My understanding of Nally is the same as that of Professor Laycock. That is certainly what I teach the M.Div. students when I teach my course on Legal Issues for the Minister once a year. At one time our degree was in counseling, the nomenclature was changed to Biblical counseling to make clear to both students in the program and the public at large that this was non-professional Biblical counseling. The purported second rule certainly has free speech issues (and very bad public policy), however, the third and fourth rules still strike me as beyond the pale. As long as it is accurate, it seems to me that Biblical counselors, law professors, the psychic hotline, and anyone else can advertise and charge for their services, however dubious those services may seem to the majority of the populace. Steve
----Original Message Follows----
From: dlaycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Regulations for non-professional Biblical counselors
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:47:48 -0500
In the Nally v. Grace Community Church (Cal. 1986 or so, the Court of Appeals held a pastoral counselor liable for "clergy malpractice" because he did not "effectively" refer the counselee to a secular psychologist. That seems to be the opposite of the regulatory theory of rule 2 below.
In fact the pastor had sent the kid to secular counselors; he had been hospitalized on the psychiatric ward and then released, and then refused to return. The California Supreme Court reversed and, my recollection is, said there was no such tort as clergy malpractice.
Mark Tushnet wrote:
>Passing the question of constitutionality, guideline #2 seems quite
>lunatic unless it's interpreted to mean that one of these counselors
>can say, "Speaking not as a counselor but as a lay person, I think
>you sound depressed and I think it might be helpful if you saw a
>doctor." (And, speaking again not as a specialist, I would think
>that some such formulation would be important in setting up defenses
>to possible actions for breach of fiduciary duty.)
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>Like many seminaries, the seminary division of the school where I
>teach offers an M.A. in Biblical counseling requiring about 1 year
>of graduate work in religion and one year of graduate work in
>counseling. The degree is not designed to prepare graduate for
>licensure or professional practice (some take additional work at the
>local state university and qualify to sit for licensure exams, but
>that is another issue). Rather it is designed to prepare ministers
>with basic skills to provide marriage counseling, grief counseling,
>etc., usually in a local church context.
>
>One of the faculty members who teaches in the program (a clincial
>psychologist) has told me that the Board which regulates counselors
>in North Carolina has issued a set of what it styles the
>requirements for persons who provide Biblical counseling. As far as
>I have been able to determine, these are not formal rules, but
>rather guidelines. My colleague is somewhat oblique on the exact
>nature of the "regulations."
>
>1. The Biblical counselor must be very preicse in describing
>himself or herself - Biblical counselor not counselor, etc.
>
>OK
>
>2. The Biblical counselor must not even make a suggestive or
>hypothetical diagnosis - "It sounds to me like you might be
>depressed, I think you should see a doctor." OR "What you are
>describing is sometimes symptomatic of bipolar disorder, I think you
>should consult a physician."
>
>Questionable, but OK
>
>3. They cannot put an advertisement in the Yellow Pages, not even a
>line within the ad for the church which employees or sponsors the
>Biblical counselor stating that "counseling is available."
>
>This strikes me as blantantly unconstitutional.
>
>4. Neither the Biblical counselor nor the church can charge a fee
>for counseling, although a box for voluntary donations is acceptable
>as long as giving is strictly optional and no amounts are suggested.
>
>Again, this seems clearly unconstitutional.
>
>Does anyone want to comment.
>
>Steve Prescott, Southeastern College at Wake Forest
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
>as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
>are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
