Covenanting as Human Vocation

A Discussion of the Relation of Bible and Pastoral Care

WALTER BRUEGGEMANN

Academic Dean Eden Theological Seminary

The biblical metaphor of covenant sets the primary issue of pastoral care, namely, grounding in another vis--vis self-groundedness. A T THE OUTSET, we can recognize that the Bible offers no single perspective on anthropology; and more than one posture might be considered here. Of those possibilities, the one we consider here is the following: Covenant is the dominant metaphor for biblical faith by which human personality can be understood. That metaphor provides important points of contact and abrasion with psychological alternatives in our society.1

JLJL

It is not self-evident that covenant is a dominant metaphor for all of the Bible. However "covenant" as used here refers most broadly to a way of perceiving reality. Two disclaimers are immediately required. First, "covenant" is not used here in any precise, technical sense to refer to the "treaty hypothesis" now so dominant in Old Testament studies.2 Second, I do not refer to "covenant" in the way of Eichrodt, which tended to fit everything into one mold.3 Thus in using the metaphor, I do not specify any particular school of biblical interpretation and mean instead to speak of a most fundamental affirmation of biblical faith, an affirmation which I judge to be the presupposition of various biblical traditions. Note that "covenant" is characterized as a metaphor, that is, as a way of discerning and articulating reality impressionistically, which permits a variety of
1. The tension and/or contrast of biblical perspectives with the dominant alternatives in our culture is well stated by Robert Katz, "Martin Buber and Psychotherapy," HUCA 46:413-31 (1976). 2. On that scholarly enterprise, see the review and assessment of Dennis McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1972). 3. Cf. Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1961). For a careful assessment of Eichrodt's covenantal hypothesis, see Norman Gottwald, "W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament," in Robert B. Laurin, ed., Contemporary Old Testament Theologians (Valley Forge, Judson Press, 1970), pp. 25-62.

115

nuances, dimensions, and possibilities. But the metaphor gives a focus to all these diversities and makes a main claim in distinction to some other anthropological options.4 The purpose of this article is to consider a way in which fresh conversation with psychological disciplines can be enhanced. We hope that biblical perspectives can both serve as support and criticism. The primary claim of "covenant" as a way of understanding our theme of "pastoral counseling and theological anthropology" is that human persons are grounded in Another who initiates personhood and who stays bound to persons in loyal ways for their well-being. This is, of course, a way of saying that human persons have to do fundamentally with God. Moreover, it is to claim that human persons have to do with a quite specific identifiable God whose name we have been told and into whose history we have been invited. Covenant is the deep and pervasive affirmation that our lives in all aspects depend upon our relatedness to this other One who retains initiative in our lives (sovereignty) and who wills more good for us than we do for ourselves (graciousness; cf. Eph. 3:20). The affirmation that human persons are grounded in Another of course directly contradicts the current temptation to self-groundedness.5 It is a special temptation of modern persons (though it did not begin there) 6 to believe that our life springs from us, that we generate our own power and vitality, and that within us can be found the sources of wholeness and well-being.7 Either we practice self-sufficiency effectively (which none of us can do long enough), or we find we are not self-sufficient and are driven either to guilt or despair. Against the pervasive biblical insistence that human life is in relation to Another, tempting ideologies around us believe that life is grounded in self. These understandings presume that the self is the essential unit of meaning. The self is where the issues of life and health may be "solved." Against such claims, the biblical metaphor of
4. On the literature of biblical anthropology, see the summary statements of Norman Porteous, "Man, Nature of, in the Old Testament," IDB, K-Q (New York, Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 242-46; and S. V. McCasland, "Man, Nature of, in the New Testament," ibid., 246-50. A most recent and helpful statement on OT issues showing how the primary issues arc relational is Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1974). 5. On the destructive and seductive nature of self-groundedness, see the statement of Alvin W. Gouldner. He is especially sensitive to the "social science" mode of discourse as essential to the ideology of self-groundedness: "Both science and ideology are grounded in a culture of careful discourse, one of whose main rules calls for self-groundedness . . . " (The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology [New York, Seabury Press, 1976]), pp. 42f. 6. On the motif in the OT, see Donald Gowan, When Man Becomes God (Pittsburgh, Pickwick Press, 1975). 7. On the meaning of modernity as an alternative life-world, see the strictures of Peter Berger. He stresses esp. the world-view in which everything is deemed choosable without limiting or reliable givens. Theologically, this translates into a world based in law (Pyramids of Sacrifice [New York, Basic Books, 1974], pp. 21-23 and passim and Facing up to Modernity [New York, Basic Books, 1977]).

