Scientific outcomes and pastoral care. They need each other.

David Pettett

Research into healthcare outcomes indicates that when the spiritual needs of patients are met there are further tangible benefits. These benefits include shorter hospital stays, improved pain management and better management of cardiovascular needs. It is not surprising that a recent Deloitte’s report into the economic and social benefits of hospital chaplaincies in New South Wales, Australia showed that for every dollar the New South Wales government spends on subsidising hospital chaplaincies there is close to a seven dollar benefit. That is, given that the New South Wales government spends $2.5 million each year on subsidising chaplaincy services provided by Christian churches and other Faith groups, it would have to spend seven times this amount to achieve the same results if it did not subsidise chaplaincy.

When I was reading some of this research I was excited to see the benefits and outcomes of chaplaincy being measured. But I began to ask myself, “What do they mean by ‘the spiritual needs of the patients’?” What are ‘spiritual needs’? How are spiritual needs defined? When pastoral carers and healthcare professionals speak of ‘spiritual needs’, do they mean the same thing? Are we speaking the same language?

In a similar vein of concern about what is being measured in the pastoral encounter John Swinton asked the question, ‘what actually constitutes acceptable evidence, who decides and why?’[1] While acknowledging the important role of scientific measurement, even in pastoral encounters, Swinton then says, ‘I want to suggest that science, or at least a narrow definition of science, is only one dimension of the professional role of chaplaincy. On its own our current definition of ‘science’ cannot provide an adequate basis for the theory and practice of chaplaincy.’ This is because, on its own, the spiritual ‘outcomes’ of the pastoral encounter cannot be measured. If a pastoral encounter is primarily about relationship, it is only secondary outcomes such as a feeling of wellbeing, which can be measured scientifically in a manner that might satisfy those who are seeking to measure the length of stay in hospital in terms of economic benefit. Swinton further suggests that pastoral ministry has a place in informing scientific outcomes in that it moves beyond empirical measurement to speak of the human condition.

The research on the outcomes of pastoral interventions speaks of things like ‘meaning’, ‘comfort’, ‘hope’ and ‘community’. That is, when a person’s spiritual needs are met they report that they have a greater sense of meaning, comfort, hope and belonging. Spiritual Care Australia defines the value of spirituality as something that increases resilience within a person, helps to positively embrace experiences and outcomes and to celebrate life. The Mayo Clinic Pastoral Care Services defines its work as assisting people in using strengths in coping with their medical condition.

These views seem to place the idea of spirituality within a holistic view of humanity. Within the health care context particularly, a person is viewed as having, not only physical and mental health needs, but also spiritual needs. Within this view of the whole person, just as solutions can be applied to the fixing of a broken leg, or the resolution of an eating disorder, so can solutions and resolutions lead to a person finding meaning, comfort, hope and community. Certainly this is the view in a large body of literature on pastoral care that speaks of the ‘functions of pastoral care’. Kate Bradford has addressed this issue in her earlier post on this site in “Chaplaincy ─ a Ministry ─ not a Function”.

Following on from Kate’s work I want to ask, “If Chaplaincy or pastoral care is not a function but a ministry, how then does it fit into the sphere of public healthcare?” In other words, if the New South Wales government sees the value of subsidising chaplaincy in its public hospitals as achieving better health outcomes and therefore saving money, how does a ministry that does not seek to serve these functions fit into modern health care?

These questions highlight the dichotomy between Christian ministry and the desire in a modern results driven economy to have measurable outcomes. Someone has said, “What cannot be measured has no value.” This statement begs the question about value. In Christian ministry we are not seeking an economic value. It is well and good for government to know that its hospital patients feel better and have better, measurable health outcomes as a result of the ministrations of the chaplains it subsidises. But Christian ministry, which is not a function, has no measurable outcomes, at least in a scientific sense. It does not have an immediate economic value. At its best Christian chaplaincy and pastoral care is an activity where two human beings, the patient and the chaplain, encounter the true human, Jesus.

