1980s Transitions in Pastoral Care: Smith and the Relational Self

Reflections upon 

The Relational Self: Ethics & therapy from a Black church perspective by Archie Smith (1982)

Dr. Smith is a retired professor of pastoral psychology and counseling from PSR. While his training began in theology and ministry, his studies and work expanded to include psychology. He shares much of his context in Chapter 1. The way he shares shows signs of the self-reflexive exercises of his clinical training. He focuses on parental relationships and experiences within his ministry and work. But he also treads into interesting territory as he shares just a glimpse of the social and historical context of his experiences, which is the point of the book, but I imagine is also breaking into new territory in 1982. Smith identifies himself as neorothodox theology and pastoral care in 1966, but also informed of psychological perspectives that enhanced such a view (35).

Question 2: Pastoral Identity within the Text

Smith argues for several identities for the Black Church, and thus the Black pastor, arguing these identities are relevant to all forms of church and ministers. As he names them, I imagine these are the ideals to which he aspires and desires for his students.

One way he organizes his thoughts about pastoral identity is through the idea of Paradigms I, II, and III. Paradigm I encourages the individualized, privatized, personal salvation of most of contemporary American Christian groups (41). This leads pastors and churches to focus on internal sins, struggles, without complex analysis of social systems. (Smith quotes Ruether on page 49). Paradigm II makes ministry politically aware, socially active, and oriented to changing the systems; it is often expressed by rescuing the victims of social oppression (43). The role of church and pastor becomes one of a mediating structure between society and personal experience. Paradigm III ministry emphasizes the interconnectedness of the web of life, recognizes the social-intentional character of the agent, all aiming toward justice in relation to one another (53). Within the discussion of the three paradigms, Smith names multiple identities for Black churches. Some highlights are:

Mediating structure between individual and society (44)

Psychic support to people while advocating social change

Prophetic voice to injustice (46)

Supporting moral vision of people

Empowering them to transform social structures

Source for transcendent values.

In Chapter 2, Smith lists the historical role of the Black preacher as “bringer of glad tidings, a spiritual and psychological healer, the interpreter of the Unknown, the comforter in times of sorrow, the one who gives voice and picturesquely expresses the longings, disappointments, and resentments of a stolen and oppressed people” (76).

In Chapter 4, Smith posits that Black therapists must be intentional to include social and historical context within their reflexive practice. “The context is operative whether the black therapist or client chooses to recognize it or not” (98). The combined effect of race, gender, class, and other oppressions within social experience should be acknowledged. He also suggests that therapy of “black consciousness selfhood includes acceptance of one’s self and others, respect and self-determination, self-initiation, and responsibility for one’s own life. This implies affirmation, integration, and transformation of the symbol “blackness” (105). While not directly stating so, Smith’s description can be applied as a goal for Black churches, as they continue to fulfill the role of a therapeutic institution. A minister’s role, therefore, as trained in both theology and therapy, would be to empower and foster identity development that challenges and transcends societal norms.

I feel the book would benefit from further extrapolation about Smith’s view of a Christian Black liberation ethic. I found myself left with lots of questions about the practical application of such an ethic. While I skimmed Chapter 8 to see if he applied it in the Jonestown case study, I wonder if more could have been done. It seems that a model of care based on therapy and ethics should describe more clearly how the moral objective of freedom is enacted. I also am struggling to pinpoint the places of departure between his theology and my own. I sense that Smith is or similar to an Open Theist or Free Will Theist, which shares many aspects of process thought, but maintains an all-powerful supernatural (or perhaps 19th century natural) God. This thought of God is often used within neoorthodox liberation theologies and helps many connect their modern scientific understanding and postmodern relativism with more traditional theological language. It is not convincing for my own theological ponderings, as I feel there is still a layer of false consciousness, or perhaps cognitive dissonance, within such a model. But the science education most people obtain within dominant structural systems does not encourage expansion beyond a modernist perspective. I find it interesting that liberation theologies use Marx, or in this case, Mead, who were raised theists, but whose philosophies were not. It seems inserting assumptions about God’s nature into a philosophy without God can produce many points of tension. Those tensions, however, do provoke intriguing questions and do disrupt/disturb/push the oppressive structural systems.

Upon further digging, George Herbert Mead, his primary source for the development of the relational self, is a contemporary of Whitehead and they influenced each other’s thoughts and language in compelling ways. What is interesting to me about Mead and Smith’s use of him is the focus on psychological and social behavior. I’m also curious about how the development of thought in the 1930s contributed to the social/academic atmosphere of later decades. Did the work of these philosophers reflect the work within society’s thought process that eventually led to the civil rights movement and feminist activism of the 60s/70s… or perhaps did their contributions pave the way for more serious reflection and openness to include silenced voices at the table? I’m not claiming that the path to today’s academia was premeditated or that there wasn’t open hostility towards those who pushed us towards it. However, these minds were poking holes all over modernity… before World War Two, before the Holocaust. If time travel ever becomes possible, I’d love to listen to the conversations brewing.