S3: E2: A Theology of Mental Health
S3: A Theology of Mental Health
E2: Elijah, Naomi, and the Stepford Wives
In my previous blog, I drew attention to the weight of evidence that individuals gathering together to collectively remember their religious beliefs positively affects mental health. In the Christian faith, those beliefs are best remembered through practicing Communion specifically remembering beliefs about what God has done through His Son Jesus Christ. In many ways, celebrating Communion creates the sacred time and space for a retelling of the meta-narrative – or story of God - before focusing on the individual narrative.
In this blog, I want to explore two characters in the narrative of Scripture that temporarily suffered with mental illness and what we can learn from their lives towards a theology of mental health. Both characters are intentionally exposed by those who wrote the narratives. As before, I will continue to broadly define mental illness as psychological distress. The biblical characters I want to explore are the Hebrew prophet Elijah and the Ephrathite widow Naomi.
The Stepford Hermeneutic
First, in order to wrestle with both characters, I must address the idea that pretense is ok. I like to call it the Stepford hermeneutic because it interprets the narrative in Scripture with a me-centric focus. I take the idea from the novel Stepford Wives (1972) where Ira Levin depicts women in the Stepford community in an all-too-perfect way. These ladies are far from genuine, to no fault of their own. They are artificial in appearance and superficial in behavior because the misogynist men of Stepford like it that way. Dare I say, it is a fake community.
The Stepford hermeneutic is equally artificial and superficial. It paints a picture of the Christian life in a way that the original authors of Scripture could not have possibly intended: a me-centric focus. A Stepford Hermeneutic produces cosmetic faith that only promises mental health when it is fueled by self-improvement like an artificial Stepford wife. In short, the bottom line to a Sunday service composed of prayer, worship, fellowship, sermons, or homilies can be me-centric if the Stepford hermeneutic is employed.
This disastrous hermeneutic can go unchallenged because the issue of mental illness as psychological distress is a difficult anthropological issue to trace in Scripture. The medical language we use today to describe mental illness did not exist when the authors penned their inspiration. So, on one hand, we must not explicitly impose into Scripture issues that the authors did not intend. On the other hand, others may argue that Scripture is far more fluid. For instance, what a particular passage meant is not always what it means today. Though I want to acknowledge this dichotomy, the matter is beyond the scope of my blog. However, I will opt for middle ground where the authors recognized personal distress that I’m calling psychological even though they had no medical language for it.
Therefore, in the Old Testament, some may argue that the madness of King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4) is an example of mental illness. He ate grass like a wild animal for a season in his life. Others may argue the madness of King Saul (1 Samuel) is another example of mental illness. He had an irrational hatred of David. Either way, madness is not the word to describe mental illness today. Also, in both cases it appears that God had a hand in the behavior of both men.
In the New Testament, what appears to be mental illness is largely associated with demonic possession. I shall address this in the next blog on a Theology of Mental Illness; but for now, it is worth noting that the devil appears to have a hand in the New Testament examples where characters appear to suffer with mental illness.
A brief survey of both Testaments will leave the reader of Scripture asking themselves key questions. Are God and the devil involved in mental illness or not at all? Did the writers of both Testaments delegate unexplainable human experiences to God or the devil because there was no language for mental illness, much like the Greeks delegating lightening, thunder, and the ocean tides to Zeus, Thor, and Poseidon?
Body. Mind, and Soul
These questions, and more, require good interpretative work much different than the Stepford hermeneutic currently produced by reducing all Scripture to a me-centric interpretation. What can be made clear is that a human body, soul, and mind are addressed in both Testaments, particularly in a selection of Psalms and the works of St. Paul. Again, though I want to address the anthropological aspects in a following blog, I must be clear about the body, soul, and mind in this blog. Though Scripture does address them individually, all three are never separated from each other. Adversely, the Stepford hermeneutic will always do the opposite by separating the body from the soul and mind.
Regarding the mind, we must acknowledge something blatantly obvious. The authors of Scripture did not write with a Freudian influence. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Again, subject for another blog but worth mentioning now for clarity.
Despite the lack of medical language for mental illness in Scripture and the influence of Freud, we can find examples of real historical people who suffered mentally. Using medical language carefully, we see men and women in the narrative of Scripture suffering with temporary psychological distress. It paints a picture of human mental suffering that affected real people, and as we shall see, God’s biopsychological response in dealing with the body, soul, and mind.
That said, it is now time to take a look at Elijah and Naomi. I am intentionally choosing these two biblical characters, not just because they represent male and female, but because the biopsychological response of God is seen from two distinct perspectives in the narratives.
The Case of Elijah
Elijah was a highly esteemed Hebrew prophet during the reign of King Ahab and King Ahaziah (1 Kings 17–19 and 2 Kings 1–2). He was esteemed because Elijah ranked with the likes of Moses who prevented Israel from becoming corrupted by the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth. In short, during a time of religious pluralism, Elijah was an unprecedented proponent of monotheism, or, worship God and Him only! His single-handed feat of opposing 450 prophets of Baal and Ashtaroth on Mount Carmel sheds light on the type of man he was: strong, powerful, determined, and with tremendous conviction and resolve.
However, Queen Jezebel came after him with a surprising effect on this strong prophet. “He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. ‘I have had enough, Lord,’ he said. ‘Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors’” (1 Kings 19:4). This highly public and powerful man was reduced to a weeping child who could not face life anymore.
In response, God gently places Elijah into a deep sleep. After he slept, God gently wakes him and prepares food and drink. I mention the gentleness of God in contrast to waking Peter up in his prison cell with a kick (Acts 12:7). Apparently, God wakes people up either way. Back to Elijah, God gently puts him to sleep again (1 Kings 19:5-6). After sleep, God gently wakes him again with more prepared food and drink (1 Kings 19:7-8). Only then was Elijah able to continue on his journey.
