The American Counseling Association and the American Association of Christian Counselors both contain a Code of Ethics. This paper will discourse the differences and similarities between a Christian Counselor and a non-Christian Counselor. The differences and similarities range from general to specific. General differences include their overall position of the assisting profession. yet the codifications are rather similar in the chase to make no injury to those they serve. Upon farther review. it is apparent the differences and similarities as they refer to competence. coverage of co-workers and sexual familiarities. As stated in the debut to the Code of Ethics for the American Association of Christian Counselors. may God allow grace for the undertaking to spot the differences and similarities of each codification. and the bravery to populate consequently.
Even though the American Association of Christian Counselors and the American Counseling Association has the same rubric for their Code of Ethics does non connote that they have the same criterions nor does it intend that they have many differences. However hard it might be for a counsellor to follow a Code of Ethics. it is imperative. It is the function of each Counselor to read through their Code of Ethics. to spot the truth from the falsenesss and to pattern their life and pattern consequently. The differences and similarities of each Code of Ethics scope from general to specific. The general difference is the overarching position of assisting profession in each codification. The debut. mission and foundations of each codification define their overall stances on the guidance profession. and it is in these three countries that the differences of the ACA and the AACC are so clearly defined. The ACA’s mission is as follows. “The mission of the American Counseling Association is to heighten the quality of life in society by advancing the development of professional counsellors. progressing the guidance profession and pattern of reding to advance regard for human self-respect and diverseness. ” ( ACA. 2005 ) .
In contrast the AACC’s mission is “The mission of the Code is to assist progress the cardinal mission of the AACC-to bring award to Jesus Christ and advance excellence and integrity in Christian Counseling ; promote the public assistance and protect the self-respect and cardinal rights of all persons. households. groups. churches. schools. bureaus. ministries. and other organisations with whom Christian counsellors work ; supply criterions of ethical behavior in Christian guidance that are to be advocated and applied by the AACC and that can be respected by other professionals and establishments. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) . Even at first glimpse. one can recognize the in depth nature of the AACC’s Code as opposed to the ACA’s Code. Where as. the ACA’s Code is general and good-humored ; while. the AACC’s Code dives deeper into the criterions of a Counselor and could be considered aggressive. Rather than a wide and mistily worded Code of Ethics. the AACC chooses. “A more comprehensive and behavior-specific ethical codification. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) .
This position is highly scriptural. “I entreaty to you hence. brothers. by the clemencies of God. to show your organic structures as a life forfeit. sanctum and acceptable to God. which is your religious worship. Make non be conformed to this universe. but be transformed by the reclamation of your head. that by proving you may spot what is the will of God. what is good and acceptable and perfect. ” ( Romans 12:1-2 ESV ) A Christian is called to a higher criterion. The AACC supports this by holding four watercourses of influence: “ ( 1 ) the Bible ( Old and New Testaments ) and historic orthodox Christian Theology ; ( 2 ) accepted criterions of guidance and clinical pattern from Christian guidance and the established mental wellness subjects ; ( 3 ) codifications of moralss from other Christian and mental wellness professions ; and ( 4 ) current and underdeveloped criterions derived from mental wellness and ministry-related jurisprudence. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) . Where as. the ACA’s Code of Ethics were non. “Do no harm” is the primary duty of every counsellor. While this phrase could be carried out in different ways. it is a cosmopolitan sentiment seen universally in the guidance profession.
The AACC explains. “Affirmatively. Christian counsellors recognize and uphold the inherent. God-given self-respect of every human individual. from the pre-born to those on death’s bed. Human existences are God’s creation-in fact. the Crown of His creation-and therefore due all the rights and regard and ordered logic that this fact of creative activity entails… Christian counsellors will show a loving attention to any client. service-inquiring individual. or anyone encountered in the class of pattern or ministry… . God’s love is unconditioned and. at this degree of concern. so must that of the Christian counsellor. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) . With a much more direct statement. the ACA explain “do no harm” by stating. “The primary duty of counsellors is to esteem the self-respect and to advance the public assistance of clients. ” ( ACA. 2005 ) . Equally good as general differences and similarities. there are besides particulars of the AACC and ACA. Comparing and contrasting specific codifications vary. but are non limited to. the competency. coverage of co-workers and sexual familiarities.