Government may well want to keep subsidising chaplaincy in its hospitals and prisons because of the measurable positive but secondary outcomes and the economic benefit they bring. Christian denominations, while not denying these tangible benefits and the positive impact they have on society generally, must, never the less, maintain the primary focus of pastoral care as fellowship with the risen Christ. Government must recognise that this ministry is an activity Christian chaplains will focus on. At the same time the Christian chaplain must recognise that in a public institution he or she is there as a guest. They are not ministering to their parishioners, those who come to church of their own free will. In public institutions the chaplain encounters people from every Faith and none, and therefore must show due respect.

As much as the Christian chaplain’s role is to listen with the patient to the Christ who is present, their role in a public institution is not as an evangelist. But as the chaplain listens to the Christ who is present, the patient also, who experiences the listening of the chaplain, will also begin to listen to the Christ. They may or may not respond to this listening but those who do have the opportunity to move into fellowship with Christ, the giver of life. This is no scientific measurable outcome but health managers and other professionals must recognise that this is the real work of pastoral care. When it is done at its best, they may well also see measurable, secondary positive health outcomes.

Chaplaincy and pastoral care in our public institutions must be allowed by government to be chaplaincy and pastoral care. The desire for measurable outcomes must not overtake the real ministry that is happening. If it does, and begins to shape and dictate what a chaplain can and cannot do, it will lose the secondary outcomes government and healthcare professionals are looking for. At the same time chaplaincy must bring its unique contribution to bare on the professional business of healthcare. This will hopefully shape healthcare to be more patient focused than outcome focused. It will remind healthcare professionals that patients are not economic outcomes. It will focus on the human condition and see science and pastoral care working together for the full physical, mental and spiritual health of the patient.

---

[1] John Swinton. ‘Reclaiming Mystery and Wonder: Towards a narrative based perspective on chaplaincy.’ Journal of Healthcare Chaplaincy. 2002. pp. 223-236

Chaplaincy: Further Reflections on Theological Reflection

Kate Bradford
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 20^th 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.

---

[i]http://s531162813.onlinehome.us/pdf/History/The%20Biography%20of%20Anton%20Theophilus%20Boisen.pdf accessed 14/03/2016

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Ibid

[iv]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.spiritualassessment.com/Manual.html&gws_rd=cr&ei=ldbnVpHxLo-gjwPc5a6YDw Chapter 3 accessed 15/03/2016.

[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

Chaplaincy ─ a Ministry ─ not a Function

Kate Bradford
Jan 2016

Pastoral images of shepherding abound in the Old and New Testaments. The agrarian pictures recall both Israel’s origins and rich metaphors of God’s care for the people of God. The shepherd image provides a godly model for leadership for both Israel and the Church.

Pastoral terms and images occur in much chaplaincy literature, as they were closely tied to the modern mid-20^th century discipline of Pastoral Theology. This new discipline leveraged terminology that dates back to early church.

Early Church Fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus [d. 390], John Chrysostom [d. 407] and Gregory the Great [d. 604] all wrote on pastoral theology. Gregory the Great linked the role of a pastor to his Pastoral Rule, a book of pastoral instruction. In the 17^th century, Richard Baxter also wrote extensively on the pastoral role of a minister. Essentially pastoral care linked the role of pastor to the care of his ‘flock’, reflecting scriptural usage inseparably linked with Jesus Christ, the ultimate shepherd, who laid down his life for the sheep.

In the mid-20^th century, pastoral theologian, Seward Hiltner, applied ‘new’ academic rigor to pastoral theology and combined pastoral theology with insights from the secular, social sciences. Hiltner focused on the ‘care’ aspect of ministry. However at the same time, he radically reinterpreted the shepherding imagery. Hiltner severed the image from its Biblical moorings and uncoupled the term ‘pastoral’ from the role ‘pastor’ and its lynchpin connection to Jesus Christ.

