldview of clergy and the dominant worldview of the mental health profession.
Three data points speak to the differences:
One is research that suggests most academics in the field of psychology are atheists and agnostics. A survey in 2006, conducted by researchers Neil Gross of the University of British Columbia and Solon Simmons of George Mason University, concluded that 50 percent of all professors of psychology in American universities and colleges are atheists and another 11 percent are agnostics.
A second is the near complete absence of religious and spiritual training among clinicians. According to Alexis D. Abernathy and Joseph J. Lancia,
The salience of religion has been documented. Among the U.S. general public, 66% of those surveyed indicated that religion is important in their lives. The religious beliefs and practices of mental health professionals have also been examined. The findings suggest that psychologists view religious and spiritual issues as important in their clinical practice but that most clinicians feel unprepared to address the religious and spiritual concerns of their patients. … Mental health professionals receive minimal training in addressing spiritual and religious issues in psychotherapy.
A third finding by the same researchers suggests that where religion is treated in the classroom, it is also treated as an isolated or problematic feature of the human experience, As Abernathy and Lancia observe,
Despite the prominent role of religion in people’s lives, it has not been routinely addressed in psychotherapy. … attitudes toward religion are frequently polarized; the perspective that religious content is either special or unimportant has prevented therapists from maintaining a neutral stance. Traditional psychoanalytic views of religion, as well as the historical separation between mental health and religion, have contributed to a therapeutic avoidance of the topic. This avoidance has been well documented. Although Jung and James viewed religion as an essential function of the psyche, Freud’s characterization of religion as an illusion and his depiction of religious belief as an attempt to restore an individual’s long-lost relationship with father supported the notion that religion was irrational and an expression of wish fulfillment. … The polarization of views and the history of tension between religion and mental health increase the likelihood that the therapist will be biased either positively or negatively toward religion.
It is no surprise, then, that — as Ali Reza Rajael observes — “Although different kinds of religious psychotherapies have been proposed, no comprehensive theory has been presented in this area.” But the absence of those theories suggests just how rare such partnerships between the church and the clinic might be, no matter how much effort clergy might make.
The other issue that is missing from the volume is any mention of spiritual direction. In attempting to understand how one might integrate the spiritual, physical, and emotional dimensions of human experience, it is this discipline that invites people to listen for the voice of God with their whole lives. Yet there is not even a single reference to it, as far as I can tell.
The explanation may lie with the theological orientation of the writers. Christian thought seems to figure more prominently in their description of the “reunion” that they describe. Though I would never denigrate the importance of theological reflection, clearly experience looms large in the integration that the authors long to see between the clinic and the church.
The vision of the Christian life that spiritual direction offers, however, may have also raised serious questions about the authors’ goals. It could be argued that what is missing in the current mental health crisis is not a paucity of therapeutic options but a failure to acknowledge the fundamentally spiritual nature of life.
The Rev. Dr. Frederick W. Schmidt is vice rector of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Brentwood, Tennessee, and Rueben P. Job Chair of Spiritual Formation at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.
