Psychology and theology

[Audrey]

I am really hoping to start a lively discussion about the relationship of modern psychology to Orthodox theology. I will share my thoughts and questions and look very forward to getting feedback.

I have been interested in psychology since I was very young. I have also studied it in grad school. I'm an Orthodox convert as well. I struggle to put my thoughts together and see how both modern psychology and my Orthodox faith can both be expressing the same reality.

The pschological theories I subscribe to are psychodynamic (developmental and attachment theories specifically). I believe these are supported by research, and definitely by my own experiences and observations. I find that natural causes and solutions are so significant to mental health. For instance I believe we are dependent on other human beings from our earliest years for a sense of self and a sense of stability. Even our brain chemistry is shaped by our earliest relationships with caregivers. The solutions to this are new healing relationships with other humans that could possibly undo some of the damage. Even in this case, however, not all the damage can be undone. I also believe that our spiritual development is dependent upon our psychological development, and that these two cannot be separated. I believe healing and loving experiences with people give us a concept of a loving God. Research supports that those with anxious and avoidant attachment styles to people express the same attachment style to God, and those with secure attachments to people express a sense of security in relating to God. There is a direct correlation.

My struggle is that I don't find any Biblical or liturgical references to these psychological realities that I so firmly believe in and have experienced my entire life in my own struggle against depression. In fact it was not until I had a relationship with a loving spiritual father and an accepting counselor that I was able to begin seeing God as loving and accepting. I still find myself living within the limits of my psychological make-up, however, because of how much I struggle to feel the presence of a loving God.

I guess I am wondering why what I hear in the Bible and in the liturgy don't seem to take into account the natural resources (i.e. human relationships) that are so crucial to people's healing, when the gospel is supposed to be about wholeness? I'm wondering if it is in the Bible implicitly, because God's natural order is given to us to meet our needs.

I think the problem I have that I don't find my psychological assumptions in the doctrines of my faith is that if people do not understand psychological realities, they tend to believe that people's anxiety and depression are due to their own failings and that if they only sought God more, their symptoms would go away. This is definitely not true because many of people's symptoms can go away with the help of modern psychology. Furthermore, people's psychological states are definitely not always their own faults but oftentimes stem from the faults of others committed when they were too young to defend against them.

I was encouraged by listening to some tapes by Thomas Hopko, who was operating under the same assumptions I was psychologically and seemed to think these were totally compatible and in fact in agreement with the Orthodox faith. Maybe it is because I haven't read much of the church fathers that I don't see how much reconciliation there is. However I still find myself switching back and forth in my mind from thinking in psychological categories to thinking in theological categories and this really bothers me. I would my thoughts to be more unified.

I think this is enough so far to start a discussion, and more of my thoughts will come to light in response to your feedback.

Thanks!

[Herman Blaydoe]

You really really need to get a copy of "Orthodox Psychotherapy" by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos).

[Father David Moser]

I've been somewhat torn about responding to this as for me it is a very tired discussion. As a trained and practicing mental health therapist (well I'm retired now after 20+ years in the field, in favor of the priesthood), I've been having this conversation in my head and my heart for years and years. However, I feel a resonsibility to at least say something, so please allow me to share with you some general comments.

First, it seems to me from your comments that you are coming at this backwards - you are trying to fit your faith into your training. You are trying to find a confirmation of your psychological belief in your spiritual belief. Wrong way round. Do not start with your psychology as the "factual base" and seek to find how Christianity fits in - rather start with the Christian faith as the "factual base" and test your psychological assumptions against your Christianity. If there is inconsistency, it is not the Christian faith that must change, but rather your psychological theory. To do this, put aside for the moment what you learned in your psych program and begin to seek out the teaching of the fathers on the nature of man - the nature of the soul. Herman already mentioned Vlachos' book "Orthodox Psychotherapy". In addition to that (or actually as a precursor to that) let me suggest "The Illness and Cure of the Soul in the Orthodox tradition" by the same author (the latter is less spiritually and theologically "dense", thus providing a platform from which to read and understand the former). Metr. Hierotheos has a number of other books in English, all of which are quite good. Fr Raphael mentioned in another discussion "St Gregory Palamas the Hagiorite" and then there is also "Orthodox Spirituality", "The person in the Orthodox Church" and many others. In addition to Metr Hierotheos, let me also suggest St Theophan the Recluse, in particular his book "The Path to Salvation", much of which is also restated in a less formal manner in "The Spiritual Life and How to be Attuned to It" St Basil the Great wrote quite a bit on the topic which is collected in a little volume called "On the Human Condition". I also benefited greatly from Panyiotes Nellas book, "Deification in Christ" and Fr John Romanides "The Ancestral Sin". Once you have a good idea of what the Church teaches about the nature of a person, then go back and add in your psychological education, evaluating it against the teaching of the Church. You will have to reassess some things, and others will fit right in.

Another general comment that I found to be true. Secular psychotherapy does not address the root cause of any psychological problem. The root cause of all psychiatric/psychological problems is our sinful nature and our fallenness. Only the Church can address that. Once these things are cured then all the other problems fall away. Secular psychology does, however, treat the symptoms of the illness (much like an aspirin doesn't cure the cause of the headache, but it relieves the pain to permit the person to function more easily). The goal of secular psychology is worldly happiness or the relief of personal conflict - but this is not always consistent with the cure of the soul. The goal of the Church, however, is the cure of the soul, the actualization of the likeness of God with which we were created. When the soul is cured, then there is no longer any need for symptom allieviation. Also the cure of the soul should always take precedence over temporal wellbeing and peacefulness.

I found that my practice of psychotherapy (btw, I am primarily a cogntive behaviorist) could be quite consistent with the goal and life of the Church, if only I gave first place to the cure of the soul (that is the work of the Church in each of us) and used my psychological training in service to that goal.

Just some thoughts. The question you asked could fill books with the answers - but still the only way is to become a Christian first and a psychologist second.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

What a wise and helpful post.

Would you recommend the books you mention to a non-psychology trained Orthodox Christian as a means of helping to understand our human condition, or are they more strictly related to, and require an understanding of, the discipline of psychology?

Peter

[Father David Moser]

The books I mentioned are valuable to all Orthodox Christians. There is a great deal of spiritual "meat" in them. They require no training in secular psychology to understand them since they simply are the teaching of the Church about the nature of man and the effects of the fall. In fact, psychological training might be an impediment to understanding them (hence my comment that it would be helpful to "set aside" the psychological training for a time).

Also - One other author that I forgot to mention before. St John of Damascus, in his compliation of The Orthodox Faith also provides some insight into the nature of man.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Thank you for that Father.

Is there a particular order in which someone such as myself should read these books?

Thanks

Peter

[Father David Moser]

Not to my knowledge. I am currently reading the collection of St Basil's writings - which could be prefaced by reading the Hexameron (available online (http://www.ccel.org/)). For myself, I find the writings of St Theophan to be quite easily absorbed, and the writings of the neotheologians of Greece (Vlachos, Nellas, Romanides) to be somewhat "dense" and requiring time and contemplation to read and fully comprehend. (some people have said to me that "Orthodox Psychotherapy" is their favorite book and they have read it a dozen times - but I have only read it twice - each time taking about a year - and still can't say that I have come close to comprehending it fully. I just don't understand). Also St John of Damascus is a general background and therefore might help to read him first as a foundation for some of the more in depth stuff.

So if I were to make a suggestion to someone, I would say, start with St Theophan, go to St Basil an St John and then on to the modern Greeks.

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

Fr. David,

Have you had a chance to read the recently published "A Guide to Orthodox Pyschotherapy: The Science, Theology, and Spiritual Practice Behind it and Its Clinical Applications"?

In Christ,
Christopher

[Father David Moser]

No, I don't know of this book, who is the author? A contemporary American priest/psychologist - Fr George Morelli - is a fairly prolific author and writes pretty well, however, what he writes is pretty "surface" and with not a lot of real depth to it.

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

Fr. David,

Sorry, forgot to mention the author in my original post - Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna.

http://www.univpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=%5EDB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0761836020

In Christ,
Christopher

[Audrey]

Here are some of my thoughts in response to Fr. David Moser's post:

Thanks for the book titles: I will definately write them down and begin to read those. I am actually very interested in and open to what the Fathers and the Church say about human nature and the cure for psychological illnesses. I am interested in having my assumptions tested and changed if necessary. It is actually not what I've learned in my psych. program but what I have experienced in my own personal journey seeing a quality therapist for over two years who practices psychodynamic therapy that has led me to some of my beliefs so far.

I am not sure I understand completely what is meant by the statement that all psychological and psychiatric problems stem from our sinful nature and our fallenness. Does this include sins committed against us or only sins we commit ourselves? For example, someone who has experienced trauma or sexual abuse and suffers psychologically because of that--is such a person's suffering due to his/her own sinful nature and fallenness or rather someone else's sinful nature and fallenness? I would say the latter. That doesn't mean, however, that such as person has no responsibility. Such a person must work to forgive and allow God to heal any wounds.

