PTSD and Religious Belief
by
Charles Graves
The initials mean Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder indicating that the sufferer of this malady has had a shocking experience psychologically and that the result in his/her psyche is a permanent feeling of stress vis à vis life and what it brings. It is a ‘disorder’ because this stress obliges persons affected by PTSD to react to life’s challenges in an inferior way and it impedes psychological and, in some cases, even physical growth. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk has written about this malady in his book The Body Keeps the Score – Brain, Mind and Body in the Healing of Trauma (1).
In general, there are two main categories of PTSD: that it is the result of childhood mistreatment or molestation or that of military servicemen and women experiencing traumatic events during wartime. But there are also the PTSD of victims of racism, police brutality or discrimination to add to the list of causes. In every case the patients of PTSD are victims rather than perpetrators of events. In most cases they themselves have not caused their problem by provoking others, but if they have provoked others, the results in their psyche are much greater than would be expected from a ‘tit for tat’ situation. They have received permanent damage psychologically whereas in other cases a person may be only inconvenienced or frustrated temporarily.
As regards ‘healing’ PTSD and returning its victims to normality, it is a complicated process mainly since PTSD victims have a certain sense of shame attached to their malady. They do not want their problems to be seen or exposed because it is felt to be abnormal and public opinion may, if it is known, (they believe) consider them abnormal. Therefore, psychologists and potential well-wishers often do not see or discover such abnormalities and the victims of PTSD themselves continue to reject such discovery. But if PTSD is discovered and fully known to oneself or others, it carries with it the sense of shame which is quite exceptional and incomprehensible.
What happens when ‘the blinders are taken off’ and PTSD is accepted by the victim and others? According to specialists - and Dr. van der Kolk is one of the most prominent of them today - a period of therapy is necessary for the victim. Talking about it in a group, yoga or other mental exercises, reconstitution of one’s life through self-analysis and action etc. - all are necessary if the victim wants to progress into ’normality’.
What does religion or the church have to say about PTSD? What does he Christian church, for example, propose to help the victims? First of all, there are certain cases of PTSD where the church can use its ‘healing arm’ to heal. It is obvious that the biblical message includes healings of mental disorder in both Old and New Testaments. In particular, Jesus healed a certain number of mentally-ill persons including, we suppose, victims of PTSD. Some pastors, healers and church officials down the centuries have had ‘healing ministries’ and these have amplified the importance of Christianity vis à vis non-belief.
But the church must be very careful in this field because it needs the help of psychiatry and related scientific fields concerning PTSD victims and their role in society.
A PTSD victim has lost, to a certain extent, his / her sense of identity since the trauma itself has robbed them of this personal integrity of mind and spirit. On the other hand, the message of the Christian church is often that one’s self ‘be sacrificed for the benefit of helping others’ or encouraging members to become missionaries. ‘Present your body as a living sacrifice’ is proclaimed in the Service of Holy Communion reminding members of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and encouraging our necessary reaction to this. But what does this mean to a person who has already been a victim in his / her psyche because of mistreatment or shock in wartime or of police brutality or of discrimination? The victim does not want to be sacrificed again in a beloved church service. Here we have a theological issue which needs clarification. The victim of PTSD is being asked to ‘present his/her body as a living sacrifice’ and is being asked to have repeated in the beloved service an act which has previously caused the PTSD, i.e. being sacrificed (as a victim).
Thus, asking Christians to be a ‘living sacrifice’ which occurs both at Holy Communion and often in the Service or Ordination of priests and clergy, should be seen in the context of the what kind of sacrifice this entails. From the point of a church member, what is this sacrifice which is being encouraged? The traditional idea is that one allows one’s body to be harried or killed as in ‘human sacrifices’ practiced by humanity, often inspired by religious interests, over the centuries. In the modern world, such human sacrifices hardly exist at all, so ‘sacrifice of oneself’ is considered as ‘giving yourself up to a cause’ or suffering vis a vis others ‘in order to prove a good idea’ etc. But even these modern concepts include a certain restriction of one’s ‘self’. But what if there is no fully-evolved ‘self’ to restrict? The call for self-sacrifice probably means to persons without a ‘self’ (i.e. the PTSD victims) to give up even their missing ‘self’ which they should, instead, be desiring to recuperate.
