ࡱ> #` (bjbj 7K'    YYY8VYY uuZZ"ZZZZZZinknknknKn q t$+vhxu E]ZZE]E]u  ZZ/ummmE]2 Z ZinmE]inmm  mZZ ЏYwkmmtEu0uumIympIymIy m Z~[hm[T:\ ZZZuuwm^ZZZuuE]E]E]E]   NY   Y           CHAPTER V Critiques of Pastoral Care, Circa 1970 In General Now we are at the end of the sixties. To summarize Holifield, there had been a general progression on the part of pastoral care-givers from concern with other-worldly salvation in the 1700s to a heavily psychological emphasis on self-realization by the end of the 1960s. All the changes from self-denial to self-love, from self-love to self-culture, from self-culture to self-mastery, and from self-mastery to self-realization have not been disembodied movements, but mirror the dim reflection of public order, as well as changing conceptions of the self. Studying the changes helps make understandable both the cultures indebtedness to its Protestant past and Protestantisms adaptation to the changing patterns of the culture. Holifield asserts, a representative selection of pastoral conversations in the late twentieth century would probably encompass the whole history of pastoral counseling in America, which is good to recognize, so that there is both appreciation for the tradition and an obviated need to reinvent the wheel. We will begin this section on critiques with a final word from Holifield that addresses the a-historical bias of contemporary pastoral care, which is the essential critique accepted at the beginning of these historical chapters, lending impetus to their combined length. Holifield writes that The dominant mythology of America has always been oriented to the future and has thus nourished a preoccupation with achievement and success. American pastoral care must guard against falling into popular, inadequate views of protean man selfhood which assume the self can distance itself from its embeddedness in language and history to create itself anew in successive moments of pure freedom. This is a diminution of humanity, precisely because of the inalienable historicity of selfhood whose characteristic organization of experience is only changed through a process of mediation among past, present, and future. Supporting transformative process involves a few basic moves for Holifield: 1) Encouraging reflective consciousness of the various levels of our historical embeddedness--personal, denominational, national, etc.--provides distance and a sense of relativity, as opposed to unconscious necessity. 2) Doing such reflection in a atmosphere of graceful appreciation of our traditions averts the need for either insecure shame and rejection of the past, or fearful defensive clutching of the past. 3) The combination of distance and appreciation allows students and teachers, or searchers and counselors, to explore whether their histories and language adequately allow for and interpret their concrete psycho-social-spiritual experience. 4) When their experiences push against the limits or boundaries of their conscious understanding, the possibility of transformation arises. It opens to discovering either deeper levels of the explorers present traditions, or new, wider traditions. None of this is encouraged with a-historical presuppositions of selfhood. That the process often does occur in pastoral counseling, despite a-historical biases, is a reflection of incongruence in theory and method. Clearly, the more pastors are aware of the multiplicity and diversity of historical dispositions in their lives and work, the more sensitive and effective their vocation can be. To now characterize the period, the end of the 1960s leaves us with pastoral counseling a specialized discipline within ministry distinct from the pastoral care happening in churches, treading water while trying to find a shore to land on somewhere between private practice or mental health center psychotherapists, and a church that did not quite know how to integrate it into parish structures. Pastor care and counseling courses were well integrated into seminary curriculums. A unit of CPE was required by many schools and/or their ordaining bodies. But, it was recognized as a minimal exposure which most often required pastors to do referrals to expert pastoral care specialists (read pastoral psychotherapists) outside parish structures. There was little confidence in white mainline churches that the community itself could support individuals in crisis through worship, prayer, fellowship, small group ministries, and community service. Faith in the possibilities of therapy was still high. Furthermore, even for those parish pastors with adequate therapy training, middle-class timidity and pride often led parishioners to avoid a dual relationship with a pastor and seek the anonymity of a confidential outside therapist, whether secular or clerical. In relation to cultural-social issues, pastoral care specialists were largely on the sidelines during the 60s, outside of advocating for better or more humane treatment of the mentally ill, or offering themselves in individual relationships to their black friends and colleagues. This was less true for some in the South who had to go beyond personal attitudes and words to actually take stands in some situations. As a group, they participated in high levels of rationality/vision logic, which placed them in the ambiguity of a middle class, educated appreciation of pluralism, pragmatism, relativism, and the complexity of issues, all of which tends to short-circuit action and keep one from making strong demands on others. In one way, they were heart-centered cultural subversives who felt they dealt daily with the effects on individuals of a harmful society; colluding with their clients on how to be beat the system by being authentic in an inauthentic world. They bought into much of the cultural-social critiques of the fifties and sixties, though they often worked with middle-class folks who had to make the best of their worldly situations. Their counseling work often incorporated values of the expressive ethic: direct experience, self-awareness, expression, intimacy, and growth. They were operating pietistically, saving the world one person at a time. It was hard to imagine affecting large impersonal structures, and this was not the thrust of their training or interests. In another way, professional pastoral care specialists benefited from the existing system which hired them, validated them, and funded both them and (for the increasing number in private practice) their overwhelmingly white middle-class clients. This, again, tends to lower or moderate tensions with the status quo. They were promoting pastoral counseling in the market place to many outside of the churches as a means for realizing various self-interests, which is hard to do from too radical or marginal a position. Add to this the identity confusion from leaning heavily for validation and respect on psychological professionals, who themselves were not mobilizing to deal with cultural-social issues either, and who were in many ways married to particular schools of therapy, complete with the variety of strictures they embodied (like, dont mess up the transference or short-circuit personal responsibility by taking public forms of action). Much of the excitement and protests of the sixties, the counter-culture, the rise of ARMs was missed through a curious but cautious wait-and-see attitude, even the experimenting with new, body-centered, consciousness raising, transpersonal, and non-traditional approaches to personal healing, supposedly within their bailiwick (though this was less true on the West Coast than the East where the psychoanalytic paradigm was more entrenched.) This hesitance moderated over time as the sixties faded and pastoral practitioners looked into what their secular colleagues were still exploring. Theologically, contemporary pastoral care had broken with models of ministry from the classic tradition, but had no normative theory of ministry of its own which could encompass the parish, social action, and psychotherapeutic aspects of ministry. The Type A, God-in-the-Law meme was definitely discredited as authoritarian, moralistic, and/or downright harmful. The Type B God-in-the-Truth meme was current, but as in the academy, there was no agreement about the most appropriate philosophical foil; personalist, pragmatic, existential, Marxist, phenomenological, process? There were elements of the Type C God-in-History meme emerging with the growing emphases on history, hope, the future, bondage, liberation, and the victory of Christ for a realm of freedom and growth. However, this was not a systematic or self-consciously adopted position. And, pastoral care practitioners, with notable exceptions, did not have a close, pastoral connection with parish-based communities of faith where such a vision would be nurtured through more overall programs of care incorporating fellowship, sacraments, service, and spiritual practices. In CPE reflection seminars theologians such as Walter Lowe who were invited in complained they were often in the position of running after the bus to put a theological bumper sticker on it after the clinical supervisor had set it in motion through skillful clinical evocation of the psychological issues at hand. Many pastoral counselors were in fact adverse to dry, abstract, rational theology and traditional ritual which did not address the immediacy of their situations. A good number also felt they were refugees from a repressive, embarrassing religious background. Their trouble with the institutional church and avoidance of religious language was reinforced by many of their psychological colleagues, who as a group tend to have the lowest disposition to value religion. Pastoral care-givers also shared in the counter-culture critique that the rhetoric of the church was one thing, but the actions of the church in general, and church members in particular, were another--i.e. non-congruent. The late sixties revealed an underground antipathy on the part of pastoral care specialists, who delved deeply into the richness of intra-psychic, inter-personal pain, with their colleagues in the parish who were derogatorily referred to as preachers, with the connotation that their work was suspiciously superficial. Thus, while pastoral care specialists were understanding participants in the crisis phase of the Fourth Period of Awakening and Revival, they were not major players in seeking the New Light which might reinvent the American Dream, and capture the nations imagination on a cultural level. Part of the inability to shed New Light stemmed from the above named antipathy between pastoral care specialists and preachers, which functionally separated pastoral specialists from the worship, ritual, and pulpit of the church that allows for an enlarged voice. In the following quote Will Willimon reflects on his experience of going from clinical pastoral education to the local parish, an experience which led him to write his 1979 book Worship as Pastoral Care. For me, pastoral care had been interpreted mainly in terms of pastoral counseling--and rather limited, carefully circumscribed models of counseling at that. I had learned various techniques and approaches to the counseling task, but many of these proved to be inadequate or unrealistic in an actual parish setting. The fifty-minute hour of the counseling session was more often the ten-minute crisis or the momentary sidewalk encounter. I felt that I was a conscientious, caring pastor, but, frankly, only a small portion of that care was devoted to counseling in any strict sense of the word. Besides, I was troubled by what I interpreted to be a growing cleavage between many of those who were in the pastoral counseling field and the theological affirmations and day-to-day pastoral work of life in the parish ministry. Willimon was also critical of the graduate studies in liturgy he did, which could likewise be distant from local church realities. At the same time, he was quite complimentary of all the useful psychological insight he acquired in his religious training, which could be well integrated into the liturgical work he was developing in the parish. Although he ended up in a teaching position, at the time he was modeling the necessity of parish pastors taking authority as primary theologians of the church to draw from and transcend the variety of academic sub-specialties to forge on-line ministry. In so doing he asserted the position that there is no true pastoral care that does not take place within the context of a worshipping, believing, caring, witnessing community of faith. By taking local pastoral authority to do what needed to be done, Willimon did exactly what Renner suggested needed to happen at this juncture of the history of pastoral care where he diagnosed a similar split between factions. Unfortunately, a tension has existed between specialist ritualists and counselors which has retarded the services of each. The counselor too often feels that ritual lacks warmth and empathy; that its fixed forms are insensitive to where the patient is; that it stanches the free flow of a patients feelings; that it generalizes his or her experience; and that it tends to reduce pastoral ministry to the magical. The ritualists, too, have criticized the counselors. They have said that too much of counseling takes place in a vacuum; that it leaves the patient to return to the situation that still imprisons him or her in all its threatening and disabling power; that it is a pain-killing anesthetic which eases the patient into a trouble-free kind of experience; that it is little more than an emotional palliative which sometimes prevents the patient from coming to terms with the deepest needs that the crisis has exhumed; that it tends to privatize the individual and to isolate him or her in the counseling chamber apart from community and the support it is able to give; above all that the counselor does not tie off the emotional disturbances of the patient and anchor the person to some sort of stable focus which ritual can do. I would like to think that the tension ought to be properly resolved by parish pastors who cannot avoid being precipitated into the role of both counselor or ritualist. Instead of tension between counselor and ritualist, even coexistence, there ought to be a strong partnership. A counselor who performs without appropriate ritual is bringing an impoverished ministry to persons in crisis and a ritualist without counseling content in performance is doing likewise. Nearly ten years after Renner, Elaine Ramshaw would still open her book on Ritual and Pastoral Care by saying that pastoral care continued to be tone-deaf to mystery, and giving ritual studies short shrift, if dealt with at all. The public liturgical role of the pastor has often been dissociated from the private, individualized, counseling role that is considered the essence of pastoral care. Once again, she argued that if the proponents of ritual and counseling will stop attacking each others characteristic distortions they will have much to contribute to each others enrichment. Pastoral counseling can be imbued with a sense of community and of the transcendent; there is no surer way for this to happen than through a vital and self-conscious connection with the worship life of the community. Ritual can resonate to human need, and to this end there is much the ritualist can learn from the psychological insights into human development and personality familiar to those in the field of pastoral care. These judgments about pastoral cares lack of theological and/or parish moorings should be counterbalanced by saying that many pastoral counselors and supervisors strove in the own way to integrate theology and a larger perspective into their work, which could communicate to students. How much it communicated to students is a question mark, just as how much sermons communicate to congregants is a question mark. The overall thrust of the theological critique here is that pastoral theology had by and large adopted the liberal subjective approach of trying to find God immanently in human experience, and was not too clear about sorting out issues of immanence and transcendence. They hesitated, as did their early 1900s colleagues, to bring in God-talk in case it might be experienced as moralistic, authoritarian, uncivilized, or somehow off-putting. In some ways it is not fair to critique pastoral theology, since it was reflecting the general drift of theology in its time. We have already argued that pastoral theology is not a separate brand of theology. Pastoral theologians basically assume the orthodoxy of the day, and seek to make grace specific in particular situations. However, when pastoral counselors functionally spend 90% or more of their time with clients reflecting feelings and trying to help them reorganize their experience, with the gospel remaining implicit in the quality of the therapeutic relationship, a question arises. Are they still functioning as ministers of the church in terms of interpreting and applying the Christian mythos in their time and place? Again, a qualification should be that many counselors during this period could still assume their church clients were getting some level of Christian formation in the church itself, which freed them as specialists to concentrate on counseling issues. But what of non-church clients who could complete therapy without being able to say how their pastoral counselor was any different from other secular psychotherapists they might have consulted? At this point we should address more clearly the question of who they are. When pastoral care is painted with such sweeping strokes of generalized critique, just who is pastoral care and who is responsible for bringing it/us to the place of being such a susceptible target? The answer is a bit nebulous, with plenty of reproach to go around. Some of the culpability goes to the general culture which bought into the rationalistic, pragmatic, utilitarian, scientific, technological, capitalistic, generally descendent Enlightenment paradigm in such a big way. A part of it is a function of the seminaries who bought into the theological/secular, religious/scientific split at the first of the century, became overly involved in apologetics and meta-theories about theology, and divided their curriculums into classical versus practical branches of sub-specialization, thus polarizing instead of integrating the fields in play. The leaders of the field get some of the blame for being intimidated by the general academic milieu and doing more meta-thinking about pastoral care than confessional writing and practice. However, as suggested above, leaders dont control what students do with everything they say, and clearly, Johnson, Wise, and Hiltner all had degrees in, and were well versed in theology. They were reacting against the limitations of what had gone before them, trying to pioneer a new field, and felt there were plenty of others to hold up the systematic-historical-biblical studies end of pastoral training. The consumer congregants of pastoral care and counseling, who reflected the general culture, were also a part of promoting theological forgetfulness. As Quentin Hand says, few seekers ask for help in theological terms. They name specific tensions, such as a troubled marriage, or depression, or inability to keep friends, as the cause of coming. This is confirmed by a study done by Posavac and Hartung that explored why people choose to come to a pastoral counseling center. Only 20% chose pastoral counselors over other psychotherapists for religious reasons. Only 18 out of 79 center users said they wished religion had been mentioned more often. One conclusion of the study was that although the discipline of pastoral counseling demands an understanding of both pastoral care and psychotherapy, the learning of psychotherapy is the first priority. . . . The delivery of good psychotherapy is the crucial issue.  