REACTION PAPER

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 265 © 2016 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 05/12/15 Revised 10/01/15

Accepted 10/18/15 DOI: 10.1002/jcad.12083

In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, compassion.

(Marco Antonio de Dominis, 1617, De Repubblica Ecclesiastica;

in current form, Pope John XXIII, 1959, Ad Petri Cathedram)

The counseling profession, along with mainstream society, has been grappling with how to navigate the disparities between individuals who identify as a sexual minority and individuals whose religious beliefs inform their decision mak- ing. More specifically, the American Counseling Association (ACA; 2014) has made significant changes to the ACA Code of Ethics pertaining to the presence of significant value differ- ences between counselors and clients. Counselors’ religious beliefs and values (i.e., those with such beliefs/values or those without such beliefs/values) are no longer a justifiable lens through which to refer clients to counselors with similar beliefs/values. Along these lines, questions have been posed as to the ethical application of value differences as they pertain to the design of counselor education programs, and thus to the training of future counselors.

Smith and Okech (2016) questioned the ethics of accredit- ing counseling programs housed in conservative Protestant Christian institutions when those institutions call for students and faculty to ascribe to a set of religiously based personal be- havior standards that apparently match with the students’ and

James N. Sells, School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University; W. Bryce Hagedorn, Department of Child, Family, and Community Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James N. Sells, School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University, 1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23464 (e-mail: [email protected]).

CACREP Accreditation, Ethics, and the Affirmation of Both Religious and Sexual Identities: A Response to Smith and Okech James N. Sells and W. Bryce Hagedorn

In response to Smith and Okech (2016), the authors reason that protections for sexual minorities can thrive with protec- tions for religious liberties. The authors (a) acknowledge that the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs’ accreditation process is designed to ensure that counseling programs of religious or secular institutions meet established standards to prepare counselors to work with all client groups, (b) describe the Ethical Acculturation Model (Handelsman, Gottlieb, & Knapp, 2005), and (c) provide an example of a theological perspective for educators to help students integrate their professional and religious identities.

Keywords: Christian, gay, lesbian, ethics, multicultural counseling

faculty’s belief systems. More specifically, they questioned those behavior standards that call for the restriction of sexual expression outside the parameters of heterosexual marriage. To extend the discussion to the broader professional culture, we paraphrase two important questions:

Question 1: Are there ethical issues raised by the accredi- tation of counseling programs within institutions that ascribe to religious policies and/or codes of conduct that disallow sexual behavior outside of traditional marriage?

Question 2: How does the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) simultaneously honor both religious diversity and sexual orientation diversity in its ac- crediting practices?

These questions are particularly timely given that the North American culture is caught in the tension between divergent views of sexuality. The counseling profession, with its commitment to social justice, community reconcili- ation, and conflict resolution, has the capacity to be a leader in modeling a path for the broader culture to create policies and processes for groups of individuals who adhere to con- trary values regarding sexuality. On this issue, we suggest the consideration of the idea of “convicted civility” (p. 12), a phrase used by Richard Mouw (1992), who observed that

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94266

Sells & Hagedorn

people who are civil often tend to lack conviction, whereas people with conviction can easily lack civility. Numerous scholars serve as our model as to how we can practice con- victed civility around the issues of professional ethics and religious convictions. Yarhouse and Beckstead (2011) and Balkin, Watts, and Ali (2014) have shown that we can and must demonstrate the practice of collaborative discussion around those ideas that divide cultures in order to maintain the engagement of groups with alternative views on potentially divisive issues. It is in this spirit that we offer our ideas to be placed next to those of Smith and Okech (2016), because we believe that their questions regarding the training of profes- sional counseling students enrolled in conservative Christian CACREP-accredited programs are valid. Ultimately, we seek to bring clarity to the two aforementioned questions, believing that there is evidence in established CACREP accreditation practices, the professional literature, and the position state- ments of accredited faith-based institutions that can lead the way toward convicted civility.

The Common Ground and the Disputed Space

Our response to Smith and Okech (2016) is not a rebuttal by any means, because we concur with their fundamental prem- ise: All counselors, regardless of their scope of practice, must be prepared by their CACREP-accredited programs to deliver competent counseling services to all clients. We differ in the belief that the CACREP-accredited programs noted in their article demonstrate discrimination against sexual minorities or fail to prepare counseling students to meet their ethical obligations under the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). To support this assertion, we propose three agendas for this ar- ticle. First, we maintain that it is, in part, due to the CACREP accreditation process that faith-based programs are able to sufficiently demonstrate their compliance with all CACREP accreditation standards and the ACA Code of Ethics.

Second, we reason that faith-based counseling training programs serve a distinct culture, a culture that often views the purpose of sexuality with distinction from the broader secular society. By accrediting counseling programs within this social subculture, CACREP supports the idea that prin- ciples consistent with the ACA Code of Ethics (e.g., diversity; ACA, 2014) can be integrated into the training experience of future counselors. This is consistent with the research established by such authors as Handelsman, Gottlieb, and Knapp (2005), who developed the Ethical Acculturation Model (EAM) to address bicultural identity formation for individuals who experience value conflicts emanating from their cultural diversity.

Third, we discuss one way for counselor educators who work in faith-based institutions to address their students’ concerns about how to integrate their religious beliefs in their

work with clients whose values seemingly run contrary to the counselors’ values. We adapt a process known as bracketing, which is defined as “the intentional separating of a counselor’s personal values from his or her professional values . . . in order to provide ethical and appropriate counseling to all clients” (Kocet & Herlihy, 2014, p. 182). We assert that it is the ethi- cal responsibility of counselor educators to creatively teach students how to bracket, which involves the development of cognitive schemata or mental maps so that counselors can contain their personal moral commitments in a way other than resorting to emotional suppression, denial, or fantasy. We believe that it is possible for conservative Christian students to provide professional and competent services to sexual minorities without violating their own principles of conscience and ethics, particularly when this is modeled by mentors who hold to the same theological/religious convic- tions. Furthermore, we believe that it is the responsibility of all counselor educators to teach and model methods for students to succeed within their religious cultural structures. To address this, we present the perspectives of theologian and postmodern philosopher, Miroslav Volf (1996), in his work Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.

Before moving into the main points of this article, we begin the discussion of faith-based programs and the accreditation process with several professional and personal assertions. First, we believe that discrimination, when exercised as in- stitutionally sanctioned hatred toward any group, is immoral and contrary to both the standards that govern the counseling profession and the sacred texts that inform religious practice. Such practices run contrary to the principles of our profes- sional ethics, our emerging laws, and the Christian religious commitments. Although we specifically note “Christian” here, as it was mentioned as the sole perpetrating faith by Smith and Okech (2016), we are unaware of any institutional religion that advocates for outright unfair discrimination. Concomi- tantly, we assert that it is wrong to prepare students to act in a discriminating manner by denying any client groups from receiving competent counseling services based on differences in sexual identity, gender, race, age, religious values, physical limitation, or any other class distinction.

We further reason that the public is best served, and stu- dents are best trained, when faith-based programs pursue and receive national accreditation by bodies such as CACREP. It is through the lens of accreditation standards that such programs volunteer to engage in a stringent review of their curricular offerings and thus demonstrate their commitment to national scrutiny by peers within the profession. Therefore, we demonstrate that it is in the best interest of the profession when the full array of counseling training programs (whether they are housed in large, small, public, private, nontraditional, traditional, secular, or religious institutions) meet the accredi- tation standards established by the profession and graduate

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 267

A Response to Smith and Okech

counselors who are capable of meeting the expectations of the broader profession.

