Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1976
Editorial
Proposed Agenda We note with satisfaction that over the fifteen years of the Journal's life the issues with which we have dealt in our pages have proved to be not static, but dynamic and ever-changing. If the capacity to move with the changing times is an evidence of liveliness, then we have managed to stay alive. Often our task has seemed like that of the historian, as described by H. G. Wells, who said he had to run as hard as he could trying to keep up with and call attention to the marching facts. Over the years we can think of many insights and discoveries that have led to important changes both in the theory of what human health and illness really are and how they are related to one another, but also in the practical or therapeutic approach to human problems presented by human health and illness. Here are some of those changes and developments. Over the past two decades there has been a vast increase in the use of mood-affecting drugs--stimulants, depressants, and tranquilizers, with various combinations of the three. These drugs have enabled many people whose vacillating moods and anxieties had formerly prevented them from normal functioning in home and job to take up again or continue with their basic responsibilities and even to find some satisfactions and enjoyments in lives that had previously been blocked by worry and exhaustion. Use of these drugs has helped to reduce the population of mental hospitals as well as to enable many to avoid the necessity of hospitalization and the dread prospect of radical treatment for conditions that constituted what we might call "normal anxiety and frustration." Along with this helpful and therapeutic use of the mood-affecting drugs, however, there grew up an ominous reality that came to be known as the "drug culture." The people who make up the drug culture suffered, and some still suffer, from the illusion that drugs are in themselves the answer to the human needs for inner stability, sense of purpose, and personal fulfillment. Drugs are misunderstood and often abused. Too many people become dependent on them in one form or another, so that they no longer control their own lives, but are controlled by their desire and their addictive need for specific drugs. We are still sorting out some of the lessons of the drug culture. One is that practically anybody can get addicted to something. Hence, anybody who uses an addictive drug should know that he is not immune, given the right circumstances. Another lesson is the importance of making distinctions between drugs. Marijuana, for instance, is not the same as heroin. Marijuana is a mild, nonaddictive mood elevator that provides pleasurable sensations. Heroin is a profoundly addictive drug with destructive physical and psychological effects. Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than marijuana. They have measurable harmful physical effects that marijuana does not have. We notice that we receive programs of meetings 219
220
Journal of Religion and Health
and conferences that set aside an hour for something called "mood alteration" or "elevation." It is a sly way of saying "cocktails." Somebody is feeling uneasy. We are not through with the issue of drugs in the search for health. They will continue to play an important role and to present additional problems. Another important development in recent years has been the new candor about sexual attitudes and activities. The relaxation of the old, confining moral codes and the emergence of an articulate women's movement have opened the door to many studies and interpretations of the facts of human sexual behavior. It is hard to recall that only twenty years ago the language and substance of Dr. Kinsey's studies were considered bold. Some might say that our society in its recognition and acceptance of birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and a much greater degree of premarital and extramarital sexual activity than we have ever admitted before is suffering from moral decline. If we looked only at members of Congress and other public figures who get caught off base in the old embarrassing ways, this might be true. But we might more realistically see in the present situation a discovery that honesty is not really so terrible a policy and that the only way we can hope to have a valid morality is to start from where people actually are, rather than from the place where our old codes have insisted they are supposed to be. Along with this more honest acceptance of the reality of sex has come recognition and acceptance of the other basic reality that our culture has been inclined to hide or dress up in false clothing: death. Facing the reality of death and its meaning as a part of the life process has required us to search for a new definition of what life really is, not only life generally, but that special form of self-conscious human life with which we are, inevitably, so closely associated. We shall look for and welcome thoughtful and adventurous approaches to this issue. It affects all other issues connected with human health and illness. In recent decades we have moved a long way from an earlier, complicated, and obscure pathology of mental illness. While respecting the contributions to scientific understanding of the great figures like Freud, Jung, and Adler, we have seen growing eclecticism among thoughtful therapists. It is hard to define orthodoxy, yet one needs to know what it is in order to depart from it safely. Orthodoxy is essentially the belief that one truth or one way explains all phenomena. We cannot say much in defense of that point of view. We have never believed it in religion, in science, in medicine, in psychology, or anywhere else. All explanations and insights can help. None is final and complete. To d ay the mentally or emotionally ill person is seen by most as one who is not functioning well, at least not up to his normal standard or society's. In many instances that may be as far as we can go in diagnosis. But that is far enough to permit intelligent and sensitive therapy with the individual in the place where he is. This more practical, existential approach has saved many a patient f r o m hopelessness and bewilderment before an impressive but falsely precise definition of what is wrong with him. Accepting the person where he or she is and doing as much as one can, using the various methods that seem appropriate, is a more practical and humane kind of therapy than rigid diagnosis and formalized, even
