My goal this semester, through my final project for my Multi-Religious Dialogue class, has been to learn about the ways in which differing faiths approach pastoral care and care for the dying. As my long term goal is to become a chaplain in a healthcare setting, where I will encounter people of many faiths, traditions and practices, the project seemed a good way to connect what I was studying this term with practical interactions and information that will prove useful in my future. Having conversations with a variety of faith leaders has allowed me to see the different and similar practices that these traditions and leaders embrace. It has also been a good way to practice speaking with people of diverse beliefs, and to reflect upon my own strengths and growing edges in this skill area. Having completed these conversations, I hope to have the opportunity to have more, less formal ones, with other faith leaders in my community. I feel that this endeavor has served me well as practice for my future role, and could also, potentially be a good exercise for others hoping to learn more about other traditions, or to hone their skills in interacting with folks from diverse religious communities.
Though I had originally hoped to speak with a Muslim chaplain and with the pastor in my town’s evangelical congregation, neither of those worked out. However, I did manage to speak with six different clergy people and lay leaders from different communities of faith. In the end I spoke with Rev. Paul Sawyer of the First Universalist Society in Hartland, VT, Barb Kline-Schoder, Clerk at the Hanover Friends (Quaker) Meeting in NH, Allyn Field (known as Gendo) from the Zen Center in White River Junction, VT, Father Michael Augustinowitz of Our Lady of the Snows in Woodstock, VT, Rabbi Ilene Haigh of Congregation Shir Shalom in Woodstock, who included a prayer group in our conversation whose members had all either needed pastoral care themselves or had a spouse who passed away. Lastly, I spoke with Christine Henderson, a member of the Christian Science Society in Woodstock, and a Christian Science Practitioner. Aside from direct learning about pastoral care and care for the dying, I also learned about myself through this process, partly about my own perceptions of these other traditions, and also about my comfort level (or nervousness level) in dealing with others.
To form a base from which to start our conversations I asked everyone what they considered to be pastoral care, and who in their community was responsible for such care. I think Rev. Paul summed it up well for all of them when he said, “it’s any sort of conversation that deals with helping somebody make it through their life in some way. Bring some healing in some way. Understanding that healing doesn’t always mean you’re ill.” (Sawyer) All those I spoke with basically said that. All the care that can be, and is, given outside of their services or practices to the members of their group falls under the umbrella of pastoral care. Whatever is needed to support people in their life. One difference was that Rev. Paul made a point of mentioning that he often is called upon for people who are not members of his church. If someone dies, or wishes to marry but is not affiliated with a faith tradition, they or their families often turn to him, knowing that he will help them. I think that this is quite common for UU ministers. While I do not know if this happens in any of the other communities I spoke to, no one made a point of mentioning it.
As for who was responsible for pastoral care, I had not thought about labeling community care as pastoral care, but all of the people I spoke with considered the work that community members do for each other as pastoral care and though I had not thought of it that way in the past, I do see that clearly now. The Zen Center, as a place of practice, not worship, does not consider itself a religious community as those of us in congregations might think of it. They do not really have as formal structure for most things as the rest of the communities I have learnt about do. However, Gendo himself is sometimes called to visit a fellow practitioner in the hospital or if they are sick at home. And if someone is struggling the community will try to help in much the same way as other congregations, it simply seems to be a lot less formal of a set up. In the case of all the other traditions I asked about, they all had some form of a “Caring Committee” or circle, a group of lay people who organized help (meals, rides, childcare etc) if someone was in need. These groups all seemed to cover the very tangible logistics of life when people needed it.
However, it seemed a common factor that situations that needed prayer or for which a more spiritual/ethical/value based discussion was needed were dealt with differently, and not in the same among the differing traditions. In the case of Father Mike, there are certain prayers/rites that only a Catholic priest can do, like the “Departing of Souls” (otherwise known as last rites). However, I was surprised to find out that there are lay people trained to give communion and so someone who cannot make it to church might be visited by one of them, rather than Father Mike. Nevertheless, like the Catholic Church, the UU society, the Society of Friends, Shir Shalom, and the Christian Science Society all had caring groups but the clergyperson (or healing practitioner in Christine’s case, or the support or clearness committees among the Quakers) generally did pastoral care that focused on prayer/ethics/decision making etc. One key element was what the recipient of such care wanted. If they specifically requested to speak with their clergyperson, or Christine, or that a committee be formed, then that is what happened.
