A Theology of Supervision

Colin Hunter BTheol, MMin, MA, DMinStds

This paper is complementary to lectures delivered at the
Melbourne College of Divinity 2004 Residential School
with the theme ‘Harvesting Wisdom For Reflective Practice’


Preamble

This paper emerges from research that was designed to identify and describe students’ experiences of Supervised Theological Field Education (STFE) within the Evangelical Theological Association (a consortium comprising Whitley College, the Baptist College of Victoria, and the Churches of Christ Theological College). In the three-part schema for theological reflection developed by James and Evelyn Whitehead, the primary sources suggested are experience, tradition and culture; the research method and outcomes fit squarely within the category of experience. This paper does not describe the research processes, but seeks to develop a theological framework that authenticates experience as a legitimate source for theological reflection, making reference to the research outcomes. I need to preface this by explaining what I mean by a ‘theological framework’. David Tracy suggested three ways of doing theology, each of which referred to present experience and the Christian tradition . The first category he named ‘fundamental theologies’ which he defined as using the resources of philosophy to examine and interpret contemporary experience . The second he named ‘systematic theologies’, the task of which was ‘the re-interpretation of the tradition for the present situation’ . The third category identified by Tracy, ‘practical theologies’, included political and liberation theologies. These began with assumptions about how the world ought to be, analysed the world as it is, and sought to redress the imbalance between ‘ought’ and ‘is’ through intentional action. The ‘Praxis Model’ of theological reflection that asks the question of ‘what is right or just’ is an example of a 'practical theology' as described by Tracy. His description of the common factors in practical theologies, explains very well the way in which STFE actually ‘does’ theology:

'One clear positive proposal unites theologians of praxis before the major differences occur: Any proper understanding of praxis demands some form of authentic personal involvement and/or commitment. Any individual becomes who he or she is as an authentic or inauthentic subject by actions in an intersubjective and social-historical world with other subjects in relationship to concrete social and historical structures and movements. Praxis, therefore, must be related to theory, not as theory’s application or even goal as in all conscious and unconscious mechanical notions of practice and technique. Rather praxis is theory’s own originating and self-correcting foundation, since all theory is dependent, minimally, on the authentic praxis of the theorist’s personally appropriated value of intellectual integrity and self-transcending commitment to the imperatives of critical rationality. In that sense praxis sublates theory, not vice versa' .

In other words, theology is done in the realm of lived experience and action, and is subsequently informed by the insights of philosophy and the resources of the Christian tradition. Theology is not, according to Tracy, what is learned in the classroom and subsequently applied in practice.

In proposing a theological foundation, I am not wanting to offer a token ‘fundamental’ or ‘systematic’ theological justification for STFE and so undermine the primacy of experience in theological reflection that I am wanting to defend. Theological foundations for STFE, to be faithful to the assumptions of practical theology, must be grounded in the findings of the research represented by the themes, and in the experiences of the participants as they are embodied in the research data. What follows is intended to be a genuine engagement with the resources of scripture and contemporary theological enquiry, in conversation with the research findings, in ways that ground the principles and practice of STFE theologically.

The major themes that emerged from the research were:

1. Mutuality of learning.
2. Intersubjective learning.
3. Chosen vulnerability.
4. Revelation as a path to new understanding.
5. Experience as a locus for learning.

The first two themes describe learning that is made possible through the qualities of relationship intrinsic to the model of supervision employed in STFE. They indicate that this kind of learning requires at least two people, intentionally focussing on the experience of one, but both committed to learning and growing through the experience. Theological themes that are inferred in these themes include ‘faithfulness’ or ‘righteousness’ (dikaiosune), and ‘community’ (oikumene). They are essentially themes that describe a relationship governed by a like commitment to a common objective that is valued by both supervisor and student. In STFE, the ideal is that this common objective is education for the vocation of Christian ministry.

If the first two themes are intersubjective, the third is intrasubjective; i.e. it has to do with the autonomous choices made by the student about the level of self-disclosure that s/he will risk within the supervisory relationship, whether in personal or peer supervision. Theological themes suggested by the theme of ‘chosen vulnerability’ might be ‘courage’, ‘risk’, ‘trust’, or ‘faith’ (pistis), themes that imply a willingness to venture beyond what is safe and comfortable for the sake of a desired end. ‘Chosen vulnerability’ conveys the sense that there is the possibility of loss as well as gain in the decision to make oneself vulnerable; a good outcome is hoped for but not guaranteed.

The name of the fourth theme , ‘Revelation as a path to new understanding’, is ambiguous, an ambiguity that I consider apposite. In the context of the research, revelation refers to the learning that can happen when a student is prepared to be vulnerable and reveal something of her/himself to a supervisor or peers. The student is the one who offers, in the presentation of case studies, goals and self-evaluations, the ‘revelation’ of self to others and in the process experiences new learning. In the New Testament, ‘revelation’ (apocalypsis) refers to the unveiling of God to humankind, particularly in the event of Jesus the Christ . This revelation of the rule of God is not unambiguous or intrinsically comprehensible, as can be seen from Jesus’ response to a question about the purpose of parables (Mark 4:10-12):

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’

This same dynamic relationship between revelation and concealment is evident in the Lucan pericope of the Emmaus journey that forms the basis of a Biblical model for STFE, covered in some detail later in this paper.