Finally, we support the rights of faith-based institutions to have behavioral expectations of employees and students regarding moral conduct, as defined by the theological tradi- tion of the institution, its religious denomination, and/or order. Similarly, we support the notion that counseling faculty and students be given the opportunity to work at and/or attend institutions that espouse a set of personal standards that help them to best express their belief systems. On a federal level, the U.S. Constitution and numerous legal acts have affirmed the right of religious institutions to be excluded from par- ticular requirements in order that the government does not interfere with the protected free exercise of their religious convictions (Laycock, 2014; Nugent, 2008). “The right to free exercise of religion has resulted in thousands of legal rulings that mandate religious accommodation in a wide range of laws” (Wise et al., 2015, p. 262). Recently, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in writing the landmark opinion that affirmed the right of same-sex marriage through the United States, stated the following:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Opinion of the Court section, p. 27)

This statement, in the context of affirming gay marriage, is by no means a carte blanche protection, nor does it sanction unfair discrimination. Rather, it declares that there should be constitutional protections for both sets of rights (those of same-sex couples and those of members of religious organiza- tions) and implies that it is the obligation of reasoned people of goodwill to work out their differences.

Faith-Based Programs and the Accreditation Process

In their article, Smith and Okech (2016) asserted that there are ethical concerns in the accrediting of counseling programs that function within faith-based colleges and universities that ascribe to institutional policies or codes of conduct that call for (among other things) sexual behavior that occurs solely within the borders of traditional marriage. It is essential to note that CACREP’s accrediting focus is on counseling programs and not on institutions. CACREP’s mission is to evaluate whether programs adequately prepare students to

work in a manner concordant with the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). Similarly, the ACA Code of Ethics does not critique any belief system or religious commitment; rather, the focus is the ethical evaluation of the nature of services provided to clients seeking services. We offer the following exploration of the accreditation process to provide a context to these statements.

Every program that seeks CACREP accreditation, whether it is faith based or not, must demonstrate compliance with accreditation standards in accordance with the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). In so doing, the program agrees to un- dergo intense scrutiny by an external agency with the ultimate goal of ensuring that the program is meeting (or exceeding) a set of national accreditation and ethical standards designed to ensure the training of competent professional counselors. This process begins with the writing of a comprehensive self-study, in which the program provides documented evidence as to how it is meeting each accreditation standard. This document is thoroughly examined by a set of initial reviewers, who then help determine whether the program is ready to host an onsite team of reviewers. The site team consists of trained counselor educators with specialties in the areas under review. The purpose of the site team is to assess the program, to include meeting with its faculty, students, administrators, alumni, employers, site supervisors, and supporting constituents. In addition to interviewing each of these groups, the site team reviews the self-study, all supporting documented evidence, and any additional documents (e.g., an addendum to the self- study). The end result of the visit is for the site team to gener- ate a report that identifies the program’s compliance with each and every accreditation standard. The site team also makes a recommendation to the CACREP Board as to the disposition of the visit, suggesting nonaccreditation, a 2-year accredita- tion, or a full accreditation (8 years). The program then has an opportunity to provide documented evidence for how it meets any standard that was found to be “unmet” (called the institutional response). The final step is for the full CACREP Board of Directors to review all of the accumulated documents (from the initial self-study to the institutional response) and make a decision on the accreditation status of the program.

Although many readers may be familiar with the aforemen- tioned processes, we mention them here to demonstrate the thoroughness of the accreditation cycle, which is ultimately designed to ensure the ethical delivery of counselor education. Along the way, a variety of diverse professionals (including the initial reviewers, site team members, and board members) must attend to various accreditation standards that speak to diversity (which is defined in the 2009 CACREP Standards glossary of terms as “distinctiveness and uniqueness among and between human beings”; p. 59) among its faculty, stu- dents, and the clients served by the students. (Note. The 2016 CACREP Standards [CACREP, 2015] supersede the 2009 version of the CACREP Standards. This article cites the 2009

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94268

Sells & Hagedorn

version.) Throughout their review and eventual endorsement, these reviewing professionals are attesting to each program’s compliance with the CACREP Standards. As it pertains specifi- cally to counselor education programs contained in faith-based institutions, it is important to determine how the programs attend to diversity issues.

Diversity among students and faculty is the focus of two specific CACREP (2009) Standards, which states, “The coun- selor education academic unit has made systematic efforts to attract, enroll, and retain a diverse group of students and to create and support an inclusive learning community” (Section I, Standard J) and “The academic unit has made systematic ef- forts to recruit, employ, and retain a diverse faculty” (Section I, Standard U). As has been noted by Smith and Okech (2016), there are several CACREP-accredited counselor education programs that are contained within faith-based institutions. One of the unique aspects of many of these institutions is that they require those faculty and/or students who are interested in working at and/or attending these institutions to sign a state- ment of faith and/or a behavior/personal conduct agreement. In signing a statement of faith, faculty and students attest to their agreement with the institutions’ foundational belief systems and their willingness/desire to live out those beliefs in their interactions as faculty and students. Furthermore, by agreeing with the personal conduct statements, faculty and students are noting their desire to live according to a set of personal standards that are based on their belief systems. Specific to the topic of this article, the personal conduct in question involves the expression of sexuality solely in the context of heterosexual marriage.

Some may have concerns that requiring interested par- ties to sign statements of faith and/or statements of personal conduct would necessarily limit the diversity among faculty and students (Redden, 2008). This would not be the case in most expressions of diversity (e.g., age, race, gender, culture, ability) but may affect interested parties’ ability to express a sexual identity, orientation, or attraction that falls outside of these standards.

Three points need to be noted here. The first is that the faculty and students who work and attend these institutions purposely seek such institutions because they offer a philoso- phy and specific training regimen that integrate their faith and their work/education. This same principle could be applied to a program that exposes a particular theoretical orientation or has a specific training focus. Whereas the profession of counselor education does not overtly advertise a philosophy- specific program, the profession of psychology does. For example, faculty and students at the Adler Graduate School in Minnesota are exposed to, and are expected to work within, the principles of Adlerian psychology. One would assume that those intent on teaching or learning to use cognitive psychol- ogy would not attend this school, or would at the very least feel conflicted in their work/studies. As for a specific training

focus, psychology again offers us an example. Faculty and students at Gallaudet University understand that the institution is specifically designed to accommodate and train students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Although they employ and admit hearing faculty and students, interested parties would need to understand and accommodate to the culture of that university or otherwise find another place to work/pursue their degree.

Another parallel is found in university programs that have specific missions to affirm and support ethnic cultures within society. For example, Howard University School of Education’s (2016) mission statement affirms its purpose of “conducting multidisciplinary research and disseminating findings that inform policy and practice relevant to Black populations and other underserved groups.” As with the faith-based institutions, Howard University does not restrict students with divergent viewpoints, although it does articu- late its purpose and mission to inform students of the type of learning experience they would receive if enrolled (which is the purpose of a mission statement).

