challenge of spiritual diversity: Can social work facilitate an inclusive environment?, The

Hodge, David R

Abstract

Social workers' growing interest in spirituality implicitly raises the issue of spiritual diversity. Demographic data indicate that the profession is not reflective of the larger society, with theistic populations such as Evangelical Christians being significantly underrepresented. As social workers wrestle with how to integrate spirituality and religion into social work, the lack of theistic voices may hinder their ability to understand the unique worldviews of Evangelicals and other theists. Indeed, the nontheistic majority may inadvertently shape the profession's emerging spirituality paradigm in such a manner that actually impairs social workers' ability to work with spiritual minorities. The author concludes by examining how the underrepresentation affects clients and suggests a number of steps to facilitate a more diverse profession that fosters respect for spiritual minorities.

TRADITIONALLY, SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE BEEN strong advocates for a diverse profession that reflects society. For instance, in Gibelman and Schervish's (1997) overview of the profession, they noted which groups were underrepresented and recommended that steps be taken to recruit additional members from these groups into the profession. For a profession charged with providing services to all clients (Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers [NASW Code of Ethics], 1999), it is generally held that social work should be as representative as possible of the underlying population that it is called to serve. Indeed, when discussing the area of macro practice, authors have recommended the conscious pursuit of groups that are in danger of being rendered voiceless (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997).

The goal of a representative profession emanates from practical concerns associated with the well-being of clients. Such factors as gender, race, ethnicity, and so forth shape the way individuals understand the world. Distinctive perspectives, cultures, or worldviews develop that frame perceptions of reality. As the NASW Code of Ethics (1999, 1.05) stipulates, in order to work effectively with clients who see the world through a different cognitive lens, social workers must have some understanding of their worldview.

When working with, for example, Hispanic clients, practitioners cannot build upon the strengths of Latinos without having some understanding of the unique strengths that animate the Hispanic population. Because individuals from these discrete populations are best equipped to speak to the profession about their particular worldview, it is critical that the profession reflect the broader society (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997), To follow up on the above example, social workers who are Hispanics are best equipped to articulate the salient points of a Latino worldview, rather than for example, Anglos or non-Hispanic Whites. As Ginsberg (1999) observed, when unknowledgeable outsiders attempt to discuss minority populations, minority perspectives are frequently misunderstood, misstated, and sometimes badly distorted.

The importance of a diverse profession that mirrors the broader society is heightened by the power inherent in professional status. Because of their knowledge, salary, and perhaps most importantly, their ability to construct discourse through teaching, publication, and research, professionals are endowed with a significant amount of power (Gouldner, 1979). Without a diversity of voices, the perspective of the dominant groups within a profession tends to assume the status of a master interpretive worldview or paradigm, in essence a shared understanding of the way the world is constructed (Kuhn, 1970). In turn, as the ethnocentric suppositions of the dominant paradigm are worked out in professional discourse, populations whose worldviews differ are often subject to oppression (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997). Highly influential professional narratives develop that leave little room for the voices of those who view reality differently (Kuhn, 1970). Gilligan's (1993) critique of Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development illustrated how the lack of women in professional circles fosters discrimination toward female understandings of reality. The Tuskegee syphilis study illustrated how the lack of African Americans in professional circles resulted in the use of Blacks as human guinea pigs (Jones, 1993). Likewise, linguistic bias, stereotypes, and other forms of oppression are all fostered by underrepresentation. Without diversity in professional circles, harm may be perpetuated upon underrepresented populations that are all too easily rendered voiceless when worldviews conflict.

Spiritual Worldviews

Just as gender, race, and ethnicity foster the development of a unique perspective, so too can a person's spiritual orientation engender a distinctive worldview (Fellin, 2000; Schmalzbauer, 1993). Indeed, for many individuals, spirituality is fundamental to their personal ontology or sense of being (Gallup & Castelli, 1989; Gallup & Lindsay, 1999). Put differently, for many people spirituality provides them with an interpretive framework for understanding reality that informs them of who they are and how they should live (Maslow, 1968).

Although some theorists have suggested that a spiritual impulse to connect with transcendent reality is a universal phenomenon (Maslow, 1968), it is clear that this impulse is manifested in the form of different spiritual traditions, which in turn engender different worldviews (Richards & Bergin, 1997). Depending upon one's spiritual framework, a wide variety of areas can be affected. For instance, attitudes and practices regarding animals, child care, diet, marital relations, medical care, military participation, recreation, schooling, and many other areas of significance to social workers can all vary according to one's spirituality (Rey, 1997).

The NASW Code of Ethics (1999, 1.05c) recognizes the reality of spiritual diversity. Indeed, social workers arc instructed to obtain knowledge about diversity with respect to religion, the vehicle though which spirituality is commonly expressed (Pargament, 1997). Similarly, the Council on Social Work Education's (CSWE) 2002 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (2001, 6.0) stipulate that social work education should address religious diversity.

Growing Interest in Spirituality

The issue of spiritual diversity is particularly salient in light of the growing interest in spirituality and religion in both public and professional circles. According to Gallup data, public interest in spirituality is increasing, and many individuals are seeking to deepen their relationship with God or the transcendent (Gallup & Lindsay, 1999). Perhaps as a reflection of this heightened interest, many clients desire to have their personal spiritual beliefs and values integrated into the clinical dialogue (Bart, 1998; Privette, Quackenbos, & Bundrick, 1994).

In tandem with the general public, social workers have also evidenced increased interest in spirituality (Canda, 1997). Although it is important to note that advocates of what might be called a "faithblind" profession still exist (Clark, 1994), their influence seems to be diminishing. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 schools of social work have either started or are planning to initiate a course on spirituality and religion (Canda & Furman, 1999). A growing amount of literature addresses topics related to spirituality and religion (Canda, Nakashima, Burgess, & Russel, 1999), and a number of instruments specifically designed to operationalize clients' spiritual strengths have appeared in the literature (Bullis, 1990; Canda & Furman, 1999; Frame, 2000; Hodge, 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Key, 1997).

In light of what Canda and Furman (1999, p. 72) refer to as an "explosion" of interest in spirituality and religion among social work educators and practitioners, the issue of spiritual diversity is particularly important. For the same reasons that social workers seek a profession that mirrors society in the areas of race, ethnicity, and gender, it is critical that social work reflect society's diverse spiritual worldviews.

