Back in January I devoted a series of posts to what I called "the metaphysics of mental health."
The purpose of those posts was to explore the role of God in human flourishing, how God helps us with mental health issues. In the area of Christian psychology there have been barrels of ink split on the relationship of God and faith to psychotherapy, but little consensus about how best to understand this relationship. Rival models proliferate, each, unsurprisingly, reflective of the underlying denominational commitments of the various proponents and therapists. For example, I've written before about how an Arminian versus a Calvinist therapist would look differently at their clients. Theological anthropologies have implications for therapy.
But the main issue I was focusing on in January was how to think about Divine and human agency, especially how they relate to each other. What's interesting here is how this is, in fact, a very old problem. It goes right back to the debates that produced the Nicene Creed: How can Jesus be both fully God and fully human? How does Jesus' divine nature relate to his human nature? Do the two natures mix to create a composite, blended nature? Or does Jesus have two natures that struggle against each other? And so forth.
And this debate about Jesus' nature isn't esoteric, as it sets up a model for our own natures. For example, throughout Christian history there's been debates about divine sovereignty and human freedom. Are the two compatible? If everything in the cosmos has been "predestined" by God's sovereign will then can humans be truly free? And if humans are truly free, able to thwart God's will and plans, can God be truly sovereign?
It seems that contradictions and paradoxes abound whenever we contemplate the nexus of divine and human agency. Consider this famous text:
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2.12-13)
Work out your own salvation, for it is God who wills and works in you. How to make sense of that?
Again, theologians reading this will be saying, "These are very old problems and debates." Yes, that's exactly my point. What's of interest to me is how these debates have tended to focus on theological problems. Christology. Theological anthropology. Nature versus grace. Predestination and human freedom. Justification and sanctification. And so on.
Much of this debate, when it comes to human beings, has been about soteriology. To what extent is the human person to participate in salvation? One traditional answer, going back to Augustine's debate with Pelagius, has been "None at all." Salvation is achieved by the 100% unilateral movement of divine grace. Humans contribute nothing, on our side, to the salvation equation.
Obviously, this is a very beautiful doctrine. And it's made for millions of beautiful sermons. But here's my observation: A model of divine and human agency worked out in the domain of soteriology might be ill-suited for work in other domains, like therapy and mental health. The passivity of humans in the soteriological domain, where we must wait upon God's grace, doesn't work very well when it comes to human flourishing.
And yet, if we swing too far in the other direction, toward an embrace of human agency and initiative, therapy and the technologies of human flourishing can become functionally atheistic, devoid of the divine presence, power, and agency. In theological terms, therapy becomes "Pelagian" or, in psychological terms, "humanistic." We're back to puzzles about human and divine agency. And yet, it's my assessment that the models that have been worked out over generations to handle soteriological questions struggle to be of use to us. In fact, they can create a lot of problems. Many, many models of Christian counseling have floundered on this soteriological-to-therapeutic shift.
This, then, is my summary assessment. We need to do more work on the metaphysics of mental health because the models of divine/human agency that have been worked out in soteriological contexts aren't often suited to help us think through how God aids in human flourishing.