116

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

covenant sets the primary issue of pastoral care, namely, grounding in Another vis--vis self-groundedness. I Thus, we may begin, as the Bible persistently does, concerning even anthropology, with the One in whom we are grounded. It is clear that much of the psychology used in pastoral care has not been grounded in this other One. The abandonment of God in modern psychology has likely been because of authoritarian or irrelevant caricatures of God. But if we are to build a fresh conversation between Bible and pastoral care, we must abandon such caricatures and learn to speak about the faithful covenanting One for whom the Bible makes claims. It is likely that the consciousness of the Enlightenment has been decisive for our abandonment of God-talk in pastoral care. An undialectically positive notion of freedom, and with it an undialectically negative notion of authority, have created a situation in which "coming of age" has meant getting free from God and making it "on our own." The quest for modernity has been to become a self who is the ultimate unit of meaning.8 As Calvin has said so plainly, a consideration of human personality must be linked to a consideration of God.9 The God of the Old Testament and of the New Testament is disclosed as a God who wills covenant, makes covenant, and keeps covenant. God's creation is an act of covenant-making with his creation.10 The wisdom teaching of Israel can be understood as discernment of the orderliness and reliability ordained by this faithful Other.11 The "miracles" of Jesus
8. Philip Rieff has most clearly indicated the nature of the pursuit of individual freedom which regards repression as undialectically the primary human problem (The Triumph of the Therapeutic [New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966]). 9. Calvin begins with this recognition : "True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, the knowledge of God, and the knowledge of ourselves. But while these two branches of knowledge are so intimately connected, which of them precedes and produces the other, is not easy to discover . . . no man can take a survey of himself but he must immediately turn to the contemplation of God, in whom he "lives and moves." He concludes : "But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves be intimately connected, the proper order of instruction requires us first to treat of the former, and then to proceed to the discussion of the latter," Institutes of the Christian Religion I (Philadelphia, Presbyterian Board of Christian Education) pp. 47, 50. 10. That point, of course, has been established most clearly by Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III (Edinburgh, & Clark, 1958). 11. Gerhard von Rad, in commenting on order and faith, notes the delicate juxtaposition of the two: "The experiences of the world were for her always divine experiences as well, and the experiences of God were for her experiences of the world. It has been rightly said that in all knowledge faith is also at work. Thus here, in proverbial wisdom, there is faith in the stability

117

are presented as acts which restore persons to the covenant community. The ultimate hope of the apocalyptic tradition is that there will be a new age in which relatedness characterized by justice and righteousness will be given. If the metaphor of covenant is understood broadly as relatedness to and grounding in Another, it is a metaphor which relates to all these various biblical traditions. Out of these diverse materials about this other One, let us consider these four claims made concerning God which matter decisively for pastoral care: 1. The covenant-making God wills and has the power to make something new.12 Real newness (creatio ex nihilo, resurrection from the dead, justification by grace)13 is the peculiar capacity of God. He has not entrusted to any of his creatures the authority to present underived, unextrapolated newness, least of all newness about ourselves. Newness in our lives is a gift from this other One. It is God's gift-giving which breaks the vicious cycles of grudge and isolation and makes possible our giving of gifts to each other, which makes newness possible (Eph. 2:8; James 1:17; cf. Matt. 7:11 // Luke 11:13, for the affirmation of human gift-giving) ,14 The entire Bible bears witness to this One who destroys and creates (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 1:10). His forming of the worlds, his liberation of Israel, his anointing of David, his deliverance of exiles, his summons to disciples, his silencing the storm, his call to Lazarusall these attest to this Other giving newness that can be given only in this way. This ground of humanness is against every ideology which believes everything is already given that will be given. 2. The way of this covenant-making, newness-presenting God is by speech.1* His creation is by his word. His Exodus is by decree. His forming of Israel is by
of the elementary relationships between man and man, faith in the similarity of men and of their reactions, faith in the reliability of the orders which support human life and thus, implicitly, faith in God who put these orders into operation." See Wisdom in Israel (New York, Abingdon Press, 1972), pp. 62f. 12. In the OT, it is esp. Second Isa. who ponders the power of God to create an utterly underived, unextrapolated historical newness. Our own outlook, like that of ancient Babylon, no longer knew of any gods who could bring newness. On the subject of newness in Second Isa. and appropriate speech forms, see Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Philadelphia, Fortress Press), forthcoming, Chap. 4. 13. Gf. Hans Heinrich Schmid who usefully shows how the three programmatic terms function as synonyms ("Rechtfertigung als Schpfungsgeschehen," in Friedrich, Phlmann, and Stuhlmacher, eds., Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fr Ernst Ksemann [Gttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976], p. 401). 14. On the power of gifts and gift-giving, see the shrewd and simple statement of Paul Tournier, The Meaning of Gifts (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1964). On the social function of gifts, see Marcel Mauss, The Gift (New York, Norton, 1967). 15. On the power of speech as the entry of God, see Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs {The New Hermeneutic, Robinson and Cobb, eds., [New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964]) as well as Peter Hodgson (JesusWord and Presence [Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971]).

