MENTAL ILLNESS

Tom Karel, psychologist and David Murray, pastor, wrote: 

(Concerning the label of ‘Mentally Ill’) The Label Applies to a Problem, Not a Person. Just as it is no longer acceptable to say, “She’s disabled,” but rather, “She has a disability,” so we should avoid saying, “he is mentally ill,” or “I am mentally ill.” Rather, we should say, “He has a mental illness,” or “I have a mental illness.”

This important switch applies the label to the problem, not the person, and therefore defines the problem the person has, rather than defining the person as a problem. The switch of verb from “is” to “has” ensures that a person is not defined in their entirety by their problem. A person is much more than an illness, and recovery is not advanced if we inadvertently imply otherwise. It doesn’t help the sufferer, and it doesn’t help us. A person is much more than their diagnosis, even if their suffering impacts their whole life.”

This type of labeling and logic seems to settle in only so-so with me. I understand the logic of defining the problem, not the person, but they often are inextricable in substance and behavior. For example: If a person is a thief, I find it difficult to say they have a problem with stealing. I am more apt to just evaluate them as a thief that needs to stop stealing. I get bogged down in some of this stuff like; how many nouns, verbs or adjectives does it take to say a thief is a thief. Mental illness may carry some more complicated factors and definitions, but it remains difficult to separate the object from the concern.

‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then He will answer them; ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” Jesus