Module 26: Ethics and Character

9/23/2018

Welcome to Module 26!

In this module, we will discuss ethics and character in the practice of spiritual guidance. One of the main entry points into this discussion is inspired by Dr. Lisa Fullam, associate professor of moral theology, who writes about (and practices) virtue ethics. She writes, “Most of the time, when we think of ethics, we think of judging actions right or wrong. Virtue ethics starts instead with the insight that our actions, by and large, are not isolated decisions that we make, but arise from our character, the deeper complement of typical patterns of behavior that we exhibit, and the values that we hold. These character traits are not static, but are shaped and re-shaped continually by the actions we choose, and our reflection on those actions and their meaning in our lives. In an ethics of virtue, questions about actions find their moral valence in light of their effect on character.

You may download Module 26 here:

module26.docx
File Size:	20 kb
File Type:	docx

Download File

Share and Connect

Once you leave a comment or question, be sure to put a check mark in the box that says you wish to be notified of responses. When someone comments on the module, you will receive notification of their response in your e-mail inbox. We will be checking in regularly to address comments.

Please try to post module-based questions here, rather than sending us a separate e-mail. It will be easier to keep Q & A in one place, so everyone benefits. Of course, if you have a question of a more personal nature, please e-mail us.

We hope you will check in once each week to let us know how you are doing and to connect with your classmates.

Let the conversation begin! We welcome your thoughts and look forward to chatting it up with you!

“Courage is the most important of all the virtues because without courage, you can’t practice any other virtue consistently.”
Maya Angelou

9 Comments

Jeffrey Phillips

9/30/2018 07:26:35 pm

RQ (the RQ references "Blythe," but I have not read anything by her yet, so my reflections are based on the SDI Guidelines and my own experience).

1a. Limits. The spiritual guide recognizes her limits in terms of the number of people she can reasonably see, and the spacing between seekers. How much sacred space can one heart hold? This also refers to the necessity of making appropriate referrals. The quote in the RQ (not sure where it comes from) reminds us that the sessions are not about us, our agendas or priorities, and that advice-giving is not the purpose of spiritual direction. I need to remember this!

1b. Dual Relationships. Life is complicated enough without providing spiritual guidance for friends, neighbors, co-workers, or parishioners for spiritual guidance. Refer them to someone you know, or to the SDI website. This can get messy, and I know from personal experience!

1c. I'm not sure what this is referring to, but it is good to be discerning regarding people who come to see us. This is a good reminder not to be too dependent on income from spiritual direction because, if we are, it may lead us to take on too many seekers and not be discriminating as to whether it's a good "fit" or not. Some people may need a pastor or a counselor more than a spiritual guide - or a different king of spiritual guide, such as someone from a specifically Roman Catholic or evangelical tradition. Potential seekers who excite us because they are cute may best be referred to someone else.

1d. Confidentiality and Mandated Reporting. This is critically important advice: speak up front with the seeker before the first session or during the first session about these matters. Also have them in writing as part of a covenant (SDI Guidelines, II, 1 and II, 3). I believe in putting things in writing!

1e. Physical boundaries. Yes: whose needs are being met? I am not a big hugger, but will hug when it seems right. I realized recently that I tend to hug women more than men. Why? Because I'm physically larger? Because I think it is more welcome by women? Because I know that they know I'm gay and am therefore "safe"? Are any of these justifications for hugging people who may not even want a hug? As the RQ asks, "Whose needs are being met here?"

1f. Length and cost of sessions. Length seems to be customarily set at 45 minutes to an hour. I think it was Mabry who said it is a "red flag" when sessions extend beyond an hour. As for cost, I do think we should charge as the seeker is then more invested in the session. It would also be good to consider serving people who cannot afford "full fare" by charging them less. These matters should also be set out in initial conversations and covenants between seeker and guide (SDI Guidelines, II, 1).

1g. Contact outside of sessions. It is standard in Vince's field for therapists to refuse gifts from patients, and to politely decline patients' offers of dinners and social interactions outside the hospital. Sounds reasonable for spiritual guides as well (although not for clergy when it comes to social interactions).

