From a very early, as-of-yet uncollected short story “The Planet Trillaphon As It Stands In Relation To The Bad Thing”. He’s writing about depression (i.e. the Bad Thing), but one could almost substitute “sin” for “bad thing.” As we all know, it is easy to cling to human agency and willpower when it comes to less significant problems. But depression (or anger, or addiction for that matter) is not one of them. DFW paints a perfect and frankly rather horrifying picture of man in need of a solution outside of himself:
“Because the Bad Thing [depression] not only attacks you and makes you feel bad and puts you out of commission, it especially attacks and makes you feel bad and puts out of commission precisely those things that are necessary in order for you to fight the Bad Thing, to maybe get better, to stay alive. This is hard to understand but it’s really true. Imagine a really painful disease that, say, attacked your legs and your throat and resulted in a really bad pain and paralysis and all·around agony in these areas. The disease would be bad enough, obviously, but the disease would also be open·ended; you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. Your legs would be all paralyzed and would hurt like hell … but you wouldn’t be able to run for help for those poor legs, just exactly because your legs would be too sick for you to run anywhere at all. Your throat would burn like crazy and you’d think it was just going to explode … but you wouldn’t be able to call out to any doctors or anyone for help, precisely because your throat would be too sick for you to do so. This is the way the Bad Thing works: it’s especially good at attacking your defense mechanisms. The way to fight against or get away from the Bad Thing is clearly just to think differently, to reason and argue with yourself. Just to change the way you’re perceiving and sensing and processing stuff. But you need your mind to do this, your brain cells with their atoms and your mental powers and all that, your self. And that’s exactly what the Bad Thing has made too sick to work right. That’s exactly what it has made sick. It’s made you sick in just such a way that you can’t get better. And you start thinking about this pretty vicious situation, and you say to yourself, ‘Boy oh boy, how the heck is the Bad Thing able to do this?’ You think about it – really hard, since it’s in your best interests to do so – and then all of a sudden it sort of dawns on you… that the Bad Thing is able to do this to you because you’re the Bad Thing yourself! The Bad Thing is you. Nothing else: no bacteriological infection or having gotten conked on the head with a board or a mallet when you were a little kid, or any other excuse; you are the sickness yourself. It is what ‘defines’ you. You realize all this, here. And that, I guess, is when if you’re all glib you realize that there is no surface to the water, or when you bonk your nose on the jar’s glass and realize you’re trapped, or when you look at the black hole and it’s wearing your face.”
COMMENTS
44 responses to “David Foster Wallace on Depression, Powerlessness and Other Bad Things”
Leave a Reply
DZ, thanks for that. Really brilliant stuff.
Great piece, Dave.
One of the great insights of the Reformation was to return to the Biblical witness of understanding ALL forms of human brokenness as the same thing — as sin. The Law, along with Bobby McFerrin, tells us among other things "Don't worry. Be Happy." People bound in depression and anxiety and panic attacks are in violation of the Law.
Unfortunately that insight was lost shortly after the Reformation with the rise of moralism (see the great book by Fitz Alison with that title) in which sin became not a STATE but freely and consciously chosen moral acts.
This moralistic understanding of sin has been the dominant paradigm in all churches for some time (Protestant or Roman, liberal or conservative). You can see it, for example, in the current ferocious debates between left and right Christians on issues of sexuality. Liberals insist that certain states are unchosen (and therefore not sin) while conservatives angrily respond that these are choices (and therefore sin). The idea that something could BOTH be sin and unchosen is completely outside the reckoning of both sides.
StampDawg, I just want you to know that I really enjoy reading your posts and comments. This comment is no different. Good stuff man.
I second Colton's comment!
StampDawg–Liked your comment. But I don't really understand your claim that "The Law…tells us among other things 'Don't worry. Be Happy.'" What "Law" are you talking about? God's Law seems to tell me just the opposite, that I am "stuck" and "dead" and in dire need of rescue from it's just and right demands. That is why we read the 10 Commandments, or the summary of the law according to Jesus, in church, because the Law leads us to confession and forgiveness through the grace of God in Christ. We don't read the Law because it tells us don't worry be happy.