118

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

call. Covenant does not happen in silence.16 The metaphor of covenant presumes that this other One speaks, and by his speech things are changed (cf. Rom. 4:17). That dimension of the metaphor of covenant is difficult for us. In our modernity, we can deal well enough with a God who is there, but there as object and not as subject. But to say this One is one who speaks violates our epistemology and our rationality. It admits surprise and freedom beyond our capacity to control and administer. We do not know what God will speak and on whom he will call next. This God speaks a word which no empire has been able to administer and no ideology has been able to co-opt. God's speech is characteristically, first of all, self-announcement.17 God announces the claim that he is God and that his pur poses are at work. But God's speech is also address.18 He speaks not only of him self, but characteristically he speaks to his partner which his word calls into existence. This key insight of the Bible is affirmed in the neatly romantic song, "Morning has Broken," for it asserts that we do daily spring, "fresh from the word !" And that, of course, means if there were no word, we would not spring, fresh or otherwise. The covenant-making word is the creating word. Speech evokes the other person who is addressed. God's speech of address is at the same time promising and claiming. It is promising in that God vows fidelity to his partners. It is claiming in that God names and commissions the other to be his people-child-servant-heir. This discernment of the Bible about human persons is not one among many discernments nor is it peripheral to our existence. It is a key insight of the Bible, that we are speech-creatures and that our existence is in large measure an event of language. And therefore to have a God who speaks in ways that are powerful matters decisively. The God of the Bible is contrasted with all those others who have no decisive word to speak (cf. Isa. 41:26-29) . 1 3. This covenant-making God is one who holds his covenant partner to him self so that the life of the other is ordained to deal with God. He says not only
16. On the theological significance of speech and silence see Kornelis M. Miskotte and note esp. his assertion "When the gods were discovered to be mute, voiceless, abysses, Israel was bornor better when Israel was born . . . the gods were unmasked as being nothing more than the utter silence..." (When the Gods are Silent [New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967], p. 10). 17. See particularly the first three essays on the self-announcement of Yahweh by Walther Zimmerli, Gottes Offenbarung, ThB 9 (Mnchen, Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963). Zimmerli has proposed an OT theology constructed from the self-announced name of Israel's God (Old Testament Theology in Outline [Atlanta, John Knox Press, 1978]). 18. On the word of God as address, see Eduard Thurneysen, A Theology of Pastoral Care (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1962). 19. Second Isa. is of course the Bible's major proponent of a theology of God's word. Specifically warranting attention are the disputation, law-suit, and trial speeches, each of which engage the other gods polemically. See Roy F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40-55, BZAW 141 (New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1976), Chaps. 3-4. I suggest that the polemics of Yahweh against false gods is not unrelated to the conflicted nature of human anthropology which will be discussed in what follows. There is surely a correlation between the form of God's speech and the form of human life.

119

"I will be your God," which is his first characteristic speech of self-announcement; but he also says, "You will be my people."20 "I have called you by name. You are mine" (Isa. 43:1). It is not that this person belonging to God existed and then was claimed for God. Rather, the act of claiming is the act of giving life and identity to that person. Before being called and belonging to, the person was not. In the Bible, "person" means to belong with and belong to and belong for.21 Covenant is thus deeply set against every notion of human autonomy. The specific form of holding the other to himself is Torah.22 Torah is not law in any juridical sense, but it is rather a gift of guidance and sustenance so that the life of the partner has shape and purpose and perspective. If a modern human issue is anomie, of existing in a vacuum without order, shape or purpose, then the conviction that God holds his partner to himself in loyalty is an exceedingly important and polemical affirmation. In covenanting, the contradiction of freedom and authority is overcome. The binding of God is precisely the freedom of the human person, and where there is no binding, there is no freedom. In the Old Testament, it is the Torah of Sinai which gives shape and resilience to the liberation of Egypt. Without the shaping of Torah at Sinai, surely the liberation would come to nothing. In the New Testament it is clear that God's sovereign claim is in fact his graciousness; and conversely, God's graciousness is nothing other than his sovereignty toward us. The contradiction of binding and freedom is overcome because this binding freedom is shown to be characterized by the new righteousness of God (Rom. 10:1-13).23 4. The covenant-making, newness-presenting, word-speaking, holding-his-ownto-himself of God is an action toward us which redefines human life. Because God is God, human persons are set in a new context. The new situation is one of being addressed, after an eon of silent indifference; and the new situation is one, therefore, of promise and claim. The new situation is one of belonging with and belonging to, after an age of being abandoned and shapeless. The new situation is one of surprise and amazement, of unextrapolated gift, after a situation of oldness
20. See Horst Seebass, "ber den Beitrag des Alten Testaments zu einer theologischen Anthropologie," Kerygma and Dogma 22 (1976), p. 45. Throughout this discussion I have found the paper by Seebass to be most helpful. 21. Note well the first answer in the Heidelberg Catechism: "What is your only comfort, in life and in death? That I belongbody and soul, in life and in deathnot to myself, but to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. . ." The statement is clear that belonging is the only alternative to self-groundedness"not to myself." 22. On Torah, see James A. Sanders, "Torah and Christ," Interp 29:372-90 (1975). 23. The dialectical notion of binding and freedom is apparent even in such an unexpected source as William Masters and Virginia Johnson. The conclusion they have finally reached is that there is no unbonded pleasure or freedom. In using the term "bond," they have, of course, come very close to a covenantal assertion of reality. See The Pleasure Bond (Boston, Little, Brown, 1974).