As suggested above, without an understanding of the diverse spiritual worldviews that compose contemporary society, social workers are left ill-equipped to interact with spiritually related issues in practice settings. Furthermore, if those in the profession are unreflective of the broader culture, they may inadvertently oppress underrepresented groups. Just as a colorblind approach often resulted in the oppression of people of color, so too, a faithblind approach can result in the oppression of people of faith. In short, without a hard look at the issue of spiritual diversity, the biases inherent in the dominant worldview may become institutionalized as the profession seeks to develop models for addressing spirituality and religion.

Differences in Spiritual Worldviews

The extant data indicate that the spiritual worldviews of social workers differ markedly from those affirmed by the general population. As Neumann, Thompson, and Woolley (1992) have observed, social workers generally endorse nontheistic worldviews. A modified version of Lehman's (1974) scale has been widely used (Canda & Furman, 1999; Shafranske, 2001; Sheridan & Amato-von Hemert, 1999) to tap belief in six discrete spiritual worldviews. The choices include an option that is representative of or consistent with a theistic worldview (i.e., belief in a personal God of transcendent existence and power) and options that arc inconsistent with theism (e.g., belief that the transcendent or the divine is unique to the human self and belief that notions of God or the transcendent are illusions; Lauer, 1967; Ludwig, 1987).

Using this scale, researchers have found that most social workers affirm nontheistic spiritual worldviews. For example, researchers studying a random sample of licensed clinical social workers in Virginia (N = 108) found that 70% rejected belief in a personal God in favor of what might be considered deistic, pantheistic, or atheistic worldviews (Sheridan, Bullis, Adcock, Berlin, & Miller, 1992). Similarly, a study of educators from 25 social work programs in 12 southeastern states (N = 280) revealed that 62% rejected belief in a personal God in favor of nontheistic understandings of transcendent reality (Sheridan, Wilmer, & Atcheson, 1994). These findings are consistent with those obtained by Furman, Canda, and Benson (2001) in their nationally representative sample of NASW members (N = 2,069). Similarly, the findings for social workers are comparable to those obtained with random samples of American Psychological Association (APA) psychologists in which anywhere from 64% (of rehabilitation psychologists) to 76% (of clinical and counseling psychologists) affirmed nontheistic worldviews (Shafranske, 2001).

In contrast to social work, the level of theistically oriented belief among the general public is substantially higher (Shafranske, 2001). National survey data indicate that 66% of the general population believes in a personal God (Gallup & Castelli, 1989), the sine qua non of theism (Lauer, 1967; Ludwig, 1987). In their practice-oriented exploration of the implications of various spiritual worldviews, Richards and Bergin (1997) observed that a theistic worldview differs markedly from other major spiritual worldviews. In other words, the nontheistic worldviews affirmed by most social workers differ considerably from the theistic worldview most members of the general population seem to hold.

Another perspective on the difference in worldviews between social workers and the general public is provided by the various faith traditions that are affirmed by social work practitioners and educators. Christianity, the most prominent theistic tradition in the United States, is commonly subdivided into three groups: Evangelical, Catholic, and Mainline (Sheridan et al., 1994). Of the three, Evangelicals are the most numerous and, correspondingly, compose the largest spiritual tradition in the United States (Green, Guth, Smidt, & Kellstedt, 1996; Hutchison, 1999).

Although Evangelical Christians have been conceptualized in various ways (Smith, 2000), it is possible to think about these people of faith as a transdenominational, ecumenical Protestant movement that emphasizes the following three points: (a) salvation only through existential, personal trust in Christ's finished atoning work, (b) a spiritually transformed life marked by moral conduct and personal devotion such as scripture reading and missions, and (c) a belief in the Bible as authoritative and reliable (Marsden, 1987). Evangelicals have developed their own distinctive subculture (Schmalzbauer, 1993; Talbot, 2000), much like Muslims (Smith, 1999), Hindus (Fenton, 1988), and many other faith-based populations (Richards & Bergin, 2000). Of particular interest to social workers is the fact that Evangelicals are disproportionately drawn from minority groups, women, and the poor, groups that have traditionally been denied access to positions of power (Davis & Robinson, 1997; Gallup & Lindsay, 1999; Hunter, 1991).

Evangelicals are also significantly underrepresented in social work, a fact that is in keeping with the disproportionately low number of theists in the profession. For example, in a national sample of Veterans Affairs (VA) social workers (N = 160), presumably a more conservative sampling frame, only 6% of respondents were Evangelicals, and just 3% were conservative Catholics (Neumann et al., 1992). The degree of underrepresentation is even more pronounced among faculty members, a particular concern given the critical role faculty play in education, research, and publication. Among a sample of all full-time faculty at 25 social work schools in 12 southeastern states (N = 280), only 3% were Evangelicals (Sheridan et al., 1994).

Conversely, roughly 25% of the general public are Evangelical Christians (Green et al., 1996; Hutchison, 1999). Although I focus on Evangelicals because of their size and the availability of data, it is important to note the same issues likely apply with other faith groups. For example, although the data are less clear for other traditions, Muslims, conceivably now the second largest theistic tradition in the United States (Smith, 1999), are also underrepresented in die profession (Canda & Furman, 1999; Smith, 1999).

In short, the existing research indicates that the profession is not sufficiendy diverse in the area of spirituality relative to the general population. Evangelicals and other theists are significandy underrepresented. Most social workers seem to affirm what has been referred to variously as a syncretistic, humanistic, or liberal spiritual worldview in which individuals selectively construct their own spiritual frameworks (Bergin & Jensen, 1990; Doherty, 1999; McCullough, Weaver, Larson, & Aay, 2000; Neumann et al., 1992; Sheridan et al., 1994). Consequently, a difference in worldviews exists between the majority of social workers and theistic populations such as Evangelicals (Hodge, 2003).

Diaphobia and Discrimination

As noted in the introduction, differences in worldviews often foster discrimination toward minority perspectives. Gilligan's (1993) critique of Kohlberg's (1981) theory of moral development indicated that discrimination is often inadvertent, fostered by an overrepresentation of a particular group. Certain psychodynamic processes among a minority of social workers, however, may unconsciously intensify the tendency of the majority group to discriminate against underrcprcsented groups in social work settings.

As Genia (2000, p. 218) observed, despite growing interest in the topic of spirituality among mental health professionals, "antireligious biases seem deeply entrenched." Sheridan et al.'s (1992) study of Virginia-based clinical social workers (N = 108) revealed that 44% of respondents were no longer affiliated with the religion of their youth, with the shift occurring almost exclusively away from Christianity to "none" or "other." Similarly, Hodge's (2002c) nationally representative study of graduate-level social workers (N = 53) showed that there is a movement away from Christianity to "none," and possibly "other," in tandem with a shift away from conservative and moderate denominations toward liberal denominations. No similar trends were evident among the general public (Hodge, 2002c).