Hiltner proposed a new functional or operational approach, which owed more to William James’ functional psychology and pragmatic philosophy combined with Carl Rogers’ nondirective counselling approach than to Holy Scripture.

Shepherding motifs were co-opted tangentially to support attitudes such as concern, acceptance, clarification, judgement, humility and self-understanding,[i]  while the deep eternal images of the consolation of Israel and Messianic hope were ignored completely. Alistair Campbell writes, “We are forced to conclude that in Hiltner, the [shepherding] image is little more than a cipher which gives religious appearance to statements about care derived from quite other sources…”[ii]

Hiltner has described three pastoral functions: healing, guiding and sustaining. Following Hiltner, pastoral theologians William Clebsch and Charles Jaekle added a function of reconciliation; Howard Clinebell, nurturing; and Andrew Lester added liberation. 

Lester summarises pastoral functions in this way: ‘When people are wounded or hurt they need the pastoral function of healing. When they are confused or perplexed they need the pastoral function of guidance; when they are overwhelmed or stretched to the limit, they need to be sustained or held emotionally; when they are alienated or separated, they need to be reconciled. When they are feeling stuck or trapped they need to be liberated.’[iii]

 

‘Functions of Pastoral Care’ became the founding paradigm on which was built all further discussion of pastoral care

Later pastoral theologians worked within the inherited language. Some endeavoured to ‘back fill’ terms with very tenuous links to scripture ─ continuing to prop up an entire discipline tethered to a theological façade that lacked substance.

Any evangelical theology of chaplaincy will have ongoing difficulties while trying to formulate a theology of Pastoral Care working within the existing categories. There is a radical disconnect, or more substantially ─ an incommensurability of paradigms ─ whereby theology and pastoral care are unable to talk because they exist in different worlds built on different philosophical assumptions, divergent language, and conflicting approaches and appeals to Scripture.

The pragmatic language of function presents an idea of ministry that identifies a specific problem and applies an appropriate lever to alleviate the situation. Scripture, on the other hand, describes ‘ministry’, or ‘service’, in terms of loving relationships with God, fellow believers, friends, family, neighbours, strangers and even enemies. Relationship with God and others is not imagined in transactional language of functionalities, or operational instructions in a social theory manual but in terms of grace, patience, forgiveness, repentance, forbearance and love.

However, perhaps the greatest disconnect lies in the heavily freighted language used for the functions of pastoral care; sustaining, healing, guiding, reconciling and liberating. In Scripture each of these terms describes an activity of God himself. They are not primarily activities of God’s people.

Pastoral carers and sufferers alike are recipients of God’s generous gifts: sustenance, health, guidance, reconciliation and liberation offered through the death and resurrection of his Son.

The pastoral-function language has annexed terms inexorably linked with the creative and redemptive purposes of God.

Pastoral theologian Andrew Purves comments that the shepherding images as currently used are at best imitation of Christ but fall short of participation in Christ. Purves draws attention to the urgent need of recovering Christ in Pastoral Theology by centring Pastoral Theology on the doctrine of Christ.[iv]

Pastoral theologian Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger, interacting with the work of Andrew Purves, proposes a way forward and a new language in her book, ‘Pray without Ceasing: Revitalising Pastoral Care’. Van Deusen Hunsinger outlines a compassionate, thoughtful and Christ-centred ministry that pays close attention to God, to others and to self. She encourages ministry that is exercised through the prayerful activities of lament, intercession, confession, petition and thanksgiving.[i]

---

[i] Alistair V. Campbell “The Courageous Shepherd”1981 pp 58. In Images of Pastoral Care: Classic Readings, edited by Robert C Dykstra, Chalice Press 2005,

[ii] Campbell pp 58,59.

[iii] Andrew D. Lester; “Hope in Pastoral care and Counselling” 1995. Pp 1.

