LOGOTHERAPY, THEOLOGY, AND PASTORAL PSYCHOLOGY.
By Prof. Dr. Heye Heyen
Available in German here.
Translated by Tom Edmondson for Meaning in Ministry: Pastoral Care with Logotherapy (blogsite).
On the death of Viktor E. Frankl:
On September 2, 1997, the Viennese professor of neurology and psychiatry, Viktor E. Frankl, the founder of Logotherapy and Existential Analysis, died at the age of 92. Who was this man whose work received less attention in the German-speaking world than in America, and from whose books Protestant theologians quote less frequently than their Catholic colleagues?
1. The Life of Viktor Frankl
Born in 1905 to Jewish parents in Vienna, the stronghold of psychotherapy at that time, he already corresponded with S. Freud as a high school student, from whom he turned away during his medical studies in order to join A. Adler's individual psychology. After a few years, however, there was a break here too. In 1927, Frankl, whose understanding of neuroses increasingly differed from Adler's, was expelled from the Viennese Association for Individual Psychology. From 1930 Frankl worked as a doctor at the neuropsychiatric clinic of the University of Vienna. At the same time, he set up counseling centers for young people who were in emotional distress – in no small part due to the mass unemployment of those years. Against the background of this work, Frankl developed the basic ideas of his logotherapy during the 1930s. He often recognizes a deficit in the experience of meaning or what he calls an 'existential vacuum' as the reason or breeding ground for mental suffering. Accordingly, he sees the therapeutic task as helping to find a perspective of meaning.
Frankl spent the years 1942-45 as a prisoner in four concentration camps. He later described these years as the "crucible" of his logotherapy: "Indeed, the lesson of Auschwitz was that man is a meaning-oriented being. [...] The message of Auschwitz was: Man can only survive if he lives for
something. And it seems to me that this applies not only to the survival of the individual, but also to the survival of mankind.” After the liberation in 1945 - he had lost his entire family except for one sister - he returned to Vienna. He dictated the book that would become a bestseller: Saying Yes to Life Anyway. A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp. The title of the English translation is: Yes to Life in Spite of Everything. A series of scientific books followed, including his habilitation. Apart from longer
stays in the USA, where he held several guest professorships, Frankl stayed in Vienna until the end of his life.
2. Basic Ideas of Logotherapy
Frankl differs from Freud and Adler above all in that he sees the basic 'Mover' of man not in the will to pleasure or in the will to power, but in the will to meaning. If this becomes frustrated, an 'existential vacuum' is created in which all sorts of mental disorders can then proliferate and the will to pleasure or power can become dominant.
If the frustration of the striving for meaning is the main cause of a disorder, Frankl speaks of 'noögenic neurosis' and understands logotherapy as a specific therapy. According to Frankl, logotherapy is non- specific therapy for psychogenic neuroses. The anthropological place of the striving for meaning is the spiritual dimension. With the 'spirit' man is given the ability for 'self-transcendence' and 'self-distancing'. Frankl illustrates what is meant by the term 'self-transcendence' using the paradox of the eye, which fulfills its meaning and realizes itself precisely by overlooking itself and instead perceiving the 'world'. Thus, according to Frankl, man finds himself precisely by directing his attention away from himself (even more so: from his symptom) to something that is not himself: to a beloved you, to a task, to something that is worth being perceived. The therapeutic method that aims at this is 'dereflection'. Man's possibility of 'self-distancing' is shown in an ability that no animal possesses: to laugh. Humor is used above all in the probably best-known method that Frankl developed: paradoxical intention. It comes into effect wherever anticipatory anxiety produces or at least intensifies a symptom. For example, someone who, in humorous exaggeration, almost wishes to 'sweat something out for the boss like he has never seen it before' will take the wind out of the sails of his fear of expectation and possibly experience for the first time with amazement that his hands are completely dry in the dreaded encounter.
