Language is one area where I think psychology fails against religion. The language of psychology is not as powerful as the language of the Bible. And language is world-creating. The words racism, sexism, and spousal abuse were rarely present in the 19th century. But creating the language to discuss the problem allows the problem to be better understood and confronted. I look at four concepts and discuss how Biblical language could help us understand reality better.
Addiction vs. Slave to sin
Although the word addiction has lost some of the stigma surrounding it as people have become more compassionate for those addicted to alcohol, drugs, and sex, it lacks a sense of what it is like to be addicted. Romans 6 describes man as being slaves to sin in order to convey the sense that we are "addicted" to sin. Greek thought, which Paul was likely familiar with, knew of addiction and recognized it's power in human life. But Paul wanted to send a message. While addiction can be a valuefree label, for in some sense we are addicted to food and sleep, slavery is not. Slavery is a terrible way of life, especially under the rule of a wicked master like Sin. But more than that, we find comraderie in our slavery. When we are slaves all we have to live for is our relationships with other slaves. We don't really own anything. We don't have any claim to anything. Our work only benefits our master. We may sit back and enjoy some of the things we create but in the end none of it belongs to us.
Often I, and many others, have seen addiction and being a "slave to sin" as being hand in hand. While that is perhaps an enlightening stance, it neglects the powerful semantic and historical meaning that is suggested by the phrase "slave." When the Hebrews first immigrated to Egypt, they were hoping to find freedom from a devastating famine. But they eventually were enslaved to the Pharoah of Egypt and used their labor to build his great pyramids. So when the Bible says we are slaves to sin, it connects us with the history of Israel within which we find many lessons about our current situation. When the Hebrews were finally freed from slavery, they were angry at God because he didn't immediately bring them to the Promised Land. The word addiction is not semantically connected to this story and so when the addict conceptualizes his or her problem, he sees it in isolation - that is his only problem. But the story of the Exodus, and of American slavery, teaches us that leaving slavery often means entering into a long period of turmoil. The psychological language of addiction doesn't bring this to light, although it is true.
Resistant vs. Hardened heart
Some of you might be familiar with the psychoanalytic term resistant meant to describe client's who deny their therapists brilliant interpretation of why they do what they do. Ok yeah I'm being a bit sarcastic but, yes, I think it does exist. The Bible teaches a similar concept when it talks about those whose hearts are hardened. The Bible used the term to describe those who would not listen to and accept the truth. Sounds similar to resistant right? But the word means a lot more here.
Hard hearted conjures up images of there being a hard coating around the heart. That coating protects the person from damage but also keeps the person from seeing the truth. The heart for the Jew was not the center of emotions - that was the gut - but it was the center of the identity of the person. A hardened heart meant that the person had become inflexible to change, which means a lack of ability to see one's own defects and sins. It illuminates that there is something wrong at the core of the person. Now for a trained psychotherapist this word would probably mean all that. But to explain to a client that they are being resistant seems like it could be only situational - it is very abstract. A hardened heart would convey the message that they are fundamentally wrong. A phrase that would no doubt rock the world of any client and therefore should be used with great care and gentility.
Dying to One's Self vs. ????
From a psychological viewpoint, there isn't much we can say to comfort those who want to do something but feel like doing it would kill them. The man who greatly desires to forgive his alcoholic father so that he can be free of his anger toward feels like it would kill him to do such. And we face these situations everyday in small ways. We feel that if we give up our incessant attempts to control our lives, we would be free, but it terrifies us what could happen. The Biblical language offers a solution - and it isn't pretty. We die to our selves. This means no less than facing our fears head on and saying that we want the freedom more than life itself.
Pathology vs. Sin
Perhaps the most controversial concept within psychotherapy is evil. Most therapists are secular and are quick to challenge the client's notions of what is right and wrong. If the client says they want to have an affair, the therapist would likely ask why don't they have one? Of course the therapist is trying to help the client clarify and strengthen their beliefs but once the client can say no more than "It is wrong; I made a promise" the therapist would likely go in for the kill and suggest that might just be what society says and it is not rational and so they should have an affair. Besides the fact that the therapist is typically shattering the client's moral ground in what I believe is an unethical manner, their view is typically that nothing is wrong unless it is pathology. If it isn't in the DSM IV, the so-called "Bible" of the psychologist, then it's not wrong (homosexuality once was; pedophilia, and other sexual abnormality still is; affairs never were).
The Bible takes a very different stand of course. The Bible teaches that people are not diagnosable, actions are. The DSM intends to use criteria in order to apply a diagnosis to a person while the Bible intends to use criteria in order to label what actions are sinful. The Bible diagnoses all people as sinners and symply gives a list of "symptoms" that describe what make us sinners. (As a side note: I realize I'm painting a negative picture of the Bible as if all it does is tell us how bad we are. That is hardly the case - if it were each time I read it would be a pretty depressing. Secondly, sin is often more about the attitude than the behavior. I use simple descriptions to keep the analogy clear.) But the Bible creates comraderie - while a psychological diagnosis creates isolation. Psychologists have known that their is a labeling effect - people will act more like the diagnosis that they are given. Why? Because people are trying to relearn their identity as one that is pathological and different from normal.
And finally, we often see that people with mental disorders often are extremely talented and can learn to use their disorder to their advantage. Many great poets have been depressed. Many comedians are bipolar or ADD. The reason is that these people learn to channel their disorder in order to become more creative. This is not sin. Sin does not just look at the symptoms, it looks at the effects. A person may feel so angry at his neighbor that he offers to mow his lawn in order to sublimate (I had to throw in some psychojargon) that energy in a positive manner. Or a person may use that anger and cause damage to the neighbor's property. We need this reminder - to know that we can turn our weaknesses into strengths.
Conclusion
All this is to say that we need "Christianeze." Sometimes Christian jargon gets a bad rap because it does not connect with the non-Christians. But that's not to say it shouldn't be used at all. For people who have studied the Bible, these phrases can actually help people understand reality better. I think that the solution to Christianeze with non-Christians and young Christians is not to abandon it completely but to use the language in contexts where their meaning is clear or by explaining the language as it is said. To simply replace Christian words with psychological words means to abandon our history and the culture of love and compassion that makes the church appealing.
1 comment:
hey curt, glad to have you back! i guess one way to think about what you wrote a couple of posts back is to ask you what your heart tells you and not what your mind tells you. minds have doubts, but one way we get round them is having a heart where doubts are not as important - in fact they are part of the chemistry of love.
the reason i'm saying this in a reply to this post is that i think it is your heart telling you that we need christianese not your mind. yes, there are lexical differences between say pathology and sin, but i suspect it is your heart that makes you feel the need to use the stronger word of sin. and it's your heart that will keep you going when psychology colleagues disagree ;-)
Post a Comment