Tim Stanyon
How important is the humanity of Jesus in your theology and practice of pastoral care?
Pastoral theology is in many ways quite a bewildering field of study. Pastoral theologians come across with wildly varying ideals and approaches, in the words of Hiltner (2000, 33), “Some common shepherds [pastoral theologians], it is true, may be quacks, consciously or otherwise.” Thus a degree of caution must be exercised in approaching such a complex area of theology. To answer this question accurately it would be wise to follow a logical and methodical process. First, a coherent understanding of pastoral care must be attained, for an incoherent and poorly thought out understanding would prompt an inconsistent and fluctuating answer as regarding the importance of the humanity of Jesus. After securing an apt understanding of the nature of pastoral care from which a more detailed theology might be based, the relevance of Jesus’ humanity for pastoral theology will be assessed. Finally after having assessed the importance of Jesus’ humanity concerning theology we will be in a place to give examples of how it might be applied in practice. Reference to practical approaches should offer some insight into the application of pastoral theology and Christology but also highlight the relevance of the sciences to pastoral practice. This will give grounds for a conclusion concerning the importance of Jesus’ humanity in Pastoral theology and practice; whether it is so unimportant that it might be totally discarded or so integral as to support pastoral theology and practice itself. When speaking of ‘pastoral care’ in this essay it will generally be conceived of as ‘Christian’ pastoral care as opposed to secular forms unless otherwise stated.
What is the nature of pastoral care? As was stressed above one has to be very careful when approaching such a question. It is clear that when trying to understand the nature of pastoral care one must avoid being so narrow as to neglect certain aspects of the subject such as communal and political expressions of pastoral care ( Campbell, 2000, 81), but also avoid being so broad as to render ‘pastoral care’ a meaningless concept, and its nature indescribable and incoherent. Perhaps it would be wise to begin with some sort of comparison between secular and Christian pastoral care. Pattison notes in ‘A critique of Pastoral Care’ (2000, 9) that in secular interpretations “there is no necessary reference to any religious dimension at all”. This highlights how the two conceptions of pastoral care are emphatically different. But then this is to be expected. For Christian pastoral care to be ‘Christian’ one would expect it to be affirmed within some sort of Christian context, indeed one would expect it to be in some sense dependent on the Christian worldview and to take this into account for practice. Therefore where secular pastoral care might be concerned with educational goals (Pattison, 2000, 9) Christian pastoral care will be concerned with goals that transcend material reality as defined by Christian doctrine. Christian theology and an understanding of how God has designed humanity and what purposes humanity is intended to fulfil, will be of the upmost importance (Lyall, 2001, 26). This is not to say that secular and Christian approaches to pastoral care will not overlap, to deny this could be considered oxymoronic. What is clear is that Christian pastoral care cannot be merely grounded in non-biblical methodology and neither should it always be approaching situations with the same intentions as secular psychology (Thurneysen, 1962, 201). The exhortation of Romans 12:2 testifies to this, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God…” (Rom. 12.2). The nature of pastoral care is therefore dependent on the purposes of God and articulating them in a way that seeks to attain the fulfilment of these purposes in pastoral conversation. Indeed, Clebsh and Jaeckle (1994, 7) make allowance for this in their definition of pastoral care, in that it,“…consists of helping acts, done by representative Christian persons, directed towards the healing, sustaining, guiding, and reconciling of troubled persons whose troubles arise in the context of ultimate meanings and concerns.” These ultimate meanings and concerns are definitive of pastoral care, “Pastoral care is care for the soul of man” (Lyall, 2001, 26) in that it seeks to help humans understand, grow towards and achieve their purpose as defined by Christian doctrine.
