SOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY • WWW.CHRISTIANPSYCH.ORG Volume 6, Issue 2 C arl Jung was one of the first therapists of modern psychology to offer a model of what mature human nature is like. He termed the process of becoming the ideal “individuation,” in which a person integrates and harmonizes the disparate aspects of his conscious and unconscious life and becomes a whole self. He also called this “coming to selfhood” or “self-realization.” (Jung, 1966, p. 173). As is well known, Jung believed that each individual is composed of many internal dynamic structures including one’s ego, interpretations and motives within the personal unconscious, and the archetypes. Through the first phase of life, the person becomes a unique individual with distinct personality characteristics, a process he called differentiation. Jung believed that during middle adulthood some persons come to terms with the many diverse aspects of them- selves and come to consciously accept these parts (Jahoda, 1965), while they also learn to let go of the image of themselves that they have been projecting to others (their persona; Jung, 1966). As a result, the person becomes a “psychic whole” (Jahoda, 1965). Jung saw the universal symbol of this process to be a circular pattern called a “mandala,” which signifies that the path of life, individuation, leads to the center and that center is the wholeness of oneself (Jung, 1983). An even more influential classical construction of the human maturity ideal of modern psychology was Maslow’s concept of “self-actualization.” He (1954) argued that humans (and all organisms) have a tendency to promote their well-being (p. 116) and realize their full nature (p. 183). Since that nature includes a hierarchy of needs that humans had evolved, its realization entailed satisfying lower-level needs, which made it possible to be motivated by the higher needs, which in turn could be satisfied. At the top of the hierarchy was the need for self-actualiza- tion. Those who were motivated to act at this In is Issue PAGE 1. Evaluating the Classical Maturity Ideal of Modern Psychology 5. Counseling Implications from Biblical Anthropology: e Old Self and New Self 10. Book Briefs by Eric L. Johnson, Ph.D. Evaluating the Classical Maturity Ideal of Modern Psychology
Transcript
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G
Volume 6, Issue 2
Carl Jung was one of the first therapists of modern psychology to offer a model of what mature
human nature is like. He termed the process of becoming the ideal “individuation,” in which a person integrates and harmonizes the disparate aspects of his conscious and unconscious life and becomes a whole self. He also called this “coming to selfhood” or “self-realization.” (Jung, 1966, p. 173). As is well known, Jung believed that each individual is composed of many internal dynamic structures including one’s ego, interpretations and motives within the personal unconscious, and the archetypes. Through the first phase of life, the person becomes a unique individual with distinct personality characteristics, a process he called differentiation. Jung believed that during
middle adulthood some persons come to terms with the many diverse aspects of them-selves and come to consciously accept these parts (Jahoda, 1965), while they also learn to let go of the image of themselves that they have been projecting to others (their persona; Jung, 1966). As a result, the person becomes a “psychic whole” (Jahoda, 1965). Jung saw the universal symbol of this process to be a circular pattern called a “mandala,” which signifies that the path of life, individuation, leads to the center and that center is the wholeness of oneself (Jung, 1983).
An even more influential classical construction of the human maturity ideal of modern psychology was Maslow’s concept of “self-actualization.” He (1954) argued that humans (and all organisms) have a tendency to promote their well-being (p. 116) and
realize their full nature (p. 183). Since that nature includes a hierarchy of needs that humans had evolved, its realization entailed satisfying lower-level needs, which made it possible to be motivated by the higher needs, which in turn could be satisfied. At the top of the hierarchy was the need for self-actualiza-tion. Those who were motivated to act at this
In This IssuePAGE1. Evaluating the Classical Maturity Ideal of
Modern Psychology
5. Counseling Implications from Biblical Anthropology: The Old Self and New Self
10. Book Briefs
by Eric L. Johnson, Ph.D.
Evaluating the Classical Maturity Ideal of Modern Psychology
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G2
Soul & Spirit Newsletter • Volume 6, Issue 2Soul & Spirit newsletter is published by the American Association of Christian Counselors.
SCP Director: Eric JohnsonGraphic Designer: Amy ColeAdvertising Director: Randy MeetreAACC President: Tim Clinton
The American Association of Christian Counselors is chartered in Virginia and dedicated to promoting excellence and unity in Christian counseling. The purpose and objectives of AACC and the programs that it sponsors are strictly informative, educational, and affiliative.
Views expressed by the authors, presenters, and advertisers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Society for Christian Psychology, or the American Association of Christian Counselors. The Soul & Spirit newsletter, Society for Christian Psychology, and the AACC do not assume respon-sibility in any way for members’ or subscribers’ efforts to apply or utilize information, suggestions, or recommendations made by the organization, the publications, or other resources. All rights reserved. Copyright 2010. ISSN# 19300379
Member Services: 1.800.526.8673, fax: 1.434.525.9480, www.AACC.net.
highest level were termed “self-actualizing people,” and Maslow believed that the study of such people could demonstrate empirically what the human maturity ideal looks like.