Jan

10/2/2018 09:32:34 pm

Jeffrey, I appreciate you teasing these guidelines out. I especially appreciate the comments on hugging. I do believe we should not assume anyone wants to be hugged. This would be a good question to ask. It is also prudent to look at body language, yes? That will tell us a lot. (Likely nay...) As a woman, I am very cautious about hugging male seekers. Generally, I do not. Just safer that way.

9/30/2018 08:10:55 pm

RQ 2 (virtue ethics). This was an awesome article that pointed back to the inner life of the practitioner as the source of ethics, rather than arbitrary lists of rules based on someone else's (or society's) standards of "right" and wrong." The "internal moral compass" is what needs awareness and intentional development as we slog our way through ethical matters rather than memorizing and following rules. Like everything else in ministry or spiritual guidance, what matters is what is already within us and how attentive we are to it. When presented with a tough ethical dilemma that could be decided wither way, or a "borderline" boundary decision, looking to the books will only be partially helpful. What matters is that we consult our own values and principles, and ask the questions suggested by Fullam: How will this or that decision extend virtue and justice as we understand them based on our own internal scales of right and wrong? And, most interesting, will a certain decision help us build our moral character or degrade our moral character?

The latter question brought to mind the Five Precepts of Buddhism and the comments of a monk I talked to (also found in Harvey's book). The monk taught me that a life of meditation and spiritual progress is founded on moral conduct. One can't expect meditation to produce character. Rather, it's the other way 'round: clean living, if you will, "prepares the way" (a la John the Baptist) for spiritual growth. So, we live into greater internal spaciousness by being aware of what's important to us ethically and seeking to align the outer life with the inner values. Makes sense!

I also appreciated in this article the wise definition of "prudence." Prudential living happens when a virtue is understood to be the middle ground between two vices - negative extremes on either side of the virtue. For example, care is a virtue. The two vices on either extreme side are neglect and over-responsibility. Virtues are set in opposition to vices, defined as excesses at one extreme and deficits at the other. In the example of care, over-responsibility is the excess and neglect is the deficit. The other example Fullam offered was the virtue of humility. Its extreme vices are pride (an excess) and self-debasement (a deficit). This is truly brilliant! I can't help but think of Buddhism's (sensible) Middle Way here.

I also found myself thinking of Carol Gilligan's (feminist) relational theory of moral development as I read Fullam. It's about people, not rules (p. 89), and specifically it's about the unique circumstances of the people we must make ethical decisions about and our relationships with them. We are responsible to/for others in that the decision we make have real impacts on them, regardless of the "rules" that may seek to guide us from the outside. Only careful internal reflection will help us consider how our own character will be enhanced by a specific preferred ethical decision that touches another human being.

Likewise, I appreciated Fullam's reference to imagination as key to the ethical life. We need to have some idea - a vision - of what the "good life" is for ourselves and for all if we are to build an internal sense of right and wrong (moral character). She is right: for Christians, it is Jesus' core concept of the "kingdom (reign) of God."
Then, as we live this life with integrity, "the witness of our own lives represents the vision of spiritual life that we offer our clients as much, or more than, do our words or professional skills" (p. 95).

So I end where I started: ethics has an inside-out trajectory. Virtues are clarified, and re-clarified, within, and then lived externally with the same kind of imaginative flexibility that gave birth to them internally. In other words, ethics is principally what WE bring to the moral decision-making process, not what is presented to us in a Code of Conduct (which, as an interior character-building, virtue-constructing tool, can still be very helpful).

Jeanette

10/3/2018 11:15:08 am

I so appreciate how you brought forth the example of vices/virtues and middle ground. Virtue ethics says that practices form habits - if I want to be compassionate, I practice compassion. So I nourish compassion until it's a habit, until there are no shoulds, but I act with compassion because it is just who I am.
I wonder how discernment contributes to this inside-out trajectory that you wrote about. What a fabulous point!

10/6/2018 11:51:33 am

RQ (Boundary Videos).

1. a. Power Dynamics. Our power relative to our seekers comes from the unique role we have with them. They have come to us as seekers, not friends. They have come to "get" something from us, with some degree of trust in us as trained, certified, and experienced guides. The trust they put in us is necessary for the relationship to have benefit, but it can also be abused in the many ways that all four videos address. But if we are not aware of the power that we have with our seekers, we are more likely to allow the relationship to stray in unhelpful, unhealthy, and potentially damaging directions. I most appreciate how the interviewees recognize that guides/pastors/teachers often do not feel powerful relative to our seekers/students/congregants, and, in fact, we may feel vulnerable and powerless relative to them. However, as spiritual guides/teachers, we offer the currency of our non-anxious, compassionate, healing presence to offer them, and this is valuable. And when you have something of value that other people need and want, you have power.

