Tag Archive - Karl Barth

‘Taking’ a Triune God Into Our Pastoral Counseling Work

A book that I read about seven years ago, and have flipped back and forth through on occasion in the last few years…I have just recently picked back up again and started re-reading it because of my interest in the integration of theology and psychology, especially pertaining to pastoral counseling in the context of the Christian community. The book is a wonderful book, and one that I recommend for all pastors, counselors, etc…those who are trying to integrate these two disciplines (psychology and theology) into their counseling work.

The book is called Theology and Pastoral Counseling: A New Interdisciplinary Approach by Deborah van Deusen Hunsinger. In the book Hunsinger applies the theological method of Karl Barth to pastoral counseling, and I think the outcome for the reader is a real deep appreciation of how the disciplines of theology and psychology can so effectively work together in bringing about transformation in people’s lives.

In the opening chapter of the book Hunsinger draws on the work of Shirley C. Guthrie and his article “Pastoral Counseling, Trinitarian Theology, and Christian Anthropology. Hunsinger goes on to say:

Guthrie’s article is perhaps best characterized as an exercise in theological application. Drawing on central insights from Barth’s theological anthropology, Guthrie asks how a (Reformed) Christian doctrine of the human person might inform the pastoral counselor’s work. Guthrie is thus not interested in interpreting Barth so much as in using Barth’s anthropology to make his own constructive contribution. Guthrie’s essay sheds considerable light on our question of what it means to bring a theological perspective to the therapeutic task. Pastoral counseling’s distinctiveness as a profession, he argues, comes precisely from its theological self-understanding. (p. 18)

Guthrie writes:

What makes Christian pastoral counseling unique is that fact that without arrogance but also without apology the work of counselors is based on the attempt to understand both themselves and their counselees in light of the God who is Creator, Redeemer and Life-Giver and thus the answer to questions about the ultimate origin, meaning and goal of life which lie behind all other problems and questions. (p. 18)

What are the implications of this then in our work as pastoral counselors? Hunsinger says:

From the above quotation it is already evident that Guthrie has adopted Barth’s methodological procedure of basing his theological anthropology on the doctrine of the Trinity. Following this method, Guthrie outlines a Christian doctrine of the human person on the basis of a doctrine of the triune God. Human beings are thus understood from a threefold perspective: first, as created in the image of God (derived from knowledge of God the Creator); second, as sinners who fail to live out God’s purposes and who stand in need of redemption (derived from knowledge of Christ, the Redeemer); and third, as people who are promised a new humanity in Christ (derived from knowledge of the Holy Spirit). Guthrie emphasizes the importance of the pastoral counselor’s keeping all three aspects of human reality in a kind of creative tension, so that the created goodness, the sinful fallenness, and the promised new life of human beings are all clearly seen and affirmed as being simultaneously true….Counselors are ministers who may indeed have specialized skills but who, like their counselees, are themselves ‘limited, fallible, sinful human beings who themselves are judge, need reconciliation and salvation, and can only receive the wisdom and power they cannot produce from themselves to help others. (p. 18-19)

Beautiful. I love the idea that we must keep a ‘kind of creative tension’ between those three aspects of the Trinity as we do our work in the context of pastoral counseling.

In Memory of Professor Ray S. Anderson (1925-2009)

Anderson Ray-small

One of my favorite stories that Dr. Anderson used to tell his students (and is written in the book, Dancing with Wolves, While Feeding the Sheep), is the story that is told of the connection between his farming and ministry days. Ray wrote:


“It happened only once. There was no suggestion that it was planned or premeditated. We were sitting on the edge of the furrow, behind the plow, facing the freshly turned soil over which the seagulls swooped in search of frantic worms. It was the second cup of coffee time. The cigarette lightened the load and loosened his tongue.


‘Stick your hand down into the soil, son,’, he suddenly said without warning. Breaking the rules by looking into my face and talking directly to me. As I did, he said softly, ‘Son, this soil is part of your life–you take care of it and it will take care of you.’ …..


…..What my father had long discovered, but left for me to find for myself, was that there was neither mystery nor magic in the soil. The mystery and the magic, if we dare to use such words, lie in the connection of the heart to the hand. There is no place or task on earth which can satisfy the restless hand which is not attached to the heart.


