Family Therapists and Religious Communities: Negotiating Dual Relationships.

Family Therapists and Religious Communities: Negotiating Dual Relationships* Key Words: dual relationships, ethics, marriage and family therapy, multiple relationships, multiple roles, religious community. Family therapists involved with religious communities as leaders, employees, or community members face unique challenges in evaluating the potential benefits and risks of dual relationships. Building on existing literature, we propose a three-level model of factors for therapists to use to evaluate risk: (a) professional ethics codes and legal guidelines, (b) theory of therapy, and (c) contextual variables and relationships among the therapist, the client, and the religious community. Therapists debate the appropriateness and ethics of dual relationships within the mental health field in general (Ebert, 1997; Faulkner & Faulkner, 1997; Williams, 1997) and in marriage and family therapy specifically (Bernard, 1991; Ryder & Hepworth, 1990, 1991; Tomm, 1991). Although the literature indicates a general consensus regarding the exploitative nature of sexual dual relationships (Geyer, 1994; Kagle & Giebelhausen, 1994; Valentich & Gripton, 1992), there is less unanimity and clarity regarding nonsexual dual relationships. This ambiguity is problematic for therapists working in religious communities because in this context contact outside of therapy might be unavoidable, expected, or preferred. A faith community can be a sect, a mosque, a parish, a synagogue, or any organized group drawn together by a common faith. Defining the Issues Some therapists maintain a firm stance that any and all non-- sexual dual relationships are unethical and should be avoided (Craig, 1991; Kagle & Giebelhausen, 1994; Pope, 1991; Valentich & Gripton, 1992). Others say that dual relationships are unavoidable and are not by definition bad (Brown, 1985; Ebert, 1997; Gottlieb, 1993; Kitchener, 1988). In their opinion, it is unreasonable to prohibit what cannot be avoided (Ebert). Still others argue that dual relationships can be uniquely beneficial and should be encouraged in some situations (Catalano, 1997; Tomm, 1991). This issue becomes particularly critical when dual relationships are an unavoidable part of the therapeutic setting. Therapists working in rural settings and lesbian communities have drawn attention to their unique challenges with dual relationships (Brown, 1985; Brownlee, 1996; Catalano, 1997; Faulkner & Faulkner, 1997; Gartrell, 1992; Schank & Skovholt, 1997; Stockman, 1990). In these settings, therapists are likely to have contact outside of therapy with current, former, and potential clients. Brown (1985) and Schank and Skovholt (1997) point out that the codes of ethics are inadequate in providing guidance, leaving therapists responsible for interpreting and adapting the codes to their unique situations. Another setting that tests the limits and applicability of codes of ethics is the religious community. There is a wide range of potential dual relationships for therapists working in religious communities. A therapist might have informal contact with a client after weekly services. A client might be teaching the therapist's child and might try to initiate a conversation about therapy after services. The community leader might approach the therapist for marital therapy. The dual relationships vary depending on whether the therapist simply participates in the community, has an office there, is on the payroll, or is the pastor. Literature on dual relationship issues focused specifically for marriage and family therapists in religious settings is minimal. This gap in the literature is striking for several reasons. First, marriage and family therapists report the most religious involvement of all the mental health specialists (Bergin & Jensen, 1990). Second, there is an increased recognition in the literature of marriage and family therapists working in religious settings (Geyer, 1994; Rotz, Russell & Wright, 1993). …