120

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

in always different configurations. There is no clearer summary of the new situation by the actions of God than that Jesus gives to John the Baptist: . . . the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them (Luke 7:22). The God of this covenant relation is not one who is understood as the passive silent upholder, but he is an active agent on our behalf. Pastoral care involves bringing persons to such a knowledge of self in the presence of God. II In that context of that other One, let us consider some elements of a biblical anthropology. Notice that in considering this other One we have not spoken of attributes but of characteristic actions. In parallel fashion, a biblical understanding of human personality must speak of characteristic actions taken toward the one who is our Ground. If we have faithfully summarized the characteristic actions of God, then sound human psychology must ask about responding and responsive actions appropriate to God's initiatives toward us. Thus, the grounded one responds to the One who is our Ground. I suggest these are central in biblical faith: 1. In response to the One who makes all things new, a faithful human action is hope, to live in sure and certain confidence of promises, to function each day trusting that God's promises and purposes will not fail. Hope is not something one does at the margins of life when our resources fail, but it is definitional for persons in convenant with this God.241 submit that despair and its psychologically acceptable form, depression, are in fact covert acts of atheism25 in which we can conclude nothing can happen apart from us and no one is at work but us. 2. In response to the One who speaks, faithful human action is to listen2* (cf. Deut. 6:4), to concede that we are subject to Another who legitimately addresses us by name and tells us who we are. Serious listening is, of course, yielding to another, being at the disposal of another, letting our life be shaped by another who takes initiative for us. Listening to the voice of another with seriousness is,
24. On the centrality of hope for understanding human personality, see Seebass, op. cit., pp. 50-52; Zimmerli, Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, SB 20 2nd. S. (Naperville, Allenson, 12 n. d.) ; Wolff, Anthropology, chap. 17, and more generally, Jrgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope (New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967). See the important comments of Wolfhart Pannenberg on the importance of hope for healing, esp. his citation of H. Plgge and A. Jones (Jesus-God and Man [Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1977], pp. 83-85). 25. Von Rad argues that "Folly is practical atheism" (p. 65). And folly he characterizes as "a lack of order in a man's innermost being, a lack which defines all instruction" (p. 64). On p. 83, he comments on "the 'disorderly* man." See Wisdom in Israel. 26. For Seebass, hearing ranks in centrality only with hoping (op. cit., pp. 52f.).

121

then, a decision to live by grace, to let us be impacted and defined by that other voice. There is, of course, no more sustained prophetic indictment than, "You did not listen." (This is especially clear in Jeremiah 5:21 ; 7:13; 11:10; 13:11 ; 22:21; 25:4, 8; 29:19; 35:17; 36:25.) Not listening, always speaking, always retaining initiative, always insisting on self-definition, is a second mark of atheism, for it is based on the surmise and fear that there is no one but us. And only our voice can prevent the terror of cosmic silence. 3. In response to the God who holds us to himself, who holds us accountable and responsible, faithful human action involves obedient answering language. Obedient answering consists in action which may be summarized as the doing of justice and righteousness, loyalty and graciousness. Such obedient answering is the fullness of maturing to which we are invited ( Eph. 4:13). The maturity of which Paul writes (Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:15) is not the maturity of selfself-actualization, self-discovery, self-assertion, self-realizationbut it is the life lived toward this other One in gratitude and awe. The word which articulates this mature obedience is not "I" but "Father."27 Mature sonship and daughterhood are finally found in the capacity to say "Father," to do his will, to care for his other children, and to accept it as perfect freedom. It is important that in the two places in which Paul speaks most fervently of freedom, he speaks of the ability to say "abba" (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The saying of "father" is not an act of subservience but of mature freedom. That same word, in its only other use in the New Testament, is employed by Jesus in his quintessential act of obedient maturity ( Mark 14:36). These would seem to me to be the primary elements of mature, covenantal personhoodhoping, listening, and answering. Each of these is an affirmation of being grounded in another. Each of these is a protest against self-groundedness, for the self-grounded person is finally (a) hopeless, (b) must always do the speaking, and (c) hears nothing to which to make answer. Pastoral care is concerned with the issue of how persons who are hopeless, persistent speakers, and faithless listeners can be brought to faithful covenanting. Such pastoral care is concerned with the nurture which transforms persons to be covenanters. In that context, these actions are characteristically affirmed in the Bible. 4. In the face of the covenant-making God, it is faithful human action to rage and protest.28 The idea of primal scream was known and practiced in ancient
27. See the contrast of sonship with the role of slaves and orphans, Brueggemann, In Man We Trust (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1972), esp. p. 76. 28. On the lament psalms as sources of rage and grief, see the following: Glaus Westermann, "The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament," Interp 28:20-38 (1974); Erhard Gerstenberger, "Der Bittende Mensch," (Habilitationschrift) and "Der klagende Mensch," in H. W. Wolff, ed., Probleme Biblischer Theologie (Mnchen, Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 64-72; Brueggemann, "From Hurt to Joy, From Death to Life," Interp 28:3-19 ( 1974) and "The Formlessness of Grief," Interp 31:263-75 ( 1977).

