REACTION PAPER

CEFS 501

Reaction Paper Instructions

Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to explore the professional and ethical issues of counseling and referring when dealing with counselor-client value differences.

Directions: To begin this assignment, you will need to access and read the following sources that are located in the Reading and Study folder for Module/Week 2 and the Assignment Instructions folder:

1. Kocet and Herlihy’s article on values based ethical decisions: Kocet, M. M., & Herlihy, B. J. (2014). Addressing value‐based conflicts within the counseling relationship: A decision‐making model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 180-186.

2. The American Counseling Association’s (ACA) position on referrals: Martz, E., & Kaplan, D. (2014). New responsibilities when making referrals. Counseling Today, 57(4), 24-25.

3. Sells, J. N., & Hagedorn, W. B. (2016). CACREP accreditation, ethics, and the affirmation of both religious and sexual identities: A response to Smith and Okech. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(3), 265-279.

For this article you need to focus on the material starting on page 173 at “Embracing the Tension of Humanity” to the end.

4. The Problem/Population list found below

Your paper must be in current APA format including a title page, abstract and reference page. The paper should be 3–6 pages in length. (This does not include title page, abstract and reference page). Your paper must cite both articles.

Divide your paper into the headings below and address each question under each heading:

Summarize (1–2 pages)

In this section, summarize what you have read by condensing the three articles. Prove that you have comprehended the material by writing a clear, brief, summary of the main points of each source. A summarization is not a commentary; rather, it is an insightful précis of the longer, more elaborate article. It must provide a clear overview of the material.

Reflect (1–2 pages)

In this section reflect on what you just read and answer the following questions:

· Having read the articles, what new realizations and/or questions occurred for you?

· How do you feel about the ACA position of not referring clients based on value differences?

· Because referrals based on value differences are not ethical under the American Counseling Associations (your profession) ethics codes, read the list below of common populations and problems encountered in counseling. What personal and professional dilemmas, around specific populations or problems, might this pose for you?

Population List

____1. A person with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

____2. A woman who says that if she could turn her life over to Christ she would find peace.

____3. A person who shows little conscience development, is strictly interested in his/her own advancement, and uses others for personal gain.

____4. A gay or lesbian couple wanting to work on conflicts in their relationship.

____5. A man who wants to leave his wife and children for the sake of sexual adventures with other women.

____6. A woman who has decided to leave her husband and children to gain independence.

____7. A woman who has decided to get an abortion but wants to process her feelings around it.

____8. A teenager who is having unsafe sex and sees no problem with the behavior.

____9. A high school student who is sent to you by his parents because they suspect he is using drugs.

____10. A person who is very cerebral and is convinced that feelings are a private matter.

____11. A man who believes the best way to discipline his children is through spanking.

____12. An interracial couple coming for premarital counseling.

____13. A high school student who believes she is a lesbian and wants to discuss how to “come out” to her parents.

____14. A gay or lesbian couple wanting to adopt a child.

____15. A man who has found a way of cheating the system and getting more than his legal share of public assistance.

____16. A woman who comes with her husband for couples counseling while maintaining an extramarital affair.

____17. A man who believes internet sex can be a creative way to express sexuality.

____18. A couple who believe that sex with multiple partners is okay.

____19. A man convicted of pedophilia and court-ordered for counseling.

____20. A woman who makes her living as an exotic dancer.

____21. A man convicted of domestic violence.

____22. A woman whose children have been removed by Child Protective Services.

____23. A man recently released from jail after serving a sentence for rape.

____24. A man with terminal cancer who wants to discuss stopping all treatment to hasten his death.

____25. A woman who believes in an egalitarian marriage.

*Modified from Corey, G., Cory M.S., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping professions, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Act (1–2 pages)

In this section put into action what you have just learned/realized as a result of the reading. Specifically address these questions:

· What actions or changes are you going to make as a result of this information?

· Who and what might you consult to assist you in resolving any personal/professional dilemmas that remain for you?

After you have completed your paper, follow the steps below to submit your draft to Safe Assign, for checking plagiarism, and your final copy to the grade book for grading:

Step 1: Submit your paper via the SafeAssign draft link by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of Module/Week 2.

Step 2: Wait until the link indicates that SafeAssign has analyzed your paper and prepared a report. (For more information: https://wiki.umbc.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41191001).

Step 3: Evaluate the Safe Assign report by opening the report and looking at the highlighted sections of your paper. You will notice that SafeAssign often matches (highlights) on headings, titles, and references. These are not considered plagiarized.

If you see matches on entire sentences or paragraphs that are not enclosed in quotation marks, then you have unintentionally plagiarized. You will need to go back and re-write those sections in your own words.

Step 4: Save your final paper as a Microsoft Word document using your name and assignment title, (e.g., Doe_J_reaction_paper), and submit the final paper to the grade book using the second assignment link. The final assignment is due by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of Module/Week 2.

Step 5: Submit your completed paper to Blackboard.

Page 3 of 3

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92180
© 2014 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 05/31/12
Revised 10/17/12

Accepted 02/26/13
DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00146.x

Recent court cases have illuminated some complex questions
regarding how to deal with value conflicts in the counseling
relationship. In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley (2010) and Ward
v. Wilbanks (2010, 2012), students were dismissed from their
counselor education programs at Augusta State University
and Eastern Michigan University (EMU), respectively. The
students, Keeton and Ward, declined to counsel lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) clients because counsel-
ing these clients conflicted with their religious beliefs. Both
Keeton and Ward intended to become school counselors.
Keeton appealed her dismissal from the program at Augusta
State University; a federal appellate court upheld the univer-
sity’s decision. Ward also appealed her dismissal, and initially
the court granted summary judgment in favor of EMU. Ward
appealed, and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court remanded the case
back to the district court for a jury trial. The trial was not held
because a settlement was reached in December 2012.

