Power and Pastoral Ministry - Chapter Four (the Penultimate Chapter)

The nature of power in Pastoral Ministry

Chapter 4

The use of power, and its abuses

In the previous chapter we saw how power has been an integral part of the ministry of the Church since it’s inception, by the example of the power and authority within the ministry of Jesus and by the authority conferred onto the Apostles and subsequent leaders of the Church.

Power, and the authority which often makes that power possible, undergirds the relationship between client and minister in any pastoral encounter.  The client will have certain expectations, whether right or wrong, and will usually come to the pastor, to a greater or lesser degree, in a position of weakness comparative to the strength of the pastor.  They will assume the pastor’s ‘expertise’, ‘concern’, ‘compassion’ and ‘wisdom’ exists for the benefit of those who seek his or her aid or advice. Brice Avery (1996: 34) writes that,

“The essence of a nourishing pastoral encounter is that it teaches people that they are valued. For those seeking pastoral help this takes place in the very special relationship with the helper.”

 

Problems & Confusions

The assumption on the part of the client that this depth of compassionate relationship is also the wish of the pastor is one that can influence the pastor for the worst.  It can place a pastor in a mindset of superiority, and leave open the possibility of manipulation or abuse.  When the pastor realises the dependence shown by the client toward them this opens up the possibility of a dangerously unequal and ultimately abusive relationship.  If this happens it is usually the case that this occurs on an unconscious level as the pastor often seeks to have their own needs met in the relationship with a client.  This is probably quite common and not always harmful as client and pastor learn to meet each other’s needs, but it brings about the possibility of serious difficulties and ultimately fails to resolve the issues that brought the client to the pastor in the first place.  As Avery  (1996: 35) tells us

“Re-enacting our own unresolved inner dramas in the context of a victim of something that we can identify with is a sort of Taking Disguised as Giving.  It can be an unconscious motivation behind the well-meaning help which characterizes poorly trained counsellors.  It is for this reason that all credible pastoral training revolves around the pastors’ exploration of their own inner world.”

Avery (1996: 40) goes on to say that it is crucial that “we tell the difference between our own hurts and those of others.” A good pastor, then, will be concerned with their own motivations, any tendencies they have towards controlling other, and any weaknesses in their own character or method that might hinder positive development in pastoral work. Avery (1996: 41) explains thus:

“…the pastoral encounter requires a partial and mutual emotional immersion of the pastor and the client: how else is the pastor to know what it is to be like the client?  But, and this is crucial…the pastor has to know his or her own responses to as wide a range of emotional contacts as possible to be able to tell the difference between their own feelings-world and that of the client.”

A major danger of pastoral power, then, is that the minister can use their position to play out their own fantasies, to attempt to externalise their own hurts and make others the victims of the pastor’s unresolved difficulties.  It is not always so blatant, often both pastor and client are completely unaware of the issues that form the background to their relationship, they may not realise that what is really happening is the projection of the pastor’s hurts, prejudices or agenda on to the client.  This is because, as Avery (1996: 41) explains, in a pastoral relationship where intimacy has begun, 

“…the border between what is the pastor and what is the client is blurred and dynamic.  It is never completely clear and is always shifting.”

 

The ‘Nine O’Clock Service’

This leads on to issues of self-knowledge, supervision and accountability.  It is important to be aware of these issues  because they so often negatively influence the pastoral encounter.  The dangers of self-seeking pastoral power can be seen in the situation that arose around the Nine O’Clock Service (NOS) in Sheffield.  The situation itself is well documented, especially by Howard (1996)  and the events surrounding the breakdown of the structures of the group drew the interest, as well as the scorn, of the national media. 

Essentially the difficulties of NOS and its eventual demise arose from the power which the leader and founder, Chris Brain, held over those who worked with him.  Brain had an obvious ‘charismatic’ power, many beleived in Brain’s personal authority and this allowed him power over their lives, power which turned into manipulation and control.  This charismatic power was given the backing of institutional authority when Brain was ordained in the Church of England, first deacon, then priest.   Without the knowledge of those in the hierarchy of the Church of England, Brain’s methods of control and his serious abuses of pastoral power had been legitimised by the giving of institutional authority and by conferring an office and title upon him. 

In the introduction to his detailed study of the situation Roland Howard writes that the story of NOS was not the story, as the Church of England thought, of a radical new ‘youth movement’ that empowered members of ‘Youth culture’ but that, as Howard (1996: 6) explains

“The real story is of betrayal and abuse…Moreover, it is of a priest manipulating, controlling and dominating the minds of several hundred members who thought he was ministering to them.  The real story is about an insatiable desire for power, which was fulfilled by money and sexual involvement.  This power was power to damn, power to humiliate, power to enter people’s minds and power to control them.”

This is the danger of pastoral power, when individuals drawn by the charisma of a leader who they believe wishes only the best for them, find the trust which has been placed in that leader is ill-founded and misappropriated for his or her own ends.   NOS is an extreme example of how pastoral relationships can be abused and result in damage rather than healing for the client, and indeed the pastor.  The result of the Nine O’Clock Service’s difficulties was that the congregation, hurt and confused, either moved away from the Christian Community altogether, or needed intense care and counselling to go beyond their wounds and start to build trust in the pastoral ministry of the church again. 