For Frankl, the spiritual dimension—here the influence of his philosophical teacher M. Scheler becomes apparent - is the basis of man's freedom to rise above his psychophysical conditionality and to take a stand and behave in relation to it. As the opposite pole of freedom Frankl sees the responsibility of man, whereby he also clearly has in mind the aspect of being responsible before whom or what.’ Unconscious spirituality is the subject of dream analysis, which, however, has a much lower significance in Frankl's practice than Freud's. His work The Unconscious God4 deals with this topic above all. The title is misleading, however, insofar as the idea that God himself can be found in the unconscious, as it were, is far from Frankl. Rather, he is concerned with making people aware of a Translator’s note: The English version is Utled, Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning, and contains additonal material potentially repressed or undeveloped relationship with God. The spiritual dimension is also the basis of conscience, which is therefore 'ontically irreducible'. It is understood as a 'sense-probe' and is thus to be fundamentally distinguished from the Freudian superego, which Frankl does not question as such.
3. Logotherapy in German Speaking Areas
Although overshadowed by the major therapeutic schools, logotherapy has been growing in the German-speaking world since about 1980. Two 'pioneers' of logotherapy will be briefly introduced here, whose differences at the same time indicate the factual 'range' of possible logotherapeutic standpoints: the psychologist Elisabeth Lukas, director of the South German Institute for Logotherapy in Munich, and the Protestant theologian Uwe Böschemeyer, director of the Hamburg Institute for Existential Analysis and Logotherapy. E. Lukas is best known for her numerous (pocket) books in the Herder publishing house. In easy-to- understand and yet precise language, she presents the basic ideas of a (type of) logotherapy that could be described as 'orthodox'. In ever new variations, she presents Frankl's concepts, justifies them, and emphasizes their significance compared to all other currents of thought at the time (not only in psychology). In accordance with her strong emphasis on the spiritual dimension, she sees a great danger in overemphasizing the role of the psychic; according to her strong orientation to Frankl's parable of the paradox of the eye, she sees a great danger in any form of psychotherapeutic 'navel gazing'. Above all, she takes a decidedly critical stance towards depth psychology—sometimes not without polemics.
U. Böschemeyer, author of the dissertation "Die Sinnfrage in Psychotherapie und Theologie" (The Question of Meaning in Psychotherapy and Theology) published in 1976, already in the early days of his logotherapeutic activity advocated the concept of (what was then called) "integrative logotherapy". Its characteristic was a greater openness towards other schools and methods; this was especially true towards depth psychology. In the meantime, U. Böschemeyer has decisively developed logotherapy into a "value-oriented existential analysis" in his institute. The most important difference to classical logotherapy lies in the understanding and in the weighting of the unconscious, as the center of which the spirit and thus the orientation towards values is seen. Through the method of 'value-oriented imagination' developed by Böschemeyer, values such as 'self-acceptance' can be experienced via inner images and, if necessary, their obstacles can be recognized and worked on. In recent years U. Böschemeyer has become known to a wide audience through several books and numerous small publications (SKV Edition).
4. Logotherapy as an Object of Theological and Pastoral Psychological Interest The interest shown by theologians in logotherapy or in the work of V.E. Frankl is - especially on the Protestant side - on the whole rather low. For example, it must be noticed that H. Gollwitzer in his two monographs on the question of meaning does not explicitly refer to Frankl in a single place. Two theological dissertations take a look at Frankl's anthropology: the work of U. Böschemeyer (supervised by H. Thielicke) from a systematic-theological point of view, and the work of St. Peeck from a practical-theological point of view (significance for suicidal people). Wolfram Kurz, professor of religious education and at the same time director of an institute for logotherapy and existential analysis in Tübingen, makes logotherapy fruitful for religious education in several publications, including his dissertation and his habilitation thesis. Among the German-speaking authors, he is probably the one in whom logotherapeutic and theological or religious pedagogical elements interpenetrate most strongly and result in an overall conception.
In his (practical-theological) dissertation, Karl-Heinz Röhlin compares existential analysis and logotherapy with the more recent Protestant concepts of pastoral care. From logotherapy he gains impulses for a 'meaning-oriented pastoral care', which he understands - in modification of the well- known thesis of D. Stollberg - as "logotherapy in the church context."5 Nevertheless, the well-known representatives of Protestant poimenics as well as pastoral psychology on the whole only make very peripheral reference to Frankl and his school(s), if at all. Incidentally, the reverse is even more true: Frankl himself and authors who define themselves primarily as logotherapists hardly take any notice of pastoral psychology or clinical pastoral training.