As a result of these legal cases, a great deal of discussion
has been generated regarding the issue of whether counselors
can use their religious beliefs as the basis for referring LGBT
clients as well as the broader question of whether referrals
based on value conflicts are ever ethically appropriate. Coun-
selors, counselor educators, and students who are seeking their
own answers to these questions might expect to find guidance
in codes of ethics and the professional literature.

Several standards in the ACA Code of Ethics (American
Counseling Association [ACA], 2005) are relevant to the
broader issue of value conflicts. Counselors are expected to
be aware of their own values and “avoid imposing values that
are inconsistent with counseling goals” (Standard A.4.b.).
Counselors must practice only within the boundaries of their
competence (Standard C.2.a.), and, if they “determine an in-
ability to be of professional assistance to clients” (Standard
A.11.b.), they should facilitate a referral to another provider.
An additional standard, which has been applied to the specific

Michael M. Kocet, Department of Counselor Education, Bridgewater State University; Barbara J. Herlihy, Department of Educational
Leadership, Counseling, and Foundations, University of New Orleans. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Michael M. Kocet, Department of Counselor Education, Bridgewater State University, 34 Park Avenue, Bridgewater, MA 02325
(e-mail: mkocet@bridgew.edu).

Addressing Value-Based Conflicts
Within the Counseling Relationship:
A Decision-Making Model
Michael M. Kocet and Barbara J. Herlihy

A growing number of legal and ethical cases have involved value conflicts between counselors, or counselors-in-
training, and their clients. The authors examine considerations that professional counselors are encouraged to take
into account when value conflicts arise within the therapeutic relationship. The authors present a strategy known as
ethical bracketing and the Counselor Values-Based Conflict Model as tools to use when facing conflicts that arise
between personal and professional values.

Keywords: values, decision making, ethics, counseling relationship

question of religiously motivated referral of LGBT clients,
is Standard C.5., which prohibits counselors from engaging
in discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other
protected classes. Much of the controversy regarding value-
based referrals has centered on whether the phrase “inability
to be of professional assistance” in Standard A.11.b. refers
only to issues of competence or whether it is also intended to
address value conflicts. Counselors seem to generally agree
about competence-based referrals. When counselors are un-
able to provide effective services because attempting to do
so would exceed their boundaries of competence, they are
justified in referring (Remley & Herlihy, 2010). However, a
question that remains is whether a counselor is considered
to be “unable” or “unwilling” to provide services to a client
when a referral is based on a conflict in values.

Some counselors and counselors-in-training who have
strongly held religious beliefs have interpreted the ethical
standards as providing support for a decision to refer LGBT
clients. They have argued that, because they view same-sex
relationships as immoral according to their religious beliefs,
they cannot affirm these relationships in a counseling session.
Therefore, they are unable to assist these clients effectively,
and the ethically appropriate action is to refer them. The ruling
by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit in the Ward case
appears to support that interpretation. The Court’s opinion was
that the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2005) provision that refers
to inability to be of professional assistance “expressly permits
values-based referrals” (Ward v. Wilbanks, 2012, p. 11).

Those who interpret the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2005)
differently believe that refusing to counsel an LGBT client
on relationship issues is discriminatory, and they point to the
ethical standard that prohibits discrimination based on sexual
orientation. They assert that an “inability to be of professional
assistance” refers to lack of competence to work effectively
with a particular client, not an entire class of clients, and

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92 181

Decision-Making Model for Addressing Value-Based Counseling Conflicts

that it is the counselor’s responsibility “to gain knowledge,
personal awareness, sensitivity, and skills pertinent to working
with a diverse client population” (Standard C.2.a.), including
LGBT clients.

An almost endless series of counter arguments can be
made to each opposing stance (Granello & Young, 2012). In
rebuttal to the assertion that it is unethical to refuse to counsel
an entire class of clients, those who disagree point out that
some counselors refuse to accept children as clients. Indeed,
it might not be objectionable for some counselors in private
practice who are able to choose their clients, or counselors
who work in an agency that serves adult clients exclusively,
to assert that they do not counsel children. Yet, it is unlikely
that they would be basing that decision on some sort of
moral or value judgment about children. Rather, it seems
probable that their decision would be based on the recogni-
tion that counseling children requires specialized skills and
knowledge that they do not have and, at the present time, do
not need to acquire. A vital distinction between declining to
counsel children and declining to counsel LGBT clients is
that the first decision may be based on competence, and the
second is based on the counselor’s values. In some settings,
children are not seeking services, and counselors may not be
obligated to acquire the needed expertise. However, LGBT
clients are likely to present in almost all settings, including
school settings, where both Keeton and Ward had intended to
work; therefore, counselors are ethically obligated to acquire
the competencies needed to serve them.

Because the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2005) has been
interpreted in differing ways, counselors seeking guidance
might look to the professional literature. The literature seems
to be consistent in acknowledging that it is perfectly accept-
able for counseling professionals to hold personal and moral
values (Gibson, 2008; Welfel, 2013) and that, in fact, coun-
selors’ personal values are one of the foundational elements
of their relationships with clients (Wilcoxin, Remley, Glad-
ding, & Huber, 2007). Ethical concerns may arise, however,
when counselors’ personal values conflict with those of their
clients and counselors question whether they should refer
those clients to other providers.

