The Words We Use: From Pastoral to Spiritual

A few weeks ago, David Fleenor sent me an email. David Fleenor has himself been a blogger, although it’s been almost a year since his last post – but, then, he’s been busy: graduating from seminary, being ordained deacon and then priest, entering into a clinical pastoral education program with the intent to pursue certification as a Supervisor (a clinical educator – that’s certainly enough). The central point of his email was this:

I have been giving some thought lately to the trend our profession of moving away from the terms "pastoral care" toward the term "spiritual care." I wonder what your thoughts are on the topic.

My own thinking at present is that the movement away from pastoral care to spiritual care may be a secularization of the former. At it's best I think it is an attempt to be inclusive of people of all faiths and no faith. At it's worst, however, I am afraid that it denies the chaplain's primary role as minister and seeks to conceive of us as areligious meaning-making practitioners, which is only one aspect of the work a chaplain may do. I have more thoughts on the topic but I will leave it at that and look forward to hearing from you on the matter.

I certainly think he’s accurate in identifying the trend, and not just in health care chaplaincy. Over the past generation or so the traditional words for talking about one’s spiritual life have changed. The most visible evidence is the common statement, “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual.” Now, that may mean many things – “I think a lot about the meaning of life, but no one religious community seems to fit;” or, “I like to think I’m a seeker, but I’m afraid any specific religious commitments will be too restrictive;” or, “I don’t want to seem shallow or unconcerned about life, the universe, and everything, and as long as I can claim something that somehow sounds appropriate I can pretend I’m not shallow, and I don’t have to feel guilty about it, and you can’t make me!” - but one way or another it represents a departure from the tradition language of established traditions, and especially of the predominant Christian traditions.

That said, my experience of my own professional community is in part in line with David’s understanding of the trend “at its best.” It does certainly represent an effort to be inclusive. After all, we serve all those patients who come to us, and not simply those of our own tradition. The Code of Professional Ethics of the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC) includes these statements:

Members shall serve all persons without discrimination regardless of religion, faith group, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, age, or disability.

Members shall affirm the religious and spiritual freedom of all persons and refrain from imposing doctrinal positions or spiritual practices on persons whom they encounter in their professional role as chaplain.

Those categories end up including many folks for whom the traditional Christian language of ministry is inappropriate; and many more, those inactive Christians, for whom they describe a professional relationship they don’t have

And as important as it is to be inclusive in our respect for those we serve, it is also important to be respectful of those with whom we serve. Certainly, most Chaplains in North America are Christian, as are most religious believers, simply by the numbers. At the same time, the community of professionals providing spiritual care in health care settings is not simply Christian; and the numbers of chaplains coming from Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are growing. Within their own traditions they would not be called “pastor;’ nor would most of their traditions identify spiritual and emotional support for the sick and suffering as “pastoral.”

In a broader sense, that is a dynamic of the term “pastoral” in pastoral care that we can’t ignore: the term is so distinctly, almost exclusively Christian. While we could, I suppose, in theory say that it hearkens predominantly to the solicitous care of a shepherd for livestock out to pasture, it would be a bit of an academic stretch. In this culture so permeated with Christian influence we could hardly speak of the solicitous shepherd and not recall the Good Shepherd. In my roots in religious studies, I recall some few references to God as Shepherd in the Jewish Scriptures, but with little of the connotation of individual care and support (Psalm 23 [or 22] notwithstanding). I am certainly open to correction, but I don’t recall the image at all in my reading of translations of the Q'uran or of Buddhist or Hindu texts. While my colleagues in other traditions may well appreciate a “pastoral” metaphor, they could reasonably prefer imagery from their own scriptures that speaks to the “cure [as in care, responsibility] of souls.” There’s just no separating the label of “pastoral” from the title of “Pastor,” much less from the ultimate Christian Pastor, the Good Shepherd.

