Padre Complex

[As a pastoral counselor in training it is important to begin identifying and clarifying those sources for theory and theology that I use in caregiving. This article is an attempt to clarify my source and school of theological insight. Many pastoral counselors are liberation minded or process at heart. My choice to affirm a more orthodox theology stands out like a sore thumb among my peers. But I softened Hauerwas with Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”]

As a student at Duke Divinity School in Durham, NC my formation as a minister was at the hands of Stanley Hauerwas a theological ethics professor. Stanley is a gruff and abrasive person who has a heart for the church. His mother was a patient Methodist church woman and his father was a blue collar brick layer. Hauerwas learned formation and ethics by following his father on the job site and learning how to build something one brick at a time, and the importance of how to mix the mud that would cement a structure together. Hauerwas could be understood as a narrative theologian who speaks about his work in ethical terms. He grounds the work of theological ethics squarely in the worshipping life of a community. “To the extent that the church is what it does, then, we have identified it as that part of God’s creation that seeks to respond to his love by taking up his invitation to worship him, be his friend, and eat with him.” (Hauerwas & Wells 21).

Hauerwas understands church, more specifically worship, to be the place where we learn our story as the people of God, and are equipped with a set of practices that will help us navigate the world around us. Worship for Hauerwas is more than a mystical experience – it is the formative experience in community (Hauerwas & Wells, 24). For Hauerwas the use of Aquinas (and Aristotle before him) is crucial for the understanding of how faith communities form Christians into virtuous individuals. Hauerwas uses the word character in this way. “But the kind of character the Christian seeks to develop is correlative of a narrative that trains the self to be sufficient to negotiate existence without illusion or deception (Hauerwas, 228). For Hauerwas discipleship is an interpretive process that is only intelligible within a worshipping community (Hauerwas, 248). In attending and participating in a faith community we acquire the virtues. And for Hauerwas (as well as Aristotle and Aquinas) the chief virtue is friendship “Friendship is at the center of the moral life because the virtues God’s people learn in being friends of one another are vital in learning what it means to be God’s friends forever. The phrase that best expresses this friendship is “a companion – is one who shares bread” (Hauerwas & Wells, 16). For Hauerwas the most accurate image of friendship and worship is the two sacraments of the church Eucharist and Baptism. In Eucharist the church habitually longs for the return of God, and reminds themselves of hospitality, friendship and love. In baptism we are incorporated into Christ and see our lives embraced in his life (Hauerwas & Wells, 16).

A common quote in Hauerwas’ seminar comes from Origen and Cyprian and goes “You cannot have God as father unless you take the church as your mother.” For Hauerwas moral principles cannot be intelligible without a story. For Christians the story that constitutes the church, and describes redemption is the story of God’s love (Hauerwas & Wells, 16). And it is in the community formed by the narrative that Christians are formed into persons of character who embody the virtues. Without the church we would be orphaned – unable to learn through worship the virtues of a life lived with God as a companion.

Now it is important to crystallize some of what might be seen as very pious language. For Hauerwas the narrative that informs Christianity is that of a man who loved enemies, ate with strangers, did not use coercion or resort to violence, and who gave self-sacrificially his life on behalf of others. It should be said that not every ‘church’ shares that same narrative. For Hauerwas the narrative is not just something to put on a greeting card but rather it was the lens that informs the church regarding its past and directs it towards its future. “For our freedom is dependent on our having a narrative that gives us skills of interpretation sufficient to allow us to make our past our own through incorporation into our ongoing history” (Hauerwas, 249). In Hauerwas’ understanding there was no more critical lens then the narrative being embodied in the community.

A Critical Look at Stanley and ‘The Story’

Though Hauerwas has claimed not to be postmodern and sees the postmodern mood more of a stylish choice, his critique of the church has a familiar ring to postmodern criticism. Altman writes:

“The challenge then is to believe strongly and deeply, without the assurance of a unquestionable foundation. This position amounts to taking personal responsibility for our moral commitments, as opposed to making appeals to universal validity. Bernstein puts it this way” ‘We engage in critique as second person participants and not as third person neutral observers. As participants our critiques and affirmations are always tentative, fallible, open to further questioning.” (Altman, 73).