Unfortunately, the literature on value conflicts is confus-
ing and even contradictory, as is evidenced by the fact that
both sides in the Ward v. Wilbanks (2010) case cited research
studies and counseling texts to support their pleadings. At-
torneys for Julea Ward, the student who was dismissed from
the counseling program at EMU, cited a textbook used in
one of her classes, in which it was stated that “Referral may
be appropriate . . . if the client wants to pursue a goal that is
incompatible with your value system” (Cormier & Nurius,
2003, p. 26). They also noted that value-based referrals seem
to be common practice, citing Ford and Hendrick’s (2003)
finding that 40% of psychotherapists they surveyed had
handled a value conflict by referring the client.

Whereas some literature supports value-based referrals in
a general sense, a more specific endorsement of the practice
of referring LGBT clients based on religious values can also
be found. For example, in one textbook, this advice is offered:

Does the therapist have any religious beliefs that would sug-
gest that it might be better that they did not work with mem-
bers of the LGBT community? If therapists have prejudices
against members of the LGBT community, then they should
refer the client to someone else. (Jones-Smith, 2012, p. 385)

Similarly, in a discussion of ethical decision making re-
garding counseling a gay couple, it is suggested that, “If the
counselor’s personal beliefs about homosexuality prevent the
counselor from providing objective professional service, then
the counselor is responsible for locating competent referral
sources” (Welfel, 2006, p. 191).

Other literature seems to offer contradictory advice, both
suggesting that value-based referrals may be ethically appro-
priate and arguing against the practice. For instance, Guindon
endorsed Tjelveit’s (1986) suggestion to “Consider referring
clients to another counselor when substantial moral, religious,
or political value differences exist” (Guindon, 2011, p. 6), yet
also asserted that “personal and dominant-culture values are
not imposed on the client” (p. 28). She suggested that coun-
selors-in-training ask themselves whether their core values fit
with the values of the profession. Along similar lines, Remley
and Herlihy (2010) opined that “if a counselor’s values were
so strong that he or she could not counsel clients who held
differing beliefs, we would be concerned that the counselor
is not well suited for the counseling profession” (p. 23).

Granello and Young (2012) spotlighted the controversy
raised by the court cases with an extensive “point/counter-
point” discussion in which they presented the best arguments
for the opposing points of view that “counselors have an ethi-
cal mandate to work with all clients” and that “counselors do
not have to work with clients who exhibit behaviors they do
not condone” (p. 390). They suggested that, as is true with
most controversies, some truth probably can be found on both
sides of the argument. However, after further discussion they
concluded that

A behavior can be . . . not morally acceptable to an individual
therapist. . . . However, personal morals cannot negate pro-
fessional ethics. . . . The ethical mandates of the profession
must be upheld regardless of the personal values and beliefs
of the counselor. (p. 392)

Corey and Corey (2007) have written extensively about
value conflicts, expressing their hope that “there would be
very few instances where you would have to tell clients that
you could not work with them because you do not agree with
their value system” (p. 224). This statement seems to suggest

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92182

Kocet & Herlihy

that value-based referrals may be acceptable, but only in rare
instances. They cautioned that the counselor’s “job is not to
judge client’s values. . . . Merely having a conflict of values
does not necessarily imply the need for a referral” (Corey &
Corey, 2007, p. 223). They have asserted more specifically
that counselors who may work with LGBT clients are ethi-
cally obligated not to allow their personal values to intrude
into their professional work (Corey & Corey, 2007) and are
also obligated to “develop the knowledge and skills to com-
petently deliver services” (Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2011,
p. 133) to these clients.

In summary, the literature seems to offer inconsistent ad-
vice regarding how to handle value conflicts in the counseling
relationship. Additionally, the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA,
2005) has been interpreted in various ways by counselors
and by the courts. It appears that it might benefit counselors
struggling with value conflicts to have a strategy for reasoning
through these conflicts.

Ethical Bracketing
Counselors bring their professional, personal, and cultural
values into their relationships with clients and are not expected
to be value-free in their counseling practice. They must strive
to integrate their values and beliefs into their ethical practice
(Evans, Kincade, & Seem, 2011), yet, at the same time, they
must avoid imposing those values and beliefs onto their
clients. Finding this balance can be a challenging task. To
assist counselors and counselors-in-training in dealing with
the value-based conflicts that inevitably arise within the coun-
seling relationship, we propose that counselors adapt from
the qualitative research literature the strategy of bracketing.
Qualitative researchers are advised to engage in a process of
self-examination of their own experiences and preconcep-
tions prior to interviewing their study participants (Marshall
& Rossman, 2011). This reflexive process enables them to
bracket or set aside their own experiences and assumptions
when they interact with their participants and thus accurately
capture their participants’ voices.

Applying this strategy to the counseling process, ethical
bracketing (EB) is defined as the intentional separating of
a counselor’s personal values from his or her professional
values or the intentional setting aside of the counselor’s
personal values in order to provide ethical and appropriate
counseling to all clients, especially those whose worldviews,
values, belief systems, and decisions differ significantly from
those of the counselor. When counselors deliberately set aside
or bracket their personal values to honor their professional
obligations, they help to avoid imposing those values onto
clients and contributes to empowering clients to achieve their
therapeutic goals.

The EB process includes several steps that counselors
might take when faced with a value conflict: immersion,

education, consultation, supervision, and personal counsel-
ing. As a first step, counselors are encouraged to immerse
themselves in self-reflection and awareness about the nature
of the value conflict they are facing. They are then encouraged
to consult the appropriate professional codes of ethics and
the professional literature on best practices. They are advised
to seek supervision and ongoing consultation when applying
the EB process to a specific value-based conflict. Finally,
depending on the nature of the value conflict, professionals
are encouraged to consider engaging in their own personal
counseling process to identify barriers and personal biases
that may prevent them from creating an effective therapeutic
relationship with the client.