Larson, Sherrill, and Lyons (1994) have suggested that rejecting the theistic beliefs of one's family of origin in favor of secular beliefs may foster bias toward theists. In Sheridan et al.'s (1992) study of Virginia-based clinical social workers (N = 108), they found that over a third of social workers (36%) reported ambivalent-to-negative feelings toward their religious backgrounds, which, as implied above, were primarily Christian (Hodge, 2002a). Furman et al.'s (2001) nationally representative study of NASW members (N = 2,069) showed that 20% of social workers either agreed or strongly agreed that they felt negative about their childhood religious experiences.

Various theories have been proposed to explain the bias associated with negative theistic sentiment (Gartner, 1986; Gouldner, 1979; Hunter, 1991; Vitz, 1999), which has been referred to as diaphobia, defined as animus toward a worldview in which a transcendent God rather than humankind serves as the ultimate point of reference (Hodge, 2001a). Working from a psychodynamic framework, Vitz (1999) has suggested that negative father images formed in turbulent families of origin are projected onto a transcendent God. A number of studies have found that social workers are more likely to experience various types of traumas, such as sexual abuse, in their families of origin (Black, Jeffreys, & Hartley, 1993; Marsh, 1988; Rompf & Royse, 1994; Russel, Gill, Coyne, & Woody, 1993). Vitz posited that the anger, hurt, resentment, and other negative feelings that may develop in response to a father's failure to protect and nurture are transferred to an omnipotent Father and, by extension, to those who affirm a theistic worldview.

Religious countertransference may be evoked when social workers with diaphobic tendencies encounter theists and their narratives (Genia, 2000). The unresolved hurt associated with negative childhood experiences in theistic families may be elicited in much the same way that a practitioner from a divorced family may experience countertransference biases when working with families undergoing a divorce (Black et al., 1993). The pain from unresolved childhood experiences may foster discrimination toward Evangelicals and other theists. In clinical settings, for instance, animosities rooted in childhood experiences may be projected upon Evangelicals and other theists, resulting in a less empathic stance and more negative appraisals (Gartner, Harmatz, Hohmann, Earson, & Gartner, 1990).

Unconscious attempts by social workers to address childhood psychological wounds may lead to the creation of out-groups, which are implicitly held to deserve discrimination (Gartner, 1986). A shaky sense of personal identity and low self-esteem, which are often associated with a traumatic family of origin, can be fortified by devaluing a theistic worldview, which is consciously or unconsciously perceived negatively. Framing theists as undesirable out-groups functions to enhance personal identity and self-esteem in the context of establishing the moral superiority of the secular in-group, which is implicitly viewed as deserving preferential treatment (Dor-Shav, Friedman, & Tcherbonogura, 1978).

It is important to note that the above material does not mean that all social workers, or even all social workers with negative feelings toward their religious pasts, are necessarily diaphobic. Individuals often work through negative past events, frequently emerging as better persons as a result and becoming capable of, for instance, a deepened ability to empathize with others' pains and struggles (Canda & Furman, 1999). Rather, the above material suggests that a relatively small subset of social workers may wrestle with diaphobia.

Shaping the Emerging Spirituality Paradigm

The lack of Evangelicals and other theists in social work in conjunction with the diaphobic tendencies of some social workers may interact to shape the emerging spirituality paradigm. As discussed above, there is a disproportionately low number of Evangelicals in social work, especially among faculty. Furthermore, this underrepresentation of Evangelicals is compounded by the fact that individuals tend to form social networks with people who share similar worldviews (Scheepers & Van Der Slik, 1998). If social workers' personal networks are largely devoid of Evangelicals, little opportunity exists to hear first hand accounts of an Evangelical perspective. An additional factor affecting awareness relates to the countercultural status of the Evangelical worldview (Talbot, 2000). Social workers are unlikely to be exposed to positive portrayals of Evangelical perspectives in the dominant secular culture (Hunter, 1991; Skill & Robinson, 1994).

In short, few Evangelicals exist among social work faculty, social workers' social networks are unlikely to incorporate Evangelicals, and social workers are unlikely to encounter Evangelical perspectives in mainstream media forums. Because of these factors, there is an almost complete absence of Evangelical influence on the emerging spirituality paradigm. Consequently, because paradigms act to select certain data at the expense of other information, the beliefs, values, and perspectives that are important to the nontheistic majority are likely to be accentuated whereas those of importance to Evangelicals and other theists are likely to be omitted.

Indeed, Cnaan (1999) examined 1,500 papers presented at five Annual Program Meetings (APMs) of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), 35,000 abstracts listed in Social Work Abstracts, 20 widely used social work textbooks on social policy and social welfare history, 50 social welfare course outlines posted at two APMs, and all editions of the Social Work Yearbook and the Encyclopedia of Social Work. In every content area, analysis revealed that Evangelicals' contributions received little or no mention. The antipoverty and social justice efforts of Evangelicals and other people of faith were framed so as to preclude them from "being formally acknowledged or becoming a legitimate partner in the quest to improve the life conditions of those in need" (Cnaan, 1999, p. 48). Similarly, Hodge's (2002b) 10-year review of four leading, opinion-forming journals found that Evangelicals were completely excluded from the reviewed literature.

Although the difference in worldviews may be the most prominent element in fostering discrimination toward minority populations (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997), diaphobia may augment the discrimination. Projected animosity, countertransference biases, the need to create out-groups, and/or other factors (Gouldner, 1979; Hunter, 1991) may result in attempts to devalue Evangelicals by, for example, caricaturizing them in stereotypes (Dor-Shav et al., 1978; Gartner, 1986). Thus, in addition to omitting the perspectives of Evangelicals and other theists, some social workers may seek to denigrate Evangelicals and other theists who hold similar values. Passive disregard may be augmented, at least in some instances, by active attempts to disenfranchise (Gartner, 1986; Genia, 2000).

Although diaphobia may influence the emerging spirituality paradigm, it is important to reiterate that this does not imply that all or even most social workers exhibit diaphobia. Individuals tend to form opinions and make choices based upon the range of socially sanctioned options that exist before them (Kuhn, 1970). The underrepresentation of theists in the profession means that even the strongest proponent of tolerance and diversity may be unaware of the concerns of theists. In the absence of alternative perspectives, diaphobic individuals can cloak their aims in language that seems reasonable and even honorable to others that have little or no personal stake in a theistic worldview (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Consequently, those relatively few diaphobic individuals exercise undue influence on the profession as other social workers are inadvertently influenced by their biases. Discriminatory stances may be unknowingly adopted.

