Systems theory

Th e basics of systems theory are displayed most clearly through the interview with Pastor B (2011).

In this congregation there are clear divisions and relationship within the congregation and outside of the congregation. Congregation 2 itself is clearly a made up of diff erent divisions, with organisational boundaries, but strong relationship between the parts. Furthermore, relationships between congregation 2, it’s partner and sponsor organisations further display relationships and interrelationship of parts.

Th e boundaries within congregation and between the congregation and community display clear diff erentiation, but still relationship and communication across the boundaries. He described a clear separation between the congregation and community, but still the congregation asks and enquires as to what is needed and is willing to adapt based on the communication that comes from outside of the congregation, such as studies done by government.

Th e congregations response to government research directing the focus of health care (Pastor B, 2011), and Congregation 3 (Pastor C, 2011) being willing to stop ministries that don’t seem to be successful shows fl exibility that is important in systems theory.

Feedback can be seen most clearly in the response of congregation 4 (Pastor C, 2011) to partnering with Habitat for Humanity. Th is also displays interrelationship, with the congregation relating to Habitat for Humanity and the community in which the building was undertaken. Th e positive response seemed to act as positive feedback, resulting in the ministry continuing.

Both pastors B and C agreed with interrelationship within both the congregation and the community..

Although Pastor C (2011) was uncomfortable with the term ‘interdependence’ the principle of each part aff ecting each other part was confi rmed.

From this short interaction it can be seen that there is congruence between ecosystems theory and these pastors’ experience of Community Pastoral Care. If the basic of interrelationship is confi rmed it is then it is next important to investigate the theory suggested for communication within those relationships.

It is however illustrated that in practice ecosystems theory is not as smooth as it is portrayed in theory.

13. See Appendix

When it comes to real communities there is ambiguity about the way in which parts function, there is tension between congregations who seem to be shut off from the system and their connection to the system. Interaction and interdependence can be thwarted, and it is diffi cult to measure closed and open systems when it comes to real communities. Th e impossibility of fi nal formulations and defi nitions calls for humility on the part of a pastor attempting to engage with the system and understand the way in which subsystems and parts function.

5.3.4.2 Communicative Action

Ideal speech situation is, in short, a situation where communication is understandable to all, involves as many people aff ected as possible, and is conducted in such a way that there is no imbalance of power between the parties involved. Th ere is no direct illustration pointing to this in the interviews. However, both pastors B and C are seen to seek communication with those aff ected, attempting to understand their perspective and their genuine needs before acting.

Pastor B (2011) made it especially clear that the people engaged with are asked about what their needs are, however it is not possible from these interview to conclusively say whether or not communication between the congregation and those ministered to is that of equals or if there is a sense of a power relationship between those bringing care and those needing it. Pastor C (2011) encourages an environment within the congregation where people are free to disagree, and to engage as they wish. Th is showed a desire from him to engage with congregants in a way that is free of power relationship, and in which all people involved are clearly understood.

Further study would need to be conducted to either confi rm or deny this, however based on the little interaction, certain parts of this are affi rmed and none are denied by Pastor B or C. While there is a sense in the interview with Pastor A (2011) that he would in principle agree to this, there is also illustration of seeking to work with like minded people, as opposed to all people aff ected, and of forming policy and vision in a manner that does not seek to engage all people aff ected by the decisions. At some points this has resulted in very negative experiences for Pastor A. Th is being a single example, and limited in depth, cannot draw absolute conclusions, but does beg one question. If Pastor A sought to engage in the ideal speech situation, would the negative experiences he describes have had a more positive outcome?

Communicative rationality is most clearly confi rmed as a useful principle by Pastor C (2011) in his approach to the forming of vision for the church. He saw that when more people were involved then the vision was more dynamic. Pastor B (2011) in his emphasis on the pastor forming vision and policy does not at fi rst seem to be an exemplar of Communicative Action and communicative rationality. However, it can be seen from the interview that the ministry of the congregation is formed through interactions with local government and their research, through scripture and through interaction with members of the community in need.

While the motives may not be clearly communicative, and it may not be purely the theory put forward earlier, there is enough in common with the theory of communicative rationality and Communicative Action in general to suggest that this mode of communication would be useful and eff ective in this context. Furthermore, the view of the individual that is put forward (in things like care being for all

people, not assuming people’s needs but always asking, service with no strings attached, caring for people because they are people Jesus died for, breaking the yolk of oppression, etc) all suggest that the principles of inclusiveness and equality and the ideals of power not aff ecting communication would be upheld.

While initially it seems that Pastor B (2011) was not completely involved in Communicative Action, it now seems that the congregation as a system is involved in Communicative Action. Is it to obvious to suggest that Communicative Action needn’t be something that is only undertaken by individuals in systems. It seems that Pastor B, in engaging the congregation with other organisations, scripture, the community, government, etc, has lead the congregation in a process displaying aspects communicative rationality, with positive results.