[iv] Andrew Purves, Reconstructing Pastoral Theology: A Christological Foundation, WJKP, 2004 pg xxx.

[v] Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger, ‘Pray without Ceasing: Revitalising Pastoral Care.’ Eeardmans, 2007.

Chaplaincy – A Trinitarian Prayer

Kate Bradford
December 2015

The day began for John Stott, (1921 – 2011) Anglican minister and theologian, at 5 a.m. Each day he swung his legs over the side of his bed and started the day in prayer:

Good morning, heavenly Father;
good morning, Lord Jesus;
good morning, Holy Spirit.
Heavenly Father, I worship you as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
Lord Jesus, I worship you, Saviour and Lord of the world.
Holy Spirit, I worship you, Sanctifier of the people of God.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Heavenly Father, I pray that I may live this day in your presence and please you more and more.
Lord Jesus, I pray that this day I may take up my cross and follow you.
Holy Spirit, I pray that this day you will fill me with yourself and cause your fruit to ripen in my life: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons in one God, have mercy upon me. Amen.

For decades, Stott began each day with a version of this Trinitarian prayer.[i]

―◊―◊―◊―

John Stott was a man of prayer, of scholarship and practice. Stott was committed to alleviating physical and emotional pain of temporal loss, and the deeper spiritual pain of eternal lost-ness. His Christian faith was lived out though his head, heart and hands― in thought word and deed.

Stott’s prayer encompasses and frames the whole ministry of Chaplaincy.

He begins with creator and creation; there is nowhere and no one beyond the Heavenly Father’s creation: no prison, no hospital, no war zone, no mental illness, not crisis that can remove someone from God’s concern. There is no heartbeat, no breath, no sunrise, no season. All are provided and sustained by our Heavenly Father.

Yet for all its beauty, creation is a fallen and broken place, a place inhabited by suffering, illness, evil and death. It is a deeply sin-sick world. It was into this world that the Lord Jesus came. His glory hidden, he experienced suffering, brokenness. He was subjected to evil and a suffering, tortuous death.

It was not a pointless death. He lay down his mortality so that he was able to offer a life beyond, eternity, to others. Though the outward body is wasting away, the possibility now exists for the renewing of the inward spirit.

Stott anchored his prayer firmly into the three persons of the Trinity. He had a particular way of viewing reality. In the way he broke it into segments or perspectives, he saw his faith and the world in relationship to the separate ministries of the three persons of the Trinity.

John Frame (also working from a Trinitarian perspective) observed that we could view events from several perspectives: the normative, situational and existential. For example, the normative looks back to the doctrinal elements (i.e. what does God’s word say?). The situational takes account of the particular present events at this time in this place to these people etc. The existential perspective takes account of the subjective experience of those involved in the events.[ii]

Situations can be complex and ever changing in which each person responds differently. Chaplaincy ministry requires the chaplain to be internally thinking and praying trinitarianly, and to be thinking theologically, observing situations and hearing deeply the existential experience of another, in order to take us closer to the truth of an event.

What does this look like on an ordinary day in ordinary language?

A chaplaincy visit is a chat that takes the form of a reflective discussion where the chaplain listens deeply to the sufferer. When I visit, I am listening particularly for points of 'heat' or emotion that might lead the discussion to a deeper level - getting closer to areas which give a clearer idea of the sufferer’s meaning, belonging and significance.

I am also interested as to whether the perceived events function at a more horizontal (i.e. social/ cultural/ emotional) level or whether there is a vertical (i.e. transcendent/ spiritual/ faith) dimension. Further to this I ask the question, “is the presenting vertical dimension leading to consolation or desolation?”

I am also trying to be aware of my own ‘stuff’ so I am also engaging in personal ‘conversation’ with my own feelings, beliefs and 'agendas'.

