Christ and Horrors, Part 2: Horror Defeat, God's Burden, and Weak Volitionalism

Continuing our review of Marilyn McCord Adams' Christ and Horrors.

As a reading note, I'm not going to address the Big Question--Why did God make us so vulnerable to horrors?--until the last post in this series. Until that post, I'll be selecting aspects of her model that I find to be either interesting or important given the concerns of this blog.

We've already noted one important aspect of Adams' work: The union of soteriological and theodicy concerns. We now turn to a second aspect where I think Adams "gets it" better than some other theologians.

If you are a regular reader of this blog you know I pound away on free will models in theology. It is not that I deny that in some ways we might be free, it is just that I see, as a psychologist, our will, our volition, as highly contingent. (I call this vision weak volitionalism as opposed to the strong volitionalism of free will models. For more, see my posts about Preparing for the Cartesian Storm.) In short, as finite, biological creatures we are not radically free. Our volitional range and scope is a humble and fragile affair. And I've argued that this realistic appraisal of human volitional capacity has important, if largely ignored, implications for theology and ministry.

Well, happily, Adams takes a weak volitional approach in Christ and Horrors. Thus, my admiration from last post continues as Adams adopts and works with a realistic model of human agency. As a psychologist I can pay a theologian no higher compliment.

Adams is weak volitional because she correctly notes that free will approaches crash on the rocks of horrors. As Adams writes (p. 49), "Radical vulnerability to horrors arises because human psycho-spiritual powers are not reliably great enough to achieve and sustain an appropriate functional coordination between [the] two dimensions [i.e., physical and spiritual] of human being in a material world such as this."

The reason is that our minds are physical organs and, as such, radically vulnerable (p. 38): "There is a metaphysical mismatch within human nature: tying psyche to biology and personality to a developmental life cycle exposes human personhood to dangers to which angels (as naturally incorruptible pure spirits) are immune...[this] makes our meaning-making capacities easy to twist, even ready to break, when inept caretakers and hostile surroundings force us to cope with problems off the syllabus and out of pedagogical order. Likewise, biology--by building both an instinct for life and the seeds of death into animal nature--makes human persons naturally biodegradable. Human psyche is so connected to biology that biochemistry can skew our mental states (as in schizophrenia and clinical depression) and cause mind-degenerating and personality-distorting diseases (such as Alzheimer's and some forms of Parkinson's), which make a mockery of Aristotelian ideals of building character and dying in a virtuous old age."

The conclusion: "Starting with the horrendous predicament of humankind, I have painted a more pessimistic picture of human agency than traditional free-fall approaches draw of Adam and Eve in Eden...I insist that human agency could not have enough stature to shift responsibility for the way things are off God's shoulders onto ours. I deny our competence to organize personal animality into functional harmony, much less to anticipate and steer our way clear of horrors" (p. 50).

One reason Adams takes such a dim view of human agency is that horrors can volitionally ruin us: “By definition, horrors stump our meaning-making capacities. Individual (as opposed to merely collective) horror-participation can break our capacity to make positive sense of our lives, can so fragment our sense of self and so damage our agency as to make authentic choice impossible" (p. 207).

I think this insight is critically important. Specifically, theologians need to recognize that horrors can so ravage and damage the human psyche that, as Adams says, the ability for authentic choice is destroyed. And if this is the case God has to pick up the slack. Think of a child traumatically abused by a "religious" parent or leader. This horror can wholly damage the child's (and later adult) ability to ever think positively about religion, God, and Jesus. The person is volitionally ruined.

This is not to say that people cannot transcend horrors and find positive meaning in their midst. Some people are able to accept horrors in a stoic fashion and overcome volitional ruin. But Adams is clear that to expect this outcome to be the norm is both silly and elitist. (p. 269-270): "I find these stoic paradigms deep and worthy of great respect, but elitist. Even if the martyrologies exaggerate, I have no wish to deny that some humans put in some truly impressive individual performances. But experience shows such perseverance to be out of psycho-spiritual reach for many (perhaps even most) human beings in sufficiently desperate circumstances. Wartime horrors expose deeply rooted ordinary-time virtues as ineffectual defenses against betraying one's deepest loyalties. Even if the Spirit of Christ indwells us, many-to-most of us have not learned to cooperate well enough to offer the sacrifice of heroic martyrdom either in this world's torture chambers and death camps or on the alter of our hearts."

I think this is right on target. It is simply ridiculous to expect heroic stoicism from the abuse victim or the death camp inmate. To expect this is simply to compound their horror. For not only are they victims of horror, we also accuse them of moral weakness for not being able to "get over it" and respond appropriately to the gospel during their mortal lives.

