Academic works

The search for the well-being of the soul is as old as humanity itself. Oracles and magi in primitive tribes and ancient societies, Greek philosophers and wise-men in Israel were considered as shepherds of the wandering souls and physicians of the wounded consciences. With the advancement of Christianity, cura animarum [2] attained a more sophisticated soteriological depth, thus becoming an integral part of Christian community’s life and tradition. Twenty centuries of church history have left an immeasurably rich legacy of pastoral care. Not many endeavours, however, have been made to view pastoral care in a historic perspective [3].  These historical studies, as well as other sketches and surveys [4],  usually follow a general periodization of Christian history, for example: 1) The Primitive Church, 2) The Age of the Persecutions, 3) The Imperial Church After Constantine, 4) The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Spread of Christianity Across Europe, 5) The Sacramentalism of the Middle Ages, 6) The Era of the Reformation, 7) The Enlightenment, 8) The Age of Voluntarism and Religious Privatism, 9) Pastoral Care in the Twentieth Century [5].  The focus of this dissertation is on the last period.

The Twentieth Century: Paradigms and Styles

The twentieth century witnessed a commencement of new methods, norms and techniques both in natural and human sciences. An American physicist and historian of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, in a seminal study The Structure of Scientific Revolution argued that new hypotheses and theories in natural science do not emerge simply by verification or falsification but as a result of a paradigm change [6].  Although Kuhn used this term to refer solely to major transitions in scientific theories, other scholars applied it in other areas of research. Hans Küng developed the view that it is possible to distinguish different theological paradigms that shift over time [7].  He argued that as there have been shifts from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican, to the Newtonian, and to the Einsteinian macro-models, so also in theology one can perceive such paradigms as the Greek Alexandrian, the Latin Augustinian, the medieval Thomistic, the Reformation and other interpretative models that change over time and determine the development of theological thought.

Küng’s proposition gave fresh impetus to the research in different branches of theology, including that of pastoral theology. David J. Bosch, following the lead of Kuhn, subdivided the entire history of Christianity into six paradigms and explored the distinctive understanding of Christian mission in each of them [8].  John Patton observed three major paradigms of pastoral care: the classical, extending from the beginning of Christianity to the twentieth century; the clinical pastoral, corresponding to the development of psychology in the second half of the twentieth century; and the communal contextual, emerging in the last decades of the last century [9].  Emmanuel Y. Lartey modified Patton’s first paradigm into classical-clerical and added the intercultural paradigm at the end [10].

A shift of focus occurs with introduction of each new paradigm. In pastoral theology the focus shifted from the message of pastoral care (the classical paradigm), to the persons involved in giving and receiving the message of care (the clinical paradigm), to the communal context, which includes not only clergy but also laity (the communal contextual paradigm), and finally to the intercultural context (the intercultural paradigm), which brings perspectives from diverse cultures and layers of society to bear on theological reflection.

Dissatisfaction with the old paradigms and a search for the new ones that would widen the scope of pastoral theology is particularly typical of theological enterprises at the close of the last and the dawn of the new century. Nancy J. Ramsay, explaining the reason for additions made to Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, underscores the dramatic change of paradigms that took place in a span of fourteen years since Abingdon Press first published DPCC [11].  She claims that the clinical pastoral paradigm that dominated in the articles of the first edition of DPCC has been eclipsed by the new communal contextual and intercultural paradigms.

Whether the new paradigms will provide a broader framework for the development of pastoral theology is yet to be seen; for the time being, it is obvious that many pastoral theologians heeded Edward Farley’s call to step out of what he called the clerical paradigm [12].  Lartey argues that though the clerical paradigm enables the pastoral theologian to be rooted in Christian history and tradition and is useful for training of the ordained clergy, it limits pastoral care to individual agency and thus misses the ample opportunity to explore the communal nature of pastoral care [13].  Similarly, Paul Ballard observes that pastoral theology in Britain was shaped by the clerical paradigm until around the 1960s. This explains why the focus of pastoral theology was upon the practical work of the clergy, why theology was taught only by clergy and only to aspiring clergy, and why pastoral theology was mostly devoted to giving practical ‘hints and tips’ about visiting parishioners, baptizing, etc. but lacking an undergirding theory [14].  Also, Don S. Browning, whose approach to pastoral theology is going to be dealt with in this thesis, heartily agrees with Farley that pastoral theology should break out of the “unhappy captivity” of the clerical paradigm and strive to be critical and public - a notion championed by David Tracy [15].

