The following is an excerpt from Dr. Rinck's book Can Christians Love Too Much? Breaking the Cycle of Codependency, published in 1990, by Zondervan Press. The book is out of print in English and so this material is only available here. (pp.68-80).

Components of Addiction

As a Christian clergy as well as a psychologist, Dr. Rinck addresses this topic from both perspectives. When we view addiction, we must not be tempted to look only in one direction for "causes" or "cures". No one piece of the addiction puzzle is sufficient to solve the problem. God created us as complex beings whose different components interact in a multidimensional manner. It is not easy to separate one aspect of the human condition as being the cause. We do acknowledge that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, illness of all types- physical and psychological problems, relational problems and societal problems would not exist. At the root of all human problems lies. sin. However, it is naive and simplistic to assume that to fix all these problems "all we need is Jesus" (i.e., a spiritual experience). We all know of people who have a profound faith in Christ but still suffer from cancer, polio, cerebral palsy, depression, anxiety, or broken relationships. While a "spiritual experience" with Christ is essential to recovery form any sin-based problem, it is not the only thing necessary. Sometimes God uses doctors- even pagan doctors - to save lives of Christians. Sometimes a psychotherapist or a counselor is needed to help heal a broken relationship or a wounded spirit. Sometimes rehabilitation is necessary to help the person develop a new lifestyle.

When we approach addiction, therefore, we must examine all the components of the problem. All pieces of the puzzle must be part of the recovery process. The Spiritual dimension seems to be a central or crucial piece, but it is not everything. In AA, one will often hear "Those who do not get the spiritual part of the program, do not recover." This bit of folk wisdom appears to be true. Yet, it does not mean that hence the "rest of the program" is not important. Prayer, while important, will not by itself keep an alcoholic sober. We humans are too complex for that. WE are much like the elephant who being examined by a committee of blind people was variously described as "skinny, wobbly, firm, stout, tough and soft." Depending on one's view, human being look different. And so does addiction.

There are three basic pieces to the addiction puzzle. While no all the pieces have been adequately studied, we do have ample evidence to at least acknowledge their roles, while holding in abeyance any final conclusion on how these factors work together. These three components are: spiritual, psychological, and physical.

Spiritual

Spiritually, addiction can be seen at its core as idolatry. When someone is addicted to something or someone, he is placing that thing or person as central in his life. He runs his life not based on God's grace and plan for him, but based on this relationship to another person, substance, or experience. For example, the woman addicted to an alcoholic bases her life on trying to control, and hoping to cure her alcoholic husband. Similarly, a woman married to a misogynist (a man who hates women) gains her whole identity and sense of self worth on whether this man likes her, loves her, and treats her well. When he responds favorably, she is happy, content, and feels good about herself. When he does not treat her well, she is deflated, defeated, depressed.

Whenever anyone is given this amount of attention, he becomes an object of worship. The Scripture is clear: we are to have no other gods before Yahweh! Yet what one of us has not been guilty of worshiping money, or another's approval, or intellectualism, power, chemical substances, sexual gratification, children, spouse, parent, church or technology? The list of possible idols (addictions) is endless. In one way, the root of idolatry is pride. Somehow, like our ancestors Adam and Eve, we naively believe a lie and tell ourselves that we know better than Yahweh. We succumb to the serpent's story and believe that this experience or that person will "really" make us happy this time. And so addiction is partly pride and idolatry.

From a spiritual perspective, we can see that addiction flows out of the state of shame in which humans find themselves. Because of their pridei and need for a sense of identity, humans experience shame whenever anything threatens their sense of self or their pride. Prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve knew no shame. Their glory and pride was in Yahweh Himself. They know who they were: creatures made in His glorious image. Genesis 2 tells the sad story of Satan's deception and their quickness to believe a lie. Suddenly, even before God confronted them, they were exposed, naked, vulnerable to themselves and each other. They are revealed as they were: fallible, broken, sinful. They tried to hide and cover up their shame with fig leaves. Shame thus became a universal experience. Humans experience shame as a feeling of being exposed, made vulnerable at seeing oneself as one is or as one fears he is.ii Thus humans are in a state of shame. They experience a loss of self-esteem when they recognize that they are less than they could, should , or want to be. Addiction, then, becomes one way of distracting oneself from the state of shame; a way of hiding from oneself and from the truth. Certainly, this aspect of addiction is best illustrated by the universal phenomenon of strong denial around the addictive behavior. Even those around the addict do not want their shame uncovered, and so the denial is maintained even to delusional proportions.

