The Place of Acceptance
By Prof. Dr. Heye Heyen
Available in German here.
Translated by Tom Edmondson for Meaning in Ministry: Pastoral Care with Logotherapy (blogsite).
The Place of Acceptance
Starting Point
"What conditions and possibly practical elaborations serve the goal of people becoming familiar with experiences of transcendence and the depth of existence, of people being encouraged to believe in God's kingdom, of people feeling at home in rites, symbols, and what is peculiar to the language of faith...?"
These questions have been formulated by Evert Jonker (1996,6) with regard to catechetical accompaniment especially of groups. In this article I take these questions as a starting point for some theological reflections on pastoral accompaniment of (especially) individuals. In doing so, I limit myself, in terms of content, to a central theme of the language of faith, namely, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without works of the law. I pose the question of what experiences people can have in which they can access what is meant by the word "justification." In particular, I will examine what the "value-oriented imagination" according to U. Böschemeyer can contribute to this. Of these, I will describe and briefly discuss three examples from my own psychotherapeutic practice. Then I will address the question of the "truth content" of the symbols from the imaginations. Further, I will address the question to what extent the search for an inner experience can do justice to the message of justification as a "verbum externum".
JUSTIFICATION AND ACCEPTANCE
In the language of faith, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without works of the law, occupies a central place in the evangelical (particularly the Lutheran) tradition. This doctrine is seen as the "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae": where this article is taught (and learned), there is church. According to Lutheran orthodoxy, there can be no question of church where this does not happen (Köhler, 329). Of course, from an empirical point of view, it cannot be denied that the term “justification” with its theological charge is no longer understood even by many regular churchgoers. At this point, even for them, the traditional language of faith has become a foreign language. That is the reason why Paul Tillich in particular, as a systematic theologian, felt called upon to plead for a translation. He suggested replacing the term "justification" with the term "acceptance":
Since "justification" is a biblical expression, it cannot be avoided in the Christian churches today either. But in the practice of teaching and preaching, it should be replaced by the word "acceptance." Acceptance means we are accepted by God even though we are unacceptable according to the criteria of the law (the law contrasts our essential being against our existential alienation). We are asked to accept that we are accepted. (1966, 258)
A practical-theological translation relates less to thinking and to the problems that thinking may have with the doctrine of justification than a systematic-theological one. The practical theologian is more interested in the experiences people have with 'acceptance' these days: where, when and by whom do they feel comfortable or not accepted? What are the conditions under which they may or may not accept being accepted? This is the empirical "pole" of (bipolar) practical theology. In this case, the other "pole" asks about the purpose of biblical and dogmatic statements about "justification" and about a theologically responsible translation. The practical theologian brings these two "poles" together in a (mutually constructive-critical) conversation.
The pastoral care movement has adopted Tillich's proposal. It is no coincidence that in the German-speaking area the usual term for what is mostly called "therapeutic pastoral care" in the Netherlands is referred to as "Acceptance-Giving Pastoral Care" (Annehmende Seelsorge). Everything revolves around "acceptance." "Perceiving and Accepting" is the programmatic title of a well-known book by Dietrich Stollberg (1978). "Acceptance-Giving Pastoral Care" (Annehmende Seelsorge) is designed so that in contact with the pastor, the interlocutor can have the experience: I am accepted—by the pastor and (even if this is perhaps not explicitly stated), by him in whose name the pastor listens to me and speaks to me.
Theological criticism of the use of the term "acceptance" as a synonym for "justification" in accepting pastoral care was brought forward above all by Helmut Tacke (1979, 127-146). He sees this as a misuse of the "pro me” since the explicit Christological underpinning and thus the anchoring in the "extra nos" is missing. However, the question is whether it is theologically legitimate to see Christ's presence so dependent on the question of whether he is explicitly mentioned by name. Can't the justifying Christ come in the form of the accepting neighbor (here: the pastor) just as well as in the “least brother” of Matthew 25? And as for the distinction between the "extra nos" and the "in nobis": secundum rationem essendi it is undoubtedly necessary to posit this difference. But secundum rationem cognoscendi (or experiendi) what is primary is the experience: “I am accepted”. In contrast, identifying the subject (“who is the one who accepts me?”) is secondary. If you only look at the feelings triggered, the difference between an acceptance by myself or by another person or by God is not a principle one.