As I listen deeply to the other (and myself), I work very hard to consciously listen to God.[iii] It is out of this process that I form my theological evaluation, taking into account Biblical norms, the circumstances of the particular situation and the emotional state of the sufferer, and this consciously suggests a suitable course of ministry/care.

As we minister, we abide in the Father’s presence. We pray that our fear and anxiety will be taken away, allowing us to rest in his deep joy and peace, allowing us to carry other’s burdens without being overwhelmed.

None of us is perfect. Chaplaincy is difficult mentally and spiritually. So therefore we pray for patience, that we might be able to sit still and listen and to be able to give concentrated mental energy to the other’s story and needs. Patience to hear the same story over and over if need be. We pray for kindness, gentleness and self-control to care without favour, that we might love both those who are lovely, and the unlovely. We also ask for forgiveness and greater insight into others and ourselves on those occasions when a visit does not go so well.

We pray also for faithfulness, that we might present each person to our Heavenly Father in prayer, that we see their eternal horizons, that we might variously hear their deep concerns and lament with them, hear confession, intercede, make supplications and give thanks and praise to the Lord.[iv]

---

[i] John W. Yates III, ‘Pottering and Prayer’ http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/april2/4.60.html

[ii] John Frame, ‘Primer on Perspectivalism’  http://www.frame-poythress.org/a-primer-on-perspectivalism/

[iii] Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger, Pray without Ceasing: Revitalising Spiritual Care, Eerdmans 2006.  Listening to God, others and self is a theme throughout the book.

[iv] This final list is also drawn from Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger’s book Pray without Ceasing.

Powerful Words

Chaplaincy is Christian ministry in hard places, bringing a Christian voice to the public sphere. Chaplains do this in partnership with Churches which may not have a voice in these places.

Chaplains are equipped with theological and pastoral care training. They are skilled in speaking with people who would not necessarily identify as Christian but find themselves in difficult life circumstances.  They bring Christ’s compassion to people experiencing distress or trauma. In times of anxiety and uncertainty Chaplains offer the message of the hope, peace and forgiveness found in Jesus Christ.

Anglicare Centre for Pastoral Development (ACPD) and CASE magazine recently co-hosted a conference on chaplaincy in the Public Space called 'Powerful Words" convened at New College, The University of New South Wales.   New College has kindly made the sessions available to the public. An outline of the session is listed below together with a llnk to audio files..



     David Pettett             Peter Ellem               Rhys Bezzant                Peter Frith             Kate Bradford

Keynote Address: 'Our Days and God’s Years: Pastoral Care in Times of Change' Dr Rhys Bezzant

 

Seminar 1 ‘A Captive Audience - Christian Ministry to people in prison’  Rev'd David Pettett

Seminar 2 ‘Chaplaincy at the Crossroads’   Rev'd Peter Ellem

Seminar 3 ‘Chaplains in the firing line: The Lindt Café siege’  Rev'd Peter Frith

 

Radio-Play Part 1  ‘The Job Verbatim: What not to say’  Kate Bradford & actors

Seminar 4 ‘Responding to Job’   Kate Bradford

Access to all the sessions is available here: http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/audios/audio-archives

Notes on the International Prison Chaplains' Conference, Sept 2015

By Colin Sheehan.

I was pleasantly surprised by the recent International Prison Chaplains Association (IPCA) Conference held in Sydney, Australia in September 2015 at St Ignatius College, Riverview. The Association holds an international conference only once every five years. Here are my rough notes as I took them.

For me – apart from the pleasure of personal fellowship with Chaplains from far afield - Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Congo, New Zealand, New Guinea etc. – there was also good thinking on other matters by two gifted speakers, namely:
Rev. Dr Ulrica Fritzon (ordained minister, Church of Sweden, currently on study leave from placement as Prison Chaplain in Malmo, Sweden; has worked in the Restorative Justice program, Pollsmoor Prison, Cape Town SA, and
Rev Hennie Human (National Director, Spiritual Care, Correctional Services, South Africa).