The principal, though not sole, agent of the abuses of NOS, Chris Brain, also, needed counselling to examine his own motivation and the results of his manipulative strategies.  It is likely that he was ultimately unaware of the true extent of the mental and spiritual pain he was inflicting on those he used to meet his own power-hungry ends.  Howard (1996: 133) tells us that Brain told a national newspaper

“To find that I am some kind of abuser of people I dearly love, in the areas I most passionately believe in, and thought I had worked so hard for, fills me with utter despair and I do not know what I can say.  I am sorry for the consequences of what I have done.  I can see what I could not see before and I am profoundly and desperately sorry.”

There are questions about whether this confession and apology is completely genuine, but many of those associated with Brain do maintain that he seemed to act without full knowledge of the negative effect he was having on the lives of those who had put themselves into his hands.

There is little doubt of the fact that the structure’s of NOS were in themselves set up to give Brain complete control, they were engineered so that even in his absence he remained a ‘shadowy figure in the background.’  Many church structures in mainstream denominations have the aim of keeping the minister at the head of the leadership structure, but few function so overtly to ensure the power of the leader is always felt and powerlessness is considered appropriate for all others.  The structure was engineered to make all activity of NOS dependent upon Brain.

 

Oscillation

Dependency is not necessarily a negative concept, it is possible to have a model of appropriate dependence upon the pastor.  Such a model would be one which allows the pastor to make painful observations which are able to move the client on towards healing, one which opens up the possibilities of fruitful pastoral development and ultimately to self-awareness and wholeness on the part of the client.  This model of appropriate dependence is put forward by Bruce Reid (1974)  in his book ‘The Dynamics of Religion’ and revolves around a process which he names ‘oscillation theory’.  Reid (1974: 41) explains

“The picture of the life of the individual is one of periods of engagements with various tasks, alternating with periods of disengagement which may be creative, defensive or simply periods of rest, we have called this alternative process ‘oscillation’”

This theory is pertinent to our discussion in this chapter and in the next and so bears some in depth study as we considering applying its principles to our concerns.

Reid’s understanding of ‘oscillation’ is introduced by using the image of a child’s dependence upon parents, as part of the process of maturing.  Reid (1974: 41: 13) uses the example of children learning to swim, saying that when, for instance, the mother accompanies a child into the swimming pool the child will strike out and explore the water, returning occasionally to rest, and gain physical and emotional strength through reassurance of the presence of mother before striking out further and further in the pursuit of self sufficiency in the water.  This might seem a purely anecdotal argument, but the Reid’s book carries on to show the application of this analogy to pastoral life. 

Using a variety of sources of evidence and by interpreting and applying the works of a number of psychological and social theorists Reid comes to the conclusion that human beings need a certain amount of security in their lives, especially in their relationships, in order to achieve integration as individuals and become a part of the community/society, in other words, to function fully in everyday life.  He tells us (1974: 15)

“We have used the term ‘oscillation’ to refer to the alternation of the child and the adult between periods of autonomous activity and periods of physical or symbolic contact with sources of renewal.”

These sources of renewal take many forms for different people, as stated above, it may simply be rest, or solitude.  It may be ongoing involvement in a group, or family life.  For the purpose of this essay, though, we will particularly consider being an active part of the church, or having an active concern for the spiritual side of one’s life as the main source of renewal for those with whom pastors have most contact.

Dependence & Regression

Reid’s concept of oscillation can be expanded by using the terms ‘regression’ and ‘dependence’ which he uses as the basis for his theory.  Reid contests the often negative uses of these words and explain that both  ‘regression’ and ‘dependence’ can be functional or dysfunctional.  For instance, to immerse oneself fully into a play or a novel one has to suspend certain critical faculties which, he claims, amounts to a form of regression.  In a similar way, says Reid, participation in worship involves similar actions. Reid (1974: 23) writes ‘In worship our thoughts and feelings are engaged by narratives, images and ideas which refer to a world, or a realm of experience, other than our working or social lives.’

In this way our engagement with the world of worship does not conflict with our everyday reality.  Reid (1974: 24-25)uses the example of the hymn ‘Dear Lord and Father of Mankind’, stating that to read and sing the lyric to the hymn, which is concerned with personal submission to God,  regret for rebellion against God and confession of the human tendency to disobedience of God, is to attempt to engage in a reality beyond the everyday but still a part of it, that is to use faith-language to express one’s own personal concerns about lifestyle.  In this hymn there is a concern that if God wants the very best for human beings than we are foolish and wrong to ignore, avoid or disregard God’s will. 

Reid tells us that the individual who might feel very embarrassed about saying the words to the hymn, and expressing such submission and humility, in any other context can, without self-consciousness, embrace the event of joining in the words and of assimilating their meaning in the context of worship due to a sense of appropriate dependence and regression.  Because of this positive aspect of appropriate regression and dependence the words are not considered incongruous with daily living and the individual does not feel a negative tension between the two realities of the daily experience of life and work and the experience of worship.

Reid  (1972: 25) elucidates this concept by using talk of two ‘frames of mind, or ways of experiencing a world.’  He explains these by talking of

“…one of which is oriented towards recognising and dealing with present and future realities in the ‘public’ world, which we have called W-activity, and one which is oriented towards images which may be connected with the public world, but which originates in imagination, ‘in the mind’, which we have called S-activity.  Regression is the process by which S-activity becomes dominant, and W-activity becomes subsidiary or is suppressed altogether.”