122

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

Israel. As Westermann has seen,29 the Western tradition of guilt and submissiveness bespeaks a readiness to take all blame for the mess.30 But not Israel ! Israel dared to believe that sometimes protest (read "accusation against God") is more fitting than submission. To accept blame for everything is not to take God seriously. Israel in her vigorous faith will take God seriously, and so there is energetic and hostile protest. Israel speaks with such confidence because she trusts herself utterly to this covenantal partner. Rage is a form of trust and an acknowledgment that finally one must come to terms with this One in whom we are grounded. Solle has seen that it is precisely rage which is the gate to hope.31 Rage is the speech that makes other covenantal exchanges possible. People engaged in pastoral care must decide if this One is worth addressing and must be taken with such radical seriousness. 5. In the face of the covenant-making God, it is faithful human action to grieve.32 It is for that reason that so many of the psalms of Israel are lament poems. Israel was not reticent to speak about loss, hurt, betrayal, fear, threat, anxiety. To be sure, there are not many that end there.33 Gerstenberger34 has made the helpful distinction between lament and complaint, urging that Israel rarely grieves in resignation, willing to settle for things as they are. Rather, Israel complains, accuses, cajoles, urges in order to get things changed. But nonetheless, Israel engages in no denial of loss nor any self-deception about hurt. She faces loss and hurt fully and addresses them frontally. Israel knew that such vigorous, even strident, grieving was an act of faithfulness. But it is crucial to note that the laments never focus long or finally on the object of loss. The speech may be about loss, but it is addressed to the God in whom Israel is grounded. Israel's primal scream is addressed to someone. *4jid therefore it has a chance of an answer.
29. "The Role of the Lament." 30. The acceptance of responsibility for everything wrong leads to guilt, which in turn immobilizes. Clearly, the power to act in some situations requires the rejection of guilt and the accusation against the other in rage. The inability to rage leads to immobility. In writing of the immobility of the Irish, Leon Uris, Trinity, has the storyteller say: "Aye, Seamus, there was no Brotherhood, no ability to rage, I became so broken with frustration I did what I swore would never happen. I was driven out of Ireland. Ah, not by the British but by the apathy of our own people." More broadly on rage and apathy as antithetical, see Dorothy Solle, Suffering (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1975). 31. Op. cit.y 73. Solle shows that lament and protest are the only way from mute suffering and isolation to the power of newness. See also the analysis of Max Scheler, Ressentiment (New York, Schocken Books, 1961). 32. See Brueggemann, "The Formfulness of Grief," for the resources available in the psalms for this aspect of pastoral care. 33. Gerstenberger, "Der klagende Mensch," following Jahnow, has shown how rare these are for Israel. Moreover in such poems, the name of Yahweh is not invoked, for they are without hope and the name of the God of hope is inappropriate. In the psalms, only Ps. 88 apparently ends in such despair and stands outside Westermann's formal analysis. 34. Gerstenberger, "Jeremiah's Complaints," JBL 82:405 (1963), n. 50.