What were the traits of the self-actualiz-ing people he studied? He (1954, pp. 203-228) found such people were characterized by an accurate perception of reality, a deep self-acceptance, a joy in living, a spontaneity, a need for privacy, an autonomy from others and simulta-neously a great capacity for deep interpersonal relations and concern about the well-being of others, a sense of oneness with all of humanity, a sense of humor, and creativity, and they had periodic peak experi-ences (see also 1968, pp. 71-95). Maslow (1968) later drew a conclusion similar to Jung’s, that self-actualizing people are characterized by a healthy fusion of their internal structures and motives, resulting in “a true integration of the person at all levels” (p. 96; see pp. 207-208). He also came to regard self-actualization as less a state one permanently arrives at and more a quality of life that some people experience more frequently and fully (p. 97).
Maslow (1968) asserted that one char-acterized by the above qualities seems to be “more truly himself, more perfectly actual-izing his potentialities, closer to the core of his Being, more fully human” (p. 97). He believed the pull to self-actualize was derived from an “inner core” of motives that move humans to seek their own good and to realize their potentialities (p. 155). This inner core must be accepted, trusted, and allowed to express itself (pp. 190ff ).
In light of his research, Maslow (1968)
became convinced that it was possible to dis-cover empirically the most basic values about human nature, for example, where humans should be heading, what our purpose is in life, and what is good for us and what is bad. Since these values are intrinsic to our nature, Maslow wrote that they do not come from a supernatural God (p.170); Research alone
should enable us to define what is a “good human being,” that is, the human maturity ideal.
Because of their significant similarities (noted by Maslow, 1954, p. 116), we will lump together Jung’s and Maslow’s models and call them the classical modern psychology (CMP) model of human maturity (to distin-guish it from more recent, relevant work by positive psychol-ogy and evolutionary psychology). Aspects
of these models have been discussed and appreciated by Christians (see Browning & Cooper, 2004; Dodgen & McMinn, 1986; Kelsey, 1986; McMinn, 1996; Watson, Milliron, Morris, & Hood, 1995; Watson, Morris, & Hood, 1990). To begin with, both the Christian model of sanctification and the classical model of modern psychology refer to the characterological maturation that can occur in adulthood. Moveover, there is signif-icant similarity between Christian features of human maturity and those identified by Jung and Maslow (for example, joy and concern for the well-being of others). There likely is something like the kind of motivational hierarchy that Maslow described that God built into human nature. The CMP posits that human maturity involves an integration
of inner dynamics, something usually left out of theological discussions of sanctification, probably because Christians would resist anything that might justify the integra-tion of their sinfulness into their mature self-understanding. However, the Christian psychologist Kierkegaard took human sinful-ness very seriously in his accounts of human maturity that entailed a Christian kind of integration (which he called “transparency before God,” 1848/1980), yet which resulted in the “purity of heart to will one thing” (1847/ 1938).
Nonetheless, we should expect that people from different worldview communi-ties (like the Christian and the modern) might have different maturity ideals. Yet before we critically evaluate the CMP model from a Christian standpoint, we should consider how Christianity might explain the existence of self-actualizing non-Christians, people who are more reflective, principled, content, caring yet detached, and honest than most people (even more honest than some Christians). It simply won’t do to say that they aren’t really happy, since happiness is a conscious state and they report and evidence a state of happiness that is evident and attractive to those who know them. This observation is important, because the fact is not all Christians are happy and not all non-Christians are troubled and unhappy. While many non-Christians are troubled, most do not appear to be acutely dysfunctional, and there is a significant minority of Christians who by most standards are outstanding human beings and who seem to be quite at peace within themselves, yet they have no relationship to God in Christ. As a result, Christians must be willing to countenance God’s creation grace (or what has traditionally been called his “common grace”), that is, his willingness to grant great blessings to those who have no interest in him (or least, do not subscribe to the Christian understanding of God). Why does God grant these bless-ings? Because he gets glory from all of his
Christians must be willing to countenance God’s creation grace, that is, his willingness to grant great
blessings to those who have no
interest in him.
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G
unwarranted generosity (and this includes, of course, what he gives to Christians). Second, since the law of God is written on all human hearts (Ro. 2.15), it ought not to surprise us that many individuals throughout the world, including followers of Eastern religions and secular belief systems, can recognize the main contours of this law and have developed ways to live more or less accordingly, but without God. It may also be worth noting that both Jung and Maslow were raised in conservative religious homes (though both homes were dysfunctional), which in significant but only partially acknowledged ways contributed to their own self-understandings and views of reality, and helped to form them into the kinds of “searchers for the good” that they became.
So what might be some Christian concerns regarding the classical modern psychology model of human maturity? For one thing, they were clearly expressions of modern Western individualism (Browning & Cooper, 2004; Roberts, 1993; Vitz, 1994).
In a secular world devoid of God, the Self becomes the supreme orienting principle/person in human life (Vitz, 1994). In such a framework, the mature self is assumed to be an absolutely independent being (though Jung and Maslow would obviously acknowl-edge that individuals are dependent upon others in childhood and that proper human maturation involves healthy relations with others and is sharply distinguished from self-ishness or a crass egotism, e.g., see Maslow, 1954, pp. 235-260). As result, because their understanding of the human telos or maturity ideal does not involve a necessary relation-ship with the Creator, it makes perfect sense to construe human maturation fundamen-tally as “individuation,” “self-realization,” or “self-actualization”—that is, to become more fully oneself and more internally integrated, only on the basis of one’s own resources. Both Jung and Maslow were what moral philosophers would call “ethical egoists” (Browning & Cooper, 2004)—that is, they assumed that the highest norm for human
life is the realization of each individual’s own biologically-based potentials. As a result, autonomy from God is obviously basic to the model, since a relationship with him is not intrinsic to the ideal, but in a less obvi-ous sense, autonomy from other humans is also basic, since there are no higher ethical or spiritual considerations in the ideal than the realization of the individual’s potentials, including those of justice or love.
