Care of Souls in the Classic Tradition by Thomas C. Oden
Thomas C. Oden teaches at Drew University Theological School, Madison, New Jersey. Care of Souls in the Classic Tradition was published in 1984 by Fortress Press. This book was prepared for Religion-Online by Harry W. and Grace C. Adams.
Chapter 1: Recovering Lost Identity
A major effort is needed today to rediscover and remine the classical models of Christian pastoral care and to make available once again the key texts of that classical tradition following about fifty years of neglect, the depths of which are arguably unprecedented in any previous Christian century. A whole generation of pastoral scholars will be needed to recover textually and rediscover practically the classics of pastoral care, texts which reach out for the contemporary working pastor in the counseling task. This book presents one such patristic voice, Gregory the Great, as a primary exemplar of classical pastoral care, but there are many others whose works need to find their way back to contemporary pastoral practice.
CLASSICAL PASTORAL CARE: A TEXTUAL DEFINITION
Many of the key classical sources which have carried enormous weight for centuries of Christian pastoral counseling are available now only from rare book sources. Pastors and religious counselors today are hungering for deeper rootage in a tradition that is in many cases not even available to them.
The identification of the classical style of Christian pastoral care is best achieved by pointing to a series of venerable texts that have been repeatedly and resourcefully used as key reference points for the church’s pastoral ministry, many of them steadily for over a millennium. These texts begin essentially with the New Testament Pastoral and Catholic Epistles and continue through many stages of development — patristic, medieval, and reformation — well into the nineteenth century, where pastoral theologians as varied as Horace Bushnell, Alexander Vinet, and Washington Gladden demonstrate that the tradition was diligently remembered and often quoted.
Although this is a richly varied body of literature, I will mention only a few of the most widely quoted sources that have often carried the essential burden of the tradition. Our purpose at this point is to show in a preliminary way that there is in fact a classical pastoral tradition and that this tradition is embodied in a well-defined series of texts: Cyprian’s writings on patience, jealousy, and envy; Tertullian’s works on the soul; Chrysostom on the priesthood; Ambrose on the responsibilities of the clergy; and numerous works by Augustine — on the soul, happiness, admonition, patience, and grief counseling.
At the center of the pastoral tradition is Gregory’s Pastoral Care, which for more than a millennium was considered to be the indispensable guide to pastoral counseling; followed by Bonaventure on the right ordering of the soul; various sections of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica on happiness, fear, anger, the emotions, the dispositions, love, and desire; Hugh of St. Victor on preparation for confession, anointing of the sick, and care for the dying.
The Reformation tradition of pastoral care is seen in Martin Luther’s table-talk and letters; Zwingli on the pastor; John Calvin’s letters; Martin Bucer on visitation of the sick and poor; Thomas More’s prison writings; George Herbert’s Country Parson; Gilbert Burnet’s discourse on pastoral care; Jeremy Taylor’s spiritual exercises; Richard Baxter on self-acquaintance; the astute English tradition of pastoral direction represented by Anglican Bishops Wilson, Spratt, Gibson, and Hort; many eighteenth century writers such as Philip Doddridge, Count Nicolas von Zinzendorf, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and William Paley, who were all interested in pastoral care and the caring community.
They were followed by the pivotal contributions to the study of practical theology by F. D. Schleiermacher, J. M. Sailer, Claus Harms, Wilhem Loehe, H. A. Koestlin, J. B. Renninger, Theodosius Harnack, J. T. Beck, and Carl Immanuel Nitzsch in the nineteenth century German tradition. In the English tradition. H. Newman, F. D. Maurice, Charles Bridges, and Handley Moule made key contributions, while the Swiss Protestant tradition was wisely represented by Alexandre Vinet.1
The preliminary list could be much longer, but at least this will serve to show where some of the basic textual materials lie for the restudy and redefinition of pastoral counseling today, lost as it appears now to be in what Erikson would call an "identity diffusion." 2 Although there are fascinating varieties within this tradition, a careful examination will show that it is indeed a single developing tradition rather than a plethora of unrelated traditions. It is unified by its eucharistic center and its concern to embody the living Christ through interpersonal meeting.