What it means to be human therefore defines the direction in which a pastoral theology ought to be heading. Doctrines of anthropology are entirely relevant to such a discussion. Thus the Christian community should be seeking to attain a doctrine of humanity. Here, problems are encountered. There is debate as to how humans should be understood within the Christian worldview, which is doubtless down to the varying approaches used in trying to attain such a doctrine. For example the Tillichian will deny the possibility of elaborating a doctrine of man without an understanding of depth psychology (Tillich, 1961, 19). In opposition a Barthian, like Thurneysen (1962, 205), will claim that we will, “understand man only when we understand him from the Bible.” Both approaches, in their fullness, have their merits, but they also have their drawbacks. Tillich is right when he challenges “neo-orthodox Biblicism” (Tillich, 1953, 39) in that the bible cannot be the only source when articulating a systematic theology. Indeed the quote from Thurneysen (1962, 205) seems so concentrated on the bible as a source of understanding that it does little if any justice to other methods of understanding humanity, through our own human experience for example. A harmonization of approaches is appropriate here. It would be better to say that the bible provides the grounds for understanding humanity, as Thurneysen (1962, 206) says, “it is not one source among others…” But the bible, having laid the boundaries and foundations of doctrine, can then be understood and applied more efficiently through an understanding of other relevant, albeit ‘auxiliary’ sources (Thurneysen, 1962, 202). The concept of boundaries and foundations for theology seem somewhat abominable on Tillich’s view (Tillich, 1953, 41), nevertheless they are required for forming an accurate understanding of pastoral care. This is not to say that the Tillichian emphasis on psychology for understanding humanity is irrelevant (cf. Rogers, 1985, 102-118). No, an understanding of psychology is important so as to be able to apply a doctrine of humanity with the greatest positive effect within pastoral practice. Of importance now is how our humanity is understood, which is where the humanity of Jesus is of great importance. Thus the Bible plays an important role in how we should approach our understanding of humanity. So we can now understand and investigate how Jesus might become relevant for a biblical doctrine of anthropology.
Here, Jesus’ humanity is so relevant to our own that it cannot be ignored. What it means to be human is encapsulated in the person of Jesus. Indeed, to quote Mackintosh (1978, 383) “Jesus is the Man par excellence.” (cf. Moltmann, 1974, 116,) According to Christian doctrine Jesus did not sin (1 Pet. 2.22). In this sense where the first man (Adam) failed, Jesus allegedly did not. Thus Jesus revealed God’s true intentions for humanity in himself. “He [Jesus] is sinless man and thus shows us who and what real man is.” (Berkouwer, 1962, 92). Thus “anthropology is based on Christology…” (Berkouwer, 1962, 91). If this is the case then the principle concern of a pastoral theology, that of an understanding of the purpose of man, is directly dependent on the humanity of Christ.
Further it is clear that Christian tradition, the patristic councils and the creeds reveal that for Christian theology and Christology to be coherent Jesus’ humanity must be affirmed (The Archbishops’ Council, 2000, 139). In recalling the nature of Christian pastoral care and understanding that it sets itself within the Christian worldview and in some sense attempts to achieve Christian goals, the idea of a coherent Christology is indispensable. It would be an incoherent, confusing and potentially damaging pastoral theology that got rid of the humanity of Christ.
Having assessed the importance of Jesus’ humanity within a theological context, one can now move on to investigate its practical application. Why would Jesus’ humanity be of any importance beyond supplying theological foundations for pastoral care? At this point secular psychological and counselling theory is somewhat important (cf. McGrath and McGrath, 1992, 125). Pastoral care is at its base a relational activity. Indeed pastoral care will involve at the very least a carer and a client (client is perhaps an inappropriately cold term), thus listening skills, therapy and counselling skills are all needed, to some degree, to efficiently and positively help the client. Carl Rogers (1961, 50) notes certain characteristics of a helping relationship, for example, being “dependably real” is important in affirming trust between the pastoral carer and the client. Likewise, Long (1990, 39-45) identifies similar characteristics for good listening on the part of the carer. She highlights the importance of: respect, genuineness, confrontation, immediacy and concreteness. The question which should be asked of these characteristics should be; are they fulfilled in the humanity of Jesus? Can Jesus relate to humanity in this way, or is the charge of him being “Wonderful Counsellor” (Isaiah 9.6) redundant? If Jesus shared humanity then the Christian can be sure that Jesus experienced similar if not greater suffering. The Christian can be sure that Jesus is trustworthy in that he “became obedient to the point of death…” (Phil. 2.8), for the sake of the world. If this is the case, then Jesus, following from his faithfulness to humanity, can be considered genuine and thus steadfast. In his humanity he confronts people with the challenge of God incarnate, which requires response at the very deepest level and arrests the client with appropriate immediacy. Jesus’ humanity fulfils the requirements of a good listener and meets the needs of ‘clients’ for a helping relationship. Jesus, then, in his humanity can be helpful relationally. Furthermore the pastoral carer can comfort a client on the grounds that Jesus shared in suffering and thus can understand emotional and physical pain, that his humanity is a sign of love and that the example he offers should encourage spiritual growth.
