© Copyright 2025 MarriageFamilyTherapist.org
A clinical guide to client-led assessment, consent, techniques, and ethical limits
What do you do when a couple asks you to pray at the start of session, or wants Scripture to shape how they forgive each other? Roughly 90 percent of clients in one practice-based study said they wanted religious or spiritual issues discussed in therapy when relevant, yet about a third also reported that faith had contributed to some of their difficulties. That split is the whole problem: spirituality can be a resource or a wedge, and MFTs need a method rather than improvisation to tell which.
A new Psychology Today piece puts the Ripley et al. (2022) research back in circulation as a technique-level look at how Christian therapists actually handle faith in couples work. The clinical bar sits between honoring a client's request and overstepping scope of competence.
The question most couples bring is not whether faith belongs in therapy, but whether a licensed clinician can honor their spirituality without turning the session into a sermon. Spiritually integrated couples therapy answers that by keeping clinical practice primary and letting faith enter on the couple's terms, a balance central to integrating faith and science in marriage and family therapy.
Spiritually incorporating couple therapy (SICT), the term researchers used in the APA journal Psychotherapy (Ripley et al., 2022), describes couples therapy that draws on spiritual resources at the couple's request to address relationship concerns. It is not a standalone method. It layers onto established systemic models such as Emotionally Focused Therapy or the Gottman approach, adding prayer, forgiveness work, or shared values as the couple asks for them while the underlying clinical framework does the structural work.
Christian therapists integrate spirituality as a resource the couple invites in, not an agenda the clinician brings. In the study, therapists responded to clients who wanted faith discussed rather than steering secular couples toward religion. That distinction, therapist boundaries in couples counseling, is the ethical center of the practice.
Pastoral counseling is spiritual care rooted in a religious role, and it may or may not involve clinical licensure. Purely biblical counseling treats Scripture as the primary intervention and often sits outside the mental health scope entirely. Faith-Based Marriage Programs are enrichment or education, not therapy.
In SICT, the therapist's license, scope of practice, and clinical model stay primary. Spirituality is accommodated within that frame, never substituted for it.
Across 402 sessions with 65 couples and 29 therapists, Ripley et al. (2022) recorded what spiritually incorporating couple therapy (SICT) looks like when nobody is following a script.1 The study was published in the APA journal Psychotherapy as part of the Enhancing Practice-Based Evidence for Spiritually Integrated Psychotherapies project. An October 2026 Psychology Today post on how Christian therapists use spirituality in couples therapy recently revisited it.
Practice-based evidence observes how clinicians naturally work with real caseloads. It does not test a manualized protocol in a lab. Couples and therapists completed baseline and weekly surveys for at least the first six sessions. After each session, therapists logged the approaches they used, the spiritual interventions they tried, and the issues they discussed.
Spiritual work was layered on top of established couple therapy; it did not replace how MFTs strengthen relationships. Hope-Focused approaches appeared in about half of sessions, and Emotion-Focused work appeared in just over a third. The Psychology Today breakdown lists the most frequent spiritual interventions:
The ethically central finding is that the couple's own spirituality predicted the use of spiritual interventions more strongly than the therapist's did. Clinicians followed client preferences instead of imposing their own.
Couples who completed at least six sessions showed clinically meaningful improvement in spiritual, psychological, and relationship distress. Marital satisfaction, emotional forgiveness, and relationship efficacy did not improve significantly over that window. How often therapists used spiritual interventions did not significantly predict gains. The study therefore does not show that more prayer or more forgiveness work produces better results.
Only 32 of the 65 couples reached six sessions, so the improvements describe completers, not everyone who enrolled. The sample was small and nonrandom. It came from Virginia and North Carolina clinics and solo practices that advertise SICT, and nearly all therapists and clients identified as Christian. The design observed treatment as delivered, so it supports no causal claims. Read it as a realistic portrait of faith-accommodating practice, not proof that spiritual techniques work.
These figures come from routine sessions at counseling practices in Virginia and North Carolina that advertise spiritually integrated couples therapy, where every therapist identified as Christian. The sample reflects clients who sought out faith-integrated care. It does not represent all couples, all therapists, or secular practice settings, so treat these numbers as a picture of one client population rather than a national benchmark.
The strongest outcome evidence for spiritually integrated psychotherapy supports it as a client-requested add-on, not as a more effective replacement for standard couple therapy.
The 2018 meta-analysis by Captari and colleagues, covering 97 outcome studies, found a large effect (g = 0.74) against no-treatment or weak controls, but the advantage narrowed sharply against active comparators: 0.33 for psychological outcomes and 0.43 for spiritual outcomes.1 An earlier Smith et al. review of 31 studies reported a weighted average effect of 0.562, and later syntheses place estimates between 0.27 and 0.75.3 A 2023 multi-level meta-analysis of randomized trials reported posttreatment benefits of 0.52 and follow-up benefits of 0.72, though a wide prediction interval (-0.76 to 1.81) signals possible harm as well as large benefit.