An issue that still needs to be addressed is that of development. I believe we develop mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as well as physically. Given this, is everyone developmentally capable of repenting? Does not the ability to acknowledge one's own sins and repent follow from years of being nurtured and cared for by caregivers since infancy? What happens when someone is drastically deprived of love and nurture yet is an adult? I am wondering if one's woundedness should first be addressed before that person can authentically repent. In such a person's case there is much psychological suffering that is due to the sins of others, not one's own sins. Of course, that person must work toward healing and repentance to the best of his/her ability , and is responsible for dealing what what he/she's been dealt. At the same time, I really believe that some people need to be nurtured through healing relationships before they feel solid enough inside to take a moral inventory and repent for the right reasons. A very crude example is a scenario of an infant abandoned on an island who grows up with only jungle animals. Will such a person as an adult take a moral inventory and "repent"? No, such a person will be like a jungle animal. There are much less extreme examples all around us: there are people who are developmentally about as mature as toddlers. Should not their psychologically suffering be addressed without being attributed yet to their own sins? This is the main issue that I think needs to be addressed. I am wondering if, within the Orthodox tradition, developmental capacities and issues are addressed. I hope this makes sense and I welcome feedback.

[Tanya Hoadley]

At the same time, I really believe that some people need to be nurtured through healing relationships before they feel solid enough inside to take a moral inventory and repent for the right reasons. A very crude example is a scenario of an infant abandoned on an island who grows up with only jungle animals. Will such a person as an adult take a moral inventory and "repent"? No, such a person will be like a jungle animal.
Dear Audrey,

Thank you for bringing up this discussion. I find it interesting.

As far as the abandoned infant scenario, I find I am in disagreement with your supposition of what state such a person would find themselves in as an adult. It leaves no door open for the saving grace of God. It is not be our own will/faith/actions/knowledge alone. God is God and can reveal His Truth and Love to His children in any circumstance.

In Christ,
Tanya

[Audrey]

Tanya-

I appreciate the point you brought up. I definitely also believe that the grace of God can work in any situation. In fact I must work at preventing myself from falling into a skepticism about the state that many people are in. It is encouraging to me that in the Divine Liturgy we are continually praying for all people in all situations, so that even if no one is praying for a particular person, the church is covering everyone in prayer. All things are possible with God. And of course, I believe that any limitation one may be subject to in this life (such as a handicap) is of course not a limitation in the next life.

Yet I see tragic realities around me all the time. For example, it is documented that babies who receive no human contact or affection die after so long. They simply are dependent upon human beings and that is the created order. There was a study done in the 70's of a teenage girl who never did develop the ability to talk and write and think normally because her parents kept her locked in a dark room the first thirteen years of her life; because she is past the age when normal development takes place, she is now institutionalized. Of course God can step in and I hope and trust that in many cases God has stepped in.

Audrey

[Scott Pierson]

Another good book that you might find useful (though not as good as Orthodox Psychotherapy, which I would read first) is "Being as Communion, Studies in Personhood and the Church" by Metropolitan John D. Zizioulas it discusses the subject of the human person and its transition from "biological existence" to "ecclesial existence"

[Audrey]

Thanks again for all of the book suggestions. I am definitely going to get all of them. I am very interested in how Orthodox theology addresses human nature, sin, wholeness, and salvation, and again, am open to having any assumptions changed that need to be.
I know that the gospel does address these issues and so after rereading my original post, I can see how I came across as assuming that the gospel doesn't fit in my with "assumptions". That's not actually what I meant to convey. What I meant was that I think there are certain developmental realities that some people are ignorant of because they take them for granted, and I have seen many Christians become injured by religious people who don't understand the state of mind of some who are suffering psychologically. I have seen this more within Protestantism than anywhere else, but I know it might happen in Orthodoxy too; I'm not sure. What I'm really wondering is if the Church Fathers acknowledge that what some people need first is simply love and nurturance until they have a sound enough mind to authentically desire repentance. Many people relate to God inwardly as if He is a tyrant who needs to be appeased, and this is because they have only had such relational experiences with others.
For example, in reading about the life and theology of Martin Luther, his conscience was so harsh due to his harsh upbringing and lack of loving environment that he was terrified of God and lived in total obsession until his breakthrough moment. Even then,He ended up constructing his theology around what his psychological state could handle: "imputed righteousness". He might not have been so afraid of alternative theologies that emphasize repentance if he had been psychologically capable of it. This is all just to provide an example of how people first need to experience a sense of a totally loving God until they are mature enough to repent in the most genuine way. And, I do believe that the general way this happens is reliance on other human beings at least the first several years of life. Like I have said, babies without human contact die; that is a fact. I believe there are many adults who are still reliant on other human beings until they have enough healing experiences to experience God as loving. I am not saying there are no exceptions to this, but I don't think it's right to expect people to transcend this limitation of needing other people for their development.
I am simply asking whether this reality is acknowledged by church fathers, that anyone knows of. Of course I will find this out for myself as I begin reading them.
I also do not think that there is anything wrong with building assumptions on modern psychology as long as they are not at odds with the church fathers. In fact, there is nothing incompatible with Orthodoxy with studying people to find out what brings about greater mental stability, especially if one assumes, as I do, that often greater mental stability makes one more capable accurately perceiving God. Notice I didn't say such as person will have a happy life and great circumstances, but rather mental stability which is a different thing. I think it is false to say that psychology doesn't address one's true psychological problems. It may provide enough knowledge of the problem and the cure to prepare someone to desire the total cure. For many, gaining greater psychological health is what enables them to have enough of a sense of inner stability to where they can tolerate acknowledging their own sins and repenting. In my own life it was the help of modern psychology that brought me to a point where I could see God more accurately, desire God, and begin the process of repentance. "Modern psychology" is not fundamentally at odds with religion because it is a set of questions, not a set of definitive answers. It is a field of inquiry. Even in the case of scientific study they can provide data but they cannot interpret it without leaving the realm of psychology and entering the realm of philosophy or religion. Psychologists often have very different worldviews from each other yet they are all psychologists. Anyways I am interested in hearing more from people on Monachos who find value in modern psychology. Also, I have read some of "Orthodox Psychotherapy" and found it very helpful; I don't think that is at odds with what I am saying.

[Father David Moser]

I am not sure I understand completely what is meant by the statement that all psychological and psychiatric problems stem from our sinful nature and our fallenness.

Your thinking here is much too specific - as if you wish to attach a specific sin to a specific ailment, or perhaps assign specific guilt or responsiblity for a specific problem. I am making a much more generalized statement. It is because we all have a sinful and fallen nature that we are subject to such problems. I am vulnerable to emotional/mental problems because I am spiritually defective (fallen). The only way to address the root cause of my emotional/mental problems is to heal the soul of its fallenness. If I do not heal the soul, from which my problems arise, then I am only treating symptoms and not the cause of the illness. Treating symptoms is sometimes helpful in that by reducing the intensity of a symptom, it is then more possible to focus on the underlying cause, but it is still the cure of the soul that is vital. Only our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Church can cure the soul - secular psychology at best can only treat symptoms.




An issue that still needs to be addressed is that of development. I believe we develop mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as well as physically. Given this, is everyone developmentally capable of repenting? Does not the ability to acknowledge one's own sins and repent follow from years of being nurtured and cared for by caregivers since infancy? What happens when someone is drastically deprived of love and nurture yet is an adult? I am wondering if one's woundedness should first be addressed before that person can authentically repent.

Anyone can repent. Repentance is an act of the will - a choice that we make to turn away from one way of acting or being and embrace another. This ability is a part of our innate being, it does not develop but is there from the first - this is our "free will". Now the ability to recognize the need to repent and the depth of repentance is obviously something that develops. Having heard confessions of both children and adults, I can tell you it is obvious. For a child, for example, sin and repentance is very concrete. If you ask a child to tell you if he has done anything wrong - he'll just say no (unless he has just gotten in big trouble and is still feeling sad about it). OTOH, if you ask that same child if he did anything that made his mother mad at him or upset - chances are you will get all kinds of information. His sense of right and wrong needs to be shaped and developed. Now to take that beyond the mere congitive and emotional sphere and into the spiritual sphere - our sense of right and wrong is ultimately shaped by the Holy Spirit. We all have a conscience - in some it is stronger than others, but it is always there. That conscience is the voice or prompting of the Holy Spirit away from sin and towards repentance. Again, the soul that is fallen does not always hear this promptin well and so the healthier the soul - the more it is cured - the more sensitive we become to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Thus, even here, we see the necessity of the cure of the soul (a realm which is outside the competence of secular psychology).