Besides idolatry and shame, addiction's spiritual components also include rebellion. Anytime people are idolatrous they are rebelling against God. Rebellion is our need to be in charge, in control, to manage things ourselves. For addicts, their rebellion comes out through their idolatry- their fundamental dependence on and relationship to mood altering substances, experiences, or persons as the central focus of their life. We will look at spiritual rebellion and the codependent addict in more detail in chapter 6.

Psychological

Psychologically, addiction is multidimensional. The root experience seems to be one of shame and emotional pain. At the center, the addict is searching for a sense of identity; a way to distract himself from pain; and a way to cover up his shame. Shame is both a spiritual state of being and a psychological experience. Psychology (and Scripture) speaks of the need humans have to cover up, hide, deny, wear masks, develop a persona, use self-concealment.

Shame is at the center of the addictive cycle of acting in and acting out (see figure 6). When acting out, the addicted person engages in his or her compulsive behavior(s).iii. Either experience (acting out or acting in) is driven by shame. When the consequences of a person's acting out become too shameful, he reverses direction and tries to control the behavior.

Unsure of their identity, the addict seeks to find it externally. Other people, the approval of significant others, work , money, power, chemicals, sexual experiences, care taking, food, dieting, exercise, and many other experiences are used to bolster the addict's self-esteem. If the boss approves, if he earns a million dollars, if he marries so and so, if he loses weight, if he gets a Ph.D. , if . . . then he will feel "good about himself." Even religiosity can be an addictive experience when the person only feels whole and secure, or only has a sense of self when he does church work , or is involved in some ecstatic experience. This search for identity an purpose if the reason some cults and mystical religions are so popular. Adherents become addicted to the self-righteousness involved; the leaders; the excitement; the sense of being unique, the chosen few, etc.

Thus psychologically we see addictive behavior as a search for identity; a need to hide, cover up, or deny one's shame state, and a way of distracting oneself from pain and emotional trauma.

Physical

Some literature describes the body's ability to manufacture chemicals that control pain and pleasure. This natural chemistry lab in our bodies could be an underlying mechanism in many "addictive" behaviors. The human body does indeed have a tendency to become "hooked" on chemicals-chemicals from the environment or from within the system itself.iv

Sidney Cohen, M.O., in The Chemical Brain: The Neurochemistry of Addictive Diseasev summarizes recent research on the neurochemistry of the brain and its relationship to addiction. It includes a discussion of genetics and addiction.

Kathleen Whalen Fitzgerald, Ph.D., in her book Alcoholism: The Genetic Inheritance summarizes in easily understood language the current research on alcoholism as a family disorder. These are only a small sample of the fine resources available on the physical aspects of addiction.

Archibald Hart, noted author and psychology professor at Fuller Seminary, states in an article in Christianity Today (December 8, 1988):

Psychological and sociological factors hitherto thought to be the primary determiners of "dependency" may well be mediated by chemical change throughout the body. The release of adrenaline in "emergencies" has long been know to be stimulating, and in recent years the discovery that the brain manufactures its own opiate-like endorphin. . . that produce a tranquilizing and pain-reducing reaction has added evidence (some would say final proof) to this understanding of how certain behaviors can be addicting.vii

The basis for a physical line in addiction and compulsive behaviors is becoming stronger. While more research must be done, it is clear that certain addictions and compulsions have a physical component. In the case of alcoholism, there is a clear genetic predisposition which set people up for this problem. Research is beginning to link certain eating disorders to familial alcoholism. Obsessive compulsive disorder has clear physical (chemical) components. Some researchers believe that a substrata of addict people have overlapping OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), further exacerbating their already compulsive behavior pattern. If true, this would explain why some alcoholics and sexually addicted people only get better when given certain medicines (like lithium) along with their normal addictive recovery treatment. Some researchers believe that alcoholism itself is really a sub disorder of manic-depressive illness ( a disorder due to a chemical imbalance in the brain). [NOTE; since 1990 when this book was published, much more extensive research has been done on the physical components of addiction. Any cursory trip on the worldwide web will give you more information than you can digest ! ]