1. Rev Dr Ulrica led the 90 minute plenary session on Monday morning
   
   Her topic: Restorative justice and reconciliation - (supporting her were two Chaplains from Pollsmoor Prison - Jenni and Jonathan)
   
   Matters covered included – terminologies, such as …
   
   Restitution – the return of something to its original state (e.g. of dignity or of power) made necessary because …
   
   Crime creates irreparable damage; trauma and guilt.
   
   Living and time merely preserves the trauma does nothing to return something towards its original state.
   
   Restorative justice - allows the victim to find from the perpetrator some language to describe the event
   
   Sharing the story and painful experience - victim and perpetrator are benefited ...
   
   See John de Gruchy - reconciliation and restorative justice: the art of R~
   http://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/4385/view?searchterm=reconciliation
   
   Punitive systems - do not recognise the language of trauma or of guilt
   
   Whereas the experience of listening - depending on God and his ways makes reconciliation a possibility
   
   Reconciliation begins by being reconciled in the grace of God
   
   Hope is generated in the face of (and despite) the trauma of extraction (the taking away by force) & of evil
   
   
   Dr Fritzon's session looked in some detail at the Restorative Justice Program run by Chaplaincy in the Pollsmoor Prison
   
   It is: a confronting outspoken and faith based program run over 6 days with a further ten weeks of follow up –
   
   'The program is one that is not natural to the ways of Sweden (where confrontation is avoided)'
   
   The program - 3-4 offenders together with facilitator / supporter
   
   Day 1 intro - damage caused by crime, families share their experience
   
   Day 2 damage caused by crime and reality of the crisis - offenders back ground Victims share their experience
   
   Day 3 core values
   
   Day 4 responsibility accountability and confession
   
   Day 5 repentance forgiveness and reconciliation
   
   Day 6 closing function – with the voluntary involvement of the offender family - a very NB aspect
   
   The follows - Min 10 weeks follow up in preparation for the 'victim-offender dialogue' – with studies in:-

• lying (pathological lying perpetuates the hurting of the victim);
• habit formation (can be both good and bad);
• reconciliation and forgiveness (we will never forgive you ... that's okay - I'm not here for your forgiveness I'm here to listen to you);
• Anger – all given in preparation for the meeting with victim, family and community.
  
  NOTE: at the end - has anything changed? (the victims loss remains) - But they (the offender and the victim) have touched each other in a safe environment and there has been conversation
  
  Why do it if you are an offender?
  
  Participation arises out of a desire 'to become a better person'
  
  Many think they are too hopeless.
  
  They think it is not possible.
  
  Hurt people hurt more people… but the program is premised on the idea that:

• Offenders are not evil - almost always they are very hurt ... it is a very releasing (liberating) truth to discover as an offender that they have responsibility (even when their parents failed them in their parental responsibility).
• They are encouraged to not stop at this painful connection or insight but to go onto take personal responsibility for offending (they don't have responsibility for what their parents failed to do for them)
  
  Confession - gospel –
  
  But there's no common absolution or forgiveness in this program – there is however individual, personal and public confession in the front of other inmates. This is done in preparation for their meeting with the victim(s) and their families – this is where offenders practice personal confession.

Restorative justice (RJ) is 'asymmetrical' – i.e. this is not mediation; this is not aimed at sharing blame. There's none to share.
This understanding helps when approaching the meeting between the victim and the offender –
RJ isn't mediation - there isn't a shared moral inventory (or playing-field) crime is a violation - it should be recognised and the offender must take responsibility for the offence.
Change-focus-paradox – when an offender shifts from self to 'the other' and seeks to answer Qns … as a result of my behaviour

• Who has been hurt?
• What are their needs?
• Whose obligations are these?
  