A critique of Hauerwas is that he claims a story and a community. Often times those in power write the stories that explain and incorporate our history. Because Hauerwas is a man of privilege who writes for organized religion it would be helpful to examine and note some of who he would claim as his sources. Hauerwas might feel institutional and supportive of the status quo – but in fact he embraces nonviolent action as embodied in Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Taking for example Dr. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) you can see some of the resonances between Hauerwas’ understanding of Christian formation and the use of story. Dr. King affirms the idea of self-in relation that is present in Object Relations Theory and also in Hauerwas’ character formed in community. Dr King writes,

“I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit be in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea (King, 2)

Hauerwas derives in a sense his stance against vague story-less moral principles from Dr King’s discussion of the difference between a just law and an unjust law. Dr. King writes “To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King, 7) The difficult issue for Hauerwas and the institutional church is that often times the story that the church has used to organize its ethic life of discipleship has not always support the plight of those who Jesus served. Dr. King notes that he hoped that he would have been supported by the white religious leaders would mobilize their congregations to support the Civil Rights movement. Instead of risking on behalf of the Gospel these southern religious leaders stood “on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities.” (King, 14) Dr. King says that “too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows” (King, 14).

Hauerwas – to his credit spends little time behind the stained-glass windows. In a country where we have elected a President who has taken us into a war with Islamic Radicals Hauerwas continues to affirm pacifism. Hauerwas has maintained his position that the story of the church is one of peace. He rejects the use of coercion as a means to secure peace. Of the course of the nuclear arms race, the cold war and the attacks on September 11, 2001 he has maintained this stance that the church must not succumb to the temptation to use force and violence to secure a peace. Dr. King’s comments about the importance of means and ends must be equally pure. “I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends (King, 17).

For those who would critique Hauerwas for speaking from a position of power they must remember that the story that forms the church is not one that has always been embraced by the majority. Hauerwas resonates with Dr. King in remembering that the story includes those who were in the minority like “the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake (King, 8 )

References
Altman, N. (1995) The analyst in the inner city: Race, class, and culture through a
psychoanalytic lens. Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.

Bliwise, R. J. (May – June 2001) “A Matter of Honor” Duke Magazine 87, 4, found online at http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues
/050601/honor.html.

Hauerwas, S. (2001) “Character Narrative and Growth in the Christian Life.” In J. Berkman
& M. Cartwright (Eds.), The Hauerwas Reader (pp. 221-254). Durham: Duke University Press.

Hauerwas, S. & Wells, S. (2004) “Christian Ethics as Informed Prayer.” In S. Hauerwas &
S. Wells (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (pp. 3-12). Oxford: Blackwell.

—————————— (2004) “The Gift of the Church and the Gifts God Gives It.” In S.
Hauerwas & S. Wells (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (pp. 13-27). Oxford: Blackwell.

King, M. L. (1963) Letter from Birmingham Jail, found on line at www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

Guy Williams writes about the prophetic and his first experience with the prophetic through the U2 song “Bullet the Blue Sky.” He writes:

I first heard it on the Rattle and Hum cd, which includes an extended version of the spoken stuff at the end. Whenever I listen to either version, I get a kind of rush and chills at the same time. Hearing that song, particularly the live version, is my earliest memory of an experience with the prophetic. The way Bono emotionally rips into the lyrics at the end really moves me.

I have had the same experience. U2 for me has been a touchstone of faith, spirituality and prophetic social justice. Often times growing up I found Contemporary Christian Music to be bland or shallow. But I could turn on U2 and get a sense of the depth and mystery of a faith life. For our generation (Me and Guy) u2 are the spiritual spokespersons. In many ways watching Bono verbally spar with World leaders over Africa and AIDS is a rewarding experience. His work creates the impression that he is speaking on behalf of me — and other GenXers that want a world that is accountable, and caring to others.

But Guy’s post stirred up inside of me another question. If so many of us are getting the vibe of the prophetic from these songs are we also getting their meaning as well? Songs such as Bullet the Blue Sky (and I’d add Bob Marley singing “Waiting in Vain“) are rich with deep meaning. I’d always understood Bullet the Blue Sky to be a direct message against the United States’ use of war and aggression to stop communisim in third world countries.

