Page 43 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 23

This is per�nent especially given that voli�on, in control theory (see Carver
& Scheier, 2001), involves sustained self-regula�on across �me and chan-
ging circumstances. Thus, can life span changes challenge the inherent na-
ture of one’s sense of autonomy, competence or mastery, and rela�ons-
hips? When these psychological needs, fundamental for powering their will,
are disrupted due to life’s circumstances, what is the missional hope thereof
for such individuals?

The Bridge Between Mo�va�on and Missional Ac�on: A Case of Paul’s
Thorn as Voli�onal Homeostasis
In the psychology of ac�on literature, the Rubicon model draws a line bet-
ween mo�va�on and voli�on, and between contempla�ng a goal and com-
mi�ng to act (Heckhausen, 2007). While mo�va�on concerns delibera�on,
voli�on entails the gri�y, ongoing regula�on of behavior through fluctua�ng
circumstances. Gollwitzer (1999) and subsequent research (see Gollwitzer &
Sheeran, 2006) demonstrate that ac�on planning and implementa�on in-
ten�ons serve as psychological scaffolding that transforms good inten�ons
into sustained ac�on. Theologically, this dis�nc�on between mo�va�on and
voli�on echoes Kroll’s ‘didac�cs of the will,’ which roots voli�onal develop-
ment within a Chris�an anthropology of the imago Dei, which is the belief
that humans are image-bearers of a voli�onal God. S�ll a cri�cal ques�on
persists: What happens when our will no longer aligns with the missio Dei
(our par�cipa�on in the redemp�ve work of God in the world; Counted et
al., 2024), especially when life’s pain and struggles threaten to derail our
sense of purpose?

To explore this tension, I turn to Paul’s tes�mony in 2 Corinthians 12, where
he speaks of a ‘thorn in the flesh,’ which, according to Paul, was a persistent
afflic�on allowed by God. While Paul pleads for relief, God’s answer is para-
doxical: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in
weakness” (2 Cor 12:9, NIV). Paul interprets the thorn not as a punishment,
but as a divine provision with three func�onal purposes. First, it was to re-
tain his humility and keep him grounded despite his revela�ons. Paul opens
this passage with a reference to “surpassingly great revela�ons” (2 Cor
12:7), likely alluding to his mys�cal experiences; perhaps even the third-
heaven encounter described earlier in the chapter. Such spiritual eleva�on
could easily have bred arrogance or a sense of superiority. Instead, Paul
says, “Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given
a thorn.” The thorn served as a counterweight to spiritual pride. One could
say that it was a regulatory measure against ego infla�on. In psychological
terms, such ‘weight’ func�ons like a correc�ve feedback loop in control
theory (Carver & Scheier, 2001), recalibra�ng Paul’s self-percep�on whene-
ver his spiritual status might tempt him toward self-exalta�on. God placed
within Paul’s life a boundary—an unresolved tension—precisely so that his
gi�edness would not devour his groundedness.

Second, the thorn was to remind Paul of his fragile humanity. His le�ers
o�en reveal his dual iden�ty: strong apostle, yet very human. He speaks of
despairing “even of life itself” (2 Cor 1:8), of being “persecuted, but not
abandoned” (2 Cor 4:9). The thorn, then, was not simply about humbling
Paul, but also about reminding him he was human—mortal, vulnerable, fini-
te. He could heal others, yet not himself. He could cast out demons, but not

43
43