fbpx
Articles

What do grandmothers have to do with depression?

/
October 31, 2018

The BBC recently posted a story about an innovative program in Zimbabwe that is proving remarkably effective at alleviating depression and reducing the suicide rate. Take moment, open a new tab, and read the story.

No, really, read the story.

What stood out to you? If you’re like me, you were amazed at how profoundly simple this program seems. There are so many things that could be said about this article, but I’ll limit my observations to three.

The role of the Industrial Revolution

First, as a student of counseling history, this story highlights an important and often overlooked aspect of the counseling profession. When did counseling become “a thing”? When did the need for and popularity of counseling spike? The answer is the Industrial Revolution.

Why? As best we can tell there were several factors. People began to move to cities for work and lost connection with communities in which they grew up. Work became less personal, an assembly line. In short, people lost connection with family and friends who knew them from childhood, and their new life didn’t force these relationships to be replaced with any substantive depth.

Our churches will only be as effective in becoming contexts of care as we are at becoming communities that know one another well.

Do you notice who did the caring in the BBC story linked above? Grandmothers. What did they say? “Tell me everything.” How did they speak? Common, everyday language.

Even with a trained mental health professional, the number one predictor of effective counseling is relationships like these grandmothers. Secular researcher Barry Duncan in his quest to determine what makes counseling effective found that 40 percent of what determines whether counseling will be effective is the quality of relational resources an individual has outside counseling (in The Heart and Soul of Change).

For what it’s worth, the second most important factor according to Duncan, accounting for 30 percent of effectiveness, was the level of trust between the counselor and counselee, which I imagine these grandmothers did a great job of cultivating.

Addressing the circumstances

Second, the physiology of depression was neither neglected nor emphasized. The article acknowledges that changes in neuro-chemistry can both create and result in depression. But in the absence of an adequate number of mental health professionals, they worked with what they had.

The reality is that the body (brain) influences the mind, and the mind influences the body. If one door for entering the struggle was not available, they went in through the other. Would they have been more effective if both a medical and cognitive/relational approach could be used? Probably. Could they make a profound difference using just the means available to them? Obviously, they did.

How do psychiatrists feel about this? Not one psychiatrist can speak for them all, but Allen Frances—Chair of the DSM-IV Task Force—would likely applaud this approach. He wrote:

Prematurely resorting to medication short-circuits the traditional pathways of restorative healing – seeking support from family, friends, and the community; making needed life changes, off-loading excessive stress; pursuing hobbies and interests, exercise, rest, distraction, a change of pace. Overcoming problems on your own normalizes the situation, teaches new skills, and brings you closer to the people who were helpful. Taking a pill labels you as different and sick, even if you really aren’t. Medication is essential when needed to reestablish homeostasis for those who are suffering from real psychiatric disorder. Medication interferes with homeostasis for those who are suffering from the problems of everyday life” (p. 32, Saving Normal).

This is what these grandmothers were doing.

The results of knowing your community

Third, evidence-based best practices often aren’t complicated and have to be contextualized. From my years as a pastoral counselor, I’ve come to realize that healthy is simpler than dysfunction. People want an elaborate plan to get out of debt when they need a budget. People want a complex plan to lose weight when they need to eat less and work out more. Think about the examples given in the article and the kind of advice the grandmothers gave.

These grandmothers were able to quickly learn an evidence-based best practice to have helpful conversations with someone experiencing depression, even severe depression. So often people respond to me with “what do you say to people who struggle with [blank],” as if helpful conversations were mystical and profound. Advanced education is beneficial but not essential to being helpful.

I also love how the grandmothers spoke up. They knew how the people in their community thought, so they suggested changes in language to the approach given to them. These grandmothers didn’t become mindless as they learned what they were being trained to do. The counselor may have been an expert on techniques, but these grandmothers were the experts on the people in their community.

What this means for the church

So what does all of this mean for the church? I’ll make three, concise corresponding observations.

  1. Our churches will only be as effective in becoming contexts of care as we are at becoming communities that know one another well. This means more than casual fellowship and home-based Bible studies. It means cultivating “tell me everything” kinds of relationships between members.
  2. As churches, just because we can’t do everything doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything. Churches aren’t medical clinics. We won’t offer medical advice (although we should encourage people to pursue it). But we should offer the care we can provide with eagerness and confidence.
  3. We shouldn’t, as churches, expect that effective care will be complicated. The grandmothers made themselves available, listened deeply, structured problem-solving conversations, weighed consequences of various actions, and cared deeply for each person. We can do that with the hope of Christ and insight of the Bible.

So, as the church, let’s invest deeply in our communities. We should be a refuge of care for those who are struggling. Like these grandmothers, we can have a profound impact on our neighbors simply because we know them, love them, and are present in their lives.

Brad Hambrick

Brad serves as the Pastor of Counseling at The Summit Church in  Durham, North Carolina. He also serves as Instructor of Biblical Counseling at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a council member of the Biblical Counseling Coalition, and has authored several books including Do Ask, Do Tell, Let’s Talk: Why and How Christians Should Have Gay … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24