Anyway, on the sexuality issue debate, you make a great point. The "free will" idea is cruel and useless, particularly in that context.
Hi Michael. What I meant by the Bobby McF reference was that the Law commands us to do/be all kinds of things, and these include the command not to worry and be anxious (consider the lillies of the field) and also the command to rejoice and to praise and thank God continually.
Thus chronic depression and anxiety and panic attacks place us in contravention of God's Law.
Another way I think of it is that God's law is a description of the perfectly healthy human and a perfectly healthy human society. In a world like that people wouldn't commit adultery, wouldn't lust after their neighbor, wouldn't covet, wouldn't experience bondage to anxiety or depression or panic, would be always rejoicing and grateful to God, and so on. It's a description, and then more than that a DEMAND that we be like that.
Well, of course, we're not like that. We're not healthy at all (in the Book of Common Prayer we confess "there is no health in us").
That's what I was getting at. So I totally agree with you that the effect of the law is to force us to confess ourselves as sinners and cry out for mercy. But it does so because we see ourselves as failing to meet its demand in all its particulars — including its demand that we rejoice, etc.
Sorry for any miscommunication on my part, bud!
Michael, I think "Don't Worry-Be Happy" really is Law. Take Jesus' comments about having a care for tomorrow. The birds and the flowers are provided for, so why should you worry?
In other words, have faith in God. Which we don't. That makes it Law.
David– Jesus offers us comfort, not comdemnation, with those words. It is not Law. Otherwise, "believe in me" is Law, "have faith" is Law, and even, "don't think the Law will save you", is Law. This transforms everything into Law, and, as a result, makes the very concept meaningless.
By the way, special thanks to Colton for the way he reached out in such a kind way to me this morning on this thread.
It really made my day, pal. I'm very grateful.
Are you coming to the Mbird conference in 8 days in Pensacola?
PS. Thanks to Jeff H as well — but he's an old friend and it's not as much of a surprise coming from him. 🙂
But, dear John, It's still nonetheless true!
Michael, faith (in itself) is not Law but the command to have faith is.
When Jesus says "Come unto me, you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Is that Law?
Michael, I do not know the proper response to your last statement:
"Otherwise, "believe in me" is Law, "have faith" is Law, and even, "don't think the Law will save you", is Law. This transforms everything into Law, and, as a result, makes the very concept meaningless."
My initial thought, however, is that those words ARE, of themselves, Law (to my ear.) And rather than make the concept meaningless it makes its weight all the more heavy and the Gospel all the more sweet.
Just my knee-jerk reaction.
God certainly has to give me the faith, give me the ability to trust in Him, give me the made-alive heart to respond to his invitation to enjoy the comfort of His grace, but that does not convert the invitation to faith and trust into Law. All of you Luther scholars: does Luther throw all this in the "Law" bin? If so, give us a quote.
"But don't even think that we can be proud of ourselves for having faith. Luther said that God has to create faith in us as he created the cosmos…out of nothing."
Rod Rosenbladt said that in those pivotal lectures he gave at Advent. I think it's safe to interpolate from that that if we are trying to have faith in and of ourselves ("look at me! I have faith!), then it is law.
Conversely, if the Holy Spirit has come in through our ears and opened us to the hearing of the Gospel preached, gone down to our hearts and given us an acceptance of the nature and authority of Christ, and has come out of our mouths by the proclamation of our faith and out of our members by the doing of good works, the works of God, in the name of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit (as Steven Paulson described it at MB 2009), then it's just– faith.
Certainly, in the words "don't have a care for tomorrow", I find condemnation. Because that's all I worry about. It's like saying "don't have a care about death".
Jeff–I agree…"you are saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God…" But that does not convert Jesus' telling us to trust in Him into Law. He is not saying trust in Him under your own steam as a "work" that makes you acceptable to God. He is saying trust in me for your comfort, with the unspoken understanding that the trust we exhibit comes to and through us from God. That, however, does not turn Jesus' offer of comfort concerning the lilies of the field into Law, unless, of course, we misunderstand it as a "work" He demands of us.
