Religion and Spirituality in Psychiatry

26 Joel James Shumansense. The mystery we name “human” (from theLatin humus , “earth”) is from the perspective ofscripture altogether consistent with what neuroscienceand the philosophy of mind call “nonreductive physicalism” in which the notions “souland mind are physiologically embodied,” andyet not exhausted by neurophysiological explanation.“Human mind and behavior have newemergent properties that cannot be exhaustivelyexplained by lower level physical phenomena.Thinking, deciding, willing, etc., are real and efficaciousproperties of embodied human life.” (26)As Berry puts the matter, “Creation is one continuousfabric comprehending simultaneouslywhat we mean by ‘spirit’ and what we mean by‘matter’.… The body, ‘fearfully and wonderfullymade,’ is ultimately mysterious both in itself andin its dependences. Our bodies live, as the Biblesays, by the spirit and breath of God, but it doesnot say how this is so. We are not going to knowabout this.” (27)Just so, the worldview of those who standwithin the biblical-Christian traditions shouldnot feel that the plausibility of their faith is threatenedby the fact that their illness has a neurophysiologicaspect that responds to psychoactivemedication. Because we are never less than ourbodies, we are never less than an extraordinarilycomplex constellation of chemical reactions.More, we are no less real, less human, becauseof this.(28) Although there may in rare cases begood theological reasons to question the pharmaceuticalmanipulation of the human mind,members of the biblical traditions may generallyand for the most part view them as gifts providedby God to facilitate human flourishing.4. SUFFERING: WHAT IS THEOLOGYGOOD FOR?As important as such assurances may be, theydo not address an older and more intractabletheological question with respect to mental illness,namely, the question of why such sufferingafflicts good and faithful people. In philosophy,this is one version of what is typically called theproblem of theodicy (from the Greek theos , “god”and dikē , “justice”), which is typically posed inthe form of a question: “Why does a benevolent,all-powerful God allow the innocent to suffer?”In a therapeutic culture like our own, whichteaches us to value individual happiness above allother goods, the long-standing human tendencyto reduce God to the role of being a dispenserof whatever we happen to want is multiplied.(15) Our bent is simplistically to assume thatGod wants us to have what we want and that religiousbehavior of various kinds is but a means ofachieving what has already been afforded. Insofaras suffering of various kinds is an impediment tothis kind of happiness, suffering becomes a problemto be solved rather than a mystery to be contemplatedor an affliction to be ministered to byfriends and neighbors. Thus, when we suffer, weare likely to begin by asking what we have donewrong to deserve suffering or what we need to dodifferently to rid ourselves of it.Of course, it is perfectly appropriate not towant to suffer and so to ask whether we maybe able to do something to escape or alleviatewhatever suffering we might be experiencing.More, the God revealed by the biblical narrativeis accessible and active as a healer. Yet fromthe perspective of scripture, “why” questionsabout sickness and suffering are almost alwaysthe wrong place to begin. For while it is absolutelythe case that the God revealed in scriptureintends the redemption of all creation, includingthe life of every person, that redemption must beviewed from the perspective of what theologiansoftentimes call “salvation history,” which includesan irreducibly eschatological (oriented towardan ideal future consummation) component.The human experience of suffering demands atheological response. From the perspective ofChristian tradition, such a response focuses onthe past, present, and future history of God’s savingactivity, which does not attempt to explain,but does account for, human suffering.It is important to note that scripture doesnot offer a single, univocal account of why wesuffer or what can be done about suffering. Yetneither are the scriptural voices addressing sufferingcacophonous. It is possible to discern a