At the U2MOL website one writer describes the meaning of Bullet as …

Well, as in many things, it is slightly open to interpretation. But from reading the lyrics and reading a few books where Bono talks about the song… It is musically supposed to represent the bombings of El Salvadorian towns during its civil war by US planes. It is about the United States’ policy of supporting dictators in 3rd world countries to oppose the spread of communism. But more than all this, it is about the way war destroys people. When originally writing the lyrics, Bono was not sure if he should say, And we run, into the arms…of America. or Into the arms of the world so as not to offend Americans. Obviously he stuck with the first. Bono and Edge say his guitar solo in it is supposed to be the keen of the bombs being dropped, and the rage of the war machines…. — Jester jjarvis@netcom.com

With so much going on in the Middle East between Palestine, Syria and Israel it would be good for ius not just to experience prophetic songs but to also struggle with the meaning of prophetic songs. I know Guy to be a thoughtful and faithful Christian — so this isn’t a slam against him — rather it is a moment of clarity for those of us who love a song that has a good beat and can be danced to — but don’t want to listen to the message of the song.

Prophecy usually comes to people in the Bible when their lives are incongruent with their beliefs. It is the gap that happens between professed theology and operational theology. Maybe Guy’s words are a moment to bridge that gap.

Well, I just returned from three weeks of coursework and one week of vacation. Needless to say there are a few loads of laundry, a few pastoral calls to make and a little bit of normalcy to get back to…

If you grew up in a mainline protestant church then you are familiar with the two letters ‘PK’. These two letters strike fear in the hearts of many clergy and their spouses. Preacher’s kids are known as “perfectly behaved saints or defiant rebels.”¹. Not even the most distinguished pastors are immune from this experience. Even Franklin Graham the most popular “preacher’s kid” in the world had this experience of expectations and stereotyping². On top of the fishbowl experience, clergy families also experience the stress of mobility concerns, lack of control, and boundary intrusions. Are there basic lessons that clergy families could learn from the child therapy movement that could help manage these stresses and support healthy families? Could elements of appropriate emotional availability, active participation in the child’s play, recognition of child resilience, limit setting, and filial therapy be a beginning place for clergy families to learn from child therapy? This article will seek to glean these lessons from child therapy for the use of clergy families in coping with their unique circumstances.

Unique circumstances of clergy families
Family functioning is important to every family. Studies say that “the manner in which a family functions largely determines the overall well-being of the members of the system”³. How the family manages boundaries and identity issues internally will determine their well-being in the face of external factors. And of course those external factors, or social contexts, that families function in can “either undermine or contribute to the growth and well-being of the family”⁴.

One of the unique circumstances of clergy families is that of mobility concerns. Clergy move more often than other professionals and often have to balance the needs of their career and family with moral expectations of simplicity and faith. Moving itself can be associated with many negative issues such as “the disruption of family routines, the severance of support networks, potential loss of spouse’s employment and thus income, change in housing, new demands of work settings and minor hassles related to establishing oneself in a new community”⁵. It should not be a surprise that research shows that “clergy spouses experience more relocation distress than their mates”⁶.
While spouses experience more stress related to relocation, children of clergy experience the challenges of expectations and stereotypes. Generally stereotypes are considered “shared beliefs about personal attributes, usually personality traits, but often also behaviors of a group of people”⁷. These shared beliefs translate into positive and negative expectations. Clergy children are expected to go into ministry, tolerate a fish bowl experience, manage relocation stress, allow social networks to be jeopardized by moves, handle isolation, and endure financial stress.⁸.

Qualitative research has shown that “ministers and their spouses often felt that parishioners held their children to higher standards. PKs are expected to represent all youth in the church and should therefore be model children”⁹. Clergy families and their children are not the only ones to experience these stressful issues related to expectations and stereotypes. Most people would admit though that there are some “unique aspects [related] to clergy family stress. … Because the clergy are often called away from the home, mothers may be more likely to have greater responsibilities for children’s needs and concerns.”¹⁰. The paradox of having children in the clergy family is that “as the children became older and more independent by trying to find their own identity, parents may have been less able to control their behaviors within this highly scrutinized environment”¹¹. What this means is that the work of clergy parents both in service to the church and in relationship with their families may compromise coping behaviors of their families by also expecting clergy children to fulfill unreasonable stereotypes and expectations.