5. Opportunities for Dialogue
Since I myself have completed both the Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) and various pastoral psychological training courses on the one hand, and an existential-analytical-logotherapeutic training (with U. Böschemeyer) on the other hand a good ten years ago, I have been interested in integrating some methods that I owe to pastoral psychology within the training of logotherapists and the CPE. Conversely, I would like to see logotherapeutic insights included in the training of pastoral workers and pastoral psychologists.
I can only indicate here in the form of theses what the main benefits for both sides could be.
a) The benefit for (prospective) logotherapists from contact with (representatives of) protestant poimenics and pastoral psychology could be the following:
- Sensitization to the fundamental desire to be accepted – for this, the central consideration of the 'will to meaning' must not obscure the view;
- Overcoming an anthropological reductionism that actually largely understands fear only in terms of the paradigm of 'anticipatory fear' and does not take it into account as existential;
- Striving for an attitude that tolerates open questions and is skeptical of hasty answers;
- Raising awareness of the danger of dealing with oneself and others in a moralizing manner;
- Discovering a human 'right to complain' (up to and including accusing God; see Psalms);
- Sensitization to the fact that faith is also only lived in this world and that therefore ecclesiogenic damage (and analogously: comparable dangers through neologistic counseling) must also be taken into account.
b) The benefit for (prospective) ministers and pastoral psychologists from contact with (representatives of) logotherapy and existential analysis could be the following:
- Sensitization for the perception of the pastor and client under the aspect: "What are his 'pillars of meaning'? (A parameter for assessing suicidality or resilience!);
- Self-awareness also under the aspect: 'Me and my values';
- Working with dreams and the imagination under the perceptual attitude: unconscious belief, unconscious hope, unconscious love;
- Sensitization to the mechanism of 'hyper-reflection' (Frankl) of one's own problems and their reinforcement that occurs as a result;
- Becoming familiar with the methodical handling of dereflection;
- Recognizing and avoiding any personal psychologistical tendencies; Frankl concludes:
“Sigmund Freud taught us the importance of debunking. But I think it has to stop somewhere, and that's where the 'exposing psychologist' is confronted with something that just can't be exposed anymore, for the simple reason that it's real. The psychologist, however, who cannot stop exposing there either, only exposes the unconscious tendency to devalue what is genuine in people, what is human in people.”
LITERATUR:
U. Böschemeyer, Die Sinnfrage in Psychotherapie und Theologie. Die Existenzanalyse und
Logotherapie Viktor E. Frankls aus theologischer Sicht, Berlin / New York 1976; ders., Logotherapie
und Religion, in: G. Condrau (Hg), Die Psychologie des 20. Jahrhunderts, Bd. 15, Zürich 1979, 296-302;
ders., Neu beginnen! – Konkrete Hilfen in Wende- und Krisenzeiten, Lahr 1966; J.B. Fabry, Das Ringen
um Sinn. Eine Einführung in die Logotherapie, Freiburg 1980 [2]; V.E. Frankl, Theorie und Therapie der
Neurosen, München / Basel 1975 [4]; ders., ... trotzdem Ja zum Leben sagen. Ein Psychologe erlebt
das Konzentrationslager, München 1978 [2]; ders., Ärztliche Seelsorge. Grundlagen der Logotherapie
und Existenzanalyse, Wien 1979 [9]; ders., Der unbewußte Gott. Psychotherapie und Religion,
München 1979 [6]; ders., Das Leiden am sinnlosen Leben. Psychotherapie für heute, Freiburg i.Br. /
Basel / Wien 1981 [6]; ders., Das Leiden am sinnlosen Leben. Psychotherapie für heute, Freiburg i.Br. /
Basel / Wien 1981 [6]; ders., Der Wille zum Sinn. Ausgewählte Vorträge über Logotherapie, Bern /
Stuttgart / Wien 1982 [3]; ders., Der Mensch vor der Frage nach dem Sinn, München 1985 [4]; ders.,
Was nicht in meinen Büchern steht: Lebenserinnerungen, München 1995; H. Gollwitzer, Krummes
Holz – aufrechter Gang. Zur Frage nach dem Sinn des Lebens, München 1970; ders., Ich frage nach
dem Sinn des Lebens, München 1974; W. Kurz, Ethische Erziehung als religionspädagogische Aufgabe.
