The Case for Psychological Medications & Treatment.

Today I’m not going to talk about a product or service in a specific sense, but rather a more underlying philosophical approach to the mind. My hope in this post, in conjunction with the series of posts on books relevant to the major mental disorders, is to raise awareness of mental illness and remove some of the stigma of receiving treatment (medically or otherwise).

On Medication & Side Effects:

I do not want to discount the real concern that there are potential side effects from consuming medications that interact with our minds. Unlike many of our other organs which we understand to a great degree, the brain still resides as a major mystery and our treatments for aberrations in this mysterious and fascinating organ are far more primitive than any of us would desire. On the other hand, I’d like to share a few observations in my personal battle in deciding to consume medications:

  • The damage from mental aberrations is certain, the damage from medications is small (or unknown). Peter D. Kramer in his book Against Depression writes, “In the aged brain, strokes cause more injury than they do in the young brain, and so do infections, blood clots, inflammation, low blood sugar, seizures–you name it. Prior exposure to stress (and to stress hormones) is the critical factor in this age-related vulnerability. More stress in the past makes an animal more brittle in old age. Both neurons and their protectors, glial cells, are at risk.” “Much of the damage done by stress hormones is to the stress-response system itself. The brain is a complex communications network, one cell reaching out to another. In the face of stress hormones, neurons lose connective wiring. In particular, cells in the hippocampus shed receptors for incoming messages about stress. The hippocampal cells also lose dendrites, the branches that connect a neuron to neighboring cells and transmit outgoing messages. Like overwhelmed people who withdraw from social contact, overwhelmed neurons in the hippocampus become isolated.” (pg. 117) Point being, while there may be unknown long-term side-effects to taking a medication there is no doubt about the health effects of untreated aberrations on the human mind.
  • We have a certain fear of losing ourselves through medication. We ask ourselves, “are we just druggies, in need of a fix to make ourselves feel good?” We ponder whether there is not some good side to our illness.1 I don’t want to tackle this question in too much depth, but let me briefly summarize my position. There are lessons that can be learned while undergoing a challenge of any form – physiological, mental, familiar, economic – but these lessons are pain that is utilized by God for good, they are not in themselves good. In the Scriptures we do not find Jesus (the incarnation of God) saying to those who asked for healing, “I’m sorry. Its better for you be ill. I won’t heal you.” No, we find him bringing hope and healing. There is more than enough pain in this world, more than enough challenges, lets not purposely embrace unnecessary challenges – lets heal where we can and depend on the grace of God throughout. We fear that society would lose a certain portion of itself without those who mentally struggle. We ask what would have history been like if individuals like Martin Luther, Picasso, van Gogh, Kierkegaard, George Fox, and so many others of our great minds had not suffered?2Peter Kramer tackles this topic extensively in Against Depression, a book that while to all appearances on the disorder of depression has more to do with fighting the cultural value we have given depression (and can be extended logically to other disorders).2 This is the question, but we are simply asking it the same way. One does not lose depth without disorder. When one removes the disorder one finds greater ability to tap and manage depth. The disorder disables the individuals, removing capacity to innovate, it does not add to it.
  • Yet, there is still a concern about the medication. There is no doubt that medication can affect us in ways we do not expect – in fact covering over portions of what we consider our personality. Sometimes the side effects are the exact opposite (though only in a very small minority) of what is expected – instead of relieving depression or anxiety it increases it. This is why I suggest the involvement of a community in the process is essential. At the most basic one’s psychiatrist, but preferably including friends and family. These individuals can objectively help you understand the effects of the medication on your daily behavior and assist in determining whether the medication is allowing the real you to shine out or masking it (the latter is marginal, but possible).
  • We assume that medical illness is a choice we face in isolation, but it is not. While we assume that refusing treatment is solely our suffering we cannot underestimate the impact of our suffering on others. The lack of energy we feel translates into a lack of energy for friends and family. The sudden bouts of rage we battle flies out at the most uncomfortable times – at work, with our wives or children. Our illness is real and affects those around us. If our worldview is twisted, we impart this twisted worldview to those we interact with to some extent. We must recognize the extent of others suffering.
  • We oftentimes assume that our suffering isn’t that bad. We are resilient people in many senses. Many of us operate on a decently functional level without medication. Especially as adults we learns methods of coping with our foibles. But there is a great difference between functionally nominally well and functioning to one’s true human potential.3When I speak to “true human potential” I do not mean the actual perfection of mankind. I do not want to embark on a theology lesson, but it is my firm belief that we are beyond hope in (via natural means) redeeming our broken selves (and thus in need of a more than natural (supernatural) escape). When I speak of “true human potential” I mean a level of functioning which we as broken humans can embrace. It is not the full escape, but it is better than. The individual with clotted heart may need stints, this will make life better – allowing him to act to his “full potential” as opposed to without stints. At the same time the individual still is not “whole” in the sense of having a perfect heart. Some of us have been suffering for so long that we don’t know what it is like to be free. Even after a short while in the grip of a mental illness it feels natural, as if this is the way things should be. Yet I have experienced (and proudly bear witness to) becoming more myself (and it is the self I strove for but could not be) when accepting and receiving treatment.