Responsibility

Many Christians feel leery of any view that posits a physical basis for addictive behaviors. They assume that if a person has physical predisposition to being addicted then he is no longer morally responsible for his actions. The church community in general has historically seen addictions as "merely" problems of lack of willpower or character. The scientific community has stressed the sense in which a person is a victim of a disease process. The reality is that both perspectives are true. The line between where a person's choice to drink, for example, is operative and where his physical dependence takes over is a fine one. No one can say "with this one action" when the line is crossed. At some point choice is lost, and the person does become a victim. Yet in reality, as Lenters puts it:

In point of fact, drawing a sharp line between "victim" and " agent" is difficult and usually unnecessary. Alcohol addicts are always victims and always agents. Although they may be victimized by their addiction, they are responsible for the progression of their disorder, for the consequences of their behavior, and ultimately for getting into treatment. On the other side, although they may be agents of their own alcohol abuse and for the tragedies that lie in the wake of that abuse, they are also victimized by physiological givens. . . that precipitate loss of choice, entrapment to ethanol, and bondage to it.viii

As evangelicals, [Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God], we tend to emphasize the importance of individual decision-making. [and I might add in 2004, as Americans]. This emphasis has a proper place. We are all individually accountable to God because "in Adam all died" (Romans 5: 10-21; I Cor. 15:22). In a way we cannot fully understand, we all participated in Adam's sin. We are all accountable (Rom. 1 20-25). Yet, even in this area of personal responsibility to turn to God , there is a sense where, as Mouw says, " . . . we have often failed to recognize that sin is not necessarily sustained at every point by individual decision." ix Analyzing Romans 1, after reading Mouw's above statement, we see that when we rebelled against God (in Adam) and suppressed the truth in (or by) unrighteousness (Rom. 1: 18) , God "gave us over" to degrading passions, to the lusts of our hearts, and to depraved minds (thinking). Thus, we became "filled with every kind of wickedness" (Rom. 1: 29). This concept of being "given over" entails being in bondage to sin in a way that goes beyond "just saying no". Galatians 6:1 also refers to this idea using the phrase "caught up" in a sinful behavior. Lenters comments:

The term Paul uses here to describe the phenomenon of "entrapment" by sin is especially pertinent for our discussion. The basic meaning of the verb is to "grasp" or to "seize." In the active voice, it denotes the action of "taking"; in the passive it suggests acceptance or reception from another. Its deeper meaning has the connotation of ownership or integration or assimilation into one's self. The usage in Galatians 6: 1 suggests a fault into which a brother is betrayed unaware, so that it is not intentionally wrong. His entrapment becomes a condition, not an isolated event.

Paul's description of being caught up in an unmanageable condition of powerlessness speaks to the dynamics of addiction. No child or young person ever plans to be an addict when he or she grows up. Yet a learned behavior becomes a habit that eventually overwhelms them- to the detriment of whatever plans they have made. Their addiction also snares people close to them. The parent or spouse or employer may fined himself or herself caught up in several games in relationship to the addict: protecting, denying, justifying, lying, self-pitying, dominating, or even depending on the addict's dependency. All are tentacles of the addiction syndrome which reach out and touch other people besides the addict. All are agents, all are victims.x

Lenters here mentions the overflow effect or generalized nature of addictive behavior. Mouw contends that as Christians we have pietisticly been insensitive to the ways in which one person's entrapment or bondage can be passed on to another without his having necessarily any part or control in it. He also mentions that we neglect the societal impact of sin.

There are also ways in which societies promote addictions. Our sin beings in our individual choices, but those choices get woven in certain societal stimuli. We are surrounded by the lure to materialism, to infidelity, to harmful substances, so that our behavior is not just completely dependent on our own wills. Its relation to our choices is much more mysterious than that.xi

We must be careful not to oversimplify a complex problem. In the West, we are prone to analyze ad nauseum and forget the gestalt or the whole. The important thing may not be so much why or how people got addicted but what they are doing about it.