However, could it be that a shift of focus that new paradigms bring also entails alienation from the foundational sources of Christian theology - the Bible and classic theological tradition? Are the new trends going to stand the test of time? Or should they be considered as simply a faddism of theology, which will eventually fail? Thomas C. Oden, whose ecumenical perspective will be carefully examined in this thesis, describing theology as fashion, calls for the recollection of the traditions of classic Christianity and anticipates the rebirth of the orthodoxy [16].  He insists that the testimonies of Scripture and its time-tested interpretations, found in patristic and later Christian traditions, have more to teach about pastoral care than the constantly changing contemporary paradigms. The concern with faithful interpretation of biblical texts is shared by evangelical pastoral theologians - Derek Tidball, Eugene Peterson, Ray S. Anderson and Andrew Purves, to name just a few.

Similar to the paradigmatic way of accounting for and systemising the diversity of conceptual frameworks of pastoral theology has been an attempt to classify approaches according to their concerns, particular topics, themes and fields of interest. Stephen Pattison and Gordon Lynch, adopting this approach, distinguish three different styles (sic) of pastoral and practical theology: 1) liberal-rational, 2) neo-traditional-confessional, and 3) radical-liberationist [17].

The liberal-rational approaches to pastoral theology are characterized as having most rational, academically justifiable, clear and credible methodologies. They tend to develop theological positions that are publicly acceptable and defensible not only in academic but also in wider civic circles. Seward Hiltner and Don Browning have been suggested as the most distinguished representatives who have substantially influenced others. According to Pattison and Lynch, whenever the discipline of pastoral theology is under discussion, Hiltner and Browning are more likely to be cited than others. Thus, it has not been an arbitrary decision to begin this dissertation with an examination of arguably the most influential pastoral writers in the twentieth century.

The neo-traditional-confessional approaches shift away from engaging with modern human sciences, psychology in particular, and focus on historical Christian tradition as a more trustworthy guide. The two persons who typify this style most, in Pattison’s and Lynch’s judgment, are Henri Nouwen and Oden. Coming from different denominational backgrounds - one Catholic, another Methodist - both have experienced a “conversion” in terms of their theological vision and emphases. With doctorates in both theology and psychology and a chair in pastoral theology once at Yale and Harvard, Nouwen turned to the Desert Fathers for spiritual reflection and L’Arche communities for practice. Similarly Oden, an advocate of the partnership between modern psychotherapy and Christian theology, has become one of the most passionate apologists of the ancient Christian tradition. Since the research of this thesis limits itself to Protestant pastoral theologians, Nouwen’s approach is not going to be engaged. Yet, Oden’s theology, as already pointed out, requires a considerable assessment [18].

The radical-liberationist approaches to pastoral theology, mirroring contemporary theologies of liberation, have at least three related concerns. The first one is an apprehension of the social context and its diverse aspects, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. The second characteristic is sensitivity to power use and abuse in diverse social spheres. The third concern is with human well-being and liberation from any form of social oppression, marginalization and exclusion. Bibliography provided by Pattison and Lynch points to such examples of radical-liberationist style of pastoral theology as the feminist-womanist pastoral theologies of Elaine L. Graham, Zoe Bennett-Moore, Bonnie Miller-McLemore and Brita Gill-Austern, as well as Hyun Kyung Chung’s Asian women’s theology, and Edward P. Wimberly’s African American perspective on pastoral care [19].