The final theme , ‘Experience as a locus for learning’, might be thought to be self-evident. In a sense all of Scripture is an extended reflection on experience and the consequent learning from experience of the Hebrew and Christian faith communities. And yet reflections on the same experience do not necessarily lead to identical interpretations. Blanchette suggested that pastoral counsellors need to have the skills to be able to offer clients alternate interpretations of their experience whilst respecting the client’s interpretation of events . Gerkin, in addressing the issues of pastoral interpretation and hermeneutics, advocated that:

'… a broad interdisciplinary approach to pastoral interpretation or hermeneutics can assist the pastor in avoiding both the superficiality of popular cultural interpretations of the events of everyday life and the tendency toward reductionism … '

The possibilities for multiple interpretations of the same event is evident in the Gospels. The presentations by the Evangelists of pericopae that are clearly rooted in a common oral or written tradition can vary markedly. The story of the anointing of Jesus prior to his passion is a good example :

* in Matthew and Mark it takes place at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper. In Luke it takes place in the house of Simon the Pharisee without naming the location, and in John it takes place in Bethany, but at the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus.
* in Matthew and Mark the woman is not identified. In Luke she is ‘a sinner’, but in John she is Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus.
* In Matthew and Mark, the woman pours the ointment on Jesus’ head to anoint him for burial. In Luke and John she anoints his feet as a sign of extravagant hospitality and wipes them with her hair.
* in Matthew the critical comments are made by the disciples, in Mark it is not clear who is critical. In Luke the critic is Simon the Pharisee and in John it is Judas Iscariot, ‘not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief …’ (John 12:6).

No two of the Gospels agree on every aspect of the story, and yet it is inconceivable that there are four separate incidents recorded. Each of the Evangelists, in creating their Gospel, drew on the resources of oral and written material, some of which would have been common to at least some of them. Yet they felt the necessity and the freedom to use the traditional material flexibly to address their context and the contemporary experience of the faith community for which their Gospel was written.

Contemporary experience is a locus of learning and, for SFE, the starting point for theological reflection. However it calls for a rigorous method of exegeting experience that both recognises and respects the varieties of interpretation possible in a given situation, and also identifies interpretations that might legitimately be understood as ‘Christian’ and those which could not.

A Biblical model for supervised theological field education

There is a paradox within the Christian church that, whilst acknowledging scripture as authoritative for faith and practice , the integration of scripture and experience often appears to be superficial and unreflective. This may be a harsh judgement in the case of the person who has so ‘befriended the Tradition’ that a seemingly simple analogy drawn between an event and Scripture may mask a deep commitment to relating scripture and life creatively and with integrity. Ulrich and Thompson suggested a simple structure for exegeting scripture based on literary, historical and liturgical analysis of texts , whereas I find myself constantly drawn to the Gospels and to the instinctive use of redaction and form criticism in relating scripture to experience. The development of reader-response criticism modes of interpreting scripture, which shift the focus from the intention of the author to the experience of the reader, offer new and creative possibilities for relating scripture and contemporary experience . Perhaps one’s use of scripture is more grounded in who we are as persons, and in passages that validate our beliefs and values and those of the faith communities in which we interpret experience, than in an objective and disinterested correlation of Scripture with lived experience. With this caution in mind, I will use the Emmaus Road story in Luke’s Gospel as a scriptural model for my understanding of the ministry of supervision. I shall attempt to demonstrate the ways in which the passage, and Lucan theology more generally, embodies many of the theme s identified in the research.

The narrative of the journey of two disciples to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35 is exclusive to Luke. The reference to the appearance of Jesus ‘in another form to two of them walking in the country’ (Mk 16:12f.) in the later appendix to Mark’s resurrection narrative is either a direct reference to Luke’s account, or to the tradition from which Luke developed his narrative . Fitzmyer and Marshall agreed that the Markan redactor is most likely referring to the tradition rather than directly to Luke’s account , and that the story in Luke is a rich combination of the (most likely oral) tradition and Luke’s own creative redaction of the tradition. Of the three segments of his resurrection narrative, the Emmaus journey is the longest, the most detailed, and contains many elements of Lucan theology (by contrast, the appearance to Peter related in Luke 24:34 is third-hand and refers to him as ‘Simon’ contrary to the usual Lucan appellation of ‘Peter’). Schweizer drew parallels between this story and the conversion of the Ethiopean eunuch through the ministry of Philip in Acts 8:26-40:

Both stories have a road as their setting, and failure to comprehend the Scriptures is met with an interpretation that focuses on Jesus’ suffering; a request to stay precedes or follows. Both accounts end with a sacrament – the Lord’s Supper or baptism – and the disappearance of the helper .