123

Indeed, Israel's grief is in the context of faith.35 It is never presumed that the loss terminates the relationship, and therefore loss is not the ultimate reality. Westermann has shown in a most remarkable way that grief in Israel is linked always to confidence, hope, and praise.36 Such grief is not the act of an atheist, for hopeless, resigned grief or hurt denied is indeed an act of atheism. Such hopefilled grief as Israel practiced is in deep conflict with the perverted practice among us of denial and self-deception. 6. Finally, in the face of the covenant-making God, praise is faithful human action. Indeed, the chief end of human persons is "to glorify God and enjoy him forever." Praise is not a means toward an end in the Bible. It is an end in itself. It is the spontaneous, grateful yielding over of self to the One who is faithful covenant partner.37 Doxology is the most faithful act of getting one's mind off one's self and fully on to this One who is the real subject of our lives. Abraham Heschel38 has eloquently asserted that the singing of doxology, the practice of surrendered gratitude, is the last full measure of humanness in which the creature of God is turned fully toward the creator who stays by the creation. Israel practiced little introspection, not because she is "primitive" or unaware, but because she has determined that self-knowledge and self-awareness unrelated to the Other is not necessarily the way to health. Rather, it is to receive the gift and to focus on the giver. Such a decision on the part of Israel, wrought in painful experience, is evident in the structure of the psalms of lament, which characteristically move by way of rage and grief to praise, joy, and assurance of being heard by the covenant partner. Thus vis--vis this awesome One who stands in solidarity with his partners, we suggest that a proper posture is of hope/listening/ answering. We have suggested a second triad of practices which makes the first triad possible. How more from hopelessness, incessant self-assertion (speech), and autonomy (not answering)? The Israelite way is by grief, rage9 and praise. These practices are offered in Israel not only to those who for the moment are self-sufficient and therefore
35. Granger Westberg has seen the linkage of faith and grief (Good Grief [Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1962]). 36. Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1965). See the summary claim on p. 75. 37. On the contrast of praise and thanks, see Westermann, The Praise of God, pp. 25-35. On the rich and spontaneous, holistic character of praise, Westermann asserts ". . . praise of God is something that cannot be learned . . ." (p. 23). 38. "The secret of spiritual living is the power to praise. Praise is the harvest of love. Praise precedes faith. First we sing, then we believe. The fundamental issue is not faith but sensitivity and praise, being ready for faith. . . . The man of our time is losing the power of celebration. . . . Celebration is an act of expressing respect or reverence for that which one needs or honors." Who is Man? (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1965) pp. 116-17. H. W. Wolff, Anthropology 229, concludes his study by reference to Ps. 148 and ends with this statement: "In praise such as this the destiny of man . . . finds its truly human fulfillment. Otherwise man, becoming his own idol, turns into a tyrant; either that or, falling dumb, he loses his freedom."

124

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

buoyant, but also by those who are manifestly not self-sufficient and therefore immobilized. In terms of pastoral care, it is noteworthy that this latter triad is of clearly dramatic, liturgical, and in some way public acts. It is the faithful doing of covenantal actions that makes covenantal life possible. Pastoral care may be the practice of engaging persons regularly in these faithful actions as persons fully and freely engaged in covenant.

Ill
In that context, we may observe two major implications of the covenantal metaphor. We propose that the covenant is between these two parties : ( 1 ) the news-bringer, word-speaker who stands by and gives a new setting for our humanness; (2) the grounded one who is called to hope, listen, and answer, and who may do so by the regular practice of rage, grief, and praise. The issue for us in our humanness is how to participate in that covenant. First, such a view of reality transposes all identity questions into vocational questions. The notion of identity questions is based on the assumption that the person, in and of himself/herself, has within his/her body an identity to be embraced. Identity questions are, by definition, self-focused. But we have urged on the basis of our governing metaphor that the premise itself is wrong because the human person is not self-grounded and therefore does not have within himself/herself the essentials for accepting or arriving at an identity. Rather, identity for a person is given in the call of the other One.39 It is the voice of the initiating One who calls human persons to a destiny. Maturation is coming to terms in free ways with that givenness of God's purpose in our lives. This dynamic of identity is evident in the Old Testament, in God's call to the creation to "be." It is equally evident in God's call to his first born son Israel to be his people (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). It is clear in the New Testament that the church has to do with the "God who calls" (Rom. 4:17; Gal. 5:13 ; II Tim. 1:9). The dynamic of humanness is in the interaction between the One who calls and the one who is called. And the agenda between them is a calling. I submit that pastoral care can usefully reclaim the idea of calling or vocation. That idea, perhaps, has lost standing because it seemed so classical, if not medieval, and so linked to a static view of society. Or it smacked of authoritarianism against a consciousness bent on freedom. But we are not speaking of an occupation or a
39. That, of course, is the point of Buber's "I-Thou." Unfortunately, his discernment has not been appreciated, either being understood in quite romantic terms or being reduced to psychological personalism. His intent is rather to protest against the notion of self-groundedness. On the narcissistic character of self-identity, even when expressed in religious categories, see Harvey Cox, Turning East (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1977), Chap. 6. Narcissism is a most difficult challenge for pastoral care, esp. when it has the apparent legitimacy of much religion.