What About Them Psychologists/Counselors?

There is a fear of psychologists/counselors that permeates many and especially among those who would consider themselves Evangelical Christians (of which I consider myself a constituent). The fears are not entirely unfounded. There have been individuals who have seen a counselor/psychologist who provided bad advice and have changed their lives for the worse because of this advice4Probably one of the most ready examples to Christians is recommendations to divorce a spouse.. But I would suggest that we need not fear the psychologist (or counselor) but instead the uncritical thinking and lack of contextual support that allows illegitimate beliefs to grow. In my opinion, a counselor is an individual to dialogue with about our lives and whom we allow to speak honestly and openly with us about the issues they see in our lives.55. With Larry Crabb (Soul Talk: The Language God Longs for Us to Speak), it would be my hope that eventually this sort of “soul care” could be performed by one another. Unfortunately, at this juncture, too often this help is not available and those around us (including ourselves) are not able/willing to enter into the required depth of dialogue. When we give someone permission to explore our life and philosophy this does not mean we give them permission to determine our beliefs. We can and should critically evaluate each suggestion for its truthfulness. Additionally, I would suggest that counseling becomes much safer when one uses it as a primary means of exposing the difficulties in ones life but then also utilizes a secondary support system to give you context to the recommendations and issues raised. While many people are not prepared to provide the depth of inquiry and feedback that a counselor can, many of them are willing to discuss with you individual subjects which the psychologist raises. Thus the danger of psychology is not that there may be false beliefs but that we uncritically and without contextual relational support accept such beliefs. No individual has perfect knowledge, every encounter is a mixture of truth and error, this is true even for professionals. We must be willing to battle for truth on our turf, not simply accept the pronouncements of others. That said, having someone challenge our belief system can help us revise and strengthen our belief systems in ways that allow us to live better lives.6 When I speak of better lives I mean in many ways – less painful, less stressful, etc. But to me the ultimate depiction of a better life is the ability to love and know God and one another despite circumstances. Everything else is frosting on the cake.

Are We Willing to See Ourselves?

When it really comes down to it, my argument is not so much particularly for psychological medications and treatment – but for the willingness to explore ourselves, and not solely internally. You can sit down and talk with a psychiatrist and a psychologist without taking medication and without accepting their advice. But perhaps it is worthwhile to ask the question? To open ourselves to the possibility? To ask someone else, “Do you hurt this way every day? Do you feel this anxious? Do you have this much trouble sleeping?” So often we assume our suffering is normative, when it is anything but.

Please feel free to give me some feedback on this post. I know this post has been much more ideological than many others I have posted but I want to engage you in discussion about this. I am at much risk of mixing truth with error as any other fallible human being. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why God said after creating everything else “good” that “it is not good for man to be alone.”7 In an ultimate theological sense, even the community of mankind is not enough. We can do better by working together, but we still find ourselves to fall short. Extra-natural inspiration and revelation is needed (I could just say “supernatural” but this word is beaten to death like a horse and connotes all sorts of wishy-washy sentimentalism that so many reject without considering the underlying import of the word. By changing words I am not changing the meaning but simply attempting to force us to process those things with which we have become so comfortable (or uncomfortable).)

Book Review: Diary of an Old Soul (Author: George MacDonald)

photograph of george macdonald
Image via Wikipedia

One of my favorite books is a slim little volume by George MacDonald entitled Diary of an Old Soul. George MacDonald is one of those fantastic authors who maintains timelessness across the span of time and who speaks to the human condition with unfailing contemporaneity. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, MacDonald fell a bit out of favor even with C.S. Lewis constantly pointing back to MacDonald as his inspiration. Its about time MacDonald was rediscovered.

Diary of an Old Soul consists of daily poems – only a few lines long – that George MacDonald wrote chronicling his relationship with God over an entire years time after losing two of his children in the same year to death.

You can pick this small volume up for less than $15 at almost any bookstore – and it is such a light and powerful read – I highly recommend it.