Active discrimination toward Evangelicals is evident in a number of social work settings. In a national study, Neumann et al. (1992) examined attitudes toward teaching and publication among a presumably conservative sample of Veterans Affairs (VA) social workers (N = 131). Using a vignette methodology, they found that social workers were significantly more inclined to favor religious liberals. Although religious discrimination is expressly prohibited by the NASW Code of Ethics (1999, 4.02, 6.04d), social workers discriminated against Evangelical values in both teaching and publication.

Perceptions of religious discrimination were explored by Ressler and Hodge (1999) in their national survey of social workers (N = 222) who were affiliated with the National Association of Christians in Social Work supplemented by students from three state university graduate classes on spirituality. These authors found that religious conservatives, almost exclusively Evangelicals, were 142% more likely to experience religious discrimination in social work than were religious liberals.

The qualitative component of their study revealed that active measures were taken to silence minority spiritual perspectives, most notably in academic settings (Ressler & Hodge, 1999), results that are consistent with research documenting discrimination among Evangelical applicants to doctoral psychology programs (Gartner, 1986). Students reported being given lower grades or being denied the right to write papers dealing with religion or spirituality, being denied practicum experiences in religiously affiliated agencies, as well as being denied funds to go to religiously affiliated conferences. In addition to being denied entrance into graduate school because of their spiritual beliefs, students reported being told they should not be in social work because of their spiritual beliefs, with some indicating that formal and informal efforts were made to force them out of the profession. Faculty reported being denied funds for travel, being denied tenure, and being threatened with firing or being fired because of their spiritual beliefs (Ressler & Hodge, 1999).

In some academic settings, attempts have been made to formally institutionalize religious discrimination. In at least one academic social work setting, admission policies were set in place that denied admission to students who affirmed traditional theistic teaching on sexual morality (Ressler, 1998). In other words, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Evangelicals, and many other theists who affirmed their faith's teachings would have been excluded from the program (Richards & Bergin, 2000). Although the social justice efforts of a number of religious freedom advocates in conjunction with the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were successful in challenging the policy, it is questionable how much tolerance exists for members of theistic faiths at this institution and possibly a number of others (Ressler, 1998).

The difference in worldviews in tandem with diaphobia may help to explain the pejorative terminology that appears in some of the social work literature (Hodge, Baughman & Cummings, in press). The NASW Code of Ethics (1999, 2.01b) states that derogatory language is generally avoided. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a social work textbook suggesting that the National Organization of Women (NOW) is an outpost of modern feminist fanaticism or that homosexual people commit crimes against humanity.

Yet some social work texts do employ such negative depictions when discussing spiritual minorities (Hodge, Baughman & Cummings, in press). The Vatican, for instance, is framed as an outpost of "modern religious fanaticism," and Muslims are said to commit "crimes against humanity" (van Wormer, 1997, pp. 507, 511). Such depictions do little to "promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and globally" as required by the profession's ethical mandates (NASW Code of Ethics, 1999, 6.04c). Rather, by framing theists in a disparaging manner, they actively work against the development of an open, inclusive milieu that fosters respect for different worldviews.

As mentioned above, diaphobic influences may account for the construction and dissemination of religious stereotypes (Bergin, Payne, & Richards, 1996; Gartner, 1986). In a profession that is committed to serving the poor, perhaps the most damaging stereotype that can be fostered is hostility toward people living in poverty. To frame a group as being against the poor is to disenfranchise that particular group in the eyes of a profession dedicated to addressing the needs of the poor. Yet a number of textbooks seem designed to create and propagate the image that Evangelicals are hostile to people living in poverty. For example, some social work texts state that the Protestant ethic is "inimical to charity" efforts aimed at assisting the poor (Macarov, 1995, p. 86), "religious fundamentalists" are associated with "harsh treatment of society's underdogs" (van Wormer, 1997, p. 507), and "religious conservatives" are said to be spearheading a "war against the poor" (Gans, 1995, p. 90). Again it is hard to conceive exactly how such characterizations conform to the injunction in the NASW Code of Ethics (1999, 1.05a) to recognize "the strengths that exist in all cultures." Rather, as mentioned above, the depictions in these and other textbooks and articles (DiNitto, 2000; Fabricant & Burghardt, 1998; Karger & Stoesz, 1998; Midgley, 1997; Midgley & Jones, 1994) suggest that Evangelicals arc antagonistic toward this vulnerable population.

Not only do such depictions highlight deficits instead of strengths, but they are rarely, if ever, supported by empirical evidence (Hodge, Baughman & Cummings, in press). The reason for this is clear. Empirical research has repeatedly illustrated that religious conservatives demonstrate, in aggregate, more favorable attitudes toward the poor than religious liberals (Clydesdale, 1990, 1999; Davis & Robinson, 1997; Hart, 1992; Iannaccone, 1993; Pyle, 1993; Regneras, Smith, & Sikkink, 1998; Wuthnow, 1994). For example, religious conservatives arc more likely than religious liberals to agree that the federal government should do everything possible to improve living standards for all poor Americans (Clydesdale, 1999). Similarly, individuals who used conservative Christian leaders and organizations such as the Christian Coalition to assist them in voting are 60% more likely to give to antipoverty organizations than their counterparts (Regnerus et al., 1998). Indeed, rather than demonstrating hostility toward the poor, the Protestant ethic, or more specifically, the Evangelical ethic, was instrumental in founding the profession of social work (Karger & Stoesz, 1998; Marsden, 1991).

In short, the picture that appears to be emerging suggests that the concerns of Evangelicals and other theists are essentially overlooked in social work circles. Furthermore, in addition to disregarding their perspectives, in many instances these populations and their worldviews are actively marginalized (Gartner, 1986; Neumann et al., 1992; Ressler & Hodge, 1999). As I implied in the introduction, this type of professional stance has important ramifications for practitioner-client interactions.

The Effects on Clients

In order to work effectively with various client populations, social workers must have some understanding of the group's worldview. To operationalize client strengths to ameliorate problems, for example, requires some degree of understanding of what factors are considered to be strengths from within the perspective of the client's worldview.