EXPERIENCING ACCEPTANCE
Where and how can acceptance become tangible? In accepting pastoral care, this is answered: by way of contact with the accepting pastor.
As a complement, in this article I will present an approach to the experience of acceptance that has been developed over the last 15 years, albeit outside the discourse of pastoral practitioners. These are the “value-oriented imaginations” developed by the theologian, psychotherapist and logotherapist Uwe Böschemeyer (1996, 2005, 2007). By this he understands a kind of active dream travel, preferably to certain "places" in the unconscious "world" that symbolize certain values such as "the place of love" or "the place of healing".
When I was working as a therapist myself, I worked with this method several times. With some clients who had a hard time accepting themselves or believing that someone else could accept them, I have taken the "Journey" to the "Place of Acceptance". In the following, I will describe three examples of these “journeys” and briefly discuss each one.
Ms. D
Ms. D. was a 27-year-old law student. She felt insecure in many ways, found it difficult to say “no,” and sometimes hurt herself. On the occasion of a dream, she said she still blamed herself for a number of small things. For example, as a child she had once locked up the neighbor's girl for a few minutes and once ate another child's ice cream.
Because I had the impression that there was a clear lack of (self-) acceptance in her life, I suggested to her in the 5th session an imaginary journey to the "place of being accepted". I had deliberately chosen this abstract formulation because it leaves open (leaves it to her unconscious, as it were) who or what the accepting subject is. This could be other people (or also an animal), this could be herself, this could also be "life" or God.
She leans back relaxed, closes her eyes and waits a moment for possible images.
Her journey begins in a small grotto, from where a kind of serpentine path leads down. It feels good to go down here on the dry clay ground. After opening a heavy wooden door, she enters a beautiful mountain landscape, walks past grazing cows, with whom she carefully makes contact, until she comes to some houses. She would like to knock there, but she doesn't want to be intrusive and moves on. Finally she comes to a (Mediterranean) marketplace with a large fountain. People sit there, eat and drink. There is a happy atmosphere, someone is playing the guitar. A woman comes up to them and invites them in, people move up and there is room for them. There is also a very old woman with wrinkles who radiates a lot of warmth. There is also a little (sympathetic) boy there, he is a bit dirty and has a snotty nose. She cannot understand the words of the language spoken there, but she can understand the meaning.
After a while I propose to say goodbye (she would have preferred to stay there for a long, long time...) She hugs both women warmly.
A climax can be observed in these images that I have often encountered in such imaginations: a) the person is alone in a beautiful natural landscape, there is a lot of space, there is nothing that would be threatening; b) She encounters (friendly) animals with whom she makes contact; c) There is contact with people.
Ms. D. would have preferred to sit with the people on the market square for hours – here she obviously sensed an atmosphere of acceptance that she missed in her conscious life. A good example of this is the little boy who – albeit dirty and with a snotty nose – is allowed to be there and who also has her sympathy. Even as a child, she was probably admonished or rejected if she looked like that. And surely, even in her conscious life, she could hardly ever allow herself to resemble this boy.
I said to her: You can always come back to this marketplace. She did this several more times in the weeks that followed, each time having a beneficial experience of (self) acceptance.
Ms. U
Ms. U. was a 45-year-old biologist and came to therapy because she felt empty and thought she had too little "basic trust". She had various psychosomatic symptoms. Her father died suddenly when she was eleven. After that, her mother started drinking. Religion had never played a special role in her life. After a while, I also go on a “journey” with her to the “place of acceptance”.
Her journey begins (ground floor) at a wooden door that she cannot open. She walks a long way along a wall until she discovers a shaft with a staircase. She descends and enters a domed hall. The room is open at the top, there are high walls on the sides, the ground is dry; except for a blade of grass, there is nothing living there. She goes back upstairs and continues walking along the wall. Suddenly the path becomes a tunnel leading to a (Catholic) church. There are stained windows and lots of gold. She walks around. Suddenly, she meets a monk in a black robe and with a long white beard. He is very friendly and says he was expecting her. He invites her to come with him to the sacristy (crypt). There are two chairs and a table. He pours tea and listens to her. She can tell whatever is on her mind and can come back at any time. When he says goodbye, he hugs her.
