Augustine and motivation

As will be shown, Augustinian theology provides an historical and theological point of contact for Hughes’ model of motivation, and so offers a frame of reference against which strengths and weaknesses may be articulated. As Hurding has summarised, Hughes’ model may be depicted as ‘a layer theory’, comprising five internal areas of functioning with the ‘core’ being the spiritual area. This focus on internality or inwardness was shared by Augustine who, like Hughes, also emphasised the importance of the ‘vertical’ relationship with God in shaping personality, and in doing so, de-emphasised the importance of social relationships. This emphasis has been criticised by Gunton who characterises Augustine’s approach as leading to individualism and intellectualism at the expense of persons in relationships. This criticism is a moot point for Hughes and Crabb, for as already outlined, relationality is at the heart of their models – security and self-worth in particular, have been articulated, at least in part, as products (McFadyen’s ‘sediments’) of relational experiences. Crabb specifically highlights the importance of the Church community as a place of healing and spiritual growth. These clearly relational ideas however may be undermined by the traditional Waverley Model’s diagram which is ostensibly self-contained, apparently unaffected by social conditions, and exclusively internally derived, (see Appendix A). This in turn may be partly derived from the focus given to the pre-Fall Genesis account when building the core of the model. From this context, apart from the two humans, there is no wider community of fellow humans from which to gain support or to find encouragement – they lived in isolation with God. This explains the need to expand the model to include a social dimension, a need facilitated by an amendment to a more open-ended diagram of personality.

Speaking of Confessions, probably Augustine’s best known work, Brown characterises it as ‘a manifesto for the unexpected, hidden qualities of the inner world’.103 Bailie makes clear his view regarding Augustine’s connection with the concept of inwardness: ‘Not only, however, does Augustine represent the Cartesian revolution in embryo, but, more importantly, he

is the source of the very notion of the ‘inner self’.’104 To portray Augustine as founder of the notion of the ‘inner self’ seems, in the light of Scripture, (Mark 15:1–19; Psa. 51:6; Prov. 20:27; Luke 1:51) to be hyperbolic; however, his stature within early Christianity has undoubtedly led to this notion’s adoption down through the centuries. It would therefore not seem to be an exaggeration when Bailie states that: ‘Augustine did more to encourage authentic Christian interiority than anyone in the early Church.’105

Like Hughes, Augustine’s rationale for emphasising the necessity of a relationship with God rests on his assumption regarding human motivation. This centred on a desire to find happiness which ultimately would be satisfied only by God; the parallel with Hughes’ model is evident: ‘This is happiness to be joyful in Thee and for Thee and because of Thee, this and no other. Those who think happiness is any other, pursue a joy that is apart from Thee and is no true joy.’106

As Johnson points out, Augustine’s emphasis on motivation rooted in fulfilment of desire was commonplace in his day. However, Augustine’s focus on happiness as the possession and enjoyment of God stood in contrast to the Epicureans (happiness in earthly pleasures) as well as the Platonists and Stoics (happiness in rational contemplation of truth).

Desire shapes our view of the dynamics of inwardness, and by doing this links two key issues central to Hughes’ and Crabb’s models, namely human ‘thirst’ at the ‘core’ of our being. Roberts captures this biblical notion as he contrasts ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ functioning: ‘In this inward dimension, which the Bible calls the ‘heart’ or ‘mind’ are found our wishes, cares, intentions, plans, motives, emotions, thoughts, attitudes, and imaginings.’107