Counselors also can incorporate EB into direct practice
with clients using collaborative or relational ethics. Many
ethics scholars recommend that, when appropriate, prac-
titioners collaborate jointly with clients in exploring the
potential value-based conflict and how it can adversely af-
fect the therapeutic relationship (Anderson & Handelsman,
2010; Davis, 1997; Evans et al., 2011). This involves directly
raising the issue of the value-based conflict with the client
within the counseling relationship. However, counselors are
cautioned to first seek guidance from colleagues or supervi-
sors to ensure that it is appropriate to have a dialogue with
the client about the value-based conflict the counselor is
experiencing. If there is a potential that the client would feel
ostracized or alienated because of the counselor’s disclosure
of the value-based conflict, then the practitioner should refrain
from such a self-disclosure and attempt to resolve the conflict
in a different way.

A second approach to incorporating EB directly into one’s
work with a client is through the addition of a cocounselor into
the therapeutic relationship. A counselor who is experiencing
a significant value-based conflict with a client could, after
getting the consent of the client, introduce a cocounselor who
would be present to help the counselor who is experiencing
the value-based conflict maneuver through the challenging
value in a way that provides affirmative care and counseling
for the client. The cocounselor also would provide collegial
assistance to the counselor who is struggling. The cocoun-
selor might be able to examine the therapeutic relationship
and the value-based conflict objectively and provide the
conflicted counselor with feedback and insights that would
help the counselor work toward a positive resolution of the
internal conflict.

Counseling professionals and counselors-in-training
must be mindful when a value-based conflict exists within
the counseling setting (Kitchener & Anderson, 2011; Pope
& Vasquez, 2011; Raines & Dibble, 2011). EB is a strategy
that seeks to ensure that a client is not harmed, whether inten-
tionally or unintentionally, by a counselor’s imposition of a
certain value set. It also ensures that the value-based conflict
that exists within the counselor does not negatively affect the

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92 183

Decision-Making Model for Addressing Value-Based Counseling Conflicts

ability of clients to make decisions to the best of their ability,
and it promotes nonjudgmental support from the counselor.
In addition, EB may help counselors maintain their fidelity to
their primary responsibility. The ACA Code of Ethics (ACA,
2005) indicates that a counselor’s primary responsibility is to
respect the dignity and welfare of clients (Standard A.1.a.).
This includes respecting the differences in values that may
exist between counselors and clients.

Counselors must be aware that clients may bring up, at
almost any time and in any context, topics that push the
counselor’s personal “buttons” (Barskey, 2008; Sommers-
Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2007; Sperry, 2007). Most
of us would acknowledge that even the most seasoned coun-
selors have their “blind spots.” They occasionally may find,
when confronted with a client whose behaviors conflict with
their strongly held values, that they are experiencing a strong
emotional reaction and are not able, in the moment, to set
aside their own values. Some examples include (a) a Catholic
counselor and a client considering an abortion, (b) a Mormon
counselor and a client whose lifestyle includes smoking ciga-
rettes and drinking alcohol, (c) a devoutly religious counselor
and an atheist client, (d) a Jewish counselor and a bigoted cli-
ent who uses offensive and anti-Semitic language to describe
Jews, (e) a self-identified liberal or progressive counselor and
an evangelical Christian client, and (f) a feminist counselor
and a client who is an exotic dancer at a gentlemen’s club.
Consider the following case example.

A family was court-referred to a counselor whose personal
and professional values are strongly grounded in feminism.
The family, a husband and wife with two children, had emi-
grated 4 years prior from a Middle Eastern country where
deeply conservative religious beliefs prevail. They had moved
to the United States so that their son could get an American
college education. Their son, who was 15 when the family
arrived in the United States, is now in college in another part
of the country. The daughter is now 14 and in junior high
school. The incident that prompted the family’s involvement
with the court system occurred after the daughter convinced
her mother to let her go to the mall with a group of male
and female friends, an activity her father had forbidden. The
father had learned about the girl’s adventure and began to
beat his wife. The daughter called the police, and the father
was arrested.
The mother, father, and daughter presented for their first
counseling session. As they described the precipitating inci-
dent, the father was angry that his prerogative as a husband
and head of household had not been respected by the police;
the mother accepted all the blame and insisted that her hus-
band was justified in beating her; and the daughter remained
sullenly silent. As the counselor listened, she experienced a
growing dislike of the father and found herself struggling
not to negatively judge the mother for subordinating herself

so completely to her husband. Recognizing that her internal
processing was inconsistent with her professional values and
ideals, such as refraining from blaming the victim or siding
with one family member over another whose behavior was
sexist, she wondered whether she should refer the family.
The counselor consulted with a colleague. During the consul-
tation, she was able to affirm that she could abhor the father’s
behavior but could also understand it as normative within his
culture of origin. Following her consultant’s advice to mentally
put herself in the father’s situation, she was able to experience
empathy for the father. If she were living in his country, she
might feel angry about having to cover her face and limbs when
out in public; nonetheless, she would respect the laws of the
country and accept that she would be punished if she were to
break them. She concluded that she could bracket her feminist
ideals while working with the family and potentially could
provide effective services by working to educate the parents
and helping them understand that their daughter, who was only
10 when they arrived in the United States, is struggling to live
within two cultures that hold very different values.