However, other studies by Malony demonstrated that prospective pastoral counseling clients did not gravitate toward pastors with special counseling training, or with particular religious beliefs. They simply rated highly those who demonstrated a positive attitude toward human nature, an attitude which could flow from a secular anthropology as well as a particular Christian theology. So again, what or who is this pastoral care under discussion? Since meaning is conferred contextually and we have noted just some of the multiple contexts that make pastoral care what it is, it seems wise to follow the lead of Ralph Ciampa, who in his article God-Talk in Pastoral Care, simply confesses: I am thinking of pastoral care as I have found it taught and practiced by those of us associated with it. Subjective as this makes it, whether it is CPE, AAPC, seminary courses, or local parish practice, there seems to be some overall, theoretical, inadequate generalizations and experiential intuitions in the air that fit to some extent, whether they were ever intended or not; whether anyone could foresee the consequences of previous moves or not. As for Ciampa himself, he affirms that CPE has distinguished itself not only by the educational method of working from the living human document. But has also explored new territory in the pastoral method of presence and intimacy as contrasted with proclamation and authority. However, his concern in his paper is to raise the question of where we may be called upon to move beyond the pastoral method of presence and intimacy to a more explicit use of religious language, with the clear implication that professional mainline pastoral care has been short on explicitness. It is possible, he writes, that in crisis ministry the pastor, focused solely upon the intimate human relationship as a saving grace, may participate in an idolatry. The pastoral relationship, crucial as it is, remains an element of the finite which in the end will have an idolatrous potential if the pastor should fail to recognize the sense in which the person needs to discover an ultimate dimension which goes beyond the pastor and person. As admittedly finite creatures, we pastors can incarnate Gods love in a powerful way to those in crisis. Some may experience their crises in a way that can best respond to our uninterpreted caring presence. But others may discover in their crises a dimension of their finitude that invites us not only to incarnate the love of the infinite Father, but also to point to Him explicitly--to allow the power of the pastoral relationship and the power of the Christian symbols to speak together. Ciampas summary is that, out of this discussion I become increasingly convinced of the importance of focusing our awareness as pastors upon the point at which it becomes possible and necessary for our ministry of presence to become one of proclamation. Tom Oden also picked up on this issue of presence and proclamation. Why he asks, if God is already present in the life of the person and in the presence of the counselor, must we move toward preaching to make an explicit announcement of Gods presence? He answers through an analysis of Paul who also had to clarify the issue in his day that the purpose of proclamation is that of calling persons to an awareness of the reality of the situation in which they already exist, the reality of Gods occurring love; not to introduce God to the world, as if he were not already there, but to introduce persons to themselves as those who are always already claimed by God. Paul asks how we are to rely upon the accepting reality if we have never known ourselves to be encountered by it (Rom. 10:13). . . . Here is the necessity of overt, clear, decisive proclamation, which announces the accepting reality present in therapy as a reality that has chosen to make itself known once for all in history. Rodney Hunter sounds the same note in agreeing that the strength of the CPE movement in encouraging enhanced self-awareness, growth, maturity, and the ability to use ones personhood as ones best tool in ministry, has overextended itself into becoming its liability. It is definitely a limiting tendency for the pastors selfhood to be considered as the primary source of caring and therapeutic ministry, overstepping its proper theological function as an incarnation of a larger redemptive Reality--the Word of God in the power of the Spirit, acting through community, scripture, sacrament, and pastoral office (as distinguished from pastoral person.) The pastors therapeutic qualities acquire an exclusive importance. All other, more traditional, means of grace from the pastoral tradition become adjunctive, secondary, or, at most, helpful resources in certain situations. Thus, the psychological health and maturity of the pastor, can creep insidiously beyond a helpful blessing for which to be grateful to become a potential work of the law of which to beware--a ground for boasting in oneself instead of living in faith. In contradistinction from this stance, says Hunter, the view of the tradition, still evident in many African-American, Korean, and ethnic minority churches today, is that authentic ministry does not flow from inspired or enlightened selfhood, but from the power of the Spirit of God which becomes efficacious through human beings, whom it raises up, and commissions for participation in the divine saving work. Ministry in this view is service which serves the world by participating in Gods gracious, redeeming, and saving work . . . [which flows] from Gods love in Jesus Christ. The source of ministry springs from a Source deeper than human love, altruism, moral responsibility, or any other psychological capacities or motivations. Ministry is enacted in and through the immense and mysterious reality of the Word of grace and judgment that encompasses, pervades, and exceeds everything human. Therefore all true ministry, like all true Christian prayer, is called or commissioned by God, performed in Gods name, and enacted through the power and presence of God; theologically, it is the saving power of God acting through us. For Hunter, pastoral theology goes astray when it makes the crux of ministry the psychological skill and maturity of the minister. The only crux is the cross of Christ--the loving and powerful reality of God incarnate in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ of God; the Gospel which is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith. Beyond its tendency to conflate pastoral presence with the explicit proclamation of grace, Hunter also believes the clinical pastoral movement has lost its identity with the central tradition of law and gospel through its uncritical translation of theological concepts into psychological ones. A concern for the forgiveness of sins . . . is not the way most of us who are related to the modern, progressive tradition in pastoral care would naturally or typically describe our work with persons. He says that many in our number would actually resist such a formulation as too narrow, moralistic, or pious to be responsible to the full range and depth of human need and of our ministry to it. We tend toward concepts of bondage unrelated to any possible legalisms, and concepts of freedom divorced from understandings of forgiveness. The immense popularity of certain psychologies in CPE today, which implicitly define bondage as hang-up, unconscious conflict, false consciousness, or the inhibition of natural feeling and spontaneity attest to the loss of the explicit, normative theological meanings of bondage and freedom. The issue here is not simply one of whether pastoral caregivers retain traditional, theological language for its own sake. It is an issue of the power of care itself. The diminution of the Law is also a diminution of the transforming, creative capacity of Grace, which only has meaning in relation to making something right which is not right. We need to learn how to affirm the radical word of grace without falling into the anti-nomianism or narcissistic hedonism which would lose all sense of mutual responsibility and compassion in relation to the effects of our actions on others, as well as ourselves. We need to relearn the soteriological function of the Law as an active spiritual force which drives us to despair through defeating the self-justifying pretensions of the human heart [sin]. This despair thereby leads us ultimately to trust not in ourselves, but in the grace of God in the gift of a good creation in Gods image, and the gift of a renewing, reconciling, recreation through the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Then pastoral caregivers will not fall into the trap of exchanging the tyranny of a Puritan upbringing for the tyranny of self-actualization or self-esteem, and will indeed be able to understand and use such dynamics in terms of law and gospel. They will be able to name the truth in love that basing ones claim to fame on something other than grace, like riches for instance, not only violates ones own spirit, but makes someone else necessarily poor in order to maintain the contrast; basing it on brains makes others stupid; on beauty makes others ugly; on being self-actualized makes others inferior, and so forth. Of course, what always saves moral judgment from judgmentalism and arrogance is that we allow it to apply first and comprehensively to ourselves, and join company with the parishioner or counselee in that way. In terms of the spiritual quest for increased levels of agency-in-communion, end-sixties pastoral care generally landed in the same place of individualistic hyper-agency as the general culture, except for the moderating I-Thou aspects of one-to-one relationships. For all the teachings in the older and newer theological tradition of the self as a self-in-community, most pastoral care specialists in practice, supported a highly autonomous self, as did most of the masculine theories of personality development they studied. This began to be countered in the post-sixties era through pioneering efforts such as Archie Smith, Jr.s The Relational Self: Ethics & Therapy from a Black Church Perspective; an emphasis continued by others such as John Patton whose 1983 book Pastoral Counseling was sub-titled A Ministry of the Church, and whose 1993 book An Introduction to Pastoral Care had as its main title Pastoral Care in Context. Patton outlines the general shift in pastoral care from the classical paradigm where theological content was central, to the contemporary clinical paradigm where the process, methods, and relationship between care givers and receivers are central, to the current renewal of appreciation for the communal-contextual elements. For a not uncommon number, pastoral care specialists also participated in the Thanatos of adopting the materialist scientific paradigm of the day which saw religion as meaningful on various levels, but ultimately as an explainable epiphenomenon of psycho-social-bio-chemical causes. While there were moments of transcendence in some of their concrete, historical, individual and/or group encounters, it was hard to understand them. It is hard to find Spirit in descent when there is not a corresponding ascent. Many were influenced by the cognate world of psychology to accept the limited omega points of Freud and Piaget; namely, that it was infantile to assume that development could go beyond genital organization or formal rational thinking. For those who recognized their continuing spiritual longings, there was no forum structurally in place to explore and support them. A. J. van den Blink, 1998 president of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, writes of the truly astonishing avoidance of spirituality in the organization. The word spiritual was not in vogue by pastoral counselors in the late sixties, and when clients used it, it was often noted as a sign of potential pathology (infantile wishes for dependency, fanaticism, etc.) To a large extent psychological language was substituted for theological, except when it was clinically advisable to join a client in their world, or when one language had been clearly translated into the other, as in salvation being equated with wholeness, sin with neurosis, sanctification with growth, etc. Edward Wimberly and Archie Smith wrote a few books on black spirituality and pastoral care which included a social dimension. Morton Kelsey and William Johnston wrote about Jungian approaches to spirituality which interested some. In general, white, Protestant, mainline pastoral care was not focused in any new direction. In addition to affirmations for how deeply pastoral theologians had dived into the waters of twentieth century psychological thought in order to discover those pearls of wisdom which could enhance pastoral practice, there were many criticisms. We now look more deeply into particular critiques from a number of perspectives. From The Journal of Pastoral Care To begin with, the texts and footnotes to this point reveal a number of the above criticisms showed up in the pages of The Journal of Pastoral Care itself, reflecting a sound willingness in the movement to take itself under observation; though, again, it is not clear to what extent this scholarly move actually impinged on actual practice. Identity, for instance: Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse writes in reference to mystical-religious experiences of the interior life that prior to 1970 clergy were very nearly the last people to whom one would have wished to confide the details of anything but the most conventional psychological or religious experience. Likewise, Morton Kelsey quotes an Andrew Greely study of psychologically mature persons, 39% of whom indicated. they had had mystical experiences. Greely found that half of these people had never told anyone of their experiences prior to the test. This was because they feared ridicule from the secular world. He also found that the last person they would tell about their experiences would be professional religious people. The respondents felt that these people didnt believe in such things anymore. Along the same line Kelsey writes of his experience with C. G. Jung: Jung also discovered that much of the neurosis in people over thirty-five years of age resulted from ignoring experiences of meaning which seemed to arise from beyond the space-time world. Thus there is another reason why pastoral counselors ought to have some kind of a world view which includes an understanding of such experiences and the practices which relate to them. Indeed, Jung told me in a personal conversation that there was only one reason that he investigated this area of experience so deeply. He could not find clergymen equipped to or willing to deal with patients whose neurosis involved being cut off from spiritual experience. David Duncombe reports a study which demonstrated an objective measure of spiritual sensitivity and maturity actually declined in students after a summer course of Clinical Pastoral Education. In 1978 Dennis Duncan, the chairman of the International Committee on Pastoral Care and Counselling, spoke of the need to avoid U.S. errors in pastoral practice by specifically developing the theological and spiritual orientation of pastoral care and counseling as a corrective to the secularization of the field in America. In a 1978 JPC editorial Edward Thornton says he never had any doubts about his identity as a fee-receiving pastoral counselor, because he simply accepted the American position that he was ordained and ecclesiastically endorsed. This confidence was shaken when he visited England and found many non-ordained pastoral counselors who believed pastoral translated into religiously serious and/or theologically articulate. Thornton found a mediating position for himself by going back to the mystic theology of the Greek father Evagrius who said, He is a theologian who prays aright. Thornton then argues that pastoral care and counseling should have something to do with the soul, which when properly sought, should lead one to its Creator. Human being opens into Being itself. Prayer is being awake to transpersonal reality in ones self; it is a response to an awakened appetite for the Presence of God. It is attending to the internal dialogue between ones self and the Spirit. It is enjoying the Presence who makes the internal dialogue something other than introspection, that is, who is the Other in the dialogue. He concludes, were we to center our definition of pastor--as well as our education of pastors--in Evagrius terms, I suspect that we would transcend many differences. Nicely put, but what does it say about the identity of pastoral counselors when the centrality of prayer needs to be argued? Quentin Hands article on Pastoral Counseling as Theological Practice also illustrates. He addresses a national AAPC convention in 1977 and states, We know what we do. We know we are competent counselors. We are past the identity issue. Our challenge today is to tell others who we are. He then makes the case that who we are, are ministers about the business of the practice of theology. A fine case study follows of working with a woman named Ellen as a Minister of Counseling for a local church, which he outlines theologically in terms of sin, and redemptive grace. However, we then find out that he has fallen into Ciampas quandary of everything being implied as opposed to explicit, with little sense that there is any issue attached to that move. I did not use these [theological] words in talking to Ellen at that time. These were for my understanding then and for your understanding now. Later, he speaks of responding to a question Ellen posed about Gods existence by sharing a personal experience with her. God was, in me, responding to her question by the divine presence then and there! When he is reflecting later on how his responses and relationship with her incarnated Gods redemptive intent and processes, he says, the possibility of the Kingdom of God was implied. I did not use the words of Incarnation, of redemption, of Kingdom of God. But in practicing theology I was encouraging her faith in God and others, and at experiential levels I was Witness to the reality of redemption and Kingdom. Likewise, coming from the direction of the seeker, Hand also believes words may remain unsaid. A person seeking help from a minister knows the minister represents God in a special way. However the seeker verbalizes the desired result [better marriage, less depression, etc.] a wish for contact with God is implied. While every pastoral counselor knows the dangers of the indiscriminate use of religious language, and the importance of personally and relationally embodying the Gospel being mediated, can a religious, professional identity and a religious task of helping someone grow in grace be built around presuppositions which remain forever implicit? The issue of state licensure and third-party payments is another place where the identity of pastoral counselors comes to the fore. In another JPC editorial John L. Florell writes that many members of both ACPE and AAPC hold [dual] memberships in one or more . . . secular, specialized organizations. This has functioned to open the doors to general hospitals, mental institutions and mental health facilities on a full-and part-time basis for parish and specialized clergy to deal with people in the crisis of life. However, this raises the question: Are we ministers, priests, and rabbis in function with special rights and privileges or counselors and educators using secular skills with the general public? He then cites references from Rice which conclude, that as a matter of fact, pastoral counselors are more like other psychotherapists in skills, attitudes and life styles than they are like parish clergy, a position supported in a doctoral dissertation by John Houck in 1974. For Florell this means we are precariously close to cutting ourselves off from the most vital resource we have, our identity as pastors. I do not feel we can serve two masters well. . . . One allegiance will suffer and I fear the church allegiance will be the one. In 1977 Florell reported the results of a JPC research survey which confirmed that 1) there was a real difference in identity between pastoral counselors/educators and parish clergy, and 2) there was a tension between religious affiliations and professional competency among pastoral specialists who seemed to feel torn between the sacred and secular world. And in terms of licensing they are trying to straddle the fence. Robert Myers agrees that identity is an issue in the field. He notes that it is appropriate to draw from scientific perspectives, but argues that a scientific humanism without the theological dimensions makes us mental health practitioners in the usual sense of that word, and not pastoral counselors. He further writes: I think some of us have confused the issue by appearing to be more behavioral scientists than clergy. Some examples are such things as preoccupation with each new therapeutic fad, setting up private practices with vague or no relationship to the religious community, and identification with, commitment to, secular accrediting organizations without equal or greater commitment to the church-related ones. This has contributed to confusion in the mind of the public, the Church, and the pastoral counselors themselves. Myers notes that some of the isolation of pastoral counselors from denominational connections has been because of the denominations themselves, which have not gone beyond their concentration on parish concerns to provide the structures which would incorporate a specialized counseling ministry, something he hopes will someday change. In relation to third-party payments he says that if pastoral counselors can not survive without them, then it raises questions about our pastoral identity. My concern is that the pressure of economics related to third-party payments not force . . . [us] into an increasing insistence on the mental health practitioner stance. I dont believe the future will sustain us if we cut ourselves off from our theological roots. H. Newton Malony also writes that chaplains and pastoral counselors have identity problems in places like mental health settings, because functionally speaking pastors and therapists all do the same thing, except that the chaplain too often feels like a junior adjunct member of the team, trying to establish a distinctive role, and his identity crisis is perceived as inadequacy by his fellows. Worst than this, chaplain/counselors have been asked to treat on the basis of a [DSM] diagnosis that demeans them. In Malonys own experience there was an implicit assumption among the staff members that religion was synonymous with pathology or that religion was to be used like drugs--as a comforting anti-depressant or sedative as the case might be. He refers to the 1969 assessment of English visitor R. Lambourne that even clinical pastoral education was dominated by a medical evaluation of medicine, a criticism acknowledged by Hiltner in terms of the relatively low level of theological emphasis in pastoral care education. Malony argued that a 1972 proposal