RECENT CLINICAL PASTORAL COUNSELING: HAS PASTORAL IDENTITY BEEN MISPLACED?
What curious fate has befallen the classical tradition of pastoral care in the last five decades? It has been steadily accommodated to a series of psychotherapies. It has fallen deeply into a pervasive amnesia toward its own classical pastoral past, into a vague absent-mindedness about the great figures of this distinguished tradition, and into what can only generously be called a growing ignorance of classical pastoral care.
In order to test out my hypothesis that the classical pastoral tradition has been quickly and abruptly forgotten in the twentieth century, I gathered some data from the indexes of leading books on pastoral theology from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I selected ten key figures in classical pastoral care that seemed to me to carry the tradition most significantly: Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Luther, Calvin, George Herbert, Richard Baxter, and Jeremy Taylor. I then checked out the number of times they were referred to in seven standard works of pastoral theology in the nineteenth century, those by William G. I. Shedd of Union (Presbyterian),3 Patrick Fairbairn of Glasgow (Scottish Presbyterian),4 James M. Hoppin of Yale (Congregationalist),5 Charles Bridges (Church of England),6 Heinrich Koestlin of Giessen (Lutheran),7 Washington Gladden of Columbus (Congregationalist),8 and Daniel Kidder of Drew (Methodist).9 I found that every one of these authors unfailingly quoted Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Herbert, and Baxter (Table 1). There were 154 references in all to our ten classical pastoral guides. Most often referred to were Augustine, Luther, Baxter, and Chrysostom, followed by Herbert, Calvin, Taylor, and Gregory. This clearly establishes the point that at the turn of the century the classical tradition was alive and well, recalled, and considered important to the practice of pastoral care.
Representative Nineteenth-Century Pastoral Writers: Frequency of References to the Classical Pastoral Tradition
Curiosity aroused, I then selected seven major contemporary writers on pastoral counseling whose influence I judged to be most general and whose views seemed by consensus to be most representative. I chose the most widely used texts of four well-known Americans — Seward Hiltner, Howard Clinebell, Wayne Oates, and Carrol Wise,10 and three Europeans — from the Lutheran tradition Dietrich Stollberg, from the Reformed tradition Paul Tournier, and from the Roman Catholic tradition Father Joseph Nuttin of Louvain.11 In all these major modern pastoral works I could not find even a single quotation by or reference to Augustine, Baxter, Calvin, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, or Luther (Table 2). It is as if for these contemporary pastoral counselors classical pastoral thought did not impinge relevantly on their work.
Representative Twentieth-Century Pastoral Writers: Frequency of Reference to Classical Texts of Pastoral Care
This further whetted my interest in seeing how many references these same current writers might be making to key modern psychologists and psychotherapists in their attempt to give guidance to Christian pastoral counselors. I selected six major psychotherapeutic contributors — Freud, Jung, Rogers, Sullivan, Berne, and Fromm — and found 330 references to these modern figures in the same seven widely used texts, including 109 references to Freud, 101 to Rogers, 45 to Jung, 27 to Fromm, 26 to Berne, and 22 to Sullivan (Table 3). In most cases these writers were being quoted with approval or referred to as authoritative guides for pastoral counseling.
Representative Twentieth-Century Pastoral Writers: Frequency of Reference to Modern Psychotherapists
This exercise astonished me. It provided preliminary evidence for a hunch I had felt for a long time — namely, that contemporary psychotherapists are far more inwardly important and objectively authoritative for pastoral counseling today than are the writers of classical Christian pastoral care. I invite others to check this out for themselves, using different historical and contemporary writers; I think the result will be the same.
What happened after 1920? It was as if a slow pendulum gradually reversed its direction and began to swing headlong toward modern psychological accommodation. A key figure in the reversal was Anton Boisen, founder of the clinical pastoral education movement, a creative man in whom the classical tradition still lived and whose works are still eminently worth reading.12 But after Boisen, pastoral care soon acquired a consuming interest in psychoanalysis, psychopathology, clinical methods of treatment, and in the whole string of therapeutic approaches that were to follow Freud.13 It was a vital and significant task, but regrettably the theological moorings were not sufficiently deep to prevent an ever-increasing drift toward forgetfulness of the previous traditions of pastoral counseling. It is as if a giant shade had been pulled. Classic pastoral wisdom fell into a deep sleep for about four decades.
