Kate Bradford
March 2016
March 2016
Two years ago, we posted a blog that
began to explore Theological Reflection titled ‘Reflecting on Theological Reflection’. We concluded with a quote from Gordon Oliver, ‘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.’
Historically, Theological Reflection
was a response to the ‘living human document’ as captured in a Case Study or Verbatim. It was Anton
Boisen who described the concept of Theological Reflection in the 1920’s.[i]
Theological Reflection began with
learning to read the ‘living human documents’ and to learn to sit in the
present or ‘now’ with a patient; neither in the past nor the future. When a chaplain
re-read the ‘living human document’ there was an experience of trying to
organise religious experience by ‘scrutinizing religious belief and enquiring
into the origin, meaning and consequence of these beliefs.’[ii]
This was a dual activity, where the camera looked both ways, observing the sufferer
as well as the chaplain. As a chaplain read ‘another’ as a living human
document, the chaplain was also within the encounter, acting and reacting to
the events, and being formed and reformed.
Boisen was theologically progressive
and blended enquiry into religious convictions with psychology and William
James’ exploration of religious experience. Boisen expressed his thought through
dynamic views of psychology of religion, grounded in human behaviour and religion.
He had a desire to reflect systematically about the human condition, both
psychologically and theologically.
Sedimentary traces of the main
influences on Boisen’s life thread through his concept of Theological
Reflection. Key influences on his life were: 1) theological moderation of his
mother and deceased father; 2) the negative experience of his strict
Calvinistic Grandfather; 3) theologically liberal universities at which he
studied; 4) his own struggle with episodic schizophrenia; 5) his fascination
with the interface of psychology and religious experience; 6) the recognition
of the central human need for love; 7) and the centrality of the study of the ‘living
human document’.[iii]
Boisen’s theology looked inwards to
see what can be known of the infinite. In this he followed the progressive liberal
empiricists of his day, appealing to religion as neither thinking nor acting,
but rather intuition and feeling.
Boisen gave voice to the human
experience and identified that religion was central to human experience. For
Boisen this was the crucible of Theological Reflection. Denoting this reflection as Theological
Reflection however, challenges Evangelical Chaplains from two angles. Firstly
there is ready and sympathetic acknowledgement of the value of deep listening,
empathy and a desire to accompany a sufferer. There is also an affirming of the
great wisdom in working hard to experience another’s anguish and sit with them.
Yet at the same time, staying in the place of another’s suffering creates responses
and urges within us that tempt us to minimise, catastrophise, deny,
spiritualise, theologise or allegorise in order to reduce our own discomfort.
The chaplain is part of the encounter.
Yet, as good and necessary as it is
to reflect on the other and ourselves, theology for the evangelical is
something that has its reference outside and beyond us. Theo-logy is the God-logic revealed through the Son, Jesus Christ, the
Word (Logos) made flesh. This Logos is light, life and love who was born, lived,
died and rose again and reigns forever at the right hand of the Father and
sustains his people by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Thus the language of Theological
Reflection presents somewhat of a tautology for evangelical Christians when it
refers to looking within, rather than outwards, for theological insight.
However, by clarifying our language
and re-defining the terms, a more fruitful exploration emerges. If we separate out
the core of Theological Reflection (as currently used) into three strands,
three different perspectives on the pastoral encounter emerge. The first strand
is that which focuses on the other, working primarily with observable features.
This is a social/psycho and/or spiritual analysis. The second strand focuses on
the experience of the chaplain and is from the perspective of a Personal Reflection. The third strand
engages with Biblical truths and spiritual wisdom providing a Theological Evaluation.
As we reflect on pastoral encounters
and case studies, we view events from different angles. Firstly, we see a
sufferer through the fragments shared with us and we build up a psycho/social/spiritual
assessment from revealed facts and communicated impressions.