by a joint national committee on clergy and community mental health to develop a portfolio of chaplain/pastoral counselor job descriptions to help clarify role and function would simply lead to digging the functionalist hole we are in deeper. This last seems to me to be saying, in a yet more self-destructive way, that a survey of what men are doing will become the normative statement of what men should do. And if my analysis is correct, what men are doing is exactly what has caused the identity problem in the first place. Malonys proposal for what pastoral counselors should do is become unashamedly the theologian in residence at the community mental health center. They would then define their roles as apologists for a religious view of man which argues that there is not only neurotic guilt and anxiety but basic, ontological guilt and anxiety intertwined in issues of ultimate meaning. A pastoral counselor with a religious identity would witness to and call the mental health team to another view of man. He is to keep reminding them that mental illness can be based on an absence of meaning and of morals just as much as on problems in the biophysical, the intrapsychic, the behavioral and the socioeconomic spheres. Joretta L. Marshall seconds Malonys proposal for a confessional-theological approach to pastoral identity and ties it into the development of pastoral authority. She argues that pastoral theology is at a crossroads in which a reconsideration of the theological foundations of pastoral identity and authority are crucial for the present and future of this discipline. She then makes the case that pastoral identity is made manifest in an authority which points beyond itself to the transcendent presence of God. For without an orientation which represents Gods presence, pastoral care becomes benign caring. Pastoral counselors, then, can not simply concentrate on intra-psychic issues (II), function in a vacuum of neglect of faith traditions (IC) and concrete church structures (EC), and have little regard for the actual behavior (EI) of their counselees. A pastoral orientation posits authority in theological convictions. The sources for that authority are found in the internal claims and commitments to which a person adheres. Hence, internal pastoral authority asserts the power to be a representative of God and the ecclesial tradition of which one is a part. Convictions are developed in the context of an ecclesial tradition, thereby pointing beyond individualized authority to that of the church and God. In a historical review of fifty years of American CPE, written for the benefit of a European audience, Seward Hiltner included this critical note on the overall philosophical and scientific pragmatic functionalism of clinical pastoral care which tends to cloud its theological identity. I still take seriously the warning given by Heije Faber more than a dozen years ago, in his Pastoral Care and Clinical Training in America, in which he suggested that the American penchant for approaching ministry functionally, while it can be very good, may be tempted to forget or minimize the obligation to go back to basic theory and theology and keep them in dialogue with the reflections from experiential learning as in CPE. As one who has spoken and written as much as anyone in the U.S. about how to relate CPE and, indeed, all reflections on pastoral functions to our theologizing, I confess that I am disappointed at the current results. Function is our strength. For that we ought not to be ashamed. But function without theoretical reflection, especially of a theological kind, can make us so one-sided that our relevance may be at the cost of intelligent witness. The June 1973 edition of the Journal of Pastoral Care was dedicated to international issues, which also made it clear that much of pastoral care was mired in a white, western, middle class bog, a theme picked up in 1986 by David Augsburgers Pastoral Counseling Across Cultures, the first major text in pastoral care dealing with cross-cultural issues and counseling. Whether we ever have occasion to counsel cross-culturally or not, an important benefit of Augsburgers work is to radically call into question the Western notion of the acultural, ahistorical, and apolitical individual, a notion which fails to include the wisdom of biblical anthropology, or of two-thirds of the worlds people for that matter. Augsburger offers a great lesson in humility for Western therapists, secular and/or pastoral, who have uncritically promoted the notion that the individual can create personal meaning independent of social entanglements, separate from binding family emotional ties, transcend the crises of life objectively and dispassionately without any dependencies, face suffering without avoidance, and death without denial, and more--all through actualizing the powers of the fully realized, grand, autonomous self. Viewed cross-culturally this Western conception is both illusory and tyrannical, totally ignoring the reality of individuals (II-EI) developing holonically and inseparably from their social, political, economic, cultural (IC-EC) context. Ed Wimberly argues that cross-cultural counseling had its roots in the Civil Rights Movement in relation to the integration of blacks and whites in clinical pastoral training. There was a hopeful melting-pot metaphor in effect in those days. However, this vision slowly deteriorated into affirming the superiority of one cultural group over others. . . . Pastoral counseling became a victim of this cultural superiority, ignoring and devaluing cultural diversity. Over the years pastoral counseling has emphasized a form of universal humanity insensitive to ethnic and racial particularity. This is in part because it has leaned on secular counseling theories [which] assume they address the universal needs of persons; therefore, a cross-cultural model is not needed. Wimberly notes that the danger of a cross-cultural emphasis for mainline, majority-church pastoral care is that it simply reinforces the modern belief in cultural relativity, which reinforces a secular pluralism slowly controlling seminary curricula which threatens the orthodoxy that has been the heart of Christian theology for centuries. Wimberly himself, out of the black church experience, develops a Type C narrative-hermeneutical approach to cross cultural care which affirms God at work in history and through Christ to overcome racial and ethnic differences, but not by ignoring them. The language of cross-cultural counseling is that of hospitality understood as welcoming those whom Christ welcomed. Those whom Christ greeted were of different racial and cultural backgrounds. Overall, being part of a particular race or group was not a prerequisite for participation in Gods household. Nor was relinquishing ones racial cultural identity essential to this involvement. Suk-Mo Ahn, writing from a Korean-Christian perspective, agrees with Wimberly that pastoral care, especially in non-Christian Third World cultural contexts, has often been imported from the West assuming it is universal, culture-transcendent, or context-free. On the other hand, indigenous churches have also developed their own methods without having critical examination of their relation to the Christian facts and traditions. A method is needed that keeps universal forms (specifics) and local differences of world-view, process, means, and resources in dialogue, especially without local differences being labeled as savage, primitive, or absolutely pagan. Even with the new post-WWII knowledge of localization, contextualization, or indigenization Ahn argues that scarce interest has been taken in the social and cultural expectations and ideals--which are so essential for the functions of the human soul-- . . . [in societies] founded and shaped by non-Christian sources. Even in works like Augsburger and Hesselgrave the authors interest in the care of souls in different cultures is largely shaped by a missionary standpoint . . . manifested by the phrases such as how to counsel culturally different. It reflects a one-way street in which there is hardly a sense of the risk or urgency of critical or dialectical correlation between the traditional [Western] pastoral care and the indigenous local care. Nor is there a significant attempt to find theological significance arising out of the cultural and pastoral care differences and pursue them constructively. For Ahn, it is most likely and appropriate that such a mutual dialogue would come from a native perspective. In pastoral care and counsel in a non-Christian local context, if the caring person is himself or herself a local person, the standpoint may be shifted from that of a missionary position to that of a native, from a culturally out-group position to a culturally in-group position. . . . One of the fundamental changes arising to the shift of the standpoint is a structural one: that the caring person and the cared-for stand on the same cultural horizon. Phenomenologically, this means that the local care provider and the local care seeker share the ethos and world-view of the local culture. To both of them Christian faith is something imported and transposed from the West. In other words, when Christian faith came to the local place, it was already encased in Western forms of Christian faith and life and culture. Thus, when the local believers receive the Christian faith, and when they try to care for the souls in and by the faith, the Christian [Western] culture and the indigenous culture come to encounter each other in many different way. Ahn finds a helpful resource for a responsible encounter, and a subsequent development of a local pastoral care and theology in Gerkins narrative-hermeneutical approach which enables us to see metacultural aspects of human being and doing, and thereby to envision a way into the thick and intricate webs of caring pastorally and theologically for the troubled souls in non-Christian cultural contexts. Within the American context, John and Gregory Hinkle move the cross-cultural model to another level, which they also associate with the metacultural. They agree that spiritual growth involves movements beyond egocentrism and ethnocentrism (cultural encapsulation) toward new organizations of experience that embraces what we have termed greater levels of agency-in-communion. Each move involves a shifting out of a limited cognitive, affective, and perceptual set into a broader arena of awareness. They call this kind of shifting out multiculturality which necessarily involves intense, ongoing, and comprehensive submersion in the otherness of an alternate cultures reality. But, there is more. They adopt the work of Paul Hessert who uses the language of theology rather than that of the social sciences to dismantle the Western cultural appropriation of Christianity and uncover the iconoclasitc faith that was its inspiration. Hessert differentiates the God culture presents us with from the Lord whom we encounter in faith. While the cultural God makes the same promises that culture makes, namely that allegiance leads to prosperity, the Lord who encounters us says Follow me, and calls us to faith, a response which grows out of our experience of that mysterious presence, and may lead us where do not know, and where we might not have chosen to go. The Hinkles understand this type of experience to be metacultural in its quality and range. It is at this point that they criticize pastoral counseling for not maintaining its identity in contrast to secular psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is oppressive because, like religion, it is of the culture and worships the cultures God. It cannot be otherwise and still be recognized as culturally sanctioned psychotherapy. Therapy typically and unavoidably involve[s] an intensive and extensive enculturation process. The process stems from psychotherapy helping selves to fit more comfortably, productively, and adaptively into the cultural ideas of autonomy and self-reliance, self-nurture and self care, and the roles of acquisition and consumption which the culture promises, will bring meaning and fulfillment. This is an overall process of supporting self-fulfillment in terms of the culturally defined self; repairing and nurturing the self, getting it to good-enough status. Psychotherapy, then, has nothing to say beyond culture, or even by way of critique of culture, since psychotherapy is the servant of culture. Again, because it works within and for the overall cultural values of the system, psychotherapy is oppressive intraculturally (e.g., women and minorities within Western culture) as well as interculturally (non-Western persons.) The Hinkles follow Hessert in arguing that pastoral counseling should get clear that its focus is not the cultural self of psychotherapy, but the New Testament notion of soul. In contrast to self, soul refers to that deeper level of experience and awareness in which we encounter the divine mystery beyond culture, the metacultural. The movement from self to soul has to do with emptying. It is not an emptying of the self in order that the self itself can be refilled itself in some authentic way. Thus the self is not to be denied or sacrificed--these would be superego-based actions of the self. Rather, the self is stripped away in the encounter with the Lord. The self is abandoned, renounced, surrendered in a response of faith, passion, and compassion. The self is emptied, and the underlying soul is filled with the passion of God. . . . With the movement from self to soul goes the movement from belief to faith, the movement from God to Lord, the movement from cultural ultimacies to the break with culture, from the embrace of acquisition and consumption to the embrace of ultimacies beyond culture. As distinct from psychotherapy then, pastoral counseling takes place at the break with culture, where the cultural meaning system breaks down, i.e., as cultures inadequate or oppressive dealing with experience is encountered. While pastoral counseling can appreciate and celebrate the diversity, plurality, and particularity of the image of God in whatever form it comes, it also follows the God of all nations, the father and mother of all peoples, in judging the idolatry which comes from making finite cultural matters infinite. Like the Law, abortive attempts at salvation through over-identification with culture can be used to point to the necessity of grace. Pastoral counseling functions to honor and be present to the emptying of the self and the movement to soul. Those who live out of soul find themselves faithing in response to the Lord, who has encountered them when things are not working, when cultural meaning oppresses or breaks down, when life as the culture defines it goes wrong. Here is the proper work of pastoral counseling. . . . Pastoral counseling strives to achieve awareness of the ways in which self and culture bind while faith releases. Structurally, culture directs us toward self, while the Lord confronts us with encounter and embrace, the experience of soul. Metacultural pastoral counseling offers the methodology, context, and charge to move with persons in a deepening faith in the souls encounter with the Lord; in that experience, self is surrendered for soul not as an act of coercion, not under duress, but rather as the natural decision to extinguish a candle now that the new day dawns. From Books and Dissertations Turning now from the pages of the Journal of Pastoral Care, we look more closely at the perspective of Albert C. Outler whose Psychotherapy and the Christian Message in 1954, as noted above, was one of the early attempts of a theologian to enter into dialogue with the psychologically informed pastoral care movement. A basic tenant for Outler is that any psychological theory is to be tested against revelatory faith experience. While it is true that scientific and humanistic forms of inquiry can yield wisdom about the human condition, the dialogue in liberal pastoral care has too often been a one way street, with theology intimidated by psychology. This is the basic criticism that pastoral care specialists have not taken the Christian tradition (IC) seriously enough, and end up mired in knee-jerk, Enlightenment rationalism, with a false freedom from any source of authority. Outler writes that the Gospel itself is a sort of human-potential movement; hence, to reject [things like] transactional analysis out of hand is both hasty and unwise. However, it is his impression that the pastoral care movement has led the way to a theology that is actually little more than an anthropology with ambiguous references to the numinous and the divine, or to the Void, or to some other euphemism for a nature mysticism. Thus, there is no real theological diagnosis of the human malaise no theory of the experiencing subject to guide a miss-masch of behavioral techniques. In terms of the unsolvable tension between freedom and bondage, pastoral theology has tended to come down on the Pelagian side of self-fulfillment through its relatively weak theology, even though in its practice it is intensely supportive and relational. For Outler, any form of self-salvation is a delusion, at any level that means more than amelioration. And it is one of the deficiencies of much that has passed for pastoral care and pastoral theology that it has either taught or implied one or another version of the gospel of self-salvation = liberation as a personal or social-ethnic group achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Until people have come to the point where they are properly shocked and rightly scandalized by this unwelcome reality that salvation must be given, and rightly accepted--not by right but in faith by grace--then they will go on spending their days and nights in one or another scheme of self-salvation. And in all of these schemes they are foredoomed to partial success and final failure. And, as Western civilization fades through cultural, societal, and non-psychological factors, psychologized pastoral care does not have the resources to go beyond the inadequacies of humanist-secularist premises for change. Worse yet, the field is implicated in the collapse of conventional moral demand systems which have supported the emergence of much psychopathic and sociopathic behavior as well as a flood of passionate self-assertion and self-righteousness bolstered by a universal sense of victimization. The triumph of moralism is salvation as self-achievement. And, paradoxically, it is also the triumph of amoralism, for when there is no larger context of communion and accountability, then all that is left are the pragmatic sanctions in a world where the right and the good are functions of social, economic, and political power. Pastoral psychotherapists in particular should do better in keeping in view the transcendent horizon on which the true Healer of the soul arises in and for human consciousness. They should take up the pastoral task to hallow life once again, to re-sacralize it, thus saving us from the emptiness of functional, utilitarian individualism. When liberal pastoral counseling is at its unrepentant worst, as opposed to appropriately humble, Outler fears that it shares in the drawbacks of the psychoanalysis it has drawn from so much, namely: it is dogmatic and polemical, with a limited inventory of prospective cures that hardly touches psychoses, alcoholism, sexual abuse, or eating disorders to name a few, and which has an extremely limited range of prospective patients because of the time and expense involved. Outler muses that we have invested shrinks with something like a priestly aura. There is no great harm in this so long as we realize in what appalling disarray contemporary psychiatric theory and practice is, and so long as we do not redefine our own callings as being deacons to such priests! However, when a pastor feels called out from being a public representative of the Christian community, a presence--in the church, in families and small groups, and in the community at large, to the more private ministry of psychotherapy, then Outler feels he or she should dive into a total immersion in the best of clinical psychology or psychiatry with an absolute commitment to the field. Ive been frankly critical of the currently fashionable image of pastors as cut-rate therapists for people who are both mobile enough (psychologically and socially) and docile enough (psychologically) to consult them. This is not to depreciate competent therapy at bargain rates in a society overrun with ambulatory hysterics in one degree of unhappiness or another. It is only to doubt the actual competence of much of what passes for pastoral counseling (shockingly thin in its theories, shockingly overconfident of its techniques and rituals.) Outlers essential criticisms of pastoral care and counseling sound harsh. Looking back thirty years after he first published Psychotherapy and the Christian Message, he moderates his judgments with the following historical note: It is important to remember how confident, in 1950-54, the credo of the Enlightenment was, and how certain it was that orthodox Christianity was already archaic. The credo: (1) Human nature is not depraved; (2) the end of life is life itself; (3) human nature, empowered by reason and intrinsic wisdom, is capable of perfecting itself and also the good life on earth; and (4) the means to this are liberations from ignorance, superstition, oppression, and indignities. The signatures are Voltaire, Rousseau, Feuerbach, et al. But a