During these decades we have witnessed wave after wave of various hegemonies of emergent psychologies being accommodated, often cheaply, into pastoral care without much self-conscious identity formation from the tradition. I do not want to exaggerate so as to suggest that the classical tradition of pastoral care was entirely forgotten. That did not happen (as we can see especially in the brilliant work of Frank Lake).14 We are still living implicitly out of the quiet influences of that vital but inconspicuous tradition. It is amazing how resilient these patterns of pastoral response can be, even when they are not being deliberately studied. For language assumptions and recurrent historical paradigms may continue to be maintained at operational levels by social traditioning, despite rapidly changing ideologies and leadership elites and the appearance of novelty. But the classical tradition has not been diligently studied since the 1920s. It has lain fallow and borne only occasional wild fruit. We are now at the far end of that pendulum swing, and the momentum is again reversing toward an emerging hunger for classical wisdom.
During the past twenty-five years of my professional life the methodological key to the active energies of pastoral care has been its pervasive hunger for the accommodation of various therapies from orthodox Freudian and Jungian all the way through the broad and colorful spectrum of Harry Stack Sullivan, Carl Rogers, B. F. Skinner, Erich Fromm, Fritz Perls, Eric Berne, Albert Ellis, Will Schutz, and Joseph Wolpe, — all of whom one by one have been courted and welcomed and accommodated (often rather uncritically) into the practice, structures, language, and professional apparatus of Christian ministry. The task of the pastoral counselor thus understood in recent years has tended to become that of trying to ferret out what is currently happening or likely to happen next in the sphere of emergent psychologies and adapting it as deftly as possible to the work of ministry. In the adaptation, however, the fundament of Christian pastoral care in its classical sense has at best been neglected and at worst polemicized. So pastoral theology has become in many cases little more than a thoughtless mimic of the most current psychological trends. Often these trends, as psychologist Paul Vita has astutely shown, have been bad psychology to begin with.15 Modern pastoral counseling has had only the slenderest accountability to the classical pastoral tradition. Meanwhile it is little wonder that the working pastor continues to look in vain to the field of pastoral theology for some distinction between Christian pastoral care and popular psychological faddism. I may be exaggerating slightly, but I think not much.
This process might plausibly have continued further for some time to come were it not for the most damaging and embarrassing blow to such accommodationism—the studies of psychotherapeutic effectiveness. I refer to the slowly growing recognition of the fate-laden importance of the so-called outcome studies disclosing the actual results attained through application of the various psychotherapies. Slowly but surely we are finally learning more and more about the surprising ineffectiveness of average psychotherapy. An accumulation of controlled studies by highly respected psychologists (Allen Bergin, Hans Eysenck, Hans Strupp, Jerome Frank, Charles Truax, Robert Carkhuff, and Philip Hanson) has convincingly shown that the average psychotherapy cure rate is about the same as that which eventuates merely through the passage of time, approximately 65-70 percent.
This is not just somebody’s curious idea or untested theory, but a well-supported conclusion based on over three hundred controlled empirical studies.16 These outcome studies have caused me to question the effectiveness of the very psychotherapies upon which I had earlier been building my case as a theologian in dialogue with behavior change theories. The evidence has been accumulating for a long time, but to date it has been almost systematically ignored by the accommodationist trend that has until recently become virtually normative in recent American pastoral care. The accommodation of pastoral care to psychotherapy has bottomed out proportionally as these empirical outcome studies have been taken seriously.
These data prompt us to return to the thornier question: Has bondage to the assumptions of modern consciousness resulted in the loss of our freedom to learn from the classical pastoral tradition? I think the short answer, at least in the U.S.A., is yes. The longer answer could be stated in the form of a hypothesis for further discussion: Recent pastoral counseling has incurred a fixated dependency upon and an indebtedness to modern psychology and modern consciousness generally that has prevented it from even looking at all premodern wisdoms, including classical pastoral care. This has amounted to a net loss of freedom, a harsh constriction on the freedom to learn. We have bet all our chips on the assumption that modern consciousness will lead us into vaster freedoms while our specific freedom to be attentive to our own Christian pastoral tradition has been plundered, polemicized, and despoiled.