Furthermore, lack of cognizance regarding clients' spiritual worldview may even result in harm in some cases (Bergin et al., 1996; Reddy & Hanna, 1998). Interventions can only be coselected in a manner that safeguards clients' autonomy if practitioners have an accurate conception of clients' worldviews. Practitioners may, for example, inadvertently impose constructions of reality upon clients that are inconsistent with clients' value systems, engendering further negative affect (Reddy & Hanna, 1998). Without having some awareness of a client's value system, practitioners risk jeopardizing the therapeutic relationship and their client's well-being.

As delineated above, the emerging social work paradigm suggests that social workers will receive little information about the worldviews of Evangelicals and other theists. Indeed, researchers have repeatedly found that most social workers have received essentially no content addressing spirituality or religion during their social work education (Bullis, 1996; Canda & Furman, 1999; Derezotes, 1995; Furman & Chandy, 1994; Sheridan & Amato-von Hemert, 1999). Rather than including material that would assist social workers to develop an empathetic understanding of Evangelicals' beliefs and values, the social work literature frequently seems to engender a distorted view that fosters an adversarial stance (Hodge, Baughman & Cummings, in press).

Furman, Perry, and Goldale's (1996) examination of the perceptions of Midwestern Evangelicals (N = 76) suggests that this client group is aware that social workers have little understanding of their worldview. These authors found that 83% of Evangelicals felt that social workers did not comprehend their religious beliefs and values, with the percentage rising to 94% for respondents who had received counseling. Consequently, Evangelicals were very hesitant to receive services from social workers and were particularly reluctant to trust social workers with their adolescent children, presumably because of a fear that social workers would inadvertently or even consciously impose their personal values upon the children.

Similarly, Pellebon's (2000) study of primarily Evangelical church attendees (N = 145) in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Nevada revealed that just 17% agreed with the statement, "I would go to a social worker," and only 26% agreed that "if I had to go to a social worker, I believe the person could be trusted." Likewise, Muslims (Altareb, 1996; Daneshpour, 1998; Kelly, Aridi, & Bakhtiar, 1996), Hindus (Fenton, 1988; Goodwill & Cramer, 1998), and many other people of faith (Richards & Bergin, 2000) may also be reluctant to seek assistance from social workers because of a perceived lack of sensitivity to their beliefs and values.

Another perspective on the experiences of clients is provided by social workers. In Ressler and Hodge's (1999) national study of religious discrimination (N = 222), 44% of respondents knew of clients that had experienced religious discrimination at the hands of social work colleagues.

As implied above, when stereotypes of underrepresented groups become widely dispersed, dominant groups often discriminate against populations that hold different worldviews (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997). As Wambach and Van Soest (1997) observed, the propagation of stereotypes allows individuals to rationalize discrimination by assigning the blame to the victims. For example, if Evangelicals are at war with the poor, Muslims commit crimes against humanity, and Catholics are fanatics, then it is appropriate and even morally necessary to discriminate against these populations.

Addressing the Challenge of Diversity

In light of social workers' growing interest in addressing spirituality and religion, it is critical that steps be taken to facilitate a professional environment that is respectful of spiritual diversity. Without action, it is probable that the profession's emerging, still fluid paradigm for understanding and interacting with spirituality will solidify into a framework that ignores or even disparages the concerns of spiritual minorities. In addition to violating the profession's ethical mandates, this will hinder social workers' ability to provide services to spiritual minorities.

As the above material implies, the most prominent challenge to spiritual diversity is the disproportionately low number of Evangelicals and other theists in the profession, particularly in academic settings. This underrepresentation means that fewer voices are available to share theistic constructions of reality. Because so few Evangelicals exist among faculty members, for example, students are unlikely to be exposed to first-hand accounts of this spiritual perspective. Similarly, the lack of Evangelicals in practice settings means that there are fewer professionals who can experientially understand theistic concerns and interpret these concerns for other practitioners.

Furthermore, close contact with Evangelicals and other spiritual minorities can reduce prejudice toward these groups. Except in instances where competition occurs or where groups hold extremely different moral values, contact that is cooperative, intimate, and institutionally supported, which occurs with a minority member of equal or superior status, can be effective in reducing prejudice (Gartner, 1986). The lack of Evangelicals and other theists in the profession means that such opportunities to reduce prejudice and promote understanding are forfeited in social work circles.

Consequently, the most important step in facilitating a more spiritually diverse profession is to implement policies that encourage recruitment of underrepresented spiritual minorities, particularly in academic settings. Ideally, the composition of the profession, including its leadership and faculty, should approximate the spiritual demographics of the wider population. Gartner (1986), for example, recommends the adoption of affirmative action programs to ensure that the number of Evangelicals and other theistic believers is reflective of the major spiritual traditions that compose American society.

As theorists have noted, to develop an understanding of the issues of concern to a given population, it is necessary to hear from the particular population in question (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). To promote the dissemination of minority perspectives, the profession should actively encourage the presentation and publication of Evangelical narratives as well as those written by other theists such as Muslims, traditional Catholics, Mormons, and so on. Accounts presented by the dominant group inevitably reflect their interests, rather than the interests of minority groups (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997). Only through the publication of narratives written by minority group members themselves can social workers be equipped to comprehend the issues of concern to these groups.

Authors, presenters, and others in positions of leadership whose views are congruent with the dominant majority also have a role to play in promoting an environment that is conducive toward spiritual diversity. As stipulated by the NASW Code of Ethics (1999), standards that prohibit the use of derogatory language and pejorative stereotypes must be applied impartially to all populations. Referring to Evangelicals as "fundamentalists" is analogous to calling lesbians "queers." Both are widely considered to be pejorative terms by members of the respective groups. Depicting Evangelicals as snake handlers (Pittman, 1990) plays to stereotypes in much the same manner as do portrayals of Hispanics as wetbacks. Associating the beliefs of Evangelicals with the promotion of "violence against women and children" (Longres, 1995, p. 83) impedes the development of an inclusive environment for Evangelicals in essentially the same way that associating the beliefs of gay men with violence against children impedes the development of an inclusive environment for gay men. Linking groups with negative characteristics fosters misunderstanding and prejudice rather than promoting understanding of different people.

As Genia (1994, 2000) noted, for practitioners to work effectively with clients who affirm spiritual beliefs that are different from their own, practitioners must learn to respect those views. In order to foster an inclusive profession that respects minority worldviews, social work forums, particularly its literature, must reflect an attitude of respect toward spiritual minorities. Because the profession's literature implicitly and explicitly conveys attitudes that social workers should adopt when interacting with minority populations (McMahon & Allen-Meares, 1992; Van Voorhis & Wagner, 2001), it is critical that authors consciously evaluate their work for possible biases that can foster negative attitudes toward spiritual minorities.