5.3.4.3 Community Psychology

Th e principles of Community Psychology are put forward as being a way of putting this Communicative Action, within a living system, into practice. Th ese Community Psychology principle, if affi rmed, build onto the already proposed theory, giving more fl esh to the skeletons of a comprehensive approach to the community.

Some of the basic tenants of Community Psychology from the earlier chapters were (1) addressing oppression, (2) personal and political empowerment, (3) risk prevention and health promotion, (4) develop psychological sense of community and (5) cultural relativity and diversity. Th e fi rst three of these principles are very clearly seen in the ministries of pastors B and C. Addressing oppression is mainly seen in addressing economic oppression, but also in Pastor B (2011) standing alongside community members facing the police eviction. Personal empowerment is seen more than political empowerment, and risk prevention and health promotion are seen predominantly in the ministry of congregation 2 in their community outreaches and in congregation 3’s involvement with habitat for humanity. Developing a psychological sense of community is not well described by either pastor, and cultural relativity and diversity is only directly touched on by Pastor C (2011) in his affi rmation of the value of diversity in amongst the people involved in ministry. It could be inferred from comments about engaging the community to fi nd out their perceived needs, but is not explicitly stated.

Psychology at the interrelationship of parts, or directing care towards the relationships within the community rather than to individuals is not addressed by either pastor. While interaction between parts is clear, and prevention, empowerment, and participation are seen as important, this focus on relationships is not explicit in the interviews. For Pastor B (2011) the focus is on the fl ock, and on the geography. It is the real people. For Pastor C (2011) the focus is on empowering the congregation to minister.

Th e question is whether or not this denies the focus being on relationships rather than on individuals and groups. Pastor C (2011) called the Kingdom of God a kingdom of right relationships. Pastor B (2011) also displayed the importance of relationship being built up. Th is relationship allowed congregation 2 to be a link in relationship between the community in times of need and those who where able to provide. In this way, even though the focus of congregation 2 was not to be caring for the relationships between the diff erent parts of the system, they have in many ways become a large part of the relationships within the system. Th is is perhaps the greatest endorsement of this focus as the idea.

Th e focus of the interrelationship is, however, that care should focus on the relationships primarily, rather than specifi c problems. In the context of poverty and crisis this may not always be an option.

Relationship is perhaps key. Is it relationship that is the primary focus when 100 dwellings are destroyed in a fi re, or is the primary focus the physical needs, which are cared for through relationships to those who have access to the necessary resources? Th is could perhaps be answered by Clinebell’s inclusion of relationship between people and the physical environment in holistic care. Furthermore, it is the prior care for relationship that forms the basis for the response to the crisis. However it still seems that in Community Pastoral Care it is not possible to hold dogmatically to this principle at all times. It may be necessary for pastors to sometimes shift their primary focus from what would be a hermeneutical focus on relationships between parts, and onto a cause and eff ect focus on issue at hand.

Th e relationships above further direct attention to Social Capital. If it is important for Pastoral Care to address the relationships between the parts, then it is Social Capital that must be a major focus. Increasing the resourcefulness within the network of relationship that is constantly being built becomes an essential.

It is the resources available to the community that act as a buff er in times of crisis, and that facilitate growth. Congregation 2 (Pastor B) is a wonderful example of being a resource of Social Capital. Th rough training in diff erent areas, and being a link between organisations and those in need, congregation 2 increases the Social Capital of the members of the community who enter into relationship with the congregation.

Pastor C (2011) told of how most of the ministries that the congregations under him are involved in are ones in which the congregation is partnered with other organisations. Th is too is an example of the Social Capital, primarily of those organisations. Th e fact that they are able to enter into relationship with congregations 3 and 4 allows them access to resources that they would not otherwise have had access to.

Th is allows them to engage in ministry that would not otherwise have been possible. In a similar way it is the relationship that Pastor B (2011) was able to develop with certain foreign funders, and the skills necessary to secure those relationships and that funding, that has allowed the ministry of congregation 2 to be so eff ective. Furthermore, Pastor A (2011) described how eff ective merely linking the right people together can be. Th is is a clear example of value of Social Capital.

Relationships are seen to be the seat of growth and development. Here relationships are seen to increase the scope of ministry of a congregation. As relationships are able to be drawn between the congregation and other organisations, the congregation is able to do more. As the congregation enters relationships with others who are in need, then the congregation is once again able to do more, and the Social Capital of the other is increased.

Finally, Pastor B (2011) described how people experience Christ through relationship with members of the congregation. Can it be suggested that this is an illustration of Social Capital? Is it possible to say that the congregation is able to form a link between people and God? Th is would suggest that the dynamics of individuals outside of personal relationship with God being enriched by God’s resources, through relationship with the pastor and congregation that are in relationship with God.