Evidence is growing that the time is ripe for a major restudy of classical Christian pastoral counsel. The average pastor has come to a saturation point with fads. By now most have likely done the TA trip, the T-Group trip, microlabs, and perhaps some Gestalt training, as well as dabbled with psychoanalysis and/or any number of other available therapeutic strategies — client-centered, bioenergetics, Jungian, Adlerian, rational-emotive therapy, parent effectiveness training, EST, and the list goes on and on.17 Pastors are anxiously wondering not only how most of these approaches are to be integrated into the Christian tradition (since many of them are openly contemptuous of key assumptions of Christianity) but also what their social and historical consequences will be. Early readings are not reassuring.18 Wise pastors know there has to be a better way. They are often tired of compliantly following psychiatric clues in an era in which psychiatry itself is more and more on the defensive and at times in public disrepute. Many pastors have long suspected what the public opinion analysts are now verifying, that psychiatry has the lowest trust rating among all medical specializations.
It is doubly ironic that the psychologists and psychotherapists are themselves beginning to call pastors back to their traditional pastoral identity. Major statements by therapists Karl Menninger, Frank Lake, Paul Pruyser, Hobart Mowrer, Ruth Barnhouse, and Paul Vita19 have forcefully stated this point, and there is every reason to believe that the momentum in this direction will increase. In speaking of the religious counselors he has worked with, Paul Pruyser writes, "I became aware that much of the instruction was one-sided, with the consent of both parties: the theologians sat at the feet of the psychiatric Gamaliels and seemed to like it. Pastors were eager to absorb as much psychological knowledge and skill as they could, without even thinking of instructional reciprocity. . . I have learned that ministers would be hard put to know what to teach, from their own discipline, to members of the psychological professions even if they were specifically asked and salaried to do so,"20 and he goes on to plead that ministers recover their historic identity in order better to serve persons who are doing some real "soul searching."
A high priority for some theological teachers and pastoral care professionals will be to study, translate, and make available the texts that are now largely unavailable. Many of the most important of these valued treatises simply cannot be purchased. I know of nowhere that you can buy, even through rare book channels, Bishop Burnet’s A Discourse of the Pastoral Care (1692), or Sailer’s Pastoral Theologie,21 you will find them in only a handful of the best libraries in the country. Some works like Augustine’s "The Care to be Taken for the Dead" appear in the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, but the ailing translation is so jumbled as to be virtually unreadable. The translations of the Anti-Nicene Fathers and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, done prior to the turn of this century, are greatly hampered by stilted Victorian phrases. So we have several strata of problems: inaccessibility, out-of- print volumes, the high cost of rare books, poor translations, and add to this the hesitation of book publishers to risk publishing historical themes that are not self-evidently of wide popular interest. These are the obstacles that have stood in the way for some time now in bringing these texts back into availability. The hunger is rising as the nonavailabiity increases.
THE PROMISE OF AN ENRICHED SYNTHESIS BETWEEN OLD AND NEW
At this point it seems fitting to speak, even if tentatively, of the challenge and promise of the road ahead for Christian pastoral care, assuming a gradually increasing accessibility of the basic texts of the tradition. I am not proposing a reactionary archaism that would rigidly repeat culturally determined prejudices of the past. Nor am I proposing a radically new model that would transcend this morass with some brilliant innovation.
The task that lies ahead is the development of a postmodern, post-Freudian, neoclassical approach to Christian pastoral care that takes seriously the resources of modernity while also penetrating its illusions and, having found the best of modern psychotherapies still problematic, has turned again to the classical tradition for its bearings, yet without disowning what it has learned from modern clinical experience.
