Implications and Challenges of The Belief in A Triune God and A Person Centred Approach PDF

1
Peter F. Schmid

In the beginning there is community
Implications and challenges of the belief in a triune God and a person-
centred approach

Invited lecture given at the International Conference 'The Spiritual Dimension in Therapy and Experiential
Exploration: a conference for those counsellors, psychotherapists and other practitioners concerned to explore
the significance of spirituality to their life and practice' (Norwich, 18th 22nd July, 2004)
20th July 2004
revised version to be published in the Conference Reader by Moore, Judith & Purton, Campbell, 2005

Abstract

Western tradition tends to give preference to the individual and their values of autonomy and authenticity. On
the opposite, there have always been traditions favouring the community and esteeming the value of relationship
and of thinking in societal categories. Throughout occidental history the unum-multum-problem has been
dominating the building of conceptions in theology, philosophy, psychology and psychotherapy. In theology, the
conception of and belief in a triune God (God as communication and community) brought the dialectics of
unity and plurality, identity and difference, individuality and community to a hitherto unknown peak of human
thinking and understanding of both God and their image, the human being. This leads to tremendous
consequences for the understanding of the human being as a person, a being of innate plurality, for example as
men and women. It is communication, originating in encounter and presence, which builds community.
1

In this paper I am going to explore the social and community-centred aspect of Christian belief and its
consequences for a person-centred image of the human being both in anthropological theory development and
the practice of person-centred work, particularly in groups. The Powerpoint presentation will be followed by a
discussion with the audience.

Peter F. Schmid Peter F. Schmid
University of Graz University of Graz
Institute for Person Institute for Person- -Centered Studies (IPS), Vienna, Austria Centered Studies (IPS), Vienna, Austria
Conference Conference
The Spiritual Dimension in Therapy and Experiential Exploration The Spiritual Dimension in Therapy and Experiential Exploration
UEA UEA Norwich, July 20, 2004 Norwich, July 20, 2004
In the beginning there is community In the beginning there is community
Implications and challenges of the belief Implications and challenges of the belief
in a triune God in a triune God
and a person and a person- -centred approach centred approach

1
Cf. Schmid, Peter F., Im Anfang ist Gemeinschaft: Personzentrierte Gruppenarbeit in Seelsorge und Praktischer Theologie,
vol. III: Beitrag zu einer Theologie der Gruppe. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1998, chapters 1 & 2.
2
Where two or three are gathered in my name,
I am there among them. (Mat 18:20)

Dear colleagues and friends

It comes as a great honour to me to be invited to give this talk to such a distinctive audience and I wish to
express my gratitude for the invitation to do so.

Unfortunately I have to read the paper, because English, as you can hear, is not my mother tongue and I
apologize in advance for not being able to make use of the subtleties of language as I would like to do in order to
express myself as clearly as possible.

The task I chose to undertake, in fact, is not at all an easy one. I am going into theolo0gy and philosophy. And I
must warn you: It might well be that I am not going to give you an easy time; I shall tax your intellect and make
demands on your willingness to delve into territory at the edge of our capacities to understand and to belief. And
this will take some time. I want to talk about God and a subject that is not at all a matter of fashion today the
mystery of the Trinity.

As you might know I devoted a great deal of my time and energy to clarify what it means from a person-centred
perspective that the human being is a person which led me to explore the meaning of encounter and presence
from a philosophical perspective and to understand the Person-Centred Approach as an intrinsically relationship-
oriented approach. Today I am going to further delve into the foundations of a person-centred comprehension of
the human being which originates in experiences people understood as experiences with God and initiated by
God. In other words: At the early beginning of what we know today as the Person-Centred Approach there was
spirituality and reflection upon it. I am convinced that we need to go to its roots to really understand what the
Person-Centred Approach is about. Some major ones of these roots lie in the Jewish-Christian tradition and its
spiritual, theological and philosophical considerations of what it means to be a human being.

To give you a rough overview: I will proceed in three steps:

Overview Overview
I. The image of God I. The image of God
II. The image of the human being II. The image of the human being
III. Consequences for the understanding III. Consequences for the understanding
of the PCA of the PCA

3
I. The image of God

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

Firstly I am going to explore
1. the relationship between the image of the human being and the image of God.
2. Then I come to the unum-multum-problem, one of the main dichotomies in occidental philosophy.
3. After this the peak of the unum-multum-dialectics is further investigated: What does it mean to belief in a tri
une God?
4. This will be examined particularly in the light of the so called social analogy of the Trinity: God is
community, which leads to
5. a most interesting coincidence of person and group, when trying to understand God.
6. Perichoretic love is the theological term to express the mystery of God the TriUne.

Overview Overview
I. I. The image of God The image of God
Why and how to ask the question about God? Why and how to ask the question about God?
The The unum unum- -multum multum- -problem problem
The belief in a tri The belief in a tri- -une une God God
God is community God is community A social analogy of the Trinity A social analogy of the Trinity
God God Person? Group? Person? Group?
Perichoretic Perichoretic love love God the dancing group God the dancing group

1. Why and how to ask the question about God

To talk about God, to even talk about the Trinity what an enterprise, what presumption! Wouldnt it be much
more adequate to fall silent, to keep quiet and perhaps meditate? Of what use should it be to ask such a question,
particularly in the context of psychotherapy? Maybe it would be wise to stay abstinent and agnostic?

And yet from a Christian perspective at the beginning of the question about the human being and their
relationship with one another, their understanding of themselves and their way of living together, there has to be
the question about God, because the human being is understood to be the image of God. At the very beginning of
the Bible there is the basic statement: God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created
them. (Gen 1:26) This simply means: We cannot talk about God without talking about ourselves and vice versa.
Or to answer the question to whose benefit we do this: We do so in order to better understand ourselves as
human beings.

Thus, although it always only can be most temporary, most tentative, in a completely seeking manner to ask the
question about God, it does make sense to bring this question forward.

To be precise: We cannot think or talk about God; any endeavour to do so can only be an attempt to ask
towards God, in the direction of God, to think towards God as the Dutch theologian Piet Schoonenberg
(1986) expressed it, in other words: to seek God (Zauner, 1986). Any conversation about God is more wrong
than right or, as theologians term it, it is only analogous, i.e. similar and corresponding, illustrative, metaphoric,
symbolic. In a word, we only can stutter and stammer, approach the question cautiously and carefully.

Yet it is profoundly human to ask, to ask oneself and the others, where we do come from, where we are going
to, what our life is about. Psychotherapists and counsellors are familiar with this as theologians and pastoral
workers are familiar with it: existential questions are demanding, they need to be uttered, even if we know that
4
we never will have final answers. Theo-logy (i.e. literally speaking about God) does the same, only in a
systematic, scientific way.

Furthermore, from a Jewish-Christian-Muslim perspective, the religions of revelation, it was God who started the
dialogue, who spoke to us humans, who revealed, disclosed himself. God addressed us and therefore we are
invited to respond, to enter into the dialogue. All our speaking, in fact our whole life, is answering Gods call.
This is what the term person whence the name of the Person-Centred Approach comes from refers to in its
most profound meaning as I will show later.

Revelation is the one side of the coin whose other side is experience. And here, at the latest, the question
becomes important to psychotherapists and counsellors: How do we see the human being? How do clients
experience themselves? How do we think about them and us as humans?

To sum it up: The Bible starts with the conviction that we are entitled to think and talk about God, because this
means that we talk about ourselves and vice versa: When we talk about ourselves we talk about our
understanding of God. The image of God and the image of the human being are inseparably connected. The
Second Vatican Council expressed it that way: Christ made the human being fully known to the human being.
(GS 22) We are permitted to conclude from us to God and from God to us: God created humankind in his
image.

Why and how to ask the question about God? Why and how to ask the question about God?
We only can ask towards God. We only can ask towards God.
We respond to a dialogue that God started. We respond to a dialogue that God started.
Revelation and experience are two sides of one Revelation and experience are two sides of one
coin. coin.
The images of God and the human being are The images of God and the human being are
inseparably connected. inseparably connected.

And what is the relevance for practice?

I will concentrate here on one most important aspect. In the course of the history of reflection of the experiences
with Jesus Christ this led to a breathtaking inspiration and it is our Christian belief that it really was an in
spiration, brought forward by Gods spirit: The reflection of the experiences with Jesus led to the understanding
of God not only as the One and Only and thus the origin of our individuality but also as a Trinity, which means
as community and communication and thus as the source of our being-in-relationship, being sociable and living
gregariously, in a word: as the source of our nature as inevitably social beings.

Christians are baptized and begin their prayers in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What
makes the Christian belief different from all other religions is the belief in the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, theologically called Trinity, as expressed in the Creeds , in God as a triune. The distinctive Christian
image of God is God as a triunity.

But what does that mean? There have been lots of explanations and interpretations during a long existential and
theological struggle to find an appropriate understanding of God the One and God the Trinity, in a word: God the
Triune.

5
` `God God as a as a Tri Tri- -Unity Unity
? ?
1 ? 3 ? 1 ? 3 ?

Before we further investigate this we need to have a look at the wider context which will show that this is far
more than theological speculation, irrelevant to our everyday life. On the contrary: This leads us into the middle
of our existence.

2. The unum-multum-problem

The question about the nature of God is a special case of what in the history of philosophy is referred to as the
unum-multum-problem. Traditionally unity, uniformity and uniqueness on the one hand and plurality,
pluriformity and variety on the other hand have been seen as being incompatible opposites. The unum-multum-
problem preoccupied thinkers in Eastern and Western European philosophy and theology, the problem of the
one versus the many, the singular versus the plural, unity and uniformity versus diversity and pluriformity.
The contrast, the opposite of the one and the many, individuality versus community or society this is a basic
issue throughout occidental thinking and human self-understanding.

Is it the unum that is at the beginning, that is the source, the guiding principle? And therefore: Is diversity
diversification, is multitude something deriving from the original one, leaving it, deserting from it? Hence
something deducted, of less value, less power, less importance, something inferior and minor? Finally this would
mean that the goal of all will have to be gaining back the original unity, struggling in the direction of the original
unity, towards the one and only, making this unum the alpha and omega of everything. In politics this is the
question of the understanding of power and leadership: Is mon-archy the true state system, given by God and
only responsible to him? Is hier-archy the adequate constitution of religious systems, the church for example? Is
there only one church, realized in many communities? And much more generally and of decisive importance: Do
we live in a uni-verse (the word derives from Latin unum, i.e. one and vertere, i.e turn), where everything
is turned towards the one? Does uni-versity help us to understand how everything is connected to this one
core? Will we find a world formula explaining everything from one principle in the natural sciences as well
as in the humanities? Does spirituality tend towards finding the meaning of life? And finally in spiritual and
theological terms: Is there only one God? Do religious and spiritual movements tend towards monotheism? Is
monotheism the ultimate religion?