Michael, I think you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. A command is a command and a promise is a promise.
Now love me!
(that is not a promise…not one i should count on anyway! 🙂 )
David–It is very important to remember that Jesus does not say "You are condemned if you do worry about tommorow." He does not say "Worry is sin." For Jesus to even offer this comfort, He assumes that we DO worry, and that we need His assurance that God really does care for us. To see this as Law misses the comfort that Jesus intended.
So, Josh, is "come unto me all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest", a command or a promise?
Why is it comfortable when I hear that and then immediately start worrying about tomorrow? Is my faith in God enough? Am I really a Christian? Is there another level of Christianity I need to get to in order not to worry?
Michael, to me, that is a promise although syntactically it may be both command and promise. I dont know.
I am not at all clear on the proper role of perception versus intent in what makes a law a law. I concede that when I hear those words (Come unto me…) from Jesus I usually see them as words of grace. There are others (some of which you have already mentioned) that I hear as law.
Some might say that it is purely a matter of Syntax.
I think we talk past each other when we dont clarify wether we are speaking about perception or sentence structure or biblical mandate.
When a graceful "invitation" is heard as a command or a judgement for having not previously accepted it, is it not law?
(P.S. I retract my earlier comment about you complicating this. Clearly I have trumped you there! 🙂 )
David–Of course we all continue to worry all the time. As a lawyer doing trial work, I am full of anxiety and worry about the outcome. Try standing in front of a jury waiting on their judgment some time. Not much fun. But I take comfort that Jesus understands my worry and anxiety and that He offers me the assurance that God cares for me. He is not condemning my worry, he is giving me His peace in the middle of it. "God loves you, therefore, you don't need to worry." I just don't take that as Law.
Josh–Glad you take it as promise, because it is exactly the same statement as Jesus saying "don't worry because God loves you". The "don't worry" is the fruit of the "God loves you" and is therefore pure promise, and has nothing to do with Law.
You sort of look like a grumpy lawyer in all your pictures.
David–Now I feel condemned, depressed, etc., etc. "A grumpy lawyer"??? I thought I looked like a slightly plump but extremely intelligent, sensitive, sophisticated stud-muffin.
Plump is putting it mildly.
Kathryn Greene-McCreight's Darkness Is My Only Companion is an astounding account of her battle with mental illness (severe depression and bi-polar disorder), with the final chapters filled with resources for those who are suffering from mental illness/depression, and suggestions for those who have friends, loved ones, clergy, and parishoners who suffer from mental illness/depression.
istians view mental illness as a direct result of bad-actions/lack of actions. As an ordained minister and a PhD in theology, one would naturally expect that she would be the least likely candidate to suffer, especially from mental illness. She knows her Bible, she knows her Doctrine, and she loves–evident through every page–Jesus and knows that He loves her. In spite of all this knowledge and love, she still suffers; thus, she asks the necessary question: Why am I still suffering? To this question, the church, in general, has failed to provide an adequate answer. The common, Christian advice given to those Christians who suffer from Mental Illness/Depression is: read your Bible more, be rejoiceful, repent of your sins, evaluate the effectiveness of your quiet time (or start a quiet time). Mental Illness/Depression is seen as the result of one's own actions; thus, correct the action and rid oneself of nasty result. The stage is now set for the overwhelming introduction of guilt on top of one's illness.
Second, admitting and seeking clinical help for mental illness/depression is a source of shame. I'm left questioning: Why? Using Greene-McCreight's words to answer,
"…we are ashamed to admit that we can't handle illness, especially mental illness, on our own. It can be devastating blow to one's sense of self, after all, to admit to mental unrest. But when we have a bad cough we are usually not similarly ashamed. Why, when we are mentally ill, should we not react with the same dispatch in calling the doctor as we would when we find a lump in the breast….But what makes us think the Christian can or should be able to handle such difficulties alone, much less any other diffiuclty? The assumption that one can go it alone is at heart Pelagianism….Pelagianism shrank the grace of God" (146).