It is important to remind ourselves that, biblically, sin has four main components: (1) Rebelliousness, (2) Guilt, (3) Shame, (4) Bondage. As evangelicals, we tend to emphasize the three aspects of rebellion, guilt and shame, but ignore bondage. The concept of being "given over" to sinful behavior and becoming "entrapped" beyond our own will and decision- making power is what bondage is all about. Not only does sin produce rebelliousness (wanting our own way, insisting upon control), guilt (true moral and /or legal culpability), and shame (a sense of lowered self-esteem), but it also produces bondage (an inability to help ourselves, to extricate ourselves from entrapment). These aspects of sin are passed on to us in four ways:xii

1. By means of our adamic sin nature (Rom. 1-5; I Cor. 15:22).
2. Through the law of generations, that is the blessings and curses of covenant faithfulness versus covenant disobedience (Ex. 20: 5; 34:7; Lev. 26: 34, 39; Num. 14: 33, Isa. 65:7; Amos 7: 17; Jer. 16:10-11; Deut. 5: 9; I Kings 14:9; Pss. 21: 10; 22:8-9; 37: 28);
3. Through personal choice to sin, that is, law of reaping and sowing (Gal. 6: 7-8; I Cor. 9: 11; 2 Cor. 9: 6; Hos.8:7; 10:12; Prov. 22:8-9);
4. Through trauma from a broken, sinful world (sociological and systematic evil such as corrupt judges, wicked rulers, corrupt priests or prophets, accidents, disease, etc.).

As Mouw, Lenters, and Sweeten point out, addiction is a prime example of all aspects of sin being formed into a person's nature, and thus coming out in their daily experience. There are aspects of rebellion (idolatry), guilt, shame, and bondage in every addiction story that I have ever encountered in my clinical counseling practice.

Addition: A Disease

Many Christians question the use of the term "disease" in regard to addictive behavior. Indeed, people in the field do seem to use the term rather glibly. We are used to thinking, on the other hand of "disease" as a strictly physically-caused process, for example, heart disease. We thin of it genetically, "Oh his family had a history of heart disease," or physically, "His heart just gave out." Yet even in the realm of what traditionally have been thought of as "merely physical" problems (e.g., heart, cancer, etc.), we are discovering psychological and spiritual dimensions. We are finding that cancer patients tend to be resentful, unforgiving people or that type A's who have heart attacks are unusually hostile and cynical. Does this mean that they do not have a disease? Are not these people still responsible for their lifestyles that helped produce these conditions?

Rather than quibble over a word, I prefer to focus on the fact that whether there is an addictive "disease" or a "disorder" (the term I use), obviously there are physical, psychological, and spiritual factors involved. Also, there is a much larger issue underlying all addictive behaviors. William Lenters refers to it in his book, The Freedom We Crave: Addiction - The Human Condition, as do Jim and Phyllis Alsdurf in their article "The Genetic Disease" in Christianity Today. They state:

Something need not qualify as a disease in order for it to be a legitimate and significant human concern. One cannot help wondering if the... voices... who tell us that almost everybody is codependent are merely describing human nature. Could codependency be that part of the human condition in which the search for connectedness and the avoidance of loneliness has gone awry?... The ontological reality of being human is that in any attempt to avoid loneliness we may give away too much of ourselves- to a chemical substance or to an unhealthy relationship-and so experience a new form of loneliness.xiii

There is an addictive process in human nature. It has physical, spiritual, and psychological dimensions. Anything that becomes central to a person's functioning- whether it is drugs, alcohol, church work, money, work, food, relationships- anything can become addictive. And once that process of making the activity central has begun, it becomes very difficult to make drastic changes, even when the person "knows" he should do so. Thus, the compulsive/addictive nature of these disorders. Much energy needed to deal with the addictive process and the chaos it causes is wasted trying to "prove" that addictions are "merely" one thing or another more productive use of energy or resources is to recognize the multidimensional nature of the addictive process, being careful not to assign too much importance to any one factor alone. There seems to be a tendency in evangelical circles to want to "blame" people for things rather than help them overcome their problems. We seem to think that if we can say "It's their fault", then we are absolved of any responsibility to help or to encourage the healing process... We need to develop a more balanced approach to these issues.