For all these faiths there was a clear line of approach for spiritual/emotional issues to be dealt with, though the details varied. Christine told me that although they do not have clergy, “The Christian Science pastor is the Bible and the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by the Christian Science church founder, Mary Baker Eddy, books which members turn to for inspiration and guidance. When they need additional spiritual support, they may contact a Christian Science practitioner”. The Quaker Meeting also does not have clergy. However, in their case, the structure of their pastoral care is quite distinct, and was really interesting to learn about. They too have a committee of folks who help with more tangible care when needed, but when the care required is more spiritual or emotional it is dealt with uniquely. If someone is struggling they can request the formation of a support or clearness committee. This is a group of people from the Society that will meet with them to help them work through their issue(s). These can be someone struggling with anger, with their faith, with deciding if they should leave their job, or take a new one – almost anything. A support committee helps with social/emotional needs and a clearness committee helps with decision making. The clearness committee is not there to tell them what to do, but to ask them questions to help them consider what is going on and how they might proceed. In some cases they meet once and that is it, and in some cases a person has a standing repetitive meeting to help them in a more consistent and long term way. According to Barb (the clerk of the Society) most members of the society of friends serve on a committee at one point or another, but it is not a requirement of the faith.
The Christian Scientists also have a different approach due to their lack of clergy. Most congregations will have a caring committee, but then some congregations are fortunate enough to have members like Christine who become Christian Science practitioners. This is someone who is trained by the church, by an authorized teacher of Christian Science, and “has a proven track record of helping people” through prayer, on matters of health, financial burden, ethical dilemmas, or anything else where they feel a need for God/prayer to help you. They do not work for nor are not paid by the church. Instead people choose to seek them out and they set up practices and are paid by individuals seeking their help.
So, despite differences among the traditions I spoke with, I was a bit surprised to find out how similar the underpinning of pastoral care was across the board. The basic tenet is to care for those who have need of it, and all of the people I spoke with do that. Reflecting on whether the act of pastoral care was due to doctrine or their own beliefs about how to be a good person, everyone agreed that it was simply the right thing to do, that community cares for each other. Gendo left it at that as the Zen practitioners have no religious doctrine. Barb said that community is such a strong focus of the Society of Friends that, assuming it’s wanted, then of course the community cares for its members, which was largely what Rev. Paul said. However, while Christine, Rabbi Haigh and Fr. Mike all agreed with this concept, they also rooted their care clearly in the beliefs of their faiths. For Catholics caring for others is part of the “works of mercy,” which are taught to the young people in religious education. In Judaism caring for others is considered a mitzvah. Christine rooted her practice in “the Bible as a whole, including the Christian idea that God is Love, and that, as children of God, we must love our neighbors as ourselves.” Regardless if the base for pastoral care is scriptural or not, most of those I spoke with did seem to feel that it was a central aspect to what they are called to do. For Gendo it seemed a bit more on a back burner until specifically called upon, but very important when he was requested.
For Gendo, for whom this aspect varies greatly, and Barb, who is on committees when called upon, but as clerk is not a clergyperson, the time put into pastoral care varies widely. For the rest, pastoral care is something that takes up much of their time, and is often the largest part of their work. The positive feeling of helping others is something that they all appreciated, but there are also challenges. For Fr. Mike, he finds it rewarding to be able to help not just the patient or person who’s struggling, but also their family. He strives to make the “Departing of Souls,” when needed, a rite that brings peace not only to the person receiving it, but to the friends and family that are left. He actually wishes that more people would call on him sooner. He’s come to realize that people don’t want to bother him and assume he is super busy (which he often is) but he wishes they’d realize that him coming with prayers of healing, or for the “Departing of Souls” is the point of his work. Missing a chance to comfort people, or missing a death is the most difficult part for him. Christine finds the rewards and challenges of her work different with each person, but overall she greatly appreciates seeing the elevation of God in the healing, the acceptance that “God is here.” While Rev. Paul feels the pressure when things are particularly busy and time consuming, he would not change it as he feels pastoral care is the best part of his role as minister.
