The nature of persons: Monism or duality?
June 18th, 2007[Editor note: this is Dr. Ed Welch's second post for the month of June. In this post he considers the consequences of seeing the nature of persons from a monistic rather than the historic dualistic perspective.]
Do you remember the days when human beings were neatly divided into three relatively separate compartments? We were body-soul-spirit, and each part had its own expert: the body belonged to the medical doctor, the spirit to the pastor, and the soul to the psychologist. Since it was one of the few widely accepted theological axioms, it ruled over Christian psychology from the 1960’s to the turn of the century. It has probably had more impact on our present discussions within Christian counseling than we realize.
But without warning, this view of the person disappeared. Apparently, it was attached to modernism, and it was run out of town by postmodernism and it’s successors. You can still find those who won’t let it go, but this remnant lives isolated from present-day discussions. Neuropsychology, for example, has long been monistic, though you can detect a tip of the hat to duality in discussions about bottom up and top down relationships (“bottom” being our neurological hardwiring, “top” being our cognitions). Theological discussion is also leaning toward versions of “Hebraic monism,” though duality is tolerated.
Call me old-fashioned, I have not yet been persuaded by the monistic arguments, so as of today, I find that duality – that we are embodied souls – best fits both Scripture and human experience.
You can find teaching on duality in most any theology text book. The counseling task is to shake the dust off old theological formulations and ask practical questions such as, So what? What difference does it make that we are embodied souls? Christian counselors, from my perspective, are applied or practical theologians.
Before posing some applications of this theology, we need some clarity on what we mean by inner person, heart, mind, spirit, and soul. With only two ontological categories from which to choose, all these are now overlapping perspectives on the same spiritual core of the person. They all accent that we are connected to God in everything we do. We have our loyalties to him or to ourselves. Granted, there are nuances among these different words, but they universally emphasize the God-wardness of all of life. For example, the Greek word nous, usually translated as “mind,” is not so sterile as cognitive therapists make it out to be. Rather, thoughts are anchored in our spiritual allegiances.
Here are possible applications of our ontological duality.
• There are ways that the body cannot affect the inner person (a.k.a., heart, spirit, soul, mind). The body is wasting away but a deteriorating body, even at the level of the brain, does not leave us morally incompetent (2 Cor. 4:16). Simply put, the body can not make us sin. This has innumerable applications to psychiatric disorders.
• Emotions and cognitions are no longer in a discrete category that is separate from “spiritual” matters. Emotions don’t just simply exist, as they are an expression of the inner person they are a kind of language. They reveal the heart. They are interpretations of our world. They point to our spiritual allegiances. Anger, for example, typically says, “I have been wronged, and I authorize myself to be judge, jury and executioner.” More deeply, it says, “I will be a god rather than trust the Righteous Judge.”
• Emotions can also be authored more by the body than the inner person. Emotions, after all, are physical phenomena. A host of problems in the body and brain can affect our emotions. Ontological duality does not always lend itself to simplistic formulations.
• With regard to medication, this ontology gives guidance on what it can do and what it can’t. For example, medication can affect bodily functioning. As such, since emotions are dependent on the physical body, we can expect that psychiatric medications can affect emotions both positively and negatively. But they cannot motivate obedience to or love for Jesus Christ. That is the purview of our hearts.
Lurking under the various differences within Christian counseling are matters of theological anthropology. Who is the person? Of what do we consist? At issue is not that some counselors have a theology of the person and other’s don’t. The reality is that everyone has an action-guiding theology of the person. Sometimes that theology is implicit, other times it is explicit. A reasonable goal for Christian counselors is that we ferret out our deep theological assumptions, submit them to exegetical scrutiny, and engage in the task of practical theology.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Would you say that the deterioration of the body removes ways that we hide sin?
For instance, I’m thinking of a Christian man who usually has a gentle and kind demeanor. As Alzheimer’s developed, however, he would occasionally have fits of anger and sometimes use foul language. Is this something that was already in the heart but was previously subdued by the body?
June 19th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Ed,
I have some slight reservations about the manner in which you describe the division of body and soul. You mention that discussion is leaning towards Hebraic monism (or versions of it), though dualism is “tolerated.” In my view, well meaning theologians have brought Greek anthropological assumptions to the Bible, and, consequently, we experience the entanglement of the two. The Hebrew word “nephesh” is a catch all word that describes not only the “soul,” but the person himself in the flesh. The relationship between the soul and body is an organic one, as we are created both of dirt and of the saliva of God. I understand that things become sticky when speaking about resurrected bodies, but I think Jesus, not Greek anthropology, should be our paradigm for interpreting the makeup of our person. After the resurrection, Jesus ingested food and walked through walls, demonstrating both physical and non physical attributes. My point is that I don’t think the lines between body and soul are quite as distinct as many evangelical Christians (I am one) seem to believe. God created both soul and body (if we are to use such categories), is intensely interested in both, and will perfect both.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 am
Ed,
Great thoughts and reflections! You’re right about the current popularity of monism and I’m also with you on the truth of something like minimal substance dualism (cf. C. Stephen Evans) or holistic dualism (cf. John Cooper).
One question that still puzzles me about Nancey Murphy et al.: Can physicalist monism make sense of a Christian doctrine of sin? I just can’t see how, and that’s one of the problems I see with nonreductive physicalism …
Thoughts?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Ed,
It is my view that the nature of persons is much more complex than dualism would suggest. I have looked at this issue from a systems point of view and how Kierkegaard and the scriptures offer a much more robust analysis of human behavior, both fallen and redeemed, than is currently argued. Please visit my web site http://www.interpsychinc.com and download the word.doc and power point presentation from the human behavior seminars page that provide a narrative analysis as regards how Kiekegaard’s spheres of meaning and my spheres of obedience might move the ball forward as regards a potential theory of Christian psychology
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
A Christian clarification of the unconscious mind system appropriates dualism with capacity to re-examine and re-structure secular psychological and philosophical ideology. When grace enabling faith constitutes a born again new creation in Christ, a foundational split occurs in the unconscious system. The personal-original sin unconscious configurations (Plato, Kant, Hegel, Freud, Jung, M. Klein, Bion, Matte-Blanco, Lacan, Grotstein, etc.) formulated within a faulted universal unconscious/conscious, subjective/objective; constitute a nurture, emotional evolution, logic, and language void of communion grace relationship with God. The redeemed unconscious re-structures, evoking and enabling a healing sanctification process to utilize and interpenetrate profound elements of secular knowledge and realize relational emotional security within a proposed scriptural enactment.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Ed,
It seems to me that if man is made in God’s image according to His likeness, then the trinity of the triune God becomes the foundation for studying human ontology. And that translates into the soul, body, spirit. Each part of the human ontology has a corresponding likeness in the Godhead.
The Bible presents that tri-ontology in the creation, death, and salvation of man. And the Bible is precise and consistent in its use of the ontology terms.
With this biblical foundation of ontology, it becomes possible to develop a biblical psychology that can can be used in counseling, teaching, and daily living. Why has it not been done? The writer of the Book of Proverbs understood it, and he/they wrote out the greatest textbook on human psychology. And the church has an even greater body of knowledge to work with compared with the writer of Proverbs.