Despite all these positives, without applying these examples in a way that is psychologically and relationally appropriate the pastoral carer runs the risk of being unhelpful (Higton, 2008, 116-117). Indeed, those that see God as an authoritarian, power-crazed police man will find the prospect of Jesus’ example as more of a call to rebellion than a call to spiritual growth, or an indication of solution to their problems. Thus, these preconceptions of what God is like must be revealed and investigated. This exercise in psychology can be incredibly useful in enabling a deeper understanding of the person and of how God might relate to them in their current position (Watts, Nye and Savage, 2002, 188-189). Therefore an adequate understanding of psychological theory and practice will be needed in order to fully understand the basis for these preconceptions and how they might be addressed. Tillich’s acknowledgement of psychology should be praised because it offers a bountiful source of material which will help in facilitating an efficient, modern, pastoral care. Moreover Jesus’ humanity alone would prove to be deficient in applying aspects of his person in pastoral care. If Jesus was human and not divine then the hope provided by his humanity would be invalidated, indeed there will undoubtedly be many pastoral cases in which his divinity may be of particular help. One must put Jesus in an eschatological context in order to fully grasp the magnitude of what it means for him to be human. There is love and comfort provided in his humanity and eschatological and eternal hope provided in his deity, both of which will undoubtedly prove important within a Christian pastoral care.
How important is the humanity of Jesus in your theology and practice of pastoral care? It seems clear that the nature of pastoral care, as we have seen, is concerned with the concept, highlighted by Clebsh and Jaekle (1994, 7) of “ultimate meanings and concerns”. Ultimate meanings and concerns for human persons depend on how God has created them to be. According to Christology, Jesus revealed what it means to be truly human. Thus in his humanity Jesus is of direct importance for pastoral theology. Furthermore, without his humanity, theology itself would be lacking in coherence. If someone is trying to help someone within a theological framework, then incoherence within that framework is of great concern. Therefore Jesus’ humanity is of integral importance to my theology of pastoral care. In addition, it has been acknowledged that Jesus’ humanity is important on a practical level. Relationally Jesus humanity fulfils all of the appropriate characteristics required for positive, helping, pastoral relationships. Aspects of his humanity can also be applied practically by a pastoral carer in that Jesus provides an example, an acknowledgement and understanding of suffering, and love demonstrated through his death and resurrection. But one must not forget the importance of psychology and neither should one ignore Jesus divinity for both of these are also required to effectively conduct pastoral care. Thus Jesus’ humanity cannot be dispensed with theologically or practically regarding pastoral care, but neither can one stress it pastorally at the expense of forgetting the importance of related sciences or wider theological context.
Word Count: 2132
Bibliography
The Archbishops’ Council. (2000). Common Worship: Services and Prayer’s for the Church of England. London: Church House Publishing.
Berkouwer, G. C. (1962). Man: The Image of God. Kampen: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Campbell, A. (2000). The Nature of Practical Theology. In J. Woodward and S. Pattison (Ed.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology (pp 77-88). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Clebsh, W. A., and Jaekle, C. R. (1994). Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective. New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.
Higton, M. (2008). Christian Doctrine. London: SCM Press.
Hiltner, S. (2000). The Meaning and Importance of Pastoral Theology. In J. Woodward and S. Pattison (Ed.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology (pp 27-48). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Long, A. (1990). Listening. London: Daybreak.
Lyall, D. (2001). The Integrity of Pastoral Care. SPCK
Mackintosh, H. R. (1978). The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
McGrath, A., and McGrath, J. (1992). The Dilemma of Self-Esteem. Cambridge: Crossway Books.
Moltmann, J. (1974). Man. London: SPCK.
Pattison, S. (2000). A Critique of Pastoral Care. (3rd ed.) SCM Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. London: Constable and Company Ltd.
Rogers, W.R. (1985). Tillich and Depth Psychology. In J. L. Adams, W. Pauk and R.L. Shinn (Ed,), The Thought of Paul Tillich (pp 102-118). San Francisco, Harper & rom Publishers.
Thurneysen, E. (1962). A Theology of Pastoral Care. Richmond: John Knox Press.
Tillich, P. (1953). Systematic Theology: Volume 1. London: Nisbet & Co., Ltd.
Tillich, P. (1952). Autobiographical Reflections. In Charles W. Kegley and Robert W. Bretall (Ed.), The Theology of Paul Tillich (pp. 3-21). New York: The Macmillan Company.
Watts, F., Nye, R., and Savage, S. (2002). Psychology for Christian Ministry. London: Routledge.
All Biblical citations are taken from the NRSV.
No comments:
Post a Comment