Proposed Agenda
221
highly technical treatment. Reasonableness and common sense as well as compassion are important assets in therapy. We could mention other developments that have taken place in recent years and have significantly changed the landscape in which the search for human health and wholeness goes on. Doubtless the reader can, too. The point is that the landscape does change as we move along. Knowledge does increase. Experience deepens. Wisdom, we hope, grows. What is the agenda for the years just ahead? In what areas would we like to see intensive research and study? Without limiting the need for continued exploration in areas already mentioned or known, here are some fields that in our view should command close attention and study from both medical and psychological science and religion in the years ahead. There have been so far some preliminary studies of the effects of meditation and other bodily, intellectual, and spiritual disciplines on physical states and general health. One of these comes from the best-selling book by Herbert Benson, M.D., The Relaxation Response (New York, Morrow, 1975). But others are appearing from hospitals where cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have been closely observed, usually with their knowledge and co-operation. Disciplines of the meditative kind approach the problem of illness from the point of view of health rather than through the symptoms of specific illness. Medicine has made and will continue to make great progress from the study of pathology. But along with this should go a study of the structure of the healthy, fully-functioning human being. The age-old disciplines of the spirit that include meditation are means of strengthening the body, the mind, and the spirit of the healthy person, enabling him to function better and make full use of his powers of perception and understanding. Can this kind of training and practice help people maintain health longer and confront disease when it comes more effectively? It is possible. The question needs study. As mentioned earlier, we need a new definition of life that will help us and eventually society cope with issues like birth control, abortion, hopeless illness (like that of the Quinlan girl), euthanasia, and death as a final necessity, of course, but also as a legitimate human choice that can be morally justified in certain circumstances. Does a person have a right to die, to choose the end of his own life? Before denying it too emphatically, we might ask whether a person has as much right to take his own life, or keep it, as society has to take it from him by execution, by war, or even by poverty, pollution, and needless disease. These questions need to be considered not in the heat of religious or dogmatic controversy, but in cool and kindly consideration for the humane values involved. We need to study carefully the physiology and the psychology of addiction. Addictions such as alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco constitute a major health problem. They cause fatal diseases as well as profound frustration and sense of failure for millions of people. An improved understanding of both the addictive process and the structure of the addictive personality could result in a major health breakthrough and bring relief if not cure to millions of people. We need to know much more than we do about the effects of the natural
222
Journal of Religion and Health
environment on h u m a n health. W h a t does it do to a h u m a n being to grow up in a world where there is constant noise, where the air is full of irritants and poisons, where the sun and stars are hardly ever seen in a clear, blue sky, where the only animals seen are on leashes or in the zoo, where the p a v e m e n t is the rule and grass and trees are endangered species? What do these accepted deprivations do to h u m a n beings? We need to know far more than we do. Who is the healer of souls, the therapist, the caring person? W h a t kind of person is required for this all-important function? How can we train such persons? Desire is not enough. Knowledge is not enough. Ambition is not enough. B u t love and good will by themselves are not enough either. How can we develop and train the therapeutic person in whatever specialty or profession? W h a t are the healing functions of religion? Are they magical, unscientific, ritualistic hocus-pocus? Or are they part of a broad, h u m a n i s t i c approach to h u m a n health t h a t includes the possibility t h a t the belief structure of a h u m a n being, his moral and spiritual wholeness, his ethical integrity are all factors t h a t can make a difference in his health and his social effectiveness? We need to know far more t h a n we do about these questions. So these are some of the areas we think should be on the proposed agenda for the future. As is always the case when one settles down to consider what we need to know, the area is infinitely larger t h a n what we do know. B u t t h a t should not deter us from finding out as m u c h as we can and using our knowledge as h u m a n e l y as possible. A horizon is only the limit of our sight. Harry C. M e s e r v e