In addition to faith-based programs attracting faith- focused faculty and students, a second factor to consider is that whereas statements of faith/personal conduct may have an appearance of being restrictive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) expressions, they are designed to encourage the expression of behaviors that employees and students find to be life-enhancing. This is particularly mean- ingful to those who live by a set of faith-based standards that draw them closer both to the center of their faith practice (i.e., God) and to others who believe/practice similarly. Rather than serving an exclusionary intent, these measures are designed to highlight inclusionary criteria for those who willingly seek to attend the institutions of their choice. In fact, if it was found during the accreditation process that any program, be it in a faith-based or secular institution, was acting in a manner that violated constitutionally protected civil liberties, such a program would likely be denied accreditation. Similarly, accreditation would likely be denied if a program produced graduates who as a whole were more likely than graduates from other programs to act unethically or incompetently in their work with sexual minorities. It may appear that such statements of faith/personal conduct are restrictive of sexual minorities, but the intent is to promote foundational principles that support the lifestyle of those interested in being at these institutions. Students and faculty unwilling to voluntarily live by these faith-based principles would therefore find institu- tions without such standards.

Third, whereas the focus of concern tends to be drawn toward LGBT sexual expressions, the personal conduct state- ments place the same emphasis on heterosexual expressions, specifically those that fall outside of traditional marriage. Therefore, the focus of this aspect of the conduct statement is on sexual behaviors themselves and not on how these expres-

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 269

A Response to Smith and Okech

sions manifest themselves. It is important to note that there are a host of other behaviors on the personal conduct state- ments, including drinking alcohol, use of nicotine products, and gambling, to name a few. By signing these statements, faculty and students are affirming that they will not engage in these behaviors while being affiliated with the institutions.

In addition to attending to the diversity of faculty and stu- dents, the CACREP accreditation process also seeks to verify that students are being prepared to work with the entire range of client diversity. Whereas many clients seek a counselor who can effectively integrate matters of faith and clinical practice, counselors graduating from any CACREP-accredited program must demonstrate their ability to work with clients regardless of the counselor’s (or client’s) belief system (Worthington, Kurusu, McCullough, & Sandage, 1996). To competently prepare students, programs must demonstrate their commit- ment to helping students to work with diverse client popula- tions. During the accreditation process, this commitment is addressed by a review of a program’s mission statement, program objectives, and curricular offerings.

CACREP (2009) Section I, Standard L.2.a. speaks to the necessity of a “mission statement of the academic unit and program objectives,” and as it relates to the program objec- tives, Section II, Standard B.1. states that they must “reflect current knowledge and projected needs concerning counsel- ing practice in a multicultural and pluralistic society.” Often, institutional mission statements/objectives and program mission statements/objectives have different foci. Given that CACREP’s purview is to evaluate the program’s mission statement/objectives, it is important to ensure that the mission statement/objectives accurately represent the program, as well as the program’s commitment to prepare students to work in a multicultural and pluralistic society.

To accurately summarize the mission statements and program objectives of CACREP-accredited counseling programs in faith- based institutions, we created a table that depicts how these programs represent themselves (see the Appendix). Readers will note that the programmatic material highlighted in the Appendix are (a) documents that CACREP would necessarily evaluate to make accreditation decisions and (b) reflective of the programs’ commitments to diversity issues. We have italicized language specific to diversity to highlight the programs’ systematic efforts to properly prepare students.

In addition to accurate and inclusive mission statements and objectives, programs must demonstrate how they pro- vide core curricular experiences that prepare their students to work with diverse clients. CACREP Section II, Standard G.2. states that students must be exposed to “studies that provide an understanding of the cultural context of relation- ships, issues, and trends in a multicultural society,” and then goes on to address several standards that are socially and culturally focused. CACREP reviewers must verify that course work and curricular experiences are specifically

designed to address issues of diversity (to include sexual diversity), which are most often evident in such course work as legal and ethical issues in counseling and multicultural counseling but can also be found in course work focused on human sexuality and couples counseling. Regardless of the delivery method, those program accredited by CACREP have demonstrated how they effectively prepare their students to work with diverse clients.

In summary, given the close scrutiny by myriad counsel- ing professionals, we are confident that the accreditation process would quickly uncover any unfair discriminatory practices and either rectify them or restrict a program from attaining accreditation. We believe that the most effective way to ensure the protection of LGBT clients, while at the same time ensuring that counselors are well trained (whether they are Christians or followers of any other belief system), is to accredit those programs within the faith-based institu- tions—including those colleges, universities, and seminaries that have personal conduct requirements for faculty and students. Through the accreditation process, faith-based pro- grams must demonstrate their commitment and adherence to the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) and the CACREP (2009) Standards just as secular programs must.

Teaching the Ethics of Professional and Personal Identity in a Religious Cultural Context

Having explored the positive impact of accreditation, we now turn our focus to the challenges involved with design- ing counselor education programs that honor both religious diversity and sexual orientation diversity. Such challenges have been addressed in the professional literature of mul- ticultural psychology, and we suggest using Berry’s work (e.g., Berry, 1980, 2003; Berry & Sam, 1997) as a starting point to explore these tensions and chart a developmental path toward resolution. Berry (2005) suggested that ac- culturation, defined as “the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members” (p. 698), is a developmental process in which individuals move from an established culture/community to a new culture/community. Individuals integrate aspects of their original culture with components of their new culture. Simultaneously, acculturation exists at the group level, whereby the dominant culture and the entering culture create changes in social structures, which permit space for all cultural groups to coexist while retaining each culture’s essential identity and values. Berry (1997) identified four strategies that tend to be adopted by the dominant culture, which represent intentional outcomes for the treatment of groups within the culture. The four strategies include segregation, marginalization, assimilation, and integration.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94270

Sells & Hagedorn

According to Berry (1997), segregation is the condition imposed by a dominant group on a cultural subgroup, whereby the subgroup that does not comply with the expectations of the dominant society gets separated from the dominant group. Marginalization is a form of forced assimilation of the subculture to the dominant culture’s values. Assimilation is the voluntary surrendering of one’s culture of origin and the blending into the dominant culture. Finally, integration is where diversity is an accepted feature of the society as a whole, which includes equal representation of all the various ethnocultural groups. “Integration can only ‘freely’ be chosen and successfully pursed by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is one and inclusive in its orientation toward cultural diversity” (Berry, 1997, p. 10). Counselor education programs should be intentionally designed to help students move along the continuum from segregation to integration in order to be ethical practitioners.

Applications of the Acculturation Model

Berry’s (1997) acculturation model can be applied to how institutions go about preparing students to blend their personal identities/cultures with the professional identities/cultures necessary to counsel in a multicultural and pluralistic society. In fact, Handelsman and colleagues (e.g., Bashe, Anderson, Handelsman, & Klevansky, 2007; Handelsman et al., 2005; Rogerson, Gottlieb, Handelsman, Knapp, & Younggren, 2011) did just that when they applied the model to the development of students’ ethical identities. We see significant commonality with, and application of, their perspectives to the training of counselors as they extend their personal religious/spiritual/ moral code to acculturate to their new role as a counseling professional. This new counseling role requires students to embrace a professional ethic that must be reconciled with their previously held personal morality. Handelsman and colleagues noted that the development of an internalized professional ethical code is a multicultural experience and that the resulting development of a mature ethical behavior is most likely to occur when it becomes internalized along with one’s preexisting moral and ethical standards (Bashe et al., 2007). Handelsman et al. (2005) stated, “Because educators ask students to make a transition to the culture of psychology, we believe students face the same acculturation alternative as do immigrants” (p. 60). These authors concluded that students entering the counseling profession do so with an established and internalized code of ethics and morality; the role of counselor preparation programs is to introduce a different set of behavior standards from which students are expected to operate as they enter the profession.