In dealing with death and dying I was surprised and moved by how similar their approaches were at the most basic level. The first and most important thing for all I spoke with was what the person who was dying wanted. The focus and direction is set by them. Everyone mentioned this respect for the wishes of the dying, for listening closely to what they wanted regarding their last days/weeks/months, but also for what they might want for their funeral/memorial service/death service. The Quakers, UUs and the Zen practitioners do not have any particular practice that is mandated regarding death and dying, making listening to the dying all the more important. All that is done is according to their wishes, with input from family where appropriate.
The beliefs and practices for the other three leaders were a bit different. Father Mike performs an “Anointing of the sick” – something that can be done anytime one is ill, even if you do not know if you are dying. He also performs the “Departing of the Soul.” Both these rites can only be performed by a priest, and may be done more than once if by chance the dying lives longer than expected, or a sick person unexpectedly recovers. In the Jewish faith there is the “Mourners’ Prayer” (Kaddish) after a person dies but no specific traditions while a person is dying. What happens is an individual’s choice, but there is talmudic support for not continuing medical interventions (beyond “elemental care” – water, oxygen) when there is no hope and no cure. For the Christian Scientists, while there are no specific, mandated, traditions (though often a lot of reading of psalms and favorite passages from “Science and Health” or the Bible), the views about death and dying are quite different. For them “life is continual, the physical body dies, but you go on passing from one experience to another.” (Christine quoting Science and Health pg 172). Christine also said “We do not believe that a person enters a new place called heaven or hell at the point of death, rather we feel that it is more like passing from one experience to another, in which we continue to grow as we always have.” (Henderson) Clearly these ideas impact the feeling of both the dying and those left behind when they have passed. I must admit to having been surprised at how changeable/unstructured the approach to death and dying was, even in those faiths that do have some specific prayers. I had thought there would be more formalized approaches.
In speaking about what they found most helpful when dealing with someone who is dying was very dependent on circumstance. Clearly those working in these situations need to be very good listeners, both to what is said, but also to what is happening around them – really embodied listeners, in order to best address each interaction. Christine did mention that she often shares psalms 91, 27 & 23 when visiting with someone who is dying, and strives to remind them that they are “already protected and loved, already with God.” (Henderson) Father Mike, as many of them did, mentioned that simply being there is often the most helpful thing. But he did go on to mention that many are looking for God’s forgiveness and while he can’t grant that, as it is God’s to give, he can remind them that God doesn’t remember/worry about the faults of the past.
Though the pathways to doing so might have varied somewhat from tradition to tradition, the basics of pastoral care and care for the dying were surprisingly the same. It all seemed to come down to being open-hearted and loving, to listening with mind, body and soul, to respecting the wishes of those you are working with, to being helpful and supportive in any way that you can. I learned so much in listening to the leaders in these different traditions. How a simple question like, “Tell me about your loved one…” when someone is dying or has passed can be a catalyst for the grief process and a healing practice. That for all of them the goal is to share love and help the sufferer and their family towards peace.
I also found some surprising learning in among the conversations about pastoral care and care for the dying. As an offshoot of the idea of respecting the wishes of your community members was the idea mentioned by several people of NOT praying for someone without their knowledge, or helping someone if they don’t agree/request it. Christine really spoke passionately about not specifically praying for someone without their knowledge as a very important thing. I had not considered, for example, that someone might pray for a person who does not have religious faith and might not appreciate it, or who would not appreciate their problems being shared with others so that they could be prayed about. I was also surprised when Father Mike said that he has and would perform the “Departing of Souls” on someone that the doctors have already declared dead. We “have no idea when the soul leaves the body” was his basis for this. I was happy to hear that he would provide this comfort to the family as I had not thought priests did this. While speaking with the group from Shir Shalom, the idea of praying for healing vs. for curing also arose. I had not really considered the difference but for them it seemed clear that healing is not just about sickness it’s to make the situation better. But in some cases a person cannot be cured so a prayer for healing will, perhaps make them feel better but is not the same as praying for them to fully get well. One of them even shared a quote from Rabbenu Nissim (a Catalonian Talmud scholar) who observed, “There are times when one should pray for the sick to die, such as when the sick one is suffering greatly from his malady and his condition is terminal.” While I admit to having thought this myself, I had never actually heard someone else say it.