As the case illustrates, counselors should not be too quick
to refer when faced with value conflicts. Shiles (2009) chal-
lenged the assumption that referral is always an appropriate
option, expressing concern about “the glorification of referral
in the psychological literature” (p. 147). We believe Shiles
raised a valid point. Resolving the debate over appropriate vs.
inappropriate referrals may require a thoughtful and nuanced
process of ethical reasoning rather than an either/or approach.

What if, in the case example presented, the counselor had
not consulted a colleague, or the consultation had not succeeded
in helping the counselor to bracket her values? In that event,
a referral in this one instance might have been a more ethical
option than attempting to work with this particular family.
However, the counselor would need to realize that referral is
not a long-term solution to the problem. It is only a first step for
the counselor, who must then immerse herself in self-reflection
and then seek consultation, supervision, continuing education,
personal counseling, or whatever action is needed to ensure that
she will be better able to work with future clients who present
similar value conflicts. Using supervision and consultation,
ethical counselors recognize their potential buttons and work
to resolve the resulting value conflicts through further training
and self-exploration. Shiles (2009) suggested that mental health
care providers should examine why they assume that referrals
based on value conflicts are reasonable and acceptable, and she
further urged counselors to examine the thought processes they
engage in when determining whether to refer.

We have designed the Counselor Values-Based Conflict
Model (CVCM) to assist in the process of self-examination.
Although the following discussion of our CVCM focuses
specifically on value-based conflicts that may emerge between
counselors and clients, it is important to note that this model

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92184

Kocet & Herlihy

could be readily adapted for use between clinical supervisors
and their supervisees as well as between counselor educators
and their students.

The CVCM
The CVCM (see Figure 1) is a working model designed to as-
sist counselors when faced with a value-based conflict between
themselves and a client, supervisee, or student. The CVCM is
designed to serve as an adjunct to a traditional ethical decision-
making model that a counseling professional may currently use.
As stated in the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2005), counselors
are expected to “be familiar with a credible model of decision
making that can bear public scrutiny and its application” (p. 3).

The CVCM is designed to assist a counselor who faces a
value-based conflict between himself/herself and a client. The
key questions at the initial step are: What is the nature of the
values conflict between me and the other person? Is the conflict
due to a clash in personal values or professional values? As
shown in Figure 1, the CVCM has a two-pronged approach
for ethical reflection. The first prong of the CVCM pertains to
dilemmas involving a conflict driven by a counselor’s personal
values, morals, and beliefs. Personal values conflicts could stem
from a cultural, religious, moral, or personal belief, life experi-
ence, or a potential countertransference issue. The second prong
of the CVCM involves professional values conflicts, which
could stem from a lack of requisite skills or training to be ef-
fective in providing counseling services. In the first step of the
model, counselors must determine which prong of the model
is most appropriate to use. In the case example, the counselor
recognized that she was experiencing a personal values conflict.

Application of the CVCM to
Personal Value Conflicts

In the second step of the model, counselors are encouraged
to examine what is at the core of their value-based conflict.
This step of the CVCM encourages the clinician to explore
underlying core issues and to identify the potential barriers
that are preventing the counselor from providing the appro-
priate standard of care to the client. In the case example, the
counselor recognized a personal values conflict between her
feminist value system and her professional responsibility to
offer clients empathy and nonjudgmental positive regard. She
identified her reaction of abhorring the father’s treatment of
his wife and daughter as a potential barrier. At this point, she
moved to the third step of the model and began sorting out
the best approach to working through her personal value-
based conflict.

At the third step of the model, counselors should focus on
seeking assistance in working through the value conflict so
that they can provide the appropriate standard of care to their
clients. Counselors are urged to consult colleagues or supervi-
sors, the professional code of ethics, the professional literature,
and traditional ethical decision-making models for additional

FIGuRE 1

Counselor Values-Based Conflict Model

Personal Professional

Step 1: Determine Nature of Value-Based Conflict

What is the nature of the value conflict between me and the
other person?

Personal
• Recognize role of personal,

moral, and/or religious
biases and impact of
personal life experiences

• Recognize potential barriers
and how personal values
impede the counseling
relationship

Professional
• Recognize countertransfer-

ence or deficiencies in skills,
training, or expertise

Step 2: Explore Core Issues and Potential Barriers to
Providing Appropriate Standard of Care

Personal
• Consult code(s) of ethics
• Consult colleagues, supervi-

sors, and professional
literature

• Seek additional training or
supervision

• Utilize ethical bracketing
theory (immersion,
education, consultation,
supervision, and personal
counseling)

• Identify ways to maintain
personal/religious/moral
beliefs while still providing
effective counseling

Professional
• Consult code(s) of ethics
• Consult colleagues,

supervisors, and professional
literature

• Develop professional
remediation plan to increase
skills, competency, or
expertise

• Seek additional training or
supervision

Step 3: Seek Assistance/Remediation for Providing
Appropriate Standard of Care

Personal
• Examine rationale and basis

for potential referral and
whether referral to another
provider is ethical or
unethical and based on a
personal bias

• Assess effectiveness of
remediation plan as it
relates to working through
any personal bias that pre-
vents resolving the conflict

Professional
• Examine whether intended

referral to another provider is
ethical or unethical

• Explore rationale and basis
for potential referral

• Assess effectiveness of
remediation plan as it
relates to an increase in
competency/effectiveness