In order to do this we must learn in some fresh new ways the courage to give intelligent resistance to the narcissistic imperialism and hedonistic reductionism that prevail both in the culture and, to a large extent, in the churches. This course I have not yet seen, but nothing is more crucial for us in the pastoral care field than to find its ground and possibility. We can no longer afford ourselves the luxury of allowing contemporary psychotherapies to define for us what pastoral care is. The situation comes very close to being a confessional moment (in statu confessionis) for those of us to whom the teaching office of the church is committed, at least in the fields of pastoral theology and pastoral care. We must define for ourselves again what pastoral care is and in what sense pastoral theology is and remains theology, and in order to do that we must be carefully instructed by the tradition out of which that understanding can emerge. Otherwise there can be nothing but continued and expanded confusion about professional identity.
The task is not merely that of giving skeptical, critical resistance to present trends, but also that of giving new energies to a wholesome reconstruction of a pastoral care that is informed by Christian theology, able to provide a credible pastoral theodicy; able to work through difficult cases of conscience; aware of the dialectic of grace and freedom, gospel and law; able to point saliently to the providence of God in the midst of our human alienations; aware of the intrinsic connections between community, healing, and proclamation (koinonia, therapeia, and kerygma); and well-grounded in the classical understanding of the triune God. The Prevailing theological method of recent pastoral care has followed the intuition of pietism in placing its stress largely on personal experience, often to the exclusion of historical experience, reason, scripture, and tradition. The new efforts in neoclassical pastoral care must work out of a sound, wholesome theological method that neglects neither scripture, tradition, reason, nor experience in the quest to understand how our response to revelation manifests itself in concrete personal and interpersonal decision.
But really, you ask, what can the classical tradition usefully contribute to modern pastoral counseling? What practical difference might it make if it were trying to preserve and develop the achievements of contemporary clinically oriented pastoral care? Although it is far too early to answer these questions with any certainty, there are some general shifts of direction that to a greater or lesser degree I would expect to occur:
• Intercessory prayer would again become an important aspect of pastoral counsel.
• The antinomianism of contemporary pastoral care (under the tutelage of hedonic pop psychologies) would be more effectively resisted by a more balanced dialectic of gospel and law.
• Marriage counseling would tend to function more within the framework of a traditional Christian doctrine of matrimony rather than essentially as a hedonic cost/benefit calculus.
• Empathy training for pastoral counseling would be more deliberately and self-consciously grounded in an incarnational understanding of God’s participation in human alienation.
• Out of our recent history of exaggerated self-expression, compulsive feeling disclosure, and narcissism, we may be in for a new round of experimentation in askesis, self-discipline, self-denial, and rigorism, which might in turn threaten to become exaggerated in a masochistic direction and thus again need the corrective of a balanced Christian anthropology.
• The diminished moral power of the previously prevailing momentum of individualistic autonomy and self-assertiveness may call for a new emphasis in group process upon corporate responsibility, mutual accountability, moral self-examination, and social commitment, an emphasis that would be undergirded by studies in Bible and tradition.
• We are ready for a new look at the traditional Protestant pattern of regular pastoral visitation, which could enter many doors now closed to most secular therapists.
• Pastoral counsel would work harder than it is now working to develop a thorough and meaningful pastoral theodicy that takes fully into account the philosophical and moral objections to classical Christian arguments on the problem of evil and the meaning of suffering, yet with new attentiveness to the deeper pastoral intent of that tradition.
• The new synthesis would interweave evangelical witness more deliberately into the process of pastoral conversation rather than disavowing witness or disassociating proclamation from therapeutic dialogue.
• Group experimentation would continue, but be rooted with more awareness of classical Christian understandings of witness, service, and community.
• Older therapeutic approaches such as fasting, dietary control, meditation, and concrete acts of restitution would have new importance.
• The now atrophied concept of call to ministry may need to be thoroughly restudied and reconceived as a hinge concept of the pastoral office and of ordination.
• Contemporary pastoral theology in dialogue with the classical tradition may learn to speak in a more definite way about the spiritual and moral qualifications for ministry, reflecting the tradition’s persistent concern for moral character, humility, zeal, and self-denial.