Historically, the category of Spiritual
Assessment emerged during the 20th century. Initially Spiritual
Assessments were based on the chaplains’ hunches and were variously described
as intuitive, indicative, and inspired and could be subjective and
idiosyncratic in nature. But then more explicit objective assessment tools were
developed such Fitchett’s 7x7[iv],
or Highfield & Casson. With these developments, the objective psycho/social/spiritual
was referred to as a Spiritual Assessment, a term developed for the clinical
context. With these clinical developments,
Spiritual Assessment no longer resided beneath the umbrella of Theological
Reflection. However pastorally, as spiritual assessment deals both with
horizontal (socio/psycho) and vertical (spiritual/religious) aspects of
ministry, it is more accurate to refer to it as a Pastoral Assessment.
After Spiritual/Pastoral Assessments have been separated out, Theological Reflection still has two
distinct facets from an evangelical perspective. One face of Theological
Refection as described, looks towards the anthropological perspective, in
conversation with psychology, culture, social sciences, spirituality and
theology, and the other face looks out towards Scriptural insight and Biblical
wisdom viewed through a Trinitarian lens. With increasing Christian maturity
these two activities should integrate and align more closely but they remain
distinct activities held in tension with each other. However, neither the Personal Reflection of the former, nor Theological Evaluation of the latter, can
substitute for each other.
To reflect personally displays a
willingness to deal with logs that may be wedged in our own eye before
attempting to remove the speck from another’s eye. Deep Personal Reflection is a space and a time where we bring ourselves
and events into conversation with scripture, and perhaps also draw on insights
gained from literature, social sciences etc., to bring an accurate picture of
our own humanity. Personal Reflection
is more than occasional reflection on case studies. It is rather a commitment
to reflective practices, such as professional supervision, ongoing reflective
practices, both structured (i.e. case studies, verbatims, carefully chosen
articles, journals and books) and unstructured (i.e. retreat, spiritual
direction, soul friend, journaling). Personal
Reflection includes personal Bible reading and prayer, intentional reading
and ongoing professional development.[v]
Thirdly, after considering a Pastoral Assessment and conducting a searching
Personal Reflection we are then in position
to think about events intentionally from a perspective of theological wisdom. One
model that can be employed is the Tri-perspectival model of Frame and Pythress.
[vi] Tri-perspectivalism provides a framework of three-fold perspectives
− normative, situational and existential. These perspectives capture
the sense of deep theological truths, that take into account objective reality
of situations and subjective personal experiences that help formulate and
evaluate a situation with theological wisdom. Triperectivalism sits easily
beside evangelical theology with its emphasis on scripture, the centrality of
Christ and the Cross, a focus on the care and love of neighbour, the lost, the
marginalised and even the enemy, and an interest in transformation. The Theological Evaluation grows out of the
wisdom scripture (metanarrative, images, metaphors, doctrines, genre, etc.) in
conversation with events and personal experience that in turn will reveal a way
into the future.
As we work towards articulating an evangelical
theology of Chaplaincy, it is desirable to find a language that can converse
both with the pastoral ministries and the chaplaincy roles. The spirit of ‘Theological
Reflection’ contains three strands or elements: 1) pastoral assessment,
(listening and focusing on the other), 2) personal reflection (listening and focussing
on self, self-care and spirituality) and 3) theological evaluation (listening
and focusing on God, Scripture and Theology). For a pastoral encounter to be richly
textured and able to respond to nuance, each strand is essential for the
integrity of the cord that binds the pastoral encounter.
[ii] Ibid
[iii] Ibid
[v] Ewan Kelly & Iain
Colthart, ‘Reflective Practice Activity
amongst Scottish Healthcare Chaplains - findings from a scoping exercise’ The Scottish Journal of Healthcare
Chaplaincy Vol 15 (1) 2012
[vi] Frame and Pythress, http://frame-poythress.org/a-primer-on-perspectivalism/
accessed 14/03/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment
Due to some hacking of our comments, comments are now moderated. Please continue to feel free to share your thoughts. We will attempt to approve legitimate comments within 24 hours. Thanks for your understanding. We look forward to continuing helpful dialogue on the issues of Christian ministry.