In contrast, within a theocentric framework, the self (and its maturation) is fundamentally relational, first, since the self is defined in relationship with its Creator—after all, human beings are understood to be preeminently the image of God—and second, since the Creator is revealed to be a Trinity in Christianity, it follows that being in the image of God means humans are (and ought to be) profoundly interdependent on one another. Another implication of the Christian relational framework for its matu-rity ideal is that humans are considered to be accountable to God, so their telos involves
3
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G
conformity to a transcendent standard, outside the self: God’s holy, loving character. The CMP maturity ideal has no place for any such standard beyond the individual. Perhaps because of this, Maslow has no place for notions like sin, guilt, repentance, and mortification, since he assumes a good or at least a neutral human nature (Maslow, 1968, p. 194). Jung, at least, recognized what he called the “shadow,” a concept that is a little closer to a Christian understanding of human sinfulness, but Jung’s shadow is still a natural, internal dynamic structure, and not something alien to humankind and necessar-ily unclean, like sin.
The importance of this relational distinc-tion between Christian and classical modern maturity ideals cannot be overstated. The most important values within one’s world-view (and one’s edification framework) cast a certain light on everything else. It is simply naive to believe that one can remove the most significant good to Christianity, God, and leave everything else in the system unaf-fected. According to semiotics, words (and ideas and persons) exist within a system of interrelated units that gives each individual unit its meaning in relation to the other units (Barthes, 1964). This is certainly the case regarding one’s values (which is foundational to every therapeutic and religious system), since they necessarily form a hierarchy with core values becoming the goals of the lower-level values in one’s value framework (Rescher, 1969).
Moreover, while their lists of virtues are in the main laudable, Christians can raise legitimate questions about the particular configuration of virtues that has been identi-fied and the absence of other virtues. For example, while self-expression certainly has some value to the Christian (after all, creation was an act of God’s self-expression), it is likely that Christians would place it much lower in importance than Maslow does. By contrast, virtues very high in the Christian scheme of things, like humility, gentleness, a fixedness on eternity, and self-sacrifice, are absent or seriously distorted when compared with their Christian articulation (Browning & Cooper, 2004; Roberts, 1993; Vitz, 1994). Another contrast is seen in the fact that the climax of moral and spiritual perfection within the Christian tradition has long been understood to be, not individuation or self-actualization,
but self-denial and self-emptying.The greatest difference is that both Jung
and Maslow believed that human maturity was not compatible with an exclusive, dogmatic religion like orthodox Judaism or Christianity (see Maslow, 1954, p. 221; 1970; Jung, 1983, p. 239-40; 253ff ). As a result, perhaps Christians should trust them on this point. Perhaps their maturity ideal really is incompatible with a Christian. It seems likely that they knew their systems very well and what is and is not compatible with them. We too, then, should avoid a facile identification of a Christian view of human maturity with theirs and simplistically apply the terms “individuation,” “self-realization,” and “self-actualization” to the Christian process of maturation. Christians
“should be careful not to equate formal similarity with actual identity. Baboons and humans have many similarities [sharing over 95% of the same genes], but their differences are quite profound and are the reason they are grouped in different families. Overlooking such differences would not be tolerated in biology. The problem is even more serious with psychological concepts like self-actualization because considerations regarding the ultimate motivation prin-ciple of human life are so dependent on socially-constructed formulations that involve fundamental world-view, moral, and theological commitments.” (Johnson, 1997, p.23)In light of the foregoing, it would seem
best for Christians to leave such terms to the modernists, and we should use our own terms, like sanctification or conformity to Christ, and develop our own distinct understanding of human maturity, more consonant with the fundamentally relational, ethical, and spiritual contexts of a Christian worldview.
ReferencesBarthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology.
New York: Hill & Wang.Browning, D. S., & Cooper, T. D. (2004).
Religious thought & the modern psycholo-gies (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Fortress.
Dodgen, D. J., & McMinn, M. R. (1986). Humanistic psychology and Christian thought: A comparative analysis. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 14, 194-202.
Jahoda, J. (1965). The way of individuation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Johnson, E. L. (2007). Foundations for soul care: A Christian psychology proposal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Jung, C. G. (1966). The relations between the ego and the unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.). The collected works of C.G. Jung (Vol. 7, pp. 123-244). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1928)
Jung, C. G. (1983). Integration, wholeness, and the self. In A. Storr (Ed.). The essential Jung (pp. 229-298). Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
Kelsey, M. T. (1986). Christianity as psychol-ogy: The healing power of the Christian message. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Kierkegaard, S. (1938). Purity of heart is to will one thing. New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1847)
Kierkegaard, S. (1980). A sickness unto death. (H.V. Hong, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1849)
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and per-sonality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
McMinn, M. R. (1996). Psychology, theol-ogy, and spirituality in Christian coun-seling. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.
