Pastoral Care and Unbaptised Secular Psychology

There was a trend (that is still being played out) in the 70s and 80s toward the clergy re/training in the human sciences like psychology and social work, etc. For some it was a natural move given their liberal theological position that struggled to give faith, theology and even God any firm foundations other than as a cipher for justice and care for others. For some it also provided a little insurance against ecclesiastical caprice! This confusion between the human sciences and Christian theology and practice was evident in the training I received in pastoral care back in the mid-80s. A large part of our practice and reflection consisted of learning secular techniques of counselling and then constructing a theological justification for the use of these techniques. However, it was all a little too uncritical. (One of the ironies in this is that those who advocated the mostly uncritical use of the human sciences were often those most critical of the church's alleged uncritical baptism of political power in the time of Constantine and since.)

Now, the human sciences are an extremely valuable and pragmatic grab-bag of theory and practice that serve us all well. Good therapy, when you need it, is a great gift. However, to collapse Christian pastoral care into this grab-bag of psychology and medicine is a mistake. Pastoral care is more than psychology conducted in a Christian context or by Christians supplemented with prayer and Bible reading. (Although it can be this too.) When this collapse occurs the goals of Christian pastoral care and Enlightenment medicine and psychology become almost indistinguishable. For example, the tendency of the human sciences (and medicine) is to consider pain and suffering something to be avoided and eradicated. If it cannot be eradicated then the task is to help the client/patient cope with the pain. Well and good at one level, but we wouldn't want that to determine our response in toto. A specifically Christian response might be to spend some time on the person's relationship with God in the midst of the pain and suffering, and ask, "What practices might help this person remain faithful to God in the midst of this pain, and to know the continuing care of God in their life?" How might we help people cope with their experience of a providential God, their eschatological hope in the kingdom to come, and their current experience of confusion and alienation? The experience of pain and suffering can be a laboratory where we learn our need and renew our love for God in a more real manner. But that is a tough thing for a pastor to try these days because the aims of the secular human sciences and medicine have a virtual monopoly on the practice and goals of pastoral care.

The Irony of 'Liberal' Theology

One of the ironies of the "liberal" wing of the church is that when it theologises it jettisons Christianity's best resources to achieve what it wants! The identity of Jesus is a good example. In reaction to smug and conservative Christianity 'liberal' theology reduces the messianic self-knowledge of Jesus, making him the prophet who delivers the message, rather than the message itself. It appears to me a kind of visceral counter-reaction to the misuse of the titles of Jesus by conservative forces. But retaining the messianic self-consciousness of Jesus radicalizes Jesus, uniting him even more fully with the downtrodden of history and sinners than "liberal" theology's great prophet.

Two examples of what I mean. First, if Jesus is 'Son of God' in a unique way, bringing the presence of God's reign in his very person, indeed, if he is God's very own flesh, then Jesus' option for the poor and sinner is a stinging critique of the forces of death, oppression and ordinary religion. "Liberal" theology emphasises the solidarity of Jesus with the underside of history; retaining his titles radicalises the solidarity we see in his teaching, ministry and death.

Second, 'liberal' theology attempts to maintain the deep shock of the cross to ordinary religion, and emphasise the solidarity of the crucified Jesus with all the crosses of history. Exactly right, except that by retaining the titles of Jesus and his self-conscious knowledge of them the rupture of the cross is deepened not removed. This Jesus, who has relied upon and utterly defined himself in terms of his filial relationship, is abandoned. That's the end of ordinary religion's god.

Megawhat?

A good critique of paganism-in-the-guise-of-Christianity Church.

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 4

Another irony of the contemporary church is the way in which a traditional faith is rejected by both right and left wings of the church. My theologically liberal friends know that I am anything but liberal. We have different theological methods, very different in fact, but end up in the same place on some of the big issues. I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, as well as in the efficacy of Christ’s death and bodily resurrection, and that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation. I also support the full participation of women in the life of society and the church, and support the full integration of non-celibate homosexuals in the life of the church, which includes the office of bishop. My theological reliance on the traditional faith makes it harder to connect to the liberals, but because of my support of women and homosexuals I am suspect in the eyes of the right wing of the church too.

The problem for the reactionaries is that they think that all those who come up with different answers to the ‘great’ moral questions like homosexuality and sex outside of formal marriage are liberals. In comparison to some of them I suppose even someone as traditional as I am would seem liberal! This reminds me of an article in a Sydney evangelical newsletter about one of the bishop election synods we had here in Adelaide a few years back. The author, a Sydney evangelical here in Adelaide, was explaining to the folks back ‘home’ why the evangelicals in Adelaide vote with the Catholic conservatives at Synod. He said the reason was because the conservative catholics believe in the traditional doctrines of God and Christ, the bodily resurrection, the efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross and the authority of Scripture. But hang on, I believe in all those things, but I’m not one of the catholic conservatives. Ignoring the strange and pragmatic understanding of truth here (the reason he was justifying that temporary alliance was because good evangelicals of the Sydney brand know that Catholicism is popery), it is important to realize that similar traditional theological methods can (and often do) come up with different answers. I suspect the reactionary wing of the church likes to class everyone who disagrees with them as ‘liberals’ because it is so much easier to dismiss your interlocutor if you believe their methodology is flawed. Reactionaries say things like “Liberals (read those who don’t agree with them) don’t believe in the Bible/bodily resurrection/etc.” But the real world of the church is unlike the picture promulgated by either left or right wings of the church.