Most of these data come from individual therapy, not couple therapy. Couple-specific estimates are smaller and less consistent, limited by small samples, high heterogeneity, and weaker effects against active treatments. In additive studies, spiritual well-being improved more clearly (g = 0.34) than psychological distress (g = 0.13, not significant), suggesting spiritual outcomes are often the more reliable gain.
For couples who explicitly want faith-integrated care, these approaches are reasonable clinical tools. They are not proven superior to standard care, and therapists should present them that way. As a form of culturally responsive family therapy, faith accommodation can preserve engagement with clients whose values might otherwise keep them out of therapy, but it should be documented as a preference-sensitive adjunct, not as a demonstrated efficacy edge.
Among therapy approaches used by MFTs, spiritual assessment has become an expected first step in faith-integrated couple work rather than an optional intake add-on. In the Ripley et al. (2022) practice-based study, 90 percent of clients wanted religious or spiritual issues discussed when relevant, yet about one-third said religion or spirituality had contributed to some of their difficulties. That split is why assessment comes before any intervention. The same faith that anchors one couple can divide another.
Start with each partner separately, then bring the conversation into the joint session. Individual time lets a quieter or less devout partner speak freely about what faith means to them and whether they want it in therapy at all. The joint conversation then shows how the couple talks about faith together: who leads, who defers, and where tension surfaces. Let clients set the terms. Your job is to understand how spirituality functions in the relationship, not to evaluate their beliefs.
The decision rule is straightforward. Bring spirituality in when it supports shared meaning, motivates repair, or gives both partners language they already trust. Keep it out, or proceed with real caution, when one partner uses it as leverage, when it is the source of shame, or when invoking it would tilt the alliance toward one side.
The instruments below give you a structured way to learn what faith means to each partner before you decide whether, and how, to bring it into treatment. Pair a conversational guide like FICA or the spiritual genogram with a standardized struggle measure when you suspect religion is feeding the conflict rather than easing it. Treat every tool as an opening for dialogue with the couple, never as a substitute for asking each partner directly what role they want faith to play in therapy.
| Tool or Approach | What It Assesses | Format and Time | Best Use in Couples Work |
|---|---|---|---|
| FICA Spiritual History Tool (GWish) | Faith, belief, or meaning; how important and influential spirituality is; spiritual or religious community; and how the client wants spiritual issues addressed in care | Structured communication guide woven into the clinical interview; published guidance sets no fixed item count or administration time | Use with each partner separately to surface spiritual identity, community supports, and preferences that should shape the treatment plan |
| Spiritual genogram | Religious and spiritual patterns, events, affiliations, and transmissions across family generations | Visual multigenerational map built by clients, followed by reflective questions and family-of-origin discussion; no fixed administration time | Explore how each partner's family-of-origin faith patterns shape beliefs, rituals, conflict, attachment, and relationship expectations |
| Brief RCOPE | Positive and negative religious coping with stressors | 14 items rated on a 4-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a great deal); no fixed administration time specified | Identify spiritual conflict with God, self, or others tied to marital problems, especially when religious coping may be worsening distress |
| Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSSS) | Clients' struggles with religion and spirituality | Standardized scale with a brief version available; item count and administration time not specified in the cited guidance | Open conversations about spiritual struggle and track change over time when faith is implicated in couple or family distress |
The revised AAMFT Code of Ethics, effective January 1, 2026, lists informed consent as Standard 1.2.1 Standard 1.1 names religion among the characteristics on which therapists may not discriminate.1 Together, those two standards set the floor for faith-integrated couples work: no prayer, Scripture reading, or religious ritual should enter a session until both partners understand what is offered and have agreed to it.
AAMFT's separate Spirituality Resources treat spirituality as an essential part of well-being. They ask MFTs to explore it with respect, curiosity, and openness, to practice cultural humility, and to honor client autonomy. The ACA and APA ethics codes point the same way in general terms:
Check the current text of each code directly before citing specific standards in your paperwork, because wording and numbering change across revisions.
Consent matters even with devout couples. In the Ripley et al. (2022) sample, most clients wanted spiritual issues discussed when relevant. Yet about one-third said religion or spirituality had contributed to their difficulties. Shared faith does not guarantee shared comfort with every practice.
Put your approach in writing at intake and say it aloud in the first session, following ethical self-disclosure guidelines. For example:
"I am a marriage and family therapist, and I am a Christian. If you would like, I can draw on your faith as part of our work, including prayer, Scripture, or forgiveness practices. These are always optional. Either of you can decline any of them at any time, and that choice will not change the quality of your care."
Couples do not have to pray or read Scripture. Make that explicit, and build choices into the process:
Consent is not a one-time signature. Revisit it at each treatment-plan review, after a crisis, and whenever one partner's engagement shifts. Watch for signs such as a partner going quiet during prayer or beginning to question their faith. A brief check-in ("Is this still helpful for both of you?") keeps the work client-led. It also documents that the couple, not the therapist, is steering the spiritual content.
What does faith-consistent couples therapy actually look like inside a standard EFT or Gottman session? The practice-based session records from spiritually incorporating couple therapy research show a recognizable pattern: the therapist names a spiritual resource, asks permission, then folds it into the couple's existing cycle work rather than substituting a religious lecture for clinical structure.