The implications for all this is that God has to carry the lion's share of the burden regarding horror defeat. Humans, volitionally speaking, are just not up to the task. Horrors ruin us. Thus, although parts of humanity can and do participate in horror defeat, the task is largely one of Divine initiative and competence.

How will horror defeat occur? Adams suggests that there are three stages of horror defeat:

Stage 1: Divine Solidarity
In Stage 1 God's presence and participation in horror allows for the possibility for moments of intimacy/unioin with God in the midst of horror whether we know it or not. Stage 1 horror defeat was accomplished in the Incarnation. That is, by entering into the horrors, God has built a route for personal horror defeat. That is, due to the Presence of God the ability to make meaning out of horrors becomes, theoretically, possible.

Stage 2: Healing and Mothering
Although Stage 1 implies that, post-Incarnation, it is possible to find meaning in the midst of horrors, many, due to volitional ruin, will not have the capacity to make that move. Thus, in Stage 2 God must work within the individuals developmental history creating meaning-making capacities from the inside out. This involves intensive Divine healing and coaching. Or, as Julian of Norwich says, mothering.

Stage 3: The End of Horrors
During the final Stage all the prior work in Stage 2 must be brought to fruition for every person and the entire cosmos must be reconfigured to allow for an existence that no longer is radically vulnerable to horrors.

As we look at these stages, we see the burden on the Divine Initiative. I'm particularly struck by the weak volitional themes of Stage 2. For example (p. 160, 161): "There is metaphysical mothering in that God is the ground for our being...There is also functional mothering. The Trinity/Jesus provides the loving personal environment in which we are always enfolded, before and whether we are actually aware of it or not. The Trinity/Jesus indwell us, make their home within us at the core of who we are. The Trinity/Jesus exercise that omnipresent influence, below as well as above the level of conscious awareness, without which our capacity to be spiritual persons could not be awakened and evolved...I agree with Julian of Norwich that the emergent capacities of human spirit are at every stage too meager to harmonize [our physical and spiritual natures], and that this power deficit would be a design deficit if human beings were intended--given Divine creation and conservation--to be always-or-for-the-most-part left to its own devices. My understanding of God's purpose in creation--focused by Divine desire to sanctify the material--motivates the hypothesis that God's design for human agency essentially involves functional collaboration with Divine agency, which has not only the wisdom, power, and resourcefulness to harmonize matter and spirit, but also the pedagogical imagination to rear us up into conscious and willing participation."

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

11 thoughts on “Christ and Horrors, Part 2: Horror Defeat, God's Burden, and Weak Volitionalism”

  1. Richard,

    You wrote, "I think this is right on target. It is simply ridiculous to expect heroic stoicism from the abuse victim or the death camp inmate. To expect this is simply to compound their horror. For not only are they victims of horror, we also accuse them of moral weakness for not being able to "get over it" and respond appropriately to the gospel during their mortal lives.

    The implications for all this is that God has to carry the lion's share of the burden regarding horror defeat. Humans, volitionally speaking, are just not up to the task. Horrors ruin us. Thus, although parts of humanity can and do participate in horror defeat, the task is largely one of Divine initiative and competence."

    Like you and Adams, I don't want to join Job's "miserable comforters. (16:2)" But it seems to me that the God of the Bible has from the first birthed creation and has continued to bear with us in all ways. He has even "poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with transgressors; and he bear the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."

    Is horror the norm? I don't think so. But it is real. It affects us all, whether we acknowledge it or not. But it is not the entire story. Or to use music as illustrative, it is not the entire repertoire. To often, however, American piety sings narcissistic saccharine ditties about sin and redemption (currently it is praise music or bad 1980s religious pop) while it denies, avoids, and refuses to engage the weightier, tragic matters, while it refuses to sing laments as well as hymns of deep healing and joy.

    That Adams offers a hopeful way out is gospel. But it is both easy and hard. "My yoke is easy and my burden light . . . The way is hard . . ." Damage is not damnation. It is a call to action that is creative. God through Paul tells us that we are to "bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law." That is: to behave the way God does.

    Finally, as to "volitional ruin," my experience has been twofold: (1)despite ruin, humans in authentic community are blessedly resilient and hopeful, and (2) those of us who are blessed and largely undamaged can share in the horror of volitional ruin in order to transform it and to be transformed by the presence of God in it.

    Look forward to more of your thoughts.