Much of Reid’s thinking is based around the worship events of the Christian community as the focal point of the pastoral encounter in the Christian Community.  For Reid all pastoral contact takes place against the background of the worshipping fellowship.  From this fellowship the pastor gains their authority, identity, role and function.  In this is the foundation for all contact between pastor and client.

For Reid the focal point of the adult oscillation process is in the gathering of the community at such events as the Holy Communion, the Eucharist.  At this moment the pastor becomes a facilitator of the community’s engagement with the reality that exists beyond the everyday.  The pastor makes it possible to move to ‘regression’ and because of this an appropriate dependence is fostered, this is more obviously visible in denominations where there is a notion of ‘priesthood’ where the priest is the only one able to ‘preside’ at the sacrament of the Eucharist. Developing this understanding Reid (1974: 32) uses two terms with regards to ‘dependence’ and, though lengthy, the appropriate quote is worth giving in full as he explains,

“We have therefore coined the phrase ‘extra-dependence’ where  ‘extra-’ means ‘outside’, to refer to conditions in which the individual may be inferred to regard himself as dependent upon a person or object other than himself for confirmation, protection and sustenance.  Correspondingly we use the term ‘intra-dependence’…to refer to conditions in which the individual may be inferred to regard his confirmation, protection and sustenance as in his own hands.”

Worship, for Reid, is concerned with allowing the movement from intra- to extra- dependence and back to intra-dependence.  This is the foundation for Christian activity and of pastoral activity in general - in allowing people a safe space to ‘receive’ the unconditional love and support of either God, the pastor or the congregation they can move on to a state of self-reliance and personal strength.  Whilst wary of simply transplanting this model on to individual pastoral relationship the model of ‘safe space’ is one that many modern Christian groups, such as ‘Holy Joe’s’ and  ‘Grace’ in London and the ‘Late Late Service’ in Glasgow are striving to model and to promote.

It must be noted that the priest does not become superior to the congregation in these times of ‘extra-dependence’, she or he remains as part of the community and, through the use of authorises or accepted forms, words, orders of service, takes on a role in common with the people as well as distinct from.  Without a congregation, except in Roman Catholic churches, the Communion cannot occur, and even in Roman Churches the theological justification of ‘The Communion of The Saints’ sets the background at which the priest is able to celebrate the Eucharist alone.

 

Beyond Reid’s theories

If Reid is correct, and the assumption of this study is that his observations are useful and helpful, then it can be inferred that  the pastor gains identity from the community of faith.  Authority and Pastoral power, as mentioned in Chapter 1 above are taken from one’s position in the community or organisation to which the pastor is connected.  Even if an individual exercises an informal pastoral ministry, with people seeking his or her advice due to a belief in the wisdom and compassion of that individual, there would still usually be some recognition by the community (social and/or spiritual) of that individual’s pastoral role.  In Reid’s terms, the pastor enables a community to move to ‘extra-dependence’ and back to ‘inter-dependence’ when the community acknowledges the pastor’s position and role. 

To enable this to happen the pastor seeks to be a part of that community, not apart from it, and they will gain energy from the ongoing encounter with and within that community and will therefore be able to reach out to those beyond the community with compassion and openness.  This places the onus for support of the pastor on the church fellowship, but leaves the pastor in a position where she or he must be a person of honest and integrity, of vulnerability and accountability.  This leads us on to look at the structures of the Church.

Another Chapter - Power in Pastoral Ministry

The nature of power in Pastoral Ministry

Chapter 3

Power structures within the Church

As the church of the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic eras had to come to terms with a need to change the structures by which they operated, so also there is the need for the pastoral ministers of today to consider the power structures within which they work and the authority which gives them freedom so to do.  The balance between charismatic and institutional power will always be a difficulty, but one which the church has the responsibility to take seriously.  In order to maintain any form of accountability the church needs structures which bind the power a pastor has with the responsibility of representing a larger organisation, and with the ethos of empowerment that Jesus exhibited in his own ministry.

 

Present day considerations

Having considered the way in which the church has dealt with issues of power and authority historically the subject leads naturally towards the structures within which that community exists today, and the way in which the historical basis might usefully inform present day reflection.

“Christianity claims that all authority comes ultimately from God.” Writes Dr Jack Dominion (1976: 7).  This has historically given the hierarchy of the church great scope for justifying the activity, existence, methods, models of ministry and structure of the church, claiming that the authority to deal with both the members of the church and with the world ‘outside the church’ is divinely inspired and thereby answerable to none.  This understanding is thwarted, we believe, by the record of the early church found in the New Testament and in the life and witness of Jesus.   

 

Structural Abuses

For many years the church has been an ‘authority figure’, and historically it is possible to find many examples of times the church has taken a role of control and domination rather than compassion and service.  The crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, pogroms and many other events, as well as general attitudes and the teaching of the hierarchy give an impression of the church as an ‘authority figure’ existing to exert undue influence over individuals at the expense of personal freedom.  Expressing what Campbell calls an ‘unnecessarily extreme view’, Harvey Cox, quoted by Alastair Campbell (1993: 2) says of the history of the church in pastoral care,

“…we should read it more as a cautionary tale than as a treasure house of available inspiration.  We Christians today need to understand our history as a compulsive neurotic needs to understand his - in order to see where we veered off, lost genuine options, glimpsed something we were afraid to pursue, or denied who we really are.”