You have to realize that secular psychology and Orthodoxy have very different approaches and perspectives. Secular psychology will always be deficient since it cannot address the underlying spiritual reality. Again, do not try to fit the Church into a psychological framework, rather subordinate psychology to the teaching of the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Audrey]

Your thinking here is much too specific - as if you wish to attach a specific sin to a specific ailment, or perhaps assign specific guilt or responsiblity for a specific problem. I am making a much more generalized statement. It is because we all have a sinful and fallen nature that we are subject to such problems. I am vulnerable to emotional/mental problems because I am spiritually defective (fallen). The only way to address the root cause of my emotional/mental problems is to heal the soul of its fallenness. If I do not heal the soul, from which my problems arise, then I am only treating symptoms and not the cause of the illness. Treating symptoms is sometimes helpful in that by reducing the intensity of a symptom, it is then more possible to focus on the underlying cause, but it is still the cure of the soul that is vital. Only our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Church can cure the soul - secular psychology at best can only treat symptoms.


Thank you for your time in clarifying what you meant. Now that you have clarified what you meant I basically agree with what you said. It was helpful for me to get your feedback; those are the types of clarifying answers I was hoping to find. After thinking more about this issue the last few days I'm seeing your perspective more. I am finding myself thinking that, of course, the gospel addresses the root of our problems and offers the only true cure. After all, what is healing if not our restored communion with God? I think some of my anger and passion to defend psychology as a modern science comes from how much I feel it has benefited me and held me up until I found God in Orthodoxy. I also have seen (as I said, mainly within Protestantism) spirituality applied falsely to those who were suffering. But the defect in those cases was an impoverished version of Christianity. The problem is, I think, how many people in the world have an impoverished understanding of true Christianity, and so, in comparison with that, modern psychology looks like the healing balm. Having been in the Orthodox church for a couple of years I am finally finding the God who heals. Since I did not find such a God within the other forms of Christianity in my pre-Orthodox days, modern psychology was all I had, and the specific theories that spoke to me the most, I think, are quite compatible with and led me to the loving Father I found within Orthodoxy. I have told myself many times that I don't think I would have survived without my counselor, who practices within the psychoanalytic tradition. I think it is hard to find a spiritual father one can talk to as often as needed and that is where the "therapist" or "counselor" serves a great purpose, I think, even if it is not as ideal as having a spiritual father who can serve that same purpose. One of my priests even suggested to his parishioners who had psychological problems that they see therapists in addition to meeting with him.
So, I do agree with you that ultimate healing can only be found in the Faith. Only God, and the resources He has given us in the Church, is the cure for our fallen souls. I also still think, though, that psychology is very helpful and meets a lot of needs, and builds and sustains people because it does offer a lot of truth and health, even though it does not explicitly point to the source of that health. For some, though, such as me, it pointed to it implicitly and its fulfillment was found in Christ. Unfortunately there are many people who are just interested in having a happier life and not in knowing their Creator, and for them, psychology did not end up serving an ultimately good purpose.

[Owen Jones]

This is the most important topic in the world today....bar none.

Classical psychology, and by classical I include the philosophic as well as the expressly theological, is concerned with both the motivation and the orientation of thoughts, ideas and behavior. So-called modern psychology deals almost exclusively with motivation. In so doing, it treats the soul as an immanentized entity. The soul (psyche) as a self-contained thing. Sure, some psychologists will examine outside influences, societal, familial, etc., as part of the program, but still this is an immanentist approach (as opposed to an approach that incorporates both the immanent and transcendent poles of the psyche). Therefore there is a fundamental theoretical flaw at the foundation of virtually all modern approaches.

Orthodoxy understands that the soul does not exist in itself. Nor does anything else. Everything is connected to everything else. If you doubt this, read Moby ****!

This is not to say that modernists do not uncover certain insights (projection/transference, etc.) But this is an analytical approach. For a critique, read "The Triumph of the Therapeutic" by Phillip Reif.

There is much more to be said. enough for now.

[Owen Jones]

I assume there is an automatic profanity blocker on this system which sometimes has embarrassing consequences!

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen,

Well, someone finally flushed me out of the A. O. thread, I should have known it would be you. I have been reading some of your postings (that you have made over the past few years here on Monachos) and I really do appreciate your writing/contributions--the range of what you perceive is phenomenal--what content! And, regarding your comment about this thread when you said, "This is the most important topic in the world today....bar none" . . . I couldn't agree more. On a 'subterraneous level,' this is "the whole shootin' match."

Also, as it relates to psychology/theology, I have been doing an independent study in the areas of world religions and some non-theistic systems (as well as a look at the Traditionalists School and thier 'Perennial Philosophy') as it relates to a modern psychology which sees the importance of a wholistic approach which includes the biological. In your post today you referenced the thinking that:


"Everything is connected to everything else."

I see this everywhere (including some presentations of quantum physics that I do not understand via some crazy productions viz. 'What the Bleep Do We Know?' [which is the actual title for anyone interested]), but to be honest with you I am having trouble grasping this concept fully. Sometimes, things that are very obvious to others are hard for me to understand. Suzuki makes a presentation in, "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" that I can relate to with my love of gardening, when he says the tomato is in the cucumber and the corn is in the bean through the compost box in his vegetable garden. But, I wonder if you could help me/us understand the Orthodox view of the above statement please? . . .Also, if possible comparing and contrasting the Orthodox view with any non-Orthodoxy views.

And, in a related thought . . . I was reading the post of another, a few nights ago, here on Monachos who made the statement that it is clear that the Fathers teach that "We are not our thoughts," and, I was dumbfounded when I read this, because this is perfectly parallel to classic Vedantic thought (which has much in common with a true apophatic approach that ultimately transcends negations and affirmations).
But . . . I guess without going any farther out to sea than I have already, could you please expand on the your above statement? I would love to know (and especially, if possible, have some resources to cite about) an historic Orthodox view of the interconnectedness of all humanity and everything.

Thank you.

Peace,
Rick

PS Just to make this a "bonus pack" I will include a quote from Suzuki's book that I appreciate :)

"In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, but in the experts mind there are few."

[Theophrastus]

But, I wonder if you could help me/us understand the Orthodox view of the above statement please? . . .Also, if possible comparing and contrasting the Orthodox view with any non-Orthodoxy views.

Here's something from The Spirituality of the Christian East, by Tomas Spidlik:

"The unity of the world is a familiar patristic theme. The universe is a Whole, to pan. Clement of Alexandria saw 'things inanimate sympathizing with the animate creation in cosmic unity.' The concept of sympnoia (breathing together) brings to mind the theory of a logos-pneuma which penetrates everything like a common soul." [129]



"In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, but in the experts mind there are few."

Indeed.

[Audrey]

This is the most important topic in the world today....bar none.

Classical psychology, and by classical I include the philosophic as well as the expressly theological, is concerned with both the motivation and the orientation of thoughts, ideas and behavior. So-called modern psychology deals almost exclusively with motivation. In so doing, it treats the soul as an immanentized entity. The soul (psyche) as a self-contained thing. Sure, some psychologists will examine outside influences, societal, familial, etc., as part of the program, but still this is an immanentist approach (as opposed to an approach that incorporates both the immanent and transcendent poles of the psyche). Therefore there is a fundamental theoretical flaw at the foundation of virtually all modern approaches.

Orthodoxy understands that the soul does not exist in itself. Nor does anything else. Everything is connected to everything else. If you doubt this, read Moby ****!

This is not to say that modernists do not uncover certain insights (projection/transference, etc.) But this is an analytical approach. For a critique, read "The Triumph of the Therapeutic" by Phillip Reif.

There is much more to be said. enough for now.


I am definitely interested in reading that book you suggested. Thanks for your thoughts. Some theories that have branched out of psychoanalytic theory, using some of its assumptions but rejecting others having to do with drives, are "psychodynamic", and some theories branching out of psychodynamic derive individual identity from relationships, and hence are much more "interpsychic" rather than "intrapsychic" (that is, focused on simply what is inside the individual. Of course, not necessarily with reference to God, however.

I was wondering today whether I believed it was ethical to be a clinical counselor and charge money. If I really believe that the modern counseling office can be a place to help bring one back to God, how could I be justified in taking money for such a service? Or if I do feel justified in taking money, that means I am separating the ministry of the gospel from helping someone with their mental health. And if I'm separating those, then how could mental health be a fulfilling vocation?

[Tanya Hoadley]

Dear Audrey,

We all support the clergy of the Church financially and you wouldn't think a priest unethical for receiving money from his flock would you?

I'm a nurse and I receive a paycheck for my services. I don't differentiate between which services I provide are in the service of God and which aren't.
They are all in the service of God; calling a doctor, changing a diaper, charting or praying with a patient.

I don't think of it as being compensated for witnessing to Christ thru my vocation. I think of it simply as God providing my daily bread.

In Christ,
Tanya

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sorry, I really should have mentioned this earlier, please forgive.

