Richard C. Cabot, MD, was Boisen's principal financial and moral supporter in the beginning. Cabot was in the forefront of emerging clinical medicine. From Cabot Boisen learned the case method of approaching persons and illness. The case method requires that everything about the patient's world be reviewed for clues to their condition. Cabot's mission was to upgrade the skills of clergy so as to improve medical care.

Helen Flanders Dunbar, psychiatrist, literary critic, and theologian, enrolled in that first summer group, and though she stayed only a month, she returned in years following. She became Boisen's chief supporter and soul mate, and apparently his only consummated romantic relationship. Dunbar's mission was to clarify the relationship between illness and the psyche, and health and the psyche. She was the founder and first editor of the Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine.

The three, along with Philip Guiles, formed the Council of the Clinical Training of Theological Students (CCTTS, later shortened to CCT) and promoted clinical training for clergy. For five years the training programs went on swimmingly. The numbers of trainees increased rapidly.

In 1930, Boisen's mother died, and his life-long girl friend, a florid hysteric, was treating him badly as usual. Boisen had his second distinct psychotic break. The happy triangle deconstructed. Cabot had never agreed with Boisen's basic premise about the significance of mental disturbance. He was a chemical man, and would be happy to see the day that psychiatric practice was mostly drug therapy. He believed that chemistry would eventually solve mental disturbance. Cabot concluded, therefore, that Boisen was unfit for ministry and proposed to dismiss him from their new fledged organization, CCTTS. Dunbar sided with Boisen, seized the books, and took them from Boston to New York where she set up a new office, effectively isolating Cabot. Cabot in Boston eventually formed the Institute of Pastoral Care.

From 1930 to 1967 there were two centers of power in the clinical pastoral world, New York and Boston. They each touted a different philosophy, and they were competitive with each other. Boisen, Dunbar, and Hiltner were the original New York leaders; Cabot, Guiles, and Russell Dicks were the same for Boston. Neither owned the whole truth. The dialogue and debate, even the strife between them, was enriching to the movement for the next 35 years. If the clinical pastoral movement had a golden age, this was it.

The Council worked mainly in psychiatric hospitals; the Institute in general. The Council focused mainly on personal transformation, both the trainee's and the patient's; the Institute focused on skill development. The Council called its mission training; the Institute called its mission education. The Council made use principally of the case study, the complete picture of the patient; the Institute used primarily the verbatim of a single encounter. The Council held the view that ministers are healers; the Institute tended to view ministers as those who assist physicians in healing arts.

The debate was rich. The players were memorable. That generation certainly seemed to witness a number of unusual and creative characters the likes of which we have not seen in a generation. Tom Klink, Armen Jorjorian, Ken Lee, Len Cedarleaf, Russell Dicks, Philip Guiles, Ernie Bruder, Joseph Fletcher, John Billinsky, Dick Young, Wayne Oates, Seward Hiltner, Edward Thornton, and Carroll Wise were only some of the remarkable characters who led that former generation.

In 1967 the great merger took place. The Council, the smaller Institute, Southern Baptists, and Lutherans groups all merged into one organization called the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education (ACPE). In retrospect we can see that it was driven by what Edwin Friedman calls the herding instinct among animals, a response to anxiety or fear. A handful of supervisors strongly opposed the merger. Ernie Bruder at St Elizabeth's in Washington, DC, opted out, and spent the rest of his life running an unaccredited program. George Tolson and others predicted the merger would be destructive, but their voices were drowned out in the joy of becoming one unified family. Or so it appeared.

The financial commitment for the merger came originally, not from pastoral clinicians, but from an outsider with money. Clement Stone put up $100,000 to promote a merger, which essentially paid for the mechanics of it. Some supervisors argue that the merger took place only because of Stone's money, but others claim that Stone assisted supervisors in doing what they wanted to do.

The result of the merger was that traditions and philosophy of the smaller IPC came to dominate the field. From '67 onward, the principles of IPC took the stage, and the principles of CCT went into eclipse. In retrospect some matters become clear that cannot easily be seen at the time. In fact, what then occurred at the time was a silent coup, establishing the values of the Institute as preeminent.