Basic lessons to learn from child therapy.
One study of clergy children has shown that they are more likely to benefit from a positive stereotype than a negative one in the eyes of others¹² and that clergy families might be as hardy and resilient as military families in relationship to relocation stress¹³. How would the child therapy movement explain this resilience in clergy children?

Significant variables that researchers have suggested as contributing factors to making some children invulnerable are high-self regard, self control, inner motivation, and a sense of personal identity. These children have confidence in themselves. They feel capable of exerting control over their environment and are goal-directed. Researchers have found that parents of such children have allowed considerable self-direction. These findings echo the dynamics and process of the play therapy relationship as experienced by children.”¹⁴

Clergy parents can highlight those aspects that encourage resilience through supporting their children’s confidence in them. Instead of confining clergy children to a higher set of expectations clergy parents should promote self-direction in a way that benefits the child no matter what age.

Some clergy parents might feel guilty regarding their time away from children. They might feel a need to over compensate by being demonstratively involved in their children’s play. These same parents could benefit from learning about the role of the child therapist by not being overtly participative. Garry Landreth writes, “The attitude of the therapist is the crucial variable not the actual play participation. When the therapist is fully involved and experiencing with the child and is successfully communicating that involvement to the child, the child seldom asks the therapist to overtly participate.¹⁵ ” So parents should focus on the following: being emotionally available, showing sensitivity, appreciative of what the child is doing and saying and embracing an attitude of receptive responsiveness¹⁶. Clergy parents should notice that this receptive responsiveness is an important element in the therapeutic work of child therapy.

Now it is equally important for the clergy parent to beware of not being involved enough in the play moments of their children. “When the therapist is asked to participate sometimes an underlying message is present. The child’s message could be, “I don’t feel I have your attention. You don’t seem to be involved with me or interested in what I am doing”¹⁷. Parents might benefit from setting aside specific times of play where all the parent does is be present to the play of the child.

Child therapy functions on the idea of a holding environment that allows children to creatively play in an imaginative way. Child therapists narrate the play of children and participate together with the child. The child is not directed with a heavy hand and unnecessary limits are avoided when appropriate. The invitation into the play therapy room is one that allows the child to make the various toys into whatever they would like for the toys to be.

All this is not to say that limits should never be used by clergy parents. Rather clergy parents should learn from the child therapy movement about the importance of limit setting. “Limits provide children with an opportunity to learn self-control, that they have choices, what making choices feel like, and how responsibility feels. Therefore, when limits should be set and are not, children are deprived of an opportunity to learn something important about themselves.”¹⁸. This acknowledges that limits and structure can support self-knowledge in children is important. Often times parents who feel guilty for time away from the family will think an overtly permissive parenting style is a way to make up for lost time. But a lack of structure and limits can actually be more anxiety producing for children and antagonize the child’s ability to manage expectations of their own behavior.

A simple method for limit setting taken from the child therapy movement is the ACT model. The ACT model is the following: first acknowledge the child’s feelings, wishes and wants, next communicate the limit, lastly target acceptable alternatives for the child”¹⁹. Clergy parents can better negotiate the extreme stereotypes of PKs (perfectly behaved saints or defiant rebels) by setting limits in accordance with the ACT model.

Lastly clergy parents could familiarize themselves with the purpose and usage of filial or family child therapy. Garry Landreth, who uses a ten session model of filial therapy education for parents (regardless of whether they are clergy or not) describes the focus of filial therapy being

on the importance of the relationship between the parent and the child and on the inner person of the child, what the child is capable of doing. The relationship is viewed as the vehicle for the process of change. Therefore, the objective is to help the parent relate to the child in ways that release the child’s inner directional, constructive, forward-moving, creative, self-healing power²⁰.

The use of filial therapy could benefit clergy parents in reducing their anxiety and guilt and giving them a structure for working with their children in an appropriate and beneficial way. Filial therapy would benefit the children by helping the child release that inner directional peace and to promote self-regard and positive identity issues. The objectives of filial play therapy are: child communicates needs, facilitates positive self-esteem and confidence, develops internal locus of control, changes negative perceptions of parents, and reduces self-defeating behaviors²¹. Clearly it is apparent that clergy parents could benefit from this set of objectives associated with filial therapy.

