Thread: E. Mich. Univ. ousts student for not affirming homosexual behavior

"Christian students shouldn’t be penalized for holding to their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “When a public university has a prerequisite of affirming homosexual behavior as morally good in order to obtain a degree, the school is stepping over the legal line. Julea did the responsible thing and followed her supervising professor’s advice to have the client referred to a counselor who did not have a conscience issue with the very matter to be discussed in counseling. She would have gladly counseled the client if the subject had been nearly any other matter.”

EMU requires students in its program to affirm or validate homosexual behavior within the context of a counseling relationship and prohibits students from advising clients that they can change their homosexual behavior. Ward has never addressed homosexual behavior in any form during counseling sessions with clients.

More at ADF Alliance Alert E. Mich. Univ. ousts student for not affirming homosexual behavior

It's just a matter of time, until it won't be possible to be a christian and a counselor lisensed by the state.

Originally Posted by puritanpilgrim

It's just a matter of time, until it won't be possible to be a christian and a counselor lisensed by the state.

Maybe, or maybe most Americans actually wouldn't want things to get to that point, and litigation like this draws attention to the issue. After all, what we're dealing with is not the will of the democratic majority, but guidelines imposed by the liberal academic elite. I understand having a pessimistic view of the future, and it's good to be cautious, but I'm not sure it's a fact that the most dreadful outcome is the one that's most likely to happen. The Alliance Defense Fund does win cases on issues like this, and they may win this one. And more importantly, God is in control of the result.

I see two errors here:
1) EMU having such a ridiculous policy, and
2) a Christian seeking a degree in counseling from from a secular institution.

The ultimate problem here is the existence of state licensing and universities.

Unless we contest that, then lawsuits like this only appear as begging for a morsel of freedom back after the whole dinner is stolen.

Originally Posted by smhbbag

The ultimate problem here is the existence of state licensing and universities.

Unless we contest that, then lawsuits like this only appear as begging for a morsel of freedom back after the whole dinner is stolen.

I am not sure that I agree. For if the shoe was on the other foot, I would not be complaining. For example, in a Christian nation, I am not going to want a counselor to the have the ability to openly advise their clients that homosexuality is a legit lifestyle and one is not able to change.

CT

Originally Posted by smhbbag

The ultimate problem here is the existence of state licensing and universities.

Unless we contest that, then lawsuits like this only appear as begging for a morsel of freedom back after the whole dinner is stolen.

I think you're definitely right about the ultimate problem, but I also think these lawsuits can be very helpful for the individuals involved. Eventually, however, we need a bigger-scale solution, or these problems will keep cropping up somewhere else.

Edit: I don't mean to be pessimistic, but I doubt that a bigger-scale solution is actually going to happen. That's why I support litigation to deal with the worst effects.

I am not sure that I agree. For if the shoe was on the other foot, I would not be complaining. For example, in a Christian nation, I am not going to want a counselor to the have the ability to openly advise their clients that homosexuality is a legit lifestyle and one is not able to change.

CT

Absolutely agreed.

I am perfectly fine (in fact adamant) about giving Christian civil authorities that jurisdiction. No problem there - if the ruler himself is subject to the Law of God in a formal way (expressed in a Constitution, charter, etc.).

But, in an environment like ours, I will argue all day long against granting such latitude to an unbelieving civil sphere.

God grants civil government the authority to regulate these things so those powers will be used well. Since we know these folks will not use it well, I would rather deny them the power in the first place. Perhaps I'm inconsistent, but if I'm going to be ruled by unbelieving institutions - I want those institutions restricted even beyond the restrictions God puts on them.

If we had mass revival, new Constitutional conventions, and genuine believers in office, I would be more than glad to hand that power back

And Evie - you're right, fighting these specific cases can do some good....I just cannot avoid thinking of the fact that even a victory would barely bring us back to neutral ground with unbelievers, which is far less than we ought to be satisfied with.

Most licensing laws for social work have the same qualification that one must affirm... but then again, it's no surprise.

I don't see why it's a big deal that a state agency, the state university requires things in line with the state licensing practices.

I think this is the way that medicine in general is going. I have a problem with social work and psychological counseling that is based on medical models to begin with. Part of the problem to begin with (as Lance pointed out) is that the student in this case was probably under the illusion that Christianity could be wed to Psychology. The two have antithetical worldviews.

