Search

My first encounter with the psychology of religion must have been through the man I have always considered my true teacher: H. T. de Graaf.1,2 He was a typical liberal Protestant, who did not believe in the bodily resurrection, and for whom the significance of Easter and Ascension and other Christian feast days was not fixed, but formed the subject of inquisitive contemplation. He was a great scholar, an original and independent thinker, and a man of integrity and deep faith, but he was older than Roessingh, his predecessor at the University of Leiden, who died young.3 He ­commanded the respect of the students, but did not move them as Roessingh had done. During lectures he gave the impression of being someone who was genuinely interested in many things, who was very knowledgeable, thought about things seriously, and therefore had a lot to offer, yet struggled to find an adequate way of doing this (his explanations were dry and rather uninspiring) as well as being someone who lived a deeply pious life but was unable to share this with others.

Since the contemporary church no longer reflects the simple and clear attitudes to social structure evident in the creeds and confessions, is it possible for clinical pastoral education (CPE) and the insights and understandings it represents to contribute to the quest for new structures? In the areas of motivation, power, confrontation, and conflict management, the possibility for contribution seems real. At the same time, CPE must take social structures more seriously and broaden its understanding of the minister's role.

The author utilizes Ian T. Ramsey's “model” construct as a vehicle to “disclose” the identity of the minister. Thus he uses the clown to point to the minister's vulnerability, his trust, his integrity, and shows how suffering can have a special relation to the understanding of the presence of God.

The Author argues that learnings in Clinical Pastoral Education may clarify the prophetic function of ministry and minimize the perenniel conflict between the prophetic and the priestly. He describes “solidarity” and “confrontation” in counseling and amplifies their meaning as regards the traditional functions of the prophet.

The question of the origin of religion is explored. It is hypothesized that there are two areas where the structure, or fundamental pattern, of religion becomes visible. The first hypothesis is that in the early tribal experience of human beings rites and rules embodied in religion have survival value. The second hypothesis is that for the individual religion replaces the mother as “reassurance” against the threat of death.