A Minister Confesses: The Clergy Can Help Mend the Soul, Not the Psyche

It is time we clergy admitted it: Coming to us in a crisis may be hazardous to your health.

The California Supreme Court recently dismissed a case brought against the ministers of Grace Community Church in the San Fernando Valley by the parents of a young man who had sought counseling and subsequently committed suicide. Kenneth Nally’s parents had argued that the pastors offered inadequate assist-ance, and hence were liable for their son’s death--a claim that the court rejected.

The court was right. If the state starts making judg-ments about the quality of counseling offered in the privacy of a minster’s study, it will be impossible to avoid the “excessive entanglement” in church affairs that the U.S. Supreme Court has said must be avoided.

At the same time it is incumbent on religious leaders to make clear to the public the very real limits of the clergy’s competence when it comes to dealing with mental illness.

It is common in our society for people to be referred to the clergy for nearly any kind of problem from sexual abuse to drug dependency, marital discord to teenage truancy. Without the clergy to fall back on, advice columnists would virtually be out of business.

From one point of view, it makes sense that ministers, priests and rabbis are seen as available for problem-solving. People who wouldn’t consult a psychiatrist or other mental-health professional may be less hesitant to approach one of us. If we are good pastors, well acquainted with our parishioners, we may be the first to spot potential problems and be more accessible when crises come. On top of that, our services are free.

The catch is that the old adage “You get what you pay for” applies as well to the quality of the services that we offer.

Most clergy are simply not trained to deal adequately with profound emotional upheavals. In the denomination that I head, candidates for our ministry are required to undergo psychological testing and to complete a few months’ worth of training in counselingin a hospital, prison or mental-health center. That’s more than many denominations require, but it’s far from thorough preparation for dealing with the kinds of psychological problems to which clergy are exposed when they serve a congregation.

We clearly have an obligation, therefore, to make clear where our skill ends and our ignorance begins. A religious leader is a perfectly appropriate person to whom to turn for counseling about grief and loss, for example, or about one’s ultimate worth and purpose. Many psychological problems have a religious or spiritual dimension to them, and a good minister can give much to someone struggling with fundamental questions of meaning.

Similarly, clergy are often the ones to call for short-term crisis intervention--to help resolve a family dispute, for example. And, if we are doing our jobs well, we are the ones who will provide nurture to those with long-term problems--like the elderly whose families have forgotten them, or the unemployed who doubt that they will ever be productive again.If we’re smart, we’ll also keep an address book filled with the names of health-care professionals to whom we can refer people whose needs are greater than we can meet.

But I for one would never seek out someone in the clergy (unless she or he had had special training) for long-term psychotherapy or to deal with a deep emotional crisis. If a member of my family had a drug or alcohol dependency, I’d want my loved one in the hands of a specialist, not someone who, at best, may have read a book or two on the subject.

I don’t want to suggest that all clergy are guilty of false advertising. Many of us are quick to recognize our limitations. But as the authority and prestige of the ministry have declined over the years, the temptation has grown in some of us to claim an expertise that we lack, or to rely on Scriptural references to treat even the most complex trauma.

It’s time we clergy took the lead to raise our professional standards when it comes to the counseling that we offer and to call our colleagues to account if they overstep their capabilities. If we don’t want the government to intervene in regulating our profession--and we surely do not!--then it is up to us to regulate it better ourselves.