Kathryn is a sufferer, and points other sufferers to the One Who Suffered and is present in our suffering.
Darkness Is My Only Companion should be on everyone's bookshelf from pastor to layperson
Depression/bipolar/mental illness is a real illness; I've witnessed it myself and suffer as well. There must be compassion/understanding and forgiveness, from others, for those of us who suffer. If someone is to be in the ministry, they must have, more than anything else,compassion. I find that lacking terribly in the church!
Thanks, C.O.G.! Folks here at MB are indeed big fans of Kathryn Greene-McCreight. She's da bomb.
Sean Norris talks about her here:
http://mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com/2009/03/hope_03.html
And Lauren Larkin here:
http://mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com/2009/05/from-one-sufferer-to-another.html
Your posts about KGM are just as helpful — MB readers need to know about her. Thanks again.
David– okokok…you win…make that FAT stud-muffin.
StampDawg, I said it only because it is true!
Will not be coming to Pensacola, but we're trying to move heaven and earth to be in NYC in April.
And just to throw my two cents belatedly into this discussion, I think a missing key element that has only been mentioned in passing is the role of Holy Spirit! It is he who condemns and he who gives faith. Words are not just words– the Spirit and the Word always work together.
The insight that made "the just shall live by faith" come alive for Martin Luther was romans 8.
His amazing insight was this: He realized that "body/flesh" actually fully included everything that is ab out true godpleasing earthly RIGHTEOUSNESS.
We all lean to the greek idea here of flesh/body/carnal = bad or probably sexual sinning. Who ever would have guessed that it could actually mean righteousness, and not just phoney pharisaic righteousness. nope: true god pleasing outward earthly righteousness.
So everyone, pagan and christian, seek this true and earthly righteousness and find it, and probably actually DO it well. We are still depressed. We have a romans 8 experience of dying.
Only that other inner invisible and other-worldly Righteousness can give our hearts minds and souls true rest.
Whoops, "Megan" above was actually me!
Hey Colton. No worries, bud. Mockingbird is this very hip, metrosexual place. I imagine gender bending will not get you in trouble.
BIG GRIN 🙂
Hope I can get to NYC in April to see you and everybody. Best… SD.
Hello everyone,
at the risk of being the comment that broke the camel's back, here are a few more thoughts:
One of the tragedies of the reception of the distinction between Law and Gospel in the 20th century is that Luther's important idea that every word can either be Law or Gospel at any time—a two edged sword, if you will–has been lost or minimized at best. Far from devaluing the concept of Law, this shows us that (thanks Colton) we have no control over what is either Law or Gospel and can only rest by faith in the promise in Christ that has been made to us.
The way this is understood can be seen in the 1st commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods.. . "
In faith, this is a joyful promise. Outside of faith, this is a terrible threat. Sort of like the way the statement "I'm going to kiss you now," depending on the circumstance, could be really great news or really, really creepy.
All that being said, the constant fear that in trying to find analogies to the Law of God in the Law of Man (for lack of a better word) we will devalue the former is understandable only if we believe that somehow God is not in charge of prosecuting his own case.
If he is, then the more we can point out that reality–even with things that are seemingly trivial (stop lights, chewing gum, Heidi Montag, etc)—the better!
JDK–I suppose that I am the object of your claim that any attempt to distinguish between God's law and the world's is born of, as you say, a "constant fear" of confusing the two, and that this "constant fear" exhibits a lack of faith in God's ability to make that distinction in our hearts. The problem with that logic is that it could be applied to any argument againt anything. For example, did Paul lack faith in God's ability to work in the hearts and minds of the Galatians by wrinting to them with his deep concerns?
I would also be interested to know exactly where Luther says that EVERY word can be taken as either law or gospel at any time. In our neurosis, we can certainly convert gospel into law at any time, but that does not mean that is a correct understanding of "consider the lilies". God loves me in my neurosis, but that does not mean that He does not also desire to heal me.
Hey folks – I am a recent discoverer of Mbird, thanks to a reference from WHI… and I have just gone thru a major eye-opening, gut wrenching experience with a coworker who appears to be decending into the horrid grip of mental illness.