My father had not attached my hand to the soil on that day long ago, although that was how I had understood it. Rather, he had attached my heart to my hand. My inner self had become bound to my outer life. As a result, whatever task to which I put my hand was done with a sense of finality and completeness that brought joy rather than a feeling of fatalism, which can only produce melancholy and despair. Transplantation without transformation kills the roots as well as the plant. The once in a lifetime gift is one that continues to transform. (pp. 14,18)”

That passion for having one’s hand attached to one’s heart is one of the greatest gifts that I think Dr. Anderson imparted on me, as well as many other students. I think this most manifested itself in the idea of theological praxis, one of Anderson’s favorite words. Here we were, theological students locked away in classrooms and libraries studying theology…and he did not want theology to be just about that. Theology that is confined to academia and the ivory tower, but he was passionate that our theology was practical and that it was engaged in the work of ministry, whatever vocation that may call one to. I owe Dr. Anderson for forming that idea in seminary and helping me make sure that my theology was alive and vibrant, put to use in the work of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Anderson was a larger than life character, whose “maverick” reputation proceeded him. I first heard about him from my father who took one of Dr. Anderson’s classes at the Fuller extension in Phoenix back in the mid to late 80′s. So when I decided to attend Fuller I knew that I needed to take a class with him…just based on all the great things my father had to say and all the great things that students were echoing. I wish I would have had the opportunity to take more, but I took three classes from Dr. Anderson in my time at Fuller. I took his Karl Barth and Evangelicalism class (to Ray I owe the credit for cultivating a love for Barth and his Dogmatics); I took his Dietrich Bonhoeffer-Life and Thought class (Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship changed my life in college and Ray only furthered my passion for the life and work of Bonhoeffer); and lastly, Ray let me in his Ph.D. seminary, The Shape of Practical Theology (I was only an M.Div student at the time, but he allowed me the privilege of taking that class–one of the best classes I ever had). It shouldn’t be a surprise that two of Ray’s heroes were Barth and Bonhoeffer…two men who lived lives of practical theology.

The last time I spoke with Dr. Anderson in person was in early 2006 when he taught one of the counseling courses for my MSMFT degree. I still remember him that day…strong, farmer hand shake as always. I could hardly believe he was 80. His body and mind seemed as sharp as ever, and he was breathing theological life into a new class of students. Something he had been doing for decades. I consider Dr. Anderson a friend and mentor, and he was always gracious to meet me on campus on Mondays (his day at Fuller in the last few years), as well as always exchanging emails with me…I had sent him more than my fair share of theological question that were causing me problems. He was even a guest blogger back in July of 2006 when he wrote about his then new book, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches.

Dr. Anderson was a prolific writer, passionate teacher, and a great friend. Dr. Anderson will leave a long legacy, and big shoes to fill. I like what was said of him by Kurt Fredrickson, Associate Dean for Fuller’s Doctorate of Ministry program:

“Ray blended a strong theological instinct with a passion for giving theology traction on the ground, in real-life situations,” says Kurt Fredrickson, associate dean for Fuller’s Doctor of Ministry program and a student of Anderson’s at both Westmont and Fuller. “He was never content with lofty theological ideas. Those ideas had to connect with real people. He also was never satisfied with the status quo, in theology or in the church. He challenged his students to think freshly, and even at the edges, all the while anchored to tradition.”

Check out the post from Ray’s former students, Christian D. Kettler. As well as the post by Fuller Seminary.

And you can visit Dr. Anderson’s website.

I Can’t Listen To Another Sermon!

I believe that the time of long lectures, when someone spoke for an hour and the audience was condemned to sit and listen to whatever they were given, is…perhaps over–not just for me but for everyone. What we need in theology and in the church is–Oh, I don’t want to use that wretched word again–”conversations”. What I mean is simply that we should talk together and try to arrive at answers together, instead of someone trying to present something to other people as though the Holy Spirit has dictated it to him in person.

I posted that quote by Karl Barth back in August of 2006 when I was really wrestling over the topic of preaching. And I’m still wrestling over this topic.