This parallelism indicates that, whilst the core of the story was part of the tradition available to Luke, he has re-worked it significantly in order to convey the Gospel through an ‘orderly account’ which nevertheless conveys ‘the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed’ (Luke 1:3f.) The underlying truth for Luke is that ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people’ (vs. 19) is also ‘the Christ (who) should suffer these things and then enter into his glory’ (vs. 26). The partial understanding of the two travellers is filled out in conversation with the stranger on the way. The story is given central place in Luke’s resurrection narratives as the first personal encounter with the risen Christ, an encounter in which the essential elements of discipleship are embodied. It is clearly a very important story for Luke’s account of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

Key elements of Luke 24:13-35
The key elements of the story that relate to supervised theological field education are:

1. The journey motif. For Luke, being ‘on the way’ is central to discipleship, and ‘journey’ is a central motif as Jesus turns towards Jerusalem and the final climax of his ministry in his death and resurrection (see Luke 9:51). Cleopas and his companion were journeying to a village, not necessarily their home, even though they were able to invite Jesus to stay with them (they may have been staying with friends or at an inn). The journey took place ‘that same day’ (vs. 13), i.e. the day of resurrection in which the women were encountered by two men ‘in dazzling apparel’ (vs. 4). The two ‘on the way’ already knew of this story and interpreted the women’s experience as ‘a vision of angels’, reflecting the opinion of the Apostles for whom ‘these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them’ (vs. 11). There is an implied rebuke of leaders in Luke’s own community who discounted the experiences of less influential members, and a reminder that revelation and truth can come through the most unexpected means and unlikely people. He earlier quoted the ‘Q’ saying of Jesus, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will’ (Luke 10:21).

‘Journey’ has already been identified by the research participants as one motif for supervised theological field education. Students are required to engage in a ministry placement from which they can learn, and in which they can reflect on experiences of ministry. They are people ‘on the way,’ following a sense of call in which they may experience the confusion of Cleopas and his companion, and may have their preconceptions of God and dreams of ministry crucified on the cross of the reality of the life of the institutional church. The difference with supervised theological field education is that no one takes on (or should take on) the role of Jesus, who ‘interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures’ (vs. 27). In supervised theological field education all are seeking truth but none is able to provide definitive interpretations for the others. Derek identified the mutuality of the journey as a theme in his ‘Essence Statement’ from Session 3; ‘Presenting a case study to my supervisor means meeting in the middle, where both of us can learn and grow together. It is a journey that involves opening ourselves to the presence of God that we find in one another’ (Appendix 4). In this sense, none is Jesus and all are Jesus, as new understanding emerges on the way.

2. Focussed conversation. The two talked ‘with each other about all these things that had happened’ (vs. 14). The conversation centred on the circumstances of the crucifixion and the early reports of resurrection, but also on their interpretation of the situation; ‘ But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel’ (vs. 21). Event and interpretation, as Heidegger asserts, are inseparable ; they form a cycle of approximations to meaning in which new experience calls into question old structures of meaning. The conversation on the way facilitated the quantum shift in the understanding of the disciples about the person and mission of Jesus from a national to a universal scale, and of his significance as one limited to their historical and chronological categories, to one transcending those temporal categories. In this transformative process, not only were the theological foundations of the disciples’ belief system shaken, their cultural presuppositions of Jewish messianism were also demonstrated to be groundless.

Focussed conversation that begins with telling a story (‘What are you discussing with each other as you walk along?’ – literally ‘What are these words that you throw back and forth at one another as you walk along?’ vs. 17) and explores the experience of the storyteller, is the beginning of theological reflection. To be ‘taken seriously’ and to be ‘carefully and thoroughly listened to’ (Group Key Words and Phrases – Session 4, Appendix 5) unlocks ‘new thinking’, ‘realisation’, ‘discernment’ and ‘discovery’.

3. Listening to the Tradition. ‘Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures’ (vs. 27). Having listened to their experience (and having castigated them for being ‘slow to believe’ which I wouldn’t necessarily choose to do), Jesus directed their attention to the tradition of the Law and the Prophets to make connections between the tradition and their present experience. In supervised theological field education this responsibility lies with the supervisor, or the peer group facilitator, to ensure that the conversation moves beyond a fascination and preoccupation with the story, to look for resonances (and even dissonances) with the tradition. Obviously Jesus was selective in his use of Scripture as messianic nuances are interspersed with narrative, poetry, commentary and legislation, not all of which is unambiguously messianic. In the Galilean ministry (Luke 4:14 to 9:50) which described in word and deed the nature of Jesus’ ministry, Luke drew particularly on Isaiah 61 quoted in the Nazareth manifesto :

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18f.)

This image of a Messiah who incarnated God’s preference for the poor, the oppressed and the marginalised was acted out in the perambulatory Galilean ministry and reinforced after Jesus had ‘set his face to go to Jerusalem’ (Luke 9:51).

This raises the question of whether STFE should be value-free, or have a theological centre that ought direct the focus of the theological conversation in a particular direction, e.g. towards social justice. However others may be just as convinced that the conversation should be directed towards evangelism; ‘since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith’ (Romans 3:23-25). Or the supervisor or peer group facilitator may consider that supervised theological field education ought not have a particular missiological focus, but serve only to identify the student’s operational theology and to integrate this with their formal theological education and ministry experience.