Another common way of classifying pastoral theologians and their approaches takes into consideration geographical and/or denominational backgrounds. John T. McNeill in a History of the Cure of Souls seems to have set the agenda for such an approach and others just followed in his footsteps [20].  For instance, one finds such articles in DPCC as “Protestant Pastoral Theology,” [21]  “Roman Catholic Pastoral Theology,” [22]  “Ministry and Pastoral Care (Orthodox Tradition)” [23].  The same distinction between the Catholic and Protestant approaches to pastoral theology is also found in The New Dictionary of Pastoral Studies [24].  The Protestant pastoral care is further analysed through diversity of denominations: Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist and so on [25].  Moreover, J. R. Burck and R. J. Hunter investigate the development of the Protestant pastoral theology in the twentieth century by continents and countries, as seen from such sections as “American clinical pastoral theology,” “British pastoral theology,” “German pastoral theology” [26].  E. B. Holifield’s comprehensive study of the development of pastoral care in the US from the colonial times to the present is a rare example of the historically grounded theological treatment [27].  More common are shorter surveys of this type, such as Paul Ballard’s article on the rise of pastoral and practical theology in Britain in the second half of the twentieth century [28].

Given this complex diversity of paradigms, styles and categories of classification, it is an arduous and challenging task to write on the key trends of pastoral theology in the last century. Yet, this is exactly my undertaking in the first part of this thesis. Six pastoral theologians have been chosen to represent the main tendencies in the field, namely: Seward Hiltner, Don S. Browning, Eduard Thurneysen, Thomas C. Oden, Derek Tidball and Eugene Peterson. Three of them - Hiltner, Browning and Oden - have commonly been identified as the key figures because of the profound influence exerted through their prolific writings. As already seen from the brief overview above, they represent two of the three broad theoretical categories suggested by Pattison and Lynch. This thesis does not examine any of the radical-liberationist approaches; pastoral theologies of Thurneysen, Tidball and Peterson have been selected instead. In addition to their unique emphases, they embody German (Thurneysen), British (Tidball) and American (Peterson) schools of pastoral theology.

Thurneysen is arguably the most prominent among the continental pastoral theologians of the twentieth century, whose theology of pastoral care embodies the kerygmatic tradition [29].  Time and again his approach has been referred to as Barthian or neo-orthodox, [30]  though, as I will argue, Thurneysen had a great influence on the formation of the ecclesial and pastoral dimensions of Barth’s theology, not vice-versa [31].  In my judgment, Thurneysen’s approach exhibits characteristics common to both neo-orthodox and evangelical perspectives. Since the former seem to outweigh the latter his theology of pastoral care has been included into neo-traditional-confessional category. The approaches of Tidball and Peterson with their respective emphases on the centrality of the Bible and spirituality in pastoral theology represent a noteworthy range of evangelical perspectives. Since the second part of the thesis evaluates pastoral experience of evangelical pastors in post-Soviet Lithuania it seemed necessary to take account of the theologies of pastoral care written from an evangelical point of view. For the same reason the Catholic and Orthodox representatives are outside the purview of this research.

Aim and Objectives

The aim of this thesis is a correlation between the main pastoral theologies of the twentieth century and evangelical pastoral experience in post-Soviet Lithuania. The following objectives required in achieving this aim have been defined: 1) to explore and assess the approaches to pastoral theology of the selected theologians, 2) to develop a questionnaire as a tool of evaluation of pastoral experience of Lithuanian pastors in relation to the key concepts identified in the research of the pastoral theologies, 3) to analyse the collected data seeking to find out the convergences and divergences between the theological approaches and the pastoral praxis, and 4) to determine to what extent, if at all, the twentieth-century pastoral theologies developed in the West are applicable in the post-Soviet context of Lithuania.

Methods and Structure

There is a wide agreement that the methods employed in pastoral and practical theology vary greatly, depending on the issues at consideration, and gives a researcher the maximum flexibility. The main approach utilized in this dissertation has been defined as the practical theology method, which holds together in tension theological, critical, correlational and hermeneutical vectors of the research [32].

The first part of the dissertation presents a theologically critical analysis of the works of the six theologians and appraises their contribution to understanding of pastoral care. The second part begins with the historic reflections laconically accounting for Christianization and the Reformation of Lithuania as well as the state of evangelical churches. The familiarization with historical, political and clerical contexts unveils the prehistory of the present situation and prepares for the qualitative research that makes up the bulk of the second part of the thesis. The questionnaire designed for this purpose includes the foundational principles of each of the six approaches and is the primary, though not the only, method for collecting the necessary data. Other sources, such as extracts from the articles written by Lithuanian pastors, publicly expressed views on particular issues as well as some practical examples from their pastoral approach to ministry are considered in order to substantiate and validate the data collected by means of the questionnaire.