large roster of new names has been added from Freud to Werner Erhard--and very few avowed dissenters. But each article in this credo (religious as it is as a devout humanistic faith confirmable only by a lifetime whole commitment) is antithetical to biblical religions view of sin, salvation, and human fulfillment. Hence the debate over real issues that still run deep. Hence, the conflict about ultimate concerns since the naturalistic religions of human self-salvation are as transempirical as any other sort, and are now in process of nonconfirmation in as disheartening a fashion as Christianity ever was. However, to the more evangelical wing of pastoral care Outler offers the criticism that it relies too heavily on the traditional forensic metaphor for salvation, to the neglect of the many therapeutic metaphors in scripture. Furthermore, there was clear gain in the triumphs of liberalism and in our human self-awareness of our own responsibility for the quality of human life, in our deliverance from the old tyrannies of priestcraft and proof-texting. Any nostalgia for those good old days is just that--nostalgia, which normally is no more than self-indulgence. Outlers more constructive proposals for the pastoral task, which could easily be appropriated by the pastoral care and counseling movement, revolve around the hallowing of life through grace, in grace, for grace, along with the acknowledgment of a greater Presence than the Enlightenment web-of-life alone, although that is the precise place where we come to know and be known by the Presence. Narcissism is finally meaningless and boring; selfishness is narcissism in action--and just as meaningless in the end. Meaning is, therefore, awareness of and attention to the holy, to the holy as the sign-event of human self-transcendence and to God as the ground and end of our true human identity, the source and consummator of our fully human potential. And this means that the hallowing of life is more than pious thoughts, more than religious observance. It means, literally, the intentional relating of life to the holy, the encompassing Mystery in which we live and move and have our being. And every intentional response to this relationship, every conscious acting out of our awareness of the holy, is an act of hallowing and of being hallowed, of humanizing and being humanized, of participation in the divine and in the joys and sorrows of the happy life. It is the essence of the pastoral task to understand this enterprise of the hallowing of life and to be endlessly resourceful in leading ones people into some comparable understanding appropriate for them. Charles Brummett outlines the basic critiques of pastoral care and counseling by Tom Oden, which began as early as 1967 with the publication of his Contemporary Theology and Psychotherapy. Here Oden critiques Paul Tillich who was such an influential figure for mid-century pastoral theologians. Oden claimed Tillichs method of correlation leads to a monologue rather than a dialogue with therapy. When existential therapists are allowed to frame all the questions, theology ends up passively listening and reacting. The revelation of God becomes utterly dependent upon our first asking the question . . . [and] being interested in it. Theology is thus held hostage by its cultural situation. Gods revelation is not allowed to confront us, ask its own questions, and perhaps recast the basis of the dialogue. Likewise, Tillichs Christology ignores the objective Otherness of Christ and reduces Christology to a function of soteriology, to bringing the New Being or a new self-understanding to seekers. Hinging his Christology upon Jesus reception as the Christ . . . makes the action of God completely dependent upon humankinds recognizing it as the action of God. However, Oden notes that for the New Testament God is for humanity whether humans recognize it or not. Even amid our rejection of him, God is still for us. The church, as Christs visible Body is that community of celebration which . . . announce[s] to the world the reality in which it already stands. It is important for Oden for there to be an ontology of acceptance, for theology to say to psychotherapy that the implicit ontological assumption underneath a therapists mediation of acceptance has disclosed itself as the accepting reality in a concrete historical event. However, Tillich spoke of faith and acceptance in terms which do not necessarily link them to the event which calls them forth. Tillichian faith appears to be little more than an attitude of courage toward life, or an affirmation of oneself. Thus, faith collapses into an ontology of courage, and God is translated into the Perennial Philosophy as an impersonal view of being itself. In terms of healing, Oden argues that Tillich fell into Bonhoeffers critique of two sphere thinking when he maintained that pathological anxiety should be the object of medical healing, while existential anxiety should be the problem with which priestly healing deals. For Oden, contemporary psychotherapy already had ways of dealing quite directly with existential anxiety, but more importantly, all healing should be perceived as grounded in God. Mental health needs to be seen from the deeper reality of the health which God has given in Jesus Christ, rather than labeling health in neatly defined worldly and churchly categories. Although Eduard Thurneysen shared Odens appreciation of Karl Barth, he too was criticized for two sphere thinking. For Thurneysen the church was the sole home of Gods healing activity, as opposed to psychotherapy clinics. There was a great divide between sin and neurosis, and psychotherapy was part and parcel of a narrow empiricism where sin and grace make no sense. Therefore, there was no need for pastoral care to learn from the developments in secular therapy. By contrast, all pastoral care necessitates the verbal communication of Gods Word. For Oden, this position amounted to a kerygmatic reductionism which turned counseling into a one-on-one platform for preaching. While it remains true that it is good for a person to learn through proclamation to consciously rest in the reality of the ontological source of grace known through Christ, for Oden, the Word of God goes beyond words and does not need to be captured in human language to be mediated. It is in any case an event which encompasses more than verbalization. The empathic process embodied in a pastoral relationship is analogous to Gods incarnation. The powerful ontological message of acceptance is mediated precisely amid the therapists daring risk to enter the world of the clients distortions. Authentic healing will never come as a result of dodging or steering the client away from his own troubled condition. As suggested above, grace happens precisely at the barriers of fear and estrangement. Whether God is named (Thurneysen) or not named (Tillich), it remains true that the Word of God is a larger reality than that held implicitly or explicitly by the contours of a counseling relationship. It is not my word against his (the clients) but rather his own deepest word against some false word in himself, and therefore at a level often far beyond human cognition, Gods own Word participates in his struggle for self-fulfillment. It is not my word against his, but Gods Word present for both of us and in both of us, however inarticulate it may be for both counselor and counselee. Seward Hiltner was a much larger influence than Thurneysen in American pastoral care, and one whom Oden understood in the opposite camp of naive, pietistic, pragmatic liberalism which drew theological authority and conclusions from reflecting on human experience. Oden believed Hiltners operation-centered methodology lacked the theological framework upon which effective dialogue could occur. His approach embodied an over-preoccupation with the application of therapy which carried Hiltner away from exploring the depths of theological assumptions of therapy itself. His methodology flippantly treated prayer, scripture, and tradition in a functional manner which connected their worth to their effect on counseling situations. Likewise, preaching, for Hiltner, was a pragmatic function of helping people cope more effectively. Ala Fosdick, it was controlled by whatever the proclaimer perceives to be the needs of the audience. In general, Oden understood Hiltner to work from the analogy of being which reasons from human knowledge to divine knowledge. A more adequate analogy for Oden is the analogy of faith which is a relationship of correspondence in which humankinds knowledge of God arises out of their being known by God. Analogia fidei insists that human knowledge is possible because humankind has already been known. Human acceptance is possible because humankind has been accepted. Human love is possible because humankind has been loved. It moves from a Divine interpretation of humankind to human self-interpretation. It proceeds from Gods perspectives of who humankind really is (ontology), to humankinds reflecting on their own experience (phenomenology). Working from a Christological interpretation of reality, it views humankind from the deepest layer of who they really are--Gods covenant partner. Oden thus read all of reality, including secular psychotherapy, through Christological glasses in which the incognito Christ takes concrete, worldly formation. He felt that the analogia fidei provided the most solid methodology upon which a dialogue between theology and psychotherapy on the essential, foundational, ontological assumptions of healing could be based. He hoped this approach would help avoid reductionism, be that the ontological reductionism of Tillich, the kerygmatic reductionism of Thurneysen or the pragmatic reductionism of Hiltner. Another strand of Odens criticism of pastoral care and counseling was an over-reliance on secular psychotherapy when outcome studies were demonstrating that average (as opposed to high-level) psychotherapy was generally ineffective. Plus, the greatest factors in healing related to the therapeutic relationship which embodied human capacities which could and should be cultivated in laypersons. Pastoral counseling should move away from a professionalized doctor-patient medical model toward a more popular empowering of the general community. The critique of psychotherapy went hand in hand for Oden with the critique of the modern mindset with which pastoral care was overly accommodated. He was chagrined that he and others who had been supporting both psychotherapy and pastoral counseling had bought into the presumption that basically anything and everything twentieth century was superior to the now-largely-ignored classical tradition. While he did not want to promote a reactionary archaism which would disown what had been learned from modern clinical experience, his deeper exploration of the classical tradition convinced him that taking it more seriously would help correct many of the faults of contemporary pastoral practice. A new emphasis on Scriptures ability to be the means through which God as Spirit currently addressed humankinds very practical pastoral situations . . . will result in a greater effort to correlate Scripture and Christs here-and-now ministries. Historical theology could be mined to bring its wisdom to bear not just on dogmatic-philosophical issues, but a number of pastoral issues such as pastoral authority, liturgy, and pastoral care. Issues associated with the meaning of suffering (providence, theodicy, and evil) are extensively addressed by the classical pastoral writers. Also, given their involvement in and survival of various political systems, the classic pastoral writers, particularly in their texts on care of the poor, can contribute to church and community studies. Since these classical writers were also preachers, teachers, administrators, and liturgists, the recovery of their writings would exert positive influence on the reintegration of the disciplines of homiletics, worship, church administration, and Christian education, thus counteracting the sub-specialty fracturing of the contemporary world, and bringing abstract theological reflection back within the range of service to persons. The recovery of a better scriptural, historical grasp of law and gospel would be a great help in addressing one of the worst aspects of modernity, namely its anti-nomianism which is critical or skeptical of any received moral norms. The misunderstanding of grace as moral normlessness mistakes the gospel for license, freedom for unchecked self-actualization, and health for native vitalism. For Oden, the false assumption that guilt is not real, fostered by many psychotherapies, is woven into the very fabric of contemporary society. In his Guilt Free, he writes: We have proceeded on the hazardous assumption that if we only express ourselves in our anger, assertiveness, sexual interest, and so on, our neurotic denials and blocks will be magically overcome, and we will therefore become healthy psychologically, and probably even move toward a more just society. Then we sat back in our recliners and watched the televised social consequences of this mentoring: the loss of personal intimacy, the break up of solemn covenants, the metastasizing cancer of narcissism, the disavowal of accountability. Next we took our dazed consciences to psychotherapists for mending, only to find them teaching us that guilt is unreal, nor related to any moral failure or sin, and that the imagination of moral failure is itself the sin. When pastoral counselors withhold all ethical judgments, [they are] aping ineffective psychotherapies. In contrast, biblical psychology makes it clear that far from being a sickness, the capacity for constructive [as opposed to neurotic] guilt is a normal and necessary correlate for human freedom. Christian freedom is not a denial of law, justice, or responsibility to the neighbor, but a celebrative response to unmerited grace. Thus, it is not just a freedom to pursue happiness but a freedom to obey, a freedom to be-for-others, a freedom which is simultaneously radically responsible toward others. In summary, for Oden, the three worst characteristics of modernity that pastoral care has to be more careful of not colluding with are narcissistic hedonism, naturalistic reductionism, and radical autonomous individualism. Pastoral theology as well as contemporary theology in general must recognize and renounce its lustful seeking of convenient means of getting itself legitimated in the eyes of modernity, thus defined. Just when theology should have been giving modernity critical resistance rooted in an historical perspective that modernity could find instructive, theology instead whored after each successive stage of modernitys journey. As a result theology misunderstood the perniciousness of sin, overestimated human potential, idealized autonomous individual freedom and . . . tended to become patricidal toward the Christian tradition. Another result was the devaluation of Christian teaching, witness, language and symbolism. Within theology this accommodationist stance, with its accompanying predisposition against the premodern, was most strongly entrenched within the discipline of pastoral care. At least three recent dissertations pick up on the theme of critiquing pastoral care and counseling for its lack of theological integrity. In his A Practical Theological Hermeneutic Resource for Pastoral Counseling, Dennis Smith is the most comfortable of the three in terms of affirming the current state of the field. However, he recognizes that the question of uniqueness has been especially important in light of the common critique that much of current pastoral counseling had become so identified with and dependent upon these secular psychotherapies, that the practice of pastoral counseling could no longer speak of any distinct contribution. Had most of pastoral counseling lost its theological soul in its rush to be clinically competent? Were statements about creating atmospheres of grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation the only theological perspective that shaped pastoral counseling activity? And was this just hanging a theological trapping around what had become a totally secular event? Smiths response is to strengthen pastoral counseling theologically by putting it into renewed dialogue with practical theology through developing what he terms a Modified Hermeneutical Circle. The modification is of Segundos hermeneutical circle and provides an integral step-by-step program which guides the practical theologian from the experience of a series of practical events, into a reflective study and correlated dialogue with faith beliefs, to the formulation of a new theology, and finally back into the practical experience. While Smiths style reflects that of a colleague who wants to build on and improve the present system, Dennis Hughes appears as an intellectual warrior who takes no prisoners. In the abstract to his Jesus Christ or Prometheus he states: Contemporary American pastoral counseling literature contains theological assumptions and assertions which are humanistic and Gnostic, and, as such, incompatible with Christian theology. An analysis of representative works in pastoral counseling reveals these humanistic and Gnostic ideas and yields insight into their roots in a secular worldview. It is asserted that pastoral counseling is pervaded more by the myth of Prometheus than guided by an allegiance to what Tillich called The New Being in Jesus as the Christ as our ultimate concern. The result is an anthropology in which human being is the center of our ultimate concern, forgetful of the limits of human existence (Buber), of the inability of self-sufficient finitude to be our center (Tillich), and of the fact that being rests in Being, a forgetting which is idolatry (Macquarrie). In his critique of John Pattons approach to relational humanness, which Patton consciously relates to Tillichs New Being in Jesus as the Christ, Hughes broaches the subject of transcendence. Humanness alone has neither the elevation of the transcendent-become-concrete nor the solid groundedness of the concrete-interpenetrated-by-the-transcendent. Relationally-focused counselors such as Patton, who work heavily with transference, need to examine the particular theology hidden in that stance. Hughes sees in the examples of work Patton writes about the pastor coming suspiciously close to identifying with the Christ rather than referring to him. According to Freuds description of transference the analyst ideally, and knowingly . . . comes to occupy the place that traditionally has been accorded to the divine. So, a pastoral psychology which accepts the transference without examining its theological content risks importing this idolatrous viewpoint. From a theological point of view it strips God of divine prerogatives which God alone can bear. In a way, transference and counter-transference bring humility, since they remind us we are incomplete. But if they are not seen through they bring the opposite: an inflation, in which we identify with transpersonal and even divine qualities, ending in an idolatry. For a Christian, humanness is always existence-before-God, relational toward God first, then toward other humans. It is not a thing in and of itself, but a condition of dependent createdness. It is symbolic of the God in whose image humans are created, and therefore it must be understood in relation to God, not merely to other human beings. For Hughes, what is lost in Freuds denial of God or Jungs gnosticism, and the pastoral counselors who follow them, is not only the absolute concreteness of Jesus as the Christ, but also Gods transcendence. And, where transcendence is lost, transference is likely to take its place. We will have an ultimate concern, Tillich points out, whether it is actually ultimate or not.. Hughes constructive proposal for addressing the theological lack of transcendence in pastoral care is to reorganize the field around the metaphor of the Christian Shaman. Like the proposal of this volume, this would subsume pastoral counseling under spiritual formation. Hughes shaman is ones personal theologian who serves as a spiritual guide, doing hermeneutics on the symbols which interpenetrate and shape life and faith. He follows Landon Gilkeys analysis of how participation in the symbols of the faith ensoul, give meaning, and/or are therapeutic through leading us into a greater awareness of Gods presence. However, the goal of The Christian Shaman is not to work toward psychological change but to facilitate conscious appropriation of the transformation which God is effecting in us through ubiquitous divine self-disclosure in symbols. Gary Myers likewise deals with the loss of transcendence and identity. He begins by stating that pastoral counselings identity crisis is commonly acknowledged by prominent authors, both inside and outside the field, as the most persistent and urgent problem facing pastoral counseling. Part of the problem is that whereas earlier generations might have erred in the direction of imposing the propositions of Christian orthodoxy without enough awareness of the particularity of personal experience . . . we now impose the authority of personal experience upon tradition. Traditions capacity for enabling an encounter with a transcendent vision depends upon tradition remaining relatively autonomous from human consciousness. And yet in spite of a variety of critiques to the effect that this swing from tradition to experience as the location of healing and transcendence is at the heart of pastoral counselings identity crisis, the field remains tenaciously connected to the therapeutic world view of American society. It is unable to embrace the tradition in such a way that mediates the transcendent or bears witness in acts of care to a transcendent source of healing, guidance, and growth.  