When Ms. U. opened her eyes again, she was very touched by what she had just experienced. It felt like she had finally found what she had been looking for. Especially meeting the old monk had done her a lot of good and fulfilled a deep longing. It was an experience of acceptance, in her case acceptance in the name of (or even by) the god who had never played a special role in her conscious life.
It was certainly no coincidence that her “journey” first took her to two “places” where this experience of acceptance was not possible. The first place is not in the depths, but "par terre" (on the ground), in their conscious world. It could be that in principle the experience would be possible there, but it fails to open the "door" (access to it). The second place is probably "lower down", maybe the dome even makes you think of a former church building, but it is empty, there is (almost) no life there. And she knows intuitively: I have to keep looking - until she finds what she is looking for in that Catholic church.
Ms. M
Ms. M. was a single 35-year-old nurse. She was lonely, never had a boyfriend. She was, in her own words, depressed and often felt guilty. For reasons that could no longer be clarified, her mother had rejected her as a child and humiliated her in an inhuman way. From the fourth session on I went on some imaginary journeys with her. My goal was "the place where I can be myself". She sat back, closed her eyes, and opened for pictures from within.
In the beginning she is at her parents' house, but there she can't find anywhere to descend. Then she goes into a forest. There she finds a hollow about two meters deep. She climbs in and gets into a very long horizontal corridor. After a while she sees a door. She knocks, but no one calls her in. Finally she opens the door herself and sees that there is a grotto behind it. She goes in without being asked. There she sees a woman of about 30 who looks like the Madonna. She stands there very unperturbed and (almost) doesn't react to her. Maybe the Madonna is a bit awkward.
She goes on. She crawls through a long underground passage until it suddenly becomes very bright (almost blinding). She is in a forest; she walks a little there and comes to a clearing. After lying there in the grass for a while, she moves on. A roe deer comes to her, she strokes it. Hares and stags also come, they are all very tame and know her. She strokes them and moves on. To the left of the path the forest is (scary) dark, to the right the flowers and shrubs are in full bloom. She takes a red flower with her. But she knows: "If I want to reach my goal, I have to go into the dark forest."
I suggest you do that next time. She says goodbye and returns. She opened her eyes and said, visibly touched: That was beautiful! She had had experiences (feelings, desires, dreams) for which there was little room in her conscious life. It was crucial for the therapy that she could experience and feel this unconscious world, not that it was analyzed cognitively.
For the sake of the reader, I give a short analytical comment below.
Ms. M.'s search for the “place where I can be myself” begins – certainly not by chance – at her parents' house. This is the place where, if all is well, the child has the first fundamental experience: "I am allowed to be, I am welcome, I am accepted." But in her case, "all was not well,” especially as her mother had repeatedly shown her rejection in a very hurtful way. She will not be able to find access to the experience of being accepted by her parents, which means looking in the wrong place.
Just as Hansel and Gretel's path in the fairy tale leads out of their parents' house (with their mother who rejects them) and into the forest (often a symbol of the unconscious), Ms. M. also continues her search in the forest. There she will probably find a descent, although it doesn't really lead into the depths. A long horizontal corridor leads you to the Grotto of the Madonna. (Ms. M. was brought up a Catholic.) What could be more obvious for a child who has been rejected by its own mother than to seek consolation and protection from the “Mother of God”, from “Mother Church” or even from a “maternal” side of God. But no one calls her in there, no one welcomes her there. The Mother of God is just as unmoved as her own mother once was. Even if Ms. M. tries to excuse that a little (probably in the same way as her own mother: "Perhaps she is a bit clumsy"), she nevertheless recognizes, “I'm looking in the wrong place here too.”
If the place of acceptance cannot be found either with her parents or in the faith she learned there, she will have to look for it in an as yet unknown, “completely different” “world”. There is a long dark underground passage that leads there, reminiscent of the tunnel that people describe after a near-death experience. It gets very light at the end of this corridor. It seems to be a place where she feels safe and glad to be there. She lies down on the grass and her whole body is in contact with the ground (that carries her). The animals are tame, they know her and let her pet them. Ms. M., who – based on her experience, very understandably – has always been afraid of contact with people and who has therefore become very shy herself, now experiences very pleasant contact with animals that are normally known to be shy. The shy animals make the shy Ms. M. feel understood and accepted - and she herself shows affectionate feelings towards the shy animals by petting them. (Interpreted at the “subject level,” this could mean that she is no longer fighting off her own shy parts but is lovingly in touch with them and is “at peace” with them.)