• The arts of spiritual direction that have been developed, nurtured, reexamined, and refined over a dozen centuries of pastoral experience may be due for serious restudy. Efforts could be made to bring these resources back into contemporary pastoral interactions that presuppose post-Freudian understandings.
• Pastoral care would become less prone to messianic faddism, because it would have built into it a critical apparatus more deeply rooted in the Christian tradition.
• A nonsexist, nonchauvinist reinterpretation of ministry, prayer, pastoral care, and spiritual direction would require a serious critical dialogue with tradition, a dialogue that must be as far-ranging as the radical feminists assert and yet able to incorporate the collective wisdom of Christian historical experience. Such critical dialogue is worth risking and far better than a simplistic accommodation to modern individualistic narcissism or reductive naturalisms.
• The term pastoral counseling would again be reclaimed as an integral part of the pastoral office, intrinsically correlated with liturgy, preaching, and the nurture of Christian community and relatively less identified with purely secularized, nonecclesial, theologically emasculated fee-basis counseling.
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH
Pastoral counseling need not be ashamed of many of its achievements in the twentieth century. But it cannot boast of its biblical grounding, historical awareness, or theological clarity. The European churches are learning rapidly from American pastoral care of our clinical training, supervisory programs, and therapeutic skills, but if we ask how well we have integrated these achievements into ordained ministry, or a clear conception of the pastoral office, the answer must be — "very superficially." At worst, pastoral counseling has learned that it can get along quite well without Christ and the apostles, scriptures, ancient ecumenical church teaching, and with minimal pastoral reference. At times it amounts to a curious disavowal of professional ministry in the name of professionalism.
I have tried as a theologian to defend fee-basis counseling. In the past I have even sought to provide for it a biblical and theological rationale. But today I find myself hard put to account for the now all-too-familiar pattern of the ordained, full-time, fee-basis pastoral counselor who has no congregation, no explicit pastoral role, and cannot tell you the inner relation between the therapeutic task and the Christian community. One has to skate pretty far out on the thin ice of secular theology in order easily to embrace the premise that this is all there is to the pastoral office — diakonia without marturia, counseling without kerygma — and that pastoral counseling may be fully expressed without any reference to Christian revelation, baptism, Lord’s Supper, ministry, ordination, prayer, scripture, and the language of the religious community out of which the counseling emerges and to which it is presumably accountable.
Protestant and Catholic pastoral counseling has been drawn into a collusive relationship with an accommodationist theology that has seduced it into a partial or substantive disavowal of historic Christianity, its sacraments, doctrine, ordination, and self-giving service. I give you a case in point: with the emergence of government supported therapies, to our amazement it has now suddenly become a pocketbook question for some fee-basis counselors as to whether they are in any definable sense Christian pastors, and on that answer hangs the fateful possibility of their being able to get on government payrolls as counselors and consultants. The specter of government sponsored pastoral counseling not only raises grave questions of church and state boundaries: it also raises puzzling questions about the extent of disavowal of religious orientation and witness implicit in tax supported counseling.
This has thus unexpectedly placed pastoral counseling at a confessional crossroad (in statu confessionis).22 Some will experience the question starkly: As a pastoral counselor, will I in good conscience accept income from the government at the cost of disavowing implicitly or explicitly all religious perspective or reference in my counseling process? If I make that disavowal, to what extent can I or the church I serve legitimately regard that as pastoral counseling? What is specifically pastoral about a pastoral counseling that has abandoned the historic pastoral office? Some "professional pastoral counselors" will answer, "Yes, I can in good conscience accept government funding," using as a precedent other ministers who have entered government social services. They will argue that they can fulfill their ministry without word and sacrament, without overt witness or worshiping community, and (why not?) without ordination. Big brother government involvement in pastoral counseling is only an overt and stark example of what is happening more subtly in fee-basis pastoral counseling generally, with third party payments on the increase.
What disturbs me most is the fact that such fateful decisions can come so easily and thoughtlessly. For I am aware of the cheap grace theology that supports them, which I myself to some extent have condoned or at least (until recently) not rejected with determination. That theology has offered pastoral counseling a flesh-less Christ, a logos asarkos,23 coupled with a diluted ideology of general ministry that makes no distinction between the ordained ministry and the ministry of the laity, and therefore easily loses track of the specific scriptural entrustment to ordained ministry to secure the apostolic witness through Christian teaching, preaching, and sacramental action.