That dynamic is also relevant in communicating what we do to the health care team. That context is ever more pluralistic, reflecting and to some extent concentrating our ever more pluralistic society. For our colleagues in other professions the word “pastoral” is not necessarily meaningful. All of the professions in health care are oriented toward providing care; but each has to clarify what type and how. It may well communicate more clearly to speak of spiritual care – of care for spirits, to complement the care of bodies by physicians, nurses, and others; and the care of minds psychologists, social workers, patient advocates and others (and yes, I know I’m oversimplifying those categories) – than to speak of pastoral care to folks who have limited and often ambivalent impressions of pastors, and no impressions of pastures at all.

I think that is also an issue we need to acknowledge: that those we serve and serve with may well have ambivalent, and even suspicious feelings from their images of “pastors,” and Christian clergy in general. Even those of us who are Christian chaplains feel some need to distinguish ourselves from the more judgmental and negative images of congregational clergy. Certainly, we’re not in the business of proselytizing; but neither are we simply in the business of providing Christian support for Christian patients. There is an old joke about the Christian minister who is asked about the weather, and responds, “You’ll have to take that to the Boss; I’m just in Sales.” My corollary is that I’m in Maintenance. I’m in the business of supporting spirits that feel broken, and helping them find the resources within themselves and their own backgrounds to re-knit and renew and restore. I’ve seen enough of that brokenness caused or exacerbated by Christian clergy to be wary of too much association, even if I don’t myself shy away from the title “Pastor.” My own perspective is that this is how God in Christ has called me to be a Pastor.

Now, I am an Episcopal priest in this practice of spiritual care, and not simply some “areligious meaning-making practitioner.” While I don’t trumpet it, neither to do I hide it. I choose to work in clericals every day, preferring to embrace a known image of a spiritual practitioner and deal with the ambivalence and hostility as I encounter them. At the same time, I certainly think we need to recognize “the chaplain’s primary role as minister” within a much wider context of ministry. I have said elsewhere that we are advanced practice ministers specializing in health care settings, even as we are adjunct health professionals specializing in spiritual care. In our pluralistic environment, there may be many models of ministry, some of which might fit well with “pastoral,” and some which might not. On the other hand, all are in some sense in pursuit of “the cure of souls” – support and care for human spirits in crisis and stress. In that context, “spiritual care” may be more recognizable, more translatable, than “pastoral care:” and so may communicate more clearly to those we serve, and those we serve with, the service we are called to provide. After all, many of them, perhaps most, don’t have a pastor; but each of them has a spirit, worthy of our respect and our care.

Some Scholars Respond

In a post in March I published a letter to the Dean of the School of Theology of the University of the South, of which I am an alumnus. I asked that the faculty speak to the Draft Covenant and make their response public.

In bouncing around the blogosphere tonight, I found out that they had - indeed, were when I was publishing my post. You can link here to the statement of some members of the faculty of the School of Theology. (Thanks to The Confessing Tiger for posting it, and to titusonenine for pointing to it.)

I will admit I'm somewhat disappointed with the statement. It's accurate, and its points are well made. Perhaps it could have taken on the relations among the Instruments of Unity and the accession of power to the Primates. Perhaps it could have done some analysis of the various scriptural references. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....

However, I asked for a response, and they were responding even as I wrote. Credit where due.

Blogging the CPE Experience

Now that summer is here, lots of seminarians are going through clinical pastoral education (CPE). As I sometimes look at seminarian blogs, I thought I would spend some time looking at blogs writing this summer about CPE. Below are some folks writing about that experience. If you're one of them, link through here, and offer one another some support. If you've been through CPE, listen to these voices and remember your own experiences. We can offer them some support, and some hope.

pomomusings

I Will Sing

little sacredspace

Wild Goose Chased (The Further Adventures of Melissa)

Wags' Cyber Seminary Experience

There may be others out there. If you bring them to my attention, I'll be happy to add them. In meantime, blessings on these CPE summer students.

Updated Tuesday, June 12:

Alan Abrams over at abayye is blogging about his own experience. He is a CPE Supervisory Resident, and is experiencing his first unit co-supervising - a big step when one is pursuing the role of an educator in CPE.