So, the church’s call for ‘give your bodies as a living sacrifice’ should not be directed to victims of PTSD unless the victims have recovered fully from this malady and possess a workable, mature self.
How should healed PTSD victims consider the church’s call for ’presenting your body as a living sacrifice’ while receiving the benefits of the Holy Communion where Jesus’ body and blood (sacrificed on the Cross) are remembered? The PTSD victim cannot once again ‘sacrifice himself/ herself’ because the sacrifice has already occurred while being a victim in his/her life. Thus, the only sacrifice possible is the one made by Jesus, and that should be sufficient. The PTSD victim can be thankful that Jesus was also a victim and one need only associate oneself with him as victim with victim. But in such a case what happens to the ‘self’ in the PTSD victim? It is not Jesus as sacrificed victim that the PTSD victim should look at – but at the resurrected Christ who ‘overcame his sacrifice’ that should be seen as model. That Jesus was resurrected should be the model for the PTSD victim - – that the PTSD victim’s true self has been recuperated and that ‘true self’ is known by the victim and perhaps by his/her psychologist. If that ‘true self’ is not displayed psychologically in the PTSD victim at the time of the Holy Communion then it means that the old pre-healed victim of trauma emerges from the Holy Communion intact and covered – and that is not the avowed purpose of the Holy Communion.
As a theological students we had psychologists on the faculty who were emphasizing to future pastors and priests that the message of the church should include awareness of the psychological aspects of the parishioner’s mental health. The specialists should inform priests and pastors about this before they serve their ‘flock’. This collaboration began in the 1950s-60s and still continues.
What kind of ‘sin’ are victims of PTSD supposed to flee? St Paul in his Letter to the Romans, speaks about this in chapter six where he counsels Christians to avoid the ‘sins of the old man’ i.e. the person who has not yet become a Christian. He is speaking to new converts and new church members. He is asking them to reject their old ‘way of life’ as non-Christians. But if this is, mistakenly, applied to members of the baptized Christian community itself, is it being interpreted by PTSD victims as ‘turning away from their own (albeit influenced by PTSD) life’? How could one’s PTSD life be rejected when that is the only (although perturbed) ‘life’ which they have? The PTSD victim’s life must not be rejected through ‘sacrifice’ but must be healed and restored in its pre-traumatized baptismal form. Thus, we must understand the context in which St. Paul was writing his Letter to Rome. He was trying to create a new, baptized ‘Christian’ (as over against ‘pagan’) community called the Church. He was not concerned specifically with church members who had been violently treated in one way or another and had developed a PTSD malady.
It is always important, when reading a portion of the Bible, to understand the context in which it was written. Such an approach is in accord with another lesson we learned in theological school in the 1960s-90s called ‘situational ethics’. In reading the Bible and administering our churches we must always try to see how the ‘situation’ determines what we try to do to help ourselves or others. There are no fixed procedures in the ministry, only ‘situational ethics’. Perhaps as a result of this movement in theology, the idea of each church having a ‘safeguarding officer’ is relevant. The weak and the victims within the church community must be ‘safeguarded’ so that their vulnerabilities are respected in the local church community. Having been a victim of PTSD myself I appreciate this aspect of Anglican church administration.
Moreover, I believe there are many aspects of ‘pastoral care’ which can be informed by the sciences of psychiatry and psychology (2). The psychiatrist can often use theological concepts such as faith and belief, or the universally-accepted idea of forgiveness within society, to help heal the patients. Such methods and practices increase the mutual collaboration between theology and psychology.
