Divine Power versus Human Powerlessness A description of the binary discourse

Patients often describe feelings of powerlessness in the face of God’s anger or apathy, or God’s plan to control or purify people through illness.

The voice invited to understand this discourse better, is that of Dutch theologian Johannes van der Ven. Van der Ven²¹⁷ aptly describes the images of God underlying this discourse as follows:

1. The apathetic God remains unmoved by suffering.

2. The retributive God permits suffering as punishment for sin.

3. The planning, controlling God permits suffering within the greater context of time, the meaning of which the sufferer will only understand later.

4. The therapeutic God purifies people through suffering for them to realise their true humanity.

217 Johannes A van der Ven, God reinvented? A theological search in texts and tables (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998), pp 212-214.

138 These images of God support the binaries of the “divine power-human powerlessness” discourse. Patients have reported that these images of God led to them internalising the following discourses:

1. I pray to God to heal me, but He is not listening.

2. I am ill, and have suffered loss, because God is punishing me for something.

3. I do not understand the reason for my illness or loss, but I do believe that it is part of God’s plan.

4. I am ill, or I have suffered a loss, because God is purifying me and making me wiser.

A description of the deconstructed discourse

During therapy counsellor and patient explore the dialogical spaces between God as enemy on the one hand, and human being as powerless sufferer on the other, to find outcomes unique to the life story of the patient.

In co-journeying towards a healing relationship between the suffering patient and God, counsellor and patient can take notice of what Van der Ven considers to be healing images of God:²¹⁸

1. The compassionate God is present with those who suffer (as He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ)

2. God, the innocent sufferer, becomes an example for those suffering innocently to identity with other sufferers.

3. God becomes the one with whom the sufferer can form a mystical union.

Deconstructing the power-powerless binary in the relationship between God and human beings, the following discourses have emerged during counselling where ill people have repositioned themselves vis-a-vis God, and enter into an asymmetrical relationship with God:

1. God and I are co-travelers on this journey of suffering.

2. I am probably not the cause of my own illness or loss,

218 Ibid, pp 213-214.

139 nevertheless, I can allow it to enable me to meaningfully impact on the life of other sufferers.

3. I do not stand in a relationship of punisher-punished with God; rather my suffering brings me in union with God in a unique way of which only I can find words.

In the words of Van der Ven:²¹⁹ “the notion that God and man are in competition is an obstacle to the faith for many people”. In his search for dialogical space between an absolute transcendent God and a helpless human being, Van der Ven adheres to “the principle of non-competition that is based on the idea of God’s immanent transcendence, which holds that what human beings do and what God does cannot be subtracted from one another... God does not cancel out the action of human beings, but rather inspires, intensifies and orients that action by placing it on the level of non-obligation and gratuity.”

Journeying with stories (2/17)

Mookho, the woman who could not pray: “Thy will be done”

On 19 November Mookho brought her nine year old son, Andrew, to the hospital to have warts removed from his vocal cords. This is a minor, non-risk operation which should last a maximum of half an hour.

However, something went wrong during the operation, and Mookho’s son was brain-damaged. He spent four months in ICU (the Intensive Care Unit) with painful convulsions and spasms, suffering severely and experiencing terrible pain. On the 24^th of March he died. No post mortem was made available, and six months later Mookho was still unable to obtain one.

Mookho externalised a religious discourse as the one which kept her from moving beyond the death of her son. This was Matthew 6:10:

“Thy will be done”. It was when she prayed the Our Father, and came to the place where she had to confess God’s will, that sorrow time upon

219 Ibid, p 15.

140

time overwhelmed Mookho. How could it have been God’s will for her young son to die, and to die in such pain and anguish?

Mookho did not want to follow the legal road to obtain a post mortem.

For her, that was not the way in which “God’s will would be done”.

Journeying together, Mookho and I further explored the faces of the discourses which kept her captive. The images of God which made her sad were contained in discourses such as “God’s will can cause a person to die” and “God’s will is punitive”. There were socio-cultural discourses which also impacted harmfully on her happiness, such as “A mother whose child has died, is in some way of another responsible for his death”.

Mookho’s reconstructed story included images of God as provider. She came to see this face of God through nothing less than the Our Father prayer itself. In this prayer, thanks is given to God who gives us our daily bread. That was God’s will, Mookho concluded, that we should enjoy what was provided daily. Also, Mookho came to see herself as a provider, as a caretaker. She came to this insight through a life review done during therapy. Through mapping her own life, she found that she had a reputation for caring for her children (she has a daughter of 15).

She has cared for Andrew in life and in illness, until death.

Her loss has not stolen love and care from her. She now loves children even more than before. This will make her happy again. This is God’s will.

2.2.2.2 Dreams of Divine Origin versus Dreams of