Rescher, N. (1969). An introduction to value theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roberts, R. C. (1993). Taking the word to heart: Self and other in an age of thera-pies. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Vitz, P. C. (1994). Psychology as religion: The cult of self-worship (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., Hood, R. W.
(1990). Intrinsicness, self-actualization, and the ideological surround. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 40-53.
Watson, P. J., Milliron, J. T., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1995). Religion and the self as text: Toward a Christian translation of self-actualization. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23, 180-189.
4
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G 5
Intramural debates over integration have, after three decades, ended in a draw. Those who spoke strongly for integration acknowledge that there is no such thing as two different but
authoritative books – one being Scripture, the other Science. Scripture, instead, must interpret everything. Special revelation interprets general revelation. Meanwhile, those who spoke strongly for the sufficiency of Scripture acknowledge that they are provoked by, sharpened by, and learn from those who follow Christ and those who don’t.
There are nuances in this debate that still identify particular groups along the Christian counseling spectrum, there remain worthwhile details to discuss, and we will always want to be more sophisticated at having Scripture shape psychological thoughts and research, but integration is no longer where the action is.
Anthropology is the new integration. What is the doctrine of the person that comes out of Scripture, and what is the doctrine of the person that actually animates our counseling?
Where there are different counseling methodologies—and there are certainly differences along the spectrum of Christian counsel-ors—expect to find different theologies of the person. Theory and
method are inextricably joined. Whether our doctrine of the person is implicit or explicit, it will determine how we help people. The present task, I believe, is for Christian counselors to begin to identify and clarify our anthropological infrastructure, and a consideration of the biblical teaching on the old self and new self is as good a place to start as any. The terms only appear in three passages – Romans 6:6, Ephesians 4:22 and Colossians 3:9 – but these are doors that both open into a critical area of self-understanding and link to the bulk of Pauline anthropology.
THE OLD AND NEW SELF IN EPHESIANSThe old and new self in Ephesians is probably the best-known pas-sage of the three.
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceit-ful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Eph. 4:22-24)
The Old is Past, the New is PresentThe language Paul uses is straightforward. “Old self ” simply means
COUNSELING IMPLICATIONS FROM BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY:
The Old Self and New Selfby Edward Welch, The Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation
Biblical anthropology, which is another way of identifying a biblical doctrine of the person, has been patiently waiting to be part of the discussions within Christian counseling. The topic is arguably even more fundamental than integration because differences in therapeutic methodology and approaches toward psychological science typically rest on assumptions about the nature of the person. One component of most biblical anthropologies is the Pauline contrast between the old self and the new self. The task of a Christian psychology is to identify this distinction and then consider how this distinction informs counseling and therapy.
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G6
old self, the person who is fading, dying, from a different era. In Christ, the old self ’s time is over. The inexorable descent into dark-ness has been replaced by a relentless growth into Christ. The day belongs to the new self. The prophet Isaiah gave a vivid picture of this dramatic change, “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Isa. 9:2).
The Old is Greedy, the New Grows in GodlinessPaul gives more details of this event in the larger context of his letter. The old and new self are not so much psychic locations within the person as they are historical allegiances along with the way of life that accompanies those allegiances. In the Old Testament we could say that the old self was of Egypt. In Ephesians, the old self was aligned with the way the Gentiles lived. The protocol for that lifestyle was a long one, but it could be simplified to greed (4:19,22), to which Colossians 3:9 added lies. Indulge your desires – that was the law of the land.
In contrast to the old life that was driven by desire, the new self is spiritually empowered to discern right from wrong, do what is right, and grow in imitation of the Holy One. Whereas the old self couldn’t detect the boundary between right and wrong, the new self can identify that line and lives within the boundaries of godliness. The specific counterpart to the greed of the old self is the self-control of the new. Notice, for example, how Paul, in his discourse with Felix, organized the Christian faith around “righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come” (Acts 24:25). Similarly, self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23), and it is the only theme that the apostle Paul says should appear in the discipleship package for every group – old, young, male, female (Titus 2).
The Old is the Flesh United with the World and Devil, the New is the Spirit Joined to the Church and ChristOther links to the old self and new self appear whenever Paul writes about who “you were.”
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. (Eph. 2:1-3)
Here he identifies the old self as the flesh, and then connects the flesh to the triumvirate of the world, flesh and Devil. The old self was a life-style in which we – as flesh – were faithful to the old friends of the world and the Devil. Their refrain? “More” in three-part harmony.
Flesh is a common synonym for the old self. The NIV translates it as sinful nature. It is tricky to interpret because it can be used either for our bodies, in which case it emphasizes our weaknesses and limita-tions, or our spirits (souls, hearts, inner persons, and so on), in which case it emphasizes our connection to the wasting-away-world as it is in cahoots with Satan. Either way, the flesh is on its way to death.