In any case, the insights of psychology vis à vis mental health should be accepted within the life of the churches, within its liturgy and alongside its biblical readings.
In general, there are two main categories of PTSD: that it is the result of childhood mistreatment or molestation or that of military servicemen and women experiencing traumatic events during wartime. But there are also the PTSD of victims of racism, police brutality or discrimination to add to the list of causes. In every case the patients of PTSD are victims rather than perpetrators of events. In most cases they themselves have not caused their problem by provoking others, but if they have provoked others, the results in their psyche are much greater than would be expected from a ‘tit for tat’ situation. They have received permanent damage psychologically whereas in other cases a person may be only inconvenienced or frustrated temporarily.
As regards ‘healing’ PTSD and returning its victims to normality, it is a complicated process mainly since PTSD victims have a certain sense of shame attached to their malady. They do not want their problems to be seen or exposed because it is felt to be abnormal and public opinion may, if it is known, (they believe) consider them abnormal. Therefore, psychologists and potential well-wishers often do not see or discover such abnormalities and the victims of PTSD themselves continue to reject such discovery. But if PTSD is discovered and fully known to oneself or others, it carries with it the sense of shame which is quite exceptional and incomprehensible.
What happens when ‘the blinders are taken off’ and PTSD is accepted by the victim and others? According to specialists - and Dr. van der Kolk is one of the most prominent of them today - a period of therapy is necessary for the victim. Talking about it in a group, yoga or other mental exercises, reconstitution of one’s life through self-analysis and action etc. - all are necessary if the victim wants to progress into ’normality’.
What does religion or the church have to say about PTSD? What does he Christian church, for example, propose to help the victims? First of all, there are certain cases of PTSD where the church can use its ‘healing arm’ to heal. It is obvious that the biblical message includes healings of mental disorder in both Old and New Testaments. In particular, Jesus healed a certain number of mentally-ill persons including, we suppose, victims of PTSD. Some pastors, healers and church officials down the centuries have had ‘healing ministries’ and these have amplified the importance of Christianity vis à vis non-belief.
But the church must be very careful in this field because it needs the help of psychiatry and related scientific fields concerning PTSD victims and their role in society.
A PTSD victim has lost, to a certain extent, his / her sense of identity since the trauma itself has robbed them of this personal integrity of mind and spirit. On the other hand, the message of the Christian church is often that one’s self ‘be sacrificed for the benefit of helping others’ or encouraging members to become missionaries. ‘Present your body as a living sacrifice’ is proclaimed in the Service of Holy Communion reminding members of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and encouraging our necessary reaction to this. But what does this mean to a person who has already been a victim in his / her psyche because of mistreatment or shock in wartime or of police brutality or of discrimination? The victim does not want to be sacrificed again in a beloved church service. Here we have a theological issue which needs clarification. The victim of PTSD is being asked to ‘present his/her body as a living sacrifice’ and is being asked to have repeated in the beloved service an act which has previously caused the PTSD, i.e. being sacrificed (as a victim).
Thus, asking Christians to be a ‘living sacrifice’ which occurs both at Holy Communion and often in the Service or Ordination of priests and clergy, should be seen in the context of the what kind of sacrifice this entails. From the point of a church member, what is this sacrifice which is being encouraged? The traditional idea is that one allows one’s body to be harried or killed as in ‘human sacrifices’ practiced by humanity, often inspired by religious interests, over the centuries. In the modern world, such human sacrifices hardly exist at all, so ‘sacrifice of oneself’ is considered as ‘giving yourself up to a cause’ or suffering vis a vis others ‘in order to prove a good idea’ etc. But even these modern concepts include a certain restriction of one’s ‘self’. But what if there is no fully-evolved ‘self’ to restrict? The call for self-sacrifice probably means to persons without a ‘self’ (i.e. the PTSD victims) to give up even their missing ‘self’ which they should, instead, be desiring to recuperate.