In the EAM, Handelsman et al. (2005) believed that the process whereby students are acculturated into the ethics of the profession can occur at varying degrees of success. Adapt- ing Berry’s (1980, 1997) model of ethnic identity formation, Handelsman et al. posited that students adopt one of four

positions regarding the formation of their ethical identity. A student with a marginalized ethical identity exhibits a low com- mitment with the professional ethical code and a low identity with a personal ethical standard. A student with a separated (similar to Berry’s term segregated) ethical identity exhibits a low commitment to the profession but a high commitment to a personal ethical code: “Students might have a well-developed ethical sense from their own upbringing, or the values of other professions to which they may have belonged, but they do not identify as strongly with the values of psychology” (Handels- man et al., 2005, p. 61). An example would be a student who has a strong allegiance of right and wrong (emerging from the student’s personal faith or religious code) that he or she believes supersedes the profession’s code of ethics. An assimilated student has a high commitment to the code of professional ethics but an underformed personal ethical standard: “In this mode, students adopt professional standards but do so with little personal sense of a moral base” (p. 61). Finally, an integrated student exhibits a high commitment to the professional ethical standard and a high commitment to a personal code:

Applied to ethical acculturation, people choosing integration would adopt the ethical values of psychology while understanding and maintaining their own value tradition. They may be in a better position to do what Gardner, Czikszentmihalyi, and Damon (2001) called “good work,” that is combining technical expertise with a firm ethical sense. (Handelsman et al., 2005, p. 60)

The developmental process of ethical acculturation can produce significant stress because it requires that students reorient their internal codes of ethics and morality. Handels- man et al. (2005) suggested that various factors exist that influence the acculturation stress process, but they identified the importance of role models (found within the new culture) as one of the essential contributions toward students’ suc- cessful acculturation. In fact, they implied that all students entering graduate training with an internalized moral code should seek professional mentors with whom they share a common identity who can then model the integration of the new professional identity. Similarly, Wise et al. (2015) viewed the training of helping professionals to competently provide counseling services to be a developmental process:

Given that some students may require more time and support to reconcile their personal beliefs with professional expectations, trainers must be able to meet students where they are in the developmental process, and model introspection and patience regarding these issues. Integrating a developmental approach with a competency-based approach may serve to prevent or beneficially resolve trainee conflicts. (p. 263)

When a program’s faculty (whether they are in a faith- based or secular program) identify a student who is experienc-

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 271

A Response to Smith and Okech

ing significant value conflicts regarding his or her emerging role as a professional counselor, we recommend that rather than requiring a swift programmatic intervention (as is often the case), they introduce the student to a mentor/supervi- sor who is a faculty member or working professional who shares a set of common values with the student (and who has demonstrated the ability to integrate those values with his or her ethical practice). Whereas many conservative Christian students will seek faculty in conservative Christian programs to model this professional growth process, in cases in which such mentors are not found among the faculty, locating them in the community may serve to create a positive outcome for both the student and the profession. This is the same process suggested in the literature for students who demonstrate any deficit in development, whether in their professional coun- selor identity or regarding the mastery of specific counseling skills. However, in the case of religious value integration, it is crucial that students experience the institutional response not as punitive or as a means of challenging or altering their religious beliefs, but rather as developmental and instructive and as a means of demonstrating to a student how he or she can embrace religious faith and professional ethical obligations simultaneously. In the case of religious beliefs, to do otherwise would be acting contrary to the established protocols for other developmental concerns within counselor training.

The model of professional development articulated in the literature by Handelsman et al. (2005) describes professional maturation along two continua: maintenance and contact/par- ticipation. Maintenance refers to the “degree to which people hold onto the values and traditions of the culture of origin. In terms of ethical acculturation, students have preexisting no- tions of right and wrong professional behavior” (Bashe et al., 2007, p. 61). Maintenance is the need to maintain “anchored- ness” (high vs. low) with an established internalized moral code. Maintenance is seen as a counselor-in-training’s high or low allegiance to his or her personal moral code (which emerges from his or her ethnic, cultural, familial, religious, spiritual, or experiential heritage). One of the primary goals of counselor education should be to help foster students’ movement along the continuum of cultural maintenance (as noted in Figure 1).

The second variable for counselor education programs is to assist their students in navigating the contact/participation continuum, which refers to the gradual adoption of the val- ues of the new professional culture. Within the culture of professional counseling, we know this to be the formation of a professional identity specifically in reference to how the profession defines ethical behavior for its members. The terms contact and participation suggest that the formation of professional values occurs through a mentoring process. Indeed, both contact and participation infer that there is an entity with which a student has contact and a process through which a student participates to form an ethical identity.

Evidence of Acculturation Stress

We found no quantitative empirical literature that specifically addressed the experience of acculturation stress of conservative Christian counselors-in-training. On the qualitative side, Dendy (2010) conducted a grounded theory study of the LGB training experiences of 29 heterosexual interns who initially entered their psychology doctoral studies with non-LGB-affirmative perspectives. Dendy established initial criteria to separate the interns’ training programs into one of four categories prior to conducting the interviews. These programs were labeled LGB-Affirmative, LGB-Null, LGB-Mixed, and LGB-Negative. According to Dendy, the LGB-Negative programs

were Christian integration programs . . . however, LGB- Negative is a misnomer for the programs in this category. The programs all espouse a Christian belief that being LGB is a sin and is less desirable than being heterosexual, but they approach the issue in vastly different ways, and some programs handle it with much more empathy, equanimity and sensitivity than others. (p. 184)

Furthermore, Dendy (2010) found that

a key theme through our data was that it was safer for students to openly discuss LGB issues from all points of view in re- ligious programs than it was in secular programs in general, whether they were affirmative, mixed or null. . . . To the contrary, religious participants in secular programs did not

FIGURE 1

The Continuum of Cultural Maintenance With Contact and Participation

Note. Cultural maintenance includes retaining core values, ethics, and moral codes prior to counselor training. Contact and participation includes creating new values, ethics, and moral codes as a result of counselor training.

Contact and Participation

C u ltu

ra l M

a in

te n a n ce

Assimilation Integration

Marginalization Separation

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94272

Sells & Hagedorn

openly discuss their religious beliefs or conflicts with LGB issues with faculty. . . . Religious participants most often felt their beliefs were denigrated and their identities were stereotyped as bigoted. In addition religious participants said that there was little discussion within secular programs about religion and spirituality, and what little there was tended to be unsophisticated and unhelpful. (pp. 185–186)

Dendy’s (2010) qualitative research provides clear examples of students who exhibited three of the four categories found in the EAM in that students’ faith was reconciled with the treatment expectations of sexual minorities. It is interesting that no students fell into the marginalized category. To this, Dendy (2010) wrote, “Handelsman et al. (2005) remarked that an extreme example of someone who used this strategy would be a psychopath. There- fore, it makes sense that we did not identify anyone who fit this category among our psychology trainees” (p. 191). However, the other three categories put forth by Handelsman et al. were clearly evident in the interviews conducted by Dendy. We offer the findings and qualitative narrative from Dendy’s work in the following sections to illustrate the experience of how students adopt coping patterns to address the acculturation stress of merg- ing the personal with the professional.