Editorial
Proposed Agenda We note with satisfaction that over the fifteen years of the Journal's life the issues with which we have dealt in our pages have proved to be not static, but dynamic and ever-changing. If the capacity to move with the changing times is an evidence of liveliness, then we have managed to stay alive. Often our task has seemed like that of the historian, as described by H. G. Wells, who said he had to run as hard as he could trying to keep up with and call attention to the marching facts. Over the years we can think of many insights and discoveries that have led to important changes both in the theory of what human health and illness really are and how they are related to one another, but also in the practical or therapeutic approach to human problems presented by human health and illness. Here are some of those changes and developments. Over the past two decades there has been a vast increase in the use of mood-affecting drugs--stimulants, depressants, and tranquilizers, with various combinations of the three. These drugs have enabled many people whose vacillating moods and anxieties had formerly prevented them from normal functioning in home and job to take up again or continue with their basic responsibilities and even to find some satisfactions and enjoyments in lives that had previously been blocked by worry and exhaustion. Use of these drugs has helped to reduce the population of mental hospitals as well as to enable many to avoid the necessity of hospitalization and the dread prospect of radical treatment for conditions that constituted what we might call "normal anxiety and frustration." Along with this helpful and therapeutic use of the mood-affecting drugs, however, there grew up an ominous reality that came to be known as the "drug culture." The people who make up the drug culture suffered, and some still suffer, from the illusion that drugs are in themselves the answer to the human needs for inner stability, sense of purpose, and personal fulfillment. Drugs are misunderstood and often abused. Too many people become dependent on them in one form or another, so that they no longer control their own lives, but are controlled by their desire and their addictive need for specific drugs. We are still sorting out some of the lessons of the drug culture. One is that practically anybody can get addicted to something. Hence, anybody who uses an addictive drug should know that he is not immune, given the right circumstances. Another lesson is the importance of making distinctions between drugs. Marijuana, for instance, is not the same as heroin. Marijuana is a mild, nonaddictive mood elevator that provides pleasurable sensations. Heroin is a profoundly addictive drug with destructive physical and psychological effects. Alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than marijuana. They have measurable harmful physical effects that marijuana does not have. We notice that we receive programs of meetings 219
220
Journal of Religion and Health
and conferences that set aside an hour for something called "mood alteration" or "elevation." It is a sly way of saying "cocktails." Somebody is feeling uneasy. We are not through with the issue of drugs in the search for health. They will continue to play an important role and to present additional problems. Another important development in recent years has been the new candor about sexual attitudes and activities. The relaxation of the old, confining moral codes and the emergence of an articulate women's movement have opened the door to many studies and interpretations of the facts of human sexual behavior. It is hard to recall that only twenty years ago the language and substance of Dr. Kinsey's studies were considered bold. Some might say that our society in its recognition and acceptance of birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and a much greater degree of premarital and extramarital sexual activity than we have ever admitted before is suffering from moral decline. If we looked only at members of Congress and other public figures who get caught off base in the old embarrassing ways, this might be true. But we might more realistically see in the present situation a discovery that honesty is not really so terrible a policy and that the only way we can hope to have a valid morality is to start from where people actually are, rather than from the place where our old codes have insisted they are supposed to be. Along with this more honest acceptance of the reality of sex has come recognition and acceptance of the other basic reality that our culture has been inclined to hide or dress up in false clothing: death. Facing the reality of death and its meaning as a part of the life process has required us to search for a new definition of what life really is, not only life generally, but that special form of self-conscious human life with which we are, inevitably, so closely associated. We shall look for and welcome thoughtful and adventurous approaches to this issue. It affects all other issues connected with human health and illness. In recent decades we have moved a long way from an earlier, complicated, and obscure pathology of mental illness. While respecting the contributions to scientific understanding of the great figures like Freud, Jung, and Adler, we have seen growing eclecticism among thoughtful therapists. It is hard to define orthodoxy, yet one needs to know what it is in order to depart from it safely. Orthodoxy is essentially the belief that one truth or one way explains all phenomena. We cannot say much in defense of that point of view. We have never believed it in religion, in science, in medicine, in psychology, or anywhere else. All explanations and insights can help. None is final and complete. To d ay the mentally or emotionally ill person is seen by most as one who is not functioning well, at least not up to his normal standard or society's. In many instances that may be as far as we can go in diagnosis. But that is far enough to permit intelligent and sensitive therapy with the individual in the place where he is. This more practical, existential approach has saved many a patient f r o m hopelessness and bewilderment before an impressive but falsely precise definition of what is wrong with him. Accepting the person where he or she is and doing as much as one can, using the various methods that seem appropriate, is a more practical and humane kind of therapy than rigid diagnosis and formalized, even
