Ed, Re: Your reply to Tim on the subject of anxiety and existentialism, I have some thoughts on Sabbatheology #54.If the word "anxious" denotes the human condition of "worry," then I would expect the Matthew passage to be an appropriate Crossing. However, because of personal and work experiences, including work for my psychiatric and clinical social work clients, I have a different take on the subject. I believe "anxiety" goes beyond the worrying we humans are prone to do. Also, I believe worry and concern should be differentiated. I really would have a hard time linking genuine concern about a person or a situation to God- mistrust or God-hatred. It would be my belief that Jesus did not have this in mind in Matthew 6. Rather, I would say that "concern" is a condition that would lead a person to or involve a "believer" with his/her Source=the Creator/God and to be communication with that source="prayer" and to take whatever action seems appropriate in the face of the concern. That, I think, is not inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus.
But there is an "anxiety" that is more extreme than concern or worrying or perhaps "angst." That kind of anxiety is due to a chemical imbalance as far as psychiatrists now know. Since or IF it is due to a chemical problem, a behavioral/cognitive approach is not effective in relieving it. And I think I'd agree with Tim that in some scripture passages, at least, a behavioral/cognitive approach seems to be indicated. Therefore, my thinking would be -- because it is not a matter of changing one's thinking or behavior by any form of communication (even with God), I don't think the diagnosis of God-mistrust fits that kind of anxiety. It's akin to saying that diabetes is related to a distrust of God.
One experience I had with anxiety was a result of working with a woman who experienced "anxiety attacks." Although she was treated by a psychiatrist and seemed to get relief, the job she & I were in could get pretty stressful at times. I'm not saying stress is the basic cause, but I am saying that it could trigger or exacerbate an attack. This woman eventually couldn't handle the job due to that kind of anxiety. But the experience got even more personal when my youngest daughter experienced these attacks. She went through a very bad period during her high school senior year in which she lost school time due to this incapacitation. One physical symptom was stomach pain. I sent her to a G.P/Family doctor to whom I'll forever be grateful for the care and time he took with both her and me. He could find nothing physically wrong with her. One Saturday he talked a long time to both of us by phone to encourage us to get counseling/therapy for her. He said "something (not physical) was bothering her." At the time, once of my clients was a clinical social worker who gave me a referral, and I made an immediate appointment.
She went for several sessions with this therapist. These did not involve any chemical treatment, but my daughter seemed to get better. At least she could get back to her class work and graduate. After she married and moved to Annapolis, MD, she continued her college education at the University of Maryland. Then around a Christmas/New Year holiday, she experienced a recurrence of "anxiety attacks." These were so severe that she was hospitalized and referred to a psychiatrist there, who diagnosed her and treated her initially.
One favorable thing on my daughter's side was that she did her own "homework" and dealt with her condition promptly after initial treatment. The psychiatrist she consulted after release from hospital related to her poorly and did nothing for her condition. So she "fired" him and found another, who prescribed medication designed to treat anxiety. After completing the regimen he prescribed about four years ago, she has had no more attacks so far.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that, as much as I appreciate the Crossing of Scripture with our human experience, I'm wary of too simplistic a diagnosis for some human conditions and frailties. I think if there's a Crossing for mental and emotional disturbances that afflict humans, the passages on Jesus casting out demons are more relevant. Jesus understood that the condition these people were in did not respond to rational thought or mental processes, were a condition over which the body or mind had no control because an inner "demon" was involved. Therefore, Jesus confronted the "demon" and not the individual in order to effect the cure. The belief and trust by the individual came after the fact, not before, in that particular case. In my daughter's case, the "demon" was the chemical imbalance which afflicted her mentally, emotionally and physically, incapacitating her. It was "cast out" by a medication that would confront the chemical imbalance. In conjunction with that, she may have received some sort of therapy such as behavioral/cognitive or Rogerian type counseling which would be helpful--but not until the "anxiety demon" had been confronted ("cast out").
What this all boils down to is that someway, somehow it is "The Great Physician/Psychiatrist" who is the ultimate source of healing. But it's my concept that healing sometimes goes through indirect processes involving other humans and the science or technology of the time and that sometimes it takes place without cognitive or conscious processes on the part of an individual in relation to faith/trust in God.
Donna.
Before long John Pfitzner, book editor at the publishing house, a dear friend, sent me a 6-page letter chronicling the Sturm-und-Drang their translation committee had had with the one word "fuerchten," and why they finally opted for "honour." At least 5 more long letters have crossed the Pacific since then in our continuing discussion. In our most recent one John came up with a felicitous English rendering for "Gottesfurcht" that made me want to stand up and cheer. To hear how I cheered, read what follows.
May 28, 1997
Dear John,I think you've got it! (As Henry Higgins said to Eliza Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY)
I think you've got Gottesfurcht put into today's English with that oh-so-crisp-and-clear rendering near the top of p. 2 in your letter of 18 May, just received here in the US heartland. To wit: "you are answerable to God."
Since we started this exchange on how to say Luther's Gottesfurcht in today's English, you've been holding out for an alternate to the word "fear" because its basic connotation to English-hearing ears today is "being afraid of," and thus it does not convey "fearing God" as being "answerable to God." And you've said "honour" was the best we had. All the while I've been beating the drum with my claim that "honour" too does not do the job, does not initially bring "answerable to God" to people's minds today.
But through all these exchanges I didn't want to urge Open Book to return to the vocable "fear" in place of the vocable "honour" which your translation committee chose. If that is what you heard me saying, I was giving you an "unclear signal." My thought is that neither verb--fear or honour--readily signals "answerable to God" in today's English. So Gottesfurcht calls for a dynamic equivalent translation, a re-wording of the thought, not just the vocable "Gottesfurcht." And "answerable to God" is just that. Similar renderings such as, "accountable to God," or "responsible before God," might be candidates, but for now I think your "answerable to God" is the best.
Ergo, my 'druthers for rendering Luther's explanations of the decalogue in the Small Catechism into today's English would be something like this:
WHAT DO THESE TEN COMMANDMENTS MEAN?
- Cite OT text. What does this mean? We are answerable to God for everything in our life. Our calling is to love and trust God alone in all that we are and do. [Or: Our calling is to give no person or power a place in our hearts above God.]
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts when we call upon God's name and power. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts when we meet God in worship. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts as we live in the family where God has placed us. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts when any other person crosses our path. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts in the realm of our sexual life. So we should. . . .
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts when we see the gifts that God has given others. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts as we interact with others in the public arena. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts when desires for earthly security arise within us. So we should not....
- We are answerable to God and called to give God highest place in our hearts when we see someone else having things that we want. So we should not....
- Will such a rendering "play in Peoria"--or whatever the OZ equivalent is? Maybe "catch on in Kiwirrkurra" or "sing in Sydney?"
Peace & Joy! Ed