Audrey might also want to check out Therapia:
THERAPÍA draws on the vast resources of the Eastern Orthodox Faith tradition to cultivate both psychological and spiritual health. We rely on the client's own clergy/spiritual father or mother to mete out authentic therapy. We believe that true healing comes through the Holy Sacraments of the Orthodox Church—including Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist, Confession, Unction, Marriage and Ordination—and as such we participate with the Orthodox Church in the healing of our clients. This sacramental process provides our clients with the ascetical, spiritual and restorative life necessary for holistic, authentic "healing of soul and body".

More information here: Therapia (http://www.therapia.org/index.html)

[Audrey]

Sorry, I really should have mentioned this earlier, please forgive.

Audrey might also want to check out Therapia:

More information here: Therapia (http://www.therapia.org/index.html)


I am definitely going to check out that link! Thanks!

I'm not sure what I think about the financial aspect; that's why I posted that question and was hoping for feedback. I think my mind went to the verse in Acts where someone thought he could purchase salvation and he was greatly rebuked; but that doesn't relate well to what I'm bringing up, I guess. What is causing my question is that my priest doesn't charge people to meet with him, and I've never heard of someone charging money for spiritual direction. If the type of counseling I want to do will end up being very much within the Orthodox frame of reference I'm wondering if I would feel comfortable charging for this. I think that the Biblical mandate that we support our clergy financially by tithing could be different from the concept of charging an hourly rate to meet with someone who is looking for spiritual and psychological direction. Any other thoughts? With the rise of psychology as a science and the rise of the modern therapist, "mental health" has become a commodity like others that we purchase. However if I see mental health within the context of spirituality of the soul, and within the context of participating in the Church, is it right for me to offer such a service and charge for it the same way as those who practice counseling outside the context of the church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

within the context of participating in the Church, is it right for me to offer such a service and charge for it the same way as those who practice counseling outside the context of the church.1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

and

2 Corinthians 11:7-8 Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you.

[Owen Jones]

I very much respect Audrey's thinking on this topic. One of the cardinal rules in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy is that you MUST charge a fee in order for the patient/subject to take responsibility for his therapeutic progress. But I wonder???? So you may be on to something here. Try being like Lucy and charging a nickel!

In AA, the sponsor will often spend thousands of hours with a newcomer over the course of his early recovery, helping him to work through the steps. This traditional catechesis has been lost in the Church. Further, the AA member is not permitted to donate more than $2,000 per year to the fellowship. And AA refuses any outside donations. It has no professional/paid workers except for some clerical personnel. It seems to work!

[Audrey]

Does anyone have thoughts on the subject of wordly grieving versus godly grieving? This is something I thought about a lot last Lent, as I felt I was doing a lot of necessary grieving, albeit it did seem in the "worldly" category, possibly. I know that psychanalytic theory focuses a lot on grieving what one did not have, if one experienced loss or neglect in important, primary relationships. It seems grieving for this sort of thing is inevitable; however, it also seems futile sometimes. How does one avoid self-pity when one is full of sorrow of this type? Any thoughts? This seems like an important topic that intersects modern psychology with theology.

[Audrey]

Here is a short excerpt from:

Orthodox Psychotherapy
D.A. Avdeev
Translated by Nicolas and Natalie Semyanko

which I've been reading online. It is really good; I'm about half way through. It is enlightening in understanding the role of sin and repentance in mental disorders. .......


Here is the excerpt:

"The distinctions of childhood neuroses.

The extensiveness of borderline neuro-mental states among children and teenagers has reached a previously unknown level — about 80% of children in Russia need medical-psychological assistance. Among youths, recognized as unqualified for army recruitment on the basis of health, 47% are mentally ill. Increased nervousness, excitement, emotional instability, tendency to conflicts, sleep deprivation — are typical symptoms, found in 8 out of 10 children.

Most authors underline the negative role of improper upbringing in the origin of neurotic reactions among children. The well-known specialist in children’s neuroses, Prof. A. I. Zacharov, emphasizes the following aspects:


Parental demands, exceeding the abilities and needs of the children.


Parental non-acceptance of children, expressed by an irritated-impatient attitude, frequent condemnations, threats and physical punishments, lack of necessary tenderness and caressing.


Uncoordinated approach to upbringing, which is expressed by contrasting strict limitations and prohibitions from one parent and indulgent and permissive attitude from the other.


Inconsistent upbringing, its inequality and contradictions.


Instability in attitudes toward children: raised tone of voice, general emotional instability.


Anxiety — constant worry about the child, the presence of excessive fears and overprotectiveness.


The expressions of childhood neuroses are varied: emotional instability and over-sensitivity, whining, easily changing mood, capriciousness, excitability, difficulty in falling asleep, uneasy dreams, night fears, thumb sucking, biting skin around nails, stuttering, eneuresis, nervous tics and so on. Some symptoms are seen more often in one age group, others — in another.

Let us present an example. A grandmother visits the doctor about her 9-year-old grandchild. Her parents often fought, created scandals, and finally divorced, the father left the family. Because of this, the child developed bronchial asthma, but no allergy or change in the bronchial-lung matter was revealed, and she did not have frequent colds. It turned out that the girl has a neurogenic form of asthma; the neurotic conflicts were the reason for the asthmatic attacks. This illness — is the cry of the child’s soul.

Another distinction of childhood neuroses is the change of behavior. Some children run away from home, skip classes, others begin to smoke, try alcohol. Most of these children wind up on the street and are raised by its rules. Who is to blame? The parents. The children must be loved, they must be reared, they must be prayed for. The betterment of the child’s mental state in large part depends on the parents, their spirituality, their relationship, on the atmosphere they create at home....

...........But it is important to remember that child psychology does not enter into ideas such as faith in God and Orthodox spirituality, Christian virtue, churchgoing, does not mention sins and passions, that is, the science of the soul is developed, while at the same time denying the existence of the human soul and ignoring the Creator. While such secularization is possible, say, in geometry or car building, it is totally impermissible in a science studying the laws of a person’s spiritual life.

Psychology, while correctly expounding on many particulars and details, unfortunately does not see the whole picture. Raising children in the spirit of true virtue, not fictitious spiritual and emotional health, is impossible without faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and without the help of God. Only by God’s grace does the person’s soul become purified, enlightened and filled with understanding. Without grace it is not only incapable of perfection, but it cannot comprehend the entire tragedy of its disastrous state.

By God’s mercy, books and articles by religious psychologists are now appearing, including priests which were educated in psychology before entering the priesthood. Thus, the spiritual vacuum of psychology is being filled, which for well-known reasons has been dominant the last eight decades."

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/orthodox_psychotherapy_d_avdeev_e.htm#_Toc62950171

The author basically affirms what I was trying to say in the beginning of this thread that children are dependent upon their parents for love, nurture, protection, etc. And I like what he says in the last part of the excerpt I pasted, that psychology does not see the whole picture. I am still sorting out how "repentence" is understood and undertaken by those who lacked a loving and nurturing environment and have consequential mental disorders because of that.

[Rick H.]

Hey Paul,

In the other thread where folks are dialoging about whether they should be dialoging (or whatever is being discussed today in the to dialogue or not thread), you caused me to wonder . . . would you consider the 12 step program a psychology?

Thanks,
Rick

PS I just read some of this thread, I wish Audrey wouldn't have left, she had some really good stuff to contribute.

PSPS Glad to hear it is not a little warm weather that would keep you away from the chili pot. Although, I just made a batch of peanut butter ice cream (complete with the new Reese's Mini's) :)

[Father David Moser]

would you consider the 12 step program a psychology?

I'm not Paul, but I would indeed consider a 12 step program to be within the realm of psychology. It is essentially a self help behavior management program combined with a program to enhance self awareness and understanding. It is no different than many other psychological therapies in that sense. If you have any question about the compatibility of the "12 step program" with Orthodoxy, then I can suggest Fr Meletios Webber's book, Steps of Transformation

Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

I'm not Paul



Can you prove that you are not Paul?




If you have any question about the compatibility of the "12 step program" with Orthodoxy, then I can suggest Fr Meletios Webber's book, Steps of Transformation



I'm not really interested in discussing the compatibility of the 12 step program of itself, and I have this book and others by him . . . really I was looking for a segue and you could not possibly have provided a better one as you wrote:




It is essentially a self help behavior management program combined with a program to enhance self awareness and understanding. It is no different than many other psychological therapies in that sense.



Especially, Father David, as you mention the key terms "self-help", and "self-awareness / understanding." This is what I was starting to work towards in the "dialogue thread" earlier today . . .

And, now maybe I can entice (or provoke) :0) Anna into this thread to expound on some of her comments today (in response to me) in the dialogue thread, as they may relate to such things as Alcoholics Anonymous for one example ( am I the only one that struggles with spelling the word anonymou?)