6
The The unum unum- -multum multum- -problem problem / /1 1
UNUM UNUM
The One is the source and guiding principle. The One is the source and guiding principle.
Diversity is deducted and thus inferior. Diversity is deducted and thus inferior.
Mon Mon- -archy archy, , hier hier- -archy archy. .
Uni Uni- -verse, verse, uni uni- -versity versity. .
Monotheism. Monotheism.
A A
B B B B
C C C C C C C C

Or is the multum there from the beginning? Does plurality characterize an original principle (Latin principium
means the beginning, the origin) making unity a second order category? Is it only unification that leads to
unity, based on induction, on agreement, negotiation? Is unity only achieved by uniting? Is unity only the
consequence of finding commonalities, maybe only existing in our heads, not in reality? Is therefore the further
development of individuality and diversity a ruling principle that leads to progress? And shouldnt it be
combined with relationship building and the fostering and celebrating of diversity, looking at the differences of
the multum and their richness, rather than the commonalities? Not the alpha-omega-principle but each letter of
the alphabet in its own right? Therefore, democracy would be the adequate state system, power and leadership
equally shared, responsible to all, in political as well as in religious organisations, a council-like and synodical
principle for the constitution of churches where the many have the say. Are there many communities that are
churches in the full meaning of the term, which together form a worldwide, a catholic church in the original
meaning of the word (Greek [katholiks] = concerning the whole, general, comprehensive,
universal). And generally: Do we live in a multi-verse (a term coined by the philosopher Heinrich Rickert
(1863-1936) for the cosmos seen from a non-universal perspective [Rickert, 1899; 1921; 1934])? A world, a
cosmos the structure of which is not connected up to the one (core, idea, God), but interconnected among the
many (ideas, human beings, things), without one world formula but with many principles, ideas, cores, more like
a net than like a family tree structure? Does spirituality encompass essentially different contents and directions
for different people without any preset and thus essentially common values? And in terms of religion: Are there
as many gods and goddesses as there are peoples or even people? Are different religions and spiritual
movements simply an expression of this fundamental, original, essential diversity? Is polytheism the genuine
reflection of this belief?

The The unum unum- -multum multum- -problem problem /2 /2
MULTUM MULTUM
Plurality is an original principle. Plurality is an original principle.
Unity is of second order, based on agreement. Unity is of second order, based on agreement.
Democracy, Democracy, synodical synodical structure. structure.
Multi Multi- -verse, interconnection. verse, interconnection.
Polytheism. Polytheism.
A A
A A A A
A A
A A
A A

In the course of time European thinking, originating in Greek culture, has tended to give preference to the
unum, the individual and their values of autonomy and authenticity. The multum got the reputation of the
7
inferior which can be seen as an ongoing fear of becoming and transience, or, in the meaning of Habermas, the
new confusion. (Beinert, 1998). If there is not one highest principle, one truth, one point to which everything
relates, one position from which to determine what is right and what is wrong wont this lead into chaos? I
believe that this is the strongest psychological motive for the desire for hierarchical structures and the wish of
having a strong leader and clear, pre-determined positions, standards and values and therefore the strongest
motive for the traditional preference of the unum, of our individualistic and hence ultimately narcissistic view.

One example might be the idea that wo-men derive from men an exegesis of the biblical narrative of Adams
rib that does not focus on the message of equality (bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; Gen 2:23) but on
the priority of the man (Hebrew [s] ) over the woman (Hebrew [i]) (ibid.), making the woman
the second, the one being derived from the original. Consequently, the woman has to obey the man; the man is of
higher rank and value. Ultimately it might well be the fear of both women and men of losing clear although
discriminating structures: It is easier to dominate and submit than to negotiate, consult and strive towards
agreement in gender dialogue as everywhere else.

On the opposite, also in Western intellectual history, in thinking and living, there have always been traditions
favouring the community and esteeming the value of relationship and thinking in societal categories. We have
heretic traditions, heretics that became saints; we have the clown at the side of the king; at carnival time the
structures of power were turned upside down. In the church e.g., there is not only the hierarchical and patriarchal
tradition, there is also the monastic tradition and the aforementioned synodical structure; tradition knows the
prophets aside the priests. There are ancient democratic traditions in politics, religion and private and public
opinion. The issues of Western thinking were not only about power and might but also about sharing and love. In
the last century individualism on the one hand came to a hitherto unknown predominant paradigm in society,
politics, economics and science, also in psychology and psychotherapy. On the contrary, later in the same
century there was the big and great rediscovery of relationship and community. Not only was the group
discovered, according to Carl Rogers (1970a) the most potent social invention of the 20
th
century, but
philosophy, psychology and psychotherapy realized the importance of relationship and encounter anew. Think of
dialogical philosophy, of constructivism, systems theory, of the encounter movement, of group, family and
systems therapy and particularly of the person-centred approach. Such a development from a more
individualistic focus to a balanced conviction, also valuing the fundamental relational categories can, for
example, clearly be traced in the life and work of Carl Rogers and the development of the Person-Centred
Approach.

The The unum unum- -multum multum- -problem problem /3 /3
European thinking prefers the European thinking prefers the unum unum, the , the
individual. individual.
E.g. wo-man from man [ from ].
But there are also traditions favouring the But there are also traditions favouring the multum multum. .
E.g. monastic traditions.
20th century: individualism 20th century: individualism rediscovery of rediscovery of
relationship and the group. relationship and the group.

3. The belief in a triune God

Back to our image of God. Christianity with its roots in Jewish thinking and understanding and heavily
influenced by Greek and Hellenistic philosophy, developed an outstanding way of dealing with the unum-
multum-dialectics. The Jewish achievement was monotheism, carefully defended against all temptations from
surrounding and occupying powers, e.g. the Mesopotamian, and also even the overall influence of the Roman
Empire. Its core was the covenant between God and his people: one God, one chosen people (Ex 31).
Christianity went one step further: It opened up to all people on earth and understood itself as the new covenant
between God and humankind, now open to everybody from everywhere (Mat 26:28).

8
But there was even more. The experiences with Jesus of Nazareth led to a new understanding of God and of
those who decided to live their lives according to his gospel, his [euanglion], i.e. his message, and
to live in his spirit, i.e. their experiences as a community. In theological terms: Easter and Pentecost. They
gradually came to understand that the main mission and message of his life was to show and verbalize: The way
I relate to you is the way God relates to you, in an early theologians, the authors of the gospel of John, words:
Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father (John 14:1). In encountering and experiencing Jesus, they believed,
they encounter and experience God. Even more: In living their lives according to Jesus life, in a word: in his
spirit, they understood themselves as living in Gods spirit, his holy spirit becoming present and presence. Thus
as a community in Jesus spirit they realized that they believed in encountering God by encountering each other.
Therefore the questions arose: Who is this Jesus in relationship to God, whom he calls his Father? What does
their most intimate relationship, expressed by the words Father, even Abba (Aramaic for Daddy), and Son,
mean? What or who is this Spirit we experience when we come together and live a life genuinely following
Jesus example, so to say inspired by him? A mental attitude, a vital principle, a supplying energy, courage,
Jesus himself, God Himself or even God Themselves?

Hence quite rapidly experience pushed and demanded to further develop the image of God. Experience made the
Fathers of the Church re-think this image leading to a new understanding of God. And this was how after a few
generations the idea was born that was coined in the term of a triune God, in the contemporary language of that
time formulated as one God in three persons unity and diversity at one and the same time. But, again: What
does this say, express, picture?

The belief in a tri The belief in a tri- -une une God God
Monotheism was Monotheism was the the Jewish achievement. Jewish achievement.
The experiences with Jesus (Easter and Pentecost) The experiences with Jesus (Easter and Pentecost)
led to a reconsideration led to a reconsideration fo fo the image of God. the image of God.
Father Father Son Son Spirit: God is community. Spirit: God is community.
One God in three persons (Tri One God in three persons (Tri- -unity): unity):
unity & diversity. unity & diversity.

Here, once more we need to be reminded that we cannot and never will be able to understand God. God is and
remains a mystery. If this wasnt, God would not be God, but an idol; God would be our creature, not the other
way round. And yet, as stated at the beginning, it makes sense to think about, to try to reflect our experiences and
find meaning in them.

4. God is community A social understanding of the Trinity

Out of all possible ways to understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity we here are interested in a specific one,
which is known as the social understanding of the Trinity.

As with the understanding of person (where both dialectically linked meanings are equally important, the
substantial and the relational dimension, but the relational dimension needed attention in order to really see both
aspects and their interrelation and avoid to stay one-sidedly individually orientated), it is with the understanding
of God as a triune. The tri is as important as the une. But since the substantial aspect of Gods being totally
different, the absolute Other, the transcendence and holiness (He dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one
has ever seen or can see, 1 Tim 6:16), since original unity and absolute independence is usually stressed and
associated with God, here I emphasize the aspect of community, to re-gain the balance, which does not mean that
the other aspect is of less importance.

Karl Rahner (1960; 1967) and others pointed out that the way we experience God in a trifold sense says
something about how God is, not only about how we experience God.

9
We experience God in his acting as
Father (the true, eternal, inestimable and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and inexpressible God as the
Fourth Council in Lateran, 1215, put it [DS 800], transcendent and far beyond our understanding),
Son (Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet and Son) and
Holy Spirit (God within ourselves, in the community of people, in the community of the church)
Rahner pointed out that the way we experience God has to do with the way God is, in his inner nature. Theologians,
always searching for terms to exactly describe what is meant, say: The economic Trinity (the Trinity we experience in
the salvation-history) is the immanent (the inner, the heavenly) Trinity. This means that we do not only experience God
in this way, God rather is this way.

God shows, reveals himself the way he or she is in himself. In a person-centred jargon this expresses that
Gods being and his communicating are congruent. God does not only show love towards us, God is love (in
him- or herself).

This means: We may, from our experience, interpreted as experience with God, conclude how God might be.
(Remember: Experience is one side of the coin whose other side is revelation.) This can easily be understood, if
you compare it with a relationship between human beings: A person shows him- or herself by his or her acting;
the better we know a person through our experience with him or her, the better we understand their acting.

And furthermore this means: God in his or her self-communication, showing himself how he is, shows us, how
we are (because we are his image). As already stated, the understanding of God and the understanding of
ourselves are intrinsically interconnected.

A social understanding of the Trinity /1 A social understanding of the Trinity /1
The substantial aspect (God as the absolute Other, The substantial aspect (God as the absolute Other,
independent, holy, in original unity, independent, holy, in original unity,
unchangeable) is usually stressed one unchangeable) is usually stressed one- -sidedly. sidedly.
The way we experience God The way we experience God
= the way God reveals him = the way God reveals him- -/herself. /herself.
As images of God we may from our experiences As images of God we may from our experiences
learn something, how God learn something, how God is is and how we are. and how we are.