Integration: High Cultural Maintenance, High Contact/Participation

Integration was evident in students who succeeded in rec- onciling their religious values with the professional ethical commitments. According to Dendy (2010), “the cardinal characteristic of the Integration strategy is engagement: In contrast to participants using the Separation strategy, partici- pants using the Integration strategy were continually engaged in attempting to resolve their dissonance, sometimes for pe- riods of years” (p. 200). Dendy used Brian as an example of a student who maintained and embraced the tension between his faith and his profession. Brian’s cohort was circulating an LGB-affirmative petition. He simultaneously felt a solidar- ity with the petition, a pressure to remain loyal to his faith principles, and a need to create a greater sophistication in his belief system:

So I was like, okay, should I sign . . . it was very hard. . . . One morning I was praying about it . . . and what stood out for me was love is the most important thing . . . rather than what’s right or what’s wrong . . . it’s indicating that we support the people, but it didn’t say . . . whether you’re saying it’s a sin or not, and [so] it sounded fine. . . . It was a hard decision. I felt peace after I made the decision, but also, there were other thoughts coming into my mind, like, okay, what does my signing mean . . . is it more about that I’m too afraid to come out to others about my Christian faith . . . or is it about my relationship with [my LGB classmate] and how much I like him [and the fact that he is] a close friend that I would

support? And also [I thought], am I a hypocrite? Is it valid to say that I am a Christian and have these values, but also want to be affirmative? (Dendy, 2010, p. 211)

Separation: High Cultural Maintenance, Low Contact/Participation

Dendy (2010) found some students who retained a stronger identity with their personal/religious values over their profes- sional commitments. The primary motive for this separation position was the fear of reprisal if a student acknowledged that he or she struggled with views divergent from the professional culture. Colloquially speaking, this would be the student whose religious views have gone “underground,” whereby the student would appear compliant to the expected LGB values. Dendy (2010) cited John as an example of a person who struggled with this separation position:

And to be honest, you know, I haven’t overtly expressed anything just ’cause I would be a little worried that I would, you know, become black-balled in the department if it became known I had a specific view. . . . You’re always very aware in grad school that you’re very dependent upon people to get the . . . letters of recommendation and job offers. . . . Somebody can really ruin your career by just the allegation that you, you know, were not politically correct about some topic. (p. 197)

Assimilation: Low Cultural Maintenance, High Contact/Participation

Dendy (2010) summarized the manifestation of assimila- tion as students who abandoned their previously held views of LGB issues for preferable compliance with institutional expectations. “These participants, even in adopting the views of their programs, felt isolated and unsupported because they felt their programs failed to accept who they were, and in a sense they abandoned themselves as well” (Dendy, 2010, p. 192). Dendy offered Mia as a case example of assimilation:

Mia said her doctoral training failed to help with her struggle with her own values and LGB issues: I knew all the informa- tion. . . . It wasn’t about what I knew, what I was supposed to do, or how to be affirming, or what the research was, or the struggles that LGB individuals face in a heterosexual society. [That] wasn’t going to help me personally with figuring out what I was going to do to integrate my religion and spirituality with being an LGBT affirming counselor. . . . No one could give me anything, and no one could help me with it. (p. 194)

We conclude from the work of Berry (1980, 2003; Berry & Sam, 1997), Handelsman et al. (2005), and Dendy (2010) that it is our task as ethical counselor educators to help our students integrate their personal identities with their profes- sional identities. We believe that this can be accomplished through the application of (a) an accreditation lens on the

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 273

A Response to Smith and Okech

ethical design of counselor education programs housed in faith-based institutions and (b) culturally appropriate inter- ventions to assist in the development of students’ profes- sional identities. Next, we offer our suggestions for how to best walk within the tension between honoring religious and sexual diversity with the hopes of solidifying the counseling profession around these important topics.

Embracing the Tension of Humanity (A Christian Model)

In this section, we articulate a perspective that we hope will mitigate the polarized “us versus them” mentality, which is based on the assumption that there is a fundamental divide between religiously conservative professional counselors and religiously or socially liberal professional counselors. We sug- gest that there are differences between how religiously con- servative and religiously or socially liberal counselors think, believe, and act; however, instead of solely focusing on these differences, we focus on how these counselors can live and thrive together and uphold the values they most agree upon. Therefore, we offer the following ideas to three audiences.

First, to the broad readership of counselors and coun- selor educators, we write to provide an example of how one might think about a path through the labyrinth of personal and professional ethics, morality, and faith. The following paragraphs represent how to consider the grand challenge of being faithful to a Christian identity while remaining faithful to an identity as professional counselors. The second audience consists of colleagues who are members of the community of Christian counselor educators, namely, those employed at the institutions referenced by Smith and Okech (2016). It is our intent to provide a curricular map that may help lead the way to thinking about human differences and conflicts, such as religion/sexuality issues, which have generated the pres- ent discussion. It is our desire to implore our colleagues to think/teach how we can be both distinctly Christian and full members of the professional counseling community. Finally, we write to our students, whether they are Christian, spiritual, religious, or secular, and whether they are current, past, or in our future. We write to promote a way of thinking and a way of being that create space for the students’ identities to emerge with integrity and for the students to thrive within the community of human caregivers. The ideas that we explore are unique in that they are not typically found in secular coun- seling contexts given that they come from the perspective of a philosopher/theologian. Thus, this body of literature is usually not utilized to inform emerging counselors.

We consider the tension of acculturation stress—inte- grating the identity of faith with the identity of professional counseling—through the work of Miroslav Volf. Currently the Henry B. Wright professor of systematic theology at the Yale University Divinity School, Volf is a native of Croatia, born

into a Pentecostal Christian family as a religious minority amid the religious cultures of Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. In his youth, Volf was deeply affected by the Balkan war in the former Yugoslavia. From that experience, he wrote a re- markable book titled Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Volf, 1996). To consider the journey of how Christian counselors, students, and educators can practice consistently within the tenets of their faith and competently serve LGBT clients, colleagues, and students, we will use Volf ’s work as a guide. Our summary of this important work is meant to serve as an example of how we can live with integrity within ourselves, how we think we are to live with integrity toward others in general and specifically in communion with LGBT persons, and how we are to model and mentor these values to our students and to the broader culture. Our discussion of Volf ’s work addresses four themes: exclusion, inclusion, differentia- tion, and embrace.

Exclusion as Sin (Not Your Sin, My Sin)

Primary to the Christian tradition is the role of reconciliation, or the restoring of relationships. Commonly understood in most Christian traditions as the “grand theme” of the biblical narrative, Apostle Paul addressed this theme in the Christian scriptures when he wrote, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:17–18, New International Version). By this verse, Paul is noting that God’s intent behind sending Christ was to restore one’s relationship with Him. As a result, God has passed the “ministry of reconciliation” or the task of restor- ing relationships onto those who claim to follow Him. Volf began his work by setting forth a theological explanation of human divisiveness (the opposite of reconciliation), whereby exclusion is a fundamental act of sin toward which Christians should be missionally united to counter. The ubiquitous presence of intragroup strife is primary evidence for human depravity. Volf ’s theology of human reconciliation is to be the motivation for the Christian presence in society and should precede every other purpose, including the prophetic role of justice. Volf (1996) wrote,

The will to give ourselves to others and welcome them, to readjust our identities to make space for them, is prior to any judgment about others, except that of identifying them in their humanity. The will to embrace precedes any “truth” about others and any construction of their “justice.” This will is absolutely indiscriminate and strictly immutable; it transcends the moral mapping of the social world into “good” and “evil.” (p. 29)

To Volf, there is a crisis of exclusion. He saw exclusion as the threat to all peoples:

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94274

Sells & Hagedorn

Exclusion is barbarity within civilization, evil among the good, crime against the other right within the walls of the self. . . . As Friedrich Nietzsche and neo-Nietzscheans (such as Michel Foucault) have pointed out, exclusion is often the evil perpetrated by “the good” and barbarity produced by civilization. (pp. 60–61)

As with all of society, Christians are indeed (and unfortu- nately) exclusionary and need to fight against this tendency. A distinction is that Christians have a sacred text that of- fers instruction into how the tenets of exclusiveness can be overcome. The task for Christians then is to use this text as the grounds to serve others and bring relationships together.