My Struggle with Faith (Joseph Girzone) – Review Part 1.

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica
Image via Wikipedia

When I read books I take notes. Usually I take these notes on my computer – so that I can search through them at a later time – when I want them for something I am writing or a sermon I am preparing. When a book is especially filled with interesting or noteworthy material I end up taking a pen to it – b/c I am too impatient to write all the entries while reading into my computer…then I’ll go back later and put the notes into the computer (or at least so I tell myself…sometimes it doesn’t happen). On rare occasions there are books that are so filled with wisdom that I almost end up underlining the entire volume. Girzone’s book falls high on this scale.

Over a number of upcoming posts I’m going to delve piece by piece into Girzone’s My Struggle with Faith, an autobiographical and gently polemical explanation of his theological understanding. I want to take this as an opportunity to both laud the highpoints of the book as well as note some areas of disagreement which my personal theology reflects with Girzone, and specifically where those disagreements reflect the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism.

For those who are not familiar with Girzone, he was a Catholic priest who after retiring began writing books about a man named Joshua – a modern day Jesus – and how this man interacted with the church as well as the rest of the world. They are beautifully and powerfully written and enjoyed by both Protestants and Catholics.

Girzone writes his book in a somewhat unique unfolding manner that follows him through his personal ventures with faith and reveals bit by bit what he learned with age and struggle. As such, one feels much as a co-traveler throughout much of this extremely readable and yet profound book. Lets begin just with the introduction and opening chapter today…


Only two pages long rather than explain I will simply quote a key portion of this note:

“Belief itself is not simple. It is not a single conviction or idea. It is a complex network of convictions that subconsciously evolves over a lifetime into what becomes our philosophy of life, and the engine that drives us, and in the process transforms all our relationships with God and all God’s creatures.” (pg. xi)

Chapter 1. Is There a God?

Girzone shares how in childhood he had a deep and experiential faith and was a model follower of Christ. But as he progressed in age he found himself questioning:

“My problem was the guilt I felt in questioning what I had been taught. But then I began to realize that I was not being disloyal; I was just trying to understand. My next question was: Am I losing my faith? I knew that my faith was still strong, but I had a need to understand why I believed. And that did not mean that I was losing my faith.” (pg. 2)

He went off to seminary at the young age (to me) of fourteen and notes that during the first year experientially his relationship with God was amazing but that during his sophomore year, “I could no longer feel God’s presence. I could no longer feel the love of Jesus in Communion. My heart had turned cold and empty. I became depressed and frightened.” (pg. 3)

Girzone throughout this chapter reflects heavily upon the deadness of his emotional/experiential relationship with God – something which I can identify with during significant portions of my life…I sometimes ponder if I have been destined in part to repeated Dark Nights of the Soul (St. John of the Cross).

Girzone reports, “…it all left me cold…could not pray. It was a drudge. It was without feeling or comfort.” (pg. 3) I love how he reflects on Moses leading forth the Israelites from Egypt – so many hundreds of thousands of people – and how this was depressing rather than relieving to him. I have echoed this fear of success or calling in my own life.

He powerfully describes his continuing struggle on page 5, “At night I would slip down to the chapel and, in the darkness and emptiness, hope I would find God again. It didn’t happen. I just sat there dumb and broken. Gradually a deep depression drifted through my being like a heavy fog that settles on a mountainside and obliterates all reality of the village below. The spirit world was now deeply lost in that fog, and all the joy and comfort it used to bring me.” Haha, I apologize if I focus on this too much – but these passages struck such a resounding echo in my own life.

In the midst of all this Girzone never doubted that he was called to be a priest, even though at his ordination he was still suffering from doubts – more than ten years later! Yet Girzone also notes that all was not empty. While the feelings were not present the growth in knowledge and grace was present, “even though I no longer had the emotional sense of God’s presence, that presence was revealing itself in a much deeper way and at a higher level than mere emotion, as if God was leading me somewhere that was unfamiliar…” (pp. 6-7)

It is at this juncture that we get the first hints that Girzone will not be the ideal image of the religiously and politically conservative priest. He argues strongly against capital punishment and suggests it is worse than murder (pg. 7) and he begins for the first time to begin offering insight into the resolutions to some of his questions of faith – particularly how his observations of the complexity of nature and the reality of the universe inspired his belief in God. I think both arguments are fairly strong – and powerful when you read them in the context.

So far it is a great read – I recommend it. 🙂 I’ll unfold my perceptions as we work through the book – much as Girzone unfolded his – allowing the complete thought to be slowly unfurled.