The world, a partner of the flesh, is the flesh-in-community. It
is the anti-God voices that applaud our sinful desires. No one wants to be the odd person out. As such, the world makes sure that you feel like you are in fine company when you give yourself to your desires. When so many others are doing it, the world can be the perfect balm for a tormented conscience.
The Devil is the personal head of “the kingdom of the air.” Like the world, he does not have the power to make us sin – the flesh can do that without any assistance – but he orchestrates the kingdom of evil and declares war on anyone who turns to Jesus Christ as Lord and King.
The new self too has its own chorus and partnerships. Spirit replaces flesh (e.g., Rom. 8:16, 1 Pet. 4:6). This spirit is
the inner person renewed by the Spirit. The church replaces the world. The church is the community
of encouragement and love that testifies to the Truth. When we are with God’s people, the distinction between right and wrong becomes clear.
Jesus, of course, is the personal and reigning head of the church. His authority is over all, Satan included. Jesus is bringing history to its climax, at which time we will no longer be troubled by any echoes of the old man.
Having been redeemed from the ruler of the air, the new self is raised up with Christ in the heavenly realms. Now we imitate our new Lord, which, in part, means that we walk through this present world circumspectly. We are given power to put boundaries around old tendencies toward sensual indulgence and greed.
Both Old Self and New Self are Identified with Various ImagesThe old and new self is accompanied by a group of different metaphors. At least three appear in Ephesians: the biological (“put to death” (Col.3:5), “made alive” (Eph.2:5)), royal investiture (“put off ” and “put on”), and the familial (“in Adam” or “in Christ”). A fourth, the juridical, comes by way of Paul’s letter to Romans.
The language of investiture, in particular, makes it clear that the old self has its present effects. We must aggressively take it off or put it to death. The somewhat paradoxical situation means that we now live as new people yet the era of the old self remains. We once lived only in this present age, where we were subject to sin and its power. Now we also live in the age to come, where the promises of God are amen in Christ (Figure 1). These promises are fully our own but we do not yet have them in their fullness. The already/not yet: that is the axiom in most theological circles. We live in an era where praise and thanksgiving appear alongside the pleas, “Lord, have mercy,” and Lord, come quickly.”
The New Self and the Age to Come
Christ’sReturn
The Old Self and This Present Age
Figure 1. The Overlap between This Age and the Age to Come
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G 7
THE OLD AND NEW SELF IN ROMANSThe old self appears again in Paul’s letter to the Romans.
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. (Rom. 6:6)
This time the phrase is surrounded by an even richer theology.
The Old is United with Adam, the New is United with ChristThe old self was in Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). That’s why there was physical death even before the law of Sinai came and the law exposed our unrighteousness. We were once united with Adam and part of his exiled and renegade family. Death was part of our inheritance. Now we have been joined to Christ and belong to God. That joining to Christ was so intimate and close we were even joined with him in his death. By faith his death was the death of the old self, his resurrection was the beginning of our new self, our new life.
Is the New Self Divided? The present experience of living a new life yet with the old still nip-ping at our heels appears in Paul’s well-known statements in Romans 7. Over the years I have flip-flopped in my interpretation of this chapter a number of times with the hope that I might get it right at least half the time. On one hand, it just doesn’t sound like Paul to call himself unspiritual (7:14). On the other, he is speaking in the present tense, which could be a rhetorical device but, if so, the style is unusual in Paul’s writings. Over the past year I have interpreted Romans 7 as being Paul’s Christian experience. This seems to be the emerging consensus among scholars, and it is certainly consistent with everyone’s Christian walk.
From 7:7-13 Paul is speaking in the past tense about his pre-Christian experience. He was dead, deceived and dominated. From 7:14 on, Paul writes in the present tense as a person who is alive. His eyes are open to the battle. Whereas his old self, as a practicing Pharisee, was once content with his legalistic righteousness, now the Spirit convicts him of sin and leads him into the noble path already taken by the tax collector who beat his breast over his sins (Luke 18:10-14).
“Sold as a slave to sin” (7:14) suggests an action in the past that carries over into his present Christian experience. The remnants of sin, indeed, remain palpable. Their presence is a grief to him. Yet there is more. Paul’s eyes are now open and his “inner being” (7:22) is alive and delights in God’s law. This inner being is another term for new self.
We Experience the Pull of Two Different KingdomsOur present mode of being is experienced as a complicated, intra-psychic warring, and it is, in fact, a real war. The language of old and new self, however, points us toward historical events that are played out in our inner lives. We live in an era when past and future collide. We look backwards and see the old claims of the dark kingdom, we look to the momentous event of the cross and revel in our liberation, we expect a battle in the present, and we look forward to full and final redemption.
Paul speaks of the contrast between then and now in a way that is rich and varied.
We act out of the flesh, or we live by the Spirit (Gal. 5: 17)We are under the law (Rom. 3:19), or we are under the promise and graceWe live as offspring of a slave (Hagar), or we live as children of the promise (Sarah) (Gal. 4:21-31)We are in Adam, or we are in Christ (Rom. 5:17)We are slave, or we are free (Gal. 5:31)We are unrighteousness and live under wrath, or we are righteousness via faith (Rom. 3:10-26)
PRACTICAL THEOLOGYMost evangelicals agree on the basic meaning of the old and new self. The concepts are clear enough. But true theology must be practi-cal theology. The challenge is to incorporate biblical teaching into life and ministry. With that principle in mind, here are just a few applications of the distinction between the old and new self.