During the history of theology we can find two paradigms of interpretation of the Trinity, an intrapersonal one
and an interpersonal one. The first one, the more Western one, also called the psychological model (Augustin;
Schmaus) goes from the unity to the trinity and therefore stresses the unity (and thus the Father), the second one,
the more Eastern one, also called the social approach or the interpersonal, dialogic analogy, focuses on the
trinity (and thus the community of the Three) and goes from there to the unity. This second analogy is closer to
the experience told in the Bible. In the social approach unity is seen as perfect community. It is the relationship
that makes the unity. It is the Fathers, Sons and Holy Spirits being totally wrapped up in one another, their
mutual love, their mutual penetration by love without giving up their respective peculiarities. (Theologians call
this perichoresis; we come back to it in a minute.) This shifts the focus from a monarchic, hierarchical,
patriarchal, androcentric idea towards an understanding of the Trinity as a community: It is relationship and
community that is Gods nature and intention:
God themselves is relationship.
God is relationship to us.
God is the foundation of our relationship with each other.
The peak of the universe is not isolation and loneliness, it is community and life at its fullest.
In other words: Analogously spoken, God is society, God is group.

10
A social understanding of the Trinity /2 A social understanding of the Trinity /2
The social (interpersonal, dialogic) analogy focuses The social (interpersonal, dialogic) analogy focuses
on the trinity, i.e. the community of the Three. on the trinity, i.e. the community of the Three.
It is relationship that makes the unity. It is relationship that makes the unity.
It is relationship and community that is Gods It is relationship and community that is Gods
nature and intention: nature and intention:
God themselves is relationship. God themselves is relationship.
God is relationship to us. God is relationship to us.
God is the foundation of our relationships. God is the foundation of our relationships.

5. God is person is group

Let me explain this a bit closer: Usually we say that we belief in a personal God. This term, person, refers to
our present-day understanding of a person, which is almost identical with an individual. We say, e.g. Three
persons in a car. It needs to be emphasized that this notion of person today is different from its notion at the
time, when it was introduced from everyday language into theology and philosophy. This happened in order to
clarify the Trinitarian questions, among others by Tertullian in the early 3
rd
century. At that time persona in
everyday language was a role term, a relationship term, used to denote independence in a relational structure (i.e.
the judge, the lawyer and the prosecutor at a trial were called personae, i.e. persons.). This role-oriented
understanding was used in the course of the theological considerations about God at the time of the Fathers of
the Church to further develop the image of God. Thus the biblical relational thinking became equally important
to the Greek substantial thinking a balance, which ever has to be gained anew, and still is important for the
understanding of the human being as a person today as underlying e.g. the Person-Centred Approach.

Today, if we say a person, we mean one individual. If we say three persons, we mean three different people.
This was completely different at the time when the Creeds were formulated and the formula was coined of one
God in three persons. Thus, nowadays we one must not mix up (1) person as used for the Three (the three
persons in God) of the Trinity in order to characterize the societal nature of God and (2) as used for God, if we talk
of a personal God (God as person, a personal understanding of God) in order to denote Gods autonomy and
uniqueness (God the One) on the one hand and Gods fundamental being-in-relation, i.e. being-for and being-with,
and solidarity (God the Triune) on the other hand. Nevertheless both ways of using person to understand Gods
nature point equally to the relational dimension as they point to the substantial dimension.

Now, if we say: God is person (not: a person there are no other persons like God because of Gods
uniqueness) and think the way like we do in everyday language, there is the danger that we overemphasize the
individual, substantial aspect. Thus, I think, we need another term, another name in order to balance this.

Although this might sound unusual to you: After the aforementioned considerations we might also say: God is
group. As it is with person (that God is person in a unique, analogous way; God is not only unique, he is
the only one, it is with group: God is group in a unique, analogous way; God is not only relationship-oriented,
relationship is not only an aspect of Gods being God is relationship in a unique and fundamental way.

God is person is group.

So, if this sounds strange and makes you think about God anew fine. I can even refer to the present pope as a
witness. He used the analogy of the family to talk about God: Our God in his deepest mystery is not an
individual, but family, he said in Puebla in 1979 (John Paul II., January 28, 1979) And Hans Urs von Balthassar
(1985) called the family the most convincing imago trinitas innate to Gods creatures. Similar did the
liberationist theologian Leonardo Boff (1990). The analogy is far reaching: The members of the family are only
through the family what they are (without being mingled) and the family is only through its members what it is.

God is in a unique way person and in a unique way group. Thus to say triunique God would be most
adequate. What the social analogy of the Trinity wants to emphasize is expressed by this terminology: God is
11
originally community, from the very beginning. At the same time this eternal, most intimate community is so
perfect that it is a complete unity: Community as unity of and in differences without mingling.

From this relational view the view of community and communication it can also be understood what it means
that the Son is the Logos, the Word, and what it means that God is love.

Therefore, ultimately, in God person and group coincide, because substantiality and relationality coincide. In
God there is no tension between being fully from oneself, at oneself and oneself and being fully at and
towards the Other. God is unity in distinctiveness (traditional metaphysics would say: substantial
relationality). Hence it makes sense to say: God is person is group.

God God is person is group is person is group
Person: Person:
- today individual
- persona in the 2nd & 3rd century AD:
independence in a relational structure
God is not only relationship God is not only relationship- -oriented, but oriented, but
relationship in themselves. relationship in themselves.
God is tri God is tri- -unique: unique:
Community as unity of Community as unity of differences differences. .

6. Perichoretic love: God, the dancing group

The theology of Trinity marks the peak in dealing with the unum-multum-dialectics (Beinert, 1998). It can be
shown that throughout Christian history of trying to examine closer the mystery of the nature of God as unum
and as multum again two strands representing the unum-multum-conflict developed one favouring the
unitarian principle of hierarchy and one favouring the relational principle of equality in the understanding of God
as Holy Trinity. Consequently different images of the Trinity led to different images of the church (and thus to
different political consequences).

In subordinatianism with its belief that the Father is above the Son and the Son subordinates to the Father you
again find a dominance of the unum-principle giving priority to the Father.

The same goes for the doctrine of the processions (Latin processiones, meaning evolvements, series of
emerging), which wants to express that the Son came from the Father, and the Holy Spirit came from the Father and
the Son or through the Son).

The supremacy of the unum found its expression in the development of a hierarchical constitution of the church
with the primacy of the pope at the top. With this kind of a principle of unity centralism is intrinsically
connected. In ethics this means everything has its given place within a cosmic order, a place given by God.
Ultimately this culminates in totalitarism, a temptation all monotheistic religions had to face. If the one is the
whole and the many is the dangerous, then unification is divine and pluralism is satanic. The modern version of
this is the turn to the subject replacing God as the centre of everything, which finds its peak expression in the
fight of everybody against everybody, a free-for-all.

On the other hand in the doctrine of God as mutual love and as communio et communicatio you find the
multum-principle in the foreground: Communion and communication means that God himself is unity and
diversity, identity and difference, equally original and tantamount, dialectically interrelated. This view is known
as the doctrine of perichoretic love. [perichresis] originally means a dance around each other
what a charming, expressive and meaningful picture: God as a dancing triad, a dancing group! This term has
been used since the 7
th
century, mainly influenced by John of Damascus, in order to characterize the mutual
penetration of the Three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, without giving up the peculiarity of each of them. (The
12
Latin for perichresis is circumincessio and circuminsessio, meaning to own each other and to proceed, to go
into each other, respectively.)

Perichresis points to the deepest unity in sharpest distinctiveness (Schoonenberg, 1992). This community is so
perfect that it is a complete unity, an eternal, most intimate community. And it is because of this perfect being-
within-each-other, this perfect interrelation, why this belief does not lead to a tritheism, to three gods.

Perichoretic Perichoretic love love God the dancing group God the dancing group
With With subordiantianism subordiantianism (Father is above the Son)
the principle of unity is stressed. the principle of unity is stressed.
With a With a perichoretic perichoretic ( (interrelational interrelational) understanding ) understanding
(God as communion and communication) (God as communion and communication)
the principle of mutuality is stressed. the principle of mutuality is stressed.
( = a dance around each other)

Recently in the English language the singular they became used again in order to avoid gender discriminating
language. It perfectly fits when talking about God, not only in order to avoid to one-sidedly connecting the
image of God with a male notion but also to point to the triunity and thus intrinsic community of God. So we
can say: God in their common play of dancing, God in their interplay of perichoretic dancing and love.

And this God invites us to join their dance.
13
II. The image of the human being

God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them.
(Gen 1:26)

This is where after the image of God we come to the image of the human being in the light of God the Triune.
Firstly we ask:
1. What does the image of God say about the image of the human being?
Then we deal we three essential dimensions: community, plurality and dialogue.

Overview Overview
I. The image of the human I. The image of the human being being
The image of the human being The image of the human being
as reflection of the image of God as reflection of the image of God
Community Community Plurality Plurality - - Dialogue Dialogue

What does the image of God say about the image of the human being?

The afore described conception of and belief in a triune God in the sense of God as communication and
community brought the dialectics of unity and plurality, identity and difference, individuality and community to
a hitherto unknown peak of human thinking and understanding of both God and their image, the human being.

Gods being is being-with, Gods love is love-with. As this is within God it is towards the human beings. This
is expressed in Gods name Jahwe (Ex 3:14), literally: I am who I am. Or: I am the I-am. As an answer to
Moses question, who God is, what Gods name is, this means: I am who is here for you and will be with you
or simply I am who is present for you.

In the light of this self-revelation and particularly in the light of the incarnation we must say: Gods relationship
to humankind belongs to their essence. God seeks and keeps community with the human beings: God is a God of
the human beings (Schoonenberg, 1969); they take us into their perichoresis, invite us into their eternal intimate
dance. God is forever related to the human being; the human being is eternally related to God. It is relationship
that is essential to both of them.

14
Jahwe Jahwe = I am present for you = I am present for you (Ex 3:14)
It is relationship that is essential to both God and It is relationship that is essential to both God and
the human being. the human being.

This leads to tremendous consequences for the understanding of the human being as a person, which among
others emphasizes that the human being is a being of innate plurality. And it means that it is communication,
originating in encounter and presence, which builds community.

As far as time allows let us have a look at this a bit closer. What does the image of God say about the image of
the human being? In what way are we reflections of the Trinity?

If the nature of God is community, being-with, then the nature of the human being is being-with. The human
being is a homo socialis. This is one of the essential meanings of being a person, a term characteristic for the
Jewish-Christian culture and a proper description only for this world view.

A community whose model is the Trinity, is always open, turning to the others; it is inviting and thus
guaranteeing and fostering plurality. Because, if God is plurality, then the human beings are essentially
plural and pluralistic. The important aspect here is the difference, the other one as really an Other. This is
the origin of encounter.

And finally, if God is communication and dialogue, then what makes the human being truly human is
communication and dialogue. Communication anticipates community, it leads to community, and yet it
already needs community to communicate. Both are interrelated. As outlined earlier, communication begins
with revelation. This means that communication and community require presence and a fundamental
understanding of the nature of relationship as being touched and surprised by the disclosure of the Other, by
his or her revealing, opening up him- or herself.