Many would admit today that the church has failed, and often still does fail, to live out the values which it proclaims, of healing, wholeness and care.  It is also true to say that many church leaders have sought temporal and spiritual control rather than taking pastoral care of those in their charge.  These shortcomings are obvious and well documented, and cannot be ignored, but the church today is seeking, and must continue to seek, to recognise the appropriate use of power both as a response to changing cultural standards and a fresh understanding of the history of the church and the nature of scripture.

However, as Campbell (1993: 1) says, there is a tendency to discard too much, in an effort to distance ourselves from the failures of the church in the past.

“…the temptation to discard everything from the past as irrelevant to our present situation must be resisted.  This would be an adolescent reaction to the views of past generations, as immature and inadequate as the false antiquarianism which treats the tradition as sacrosanct.”

As the last chapter sought to explore, there is a need to consider the structures of the church and how they came to be.  Alongside this we can see an ongoing critique within Christianity regarding power that may go some way to correcting unhelpful developments in the use of power in the church.

Issues around authority and the power of the church and its ministers are very much the concern of  those who seek today to examine the church in the light of cultural shifts and take account new understandings of the responsibilities and the nature of the church.  Bishop Jamieson (1997: 9) explains,

‘We are a faith with our own built-in critique and protection against the unwarranted accumulation of power, so there is a real sense in which Christianity will never rest authentically on unquestioned structures of power.’

As the Christian pastor works within the constraints of church structures and with, sometimes unwelcome, ties to the history of that body, there are a number of possible sources of tension, both creative and destructive, in pastoral ministry.  We must also consider the fact that the hierarchical structures of the church have been a home for controlling activity and misuse of power.  Bishop Jamieson (1997: 53) writes

“There are ways in which the very structure of the Church, its ordered hierarchy, establishes relationships of responsibility, and power can distort and sometimes destroy the pastoral ministry of the church.” 

 

Changes

In the church, control and misuse of power should be subverted by our own scriptural critique.  Power is to be acknowledged and shared.   The abuse of power runs contrary to the principles and aims of Christian faith founded on healing and wholeness.  But to talk of power openly, and to stress the need to share power creates for many pastors some anxiety.  For many the adjunct to power sharing is a feeling of powerlessness, and to many ministers this means losing influence over pastoral context.  John Harris (1977: 56), Anglican Priest and trainer of clergy and laity in Washington DC writes, 

“In my experience pastors now encounter the problem of power (and powerlessness) in three ways: Institutionally, as they see the church’s peripheral place in society; personally, as they attempt to resolve confusion about their own roles in the parish; operationally, as they search for new patterns of congregational leadership that share power in authentic ways”

Harris believes that the many pastors are seeking to work in a way that recognises the change in the public perception and function of the church.  He also states that ministers, in an age where change is pretty much a constant, need to constantly assess and reassess their role, function, style of working and models of ministry.  For Harris the changes in understanding and using power need to be integrated into the structure of the churches, not just seen as the responsibility of individual pastors. He writes (1977: 61),

“As traditional models of authority have weakened, we have begun to discover the meaning of collaboration – shared power between pastor and people, church executives and clergy, in the development of the local church’s ministry.”

Many still turn to a pastor with an expectation that she or he will have all of the answers, and that she or he will exert some kind of control by telling them to live, think or believe as certain way.  The structures of the church have often encouraged this, but with changes in those structures and with cultural shifts taking place in western, and other, societies there is some confusion about this role.  This is where ministers may find that the institutional approach of the church, which might demand obedience and submission, must be subverted by the pastor in order to allow the healing of those hurt by power as control. 

The pastor can become a prophetic figure, challenging structures within their own ‘faith community’ in order to facilitate appropriate uses of power.  It must be remembered that the church does have some kind of authority with which it has been endowed by its founder, and there will be times that a pastor can only facilitate healing or growth by speaking from the perspective of ‘the representative of the Church.’  Some people may only be healed by pronouncement, either the word of admonition, or absolution, or some other form of declaration which offers the church’s blessing or guidance.  

 

Sharing Power

Individuals respond to pastors in different ways, but often there is, Harris (1997: 61) states “… a mixture of a yearning to be dependent and a desire for partnership.”  This partnership has been the stated aim of the church for many years, but it is only in the past thirty or so years, with patterns of ministry changing, churches experiencing slower or negative growth, less candidates for ordained ministry and other factors that the church as a whole, and especially the leadership,  is taking seriously the role of all Christian people in the pastoral task.  Because of this church structures are changing. 

There are methods of leadership that seek to take combined Episcopal, clerical and lay involvement seriously.  This has been the case for many years in a number of denominations, but in the Church of England the growth in the influence of local, diocesan and General synods has been a mark of the encouragement of active participation by representatives from the whole church in the government of the Church of England.   There has also been recognition of the need to involve individual parishes in the selection, training and ‘rooting’ of ministers - making way for local ministry courses where individuals are selected and ordained to serve a local area under the guidance of their own congregation.  This are two ongoing acknowledgements, thought not always perfect, of the role of all believers.  They are initial attempts to redress the imbalance and destructive potential of a ‘top down’ hierarchical model.