Just as the Christian martyrs of the second and third centuries were called upon by state power to give assent to the Roman gods, and because they refused entered into a status confessionis in which confession of faith was unavoidably required at great cost, so ministry today is coming to such a point where this confession of faith is unavoidable: We will not accept your tax money, surveillance, or support if they require any hint of a disavowal of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus.
Some will choose one way, some another. But if it is less than a deliberate decision, we deceive ourselves in a deeper way than all the layers of neurotic self-deception that we have learned to analyze. For it is, finally, God with whom we are dealing, who judges justly, and who knows the imaginations of our hearts.
1. For a more complete bibliography of the classics of the pastoral tradition, please refer to the 1200 or so entries in the bibliography of my Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), 317-54. Regrettably a large number of these books are out of print. Our purpose in setting forth this modest preliminary list is to help the reader to become aware that there is in fact a definite body of important pastoral texts once widely known but now largely neglected.
2. Erik Erikson, Identity and the Life Cycle (New York: International Universities Press, 1959), chaps. 2, 3.
3. William G. I. Shedd, Homiletics and Pastoral Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1867).
4. Patrick Fairbairn, Pastoral Theology (Edinburgh: T. & I. Clark, 1872).
5. James M. Hoppin, Pastoral Theology (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884).
6. Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry (New York: Robert Carter, 1847).
7. Heinrich Koestlin, Die Lehre von der Seelsorge (Berlin: Reuther and Reichard, 1895).
8. Washington Gladden, The Christian Pastor (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898).
9. Daniel Kidder, The Christian Pastorate (New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1871).
10. Seward Hiltner, Pastoral Counseling (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1949); Howard Clinebell, Basic Types of Pastoral Counseling (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966); Wayne E. Oates, Pastoral Counseling (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974); and Carroll A. Wise, Pastoral Counseling (New York: Harper & Bros., 1951).
11. Dietrich Stollberg, Therapeutische Seelsorge (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969); Paul Tournier, The Doctor’s Casebook in the Light of the Bible (New York: Harper and Bros., 1960): Joseph Nuttin, Psychoanalysis and Personality (New York: New American Library, 1962).
12. Anton Boisen, Out of the Depths (New York: Harper & Bros., 1960).
13. This history has been partially chronicled in Seward Hiltner, ed., Clinical Pastoral Training (New York: Federal Council of Churches, 1945); Charles Kemp, Physicians of the Soul: A History of Pastoral Counseling (New York: Macmillan Co. 1947); Edward Thornton, Professional Education for Ministry: A History of Clinical Pastoral Education (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969).
14. Frank Lake, Clinical Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966).
15. Paul Vitz, Psychology As Religion (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977).
16. For a general review of these therapeutic effectiveness studies, see my articles, "A Popu1ist’s View of Psychotherapeutic Deprofessionalization," Journal of Humanistic Psychology, (Spring 1974) and "Consumer Interests in Therapeutic Outcome Studies," Journal of Humanistic Psychology 15 (Summer 1975), as well as Game Free, chap. 3.
17. See The Intensive Group Experience, chaps. 1, 5.
18. See chap. 1 of my discussion in Guilt Free (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980).
19. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1972); Lake, Clinical Theology; Paul Pruyser, The Minister as Diagnostician (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976); O. Hobart Mowrer, The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion (New York: Van Nostrand, 1961); Ruth Barnhouse, "Spiritual Direction and Psychotherapy," Journal of Pastoral Care 33 (September 1979): 149-63; Vitz, Psychology as Religion.
20. Pruyser, Minister as Diagnostician, 39f.
21. Gilbert Burnet, A Discourse of the Pastoral Care, 1692 (London: W. Baynes, 1818); Jacob Sailer, Vortseungen aus der Pastoraltheologie (Munich: J. J. Lentner, 1788).
22. Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: Macmillan Co., 1953).
23. Cf. my Contemporary Theology and Psychotherapy, 62-64.