Community: Community:
The human being as a person The human being as a person
Plurality: Plurality:
Identity through encounter with the Other Identity through encounter with the Other
Communication: Communication:
Presence through and in dialogue Presence through and in dialogue

15
1. Community: The human being as a person

Trinity is the symbol for successful being a person and successful human community (Bernd Jochen Hilberath,
1990). If God is community, invites into their community and is the archetype of community then the human
being is only a fully human being in community and when initiating community. God only is fully God, each of
the Three only is fully him- or herself, if the Three are within each other as postulated by the Council of
Florence in 1442 (DS 1331). Hence follows that the human being is only fully human, if he or she is with other
human beings.

Thus, the relationship-focused image of God leads to immense, far-reaching consequences for the understanding of
the human being as a person, a being of innate plurality, e.g. as men and women. We come to this in a few
moments.

Beforehand lets find out what it ultimately means that the essence of being human is founded in the relationship of
God to us. It was God who initiated this relationship. What makes the humans really human is to respond to their
call into the relationship. This is what the profound meaning of the term person is. To be a person means to be a
response to the call and invitation into the relationship with God the Triune.

As a matter of fact the notion of person as underlying and characterizing the very essence of the Person-Centred
Approach, is rooted in the aforementioned theological and philosophical considerations. It springs from the attempt
to better understand who God is. In the meantime we learned that this inseparably also leads to a better
understanding of us human beings. As a matter of fact, the understanding of the human being as a person developed
out of thinking about God as person and God as persons.

Substantiality and relationality

What it means to be a person and which consequences follow for a person-centered approach to psychotherapy, I
have described in detail many times (Schmid, 1991; 1994; 1998; 2001; 2002a; b). Here we lack time for more
than a short summary.

According to two different yet dialectically linked traditional strands of meaning the human being is
characterized as a person if he or she is denoted in his or her unique individuality, worth and dignity (the
substantial notion of being a person) as well as his or her interconnectedness, being-from and being-towards
others (the relational conception of becoming a person). Thus, to be a person describes both, autonomy and
solidarity, sovereignty and commitment. And it describes both as being equally important.

Carl Rogers combined both views in a unique way for psychotherapy when he built his theory and practice upon
the actualizing tendency which is at work in its best in facilitative relationships of a certain kind. Person-centred
personality and relationship theory understands personalisation as a process of becoming independent and of
developing relationships.

The theory of the suffering person (theory of disorders) relies on the incongruence between self and experience
(which might be seen as sovereignty deficiencies) as well as on the incongruence between the person and the
context including the other persons within the society (relationship deficiencies). Consequently the theory of
therapy understands therapy as both personality development and encounter person to person, and the practice is
characterized by presence which means a principled non-directivity and empathic positive regard as a way of being
with the client together with a position counter the client, i.e. a committed en-counter as a person meeting the
Other face to face (Schmid 2002a).

The dialectic basic axiom in person-centered anthropology is the actualizing tendency as the force of the
individual embedded in the interconnectedness, the social nature of the person.

Person: the human being in his or her independence and interdependence

In the occidental philosophical tradition person denotes a specific view of the human being. It combines two
inescapable dimensions of human existence: the substantial (or individual) aspect of being a person and the
relational (or dialogical or transcendent) aspect of becoming a person (details in Schmid, 1991; 1998).
The substantialistic conception was first defined by Bothius (AD 480-525): Persona est rationalis naturae
individua substantia [the person is the indivisible substance of a rational being]. Substance derives from sub-stare
which literally means remain standing on the basis of what is underneath. (Substance originally meant
something like remaining present by being bolstered from underneath, in spite of external forces and implies a
kind of invulnerability.) Hence it means achieving a standing position from below, standing by oneself, being
based upon oneself and thus implies autonomy and independence.
Therefore, whoever associates person with independence and uniqueness, freedom and dignity, unity, sovereignty
and self-determination, responsibility, human rights, etc., sees himself or herself in the tradition of such an
16
substantialistic conception of the person. That is what is meant when the human being is defined as a person,
starting from the moment of conception and regardless of his physical or mental health and development. Being a
person therefore means being-from-oneself and being-for-oneself.
This conception of the person is especially influential in the (early) period in Rogers' thinking during which, based
on the actualizing tendency, he mainly understands the human from the individualistic point of view and
consequently sees therapy as a process of the development of personality with its emphasis on confidence in the
organism, a realistic self and, above all, positive regard and empathy as beneficial conditions. As an ideal notion of
the mature human being Rogers coins the phrase fully functioning person.
The relationalistic notion of the person was defined by Richard of St. Victor ( AD 1173) in the tradition of
patristic theology: He understood the person as naturae intellectualis eksistentia incommunicabilis
[incommunicable existence of an intellectual nature]. Here, person is not conceived as a sub-sistence, but as an ek-
sistence. Beyond its usual meaning (and different from present day notions), Richard deliberately spelled
eksistence in order to stress the coming into being from outside (ek, ex), through others a position standing
opposite to others. Therefore, a person is he or she who has become themselves precisely through others, which
implies interdependence, solidarity and responsibility.
So, whoever understands the person through relationship, through dialogue, through partnership, through
connection with the world, through interconnectedness, whoever sees him or her in the totality of the community,
follows the tradition of the relationalistic conception of person. Being a person thus means being-from-and-in-
relationship; that is, being through others.
This conception of the human as a person particularly characterizes Rogers' later work, where he understands
people as being relational, in a group and in community, as person to person. Consequently, mutual encounter is
a decisive element in therapy and personal development, and Rogers now considers genuineness as a pre-eminent
facilitative condition.
Both of these ways of understanding the human being are contrary, even conflicting, yet it is exactly this tension of
autonomy and interconnectedness, independence and interdependence, self-reliance and commitment, sovereignty
and solidarity, which uniquely characterizes being human. Also it can clearly be shown that the meaning of
person in the original and genuine person-centered context precisely refers to these two dimensions which may be
characterized by the catchwords actualizing tendency and fully functioning person on the one hand and
relationship and encounter on the other hand. Furthermore, this anthropological stance, well elaborated by
phenomenology and personalistic (or dialogic or encounter) philosophy, is the distinctive characteristic of person-
centered understanding and action. Only in the dialectic of both interpretations, not in an either-or, but in a both-
and does the mystery of the person become accessible to whoever allows himself or herself to become involved in
a relationship from person to person. A conception gained from these two perspectives of the person contrasts with
an privatistic conception of the human being just as it does with a collectivistic one.
For many years Rogers himself dealt more with the individual aspect of the person in a theoretical sense,
emphasizing the person as a unique and not-to-be-directed individual in therapy. It was only later that he
concentrated more and more on the relational dimension. Furthermore, he did not document this in the structured
way he wrote about the substantial aspect of the individual in the therapeutic relationship in his earlier writing.
Nevertheless, contact and relationship were a central category of his anthropology from the very beginning (cf.
Schmid, 2002a), and the formulation of the necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change
could never have taken place without it. Already here the first condition refers to contact a relational foundation
(Schmid, 2002c).
It is certainly no coincidence that Rogers repeatedly referred explicitly (e.g., Rogers, 1961) to two philosophers to
whom the history of the conception of the person has always accorded a position of prime importance: Kierkegaard,
who considers the misery of the individual, and Buber, who points out the opportunities implied by dialogue.
To sum it up: The dialectic basic axiom in person-centered anthropology is the actualizing tendency as the force of
the individual embedded in the interconnectedness, the social nature of the person. Both strands of the axiom form
the foundations of the understanding of personalization of authentically becoming a person (Rogers, 1961).

Response

Both, autonomy and interrelatedness as a person, are responses to Gods call into the relationship with them.
This is what the profound meaning of the term person is as developed in the aforementioned theological and
philosophical considerations. To be a person means to be a response to the invitation into the relationship with
God the Triune.

When we say the human being is response, this refers to the original meaning of response. Re-sponse (from
Latin respondere) etymologically means answer to an engagement, answer to a promise. Spondere means
promise, bind oneself by contract (You still have this meaning in the term spouse). The original meaning of
respondere is correspond in the sense of being compatible and consistent. Thus to be a person means to
co(r)-respond.

In a developmental psychological perspective the human being is what he or she is out of communication. Their
identity is drawn from the more or less loving relationship with their parents and other significant others. The
human being is response to these relationships, corresponding to the relationship offer of those in whose
17
community they were born. It is encounter they stem from in their self-understanding. This is why they develop
their identity and themselves can become loving and encountering human beings.

In a philosophical perspective the human being is response to what was offered to them, to the promise they got.
The promise (Latin promittere; mittere means send, give as a present, dedicate) is what was given to them.
Being human means to respond to this promise, to this gift.

Hence, in an ethical perspective, from being a response derives re-sponsibility due to their freedom and being-
with one another, i.e. this responsibility is a co(r)-responsibility in the community of the humans. It is through
becoming a person as a response to persons and within the community of persons that a person realizes their
personhood.

In a theological perspective the human being is a person because he or she is from God. Person is the
corresponding answer to Jahwe, the God who is present. Person is the free, autonomous and responsible answer
to Gods promise to be with us. It is an existential answer, a response out of ones life. It is a dialogical response
to God who spoke to us, to God as a being-with, from the human being, understood as Gods image, as a being-
with in respect to God and their fellow humans.

The specific of being human is being addressed by God: God is the one saying I am making the human being a
Thou. The human being is a Thou before becoming an I. They are addressed (also by their parents and fellow
humans) as Thou and become I through their corresponding existential answer.

Person is, who is addressed by God. (This being addressed usually is expressed by a name given. We do not choose
our names, they are given to us; in Hebrew tradition the name expresses the essence of a person and, given by
parents, the wish of what they want the child to become.) As a person the human being is addressed by God to be
Gods image, in Trinitarian language to be included in Gods community.

In such a theological perspective the substantial notion of person is to be found in the fact that the human being is
loved by God as he or she is (cf. Gal 2:20). The human being is an autonomous counterpart of God, free, sovereign
and responsible image of Gods autonomy and sovereignty. The relational notion of person, the more original
one as easily can be seen now, derives from being Gods creature, originating in the relationship God offers. The
humans fundamental being is a relational being being interrelated and dependent on relationship from the very
beginning. But this orientation towards relationality and community stems from a being that is relationality and
community in themselves: God is where we come from and where we go to; we go towards the full relationship
with God the Triune.

Person means to co(r)respond to and have community with God the Triune.

Community: The human being as a person Community: The human being as a person
To be a person means to be both To be a person means to be both
from oneself and from and towards the others. from oneself and from and towards the others.
- substantiality & relationality
- autonomy & solidarity,
- sovereignty & commitment
To be a person means to be a response. To be a person means to be a response.
re-spondere = answer to a promise
To be a person means to To be a person means to co(r co(r) )- -respond respond
(to God & to the fellow human beings) (to God & to the fellow human beings)
out of ones response out of ones response- -ability. ability.