1. Attention was placed more on skill development than personal transformation.
2. CPT became CPE.
3. Far more training programs were established in general hospitals than psychiatric hospitals
4. Verbatims replaced case studies.
5. Chaplains postured themselves as persons less as healers or therapists than as those who assist the healing process directed by physicians.
6. Cabot became the putative founder of CPE, and Boisen the one who implemented his ideas. (You can read in the various editions of ACPE Standards the words "Cabot founded clinical pastoral education, an idea that was enlarged upon by Boisen.") Dunbar vanished from corporate memory.

Why is this important? In 1990 CPSP resurrected the ghost of the Council. We contended that an understanding of the self and an Understanding of the patient and his/her experience was considerably more important that learning a set of skills. We proclaimed Boisen as our spiritual father, not Cabot. We resurrected from oblivion Dunbar and her interest in psychosomatic dynamics.

Part of the argument for merger was the promise of engaging the wider community more effectively. One big group is stronger than several smaller ones, it was said. That proved to be an illusion. Quite the opposite is the case. After an initial spurt in growth following the merger, the movement as a whole has not grown, and is arguably less effective than it was prior to the merger. The posture of the seminaries toward clinical training (CPE) has cooled. I recall as a brand new supervisor in the late 60s being quite amazed that seminaries depended on supervisors' evaluations in some cases to decide whether the seminarian should be allowed to continue in seminary. All that has changed. Now supervisors are on trial. An unhappy clinical training course now results in a poor evaluation of the supervisor rather than the student.

The achievement of the merger was a univocal movement. That's what was dreamed of. It was the illusion of political power. "Unity in diversity" was the slogan, but the real product was group think. Dissent was inhibited. Idiosyncracies were scorned. The illusion was of one unified clinical pastoral movement that would march to one drummer and speak with one voice. It was an alluring vision. It presented well in public. But in order to accomplish such a feat, lots of ideas and lots of people had to walk the plank. Any peculiar voice that attempted to raise its head was summarily quashed.

The Bell Telephone Company used to have billboards in my youth saying, "We may be the only telephone company in town, but we try not to act like it." It is very difficult to attempt to act like something different from what you are. Ma Bell did not succeed.

We do not need to enthrone one monopolistic clinical pastoral training organization in this country. We had one from 1967 to 1990, and it has not lived up to its promise. We are destined to be a polyvocal, pluralistic movement. Competency and creativity are far more important than unity and conformity. We do not want univocalism even within CPSP. We want individuals and Chapters to develop their own distinctive voice, think new thoughts, and break new ground in our common vocation.

AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

CPSP emerged primarily out of the loins of the ACPE. Since then, the ACPE position towards us has been mostly on the order of the emperor's new clothes. We have been almost invisible, officially speaking. We understand that. It is difficult for an established organization to accept a renegade group that separates itself from the mother group. The Anglicans were a long time forgiving the Methodists for bolting.

In 1993 a dialogue meeting took place with three persons from each organization. It was a good-spirited discussion with no animosity. Everyone seemed clear that CPSP is of a different philosophy and organization, but there was no energy to continue meeting.

Generally the ACPE has been highly competitive in relation to us. We expect that. We can live with it. But we will not accept misrepresentations. The ACPE waives the flag of United States Department of Education (DOE) recognition as if it is the thing without which on cannot do training, a great hyperbole. We are currently in discussions with the DOE too, and the agency has encouraged us to present ourselves to them. They are not promoting monopolies. There is of course a question in some of our minds whether getting entangled with a government bureaucracy is not the kiss of death. This matter will continue to receive serious attention from us as we proceed.

The ACPE have claimed over and over again in the ACPE News that only ACPE qualifies for Medicare pass through funds. This is and always has been a totally false claim with no basis in fact. In spite of our complaints, they have issued no public correction.

Subsequent to the 1967 merger, several new organizations emerged. The College of Chaplains, the National Association of Catholic Chaplains, and the National Association of Jewish Chaplains. Then in 1994 there was a movement to once again unify all the pastoral care organizations, this time to the exclusion of CPSP. William Baugh, then president of the ACPE, convened the so-called "four presidents." His motivation seemed to be to unify the four organizations against CPSP. But unification was voted down by the respective organizations.

