Depression as Passion: Easter Cont’d
Hang on folks, I’m not depressed; I’m ok.
But someone out there might be. And you might even be a Christian, and yet baffled that you are experiencing this. I know first-hand that crazy feeling; the baffling “why am I, a Christian, going through these feelings, this experience?” And yet having climbed out of that depth several times in my life, I have yet to think theologically about it; i mean who would? But this stream-of-thought spurred on by a reading in Hans Urs Von Balthasar has caused me to realize the theological significance of the private hell we go through when depressed – it is an identification with the passion of the Christ; and this, hinted by Balthasar, is what is happening. Essentially the passion of God on a cross is incarnated in us. See if any shrink will tell you that. Here is the original snippet from Balthasar, The Word Made Flesh, pp. 199-200 (rather than cut and paste, I’m actually typing it out – it’s that good – to get it into my noggin):
These experiences constitute the vast, limitless field of the “dark nights,” which, as described by those who underwent them, are so strikingly similar and yet offer such a variety of individual aspects. To my knowledge, no theology has seriously undertaken the task of seeing them as a whole and evaluating them from the point of view of dogma…
Why should we persist in ignoring the detail of these sufferings, makign not the least attempt to use, for a better understanding of the faith, these experiences so valuable for the Church? The important thing is not the “mystical phenomenon,” nor even solely the co-redemptive function given as a grace, but the fact that something of the passion is, through the grace of the Head, constantly being made present in the body, adn that the body needs to understand what is happening there by relating it to the Head as its source and end.”
Hey Wayne,
As usual, I appreciate your choice of topic as well as thoughtful approach. One thing, though, that I have always struggled with in this regard is what we do with mental illness or chemical/clinical manifestations of depression. While there is obviously a fine/blurry line between circumstantial and chemical clinical depression, on both sides of which we can clearly identify with the Passion, there is a way in which it is harder to do this with other kinds of depression, particularly that associated with illnesses like bipolar disorder/manic depression, which is so all-consuming, debilitating, dangerous and irrational, or even depression associated with OCD or schizophrenia. Should mental illness, too, be seen as a way to participate in Christ’s suffering? If so, this is a difficult truth to wrap one’s mind around, in terms of the exact outworking of God’s sovereignty in human chemical function. Any thoughts?
A
@Anna
Anna, I think the relation between brain chemistry and circumstance, background, culture, etc (internal/external) is much more pronounced than we want to admit. It’s unfortunate that saying that is not OK. There is intense social pressure to attribute depression to mere chemistry and by so doing remove its stigma. But the fact that we can’t talk about non-chemical reasons for depression proves that it is still a very great stigma. Check out Comfortably Numb, a book on this. The author claims that while paralyzing depression is certainly a reality, the vast majority of what is called depression these days is existential. He claims that drug companies have made a bundle by expanding the definition of clinical depression to include just about anything.
@Anna ,
@Rob
Hey guys. I would totally agree on Rob’s indictment of the pharmaceutical co’s. And also on the existential bit. My personal experience(s) was chemically related, but that was certainly not the only thing happening there; it was an intricate web of so many things psychological, social, physiological, and definitely spiritual. In a funny way, it was a beautiful thing that happened to me.
But I feel like what you’re saying Anna is perfectly the point; when we consider “abnormal psychology” isn’t that a way of bracketing or labeling something deeply profound happening in someone? I think of Jesus’ encounters with the tormented, oppressed, possessed. He didn’t just write them off as “crazy.”
That’s why Balthasar hit such a nerve w/ me; he’s just challenging us young scholars to tap into the theological riches out there for contemporary implications; I haven’t thought deeply yet about what the passion incarnated in us who suffer psychologically means… but that’s a dissertation right there that I’m guessing very few have tackled yet.
If we take Balth’s approach, Patristic theo is applicable to a host of contemporary issues – stuff I think about like affirmative action, or psychological disorder, or the dark night of the soul, or race relations, or hierarchical ecclesiology, or missional church, ad nauseum.
although I foresee that this approach (I guess it’s termed Nouvelle Theologie) could be taken too far. I’ve been hearing more and more critics of “social Trinitarianism” which kind of undercuts what I’m saying. But I’m in good company; Ross Hastings, Miroslav Volf, Jurgen Moltmann – to name a few – would probably all qualify as such. I asked one of Regent’s professors about this, to which he replied, “They’re all wrong!” Gotta love it…
and because I like to hear myself talk – (but more so that I don’t forget this stuff) – Radical Orthodoxy (John Milbank) seems to be onto the same thing. From wikipedia:
The name ‘radical orthodoxy’ was chosen in opposition to certain strands of so-called radical theology, for example those of Bishop John Shelby Spong. Such forms of radical theology asserted a highly liberal version of Christian faith where certain doctrines, for example, the incarnation of God in Christ and the Trinity were denied in an attempt to respond to modernity. In contrast to this, radical orthodoxy attempted to show how, in fact, the orthodox interpretation of Christian faith (as given primarily in the ecumenical creeds) was in fact the more radical response to contemporary issues, both rigorous and intellectually sustainable.