Step 4: Determine and Evaluate Possible
Courses of Action

Step 5: Ensure That Proposed Actions Promote
Client Welfare

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92 185

Decision-Making Model for Addressing Value-Based Counseling Conflicts

guidance. EB may be appropriate to integrate into this step to
help the counselor bracket his/her personal values and thus sup-
port the counseling plan and help the client achieve her or his
therapeutic goals. At this step, the counselor is also encouraged
to identify any potential judgmental perspectives or biases that
are hindering the counseling relationship. In this component
of the model, through supervision or personal counseling, the
professional attempts to identify strategies to bracket personal
values to avoid derailing the therapeutic process with the client.
The counselor assesses ways to integrate personal values and
beliefs while not imposing them onto the client. If necessary,
the counselor creates a remediation plan to reduce bias or to
increase his or her skill level and competency in the deficient
area. In the case scenario, remediation was not necessary; the
counselor appropriately contacted a colleague to consult about
the value conflict at hand. Upon consulting with her colleague,
the counselor determined that she was able to ethically bracket
her personal beliefs and internal reactions about the actions of
the father and use cultural empathy to understand the father’s
perspective. She realized that this approach could promote the
welfare of these clients and agreed to continue working with
this family.

The fourth step for the personal prong of the CVCM in-
volves an identification and evaluation of possible courses of
action. If the value-based conflict has not been resolved by this
point, the counselor may examine whether the value in ques-
tion is so strong that it warrants the counselor referring the
client to another practitioner. The counselor is encouraged to
reflect on whether the referral is based on a personal, religious,
or moral bias. Is there a way the counselor can maintain clini-
cal effectiveness while still holding his or her personal value?
This step also calls for an evaluation of the effectiveness of a
remediation plan and whether the professional remediation
plan aids in assisting the counselor in working through the
personal bias that has been preventing the counselor from
working effectively with the client. On the professional side
of the model, the counselor should identify what additional
training or clinical supervision would best assist the counselor
in working through the personal value-based conflict with the
current client or similar clients in the future. As part of the
professional prong, the counselor should create a remediation
plan—which may include studying the professional literature,
attending continuing education workshops, and seeking ad-
ditional supervision—and identify the most appropriate time
to return to working clinically with this client population or
clinical issue.

In the case scenario, the counselor reflected on her knowl-
edge and expertise and decided that she had more to offer
this family by working with them as their counselor than by
making a decision to refer them. In this case, although the
value conflict was significant, it was not so debilitating that
it prevented the counselor from practicing effectively and
ethically as a counselor. In other cases, though, the value
conflict may be so significant that it may lead the counselor

to temporarily refer the client until the counselor is able to
gain the requisite supervision or training necessary to return
working with the client or client population at the center of
the value-based conflict. It is imperative for counselors to
note that referral should not be an automatic response or
an ongoing professional step. Although a referral may be a
temporary option, it should be taken only with the concurrent
identification of a remediation plan.

The fifth and final step in the CVCM model urges the
counselor to examine whether the action he or she intends
to take promotes the welfare and well-being of the client.
The counselor should implement the proposed action only
after ensuring that it will promote client welfare. In the case
scenario, the counselor eventually felt confident in her ability
to use EB techniques and to experience the cultural empathy
necessary to promote the welfare of her clients.

Application of the CVCM to
Professional Value Conflicts

The CVCM can also be used when the value conflict is based
on a professional issue. After determining, in the first step of
the CVCM, that the conflict is a professional one, counselors
are encouraged, in the second step of the model, to reflect on
what lies at the core of the value conflict. For example, the
conflict may be based on a countertransference issue between
the counselor and the client. Alternatively, the conflict may
involve a lack of professional expertise, training, or competence
in a particular counseling approach or technique.

The third step in applying the CVCM to a professional
value-based conflict involves identifying potential assistance
or remediation. For example, if the conflict is related to a defi-
ciency in skill or competency, the counselor may work through
the value conflict by engaging in continuing education or ad-
ditional supervision. At this point, the counselor is also encour-
aged to consult the professional code of ethics for guidance.

The fourth step in applying the CVCM to a professional value-
based conflict focuses on whether a referral is necessary. If the
counselor, for example, is lacking skills in counseling Muslim
clients and is deficient in understanding the important cultural
and familial dynamics in Muslim families, does this necessitate
a referral to a counselor with an expertise in working with this
cultural population? This step also calls for an evaluation of the
remediation plan. Counselors at this stage will want to determine
the likely effectiveness of the proposed remediation plan in
eliminating the need for similar referrals in the future. Should
a remediation plan be found unlikely to accomplish this, other
possible remediation options should be explored.

The fifth and final step in applying the CVCM to a pro-
fessional value-based conflict also focuses on ensuring the
welfare of the client. Once again, the counselor should ex-
amine whether the action he or she intends to take promotes
the welfare and well-being of the client. The counselor should
implement the proposed action only after ensuring that it will
promote client welfare.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2014 ■ Volume 92186

Kocet & Herlihy

Ford, M. P., & Hendrick, S. S. (2003).Therapists’ sexual values for self
and clients: Implications for practice and training. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 80–87.

Gibson, P. A. (2008). Teaching ethical decision making: Designing a
personal value portrait to ignite creativity and promote personal en-
gagement in case method analysis. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 340–352.
doi:10.1080/10508420701713022

Granello, D., & Young, M. (2012). Counseling today: Foundations of
professional identity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Guindon, M. H. (2011). A counseling primer: An introduction to the
profession. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones-Smith, E. (2012). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: An
integrative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, No. 1:10-CV-00099-JRH-WLB, 733 F.
Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Ga., Aug. 20, 2010).

Kitchener, K. S., & Anderson, S. K. (2011). Foundations of ethical
practice, research, and teaching in psychology and counseling (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research
(5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Ponton, R., & Duba, K. (2009). The ACA code of ethics: Articulating
counseling’s professional covenant. Journal of Counseling & De-
velopment, 87, 117–121.