Power sharing is not powerlessness.  This is a message that needs to be communicated to all those who are involved in pastoral ministry.  Opening up pastoral ministry in such a way that groups take on responsibility for what ministers do in their name, and so that pastors acknowledge in pastoral relationships a sense of ‘mutuality’, a ‘shared journey’ in  pastoral encounter, creates more energy, more power for change than having one individual who is ‘the pastor’ holding power.  The term ‘holding’ power is an important one here, as power that is controlled and released by a single individual is power that is often misapplied and dysfunctional.  For those who use their position and influence in this way there is normally a need for control, and this creates dangerous dynamics in pastoral ministry.  Bishop Penny Jamieson (1997: 65) explains,

“When pastoral care is associated with power, and pastoral ministry moves only in a single, downward, direction, mutuality is discouraged.  At times, this can produce a severe distortion of the relationship of pastoral care.  It implies that one party has everything to offer, and the other can only receive.”

All of these ideas involve a large amount of risk.  Whether it is challenging inappropriate structures within and around the community of faith, or opening up pastoral encounters that may allow the client and others to see the vulnerability of the pastor, or acknowledging the role of mutuality in any pastoral relationship.  All of this require a pastor to go somewhere that she or he may not have been before.  All of these demand that the pastor negate the image of him or her self as ‘omni-competent’.  In challenging the assumptions that have been made for many generations the pastor risks disempowerment if her or his approach is rejected, or if his or her support networks are insufficient to cope with the demands of a broader approach to pastoral ministry.

 

Difficulties and Challenges

It is often easier to tell a client what he or she should do.  It is easier to project an image of perfection in pastoral encounters that does not allow for mistakes on the part of the minister.  At least it is easier in the short term.  Those who come to ministers seeking pastoral care also come seeking authenticity.  Healing is hampered by a lack of honesty.  Bishop Jamieson (1996: 65) tells us,

“…we all thrive best where giving and receiving are interwoven.  This, of course, means that the one offering the pastoral care needs to give away a certain measure of both distance and control, and be willing to accept a level of vulnerability – which might well be costly, but is frequently more healing.”

Without genuine depth within a pastoral encounter the client is being offered false solutions to difficulties and superficial assistance and advice.  It is also unhealthy for a pastor to continue with what is ultimately a false act that will eventually leave her or him with problems of personal identity and integrity.  As Campbell (1993: 102) writes,

“Without the discipline of self-examination we shall find ourselves battling against unseen and enervating forces in our efforts to do what we regard as our Christian duty.  Yet this discipline does not add a fresh load, piling duty upon duty.  The discipline of knowing self frees us to offer a love grounded in our own truth, reaching out to the truth in others.”

But as the whole area of working at an appropriate use of power is so difficult it is important to build new support structures for pastoral ministry, structures that make provision for accountability and which acknowledge of the need for transparency in pastoral contacts.  Pastors who seek to make pastoral encounters more open, more honest and more helpful are liable to be under great strain on their personal resources, certainly in the first stages of learning and exercising such relationships. 

Ultimately, the fruitful kind of pastoral encounter that springs from a relationship of trust and freedom is energising and liberating for both pastor and client, but until these relationships are recognised by the structures of the wider church and the members of the immediate ‘faith community’ then working for such mutuality is difficult and draining, creating negative forces of anxiety and even fear of the unknown.  Until that fear is faced and conquered the pastor needs the love and support of the community he works for and within.

The structures of the church present both challenges and opportunities for the pastoral minister.  If we do accept the self-critique which should be foundational to the church then we are able to question, explore and challenge from the inside.  In order to do this pastor will need to use the authority conferred upon them by their position within the organisation as well as following the long heritage of prophetic proclamation against restrictive and ungodly structures which is the hallmark of authentic Christianity.  Church structures will need to change, but the task of the pastor representing the church is to learn to hold on to those parts of the tradition which are valuable, to speak with authority in such a way that challenges the shortcomings of the church, and to live with integrity as an individual and fellow-member of the faith community.  In this power and authority are used to express both a teaching/nurturing role for those who seek pastoral aid and to speak out against that which is negative in the structures of the church.

 

Back to basics?

If the Church is to take seriously the model of Jesus as an example of the appropriate attitude towards and uses of power then those in pastoral ministry are to follow that example and to take seriously the instructions given to those who seek to continue his work of compassion and healing.  Middleton and Walsh (1995: 139) state that,

“Jesus explained that his followers were to exercise power…in serving each other, ‘for even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.  (Mk 10:42-45).  The imago Dei as the right use of power is thus equivalent to imitatio Christi (the imitation of Christ.)”

This understanding of power in pastoral encounters is both liberating, in that the pastor is freed from the need to always be ‘in control’ of every situation, and demanding as it requires responsibility, honesty and humility. 

Michael Riddell (1998: 68) talks of ‘the dangerous memory of Jesus’- where those who seek to maintain the remembrance of Christ are those active in subverting accepted structures of power as control.  Jesus had a radical critique of power.  A person of great personal power and authority, he changed the lives of those he came into contact with because of his self confident position as ‘God’s representative’ to those he met and through his compassion and his willingness to listen and respond to the needs of those who encountered him.  But as well as the authority which he obviously carried we must remember the previously mentioned idea of ‘kenosis’, the emptying of power taken on by Jesus which empowered humanity’s relationship to God.  This has many far-reaching implications for pastors. Though both our records of Jesus in the Gospels, and the writings of the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic church offer a very strong picture of the power inherent in Christian life and ministry there are ‘checks and balances’ that seek to prevent those who have power taking control of others lives.  Jesus talks of the responsibility of leaders in a striking way, saying that,

“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around you neck and you were thrown into the sea.” Mark 10:42 (with parallels in Matthew & Luke)

In New Testament terms, especially with regards to the Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus, power and authority are necessary components in the pastoral process.  Jesus himself wielded authority to pronounce healing and forgiveness to those who asked and the results recorded were life changing for the ‘clients’ of the pastoral encounter and often for those who witnessed the events as well.   That authority has been passed on to those who hold pastoral position in the church today.  In the meantime it has gone through a transformation of being a primarily charismatic to a primarily institutional power, a change which leaves the possibility of bring the pastor to account through the structures of the church.

