|
What is addiction?
It is interesting that most of us think we know about addiction, but very few can even define the word. We spend millions to address the devastation left in its wake. We spend millions more to implement programs to prevent it, and still more millions in attempts to treat the addicted. For all the millions we spend, instead of getting realistic recovery, we see relapse, addiction swapping, or a torturous white knuckle approach to a life known as “living one day at a time.” We spend millions and still we are at a loss to define the word. Why is it a subject that is so difficult to define and even more difficult to recognize, even by the severely addicted? Have the negative experiences associated with addiction driven us so far back into our emotional caves of protection that we shut down just at the mention of addiction?
How is it that we can see self-destructive behaviors in others as addictions, but similar behaviors in our own lives are only seen as distractions? Why do we condemn others for their behavior while justifying our own? Why do we choose window dressing and denial over awareness and training? The answer is simple; we have never been taught how addictions begin developing in the first place. We have concentrated on the destructive behaviors rather than the reason for them. Our children are taught to “just say no” without ever being taught to understand why there is the need to say no in the first place. They are taught what the behaviors can do without ever being taught the causes underlying them.
The Definition of Addiction:
Any behavior that is used to escape or avoid dealing with the unpleasant thoughts brought about by emotionally painful events is an addiction, either in the beginning stages or somewhere in the process of becoming full blown. The national average for the development of most major addictions is fifteen years from first being introduced to the behavior until the behavior cannot be stopped, even with maximum personal effort.
Is an Addiction Disease or is it Sin?
The religious world and the secular world have different views of addictive behavior. The religious world sees addictive behavior as sinful behavior resulting from sinful choices. The secular world sees destructive behavior as a disease. To see destructive behavior as sin resulting from sinful choices places responsibility on the person who engages in the behavior. To see destructive behavior as a form of disease removes responsibilityfrom the person who acts out some destructive behavior.
The secular world has the position that if a person wants to stop a behavior, makes a maximum effort to stop and can’t, then something must be involved other than choice. Therefore, they conclude it must be some disease form not fully understood. They back up their claim with case histories of patients who chose not to engage in a behavior but continue to do so over and over again.
Could it just be possible that both views have value? Could it be that alcoholism, for example, does reach the point where it qualifies as a disease but is brought about by sinful choices as the religious world claims? What’s really happening when a behavior reaches the point where it cannot be stopped, even with maximum effort? If it involves only sinful choices, then choice should be enough to stop, but sadly, that’s not the case. Both the religious world and the secular world could learn a lot from each other. A gossip, for instance, may have heard countless lessons on why one should not gossip and what will happen if they do. But, gossipers may attend church regularly for all their life and never hear one message on how to stop gossiping. Which is needed most; why not to engage in a destructive behavior, or how to stop? The truth is both are needed.
At what point does a person start making the sinful choices that lead to an unstoppable disease? Studies point out that children start carrying emotional pain by the age of four and by the age of eight will have adopted an escape behavior. Over the next fifteen years, it can become increasingly destructive until it is totally overpowering. This calls for training and compassion, not condemnation. Doesn’t it make sense that it is possible to teach individuals how to stop a behavior if they the behavior was learned in the first place. If a behavior started out in the life of a young child as sinful choice, but eventually reached the point of being medically qualified as a disease, doesn’t it make sense to train the person how to stop the behavior rather than expecting them to accomplish something on their own of which they are not capable?
Identifying problems is certainly helpful because no problem can be solved unless it is properly identified. What is really needed is to properly identify the problem and to offer an effective solution. Many worthwhile, well intended programs improperly identify the problem they are attempting to address. Other programs that successfully identify a serious problem completely miss the mark when it comes to providing effective solutions. Either approach is not likely to be effective.
If unprocessed emotional pain is the single underlying cause for all destructive escape behaviors, and it is, then training the emotionally hurting to process their pain using scriptural methods would go a long way, not only reversing the trend in addiction, but would also be an awesome breakthrough in prevention.
Jesus tells us, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heave laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matt. 11:28-29) It is this “rest” the addicted person is desperately seeking, and it can be learned from Jesus.
|