It will become increasingly likely that States will set "orthodoxy" for psychological counseling and then, likely, what a minister can counsel a Church member after that. We have a professional attitude toward counseling to begin with in this country preferring to go to a 24 year old with a degree for a troubled marriage rather than a Christian couple married for 50 years. We've been sowing these seeds for a while now.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I
It will become increasingly likely that States will set "orthodoxy" for psychological counseling and then, likely, what a minister can counsel a Church member after that. We have a professional attitude toward counseling to begin with in this country preferring to go to a 24 year old with a degree for a troubled marriage rather than a Christian couple married for 50 years. We've been sowing these seeds for a while now.

I think almost everyone would agree that direct regulation of ministerial duties is unconstitutional, so I (perhaps naively) would be surprised if this were done by direct regulation. However -- and this may be what you're referring to -- I would not be deeply shocked to see states or the federal government using tax policy to this end.

Well, if the homosexual student was going to be counseled for THAT issue, they probably have an issue with it as well...lest WHY would they seek out counsel for that specific issue?

If someone does not have a problem with their own life or something going on in their life, they typically don't seek out counseling to begin with..

years ago, when I was overwhelmed and burden and weighed down with sin that had been committed against me, I sought counsel from a Christian who did secular counseling. So I was very blessed that she did not try to dissuade me from looking at what God said in His word. I even took my Bible in with me, I began to notice, my biggest problem was in not seeing my sin against others, but more importantly I was not clearly seeing my sin's against God, that were just as vile to God as the sin's that had been committed against me, and as God wrestled with me on those things and I came to really understand and see that, and was finally able to come to terms with being sinned against, and to forgive and start to pray for that person's salvation, as opposed to desiring God's wrath and judgment against them.

But the problem is, not all counselors nor all people seeking counsel desire to know what GOD says..and when they think of God, they get angry that He is not 'punishing' those evil wretches for sinning against them or even others..but they fail to realize that if God were to 'punish' those evil wretches who sinned against them or others, in His justice and Holiness He would also need to 'punish' them for their own sin's --that they are blinded to..

Our God is merciful, even in using Christians, in the secular world of counseling..

This nation has been handed over to a reprobate mind.

Originally Posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I
It will become increasingly likely that States will set "orthodoxy" for psychological counseling and then, likely, what a minister can counsel a Church member after that. We have a professional attitude toward counseling to begin with in this country preferring to go to a 24 year old with a degree for a troubled marriage rather than a Christian couple married for 50 years. We've been sowing these seeds for a while now.

I think almost everyone would agree that direct regulation of ministerial duties is unconstitutional, so I (perhaps naively) would be surprised if this were done by direct regulation. However -- and this may be what you're referring to -- I would not be deeply shocked to see states or the federal government using tax policy to this end.

The state can come in the back door. If the minister is licensed by the state as a counselor/therapist, the state can just threaten to revoke his license.

Originally Posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I
It will become increasingly likely that States will set "orthodoxy" for psychological counseling and then, likely, what a minister can counsel a Church member after that. We have a professional attitude toward counseling to begin with in this country preferring to go to a 24 year old with a degree for a troubled marriage rather than a Christian couple married for 50 years. We've been sowing these seeds for a while now.

I think almost everyone would agree that direct regulation of ministerial duties is unconstitutional, so I (perhaps naively) would be surprised if this were done by direct regulation. However -- and this may be what you're referring to -- I would not be deeply shocked to see states or the federal government using tax policy to this end.

This is all well and good if the state accepts that counseling is something a minister can do.

However, if they deem it necessary to regulate counseling (don't ask what i think of this of course) such that nobody can do "counseling of any kind without a license" then things could get sticky.

Of course in such a circumstance the pastor is duty-bound to disobey the authorities and counsel anyway, but...

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

This is all well and good if the state accepts that counseling is something a minister can do.

However, if they deem it necessary to regulate counseling (don't ask what i think of this of course) such that nobody can do "counseling of any kind without a license" then things could get sticky.

Of course in such a circumstance the pastor is duty-bound to disobey the authorities and counsel anyway, but...

As difficult as this prohibition would be to enforce, it sounds plausible. Obviously no one knows, especially not me, but I can see this happening. But I can also see it not happening -- more Americans than just Christians would be opposed to it. I am thankful it hasn't happened yet.