Experience on its own is an inadequate foundation for theological reflection, it must partner a rigorous exposure to biblical, systematic and historical theological disciplines during both formation and continuing formation throughout one’s life in ministry. Competent supervision requires that the supervisor have, ‘not mastery but befriending – an increase in intimacy with the tradition. The image of befriending suggests a more-than-intellectual grasp, a familiarity that includes both appreciative awareness of the tradition and comfort with its diversity and contradictions’ . It also requires that the supervisor know his/her own theological centre and convictions and be able to represent different perspectives in the process of theological reflection with the student. Because this research focussed on the participants’ experience of STFE, and did not specifically address the issue of integrating biblical interpretation and pastoral practice, I am not able to draw any formal conclusions about the efficacy of the program in achieving this integration (a worthy research project for the future) even though I have strong sense that it does.

4. Revelation as sacrament. Most commentators (e.g. Schweizer, Fitzmyer, Byrne and Marshall) do not question the eucharistic allusion in vss. 30f; he ‘took the bread’, and ‘blessed’, ‘broke it’ and ‘gave it to them’. Each of these formulaic statements is directly paralleled in Luke 22:19, the only disparity being ‘blessed’ (eulogeo) which appears in Mark and Matthew but is replaced in Luke with ‘given thanks’ (eucharisteo). Green, however, thought that those who see ‘eucharistic overtones’ in the denouement of the story misunderstood the significance of ‘table fellowship’ for the early church (as in Acts 2:42) and ‘an exaggerated view of the Third Evangelist’s interest in the eucharist’ . He preferred to see the ‘breaking of bread’ as an allusion to the feeding of the five thousand in Luke 9:12-17, and interpreted Luke’s schema for the pericope as The Journey, Hospitality and Table Fellowship, and Scriptural Fulfillment. It may well be that Luke was intentionally making connections between all three narratives and that the tradition had already made connections between the feeding of the multitudes and the eucharist. Personally I am convinced that there is an intention that the reader draw the conclusion that this is a sacramental event, in which the Christ is made present and ‘recognised’ (or ‘known’ − epegnosan) in the eucharistic breaking of bread.

Whether or not the author intended to make the link between the breaking of bread and the eucharist, I would want to argue that the whole event of the Emmaus journey is integral to the sacramental experience of recognising Jesus as the Christ. The shared journey, the telling and hearing of the story, the search for meaning through engagement with the experience of loss and with the resources of the tradition, all contribute to the final eye-opening revelation of a truth that was with them all the time.

The Emmaus Road and the themes
It has been my experience, and the research outcomes expressed in the theme s would seem to confirm, that the key elements of the Emmaus Road story are also present in the STFE process:

* Experience as the locus of learning. The Emmaus event was not the same as the experience of witnessing the trial and crucifixion, but it afforded an opportunity to re-experience the event, reflect on its meaning and come to a new understanding of the person and mission of Jesus.

* Intersubjective learning. The teaching from Scripture augmented their knowledge, it did not replace it; Jesus ‘interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself’ (Luke 24:27). The tradition was an aid to his revelation of himself to the two, but it was not a disengaged, disinterested treatise on the Scripture. In a sense they were telling their story from the perspective of immediate, unreflective experience and Jesus was telling his from the perspective of a profound theological reflection upon experience.

* Chosen vulnerability. The disciples were in what might today be labelled a post-traumatic condition of vulnerability to begin with, but they nevertheless opened themselves to this interested stranger who joined them on the way. They made a choice to extend to the stranger the privilege of entering into their experience of loss, and then to offer the hospitality of their table. The vulnerability of Jesus was the possibility of rejection (e.g. ‘Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountains to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted’ – Matt. 28:16f.) The gracious invitation of God to participate in the life and rule of God, could as easily be rejected as accepted as revealed in the story of the messianic banquet (Luke 14:15-24).

* Revelation as a path to new understanding. When their eyes were opened and they recognised Jesus, the two experienced a complete transformation in their understanding of the crucifixion, and of the nature of the ministry of Jesus. The experience of revelation and the consequent new understanding galvanised them into a change of their immediate plans. Whatever business they thought they had in Emmaus was set aside as they ‘rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:33). The ‘revelations’ experienced in STFE may be less dramatic and life changing than that experienced by Cleopas and his partner, but the participants expressed that the ‘self revelation’ they experienced, particularly with the peer group, led to ‘shifts and transformations’ in understanding for them.

The journey to Emmaus is a story that Luke placed at the centre of his two-volume Gospel. It was a Gospel for all people , ‘a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel’ (Luke 2:32), to which the non-Jewish name ‘Cleopas’ pointed. When the two returned to Jerusalem they shared their story with the stories of others, an important feature of the message of this pericope. As Byrne put it, ‘The community comes to full knowledge and faith when individuals and groups bring together and share their previously separate stories’ . And whilst it is enriching as an allegory for supervised theological field education, it is but one Evangelist’s depiction of the person and mission of Jesus, written from a First Century perspective and world view. In the next section, therefore, I will endeavour to lay a contemporary theological foundation for ‘knowing God through knowing self and knowing other’.

