Is it wrong for a counselor to discourage divorce?

In our Marriage and Family class, the prompt said: "A frequent criticism of faith-based counselors is that we counsel couples to remain in marriage when spouses are expressing intent to end the marriage.

"Can our passion for the institution of marriage block our objectivity in preforming a professional/contractual service? Does the morality of marriage extend to offering a subtle resistance or outright impediment to a person who seeks to end a marriage? As a professional counselor, what role does divorce play in your philosophy of marriage and family therapy? Present your argument with compliance towards your ethical obligation to the profession and your moral obligation to your religious views."

S. M. replied: "I approach the topic of divorce similarly to other culturally difficult issues. My first question is “Does God have a will (or a preference) on this topic and if so, can I understand what His will is?” In other words, is this topic addressed clearly in Scripture? If not, I choose to act or believe based on my understanding of what would be consistent with other Scriptures. If Scripture has a plain meaning on a topic, I take that as God’s will or preference which compels me as a Christian to believe and obey. If there is not a plain meaning, then I use Scripture to interpret Scripture as well as other sound theological methods to discern as best I can what God’s will is. Since divorce is addressed in Scripture over 30 times, I have come to an understanding of what I believe is God’s will on that topic. See Smith (2010) for an excellent discussion on divorce, culture, and religion.

"Despite having a personal theological position on divorce, I do not present impediments to clients who seek to end or save a marriage (unless helping them explore the emotional, practical, social, and spiritual consequences of divorce or remaining married is impeding). My role as a counselor is to help clients explore the full implications and impact their choices have on themselves and their loved ones. I do not advise clients to remain in a marriage or to actively pursue divorce even when I disagree with their decision. They must make that choice for themselves."

I said: "Does the proscription of divorce spring from the will of God merely, or does it spring from what is perfective of human nature?  In other words, is it an arbitrary law which we obey because God told us to, or did God tell us to because obeying the law leads to human flourishing?

"Also, would you (do you) present data which would tend to downplay the negative effects of divorce, or do you (would you) share that data which will help people do good? 

"I have a client whose mother was very ill: her father had their youngest (adult) son move all but the barest essentials out of the house while he and his wife were away for the day, and when they pulled into the driveway, the husband ran to his truck and left forever.  Her mother, who was not abusive, or unfaithful (since you ask), and who carried on living in the big empty house with one chair, one plate, and one set of silverware, told my client that her father was living with another woman a few blocks away.  A few days later, she cut ceiling and floorboards away so she could hang herself from the floor joists, which she proceeded to do, succesfully.  Whereupon, her husband rushed back in to occupy the house, claim the life insurance, and insist on his rights to make funeral arrangements.  I tell the story because it is inherently interesting, but also because there was no downside for the husband, from either a utilitarian perspective, or from a therapeutic/expressivist point of view.  What would you have advised him, before the fact? "

      S. M. replied: "I think you are asking me what I would have advised the father in this case.  First of all, he set a boundary in a very harsh way and with deception.  He also set that boundary by triangling in his children, forcing them to participate in his abandonment of the family.  Finally, he left your client with an unstable parent, abandoning and not protecting her and leaving her to manage her mentally unstable mother.  Had the father been my client, given me the scenario of the wife's illness and his desperate desire for something to change (maybe he wanted her to go to the hospital, get evaluated, get on meds, whatever), I would have helped him explore options that would have set boundaries in a more godly way.  He did not have to leave punitively. He should not force his children to solve his marital issues. He should not abandon a child to live with a grieving, unstable mother.  His actions show vindictiveness, not boundary setting.  

      "This father's choices will most certainly have a downside, and already have - he has lost a trusting relationship with his children and caused them great emotional (and probably spiritual) damage.  I firmly believe that scripture teaches that God's justice will reign.  Whether all is made right in this life or in eternity for this man I do not know.  What "right" looks like could take many forms and is up to the One who judges to ascertain whether justice has been served.  Sometimes justice ends in punishment and eternal separation from God.  Sometimes justice ends with acknowledgement, repentance, and restoration. 

     "There are many steps along the way to divorce.  It is sad that clients often wait until the situation has escalated to a near frenzy of panic before seeking help.  Exploring ways to respond to hurts without inflicting punitive, vengeful consequences on the offender (the father in this case) or on the innocent but highly impacted bystanders (the son and daughter) would be my therapeutic goal.  Each week I struggle alongside clients who must make hard choices in "knotty" situations. 

     "Finally, I'm not sure, at this stage of my life, whether it matters to me why I obey God - whether it is "just because" or whether it is for my own good.  Either way, He is God and I am not.  Because I trust His character, I try to obey in faith, similarly to how my children had to obey me at times.  I am okay with not understanding the "why" behind some of God's directives because I am confident in His goodness."  

     So I said: "Thanks for your response.  You seem to have understood me to ask about your own motivation, but that was not what I was thinking about.  What occupied my mind was why God commands us not to divorce--just because he wants to, or because it is perfective of our natures?  In your own life, you don't need necessarily to bother answering why you obey (I can see your motivation is probably "both"); but it is an urgent question with regards to how counseling works, so I will impose on your patience one more time. But first, a couple of clarifications: the mother was physically ill, not mentally ill; second, my client was an adult and out of the home at the time of the incidents. So mental illness and child welfare do not enter into the case.

      "Now, on the standard, ACA view, there is no reason to advise my client's father not to divorce. And in your original post, you said you would not advise clients to stay or go; yet here you clearly (and quite rightly) imply that you would advocate for a different course of action for this unhappy man: your hypothetical approach would be based on the facts that he should not ask his children to get involved, that he should explore less "harsh" boundary-setting, and that he should not resort to deception.

     "You are absolutely spot on, but by ACA lights, you have no right to be. What, after all, is wrong with being harsh? And what's wrong with using deception? Everything worked out great for the father, who, alone, is your client: he had a new relationship with a woman to whom he was attracted, he was financially secure, he was unfrustrated. Since the only basis for the proscription of divorce (or of harshness or of deception) is (let us say for the sake of argument) that God said so, then the only basis for "helping him explore" other options is our own religious bias. Again, don't get me wrong: in my experience, secularist counselors all the time use "help explore" as a convenient euphemism for "subtly influence," according to their vague utilitarian ethics.

     "If, on the other hand, it is objectively bad (unhealthy) for a client to pursue a morally evil course, then the situation is completely different. If, that is, being a bad person objectively leads to unhappiness for that person, then it would be wrong not to try to help your client to avoid such a fate."