Mark LaRocca-Pitts, Ph.D., BCC on Who we are

The Chaplain’s Motive

Why do we do what we do? What motivates the chaplain? According to Kenneth Burke, renowned literary critic and author of numerous books on rhetoric, “any complete statement about motives will provide some kind of answer to these five questions: what was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how he [sic] did it (agency), and why (purpose).” [1] Furthermore, Burke contends, from these five questions or elements, an “‘essential’ term, the ‘casual ancestor’ of the lot” can be found from which one can deduce the other terms from it “as logical descendents.”[2] So, of these five elements, which one essentially determines or generates the others? What ultimately “moves” (Latin, mōtīves) the chaplain?

Much of our literature implies that the scene or context in which we work is determinative for understanding our motive. VandeCreek’s and Burton’s assertion that, “the professional chaplain does not displace local religious leaders, but fills the special requirements involved in intense medical environments,”[3] suggests that what we do, how we do it and why is largely a result of where we do it, i.e., “intense medical environments.” That is, our context moves or motivates us.[4] The first section of Holst’s book on hospital ministry is titled “Context and Identity,”[5] which further suggests that at least our identity (the Who) is somehow dependent on our medical context (the Where).

The Where of our work, i.e., the context or scene, significantly determines the Why, the How, and the What of the chaplain’s motive, but, I would argue, only secondarily. The real “casual ancestor” of the chaplain’s motive is not the Where, but the Who.[6] That is, the chaplain does not become a chaplain or function as a chaplain because of Where the chaplain is. Instead, Why we do What we do is ultimately because of Who we are.

Robert Kidd best illustrates the primacy of agent for understanding the chaplain’s motive as follows:

I re-learned that a chaplain is something I simply am. Put me to work in a Wal-Mart, I’ll wind up functioning as a chaplain. Put me to telephone solicitation and I’ll find a way to be a chaplain. Put me to delivering mail, I’ll be a chaplain to those I encounter on my route and in the post office. Professional chaplaincy is in my blood and in my heart. I have what many of you would describe as a calling.[7]

We as chaplains are Where we are, doing What we do, because of Who we are. It is from Who we are that our “spiritual sensitivity” flows,[8] and it is in our “Whoness” that our patients connect with us in what Martin Buber calls the “I-Thou” relationship. Once we are there – wherever “there” is (military, hospital, hospice, prison, business, etc.) – then certain actions (assessments, interventions, charting) that use certain agencies (presence, listening, prayer) all for a variety of purposes (restore, heal, communicate to team members) are utilized. But the role of the setting or context in determining various actions, agencies and purposes only secondarily influences the chaplain’s motive. The chaplain’s primary motivation comes from Who the chaplain is as an agent.

This aspect of the chaplain’s motive may seem like common sense. And so it should. Chaplaincy is, after all, a vocation and as such it begins with the person as agent. But in our quest to become fully integrated members of the clinical team with all the appropriate tools and with all the correct terminology, we often lose sight of this aspect of Who we are and its importance.[9] When we do this we shift from being active agents of change to being passive agencies at the mercy of our settings. There are aspects of Who we are as chaplains that may never fully fit in with the medical/clinical/scientific model and as we continue to negotiate and fine tune this “fit” we need to be aware if and when the desire to “fit” outweighs the integrity of Who we are.

[1] Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969), p. xv.

[2] Ibid., p. xxii. Space permitting, a more complex analysis would not reduce motive to a single element, but would instead examine the various relationships (Burke’s “ratios”) among the five elements. Burke labels this type of analysis as “pentadic analysis.”

[3] Larry VandeCreek and Laurel Burton, “A White Paper: Professional Chaplaincy: Its Role and Importance in Healthcare,” JPC 55, 1 (Spring 2001), p. 84; see also, James L. Gibbons & Sherry L. Miller, “An Image of Contemporary Hospital Chaplaincy,” JPC 43, 4 (Winter 1989), p. 360.

[4] Larry Austin, “Hospitals are Not Houses of Worship,” PlainViews vol. 1, no. 18 (10/20/2004), http://www.plainviews.org/AR/c/v1n18/er.html.

[5] Lawrence E. Holst, ed., Hospital Ministry: The Role of the Chaplain Today (New York: Crossroads, 1991).

[6] I would also argue this is the “causal ancestor” for all religious leaders and that differences based on where we practice, how we practice, what we practice and why are important and often critical, but secondary or tertiary. Thus, we must be careful of the manner in which we distinguish differences between local clergy and chaplains.

[7] Robert Kidd, Three Streams (Presidential Address, Albuquerque, NM, 2005). Published at http://www.professionalchaplains.org/uploadedFiles/pdf/president-address-2005.pdf.

[8] Noel Brown, “A Chaplaincy Letter From America,” Scottish Journal of Healthcare Chaplaincy, 2, 1 (1999), 16.

[9] Timothy E. Madison, “Can Chaplaincy Be Sold Without Selling Out?” CT 14, 2 (1998), 3-8.

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