Tweet
Pastoral ministry and the law
Howard Gregory
Sunday, July 04, 2010
THE recent capture and arrest of the fugitive Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, while in the company and charge of the Rev Merrick 'Al' Miller, has raised many questions concerning the nature of pastoral ministry and its boundaries where the laws of the land governing civil society are concerned.
Rev Miller has subsequently been charged with one count of perverting the course of justice, and harbouring a fugitive. According to a report carried in this newspaper, when Rev Miller was apprehended, he insisted that he was trying to get Mr Coke to the United States Embassy at Liguanea in St Andrew, where it was expected that the Americans, who wanted Coke extradited to face cocaine trafficking and gun-running charges, would have taken custody of him.
MILLER... while his actions in relation to the charges which he now faces may be approached from the perspective of the nature of pastoral care and practice, they clearly have implications for assessment in terms of the violation of the law of the land
BONHOEFFER... his classic work of Christian thought, The Cost of Discipleship, points to the way in which Christians have compromised their faith under the influence of secularism
COKE... extradited to the US to face cocaine trafficking and gun-running charges
MILLER... while his actions in relation to the charges which he now faces may be approached from the perspective of the nature of pastoral care and practice, they clearly have implications for assessment in terms of the violation of the law of the land
1/4 
Subsequent to being charged with the offences, the clergyman has insisted that he acted appropriately, has done nothing wrong, and has no regrets concerning his behaviour. In his own words: "Whenever you do what is right you must never regret it."
As expected, his situation has generated much public discourse with persons advancing all kinds of arguments as to what should be the nature of the resolution of this situation. Some who have admiration for the clergyman believe that he should be hailed for the action he has taken, while there are others who believe that the law, if it is proven in the Court to have been violated by the clergyman, should be enforced for him as for any other citizen.
Other persons are prepared to bring to bear on the situation special consideration in terms of his role and office as a member of the clergy and the way in which this may shape both his perception and his actions, while others who are less sympathetic to religion and the role which religious figures play in contemporary society, are of the opinion that there should be no special consideration given to him and, if this has prevailed in the past, this is clear evidence that members of the clergy must be reined in and brought under the full ambit of the law like any other citizen.
It seems appropriate that an attempt should be made to bring some perspective to the situation in terms of the history and nature of pastoral ministry and how the actions of the Rev Al Miller may be assessed in light of the same. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one which depicts from its most ancient past the role of the religious leader as one who embodied in his or her person various roles and functions which today find expression in several professions and institutions.
The early history of Israel as portrayed in the book of Numbers (35:14+) recounts the story of the division of the land of Canaan into which they had come among the various tribes. Among the tribes were the Levites who represented the priestly caste. They were assigned territories of their own.
What is interesting, however, is that among the cities that fell under their jurisdiction and care were to be what were called cities of refuge. These were cities to which persons who had killed another person could flee. In an era in which there was no established system of justice, in these cities the priests were to follow detailed instructions in determining the intention and, therefore, the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator in killing another.
While a murderer was to be put to death, a person who had killed someone inadvertently was to have his life spared and was to be protected from retaliation and retribution. If, however, he should venture outside of the city, his safety and security would not be assured.
Here then is a situation in which the religious leader was to be the symbolic representation of the protector and dispenser of justice for one who had violated the mores of society. Throughout the Old Testament and into the New, there are various stories of individuals being protected as they were being pursued by authorities of state and of religion. Indeed, the great St Paul found himself in a situation in which he had to be sheltered and be let through a window in the city wall at night in order to escape those who were seeking to take his life.
What is clear from the outset is that the religious community, based on its understanding of the nature of God as a God of justice and mercy, and its understanding of the nature of priestly and pastoral leadership, has seen intervention in situations of human predicament, even where persons have run afoul of the laws and mores of the society, as part of its responsibility. How this is to be exercised is another matter.
It should come as no surprise that in the Judeo-Christian Scripture, one of the most familiar passages of prophetic declaration of God's liberation for His people includes the prisoner. So the Isaiah 61 passage which declares the good news of God's liberation includes the lines in which the messenger is to "proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners". This same passage becomes the basis of Jesus' initiation of His public ministry in St Luke 4.