I want to tell you that in later imaginative session these animals were there every time and accompanied her (so she dares to go into the dark forest) and that the loving contact between her and the stag continues to develop: the stag lays his head on her shoulder, and she does the same to him. She emphasizes that this is "not really erotic". (But it is certainly a fearless and therefore very important preliminary stage.) The blooming bushes and especially the “red flower” (rose?) that she takes with her may well be understood as an indication that in this “world” there is also room for her longing for love. But before that longing can be fulfilled, she will have to face the frightening things that still lie hidden in the dark forest.
After that happened (especially the encounter with her dead but not yet really buried mother), we went on the last journey of imagination about eight weeks later:
The stag and the rabbit are already waiting for her. The stag wants to walk along the forest with her, but he doesn't want to go into the forest. She takes the hare on her shoulder and walks alone (with him, without the stag) into the dark forest. After walking for a while and taking a rest, she sees a bright glow in the distance. As she gets closer, she sees an angel standing there. At first she doesn't want to go there. He has spread his arms. So much kindness feels suspicious to her. But eventually she goes to him. He keeps getting bigger and she keeps getting smaller. He takes her in his arms and rocks her back and forth like a small child, after which she is allowed to sit on his knee. Finally he takes her by the hand and walks with her to the place where she says goodbye to him and to the hare and the stag.
Of course, after this final imagination, Ms. M. herself was most impressed by her experience on the angel's arm and lap. What she had painfully had to do without as a child from her mother, she had now received from the angel.
EXPERIENCING TRANSCENDENCE?
I have recounted three experiences of (dream-like images of) the place of acceptance, two of which contain overtly religious symbolism. For these three women, the subject of the acceptance they long for and feel during imagery is not themselves. What they experience during imagery is, to them, not an experience of self-acceptance but of being accepted through other people (Ms. D.), be it through animals (Ms. M.), be it through God or in his name (Ms. U, Ms. M.).
The latter in particular will trigger the following two questions, among others, in a theological discourse. The first question is: Is this about fiction or about reality? Is not the acceptance by God or in his name, which is experienced during an imagination, exclusively the projection of a self-acceptance? That would mean somebody accepts himself and projects the subject of this acceptance on an old Italian woman, on a hare or a stag, on a monk or an angel. Is there then a difference in principle between the angel and the stag? Is the angel (or his attention) an external reality in a different way than the stag (or his attention)? And if this is not the case, then what is the use of such an imaginative experience?
When Frankl (1979) speaks of the “unconscious God”, he does not mean that God himself can be found in the depths of the human soul, so to speak. What can be found within the human soul is at most an (unconscious) longing for God or an (unconscious) trust in God. To use the words of Acts 17, perhaps deep within man has an altar to the unknown God, but of course not (an "empirical" approach to) God Himself.
Anyone who calls Ms. M.'s experience of the angel's arm "fiction and not reality" does justice to the fact that the thesis that she was "really" in contact with the angel and with the stag only "in her imagination," is absolutely untenable. In this respect there is no fundamental difference between the stag and the angel. Anyone who speaks here of "fiction as opposed to reality" also does justice to the theological rejection of a supernaturalism that ultimately does not see God “vis-à-vis” the world, but as a factor among other factors in the world (Tillich 1973, 11-16). But it does not do justice to the fact that in the subjective perspective there is not only the alternative "fiction or reality" but also an intermediate space, which Winnicott (1971) has described as a "transitional space". Or in the terms of A. Lorenzer (1970): Anyone who considers Ms. M.'s imagination of the angel to be legitimate only when it is a matter of contact with an external reality does not understand the angel (or the stag) as a symbol, but as a cliché. In the words of Tillich (1961, 53-57), then, we are talking about a “literalistic misunderstanding” of the symbol. It may very well make sense to relate to a symbol, knowing that it is a symbol. Tillich (ibid.) then speaks of a "broken" symbol. But to what extent can one then speak of “truth”?
