TPC Journal V7, Issue 2 - FULL ISSUE

114 Laura Boyd Farmer An Examination of Counselors’ Religiosity, Spirituality, and Lesbian-, Gay-, and Bisexual- Affirmative Counselor Competence The Professional Counselor Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 114–128 http://tpcjournal.nbcc.org © 2017 NBCC, Inc. and Affiliates doi:10.15241/lbf.7.2.114 Laura Boyd Farmer is an Assistant Professor at Virginia Tech University. Correspondence can be addressed to Laura Farmer, 1750 Kraft Drive, Suite 2004, Blacksburg, VA 24061, lbfarmer@vt.edu. Counselors in school and community settings, counselor educators and counseling students ( N = 453) participated in a study of self-perceived competence to serve lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) clients. Using the same large data set as Farmer, Welfare, and Burge (2013), the author examined different research questions focused on counselor religiosity and spirituality. Through multiple regression analysis, the following variables predicted LGB-affirmative counseling competence: counselors’ self-identified religiosity, spirituality, education, number of LGB clients counseled and LGB interpersonal contact. Spirituality had a positive relationship with competence, whereas religiosity was negatively related. Further exploration of the intersection of counselor religiosity and spirituality as it relates to LGB- affirmative counseling is warranted. Keywords : LGB, lesbian, gay, bisexual, religiosity, spirituality, counselor competence Lesbian-, gay- and bisexual- (LGB-) affirmative counseling encompasses a broad base of knowledge, awareness of attitudes, and skills that affirm and honor the lived experiences of sexual orientation diverse individuals, representing the ethical standard of care for all non-heterosexual clients (Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Counseling, 2012; Israel & Selvidge, 2003). Whitman and Bidell (2014) defined LGB-affirmative counseling as “a practice that adopts a science-based perspective of LGB sexual (or affectional) orientations as normal and healthy expressions of human development, sexuality, relationship, and love” (p. 164). In the last decade, the issue of providing competent, affirming care to clients who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) has risen to the forefront of professional dialogue for counselors. Two legal cases ( Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley , 2011; Ward v. Polite , 2012) inspired meaningful discussion about the intersection of counselors’ religious and spiritual values and ethical counseling practices when working with sexual orientation diverse clients. The American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics (2014) mandates that counselors attend to value conflicts while working with clients to avoid the potentially harmful imposition of personal values (Kaplan, 2014). Still, some counselors are left with the task of integrating conflicting religious values with competent and affirming counseling practices with LGB clients (Herlihy, Hermann, & Greden, 2014; Robertson & Avent, 2016). The political and social landscape surrounding LGB issues in the United States is in a state of flux. While the historic Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) decision established marriage equality for same- sex couples nationally, there have been conflicting influences on affirmative care. Conscience clause legislation, intended to protect mental health practitioners who deny services based on their own “sincerely held principles” (TN HB1840, 2016), has emerged in several states (e.g., Mississippi, Tennessee) as a response to the revised ACA Code of Ethics (2014). Conversion therapy or reparative therapy remains legal in 45 states despite being discredited and ethically opposed by all major mental health professions, including the ACA (American Psychological Association, 2017; Whitman, Glosoff, Kocet, & Tarvydas, 2013). Specifically, those ascribing to some religious affiliations assume a moral stance against non-heterosexual partnerships which is often rooted in narrow scriptural interpretations and traditional views on what constitutes a marriage (Lalich & McLaren, 2010). Smith and Okech (2016a) further probed professional discourse through their investigation of the Council