In other words, religion and the religious leaders of the Judeo-Christian tradition have always understood the concern for those who have run afoul of the mores of society to be of special concern and care, not by way of circumventing the law but in seeing that their dignity as human beings is preserved and justice is served.
In our current debate, many persons have gone directly to an understanding of the confessional as a way of explaining the behaviour of the Rev Al Miller. The confessional refers to a one-to-one relationship between an ordained person and another person, usually in a setting which allows for the privacy and anonymity of the confessor, and becomes the place and opportunity for one who has done wrong and is troubled of conscience to come in penitence and acknowledge openly, and in a confidential relationship, the wrong that has been done and to seek to receive the grace of forgiveness and to make reparation as is appropriate.
The confessional is not an information-sharing or information bank where persons come to deposit with the priest all the evils of his or her life or even to seek endorsement of wrongdoing. Rather, it is the place where the penitents come to unburden themselves by acknowledging guilt, and seeking through the grace imparted and affirmed, the strength to go and do the right and to make amends where necessary.
It was intended as a context and relationship for dealing with moral and religious infractions, though at times it is possible that infractions of the law could enter into the content of such confession. In this capacity, the priest functions with authority entrusted by the church, is guided by what is understood as the "seal of the confessional", and is, therefore, not functioning as an agent of the state and is under no obligation to disclose what has been shared with agents of the state.
In responding to the persons making a confession, the priest seeks to explore the extent to which the person sees his or her actions as immoral, is disturbed of conscience, and would want to do what is necessary to relieve a troubled conscience and to be right with God and with neighbour.
The priest would then prescribe acts of contrition and penitence to address the situation. It is possible that given the nature of the confessed infraction, the priest could seek to suggest to the penitent a course of action which may involve restitution, reconciliation or, in the case of a criminal act, facing up to the consequences of one's action by surrendering to the authorities.
It is quite possible that this could be a situation in which the priest becomes further involved to the extent that he or she may be the one to accompany the penitent to the authorities by mutual consent. In this light, the confessional is not some place for facilitating the breaking of the laws of the land or complicity by the priest in the pursuit of such a course of action. To that extent, the priest leads the process and does not at any point become the instrument of the confessor.
There is a further development of the tradition of pastoral care which has included the following elements: healing, guiding, sustaining, reconciling. In these relationships the pastor determines the nature of the intervention which is appropriate and directs the process toward the desired outcome. In the situation at hand it seems that the appropriate pastoral response is of the nature of guiding. This is not about coercion but of leading the person seeking help to a position at which he or she can make a responsible decision drawing on a moral and religious framework explored with the priest.
The element of personal agency and responsibility is never removed from the individual seeking pastoral assistance. In the case of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, we would need to ask the question whether such a process was followed by the pastoral leadership which was offered.
Furthermore, pastoral care has developed in the 20th and 21st centuries into a more intentional and professional discipline. Pastoral care refers to ordained or acknowledged religious leaders who bring the resources, wisdom, and authority of the religious community to bear on human distress. Usually, however, pastoral care refers to the more intensive dimension of the larger tasks of ministry, to conversation with persons or groups who seek interpersonal, moral, or spiritual guidance.
In this mode the pastor receives his/her authority from the faith community to which he/she is accountable at all times, and is also accountable to his/her peers for the nature and quality of pastoral care which is offered. This means that the pastor is not the ultimate authority in determining the appropriateness of care which has been offered.
In the case of the appropriateness of the pastoral care which has been offered to Christopher Coke by the Rev Al Miller, it must be determined not only on the basis of his personal judgement and perceived dictates of conscience, however loudly he declares it, but the ecclesiastical authority to which he is subject, if any, and his peers in pastoral ministry.
Through the ages there have been pastors who have understood the nature of their pastoral care and practice at a particular point or on a particular occasion to demand violation of the law and who have had to face the consequences of their actions within the realm of civil society and the prevailing laws.
Among the most outstanding of these of the modern world has been the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer wrote a classic work of Christian thought, The Cost of Discipleship, in which he reflects on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. He wrote this work at the time of the rise of Nazism, pointing to the way in which Christians have compromised their faith under the influence of secularism and calling for a renewed understanding of the costliness of discipleship. This led him eventually to conspire with persons to assassinate Adolf Hitler and for which he was eventually killed by the authorities.