You know, when we read things like 'anyone who knows anything about Orthodoxy knows asceticism allows much room for self-awareness and understanding' in tandem with such things as 'anything apart from the Church is self-help and is not of the Holy Spirit' one tends to draw confusing conclusions about what is being said and about all efforts directed toward self-awareness or self-help outside the walls of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And, I guess that's enough for now . . .

[Paul Cowan]

You know, when we read things like 'anyone who knows anything about Orthodoxy knows asceticism allows much room for self-awareness and understanding' in tandem with such things as 'anything apart from the Church is self-help and is not of the Holy Spirit' one tends to draw confusing conclusions about what is being said and about all efforts directed toward self-awareness or self-help outside the walls of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And, I guess that's enough for now . . .

Can you re-write that in english please?

Our parish has started reading the Akathist to the Inexhaustible Cup the first Saturda of every month followed by fellowship and meditation in the hall next door. I fully believe this Akathist saved my life and my marriage some 7 years and 4 months ago. I don't know if we want to start a thread on the 12 steps in this forum or not, so I will let Fr. David or another mod give the approval first. But how the 12 steps relates to Orthodoxy is shocking if you read the steps and relate how they fall in line with our faith and how we "work" our faith.


1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become
unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to
sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we
understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature
of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make
amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly
admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with
God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us
and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to
carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our
affairs.

This all can be a very painful and yet enlightening exercise. I highly recommend it even to non addicts.

Paul

[Rick H.]

English? :0) Sorry, Paul, I was tired when I wrote that (and I'm tired this morning too), but I was trying to paraphrase Anna's writing in the other thread yesterday in the hope of drawing her into our conversation.

I'm glad you are here too Paul, I strongly suspect that you would have some top shelf stuff to contribute here as it relates to psycholgy (like AA) and Orthodoxy together! Thanks very much for posting the 12 steps. I have read Fr. Melitos's book that Fr. David mentioned, but I have never studied the 12 steps on their own as they are presented by AA. This is very helpful. This info is helpful here, and it would make a good thread on its own too . . . actually, it seems like there is a thread on this somewhere, or I at least remember Owen writing at length on this subject in the past.

We have had conversations before about things like herbs, and excercise, and have touched on medicine and psychology in other threads where we talk about benefits to our psyche and body outside the official walls of the church.

But, I have been reading some lately and becoming more aware of some things that psychology teaches that I think are really helpful and should be a part of the lives of some of us.

I think sometimes even just having the *awareness* of certain things in our lives can be a great help. Especially, an *awareness* of 'universal truths' as Theophrastus mentioned yesterday in another thread. Some people preach that 'awareness without application is useless' I think this is an ignorant statement.

And, I think some of this is what I'm stumbling towards here in this thread now . . .

And, since I don't really feel that much more sharp this morning than I did last night, I'll try again later here, but I feel strongly that there is a very fruitful conversation to be had here as it relates to psychology and Orthoodoxy (especially as it relates to modern day man).

[Paul Cowan]

I think sometimes even just having the *awareness* of certain things in our lives can be a great help. Especially, an *awareness* of 'universal truths' as Theophrastus mentioned yesterday in another thread. Some people preach that 'awareness without application is useless' I think this is an ignorant statement.

Why do you see this as ignorant? If one is aware of their sin but does nothing about it, then isn't the awareness of it useless? If there is no corrective action on our part dealing with our sin, then is there real repentence? Can there be healing?

In the fourth step of AA we are asked to "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves."
This is the awareness. If we stop here; so what? but if we go to step 5 and on through step 9, we have then "done" something about that awareness and we are free of its hold on us. We also are in a much better position to be reunited to our brother we have harmed. Do unto others... but because we have done the harm already, we must ask forgiveness in our transgression against him/her. Once we get used to identifying the "harm" we can more quickly resolve the "hurt" we have caused. Even if it is just to clear our own conscious of a perceived harm.

[Rick H.]

Paul, I think awareness (as opposed to ignorance) of dysfunction in our life is a very valuable thing. When one gains a simple awareness in certain areas it can be the catalyst for real change that would have not occurred otherwise.

This is the value of psychology in my mind. And, this points to the question I am attempting to address here in this thread as it relates to the value of psychology in bringing to light certain conditions and concepts and truths that are universal, or at least common to the vast majority of human beings. Or, to just outline different concepts that affect some of us but not others (especially relational pieces), there is some very helpful information in psychology today that can bring a person up to speed like right now and make a person aware of problems that need to be addressed like right now . . . and not all problems or dysfunction in a person's life is sin in the sense of a passion that needs divine intervention in order to provide a remedy.

This is I think what I am still stumbling towards here in this thread tonight.

Not everything needs a twelve step plan or an anointing of some kind or a divine intervention. Some things do need these things, but other things just need a simple awareness on the part of one or more people and then once certain things are recognized, then a turning from these things like one would turn from any other danger that comes into view. Sometimes a simple awareness of an issue is all that it takes for one to make a quick and long lasting change.

This is the right thread for this conversation--Psychology and Theology.

[Paul Cowan]

Not everything needs a twelve step plan or an anointing of some kind or a divine intervention. Some things do need these things, but other things just need a simple awareness on the part of one or more people and then once certain things are recognized, then a turning from these things like one would turn from any other danger that comes into view. Sometimes a simple awareness of an issue is all that it takes for one to make a quick and long lasting change.

I would counter that this is exactly what the 10th step does. "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly
admitted it."

This brings the awareness to our attention (right now) and prompts us to take action on any wrong doings. Though some people do "need" therapists, I think most any 12 step program that is rigorously adherred to can save someone a boat load of time and money on therapists. "If they have the capacity to be honest with themselves". Of course no one should work the steps without a sponsor, much like we in Orthodoxy should not attempt a prayer rule or anything else without a spiritual father.

We are all fallen. What is that one common vice we all share? or are there many and regardless what the answer is, we should recognize it, if it affects another person apologize for it and for both, confess it to our priest. We don't need in my opinion a therapist to find out if we hated our mothers or not. We live in the here and now and are responsible for our actions. I don't see it makes a hill of beans to find out why we were raised the way we were and try to "understand" it.

If I steal, I need to stop. I don't need to go back into my childhood and contemplate my family of origin and how I was spanked repeatedly for not taking out the trash.

Or am I way off base and talking about psychiatry instead of psychology? Which one makes you lay down on the sofa?

Paul

[Rick H.]

I'm not sure which one is known for the sofa Paul? I think Lucy just had a lemonade stand kind of thing on Peanuts that she hung her shingle out as a Psychiatrist.

But, when you say if I am stealing I need to stop stealing . . . this is what I am getting at. And, when you say that when our actions effect another person in a negative way we 'should' recognize it . . . this is what I'm getting at too.

Sometimes we don't realize when we are stealing and we don't recognize it when we are affecting another negatively. Especially, with the relational aspect that you mention this is a good example, I think, of where Orthodoxy in practice falls really short; but, the field of Psychology can be very helpful in short order if even just in terms of holding up a mirror, so to say.

When you say not everyone needs to see a therapist, I agree too Paul. Not everyone does need to go running off to see a counselor--information from this field is easy to obtain and benefit from.

Yes . . . maybe the relational aspect of 'psychology and theology' together do provide an excellent springboard for this topic. Again, I wish Audrey was here. Maybe there are some other Orthodox Psychologists or Psychiatrists here at Monachos that could help in this area?

I normally have an aversion for most attempts to categorize humans and human behavior and human perception. But, as I get older, I think I am having a softening of this position. The more I observe others and myself, the more I can see that often times just to have some simple awareness and even the most basic recognition of a situation that we are involved in can in and of itself be the catalyst and all that is required to bring about real change and real transformation.

This is again why I say it is an ignorant statement to say something like awareness alone of a dysfunctional thing (or relationship) is useless. Sometimes when we become aware that we are stealing or effecting another in a negative way, this is all that is required to make a change or a shift.

I guess I am talking about 'changes' in our perception Paul and what it is that brings these changes about. Sometimes in order to experience a real transformation all that is needed is this kind of 'shift.'

And, this is what I didn't understand about Anna's writing in the other thread last week:




The quote you give plainly demonstrates that apart from Christ and submission to His grace, apart from the Way, the Truth and the Life that He has set forth in the Church, even this inner struggle to change is conditioned toward goals set from the human will, not from the Holy Spirit.



The quote Anna refers to is:

Patanjali's Yoga Sutra III.18

"Through sustained focus and meditation on our patterns, habits, and conditioning, we gain knowledge and understanding of our past and of how we can change the patterns that aren't serving us to live more freely and fully."

And this cause me to think, okay . . . let's forget about sustained focus and meditation, how about if we just pick up a given article from the field of psychology that brings about both changes in our perception and behavior in the time it takes to read the article.

Maybe it doesn't take years of asceticism and attendance at the liturgy to come to the realization that that pen in our pocket and those markers at our house were stolen from our office, or that we are involved with a harmful and dysfunctional pattern with another. Maybe we just need have these things brought to our attention in a simple and basic way.