The qualitative research of the second part of the thesis aims to correlate the concepts developed by pastoral theologians with the experience of Lithuanian pastors. Hence, the nature of the research in and of itself suggests the usage of the method of correlation. Introduced by Paul Tillich, developed and revised by many theologians (including Hiltner and Browning, whose theologies are among the subjects of our research), the approach brings theological insights into the dialectical conversation with perspectives drawn from human experience or other sources of knowledge. In our case, the critical analysis of the first part of the thesis introduces questions arising from the conceptual claims of the six approaches to pastoral theology. Presented to the respondents in the form of a questionnaire, they require a response, which in turn is carefully analysed and theologically assessed. In this way, the dissertation begins a mutually constructive critical dialogue, which contributes considerably to knowledge of pastoral care.

Originality

The research of how the twentieth-century approaches to pastoral theology correlate with the experience of the Lithuanian pastors makes an original contribution to knowledge in at least four aspects.

Firstly, the thesis is original in a contextual sense. Critical surveys on the twentieth-century trends in pastoral and practical theology, though not profound and not numerous, are available. The studies that explore the theologies of pastoral care within other cultural contexts, i.e. outside the locus in which they have been developed, are few and very general in nature [33].  However, the author of this thesis has not found any researches with a goal to explore pastoral care in the post-Soviet context. There have been no endeavours to research how the approaches to pastoral care, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, relate to pastoral practice in Lithuania. On the one hand, it was impossible to explore the issues that this thesis raises during the time when any theological studies were practically forbidden in the Soviet Lithuania. On the other hand, this does not mean that there was no theological reflection on the practice of pastoral care in Soviet times. The churches in the Soviet countries were shepherded by faithful pastors who, not having formal theological training, still were grassroots theologians. Their views were passed on to the new generation of pastors who currently minister in the post-Soviet context. My deep conviction is that their experience is very valuable and, if assessed, could enrich an understanding of pastoral care and, perhaps, even might be brought to bear on the formation of pastoral theology for the twenty-first century.

Secondly, the research is original in a confessional sense. The contribution of evangelical pastoral theologians has been somewhat neglected. Practically, there have been no studies of the evangelical perspectives on pastoral care - an exception being Thurneysen’s theology of pastoral care, though it is usually viewed as neo-orthodox rather than evangelical [34].  This thesis, conversely, expounds the range, depth, vitality and relevance of evangelical approaches to pastoral care. An engagement with the liberal-rational models of Hiltner and Browning on the one hand, and evangelical approaches of Tidball and Peterson on the other contributes to understanding of the development of pastoral theology in the twentieth century.

Thirdly, the research is novel in a conceptual sense in so far as it produces innovative tools, such as the questionnaire uniquely designed for the appraisal of pastoral experience of Lithuanian evangelical shepherds in relation to the key concepts developed by pastoral theologians.

Finally, in the light of few original theological studies in post-Soviet countries, the dissertation makes a contribution in a didactic sense. It will be useful for local pastors and foreign missionaries, for scholars and theological students, counsellors with professional interests as well as those who engage in pastoral care simply as Christians. The qualitative research of the second part of the thesis is not meant to explore the state of pastoral care among Lithuanian evangelicals per se, albeit it breaks new ground in this area. The thesis establishes a precedent for further studies of pastoral care in the post-Soviet Lithuanian context.

Advantages and Limitations

The thesis research investigates the field of pastoral care in which the researcher himself has been actively involved for over twenty years. This suggests both advantages and limitations of the research. For instance, the practice in pastoral ministry implies numerous conversations with pastors and priests of various denominations as well as more formal forums on the diverse issues of pastoral care. Such an experience entails a more comprehensive knowledge of the present situation than the data collected through either unconstructed or in-depth interviews; though the latter might be useful in the case of the research being conducted by an outsider rather than the insider. On the other hand, such a condition, i.e. being a researcher and at the same time one of the objects of the research, suggests that biases and presuppositions are inevitable: my personal experience in the field of pastoral care brings theological and cultural convictions to bear on the reflective analysis of the data.