Pope, K., & Vasquez, M. (2011). Ethics in psychotherapy and counsel-
ing: A practical guide (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Raines, J., & Dibble, N. (2011). Ethical decision making in school
mental health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Remley, T. P., & Herlihy, B. (2010). Ethical, legal, and professional
issues in counseling (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Shiles, M. (2009). Discriminatory referrals: Uncovering a potential ethi-
cal dilemma facing practitioners. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 142–155.

Sommers-Flanagan, R., & Sommers-Flanagan, J. (2007). Becoming an
ethical helping professional: Cultural and philosophical founda-
tions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sperry, L. (2007). The ethical and professional practice of counseling
and psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tjelveit, A. C. (1986). The ethics of value conversion in psychotherapy:
Appropriate and inappropriate therapist influence on client values.
Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 515–537.

Ward v. Wilbanks, No. 09-CV-11237, Doc. 139 (E.D. Mich., Jul. 26,
2010).

Ward v. Wilbanks, No. 10-2100/2145 (6th Cir. Court of Appeals, Jan.
27, 2012).

Welfel, E. R. (2006). Ethics in counseling and psychotherapy (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Welfel, E. R. (2013). Ethics in counseling and psychotherapy (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Wilcoxon, S. A., Remley, T., & Gladding, S. (2012). Ethical, legal, and
professional issues in the practice of marriage and family therapy
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Wilcoxon, S. A., Remley, T., Gladding, S., & Huber, C. (2007). Ethical,
legal, and professional issues in the practice of marriage and family
therapy (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Conclusion
In essence, becoming a member of the profession requires
an agreement to practice ethically (Raines & Dibble, 2011;
Wilcoxon, Remley, & Gladding, 2012), to abide by a pro-
fessional code of ethics, and to uphold the sacred covenant
(Calley, 2009; Ponton & Duba, 2009) of ethical conduct and
care. However, at times, our understanding of what constitutes
appropriate conduct by counselors and of how to adhere to this
ethical covenant may be murky or unclear. As Welfel (2013)
noted, it is perfectly acceptable for counseling professionals to
hold personal and moral values. The central concern, however,
arises when these personal morals and values are imposed
onto clients regardless of the potential harm they may cause.
It is important to recognize when one’s personal values may
be negatively affecting the counseling relationship.

This proposed model, involving examination of value-
based conflicts, is designed to foster a dialogue among
counseling professionals that may assist us in identifying
best practices for handling challenging value conflicts
between counselors and clients. We invite counseling
researchers to test the efficacy of the model in clinical
settings. By integrating EB and the CVCM into daily
counseling practice and research, counselors can further
demonstrate their ethical commitment and help foster an
ethical legacy that will remain the foundation of our pro-
fession for years to come.

References
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics.

Alexandria, VA: Author.
Anderson, S., & Handelsman, M. (2010). Ethics for psychotherapists

and counselors: A proactive approach. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Barskey, A. (2008). A conflict resolution approach to teaching ethical

decision making: Bridging conflicting values. Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, 83, 164–169.

Calley, N. (2009). Promoting a contextual perspective in the ap-
plication of the ACA code of ethics: The ethics into action map.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 476–482.

Corey, G., & Corey, M. S. (2007). Becoming a helper. Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in
the helping professions (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cormier, S., & Nurius, P. (2003). Interviewing and change strategies
for helpers. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Davis, A. (1997). The ethics of caring: A collaborative approach to
resolving ethical dilemmas. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling, 28, 36–41.

Evans, K., Kincade, E., & Seem, S. (2011). Ethics and values in
feminist counseling and psychotherapy. In K. Evans, E. Kincade,
& S. Seem (Eds.), Introduction to feminist therapy: Strategies
for social and individual change (pp. 25–56). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

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:
jsells@regent.edu).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

24 | ct.counseling.org | October 2014

New Concepts in the ACA Code of Ethics – Interview by Erin Martz & David Kaplan

New responsibilities when making referrals

A
s a service to members,
Counseling Today is publishing
a monthly interview series

focused on new aspects of the revised ACA
Code of Ethics. The entire code is available
on the American Counseling Association
website at counseling.org/ethics.

This month, ACA Director of Ethics
Erin Martz and ACA Chief Professional
Officer David Kaplan interviewed
members of the Ethics Revision Task Force
about referral issues.

Erin Martz & David Kaplan: There
has been an evolution in the counseling
profession from a focus on the needs of the
counselor to the needs of clients. Can you
talk about how this change is reflected in
the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics in terms of
referrals?

Ethics Revision Task Force: It used to
be that if a counselor was uncomfortable
with a client, an immediate referral
would take place. We now know that
this is not in the best interest of the
client because it can lead to feelings of
abandonment. So, the 2014 ACA Code
of Ethics states in Standard A.11.b. that
counselors refrain from referring both
prospective and current clients on the basis
of the counselor’s personally held values,
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. Counselors
need to manage any discomfort with a
particular client through consultation,
supervision and continued education and
to view referral as an intervention of last
resort. It’s about protecting the clients we
serve and putting their needs first.

Q: So, the needs of the client are more
important than the needs of the counselor.
Is that a fair statement?

A: Absolutely a fair statement! Since
counseling is for the betterment of the
client, counselors need to bracket — set
aside — personal values that are not in
line with the legitimate counseling goals
of the client. Bracketing is a skill that all
counselors need to learn.

Q: Tell us more about bracketing.
A: Bracketing revolves around the

counselor’s ability to take his or her own
personal values and set them aside —
suspend them, but not give them up or
change them. In essence, it is being aware
of yourself and the impact that you have
on that client in front of you.