For those engaged in Pastoral ministry there are many responsibilities and the basis of all care must be concerned with healing and wholeness, with bringing those in need to a position of self-dependence whilst fostering a dependence on the God who makes their healing possible, and building a trust in the pastor who seeks to assist in the process of growing to wholeness..  On many occasions Jesus affirms the faith of those who have come to him for help, in a recurring statement, found in many forms but using similar words, throughout the Gospels -“Go, your faith has healed you”.  Jesus also affirms the act of seeking help and asks those who come what they expect of him and what they need. 

In the same way the task of the Christian pastor, or indeed anyone with pastoral responsibility, is to allow people to be a part of their own healing, firstly to acknowledge their need, then to seek the way to proceed.  The pastor offers guidance, reassurance, support - and within the authority given to them by the institution they serve and represent, often can pronounce some form of ‘absolution’; forgiveness and the promise of unconditional love.  The pastor also has the opportunity to reflect  back to the client what she or he is saying and to respond, when invited, by offering help and advice as appropriate.

Power and Pastoral Ministry Thesis Chapter Two

The nature of power in Pastoral Ministry

Chapter 2

A New Testament Understanding

As the New Testament forms the basis of the understanding and beliefs from which today’s church operates, or at least claims to operate,  it provides us with a basis for examining the structures of power and of authority within which the present day Christian community works.  The New Testament has much to offer in the way of encouragement and criticism to the structures of the church today, as Cyril H Powell (1963: 71) says

“No one has faced the full implications of the New Testament who has not realised that it is a series of documents witnessing to the inbreaking of power.”

In this chapter we begin with a detailed look at the concepts of  ‘power’ and ‘authority’ in the life and work of Jesus, and in the records of what is commonly called the ‘Apostolic era of the church’, found in the New Testament, and the relevance of these ideas to Pastoral ministry in the Christian church today.

 

‘dunamis’- power

The first term that we will consider is that of dunamis, Grundmann (1964: 284) offers this, incomplete though useful, consideration of its meaning,  “Words deriving from the stem duna- all have the basic meaning of ‘being able,’ of ‘capacity’ in virtue of an ability…”   This definition, when considered alongside the meaning Harris gives to ‘power’, quoted at the beginning of this study, offers us a start in considering how those who wrote about Jesus considered his attitude to power.

As is nearly always the case with the church of the apostolic era, that is the years following the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, all major teachings are rooted and grounded in Christ, and any teachings are given their authority from the Incarnation and life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.  There are certain difficulties in approaching Biblical material of this time as we consider how much is authentically ‘Jesus’ and how much is the result of a generation of believers placing their own concerns on Jesus lips with half-remembered or heavily interpreted phrases.  Whatever the case, the material itself has value both as an attempt to interpret the life of Jesus and as the record of Christian communities struggling with many of the issues we are considering here. 

For the first generation of Christians, who received their witness from the Apostles and from others who actually knew Jesus, he was the example of one who had within himself the power of God, and through whom the power of God is exercised.  Jesus ministry is guided, inspired and energised by the life of the Holy Spirit and his power is always exercised within the will of God the Father and in fellowship with God.

This power is what makes possible the life and work of Jesus.  It is imparted as part of his relationship with God, and in relation to his obedience and working out the will of God.  It is a power that depends on his aligning himself and fellowship with God the Father.  It is a personal power and contains the ability to change the lives of those he encounters.  It is not a magical power, it is the revelation of the will and purpose of God.

So for the author/editors of the New Testament, the basis for the ministry of Jesus, the reason for his successes in healing, miraculous works and exorcism are all rooted within his relationship to God.  His power is part of, and the result of, his working within the will of God, a God of healing and love, of righteousness and might.  This power was inherent in Jesus as a minister of God, as a person of ‘charismatic’ authority, as a mediator of God’s teaching and wisdom, and therefore as the one who manifested the will and purpose of God through the action of the Holy Spirit. 

Beyond Jesus’ ability to make real the power and activity of God, comes an equally important understanding of the authority that allowed him to speak the way he did of God and to do the work he was engaged in.  Robinson (1962: 26) says “Since authority is useless without the power to make it effective, the distinction between authority and power is often ignored…”   The two terms have become entwined, particularly in the structure of the church where they are intimately bound together, but Jesus had an authority that was perceived by others and when he acted with a power that changed lives that authority was strengthened.

 

‘exousia’ - authority

Jesus ministry is marked throughout the Gospels by the recurring theme of authority,  often in the guise of the wonderment of those who saw : “’What kind of utterance is this?  For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits; and out they come’” (Cf.  Mt. 7:28-29, 21:23, Mk 1:22, 27, 11:28, Lk 4:36, 20:2, 8, Jn 5:27)  It related not only to Jesus’ actions but also to his words  “… he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.’ Mk 1:22  It is this authority that is the hallmark of Jesus distinctive ministry and a break with much of the rabbinical tradition that weighed up the arguments and interpretations that had built up around a passage and then offered an alternative or an addendum rather than a radical break. 