Clergy families like many double-income professional families are subject to many stresses and boundary intrusions. Clergy families have to manage unique stresses related to relocation, financial stress, stereotypes and expectations for their children. But the work of the child therapy movement can help equip clergy families with coping mechanisms. These elements of appropriate emotional availability, active participation in the child’s play, recognition of child resilience, limit setting, and filial therapy are just some beginning lessons for clergy families to glean from child therapy.

References

Darling, C.A., E.W. Hill, & N.M Raimoundi. (2003) “Understanding boundary related stress in clergy families.” Marriage and Family Review, Vol 35, (1/2) 2003, pgs 147-166

Darling, C.A., L.M. McWey, & E.W. Hill. (2006) “The paradox of children in clergy families” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 27, (4), pgs 439-463.

Frame, M.W. (1998) “Relocation and well-being in United Methodist Clergy and their spouses: What pastoral counselors need to know.” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 46 (6), pgs 415-30.

Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge.

Morris, M.L. & P. Blanton. (1998) “Predictors of family functioning among clergy and spouses: influences of social context and perceptions of work-related stressors.” Journal of Child and Family Vol. 7 (1), pgs 27-41.

Strange, K.S., & L.A. Sheppard. (2001) “Evaluations of clergy children versus non-clergy children: Does a negative stereotype exist?” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 50 (1), pgs 53-60.

(This paper was written as an integrative assignment looking at Child Therapy and Clergy Self Care for my Doctor of Ministry coursework.)

1. Strange, K.S., & L.A. Sheppard. (2001) “Evaluations of clergy children versus non-clergy children: Does a negative stereotype exist?” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 50 (1), pg 54 [back]
2. Strange, K.S., & L.A. Sheppard. (2001) “Evaluations of clergy children versus non-clergy children: Does a negative stereotype exist?” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 50 (1), pg 53 [back]
3. Morris, M.L. & P. Blanton. (1998) “Predictors of family functioning among clergy and spouses: influences of social context and perceptions of work-related stressors.” Journal of Child and Family Vol. 7 (1), pg 29 [back]
4. Morris, M.L. & P. Blanton. (1998) “Predictors of family functioning among clergy and spouses: influences of social context and perceptions of work-related stressors.” Journal of Child and Family Vol. 7 (1), pg 29 [back]
5. Frame, M.W. (1998) “Relocation and well-being in United Methodist Clergy and their
   spouses: What pastoral counselors need to know.” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 46 (6), pg 417 [back]
6. Frame, M.W. (1998) “Relocation and well-being in United Methodist Clergy and their
   spouses: What pastoral counselors need to know.” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 46 (6), pg 427 [back]
7. Strange, K.S., & L.A. Sheppard. (2001) “Evaluations of clergy children versus non-clergy children: Does a negative stereotype exist?” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 50 (1), pg 54 [back]
8. Strange, K.S., & L.A. Sheppard. (2001) “Evaluations of clergy children versus non-clergy children: Does a negative stereotype exist?” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 50 (1), pg 54 [back]
9. Darling, C.A., L.M. McWey, & E.W. Hill. (2006) “The paradox of children in clergy
   families” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 27, (4), pg 139 [back]
10. Darling, C.A., L.M. McWey, & E.W. Hill. (2006) “The paradox of children in clergy families” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 27, (4), pg 458 [back]
11. Darling, C.A., L.M. McWey, & E.W. Hill. (2006) “The paradox of children in clergy
    families” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 27, (4), pg 459 [back]
12. Strange, K.S., & L.A. Sheppard. (2001) “Evaluations of clergy children versus non-clergy children: Does a negative stereotype exist?” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 50 (1), pg 57 [back]
13. Frame, M.W. (1998) “Relocation and well-being in United Methodist Clergy and their
    spouses: What pastoral counselors need to know.” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 46 (6), pg 417 [back]
14. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY:
    Bruner-Routledge. pg 56 [back]
15. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 297 [back]
16. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 97 [back]
17. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 297 [back]
18. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 246 [back]
19. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 261 [back]
20. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 370 [back]
21. Landreth, Garry L. (2002) Play therapy : the art of the relationship. New York, NY: Bruner-Routledge. pg 372 [back]