Ultimately, in the light of our Trinitarian reflections, the person is a response to a We. The humans are called to
co(r)-respond to the invitation into Gods community.

In the words of St. Augustine; Fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te. [You made
us towards you and our heart is restless, until it will rest in you.]

18

2. Plurality: Becoming oneself through the encounter with the Other

Understanding what a person is leads us to the plural nature of the human being. In a historical and cultural
perspective the Trinitarian formula can be seen as dialectical overcoming of both positions: On the one hand the
dichotomy of classical antiquity between the own and the foreign, the strict and barbarous distinction between
Us and Them. On the other hand the totalitarian claim of monotheistic cultures, i.e. to see oneselves as the
only ones having the truth, the ultimate ones, representing the demand that anything else has to become part of it
(Schindler, 1996). Trinitarian thinking is the demanding and ambitious work to find a way beyond exclusion and
monopolization. It is the foundation for tolerance, acceptance, dialogue and diakony (service), love.

Societal and political consequences

Leonardo Boff (1980; 1987; 1990), prominent representative of the theology of liberation points out the
consequences of our different images of God for our different ways of understanding and conceptualizing the
human being, the human society and the church. Understanding God as Triune brings about a paradigm shift. In
1979, the Latin American bishops in Puebla (Nr. 218) stated: Evangelisation is a call to participate in the
community of the Trinity. Boff underlines the political consequences of the Trinity as a model for human living
together that is based on equality and respect for differences (Boff, 1987). Because of their belief in God as a
community the Christians demand a society that reflects God, that reflects the Trinity. This means participation,
equality, plurality. It does challenge the traditional idea of a hierarchical society and imply a model of egalitarian
community and communication. No wonder that Boff was sentenced to a silence of penance by the Roman
church authorities.

In taking the triune image of God seriously we find a sharp contrast to the predominant thinking in traditional
authoritative structures (God in heaven and the king [or father or boss] on earth) with their tendencies to turn
into authoritarian structures and their anti-emancipatory implications. A rigid, one-sidedly interpreted
monotheism, according to Boff an a- or pre-Trinitarian monotheism, is paralleled in and furthers political
totalitarism, religious authoritarism and important for psychotherapy and counselling social paternalism and
machismo in family and professional life. One can see this reflected in expert-oriented psychotherapies. As it
used to be in politics and religion, power and knowledge is attributed to the authority without being questioned,
as if it came directly from God a vertical paradigm in belief and social order, usually connected with thinking
in classes (priests, clergy, scientists, therapists etc.). In a word: God at the top and down via the experts to the
ordinary people everything is in a vertical order. Trinitarian thinking questions and raises objection to such
traditional expertism. It furthers empowerment.

Sexes and sexuality

In a similar way feminist theologians took up the belief in a triune God as a community and realized that the
mutual perichoresis is the way of living together that overcomes patriarchal and androcentric images of God and
forms the matrix and foundation of men and women without domination in mutual respect and
acknowledgement.

In the human being as the image of God the original plurality is reflected in the fact that the human being is man
and woman. And only in this innate plurality is the human being the image of God. This is also stated from the
very beginning in the first book of the Bible: In the image of God he created them; male and female he created
them. (Gen 1:26). Sexes and sexuality or more correct: sexualities refer to the human beings innate
plurality.

The humans fundamental providence lies in their contextuality (Beinert, 1998), which renders two most
important consequences: It equally forms the foundation for the pride in ones own individuality and identity as
it forbids the devaluation of other individualities and identities.

The Other

Talking about plurality the important aspect is the difference. Human community is not supposed to be a
community of the same, of the like-minded, of those of the same origin, same age, same sex, same education and
culture etc., but of the different. It is diversity that makes the community of human beings human. This means
that the other one really is an Other, not another Me, not an alter ego, but truly an Other one as encounter (or
dialogical) philosophy pointed out.
19

Plurality means that we have to face another being as really being an other being. Therefore we have to see other
persons not as copies of ourselves but as truly Others. This also means that we have to overcome any idea that
we could heal ourselves and become what we are, actualize ourselves, only by ourselves without others a far
reaching misconception to be found in some forms of Humanistic Psychology, which, on the contrary, therefore
prove to be inhumane. As a matter of fact this is a monistic, individualistic, egologic (Levinas; see below), in a
word: a-Trinitarian conception.

Plurality: Becoming oneself through encounter /1 Plurality: Becoming oneself through encounter /1
Social and political consequences Social and political consequences
Participation, equality, respect for differences
Empowerment
Sexes and sexualities Sexes and sexualities
male and female he created them. (Gen 1:26)
Pride for ones identity & ban on devaluation of other identities
The Other The Other
is not an alter ego, but truly an Other

Encounter

Before we can have community with the others we need to respect them in their own value. The respective way
to meet is called encounter.

The roots of the present-day understanding of encounter also lie in the Jewish-Christian tradition, particularly in
the Jewish conception and commandment of brotherly and sisterly love. Jesus made it even more radical and
broadened the understanding of love from charity to love towards your enemies.

Encounter means to meet the unexpected. Etymologically the word encounter comes from Latin contra
which is against. To en-counter another person first of all means recognizing that the Other really stands
counter, because he or she is essentially different from me (cf. Schmid, 1998).

The German theologian Romano Guardini understands encounter as an amazing meeting with the reality of the
Other. According to Guardini (1955), encounter means that one is touched by the essence of the opposite. In
order for this to happen, there must be a non-purpose-oriented openness, as a pre-requisite for amazement.

Paul Tillich, with whom Rogers entered into an open dialogue (Rogers & Tillich, 1966), pointed out that the person
emerges from the resistance in the encounter of the Other: if the person were not to encounter the resistance of
other selves, then every self would try to take itself as absolute. [...] An individual can conquer the entire world of
objects, but he cannot conquer another person without destroying him as a person. [] If he does not want to
destroy the other person, then he has to enter into a community with him. It is through the resistance of the other
person that the person is born. (Tillich, 1956)

Being counter, according to Martin Buber is the foundation for meeting face to face. The I is not
constituted until such an encounter relationship: The I becomes through the Thou. Becoming an I, I
say Thou. [] All real life is encounter. (Buber, 1923)

The Lithuanian-French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, a thinker of tremendous importance, who is still to be
discovered for the person-centered approach, lays emphasis on the truth (both phenomenologically and
developmentally), that the Other always comes first. Encounter is always a challenge: Encountering a human
being means being kept awake by an enigma states Levinas (1983). And he points to the fact that there is not
only one Other; there is also the Other of the Other; there are the Others. This leads right into the very essence of
Trinitarian thinking.

To meet face to face: the importance of being counter
20

One of the consequences of viewing the human being as a person is the realization that accepting another person
means truly acknowledging him or her as an Other in the sense of encounter philosophy. He or she is no alter ego,
no close friend a priori, no identifiable person, but rather an entirely different person. Only when fully appreciating
this fact of fundamental difference do encounter and community become possible.
Guardini stresses the freedom of initiative. In interpersonal encounter, both affinity and alienation can be
experienced at the same time. So, encounter is an adventure which contains a creative seed, a breakthrough to
something new.
Buber notes: To be opposite to the Other offers the possibility to face and to acknowledge him or her. Being a
person consists in the event of encounter or dialogue, of communicating oneself. He defines encounter as the
immediacy of the I-Thou-relationship, an event in which one becomes present to the Other. Therefore encounter is
where dialogue happens.
The counter notion of encounter can be easily understood by thinking of standing aside and making a step towards
each other: It starts with a step to bring oneself opposite to the other. However, such a seemingly simple step is
fundamental: to make a step away and face the other person, thus standing opposite or counter to him or her. This
position appreciates the Other as somebody independent, as an autonomous individual, different and separated
from me, worthy of being dealt with otherwise one would turn away. In being counter the otherness of the Other
is appreciated. Standing face to face avoids both, identification and objectification. It enables encounter. The step
to stand opposite and face the Other is literally the turning point: I turn towards the Other.
To stand counter also means to give room to each other and to express respect. In facing the Other I can see him or
her and acknowledge the Others uniqueness and qualities. In facing Others I do not think what I could know about
them, but I am ready to accept what they are going to disclose.
To take such a step is no harmless, risk-free or soft action. To stand counter always implies confrontation (the
Latin word frons means forehead); it might even imply conflict. Thus it is essential for the understanding of
encounter and acknowledgement to deal with aggression, a topic often avoided among person-centered people (cf.
Schmid, 1996; 2001).

To be kept awake by an enigma: the challenge of encounter

The French existential philosopher Gabriel Marcel emphasizes that the Other has always been there in advance
(1935).
Similarly, Emmanuel Levinas, a thinker of tremendous importance, who is still to be discovered for the person-
centered approach, lays emphasis on the truth (both phenomenologically and developmentally), that the Other
always comes first. Levinas (1961; 1974; 1983) shows that this is a fundamental ethical issue.
He points out that all of the occidental philosophy has remained egology. This also applies to psychology as
philosophys daughter and to psychotherapy as its grand-daughter, including its so-called humanistic orientation
in the 20th century. This fixation on the I is clearly predominant in the terminology of those forms of humanistic
psychology that are only concerned with self-development. Despite all positioning against an objectivism and
instrumentalism, such approaches end up reducing the Other to what the Other means to me. In this connection,
even Bubers (1923) I become through the Thou suddenly sounds quite different: even here, as is to be suspected,
everything is still focused on me.
In his main work Totalit et infini Levinas (1961) illustrates that to exist means to be entangled in oneself, caught
in the totality of ones own world. Accordingly the first alienation of the human being is not being able to get rid of
oneself. The awakening from the totality of the being-caught-in-oneself does not happen through being
independent. Rather, the Other is the power which liberates the I from oneself. The foundation of self-confidence
is not the reflection on oneself, but the relationship to the Other. This overcomes the limits of the self. The self is
born in the relationship to another person.
Levinas uses the metaphor of visage (that which is seen, i.e., the face). The Other who is absolutely
different, not an alter ego, thus not to be seen from my perspective is the one coming towards me, approaching
me. The Other enters the relationship what Levinas calls a visitation (i.e., going to see somebody): My
look is touched by the look of the visage. The movement goes from the Thou to the I. Also from a developmental
perspective the movement always originates from the Thou: it is the call, the addressing of another human being,
which evokes a response, confronts with freedom and risk. Encounter happens to a human long before they can
aim at obtaining such an experience.
Thus, encounter in dialogue turns out to be a condition for self-consciousness, a common transcendence of the
(totalitarian) status quo, a start without return (an in-finity): Abraham, who starts his journey to an unknown
country without return, and not Ulysses, who at the end returns to his starting-point, is to be seen as the symbolic
character. (More on encounter as a basic category for the person-centered approach: Schmid, 1991; 1994; 1998;
2002.)