In emotionally focused therapy, a therapist can ask each partner to name a spiritual value that first drew them together, then map the negative cycle against that value. For example: "When you pursue and she withdraws, how is that different from the patience or service you both say you value?" In Gottman-informed work, shared rituals function as bids for connection. A therapist might ask a couple to describe a current ritual, whether it is a bedtime prayer, a Sunday meal, or a short devotional, and explore whether it is being used to turn toward or away from each other. Hope-focused conversations borrow from faith language to build a positive story: asking what strengths their tradition offers for endurance, gratitude, or repair.
Collaborative prayer means the therapist follows the couple's lead. You might say: "Some couples want to pray together in session. Would that fit for either of you right now, or should we stay with the dialogue?" If both agree, each partner can pray briefly in their own words while the therapist listens for attachment cues. Silent prayer is a lower-demand option: open a brief pause, invite each person to pray quietly if they wish, then debrief what surfaced emotionally. No prayer is a legitimate choice. The therapist should explicitly name it: "We can use spiritual ideas through values and rituals without prayer at all." Check comfort every time, not once.
Emotional forgiveness is releasing resentment over time; it is not the same as reconciliation, and it does not require returning to an unsafe relationship. In couples work, that distinction protects accountability, especially in healing after infidelity. A therapist might say: "You can release the bitterness without deciding the relationship is repaired. Let's work on naming the harm and seeing continued changed behavior before we move toward forgiveness." Forgiveness then becomes a later step in a repair sequence, not a pressure tactic or a shortcut over accountability.
Invite partners to bring passages that are meaningful to them. You might ask: "What text has been guiding you this week?" instead of assigning a verse. Never use Scripture as a proof text against a partner, and do not position God as a third party who demands one partner comply. Before using any sacred text or spiritual language, confirm both partners consent. If one objects, shift to secular clinical language and document the preference.
A spiritually mismatched couple is one where the partners differ in how central faith is to their lives, which tradition they practice, or whether they want religion in the room at all. This covers interfaith couples, partners from different Christian denominations, and the common pairing of one highly observant partner with one who is lukewarm or secular. Mismatch is not a problem to be solved; it is a difference to be understood.
When one partner wants no religious content, that preference governs the session. Keep the work neutral, use language both partners can accept (speak about values, meaning, and commitment rather than scripture or prayer), and let either person decline a spiritual intervention without penalty or subtle disapproval. Consent to faith integration belongs to the couple jointly, not to the more devout spouse, which is a clear act of setting boundaries in family therapy. If only one partner requests prayer, the therapist does not import it for both.
The most serious risk here is alignment, a form of triangulation in couples therapy. You must not side with the more religious partner, imply their faith is the healthier position, or become a referee of doctrine. The practice-based research on spiritually integrated couples therapy underscored that effective therapists respected clients' preferences rather than imposing their own convictions. Hold both partners equally.
A licensed therapist who uses prayer at a couple's request and a pastor who counsels from ordained authority can look alike from the waiting room. The difference is the source of their authority and what each is accountable for.
Christian couples therapy is clinical treatment delivered by a credentialed professional, with faith used as a resource the clients ask for. Pastoral counseling is spiritual care rooted in a religious role. It may or may not involve clinical licensure. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not track pastoral counseling as its own occupation, and no single national legal definition exists, so credentials matter more than job titles.
Contact a couple's pastor only with written, specific consent that states what you may share and why. Without it, do not confirm that the couple is in treatment.
Spiritual integration is not a substitute for standard safety screening. At intake, MFTs should meet with each partner separately and privately, using validated tools such as HITS, HARK, E-HITS, PVS, or WAST, and apply domestic violence screening in family therapy practices that name 'aggression' rather than narrower terms. If a partner reports ongoing physical violence, coercive control, stalking, or fear, conjoint couples therapy is contraindicated until safety is assured. A Danger Assessment can help estimate homicide risk among abused women, and it belongs in a private individual interview, never in the couple session. Safety planning, referral, documentation, and follow-up are required, not optional.
Even when conjoint work resumes, it should include safeguards such as a no-violence contract, time-outs, and anger-management strategies. Active substance misuse requires a different path: pause spiritually integrated couple work, follow ethical guidelines treating addicted couples, and refer for addiction treatment before returning to relationship therapy. Screening in a private setting is a clinical and Therapist Safety requirement as well. Faith-based practice does not ease these requirements; it raises them. Clients may expect prayer or scripture to resolve safety issues, but the clinician must hold the frame. If the couple is spiritually mismatched, or if one partner uses religious language to justify control, that is aggression, not a spiritual opportunity.
The concrete boundary line is simple: when spirituality becomes a wedge, a cover for control, or a justification for harm, spiritual interventions are not clinically indicated. In those cases, individual services and domestic violence resources are the referral triggers, not more conjoint prayer or forgiveness exercises.
In many faith-adjacent settings, documentation via practice management software and scope management are becoming central to defensible spiritually integrated couple therapy. The 2022 Ripley et al. study in Psychotherapy gives MFTs a practical reminder: the therapists tracked spiritual interventions session by session, which made their choices reviewable and tied to client-requested goals.