While the actions of the Rev Al Miller in relation to the charges which he now faces before the court may be approached from the perspective of the nature of pastoral care and practice, they clearly have implications for assessment in terms of the violation of the law of the land. The information which has come to the fore from the police so far indicates that the Rev Al Miller took a deliberate decision to assist Christopher Coke in evading the warrant for his arrest and in attempting to circumvent the judicial process of the land, a decision which not even Coke himself had the right to make.
Pastoral practice, while having a legitimacy of its own when it meets certain criteria, does not have an inherent right to function outside of the scope of the law. Indeed, some of the truly great pastors over the ages have been prepared to face the full weight of the law as the cost of effective pastoral practice.
It is to be seen whether the actions of the Rev Al Miller may be dismissed on the basis of pastoral care and practice, or whether he will be prepared to face the court and its judgement, accepting any possible outcome or sentence as the cost of discipleship and pastoral ministry, or perhaps, a serious error of pastoral judgement.
To suggest that the prospect of the Rev Al Miller being subject to criminal charges and possible criminal sanction for his collaboration with Christopher Coke as the introduction of a new paradigm into pastoral practice, or, that there is need for the police to outline some new protocol for pastors for dealing with situations in which someone who is a fugitive from the law is seeking such assistance or intervention, is naïve or a failure to understand the nature of pastoral ministry through the ages.
Where a pastoral contact places one outside of the protection of the law or in direct violation of the same, one should consult with the relevant legal authorities once the nature of the situation is apparent. In this light, it is one thing for a pastor to escort someone who has been declared "a person of interest" by the police to turn himself in to the authorities as an expression of trust and confidence in the pastor. It is a totally different matter for the pastor to be enlisted by a fugitive in his scheme to deceive and evade the authorities and the justice system of the land.
In this situation it appears that the pastor is no longer functioning as the pastoral leader but the one who is being led, and thereby may be perceived as a co-conspirator.
— Howard Gregory is the suffragan bishop of Montego Bay
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...he-law_7759525
Howard Gregory
Sunday, July 04, 2010
THE recent capture and arrest of the fugitive Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, while in the company and charge of the Rev Merrick 'Al' Miller, has raised many questions concerning the nature of pastoral ministry and its boundaries where the laws of the land governing civil society are concerned.
Rev Miller has subsequently been charged with one count of perverting the course of justice, and harbouring a fugitive. According to a report carried in this newspaper, when Rev Miller was apprehended, he insisted that he was trying to get Mr Coke to the United States Embassy at Liguanea in St Andrew, where it was expected that the Americans, who wanted Coke extradited to face cocaine trafficking and gun-running charges, would have taken custody of him.
MILLER... while his actions in relation to the charges which he now faces may be approached from the perspective of the nature of pastoral care and practice, they clearly have implications for assessment in terms of the violation of the law of the land
BONHOEFFER... his classic work of Christian thought, The Cost of Discipleship, points to the way in which Christians have compromised their faith under the influence of secularism
COKE... extradited to the US to face cocaine trafficking and gun-running charges
MILLER... while his actions in relation to the charges which he now faces may be approached from the perspective of the nature of pastoral care and practice, they clearly have implications for assessment in terms of the violation of the law of the land 1/4 As expected, his situation has generated much public discourse with persons advancing all kinds of arguments as to what should be the nature of the resolution of this situation. Some who have admiration for the clergyman believe that he should be hailed for the action he has taken, while there are others who believe that the law, if it is proven in the Court to have been violated by the clergyman, should be enforced for him as for any other citizen.
Other persons are prepared to bring to bear on the situation special consideration in terms of his role and office as a member of the clergy and the way in which this may shape both his perception and his actions, while others who are less sympathetic to religion and the role which religious figures play in contemporary society, are of the opinion that there should be no special consideration given to him and, if this has prevailed in the past, this is clear evidence that members of the clergy must be reined in and brought under the full ambit of the law like any other citizen.