He's had this illness for years, has been on and off meds, I've witnessed to him for a few years now – he's been receptive but… on a recent visit to his home (he was so bad at work I could not let him drive), I discovered a tarot book a few feet from his orthodox new testament…
In any case, please please please – I am going to get my hands on the book mentioned – but would appreciate any other resources… this man is going through TORTURE!
He has said he has schitzophrenia (sp), some form that is not classified…
Thanks all!
Dear Michael, (this is way too long a reply)
Someday, you and I will have said the last word on this issue! Until then, we'll continue to hack it out:)
As counterproductive to your career as it may be, that the Law is a fluid concept in its application is, in fact, what we are arguing here. This is not to say that the ultimate, accusing root of the law is not firmly planted in the Holiness of God me genoito! ; however, that a given indicative statement "I have come to save you," can be received as either Law or Gospel, is part of the pastoral art of properly distinguishing between the two.
Were this simply a function of promise vs. threat, indicative vs. imperative, then there wouldn't be much confusion. If this were the case, if "come unto me all you who are weary and heavy laden" is always either law or gospel, then we need a new "red letter" version–Not incidentally, this is how the distinction between Law and Gospel is usually reduced and, consequently, turned back into just the Law.
Only those who are, indeed, heavy laden or burdened will hear Jesus' offer–not to mention the fact that in Christian preaching, part of this offer includes an acceptance of His cross for us (in some way.) Have you ever tried to relieve the burdens of someone who does not think they are burdened? Try explaining to someone why in order for them to be reconciled to God that an innoncent man had to die in their place and see how the wonderful, sweet Gospel message of "Jesus died for your sins," can also be the Law.
Far from devaluing the entire concept, as you say, this understanding looses the power of the Law from the narrow confines of the aforementioned indicative vs. imperative split or other such nonsense. The Law is that which exposes and condemns sin. Idolatry/unbelief is sin and what we do here is, in a small way, apply the pastoral distinction between the two to observe how the Law is driving people in different ways.
Certainly, Jesus offers comfort. But this comfort is only to the new creation, not to our old selves. In other words, this comfort comes to the parts of me that are converted, not to the unconverted parts.
This is why we are constantly trying to observe where and how the law is driving people (whether they know it or not), and how even the promises of the Law are twisted by Christians into "don't worry be happy." (c.f Joel Osteen:)
But I don't really understand your claim that "The Law…tells us among other things 'Don't worry. Be Happy.'" What "Law" are you talking about? God's Law seems to tell me just the opposite, that I am "stuck" and "dead" and in dire need of rescue from it's just and right demands.
That you experience God's law as condemnation is a gift of the Holy Spirit, because last I checked, the 10 commandments were not being fought over because of their convicting, destroying power that was "stopping every mouth." Rather, the 10 Commandments have been turned into the way that "moral" people order their lives vs. Democrats:-)Clearly, this experience you have of the Law IS of the Law, but other people see these same laws as "Gospel"–and following them will ensure a Bobby McFerrin life.
part 2 (as in when "Empire Strikes Back" was considered the sequel)
All that being said, I do not think it is either necessary or helpful to constantly point out that the manifestation of the law that we observe in music or fashion or whatever is really tied to the Holiness of God, unless that is being denied in some way—which its not.
As you say, "In our neurosis, we can certainly convert gospel into law at any time, but that does not mean that is a correct understanding of "consider the lilies". God loves me in my neurosis, but that does not mean that He does not also desire to heal me."
And I agree to a point. Our neurosis does, indeed, convert gospel into law and vice-versa, but the Law can only convict where there is sin, and "how can we who have died to sin sill live in it?"
Well, the answer to that is that we are not being healed, but rather reborn. To the extent that I hear any word as Law exposes the fact that I am still sinful, I do not rest, do not trust God nor do I find my sole sufficiency in Christ, and I am thrown back on my need for the Gospel. For the Christian, the one who should know better, the one who should "take Jesus at his word," the existence of this neurosis is a symptom of our sinfulness, of our simul ; one that we are pointing out day, after day, after day.