  To do so the offender must change the focus from ego (me myself and I) ... The paradox is that this shift also does something for the offender
  
  By helping 'the other' he discovers that – he's actually helping himself

• I have been enabled to say I am so sorry - CAPABILITY ACT
• Victim has received admission of responsibility from the offender - CONFIRMATIVE ACT
  
  Truth - in this process - will not be pleasant
  
  But it is far better than glossing over the results and effects of the offending behaviour and pretending that things are okay
• Offenders may fear the confrontation - what the victim might say / what he (as offender) might be expected to say
• RJ is: stop pretending that things are not as bad as they really area real RJ reveals the detestable reality
  
  The address concluded with

1. An analogy - The Spiders web – Dr Ulrica insisted that these truths bear on us as humans in community …
• We humans live together (closest persons are interconnected)
• We are born in relationship and we continue to grow into and out of relationship
• When we violate each other we also violate ourselves.
• The spider mends the broken connections.
• If the broken connections are not mended the spider will die – is that the truth for humanity also?
• Our lives (all lives) are dependent on mending the broken connections.
2. Martin Huber - philosopher theologian argued that an offender must addresses guilt in three spheres OR fail

legal sphere - where he atones for his legal guilt by serving a prison sentence
In front of God
Between you and me
If we imagine that we are guilty only towards ourself ... then we never remove or have guilt 'covered' / 'remedied'

In very simple yet profound terms – this touches the direction of guilt – for the offender who has taken a life …

FOR it was not the Judge's husband that I killed it was her husband that I killed

Confession - expresses a relief – uncovers the guilt shame and sorrow


3. The movie: Railway Man – a true story of POW Eric Lomax who harboured bitterness and hatred towards his wartime captors who cruelly and heartlessly tortured him in captivity – the final reconciliation scene is a moving testimony to the power of reconciliation to make restitution and build genuine lifelong friendship in the place of bitterness, anger and hatred.

4. Then finally a 20 minute Q&A

• An offender should never go into this RJ program with a requirement to get forgiveness.
1. It's about taking responsibility.
2. Some victims may never want to meet the offender

Offenders need to take on responsibility despite what a parent or other person in the family that he grew up in may have done to cause him harm.
Sitting with the family (has its own challenges).

1. Prepare the family - guide them, they aren't used to speaking to each other, the family may not even know whether or not their offending family member was guilty or not.... The Family has opportunity to take their own responsibility.
   
   My own personal take-away? A sense of shame at the NSW Service for taking a recent U-turn towards retributive justice inspired by the raw legitimate pain of victims of serious crime stirred by certain very unhelpful radio shock jocks and newspaper tabloids who promote the theory that violence must be met by violence. Nothing is ever easy. Trust in a system that celebrates the culture of violence and is devoid of hope is a stark contradiction to the benefits espoused at this conference arising from restorative justice. My prayer? – That the NSW Upper House inquiry into current practices for classifying Serious Offenders will reject retributive justice and embrace principles consistent with restoration and reconciliation.
   
   2. Rev. Hennie Human took our second plenary session - Wednesday 23rd September – he also spent 90 minutes with us
   
   His topic: Transformational Correctional Ministry (he deliberately did not use the phrase 'prison ministry' – chaplaincy is not in isolation
   
   He argued that we must challenge and interrogate our Role of spiritual care or chaplaincy in the correctional environments?
   
   Our Relevance?
   
   Our Impact?
   
   Show us? Anecdotes? What statistical data is there in support of our role in the system?
   
   What is our contribution towards rehabilitation?
   
   What value is added for the many services (including Chaplaincy) that work in the system?
   
   We are & must be evaluated against other services (welfare, psychology, education, training, work)
   
   Chaplaincy is subject to Influences (internal and externally) on the environment ... We are not 'stand-alone-people'
   
   e.g. the White paper on the South African correctional service – set goals for the entire service …

• Moved from punitive to rehabilitation
• Individual needs based programs
• Programs to address criminal behaviour
• (Raised the question as to what is to be the Involvement of faith based organisations?)
• Demilitarisation of the system
• Multi-faith demands recognition - making room for others
• Offender rehab path
  
  Dinosaur phenomenon - do we still need you? Must we still have chaplaincy? Or are you dinosaurs?
  