125

job or a profession, but of a purpose for being in the world which is related to the purposes of God. And we are not speaking here of our mother's ambition for us or an institutional blueprint for our lives, but of the dreams of the One in whom we are grounded. Because God is God, there are purposes to which we belong which are larger than our purposes (Isa. 55:6-9). Or viewed another way, the Bible never holds to the notion that we exist as pre-purpose persons and then may choose a purpose in life. On the contrary, our being called into being as persons already is decisive for our humanness. Biblical anthropology is from the beginning missional. Biblical faith asserts that being grounded in this other One who has purposes that are not our purposes characterizes our existence as missional, that is, as claimed for and defined by the One who gives us life. The metaphor of covenant thus poses the central reality of our life in terms of vocation. Vocation means we are called by this One who in calling us to be calls us to service. And in that service comes freedom. Second, a covenantal view of personhood assures that personal existence is, by definition, conflicted. We are always in tension with our vocation, wanting it another way or not at all. Any notion of biblical anthropology must of course speak of sin, but we must take care that we do not let that be understood conventionally. Better, I believe, to recognize that God's purposes for us and God's calling of us are in conflict with other ways we would rather live. Surely it is clear that we would rather deny than to grieve. We would prefer to sulk than to rage. We would rather introspect than to praise. Denying, sulking, introspecting permit us to keep life turned in on us, to pretend we are the center of existence and the shapers of our own destiny. Turning to the Other means we take life, destiny, vocation as gift. We give thanks and acknowledge we are not self-sufficient. Such a break toward this life-giving covenant partner is a central issue in pastoral care. But even when turned toward the other One and not turned away in resistance, things stay conflicted. What is promised in this covenant is not equilibrium but faithfulness. And faithfulness, contrasted with the quiet security yearned for by this world, is flowing, surging, and moving. The upshot of faithfulness, then, is not certitude, but precariousnessprecariousness which requires a full repertoire of hoping, listening, and answering to live joyously. The Bible is realistic in knowing that life does not consist in pleasant growth to well-being, but it consists in painful wrenchings and surprising gifts. And over none of them do we preside. IV Covenantal existence is filled with precariousness. That is the nature of human 126

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

life lived in the presence of this covenanting God. Indeed, the Bible asserts that God's own way with his people is also one of risk, vulnerability, and anger. The precariousness of this way of understanding human reality includes at least these factors: 1. Both parties in the covenant have dangerous freedom in the presence of the other one. The binding between the two is one of faithful trust, not control. For the covenant to have vitality, each party is granted freedom by the other. Quite clearly, God claims his freedom to act as he will, nowhere more unhappily (for Jonah) than in the narrative of Jonah. But it is also clear that the community of faith has freedom in the face of the covenant God, freedom which must be exercised, but which is fraught with danger. Moreover, the freedom of each must be practiced in the presence of the other. Neither is free to engage in freedom which does not take into account the reality of the other. 2. Covenant means living in a history where each receives being/identity/personhood from the other. That is, things are really at stake in the covenant. It is not that one goes to covenant with everything resolved. No, each comes to covenant with everything yet to be resolved with reference to the other one. Things are at stake for God. But quite clearly, this is affirmed in Israel. This is evident in the pathos of God ( Hos. 6:4-6 ; 11:8-9 ; Jer. 31:20 ) .40 It is also evident in the claim that God's throne is founded in Israel's praises (Ps. 22:3). The inference is that without the praises, the throne would have no place.41 When Israel must face Yahweh, everything is at issue for Israel. The judgment of God is determinative for Israel's life (Ps. 103:8-10; 130:3-4). The precariousness of such a way of life is that the freedom of and power over the other party can never be reduced nor nullified. The other party may be trusted but cannot be controlled. The disposition of God toward us can be counted on, but it is a conviction, not a fact. And to reduce that conviction to a proof is to deny the other his/her personhood and, in fact, to move away from the metaphor of covenant. 3. Covenanting means that the one who is authorized to give life is the very One, and the only One, who can call life into question. Or said another way, only the one to whom we are seriously committed can seriously threaten us. If we arrive at indifference toward this God, then perhaps it can be presumed one does not stand where the dangers of God are asserted. But that is not an alternative
40. On the fresh decision still to be made by God, see Gerald Janzen, "Metaphor and Reality in Hosea 11," SBL 1976 Seminar Papers (Missoula, Mont., Scholars' Press, 1976), pp. 145-69. 41. On the theological issue of God being impacted by the presence of the covenant partner, see esp. Jrgen Moltmann, The Experiment Hope (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1975), Chap. 6, and The Passion for Life (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1978), Chap. 1.