The Limitation of Inclusion

After articulating an excoriating argument against the human tendency of exclusion, Volf (1996) challenged us to evoke its obvious replacement—the idea of inclusion. But not the inclusion that means everyone, everywhere, every time. Inclusion is democratic modernity’s effort to bring justice to all groups of people. We join in supporting the political and social advances made to challenge the historic “apartheid- like” systems of social repression such as homophobia, rac- ism, sexism, ageism, and religious persecution. As a Croat who was raised in communist Yugoslavia and experienced firsthand the brutality of ethnic and religious repression (his father was a Pentecostal pastor), Volf understood the experi- ence of exclusion and the social advances made in the effort to be inclusive. He wrote,

The suggestion that there is no truth to the liberal narrative of inclusion and the claim that its consequences are mainly unfortunate sounds not only unpersuasive but dangerous. Similarly, most women and minorities would not want to give up the rights they now have; and most critics of liberal democracies would rather live in a democracy than in any of the other available alternatives. The progress of “inclu- sion” is one of the important things to celebrate about modernity. (p. 59)

While hailing the benefits of inclusiveness, Volf noted that within the blessing of inclusion lies the DNA of cancerous exclusion. He observed that the mission to eradicate exclusion in the name of inclusiveness establishes the presence of ex- clusiveness, because in the effort to destroy evil, one becomes evil. We believe that this is the significant error found in the argument put forth by Smith and Okech (2016). In essence, our interpretation of their argument is, “If conservative Chris- tian CACREP-accredited programs are not inclusive like the rest of us, then they should be excluded from the rest of us because we value inclusiveness and they do not.”

Volf (1996) emphasized that the fundamental good of in- clusiveness contains two primary flaws. Initially, he warned of

the danger of becoming exclusionary under the self-righteous banner of eliminating exclusiveness:

The first is that of generating new forms of exclusion by the very opposition of exclusionary practices: our “moral” and “civilizing” zeal causes us to erect new and oppressive boundar- ies as well as blinds us to the fact that we are doing so. (p. 64)

This was Michel Foucault’s (1979) thesis in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, in which he deconstructed boundaries, recognizing that some boundaries served as instru- ments of repression whereas others were essential for protec- tion. But someone must decide which boundaries, or which exclusions, are moral and which are not. The self-contradiction of excluding all those who exclude leads to the second error, which is the chaos of nonexclusion. To Volf (1996), the second flaw involves the creation of chaos by the exclusion of all exclu- sions. Exclusions serve as boundaries, but if all exclusions are eliminated, then one cannot identify what should or should not be separated as distinct. One is indeed left with the shrug of the shoulder, the perplexed look, and the powerless voice that says, “Who is to say . . . ?” Volf concluded,

For the sake of the victims of exclusion, we must seek to avoid both dangers. Adequate reflection on exclusion must satisfy two conditions: (1) it must help to name exclusion as evil with confidence because it enables us to imagine non-exclusionary boundaries that map non-exclusionary identities; at the same time (2) it must not dull our ability to detect the exclusionary tendencies in our own judgments and practices. (p. 64)

We are left with few options. Exclusion is the ubiqui- tous evil that has engulfed us all. Inclusion has produced some positive effect, but ultimately it too fails by a shaded exclusion or becomes powerless to make reasonable distinctions.

The Concept of Differentiation: Separation and Binding

Volf (1996) envisioned a path around the sin of exclusion and the demand to exclude. He saw differentiation as dis- tinct from the immorality of exclusion, with differentiation serving as a unique expression of identity consisting of two components: separation and binding. Both of these together give us language and expression to counter the pull of exclusion. Separation, if treated alone, would be a gentle equivalent of exclusion and discrimination. Volf cited Nancy Chodorow (1978) as presenting the legitimate argument that separation alone serves only to repress and dominate. But separation that is inextricably linked can serve a different purpose and form a different outcome. A separation that is bound to those with whom there is difference can produce a different outcome.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 275

A Response to Smith and Okech

We are who we are not because we are separate from the oth- ers who are next to us, but because we are both separate and connected, both distinct and related; the boundaries that mark our identities are both barriers and bridges. (Volf, 1996, p. 66)

The Christian Embrace and Counseling Social Justice

The message that the faculty in conservative Christian coun- seling programs can model, mentor, and teach their students and promote to the greater culture is a message of embrace, which brings us full circle given that this is the central theme of reconciliatory grace (i.e., unmerited favor that results in relationships being bridged). Volf ’s (1996) answer to the evil of exclusion, the insufficiency of inclusion, and the reality of differentiation is “that God’s reception of hostile humanity into divine communion is a model for how human beings should relate to the other” (p. 100).

Professors and students in CACREP-accredited counsel- ing programs carry a unique moral and ethical imperative to connect the dots on a theological/moral dimension and translate that connection to the dimension of the counsel- ing profession. We see Volf ’s (1996) embrace as similar to Rogers’s (1957) unconditional positive regard. It declares, “I can accept you as you, but I remain differentiated from you.” Individuals are separate in how they view the morality of their respective behaviors, yet they are bound together. It is through the shared theological systems of professor and student that linkages can be made to professional programs that seek to prepare students to embrace their role as ethical and competent counselors who are trained, prepared, and capable in rendering appropriate counseling services to any group of people, including sexual minorities. Mentors can use many Christian theologies or logical pathways to help students accept ethical concepts found in the ethical codes. Despite differentiation, individuals can embrace rather than exclude. These pathways might include a reflection of imago Dei (the image of God is found in every individual); a commitment to sola gratia (grace is the sole component of connection); and an understanding of such concepts as salvation, sancti- fication, and justification. The important concept is that the experience of embrace is through the pathway of the student’s established theology, not in spite of it, contrary to it, or as an effort to minimize it.

Conclusion We are indebted to Smith and Okech (2016) for initiating the discussion in which readers are (a) drawn to the need for the most appropriate training of all counseling profession- als and (b) made aware of the faith-based subculture within the counseling profession. We believe that the process of accreditation is the most appropriate security to ensure that every professional counselor is trained to provide competent

services to all groups of people. Similarly, we believe that by including Christian scholars in the overall community of scholars, the full application of postmodern thought is experienced, whereby every school of thought has a place at the table to be articulated for its own merit. As a result, the profession becomes enriched with an understanding of a global culture of human existence. We conclude with the affirmation from Volf (1996) that the Christian academic bears the obligation to articulate the dimensions of his or her faith so as to differentiate it from other belief systems, and to occupy an embracing posture toward every person as a manifestation of the grace of reconciliation.

References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics.

Retrieved from https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code- of-ethics.pdf

Balkin, R. S., Watts, R. E., & Ali, S. R. (2014). A conversation about the intersection of faith, sexual orientation, and gen- der: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim perspectives. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 187–192. doi:10.1002/j.1556- 6676.2014.00147.x

Bashe, A., Anderson, S. K., Handelsman, M. M., & Klevansky, R. (2007). An acculturation model for ethics training: The ethics autobiography and beyond. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 60–67. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.1.60

Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H. C. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 211–279). doi:10.1525/aa.1982.84.2.02a00060

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712.