Think “Personal” “Think right” is the motto of the day, both in secular and religious counseling, and we do want to think right. We want to understand accurately. But too often this means, in Christian circles, that we must simply know that we are new, and such knowledge leads to change. In contrast, John Murray in his book, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied indicated that knowledge develops into belief, which means that we believe our knowledge is actually true, and belief must move to faith, which means we trust in a person. We live in a personal world, and all change is personal.
The old self is about past allegiances that have lingering effects. It is about choosing sides, worshipping, belonging to. The new self has been forged by the personal Spirit. It has been reclaimed, now to partner with the plans of the true God. The knowledge we pursue is about God himself. Our God has determined that all real change proceeds from this relational knowledge.
Assume an Active Inner WorldThere are metaphors, especially from the perspective of the old self, that imply passivity. We are dead and in bondage. Another has the power. That slavery, however, is a curious sort. It is voluntary slavery. Allegiances are at the heart of both the old self and new self. We are busy people.
Sometimes the biblical portrayal of the person is perceived as simplistic. That is, it reveals our obvious, self-conscious, spiritual motivations, but it doesn’t get at the deeper issues that tend to be more responsible for disordered emotions and irrational behavior. Contrary to those perceptions, Scripture reveals motivations in the unbeliever that could never be viewed with the naked eye. There is a lot going on under the surface – spiritual allegiances are being made in every action, intentional blindness about the Truth is the norm, greed and wants drive us more than we realize, and self-control is always out of reach. To complicate the picture even further, the image of God in all people persists. As such, get to know an unbeliever well enough and you will discover that there remains a family resemblance. The believer is even more complicated. Amid the newness, you can still find old patterns, and these patterns are not so much latent potentials
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G8
as they are enemy combatants. Beneath the placid exterior of any Christian lies a complicated inner world.
See Everything from the Vantage Point of Old and New SelfOur lives, however, are by no means inscrutable. The biblical catego-ries of old and new self bring order to our internal messiness. That order begins as we break the old and new self out of narrow anthropo-logical compartments whose contents are merely “spiritual” problems and not psychological. The historical movement from old to new informs everything: relationships, work, leisure, emotions, thoughts, and so on. We are not social-cognitive-emotional-vocational-spiritual beings, as if each faculty ruled its own turf. Instead, everything we do is spiritual.
This gives us an occasion to clarify what we mean by spiritual. In our everyday conversations the term is increasingly limited.
Spiritual can mean ethereal, incorporeal and not attached to everyday life. Spiritual can mean matters that are explicitly addressed in Scripture, in which case it contrasts with clinical. Spiritual includes lots of don’ts. Clinical is where our most annoying and life-dominating problems seem to reside.
Yet there is nothing limited about Scripture’s teaching on the spiritual. It usually means, from the Spirit. As such, spiritual car-ries with it everything that we can know only by way of the Spirit’s illumination. It can also imply something that is eternal rather than temporal. Either way, spiritual is from God and is counterpoint to earthly or fleshly. The new self is spiritual; the old self unspiritual.
Think Historically and EschatologicallyRather than consider the old self as a spiritual compartment within the person, the biblical data indicates that the old self is past, with effects in the present. The new self is present, with its aim dead set on the future. The emphasis on story in theological studies is an attempt to capture this fundamental way of understanding people. As story, we have a past, middle and future.
This is simply another way to impress the personal nature of all human life. In the past, we were owned by another. Then, still in the past, we were rescued. Now, in the present, we live to battle with sin and persevere by faith in our new and true Lord, with joy in suffering. If we really want to understand people, we should be historians.
Full disclosure: I would like to jettison our old tripartite model once and for all. While Christian counselors have been trying to define the lines between body, soul and spirit we have missed the larger drama in which we live, and we have made the soul the reposi-tory for all the interesting features of human life such as our emotions and the affects of our personal past. Most biblical scholars seem to agree that the Hebraic and Pauline mind were not about defining the psychic interior. Instead, Paul was looking for the Messianic response to both the predicament of Adam (from Genesis) and our heart’s instinctive turning toward Egypt (from Exodus).
Notice how this historical rather than compartmental approach transforms our methodology with depression. If our anthropology is limited to body-soul-spirit, the tendency is to focus on bodily weaknesses with the accompanying medical treatment as well as the
soul’s renegade emotions, for which we need new cognitive skills so we aren’t dominated by it’s incessant pessimism. When we view the person historically and eschatologically we see more.
As we look back we see that we have been the beneficiaries of a spiritual revolution. We were purchased by our loving Lord to belong to him and to love others.
• We have a purpose. “You are not your own, I were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19,20). This inserts a more fun-damental issue: How do I live for another when I feel so miserable? While answering that question we will prob-ably identify spiritual baggage that adds greater burdens to depression. For example, when things get personal we are more apt to identify guilt and anger, which are well known attachments to some depression. As depressed people learn a new self lifestyle, and these are discarded, depression is often much less intense.
