The cure for counsel-itis
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:22 pm
I don't have time to write anything up, but someone I know wrote this up, and it's rather depressing. He acknowledges his own self-interest in his assessment, but I am as concerned about this development as he is. The church is cutting costs, which I completely understand, but this seems like a very bad move. A few years ago, the Ensign reprinted President Packer's warning against "counsel-itis," or expecting lay bishops to serve as personal counselors. But now, in a complete about-face, bishops are being asked to perform that very function, albeit with a "hotline" and some phone apps. And the church is now discouraging financial assistance for counseling.
I work in [western city] as a family therapist, and historically have received the brunt of my clients from LDS family services (LDSFS). Over a year ago, the LDSFS here began a pilot program for the church where all in-house therapists were gradually let go, and all counseling was done by referring out to community counselors. As such, the church could eliminate the costs of maintaining family services (except adoption services, which will stay intact). However, under new direction, the Welfare Program is now attempting to serve globally, instead of only (for the most part) in North America; with family services, anyway. To accomplish this, a new system is being put in to play, and all of the [western city] area therapists who are on the referral list for LDSFS were called in to a meeting to learn about this today.
We were instructed by the director of family services who is now moving into a supervisory position over a large area of N. America states. The change is this: Bishops will now be instructed that they are to work on a local level to solve ward problems. This is to include that Bishops should find ways to solve members’ problems in lieu of referring them to therapy. This is not to say that counseling should never be recommended, but other solutions should be attempted by bishops FIRST. Previously, training about how to assist ward members was occasionally provided for area bishops, but that will cease to occur. A 24-hour hotline will exist for Bishops to call and receive suggestions to try with their ward members’ issues, instead. As well, it is expected that they will be able to receive text messages with suggested helps, and that there will be phone apps developed; i.e. an app for how to assist a member with a “porn problem”. But the clear and basic pressure (instruction) is for Bishops to solve the problem, and try to avoid sending them to counseling. As well, we were informed that Bishops are being strongly discouraged from financially supporting therapy for their ward members as they have in the past. How that will shake out on an individual basis, is to be left to the Bishop to decide.
Naturally, this will mean less referrals for therapists, and that’s not good news for a room full of counselors; so let me concede the bias that suggests, right now. But I think it’s a poor move for greater reasons than just “it gives me less clients”; there were/are understandable concerns about the burden this places on a Bishop. In my limited experience (essentially a case study of one – me) of 8 years in practice, I’ve had multiple Bishops, multiple times request counseling assistance because they literally didn’t have time to even visit with all the ward members that wanted appointments. This could put sensitive-personality Bishops in the grave, and make dismissive asses out of the more Type-A leaders. In other words, I find it scary.
Undeniably, It is financially genius on the part of the church, and while I don’t know if this will be different in a fairly LDS saturated place like Utah, I would also say it does place the world as a whole at an equal level; sort of like “if everybody doesn’t get LDSFS, then nobody does”. Also, essentially forcing Bishops to become capable of helping people better (albeit without any training) isn’t a bad thing. Ultimately, however, I would guess that this will mean better services and assistance for ward members who only need ecclesiastical counsel, and much greater harm done to those who really are in need of professional services.
So I’m trying to say there are obvious positives to this change in system. But my personal disgust came from the clearly stated reason for this change in the welfare system (and I quote): “We’re talking about a church that has infinite needs, and finite resources”. While that is objectively true, all I could think about was the multi-billion dollar mall. Ugh, and gross.
We were further informed that if we wanted to be beneficiaries of the much fewer referrals for counseling that would now be sent out from Bishops, we essentially needed to be buddies with the Bishops. It was made very clear that this could be accomplished by our finding a way to offer free consultation services and phone assistance for said Bishops in dealing with their ward members, so that they would want to use our services if needed for actual counseling. Again- financially brilliant on the part of the church, and rather common as a business model, I suppose. But it kind of feels gross.
I’ve been thinking about some of [other friend's] statements that the church could be better at using its professional and educated resources. I’m not sure if this qualifies as a move towards or fully away from that…?
In any case, there you go.