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Health and cross-cultural psychology (pp. 291–326). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psycho- analysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Retrieved from http://www. cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2009-Standards.pdf

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2016- CACREP-Standards.pdf

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94276

Sells & Hagedorn

Dendy, A. (2010). Self-perceived competence with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients: A qualitative study with heterosexual early career psychologists and advanced trainees (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/ paper/11508/6663

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Handelsman, M. M., Gottlieb, M. C., & Knapp, S. (2005). Train- ing ethical psychologists: An acculturation model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, 59–65. doi:10.1037/0735- 7028.36.1.59

Howard University School of Education. (2016). Mission state- ment. Retrieved from https://www.howard.edu/schooleducation/ overview/Mission.html

Kocet, M. M., & Herlihy, B. J. (2014). Addressing value-based conflicts within the counseling relationship: A decision-making model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 180–186. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00146.x

Laycock, D. (2014). Religious liberty and the culture wars. Univer- sity of Illinois Law Review, 3, 839–880.

Mouw, R. (1992). Uncommon decency: Christian civility in an uncivil world. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Nugent, N. (2008). Toward a RFRA that works. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61, 1027–1066.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). Retrieved from http:// www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Redden, E. (2008, April). When identity trumps diversity. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered. com/news/2008/01/04/calvin

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeu- tic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.

Rogerson, M. D., Gottlieb, M. C., Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Younggren, J. (2011). Nonrational processes in ethical decision mak- ing. American Psychologist, 66, 614–623. doi:10.1037/a0025215

Smith, L. C., & Okech, J. E. A. (2016). Ethical issues raised by CACREP accreditation of programs within institutions that dis- affirm or disallow diverse sexual orientations. Journal of Coun- seling & Development, 94, 252–264. doi:10.1002/jcad.12082

Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Wise, E. H., Bieschke, K. J., Forrest, L., Cohen-Filipic, J., Hathaway, W. L., & Douce, L. A. (2015). Psychology’s proactive approach to conscience clause court cases and legislation. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9, 259–268.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Kurusu, T. A., McCullough, M. E., & Sandage, S. J. (1996). Empirical research on religion in counsel- ing: A 10-year review and research prospectus. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 448–487. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.448

Yarhouse, M. A., & Beckstead, L. (2011). Using group therapy to navigate and resolve sexual orientation and religious conflicts. Counseling and Values, 56, 96–120. doi:10.1002/j.2161- 007x.2011.tb01034.x

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 277

A Response to Smith and Okech

APPENDIX

CACREP-Accredited Programs Within Faith-Based Institutions With Prodiversity Statements as Noted in Programmatic Mission Statements and/or Objectives

University and Program

Ashland University/Ashland Theological Seminary

Clinical mental health counseling

Cincinnati Christian University Clinical mental health

counseling

Colorado Christian University Clinical mental health

counseling

Denver Seminary Clinical mental health

counseling

Geneva College Mental health counseling;

school counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling

Mission statement: “The Master of Arts in Clinical Mental Health Counseling program is offered from within a Christian worldview and strives to develop exceptional professional counselors with the neces- sary knowledge and skills to provide compassionate care to people from diverse backgrounds” (Ashland Theological Seminary, 2015, p. 2).

Program objectives highlighting diversity: Knowledge 2, 3, and 6; Professional Skill 4 (Ashland Theological Seminary, 2015, pp. 3–4).

Mission statement: “The Master of Arts in Counseling program at Cincinnati Christian University exists to provide competent Christian counselor education within a supportive and a challenging academic environment for the purposes of integrating faith into counseling practice” (Cincinnati Christian University, 2014, p. 7).

Purpose statement: “The Master of Arts in Counseling program at Cincinnati Christian University is committed to providing academic excellence in a supportive, yet challenging, environment. Graduates will demonstrate competence in professional counseling, gain an appreciation of individual differences, and apply counseling skills with clients of diverse backgrounds. Application of counseling skills includes an emphasis on the integration of faith in varied clinical settings, as well as a commitment to lifelong personal and spiritual growth” (Cincinnati Christian University, 2014, p. 7).

Mission statement: “The Master of Arts in Counseling (MAC) program seeks to help students integrate a Biblical worldview and current psychological theories with sound counseling methods in order to assist students to grow in counseling competencies, spiritual well-being, interpersonal relationships, and personal awareness” (Colorado Christian University, 2014, p. 4).

Professional standards: “Students in the MAC program gain an understanding of what it means to demonstrate sensitivity to and respect for persons of diverse backgrounds and values, including different faith traditions, cultures, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations” (Colorado Christian University, 2014, p. 5).

Mission statement: “The Master of Arts in Clinical Mental Health Counseling degree program seeks to train clinically competent mental health practitioners who are able to integrate Christian faith and counseling education into a professional counselor identity for the purpose of effective counseling practice and licensure in diverse clinical, educational, and ministry settings” (Denver Seminary, 2015, p. 69).

Mission statement: “The Marriage and Family, Clinical Mental Health, and School Counseling Programs serve students from both local and wide geographic areas who wish to integrate an understanding of Christian faith with professional counseling of diverse counselees in a variety of religious and secular settings” (Geneva College, 2014, p. 169).

Ashland Theological Seminary. (2015). Ashland Theological Seminary Clinical Mental Health Counseling (CMHC) program student handbook. Retrieved from http://seminary.ashland.edu/ upload/documents/CMHC_ Handbook_2015.pdf

Cincinnati Christian University. (2014). MAC program handbook (16th ed.). Cincinatti, OH: Author.

Colorado Christian University. (2014). Colorado Christian University Master of Arts in Counseling program handbook. Retrieved from http://www.ccu. edu/uploadedFiles/Pages/ CAGS/CAGS_Academic_ Programs/Graduate_Programs/ MAC/MAC%20Program %20Handbook.pdf

Denver Seminary. (2015). Denver Seminary academic catalog 2015–2016. Retrieved from http://denverseminary.uberflip. com/i/549096-academic- catalog-2015-2016/68

Geneva College. (2014). Geneva College college catalog 2014–2015. Retrieved from https://www.geneva.edu/ academics/registrar/catalog/ GenevaCollegeCatalog_ 2014-15_Updated.pdf

Mission Statement/Objective Sourceb

(Continued)

7/15/2013– 10/31/2021

1/11/2014– 3/31/2022

7/14/2011– 10/31/2019

7/15/2012– 10/31/2016

1/18/2008– 3/31/2017

Accreditation Datesa

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94278

Sells & Hagedorn

APPENDIX (Continued)

CACREP-Accredited Programs Within Faith-Based Institutions With Prodiversity Statements as Noted in Programmatic Mission Statements and/or Objectives

University and Program

George Fox University Clinical mental health

counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling; school counseling

Grace College and Seminary Clinical mental health counseling (CMHC)

Indiana Wesleyan University Clinical mental health

counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling; school counseling

Malone University Clinical mental health

counseling, school counseling

Mission statement: “The Graduate School of Counseling, grounded in and shaped by our commitment to an integrated understanding of the Christian faith and mental health, exists to train graduate-level clinicians. Through rigorous academic and clinical training we seek to promote the personal and professional development of students, with the goal of promoting relational, psychological, physical and spiritual wholeness of individuals, couples, families, organizations and communities” (George Fox University, 2016, para. 1).

Student learning outcomes: “Demonstrate knowledge of the primary domains of clinical mental health counseling (i.e., foundations; counseling prevention and intervention, diversity and advocacy; assessment; research and evalu- ation; diagnosis)” (George Fox University, 2015, para. 2).

“Demonstrate the personal awareness, theoretical knowledge and clinical skills needed to engage in multi- culturally sensitive individual and group counseling and advocacy” (George Fox University, 2015, para. 2).