Then, something surprising occurred on that journey. Elijah heard God speak to him again. However, God’s voice was not heard in a violent storm, a shattering earthquake, or raging fire (1 Kings 19:12). Surprisingly, “After the fire came a gentle whisper.” From the ashes of Elijah’s mental state with suicidal thoughts, a new season of powerful prophecy begins.
Note how God Himself did not super-spiritualize Elijah’s psychological distress, even though the prophet had been in a huge spiritual battle on Mount Carmel. Elijah needed quietness, rest, nutrition, more rest, and more nutrition with quietness. Here, we get a glimpse of the essential relationship between the physical body and the soul and how it affects the mind. We learn a simple lesson here that regular sleep and nourishment are good for the soul and mind.
The Case of Naomi
Naomi was the Ephrathite woman esteemed among her community in Judea. This is an important detail in the narrative as we shall see. Naomi was uprooted from her home because of famine in Judea. Shortly after her displacement, Naomi’s husband, Elimelek, died followed by the death of both her sons, Mahlon and Kilion (Ruth 1:3). In the Near Eastern world of that day the absence of a man in the home meant the women were unprotected with the potential of becoming impoverished.
Naomi was left powerless and destitute with two Moabite daughters-in-law. One of them was called Orpha and the other Ruth (Ruth 1:4). All three women heard that Judah had come out of famine, so they returned to Bethlehem and the community of Naomi. She then tells Orpha and Ruth to go back to their Moabite families. The first leaves but Ruth stayed with Naomi (Ruth 1:8-9).
The psychological distress of Naomi is clearly seen in her own words. “I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty” (Ruth 1:12). Convinced of her abandonment and self-talk, she changed her name to Mara which means bitterness, much like a drastic change of status on Facebook for all the world to see without any filters. Such a negative name change was a dramatic statement to the community in Bethlehem. A name not only depicted who you were to people in the community but also to God. There is open and unfiltered totality to her distress.
However, the community in Bethlehem did not see her this way. Interestingly, they did not rebuke her for a lack of faith or seeming failure. In their eyes Naomi was still a highly esteemed woman though she had lost everything. They did not super-spiritualize the issue. I mention this because in those days it was common for disaster to be related to one’s personal sin.[1] However, no one in the community was accusing Naomi of wrongdoing. The story shows how the community loved and cared for Naomi in a time of total and open distress.
Strengthened by the affirmation of her community, Naomi rebuilt her life, and Ruth married a fine man called Boaz. They had a child together in the line of King David. As a result, the women in the community responded to the marriage and Ruth and Boaz by affirming Naomi, “…the Lord has not left you without a kinsman redeemer” (Ruth 4:14). From the ashes of intense and total unfiltered distress, a new season of blessing and continued Messianic lineage begins.
Here, we see that Naomi needed affirming, encouraging, reassuring, and emboldening not from the phenomenon of a gentle whisper, but from the people in her community. I have no doubt she needed rest and nourishment, but Scripture does not emphasize this in her case. What it does, however, is amplify the words of people in her community, something highly noteworthy where we learn that affirming words can change the self-talk of someone experiencing psychological distress.
The Biopsychological Responses
The lives of Elijah and Naomi present evidence of temporary psychological disorder in two esteemed individuals. From both examples we can see that the response of God to Elijah, and God to Naomi through the community, was in fact biopsychological. Both responses reflect the psychological factors in both biblical characters: mood and personality; behavior and social factors that included cultural, familial, and socioeconomic; and, the biological factors. As such, both examples show that responses to both biblical characters deal with the interconnectivity of the body, soul, and mind.
It must also be noted that Elijah and Naomi were not abusing their bodies, minds, or souls. If that was the case, their psychological distress would be classified today as self-harm, much like Legion in the New Testament (Mark 5).
Now, it is easy to cut-and-paste a verse of Scripture over the narratives of Elijah and Naomi with an attitude of one-verse-fits-all solution to psychological distress. One verse might be, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind” (Luke 10:27). The verse is biopsychological, right? However, such a feeble attempt does not offer any alternative to the Stepford hermeneutic much like the clothing store Joy who were forced to apologize for the marketing slogan, “Don’t get mad, take lithium.”
Finding Language
In order to address the issue of mental illness within the narratives of Scripture, we often begin with the form and work towards the substance. Or, we begin with predetermined theoretical language (form) and then work towards what is actually going on (substance). I am not suggesting medical language is redundant. I am suggesting we must not start there.
What if we suspended predetermined theoretical language and start listening to people who suffer with mental illness in order to properly develop language from the perspective of the sufferer. There is no one more qualified to verbalize their own experiences than someone who suffers, in their own way, and using their own terms. It is an effort to localize language to what is actually going on by listening to the personal expressions of suffering.
For example, in a 2006 BBC documentary entitled The Secret Life of a Manic Depressive, Stephen Fry states, “Don’t ask me why I am depressed because it is much like the weather.” This is what I mean by authentic. We start with Fry’s figurative weather. Only then can we ask further questions. How do the stories of Elijah and Naomi resonate with those who suffer today? Does this resonating present any building blocks to develop an authentic language that focuses on the substance rather than the form? In what way does Psalm 13, 42, and 88, for example, mirror what is going on in those who suffer?
There is much more for others to write along these lines. But for now, my hope is that you will move away from the artificial and superficial interpretation of Scripture called the Stepford hermeneutic, and begin with the substance of what is actually going on. Only then can we say, this or that narrative in Scripture can reveal how God responds to the cry of those who suffer with mental illness.
[1] For example, “His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’” (John 9:2).