After that failure, the Council on Collaboration was invented, and that body proposed to create "universal standards," later changed to "common standards," for the clinical pastoral movement. When we heard that such a project was underway we twice formally asked a seat at the table for CPSP. John deVelder made the request on behalf of the Executive Committee. Twice we were denied a seat on the grounds that the project was already underway. We were given assurances by George Handzo that the Collaboration group intended to be fully inclusive in the long run.

The first edition of the Common Standards included an exclusive list of legitimate clinical pastoral training organizations. That list established the ACPE as the only significant clinical training organization. No other training was recognized.

The action of the Council on Collaboration was similar to an automobile association that might form a set of standards for a safe car. Let's say they list anti-lock brakes, safety glass, air bags front and side, and General Motors construction. You would say, "That is not a safety standards document, but a company endorsement." That is precisely how the Common Standards function.

Thus it was that CPSP filed a grievance with COMISS last December, stating that the Council on Collaboration violated the spirit of collegiality that is the basis of COMISS, the roundtable for all those who have an interest in clinical chaplaincy. The ACPE claimed to "hear the concerns" at the COMISS meeting. The Collaboration group met in January and revised the Common Standards. The revision subsequently printed is even more monopolistic than the original.

Subsequent to the December COMISS meeting I wrote to the Executive Director of the ACPE, who referred me to the president, Art Schmidt. I wrote to him also, and spoke with him on the phone. Our conversation was friendly and collegial. The Collaboration group was to have a board meeting Jan 25, and Schmidt reported that they would respond to our concerns about monopoly, the concerns that were raised publicly at COMISS, and get back to me. I have received no communication of any sort since then.

My conclusion is that the ACPE is fully committed to establishing a monopoly in the training field, and that their intent is to put CPSP out of business. Even if I am wrong about the intent, their actions are pointed to the same objective. If they can sell their Collaboration documents to the wider community they will put CPSP out of business even if they did not intend to do so. I do not expect them to succeed in making the sale.

The ACPE spoke soothing words in response to our protests of monopolistic claims, but they continue to act on a monopolistic course. I am reminded of the Psalmist. "Butter is on their lips, but in their heart, a sword."

WHAT ARE THE COMMON STANDARDS?

Astonishingly, the Collaboration group's Common Standards are the standards of no organization known to humankind, this in spite of all the promotion. The Collaboration group says its members have covenanted to strive toward the Standards. If CPSP were to strive toward the Common Standards, we would have to go backwards. I encourage you to read them.

Who actually produced the Common Standards? Walter Smith's money and George Handzo's leadership, with the cooperation of many in leadership in the ACPE, produced the document. How did they manage it? Smith put up $100,000 in matching funds, and invited the ACPE and its clients to pay half for the project. A great number of people were flown into New York City to do the work (and enjoy the Big Apple). This boondoggle carried a final price tag of $96,000. A better set of standards could have been produced by Jim Gebhart and a handful of colleagues over the course of a week-end in Columbus. We could have used $96,000 for a better purpose. The production of the Common Standards was a laundry list of the obvious, and a scandalous waste of what is essentially the members’ money.

The well-heeled Collaboration group and its Common Standards project also present the prospect of making COMISS irrelevant. We think that the subversion of COMISS would be a terrible loss to the clinical pastoral community.

A COMMENT ON THE SIX ORGANIZATIONS IN THE COLLABORATION GROUP

Of the alphabet soup that describes the six organizations in the Collaboration group, the ACPE is the only one benefiting from the monopolistic play. None of the other organizations actually has a dog in this fight.

-The Canadian group, CAPPE, has no jurisdiction in this country.
-The American Association of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC) does not do clinical training, and we have no quarrel with them. Doug Ronsheim very graciously spoke to our Plenary last year.
-The remaining three organizations depend on the ACPE to train their leadership, and thus are to one degree or another client organizations of the ACPE.
-NACC is to a certain extent a client of ACPE, which offered to (in 2001) grandparent credentials to all NACC supervisors, greatly reducing independent training by NACC. We do not have any quarrel with the NACC. We wish them well.
-NAJC is not a training organization, but an organization certifying Jewish chaplains. We have no quarrel with the NAJC. We wish them well.
-APC is not in the work of training chaplains. They do not train chaplains, only certify them. In the early 1990s, when we were just getting started, the APC actually recognized CPSP as a collegial organization. Don Gum was part of that initiative. But shortly following their official recognition of CPSP, the 94 annual meeting was flooded by a number of aggressive ACPE supervisors who charged CSPS with a lack of ethics and professionalism, and they forced a reversal of the decision. I was there. It was a trial by mob. Since then, the APC has been ambivalent towards us. They have recognized our training at points, and not at others. We have no quarrel with the APC. We wish them well.