A contemporary theological foundation

STFE is an educative process based on relationship. The structures of STFE establish the tasks and expectations, the boundaries and the criteria for evaluation that define the relationships. But the real value of the process is dependent on the quality of the relationships themselves. The structures of STFE (goal setting, serving/learning covenants, peer and personal supervision) can be likened to the scaffolding for a building under construction; the scaffolding is not the building, but without it the building could not be created, and when the scaffolding is removed the building remains. Ultimately the benefit of STFE will be wasted if it does not inculcate within the student a capacity for self-supervision, which does not imply supervising oneself in isolation, but choosing to create for oneself continuing structures of supervision .

From the themes identified in the research project (‘mutuality of learning’, ‘intersubjective learning’, ‘chosen vulnerability’, ‘revelation as a path to new understanding’, and ‘experience as a locus for learning’) it is evident that the model of supervision called for is relational and non-hierarchical. Inspiration for a theology of supervision that supports this model can be found in the contemporary renewal of interest in Trinitarian theology, and particularly in the work of Catherine Mowry LaCugna. The section following will cover something of the movement of the understanding of Trinity as representing the Being or substance of God, to Trinity as representing the relationships between the three Persons of the Godhead in relationship. The implications for human relationships, and hence for the practice of supervision, of this shift in understanding of the Trinity emerge out of a reflection on humankind created in the image of God (imago Dei).

The character and quality of supervisory relationships is both a practical and a theological issue. Practically the qualities required of a good STFE supervisor can be derived from observing the outcomes of the supervisory process, and have much in common with quality supervision in any of the helping professions . Theologically, I would want to ground the supervisory relationships in the nature and Being of God, and in the nature and being of humankind as a creature reflecting the image of God. Neither of these theological questions is unambiguously clear, and so the following sections will seek to draw on current scholarship in both areas of enquiry.

The Trinity as relational Persons
Trinitarian theology grew out of the early church’s attempts to define its experience of Jesus Christ and the presence of God, understood as Spirit. If Jesus is God, and the Spirit that drives the church is God, how can this be understood within the framework of a monotheistic Creator who is One? How do the Three relate to each other, and is there an hierarchy between them? Tertullian recognised the potential for polytheism inherent in the idea of the Trinity and the dilemma that it posed for the monarchical understanding of God that he wished to preserve. If God is Three rather than One, does this not diminish the absolute power of God, unless the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father? Further, if God as Trinity is of the same substance (substantia, ousia – one Being), does this not mean the Father suffers in the person of the Son (later developed in Patripassionism) ? Tertullian’s solution to the dilemma was to describe the function of the Trinity as ‘an economic union’ (from oikonomio – to manage a household) in which there is One God experienced under different ‘degrees and forms and aspects’ . The ‘economic trinity’ is an expression of the saving acts of God in history (‘God for us’), ultimately in the Son, Jesus the Christ. Augustine sought to explain the relationships within the Trinity in terms of hierarchical ‘processions’ :

* The Father begets the Son.
* The Son is begotten by the Father.
* Father and Son produce the Spirit.
* The Spirit is produced by Father and Son.

According to Catherine Mowry LaCugna, the first tension in Trinitarian theology was between the doctrine as a description of the essential Being of God (ousia), and as a description of the nature of the relationship between the persons (hypostases) of the Trinity – is it a unity of ‘substance’, or a unity of ‘relationship’ ? A further tension highlighted the difference between Eastern and Western Christian traditions; in the East, particularly through the tradition of the Cappadocian fathers, the relational understanding of the Trinity was stressed, and union with God was understood to be accessible through the practice of silent (hesychastic) prayer. In the West, under the influence of Thomas Aquinas, the ‘otherness’ of God, and hence the substantial understanding of the Trinity (the ‘immanent Trinity’) was emphasised; conversation about the Trinity was conversation about the essence of God. God, according to Aquinas, was accessible through the analogia entis by which humankind could ‘make analogical predications of God by virtue of a distant resemblance between God and creature’ . This analogia entis was, in Aquinas’ understanding, the rational self which he understood as the imago Dei, so that God could be known through the rational processes of philosophical speculation on the divine attributes, a process we now call ‘natural theology’ . Aquinas was drawing on the theology of Augustine who postulated that, ‘the vestiges of the Trinity have been imprinted in the human soul. Thus one should be able to discern within oneself a pattern of three-foldness that is the image of the Trinity’ . According to Augustine, the nature of the Divine could be grasped through the process of interiority , or reflection on the inner life, whereas for Aquinas this could only be achieved through deductive and philosophical reason.

It is not difficult to imagine how the combination of an hierarchical doctrine of God, combined with the elevation of philosophy and reason to the pinnacle of human knowing, might produce a culture of hierarchy and domination within the Western tradition. According to LaCugna this understanding of God was reflected in the structures of the church :

This pattern was replicated in the church: one God and one bishop, and in society: one God and one emperor. The divine monarchy was used to justify different types of hierarchy: religious, sexual, political.