The Third One, We, the Group

Love of the one to the other is the principle that overcomes the being different and brings about community. It
overcomes the exclusion brought about by individuality, the exclusion of the one by the Other. This means the
transcendence of the being opposite to a We, the overcoming of separation by the Third. Three as a symbol
means perfection. The Third, the Holy Spirit always was understood as Gods love. According to Leonardo Boff
(1987) its the practice of love which leads to an understanding of the mystery of the Trinity.
21

True love is more than to love one another. It means con-dilectio a term used by Richard of St. Victor who
took friendship as a model for the understanding of love to love together, to co-love a third one. In overcoming
the restrictions of amor mutuus, the mutual love, to communio amoris, the communion of love, Richard
pointed out that true love always means more than to love each other, it means to love together; a Trinitarian
view. To understand what this means just think of a loving couple becoming a family and including the child in
their love making their love creative and inclusive.

Levinas went into the same direction. In his social philosophical approach of encounter philosophy trying to
overcome the typical Western egological understanding of philosophy he laid the foundations for an
understanding of interpersonality in a Trinitarian sense. Love here transcends the loving ones from the couple to
the group the Third being a symbol for the transcendence of the couple towards an understanding beyond
I-Thou to a We. In such a relationship community nobody is a means but everyone is a mediator. This
ensures plurality instead of the dichotomy of identity and difference, to express it in dialectic language (cf.
Greshake, 1997).

In a theological perspective therefore the group, as far as it is truly a group open for encounter, is the place of
community. It is a sacrament of the Trinity, a sign of the triune God. Such groups have a Trinitarian structure.
Here we do not talk about the Third only (as it happens in a dyad), we talk in the Thirds presence, we talk with
him or her including him or her. (We come back to this a little bit later.)

In De trinitate (VIII 8,12) St. Augustine hits the point: Vides trinitam, si vides caritas! [You see the Trinity,
if you see love!].

Plurality: Becoming oneself through encounter /2 Plurality: Becoming oneself through encounter /2
En En- -counter counter
to meet the unexpected (Latin: contra = against)
to be touched by the essence of the opposite (Guardini)
to be kept awake by an enigma (Levinas)
The Third, We, the Group The Third, We, the Group
con-dilectio (Richard of St.Victor): community of love
from I-Thou to We:
Plurality instead of the dichotomy of identity and difference
from the (exclusive) dyad to the group

3. Communication: Presence through and in dialogue

Dialogue

Plurality is the foundation of and for relationality: It is through communication that community emerges. It is
communication, originating in encounter, which builds community. On the other hand, it already requires at least
some community to enter into communication. The way of communicating which corresponds genuinely to
encounter is dialogue. Dialogue means that the Other is not seen as the source of conflict but as a chance for
mutual development.

To be the Other is not the last thing that can be said about another one. Hence encounter after acknowledging
the difference can become the overcoming of being different toward a new community. Fully respecting the
difference and the respective peculiarity the one and the other can find together in a new way. This happens
through dialogue and is the Trinitarian way of dealing with difference and plurality. Dialogue, therefore, is a
fundamental way of human existence. Without dialogue existence is not really human existence. The human
being has to rely on dialogue. It has its foundation in Gods revelation. The community of God explains why
love wants to communicate itself. Dialogue means to confide oneself, to share and to reveal oneself.
22

As it is dialogue that makes it possible to experience God, it goes for human communication: Only dialogue is
the adequate form of communication to acknowledge and understand another human being. And it is only
through dialogue that we can grasp towards the truth.

Diakony

What is dialogue on the level of communication, on the level of acting is diakony, i.e. service (cf. Luk 22:27: Jesus
lived among us , as a servant, as somebody who came to serve, Mk 10:45). God shows his
solidarity with the human beings. Diakony is the alternative to dominating power. It is the power of love, founded
in Trinitarian perichoresis, in divine love.

An understanding of empowerment, equality, encounter, clients expertise and responsibility for their own
processes, in a word: a person-centred image of the human being, is a fruit of an overall paradigmatic revolution
that is currently being performed in our society. Co-operation, participation, team work, democracy, co-
understanding and co-developing are the foundations of an alternative view of human living, be it in politics,
religious life or therapy and counselling after the catastrophes brought about by aggravated realizations of the
individualistic-authoritarian principle in society and the capitalistic principle in economics in the 20
th
century. The
experience that humans can well live together without authoritarian structures might have been similar among the
first Christians and in our contemporary life. This equals an image of God which takes its starting point at the
Three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as it is done in the New Testament. The unity is not questioned but it is
understood in and through their relationships. In this view unity is a pro-social term, a term that only can be fully
understood out of a comprehension rooted in the consideration of the nature of love.

Presence

I am who is present for you (Ex 3:14) God says to Moses in a dialogue. In Gods acting, e.g. in the foot
washing by Jesus, we can experience Gods diakony. Both are signs of Gods presence. Gods presence means
their closeness and their liberating and healing power, a presence that is immediate, without any means in
between. My colleague Veronika Prller-Jagenteufl (2004) elaborated on presencepaper at this conference.

Indeed presence, as we understand it in the Person-Centred Approach, has aspects of perichoretic love.

Rogers (1986) description of the therapeutic relationship as being present to the Other seems to be, more than he
himself noticed, a basic and comprehensive depiction of a therapeutic encounter relationship. Together,
congruence, unconditional positive regard and empathy constitute one human attitude, one fundamental way of
being, relating and acting, truly characterized as psychophysical presence a conception rather comprehensively
depicts the basic attitudes in an existential way.

Presence derives from the Latin words esse which means to be and prae, hich is an intensifier; thus prae
esse is not just being, but really being. Presence means to be authentically as a person; fully myself and fully
open; whole; fully living the individual I am; fully living the relationships I am. The challenge is at one and the
same time to be oneself and in relationship the Trinitarian principle par excellence.

Presence: The core conditions in a dialogical perspective

An analysis of the existential pre-conditions for encounter, for being together by being counter has direct
implications for a deeper understanding of what it means for person-centered therapists to be there, to be present,
that is, for an in-depth understanding of the so called core conditions.

Presence psychophysical being with and being counter

It is quite often quoted that Rogers (e.g. 1986) in his late years described a phenomenon in therapeutic relationships
which he called presence. On close examination of the phenomenon, I became convinced that presence is the
existential foundation of the core conditions. From a personalistic view this is not a fourth or even additional
condition. The conception rather comprehensively depicts the basic attitudes in an existential way. What Rogers
described as core conditions corresponds with presence as understood on a deeper, dialogical-personal level.
Presence in the sense of encounter philosophy is the existential core of these attitudes. It is further explained by the
description of the conditions which themselves were always understood holistically by Rogers, interrelated,
intrinsically connected, a triad variable. That is, each one of the conditions makes no therapeutic sense without
the others. So, presence is not only to be regarded as an altered, transcending state of consciousness, as Rogers
(1986) writes, but as a way of being, as being in encounter (Schmid, 1994; 1996; 2001a; cf. Geller and Greenberg,
2002).
23
Hence, presence is an expression of authenticity, as it is related to the immediately present flow of experiencing. It
reflects congruence and difference between a persons experiencing and symbolization and between his or her
symbolization and communication. Presence is an expression of empathy, because, in existential wonderment, it is
related to what the Other is experiencing. And presence is an expression of positive regard without conditions, as
acceptance of myself and personal acknowledgement of the Other, of whatever immediately present feelings he or
she is experiencing.
Being able to be touched, impressed, surprised, changed, altered, growing and also being able to stick to my ones
own experiences and symbolizations (instead of taking the experiences, interpretations and stances of the others), to
value from within (without judging the person of the other), to have ones own point of view. This is what being
present means and what being a person means.

Authenticity, comprehension and acknowledgement

If one sheds light on the core conditions from the encounter philosophical perspective (as specified in Schmid,
2001a; b, c; 2002a) one not only will find new aspects of these well-known attitudes but foremost the overall
consequence of this phenomenological and epistemological view on the image of the human being namely a new
answer to the old question of what psychotherapy itself is.
1. Authenticity genuineness means that the person (the therapist as well as the client) is regarded and trusted
as his or her own author. An authentic person, therefore, is his or her own author in the relationship to themselves
and to the others. Being authentic is a precondition to enter dialogue the way of communicating between
persons where the other is truly acknowledged as an Other, who is opening up, revealing him- or herself. Thus, in
an epistemological perspective, authenticity is the foundation of personal and facilitative communication.
To be authentic is a particular challenge, if we take account of the idea that in practice there is not one (idealistic)
I-Thou-relationship, but rather that relationships are always embedded in groups, and in society as a whole. This
also implies the need for applying judgment to find ones own stance, and at the same time acknowledging each as
an autonomous being. In this way, the We-perspective of encounter, and presence in the dialectical play of
being-with and being-counter, is opened up, with profound therapeutic, social and political consequences
(Schmid, 2002f).
2. The underlying philosophical idea of unconditional positive regard is acknowledgement. Acknowledgement is
more than the absence of judgments. It is an active and pro-active way of deliberately saying yes to the Other as a
person. It means the person as such is appreciated in his or her worth and dignity ap-preciat-ed means to be
esteemed as a precious being. It aims towards a mutual acknowledgement as persons instead of knowledge about
another.
As a person, the Other breaks the limits of our knowledge, of what we can perceive. Instead of (factual)
knowledge, acknowledgement is required. We cannot comprehend him or her. Being truly an Other, he or she can
never be known or recognized by somebody else. To become acquainted with the Other requires that we are open
to what the Other is going to make known.
Taking the relational notion of the person into consideration, acknowledgement points to the challenge of
responding. From a developmental perspective we enter the world by conception, by being conceived. In this very
moment we enter into a relationship and are accepted. Under normal circumstances being born means being
awaited and received. Thus from the first moment of our existence there are Others and we are born into the
relationships to them. The Other or the Others are here before us, as stated above. They both expect and
welcome us and they are strange and surprising to us. In this view the Other always is seen as a call and a
provocation. The fellow being is the one strange to me, who surprises me, and who I find myself opposed to,
whom I have to face neither monopolizing nor rejecting him or her face to face. The presence of the Other,
who always comes first, is a call for a response, from which I cannot escape, because nobody can respond in my
place. We are obliged and responsible to the Other and owe him or her an answer making the priority of the
Other.
Therefore, in every personal encounter there lies the response to a call. And the response grows out of
responsibility, that is, out of response ability, the ability to respond. Thus, the ethical dimension of encounter is
denoted: The Other is an appeal and a provocation and the relationship to him or her in principle is asymmetrical.
The person in need represents a demand. Out of the being addressed by the Other grows a fundamental
responsibility (called diakonia, i.e. service by Levinas), which is grounded in the fact that nobody else can
respond instead of me. Thats why by responding to the Other we only fulfil our duty.
3. While acknowledgement describes psychotherapy as an art of responding as a person, comprehension, usually
termed empathic understanding, points to psychotherapy as the art of not-knowing. From a personal perspective, to
be empathic generally means to expose oneself to the presence of the Other: to be open to being touched
existentially by another persons reality and to touch his or her reality. Thus, there is always the readiness and the
risk to change oneself.
The Other: similar to me and yet different, neighbor and opponent, friend and enemy, mirror and enigma. Empathy
is the ability, the challenge and the attempt to enter a relationship in solidarity with the Other, acknowledging
diversity and yet trying to become aware of and understand him or her. To be empathic means building a bridge to
an unknown land. Empathy bridges the gap between differences, between persons without removing the gap,
without ignoring the differences; it does not pretend identity of the two, nor does it give up at the sight of diversity;
it does not mix up what is different nor does it surrender in view of the depths of otherness it bridges.
In expecting the unexpected, empathy is the epistemological foundation of person-centered therapy.