Hopefully, an awareness of my own subjective experiences, beliefs and values that influence the research, as well as both personal and epistemological reflexivity, which I try to maintain in the process, compensates at least to some extent for standing inside the research field.

It is beyond the scope of this study to look at the ethnological structure or national character of Lithuanian people - that would definitely deepen an understanding of the Lithuanian outlook in general and some presuppositions of the pastors in particular. Since the research has, nonetheless, led to a consideration of the ethnic and cultural context, the gained insights have been published elsewhere [35].

Practical and Pastoral Theology: Definitions, Categories and Terms

Before we turn to the analysis of the approaches that represent the development of pastoral care in the twentieth century, for greater clarity it seems proper to consider implied meanings, diverse definitions and their categories of the terms pastoral and practical theology.

The thesis research reveals that there is no consensus regarding the nature, contents and scope of pastoral theology. Consequently, the definitions of pastoral theology differ greatly. The situation becomes even more ambiguous because of the variety of terms used to define the discipline. For instance, Hiltner and Oden define the field as pastoral theology, whereas Thurneysen calls it a theology of pastoral care. Browning widens the scope of the discipline, referring to it as practical theology and prefers to name his own approach as a fundamental practical theology. Pattison and Woodward even suggest that it would not be useful (sic) to define pastoral and practical theology clearly because then we would have “to subscribe to any particular definition as authoritative.” [36]  An absence of agreement, nonetheless, is confusing, and for this reason almost all prolegomena to pastoral theology attempt to categorize the definitions and explain their basic differences.

Some hold the terms practical and pastoral theology to be virtually synonymous; however, the general view is that practical theology has a broader focus than pastoral theology. In the following paragraphs we will establish a relationship between the meanings of practical and pastoral theology and then take a look at the prevailing definitions of the latter.

Historically theology was seen as comprised of four standard disciplines of biblical, dogmatic, church historical and practical theology. The latter included such sub-disciplines as homiletics, liturgics, poimenics (pastoral care), catechetics, pedagogics, and ecclesiastics (church polity). Seen in this way, pastoral theology is a narrow discipline, the focus of which is pastoral care within the ecclesial context. A classical example of such a view is Thurneysen’s Theology of Pastoral Care. Other approaches include all five sub-disciplines into the domain of pastoral theology - the view best characterized by Oden. In this case pastoral and practical theology in fact are synonymous and then it becomes only a matter of taste which term is used, both imply the same scope of the discipline.

The broadest understanding of practical theology sees it as a substantive discipline “concerned with the whole of the church’s life in the world,” [37]  or as another definition puts it, “practical theology as a theory of action is the empirically oriented theological theory of mediation of the Christian faith in the praxis of modern society [italics in the original].” [38]  Browning’s approach, without doubt, is the most vivid example of such a viewpoint. To understand how this view was developed a laconic historical excursus seems in place.

Friedrich Schleiermacher, commonly viewed as the father of practical theology, in Kurze Darstellung des Theologischen Studium (Brief Outline on the Study of Theology) proposed a threefold structure of theology: philosophical, historical and practical theology, the latter being referred to as the crown of theological study [39].  Carl Immanuel Nitzsch, a disciple of Schleiermacher, developed the concept of practical theology, defining it as “theory of the church’s practice of Christianity.” [40]  Whereas for Schleiermacher, the church was an object of theological inquiry, for Nitzsch it became an acting subject through which Christian faith reaches beyond the confines of the church to the various sectors of society. Nitzsch’s vision was put into effect by Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch theologian, the founder of the Free University in Amsterdam, the chief editor of the daily newspaper De Standaard, a member of Parliament, and the prime-minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper argued for the equality of all humans, including clergy and laity, and sought to involve all Christians into the affairs of the church, society and state. The primary task of practical theology, which by nature was related to the office of deacon - Kuyper referred to it as deaconology - was the involvement of the church in social concerns and in charity. These concepts were later developed by such European theologians as Gerd Otto, Norbert Mette and Johanan Metz; they also re-emerged in the North-American context in practical theologies of Tracy and Browning [41]. 