It is to these tensions between the economic Trinity as God’s saving acts in relation to humankind, and the immanent Trinity as the essential nature of God (what Aquinas termed theologia), that LaCugna attributed ‘the defeat of the doctrine of the Trinity’. To the modern, scientific mind, these debates were nothing more than unverifiable metaphysical speculation and not worthy of serious theological consideration. Through the modern period, until the early part of the twentieth century with the publication of Karl Barth’s ‘Church Dogmatics’, theological conversation about the Trinity had all but disappeared. LaCugna cited Karl Rahner’s estimation that, ‘in their practical life most Christians are monotheists’ and, ‘should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain unchanged’ .

The contemporary renewal of Trinitarian theology is driven less by a desire to explicate something of the mystery of God, as by a desire to recover something essential of the experience of God that has been lost (or ‘defeated’) in Christian theology to the detriment of Christian faith and practice. For LaCugna, the distinction between immanent and economic Trinity was only helpful if it began with an understanding that there is only one Trinity; the inner life of God, and God revealed in history, and ultimately in the event of Jesus the Christ, were one and the same. God could only be known through God’s saving acts in history , and therefore examining the relationships within the Trinity in the light of the human experience of God is the way to understanding how God expects us to be in the world. Rahner expressed a similar understanding:

In the Trinity in the economy and history of salvation and revelation we have already experienced the immanent Trinity as it is in itself. By the fact that God reveals himself for us in the modes we indicated as Trinitarian, we have already experienced the immanent Trinity of the holy mystery as it is in itself, because its free and supernatural manifestation to us in grace manifests its innermost life .

For Christian theology, the centre of salvation history, and therefore the human experience of God, is found in the person, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Jürgen Moltmann makes the remarkable assertion that ‘The Trinitarian history of the cross entails the central act of suffering through which God not only effects the reconciliation of the world, but also constitutes himself as the triune one’ (my italics). In this understanding of Trinity, God is not immutable, but is open to the Creation, and chooses in the Incarnation a mode of Being necessary for the redemption of the Creation. Consequently knowledge of God does not come through natural theology or metaphysical speculation, but through an ‘historically constituted transcendental experience of God’ . It is this idea of exploring the faith experience of the individual in his/her cultural and intellectual millieu, set within the shared experience of the faith community, set within the extended experience of God witnessed to by the Christian tradition, that constitutes what I understand to be the essence of supervised theological field education.

Perhaps the crucial concept in the contemporary conversation around Trinitarian theology, is the one termed ‘perichoresis’. The concept, used in relation to the Trinity by John Damascene in the eighth century , depicts the three persons of the Trinity as separate persons (hypostases) of equal standing that relate to each other in perfect harmony and unity, interpenetrating one another without diminishing the personhood of any. Moltmann described perichoresis thus: ‘The divine persons exist so intimately with one another, for one another and in one another, that they constitute themselves in their unique, incomparable and complete unity’ . The logical implications for the church of this understanding of God as Trinity, said Moltmann, is that the ecclesiastical structures of power and hierarchy that flow from the notion of a divine monarchy, must give way to the horizontal structures of fellowship, equality and interdependence .

Gunton asserted that ‘God is not God apart from the way in which the Father, Son and Spirit in eternity give to and receive from each other what they essentially are. The Three do not merely coinhere, but dynamically constitute one another’s being …’ He then went on to explore the implications of a Trinitarian theology of God, in which perichoresis was the operating principle, for the ways in which humankind was called to function in terms of interpersonal relationships, relationship with the material world, and in the realm of ‘knowledge, action and art’ . In the next section I will reflect on the first of these, particularly in relation to STFE, and what manner of being-together will reflect a relational, Trinitarian experience of God.

Human persons as the Imago Dei
The idea of humankind as the ‘image of God’ (imago dei) obviously refers to the Creation account in Genesis 1:26,27:

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

However the concept of imago dei immediately creates a conundrum: is there something within the human creature that intrinsically reflects the image of God regardless of circumstances (the ‘structural view’ ), or do special conditions apply? In what respect and under what conditions do human beings represent the image of God when they are capable of great differentiation in culture, in values and in self-understanding. The innumerable contemporary conflicts arising from differences in belief and cultural expression, further compounded by competition for resources, is testament to the diversity of human expression of self and society. From a modern, rational, Western, secular, individualistic perspective, the prospect of destroying one’s own life in order to kill as many ‘innocent’ people as possible is incomprehensible. From the perspective of a suicide ‘terrorist’, the innocent are not innocent, but enemies in a political, racial or religious sense (or all three). Does the modern, Western ‘individual’ represent the imago Dei? Does the religious zealot prepared to destroy life, including his/her own, to serve God and achieve salvation represent the imago Dei? How should we understand ourselves as human persons created in the image of God and what implication does that have for how we should be in the world? For Muslims, the starting point from which to answer that question might be the Qur’an; for some Christians, the starting point might be the Bible; for other Christians the individualistic WWJD (What Would Jesus Do? – available in bracelet form).