24
Communication: Presence through and in dialogue Communication: Presence through and in dialogue
Dialogue Dialogue
the Other as a chance for mutual development
overcoming of being different toward a new community
fully respecting the differences
acknowledgment
Presence Presence
im-meda-cy (no means in between)
presence as the existential foundation of the pc core conditions
prae + esse = really being

25
III. Consequences for the understanding of the Person-Centred Approach

Concepts tend to be loaded with all kinds of connotations.
I dont like using religious terminology.
The real fact of matter is Im too religious to be religious.
Carl Rogers (1984f, 1f)

Finally we come to the consequences of our considerations for the Person-Centred Approach.
After a short, but important note I will point out three essential peculiarities and then present my conclusion.

Overview Overview
III. Consequences for the understanding III. Consequences for the understanding
of the PCA of the PCA
Christian Christian theology theology and PCA: and PCA:
different, different, yet yet mutually mutually challenging challenging
The The essence essence of of the the PCA PCA
A A paradigm paradigm shift shift within within the the PCA PCA

Immanuel Kant (1971, 3f) was convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is of no use for practical life. Together
with many of my theological colleagues of Practical Theology and the liberationist theologians I am convinced
that the opposite can easily be shown, if we reflect what the image of God and their human beings mean for the
understanding and practice of the Person-Centred Approach.

Our theological considerations shed light upon important foundations of the image of the human being as it can
be found in the Person-Centred Approach. The uniqueness of its underlying image of the human being and its
practice of therapy and counselling can be more profoundly understood, if we take into account the impact of the
outlined image of God and the human being from a Christian perspective. This can help us in both directions: to
better understand ourselves as persons in the community of humankind and to better understand God.

1. Christian theology and PCA: Two different, yet mutually challenging approaches

Before I come to this it seems very important to me to make clear that I do not see the Person-Centred Approach
as a baptized psychology or Christian belief as a prerequisite for person-centred thinking and acting. They are
two different systems. Obviously there are commonalities and differences in their principles and in their practice.

Both conceptions denote a change of paradigm in many respects, particularly regarding the image of the human
being compared with the prevailing images. Concerning anthropology Christianity and the Person-Centred
Approach share the phenomenological conception, both are approaches aiming at becoming who you are, they
both have the belief in a constructive principle instead of an equal dichotomy or dualism of good and evil or
forward and backward (while a dichotomic principle can be found e.g. in Freudian metapsychology). In terms of
the epistemology both share an original plurality and constructivist foundations (everything is relative, if only God
is absolute; even God is to be understood relational, as a process of becoming) and a fundamental encounter
conception. As to the philosophy of science they have the position in common that the crucial point of ones belief
is acting according to ones conviction. In the theory of acting and in praxeology they correspond regarding the
empirical and kairotic starting point. In practice they share a scepsis towards methods and techniques and favour a
self-understanding of their practice as art. Form an ethical point of view both rely on social ethics and from a
political viewpoint they share a self-understanding as politically relevant and challenging (cf. Schmid, 1997i).

However, there are serious differences and tensions between the two Weltanschauungen, the conceptions of the
world and philosophies of life, which constitute a challenge to both sides, particularly the different starting points,
26
the different basic beliefs: a God revealing himself, believed to be the origin of all communication; Gods
incarnation in the historic Jesus of Nazareth, believed to be the Christ, the Saviour; the belief that humankind
already is redeemed by God and does not have to struggle in order to redeem themselves, to name a few central
points. All of them mark a position of trust and an image of the human being that has its ultimate worth not in
themselves. On the other hand experience is the only guideline, valued above anything else (Rogers, 1961a) and
scepsis towards all that is handed down, towards all traditions. Think of the different positions towards the
phenomenon of evil. And, for sure, there are differences in the tasks: Christianity and pastoral care as a consequent
task for every Christian out of this belief is different from the person-centred task of a counsellor or a
psychotherapist. Both require relationships person to person. However, pastoral care, to be understood as mutual
support in being a Christian by fellow Christians, is a life long responsibility and a completely mutual enterprise
(once we really will have left the hierarchical model behind). Person-centred acting on the other hand like therapy
and counselling is a temporary facilitation, a relationship aiming at making itself superfluous.

Christian faith and practice and theological reflection on the one hand and person-centred convictions, practice
and theory on the other hand must be seen as mutually challenging ways of acting and thinking, enriching each
other and questioning each other. They share common ground and they contradict each other. It is a matter of
intellectual honesty to respect their different starting points, axioms, scientific methods and practices.

By the way, it definitely can be said that at present theologians are usually much more open to therapy than the
other way round. You only need to evaluate the numbers of pastoral psychology studies and papers compared to
studies and papers dealing with the impact of religious convictions have for peoples lives almost a taboo in the
realm of psychology and psychotherapy, although such questions definitely occupy people existentially (cf. Schmid
2003).

III. Consequences for the understanding of the PCA III. Consequences for the understanding of the PCA
Christian theology & PCA Christian theology & PCA
Christian faith and theology Christian faith and theology
and and
a person a person- -centred way of being and reflecting centred way of being and reflecting
are two different are two different
yet yet mutually challenging mutually challenging approaches. approaches.

2. The essence of the Person-Centred Approach

In my presentations at the last World Conference for Psychotherapy and in La Jolla on the occasion of Carl
Rogers 100
th
anniversary, published in Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapy (3:2, 2003), the Journal
of the World Association, I formulated three essential statements regarding the nature of the Person-Centred
Approach describing the distinguishing characteristics of a truly person-centred approach. And I emphasized that
these three short, seemingly simple statements imply a revolutionary change of paradigms:

(1) Client and therapist spring from a fundamental We.
(2) The client is the expert.
(3) The therapist is present.

27
The essence of PCA The essence of PCA
The distinguishing characteristics The distinguishing characteristics
of a of a person person- -centred centred approach approach
1. Client & therapist
spring from a fundamental We.
2. The client is the expert.
3. The therapist is present.
Peter F. Schmid, The Characteristics of a Person-Centered Approach to Therapy and Counseling:
Criteria for Identity and Coherence. PCEP 2,2 (2003) 104-20

After all I said today it does not come as a surprise, that these statements are grounded in and developed out of
an anthropology with its roots in Jewish-Christian thinking. Acknowledging this it helps us to better understand
what these person-centred principles actually mean. I will point to a few important issues only.

2.1. A fundamental We The person in the community

Person-Centred Therapy and each way of person-centred work start with a fundamental We (Schmid, 2002),
which can be found already in Rogers necessary and sufficient conditions. In its basic statements the Person-
Centred Approach is rooted in the conviction that we are not merely a-contextual individuals, we only exist as
part of a We. This is inherent in Rogers theory from the very beginning. He starts the description of the first
condition with the sentence: I am hypothesizing that significant positive personality change does not occur
except in a relationship. (Rogers, 1957, pp.96) The conditions start with contact (1) and end with
communication (6).

The person in the community
I am I am hypothezising hypothezising that significant positive personality change does that significant positive personality change does
not occur except in a not occur except in a relationship relationship. .
Carl Rogers, 1957 Carl Rogers, 1957
1. Two persons are in psychological 1. Two persons are in psychological contact contact. .
6. The 6. The communication communication to the client of the therapists empathic to the client of the therapists empathic
understanding and unconditional positive regard is to a minimal understanding and unconditional positive regard is to a minimal
degree achieved. degree achieved.

A political perspective

Starting up from a We we immediately come to a political perspective. This We includes commonality and
difference, valuing both equally. Only a common esteem for diversity constitutes and accepts a We.
If we ignore this We, all the terrible and horrible things happen which we know from the history of humankind
up to the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, the 11th of September 2001 and recent political
developments towards a more or less totalitarian view of missions which allegedly have to be fulfilled. And the
same goes for many reasons for todays terrorism: to a great extent the roots lie in the incapability of the
occident to see this We of the global world (if it is not in terms of markets) an over-identification with
28
sameness and a shift of the difference to the outside (to Them, to Those), a simplistic dichotomy where
sameness is positive and difference is negative completely opposed to Trinitarian thinking.

This argues that psychotherapy without political awareness and without political conviction is nave and often
inefficient.

A co-perspective

The political impact of the Person-Centred Approach, acknowledging and bridging the differences, neither
ignoring them nor trying to remove them (Schmid, 2002a), implies the following:

It respects the Other as truly an Other, not simply as an alter ego.
It always is aware that the a-contextual dual or dyad is an artificial construct. There is always the
Third One, there are many Others, the Others of the Others, groups, communities, societies,
interests, nations, humankind as such. Even in one-to-one therapy the Others are present.
There is always a co-perspective in Person-Centred Therapy: Client(s) and therapist(s) are co-experiencing, co-
responding to what comes up, they are co-operating, co-creating the relationship and their futures.

Therefore I am convinced that it means a genuine development of person-centred anthropology, theory and
practice to proceed from the individual and the enclosed relationship of two to a position grounded in a We-
perspective. All therapy, counselling and other person-centred work must be seen from within this context which
according to our theological and anthropological considerations is not only a context but a foundation.

A group perspective

One essential consequence of the societal and community-centred aspect we dealt with is to reconsider the group
both in anthropological theory development and practice. It was Brian Thorne (1996; 1998) who pointed out the
analogy of group life and Trinity and emphasized that the experiences to which encounter groups lead, namely
strengthening both the sense of self-esteem and the sense of interconnectedness with others, are paralleled to
spiritual and mystic experiences.

Taking the human seriously as a social being, as a person in the group, results in a re-evaluation of the indication
for single and group therapy. The question arises regarding how far the group is the therapeutic place to be
chosen first, as opposed to the pathology of over-emphasizing single therapy in some countries (e.g. the
German speaking ones) and fields (Schmid, 1996). The group is the place where problems arise; the group
should be the first place to deal with the problems. For sure, there are reasons to choose the one-to-one setting.
But the idea is to turn the viewpoint around: First think of doing therapy and counseling in groups and there
have to be good reasons to choose the more exclusive setting of only two persons.