You can see some of my thoughts on this topic below:

But it just seems like I can hardly sit through a sermon these days. This is probably more a statement of my own heart and disposition right now than it is anything about a sermon. But maybe also, I’m just tired of the way we have been preaching sermons for years and years. My students are probably pretty sick of the way that I go about preaching sermons as well, that’s why I have been wrestling over the topic for years.

But what you have is a vicious cycle that continually reinforces itself. You have the tradition of the typical expository sermon, presented in three steps or points, coupled with the expectation from the audience to hear that same method of presentation. But while this cycle continues, I often get the sense, and often hear the conversation, that both the preacher and the congregation are wanting something different. We just don’t know how to get out of the cycle. Or maybe we do, but we just don’t have the courage to try something different, take some risks, fail at some things. So what you have instead, is people literally bored out of their minds every Sunday while someone up front speaks at them in a very non-engaging style. And what you probably have as well is speakers and pastors up front bored out of their minds as well.

As I mentioned before, my former student, Brian Kiley, who is now a college pastor, has been posting some fascinating stuff on the topic of preaching. Read his posts Am I a Speacher? and Implication vs. Application. In these posts, Brian is reflecting on Doug Pagitt’s book, Preaching Re-Imagined.

Drew Sams is trying to figure this out as well, as he is in the midst of a blogging series on the use of story in youth ministry.

I’m obviously a firm believer in preaching….I’m just wondering if we need to change some of our methods. I know I need to. So let me leave you with another quote from Barth about the power of preaching.

This is why the movement of the Word as preaching was so crucial to his interpretation of the Word as threefold event. By the logic of his doctrine of the Word, it was only as Christian preaching that the Word remains ongoing. The Word becomes present as preaching in the same way that the Holy Spirit makes God present to us. That is, just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, the Word as preaching proceeds from revelation and scripture. Barth’s point was not that the revelatory and scriptural forms of the Word cannot be made present. Rather, just as the Father and Son are made present only through the movement of the Spirit, the Word as revelation and scripture are made present “in, with, and under” preaching and only through preaching.

By “preaching” Barth meant more than Sunday sermonizing or even the general ministerial work of pastors. Preaching included all forms of genuine Christian witness, including, “whatever we all ‘preach’ to ourselves in the quiet or our own rooms.” It included even the work of theologians, insofar as they understood and practiced theology in a ministry of the Word of God and therefore a form of preaching, he argued. (The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons, pp.78)

I would love to hear your thoughts on preaching? What do you think? Is it just me, or are you feeling the same thing?

Advent As A Reminder of God’s Humility

“This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a manger.” Luke 2:12

One of my favorite passages in all of Scripture is found in Philippians 2:5-7, where it states that though Jesus Christ, “was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form…” This is the great mystery of our Christian faith, that Christ was both divine and human.

As the Christmas season is upon us it is a great reminder to me of the humanity of God, who came into our midst as the Christ child. Jesus Christ who was born, crucified and resurrected on our behalf, is the same Christ who was born as a child into this world, vulnerable and susceptible to all the things of this life and world. He did not descend into this world as a mighty and powerful king, but as a child. It is here that I am most reminded of the humanity that Christ shares with us. And it is also here that I am reminded most profoundly that we are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), even down to the detail of being born into this world as a child.

Just as Christ did not descend into this world as a mighty and powerful king, he also did not come clothed in royalty and riches, but rather, “wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a manger.” The Christ child was born into poverty, a Savior who came to reconcile all of humanity, in all of its conditions and positions in life. The Christ child is a reminder to me that though we were living in spiritual poverty, his incarnation brought us out of the depths of poverty and bondage and into the glorious riches of knowing him.

My favorite theologian, the Swiss pastor and professor, Karl Barth, says “It is precisely God’s deity, which rightly understood, includes his humanity.” And it is here at Christmas time that I better understand Christ’s deity through his humanity. We do not worship a God who does not understand or identify with us, but rather a God who was brought into this world like all of us, naked and vulnerable to all of life. This is the God we worship, one whose presence with his people is displayed by his very humanity.