• We can be thankful. The apostle Paul writes frequently about being thankful in the midst of life’s sufferings. This is not a mental mantra that can distract us from the pain of depression or provide a temporary path to relief. Paul is taking us into the reality of the Kingdom of Christ. He is helping us to see, and, in that, he gives us reasons to be thankful.
As we look forward, we have hope. We anticipate. Depression is, if anything, a failure of hope. An historical/eschatological self-understanding makes hope immediately accessible. A perfect climax to all history is coming soon, and we are part of the plan to usher in this climax. We ourselves will be complete when we see Jesus face-to-face. We will be suffering-free. Even more, we will be sin-free. As we meditate on these future realities we are actually sanctified and become more fully human (1 John 3:2-3).
Keep an Eye out for Greed, Wants, “MINE!” and Living Outside God’s BoundariesThe new self looks back at what happened with gratitude. It also looks back as a way to be warned and remain alert. Having grown up in the dark kingdom that era still has the ring of familiarity, and when times are tough our instincts yearn for our pasts.
“I WANT,” is the basic theme of the old self. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge themselves in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. (Eph. 4:19)
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. (Col. 4:5)
The residue of the old self is apparent in our greed for more of anything – money, sex, power, control, comfort. We certainly don’t need Scripture to help us with this observation. Sensual indulgence is our national obligation. Self-control, especially in the realm of eating, is our national obsession. But Scripture certainly highlights what we already sense to be true.
I want to be careful not to reduce the old self exclusively to out-of-control actions and thoughts, but a world without boundaries is
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G 9
arguably a central theme of the old way of life. We are people who were intended to live within boundaries, yet like little children we are always looking for opportunities to live outside them.
With depression in mind, depressed people are ordinary humans and share in the problems of ordinary humanness. Where is “MORE” active in their lives? This is not necessarily a cause of depression, but it is most likely an accompaniment of it.
Look for Holiness and GloryGreed is present in every human heart, and we can find it on a cur-sory inspection. But for the person who follows Christ, our eyes are especially peeled to see evidence of the new person. Sin is easy to see; holiness and reflected glory take practice. I know a married man who has been quick to withdraw from his spouse even if he thinks she might get a little testy. He will be silent for days or until his wife moves toward him and tries to reconcile. This, of course, is not pretty. But he is a sensitive soul. “Immature,” he says, which includes a keen understanding that his responses are sinful. He genuinely wants to be different.
There it is. Romans 7 in all its glory. Many people claim Romans 7 as their own, but it belongs only to the mature. In other words, most of us might want to do right, but only when our greed and desire are at a low ebb. Our problem is that we like our sin, in contrast to Paul’s observations in Romans 7. Paul wanted sin gone. He wanted to be done with it rather than keep sin available for emergencies. This married man is one of the few people who can make Romans 7 his own. He hates what he does and deeply desires to change. As such, he has glory all over him. The Spirit is on the move, and, if you see it, it is your duty to point it out and relish it. And, if possible, sit back and watch for a while. For example, this married man will, no doubt, grow and change, and I want to be around to see it.
Be OptimisticThe battle with out-of-control desires is nasty – we all know that – but Romans 7 reveals that the battle with our lusts is not fair. First, there is no condemnation. As a result, lapses are not inevitable descents into guilt and hopelessness, during which time we can easily give ourselves over to our desires because hopelessness sees no reason to wage a loosing battle. Second, we are now controlled by the Spirit, not the flesh or old self. As such, though we are not surprised by either sin or godliness, we expect godliness to prevail. The Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. Certainly he will empower us. If we are stuck in sin today, we will be less so next week. If we kill with our tongue today, we expect that frustrations will be kept to ourselves next year, and the following year we will notice that forgives and peace dominate our inner world.
Scripture doesn’t present a symmetrical ying-and-yang world of spiritual powers. There is no stalemate between good and evil, darkness and light. Apart from Christ, darkness temporarily holds sway. In Christ, the light has come and it rips through the darkness.
If we follow the apostle Paul’s lead we should be left scratching our heads when baptized believers persist in sin. For him, such a state just doesn’t make sense. How could a true follower of Christ pine for the old life of death and darkness? Paul was very optimistic about the new self.
In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil.1:4-6)
Get MeanSince the Spirit has been given, we know we are on the winning side and we engage with battle with a zeal that takes no captives and shuns talk of truce. When Paul talks about putting off the old self the image is not that of a well-appointed, discrete changing room. Instead, envision something more violent. Jesus said, “from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matt.11:12, KJV). We don’t take off the old so much as we rip it off, and then rip it off again, and again. The old self was associated with a treacherous enemy who still stalks. Though we have deep peace in Christ right now, guerilla warfare rages. Vigilance and ruthlessness are the order of the day.
Go BigOne of the great gifts of Scripture is that it directs us away from our myopic world of the self and opens our eyes to the Kingdom of Heaven. Too often our world is reduced to the self, that is, the old self. It bears our hopes and dreams, it carries the burdens of the opinions of others. The self, however, was never intended to lift those weights. Instead, we were created to participate in the plans of the King. Only when we see that Christ is the cosmic, reigning and active king can we maintain enthusiasm for partnering with him in his mission. The new self is a major event. It is the fruit of the gospel, the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the fulcrum of all history. There is nothing bigger. This contrasts with a view of the person in which Jesus resides in a smallish section of the human interior.