Though Jesus was educated and grounded within a Rabbinical understanding and framework, his style was not that of a traditional Rabbi, he presented his teaching in a different way, with much of the past with statements framed in terms such as ‘you have heard it said…..but I say…’  It is this authority that astounds so many and challenges those both within and without the Faith of the Jews.  It is this authority that is at the basis of Jesus pastoral encounters with those he meets during his itinerant ministry.

 

Charismatic and Institutional Authority & Power

According to the Gospel accounts Jesus’ authority and his power came from the security he gained from his relationship with God, and his certainty that all he did was within the will of God the Father.  The authority with which he taught was the basis for his ministry, Shogren (1992: 52) examines at length the many different aspects of Jesus authority and his power in his teaching and his work, and includes the observation that:

 “On several occasions, Jesus states that the Son of Man possesses unusual authority.  At the Parousia the Son of man will appear in power and glory (Mk 13:26 par.)  But in the present the Son of man can, for example forgive sins.”

Shogren tells us, “…Jesus is demonstrating his personal authority to interpret God’s law”  (Italics mine).  This interpretation is only possible because Jesus has a relationship with God and because those he encounters are open to the transformative power that comes through that relationship.  On many occasions Jesus explicitly cites the faith of those he encounters as the agent of change in the experience, for example in Mk 5:27-32, Mk 9:24 , Lk 7:2-10, 50.   In other parts of the Gospel Jesus talks about the need for faith and prayer throughout his ministry he talks of the need to obey God in order to receive the power and authority needed to be ministers of the Gospel. 

Jesus power was a charismatic power, it was based in himself, his relationship with the divine and the way he lived and acted.  There was no institutional backing for his power, he took no authority from position or status, he held no title or office and his function was not clearly defined.  He was a leader, a pastor, a teacher, but none of this was recognised by the institutions of his day.  His pastoral relationships were based on his own authority, and seemed to need no recognition by the religious or social structures of his society. 

 

Subverting misuse of power

Jesus did not hold on to power in such a way that he could be accused of controlling or manipulating others.  He offered a critique of power by his words and his actions and left the church with an example of using power that did not take advantage of those in need or abuse those who sought help or guidance.

Jesus used the word servant about himself on many occasions and was, from very early in the church’s life, identified with the figure known as the ‘suffering servant’ in the writings of Deutero-Isaiah the .  The Gospel of St Luke, 22.25-27, recounts these words of Jesus:

“But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority are called benefactors.  But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.’” 

Jesus himself lives out his radical critique of power in the way he speaks out against abusive religious structures or practices, in the way he touches those alienated and oppressed by society, and, ultimately, in the moving act of washing the feet of his disciples on the night before he died.

Actions such as the symbolic washing of feet at ‘the Last Supper’, particularly when held alongside Jesus’ teachings contradict expected notions of power which seek to place leaders over followers and masters above servants.  Jesus life and teaching are all the more striking from the mouth of one who held such personal authority, and such obvious power to change people’s lives.  Based, as many of his teachings were, in notions of radical subversion of unjust or abusive systems, Jesus is keen to prevent ‘power’ being used to enslave rather than to free.  Early on in St Luke’s Gospel Jesus is said to have spelled out his agenda by quoting the prophet Isaiah.  In the synagogue he is quoted as reading:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

            because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.

 He has send me to proclaim release to the captives

            and recovery of sight to the blind,

            to let the oppressed go free,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” Lk. 4:18-19

Jesus’ ministry was one characterised by a charismatic style of leadership, brought about by his own conviction of the authority, and the corollary of power, given to him by his calling.  He acted decisively, often disturbing the preconceptions of those he ministered to and those who sought to criticise his work.  But, alongside this confidence and the effectiveness of his pastoral care, the Gospel records tell us that Jesus was also aware of the fact that all of his ministry took place within limits, the limits of the faith of those who sought his help, and of this own human frailties.  As part of this his life was lived in response to his understanding of God’s care and provision for human beings and was punctuated by prayer and reflection which allowed him to assess and direct his actions.

This model was passed on to the first followers of Jesus, who became the Apostles, leaders of the first generation of the Church.  Following the earthly life of Jesus we see further developments in the way that power and authority come to be a part of the ongoing life of the Church.

 

The Apostles

The power and the authority that Jesus demonstrates throughout his ministry is conferred to the disciples both throughout his life and after his resurrection.  Shogren (1992: 52) says

“…even while he (Jesus) is on earth he enables his disciples to duplicate his deeds: to preach and to do powerful acts in his name, such as exorcism, healing and raising the dead.”

Jesus also delegates to the Apostles the authority to forgive sins, as they are told they may ‘bind and loose’ (Jn. 20:22-23), and Jesus says that they will surpass him in the works that they will perform.  They are to carry on the work of proclaiming and of living the Gospel, the good news, which means they will share in the work that Jesus declared was his, of freeing people from injustice, the misuse of power and of abuse.

