The week following this contact, I met with Jill and the paternal grandparents. As I began to provide them an update on Bobby’s progress and work during his therapeutic play, my meeting with them was quickly pervaded by a much more serious and somewhat adversarial tone. His paternal grandfather pressed for specific information that Bobby may have revealed regarding his feelings and thoughts about his father and his treatment of him or other family members. Specifically, Bobby’s paternal grandparents were concerned that their own son’s behavior was becoming increasingly combative and were concerned about his potential for violence. I informed him that the themes present in Bobby’s play indicated conflictual feelings of loyalty and marked differences between households, although he had not revealed any specific information regarding his father. I further explained that it would not be appropriate for me to reveal any specific information in this regard, as it may affect the therapeutic relationship and trust that had developed, not to mention the issue of confidentiality. I explained that therapy was a special place for Bobby in that it may have been the only place where he didn’t have to choose sides. Lastly and most importantly, I suggested to all parties that a family evaluation be completed by an independent clinician, so that any potential risks (for violence, for instance) could be assessed, and that this would not interfere with my work with Bobby.
Deist writers have leveled two criticisms against use of the term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. First, it has been argued that the word " Deism " has been too radically redefined by the coiners of the phrase. Deism in the classical sense means belief in an intelligent designer arrived at through reason and observation of the natural world. One critic states that "the 'religion' called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism would be more accurately called Moralistic Therapeutic Theism. There is no reason to invent the phrase Moralistic Therapeutic Deism to begin with—because it is, as has already been stated many times, merely a diluted version of the revealed religion that already exists. In truth, it holds no relationship with Deism as we know it."  A second criticism against use of the term is that it is essentially vacuous since, as the originators of the term even admit, "no teenager would actually use the terminology 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deist' to describe himself or herself,"  and since the term is always applied relative to one's own position on a spectrum of adherence to or ignorance of Christian scripture and tradition.