The Last Chapter - some conclusions on Power and Pastoral Ministry

The nature of power in Pastoral Ministry

Chapter 5

Observations and Conclusions

The purpose of this study has been to make it clear that to attempt to deny or ignore the power inherent in Pastoral encounters is deluded and opens the way to serious, though often unconscious, abuses of the power that exists whether it is acknowledged or not.  This acknowledgement of power and the acceptance of the authority conveyed upon those engaged in pastoral ministry is the beginning of any attempt to move on and tackle the related issues that arise in pastoral work.  The presence of power will, whether known or not, influence any pastoral encounter for ill or for better.

As discussed in the previous chapter, the church structure within which power is exercised and from which authority for ministry is gained is often blamed for individual failures to use power appropriately.   While it is true that the ‘senior executives’ within the church - whether they be elders, Bishops, Archdeacons, Superintendents or otherwise, - often have a strong influence over the Christian community it is recognised more and more that the authority these individuals hold is dependent upon acceptance from those who are part of the main body of the church.  In this way issues such as hierarchy, power sharing and accountability are being placed on the everyday agenda of the ministry of the church. 

The Church of England has always located the ultimate authority of a given situation in one individual - the Bishop, priest or other figure.  This has given those in pastoral ministry in that denomination a sense of accountability and responsibility due to the power invested in them.  This has not always been successful but has offered a working model for the Anglican Church for a number of generations.

The truth is, that without an obvious location of power and responsibility then power often comes out in other ways.  Churches that claim no one leader will often still have an individual who, through the dynamics of the group, will be an unconscious bearer of power, with the ability to influence the congregation accordingly.  This offers more dangers than the model of a defined role taken by one person who, though working as part of and on behalf of the fellowship is the one on whom responsibility will lie.  At least in such a model there is some form of accountability.

It is important to acknowledge the ‘power factor’ in a pastoral relationship.  This process involves a certain amount of vulnerability on the part of the pastor and the client, but it is one which, having made the issues known, leaves less room for unacknowledged power to sabotage the process.

 

Three Steps in Moving Forward

The first step in moving towards more open pastoral relationships is to examine the dynamics that inform the process of pastoral encounter.  This is the concern of Dr Brice Avery (1996)as stated in Chapter Three.  Therefore the position of client and pastor must be made clear and the, often unconscious, motivations of each must be examined.  This is not to advocate that the pastor offers all of her or his misgivings, vulnerabilities, strengths and weaknesses to the client, thereby disempowering him or herself, but that, from the very beginning, there will be an awareness of the underlying issues of power and authority that flow quite naturally within a pastoral relationship.  Brice Avery (1996: 46) tells us,

“The activity in the best of pastoral encounters is one in which the pastoral pair work together to reveal, for reflection, activities on the emotional level that the client had, until then, been unaware of.” (Italics mine)

Recognition of the nature of the power relationship that will exist in such an encounter is the beginning of working together in order to bring about such revelations.  Pastors, especially Christian pastors,  must embark on the long journey of self-awareness, informed by reflection, scriptural understanding and personal honesty that will allow them to be truly aware of their motivations and desires, and not allow them to subvert the true purpose of the pastoral encounter, to bring about the increased well-being of those who seek the pastor’s aid. Campbell (1993: 99) states

“Because caring is an interaction in areas of life where helper and helped are both vulnerable, the person who claims to care must learn to recognize the intrusive quality of his or her own needs.”

Without this self-understanding and self-knowledge the pastor is liable to be living out unresolved issues, playing out fantasies and serving her or his own ends in the pastoral encounter and thereby making it impossible to engage in a deeper relationship, a relationship of trust - in this case the client will find it difficult to open up to a pastor, as Harris (1977: 48) tells us “…a trusting climate is necessary if an individual is to see purpose in relaxing his defenses, in opening up his life and concern to others.”

The second step in making pastoral relationships more open and more constructive is concerned with the consideration of the roots of pastoral ministry which, certainly in the church, are found in the early history of the church and in the life and ministry of Jesus.  With this basis we find a critique of any aspects of power which involve control or manipulation, and the ideal of the pastoral community as one of mutuality and sharing.  In looking at certain biblical material in this study we have not sought to claim that only Christian pastoral contact is of any value, but that all pastoral ministry can be informed by the example firstly of Jesus and secondly of the primitive church that struggled to care for those it met, even while the church was subject to persecution, in the early years of its life.

The issues of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ which stand out so strongly in the life of Jesus and in the writings of the New Testament are tied up with the need for the pastor to be grounded in the life of the spirit and with the community of faith.  This is the natural outcome of the struggles of the earliest generations of the church between ‘charismatic’ and ‘institutional’ power being located in leaders. 