127

to Israel, nor for the church. Israel learned that precisely because this One is the ground of existence, his movement against, or even toward, us is perilous. 4. Covenanting surely means living in faith, that is, trusting in the promise of the other One. It means believing the vow the other one has made, even when it cannot be demonstrated or proven. Indeed, Israel's pilgrimage is precisely one in which proving or knowing too much is prohibited (Exod. 17:1-7; Deut. 6:12; Luke 4:12). It is the way of covenant to believe the good faith of the other party. To want proof in place of trust is to reduce the covenant and make of it a bargain. But when covenant is reduced to bargain, with the slippage of grace removed, then there are no dangers, but also no gifts and no surprises. I submit that this offers a primary construct for pastoral care. We have a penchant for reducing covenants to bargains. And in relationships which are bargains, there is no basis for hoping, listening, answering, raging, grieving, praising. There is no basis for any of those actions which make us human. Pastoral care is an invitation to transform relations of bargain and quid pro quo to relations of covenant. Covenant, as Mendenhall42 and Baltzer43 have shown, means living always midst dangerous curses and marvelous blessings. And that is where humanness happens, at the disposal of the Other. Covenantal people always live at the edge of the curse with real dangers and threats. Covenanted people always live at the brink of blessing, where the break of surprise and gift is about to come. Faith means to place ourselves in that vortex where life is granted, received, and risked. V And what has all of this to do with pastoral care? Pastoral care, as distinct from a narrowly based psychology or counseling, means nurturing persons and community into a fresh metaphor which holds the possibility of making all things new. Obviously, such a nurture is radical. It requires a break with the dominant metaphors of utilitarianism, transcendentalism, consumerism, all current expressions of self-groundedness.44 Indeed, such pastoral care is subversive because it works toward delegitimizing the ideologies of the day, ideologies that have psychological, economic, and political as well as theological dimensions. I have kept the discussion focused on the God issue because I believe everything is at issue there. Obviously, there are many other matters which derive from this metaphor about our relation to God. And in every aspect, the metaphor
42. George Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, Biblical Colloquium, 1955), reprinted in BibArch Reader 3:3-53 (Garden City, Doubleday, 1970). 43. Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1971). 44. For the contrast between these frames of reference and covenant, see Brueggemann, The Bible Makes Sense (Atlanta, John Knox Press, 1977), Chap. 1.

128

Covenanting as Human Vocation Interpretation

invites to a thinking which is radical and a practice which is subversive: 1. The issues of ecclesiology are not touched in this discussion except by inference under the theme of vocation. But clearly we are not speaking of individual persons, but of a community which in its self-understanding seeks to order its life around this dangerous metaphor. 2. The issues of ethics have gone untouched in this discussion except by inference under the theme of mission. But this anthropology has important affirmations to make about the ethics of money, power, sexuality, energy and the various issues of the day. It invites us to ask if the public issues before us can be addressed in covenantal ways. Or whether institutions can be made vehicles for covenant. 3. The issues of interpersonal relations are not considered in this discussion except to affirm that this metaphor can be analogous for every significant relationship, for all of them are potentially covenantal and all of them are by definition conflicted. 4. The issues of language have not been addressed here. I am quite aware that the problem of masculine language used for God (as employed here) is problematic. It is possible to deal with the issue in covenantal categories, but that task is not addressed here.45 Pastoral care, I suggest, consists in the formation of a community holding to and practicing this radical, subversive metaphor. Pastoral care surely is not confined to psychology, but the metaphor has important implications for sociology, ethics, and ecclesiology. And in the life of the church, the issues of covenant are as urgent in preaching, liturgy, education, and administration as in counseling. All these are elements of pastoral care in which the vocation of covenanting is at issue.46 We have now important work to do in reconstructing a form of pastoral care which will learn from the psychologies of the day but which will take with seriousness the radical and abrasive claims of the Bible. Over a period of time, the practice of pastoral care has in some circles been co-opted by various psychologies. But there are hopeful signs among us, signs that the time is now ripe for facing again the promissory offer of biblical faith. The development of such a fresh interface is hard work and not without pain. But it is also clear that very important things are at stake in our fresh work. The claims of the Bible provide important alternatives to psychologies which on the one hand champion personal autonomy and which on the other hand urge non-covenantal religion. The arena around the gospel calls for both criticism and construction.
45. Cf. Brueggemann, "Israel's Social Criticism and Yahweh's Sexuality," JAAR 45:739-72 (1977). 46. Hopeful signs of this larger awareness which has the chance of being theologically critical and responsible are indicated by Gaylord B. Noyce, "Has Ministry's Nerve Been Cut by the Pastoral Counseling Movement?" CCen 95:103-14 (1978).

129

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.