 8/17/2005
Vol. 2, No. 14
 |
|
Professional
Practice |
| |
Chaplain
Mark
La
Rocca-Pitts
on
the
dynamic
between
being
and
doing
Pastoral
Presence:
Navigating
the
Flow
The
philosopher’s
stone
of
pastoral
care
and
counseling
is
often
summed
up
with
the
concept
of “presence.”Our
Gordian
Knot,
however,
is
unraveling
presence
in
terms
of being and/or doing.
Concerning
presence,
Clinebell
considers
it
the
foundation
and
key
ingredient
in
any
and
all
caring
relationships,
which
he
defines
as “being with the
burdened
person,”which
involves “concentrating
on listening,
and
responding
with
caring
empathy.”[1]
Accordingly,
pastoral
presence
involves
a
combination
of
being
and
doing.
This
combination,
however,
involves
more
than
a
sequential
movement
from
being
to
doing,
or
vice
versa;
instead,
presence
means
being
alertly
and
agilely
poised
in
the
dynamic
crossroads
where
being
and
doing
intersect
or
overlap.
Leaving
this
dynamic
point
of
intersection
to
enter
the
unilateral
mode
of
either
being
or
doing
means
leaving
presence
behind.
Presence
is
when
and
where
the state
of
doing intersects
with
the act
of
being.
Jalaluddin
Rumi,
a
13th
century
Sufi
mystic,
provides
a
poetic
image
that
underscores
this
understanding
of
pastoral
presence.[2]
Though
this
poem
reflects
on
the
mystical
process
of
experiencing
the
Other
Self,
it
also
speaks
to
the
relational
process
of
experiencing
another
(human)
self.
The
first
couplet
reads
as
follows:
There
is
a
way
between
voice
and
presence
where information flows.
Rumi
is
building
on
an
image
of
a
river
flowing
between
two
banks:
the
riverbed
is “the
way”(our presence),
the
two
riverbanks
are “voice
and
presence”(our doing and being),
and
the
flowing
water
is
the “information”(what
the
other
reveals
through
story).
The
riverbed
is
defined
by
the
two
riverbanks,
which
in
turn
are
determined
by
the
surrounding
terrain.
As
these
riverbanks
contract
and
expand
due
to
changes
in
the
terrain,
so
the
current
changes.
In
this
analogy,
the
current
is
the
flow
of
information
and
affecting
this
flow
are
two
interdependent
factors:
the
pastoral
care
context
(the “terrain”)[3]
and
the
relationship
between
being
and
doing
(the “riverbanks”).
As
the
dynamic
relationship
between
being
and
doing
contracts
and
expands
in
response
to
changes
in
the
pastoral
care
context
(i.e.,
from
hospital,
to
home,
to
faith
community,
from
acute,
to
chronic,
to
palliative,
to
end-of-life,
etc.),
so
the
flow
of
information
is
affected.
Thus,
pastoral
presence
is
the
maintaining
of
the
inter-relational
dynamic
between being and doing as
that
dynamic
responds
to
contextual
changes
thereby
allowing
the
other
self
to
emerge in
information.
A
flowing
river,
like
the
unfolding
of
another’s
story,
can
also
be
slowed
or
stopped
by
impediments.
Rumi
addresses
this
in
the
second
couplet.
In
disciplined
silence
it
opens.
With wandering talk it closes.
In
order
for
the
other
self
to
reveal
his/her
story
freely
and
openly, “disciplined
silence”is
required,
whereas “wandering
talk”cuts
off
the
other’s
story.
Pastoral
presence
requires
a
silence
that
is
disciplined
by
a
judicious
and
appropriate
use
of
talking.
Both
wandering
talk
and
an
undisciplined
silence
reveal
one’s
own
anxious
self,
which
blocks
the
other
self
from
unfolding
through
story.
Pastoral
presence
is
the
alert
and
agile
resting
in
and
response
to
the
dynamic
shifting
in
the
relationship
between
being
and
doing
caused
by
contextual
changes
in
the
pastoral
encounter
that
balances
a
disciplined
silence
with
an
intentional
use
of
talking
for
the
purpose
of
allowing
the
other
self
to
open
and
unfold
through
story.
Pastoral
presence
is
more
than “going
with
the
flow”:
it
is
navigating
the
flow.
[1]
Howard
Clinebell, Basic
Types
of
Pastoral
Care & Counseling:
Resources
for
the
Ministry
of
Healing & Growth,
(Revised
and
Enlarged,
Nashville:
Abingdon
Press,
1984),
p.
75
(emphasis
in
original).[2]
Jalaluddin
Rumi, The
Essential
Rumi,
Trans.
Coleman
Barks,
with
Reynold
Nickolson,
A.J.
Arberry,
John
Moyne,
(New
Expanded
Version,
HarperCollins:
San
Francisco,
2004),
p.
32.[3]
Larry
Austin, “Spiritual
Assessment:
Contextual
Issues
in
Treatment,”Healing
Ministry,
2004,
Vol.
11,
No.
4,
pp.
171-178.
Chaplain
Mark
LaRocca-Pitts
is
a
Staff
Chaplain
at
Athens
(GA)
Regional
Medical
Center
and
is
endorsed
by
the
United
Methodist
Church.
Mark
earned
his
PhD
in
Near
Eastern
Languages
and
Civilizations
at
Harvard
University
and
has
worked
seven
years
as
a
healthcare
chaplain.
Mark
also
teaches
as
an
Adjunct
Professor
in
the
Religion
Department
at
the
University
of
Georgia
and
pastors
a
three-point
rural
UM
charge.
He
is
currently
recommended
for
BCC
with
APC
and
is
a
member
of
its
History
Committee,
its
Commission
on
Quality
in
Pastoral
Services,
and
its
Continuing
Chaplaincy
Education
(CCE)
Reviewers
Sub-Education
Committee.
Do
you
have
thoughts
about
professional
practice
you’d
like
to
share
with
your
colleagues?
Send
an
e-mail info@PlainViews.org.
|
 |
|
Advocacy |
| |
|
The Rev.
Stephen R. Harding on using our own
language
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 | |
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=spacer}