It was also interesting to see how pastoral care often seemed to really reflect the group or community. In the case of Gendo from the Zen Center, pastoral care was a very unofficial, case by case thing. This makes a lot of sense given the lack of hierarchy or “congregational” structure that exist within the center. In the case of the Christian Science Society, the use of Christine, a privately hired practitioner, makes sense given the lack of clergy. It also seems to reflect how strongly she spoke about each person making spiritual choices for themselves, and following the beliefs of Christian Science as they feel is appropriate. Having practitioners, who are not part of the structure of the church, but an independent entity, makes a lot of sense given how strongly Christine spoke about each person’s choices along their journey. I was particularly struck by how the Quakers’ structure of pastoral care seemed to reflect their beliefs. The support or clearness committees are really formed so that an individual that needs help/support can get that help, or be helped in choosing their own path forward. This seems a lot like the Quaker Meeting itself, except that they are talking. In meetings they are listening for the voice of God, for that small spark of divine inspiration that might inspire them to speak. It seemed like the purpose of the structure of the committees is also to aid people in hearing that small divine voice that would lead them where they need to go.
My first feeling when the idea for this project popped into my head was excitement. Literally, “How awesome would that be!” was my first thought. I loved the idea of tying together the Multi-religious Dialogue course with learning that would directly connect to my future as a chaplain. However, not long after my worrier self showed up. I was concerned about the logistics of making these interviews/conversations happen, and even more, worried that perhaps no one would want to speak with me and then I wouldn’t even have a project. Nevertheless, I took a breath and took the first step of looking up a variety of congregations, all within a half hour of me, in order to find contact information and reach out. I introduced myself as a member of the North Universalist Chapel Society in Woodstock, VT, who was studying to become a chaplain and explained my desire to speak with clergy people or the appropriate lay person regarding pastoral care and care for the dying. I wanted to reach out clearly for that reason and to meet with these people on that footing, of someone who gives pastoral care with someone who one day will. I did not share, where applicable, that we might have had acquaintances in common. (My mother knows Rev. Paul, and I know several members of Shir Shalom quite well).
I was surprised by how quickly most communities responded and put me in direct touch with the correct person for me to speak with. Sooner than expected I had my first three meetings set up. I was happy that my first one was with Rev. Paul. I think I felt that it was a nice way to ease into this process to start with the UU minister.
I was nervous about the conversations in general. I am usually nervous when meeting new people and these were serious topics we were going to discuss. I felt like it would be a bit awkward to jump into such a discussion with people I didn’t know. I was also wary of coming across as, for lack of a better term, uneducated because they might feel that I was asking some questions I should know the answer to if I was planning to be a chaplain. Lastly, I was concerned about my own reactions to others if they should respond to a question in a way that was far from my own beliefs, or in a way that I strongly disagreed with. In fact, in my first round of contacting people I did not reach out to the “congregational” (not part of national organization) church because they are the most evangelical Christian church around and I was not sure about speaking with them. In the end I talked myself into reaching out, as speaking with people different than myself was the point. Their first response, from the pastor himself, was that he would be happy to speak with me, but when I tried several times to set up an actual meeting I never heard back. This is disappointing as I was quite curious to hear what he had to say, but I was also a bit relieved as this was the clergyman with whom I was most anxious about speaking as that church is so much more conservative than UUs.