Who is the one to say God does not work in the psychology of AA or the 12 step program? Who is the one to say the Holy Spirit is not a part of the psychology found in AA and this is just a good example of self-rule?

[Herman Blaydoe]

God works in many and mysterious ways. God is the ultimate opportunist using everything out there to bring us back to Him. But the clearest, most obvious way He does this is through the Church that He established for that very purpose.

Psychology and psychiatry can and do help people to cope with certain elements of a fallen world, but they are NOT in any sense the ultimate answer they often paint themselves to be. Only Christ is, and Christ is manifested most fully within the worshipping community of the Church and nowhere else.

If you have not already done so, a reading of Metropolitan Hierotheos' "Orthodox Psychotherapy" really helps put things into a proper perspective. Theology IS the ultimate psychology because we are created in the image and likeness of God, or so it seems to this bear of admittedly little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Rick H.]

That's a good and balanced answer Herman.

There might even be a Spiritual I Q question somewhere in the recent posts here in terms of something like is it better to be dogmatic a.) and never recant one's proclaimed dogma; or b.) never be dogmatic . . . or something akin to this. Sometimes I think we are dogmatic (especially when preaching 'at' someone) when we really should not be being dogmatic.

I am thinking of an old country radio preacher now named J.Vernon McGee. I guess he had a PhD so he wasn't a bumpkin, but I can still hear him in his old country man voice punctuating a point he just made by saying, "Now, if that sounds like I am being dogmatic . . . that is because I am being dogmatic." :) But, at least he was smart enough to not back down from his dogma because that would just make his entire point absurd.

[Rick H.]

Okay, let's try this another way:





I found that my practice of psychotherapy (btw, I am primarily a cogntive behaviorist) could be quite consistent with the goal and life of the Church, if only I gave first place to the cure of the soul (that is the work of the Church in each of us) and used my psychological training in service to that goal.



For those of us who agree that a practice of psychotherapy can be consistent with the goal and life of the church, and:





This is not to say that modernists [approach to psychology] do not uncover certain insights (projection/transference, etc.)



For those of us who agree that there have been insights uncovered in the field of psychology . . . why does there not seem to be much room allowed for these areas in our discussions here?

We have considered some of this before in other threads (especially where the biological and the psychological overlap). But, why does it seem like there is not much room allowed for these things?

I really appreciate Father David's post above making a distinction between what is a root cause and what is a symptom, and how we might address a root cause and how we might address a symptom. And, in light of this I guess I am just wondering out loud why does it seem like, more times than not, when an issue or type of dysfunction that comes up in the life of an Orthodox, it is met with conversation about "the spiritual" and "the mystical" and "the church" in each sentence or every other sentence--to the exclusion of that which addresses the biological and psychological--and, when a reference is made to addressing the symptoms or treating "the natural," at times, this train of thought is attacked or shouted down more than not? I think this is a fair question.

Simply put:

Why is this?

To me this is a huge blunder to not allow more room for this!





Definition of BLUNDER

intransitive verb

1: to move unsteadily or confusedly

2: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness

transitive verb

1: to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly

2: to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake in
— blun·der·er \-dər-ər\ noun
— blun·der·ing·ly \-d(ə-)riŋ-lē\ adverb

Examples of BLUNDER

We blundered along through the woods until we finally found the trail.
Another skier blundered into his path.
The government blundered by not acting sooner.

[Anna Stickles]

Rick,

If the doctor gives me medicine to help alleviate symptoms and is also prescibing treatment to cure the disease, which do you think is going to get more of a person's attention and energy? People don't want to be on medication all their life, especially as this can also cause side effects that are at times worse then the disease, and even when they work, only partially relieve the symptoms.

And anyway this is a site dedicated to Patristics not to psychology - so again which do you expect to get more press?

I can't remember very many posts that have totally put down psychology as useless, most have admitted that it has it's place, but I think that it simply is not what most people who are here on this forum are interested in exploring.

[Rick H.]

We have considered some of this before in other threads (especially where the biological and the psychological overlap). But, why does it seem like there is not much room allowed for these things?



Anna! LOL, I'm not writing about "room" as in press space, or the percentage of copy on monachos that speaks to "this" or "these things." I am talking about "room" in one's thinking and living, in one's life. If you read my post again knowing this it might come across differently. I can see how you would think I was talking primarily about posts on monachos here with my reference to threads and my reference to Father David's and Owen's posts.

Look at what I have said again in the above paragraph and the one below:




. . . in light of this I guess I am just wondering out loud why does it seem like, more times than not, when an issue or type of dysfunction that comes up in the life of an Orthodox, it is met with conversation about "the spiritual" and "the mystical" and "the church" in each sentence or every other sentence--to the exclusion of that which addresses the biological and psychological--and, when a reference is made to addressing the symptoms or treating "the natural," at times, this train of thought is attacked or shouted down more than not? I think this is a fair question.



I am not talking about posts on monachos, I am talking about the life of an Orthodox person.

And, as far as the posts go that you mention, look at my repeated parenthetical phrases above about the biological and psychological and where they overlap. I will bet that you can remember a post or two in the many threads that cover the things involved in this area from martial arts to plants growing in a field that we use as supplements. And, I'll bet you can remember more than a few posts that totally put these things down, complete rejection of any harmony with Orthodoxy.

"This" rejection is what I'm saying is a huge blunder.

"This" refers to a mindset and a way of living. And, "this" has real consequences and ramifications in the lives of real people in the real world. "This" is a dangerous mindset which can adversely effect all areas of our lives, including the spiritual.

So regardless of whether there are any with an appetite for discussing the original topic of this thread, Psychology (which does include biology) and Theology together . . . is it possible that there can be no interaction with the church fathers on this subject because there is no writing 'then' that could be used in such a conversation today?

Actually, Mike, your husband, has probably provided more quotes from patristics than anyone else in the threads that touch on the psychological and physical [P/P]. And, while we have many threads here about "Orthodoxy and fill in the blank Together," maybe this is a discussion that patristics cannot directly be engaged? I think someone said in another thread something like 'sin is sin but people did not have addictions in the days of the early church to the degree that people have addictions now, and this is why there is no writing that speaks directly to this like modern psychology.'

Maybe this is why some seem to not allow "room" for these things [P/P], because they don't see it in the ancient writing of the church, so to them it is a foreign thing, a barbaric thing, an evil thing. But, this way of thinking/knowing has much in common with our old "separatist" roots in the Independent Baptist world. I'm so glad to be out of that ignorant fundementalist isolationist mindset.

Well, I guess this makes sense to me . . . although, as it can affect real people in the real world--not too smart.

I guess I have answered my own questions:




Why is this?


To me this is a huge blunder to not allow more room for this!



To consider and treat the biological and psychological in this way is foreign to an historic Orthodox Christian approach . . . in terms of making a direct appeal to the treasury it's not gonna happen, so how can an Orthodox Christian allow "room" for this in her knowing, in her paradigm of ''The Life of the Church?"

Hmm . . . close circle, end scene.


PS In your metaphor above, it *really does* depend on the severity of the symptom (and synthetic drugs are not the only answer).

[Anna Stickles]

Rick, as far as additicitions in the ancient church go there is an interesting story in Dorotheos of Gaza's writings about someone who was a klepto. Could not stop stealing.

Do you want me to narrate the facts about a certain brother who got into the habit of indulging one of his passions? Listen to a story worthy to weep over. When I was in the cenobium, I don't know how it happened, but the brethren simply deluded themselves into entrusting me with their secret thoughts. The abba agreed and with the consent and approval of the seniors, he commanded me to carry out this service. One day, therefore, there came to me one of the brothers who said, `Forgive me and pray for me, because I steal and eat [outside the proper time].' I said to him, `Why is this? Do you get hungry all the time?' And he told me, `Yes, I don't get enough at the brothers' table and I cannot ask for more.' So I said, 'Why don't you go to the abba and tell him about it?' He replied, `I am ashamed to.' So I said, `Would you like me to go for you?' He said, `I leave it to you, father.' I went and told the abba, and he said to me, `Do what charity commands and devise the best means of curing him.' Then I took him to the cellarer, and said to him, `Do an act of charity and at whatever time this brother comes to you, give him as much food as he wants and do not hinder him in any way.' When the cellarer heard this, he said to me, `I will do exactly as you have commanded.'