The problem for the liberals is that thy do theology in reaction to the reactionaries, allowing them to set the agenda. The reactionary misuse of the tradition is no reason to reject it. It is in fact, a better reason to use it properly.

Most people are suspicious of the extremes, and rightly so. The problem is that those of us somewhere more in the middle don’t seem to be able to present an attractive alternative to the extremes. Perhaps being in the middle somewhere is like that, or perhaps we live in a society tending toward extremes. But I also suspect that those of us in the middle have to start to work harder at presenting the believable middle in a dynamic way and make plain the craziness of the extremes. The natural home for most people is that kind of dynamic middle.

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 3

Another irony of the contemporary church is the way in which the liberal wing of the church is so utterly saturated with the core outcomes of the traditional faith, yet rejects the traditional superstructure of belief and doctrine that produced these core outcomes. The liberals want to say that justice is key to the Bible, that God, Jesus, life, the church and ministry is all about love, the church must be involved in the world, that judgement is more than meeting a fork in the road with two equally weighted alternatives, and that the God-world relationship is dynamic and relational, and that God is not distant and uninvolved (they call this distant and uninvolved God transcendent!). But all of these beliefs are the result of the traditional faith of the church. The problem with liberal theology is that it is never writing its own theology, just reacting to the right wing reactionaries. Liberalism loves to put up straw figures that are easy to blow down, claiming that the straw figure is traditional Christianity. (Bishop Spong is the great exponent of this methodology.) And then, having dispensed with the traditional superstructure, thinks that its innovations are the true interpretation of the faith. The funny thing is that so much of the innovation is cultural residue from the triumph of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity won the battle of the religions and philosophies in making love the very being of God. This is why today almost everyone in the West thinks love is the most important thing in life. The doctrine of the Trinity ensured that the West would take personal rights seriously. The doctrine of the Trinity made God’s relationship of the world dynamic and relational, fully involved, and did this by saying that love is possible because God is transcendent. The doctrine of the Trinity and the God-world relationship behind it allowed the rise of western science because it gave creation its own integrity and being. And you don’t need process theology to have a doctrine of God that allows for divine involvement, personal integrity and freedom of human beings, and a salvation that honours that freedom. The Incarnation and the Trinity do all of this and more, and do it better.

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 2

For whatever reasons, the West (not just the church) has for at least a couple of millennia seen sex as either the great point of salvation or the great threat. Obsessively so. Most of us would agree that sex is a powerful force in human society and the individual. Of course. But the West has obsessed over sex’s potential to destroy or bring fulfillment to the extent where sex becomes the panacea for all ills or invariably the point of destruction (eternal or otherwise). For example, the alleged bourgeois repression of sex in nineteenth century Europe was nothing of the sort. People, or should I say men, obsessed over sex. Whether it was the sexuality of women or children masturbating, sexuality was seen as the great source of corruption of the family and society as a whole.

This leads me to the second great irony of the contemporary church. Many Christians, and most churches, have capitulated to this cultural norm. The church is obsessed with sex. On one end of the spectrum we have those who think sex is the panacea of all ills. This takes many forms: a spiritual director whose standard approach is to enquire about the directee’s sex life; or the priest who ignores his own self-indulgent sexual habits because they are irrelevant (allegedly) to ministerial integrity. On the other end of the spectrum the self-appointed guardians of sexual propriety within church and society, consigning gays, fornicators, etc., to hell, and while that destiny is cooking, at least kicking them out of the church after a satisfying witch hunt.

The irony deepens for those on the witch hunt end of the spectrum. Those on this end of the spectrum lambast those of loose sexual morals in the church as capitulating to the culture. That might be true, but what is certainly true is that they themselves, in obsessing over sex, have capitulated to one of the great cultural norms of Western society. Now that’s a bit funny.

Ironies of the Contemporary Church Part 1

It is one of the ironies of the contemporary church that churches suspicious of, or that flatly reject, the traditional structures of the church have a tendency toward their own particular version of the straitjacket they believe they have rejected. The irony lies in the claim that they eschew the traditional structures to give voice to the freedom of the gospel or Spirit, yet can end up a good deal more narrow and exclusive. Traditional structures, for all their problems, often have embedded in them ways of including those who might otherwise be forced out, and provide sensible ways for participatory decision making and conflict resolution. For example, take many of the self-designated ‘Spirit-filled’ churches. These churches are often characterized by features antithetical to the Spirit. I include here the tendency toward uniformity and exclusion. And having leadership that is 'charismatic' seems to have just as much chance (if not more) of attracting and embedding craziness in leadership as traditional structures. Nepotism is virtually non-existent in traditional structures, but not so amongst Pentecostal churches. Recent church surveys suggest that pentecostal and charismatic churches that eschew traditional structures lack the means for sensible conflict resolution. It is more the case that if you disagree with the pastor you are out! The Spirit, contrary to this impulse of uniformity and exclusion, forced unanimity and erratic leadership, is the Spirit that gives diversity for the unity of the body and provides for the life of the church through structures that facilitate good decision making and inclusion. Well, sometimes anyway!