The ‘charismatic’ authority given to Jesus by his relationship to God is, it seems, to be carried on by those who follow him, who also must continue in relationship with God, who will be guided and inspired by God and from whom all power that they might exercise will come.  Those who carry on the work of Christ, who follow the example of his ministry and who perform similar healings, exorcisms and ‘signs of the Kingdom of God’ exercise their evangelistic and pastoral ministry within the framework of the power and authority that Jesus advocated.  Not only this but they gain their identity and their raison d’être from this relationship with the Christ who they believe to be alive and active in their own lives and the lives of those they encounter.

Probably the greatest exponent of these apologetics is St. Paul, who through an encounter with the ‘risen Christ’ turns from persecuting the church to being an apostle alongside those who lived with Christ through his ministry, death and resurrection.  St Paul himself has the experience of a life changed through the intervention of Christ and he adds to the debate on the nature of power in pastoral relationships as he teaches what he believes the church should be as Christians follow the example of Christ.

 

‘kenosis’ - emptying

One of the most startling terms that Paul uses with reference to Christ is the verse from the letter to the Philippians in Chapter 2 verses 6 and 7, he states,

“who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God

as something to be exploited,

but emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

being born in human likeness.”

The key Greek term in this passage is ‘ekenwsen’ - from the root verb ‘kenow’ - ‘to make empty’.  This is an important factor in St Paul’s understanding of power and authority in the Christian church.

For St Paul, one of the foundational theological understandings he held and taught was the divinity of Christ alongside the humanity of Christ.  This contains the understanding that alongside the loss of ‘divine status’ in the incarnation Jesus allowed himself to lose the inherent superiority, power and control that is part of the divine nature.  In this Jesus is an exemplar for those who seek to continue his ministry and continue the work of proclaiming the ‘reign of God’ in the lives of human beings, and its concomitants of bringing healing, love, liberation, peace and ‘life in abundance’ ( a paraphrase of Jn. 10:10) to those who respond to the ‘evangel’ - the good news.

This first generation of the Church took their grounding in the charismatic style of Jesus.  They led from personal authority rather than from institutional backing.  In one of the New Testament Epistles St. Paul even disparages those who rely on ‘letters of commendation’ to give them authority claiming that his authority came from Christ alone.

In this St Paul continues the charismatic style of leadership.  Having no ‘institutional’ power or authority vested in him, he is keen to explain his credentials in terms of his encounter with Christ and his faithfulness as an Apostle.  Many of his letters contain long passages concerned with spelling out his right to be called an Apostle and to exercise leadership in that manner.  For St Paul the concept of being an ‘Apostle’ would seem to be a mainly functional concern, being an Apostle is something he does, it represents the task assigned to him by Christ.  At this point there is no concern between clarifying the relationship between office, title and function: a concern that would arise in the next generation of the church.

This tension, between ‘charismatic’ and ‘institutional’ power is one that carries on through the first generation of Christians up to the church of the present day.  In simplistic terms ‘charismatic’ aspects of power are personally based and gain their authority from the character of the individual minister.  On the other hand, ‘institutional’ aspects are based in the structures within which the church, caring agency or community operates and mean that the minister is accountable beyond his or her self, as well as holding a certain depth of power offered by the minister’s place in a larger organisation.

 

The Post-Apostolic Era

As the church becomes established and grows, we see in the New Testament accounts the development of a framework within which leadership take place. In the time following the apostolic era, as those who had personally known Jesus died out, the authority given to leaders by virtue having been part of Jesus life on earth began to die with them.  The Post-Apostolic Church of the second century would have been made up of many diverse groups who up to that point were in contact with an apostle, or one of those who was close to the first followers of Jesus. 

With the death of the ‘Apostolic generation’ comes a need to bind the ekklesia, the ekklesia, together: moving from the ‘charismatic’ model of those inspired by their contact with Jesus to a more structural, ‘institutional’, model of leadership which would bind together the many groups of Christians spread throughout the Near and Middle East.  It is in the light of this that the idea of ‘overseer’, the ‘episkopoV’, takes on more meaning.  Those who were recognised as gifted leaders of small groups of Christians were probably given a structural role in the Church as they sought to bring together various separate groups of Christians under a more consolidated leadership.

As leaders take authority within the burgeoning church fellowships there comes a need to rationalise and explain their roles and create an apologetic for their function, authority and administration of power.   It is widely accepted that initially the early church had two models of ministry , diakonoV (diaconos, deacon) & episkopoi (episcopoi, bishops), the former of these terms means ‘servant’ and the latter ‘overseer’.  The individuals who filled these offices were considered to be the ‘ecclesiastical descendants’ of the apostles who were the original followers of Christ.  

In the New Testament, however, we have no clearly defined roles for these individuals beyond their titles.  It seems obvious that the bishop existed to bring together groups of disparate believers who lacked a common leader.  Likewise within the small units of Christian fellowships there was a need to have certain individuals who ‘serviced’ the community, taking care of daily considerations and the care of the everyday running of the fellowship - these became ‘deacons’,

It is as this development occurs that we discover a tension between title, office and function.  At what point did being a bishop become a recognised office over and above the general function of ‘keeping people together’, and therefore have an implicit role of being ‘in authority’ over Christian believers.  Likewise, when did bishops become ‘title-holders’ in recognition of that ‘implicit authority’.  These questions may be unanswerable, but asking them means we recognise that the structures of the church changed drastically in the time of the Post-Apostolic era..  Broadly speaking the church goes from being small groups loosely bound by allegiance to charismatic leaders to a structure that endeavours to hold itself together by transmitting authority through office and title, so the functions of leadership and the function of the church can continue.