As an example, a student made it clear
that if a couple came to him in conflict,
his goal would be to keep the couple
together. He stated that if a couple did
not want to work on staying together
then he would refer them because that
wasn’t his goal. His goal was to protect the
sanctity of marriage. This is an example of
imposing the counselor’s values and biases
upon a client — the couple — whose goal
may be to have a healthy and appropriate
separation. I worked with the student to
identify the personal beliefs he held that
were causing the imposition of his goal
upon the couple and helped him learn
how to set aside, or bracket, those values
during a session.

Q: Is there an additional bracketing
example you would like to give?

A: [For example], I am a middle school
counselor and have a belief structure
rooted in my deep convictions that
homosexuality is not an acceptable or
moral lifestyle. An eighth-grader comes to
me questioning his or her sexual identity.
While I am entitled to have any personal
beliefs I want, I cannot impose my values
during counseling and insist that we only
talk about issues related to heterosexuality.
I need to bracket my feelings about
homosexuality and provide this student
the opportunity to talk about same-sex
feelings in a nonjudgmental environment.

Q: So if you are not supposed to refer on
the basis of personal values, on what basis
are you supposed to refer?

A: The referral of a prospective or
ongoing client should be based on
skill-based competence. If I’m truly not

competent about a presenting problem, or
I’m in some way impaired due to ongoing,
serious personal issues, then I need to refer.

Q: What if a professional counselor
ties the lack of competence to his or her
personal values? In other words, what if
a counselor says that he needs to refer
because he is not competent to counsel
someone from a particular religion or
sexual orientation?

A: The issue of competence cannot
be used as an excuse to engage in
discrimination. Standard C.5. of the
code makes it clear that counselors
cannot discriminate on the basis of age,
culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion,
spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual
orientation, marital or partner status,
language preference or socioeconomic
status. As such, a counselor cannot
make a referral based on personal values
related to the characteristics listed in C.5.
As mentioned previously, professional
counselors are ethically responsible to put
the needs of the client before their own
needs. Clients never need to experience
the discrimination and abandonment of a
referral made on the basis of a counselor’s
personal beliefs.

Q: Can you give an example of
distinguishing between a referral based on
competence versus discrimination?

A: The topic of gender reassignment
surgery in the midst of a transgender
developmental process is very specific and
may require a counselor with expertise
in counseling transgender clients. So,
a referral from a counselor who has no
experience with gender reassignment
surgery can be acceptable based on
competence. What would be unacceptable
— and a violation of the ACA Code of
Ethics — is referring a gender reassignment
surgery client based on the counselor’s
disgust and rejection. The behaviors could
look similar on the outside, but they are
very different on the inside.

October 2014 | Counseling Today | 25

HIGHLIGHT

S

GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL STUDIESG
P

S

Year-round admission

On campus and online courses

Experienced clinical faculty

Cohorts of supportive professional colleagues

Clinical specialization

Evidence based practice

Psychotherapy integration

International learning opportunities

Community service

Clinical project instead of dissertation

Q: How have recent legal cases such as
Ward v. Wilbanks and Keeton v. Anderson-
Wiley had an impact on the 2014 ethics
code regarding referral issues?

A: These cases brought to light
counselors who were discriminating
against entire classes of people in favor
of their own values. In the Ward case, a
counselor-in-training refused to provide
counseling services and referred a client
who presented with issues that went
against [the counselor-in-training’s] basic
biblical beliefs. She was basically saying
to this client: You are not OK according
to me. That type of referral is clearly
inappropriate and a violation of the 2014
ACA Code of Ethics.

Q: You mentioned that referral should
be an option of last resort. Tell us more.

A: Before I make a referral, I have to
ask myself, “What is it that I need to do
in order to provide the most appropriate
service to this client?” If I’m unwilling to
do a little extra reading or research, then I
really have to question whether I need to
take a break from counseling and get some
rest so that I have the energy to do that.

Referring is the last thing I’m going

to do. First I am going to try education,
consulting with colleagues and
supervision. Why? Because the client
has likely built a therapeutic relationship
with me. As such, a referral interrupts the
treatment of the client and is therefore
detrimental.

Q: If it isn’t clear whether a referral
is being considered on the basis of
competence or personal values, what are
some things that should be considered
before proceeding?

A: The first thing that I would do is
consult with a colleague — someone who
is a professional mental health provider. I’d
sit down with them and figure out what is
going on, both in the relationship with the
client and within [me].

If there’s a further concern, please call
the ACA ethics helpline at 800.347.6647
ext. 314. The ACA professional staff will
help you think through the issues and
focus on the right reasons for making the
referral.

Q: Is there anything else related to
referrals in the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics
that you think we should address?

A: One of the major changes in the

2014 ethics code relative to referral is the
elimination of the standard that addressed
end-of-life care for terminally ill clients.
That standard in the 2005 code allowed
counselors to refer a terminally ill client
who wished to explore their end-of-life
options on the basis of the counselor’s
personal values. Deleting that standard
eliminated what would have been an
exception to the rule that referral is based
on competency. Bracketing counselor
values with clients who are struggling
with significant end-of-life issues is not
qualitatively different than other value-
related issues that counselors have to
struggle with.

u

To receive assistance with specific ethical
dilemmas or questions as a benefit of your
membership in ACA, contact the ACA
Ethics Department at 800.347.6647 ext.
314 or email ethics@counseling.org. u

Letters to the editor:
ct@counseling.org

Copyright of Counseling Today is the property of American Counseling Association 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.