  Has the Chaplain kept track of what is happening in the environment? Are we complaining …
  
  They (the department / the inmates) are not hearing us?
  
  They aren't making room for us? ... We may be denying that we have not been moving with the times
  
  See Diagram ... Exploration in the face of change internally and externally
  
  Perhaps we aren't relevant?
  
  Maybe we do need to change?
  
  We must not stay in the past,
  
  We can't survive on the past,
  
  Offender behaviour has change dramatically since 80's 90's in South Africa
  
  Previously it was easy to get inmates to work – they needed compensation, they needed respite from boredom,
  
  BUT Violence has risen; there is more gangsterism in the community and in the gaol
  
  Has Chaplaincy adapted: does it continue to show its relevance
  
  'People do not resist change but resist to being changed' Peter Senge[1]
  
  Transformation: A process that never stops in chaplaincy; continue good research, listen to needs of the system, - change in
• form
• appearance
• Nature or character.
  
  Correctional ministry transformation is like a grub becoming a chrysalis becoming a butterfly
  
  Concluding remarks  / challenges from Rev Human
  
  1. What are the elements of transformational change?

• Redefine our goal - role of spiritual care
• Redesign our services
• Redefine the role of the church and church (faith) communities in this process
• Impact measurement...
• Monitoring and evaluation process.
• Training of staff
• Care of caregiver
  
  Redefining the role of the chaplain?
  
  Relational - for Identifying with:
  * God;
  * Inmates;
  * Victims;
  * Family of victim and inmate;
  * Correctional services: the officials, Mgt, the systems; the conditions ... With a view to Influencing the Community
  
  2. What is the purpose of correctional ministry - what is the prison chaplain come to do?
  
  Assist with redesigning and adopting positive lifestyles
  
  Restoring relationships
  
  Healing emotional wounds anxiety guilt feelings Low self esteem
  
  Develop ...Hope
  
  Professor Swanepoel - Uni. SA ... What are the spiritual needs? What do they want us to be for them?
  * Moral development
  * Restorative forgiveness programs
  * Self-development programs
  * Family relationships programs
  * Pre-release programs
  
  3. Impact of programs
  
  Quality assurance by correctional services for the programs ... Is it assisting
  
  Measurement instrument
  
  Spiritual care progress report
  
  4. What is the role of the churches and their faith groups (the grace community)?
  
  Forgiveness
  
  Grace
  
  Acceptance
  
  Restoration
  
  Reconciliation
  
  Care
  
  Support
  
  Prevention
  
   
  
  Towards the victim, offender, and their families – it is an integrated ministry
  
  Requiring ongoing Training
  
  Retraining
  
  Facilitator skill development
  
  Spiritual assessment
  
  Report writing
  
  
  
  Quotables:

• No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but the lowest ones, (1994) Nelson Mandela, Former President of South Africa
• Aim to influence humane conditions and dignity ... Human rights...
• By Talking, influencing and bringing about change – for example, doing so in such a way that palliative care in a prison ward for the dying looks feels and expresses humanity towards a dying inmate.
  
  
  People will try to tell you that all the great opportunities have been satisfied
  
  In reality the world changes every second blowing new opportunities in all directions including yours - Ken Hakuta[2].

[1] Peter Michael Senge, American systems scientist who is a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, co-faculty at the New England Complex Systems Institute, and the founder of the Society for Organizational Learning
[2] "Dr. Fad" since 1983, is an American inventor and television personality. Hakuta, as Dr. Fad, was the host of the popular kids invention TV show, The Dr. Fad Show, which ran from 1988 to 1994. The show featured kids' inventions, and promoted creativity and inventiveness in children.