    George Cooper

  2. I wonder how many people in the Middle East, witnessing the horrors being committed by supposed "Christian" Americans, have transferred their hatred for America onto Jesus, and because of this can never see Jesus in a positive light. Surely God will not blame or punish them for this view of Christ. He might blame us, though.

  3. This discussion has me so intrigued in that under most unfortunate circumstances I have had my eyes open to things I never saw before. I have had my eyes open to how I have, with the best heart, missed the horror in someone else's life so many times. We truly in so many ways don't want to go down that road and certainly don't want to journey it with someone.I had a great man in the church comfort me and tell me he would walk this with me..and there is just silence from his end and yet....this has been an authenic experience and for that or for this darkness I am grateful and being grateful is what brings us closer to wanting to bear one another's burdens as George mentioned. I hope that when one reads my words that I don't come off as bitter. I feel I have learned something and being the self involved being that I am(*wink*) I suppose that everyone else wants to hear what I have learned. If I do come across cynical or bitter or preachy please forgive.

  4. Important:
    "I have had my eyes open to how I have, with the best heart, missed the horror in someone else's life so many times."

    Thanks, Beverly.

  5. George,
    I think you are right. Adams' focus is very narrow. Very important, but narrow. That is, outside of horrors (which is the norm) the cross and Christ have to have additional meanings and messages. For example, you and I like Girard, a reading of the cross less about joining in horrors and more about trying to PREVENT horrors.

    W,
    I think we do get blamed. I don't really see how people in the Middle East have not been volitonally compromised given their experiences.

    Beverly,
    I think you make a good point. Pain is terrible. But often the best ministers are those who have experienced pain (Henri Nouwen's "Wounded Healer", a book I think you would like). Often, true empathy can only be offered by those who have "been there." And I think that is what Adams is speaking to in Stage 1 horror defeat: The fact that Jesus has "been there" and, in a very real way, "remains there."

  6. Richard,

    I think that you've more than convinced me that your "weak volitional" model is the correct way to go. But it would help to have you address a few questions (and if you intend to address any of these in the future, please just note that).

    1. You write "The implication... [of yours and Adams' thoughts] is that God has to carry the lion's share of the burden regarding horror defeat." Would you agree, as it seems to me, that this melds with traditional biblical and protestant theology pretty well? Most any Christian can quote verses to the effect that grace is the crucial thing in salvation, i.e., we can't do it ourselves.

    2. If the gospel implies a radical remaking of the self--and again, most of us can quote verses to that effect--then a weak volitional model might not mean that people can't make radical choices, at least with regard to salvation: salvation might simply require a person to give in to God's will. Your writing doesn't (as far as I know) address this possibility. Would you?

    And 3. You like Adams' work in part because it matches theodicy with the problem of evil. But it is precisely the fact that there is a mismatch between the human experience of evil (and horror) and our dearest and greatest hopes that primes us for a Savior. Much of Paul's theology seems to hammer home the idea that it is the inability to match human effort to the needs of salvation that makes the cross essential. So, is theodicy well matched to our experience of evil/horror the order of the day, or is it the mismatch?

    Thanks!

    Tracy

  7. Okay,
    I know I am a bit late to this party, but I am wondering a bit about the premise of Adams' claims about the human being impaired to make truly free decisions, esp. Adam and Eve. Could it be that part of the fall of creation was an extreme, fundamental shift in humanity from having dominion over creation to being linked irrevocably to creation in the biological functions of all created life. What I am trying to say is, What if Adam and Eve truly had free will, unlinked to biological impulses and urges, and because of their decision, humanity was linked to mortality and all the urges and desires therewith. How would that impact your views on free will theology if any?
    Jordan

  8. Tracy,
    I think everything you note fits with Adams' focus on horrors. That is, our need/weakness, surrender, and ache for a Savior all work in very much the same way. The only difference is that, given that God will not defeat horrors for some individuals in this lifetime (and, as a result, some will be volitionally ruined), God will have to complete his horror-defeat project for the person after death. More on this next post!

    Jordan,
    Adams speaks to this point. Her claim is that there is no real way that Adam/Eve, as they made their choices, could have ever known and factored into their free deliberations the magnitude of the horrors they were about to unleash on humanity. Horror upon horror for millennium after millennium.

    Thus, although A/E might have been "free," the choice was fundamentally beyond their imaginative capacities. Thus, the "blame" shifts back toward God for putting these creatures in such a situation in the first place.

  9. In that light of thinking, did Satan have any idea of what was going to happen when he fell as well?

  10. Satan? I wouldn't venture a guess about Satan as I find most formulations about Satan to be pretty muddled to begin with. I wouldn't want to add to that odd stew of ideas.

Leave a Reply