Latest hare-brained scheme: faith crisis counseling

[Anonymous]

I’ve had this idea floating around in my head for a while, and decided to write it down this week:

Individual Faith Crisis Counseling

Shortly, it’s a proposal to allow those who have been through a faith crisis to help others one-on-one through theirs, with the bishopric’s support. I’ve tried to maintain a faithful, nonthreatening tone throughout, so I can share it with my bishopric.

(I have a plan for this. I’m certain at least one counselor will accept the general idea. He may be comfortable bringing it up to the rest. Also, the bishop loves me. And I can do all this without outing myself if I have to. My brother has left the Church, helps people transition away from it, and hasn’t had a normal conversation with my parents in two years. I can frame the proposal as trying to prevent outcomes like that.)

Some burning questions:

Did I get the right tone? Is there anything that should be changed in this regard?

Is the discussion of causes and effects broad enough to include your experience?

What else would you add in suggestions for bishops or instructions for faith crisis counselors?

Is this even feasible? Do you think it would have been helpful for you?

EDIT: Changed to implement suggestions below, especially subsuming the program under HT/VT. Now “faith crisis consultants” are home and visiting teachers the bishop relies on to reach those who have experienced a faith crisis.

EDIT: Further changed to update “Suggestions for bishops” (which had been a rather weak section) to address feedback from bishopric counselor.

[Anonymous]

All I can say at this point is: WOW

You put a lot of thought into this.

I have to “cogitate” on this for a while.

My first reaction is: there has to be in-depth professional training for this to work effectively.

And those who are going through a FC have to be willing to be counseled.

I’m not sure I would’ve done it during my FC.

Can it be done with a lay volunteer ministry?

More to come.

[Anonymous]

This is really top notch. I really hope it does. I do have to say that I think there may be a portion of bishops that would bite on it. But once it makes noise above that it is going to be shut down. I say that because I have a friend that is good friends with his bishop and SP and pushing for some place for those transitioning. They sent it up the ladder and SLC came back and said “do not create any meetings or use any materials outside the correlated church materials”. I do wish you luck and do let us know how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

My first reaction is: there has to be in-depth professional training for this to work effectively.

I’ve tried my best to make professional training not a requirement by bounding the faith crisis counselor’s responsibilities tightly. From the document:

Quote:

Your main responsibility is to listen without judgment.

You do not meet with members in crisis as a leader. Don’t act in a way that projects authority…

You do not meet with members in crisis as a therapist. Don’t try to arbitrate disputes or help someone overcome an addiction or clinical depression…

You do not meet with members in crisis as a teacher. Listen to what they want to talk about…

Of anybody in a ward, someone who has already gone through a faith crisis would probably have the best chance of listening without judgment.

Minyan Man wrote:

And those who are going through a FC have to be willing to be counseled.

I’m not sure I would’ve done it during my FC.

That’s a really good point. Do you think strict confidentiality of your identity and information would have helped? Knowing that the main responsibility of the “counselor” was to just listen without judgment? I know it may not be possible to answer those questions, but I’d appreciate wild guesses all the same.

The reason for those two ingredients is that they’d be what it would take to get me to open up.

LookingHard wrote:

I do have to say that I think there may be a portion of bishops that would bite on it. But once it makes noise above that it is going to be shut down. I say that because I have a friend that is good friends with his bishop and SP and pushing for some place for those transitioning. They sent it up the ladder and SLC came back and said “do not create any meetings or use any materials outside the correlated church materials”.

I worry about that, too. That’s why it’s always one-on-one, why FC counselor isn’t necessarily a calling, and why I included this:

Quote:

Don’t arrange study groups, support groups, or similar gatherings. Instead, offer to connect members with others who have experienced a faith crisis, or anyone else who might offer a friendly ear or be able to help, as long as doing so wouldn’t violate confidentiality and disclosure rules. If members organize private gatherings on their own, do not attend in an official capacity.

The Church is really wary of independent study groups. Apparently, people have left en masse after forming study groups and using non-Church-approved materials. I’ve heard tales of secret polygamist groups starting in Provo that way.

It would take some serious callousness to tell a bishop to never send member 1 to help member 2 through a crisis, when member 1 has already been through it.

[Anonymous]

I would carefully pursue it. I think it has merit, and since Looking Hard pointed out, that other areas are working on it, even if Salt Lake sends back the same answer, they would now have 2 or more different areas seeking a similar solution.

Second – in support of the idea draw on Planted by Patrick Mason. It’s a Deseret Book publication. You can add it as a place of reference because of your brother.

Third – I have a Bishop and one of his counselors who both have family and close friends who have left the church in the past couple of years. This isn’t going away, no matter how much the church may want it to.

Done with love and caring it really could work.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Reuben, you asked:

Quote:

Do you think strict confidentiality of your identity and information would have helped? Knowing that the main responsibility of the “counselor” was to just listen without judgment?

1st. I think strict confidentiality would of helped in my case. I think most members have a difficult time doing that.

2nd. Listening without judgement is crucial too. But difficult to teach.

The other requirements for a good counsellor is (IMO) compassion & empathy. Two concepts that are difficult to teach. I’ve had some Bishops that were excellent are both. Others, not so much.