The conceptual relation between practical and pastoral theology, as defined by three general categories, which we have just established, should clarify discrepancies found in the definitions of pastoral theology that will be examined in this thesis. I prefer using pastoral rather than practical theology in the research, unless the context requires otherwise.

Finally, in order to get a wider sense of the diversity of meanings given to the discipline of pastoral theology it is useful to look at the categories of the definitions provided by Burck and Hunter. Since it is one of the clearest classifications available, it will be well worth citing the whole excerpt. So, pastoral theology, as understood by Protestant theologians, is:

1. Traditionally, the branch of theology which formulates the practical principles, theories, and procedures for ordained ministry in all of its functions (though in the nineteenth century often excluding homiletics).
2. The practical theological discipline concerned with the theory and practice of pastoral care and counseling. In addition to a study of methods of helping and healing, this includes studies of moral and religious life and development, personality theory, interpersonal and family relationships, and specific problems like illness, grief, and guilt.
3. A form of theological reflection in which pastoral experience serves as a context for the critical development of basic theological understanding. Pastoral theology in this sense generally focuses on topics like illness, death, sexuality, family, and personhood, though in principle any theology topic may be considered from a pastoral perspective - faith, hope, love, salvation, and God, for example. Here pastoral theology is not a theology of or about pastoral care but a type of contextual theology, a way of doing theology pastorally [italics in the original]. Pastoral theology in this sense is complementary, not competitive, with definitions 1 and 2 [42].

However, even with this classified range of definitions the precise meaning of the pastoral theology is far from being clear. As will be seen throughout the first part of this thesis, the contemporary pastoral theology is approached from a number of angles, its nature is apprehended differently, and its tasks are sometimes articulated in opposite ways. These are sure indications of pastoral theology being “a diffuse and changing field,” to use Pattison and Woodward’s phrase [43].  The twentieth century indeed was a transitional period, a time of ferment and considerable redefinition, an age characterized by keenness to experiment with new methods, to test novel techniques as well as to reassure the value of biblical norms and richness of Christian tradition. This is exactly what makes this research so exciting.