Historische und systematische Zusammenhänge unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sinn-
Kategorie und der Logotherapie V.E. Frankls, Tübingen 1983; ders., Seel-Sorge als Sinn-Sorge: Zur
Analogie von kirchlicher Seelsorge und Logotherapie, in: WzM 37 (1985), 225-237; ders./ F. Sedlak
6 Frankl 1995, 104.
6
(Hg.), Kompendium der Logotherapie und Existenzanalyse. Bewährte Grundlagen, neue Perspektiven,
Tübingen 1995; E. Lukas, Von der Tiefen- zur Höhenpsychologie. Logotherapie in der Beratungspraxis,
Freiburg i.Br. 1983; dies., Auch dein Leben hat Sinn. Logotherapeutische Wege zur Gesundung,
Freiburg i.Br. 1984 [2]; dies., Von der Trotzmacht des Geistes. Menschenbild und Methoden der
Logotherapie, Freiburg i.Br. 1986; dies., Lebensbesinnung. Wie Logotherapie heilt. Die wesentlichen
Texte aus dem Gesamtwerk, Freiburg i.Br. 1995; M. Nicol, Die Religion in Existenzanalyse und
Logotherapie nach Viktor E. Frankl, in: WzM 38 (1986), 207-222; St. Peeck, Suizid und Seelsorge. Die
Bedeutung der anthropologischen Ansätze V.E. Frankls und P. Tillichs für Theorie und Praxis der
Seelsorge an suizidgefährdeten Menschen, Stuttgart 1991; K.-H. Röhlin, Sinnorientierte Seelsorge. Die
Existenzanalyse und Logotherapie V.E. Frankls im Vergleich mit den neueren evangelischen
Seelsorgekonzeptionen und als Impuls für die kirchliche Seelsorge, München 1988.
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.
Meditation for a Balloon Release
Rev. Tom Edmondson
Subject area: Funerals, child’s funeral
I conducted a memorial service for a 12-year-old who died unexpectedly. The family wanted to do a balloon release at the conclusion of the service. They distributed helium balloons to the friends and family of the deceased, asked them to write a message on it, then release it. As I thought about what to say for this portion of the service, I was reminded of Elisabeth Lukas’s well-known “Candle Meditation.” Drawing inspiration from that, I composed the following “Balloon Meditation.”
I love the idea of a balloon release. Balloons are loved by children and adults alike. Think about how a balloon is like life.
A balloon has no life until it is filled with air. These balloons are filled with helium, but we also fill balloons with our breath. In the Bible, the Hebrew word for “breath” is also the word for “spirit.” As Genesis 2:7 says, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
For a while, that breath—or helium—animates the balloon, but over time, the balloon loses its elasticity and the breath escapes. Some balloons stay inflated for a long time, but others only stay inflated for a short time. So it is with our earthly bodies. We are animated for a time, and then the breath—or spirit—returns to God.
Our children are like balloons. We bring them into the world, but God gives them life. And like a balloon, we cannot hold on to them, but must release them. Just as the balloons float upward towards heaven, we commend our sons and daughters to the Lord.
[Child’s name] time was too short. You will all miss him/her dearly. I hope you will find comfort in seeing the balloons rise into the sky. Remember that you have given [Child’s name] up to Heaven, and there is no better place for him/her to be.
Take a minute to remember what you love the most about [Child’s name]. On a balloon write a prayer, a favorite memory, a story, or anything else you like. When you are ready, release the balloon into the air. Every balloon represents a prayer, a beautiful message, or memory of wonderful human loved by all.
Copyright 2023 Rev. Tom Edmondson, meaninginministry.com. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use or share this meditation with proper citation of its author and source.