"Get Out of The Temple!" or, more accurately, "Depart in peace."

Malachi 3:1–4

Hebrews 2:14–18

Luke 2:22–40

The Presentation of Christ in the Temple (2015) Year B RCL Principal

This last Thursday we had a Clergy Day, one of our twice a year opportunities to meet up with colleagues from all the Islands of this Diocese, and to have some input and chat to and hear from our Bishop, Logan.  As part of the Bishop`s desire to make these days as much about being together and learning more of each other than about having lots of people speaking to, or sometimes at, us we were all asked to create a line around the room where we were meeting and sort ourselves into order of Ordination – stretching back to the 1960s, up to our most recent Diaconal Ordinations in 2014.  We then went around the room and were asked to call out when and where we were ordained, and the Bishop who ordained us.

It wasn`t until I found myself calling out `Petertide 1996, St Paul`s Cathedral, London, England by the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres` that I realised how much I loved that memory.  Christopher Wren`s great Cathedral building filled with people – I remember the Bishop`s Chaplain saying to the twenty five of us being ordained “the Cathedral will be gloomy then the great West Doors will open and light will flood in and everyone will turn, thinking `who the hell is that?’ and it will be you!  Enjoy the moment.” And we did.

I remember my first visit to St Paul’s – a massive edifice, with wonderful artwork, grandiose in its scale and intricate in the carving and construction that makes it such an iconic part of London’s skyline.  I was wandering around looking at the cathedral when one of my colleagues said ‘It doesn’t do anything for me, this place, it’s like a religious railway station’.

I can see why she said that, it’s a well visited  place, and it’s iconic stature means it is on the list of pretty much every London Tour.  In its construction it is large and echoey and noisy and busy.  There are quiet spots, but it doesn’t feel a lot like a place of prayer – not like some of the other Anglican places of worship I have been fortunate enough to visit and minister in.  It is what it is.

I wonder if the Temple in Jerusalem was like that too.  We certainly get the feeling that it was busy, and that there were people in and out all of the time, praying, offering sacrifice, talking and debating.  Then there was the Temple market with its money trading and buying and selling of sacrificial animals.  I don’t get the feeling from Scripture that it was a quiet, contemplative space. At least not all of it.

But it was loved. It was a magnificent place – a place that was a spiritual home for a nation.  Kevin preached a few weeks back on Luke’s repeated references to the Temple, Luke – probably a gentile – who begins and ends his Gospel stories with stories relating to the Temple, and who repeatedly places encounters between God and others in the temple, Zechariah, Anna and Simeon in today’s story of the Presentation, the boy Jesus and the scribes, the disciples visiting the temple with Jesus, the final visit before the Ascension story. 

It’s interesting to me, though, how in Luke’s narrative the life of the temple is so often disrupted by the action of God – Zechariah is struck dumb whilst performing his priestly duties, Simeon’s powerful words (of which more in a moment) which are spoken into the lives of Joseph, Mary and the infant Jesus, the young Jesus debating with the learned and impressing them despite his youth, Jesus being carried up to the top of the temple as part of the temptation stories, the parables of the Pharisee and the tax-collector, the widow’s mite, the driving out of the moneychangers. All of these disturb an accepted way of thinking and doing – as if, dare I say, the presence of God was there!

And yet the Temple wasn’t the only place God was at!  As Luke holds in balance a love of the temple and a recognition of the challenge that Jesus brings to the life of the temple, a promise that God is here, but God is elsewhere too!

I’m pretty sure that’s what is going on with Simeon’s bold and disturbing proclamation here.  And I must admit the Nunc Dimittus brings out the Book of Common Prayer lover in me so I will use the 1662 translation:

“LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace : according to thy word.
For mine eyes have seen :
thy salvation;
Which thou hast prepared : before the face of all people;
To be a light to lighten the Gentiles :
and to be the glory of thy people Israel.”

I am sure many of us know the story – Simeon was waiting for this encounter with the Messiah, an encounter that he believed would mark the end of his life… And so he shares this song, and a word for Mary that ‘this child is destined for the falling and rising of many in Israel’ and ‘a sword will pierce your own heart also’.

But I want to take just the one line for us to consider today – the opening line of this song of Simeon – in modern translation ‘Lord, now let your servant depart in peace’.  It’s that sense of departing – that after encountering Christ in the temple Simeon departs.  The story suggests that he goes for a very long rest! But I want to suggest that we are being called to depart in peace too, not in the same way, but called to be people of peace, taking the peace of Christ with us – going out from the temple to be active in the cause of peace.

Thomas Merton, the great contemplative who –were he still alive - would have been 100 years old this week wrote in a collection of his writings called ‘Passion for Peace’:

"Christ our Lord did not come to bring peace as a kind of spiritual tranquilizer. He brought to his disciples a vocation and a task: to struggle in the world of violence to establish His peace not only in their own hearts but in society itself."

Lord, now let your servants depart in peace - that peace which involves truly engaging with the world around – no longer considering, as Craig reminded us last week, that there is an ‘us and them’ but only an ‘us’. We are called to include all not just by welcoming people to come to a church meeting, but by being Church in the world.  As someone tweeted earlier this week: “God is not calling us to go to Church, God is calling us to go and be church”

So often our Churches contain the life and faith of the church, rather than liberate that life to shared abroad.  We are church not only when we gather together, we are the body of Christ when we serve beyond ourselves.  Our spiritual community is to be the springboard from which we leap into the world.  Though not all of us are necessarily built for leaping!  Yes we should value our sacred space, yes we have wonderful buildings – not least this warm and welcoming, prayer soaked building here – yes we are called to BE together.  But these things exist as resources for our journey out into our families and friendships, our places of work, our communities, the clubs, societies and activities we are a part of.  This is all the work of the church, the places where we are called, in work and word, to proclaim ‘God is here’.

To look at it another way, still drawing on this imagery of going beyond the Temple – departing in peace - we were reminded by Rev’d Canon Dr Richard LeSueur at our Thursday Clergy Day, that by the time of Jesus, Israel had undergone a massive change in its thinking about the presence of God in the years following the exile.  Quoting the Theologian and Scholar Walter Bruggemann, Richard told us that the defining image for the church today is not the Temple, but the Exile. 

How might the exile be speaking to us? Bruggemann tells us that firstly, Years of peace were suddenly broken: the comfort of the temple and the king, a stable and reliable order no longer existed.  Likewise we in the Church find ourselves in a place where any privilege or prestige we may have had is gone.  We are so often seen as little enclaves of slightly odd people who gather apart from the rest of the world on a Sunday Morning.  An image, a perception we are called to challenge – I believe.

Secondly the exile of Israel that came following the destruction of the Second Temple between 586–537 BCE saw the worship of God take place no longer in a Centralized institution, the temple, but it went out to a growing network of synagogues, which can be translated as simple as assembly – interestingly the word used in the New Testament for Church ekklesia means exactly the same thing.  But the important message is that the encounter with God, the presence of God, is no longer considered restricted to one place, the temple, but the divine can be engaged with in diverse and dispersed ways.  A message for the Church today!

Thirdly, as we find the Privileges of Christendom have passed we can ask ourselves if this is liberation to a new apostolic age – a new age of being sent out to share the life of Christ with the world!  If you remember this time last year we had a number of folk standing up and calling out ‘God is here’ – and important reminder of the God who is in the midst of us – but our calling is to remember that we are called to carry that presence with us in all we do, as much beyond these walls as within.

Perhaps, as Richard told the Clergy, we are being called from settled life – and being a settler church has too many connotations for me to begin to address this morning - to being a nomadic, a travelling people.  A people recognising that Church is a waystation, not a destination.  We come here, as a desert dweller may come to an oasis, for refreshment and for strength for the journey.  We are gathered, in order to be sent out.  In the Latin Liturgy echoed in our contemporary services the deacon would call out or sing ‘Ite, missa est’ – Go, you are dismissed (or according to some scholars ‘Go, you are sent out’) Or, as became more usual  ‘Go forth, the mass is ended’. 

Further, in this theme of moving beyond the temple, of being in exile, strangers in a strange land, we find ourselves again having to engage with culture and discover our own distinctiveness – how can we be Christians in our everyday lives? How do we practise the presence of God in our society?  How do we share this good news, this life of Christ which are blessed with? I don’t have the answers to that, but I am committed to finding them, together, with all of you.

Perhaps as we engage further with our visioning, with the vision of our Diocese and our own parish as shared in the Quo Vadis report in which we are collecting the voices of our community, we can commit ourselves to seeking where our calling to do and be church is. How may we depart in peace?

Thanks be to God.

Law, Liberation, Life, Love

Another sermon from today, same readings, different event (this time a short Eucharist for the ACW - Anglican Church Women - group here in Victoria)

Proverbs 30.5-9

Psalm 119.105-112

Luke 9.1-6

Words

‘Your word is a lantern to my feet and a light upon my path’ proclaims the Psalmist. Which is nice.

But what does he mean?

Well, when the Psalmist is speaking, and indeed when the compilers of the proverbs are writing the definition of the word is quite clear – it is the law.  God’s law – the commandments, all 613 of them.  For in the commandments – far from the impression we have in Christian circles, is a sense of liberation and joy, a sense of ‘this is how we please God – by living by these commands’

And these commandments are so special, so wonderful, so life-giving that even now any adult member of the Jewish community becomes, on their transition into adulthood a bar or bat Mitzvah – a son or daughter of the law.  Even now, as they have done for hundreds, thousands, of years, Jewish scholars and writers dedicate themselves to an understanding and interpretation of the commandments – believing that fullness of life is found within obedience to the word, the law of the Lord.  Or as it says elsewhere in the Psalms ‘your statutes are my delight’.  How often do we think of delight, of joy, of freedom when we consider the law of the Lord – the word to which the Psalmist and the Proverbs refer?  How often is this idea of law taken as a liberation and as an expression of the freedom God desires?

For within the law are not just the ten commandments – that’s a particularly Christian concept – nor are there only laws about religious ritual. In the law are considerations of justice and fairness, of how we live together with care for one another, of how each member of the community should behave in order that there might be peace- Shalom – wholeness. There are considerations towards the stranger, the alien, and towards the poor and needy and sick. There are guidelines about what to eat not just for religious but practical reasons – I mean, eating shellfish in the desert before refrigeration… not a sensible idea.  Pork, when it is not subject to the kind of rigour that pork farming is now, is stuffed with all sorts of unpleasant parasites and diseases.  These laws became part of a ritual food code, but started as some pretty sensible advice for the wandering people of Israel!  The law is meant to take away the stress of living, and show us how to relate to God and one another, faithfully and joyfully.

As Christians we kind of hijacked the idea of law, taking a cue from Paul and holding up the law as oppressive, negative, bound by rules and regulations, and in sharp contrast to the life found in grace in Christ. I don’t actually believe that this is what Paul meant, for in Chapter 7 of his most exquisite and nuanced theological work – the letter to the Romans – he says ‘I delight in the law of God’. And I am certain that this negative view of law is not what Jesus meant when he talked of himself as the fulfilling of the law.  Or said that not one iota of the law would pass away until all is fulfilled…

The law, the word of God is considered to be life-giving, life affirming, life-changing.  It is meant to be a way in which we see God’s inmost desired and we are encouraged to meditate on this law and to live by it.

But like so many bits of scripture, I would say that it is not the words themselves that are to be our focus – but the meaning behind the words.  The law seeks to frame an attitude towards God, not to bind us in a blind obedience, but calls us into deeper, richer, more profound relationship with God. Indeed, in our Christian tradition the whole of scripture calls us that way – and though the Church often focusses on the words of Scripture it is the Word within Scripture we are called to discern.

Ooooer, I hear you think, what does the Rector mean by that?

Don’t get me wrong, I love words, I love reading, I love playing with words. And I am the same with Scripture – I love to meditate, consider, struggle with, think on, pray on and learn from scripture. But the words in themselves are not where God resides – I do not worship the Bible, I worship the one Word, who we call Christ.  In the well known prologue to St John’s Gospel we hear the words used at pretty much every Christmas Night service  ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’  In the Greek the term is logos. The logos is the expression of God – the breath of God gone forth in substance. The reality of God made manifest.

Within the words of Scripture, I seek the Word of God. I look for where the Christ leads me, I listen for the voice of God and long to feel breath of God ruffle the pages of my Bible. It is this word which brings the words of our Bibles to life.

We don’t worship ink and paper. It is disturbing to see how many seek to enshrine the living, breathing, vibrant spirit of God in words and phrases pulled from a book.

Christian faith, following Christ, is actually a much harder, higher, more exciting calling than that.  It is to be in relationship with a God who is experienced in prayer, in worship, in sacrament, in love, and yes in study of scripture.  But not a God trapped in scripture, we are called to discern the word behind the words, the life behind the scriptures.

And it is the task of each of us to set our minds and hearts on this discovery – together, seeking to discern the life of God.  When we trap our understanding of God in words, or traditions, institutions or even just habits of worship then we miss out on the true and living Word.

For a faithful Jew, the life of the law comes from being excited about and by the life behind the commandments.  For those of us who follow in the footsteps of Jesus, our fullness of life comes from a relationship with him through our common life, through our care for one another and of all in need, through our shared experience of worship and prayer.

And as I said at the early service this morning (my last sermon, found below), taking my cue from the Gospel reading where the disciples are sent out with nothing, not even money or bread - we are not to be distracted – whether it be by the minutiae of biblical verses, or our own comfort, or the way we like Church to be – but to live fully in the life of Christ, abundant, transforming, hopeful, loving, faithful life – that all the world might know and be transformed by it.

Dust and Feet

A sermon preached at our midweek early morning Eucharist in St John The Divine, Victoria

Proverbs 30.5-9

Psalm 119.105-112

Luke 9.1-6

Dust and feet

In today’s Gospel reading, which is the one I want to focus on this morning, there is a declaration made by Jesus which I have found troubling since I first heard it.  It’s that bit about ‘wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them’ 

Really? 

In Matthew’s account (today’s reading was from Luke) it goes even further ‘Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.’

This reminds me of my introduction to my first ever parish where the Rector announced to the congregation – Alastair comes as Curate to our community, and we hope that as he comes to us he will bring peace, and that peace will rest on us – and that he won’t turn away and say ‘Sodom’…

Which got a slightly scandalised laugh from the congregation!  Which was the point and broke the ice somewhat…

But these harsh words seem so odd from the mouth of Jesus – what is he saying? Is he really giving up on those who do not hear the message on first blush – is he really consigning to judgement those who do not accept the disciples as they share this message of the good news. It certainly doesn’t sound like good news if there are people excluded, for whatever reason, from the party!

I suspect that these words were said by Jesus – as most scholars agree that the most authentic parts of scripture, most likely to be accurately recorded and passed on, are the difficult bits – the bits we find uncomfortable. The bits that the early Church would find uncomfortable as they sought to bring all into the life of Christ.  The logic goes that if they made a point of recording it and passing it on even though it’s difficult then the chances are it did actually come from Jesus as if it was from elsewhere they would have been more likely to edit it out.

So we have these words, but like all faithful followers we are called to question. What does this actually mean? Who was it said to and why? What is the meaning behind and within these statements…

I think that these words are less a judgement on non-believers than an encouragement to us.  They remind us that not all will hear and accept the message of faith – that it is right not to browbeat, cajole or force people into accepting our way of seeing the world. Jesus is simply acknowledging that some won’t get it, and won’t want to get it.  As for the consequences of this, it is for God to sort out, not for us to pronounce judgement. 

As an aside, the comment about Sodom and Gomorrah is about the lack of hospitality shown by those cities – something that is considered sacrosanct in middle eastern nomadic societies where survival is often dependent on supporting and caring for one another.  Throughout scripture we are shown the importance of hospitality and welcome, including the famous statement by the author of the letter to the Hebrews “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” 

And as for shaking off the dust.  I think this was for those first disciples, and indeed is for us, a comment about not carrying with us our failures, or rejection, or negativity. Let nothing hinder us from our sharing of the life of Christ – do not be distracted. When the disciples were sent out with nothing, not even staff, bag, bread, money or a change of tunic, they were being encouraged to depend only on God, to strip away anything that might give a false sense of security, anything that might possibly make them think about anything other than what we call the ‘kingdom’ or the ‘reign’ of God. This is to be something that is so focussed, so intentional, so much at the heart and the foundation of what we as Christ followers are about that we are to let nothing distract us. Not even our failures.

Which should give us cause to think again about those things which might be distracting us from our calling to live and to be the good news to this world.  I think that we are too comfortable, too distracted – and I certainly include myself in this. We are rarely confronted with our calling to give of ourselves to others.  From that place of knowing ourselves loved, called, graced and embraced should come hearts and minds and lives which are consumed with the love of God. And from this spiritual foundation comes our calling to be and to bring the Good news – we are called in word and deed to proclaim God’s radical message, love for all, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, confronting the powerful and abusive, bringing comfort for the afflicted – living out the values of God’s kingdom and seeking to make those values real in our own spiritual community and in the community around us.

It’s a scary calling. It’s a spiritual calling. It’s a shared calling. It is something we as a community are being called to – this isn’t one of those ‘what are you doing because it all depends on you’ callings, but to ask what our part is within a community that seeks to live and share these values.  Perhaps our calling is to pray, to give of our time, talents or money , perhaps our calling is to volunteer, perhaps our calling is to listen to where God is leading us and to respond.

Whatever our calling, the question that comes back to us is this – what do we cling to or carry around like dust on our feet that prevents us from fully entering into this wonderful, distressing, challenging, transforming life which Jesus calls us to and what do we need to leave behind that we too might be a community which is living the power of the spirit in transforming this world.

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.