As is the case with other groups, one way to nurture respect is to focus on the strengths of various theistic populations. For example, in addition to concern for the poor, strengths that have been associated with Evangelicals include autonomy (Pargament et al., 1987), diversity (Smith, 2000), empowerment (Maton & Salem, 1995), forgiveness (Gorsuch & Hao, 1993), and interpersonal friendliness (Ellison, 1992). Evangelicals are less likely to yell at their preschoolers (Bartkowski & Wilcox, 2000) and more likely to praise and hug their children (Wilcox, 1998). Evangelical husbands are more likely to praise and display affection to their wives, as well as devote quality time to working on the emotional state of their relationship (Wilcox, 2001). Instead of highlighting perceived deficits, the profession should be emphasizing such strengths.

The central point is to ensure that each population in the nation's cultural mosaic is treated in a manner that respects their understanding of reality instead of interpreting the group's perspective through the prism of the dominant worldview. This does not mean that differences, when they occur, must be ignored or glossed over. Implicit in the concept of diversity is a willingness to accept and respect differences. With a diversity of perspectives, conflicts between perspectives will occur, a fact acknowledged by the NASW Code of Ethics (1999). In such cases, each group's perspective should be presented in a fair and balanced manner. Presenting all sides of an issue helps to avoid simplifying complex, multifaceted issues while equipping social workers with the necessary knowledge to work with all populations.

In light of the growing amount of curriculum content being devoted to spirituality and religion (Canda & Furman, 1999), educators can also play a prominent role in facilitating respect for spiritual diversity. Just as education addresses value differences related to gender, ethnicity, race, and other areas, it can also help students deal effectively with value differences associated with different spiritual worldviews. It is the unacknowledged nature of value differences that often unconsciously works to sabotage the therapeutic encounter. Becoming cognizant of their existence and possible effects can sharply reduce their potential to harm the relationship between client and practitioner.

Students could be encouraged to engage in self-exploration with the aim of understanding how their personal feelings and experiences may affect their ability to work with individuals from a variety of spiritual traditions (Genia, 1994). Individuals with high levels of negative sentiment toward their childhood tradition could be sensitized to the possible effects of such resentment in practice settings and encouraged to work through the negative feelings before interacting with clients from that tradition and perhaps other traditions that share similar values (Black et al., 1993; Genia, 2000). For instance, a New Age adherent might be challenged to explore how negative sentiment toward her Christian upbringing might affect her ability to work with Evangelicals, Muslims, and other theists in a spiritually competent manner.

Also critical is the tailoring of educational material to reflect client demographics. In other words, course material on spirituality should be designed to equip workers to provide efficacious services to clients from the most prominent spiritual traditions. Excluding major traditions such as Evangelicalism, Islam, or Mormonism or focusing unduly on minor traditions such as Wicca will do little to assist students in developing an understanding of the major spiritual perspectives that constitute North American society.

As mentioned above, social work educators must avoid depicting minority spiritual narratives as seen through the eyes of the dominant worldview. Educators should seek to impart a knowledge base that equips students to work with spiritual believers on their own terms, within the framework of their own worldview. Structuring course content so that students are provided with a liberal view of Evangelicalism, a liberal view of Catholicism, and so forth fosters understanding in approximately the same manner that providing a White view of African Americans or a male view of females fosters understanding toward these groups. In order to facilitate diversity, instructors must attempt to shelve their own personal worldviews and structure course content so that students are exposed to authentic accounts of the major spiritual traditions that represent believers' own understanding of reality, accounts preferably written by believers who are themselves social workers.

Finally, course instruction should be of such depth as to result in an emphatic shift in perspectives-a shift in viewpoint so that the student can see reality through the eyes of Evangelicals and other theists. It is only at this point of empathetic understanding that workers can engage in spiritually competent practice. In other words, the educational process should challenge students to undertake a four-step process. To use Evangelicals as a example, educators should challenge students to become self-aware of the lens they use to view Evangelicals, to learn how the biases associated with their lens affects their understanding of Evangelicals, to learn to set aside their lens and associated biases and see reality through the worldview used by Evangelicals, and finally, to come to the point of appreciating reality as seen through an Evangelical worldview (Wambach & Van Soest, 1997).

By moving through these four steps, practitioners are enabled to exhibit cultural sensitivity toward the unique worldviews of spiritual minorities. In other words, this process equips practitioners to engage in spiritually competent practice. It furnishes social workers with the ability to draw resources from within the clients' framework of understanding to solve their problems while alerting them to possible areas in which they may inadvertently impose their own personal values. As the profession moves to develop a framework for integrating spirituality and religion into social work, this type of spiritually competent practice should be the standard.

Conclusion

As social workers begin to address spirituality and religion, the most pressing challenge the profession faces may be the issue of spiritual diversity. Although the profession's historic commitment to the value of diversity is an important touchstone, the underrepresentation of Evangelicals and other theists indicates that the profession may have difficulty fostering an inclusive environment that is respectful of spiritual diversity. Indeed, standard theory on oppression, research on the spiritual worldviews of social workers, diaphobia, and the perceptions of clients and social workers all suggest that facilitating an inclusive environment will be a significant challenge for the profession.

Nevertheless, the profession has faced similar challenges in the past in areas such as gender and race. As Bergin et al. (1996) have noted, just as women and various minority groups have addressed the stereotypes and prejudices that are held against them, now similar efforts must be made to address the religious stereotypes and spiritual prejudices that exist in professional helping circles. Even though these efforts will likely encounter resistance in certain quarters, ultimately both social workers and clients will benefit from a more inclusive social work environment that engenders a sense of respect for diverse spiritual perspectives.

References

Altareb, B. Y. (1996). Islamic spirituality in America: A middle path to unity. Counseling and Values, 41, 29-38.

Bart, M. 1998, December). Spirituality in counseling finding believers. Counseling Today, 41, 1, 6.

Bartkowski, J. P., & Wilcox, W. B. (2000). Conservative Protestant child discipline: The case of parental yelling. Social forces, 79, 265-290.

Bergin, A. E., & Jensen, J. P. (1990). Religiosity of psychotherapists: A national survey Psychotherapy, 27, 3-7.

Bergin, A. E., Payne, I. R., & Richards, P. S. (1996). Values in psychotherapy. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 297-325). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Black, P. N., Jeffreys, D., & Hartley, E. K. (1993). Personal history of psychosocial trauma in the early life of social work and business students. Journal of Social Work Education, 29, 171-180.