Responding to the Study Guide: Questions 13 and 14

This is the last piece on the Study Guide. I will be sending off the opinions I have written, and trust the thoughts of others who have answered more thoroughly than I have.

(13) Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or why not?

(14) In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not-helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?

Since both Questions 13 and 14 address the Draft Covenant as a whole, I will address them together.

There are clearly “new things” in this Draft Covenant.

• First, there is the clear sense of urgency underlying the entire Covenant effort. It fixes the effort in a specific historical context – this historical context – and so undermines any effort to establish a relationship open to the future.
• Second, the Draft Covenant would establish the “Instruments of Communion” as structures of the Communion. To this point, the “Instruments” have been forums for maintenance of relationship and cooperation in mission. The Covenant in this Draft would establish them as agencies – as structures having in themselves moral and juridical agency – for the Communion.
• Third, within those the Covenant would establish the Primates’ Meeting as the “gatekeeper” to determine what issues might call for consideration by the other Instruments of Communion, and what positions might express “a common mind.”

In assessing the Draft Covenant as a whole, I do not believe it will help us. While much of the language is attractive, the essence of the document is an effort, driven by a sense of urgency, to establish structures that will centralize authority for decisions and reception for the Communion at the expense of the autonomy of individual Provinces. Driven by the perception of urgency, I fear such a Covenant might be embraced in haste, but would certainly be repented at leisure. It will not add to our capacities in individual Provinces to respond to our unique cultural circumstances.

From the lessons for Trinity Sunday: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” (Romans 5:1-2) I could have chosen other lessons to make the point, but this is apropos both in content and in timing. This is a clear statement of how, by God’s grace in Christ, we are in communion with God in Christ and so with one another. If this is not sufficient basis for Anglicans to be in communion, no covenant we negotiate will result in meaningful communion, much less cooperation in the ministry that God has given us.

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 10

Continuing to respond to the Study Guide....

(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .” mean to you?

This question relates to the commitment in this section “to seek with other members, through the Church’s shared councils, a common mind about matters of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.” It is an attractive image, and one we could imagine when we might be one as Jesus and the Father are one.

That said, I fear that “a common mind about matters of essential concern” may be as much an eschatological hope as true unity with God in Christ. In our current difficulties we are not of a common mind about what matters are of essential concern. We can hardly expect to come to a common mind about the matters themselves.

To speak of “a common mind” seems to me to speak to a process of consensus and reception. Thus, to determine what matters are “of essential concern,” and then work toward “a common mind” would require a process of shared discussion and shared experience. Indeed, I can imagine “a common mind on matters of essential concern” would require communion, rather than being a requirement for it. If reached at all, it would only be reached in time and in lived relationships.

That would preclude, then, calling a decision reached by majority vote “a common mind.” That is, if there are grounds to publish a separate “minority report,” the mind can hardly be called “common.”

Perhaps that seems too high a standard. After all, many decisions are reached by majority vote, and we commonly consider those decisions reached by majority vote as more “valid” than those imposed by a small contingent. This is the case, for example, of actions of General Convention. At the same time, we do not assert that actions of General Convention are “the mind of the Communion,” or that all such actions deal with “matters of essential concern.” Indeed, as we value within our own midst diversity of opinion, we are quite limited and specific in describing the various actions of General Convention. In my own use, I say, “General Convention has said…” rather than, “The Episcopal Church teaches….” The second statement I reserve for those actions that affect the content of the Book of Common Prayer, and to a lesser extent of the Hymnal and of services for trial use.

We continue to be led, we believe, by God’s living and active Spirit. At the same time, we do not believe any of us is perfectly able to hear or to follow the leading of the Spirit. Differences among us arise literally in good faith, in honest efforts to follow God in Christ. If we are to reach a “common mind,” it will be by the power of the Spirit, in and through the communion we share, however imperfectly. We cannot hurry that process by our own will, any more than we can by our own will add a cubit to our height. Until so led by the Spirit, we can struggle to recognize matters of essential concern, to wrestle with them together, and to reach decisions; but in those circumstances we must recognize that our decisions are incomplete, and our “mind” rarely “common.”