This also includes the necessity of developing a theory of the understanding and the practice of large groups and
communities and their implications for therapy, thus also continuing Rogers socio-political engagement for
peace (Wood, 1988; Schmid, 1996).

The person in the community
Political perspective Political perspective
T Therapy always in a (global) political context.
Co Co- -perspective perspective
Co-creating the therapeutic relationship.
Group perspective Group perspective
Group therapy to be considered first. Group therapy to be considered first.
Developing therapeutic communities. Developing therapeutic communities.

29

2.2. The client is the expert Plurality and encounter

Our reflections on plurality and diversity clearly show: There is no way to have knowledge about the Other in a
traditional sense. We only can ac-knowledge the Other. This is the position of an encounter perspective.

Therefore: Within this We the client comes first. He or she is the expert. In the traditional (objectifying)
approaches the questions are: what do I (the therapist) see? what can I observe? what is over there? what can I
do? how can I help? Rogers phenomenological approach proceeds just the other way round: what does the client
show, disclose, reveal, what does he or she want to be understood?
This means:
the therapist responds to a call
and the relationship moves from mere contact to presence, from attention and listening to co-experiencing and
being-with.
This means that we ask the question: what is the clients call? And thus the respective task is to keep ones
ability to be surprised and touched, in a word: to respond, to co(r)-respond as a person.

Here are some critical question regarding the issue of plurality: Do we really foster plurality with our way of
doing therapy and counselling or do we rather intend to make the client go ahead as we are used ourselves to go
ahead or as we know it worked with other clients? Do we foster diversity? Are we really encountering our
clients? Or do we tend to already know and suspect? Are we open to be surprised by the Other?

The client is the expert

The client is the expert for both contents and process of therapy and counselling: The client is the one who
knows what it is all about and the client is the expert in terms of the way of communication, the languages,
the means of therapy a stance only to be found in genuine PersonCentred Therapy. The expert in the
therapeutic endeavour, in any respect, is the client. The therapists task is to respond existentially, i.e. as a
person. By encountering each other they acknowledge the fundamental We.
This means that a person-centred relationship always aims at mutual encounter.

Sex and gender awareness

It is important to be aware that there is no person except as a man or a woman. Thus we need to delve into sex
and gender specific issues if we really acknowledge the nature of the human being. (Schmid & Winkler, 2002;
Schmid, 2004; Fairhurst, 1999).

Carl Rogers emphasized the common ground a decisive corrective in the context of his time. Some sixty years
later the differences are also coming clearly into view, requiring precise concepts and actions: we are persons as
women and men and therefore person-centred as women and men. The gender-specific aspects in therapeutic and
psychosocial relationships enrich and differentiate the understanding of person-centred practice and theory.
These need to be genuinely further developed.

No doubt: Many traditionally male concepts were already broken up by the person-centred approach. As an
example the priority given to empathy and unconditional positive regard in epistemology and the practice of
therapeutic understanding is something that in traditional assignment is more classified as female. This
thorough paradigm change and the development that followed in nearly all therapeutic orientations contrasts
sharply with the expert- and thus male-dominated classical concepts of psychoanalysis and behaviourism.
On the other hand the person-centred conception is by no means free of one-sided male thinking: The description
of the actualizing tendency, for example, as given by Rogers (e.g. 1959; 1979) as a directional, forward striving,
expanding, transcending, increasing force, a force towards autonomy, is clearly determined by male experiencing
and consciousness and formulated in male language. An understanding which is more articulated out of female
experience would possibly set out from the idea that the human being is embedded in relationships from the very
beginning. Therefore human development and thus the actualising tendency would be regarded more as an
unfolding and differentiating process of shaping relationships. The actualising tendency could be more precisely
viewed as the force of the individual embedded in interconnectedness. As a consequence, this would stress the
social nature of the person much more than it was originally conceptualised in Rogers anthropology, although
he gradually moved towards this comprehension (cf. Schmid, 1996; 2001).

30
2. The client is the expert.
Plurality and encounter
Ac Ac- -knowledg knowledg- -ment ment, not knowledge. , not knowledge.
A phenomenolog A phenomenological, not an objectifying approach.
The therapist responds to a call. The therapist responds to a call.
Client and therapist co(r)-respond as persons.
Therapy aims at mutual encounter.
Sex and gender awareness. Sex and gender awareness.
There is no person except as a man or a woman.
Overcome one-sided male concepts.

Some further aspects: Creativity, inclusion of the body

Understanding therapy as an encounter and therefore as a co-creative enterprise demands greater inclusion into
therapy of creative ways of interpersonal understanding and acting, especially play and art (Schmid, 1994).

In a personal, holistic view of the human being, corporality needs to be taken seriously on the way to a truly
anthropological therapy (a psychotherapy beyond limiting the person to their psyche) which requires an
unspectacular inclusion of the body in theory and practice (Schmid, 1994; 1996).

2.3. The therapist is present Person-centred communication as dialogue

In a personal context to respond existentially means to be present and available as a person to the client. It could
also be formulated, as Rogers (1975) did, that the therapist encounters the client person to person.
Presence is the fundamental way of being together, the existential foundation of the core conditions (Schmid,
1994; 2002d; f; 2003; Brodley, 2000; Geller and Greenberg, 2002). It is possible only from a We-perspective.
Presence is
co-operation arising out of co-existence.
co-responding (to given experiencings) out of co-experiencing.
co-creating out of (in its best moments mutual) encounter.

This means that person-centred counselling and therapy are truly a dialogue.

Non-directivity, kairoticity and immediacy

Some of the basic dimensions of presence are (cf. Schmid, 2002)
its principled non-directivity: Non-directivity is not at all outdated in the understanding of Person-Centred
Therapy. It is a way of facilitative responsiveness
its kairoticity: In old Greece Kairos was the god of the fertile instant, of the favourable opportunity, and hence
is the Greek word for the quality of time. Kairology then is the science of the right acting in
the right time (as, for example, undertaken by Kierkegaard, 1855; cf. Schmid, 2002g, pp.183-184). This
points out that the fertile moment is always now. The moment for the change is now and here. The
moment to influence the future is now and here. The moment to profit from the past is now and here.
There is only one time: the present. Future is the present anticipation of what is coming, past is the
remembrance in the present of what happened. We only live in one time: in the present. We exist
here and we exist now. And thus we are called to act in the present and to grasp the chance. In therapy
the question always is: What presents itself in the very moment? This shows the interconnectedness of
to be present, to present and present as a gift.
its im-media-cy: Presence happens without (preconceived) media or tools, because the only tool is the
therapist himself or herself as a person, his or her own instrument. Methods are of second importance,
even irrelevant; Person-Centred Therapy never acts in order to achieve a certain goal as love never
does anything in order to.

31
3. The therapist is present.
Person-centred communication as dialogue
Presence is the fundamental way of being together. Presence is the fundamental way of being together.
Therapy is co Therapy is co- -operation out of co operation out of co- -existence existence.
Therapy is non Therapy is non- -directive, directive, kairotic kairotic and immediate. and immediate.
Non-directivity is facilitative responsiveness.
Kairoticity means to grasp what presents itself (as a
present).
Im-media-cy in therapy means to act as a person instead
of using media (like methods and techniques).

Research and training

In a transferred sense presence also means that creative approaches to theory development, research and training are
necessary, offering a broad range of possibilities for individual development in the social context. Instead of
classification and an arrangement within traditional medical and social security systems, it is creativity that is
demanded in the understanding of the uniqueness of every single person and their particular capabilities (Schmid,
1996).

Dialogue with other orientations

And presence also means that instead of borrowing ideas and techniques from other schools and propagating
eclectic and so-called combined or integrative methods, more self-confidence through more research into our own
foundations is crucial. This will also lead to a clearer public identity. If we recognize that psychoanalytic,
behaviouristic and systemic approaches have recently achieved positions the person-centered approach has held
prominently for a long time (e.g., the impact of a personal relationship), then we can be encouraged by our
pioneering role to again take up a position of dialogue and even a challenging and leading position in the dialogue
with other orientations.

3. A paradigm shift within the person-centered approach

To be a person means to have community with God the Triune, with a God who is community in themselves.
Our reflection of Christian spiritual experiences in 2 millenia led to a new understanding of the human being
through a reconsideration of the image of God: The human being is a being unavoidably interconnected with
others, a being of innate plurality, a being having to rely on communication with others, a co(r)-responding
being.

If we seriously re-evaluate the anthropological foundations of the Person-Centred Approach in the light of these
reflections this may well lead towards a paradigm shift within the person-centred approach.

I think we are on the edge of a theoretical and practical reorientation of the approach faithful to its own
tradition. Obviously, a paradigm shift within the approach announces itself in all that. The person-centred
approach may well face a turning-point of its self-understanding. In respect to the outlined Trinitarian founded
anthropology, I picture the step from the individual to the person, from relation to encounter as a step from the
view of the person-centered relationship as an I-Thou-relationship to a view as a We-relationship and therefore
finally towards a social therapy. Then the I will not only be found as a response to a Thou, but the I will be a
response to a We which comes first. Sociotherapy, implying the communities that humans live in, will come to
be ranked as highly as psychotherapy from a therapeutic point of view (cf. Barrett-Lennard, 1998; 2002). Thus,
the political significance will become obvious (Schmid, 2002f).

The person-centered relationship is to be regarded as a process of spontaneity and creativity, a process in which
both client(s) and therapist(s) develop while aiming at personal encounter, a process which provides a model for
understanding mutual responsibility in society, a process of self-understanding for people who are open to new
experiences and to the revelations of others, and a means to build a We which rests on the strengths of
32
individuals and supports individuals to develop their strengths from the communities and relationships they live
in.

A paradigm shift within the approach A paradigm shift within the approach
In In the the light of a light of a Trinitarian Trinitarian anthropology anthropology the the
human human being being is is seen seen as a as a co co- -responding responding being being
( (i.e i.e. . responding responding together together). ).
The The approach approach faces faces the the challenge challenge to to develop develop
- - from from the the individual individual to to the the person person, ,
- - from from relationship relationship to to encounter encounter, ,
- - from from the the I I- -Thou Thou the the We We. .

On the other hand, the person-centered approach must not become one-sided and overlook the individual. It
lives through the tension between We and I, group and person, relationality and substantiality, encounter and
self-reflection, i.e. from the dialectic connectedness of communicative relatedness and individual development.
The connecting link is the understanding of the person in both his or her individuality and his or her relationality.
With these things, the person-centered approach to psychotherapy will become a truly personal, truly dialogic
and anthropological approach, a fully person-centered approach.

Christians can understand what they do as a response to a promise they can rely on: Where two or three are
gathered in my name, I am there among them. (Mat 18:20)

References see printed version in: Moore, Judith and Purton, Campbell, 2005.

Implications and Challenges of The Belief in A Triune God and A Person Centred Approach PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Implications and Challenges of The Belief in A Triune God and A Person Centred Approach PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Вам также может понравиться