I, too, cannot stand religion being crammed down my throat. I have agnostic/spiritual beliefs, but I'd rather be free from institutional religion.

That said, the T's website stated that she was "friendly" to Christianity, which might mean that she is able to understand the Christian-based needs in counseling, though she might also be open (but not as well trained) in other religions or non-religious stances (such as agnosticism and atheism) as well. The best thing to do is inform her about your concerns and ask her what she meant by that. More often than not, it's really put there because she has experience as a spiritual counselor as well as a psychotherapist, but she may be ethically bound to respect all religions (though some counselors are not, so it is best to ask up front, such as those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community who have been turned away by "Christian" therapists - who are licensed to practice but are nonetheless putting religion over their private practice ethics that should be open to seeing all people in need or find a lower-paying position as a spiritual/Christian-based counselor instead, or do what this woman has done by declaring that as a stance, which may be her right in that jurisdiction). Either way, it is sad when religion and politics have infiltrated the ways in which we have access to mental health care (which is called "social determinants of health" in the social sciences that study diversity issues, cultural competency, critical race theory, privilege, inclusivity/inclusion, equity - over and against equality, etc.). There are many minorities by race, age, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, and religion/non-religion that have been turned away by therapists or have been mistreated by therapists. That becomes what victimologists call the "secondary victimization," in terms of both unsubstantiated and substantiated victimization traumas (including, but not limited to, harassment, discrimination, hate, bigotry, verbal abuse, psychological abuse, spiritual abuse, and even therapy abuse, medical traumas, medical malpractice, iatrogenic effects, etc.). Secondary victimization is a direct form of trauma (not to be confused with vicarious/secondary trauma, which are indirect forms of trauma that impact individuals nonetheless). When secondary victimization (i.e., retraumatization) occurs in the form of the therapeutic dyad among persons who were spiritually, religiously, or ritualistically abused, faith-based counselors will sometimes unintentionally and thus iatrogenically harm their clients with such histories of specific forms of trauma. Trauma heterogeneity hasn't been studied well enough to understand how the therapeutic dyad itself can lead to retraumatization and thus affecting the ways in which misdiagnoses happen, mistreatment happens, malpractice happens, and worsening conditions happen. Some people were so gaslit by spiritual counselors that they wound up with new symptoms that weren't there before, and the worsening of symptoms based on past traumas.

Like politics, religion ought not have a place in therapeutics or medicine. Religious tolerance is one thing, but promoting religion within private practice is another. For instance, self-soothing is a coping mechanism, and some people may use masturbation as a way to relieve stress. A Christian may see that as being "lasciviousness" and therefore a "sin" and something not to be spoken about or even tolerated in treatment for utilizing coping skills. Some people may even be diagnosed with a sexual dysfunction or paraphilic disorder because of a person's religious and/or political beliefs, especially when the clients are minorities and possibly seen as being more prone to things like "abortion" in the future. Sadly, there have been many people hurt in therapy from such types of conversations with therapists.

Another sad example is when certain therapists try to convert non-binary and non-heterosexual cases into binary and heterosexual ones. Conversion therapy has been banned, from what I believe, but the therapist may still bring about phrases and conversations that are tantamount to such therapies, or may even misdiagnose the person with some sort of odd behavior or otherwise "sin" if their political and/or religious beliefs have infiltrated their attitudes and their therapeutic approaches to minorities.

It would be helpful for more people to be trained in diversity, inclusivity, and equity, but those things are now controversial and therefore not as available in training arenas and/or grad school as they once were - albeit still rather scarce before politics have changed the ways in which therapists have been trained, and thus what has been made available to the growing number of minorities in communities such as the LGBTQ+ communities. Religious beliefs from the therapist should therefore not cause harm to their clients, and being exclusively available to only those willing to conform to the Christian way, or any other religious way for that matter, is excluding (not including) many clients who don't believe in that and will be inadvertently harmed by that if that means that their lack of assimilation to their therapist's cultural practices and religious or political beliefs will send a negative message to clients who are struggling with mental health concerns that involve direct challenges to certain religious beliefs and political practices among therapists. There have indeed been studies done on these scenarios, which largely include the ways in which structural violence has played a role in narrowed ecological systems.

Clients of any background should receive the same, good, effective level of care from therapists of any background. Politics and religion from the therapist should not influence how the therapist practices, even though the client may present what the client has experienced (but not the therapist). It is an area that psychology has been trying to advance, but there's now a dwindling of courses and training available to do so. Sadly.