Whilst Roberts’ list extends beyond what may be subsumed under the term ‘desire’, it is notable that ‘wishes’, ‘intentions’, ‘plans’, and ‘motives’, do fit within the semantic range of meaning. Hughes and Crabb use the term ‘longings’ to denote desires; Hughes specifically articulates crucial longings as those belonging to our ‘core’ spiritual self, and so elevates spirituality as a primary issue. Augustine uses ‘longings’ to describe this ultimate yearning which he typifies as essential humanity: ‘Do we not all long for the future Jerusalem? I cannot refrain from this longing, I would be inhuman if I

could.’108 Making the same point, Vanhoozer cites Augustine’s most famous prayer as, ‘Our hearts are restless until they find rest in thee.’109 Vanhoozer describes humanity’s essence as ‘constituted by a desire for what is greater than itself, for ultimate reality’,110 ie for God. The limitations of Augustine’s approach, however, lie in a particular theological assumption: ‘Augustine turned inward because he was convinced that the inward journey marks the pathway to God.’111 This was in turn founded upon Greek dualism, which promoted ‘soul’ over ‘body’ and so relegates concrete relatedness and direct encounter with others as a means of knowing God. This latter dimension can be argued to offer explanatory power as to how the human will (desire) is influenced and ‘compelled’,’ ‘co-created’, as in McFadyen’s case studies on sexual abuse and the Holocaust. Speaking of our ‘willing’ McFadyen writes:

This personal energy is not directed by the power of a pure, autonomous self. Willing is rather situated and relational, influenced in its orientation by extra – and supra – personal fields of force within one’s situation. Through willing we incorporate ourselves into, internalise and redouble dynamics which are generally supra-personal and not of our own making, whilst adding our own personal power to them.112

Godly pursuit, however, is not straightforward due to the effect of what Augustine regarded as original sin. This was seen as universal, and disempowering, causing humanity to pursue ‘lesser goods’ which would not satisfy in a deep or lasting way. The term concupiscence is used to denote this inordinate ‘thirst’ or perversion of what was initially created good – a desire for God. According to Pannenberg, a social dimension to original sin has always been present amidst the prophets of the Old Testament. This aspect which McFadyen also articulates enables an explanation of health which is socially and developmentally sensitive, yet preserves the individual as ‘actor’, initiator and responsible to use his or her will morally.

The principle of concupiscence lies at the heart of Hughes’ model, as is evidenced by the importance given to Jeremiah 2:12–13 where, via the

prophet, God questions His people as to why they have turned away from Him, the source of living water, and ‘dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water’ (v13). Hughes, along with Augustine, would explain Israel’s behaviour in terms of sin and its impact: idolatrous, disorientated desire. The Waverley Model Trainers’ Notes also focus on another illustration of this principle. God speaks through Isaiah (55:1–2) inviting all, where awareness of ‘thirst’ is acknowledged, to turn from their natural disordered desire (spending money on what is not ‘bread’, labouring for that which will not satisfy), and turn to him for ‘wine’ and ‘milk’, without cost, which will satisfy. Motyer refers to the prior fruitless behaviour as arising from ‘lack of discernment’ and ‘mental delusion’. Motyer regards bread, wine and milk as symbolically denoting every possible need, where ‘every’ is in context interpreted as spiritual. In this manner, Motyer gives deeper theological weight to the emphasis of the Waverley Model.

The implications for healthy functioning rooted in our God relationship are summarised by the Waverley Model as follows:

When we become dependent on someone else other than God for the meeting of our basic or crucial spiritual needs, we fall into the sin of idolatry – putting someone or something else in the place of God. True maturity of the personality can only come as we link ourselves to the resources which God has provided for the healthy functioning of the personality, for ‘maturity’, as someone said, is where you place your dependency.113

The sin of idolatry is a broad biblical theme, and so the Waverley Model’s emphasis on God dependence as primary for healthy functioning is a laudable one. However, the danger of this rightful emphasis is that it could be construed as conveying an absolute ‘all or nothing’ choice, if taken to an extreme, setting up an unhelpful polemic – a choice between God – or otherdependency. The subtext could be read as this: ‘If we are fully dependent on God for our spiritual needs, we will be impervious to social conditions.’ The corollary also follows: ‘If we are deeply affected by circumstances then we probably are not dependent enough on God.’ Such a perspective does not allow for how God may mediate His presence through family and culture,