WHAT THEN SHALL WE DO?

1. Speak up at every opportunity and describe to the anyone who will listen the campaign underway to declare the ACPE a monopoly in the field of clinical pastoral training.
2. Continue the dialogue and debate wherever possible. Even if ACPE will not participate, we can still answer their claims. It may be a short dialogue. They speak, and we respond. Even if it is unwelcome, it is dialogue. In this connection, I have publicly called for an updating of the White Paper, because it is a potentially useful document for all communities in the field.
3. Never, never react. Edwin Friedman taught us this. To react is to respond out of feelings. To react in anger may feel good, but it generally is unproductive. Being nice, and obsequious, out of fear and intimidation is also a form of reacting based on feelings. The alternative to reaction is to respond after thinking, reflecting,
clarifying, and exploring. A thoughtful response does not have to be nice, just thoughtful---and wise.
4. Remember that administrators and personnel offices do not care much for the subtleties of the alphabet stew. Typically they look for signs of competence, not alphabets.
5. Avoid the kind of group-think that views every member of ACPE as our enemy. We have many, many friends in ACPE. They do not march in lock step as their newsletter suggests.
6. Bury the illusion that we might rejoin them. We should be delighted to meet them for respectful, collegial dialogue for the purposes of growth and development, theirs and ours, but we do not need to join. When Apple joins Microsoft, maybe we will join ACPE.
7. Remember Saul Alinsky, one of my teachers, who spent his life dislodging entrenched and vested interests in business and politics. He often said that such interests never fail to shoot themselves in the foot.
8. Grow. We have generally lived heretofore by the Perry Miller rule: "Make sure no one can find us, and we will not be bothered by undesirables." We now need to grow ourselves a little more political power. We have now more than 300 certified members. When we double that number we will have more certified persons than ACPE, which has now fewer certified members than it had a generation ago. It will be much more difficult for monopolistic claims to be made when we have a little more meat on our bones.
9. Invest as little energy as possible protecting ourselves against anyone. Act only when we must.
10. Diligently maintain our tradition of self-criticism. That is especially difficult to do when under attack, but it is a non-negotiable. If we become too nice, too courteous, and ultimately uncritical of each other, we will lose our souls. No tradition, ours or others', is immune to critique. One of the dangers in the current interest in muticulturalism is the lack of critical purchase. All traditions, beginning with our own, should be held up for examination if we want to present ourselves as clinicians. Even the traditions of the vaunted Royal Navy are subject to critique. Winston Churchill was once attacked when he was First Lord of the Admiralty for demeaning naval traditions. He asked rhetorically, "What are the traditions of the Royal Navy? Rum, sodomy, and the lash."
11. Do not take ourselves too seriously. All of the alphabet stews in our movement are but a tempest in a teapot. In relation to the larger culture and its problems, our internecine struggles are of little significance. The increasing and alarming gap between the rich and the poor, in this country and abroad, is a problem that will eventually come home to roost. The rise of religious rage, and I refer not so much to Muslim as Christian rage, promises to consume everything. The gross and increasing duplicity in our political life is similarly alarming. CPSP will not prosper if the social order unravels as it currently threatens. We will be like chaplains on a Titanic that deserved to be sunk.
12. Finally, we must ultimately fall back on divine providence. We actually control very little in this life. I was born the year after Hitler came to power, and my entire life has been shadowed by the events of the middle 20th century. Just before I was born Paul Tillich fled Germany, and soon after Karl Barth followed suite, after preaching a sermon, "Jesus Christ was a Jew." In the midst of the Nazi threats to his life, Barth said, "We must go on doing theology as if nothing has happened." For us, doing theology means continuing our critique of the currently fashionable gods wherever we encounter them, both personally and systemically, and doing so in the name of the god of justice and mercy. So, whatever arrows come our way, and there may be many, let us be steadfast in our vocation---as if nothing has happened.