____________________________________________
[1] William A. Clebsch and Charles R. Jaekle, Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective (New York, Evanston and London: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), 73-4
[2] Latin: ‘cure and care of souls’.
[3] For a classic pastoral-care-history text see John T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1951). See also Clebsch and Jaekle, Pastoral Care.
[4]  See, for example, Derek Tidball, Skilful Shepherds: Explorations in Pastoral Theology (Leicester: Apollos, 1997), 147-244.
[5] Charles V. Gerkin, An Introduction to Pastoral Care (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 28-51.
[6] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
[7] Hans Küng and David Tracy (eds.), Paradigm Change in Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 3-34.
[8] David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2004).
[9] John Patton, Pastoral Care in Context: An Introduction to Pastoral Care (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 4-5.
[10] Emmanuel Lartey, Pastoral Theology in an Intercultural World (Werrington: Epworth, 2006), 121-49. See also Emmanuel Lartey, In Living Color: An Intercultural Approach to Pastoral Care and Counseling (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003). Emmanuel Y. Lartey, ‘Globalization, Internationalization, and Indigenization of Pastoral Care and Counseling’ in Rodney J. Hunter (ed.), Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 1392-403.
[11] The first edition of DPCC was published in 1990; additional articles were originally published in 2004; see Bonnie Miller-McLemore, Christie C. Neuger et al. (eds.), Pastoral Care & Counseling: Redefining the Paradigms (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004). The second, expanded edition was released in 2005. N. J. Ramsey’s article ‘A Time of Ferment and Redefinition’ is quoted from Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 1349-69.
[12] Edward Farley, ‘Theology and Practice Outside the Clerical Paradigm’ in Don S. Browning (ed.), Practical Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), 21-41.    
[13] Lartey, Pastoral Theology, 26-7.
[14]  Paul Ballard, ‘The Emergence of Pastoral and Practical Theology in Britain’ in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 59-70.
[15] Browning, ‘Introduction’ in Browning (ed.), Practical Theology, 4. See also David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order (Minneapolis: Seabury Press, 1975). Also Tracy, ‘The Foundations of Practical Theology’ in Browning (ed.), Practical Theology, 61-82.
[16] Thomas C. Oden, Agenda for Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979). Thomas C. Oden, Care of Souls in the Classic Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).
[17] Stephen Pattison and Gordon Lynch, ‘Pastoral and Practical Theology’ in David F. Ford and Rachel Muers (eds.), The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918 (3rd edn; Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 408-25.
[18] See this thesis (II.4.), 66.
[19] Pattison and Lynch, ‘Pastoral and Practical Theology’, 420, 425. See also Elaine L. Graham, Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood, Theology (London: Mowbray, 1995). Zoe Bennett-Moore, Introducing Feminist Perspectives on Pastoral Theology (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Bonnie Miller-McLemore and Brita Gill Austern (eds.), Feminist and Womanist Pastoral Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999). Hyun Kyung Chung, Struggle to Be the Sun Again: Introducing Asian Women’s Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991). Edward P. Wimberly, Pastoral care in the Black church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1979).
[20] McNeill, A History, 163-318.
[21] Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 867-72.
[22]  Ibid., 873-5.
[23]  Ibid., 740-4.
[24] Wesley Carr (ed.), The New Dictionary of Pastoral Studies (London: SPCK Publishing, 2002), 258-9.
[25]  Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 670-2, 1050-1, 721-3, 67-9.
[26]  Ibid., 868-71.
[27]  E. Brooks Holifield, A History of Pastoral Care in America (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983).
[28]  Paul Ballard, ‘The Emergence of Pastoral and Practical Theology in Britain’ in Woodward and Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader, 59-70.
[29]  Thomas C. Oden, Contemporary Theology and Psychotherapy (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), 73-80.
[30]  See, for example, David Lyall, Integrity of Pastoral Care (London: SPCK, 2001), 25-8. See also N. F. Hahn, ‘Neoorthodox Theology and Pastoral Care’ and R. W. Crapps, ‘Thurneysen, Eduard’ in Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 780-1, 1276-7.
[31]  See this thesis (II.3.), 50.
[32]   John Swinton and Hariet Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (London: SCM Press, 2006), 73-98
[33]   Lartey, Pastoral Theology. See also Lartey, In Living Color. Other studies deal specifically with pastoral counselling: James Reaves Farris (ed.), International Perspectives on Pastoral Counseling (New York: The Harwoth Pastoral Press, 2002). Robert J. Wicks and Barry K. Estadt (eds.), Pastoral Counseling in a Global Church: Voices from the Field (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993).
[34]  See, for example, Oden, Contemporary Theology and Psychotherapy, 73-80. For an irenic appraisal see James D. Smart, ‘Eduard Thurneysen: Pastor-Theologian,’ Theology Today 16, no. 1 (1959, April): 74-89. See also this thesis (II.3.1.), 51.
[35]  Giedrius Saulytis, ‘A Small Nation with a Big Soul: Reflections on the National Character of Lithuanian People,’ European Journal of Theology XVII, no. 1 (2008): 19-27. Giedrius Saulytis, A Small Nation with a Big Soul (Vilnius: Tikėjimo Žodis, 2010), 151-64.
[36]  Woodward and Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader, 4.
[37]  J. R. Burck and R. J. Hunter, ‘Protestant Pastoral Theology,’ in Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 867.
[38]  Gerben Heitink, Practical Theology, Reinder Bruinsma (tr.), Studies in Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 6.
[39]   Ibid., 26.
[40]  Ibid.
[41]  Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore’s appraisal of pastoral theology as public theology fails to credit the European theologians for the explicit notions of public facet to pastoral theology. See ‘Pastoral Theology as Public Theology: Revolutions in the “Fourth Area”’ in Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 1370-80.
[42]   J. R. Burck and R. J. Hunter, ‘Protestant Pastoral Theology,’ in Hunter (ed.), DPCC, 867.
[43]  Woodward and Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader, 4.