Another way to think of this is in terms of perception. I often don't feel like a pastor, or that I know how to be a pastor, or that I'm not a very good pastor. But the perception of those who encounter me is, "Here's a pastor!" From the inside, I feel I don't know what I'm doing, but from the outside, I may be perceived as wise, holy, kind, knowledgeable, etc. The power in the relationship isn't in the objective reality of our role, but in how that role is perceived by the seeker/student/parishioner. As they say, "perception is reality." In this case, the way we are perceived becomes the client's reality, and, in their mind and heart, if not in ours, there is a power differential.

b. Dual Relationships. As the video points out, dual relationships are unavoidable in ordained ministry. However, in the spiritual guidance setting, they are usually avoidable - and best avoided! This has been one of my important learnings in this past year, and I am grateful to Jan, my boss, John Mabry, and these videos for helping me to see this.

It's challenging, however, when someone wants you to be their spiritual director because they know you from another setting (family, neighborhood, work, church) and, because of that, they feel like you'd be someone they can talk to about spiritual matters. In other words, they want to talk to YOU, not a stranger. Our job, then, is to help them understand why it's best to work with a director who will be their director only, and not wear other "hats" with them. This is challenging because that is not what the seeker wants, and most are not likely to go to the SDI website and find someone else. The make rabbi in the video says how he has learned to present a boundary with humor so that it is not heard as rejection. I'd like to learn that skill!

c. Intimacy. This is a rich teaching. As the Zen teacher says, what we all desire is to be stripped down to our naked, vulnerable selves with another human being who sees us as we are, inside and out, and still loves us. Wow. As the video says, this intimacy comes in many forms: physical, spiritual, and emotional, and "sometimes we confuse intimacies." Or rather, without careful reflection and constant awareness, a healthy and appropriate intimacy can lead to another, less healthy, form of intimacy. As Gail Crouch, the UCC pastor, says, it is always the job of the professional to set the boundaries with our clients/students/directees, recognizing when we are tempted to cross in unhealthy ways. It is NOT the responsibility of the seeker to draw, recognize, or say No to inappropriate boundaries. It is ours. That is why this module is so important! There should be no doubt that spiritual guidance is an experience of intimacy. It must be for it to meaningful, but, as with power (and fire), this intimacy can be used for good or for ill. And it depends on us as professionals to stay in the right intimacy lane.

d. Self-care. It is so simple, but so true: if we as spiritual guides get our own needs for intimacy (spiritual, emotional, physical) met outside our relationships with our seekers, we are less likely to expect/want/unknowingly stray into inappropriate spaces with our seekers. I like Pastor Jim's comment that, upon waking every morning, we need to decide our plan for self-care for that day, and then determine to follow it. It's a daily decision, not a once-in-a-lifetime event. This includes spending quality time with our primary relationships - spouse, children, best friends, etc. I think it was one of the Zen teachers who put it simply but powerfully, "Bottom line: a teacher should never want or need anything from a student." Wow. That kind of sums up boundaries right there.

10/6/2018 11:59:42 am

RQ (Boundary Videos)

2. Resistance. Honestly, I do not feel resistance to anything said in these videos, but am interested in hearing "resistances" of others in the cohort. I used these videos for ten years when I was in charge of teaching boundaries to UCC clergy in Chicago. Seeing them again is like seeing old friends, and I find them inviting, challenging, and energizing. And, as often as I have seen them, and as much as I like them, I find the practice of healthy boundary tending to be difficult in "real life." That is why this is such an important topic. As knowledgeable as we might be of the principles of healthy boundaries, it is hard to be self-aware enough in our daily work as spiritual teachers/guides to recognize a boundary when it creeps up. I say "creeps up" because that is my experience of how boundaries operate. We often don't realize that we are on the verge of an unhealthy crossing until it is staring us in the face - or we have already stepped over and wish we hadn't! I can give tons of examples from my ministry and life, but need not do so here. In other words, this is a topic that needs constant attention and re-attention by therapists, lawyers, clergy, school teachers, and spiritual guides, too.