Charles Taylor tracked the development of the understanding of the self that has been instrumental in producing the rational individualism that characterises modernity . This individualism came from an ‘inwardness’ and a sense of ourselves as ‘beings with depth’ , worthy of respect from self and other. LaCugna identified the emergence of this idea of the self to the reflexive style of Augustine’s ‘Confessions’ (interiority), and attributed its further development to Descartes’ emphasis on cognition, consciousness and self-awareness: ‘The Cartesian method isolated the self from the world beyond the self, and presupposed that the self can be a self by itself, apart from relationship with anything or anyone else’ . Grenz cited Douglas Hall’s description of the equation of human reason with the imago dei in modern times:

The notion that it is human reason that constitutes Homo sapiens, God’s earthly imago, is so firmly entrenched in the conventions of Christendom that it is hardly possible for anyone who is part of the intellectual stream of our culture to read Genesis 1:26-27 without immediately and subconsciously assuming that the ancient Hebraic author’s phrase ‘image of God’ specifically referred to the rational capacities of the human creature .

The great benefits of the modern, individualistic, rational sense of the self are the affirmation of the dignity of the individual and the articulation of the human rights of the individual. Taylor pointed to the changes in attitudes to human suffering that accompany the modern view of self, and in particular the modern intolerance of capital punishment . What was once a public spectacle, inflicting as much pain on the criminal as befitted the crime, is now carried out, if it is carried out at all, in camera away from the public view and as painlessly as possible because of the importance modern society places on the individual self. But the great loss in modern individualism was the loss of the sense of the self as participating in a ‘defining community’ which contributed, not only to one’s sense of identity, but to making moral judgements and developing meaning through participation. The modern individual participated in a society by observing its laws and exercising voting ‘rights’ within its democratic institutions. But freedom of conscience also encouraged the individual to stand against the social and even legal norms on matters of principle.

Grenz described two ways in which particular expressions of Christian theology and practice have contributed to individualism in contemporary Western society. The first was Calvin’s theology of sanctification in which ‘the Christian life is to be characterised by continual growth in obedience to divine precepts …’ . This placed an emphasis on the achievement of spiritual goals by the individual, fuelled by the desire to be sure of one’s election to salvation. The second influence was a corollary of the first and related to the Pietist emphasis on regeneration and the quest for individual salvation. In this theological framework, the focus of salvation moved from the faith of the community expressed in baptism, to the salvation of the individual represented by an experience of conversion. Both of these expressions of individual faith and salvation, elevated above communal expressions of faith and salvation, are evident within the contemporary Baptist denomination in which I minister as a director of supervised theological field education.

I would want to argue that the starting point for a Christian understanding of the imago Dei, as individuals and faith communities, needs to be God’s revelation of Godself to humankind in the life, death, resurrection and anticipated parousia of Jesus the Christ, and God’s continuing presence in the faith community through the Spirit. We understand our potential and calling as persons in relation to the God revealed as Trinity through the event of Jesus the Christ. That is not to say, however, that we only reflect the image of God when we have an understanding of Trinitarian theology. One of my life-transforming experiences was to spend a short time in remote villages in the hill country of Nepal (well away from the tourist track), and to observe a tribal culture that was isolated to a large degree from modern influences. Whilst there was extreme poverty in terms of material goods, I observed a wealth of inter-dependent community life that lived out the idea of perichoresis far more effectively than is manifest in much of contemporary Christian Western society. I would argue that is not when we understand Trinity, but when we live in a manner that reflects the perichoretic relationships within the Trinity, that humankind can be said to represent the imago Dei.

LaCugna provided an extended reflection of perichoresis from feminist and liberation perspectives, and drew the following conclusions, inter alia :

* Persons are essentially interpersonal, intersubjective.
* A person is an ineffable, concrete, unique and unrepeatable ecstasis of nature.
* The person is the foundation of a nature.
* The freedom of the deified human being consists in being free-for, free-toward others, poised in the balance between self-possession and other-orientation.
* Living as persons in communion, in right relationship, is the meaning of salvation and the ideal of Christian faith.

These conclusions offer a way forward in which the dignity and rights of the individual, so prized in modernity, can be preserved in a manner which also redeems the concept of humankind as the imago Dei in a relational sense rather than as participation in the Divine substance. At the level of government, this standard can be enshrined in constitutions and legislation; at the level of church polity, it can be the guiding principle of doctrinal and dogmatic statements and codes of ethics; in the theological college, it can challenge the modern interpretation of reason as the imago Dei (often an unrecognised or unacknowledged presupposition in theological institutions).

Some theological implications for the practice of supervision

The very term, ‘supervision’, can readily introduce ideas of hierarchy and images of supervisory relationships with an unequal balance of power. When checked in the Microsoft Word Thesaurus, ‘supervision’ offered synonyms such as ‘management’, ‘regulation’, ‘administration’, ‘command’ and ‘control’. Defining one’s model of supervision, especially for the director of a supervised theological field education program, is therefore essential. The research process has described and named the students’ experiences of STFE, but of course their experiences were influenced to a significant degree by my model and practice of supervision, exercised in the peer groups and taught to the supervisors. It is imperative, therefore, that my model and practice be consistent with my theological convictions about the nature and Being of God, and about the character of humankind.

