It's Not My Fault! Or, Is It?

The following in an excerpt of a book I'm reading by Stephen R. Holmes entitled, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology. Upon reading this, part of me wants to recoil in horror of the insinuations made by the piece and the other part of me wants to say a hearty "Amen." You read it for yourself and tell me what you think. If nothing else, it should definitely provoke thought; it certainly did for me. 

Reflecting upon the thought of Jonathan Edwards, the eighteenth century philosopher and reformed theologian (remembered most for his unfortunate sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"), Holmes recounts some of Edward's thought on free will and freedom of choice: 

"...The prophets of this brave new world are Darwin, Marx, and Freud, whose followers will tell anyone foolish enough to listen that it was, notoriously, 'not your fault', it was biological instinct, or inevitable social forces, or 'subconscious urges', and so what is needed is more awareness of the 'self' which such themes define. If the first consequence of such positions is to alienate me from the society of which I  am a part, the second is to alienate me from my now-isolated individual 'self'. When 'I' am alienated from 'myself' the response is counselling, the new universal liturgical practice of the self-absorbed Western world. As if Narcissus needed to become more 'self-aware'!

With the axioms set for the  discussion, however, the cure is worse than the disease. What will happen  if I finally 'find' my 'self' in counseling or therapy? I will become fully aware of my self-alienation. Seeing all the  causes of my actions, and so knowing why I do each thing I do, I will realise that I am almost totally unfree (according to this definition of freedom). My social background and my parents' failures and psychic make-up conspire to make me act in this way; I see myself doing it, and I understand why I do it, but I cannot change it; I can merely observe the causes of my actions. The result under the terms of the argument is the standard one observed in those who have 'successfully' completed counselling or therapy: they have 'learnt to forgive themselves'. Their actions have not changed, but they now understand what causes these actions, see that they are freely chosen with the definition of freedom that is being advanced, and so do not hold themselves culpable. 'Their doctrine [of freedom] excuses all evil inclinations', says Edwards, 'because in such inclinations, they are not self-determined.' Thus perhaps the one great 'triumph' of Christian pastoral theology this century: we have learnt how to convince sinners with tender consciences that they have no need of Christ's atoning work." [92-3] (Holmes adapts much of the above from The Works of Jonathan Edwards. vol 1: Freedom of the Will, edited by Paul Ramsey, Yale University Press, 1957

Now obviously, there are certain facets and insinuations in there that I wholeheartedly disagree with. The values of counseling for those who really need it can not be overstated. But, I do often wonder about the nature of our  therapeutic culture and how unhealthy the lack of personal responsibility is. I know this is not popular and certainly not politically correct, but as a society we have to find a way to strike a balance between personal acccountability and a reasonable appraisal of mitigating circumstances.