My nervousness was there before each and every conversation that I had. However, I helped myself by remembering that these people would not have agreed to speak with me if they were not interested and open to speaking with someone of a different faith (except Rev. Paul). I had to remind myself that they were clearly open to talking about how their tradition worked with regards to my topic. This held true in all of my conversations. I found myself entering my meetings with Rev. Paul and Rabbi Haigh with the least amount of concern. In his case he was a fellow UU, and in hers, I had heard from several people what a wonderful person and Rabbi she was and I have friends in her congregation who are very happy with her as a Rabbi. I also found little worry when meeting with Barb at the Friends Society in Hanover. I think this is because I attended a Quaker college and for a year during that time attended a Quaker meeting. I think that given what I knew of Quaker beliefs and having interacted with some Quakers in the past I was confident that we’d be able to speak well together. I had concrete concerns about my other three conversations.
I was worried about speaking with Father Mike as Catholic beliefs are far different from mine and I had an assumption of conservatism in mind. This was a bit odd as I had met a few more liberal and very amiable priests when studying abroad in Spain, however, I think I was considering less Father Mike as one priest and more thinking about The Church as an institution. I was also more nervous about meeting with Gendo simply due to my own lack of knowledge about Zen Buddhism. I had no real frame of reference for what his beliefs might be. Lastly, I was worried about meeting with Christine because of the topic of our conversation. My grandmother was a Christian Scientist and the thoughts I had about care for the dying were very impacted by my grandmother’s strong desire to never use doctors. In relation to any pastoral care that was medical, or care for the dying, I was uncertain what I’d hear and what my own reactions would be. This ended up being the most eye opening conversation, on a personal level. It is true that CS teaches that healing needs prayer, and that God is the ultimate healer, and they even have Christian Science Care facilities “where an individual relying on Christian Science treatment can have their human needs attended to by Christian Science nurses in an environment that supports healing through purely spiritual means.” (Henderson) However, when it comes down to it each person is supposed to make their own decisions about if they’ll see a doctor or not. I actually learned so much from this conversation and a lot of it gave me a more positive outlook about Christian Science.
I came out of all these conversations feeling much better about interacting with folks whose faiths might be more conservative than mine or simply quite different from mine. However, I also have to wonder if the structure of what I’ve been doing has an impact on that. While I tried very hard to make each interaction very conversational, I did have a specific set of questions. The people I spoke with knew this, so there was, at times, a bit of an interview feel to it. I wonder if the difference between an interview and a conversation between people of differing faiths might have an impact on how the interaction went or how people presented themselves (though I did not get the feeling anyone was being disingenuous).
I also wondered what differences would be seen if the person I was speaking to was different. This is a question in many ways. Obviously each individual is different so while their actual answers might have been the same as that of others of their community, how the interaction went might have been different. They might simply have been more/less friendly or open etc. I also wondered if there would have been differences if I was asking these questions of someone of more authority – part of the community’s national organization or higher up in the Church. Conversely, what would a conversation with a “normal” lay member of the community be like. I take into account the idea that leaders are taught, or at least learn by doing, how to speak with others about their faith and practices, which surely helped in our conversations.
In the end I come away from the experience touched by how similar the underpinnings of pastoral care and care for the dying are among differing communities. At the same time I was excited to learn about some of the things that make the folks I spoke with, and their work, different. I was particularly struck by the support committee structure of pastoral care that the Quakers use. I love the idea of so many members of the community being involved in helping one another. I also gained a lot from speaking with Christine. I learned a lot about Christian Science and also spoke about it with my mom (who was raised in that faith). Christine and I had a brief second meeting as she had gathered some Christian Science books she wanted to give me. I mentioned that I had been talking to my mom about Christian Science and our family history. Christine pointed out that having these conversations was another blessing on the learning I was doing, and she was right.
I also feel that I grew in myself and in my confidence when speaking with folks from such a wide range of faiths, something I’m sure will serve me well moving forward. It has definitely prepared me for more conversations with people of other faiths, and excited me about the idea of more informal conversations with a wider range of people. This whole experience has been very worthwhile and something I would encourage others to try.
Learn more about the Center for Multi-Religious Studies
Subscribe to receive updates from The Tapestry & CMRS
Contact us about a submission at cmrs@sksm.edu
