Our society has worked hard the last couple of decades trying to break down stereotypes of one sort or another. In some areas we have done quite well while in others there is still work to be done.
Recently I was reminded of one of the areas where we seem to have made little change. In the course of researching a topic for a sermon I started chasing rabbits. What I mean by that is that sometimes I read an article that mentions another article that I go read that then mentions something else that I go look at. On a sidebar of some blog that I am sorry I don’t remember was this headline: “Perceptions of Serious Mental Illness in the Local Church.”
I have long been interested in mental illness and mental health. At one point eons ago I ran a website called Mental Health Advocacy and Information. Back then I spoke several times around the south on the topic of mental illness and mental health and how the church responds to it. There wasn’t a lot of information available and few studies that referenced those topics that was available for research. Now the internet makes researching this or any topic much easier.
When I read about this study, which was published in the Journal of Religion, Disability & Health (Vol. 12(2), 2008) I was quite unsettled at what I read.
Matthew Stanford, PhD and Kandace McAlister studied 85 people who were self identified as mentally ill Christians. They were asked to participate in an anonymous online survey. A call for participants was issued from several prominent Mental Illness websites. I’ll give you the results later.
The writers of the study state that “clergy, not psychologists or other mental health professionals, are the most common source of help sought in times of psychological distress.” (Journal of Religion, Disability & Health (Vol. 12(2), 2008, page 144 ff).
Psychologist have a tendency to view clergy as mental health gatekeepers. In this role clergy are thought to function as a referral source for psychologist, who then provided mental health services to the client. Clergy tend to have a limited knowledge of serious mental illness, usually limited to Pastoral Care courses or general reading on the subject. Up to his point there is nothing particularly new in this study. Most clergy are not trained, even to a working knowledge, of mental illnesses. My undergraduate degree is in Counseling Psychology (University of Southern Mississippi, 1978). I took the requisite courses in Seminary (Southern Methodist University, 1982) and even a few extra courses along the way. I have read extensively on the subject. I am not new to this. I do “pastoral” counseling. I know my limits also. I am familiar with the mental health/mental illness resources in the area and will quickly refer someone to a “professional” before I get in over my head. I can comfort someone in grief and help them make some sense out of their loss. When it crosses the line to a major depression, I refer. All clergy should recognize the limits of their ability in this area. If you don’t, you can cause a lot of damage.
Now, let’s look at some numbers. First, who participated in the study?
- 85 - Number in the study
- 68 - Number of women
- 17 - Number of men
- 39.5 - Mean age of people in the study.
- 71 - Protestant
- 14 - Catholic
- 87.1 % - Caucasian
- 89.4% - From the United States
- 43.5% - Married
- 73% - at least some college
What psychological disorders were present in the sample?
- 87.1% - Anxiety disorders
- 85.9% - Mood disorders
- 28.2% - Borderline personality disorders
- 24.7% - Eating disorders
- 15.3% - Schizophrenia and psychotic disorders
- 15.3% - Dissociative disorders
- 14.1% - Substance abuse disorders
- 8.2% - attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
How can those numbers add up to more than 100%?
- 64% - number of participants that have more than one disorder
How are these people being treated?
- 77.6% - being treated with medication, psychotherapy/counseling or both
- 22.4% - presently receiving no treatment for their illness
Here comes the numbers that disturbed me.
- 41.2% - number told by someone at their church that they did not have a mental illness even though they had been diagnosed by a mental health professional.
- 28.2% - Number who reported that someone at their church suggestedthey stop taking their medication.
- 36.5% - number who reported that someone at their church suggestedtheir mental illness was the result of personal sin.
- 34.1% - number who reported that someone at their church suggested that their mental illness was the result of demonic involvement.
These numbers are troubling for several reasons. There is a basic misunderstanding of the origin of mental illnesses. While I have no studies to back this up, I suspect that a far smaller percentage would suggest that a diabetic does not really have diabetes; or a diabetic should stop taking their insulin; or a diabetic is a diabetic because of personal sin; or even that a diabetic is a diabetic because of demonic involvement.
So why do we do it with mental illness? I believe it is because we understand so little about it and clergy are not trained properly.
When asked how their church interaction had affected their personal faith, 14.7 % said it had weakened their faith while 12.6% said they were no longer involved in the faith because of this incident.
The study by Stanford and McAlister goes on to say that these “results are troubling because they suggest that an initial negative interaction with the local church may cause hurting and wounded individuals to isolate themselves from potentially beneficial support system, the religious community.”
Remember this, my friends, “. . . whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40)
Add A Comment