However, Myers contends that the reason for this situation is not that pastoral care is not theological enough, but that it is too theological, simply in an unhelpful, though inevitable way. I am arguing that Protestantisms struggle to legitimate the transcendence of Christian faith in a modern culture provides the most significant context for understanding pastoral counselings identity crisis. There is a nuance of accommodation versus resistance to modern culture . . . at the core of the identity crisis; not simply a wholesale swapping of the Christian tradition for that of psychology. Pastoral counselings identity is in crisis because it has internalized both the premodern concern for the otherness of tradition and the modern appreciation for the depth and dynamics of human experience, but it lacks an adequate theory for relating them. He then goes on to argue this position through explicating in depth Lindbecks typology of religious theories based upon their treatment of the relationship between doctrine (or tradition) and experience. Myers uses pastoral care pioneer Carroll Wise as a case illustration of how the concern to transcend the limitations of Lindbecks cognitive-propositional type, current in the nineteenth century and before, led to an adoption of liberalisms experiential-expressive mode as a way of trying to preserve the relevance of tradition in the twentieth century. For Myers, Wise provides a clear example of an approach to pastoral counseling that has been unable to maintain its distinctiveness from secular psychotherapy. This is due to his understanding of the nature of religion and experience. Wise sees tradition in a functional way as more expressive of personal experience than a description of Gods redemptive activity. He questioned the offering of theological ideas directly to persons in need . . . [because] he believed that such models require people to alienate themselves from their lived experience in order to accept abstract doctrinal formulations. He challenged Thurneysen and others who believed that religious ideas and symbols have the power to create the experiences they represent. Given these understandings, Wise reasoned that if religion was to continue to have a role in the care of persons in a modern post-traditional culture, its tradition would have to be linked to feeling rather than intellect. Therefore he proposed an eductive model of pastoral care and counseling based upon an experiential-expressive type of theology in which the self functions as the point of contact between the human and divine. Here, traditional religious symbols and language are used as vehicles of expression and therefore they need not be imposed from outside since they are essentially the same as experience, which is primary. Experience gives life and energy to the symbol, which is passive; the symbol only receives, it never transmits. Therefore, it can function psychoanalytically as another royal road to the unconscious, but religion itself becomes simply an optional means of self-discovery. And, if any and all depth experience is fraught with religious significance, then a therapeutic experience may easily become not simply an evocation of religious experience, but a replacement for it. Myers himself underlines the next sentence to emphasize the point that Wise is not being cavalier with the tradition. It is important to note that he has not simply forgotten tradition nor does he intentionally wish to diminish its significance. He is actually trying to enhance or save the significance of religion by going beyond its discredited static conceptual formulations to supporting it in its important function of giving intellectual substance to a reality which has been or is being experienced. Wise also recognized the need for the religious symbol to serve as a limit to the expansiveness of the human self, but here is where he fell victim to the experiential-expressive paradigm that he had adopted along with all the other liberal Protestants of the day. Providing a limit, or a source of otherness, requires that tradition be, in some sense, transcendent to human experience, that it have another source of validation outside of its immediate relevance to lived experience. Here again Myers underlines his point that it is in this lack of transcendent grounding for tradition we see the theological core of the identity crisis in modern pastoral counseling. In other sections of his dissertation Myers undertakes the more dubious project of criticizing pastoral cares critics, Don Browning and Tom Oden in particular, on the basis that they simply describe the problem of a lack of tradition instead of analyzing its sources and realizing the new rules of the game. He is not sure they are aware that (again in his underlining) if the structure of theology and the understanding of human consciousness in general have changed in such a way as to relocate transcendence within the self, we have a radically different problem, requiring a radically different solution than simply refreshing our memory of what is in the tradition. In other words, he assumes that Oden and Browning are not aware of Lindbeck and his work, somehow missing the fact that they both are quite aware of him and quote him in their own works. What Myers ultimately wants to propose and promote is Lindbecks cultural-linguistic paradigm, referenced earlier, which would provide a theological foundation for a postmodern model of pastoral care and counseling which preserves the link between tradition and experience without reducing tradition to consciousness or diminishing traditions capacity to encounter us as other. It is true that since white, mainline, liberal pastoral caregivers are so heavily anchored in the experiential-expressive mode, they have great difficulty being in dialogue with their more evangelical colleagues who continue to affirm cognitive-propositional positions. Sandra Harrison argues, in particular, that mainline pastoral care has been hesitant to encounter and learn from the inner healing method which is based in the more charismatic renewal movement. However, since inner healing has enjoyed widespread success, Webers theory of elective affinities which asserts that in order to be accepted, new religious ideas must in some way correspond to or be compatible with needs with the secular culture, suggests that mutual dialogue could be profitable. A number of issues would be productive to explore: 1) Inner healing deals more directly with behavioral quadrant issues (EI) through acceptance of a relatively strict moral code. 2) It is able to restore guidance and reconciliation as major functions of pastoral care, because the heart of the practice of inner healing is a revival of the pastoral function of reconciliation, since its central concern is setting aright relationships which have been damaged or distorted. This is something mainline care finds problematic because of the powerful deinstitutionalization in America and since emphasis on the immanence of God makes truth more a subjective experience than an objective issue. 3) Likewise, inner healing is able to maintain a clearer identity as religious, or specifically Christian through the importance placed on the direct involvement of Jesus in the therapeutic event . . . perhaps to act as a counterweight to their emphasis on the Spirit within. 4) The stress on Jesus as the external agent of healing who behaves spontaneously and autonomously on behalf of the wounded individual also allows for the process to be described and experienced as mystical rather than rational, and transcendental rather than natural. Prayer and its effects are not viewed as psychological phenomena . . . [but] matters of grace . . . beyond the power of psychology and of every merely human approach. The process and context evokes the hope or possibility that ultimate truth is not, in the last analysis, a matter of propositions but an existential knowing whose object transcends rationality. 5) On the other hand, in terms of accommodating to the culture, those in inner healing appear in some ways to be more open to secular traditions than are mainstream pastoral counselors. Inner healing practitioners demonstrably draw eclectically from psychodynamic, existential-humanistic, Jungian-transpersonal, as well as behavioral and cognitive schools, while mainline practitioners tend to stay closer to analytic and humanistic modalities. 6) Finally, since ministers are not viewed as authorities . . . run[ing] inner healing sessions, but rather intercessors who are catalysts of the change process, which provides a method of gaining direction which respects the truth of subjective reality while nesting it within an objective framework, inner healing is better able to empower laypersons and non-specialist clergy. Like Rogers method of nondirective counseling, the practice of inner healing is thought to preclude extensive training or expert knowledge of either pathology or therapeutic techniques, since the healing process is said to be empowered by a source external to both the wounded person and the minister. William Schmidt agrees that pastoral counselors could and should critically evaluate a larger variety of therapeutic modalities, though he is thinking in the more radically experiential-expressive direction that both liberals and evangelicals are hesitant to go in. Transpersonal psychology, he argues, is one area that should be ripe for dialogue because it deals heavily in maps and methods for growing the subject to higher levels of compassion and awareness. It is a critique of pastoral care that while it is embedded in a religious tradition with a long history of schools of spiritual development, that it has remained mired in working with pre-personal and personal levels of development, and left it to secular colleagues to explore transpersonal levels, often in dialogue with Christian mystic traditions. Brita Gill-Austern attends to the cultural-social (IC-EC) dimensions often neglected in professionalized pastoral care. She argues that the single most neglected resource for pastoral care in both theory and practice is the utilization of the Christian community. Pastoral counselors have almost reflexively dealt with presenting problems of anxiety by engaging in intra-psychic, inter-personal counseling which ends up supporting the utilitarian individualism of the culture. This can serve to unwittingly further the isolation of people and obscure from public view the common sources of anxiety and suffering in the social cultural context in which we live. Psycho-therapeutic ministry is not able to meet the important need for a vital experience of community in peoples lives, which can save people from isolation, meaninglessness, powerlessness and hostility. People struggle to find meaning and value in something deeper, more significant and enduring than individual desires and preferences. They . . . [seek] a moral and spiritual context for the integration of meaning . . . [something] beyond whatever the secular culture could provide them. Gill-Austerns own high level training in pastoral psychotherapy and family therapy was humbled in pastoral settings where she discovered that real change in peoples lives often seemed to be less a result of psycho-therapeutic counseling per se and more a matter of active participation in a community that involved a relationship with a living God . . . . It seemed to be more a matter of participation in a community that was built on a shared vision grounded in a transcendent reality which pointed the community beyond itself to the one who called and continued to call it into being. Active participation in a vital religious community added depth, meaning, rootedness, and a sense of belonging to their lives. Thus, she argues that the building of healthy and biblically based Christian communities is a primary agenda for pastoral care. Perhaps a factor in Gill-Austerns sensitivity to issues of community and mutual caring relates to being a woman. In any case, Joyce LaVerne Arnold, Riet Bons-Storm, and the many feminist authors listed in the Preface are clear that the history of white, mainline, liberal pastoral care in America has been largely a male history. Work by women is beginning, but only beginning. Arnold employs the metaphor of the absence of presence or the presence of absence in referring to women in the field. The feminist notions of the self-in-relation and the unity of mental-emotional-bodily-based knowing are still fragile flowers. The needs for feminist critiques and constructions continue to exist, including in the religion and personality/psychology, and pastoral care and counseling disciplines. In her own essay, Arnold develops A knowing way of caring and a caring way of knowing [which] point to the interrelatedness of the cognitive and affective, of theory and practice. In addition to attending more to the cultural-social aspects of the church itself, critics also contend pastoral care must move beyond its comfort zone with the pastoral aspects of care with individuals, beyond also the priestly aspects of care which address the church community, and integrate the prophetic aspects which address the larger issues of the surrounding community. Gerkin puts it this way: A more holistic understanding of ministry, grounded in a narrative, hermeneutical approach to pastoral care theory, requires that we lay a broader ancestral claim than simply that of the Wisdom tradition and its earliest practitioners. The long story of the care of Gods people has been shaped not only by Wisdom, important as that has been. People have found the care of God and Gods people communicated to them in the richness of ritual practice as well as in wise guidance. Likewise, Gods care has from time to time been expressed in prophetic acts of leadership and confrontation with the implications of the will and purpose of God for the mutual care of the people, indeed for the care of all human affairs and for the earth itself. A number of critiques follow Gerkin in saying pastoral care lost its connection to the social-cultural quadrants. (See the references to social ministry listed in the Preface.) Even as late as 1998 Bernard Kynes has argued: Not only must the discipline of pastoral care and counseling remain priestly in its specific art of caring, but the discipline and its practitioners must become more prophetic in functioning as moral change agents. . . . They must expand their specialized skills to empower and liberate the masses by being intentional about teaching and training the laity of the church to become competent care providers as well. Moreover, pastoral care and counseling practitioners must, without fear, actively participate in defining public policy by becoming advocates for the those who are suffering and enduring technological and economic changes, affecting their lives emotionally and spiritually. In this market-driven economy, persons without technological and interpersonal skills will find themselves at severe disadvantage. Another criticism by Hunter bridges the concern for the prophetic into conceptions of Spirit discussed in the next section. Hunter says, in effect, our God has been too small. Our conceptions of Spirit have been too small. Spirit, when it has been used in clinical pastoral models at all, has been broadly conceived as a gentle but persistent inducement toward emotional wholeness and personal healing, growth, and change. The lure of God in process theology has been especially compatible with this perspective. Spirit mainly nudges and nurtures growth. As a whole, writes Hunter, the existing clinical understanding of the work of Spirit is too small and too tame. Its sense of evil is comfortably limited to the conflicts and deficiencies of the self, and its sense of Spirit has too low an estimate of what it takes to deal with evil--to confront and struggle with it and to achieve any sort of worthwhile victory over it. Hunter surmises that behind this small, tame conception of Spirit lies a one-sided and ultimately sentimental image of God. He quotes James Cone who has said: Most theological treatments of Gods love fail to place the proper emphasis on Gods wrath, suggesting that love is completely self-giving without any demand for obedience. . . . A God without wrath does not plan to do too much liberation, for the two concepts belong together. A God minus wrath seems to be a God who is basically not against anything. . . . Righteousness is that aspect of Gods love which prevents it from being equated with sentimentality. Hunter finds a contrast to the clinical views of spirit in what he terms more prophetic views. These are most often lived out in the minority, non-white churches. He illustrates with the ministry of The Rev. Johnny Ray Youngblood and the Saint Paul Community Baptist Church of Brooklyn, New York. Without idealizing or downplaying real problems, Hunter writes that the Saint Paul ministry evokes a stunning image, a vision even, of what the gospel as the power of God unto salvation might look like concretely, in the real world, when enacted in the presence of seemingly overwhelming systems of destructive power. The Type C motif of moral and spiritual warfare runs through the churchs ministry as it encounters massive social evil, an immense infrastructure of evil transcending and destroying the humanity in its grip, with occasional victory amid [many] defeats, as they chip away, problem by problem. However, undergirding this realism and compassion . . . is a gospel of hope, a vision of a Power not of themselves that empowers the faithful (and near faithful) to contradict and transform this oppressive social order. Likewise, with Youngbloods ministry as pastor. The creative, courageous leadership he brings to bear does not simply represent a mobilization of his own wisdom; for instance, his emotional self-understanding and insight into the minds and hearts of others. While psychotherapy and clinical pastoral supervision can contribute to the range of competencies one brings to such a challenge and can deepen ones insight and relationships for use in its service, (and Youngblood actually availed himself of both, with good result,) the point is, that the psychological cultivation of selfhood is not sufficient by itself to generate such a reality-defying encounter with oppressive power rooted in a sense of Reality greater than the reality of evil. Youngblood and others like him are drawing on something considerably larger; namely, faith . . . from which he derives his vision of things that can yet be, and his courage and persistence in attempting to bring them about in the face of massive resistance and threat. Hunter affirms that such daring spirituality is of God if anything ever is, because it lives by faith and hope beyond the reasonable horizons of the world and creates righteousness and new life out of the deadliness of the powers of evil. For Hunter, the prophetic view of spirituality is greatly expanded and substantively changed from the meanings of Spirit and spiritual presence long established in clinically derived models of pastoral care and counseling. The more transcendent view of the work of Spirit goes beyond the notion of healing splits within the mind or the mind/body. It is conceived as empowerment for confronting the systemic powers of evil. The Spirits chief work is to confront, empower, and transform social structures and individual identities together. There is no need to pit these contrasting doctrines against one another, especially since the power of evil can be discerned tyrannizing the self from within (in the form of demoralization and defeatism, attitudes of race or gender inferiority, addictions induced and sustained by economic systems, failed marriage and family life, and all the destructive spiritual effects of enslaving, systemic poverty, for instance.) However, Hunter does feel it is important to note that in relation to this pneumatological fissure, the prevailing, mainline clinical view emerged from an unquestioned embeddedness in the majority power structures of society (meaning principally white middle-and upper-class structures), where it serves the ideological purpose of disguising socially structured forms of evil as they occur within the person as well as in society. In contrast, the prophetic conception of Spirit, as long recognized by sociologists of religion, is spiritually militant and confrontive precisely because it expresses the restiveness of the economically oppressed and disinherited segment of society. While this is not a new perspective, Hunter argues that it is important to note that the prophetic view is more inclusive, encompassing a larger range of personal-social experience and structures. Sin and salvation are more fully and deeply recognized. . . . The clinical-establishment version is correspondingly narrow and distorted. The established, majority social classes and churches are unknowingly blinded spiritually by their power and privilege, and they are systemically unable and unwilling to see the nature and effects of their own predatory power over other classes, races, and groups. For this reason it is necessary to locate or integrate the