I'm not sure where Luther says this explicitly (I've got some crack LCMS people on the case,) but if he didn't he should have:) haha:)
Anyway, I'm sure this won't be the last word from either of us on this subject—but I hope we can do it in person in April! (although with Colton, we are trying to move heaven and earth as well:)
Jady
Quick note to bg_hennessy…
So sorry to hear about your friend! That sounds terrible.
I personally feel like the Kathryn Greene-McCreight book is just awesome, coming as it does from the point of view of (1) a Christian (2) someone who suffers from mental illness and (3) someone who correctly understands Christ's cross and His absolving blood not as something that necessarily fixes our brokenness in this life.
But of course, if your friend is afflicted with schizophrenia, then that itself can screw with his ability to read and digest a book like that (affecting as it does his perception of reality).
But still the book may be a great help. So can your love for him. So can staying on message that Jesus has a special love for the afflicted and troubled and bound. So can (in my opinion as one who suffers from a bound mental condition) affirming that suffering and affliction and "who gets healed" is ALWAYS going to be a mystery — and that we should stay with what we have been given, which is the cross and the face of a Jesus who loves the broken.
And of course, so can doing everything you can from a secular perspective — finding him the right doctors and so forth.
We are so happy that you have become an MB reader and hope you come back often.
In the hands of the Friend of Sinners… SD
Jady, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm still waiting on that Luther quote, though 🙂 Reading your comments, I think part of the problem is that you may misunderstand my concerns about some "law" analogies from popular culture. I am not attacking the methodology, which is of course taken directly from our beloved PZ's play book. It can be very helpful in making a connection with people who do not have any notion of or reject the whole validity of biblical ideas of judgment and redemption with the relevancy of those concepts to the life they actually live today. They experience secular versions of "judgment"; they have experienced versions of "love". They can emotionally connect with the vast difference between the two. This can be very helpful in opening eyes to the real beauty of the gospel. So I completely agree: there are many valid analogies to be made in the most trivial of circumstances that can help "connect" people to God's judgment and His love. But that is not the issue I am talking about.
What I am concerned with is what Luther spent an enormous amount of time and energy to distinguish, and that is the distinction between false guilt that is laid upon us by the world, and the true guilt that we have before God. For Luther, that false guilt came in the form of cannon law and cannon lawyers, because they loaded on false demand and false guilt. The pope of Luther's day has of course morphed into a thousands popes each with their own legal teams. These popes are full of false demands with false guilt. The crushing nature of God's Law ironically gives us freedom from these false demands, because it drives us to the gospel, or at least it does if we understand it. So God's work in us is to reject outright the false demand with its fake guilt, while at the same time we are justly killed by God's true demand and resurrected by His gospel. These ideas have been beautifully stated by Bultmann, in a post by Todd last year:
"Men spoil their relationship to God because they are not prepared to confess what they truly are in the sight of God: worthless creatures who have nothing which they did not receive from Him, creatures whose lives are without any content or meaning apart from His grace, and who must flee again and again to His grace in order to have any value, creatures who can receive from Him alone that meaningfulness which free them from the tense struggle to assert their value."
"It is just the confession of sin which frees man from the fetters of self – from himself as he is in his urge to assert his authority and in his pathetic self-deception; and it brings him back to his true self- as he receives himself from God's hand: as the justified man, who in his spiritual freedom does not need to lower his eyes before any man since he has lowered them before God"
So my little point is that God has freed us, so that we can, at least occasionally and very imperfectly, not "lower our eyes before man", (i.e. succumb to false, neurotic guilt) because we are now dead men walking, or rather, dead men disco dancing, before God, thanks to His law and His gospel. It seems good to me, both analytically and from the "pastoral art" perspective, not to confuse false demand and false guilt with true demand and true guilt. But I probably just need to shut up and let God sort it out 🙂
peace bro.
Michael—amen and amen!
I have written an article about my own experience of mental health issues in the church which you may be interested in:
Christian churches, depression and mental illness.