For me, it was a HT that had all four qualities.

[Anonymous]

I really like your emphasis on present-time improvement instead of final outcome.

Hope you can get some support for this!

One thing that jumped out at me: I’d drop altogether the under 18 option. This will be tricky enough to launch even without it.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

The other requirements for a good counsellor is (IMO) compassion & empathy. Two concepts that are difficult to teach. I’ve had some Bishops that were excellent are both. Others, not so much.

For me, it was a HT that had all four qualities.

Excellent. I’ll see what I can do.

Ann wrote:

One thing that jumped out at me: I’d drop altogether the under 18 option. This will be tricky enough to launch even without it.

This is a very good idea. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

I think you have a good guide for traditional believers who don’t know how to interact with people in FC.

The obstacle you will run into is the General Handbook. It clearly states that all counseling is to be done by the Bishop. I remember it saying that is one thing he can’t delegate unless of course, to LDS Social Services for issues within their purview.

Good luck though. I think the best route for people who want to counsel people in FC is participating in StayLDS. Isn’t that what most of us who have managed to stay in the church in spite of our crises do here most of the time? To formalize it at the local level would be a tough sell.

[Anonymous]

I think this is an excellent idea, but I don’t see support coming from official church channels for doing it as a calling (for some very good reasons).

My hope is that more members who would be good at it become licensed clinical counselors. That would solve just about every issue I can imagine.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

The obstacle you will run into is the General Handbook. It clearly states that all counseling is to be done by the Bishop. I remember it saying that is one thing he can’t delegate unless of course, to LDS Social Services for issues within their purview.

I didn’t know that. This is tough. I wonder if using a different word would help. I’ve been thinking of replacement terms for “counselor.” I’ve tried replacing the underscores in “faith crisis ________” with

[Anonymous]

I think the one way to sell it is to weave it into the home teaching program. See if you can convince the priesthood leaders to simply assign people with the right skills to people in faith crisis.

Interesting, I was out doing some community work yesterday, and a woman said she recognized me — asked if I was a Mormon. I said yes, and she indicated she was a member of my Ward, but didn’t feel she “fit in”, so she doesn’t attend. So, she has focused on stuff outside of church a lot like me. I would be an ideal home teacher for her, I think. What would you call me? I am not sure.

But simply assigning me to be her home teacher would create an instant bit of empathy for her situation that would build trust. I was able to tell her how I “stopped growing in the church after 30 years” — that is my new euphimism for why I’m only semi-active. I commented on how I too have augmented my work in the community as a result of this realignment, while still staying connected at church.

So, perhaps you present this as simply an enhancement to the home teaching effort, where people who understand FC end up assigned to those in FC through the HT program. You could even suggest some minimal training for people to learn how to talk to people in FC. But steer clear of words like “counseling”, “adviser” etcetera. These words would scare the leadership and put you at odds with the handbook of instrcutions. Further, we have a lot of manual-thumpers who wont’ do much unless it’s in the manual — creating new terms is not easily accepted by certain people who have bought into the whole policy/bureaucracy driven nature of our culture. These people who do the “counseling” (avoid that word) would simply be home teachers with a specific focus on members with certain needs.

I have found that using existing systems and programs always seems to go better because people already accept them, there is instrastructure in place, and leaders are always trying to figure out how to make the HT program work. In that way you are perceived as helping them achieve their existing goals, rather than putting the admin of ANOTHER program on their plate. Doing it through the HT program means a monthly visit is in order, and no one would criticize a HT for meeting more than monthly in the person in crisis wants it. Using existing language in the culture will also help sell it.

[Anonymous]

Before I read SD’s comments I was thinking about somehow using the home teaching / visiting teaching. I do agree using an existing program will increase the chances of acceptance. But if you are dealing with a male / female alone that ain’t going to go over. The perfect situation would be a couple that were both post FC, but I am guessing that isn’t as common as one more TBMish and one post FC

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

The perfect situation would be a couple that were both post FC, but I am guessing that isn’t as common as one more TBMish and one post FC

I asked my wife yesterday if she thinks she would be able to do it. She said she would. She understands what I’m going through pretty well. She’d have an easier time listening to someone else – someone who isn’t me – without judgment, because it would be much less personal for her.

I like your [EDIT: and SD’s!] proposed change. I’m going to sit with it for a bit and ruminate.

[Anonymous]

Hi Reuben!

This really looks amazing. I know when DW and I suffered the stillbirth of our child a pastor that we were friends with asked if a couple could come over that had lost their teenage son. This was the first time that we had ever spoken to or met them. They told us their story and listened as we told ours. We cried and hugged. I assume that going over to a stranger’s house might have been outside of their comfort zone. For DW and I it was a life preserver at a time when we were drowning. Their visit was one of mercy and compassion.

On the other hand I caution you against caring too much. I have seen people do much good as change agents in the church but ultimately they get shut down, isolated, and ostracized by the church (officially and unofficially). I worry that if you invest too much of yourself that it will feel like a personal rejection if it gets shut down. Part of what helps me to StayLDS is limiting my investment to what I feel are sustainable levels and the other part is managing my expectations for the church. I know that sounds like a Debbie Downer….just be careful with your heart.

[Author]

Posts