Bullis, R. K. (1990, March-May). Spiritual genograms: Nurturing our spiritual roots. Church Teachers, 17, 174-175, 190-191.

Bullis, R. K. (1996). Spirituality in social work practice. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Canda, E. R. (1997). Spirituality. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 299-309). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (1999). Spiritual diversity in social work practice. New York: Free Press.

Canda, E. R., Nakashima, M., Burgess, V. L., & Russel, R. (Compilers). (1999). Spiritual diversity and social work: A comprehensive bibliography with annotations. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Clark, J. (1994). Should social work education address religious issues? No! Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 11-16.

Clydesdale, T. T. (1990). Soul-winning and social work: Giving and caring in the Evangelical tradition. In R. Wuthnow & V. A. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Faith and philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religion in America's voluntary sector (pc. 187-210). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clydesdale, T. T. (1999). Toward understanding the role of Bible beliefs and higher education in American attitudes toward eradicating poverty, 1964-1996. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 103-118.

Cnaan, R. A. (1999). The newer deal. New York: Columbia University Press. Council on Social Work Education educational policy and accreditation standards. (2001). Retrieved December 14, 2001, from http://cswe.org/accreditation/EPAS/EPAS_start.htm

Daneshpour, M. (1998). Muslim families and family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 355-390.

Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1997). A war for America's soul? The American religious landscape. In R. H. Williams (Ed.), Cultural wars in American politics (pp. 39-61). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Derezotes, D. S. (1995). Spirituality and religiosity: Neglected factors in social work practice. Arete, 20, 1-15.

DiNitto, D. M. (2000). Social welfare: Politics and public policy (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Doherty, W. J. (1999). Morality and spirituality in therapy. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Spiritual resources in family therapy (pp. 179-192). New York: Guilford Press.

Dor-Shav, N. K., Friedman, B., & Tcherbonogura, R. (1978). Identification, prejudice and aggression. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 217-222.

Ellison, C. G. (1992). Are religious people nice? Evidence from the national survey of Black Americans. Social Forces, 71, 411-130.

Fabricant, M., & Burghardt, S. (1998). Rising from the ashes of cutback, political warfare and degraded services: Strategic considerations for community building: An editorial essay. Journal of Community Practice, 5, 53-65.

Fellin, P. (2000). Revisiting multiculturalism in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 261-278.

Fenton, J. Y. (1988). Transplanting religious traditions. New York: Praeger.

Frame, M. W. (2000). The spiritual genogram in family practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 211-216.

Furman, L. D., Canda, E. R., & Benson, P. W. (2001). Implications of religion and spirituality in social work practice: Descriptive findings from U. S. survey. Unpublished manuscript.

Furman, L. D., & Chandy, J. M. (1994). Religion and spirituality: A long-neglected cultural component of rural social work practice. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 17, 21-26.

Furman, L. D., Perry, D., & Goldale, T. (1996). Interaction of Evangelical Christians and social workers in the rural environment. Human Services in the Rural Environment, 19, 5-8.

Gallup, G. J., & Castelli, J. (1989). The people's religion: American faith in the 90's. New York: Macmillan.

Gallup, G. J., & Lindsay, D. M. (1999). Surveying the religious landscape. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse.

Gans, H. J. (1995). The war against the poor. New York: Basic Books.

Gartner, J. D. (1986). Antireligious prejudice in admissions to doctoral programs in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 473-475.

Gartner, J., Harmatz, M., Hohmann, A., Larson, D., & Gartner, A. F. (1990). The effects of patient and clinician ideology on clinical judgment: A study of ideological countertransference. Psychotherapy, 27, 98-106.

Genia, V. (1994). Secular psychotherapists and religious clients: Professional considerations and recommendations. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 395-398.

Genia, V. (2000). Religious issues in secularly based psychotherapy. Counseling and Values, 44, 213-221.

Gibelman, M., & Schervish, P. H. (1997). Who we are. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ginsberg, L. (1999). Reviewers, orthodoxy, and the passion to publish. Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 100-103.

Goodwill, R., & Cramer, D. (1998). Attitudes towards marital counselling and the Family Law Act (1996) in a British Asian community. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 417-425.

Gorsuch, R. L., & Hao, J. Y. (1993). Forgiveness: An exploratory factor analysis and its relationship to religious variables. Review of the Religious Research, 34, 333-347.

Gouldner, A. W. (1979). The future of intellectuals and the rise of the new class. New York: Seabury.

Green, J. C., Guth, J. L., Smidt, C. E., & Kellstedt, L. A. (Eds.). (1996). Religion and the culture wars: Dispatches from the front. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hamilton, T., & Sharma, S. (1997). The violence and oppression of power relations. Peace Review, 9, 555-561.

Hart, S. (1992). What does the Lord require? How American Christians think about economic justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hodge, D. R. (2000). Spiritual ecomaps: A new diagrammatic tool for assessing marital and family spirituality. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 229-240.

Hodge, D. R. (2001a). Spiritual assessment: A review of major qualitative methods and a new framework for assessing spirituality. Social Work, 46, 203-214.

Hodge, D. R. (2001b). Spiritual genograms: A generational approach to assessing spirituality. Families in Society, 82, 35-48.

Hodge, D. R. (2002a). Conceptualizing spirituality in social work: How the metaphysical beliefs of social workers may foster bias towards theistic consumers. Social Thought, 21, 39-61.

Hodge, D. R. (2002b). Does social work oppress Evangelical Christians? A new class analysis of society and social work. Social Work, 47, 401-414.

Hodge, D. R. (2002c). Equally devout, but do they speak the same language? Comparing the religious beliefs and practices of social workers and the general public. Families in Society, 83, 573-584.

Hodge, D. R. (2003). Differences in worldview between social workers and people of faith. Families in Society, 84, 285-295.

Hodge, D. R., Baughman, L.M., & Cummings, J. A. (in press). Moving toward spiritual competency: Deconstructing religious stereotypes and spiritual prejudices in social work literature. Journal of Social Service Research.

Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars. New York: Basic Books.

Hutchison, E. D. (1999). Dimensions of human behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

Iannaccone, L. R. (1993). Heirs to the Protestant ethic? The economics of American fundamentalists. In M. E. Marty & R. S. Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalisms and the state (pp. 342-366). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jones, J. H. (1993). Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. New York: Free Press.

Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1998). American social welfare policy (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Kelly, E. W., Aridi, A., & Bakhtiar, L. (1996). Muslims in the United States: An exploratory study of universal and mental health values. Counseling and Values, 40, 206-218.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larson, D. B., Sherrill, K. A., & Lyons, J. S. (1994). Neglect and misuse of the R word. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Religion in aging and health (pp. 178-195). London: Sage.

Lauer, R. Z. (1967). Theism. In W. J. McDonald (Ed.), New Catholic encyclopedia (Vol. 14, pp. 9-11). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lehman, E. C. (1974). Academic discipline and faculty religiosity in secular and church-related colleges. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 205-220.

Longres, J. F. (1995). Human behavior in the social environment (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Ludwig, T. M. (1987). Monotheism. In M. Eliade (Ed.), The encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 10, pp. 68-76). New York: Macmillan.

Macarov, D. (1995). Social welfare: Structure and praetice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marsden, G. M. (1987). Evangelical and fundamental Christianity. In M. Eliade (Ed.), The encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 5, pp. 190-197). New York: Macmillan.

Marsden, G. M. (1991). Understanding fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Marsh, S. R. (1988). Antecedents to choice of a helping career: Social work vs. business majors. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 58, 85-100.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Practice, 23, 631-656.

McCullough, M. E., Weaver, A. J., Larson, D, B., & Aay, K. R. (2000). Psychotherapy with mainline Protestants: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal/Anglican, and Methodist. In P. S. Richards & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity (pp. 105-129). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McMahon, A., & Allen-Meares, P. (1992). Is social work racist? A content analysis of recent literature. Social Work, 37, 533-539.

Midgley, J. (1997). Social welfare in global context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Midgley, J., & Jones, C. (1994). Social work and the radical right: Impact of developments in Britain and the United States. International Social Work, 37, 115-126.

Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Neumann, J. K., Thompson, W., & Woolley, T. W. (1992). Evangelical vs. liberal Christianity: The influence of values on the nonclinical professional decisions of social workers. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 57-67.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping. New York: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I., Echemendia, R. J., Johnson, S., Cook, P., McGath, C., Myers, J. G., & Brannick, M. (1987). The conservative church: Psychosocial advantages and disadvantages. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 269-286.

Pellebon, D. A. (2000). Perceptions of conflict between Christianity and social work: A preliminary study. Social Work and Christianity, 27, 30-39.

Pittman, F. (1990). The rattle of God. The Family Therapy Networker, 14, 43-46.

Privette, G., Quackenbos, S., & Bundrick, C. M. (1994). Preferences for religious and nonreligious counseling and psychotherapy. Psychological Reports, 75, 539-547.

Pyle, R. E. (1993). Faith and commitment to the poor: Theological orientation and support for government assistance measures. Sociology of Religion, 54, 385-401.

Reddy, I., & Hanna, F. J. (1998). The lifestyle of the Hindu woman: Conceptualizing female clients of Indian origin. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 54, 385-398.

Regnerus, M. D., Smith, C., & Sikkink, D. (1998). Who gives to the poor? The influence of religious tradition and political location on the personal generosity of Americans toward the poor. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 481-493.

Ressler, L. E. (1998). When social work and Christianity conflict. In B. Hugen (Ed.), Christianity and social work (pp. 165-186). Botsford, CT: North American Association of Christians in Social Work.

Ressler, L. E., & Hodge, D. R. (1999, March). Religious discrimination in social work: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Francisco.

Rey, L. D. (1997). Religion as invisible culture: Knowing about and knowing with. Journal of Family Social Work, 2, 159-177.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of psychotherapy and religious diversity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rompf, E. L., & Royse, D. (1994). Choice of social work as a career: Possible influences. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 163-171.

Russel, R., Gill, P., Coyne, A., & Woody, J. (1993). Dysfunction in the family of origin of MSW and other graduate students. Journal of Social Work Education, 29, 121-129.

Scheepers, P., & Van Der Slik, F. (1998). Religion and attitudes on moral issues: Effects of individual, spouse and parental characteristics. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 678-691.

Schmalzbauer, J. (1993). Evangelicals in the new class: Class versus subcultural predictors of ideology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 330-342.

Shafranske, E. P. (2001). The religious dimension of patient care within rehabilitation medicine: The role of religious attitudes, beliefs, and professional practice. In T. G. Plante & A. C. Sherman (Eds.), Faith and health (pp. 311-335). New York: Guilford.

Sheridan, M. J., & Amato-von Hemert, K. (1999). The role of religion and spirituality in social work education and practice: A survey of student views and experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 125-141.

Sheridan, M. J., Bullis, R. K., Adcock, C. R., Berlin, S. D., & Miller, P. C. (1992). Practitioners' personal and professional attitudes and behaviors toward religion and spirituality: Issues for education and practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 28, 190-203.

Sheridan, M. J., Wiliner, C. M., & Atcheson, L. (1994). Inclusion of content on religion and spirituality in the social work curriculum: A study of faculty views. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 363-376.

Skill, T., & Robinson, J. D. (1994). The image of Christian leaders in fictional television programs. Sociology of Religion, 55, 75-84.

Smith, C. (2000). Christian America? Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Smith, J. I. (1999). Islam in America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Talbot, M. (2000, February 27). A mighty fortress. The New York Times Magazine, 34-41, 66-68, 84-85.

Van Voorhis, R., & Wagner, M. (2001). Coverage of gay and lesbian subject matter in social work journals. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 147-159.

van Wormer, K. (1997). Social welfare. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Vitz, P. C. (1999). Faith of the fatherless: The psychology of atheism. Dallas: Spence.

Wambach, K. G., & Van Soest, D. (1997). Oppression. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 243-252). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Wilcox, W. B. (1998). Conservative Protestant child rearing: Authoritarian or authoritative? American Sociological Review, 63, 796-809.

Wilcox, W. B. (2001). Godly men: Religious affiliation, gender role attitudes, and male family involvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Wuthnow, R. (1994). God and mammon in America. New York: The Free Press.

David R. Hodge, PhD, is a post-doctoral fellow, Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania, Leadership Hall, 3814 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. He is the author of a recenty published book chapter entitled Social Work Practice With Muslims in the United States, which appears in Social Work, A Profession of Many Faces (10th ed.), edited by A. T. Morales (Allyn & Bacon).

Author's note. I thank Marion Dockeray and Dr. Lawrence Ressler for their support and encouragement.

Manuscript received: January 27, 2001

Revised: December 3, 2001

Accepted: January 24, 2002

Copyright Families in Society Jul-Sep 2003
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved