Kate
Bradford
As I work
and study as a chaplain, I continue to struggle to understand what is meant by
the professional phrase Theological
Reflection. There are a number of methods described, each usually begins
with the chaplain re-entering a
pastoral encounter, in an open non-judgemental manner, for the purpose of
reflecting. The act of reflection focuses on images or feelings that surface in
response to a: question, issue, tension, theme, problem or sense of wonderment
arising out of the encounter.
Essentially
the reflective activity begins with
a) self: being particularly aware of
intensity of feeling and emotional energy levels, elevated or depleted during
and after the encounter
b) viewed from different perspectives:
i.e. other people involved in the encounter
c) more broadly from familial and societal
views related to tradition, culture and religion
d) lastly, the theological perspective:
seeking God’s wisdom prayerfully. Theological perspectives are explored through
Biblical themes, insights, narratives, doctrines, subjects, motifs rather than proof
texting or ‘chapter and verse’ quoting. The reflective process aims to find a theological
focus that resonates with the situation, identifying new ways of thinking.
Reflection
increases awareness of our personal values, attitudes, beliefs and assumptions
and intentionally explores the dissonance between self, articulated beliefs
and God in himself. The discipline of acknowledging both differentiation and
integration is critical. Recognising that actual default settings (real self)
are not identical to articulated belief systems (ideal self) is foundational to
practices of safe ministry. Personal belief systems are ‘approximations’ that
tend towards, but are neither complete nor identical with, Biblical truth. A further layer of complication, is the
limits and finitude of understanding of self, others and God. There is a need
to mind the gap.
Because the
activity essentially begins anthropologically and focuses on an experiential dimension,
this type of reflection is probably more accurately described as an activity of honest personal reflection in
conversation with theology.
There is
great value in reflection around pastoral encounters. The disciplined approach
guards against jumping too quickly to a final Biblical assessment that
a) theologises – attempting to provide
an answer/solution that preserves God sovereignty
b) spiritualises – denies the reality
of the pain being experienced by the sufferer by neutralising the suffering, or
c) allegorises – attempts to lessen the
pain by re-casting or reinterpreting the situation, often minimising suffering.
Careful personal
reflection helps guard against possible imposition, dismissal and manipulation.
There is a real danger that the Bible may be co-opted to support a partial or
poorly informed theological position if the reflector acts to rescue God, or to
minimise personal discomfort.
There may
also be a need to acquire ‘negative capabilities’. That is learning to live
with half-knowing, capable of ‘being’ in uncertainties, living with mysteries,
doubts and the things not revealed, without irritation and even the occasional
‘willing suspension of dis-belief’.[1]
Stephen
Pattison suggests a three stranded conversation between
a) the event or situation
b) beliefs and assumptions drawn from
the Bible and Christian tradition
c) the reflector’s own ideas, beliefs,
feelings, perceptions and assumptions.[2]
Gordon
Oliver suggests an alternate model of hospitality, where the reflector is the
guest of the Bible, as are the psychologist, sociologist and other invited strangers.
In this model not all participants are equal partners in the discussion as each
is subjected to the Bible’s wisdom.[3]
For
theological reflection to be truly theological,
the Bible cannot be just one participant in the conversation, but must be the
interpretive key of all the other aspects.