It seems appropriate that an attempt should be made to bring some perspective to the situation in terms of the history and nature of pastoral ministry and how the actions of the Rev Al Miller may be assessed in light of the same. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one which depicts from its most ancient past the role of the religious leader as one who embodied in his or her person various roles and functions which today find expression in several professions and institutions.
The early history of Israel as portrayed in the book of Numbers (35:14+) recounts the story of the division of the land of Canaan into which they had come among the various tribes. Among the tribes were the Levites who represented the priestly caste. They were assigned territories of their own.
What is interesting, however, is that among the cities that fell under their jurisdiction and care were to be what were called cities of refuge. These were cities to which persons who had killed another person could flee. In an era in which there was no established system of justice, in these cities the priests were to follow detailed instructions in determining the intention and, therefore, the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator in killing another.
While a murderer was to be put to death, a person who had killed someone inadvertently was to have his life spared and was to be protected from retaliation and retribution. If, however, he should venture outside of the city, his safety and security would not be assured.
Here then is a situation in which the religious leader was to be the symbolic representation of the protector and dispenser of justice for one who had violated the mores of society. Throughout the Old Testament and into the New, there are various stories of individuals being protected as they were being pursued by authorities of state and of religion. Indeed, the great St Paul found himself in a situation in which he had to be sheltered and be let through a window in the city wall at night in order to escape those who were seeking to take his life.
What is clear from the outset is that the religious community, based on its understanding of the nature of God as a God of justice and mercy, and its understanding of the nature of priestly and pastoral leadership, has seen intervention in situations of human predicament, even where persons have run afoul of the laws and mores of the society, as part of its responsibility. How this is to be exercised is another matter.
It should come as no surprise that in the Judeo-Christian Scripture, one of the most familiar passages of prophetic declaration of God's liberation for His people includes the prisoner. So the Isaiah 61 passage which declares the good news of God's liberation includes the lines in which the messenger is to "proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners". This same passage becomes the basis of Jesus' initiation of His public ministry in St Luke 4.
In other words, religion and the religious leaders of the Judeo-Christian tradition have always understood the concern for those who have run afoul of the mores of society to be of special concern and care, not by way of circumventing the law but in seeing that their dignity as human beings is preserved and justice is served.
In our current debate, many persons have gone directly to an understanding of the confessional as a way of explaining the behaviour of the Rev Al Miller. The confessional refers to a one-to-one relationship between an ordained person and another person, usually in a setting which allows for the privacy and anonymity of the confessor, and becomes the place and opportunity for one who has done wrong and is troubled of conscience to come in penitence and acknowledge openly, and in a confidential relationship, the wrong that has been done and to seek to receive the grace of forgiveness and to make reparation as is appropriate.
The confessional is not an information-sharing or information bank where persons come to deposit with the priest all the evils of his or her life or even to seek endorsement of wrongdoing. Rather, it is the place where the penitents come to unburden themselves by acknowledging guilt, and seeking through the grace imparted and affirmed, the strength to go and do the right and to make amends where necessary.
It was intended as a context and relationship for dealing with moral and religious infractions, though at times it is possible that infractions of the law could enter into the content of such confession. In this capacity, the priest functions with authority entrusted by the church, is guided by what is understood as the "seal of the confessional", and is, therefore, not functioning as an agent of the state and is under no obligation to disclose what has been shared with agents of the state.
In responding to the persons making a confession, the priest seeks to explore the extent to which the person sees his or her actions as immoral, is disturbed of conscience, and would want to do what is necessary to relieve a troubled conscience and to be right with God and with neighbour.
The priest would then prescribe acts of contrition and penitence to address the situation. It is possible that given the nature of the confessed infraction, the priest could seek to suggest to the penitent a course of action which may involve restitution, reconciliation or, in the case of a criminal act, facing up to the consequences of one's action by surrendering to the authorities.
It is quite possible that this could be a situation in which the priest becomes further involved to the extent that he or she may be the one to accompany the penitent to the authorities by mutual consent. In this light, the confessional is not some place for facilitating the breaking of the laws of the land or complicity by the priest in the pursuit of such a course of action. To that extent, the priest leads the process and does not at any point become the instrument of the confessor.