Mission statement: “The DOGC [Department of Graduate Counseling] is committed to providing graduate level programming that equips students to be scripturally grounded, professionally skilled, and inter- personally competent as they actively engage in the counseling profession and its related ministries. The purpose of the CMHC degree is to prepare students for future licensure in clinical mental health counseling” (Grace College and Seminary, 2015, p. 7).

Program outcomes/course goals: “Students will demonstrate an understanding of social and cultural diversity research, trends, theories, implications, issues, and considerations as applied in individual, group, family, career, crisis, and community counseling and consulting” (Grace College and Seminary, 2015, p. 9).

“Students will demonstrate and apply essential counselor characteristics, behaviors, interviewing and diagnostic skills across diverse academic and clinical settings” (Grace College and Seminary, 2015, p. 9).

Mission statement: “The Division of Graduate Counseling is dedicated to training high quality professionals who are competent to work with diverse populations within their area of specialization” (Indiana Wesleyan University, 2015, p. 26).

Clinical Mental Health Counseling program Learning Outcomes: 2, 4 (Indiana Wesleyan University, 2015, p. 30).

Marriage and Family Counseling/Therapy program Learning Outcome: 3 (Indiana Wesleyan University, 2015, p. 33).

School Counseling program Learning Outcomes: 2, 5 (Indiana Wesleyan University, 2015, p. 36).

Mission statement: “Built on Malone’s Foundational Principles, the graduate programs in Counseling and Human Development provide knowledge, practice, and skills through educational and clinical experiences developing professional counselors as intentional practitioners who advocate for client/student growth and development” (Malone University, 2015, para. 1).

“Malone strives to prepare professionals who: As advocates, practice with multicultural competence, with an holistic understanding of human nature, and as problem solvers in collaboration and consultation with others” (Malone University, 2015, para. 3).

George Fox University. (2015). George Fox University academic catalog 2015–2016. Retrieved from http://www.georgefox.edu/ catalog/graduate/soe/counsel/ macounseling.html

George Fox University. (2016). About the Graduate School of Counseling. Retrieved from http://www.georgefox.edu/ counseling-programs/about/ index.html

Grace College and Seminary. (2015). Grace College and Seminary catalog 2015–2016: Department of Graduate Counseling residential catalog and student handbook. Retrieved from http://www.grace.edu/files/ uploads/webfm/academics/ catalog/13-Graduate-Counseling- Department.pdf

Indiana Wesleyan University. (2015). Indiana Wesleyan University College of Arts and Sciences Division of Graduate Counseling student handbook 2015–16. Retrieved from https://www.indwes.edu/adult- graduate/ma-counseling/grad% 20counseling%20handbook.pdf

Malone University. (2015). Malone University graduate catalog 2015–2016. Retrieved from http://catalog.malone.edu/ preview_program.php?catoid= 16&poid=1069

Mission Statement/Objective Sourceb

7/12/2012– 10/31/2020

7/01/2004– 10/31/2020

1/10/2007– 10/31/2021

1/5/2012– 3/31/2020

Accreditation Datesa

(Continued)

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2016 ■ Volume 94 279

A Response to Smith and Okech

APPENDIX (Continued)

CACREP-Accredited Programs Within Faith-Based Institutions With Prodiversity Statements as Noted in Programmatic Mission Statements and/or Objectives

University and Program

Messiah College Clinical mental health

counseling; school counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling

MidAmerica Nazarene University

Clinical mental health counseling; school counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling

Northwest Nazarene University (NNU)

Community counseling; school counseling; marriage, couple, and family counseling

Regent University Community counseling,

school counseling, counselor education and supervision

Trinity Western University Community counseling

Mission statement: “The Master of Arts in counseling program at Messiah College is designed to help prepare students to become competent counselors who are capable of working with a variety of clients in multiple settings. As such, they will be prepared to serve others in the counseling process, develop their leadership abilities in the counseling field, and seek to reconcile relationships within the counseling setting” (Messiah College, 2014b, para. 1).

Program objective: “To help students become self- aware and self-reflective leaders who understand and address issues of racism, discrimination, sexism, power, privilege and oppression which impact the practice and policy levels of counseling in a multicul- tural society” (Messiah College, 2014b, para. 2).

Critical competency: “The student demonstrates a willingness to understand and respect diversity (in- cluding but not limited to race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or any other area of diversity)” (Messiah College, 2014a, para. 2).

Mission statement: “The Master of Arts in Counseling Program is dedicated to training clinically competent counselors who are able to integrate faith and practice into a strong counselor identity. We seek to develop compassionate and self-aware professionals who are ethically and culturally sensitive life-long learners” (MidAmerica Nazarene University, 2014, p. 44).

Mission statement: “The mission of the NNU Counseling program is to prepare competent, compassionate, and spiritually grounded counselors to assist members of our diverse society as they face developmental transitions, life challenges, and mental health issues in non-metropolitan clinical mental health, marriage and family, and school settings” (NNU, 2015, para. 1).

Mission statement: “The Regent University School of Psychology & Counseling provides leadership for exemplary educational programs. Its professional programs integrate sound practice skills, disciplinary competence, and Biblically-based values to promote human welfare with a focus on service provision to individuals, family, church, and community” (Regent University, 2015, p. 269).

“The program integrates and applies Judeo-Christian principles throughout its curriculum, to educate students cognitively, clinically and spiritually to work in a diverse society” (Regent University, 2015, p. 276).

Mission statement: “Our mission is to nurture students for professional practice and scholarship in counselling psychology” (Trinity Western University, 2010, para. 1).

“Our community counselling approach promotes: Coun- sellors who are equipped to function competently and professionally in community agencies and who work effectively with an increasingly diversified and pluralistic population” (Trinity Western University, 2010, para. 3).

Core program objective: “To actively cultivate multicul- tural and international dialogue among helping profes- sionals” (Trinity Western University, 2010, para. 2).

Messiah College. (2014a). Evaluation of critical compe- tencies. Retrieved from http:// www.messiah.edu/info/21270/ about/1996/critical_ competencies

Messiah College. (2014b). Mission and objectives. Retrieved from http://www.messiah.edu/ info/21270/about/1995/mission_ and_objectives

MidAmerica Nazarene University. (2014). MidAmerica Nazarene University 2014–15 graduate academic catalog. Retrieved from https://www.mnu. edu/images/userUploads/ graduate-and-adult/2014-15_ MNU_Graduate_Catalog.pdf

Northwest Nazarene University. (2015). Northwest Nazarene University College of Adult and Graduate Studies catalog 2015– 2016. Retrieved from https:// catalog.nnu.edu/cags/graduate- programs/counselor-education/ mission-statement

Regent University. (2015). The Regent graduate catalog 2015. Retrieved from http://www. regent.edu/academics/ catalogs/GRAD_catalog_2015_ fa.pdf

Trinity Western University. (2010). Mission statement, objectives & accreditation. Retrieved from https://www2.twu.ca/cpsy/ program.html

Mission Statement/Objective Sourceb

7/12/2012– 10/31/2020

7/17/2010– 10/31/2019

7/1/2005– 3/31/2017

10/1/2000– 3/31/2018

3/15/2012– 3/15/2018

Accreditation Datesa

Note. Language specific to diversity is italicized to highlight each program’s efforts to properly prepare students. CACREP = Council for Accredita- tion of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. aAll dates noted are for accreditation by CACREP except for Trinity Western University, which is accredited by the Council on Accreditation of Counsellor Education Programs (Canada). bAll links were active as of this writing.

Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.