Proposed Agenda
221
highly technical treatment. Reasonableness and common sense as well as compassion are important assets in therapy. We could mention other developments that have taken place in recent years and have significantly changed the landscape in which the search for human health and wholeness goes on. Doubtless the reader can, too. The point is that the landscape does change as we move along. Knowledge does increase. Experience deepens. Wisdom, we hope, grows. What is the agenda for the years just ahead? In what areas would we like to see intensive research and study? Without limiting the need for continued exploration in areas already mentioned or known, here are some fields that in our view should command close attention and study from both medical and psychological science and religion in the years ahead. There have been so far some preliminary studies of the effects of meditation and other bodily, intellectual, and spiritual disciplines on physical states and general health. One of these comes from the best-selling book by Herbert Benson, M.D., The Relaxation Response (New York, Morrow, 1975). But others are appearing from hospitals where cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have been closely observed, usually with their knowledge and co-operation. Disciplines of the meditative kind approach the problem of illness from the point of view of health rather than through the symptoms of specific illness. Medicine has made and will continue to make great progress from the study of pathology. But along with this should go a study of the structure of the healthy, fully-functioning human being. The age-old disciplines of the spirit that include meditation are means of strengthening the body, the mind, and the spirit of the healthy person, enabling him to function better and make full use of his powers of perception and understanding. Can this kind of training and practice help people maintain health longer and confront disease when it comes more effectively? It is possible. The question needs study. As mentioned earlier, we need a new definition of life that will help us and eventually society cope with issues like birth control, abortion, hopeless illness (like that of the Quinlan girl), euthanasia, and death as a final necessity, of course, but also as a legitimate human choice that can be morally justified in certain circumstances. Does a person have a right to die, to choose the end of his own life? Before denying it too emphatically, we might ask whether a person has as much right to take his own life, or keep it, as society has to take it from him by execution, by war, or even by poverty, pollution, and needless disease. These questions need to be considered not in the heat of religious or dogmatic controversy, but in cool and kindly consideration for the humane values involved. We need to study carefully the physiology and the psychology of addiction. Addictions such as alcohol, narcotics, and tobacco constitute a major health problem. They cause fatal diseases as well as profound frustration and sense of failure for millions of people. An improved understanding of both the addictive process and the structure of the addictive personality could result in a major health breakthrough and bring relief if not cure to millions of people. We need to know much more than we do about the effects of the natural
222
Journal of Religion and Health
environment on h u m a n health. W h a t does it do to a h u m a n being to grow up in a world where there is constant noise, where the air is full of irritants and poisons, where the sun and stars are hardly ever seen in a clear, blue sky, where the only animals seen are on leashes or in the zoo, where the p a v e m e n t is the rule and grass and trees are endangered species? What do these accepted deprivations do to h u m a n beings? We need to know far more than we do. Who is the healer of souls, the therapist, the caring person? W h a t kind of person is required for this all-important function? How can we train such persons? Desire is not enough. Knowledge is not enough. Ambition is not enough. B u t love and good will by themselves are not enough either. How can we develop and train the therapeutic person in whatever specialty or profession? W h a t are the healing functions of religion? Are they magical, unscientific, ritualistic hocus-pocus? Or are they part of a broad, h u m a n i s t i c approach to h u m a n health t h a t includes the possibility t h a t the belief structure of a h u m a n being, his moral and spiritual wholeness, his ethical integrity are all factors t h a t can make a difference in his health and his social effectiveness? We need to know far more t h a n we do about these questions. So these are some of the areas we think should be on the proposed agenda for the future. As is always the case when one settles down to consider what we need to know, the area is infinitely larger t h a n what we do know. B u t t h a t should not deter us from finding out as m u c h as we can and using our knowledge as h u m a n e l y as possible. A horizon is only the limit of our sight. Harry C. M e s e r v e
