the bible - an outdated understanding of mental illness

[hedrick]

From personal experience, I have found the fact that the bible only seems to mention symptoms of mental illness in connection with affliction with by demons, which can be scary, difficult to come to terms with and stigmatising as someone who's had mental illness.

Today it is known that many people experience mental illness or breakdowns as a result of trauma or abusive experiences or stress. There are also some physical illnesses that cause mental illness, for example, Lymes Disease can cause psychosis.

Surely, the assumption that is often made that a person needs deliverance and has likely been demonically afflicted because of their sin (ie the fault is with them) is outdated and also potentially harmful.

I can tell you how John Calvin would have dealt with this question, though of course in the 16th Cent he probably shared that view of mental illness. He believed that Scripture often described things in terms that the people would understand. This is the way he dealt with the fact that Genesis included descriptions that didn't match what the science of his day knew was true. It's the way he dealt with a number of other problems of a similar sort. He referred to it as "accommodation." That is, God accommodated himself to the level of understand that people had.

God's purpose was to show his healing power, not to teach medicine.

One can, of course, maintain that demons do exist and affect people, even though most mental illness has physical or psychological causes. Scott Peck is a psychiatrist who has written some interesting books taking that viewpoint. He thinks that a very small fraction of people with mental illnesses are actually affected by Satan and his minions. It's rare, but it happens. You could take that position, and believe that all of the people Jesus healed happened to be ones with demonic disorders. It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. I believe the better explanation is that this was an accommodation to the level of understanding of people in the 1st Cent.

 

[juvenissun]

From personal experience, I have found the fact that the bible only seems to mention symptoms of mental illness in connection with affliction with by demons, which can be scary, difficult to come to terms with and stigmatising as someone who's had mental illness.

Today it is known that many people experience mental illness or breakdowns as a result of trauma or abusive experiences or stress. There are also some physical illnesses that cause mental illness, for example, Lymes Disease can cause psychosis.

Surely, the assumption that is often made that a person needs deliverance and has likely been demonically afflicted because of their sin (ie the fault is with them) is outdated and also potentially harmful.

A nerve doctor may identify a particular nerve which malfunctioned and made the patient mentally sick. But I bet the doctor would have little idea on WHY does that nerve malfunctioned. Yes, it could be this reason, or that reason or a combination of reasons.

It could also be the work of a particular demon for a particular reason.

 

[hippo]

I can tell you how John Calvin would have dealt with this question, though of course in the 16th Cent he probably shared that view of mental illness. He believed that Scripture often described things in terms that the people would understand. This is the way he dealt with the fact that Genesis included descriptions that didn't match what the science of his day knew was true. It's the way he dealt with a number of other problems of a similar sort. He referred to it as "accommodation." That is, God accommodated himself to the level of understand that people had.

God's purpose was to show his healing power, not to teach medicine.

One can, of course, maintain that demons do exist and affect people, even though most mental illness has physical or psychological causes. Scott Peck is a psychiatrist who has written some interesting books taking that viewpoint. He thinks that a very small fraction of people with mental illnesses are actually affected by Satan and his minions. It's rare, but it happens. You could take that position, and believe that all of the people Jesus healed happened to be ones with demonic disorders. It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. I believe the better explanation is that this was an accommodation to the level of understanding of people in the 1st Cent.

I find the idea of accommodation interesting, but doesn't it undermine the concept of a God who always speaks the truth?

 

[korvus]

You watched too many movies.

There are all kinds of demons. Some makes you look and feel very nice and comfortable, no mental illness at all.

The concept of 'demon' is an archetype (that could be useful) for identifying the problems in one's mindscape.

 

[hedrick]

I find the idea of accommodation interesting, but doesn't it undermine the concept of a God who always speaks the truth?

Only a literalist concept. Calvin's position seems to be that God was trying to teach specific things, and that's what we should look at. Calvin was no literalist, despite some of his followers.

He used accommodation a number of places. The most interesting is in his discussion of the atonement. He says that when God looks us at he hates the sin, but he still sees his image in us, and loves us and wants to save us. So how, he asked, do we understand places in the Bible that speak of God's wrath towards man? He says that this is accommodation. What is actually meant is that God's wrath applies to sin, not to the whole man. I find this his most unexpected use of accommodation. Particularly given the theology most people think he taught. I'm not sure that he consistently followed this insight, though.

I appreciate Calvin's attempt to avoid a literal interpretation by focusing on what actually matters in the text. But modern (non-conservative) Reformed thought doesn't use exactly the same approach. While there's no official doctrine on this, I think it's common to say that the Bible is a human document, describing very real encounters with and revelations from God. But it still has human limitations. The revelation extends only to key things that God was specifically trying to teach. You can see that this is very close to Calvin's concept, but I don't think it's identical. It's hard to be sure, though. Maybe that's what he meant.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed.

This forum is for non-believers seeking to know
more about Christianity. This forum is NOT for
Apologetics or debates.

www.christianforums.com/t7454511/
MOD HAT OFF
​