So, the church’s call for ‘give your bodies as a living sacrifice’ should not be directed to victims of PTSD unless the victims have recovered fully from this malady and possess a workable, mature self.
How should healed PTSD victims consider the church’s call for ’presenting your body as a living sacrifice’ while receiving the benefits of the Holy Communion where Jesus’ body and blood (sacrificed on the Cross) are remembered? The PTSD victim cannot once again ‘sacrifice himself/ herself’ because the sacrifice has already occurred while being a victim in his/her life. Thus, the only sacrifice possible is the one made by Jesus, and that should be sufficient. The PTSD victim can be thankful that Jesus was also a victim and one need only associate oneself with him as victim with victim. But in such a case what happens to the ‘self’ in the PTSD victim? It is not Jesus as sacrificed victim that the PTSD victim should look at – but at the resurrected Christ who ‘overcame his sacrifice’ that should be seen as model. That Jesus was resurrected should be the model for the PTSD victim - – that the PTSD victim’s true self has been recuperated and that ‘true self’ is known by the victim and perhaps by his/her psychologist. If that ‘true self’ is not displayed psychologically in the PTSD victim at the time of the Holy Communion then it means that the old pre-healed victim of trauma emerges from the Holy Communion intact and covered – and that is not the avowed purpose of the Holy Communion.
As a theological students we had psychologists on the faculty who were emphasizing to future pastors and priests that the message of the church should include awareness of the psychological aspects of the parishioner’s mental health. The specialists should inform priests and pastors about this before they serve their ‘flock’. This collaboration began in the 1950s-60s and still continues.
What kind of ‘sin’ are victims of PTSD supposed to flee? St Paul in his Letter to the Romans, speaks about this in chapter six where he counsels Christians to avoid the ‘sins of the old man’ i.e. the person who has not yet become a Christian. He is speaking to new converts and new church members. He is asking them to reject their old ‘way of life’ as non-Christians. But if this is, mistakenly, applied to members of the baptized Christian community itself, is it being interpreted by PTSD victims as ‘turning away from their own (albeit influenced by PTSD) life’? How could one’s PTSD life be rejected when that is the only (although perturbed) ‘life’ which they have? The PTSD victim’s life must not be rejected through ‘sacrifice’ but must be healed and restored in its pre-traumatized baptismal form. Thus, we must understand the context in which St. Paul was writing his Letter to Rome. He was trying to create a new, baptized ‘Christian’ (as over against ‘pagan’) community called the Church. He was not concerned specifically with church members who had been violently treated in one way or another and had developed a PTSD malady.
It is always important, when reading a portion of the Bible, to understand the context in which it was written. Such an approach is in accord with another lesson we learned in theological school in the 1960s-90s called ‘situational ethics’. In reading the Bible and administering our churches we must always try to see how the ‘situation’ determines what we try to do to help ourselves or others. There are no fixed procedures in the ministry, only ‘situational ethics’. Perhaps as a result of this movement in theology, the idea of each church having a ‘safeguarding officer’ is relevant. The weak and the victims within the church community must be ‘safeguarded’ so that their vulnerabilities are respected in the local church community. Having been a victim of PTSD myself I appreciate this aspect of Anglican church administration.
Moreover, I believe there are many aspects of ‘pastoral care’ which can be informed by the sciences of psychiatry and psychology (2). The psychiatrist can often use theological concepts such as faith and belief, or the universally-accepted idea of forgiveness within society, to help heal the patients. Such methods and practices increase the mutual collaboration between theology and psychology.
In any case, the insights of psychology vis à vis mental health should be accepted within the life of the churches, within its liturgy and alongside its biblical readings.
- New York: Penguin 2014, 445 pp.
- See, for example, John S. Graves, MD, Lessons on the Road to Hope. A Psychiatrist’s Journey. 2020, 249 pp. (Amazon.com)
Photograph: ‘rock painting’ in Australia photographed by Graeme Churchard, Bristol (UK)