This worked all right for a few days before the brother came to me and said, `Forgive me, father, because I have begun stealing again.' I said to him, `Why? Did the cellarer not give you whatever you wanted?' `Yes!' he replied, `he supplied whatever I asked for but I was filled with shame before him!' Then I said, `Are you not ashamed before me?' He said, `No.' So I said, 'All right, whatever you want, come and ask me for and you shall have it, but don't steal any more.' At that time I was doing service in the infirmary. So he used to come and get what he wanted from me. After some days he began stealing again and came in great trouble to tell me, `Look! I'm stealing again.' I said, `My dear brother, did I not give you everything you wanted?' And he said, `Yes!' I said, `Then why do you keep on stealing?' But he said, `Forgive me, but I don't know why. I simply feel the urge to steal.' Then I said to him, `If so, what do you do with what you have stolen?' And he said, `I give it to the donkey.' And I found that he had stolen scraps of bread, dates, figs, onions and anything else he could lay hands on. All this he hid, some under his bed, some in other places. And at last, not knowing what to do with it all, when he saw it was getting rotten, he finally went out and threw it away or gave it to the animals.

You see then what happens when a man gets the habit of giving in to his instinctive urges? Do you see what a miserable affliction it is? He knew it was evil, he knew that he was doing wrong, he was troubled and wept over it, and all the same the unfortunate man was dragged along by his evil habit, which he had made for himself by his previous negligence. It was well said by Abbot Nistheron that if a man is pulled down and carried off by a passion, he becomes a slave of that passion. May the good and merciful God shield us from bad habits lest we also should say (with the Psalmist), `What use is my blood if I go down into corruption?'

I have told you the different ways a man falls into bad habits. For if a man is angry once, he is not straightway called irascible; nor if a man falls once into fornication is he straightway called a fornicator; nor if a man does one act of mercy is he called a merciful man. But virtue and vice are formed in the soul by repeated actions, and ingrained habits bring peace or punishment with them.

We speak of virtue bringing rest to the soul an vice bringing punishment -- why the difference? Because virtue belongs to the nature we possess: the seeds of virtue are ineradicable. I say therefore, that insofar as we carry out what is good, we generate for ourselves a habit of virtue -- that is, we take up a state proper to our nature, we return to a state of health which belongs to us.....In the case of vice it is entirely different, by doing repeatedly what is evil, we acquire a habit which is foreign to us, something unnatural. We put ourselves as it were into a permanent state of pestilential sickness, so that we can no longer be healed without many tears, which have the power to attract Christ's compassion to us."

I know very little about psychology, but from what I do know, here are some questions to consider. How does this view of addiction differ - in its causes and cures and it's general view of man - from modern psychology? (Probably Fr David would have much more to say here) What about the relationships involved? From other readings we know that this man, although not able to escape this passion, at least had some favor from God as he was weeping over his sin (remember the point in the story is pastoral instruction intended to keep people from getting into bad habits in the first place, not about eternal ends)

How does psychology teach us to view our sin? Both views recognize that shame is not always helpful, but what does psychology have to say about godly sorrow leading to repentance, even in a case where if not a repentance strong enough for a cure, at least it begets a humility that strengthens our relationship with God? Doesn't psychology ignore this issue entirely? And yet this is a foundational point to the cure of the soul in Orthodox psychotherapy.

There were some really good posts by Fr Raphael on the Depression as a spiritual illness thread on this topic, that maybe I will try to gather together and bring over here.

[Anna Stickles]

"This" rejection is what I'm saying is a huge blunder.

There is a difference between a complete rejection and an honest discernment of what needs to be thrown out and what can be integrated into our life as a Christian.

Consider what Fr David said in his first post in this thread
"The goal of secular psychology is worldly happiness or the relief of personal conflict - but this is not always consistent with the cure of the soul. The goal of the Church, however, is the cure of the soul, the actualization of the likeness of God with which we were created. When the soul is cured, then there is no longer any need for symptom allieviation. Also the cure of the soul should always take precedence over temporal wellbeing and peacefulness."

So the issue is not a complete rejection of psychology, nor an acceptance, but a discrimmination that is able to see where what it is leading to is a self-centered search for well-being.

And some comments from Fr Raphael in an earlier thread on Depression

One thing not yet raised in this discussion but yet underlying everything that has already been said is the role of discrimination in man; or rather that aspect of man which allows him to discriminate between what is good and evil. This may sound straight forward when referring to what man is. But my point in bringing this up here is that we have an inherent ability (but often overlooked when engaging in the spiritual struggle) which in discerning what is good & bad, actually stands above it and thus to a degree is free. I would say that this incredible ability is what marks us chiefly as human and as made in the image & likeness of God. For it is this which allows us to rise above whatever holds us down. Otherwise our only reality- literally- would be sin and death.

I think then that what we are all trying to grasp is the degree to which psychology leaves us free in this regard. In other words to what degree, by its very own principles, psychology allows a person to rise above the sin and death which enslaves him/her; or else actually overtly or subtly enslaves us to this sin, and mainly to selfishness. I think that this is what we are all really discussing here.

If I could add a few words from a typical priest not greatly schooled about psychology. In standard pastoral practice, medicine is often allowed or urged, due to the state of the person being dealt with. There is the straight forward medical and physical side to this of course so that by taking the medicine the cold is cured. But there is also something beyond this which we also need to allow for, which is a measure of comfort and consolation which the taking of the medicine and of the cure or treatment allows to someone. In other words through such treatment someone can find a certain measure of peace or stability since now the illness is at least being cared for. This I would submit is important and should be allowed for in a positive way. It also certainly does not deny the continual need for faith since in any case no physical cure is ever assured.

The chief matter then I think comes down to what I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Psychology can be allowed whether its quality is really curative (at least symptomatically) or provides consolation that someone cares, that the affliction is being addressed. The chief problem though to discern is when psychology or any treatment only further enslaves someone to selfishness and sin. This to me is where we must be careful.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael


Perhaps in this discussion this is the real line between what is acceptable and what is not. Many different treatments and medications are allowed and even permitted. But this becomes harmful and self defeating if this treatment ends up leading us into further selfishness. Here it is not necessarily the governing philosophy behind this treatment that comes into effect but rather how we as Orthodox Christians relate to the treatment itself. Here I think for us is 'the eye of the needle' that allows us to navigate through many differing situations that outwardly may seem like dead ends but in reality can be worked on from within to lead to something better.

In any case, here even the question of suffering needs to be handled very carefully. We need to be sensitive to which suffering can become a redemptive cross for someone and which leads only to self destruction.


The sentence I underlined is at least to me a key point and one taking a lot of discernment.


... Therefore there are many things in life that we undergo that are more like driving through inclement weather than anything else. There is no way to avoid such; or it is not even proper at times to try to avoid it.

The main thing though is that we be aware that God has given us this gift and ability (I referred to this in my yesterday's post) to be able to navigate sanely through stormy waters even while much of our being- physically/mentally/spiritually is deeply suffering. I suppose though the question is how much of this suffering is actually from inner agitation and here we must be very careful. There can be a measure of peace- and this is what we must keep searching for in our suffering- amidst great turmoil that we have little ability to stop.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

This point about being able to have some measure of real peace in the midst of physical and psychological suffering, and where this peace comes from is something that psychology does not address at all. Its only view of a "cure" is not peace in the midst of suffering but total eradication of the symptoms, which of course is so very rarely found in this fallen world. Thus for psychology the thought has become pessimistic toward anything that can be considered a cure, and this can become very crippling if bought into by the person. Especially if they bring into the context of the Church this idea of what a cure is and start to seek it here instead. They are like someone who is never finding what they want because they are always looking for the wrong thing.

And now excuse me for two such long posts,

[Rick H.]

Anna!

Yesterday was my wife's Birthday and her Birthday party. Tonight is my Birthday party. I will consider your posts today a Birthday present. Very good stuff Anna (with a little help from Father Raphael), I am looking forward to coming back tomorrow to read these closely with the attention they deserve. I'll be leaving soon for the day and night, but I am looking forward to reading these in a way that will let me absorb and retain what is said. I didn't follow the depression thread. I wonder if there are more jewels like this still laying about over there?

Thanks again Anna, this is exactly why I try to attract you to certain threads. Very helpful as it relates to Psychology and Orthodoxy together and other.




So the issue is not a complete rejection of psychology, nor an acceptance, but a discrimmination that is able to see where what it is leading to is a self-centered search for well-being.



There's that term again that you used in the dialogue thread last week that got me thinking about this topic "self-centered" or was it "self-rule."

