Tanner concludes her analysis about God's transcendence in relation to human agency by discussing the "two sides" of how we might talk about God's relation to creatures.
First, there is the "positive side" of how we can talk about creaturely power and agency. That is, we can highlight how God graciously gives humans agency and power within the created order. This positive speech about human agency "promotes theological discussion of the creature in itself, its own value and dignity." When we speak positively of creaturely powers the creature "can be considered in itself apart from an immediate reference to the God who brings it to be." We can coherently speak of created causes in relation to created effects without reference to God's agency.
And then there is the "negative side" in how we talk about creaturely power and agency. This negative speech points to our total dependence upon God, how we are "nothing" without God.
Both of these "sides" are true, and follow from the non-contrastive metaphysics we've surveyed over the last few posts. We have agency and power and we are wholly dependent upon God. It's not either/or, it's both/and. Borrowing from the last post, for example, therapy and medication work because we are wholly dependent upon God.
Now, due to this "two-sided" nature concerning our speech about creatures, Tanner goes on to point out how conversations about God's relation to human agency can become distorted and warped. By emphasizing one side of the conversation over the other we can unwittingly tip back into a contrastive metaphysics.
For example, when our theological descriptions lean too heavily on the positive side of describing human agency and power we can tip into deism and Pelagianism. That is, we can start to assume that the creature stands alone and exercises power independently of God. Consequently, God's action in our lives has to be construed "miraculously," as a situational and alien intrusion from outside the creature's sphere of power. This is an excellent example of how a robust "supernaturalism" remains fundamentally deistic, as the intervention of God comes to us from a "distance." As Tanner has taught us, such a "supernaturalist" view of transcendence is not radical enough to bring God close.
And on the other side, our language can also become distorted by leaning too heavily upon the negative side of the conversation. Talk of human dependency upon God and God's sovereignty can tip into theological determinism, where creatures are taken to possess no power of agency or choice. Again, we're back at a contrastive metaphysics where the sovereignty and power of God is exerted over against His creatures, diminishing them to passive instruments, puppets, and automatons.
Summarizing, Tanner says, "The rules have a positive and negative side. Some theologians emphasize the negative side, some the positive." Due to these emphases, distortions to one side or the other can occur. So the theologian has to weigh the respective dangers. Tanner summarizing:
Is it more dangerous to talk of divine sovereignty, according to the negative side of our rules, or about the creature's capacities, according to the positive side? Consideration of audience reaction in a particular historical context is therefore fundamental...
Let us be clear about this. Statements that are formed according to our rules are correct as they stand whatever the historical circumstances. Sometimes, however, some forms of those statements are especially dangerous: what they suggest to a particular audience will be incorrect...The theologian may make statements that are quite prone to misinterpretation.
My hunch is that, if you reflect on this a bit, you've witnessed these distortions and misinterpretations. All the Pelagian errors to one side, and all the Calvinistic errors to the other side. It's a tour of all the classic problems that have bedeviled denominational squabbles. If God is sovereign do we have free will? Faith or works? Shall we sin so that grace abound? Why pray if God knows everything? And so on, and so on. Our speech about God's relation to humanity is always being twisted and warped in one of these two directions, the positive or the negative, depending upon the speech habits of a particular audience.
All that to say, Tanner's big point is that we have to be vigilant in how these debates keep pulling us into a contrastive metaphysics.
And with that in mind, let's turn back to mental health.
When we emphasize the efficacy of therapy and medication we are leaning into the "positive side" of the conversation. That is, we are talking about creaturely causes and effects without direct reference to God. This is legitimate, but if we dwell too exclusively on this "positive side" of the conversation we can fail to notice, confess, and praise God for how this entire creational matrix is held in being by God, how medication and therapy and our own efforts in self-care would be nothing without God.
By and large, distortions of this sort from the "positive side" haunt progressive Christians in discussions about mental health, where functional deism, Pelagianism, and atheism are chronic theological temptations.
By contrast, we see temptations from the "negative side" among the charismatics, Pentecostals, and proponents of the prosperity gospel when they approach mental health as they spotlight the power and sovereignty of God along with human powerlessness. As they preach: We can do nothing without God. And this also is true. But an exclusive, even morbid, focus upon this truth tempts us to distort and ignore the fact that God has graciously gifted us power and agency for our own flourishing. This emphasis on the negative side can produce passivity in relation to mental health, an assumption that we can take no positive action in seeking our own flourishing. Worse, any positive action or initiative can become stigmatized as prideful and idolatrous, as turning your back on God.
Time now to wrap this up.
My hope is that, after all the metaphysics fireworks of this series, you can now glimpse some practical payoffs in having taken this journey with me.
First, I hope it's very clear now how conversations about God and mental health are chronically tempted into a contrastive metaphysics. God or therapy. God or medication. After reading this series I hope you feel better equipped to spot these errors and see how they bedevil this conversation in many churches.
Second, I hope you can see how conversations about mental health get tempted and distorted among various audiences, how, for example, progressives are tempted by the "positive side" and the prosperity gospel by the "negative side." After this series I hope you can spot how the conversation about mental health twists and turns depending upon audience and church context, and what distortion each community is tempted with.
Third, and lastly, I hope you can see how keeping the two sides of this conversation, positive and negative, in dialectical tension, being alert to the temptations in a given audience, can help keep a conversation about God's relation to mental health situated with a non-contrastive metaphysics of "both/and." When you see a community tipping to one side of the debate you respond by drawing attention back to the other side. You keep reminding them about what they are ignoring or forgetting.