There is a further development of the tradition of pastoral care which has included the following elements: healing, guiding, sustaining, reconciling. In these relationships the pastor determines the nature of the intervention which is appropriate and directs the process toward the desired outcome. In the situation at hand it seems that the appropriate pastoral response is of the nature of guiding. This is not about coercion but of leading the person seeking help to a position at which he or she can make a responsible decision drawing on a moral and religious framework explored with the priest.
The element of personal agency and responsibility is never removed from the individual seeking pastoral assistance. In the case of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, we would need to ask the question whether such a process was followed by the pastoral leadership which was offered.
Furthermore, pastoral care has developed in the 20th and 21st centuries into a more intentional and professional discipline. Pastoral care refers to ordained or acknowledged religious leaders who bring the resources, wisdom, and authority of the religious community to bear on human distress. Usually, however, pastoral care refers to the more intensive dimension of the larger tasks of ministry, to conversation with persons or groups who seek interpersonal, moral, or spiritual guidance.
In this mode the pastor receives his/her authority from the faith community to which he/she is accountable at all times, and is also accountable to his/her peers for the nature and quality of pastoral care which is offered. This means that the pastor is not the ultimate authority in determining the appropriateness of care which has been offered.
In the case of the appropriateness of the pastoral care which has been offered to Christopher Coke by the Rev Al Miller, it must be determined not only on the basis of his personal judgement and perceived dictates of conscience, however loudly he declares it, but the ecclesiastical authority to which he is subject, if any, and his peers in pastoral ministry.
Through the ages there have been pastors who have understood the nature of their pastoral care and practice at a particular point or on a particular occasion to demand violation of the law and who have had to face the consequences of their actions within the realm of civil society and the prevailing laws.
Among the most outstanding of these of the modern world has been the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer wrote a classic work of Christian thought, The Cost of Discipleship, in which he reflects on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. He wrote this work at the time of the rise of Nazism, pointing to the way in which Christians have compromised their faith under the influence of secularism and calling for a renewed understanding of the costliness of discipleship. This led him eventually to conspire with persons to assassinate Adolf Hitler and for which he was eventually killed by the authorities.
While the actions of the Rev Al Miller in relation to the charges which he now faces before the court may be approached from the perspective of the nature of pastoral care and practice, they clearly have implications for assessment in terms of the violation of the law of the land. The information which has come to the fore from the police so far indicates that the Rev Al Miller took a deliberate decision to assist Christopher Coke in evading the warrant for his arrest and in attempting to circumvent the judicial process of the land, a decision which not even Coke himself had the right to make.
Pastoral practice, while having a legitimacy of its own when it meets certain criteria, does not have an inherent right to function outside of the scope of the law. Indeed, some of the truly great pastors over the ages have been prepared to face the full weight of the law as the cost of effective pastoral practice.
It is to be seen whether the actions of the Rev Al Miller may be dismissed on the basis of pastoral care and practice, or whether he will be prepared to face the court and its judgement, accepting any possible outcome or sentence as the cost of discipleship and pastoral ministry, or perhaps, a serious error of pastoral judgement.
To suggest that the prospect of the Rev Al Miller being subject to criminal charges and possible criminal sanction for his collaboration with Christopher Coke as the introduction of a new paradigm into pastoral practice, or, that there is need for the police to outline some new protocol for pastors for dealing with situations in which someone who is a fugitive from the law is seeking such assistance or intervention, is naïve or a failure to understand the nature of pastoral ministry through the ages.
Where a pastoral contact places one outside of the protection of the law or in direct violation of the same, one should consult with the relevant legal authorities once the nature of the situation is apparent. In this light, it is one thing for a pastor to escort someone who has been declared "a person of interest" by the police to turn himself in to the authorities as an expression of trust and confidence in the pastor. It is a totally different matter for the pastor to be enlisted by a fugitive in his scheme to deceive and evade the authorities and the justice system of the land.
In this situation it appears that the pastor is no longer functioning as the pastoral leader but the one who is being led, and thereby may be perceived as a co-conspirator.
— Howard Gregory is the suffragan bishop of Montego Bay
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...he-law_7759525
Comment