The theological foundations that I have outlined in this paper spring from my best understanding of the nature of God, expressed in the Incarnation of Jesus as the Christ, and grounded in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, relating in a communion of Three Persons of equal merit and standing. The symbolism of the Emmaus journey, with stories of crucifixion told in the unrecognised presence of resurrection, is a most apt christological motif for STFE. In the presentation of case studies, and in the exploration of the meaning of the experiences presented, there is often a sense, not only of new insight and understanding, but of the sacredness of the interaction that has taken place.

For me, the integration of the imago Dei with the understanding of Trinity expressed in the concept of perichoresis, both affirms and challenges my own and other models and practices of supervision. The themes identified in this research, ‘chosen vulnerability’, ‘mutual learning’, and ‘intersubjective learning’, indicate that the character of the STFE process, particularly in the peer group and the supervisory sessions, reflects something of what is conveyed in the idea of the imago Dei:

* Respect for the person, including his/her experience and values, balanced by respect for the person, experience and values of the other(s) present;
* ‘Chosen vulnerability’, which makes possible levels of mutual understanding, knowledge and trust that engenders the kind of community that embodies ‘perichoresis’;
* ‘Mutual learning’ and ‘intersubjective learning’ which speak of mutually educative relationships that nurture and deepen the individual and the community.

Of course peer supervision in STFE is only a taste of perichoretic relationships. It is in a sense an artificial community in that it only meets weekly during the teaching periods of the academic year, and the participants are unlikely to be involved in the same faith community as each other in the long term. The frequency of personal supervision is only half that of the peer groups making the development of open and trusting relationships even more challenging for that aspect of supervision. Nevertheless for many students, the taste is transformative and offers a model for how the church might better represent the imago Dei through the depth and quality of its relationships.

Some implications of this theology of supervision for field educators are that they ought:

1. Constantly reinforce the importance of respect and trust (including confidentiality) in supervisory relationships as they:

* train new supervisors.
* meet with practicing supervisors to update their knowledge and skills.
* meet with students and peer groups.

Even if a student is resistant to the STFE process or is failing to comply with the learning covenants, the need for evaluation and accountability does not extinguish the intrinsic demand for respect .

2. Encourage curiosity in all participants in STFE through listening to the experiences of self and others, and in seeking to relate experience to the resources of Tradition and Culture.

3. Maintain an open attitude to the possibility of new insights emerging through the processes of STFE .

4. Monitor the ways in which supervisors exercise power in relating to students in supervision.


References

Aichele, George, and Bible and Culture Collective. The Postmodern Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Beddoe, Elizabeth. The Supervisory Relationship. In Fieldwork in the Human Services: Theory and Practice for Field Educators, Practice Teachers and Supervisors, edited by Lesley Cooper and Lynne Briggs, 41 to 54. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2000.
Byrne, Brendan. The Hospitality of God: A Reading of Luke's Gospel. Strathfield NSW: St Pauls, 2000.
Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. London: SCM, 1960.
Estadt, Barry K., John R. Compton, and Melvin Blanchette. The Art of Clinical Supervision: A Pastoral Counseling Perspective, Integration Books. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. Edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. 2 vols. Vol. 2, The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985.
Gerkin, Charles V. Interpretation and Hermeneutics, Pastoral. In Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, edited by Rodney J. Hunter, xxvii, 1346 p. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce and Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, The Matrix of Christian Theology. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Gunton, Colin E. The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson. First English ed. Southampton: Camelot Press Ltd, 1962.
La Cugna, Catherine Mowry. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991.
La Cugna. God in Communion with Us: The Trinity. In Freeing Theology: The Essentials of Theology in Feminist Perspective, edited by Catherine Mowry LaCugna, 83-114. San francisco: HarperCollins, 1993.
Lett, Warren. Intersubjective Enquiry: An Experiential Procedure. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute for Experiential and Creative Arts Therapy, 1998.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Edited by I.Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 2nd Impression ed, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978.
Oepki, A. Kalypto, Apokalypto. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, edited by Gerhard kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 405 to 13. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.
Pohly, Kenneth. Transforming the Rough Places: The Ministry of Supervision. 2nd ed. Franklin, Tennessee: Providence House, 2001.
Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. Translated by William V. Dych. New York: Crossroad, 1994.
Shweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Luke. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: SPCK, 1984.
Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Taylor, Michael H. Learning to Care: Christian Reflection on Pastoral Practice. London: SPCK, 1993.
Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism. London: SCM, 1981.
Ulrich, Eugene C., and William G. Thompson. The Tradition in Theological Reflection: Scripture and the Minister. In Method in Ministry: Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry, edited by James D. Whitehead and Evelyn Eaton Whitehead, 23 to 42. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995.
Whitehead, James D., and Evelyn Eaton Whitehead. Method in Ministry: Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry. revised and updated ed. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995.
Williams, Ian S. Field Education and Social Justice. Ministry Society and Theology 8, no. 1 (1994): 41 to 46.

Home

Hermeneutics and phenomenology

Creative art and supervision

Supervision resource manual

ANZATFE address



my connected community (mc2) This Webpage has been created using the my connected community (mc2) Webpage generator.
my connected community (mc2) is funded by the Victorian Government and coordinated by VICNET