At best, power that is acknowledged as institutional offers, a safeguard against the extreme abuses of pastoral power.  This power is rooted in the understanding that Jesus found his home among those he trusted and gave them the authority to continue his work.  These were the founders of the heritage to which the church clings today.   Power and authority are indeed dangerous, unstable concepts, yet Jesus was unafraid to speak with authority and to follow the leading of compassion and commitment to others event when it brought criticism.  This, indeed, is the calling of pastors in every age, to be committed to the appropriate use of power in encountering those who seek help. 

Ultimately the call of the pastor is to encourage healing and wholeness, recognising her or his own need for that healing and wholeness.  Jesus offers us a model of humanity which allows us to feel, to weep and laugh alongside those who are travelling with us through our journey in life. Harris (1997: 167) writes that pastors must “…learn to focus on the struggles of their people to be more fully human.  The aim and purpose of Christ’s ministry was that human beings might live more abundantly.” This is the aim of pastoral relationships within the church.

As a third step to fuller pastoral contact we must bear in mind the ongoing dynamic of the pastoral encounter within the community.  This study is concerned to make clear the idea of community as the background and basis of any genuine pastoral encounter, whether it be through the network of persons in church fellowships or the fact that the minister represents and works on behalf of the community. Pastoral authority and power, to be used appropriately, must be made to exist in relationship to the community of faith or pastoral organisation from which the pastor works and such power must be acknowledged as part of the ministry of the church, not just a personal control over others.. 

Pastoral ministry, certainly in the long term, can only be effective, and perhaps safe, agains the background of community.  Those who are pastoral ministers gain their identity, their authority, their grounding in being a part of and coming from a community or organisation from which they derive their power and authority.  For the Christian pastor that community comprises of the church, both on the level of individual fellowships and on the structural level of the church at large.  A Christian minister is recognised as having power due to the social, historical and tradition-based processes that have made the church what it is now.  Even for those who have no active involvement in the church the minister will be an approachable figure because of  their office as well as, or even in spite of, who they are as a human being.  Though exploring one’s full humanity must be a part of the ministerial task.

Because of this ‘rootedness’ in the community, the minister must always be accountable to the group she or he represents and speaks for.  To facilitate this the pastor must be transparent, honest and open to the community for and to which she or he ministers. This involves, from the start, acknowledging the presence of power in pastoral encounters and being willing and able to work on the issues involved together.  If the pastor genuinely finds their grounding in the life of the community then there is the potential for a relationship of trust which is essential for power to be truly shared.  This concern can be tackled initially by the desire to bring about mutuality in pastoral relationships. Harris (1977: 71) borrowing a phrase from Rollo May, talks in terms of ministers not having ‘power over the members (of the Community) but power with them.”

 

Pastoral Power grounded in community

Apart from the community the pastor has no power to offer authentic pastoral assistance, for it is by the commission of the community that he or she derives authentic pastoral power.  There will be times when healing and wholeness can only be brought within a community, and the leader must hand over to the pastoral community to allow the worshipping fellowship to do that work.  Frank Lake (1994: 14) makes the observation that

“It is in such a Christian community that the resources of Christ are meant to work.  It would be a departure from the New Testament pattern to set up separate clergymen working like therapists and general practitioners in isolation from the Body of Christ.  The resources of God are mediated in the whole life of the Christian fellowship…”

It must be admitted that for the leader of a community it can be a risk, it can be costly letting go.  At a certain level, sharing power allows more opportunity for mistakes to be made and more potential for failure, simply due to the fact that more people are a part of the pastoral process.  On the other hand holding power has the danger of one person’s failure being ultimately equally or even more damaging than a community sharing responsibility.

If, as discussed in the previous chapter, the role of the pastor is partly about being one who can foster and appropriate dependence on themselves within the community, it is only done in order to move individuals beyond ‘extra-dependence’ to ‘intra-dependence’.  In other words, as Dominian (1976: 98) says, “Although we are born in a state of dependence, the meaning of life is not to be found in dependence but relationship.”  This stresses the need for a mutuality in pastoral communities.  As Harris (1977: 60) explains, “Power is a social process.  In its best forms, power is expressed as people speak and act together in a climate of mutual respect.” In pastoral care the aim must be to empower people in such a way that it facilitates both their own healing and the healing of others.

 

Beyond the Church

Though this discussion has been concerned with a critique of power within the church, there must never be any doubt that the care that the church offers must be for society at large, not for a select group seeking to be comfortable and well-adjusted at the expense of others.  Just as many caring agencies seek to assist any in need, the care of the church must be open to all who come.  Pattison (1993: 15) states that

“One feature of the experience of pastoral care today which is very important is the fact that while pastoral care may be carried on primarily in, or on behalf of particular Christian communities, it cannot be directed solely towards Christians.”

This is the ‘Mission’ of the church in its broadest sense - working in common with other pastoral agencies to bring healing and wholeness to an often broken and confused humanity.  This mission, for the Christian, reflects faith in a God whose ultimate aim is the healing of creation, a work that is performed by those that seek to do the work of healing as part of the Christian vocation.

Pastoral care is needed by the world, by society as a whole, and the church is called to model healing relationships, appropriate dependence and authority without abuse.  Dominian (1976: 78) writes

“…ultimately, what society is seeking is that the model of authority should be one of integrity, wholeness, holiness, wisdom and love and not based on the power of money, coercion, violence and subjugation of others.”

In the present era, when so many values and ideas are being questioned, people are turning to people they can trust rather than to ‘meta-narratives’ or cosmic explanations.  If the future paradigm, the future ‘philosophy’, of western culture is to be relational, then the Christian community of faith must live in relationship to one another and the world in such a way as to demonstrate the love and freedom that their faith aspires to.

 

Word and Deed

In any pastoral encounter words and deeds, teaching and practice, must both work together.  It is impossible to pay lip-service to empowerment and then retain old methods of control and still retain any credibility with those who seek the aid of the pastor.  The authenticity of such a ministry would soon come under question.  The pastor cannot claim to be mutual and concerned with sharing if their model of ministry is still dictatorial and manipulative. Therefore, those who hold positions of pastoral responsibility must take risks in allowing the community of which she or he is a part to be responsible for their own healing.  If we are, however, to follow the example of Jesus as pastor then we must acknowledge the client’s part in their own move towards wholeness.  Pastors must live by values that allow them to empower those they serve as well as talking about such values. Hannah Arends, quoted by Harris (1977) writes

“Power is actualized only when word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds are not brutal, where words are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities.”

If pastoral care is about creating a new reality in the lives of those who are seeking wholeness and healing then power and authority must be part of a system that allows for its appropriate manifestation. Those who are particularly responsible for the administration of pastoral care, and there will always be individuals whose calling is to particularly minister pastorally on behalf of the community, must be willing and open to admit their limitations, to allow the community to be a resource and encourage partnership in the pastoral process.  There is no room for the kind of relationship where a pastor tells a client exactly how to lead their life, though there may be times when an authoritative pronouncement is appropriate.  Instead we have sought to express mutuality, transparency and accountability in pastoral relationships.  When the pastor is seen as a person of integrity, speaking from and as a part of a pastoral community she or he embodies and authority that is representative and persuasive rather than manipulative and coercive, in short, Harris (1977: 79) talks about it in terms of “…the difference between authority and control, the capacity to have one’s advice and insight taken seriously, verses the power to decide what happens.”

 

Conclusions

The pastor is a person of authority, and that authority is part of the heritage of the Christian community.  The authority to offer forgiveness, love, healing, wholeness.  This is a process where that authority is bestowed by the institution of the church, but is also made real and effective by the spiritual and emotional power that comes from integrity.  Integrity has been a much used word in this study, with a belief that the reader will make their own assumptions as to the meaning of the word ,but a definition given by Alastair Campbell (1993: 12) adds some meaning in relation to our subject, Campbell  writes

“When we speak of someone possessing ‘integrity’ we are trying to describe a quality of character for which the word ‘honesty’ may be too weak a synonym.  To possess integrity is to be incapable of compromising that which we believe to be true.”

The ultimate conclusion of this study is that fostering responsibility and integrity is the only solution to the difficulties of issues around pastoral power and authority.  Those who are called to exercise a pastoral ministry must be grounded in community, aware of self, and seeking to do what is right for others and for themselves.  All these must be believed to be true in order for the pastor to be truly a person of integrity. When pastoral power, and the authority of the church, is to be exercised then it must be done by those committed to assist their fellow travellers to live life to its fullest extent. 

The conclusion of this study is one made on a personal level, it must be those who are pastors who have the responsibility to care for themselves and be honest with themselves in order that they may care for others.  It is difficult to impose any structural changes that could foster this beyond what seems obvious, that pastors need supervision, support and accountability structures both within and without the local fellowship in order to facilitate this.  The church is beginning to take seriously commercial and managerial models of support, but these cannot be simply transferred into ecclesiastical structures, they will need translation, interpretation and adaption.  The church at large is recognising the need for change, and as we end this study our hope is that this recognition will grow and develop.

There will be tensions on this journey, as Harris (1977: 171) writes

“…the practicing minister needs constantly to balance opposing tendencies within himself, and between himself and the congregation…He is continually caught, for example in at least three fundamental tensions: the tension between comforting and confronting, between controlling and sharing control with others, between encouraging healthy dependence and stimulating growth toward interdependence.”

This tension is where this study ends, we recognise that the issues brought up by this work are not easy ones, nor are they easily defined.  For the church to continue to function in service to the world and faithful to the gospel, however, the issues must be faced by all of those who offer pastoral care on its behalf.  Pastoral power is an unavoidable part of the pastoral encounter, and must be acknowledged, accepted and worked with, rather than ignored, repressed and allowed to cause damage to those who come seeking guidance and help from ministers.

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.