In the imagination, Ms. M. sees and experiences herself as someone who "may be" and who is worth being accepted: not only by individuals who may like her, but in a deeper, "ultimate" and "unconditional" sense. She imagines and feels an acceptance that transcends her actual biographical experiences. The angel is thus a symbol for a transcendent reason for acceptance. She assumes so. This is - epistemologically seen—a postulate (of practical reason, to speak with Kant), even if the postulating instance here cannot be "filled" by pure ratio, but rather by the "heart," according to the dictum of Pascal: "Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."
This makes the second question all the more urgent: How does such a "postulate of the heart" (and its tangibility) relate to the verbum externum?
Seen theologically, isn't justification something that is proclaimed to man from outside and that he then accepts (and only then perhaps also feels and translates into images)? And does not justification mean that the proclaimed Word adds something to the being of man by making him righteous before God? What else does the proclamation add besides a new label, if acceptance by God can also be experienced independently of the proclamation by means of an imagination?
Here we are dealing with a tension between a piece of traditional religious truth and a piece of empirical reality. It cannot be the task of the practical theologian to resolve this tension by means of a systematic theological answer (following K. Rahner, for example). Rather, it is the task of the (bipolar) practical theologian to endure the tension and bring both sides into a (mutually constructive-critical) dialogue. In this case, this can mean: Based on the piece of empirical reality, the representative of the truth of faith is asked the critical question of whether he sufficiently considers the following two points:
It can only be said that a person is struck by the message of justification when he feels accepted.
A message that also wants to touch a person's feelings does not come into a vacuum. In fact, the message of acceptance by God ties in one way or another with the hearer's previous experience (positive or negative) of acceptance.
Based on the traditional truth of faith, the practitioner is asked the following questions:
Have people like Ms. M. and Ms. U. ever heard the message of justification in class or at church in a way that struck and touched them?
What will that look like in the future? How can the message of justification be explained and proclaimed to people like Ms. M. and Ms. U. in a way that connects to their experiences in the imaginations?
It is the task of the practical theologian not to end the dialogue between the representative of the truth of faith and the representative of empiricism/practice, but to keep it going. Of course, this is not a game to pass the time, but the specific contribution towards the goal that Evert Jonker (1996, 6) put into words as follows: “that people become familiar with experiences of transcendence and the depth of existence, that people are encouraged to believe in God's kingdom, to feel at home in rites, symbols, and that which is peculiar to the language of faith."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Böschemeyer, U., Dein Unbewußtes weiß mehr, als du denkst. Imagination als Weg zum Sinn, Freiburg 1996.
Böschemeyer, U., Unsere Tiefe ist hell. Wertimagination – ein Schlüssel zur inneren Welt, München 2005.
Böschemeyer, U., Gottesleuchten. Begegnungen mit dem unbewussten Gott in unserer Seele, München 2007.
Frankl, V.E., Der unbewußte Gott, München 1979.
Heitink, G., “De theologie van de Klinische Pastorale Vorming of: Wybe Zijlstra als pastoraal-theoloog”, in: G. Heitink and others, Ontginningswerk. Bijdragen voor dr. Wybe Zijlstra, Kampen 1985, 112-118.
Jonker, E.R., “Thuis raken in geloof. Ten geleide”, in: Praktische theologie 23/4, 1996, 1-8.
Köhler, W., Dogmengeschichte II, Zürich 1951.
Lorenzer, A., “Symbol, Sprachverwirrung und Verstehen”, in: Psyche 12, 1970, 895 ff.
Stollberg, D., Wahrnehmen und Annehmen. Seelsorge in Theorie und Praxis, Gütersloh 1978.
Tacke, H., Glaubenshilfe als Lebenshilfe. Probleme und Chancen heutigen Seelsorge, Neukirchen 1979.
Tillich, P., Wesen und Wandel des Glaubens, Berlin 1961.
Tillich,P., Systematische Theologie Bd. III, Stuttgart 1966.
Tillich, P., Systematische Theologie Bd. II, Stuttgart 1973.
Winnicott, D.W., Playing and Reality, London 1971.