God does things big. With that in mind, we scan our environ-ment and ourselves looking for his workmanship and the power of his Spirit. Our eyes are open. Rightly understood, the new self has no room for boredom, hopelessness or self-recrimination. The Spirit who has raised the dead is bringing to us the kingdom of heaven. Suffering and victimization are not over. The age of the Spirit does not spare us the sufferings of this present age, and, given how the sufferings of Christ tend to be recapitulated in the lives of his people, we expect that we will experience even more hardships than the world around us. But these trials cannot diminish the glory of God that reflects off our faces.
Christian counselors want Scripture to take the lead in all our work. This means that we want biblical categories to take precedence in our thinking about people, and we are all growing in this. One convenient test for our growth is whether or not our fundamental categories can be easily keyed to biblical texts. Categories such as psychodynamic conflict or object relations are psychological catego-ries that need to be parsed further in order to reduce them to more basic biblical categories. The old self and new self distinction is one of those essential biblical categories that can supervise our therapeutic and research agenda.
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G
John H. Coe and Todd W. Hall, Psychology in the Spirit: Course of a Transformational Psychology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. 446 pp. $30.00 (paperback).Reviewed by Mike McGuire, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. of Psychology & Counseling, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Coe and Hall begin with the observation that “psychology is under the scrutiny and watchful examination of God” (p. 33). This sets the context for the balance of the book.
The reader quickly realizes that by psychology the authors do not merely mean the academic discipline but include the very psychology of God’s image bearers—humans who have rebelled against Him and whom He calls back to Himself. Thus, the writers focus not merely upon academic psychology but upon what they refer to as a Transformational Psychology (TP).
Their thoughts are developed in five sections. These are entitled “Foundations for a TP,” “Methodology for Doing Transformational Psychology in The Spirit,” “The Content of a Transformational Psychology,” “Transformational Psychology and the Praxis of Soul Care,” and “The Ultimate Goal of a Transformational Psychology.” Each section contains between one and six chapters, for a total of eighteen chapters. Some chapters were written by Coe, others by Hall, and still others were written jointly. The writing style is very accessible, but the level of thought and information is rich and complex.
Readers of Soul & Spirit will be interested in Chapter 3, which is entitled “Ways of Seeing Christianity and Psychology.” A portion of this chapter unfortunately borrows from Eck’s
organizing framework—unfortunate because it organizes all the models with reference to integration, as if integration is the only true paradigm. Nonetheless, Coe and Hall use that framework to discuss how TP is similar to and different from biblical counseling, integration, and Christian psychology, identifying what they view as the respective strengths and weaknesses of their competitors. Nonetheless, throughout the book, one marvels at the deeply Christian understandings of human nature, science, human development that mark the book, and one is forced to conclude that, whether the authors recognize it or not, TP is an excellent example of Christian psychology. This is not surprising given the fact that TP seems to be a creative model that originates out of the Christian spirituality tradition. (John Coe is the director of the Institute for Spiritual Formation at Biola University). In addition, it is fundamentally critical of modern psychology. As a result, it seeks to build a new version of psychology based on Scripture, empirical research, and the transforming work of the Spirit in the believer’s heart and in Christian community. As a result, we applaud this book’s contributions and welcome it into the historically diverse and increasingly complex family of Christian psychology.
Book Briefs
10
S O C I E T Y F O R C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H O L O G Y • W W W. C H R I S T I A N P S Y C H . O R G
WE ARE ON THE WEB AT WWW.CHRISTIANPSYCH.ORGSOCIETY FOR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY
Mission Statement of the Society for Christian Psychology: The Society exists to promote the development of a distinctly Christian psychology (including theory, research, and practice) that is based on a Christian understanding of human nature.
Steven Waterhouse, Strength for His People: A Ministry for Families of the Mentally Ill (2nd ed.). Amarillo, TX: Westcliffe Press, 2002. 121 pp. $7.95 (paperback).Reviewed by Mike McGuire, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. of Psychology & Counseling, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
The book’s dedication states, “If I cannot cure you, my dear brother, I will try to use your
sufferings to bring hope to hurting families and enlightenment to neglectful churches.” The author’s brother suffers from schizophrenia, and in this book Waterhouse, a pastor, sets out to “bring hope to hurting families and enlightenment to neglectful churches.”
The six chapters that compose the book address the trouble that mental illness causes at church and home, the nature of schizophrenia, common emotional responses from the family, theological reasons for human suffering, a Christian perspective on the intrinsic worth of humans (regardless of their
struggles), and the difference between schizophrenia and demonic influence. Each chapter ends with a list of prompts for further reflection, discussion, and reading. The bibliography, which includes numerous resources, runs 15 pages.
In Strength for His People, Waterhouse gently shepherds readers down the path to responding compassionately to the struggles of individuals and families. He attempts to make sense of his brother and family’s struggle and thus to make sense of these struggles for other Christians. This book is thus relevant to those interested in Christian psychology and is recommended as a resource for families, counselors, pastors, and church staff.
Board of Reference for Society of Christian Psychology(Executive Board Members*)
