"Christian Psychologist Faces Charges Over Possession Belief"
Published November 04, 2003
By Sarah Overstreet
The Missouri attorney general and state Committee of Psychologists will soon have to decide what a Christian psychologist can and cannot do in practice.
In 1985, the state committee gave Springfield psychologist Thomas DeVol sanction to advertise himself as a "Christian psychologist." DeVol is a member of the Assemblies of God, and sought to define himself for clients. A June 1985 letter from the committee said, "In response to your questions regarding your advertising that you are a Christian psychologist and accept the Bible as the moral standard of behavior, the Committee agreed that you may state this in advertisements."
Now DeVol finds himself facing charges of attempting "to convince (a client) that demon possession existed and there were demons in her family." This conduct, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon claims, "fails to meet the standard of care for providing professional psychological services."
Nixon claims such behavior violates a statute requiring psychologists to "maintain competency ... in the areas in which s/he practices ... in conformance with current standards of scientific and professional knowledge."
Nixon's suit also charges DeVol with improper billing practices and release of confidential patient information, incompetent use of psychological assessment techniques and charging excessive fees, among other charges. Any of them may cause him to lose his license in his November hearing.
But it is DeVol's belief in demonic possession that has area Christians watching this case. In other states, psychologists have lost their licenses because of casting out demons.
Scott Holste, Nixon's press liaison, said the office will have no comment. "I think the charges speak for themselves."
DeVol says his training as a Christian therapist led him to the casting out of demons. He said one of the complainants to the state came to him for 137 sessions and didn't find a problem with the treatment before she acknowledged a life situation she had kept secret, and didn't want to be confronted with that problem. "And it's sad for her, because she really is in the possession of this demon, and she won't get the treatment she needs."
The question before the state is, what is a licensed "Christian" therapist allowed to practice?
In the Bible, Jesus cast out demons and told his followers to do the same. Some Christians believe in the "laying on of hands." Jesus told followers to lay hands on one another and pray for one another. Others believe in speaking in "tongues" - languages most cannot understand.
Are any or all of these practices something a client going to a Christian psychologist might expect? I don't think the committee put any thought into this 18 years ago before issuing its imprimatur to advertise oneself as a "Christian psychologist." Now it wants to slap DeVol's hand for practicing the kind of Christianity he learned in the Bible.
If a state committee of professionals licenses psychologists based on training and professional standards, why don't they stick with those criteria? What's next, they give permission for licensed psychologists to advertise themselves as "Wiccan counselors"?
A state committee should stick to what it knows. If it wants to license religious counselors, it should work through religious colleges and understand what it's licensing.
Or, perhaps, stay out of the business altogether?
- "Christian Psychologist Faces Charges Over Possession Belief"
- Published: November 04, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: bookofjoe
- bookofjoe's BC Writer page
- bookofjoe's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I think the state might have been on shaky grounds in 1985, but it's not a question of licensing. It's a question to a professional organization about what can and can't be in an advertisement. It's like the Bar Association in Texas refusing to allow attorneys to use the term "Abogado" in ads because it has a specific legal meaning Mexican law. Saying something is not prohibited is not the same as saying it changes the other rules of professional conduct.
If the letter had said "this is not prohibited by the code of conduct, but does not otherwise affect your professional requirements under the code of conduct," it might have been more clear. But that's a mote to the beam of casting out demons in the guise of psychological counseling.
Sounds like more run of the mill anti-Christian fascism to me. All kinds of dumb crap pass for psychological counseling or treatment, but something that comes from the Bible is considered unacceptable. They work from the premise that the Bible is not true [which I share], but then insist on enforcing that on everyone else.
Have they busted anyone lately for cheesy new age therapies, past life regression and such?
Consider finally that such Christian therapy might in fact be effective for some Christians. This demonic possession stuff may not be literally true, but it might work for a patient metaphorically- giving them a way of wrapping their mind around making necessary behavioral changes.
Well, other than the prejudicial language, I agree. The 1985 decision is irrelevant to the case at hand.
In order to practice as a licensed psychologist, they insist that you follow their rules. Hard to argue that the doctor in question didn't break the rules.
I wrote a post on my blog (didn't post it on BlogCritics) on what I called there "Anti-Belief-Ism". It was inspired by a post by Donald Sensing on "One Hand Clapping" (http://donaldsensing.com/). Basically, it's about the intolerance of those that don't believe towards those that do. Whether or not you agree with the psychologist's beliefs, it seems clear to me that the AG in Missouri is attempting to persecute DeVol for them.
In fact, I think that "casting out demons" is questionable, even incompetent psychology, but if a client isn't happy that a Christian psychologist uses it as part of his or her practice, then the client can easily go to a different psychologist. If the practice isn't prohibited by the state accrediting body, and the psychologist is up front about using it as part of therapy, then the AG ought to leave the psychologist alone.
Great article everyone should read it
I am his son and i think he is nuts
I think when someone thinks they can cast out demons and act the way he is he IS a nut case
and should be locked up
Might want to check the Missouri psychology page at www.pr.mo.gov and see what happened to Dr. DeVol.
Regardless of religion, one should be allowed to tailor one's practice to suit a specific faith. It gives solace and provides initial comfort and trust to know that the practitioner providing services understands and agrees with a patient's religious convictions.
Where I disagree with DeVol is when he moved beyond his duties as a counselor and into one of a minister. While it is wise to integrate a patient's beliefs into a well rounded therapy, it is unethical to act as religious leader or practitioner while providing professional counseling services.
Even if he was ordained, it is ethical, as a counselor, to separate the roles and remain within the singular role defined by the initiating relationship. Is the person in question a patient or congregant? In this instance, Dr. DeVol should have referred this patient to a minister for further evaluation and any necessary religious treatment or ceremony.
As an aside: I happen to be a Wiccan minister persuing a degree in Psychology so I thought it rather ammusing to see the line about "Wiccan counselors" as I plan to be one!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/9820)
I think the state might have been on shaky grounds in 1985, but it's not a question of licensing. It's a question to a professional organization about what can and can't be in an advertisement. It's like the Bar Association in Texas refusing to allow attorneys to use the term "Abogado" in ads because it has a specific legal meaning Mexican law. Saying something is not prohibited is not the same as saying it changes the other rules of professional conduct.
If the letter had said "this is not prohibited by the code of conduct, but does not otherwise affect your professional requirements under the code of conduct," it might have been more clear. But that's a mote to the beam of casting out demons in the guise of psychological counselling.