Talk to you later sis. :0)

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for the post by Dorotheos of Gaza. The obvious first impression is how fresh and new it sounds! It was written in the 6th Century! Yet it is so applicable to what ails us today. It is timeless. I am reminded of the story of the rich young man who asked Jesus what he should do above obeying all of the laws and ordinances of his faith, and Jesus says that he must give away all he has to the poor and follow him, and the young man went away sorrowful because he could not bring himself to do that. And yet that is precisely what we must do when we cling to our mental obsessions (passions). I also thought it was quite interesting to note the use by Dorotheos of the term "instinctive urges." It would be very helpful to know the original Greek terms here. But what strikes me as that modern psychoanalysis is based entirely on a theory of instinctive urges that are of necessity repressed by the requirements of civilization, and this is what leads to neurosis. Freud's approach was to bring the conflict to a point of analytical clarity, and at that point the person would no longer be obsessed by his neurotic activity. Freud identified a number of psychological "defense mechanisms" that he said people use in order to protect and defend themselves from their shame, which, again, if brought out into the open through analysis, could be overcome. Freud believed it was necessary for civilization to repress these instinctive urges, but later, Herbert Marcuse turned this upside down, and blamed repression for the problem, so that neurosis becomes a political problem. So the conventions of society must be overthrown and people must no longer suppress their instinctive urges. They must in fact act on them! Modern psychotherapy, on the other hand, is an outgrowth of liberal protestantism. It essentially blames reactionary civilization for man's neuroses, much like Marcuse, and it also is a kind of political statement. There are two many schools of thought and practice in psychotherapy to begin to list them, but self-awareness in each case is presumed to be the answer to the problem. As we can see in the case of the obsessive thief, the man had a perfect awareness of what he was doing, but it did him no good. In Orthodoxy, we make no bones about the fact that these obsessions are the result of demonic influences upon us that, because of the habitual condition of the problem, have completely taken over our rational free will. We are all exposed to demonic powers on a daily, perhaps hour by hour basis, but each time we try to fight them off based on our own self-will they seem to have an even greater hold on us until we are possessed. I suppose then that one could argue that Orthodoxy leads to a greater depth of self-awareness as to the nature of our problems, but I think that would be a case of semantic trickery, because the real solution is not more self-awareness, but rather to put ourselves entirely in God's hands, like the rich young man was told to do. But we fight that and we become sorrowful (depressed???) as a result. BTW, Karl Menminger, one of the world's most prominent psychiatrists of his day, late in life declared that he thought all mental illness was a case of demonic possession! And he wished that during his career he had made an effort to learn more from clergy on the subject. So what are we to do? While I would not hinge all Orthodox healing on this one point, I think it is safe to say that God has a sense of humor but the Devil does not. There more he can get us to take ourselves and our problems too seriously, the closer he is to victory.

[Kusanagi]

This was published back in April.

Russian Orthodox Church urges scientists to use discoveries of Christian ascetics in psychiatry

Moscow, April 15, Interfax - The Moscow Patriarchate urged scientists to study discoveries of Orthodox holy fathers in human psychology.

"Modern science has not absorbed or insufficiently absorbed a wealth of heritage left by the Early Christian spiritual and intellectual tradition," head of the Synodal Information Department Vladimir Legoyda writes in an article published by Izvestia newspaper.

According to him, one reason is that "the language of today's science was formed in Europe primarily by Christian believers; however, a large corpus of texts written by holy fathers has not been translated into this science language."

"Christian ascetics made such great discoveries in human nature that Freud couldn't even dream of, if I may say so. Of cause, not strictly scientific in form, they contain quite detailed descriptions of many psychological laws of personal development," the article says.

Legoyda states the Western culture went past the works of church fathers and Christian ascetics "who have been studying the secret laws of human soul for centuries"; so "this situation may be and needs to be changed."

"The church pastoral experience is well aware of such maladies inherent to the modern world and treated by psychiatrists as stresses, passions, tension and loneliness. Christianity has gathered unparalleled experience analyzing human soul which is undoubtedly indispensable to modern science," Legoyda added.

[Rick H.]

Where to start, there's so much good stuff here in these posts? Start at the beginning . . . make sure I'm hearing things correctly.

First Quote:



There is a difference between a complete rejection and an honest discernment of what needs to be thrown out and what can be integrated into our life as a Christian.



Good point, yes discrimination--this applies to many of our other discussions about the biological and psychological. Agreed Anna, very well put, no 'weasel words' here! And, this is helpful in terms of continuing this discussion in light of what the church fathers have written about discernment. You know, it seems like somewhere along the way in these kind of discussions we touched on this in another thread and specifically about discernment and the royal road . . . I can't remember where though right now. My memory is foggy this morning, but I think we included writing from John Cassian.

Second Quote:



So the issue is not a complete rejection of psychology, nor an acceptance, but a discrimmination that is able to see where what it is leading to is a self-centered search for well-being.



In the first quote here Anna, I'm right with you and admiring the way this is worded. But, in this second quote I get confused. In the first quote it seems like you are saying discernment is needed to consider what could be helpful to a person and what needs to be tossed into the ash can. But, in the second quote it sounds like you are saying discrimination is needed for the purpose of seeing that all psychologies lead to a self-centered search for well-being. On their own, I agree again, this is true.

But, when you say this there are you just reinforcing the fact that psychology divorced from the church leads away from the church and to the self-ish, or are you saying that all psychologies should all be thrown out in the life of a Christian? I am willing to bet a whole book of Father David's coffee vouchers that it is the latter, but I just want to make sure that I do understand you correctly at this early point.

Maybe I'm a little confused because to me "the issue," as you say, is not found in the second quote, but in the first.

[Rick H.]

Maybe instead of "leads to" I could understand this better if I changed your wording to "springs from?" . . . possibly, the whole point is:

'What is needed is: 1.) a discernment that can differentiate between what can be integrated and what should be thrown out; and 2.) the knowledge / discrimination that the appeal to psychology can spring from a self-centered desire for well-being (as opposed to being an aid, or a tool, on the path to salvation).

Possibly, in short, what is being said is it can be a blessing or a tool in the hand of God, but as Owen says, it can also be a curse or a tool in the hand of the Devil.

[Rick H.]

Thanks for your usual top shelf contribution Owen.

Initially, as I was reading your post, I was thinking to myself--what's he doing . . . you cannot say modern psychoanalysis is based on 'that' or modern psychotherapy is 'this.' But, then I kept reading until you wrote:




There are too many schools of thought and practice in psychotherapy to begin to list them, but self-awareness in each case is presumed to be the answer to the problem.



and, then I could see you were working toward comment and conclusion about self-awareness. I would agree that there is a common denominator in almost all psychotherapy which is one of educating their client and making him more aware of his self, regardless of the school of thought of the particular therapist.

And, again I agree that as in the case of the obsessive thief or an addict of any kind, there is a simple awareness of what they are enslaved to . . . whether it be called a passion or an addiction or something else, they know--and you are right, in this case it is not of any value to have a simple awareness of what they are doing. There is no point of revelation, there is no aha moment that occurs for the one who is dominated by a certain addiction/obsession, they already know, it is old news.

But, as I said above there are other cases whereby a simple awareness can be of great value. Sometimes we participate in things without realizing that we are caught in a particular snare or cycle. In the case of the stinking drunk, it is normally not a secret that she is a stinking drunk . . . but, in other cases of dysfunction, or especially when a passion is in it early stages, things are sometimes not obvious at all. And, while I used the subject of self-awareness earlier as more of a conversation starter or to possibly provoke some conversation about Orthodoxy in practice . . . this is a side issue.

Anna, has provided us with the main issue of this thread. But, just as Anna has provided us with the main issue, you have provided us with the crux of the whole enchilada (from my point of view anyway) in the following:




. . . because the real solution is not more self-awareness, but rather to put ourselves entirely in God's hands, like the rich young man was told to do.



Just like we read in many places in Christian Literature from the Scriptures to works like the early pages of Unseen Warfare, the conclusion of the whole matter in this statement is:




"The real solution is . . . to put ourselves entirely in God's hands"




When I was a preacher, this is what I would preach from the pulpit every single Sunday morning. I would present this in different ways regardless of the main topic or issue being dealt with on the given day. Until one day I realized that to say this or to preach this, without putting some meat on those bones, is to offer up a meaningless statement.

You know what I mean?

[Anna Stickles]

Rick,

Sorry about the confusing wording. I thought the context of the quotes provided by Fr David and Fr Raphael plus the first part of the sentence along with the rest of what I wrote would make it clear that I am not saying that psychology should be thrown out.

In that particular sentence I was stressing exactly what you say in #2 your reply. The emphasis was on using discrimination for noticing where (or maybe when would have been a better word since it emphasizes it is not all the time but just sometimes) selfishness is coming in because this is usually what is hard to notice. I didn't think that I needed to add that discrimination would be needed for when it is helpful, because I assumed this was understood.

[Rick H.]

Thanks for the confirmation Anna. I think it is just as you said elsewhere, we are saying the same thing but coming at it from two different directions.

[Rick H.]

Well, this is kind of nice to be in a group here, which makes up the majority, and which does allow room for something such as some aspects of psychology. I don't think I have ever expereinced this here before without at least a handful of folks trying to shout things down. Normally, Lucy pulls the football away just before I kick it . . . and I never get to this point without having to bail out with a quote like Fr. Sparks 'each as is appropriate to ones self,' or work toward an exit which concludes that it is a matter of pastoral care/direction on an individual basis.

Part of me wonders if this is the new norm, or if I should enjoy it while I can?

Now if we can just get some of this same train of thought to bleed over into certain discussions about certain treatments of the physical then my work here is done! :0)