10/6/2018 12:59:47 pm

RQ (Projection, Transference, and Counter-transference).

1. Positive. As Jeanette teaches, projection can build empathy between seeker and guide, although it would seem to me that it is a misplaced or false empathy because you are assuming that the rapport you are feeling in the relationship is because the other person feels like you do, which may not be true and would just lead to later disappointment. However, if the guide is aware that projection from seeker to guide is going on, it can help her identify the seeker's "real" issues. If it is going on in the other direction (guide to seeker), and the guide can develop awareness of it, it can help the guide know that he has work to do on his issues, and needs to do that work outside of the spiritual guidance setting.

Likewise, transference and counter-transference can be positive as they are the "juice in the relationship" (to quote the male Zen teacher in the boundary videos) that makes the relationship come alive. However, as I said above, to call this "positive" seems to be misleading because when the guide does not have awareness of the, transference and counter-transference are unhealthy. without awareness of them, a relationship in which they are operating is based on a lie of sorts - that the guide is, in the perception of the seeker, just another teacher like that teacher they had in fourth grade, or that the seeker is, in the perception of the guide, just like that last seeker, or the seeker from five years before, or one's own self at a certain age. No. Each seeker is unique, each teacher is unique, and each relationship is unique.

Again, as Jeanette teaches, counter-transference by a guide can be "an opening to inner truth and transformation." Yes, but only when recognized by a guide who determines to make good use of this realization. Like everything else in this spiritual guidance business, it's all about taking courageous action based on the insights one receives from the consistent practice of wise and fierce self-awareness!

2. Negative. I appreciate Jeanette's comments about the unhealthy consequences of unacknowledged projection, which can "foster hostility and negativity." If I as a guide am anxious as I begin a session, it is only a matter of time until I project my anxiety upon the seeker by being impatient and judgmental with her. If I am feeling light-hearted and even impish as I begin a session, I may interpret all that is said and felt by the seeker in terms of my own silly internal disposition that day. Again, quoting Jeanette, "We can cast crumminess or hope upon a client when neither may be appropriate." It would seem better for us as guides to empty ourselves of ourselves before we sit with a seeker so that we can contain, hold, and "create space for" their them as they really are - without contamination from our emotional and mental states of being.

Likewise, I appreciate the specificity of Jeanette's teaching about what can happen when a guide unconsciously practices counter-transference. The guide "overinvests" in the seeker's story, or pushes the seeker to act in a certain way, or makes sexual advances, or shares too many details of her own story, or offers a lot of advice (me!), or criticizes/judges the seeker's beliefs. I also appreciate Jeanette's reminder to use the Pure Presence model of listening that is not only about listening to the other, but listening to one's self. Again, it's all about self-awareness!

Yes, if a guide is aware that a client is engaging in transference, it gives the guide an opportunity to reflect back what she is noticing and thereby allow the conversation to grow deeper. However, there's a lot that can go wrong when a seeker transfer thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and needs to the guide! And since it is not likely that the transference can end simply by pointing it out, it remains an ongoing challenge for the guide to work with it so it continues to be a "plus" and not a "minus." This seems daunting to me, and probably why we need lots and lots of practice with this, and a commitment to ongoing peer and personal supervision after we become certified.

Barbara

10/7/2018 02:25:13 pm

As I read/watch all these important teachings/reminders about boundaries and ethics, I am so grateful for the ways we have been taught in our program. The attention to our own internal and external responses in our sessions, the tools to help us ground again if we are lost in our own feelings/ thoughts/fantasies are so valuable. I feel well supported in have information and tools to minimize the risk of getting involved in unethical or potentially damaging relationships with seekers. That said, I am probably most susceptible to being overinvested in the outcomes or progress of my seekers' lives. And I can go back to my resting place, and to my supervisor when that happens! Speaking of which....I can't believe that my current supervisory relationship ends in January! Then what?!

10/8/2018 09:47:39 am

Thanks, Barbara. What happens after January is a good question! We will be talking about that in the next months. One thing for certain is we highly encourage everyone to join a monthly peer group. Our cohort could be the start of one, or you could join peer groups in your geographical area, or you could join an online one.

Module 26: Ethics and Character

Share and Connect

Leave a Reply.

Cohort home & resource page