Continuing the Discussion on Theology

First of all, I want to thank all who wrote in response to my article, "Making the Case for Theology"
(Vol 2, Issue 10). I appreciate your thoughtful responses. In that article, I had suggested that, as a culture, perhaps we have allowed the ‘theological’ to be overshadowed too much by the broader, less problematic notion of the ‘spiritual’. My intention was not to downgrade the idea of the personal, non-denominational spiritual experience but rather to celebrate the particular pastoral strengths that chaplains possess as ordained representatives of their own rich theological traditions.

Of the 20 responses published in PlainViews, approximately seven were not in favor of abandoning the term ‘spiritual’ in favor of ‘theological’, and approximately 13 were in favor of continuing the conversation. Beyond this very rough categorization, I was fascinated by the reactions and the issues raised by readers concerning authority, the chaplain’s place on the healthcare team, and the perceived lack of awareness of the chaplain’s role as part of that team.

Some ventured into areas such as my own authority; one person incorrectly inferred that I was trying to impose my own theology on patients. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am simply suggesting that we, as Chaplains, use our strength and our own language to describe what we do in the context of caring for people in institutional settings.

As I read the responses and reflected on them, it became clear that there is a need for clearer definitions of: religion, religiosity, spiritual, spirituality, theology, and theological.

As a beginning point, I share the definitions that I use. They have evolved and developed over ten years of assessments, interventions, and outcomes in my work with patients and their families:

Religion: the framework and vocabulary of the person’s corporate belief system. Religious: observant of and diligent in practicing the tenets and prescribed rituals of one’s religion.

Religiosity: the importance of one’s own religion and or spirituality in one’s daily life.

Spiritual: carries the connotation of individual or person seeking connection with the ‘Other’ – a being, concept, or thing greater than the individual; one’s own personal relationship with the Transcendent, however the Transcendent or ‘Other’is defined by the individual.

Spirituality: how a person lives in relationship with someone or something greater than oneself.

Theology: how one understands one’s own belief system.

Theological: asks questions of meaning of life’s issues, in our case: illness, suffering, death, as they relate to the person’s own belief system.

I think Chaplains are good at meeting the specific and concrete religious needs of our patients, families, and staff. At the next level, having a ‘spiritual conversation’ is to discover what it is that the person believes in. Whatever it may be, it is their belief system that has supported this person throughout their life (or supports them now), and it is certainly not up to me to persuade them otherwise or to inflict my own belief system on them.

What is missing for me in this vast expanse of popular ‘spirituality’ is any sense of what the person’s illness, disease, suffering, pain, death, etc., means to them in relation to their belief system, whether corporately religious or individually spiritual.

This is where – and why – I am suggesting that we move deeper into the theological language of our traditions, which, after all, ask many of the same questions – How does the person make sense of his/her illness? What does their death mean to them? Do they believe in an afterlife? How do they reconcile their own personal belief (spirituality) with whatever religious (or not) tradition they grew up with? What does their belief system teach them about the presenting issue they have?

These are questions that I would not want someone without our training as chaplains and clergy to be exploring with patients and families. We have the experience and the breadth of vision to be able to enter into conversations of faith with people of all faiths and no faith, and to guide them to a deeper understanding of their own experience as it relates to what they believe in.

This question of deeper understanding and meaning is what lifts us to use theological questions and language. It is driving my impulse to go more deeply than the merely spiritual.

Again, I invite your comments and I thank the editor and staff of PlainViews for serving as a forum for this conversation.

Do you have thoughts about advocacy you’d like to share with your colleagues? Send an e-mail to info@PlainViews.org.