The American Association of Christian Counselors expounds their treatment of the subject of competency by stating. “We [ Christian Counselors ] cognize and esteem the boundaries of competency in ourselves and others…We make true. realistic statements about our individuality. instruction. experience. certificates. and about reding ends and process…” ( AACC. 2004 ) . This pattern of competency stretches to when to mention a client and when to seek outside aid. Likewise. the ACA considers it a professional duty to use the same moralss to their boundaries of competency. Both ACA and AACC see it the duty of the counsellors to be actively measuring themselves. to supervise effectivity. to go on in instruction and to endeavor to better. If at any point a counsellor should experience as though they are no longer lending to the growing of their clients or get down to let personal jobs impair the guidance procedure. “a counsellor will seek out and utilize those reparative resources that will let for job declaration and a return to a to the full functioning ministry. if possible. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) .
Forming relationships and teamwork are indispensable to any organisation. but struggles with other professionals and employers are inevitable. It is how one decides to decide the struggle that makes the difference. The ACA and AACC recognize that peace-loving and respectful struggle declaration is cardinal to the harmoniousness of any organisation. The differences lie in how each association chooses to peacefully and respectfully decide a struggle. The ACA encourages that under negative conditions. “counselors alert their employers of inappropriate policies and patterns. ” ( ACA. 2005 ) . However. the AACC encourages “resolution of struggles with employers or co-workers shall honour this procedure: ( 1 ) first effort direct dialogues. ( 2 ) so speculation. and ( 3 ) so arbitration and/or adhering arbitration. Litigation ( 4 ) . when considered at all. shall be merely as a last resort and merely in instances of gross unfairness when the piquing party garbages or disdains all sensible offers of non-litigated difference declaration. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) . Sexual familiarities with clients are straight forbidden in the ACA and AACC’s Code of Ethics. The diction of the AACC is more specific than the ACA by supplying an thorough list of sexual behaviours that are out.
The AACC allows for small leeway whereas. the ACA allows for romantic relationships five old ages after appropriate expiration or if an inappropriate counselor-client interaction becomes good to the client. Not merely are former clients out. but besides sexual familiarities that are outside a matrimony honored and blessed by God. Marriage of a former client are acceptable. “so long as ( 1 ) guidance dealingss were decently terminated. and non for the intent of prosecuting matrimony or romantic dealingss. ( 2 ) the client is to the full informed that any farther guidance must be done by another. ( 3 ) there is no injury or development of the client or the client’s household as a consequence of different dealingss with the counsellor. and ( 4 ) the matrimony takes topographic point two old ages or more after the decision of a guidance or assisting relationship. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) . In the eyes of the ACA sexual familiarities outside matrimony are acceptable.
The assisting profession is riffed with moralss and criterions that one must implement into mundane life. Ethical motives are non to be taken lightly. It is imperative to soothe those who are seeking for fulfilment in a manner that will take them to the truth of the Gospel. “May God be exalted. the Holy Spirit invited and Jesus Christ be seen in all of our guidance and assisting enterprises. If done. our clients and parishioners will be blessed and non harmed. their lesions will be healed. their wickednesss forgiven. and they will be given hope for the hereafter. If done. we will take part in a fantastic adventure-one that will probably ne’er turn old or stale-and we will carry through our call to excellence and ethical unity in Christian guidance. ” ( AACC. 2004 ) .
American Association of Christian Counseling Law and Ethics Committee ( 2004 ) . AACCCode of Ethics. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. aacc. net/about-us/code-of-ethics/ American Guidance
Association ( 2005 ) . ACA Code of Ethics. Retrieved fromhttp: //www. guidance. org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2. aspx