more clinically friendly understanding of the Spirit within the prophetic one, which can correct and deepen it. Thus, Hunter recommends learning from such reflective practitioners as Lonzy F. Edwards who teaches that pastoral care of social structures and the individuals who preside over them is coercive, conflictual, conspicuous, and confrontational, rather than relational. To sustain such a broader view of pastoral care will require more encompassing theories of personality development and the self or soul which acknowledge more fully the factors of the four quadrants. We need a more socially dialectical theological anthropology which goes beyond the influence of interpersonal relationships and object-relations theory to clarify how social structures shape the inner depths of human selfhood and subjective experience. Our final note of critique is left to Stephen Pattison who provides a helpful outside view of American pastoral care, writing from England. In his book A Critique of Pastoral Care he names in his own way, all the critiques listed so far. Then he goes on to add two more which have not found their way into the American literature. The first is that pastoral care has bought into the modern achievement and success oriented secular society to such a degree that it has tacitly accepted that failure has replaced sin as the greatest evil to be avoided. Even though Jesus was a worldly failure, his disciples had to accept their own failure before they were empowered for ministry, and every parish pastor lives with an ongoing sense of failure in relation to the idealistic goals of what is possible from seminary training, modern pastoral care materials are overwhelmingly written with the assumption that the following of correct methods and techniques will lead to success. It refuses to seriously acknowledge and explore the failure built into both life and pastoral practice. Closely related to this avoidance of failure is the lack of humor or laughter in a pastoral care system which takes itself too seriously. This is too bad since laughter can be a sign of self-transcendence, especially when things dont go well. Rheinhold Niebuhr once said that humor is a prelude to faith and laughter is the beginning of prayer. Pattison notes that it is often oppressed peoples, Jews, Blacks and others who have the best sense of humor, partly because they have needed it to transcend their failures in WASP societies. Also, it is a curious fact that very saintly people often seem to possess a very fine sense of humor as well as very real compassion for other human beings. Those who spend a great deal of time in the solitary, difficult sober business of prayer can often appear to be more involved, sensitive and humorous than those who never pray and remain firmly involved in the humdrum activities of everyday life. So, for example, a person like the Cistercian monk Thomas Merton. Summary This progression of historical chapters has been following a number of particular themes in the hope of understanding late-sixties pastoral care, and how it lent itself to being ripe for the unanticipated rise of interest in spirituality and pastoral care, as well as other parallel developments in theology, ethics, and contextual-liberationist studies. Following is a summary which highlights pastoral care in relation to those main themes. In terms of the spiritual quest for greater levels of agency-in-communion, late-sixties pastoral care fostered individual agency, with a certain sensitivity to how the society cut people off from greater internal and external communion. It tended to value growing the subject to the stages of rationality and sometimes vision-logic, while concentrating on presenting problems of emotional distress. It essentially ignored signs of spiritual aspiration for more inclusive states of consciousness and hardly ever pursued knowledge of the spiritual tools and/or communities that could foster such growth. This was a capitulation in many ways to the overall descendent meme of the Western Enlightenment which sought meaning through immersion in the material world. Professional, specialized pastoral care and counseling placed the lions share of its attention on interior individual (II) quadrant issues as it related to healing personal fragmentation through strengthening ego-integration. There was a corresponding lack of constructive (as opposed to critical) attention to cultural (IC), social (EC), and behavioral (EI) issues, both in relation to the church and the larger society. The Social Gospel and the Pastoral Care Movement never formed what might have been a cooperative, helpful, powerful relationship. Culturally-socially, the movement was uneasily part and parcel of the surrounding utilitarian, capitalistic, individualistic, modernistic context. Theologically, pastoral care was immersed in the same Type B God-in-the-truth meme as mainline Protestant theology, which tended toward Lindbecks experiential-expressive mode, and resulted in, at best, an ambiguous relationship with the classic tradition. A number of religious concepts, like salvation, had been correlated with, translated into, and/or reduced to concepts of health, keeping it heavily rationalistic as opposed to ecstatic. Ethically, specialized pastoral care endorsed much of Tiptons expressive style values (with a significant incorporation of the consequential), though without connection to an organized Type C theology and faith community which could both embody and promote them. With notable exceptions, the movement can be said to have participated on the sidelines of the crisis phase of the Fourth Period of Awakening, while keeping a curious, but cautious, respectable distance from the exuberant, sometimes excessive experimentation of the sixties. The mainstream of specialized pastoral work stayed heavily tied in theory and practice to conservative, psychodynamic schools of therapy. One aspect of this was a problem-centered focus on the past as opposed to a hope-centered focus on the future. A certain unconsciousness and/or self-satisfaction kept the movement firmly entrenched in its social location and oblivious to cross-cultural issues and/or the growing effects of globalization. Pastoral counselors were generally not sought out as advisors in relation to the general cultural explosion of interests in spirituality. As Wilber notes, life manifests emergent qualities that can not be predicted ahead of time. Looking back with reconstructive lenses it is now clear that pastoral care was ready for some changes. Some of the changes that have occurred from the early seventies to the present relate to the slow but sure incorporation of theological, moral, feminist, ethnic, racial, cross-cultural, cultural-social, and wellness sensitivities and perspectives. Another was the hunger we are concentrating on here, to get beyond the valuable though limited confines of a rationalistic, materialistic, individualistic, psychological, therapeutic emphasis on self-realization. The goal of the beyond is accessing levels of self-transcendence and narrative-theological understanding which can lend increased compassion and meaning to fragmented, anxious, unhappy lives, as well as the cultural-social contexts which affect them. The Spirit is imperialistic for Gods reign on earth. Holifield, History, 352, 356, 349. Holifield, Selfhood, 150, 147. As a note, it should be said that while Americans generally are more oriented to the future than the past, pastoral counseling basically follows the Freudian pattern of being problem-centered in a way that inevitably leads to digging into the past to fix things. Pastoral counseling has only recently begun to adopt ways to actually address Gods future in hope; for instance Andrew Lesters Hope in Pastoral Care and Counseling. Holifield, Selfhood, 150. The advice of psychiatrist E. Mansell Pattison, Systems Pastoral Care, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 26 No. 1 (March 1972): 2, that pastoral care should affirm its parish-based strengths through general systems theory to participate in community psychiatry was generally ignored: Were pastoral care to be designed on the model of preventive medicine it would become systems pastoral care. Leaders would be trained to deal with social systems at many levels and to function as enablers -- enabling the church to become a center of moral inquiry, a center of personal learning and growth, for human sustenance and nourishment and for human reparation. The pastor would not do all this himself but would craft a social system that functions preventively at many levels. An example of a prophetic moment within pastoral care was Charles Gerkin joining with Thomas Pugh during the 1960s to offer the first integrated CPE experience in the South at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. See Eric D. Johnson, Social Pastoral Care in the Urban Setting, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 32 No. 4 (December 1978): 251-255, for a critique of individual-centered pastoral care, plus some alternatives which deal with small groups in the church, and community involvement. In attempting to relate pastoral care to urban life, it has become painfully apparent to many of us that focusing all our concern on individual pastor-parishioner relationships has presumed too much of these relationships. The underlying assumption seems to be this: if we help enough individuals through counseling and education, the social problems of the city will solve themselves. Unfortunately, the rate at which individuals are being helped is pathetically slow when considered in the light of the unmet needs of the urban populace. Thus, it seems that new forms of pastoral care need to be developed (p. 251). Johnson recommends John Fish, Gordon Nelson, Walter Stuhr, and Lawrence Witmer, The Edge of the Ghetto (New York: Seabury Press, 1966) as a good example of church involvement with community organizations. Ann Belford Ulanov strikes a balancing note in her book review of Violet Franks and Vasanti Burtle, eds., Women in Therapy: New Psychotherapies for a Changing Society (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1974) in the Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 30 No. 2 (June 1976): 137-138. She quotes Iradj Siassis chapter in the volume titled Psychotherapy with Women and Men of Lower Classes. Siassi generally attacks those who champion social justice at the expense of the lower-class person as a person: My quarrel is with those who deny the validity of psychotherapy for the poor. They are curious sorts, who are passionately devoted to the well-being of the poor, yet avoid them at close range; . . . who would resent anything but individualized attention to their own needs or those of family and friends, but would exert countervailing forces against psychotherapy for the lower class patient. [Siassi p. 400, Ulanov p. 137] See David C. Duncombe, Prophetic Dimensions of Ministry in Clinical Pastoral Education, Journal of Pastoral Care, Vol. 44 No. 4 (Winter 1990): 317-330 for a ninetys update on how CPE has the unique opportunity, the proven capability, and even the obligation to train persons for prophetic ministry. (p. 317). Likewise, George M. Furniss, The Forest and the Trees: The Value of Sociology for Pastoral Care, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 46 No. 4 (Winter 1992): 349-360 takes up the issue of helping people adjust to unjust institutions as opposed to empowering them to join in community to transform society. See Oden, Classic Tradition, 29-31 for his infamous tables demonstrating that twentieth century pastoral care writers showed a complete and total lack of reference to previous works in the classic tradition of pastoral care, something which was not true until that time. The majority of current references were to twentieth century secular psychologists instead, showing the extant of the accommodation taking place. The same material in article form is found in Thomas C. Oden, Recovering Lost Identity, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 34 No. 1 (March 1980): 4-19. As pastoral care re-evaluates itself, says Clebsch and Jaekle, Pastoral Care, 76, a first tentative step in that direction would be to re-appreciate and re-appropriate the grand tradition of Christian pastoring. Thus, we deplore most of all the growing sense of discontinuity, the tendency to assume the irrelevancy of the past. . . . We plead that an historical perspective be allowed to enrich the current dialogue between pastoral care and the other helping professions and arts. Walter J. Lowe, Method Between Two Disciplines: The Therapeutic Analogy, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 35 No. 3 (September 1981): 147. Edward P. Wimberly, Methods of Cross-Cultural Pastoral Care: Hospitality and Incarnation, The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Vol. 25 No. 3 (Spring 1998): 188-202 recounts teaching pastoral theology in a predominantly white seminary to a Doctor of Ministry class where great tension soon emerged between two class factions; namely parish pastors and specialized pastoral counselors. The pastors generally worked at making correlations between their understanding of faith and needs of people. They felt that traditional religious language and symbols are important in caring for the needs of people. In contrast, pastoral counselors felt that theology began with a universal form of spirituality [perennial philosophy] which was constant for all persons regardless of their religious orientation. They generally felt that religious language and symbols are irrelevant for their work (p. 189). Wimberly notes that historically, this splitting between pastors and pastoral counselors in the class regarding pastoral theology was a reflection of what had existed since the emergence of pastoral counseling in the 1940s (p. 190). He credits both William Hulme, Pastoral Care Comes of Age (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970) and Tom Odens Kerygma as influences which have helped him and others to claim for pastoral care its true identity within the faith tradition (p. 191). See also Seward Hiltner, Pastoral Counseling and the Church, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 31 No. 3 (September 1977): 194-209, especially pages 197-98 for a discussion of the temptations for pastoral care specialists to regard their work as inherently superior to parish ministers. Willimon, Worship, 11. Willimon, Worship, 12. H. P. V. Renner, The Use of Ritual in Pastoral Care, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 33 No. 3 (September 1979): 164-174, quote 165-66. Ramshaw, Ritual, 13. Ramshaw, Ritual, 14. See Johanson, Introduction to Feed, and Parish Revisited. See also Tjaard G. Hommes, Supervision as Theological Method, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 31, No. 3. (September 1977): 150-157. Hommes begins his article by saying: My title, Supervision as Theological Method, implies the presupposition, not necessarily shared by everyone, that the supervisor is a type of theologian. He concludes his essay with these words: The point I am trying to make is that the supervisory exchange and all the praxis of ministry potentially are bearers of the on-going Christian tradition. Just as the listening stance in supervision is basically the exercise in hearing the Christian gospel, the heuristic reflection upon human stories of supervisees (or ministers) is basically the discovery of new forms of revelation of the Christian truth. And just as the supervisory exchange (or ministry in general) is the entering together into the story of the Christian faith, so the continuing journey of ministry is the on-going act of recreating the Christian tradition. (p. 157) For instance John Patton has a certain standing in the pastoral care community as director of a successful pastoral care and counseling service, a sometime president of both the American and International Associations for Pastoral Care and Counseling, a senior editor of the Journal of Pastoral Care, author of books in the field, and a seminary professor of pastoral theology. In his editorial Condition and Covenant, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 32 No. 2 (June 1978): 73-75 he clearly states that ordination should not only be a condition a pastoral counselor meets, but a covenant of mutual, ongoing accountability with a faith group. For Patton ordained pastoral counselors must be actively involved in local parishes and be theological interpreters of their work, along with the agencies they work for, whether they are parochial or non-parochial. Ordained psychotherapists who have lost their interest in theology have also lost their reason for continuing in ordained ministry (p. 74). Where ordained ministry is taking place, the Gospel story must be known, (p. 75) and even a community mental health center must also be a theological interpreter if it is to justify employing an ordained minister as pastoral counselor (p. 75). The words and concepts could not be clearer, but how much can we say that teachings from the top down actually impact local practice? Hand, Theological Practice, 102. Emil J. Posavac and Bruce M. Hartung, An Exploration Into the Reasons People Choose A Pastoral Counselor Instead of Another Type of Psychotherapist, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 31 No. 1 (March 1977): 23-31, quote page 30. H. Newton Malony, Differences in Style of Pastoral Counseling as a Function of Religious Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Human Nature, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 31 No. 1 (March 1977): 38-46, quote page 46. Ralph C. Ciampa, God-Talk in Pastoral Care: Three Dimensions of the Pastoral Encounter, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 30 No. 1 (March 1976): 27-34, quotes from page 27.  Ciampa, God-Talk, 27. Ciampa, God-Talk, 33. Ciampa, God-Talk, 33. Ciampa also includes in this article a helpful discussion of levels of pastoral conversation on a continuum from a first level of appropriate conversational chit-chat to discussing ultimate religious concerns at a fifth level of relationship which is more often left to chance. (p. 32). For a nineties discussion of God-Talk in pastoral care which focuses on the ambiguity of mythic and relational use of language see J. Timothy Allen, God-Talk and Myth: Turning Chaos Into Comfort, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 46 No. 4 (Winter 1992): 340-348. Oden, Lost Identity, 5-6. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 56-57. Also: What Thomas Pugh and others first advocated as an enhancing, deepening, and correcting of traditional practice has gradually assumed the primary and sometimes exclusive role; in clinical pastoral circles, including much CPE and seminary instruction in the field, the use of ones person has acquired normative status in the definition of effective and appropriate pastoral care. Scripture, sacrament, prayer, and spiritual exhortation and admonition--and other traditional means of grace--are assigned the role of resources considered useful in supplementing a ministry whose fundamental efficacy lies in the skillful and existentially integrated exercise of pastoral selfhood. This appears to be the case whether the underlying paradigm of care is the traditional clinical-pastoral one, or the more recent communal-contextual paradigm identified and theoretically developed by John Patton. Either way the self becomes salvific (pp. 57-58). Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 61. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 58. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 59 and Romans 1:16. On pages 64-65 Hunter adds: Religion is about humankinds relation to the Sacred, and the Sacreds relation to us and to all things. Correspondingly, a genuinely religious Christian ministry is one concerned with its own particular understanding of and participation in the Sacred, how it is related to us and comes to us, and what it means to participate in the Sacred so understood. . . . Without transcendent vision of this kind, an openness and faith beyond ourselves in a judging and redeeming Source and End of life, all human therapies, however deeply compassionate, therapeutic, and life enhancing in the short term will tend, like all works of human culture, to become presumptuous, demanding, and oppressive--a new moral demand system. Even pastoral care giving and psychotherapy can function as instruments of subtle social control, domination, and despair if not set within the kind of faith perspective that depends on and participates in a grace and truth beyond themselves for their spiritual vitality and moral orientation. Hunter, Law and Gospel, 147. Further: These concepts sound narrow and moralistic, and our tendency is to avoid them in favor of more comprehensive categories of thought. We do not feel entirely comfortable viewing peoples problems, especially those of the sick and dying, as expressions of sin, nor do we like to regard ourselves as bearers of moral judgment or even of words of forgiveness. It all sounds condescending, authoritarian, and dehumanizing. We much prefer to understand human need in the less moralistic, more humanistic and scientific terms of psychic bondage and conflict, ego defense and anxiety, or the dynamics of growth and development. What this means, in other words, is that we have widely substituted the norms and concepts of the health professions and the health sciences for those of our traditional theology. . . . . . . This is a familiar criticism of CPE. (p. 148) Hunter, Law and Gospel, 147. A similar word is said by Herbert Anderson, What do Seminaries Expect of Clinical Pastoral Education? Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 34 No. 1 (March 1980): 54-61. If there is one criticism from seminaries that ranks above all others it is that clinical pastoral education is not sufficiently theological. That criticism can have a variety of meanings. For me it is simply that supervisors in ACPE need be encouraging students to develop methods for theological reflection on the practice of ministry. It is unrealistic of seminaries to expect that the clinical experience would be able to effect the still elusive integration of theory and practice that has not been mastered in a seminary context either. Effecting theological reflection is a more modest goal and one that I think seminaries can appropriately expect of clinical pastoral education. By reflecting I mean looking with a theological eye at occasions of ministry in which care is the focus. . . . ACPE supervisors have maintained that they indeed are reflecting theologically in their consideration of ministry issues. . . . What many supervisors regard as theological is most often couched in the language of psychology or human experience. Sometimes that process is labeled incarnational theology. So far so good. Theology continually needs to be infused with the stuff of human experiences. The next step is the critical one. It is necessary that some connection be made between the experientially based theological reflection from the clinical situation and the classical traditions of Christian thought. . . . Sometimes I worry that clinical pastoral care has lost its theological moorings. It is so much simpler to talk about neurosis than sin. To a large degree psychological categories have replaced theological principles as normative for our response to people in crisis. (pp. 57-58) Hunter, Law and Gospel, 152, 153. It is appropriate to note that those who place themselves self-consciously in the more evangelical, Christian Counselor schools, still struggle with this supposedly mainline issue of identity. For instance, Gary R. Collins, ed., Case Studies in Christian Counseling (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991), 251, writes of talking with a Dr. Clinton who expressed the opinion that it is unethical for a therapist to label himself or herself as a Christian counselor but then to never mention the name of Christ unless the client raises religious issues. This was a challenging thought to me. . . . Many of us, it seems, claim to be Christian counselors and even advertise that we are Christian, but our counseling differs little from the work of our secular colleagues. Hunter, Law and Gospel, 156. Pastoral Counseling (Nashville: Abingdon); Pastoral Care (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox). Wimberly, Hospitality and Incarnation, 188, sounds the same note: In pastoral care and counseling it is not enough to borrow from the counseling psychologies for methodology. One reason for this is that the context out of which the method develops in the counseling psychologies is different from the context of the church. The techniques should be specific to the context in which pastoral care and counseling is provided. If the methods of pastoral care and counseling are to be specific, then, how do they utilize the counseling psychologies for the religious context? If the counseling psychologies are used, what criteria must be employed for the needs of the church? Morton T. Kelsey, Pastoral Counseling and the Spiritual Quest, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 32 No. 2 (June 1978): 89-99, page 93: In 1955 Robert Openheimer was asked to address the American Psychological Association. His address, entitled Analogy in Science, pointed out that psychologists were unreasonable to base their psychology on a model of physics which physics had abandoned. Twentieth-century science has become less and less certain about the ultimate nature of matter and far less sure that there are not other dimensions of experience. There is no longer universal certainly about all experience being essentially reducible to material reality. The new uncertainty is traced by T. S. Kuhns in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1970]. Even in mathematics Godels Proof has put an end to universal certainty about mathematical truth. The scientific community is entering a new era of far less materialistic dogmatism and far more openness to talk about other dimensions of experience. See Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Spiritual Direction and Psychotherapy, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 32 No. 3 (September 1979): 149-163. Most psychotherapeutic systems claim not to deal with religion, except, perhaps, in its more florid pathological forms. In fact, however, some psychological theories do make claims about such questions, if only to declare that the traditional transcendent formulations of theology are mere epiphenomena of the human psyche. Such declarations are not denials of religion, they are a religion, since they make a claim about the ultimate system of orientation (p. 154). van den Blink, Seeking God, 21. As author, I should clarify that I have given my life to pursuing excellence in pastoral care and counseling, and thus, could write a volume on the beauty and benefits of the field. However, that would be another project, and there are already many works which lay out the strengths of the movement. The necessarily limited emphasis of this present section is on criticisms of late-sixties pastoral care which help make sense out of the spirituality and pastoral care emphasis that followed. Barnhouse, Spiritual, 151. Kelsey, Quest, 91. Kelsey, Quest, 95. David C. Duncombe, Binocular rivalry as an Indicator of Spiritual Growth in CPE, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 31 No. 1 (March 1977): 18-22. Quoted in Edward E. Thorton, Editorial: The Risks of Freedom, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 33 No. 3 (September 1979): 145-148; quote page 147. Edward E. Thorton, Editorial: Who Is A Pastor? Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 32 No. 4 (December 1978): 217-218. All quotes from page 218. Hand, Theological Practice, 100, 104, 106. Hand, Theological Practice, 108. Hand, Theological Practice, 104. John L. Florell, Editorial: Licensing--Clerical or Secular? Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 30 No. 2. (June 1976): 73-74, quotes on page 73. Cecil A. Rice, The Pastoral Counselor in a Community Mental Health Center, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 30 No. 2 (June 1976): 122-131. Rice also brings forward the argument that psychotherapy is becoming a field by itself which can be joined with, but is not contained by, psychiatry, psychology, social work, or pastoral counseling. Likewise, he makes the case for psychotherapists in general being the new priests of the culture who hear confessions, promote healing, and prescribe values (in the name of health) even though some continue in the illusion that they operate moral or value free. Florell, Licensing, 74. John L. Florell, Research Report on the Journals Questionnaire on Licensing, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 31 No. 1 (March 1977): 61-63, quotes pages 61, 62. Robert L. Myers, III, State Licensing and Pastoral Identity, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 30 No. 2 (June 1976): 76-82, quote page 77. Myers, Licensing, 78. See Lynette Schwarz Danylchuk, The Pastoral Counselor as Mental Health Professional: A Comparison of the Training of AAPC Fellow Pastoral Counselors and Licensed Clinical Social Workers, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 46. No. 4 (Winter 1992): 382-391, which makes the case that pastoral counselors are just plain flat-out objectively better than other mental health professionals. See Hiltner, PC and the Church, for his view of licensure and related issues. On the issue of the larger church supporting the specialized ministry of pastoral counseling, he writes that throughout his article it has been assumed, without arguing the point, that neither now nor in the future are national or regional or local churches ever going to provide the subsidy money to maintain and extend pastoral counseling centers to meet actually existing needs that can be served in this way. . . . Nostalgic though we may be for a mammoth ecclesiastical breast flowing with honey as well as milk, we must consign that wish to the realm of infantile residues and get on with being the church ourselves. (p. 202) Myers, Licensing, 80-81. See also the cautions in Homer U. Ashby, Jr., Managed Care and the Care of Souls, American Journal of Pastoral Counseling Vol. 1 No. 4 (1998): 25-40, and J. L. Maes, Can Pastoral Counseling Flourish in a World of Managed Care? Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 50 No. 2 (1996): 133-140. H. Newton Malony, The Demise and Rebirth of the Chaplaincy, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 29 No. 2 (June 1975): 129-134, quotes from pages 131, 130, 132, 130, 131. See also R. A. Lambourne, With Care to the USA, Journal of Religion and Health Vol. 8 No. 4 (1969): 312-326 and Seward Hiltner, An Appraisal of the Lambourne Appraisal, Journal of Religion and Health Vol. 8 No. 4 (1969): 327-334. Malony, Demise, 131. For two, more recent articles that continue the dialogue about identity see Clyde J. Getman, CPE Supervisors: Psychologists or Theologians, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 36 No. 3 (1982); 172-76, and Bert Kai-Je, Psychologist or Theologian? Pastoral Counseling, Supervision, and Professional Identity, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 47 No. 1 (Spring 1993): 65-77. Malony, Demise, 132, 131, 132-33. Hiltner, PC and the Church, also argues that while pastoral care and counseling can make legitimate claims for contributing to the health of individuals broadly conceived, that reducing and judging ministry solely on the criteria of confused, secular conceptions of health would be contraindicated. It is difficult to conceive any Christian theological position that could justify its acts of service, compassion, justice, or love only be re-baptizing them as health concerns. (p. 203)  Joretta L. Marshall, Internal Pastoral Authority in An Ecclesial Tradition: Psychological and Theological Dynamics, (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt Univ., 1992), 10, 6, 57, 58. She also references Sam Southard, Pastoral Authority in Personal Relationships (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) who writes of how the cultural context impacts the perception of the pastor as a spiritual authority, and Edward E. Thornton, Pastoral Identity, in Hunter, Dictionary, 568: Authority inheres in a pastors life of prayer and a clear identification as a representative of God, of a religious tradition, and of a specific congregation. Pastoral authority then permeates ones gestures of caring, the rituals of ecclesiastical functioning, and the specialized services requiring exceptional competence. Marshall, Internal Pastoral Authority, 56. Seward Hiltner, Fifty Years of CPE, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 29 No. 2 (June 1975): 90-98, quote page 97. See Johanson, A Critical Analysis of Pastoral Counseling Across Cultures. Edward P. Wimberly, The Cross-Culturally Sensitive Person, The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Vol. 25 No. 3 (Spring 1998): 170-188, quotes pp. 172, 173. Also, as the writer, I can attest that I was in a uniquely diverse clinical pastoral training group in the early 70s which included a white, Methodist pastor from the rural South; a white, Episcopal priest from an urban Southern setting; a native Hawaiian pastor; a black pastor from Northern Africa; a native German pastor from the Bavarian Lutheran Church; and the first Eastern Orthodox priest ever to take CPE. The group basically adopted the watchword of psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan who said people are all more alike than different, which is undoubtedly true. However, this word functioned to uncritically gloss over all ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious differences which were rarely named or explored. Edward P. Wimberly, Methods of Cross-Cultural Pastoral Care: Hospitality and Incarnation, The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Vol. 25 No. 3 (Spring 1998): 188-202, quote page 194. Wimberly, Cross-Cultural Sensitivity, 170, 185.  Suk-Mo Ahn, Toward A Local Pastoral Care and Pastoral Theology: The Basis, Model, and Case of Han in Light of Charles Gerkins Pastoral Hermeneutics, (Ph.D. diss., Emory Univ., 1991), 1, 2, 9. See David Hesselgrave, Counseling Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Theory and Practice for Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), and Aart M. van Beek, Cross-Cultural Counseling (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.) Ahn, Local Pastoral Care, 11. Ahn, Local Pastoral Care, 11-12. Ahn, Local Pastoral Care, 363. John E. Hinkle and Gregory A. Hinkle, Surrendering the Self: Pastoral Counseling at the Limits of Culture and Psychotherapy, Journal of Pastoral Care Vol. 46 No. 2 (Summer 1992): 103-118. Hinkle, Surrendering, 105, 106. Paul Hessert, Innocence and Experience: Toward a Theology of Pastoral Care, in James B. Ashbrook and John E. Hinkle, eds., At the Point of Need: Living Human Experience; Essays in Honor of Carroll A. Wise (Lanham: Univ. Press of America, 1988), 135-42; and No Other Gods: A Theology of Passion (New York: Crossroads/Continuum Press, 1991). Hinkle, Surrendering, 108, 109. Hinkle, Surrendering, 111, 109. Hinkle, Surrendering, 111. For a complimentary view of the culture-boundness of psychotherapy from a psychological writer see Isaac Prilleltensky, The Morals and Politics of Psychology: Psychological Discourse and the Status Quo (Albany: State Univ. of NY Press, 1994).  Hinkle, Surrendering, 109, 110. Hinkle, Surrendering, 110, quoting Hessert, No Other Gods, 210. Meister Eckhardt would agree that one does not find God by a process of addition, but by a process of subtraction. The commonplace comment at this time in transpersonal psychology would be to say you have to have a self before you can lose it or empty it, but this would still need to be clarified in terms of the subject at hand. Can the self develop into something more called soul, or does soul have a reality independent of what is happening with the self, and if so, how are the two related? Can the soul be the channel of grace for healing the self? See Jack Engler, Therapeutic Aims in Psychotherapy and Meditation: Developmental Stages in the Representation of Self, Hakomi Forum Vol. 9 (Winter 1992): 31-50. Hinkle, Surrendering, 111. Hinkle, Surrendering, 111. It cant be recommended enough that pastoral counselors immerse themselves in Augsburgers school of cross cultural sensitivity and interpathy, since the danger is just too elementary for unconsciously and uncritically seeing the cure of someone elses cultural oppression or distortion in some remedy from ones own culture. Hinkle, Surrendering, 116. In his introduction to chapter 23 of Pastoral Psychology, Leroy Howe writes: Sadly, the kind of dialogue Outler envisioned did not materialize. The discipline of pastoral care and counseling continued to take its cues from the latest fads in psychotherapeutic theory and practice, eschewing comparable attentiveness to theological reflection on the human condition, even as psychotherapy itself moved perilously close to a state of captivity by psychopharmacological and psychobiological models of mental disorders. Ironically, Outler believed, where the dialogue continued at all, it aroused far greater interest among secular psychotherapists than it did among pastors and pastoral counselors! (p. 270) Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 7, 13, 35, 36. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 183, 37, 125. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 197. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 200. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 135 There are those nowadays, who speak of post-Constantinian Christianity (they mean post-Theodosian, i.e., post-establishment Christianity) as if they really supposed that a return to the catacombs (or even communes) made any sense whatever; as if there were no radical differences between a Christianity perceived as a real challenge by secular society (as then), and a Christianity (as now) that can be (has been) dismissed by secular society as no big deal at all. A serious questioning is underway in psychotherapy on the subject of whether unconditional positive regard, the knee-jerk damnation of all societal structures as authoritarian and repressive, and the unthinking support of individual utilitarian values has indeed led to irresponsible license. The most public and notorious voice, both on the radio and in print, is Dr. Laura Schlessinger, How could you do that?!: The Abdication of Character, Courage, and Conscience (New York: HarperPerennial, 1996). See also Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Foundations of Contextual Therapy (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1987), William J. Doherty, Soul Searching: Why Psychotherapy Must Promote Moral Responsibility (New York: BasicBooks, 1995), Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda (New York: Crown, 1993), Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism Without Illusions: A Critique of Individualism (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1991), James Hillman and Michael Ventura, Weve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy--and the Worlds Getting Worse (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1992), Jeremy Holmes and Richard Lindley, The Values of Psychotherapy (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), Thomas Kitwood, Concern for Others: A New Psychology of Conscience and Morality (New York: Routledge, 1990), August G. Lageman, The Moral Dimensions of Marriage and Family Therapy (Lanham: Univ. Press of America, 1993), Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism (New York: Warner Books, 1979), Joseph Margolis, Psychotherapy and Morality: A Study of Two Concepts (New York: Random House, 1966), Mary W. Nicholas, The Mystery of Goodness and the Positive Moral Consequences of Psychotherapy (New York: Norton, 1994), Edward E. Sampson, The Debate on Individualism: Indigenous Psychologies of the Individual and Their Role in Personal and Societal Functioning, American Psychologist Vol. 43 (1988): 14-22, John Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation: A Four-Decade Study (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1993), Michael Wallach and Lise Wallach, Psychologys Sanction for Selfishness: The Error of Egoism in Theory and Therapy (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1983), Neal O. Weiner, The Harmony of the Soul: Mental Health and Moral Virtue Reconsidered (Albany: State Univ. of NY Press, 1993), and Alan Wolfe, Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation (Berkeley: Univ. of CA Press, 1989). Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 38-40, 123, 208, 12, 126. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 180, 249. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 247. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 273. A number of mainline pastoral care-givers would be happy to ignore the evangelical-fundamentalist wing of the church. Marshall W. Fishwick, Great Awakenings: Popular Religion and Popular Culture (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1995) argues that stance is ill-advised. The fundamentalists are plainly the big winners, (p. 222) he writes, when you look at a number of events such as making President Clinton back down when he moved to integrate gays into the military, the willingness of universities to take religion more seriously, the decline in influence of the National Council of Churches and liberal academics in general, the decline in faith that technology and science can save us, the influence of conservative Christians on the Republican Party agenda, etc. Evangelicals are much more adept at using the current media, such as television, to get their points across. Indeed, all televangelists reveal that they know how to tap the cultural currents which indicate that secularism is on the wane, humanism on the defensive. They sense (but cannot always articulate) the exhaustion of modernism and tedium of the unrestrained self. There is a reaction against extreme individualism and self, a preoccupation with and a search for Roots with a Capital R, which takes people back to religion, says Robert N. Bellah. Tradition is back on the agenda with a positive force. Not just students, but the academic community in general, long a haven for skeptics, is now giving religious belief attention in intellectual circles that you wouldnt have detected ten years ago, says Peter Steinfels, executive editor of the Roman Catholic lay periodical Commonweal. (p. 227) Harold Bloom argues that the Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Pentecostals are the three most vital ongoing movements today. They are the religion of our climate. (p.231) Evangelical churches generate much more energy and commitment from their people than liberal mainline ones do because they are more than a place to worship, though their worship does tend to be more alive and engaging. They are primary community for their members, a total church living complex, (p.229) a sub-group that can exist nearly totally within a Christian context of churches, para-church organizations, Christian radio, Christian television, and Christian reading material that emboldens them to confront public, political issues directly when aroused. It can be argued that fundamentalism, in particular, is filling a vacuum caused by a lack of transcendence, but Fishwick points out that elitists always tend to devalue the popular, forgetting that ours is a government of the people. (p. 230) There are many people, and a growing number, with a growing influence, within evangelicalism. There is also a point of view to engage with many articulate evangelical scholars and therapists that calls for more than the dismissing of a stereotype. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 209. We can ourselves, with no final loss, abandon the forensic image of divine justice as our basic soteriological metaphor and still reassert the primacy and truth of divine justice as the still-valid norm for human freedom and all the other human aspirations. . . . The essence of the Gospel--that Gods will is humanitys true joy and happiness--does not require a forensic model or paradigm, not even in the interest of Gods sovereignty and of the final inviolability of his righteous rule (the kingdom of God) in human community. What is crucial is the acknowledgment of Gods justice. Gods intention that men and women shall live and die in accordance with their actual human potential (divinely created). For people to live and die--forever--without achieving their created potential, and with no such prospect here or hereafter, is unjust; it is the essence of injustice. That this must be construed in juridical terms is not necessary, not now, at least, when forensic metaphors are more misleading than edifying. See Outler pp. 210-216 for more on the gospel for the guiltless which employs non-forensic images. See also Willimon, The Gospel for the Person Who Has Everything (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1978). Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 7-8. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 123. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 294. Outler, Pastoral Psychology, 227. Charles Brummett, Recovering Pastoral Theology: The Agenda of Thomas Oden, (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1990). Brummett, Oden, 56, 57. In the post-sixties David Tracey, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975) modified Tillichs method as a revised, mutually critical correlational approach that allowed theology and its dialogue partners both to have questions and answers. However, Rebecca S. Chopp, Suffering: An Interpretation of Liberation and Political Theologies (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986), 120, critiqued the revised correlational model in practical theology as nothing more than a new play on the old tag game of liberal, progressive theology which ends up concentrating on white, bourgeois male issues of individual faith and meaning as opposed to the cultural-social issues which impact the suffering in the world. Brummett, Oden, 58, 59, 68, 60, 61. Brummett, Oden, 62. Brummett, Oden, 63, 64. Brummett, Oden, 64, 65. Oden, Contemporary, 83. Brummett, Oden, 66, 67. For two discussions of the use of the bible in pastoral care in general, which support Odens basic contention in relation to Hiltner, see Donald Capps, Bible, Pastoral Use and Interpretation of, in Hunter, gen. ed., Dictionary, 82-85, and Stephen Pattison, A Critique of Pastoral Care (London: SCM Press, 1988), chapter six, The Bible and Pastoral Care, 106ff. Brummett, Oden, 29. Brummett, Oden, 31. Brummett, Oden, 68. Brummett, Oden, 146-148. Brummett, Oden, 152. Brummett, Oden, 154, 155, 154. Brummett, Oden, 155. Oden, Guilt Free, 34. Brummett, Oden, 158-59, 159, 159-160. Brummett, Oden, 162, 163. Brummett, Oden, 164. Dennis Smith, A Practical Theological Hermeneutical Resource for Pastoral Counseling: Developing a Methodology for Aiding the Dialogue Between Pastoral Counseling and Theological Faith Traditions, (Ph.D. diss., School of Theology at Claremont, 1990), 235. Smith, Hermeneutical Resource, 121. See Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (New York: Orbis, 1976). Dennis James Hughes, Jesus Christ or Prometheus: A Pastoral Theological Critique of Contemporary American Pastoral Counseling and a New Proposal Called The Christian Shaman, (Ph.D. diss., Notre Dame, 1986). Hughes, Jesus or Prometheus, 33, 38, 39, 41. Hughes, Jesus or Prometheus, 41. Hughes, Jesus or Prometheus, 41, 42. Hughes, Jesus or Prometheus, abstract. Gary Eugene Myers, The Loss of Transcendence in Pastoral Counseling: A Critical Theological Inquiry into the Relationship Between Pastoral Counselings Identity Crisis and Its Uses of Tradition, (Ph.D. diss., Emory Univ., 1989) 1, 6, 14, 6, 13. Myers, Loss of Transcendence, 10, 120, 20. On pages 92-93 he expands on his sympathetic position for the bind pastoral care and counseling are in by virtue of their participation in the conflicts of the twentieth century: The cognitive-propositional and the experiential-expressive paradigms are not fundamentally opposed in their aims. They are, in fact, both attempts of the churchs theology to express and preserve the otherness or revelatory character of religious faith. The pendulum swing between giving priority either to tradition or to experience should be understood instead as a swing between different ways of maintaining religions capacity to be revelatory. The swing between the two paradigms is necessary because neither alone is adequate to the task of preserving and expressing the distinctions between subjectivity and the otherness encountered in religious faith. . . . . . . Pastoral counseling, like other theologically determined practices of the church, wishes to retain both its integrity and cultural and historical relevance. This is frequently difficult. The dilemma seems to be: either pastoral counseling sacrifices the distinctive authority of its tradition to achieve relevance and acceptance as a scientific healing practice, or it sacrifices relevance in order to preserve its Christian distinctiveness. This dual concern to guard distinctiveness and demonstrate relevance is satisfied by neither the cognitive-propositional type nor the experiential-expressive type of theology. Without a single theology adequate to undergird both relevance and distinctiveness, pastoral counseling has found it necessary to include these two conflicting theologies in its identity. When the question of relevance is foremost, the identity of pastoral counseling swings in the direction of the experiential-expressive type; when distinctiveness is at risk, the cognitive-propositional type is activated to limit accommodation to culture. Hence the pendular quality of pastoral counselings alternate shifting of priority from tradition to experience is self-regulatory. Myers, Loss of Transcendence, 35, 36, 37. Myers, Loss of Transcendence, 50, 45-46, 51, 56, 84, 54. Myers, Loss of Transcendence, 57. Myers, Loss of Transcendence, 60. Myers, Loss of Transcendence, 23. Sandra Harrison, Inner Healing and Secular Psychotherapy: Methodological Similarities, (Ph.D. diss., Emory Univ., 1987), 29. For a popular pastoral care author trained in mainline seminaries but identified with evangelical Christianity, who publishes inner healing materials, see David Seamands, Healing for Damaged Emotions , Putting Away Childish Things, Healing of Memories, and more. More recently, James E. Loder has integrated elements of inner healing in his The Logic of the Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998). See especially his chapter 3 Human Development Reenvisioned: The Case of Helen, 46-80. Harrison, Inner Healing, 164, 166, 167, 166, 165, 167, 165, 166. Harrison, Inner Healing, 166. William S. Schmidt, A Critical Analysis of Transpersonal Psychology from the Perspective of a Christian Theology, (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1982). Brant Cortright, Psychotherapy and Spirit: Theory and Practice in Transpersonal Psychotherapy (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1997), 13, notes that the emphasis on things like bliss, ecstasy, awe, cosmic unity, and so on that transpersonal psychology started out with may seem rather amusing today. What about suffering, pain, abuse, psychosis, war, greed? What about daily life? However, it is important to realize the context for the emergence of transpersonal psychology, namely the late 1960s, a time when bliss, wonder, and awe were in the air, revolution was in the streets, and enlightenment seemed just around the corner. Although transpersonal psychology has been criticized for being removed from the ordinary reality most people live in by its narrow focus on the high end of human life, this stage did serve a necessary historical purpose, namely to bring attention to those parts of human experience which had been neglected by the previous models of psychology and/or pathologized out of genuine consideration (such as Freuds dismissing mystical experience as being merely a return to the oceanic oneness of the womb). By bringing attention to these experiences, transpersonal psychology has helped bring about a major paradigm shift away from the traditional scientific, materialistic, Cartesian worldview toward a more holistic, spiritual perspective. It has also affirmed spiritual seeking as an essential aspect of human motivation. Seeking for the Divine, whether called God, Brahman, Buddha-nature, Reality, Being, Truth, Love, or anything else, has been a major aspiration and force in all cultures and periods of history, yet it has been virtually ignored by traditional psychology Transpersonal psychology brought this central motivating force into the center of psychology, rather than overlooking it or relegating it to the periphery. (p. 13) One person who has taken up Schmidts dialogue with the Christian tradition and Transpersonal Psychology is Dwight H. Judy, Christian Meditation and Inner Healing (New York: Crossroad, 1991). Brita Gill-Austern, The Role of Christian Community in Pastoral Care: Toward the Transformation of Anxiety and the Development of Trust, (Ph. D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1991), 1, v, ii, iv, vi, v. Gill-Austern, Role of Community, vi-vii. Gill-Austern, Role of Community, 1. Joyce LaVerne Arnold, A Feminist Hermeneutical Alternative for Religion and Personality: Knowing and Caring in Pastoral Counseling, (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt Univ., 1992), 12, 310, 20. See Bons-Storm, Incredible Woman, DeMarinis, Critical Caring, Glaz and Moessner, Travail and Transition, and Heyward, Redemption. Gerkin, Introduction, 24. J. Bernard Kynes, Sr., Race and Personhood, The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Vol. 25 No. 3 (Spring 1998): 152-169, quote page 168-69. See also Stephen Pattisons 1994 Pastoral Care and Liberation Theology. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 74, 75. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 77. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 77. James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, Twentieth Anniversary ed. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1986), 69-70, 74. The story of this ministry is told by Samuel G. Freedman, Upon This Rock: The Miracle of a Black Church (New York: HarperCollins, 1993). Another instructive book for black and white churches alike is James H. Harris, Pastoral Theology: A Black-Church Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). David Lyall, Counselling in the Pastoral and Spiritual Context (Buckingham: Open Univ. Press, 1995), 51, notes the Anglican priest Kenneth Leech has also been one who felt that in pastoral counselling, there was too much emphasis on helping individuals to adjust to society while the task of Christian ministry was to enable individuals to act corporately in the transformation of society. See Leechs Soul Friend, Chapter Six; Spirituality and Pastoral Care (Cambridge: Cowley, 1989); and The Eye of the Storm: Living Spiritually in the Real World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992). Lyall adds (p. 53) that Peter Selby, Liberating God: Private Care and Public Struggle (London: SPCK, 1983) maintains that pastoral care and political involvement are mutually dependent. He holds in creative tension the outward and inward journeys. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 69, 70, 69, 70, 71. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 71, 72, 71, 72. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 74, 75. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 74-75. Hunter is quite clear about the value of the clinical pastoral legacy of Tom Pugh and the others who pioneered the use of ones person as a hermeneutical and relational key to effective ministry (p. 83), and how its neglect can wreak havoc in ministry. He argues that we just need to reconceptualize the emotional cultivation of personhood as a practice comparable to a spiritual discipline. Personal growth and self-awareness would be intended, not to preempt the work of the Spirit, but to train the soul to wait patiently for the Spirits advent, enabling the soul to discern the Spirit more accurately and respond with a more nuanced and appropriate obedience. As we come to know ourselves more fully (and painfully), and to be more in touch with what moves us and how we relate and appear to others, we may indeed be more suited for divine service through participation in the wider social world and its struggle with evil--more able to hear the Word accurately and follow it more effectively and creatively. (p. 83) Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 76. See also Russel Jacoby, Social Amnesia: A Critique of Conformist Psychology from Adler to Laing (Boston: Beacon Press, 1975)  Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 76. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 77, quoting Lonzy F. Edwards, Sr., Pastoral Care of the Oppressed: A Reappraisal of the Social Crisis Ministry of African-American Churches (Macon: Magnolia Publishing, 1997), 210. Hunter, Transformative Ecclesia, 82. In developing more of a four-quadrant approach Hunter recommends such works as Smith, The Relational Self, Ian Burkitt, Social Selves: Theories of the Social Formation of Personality (London: SAGE Publications, 1991), David Bakhurst and Christine Sypnowich, eds., The Social Self (London: SAGE Publications, 1995), Henry H. Mitchell, Soul Theology: The Heart of Black Culture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), Carlyle Fielding Stewart, III, Soul Survivors: An African American Spirituality (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997), Alistair I. McFadyen, The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990). Pattison, Critique, 145. Pattison, Critique, 176 Pattison, Critique, 190. In addition to previously mentioned works on cross-cultural counseling, see the more recent R. J. Wicks and B. K. Estadt, eds., Pastoral Counseling in a Global Church (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993). Since this work concentrates on a critique of late-sixties pastoral care and counseling for the purpose of making sense of post-sixties developments, the more positive overview of Charles A. Van Wagner in his A History of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors (1961-1991) abridged and edited by Allison Stokes (Fairfax: AAPC Press, 1992) should be consulted. Wagner notes that while he was surprised by the lack of theological discussion and debate during the AAPCs early development, and aware of a rather passive attitude toward the church today, that he discovered there was a good level of energy and activity expended during those formative years in efforts to foster inter-change and cooperation with churches and church groups. (p. 82) In Quintin Hands contribution to the volume, which deals with contemporary times, he notes that the identity issue with pastoral counselors will most likely be a perennial one with more and more pastoral counselors seeking public licensure, and more non-pastors wanting to participate in the organization, (p. 102). Likewise, in the epilogue, C. Roy Woodruff, the Executive Director of the AAPC writes: In regard to identity, there has always been and always will be an element of tension in the dual dimensions of pastoral and psychotherapeutic. That is an inevitable dynamic of who we are, and if it disappears we will probably disappear with it. Paul Tillich described his identity as on the boundary, and that is where we as pastoral counselors find ours. (p. 105)     PAGE  PAGE 393  6AP : qh~LoE!s!_$$$${&&&&9':'++-L-//W112223H55#6$67889999 :-::::; ho6CJjho0JCJU ho>*CJ hoCJhoho5;CJ ho5CJho5>*CJM  3456ABZ \dY68 5"#A&(*+/12dhdh`$dha$$a$'2%6&6;9:?@@BDD;HLT~VVVxWWXX@YY[[\\K]L]]]^^````aaaaBbbXcscwcc}ddeeeefho0JCJ ho6CJjho0JCJU hoCJ ho>*CJUf1fgg g2gggnhthhhhiij]j^j\kzklllm{mmnnnnno_ooKpLpqqssssnttttfuu8w^wxxQyny\{{$|%|||~~-@Pi~b34bv67:مjho0JCJU ho6CJ hoCJ ho>*CJXhh_jlnnMpsttx&|7~:0ԉՉ։P8Ԏ$a$dh`dh@^@م0҉ӉՉ߉pQY !ލ<TXԐ\]^!">hjkvyЕ~ŗ`a֡15äAŦȦfHIިN ho6CJho56>*CJho5>*CJjho0JCJU ho>*CJ hoCJQԎ`al~חؗF Jó @@^@`@dhdh`@^@Nz{5 c³%(_ehߴ8O=Okodxyz<o~\v?@"#b(),f ho6CJho6>*CJ ho>*CJjho0JCJU hoCJU{|J2A$,hiJeDhuBCDa$a$ @@^@`@dh`@^@fg)();iFG1<Hcd@A}ADfgr4ehMstum@ACDaho5>*CJ ho5CJ ho6CJ ho>*CJ hoCJjho0JCJURabV#an !  }   W @@^@`@dh@^@dh`8;<Vd_rsR, ,^_`DlmyCHa \  %        - . m n }  V      gxUVWF;"oho6>*CJ ho6CJ ho>*CJjho0JCJU hoCJUo$KLM [G  !!""X%Y%&F&&&'q(****+U+++++%.&.....//Z0[00011222234@5A5W5j5A6T6E8a89(9::::;;9<:<C<M< ho>*CJ ho6CJjho0JCJU hoCJX Z%&&*+'.(.\02D5:Z<W?X?AqC0F1FG(J)JJL:MPP@^@dh @@^@`@dh`M<o<<"?T?U?V?JA[AAAABoCpCE-F.F/FGH&J'JHLIL:MMzNNPPPPR/STTUUuUUUPV}VV8W9WX^XXX\YlYYZZZ(\)\\\=`````~bbeef ghritiuilollmkmm[nnoo rrrho0JCJjho0JCJU ho>*CJ hoCJXPT:W;WX[*\`eviorurwwzMNpSӘ@^@dh @@^@`@dh`rr ttuu*vQvpwqwxDysztzwzz݄IJKY_yno\kQRpǗԗ5Иј(ΛΝ"# BZq>? ho6CJ ho>*CJ hoCJjho0JCJUXӘԘWBHIC%_`clCdh` @@^@`@dh`@^@EI=V]^İ$Bwdӳab$&'/ĸ* м345f׽ST/04;n Fd~5VWAho5>*CJ ho6CJjho0JCJU hoCJ ho>*CJTC6^234<=DEdh$dha$@dh^@@^@dh`h-=RR0_$g8 P8P 0?@()uLsM}evRUV`g ho6>* ho>* ho6hojho0JUX/>?'(@^@`@^@`7TUmn'(>?wx pq @^@` @@^@`@`gnoy!()28?@`dxy7]  u6qr Ax KEFpv!]U       ho>* ho6jho0JUho\q:DE     @@^@`@@^@`  m   m6  }%=migE]._^_r s       !+!Q!R!!!!!"2"x"y"""""""1#I#####$7%% ho6jho0JU ho>*ho\j]^q r       P!Q!!!@^@ @@^@`@`!w"x"""""""##%%%%&&)'*'(()++,,f.g./@^@`%%%%%%K&c&&&&&*'+'((J(((()t*_++++,),,,,,-(---(.F.g.h./'/////I112223333o455H5I5o555556 6 6H6663799999+:d:e:::::v;;<<@<A<b<c< ho6jho0JUho ho>*[//22355G5H555 6 699c:d:::?<@<a<b<<<<<l=@^@``c<<<<<+=C=m=n===>b>>>>>??6?7??@K@L@p@q@@@@%AzAA* ho6jho0JUho\l=m===>>??5?6?J@K@o@p@CCCCEE/E0E~EGG"H#HOHPH@^@`PHsHtHHHHJJ0T1TiTjTTTTTTTXu[N`O`r`sd>e?ebecee@^@`&OAOyOOOP[PtPPPQ[Q RRDRRRSWSSS T1T2T:TMTjTkTrTTTTTTTTTTTTPUiUUUUXYYZ3Z_[i[u[\^^^_O`P`W`k```zaade?e@eHe[ecedeleeeeeeeeeeee[f\fffg2gg ho>*jho0JUho ho6[eeeeeeZf[fYiZiiiiiiiiiiiwkxkkkkkkkk``gggghhZi[iiiiiiiiiiiiijj k'kxkykkkkkkkkkkkll2l3l9lClJlKltlulllllmmm n%n&nnn,o-oQoRoyozoooppqqrDsvPwxxy yEyFykylyyyyyz{{"{#{6{jho0JU ho6ho ho>*[kkkkll1l2lIlJlsltlllllmm$n%nnn+o,oPoQoxoyoo``ooppq!txxyyDyEyjykyyyyyX|Y|||||~@^@ @@^@`@``6{{{Y|Z|||||}}~~ [.Oujk̇I߈45]^8fڊ=nƌьZލC!"iԏܐzVW ho>*jho0JU ho6ho\ӄij34\]`` @@^@`@ !ܐUV()45`@^@`Wߓ)*pٔ8G c %-56ܘ˙V    "#$'( hoCJhw(0JmHnHu ho0Jjho0JUjhoU ho>*jho0JU ho6hoH   $%&'(dh`h]h&`#$5 000Pz/ =!p"#$% 8@8 Normal_HmH sH tH D@D Heading 1$$@&a$ 5>*CJDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List @&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*.)@. Page Number6@6  Footnote Text4@"4 Header  ! 9#'#.818k:<=}>=LNPSKUXY]`]bfKhklp$tyy3z6}ҁ]!j`Hzy?"(f(Fc@fs@;_l-mU L X"#%&Z(*@-294U79o;.>&BHDHL8OP(TX]tagjmposr|J}nQА">]a&4S/V( !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~% Os\s /&T&9' ((((5+S+>/g//3f7>B%B.EJIKKMMM NN2OOOP1>?(B)BJD:EHHL:O;OPS*TX]vagjmrowr|M}N}pSӐԐWBHIC%_`clC6^234<=DE/>?'(7TUmn'(>?wx pq:DE        j]^qrPQwx)*  !##$$f&g&''**+--G-H--- . .11c2d222?4@4a4b44444l5m55566775767J8K8o8p8;;;;==/=0=~=??"@#@O@P@s@t@@@@BB0L1LiLjLLLLLLLPuSNXOXrXs\>]?]b]c]]]]]]]Z^[^YaZaaaaaaaaaaawcxcccccccccccdd1d2dIdJdsdtdddddee$f%fff+g,gPgQgxgyggghhi!lppqqDqEqjqkqqqqqXtYtttttvy|}}i~j~~~~~34\] !܈UV()45   $%&)000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000J@00@00@00@000P0P0P@0@000 &&&&&);fمNfoM<rg %c<&Og6{W(PTUWY[]^`bdfiknpsux{2hԎaPӘCq!/l=PHeko(QSVXZ\_aceghjlmoqrtvwyz|'R ")!! x4 ϲP vTCjgiCq||) ) B *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace PX  v&/ir9BGK; F V2`23377778889N<W<IIeLlLqLxLNNPPSSWWXYqnzn ? 56EFv2y277::N<\<S TUUeWtWX[[[`Ya9b@bddt#tuu8<Qmr~   #)333333333333333333333333J   #)   &)w(o A\ &)$@Xerox WorkCentre 470cxLPT1:Xerox WorkCentre 470cxXerox WorkCentre 470cxXerox WorkCentre 470cxDC od,,LetterDINU"4'~KMXLXerox WorkCentre 470cxDC od,,LetterDINU"4'~KMXL2 (@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial"h'3&Z9fsLB~PYsLB~PY4dee2HX ?w(2'Pastoral Care: Critiques of, Circa 1970Leif Nathan Johanson John FormanOh+'0 $0 P \ h t(Pastoral Care: Critiques of, Circa 1970Leif Nathan JohansonNormal John Forman5Microsoft Office Word@F#@ @"!(I@sLB~՜.+,0 hp|   YPe (Pastoral Care: Critiques of, Circa 1970 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}Root Entry FData ~1TableIyWordDocument7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q