While rummaging around the web for New Thought stuff, I came across this article called A license to treat. The author does not provide their name so I cannot give them credit. They were a RScP (Religious Science Practitioner) and went through the same program towards becoming a practitioner that I am. Over the years, the name of the organization was changed to Centers for Spiritual Living. From the conversations I’ve had, it was to distinguish them as a different organization from Christian Science and Scientology.
The author’s blog is heart felt and takes a stern look at the organization of CSL. Nothing wrong with that. The author and I had a nice chat in the comment section of their blog. I believe them to be sincere. Their article on leaving the organization, called Deep Sorrow, was very moving to me.
I began my practitioner program in 2021. The article was written in 2021, so they existed the organization at the same time I am entering. I am assuming we encountered the same people, the same learning materials, etc. As someone who is about to earn my RScP in Religious Science, I’d like to offer my thoughts, not about their experiences, because those are unique to them and not for me to question. I merely want to comment on credentialing in general.
The topic of the article centers around the choice of the word “license” by the Centers for Spiritual Living for their practitioners. In the article, the author looks at the definitions of three levels of credentialing within the mental health profession:
- Registration
- Licensure
- Certification
The author does not cite the source of those definitions, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the categories. The thrust of the article revolves around the ethics of a practitioner working with the public in a mental-health capacity. I too share those concerns, but I have a different perspective based on the training I received.
Credentialing is a curious beast
I came to this 3-year RScP program with a M.Ed. In eLearning Design (basically an instructional design degree for online learning), 18-years as Assistant Professor in college, and being a retired LMT (Licensed Massage Therapist). I came into the program also asking questions about the nature of the “license”. As a LMT, my license was held by the State. The requirements to become an LMT were that I graduated from massage school that was recognized by the state and passed an exam. Massage schools teach theory and have hands-on training with an instructor. You get plenty of feedback. You learn the do and don’t, ethics, proper draping of a client, intake, documentation. You learn what the scope of practice is and to stay in your lane.
As an Assistant Professor, I advised students academically for over 18 years. There were some “in-service” professional development for advising. However, the training was optional. Advising students was required. I got some educational psychology theory in my M.Ed. Program. However, there were plenty of professors teaching whose expertise was in a discipline far removed from the humanities and had no training in teaching or advising. Everyone learned through experience on the job. This was an accredited college.
When advising students, there is also a scope of practice. We are instructed to keep our advising to the curriculum. We are not there as life coaches, although we are there to help a student determine if they are in the best major given their interests. We are not allow to comment on aptitude. The grades and feedback are our assessment. Every academic interaction must be documented in the event a student files a grievance, repeals a grade, etc.
The 2-year program that I have taken through the Centers of Spiritual Living has been thorough. The difference between counseling and spiritual guidance was emphasized. In the online program, my teachers were ordained ministers who had been practicing for dozens of years from many geographic locations. Many of my classmates were therapists, massage therapists, chaplains, educators, doctors, etc that all brought their expertise, comments, and feedback to the discussion. We were repeatedly told that we don’t diagnose. We don’t advise. We are not therapists. If we sense that someone needs more than we can provide, we should refer them to a professional trained in that area. We are encouraged to keep a list of resources handy for that purpose. The only thing we do is try to help a client determine what beliefs are underlying their experience, and then offer some protocols to help them shift those beliefs.
The license, RScP (Religious Science Practitioner) is held by the CSL (Center for Spiritual Living, formerly Church of Religious Science) organization, not the State. A license is held, and overseen by an ordained minister, much in the same way as a Nurse Practitioner would work under an M.D., or a new LPC would work under a supervising LPC.
To imply that the healthcare system is fool proof is fool hardy. My wife, a licensed Social Worker, has many stories of the dysfunction in the mental health profession. I have stories of the dysfunction in the higher education profession. And the online news is ripe with stories of malpractice by priests, doctors, CEOs, politicians, CFOs, etc. all who have been trained in accredited organizations and have a credential to practice.
A credential simply states that someone has gone through a program of study, has had training, oversight, testing, grit, and the fortitude and interest to make it through an extended program of study. Beyond that, personal ethics are the only thing keeping your therapist, priest, minister, or doctor out of the headlines.
In the program, I have written dozens of “thought papers” describing my understanding of the principles. I have received valuable feedback to refine my understanding. I have been paired with different students and existing practitioners to practice and get feedback on my application. Each semester we are required to get a paid session with experienced practitioners to see how different people approach the process of a session. I passed a final exam. I took and passed an oral panel existing of a minister and two experienced practitioners, that don’t know me, to assess my understanding.
Having received my license, I am required to serve the organization in a number of capacities: teaching, prayer, running groups, serving on a board, creating materials, and continuing my education through CEUs. That is far more thorough than the process I went through to maintain my license in massage therapy. It is similar to the annual review I had as a professor where I had to document my activities in teaching, service, and scholarship.
Is the word license the best word to use for the designation of RScP, which stands for Religious Science Practitioner? Probably not. Most simply call themselves Practitioners. In my classes, my instructors spoke of a movement to change the credential to Spiritual Coach which is totally consistent with the process of becoming a life coach, which by the way, is an unregulated industry. The credential of License simply means the practitioner has done a deep dive into the practice and has been trained in ethics, the protocol of a session, and has been given a set of guidelines to follow. It is a way vetting people with a deeper understanding of the principles of Science of Mind to charge for their time in working with the community. I don’t see how that is different than any other profession I have been credentialed in.