Evangelical Reformation

No doubt somewhere along the line you’ve been exposed to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy is such a prominent part of contemporary culture that it is difficult to avoid. Maslow observed that human beings are inclined to prioritize their objectives in a specific order. The first item of business is meeting our physiological needs. Then comes safety needs. After that our interests go to belonging, being part of the group. That need being satisfied, we focus on esteem needs, doing that which will enable us to feel good about ourselves. Ultimately we become concerned with self-actualization, fulfilling the purpose for which we were born.

I believe that Maslow is right on target. In fact, the hierarchy is intuitive and incontestable. That is the way we tend to be. If our physiological needs are not being met, we tend not to give the other categories priority until they are. If a person is hungry enough he will risk his safety, will forfeit his status within the group, will resort to esteem-deprecating strategies such as begging, and will forget about the purpose for which he was born until he gets some food. Or if we are an outsider that wants to belong to a group, we will be willing to enter the group at the lowest level, even though this does not bolster our self-esteem. Once we become part of the group, then our attention tends to move toward esteem.

However, the operative words in this discussion are “tend” and “inclination.” Maslow identified our tendency as human beings. By nature we are inclined to function as he described. The point at which we can fault Maslow is with his choice of the word “needs.” Maybe desires would be a better term. One of the most wonderful qualities that God has built into human nature is the capacity to forfeit lower desires in order to achieve higher ones. I think of persecuted believers who are willing to starve to death rather than betray Christ. Firemen and policemen forfeit their safety needs to protect the public and accomplish their duty. People of character are willing to risk being ostracized from the group rather than do that which is unethical. In fact, the essence of character and heroism and courage and responsibility and other noble human traits resides in the willingness to forego the lower inclinations in order to achieve higher ones.

In this regard, the cross of Christ might be viewed as turning the hierarchy on its head. The ultimate purpose of Christ was to redeem us. Therefore, for Him the cross was the means of actualization. To achieve this purpose required forfeiting the rest of the items on the hierarchy. In enduring the shame of the cross, He sacrificed His esteem. He endured rejection as an outsider. And ultimately He forfeited his safety and physiological needs. Likewise we should be governed by our ultimate purpose in life, to bring glory to God, and make all the other categories on the hierarchy subservient to that purpose.

As noted in an earlier posting, I do not believe that self-esteem, an inward focus on self, is God’s design or a healthy approach to life. But if we are to be esteemed, be the objects of the esteem of others, that can only be achieved by not seeking esteem. Esteem is not a worthy goal. Self-esteem is even less worthy. It is only as we make our goal to bring glory to God that esteem comes as a byproduct. We need an evangelical reformation that encourages us to have the character to inhibit our natural inclination to seek our own esteem so we might apply all of our resources to bring glory to God.

In their excellent book, One Nation under Therapy, Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel discuss a game that is part of a public school course aimed at helping students to get in touch with their feelings. Students toss a beanbag to one another. The person who catches it is suppose to describe how he or she is feeling at that moment. Or if the student hesitates he is asked to divulge what prevented him from sharing his feelings. The quick interchange forced by such a game is designed to break down inhibitions, and social pressure is used to coerce students to think about and talk about their feelings. The book also describes other techniques used to make children think about and verbalize how they are feeling. The objective is not merely to get children to think about themselves, but specifically to focus on their feelings.

As we discussed in the last posting, this is the essence of the self-esteem movement. I am called to think about my feelings about me, and to do so with favor. We noted that a low self-image is also the product of self-preoccupation. What is the impact of this focus on one’s feelings?

It is noteworthy that immediately upon the fall, Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness. We see from this that a self-focus with the resulting self-awareness were the first manifestations of the fall. The case might be made that this self-orientation, the “how do I feel about me” question, constitutes the core of our fallen nature.

Support for this thesis is found in the fact that this self-orientation gets us into so much trouble. In previous postings I have presented evidence that our efforts at self-esteem have not proven to be helpful, but rather are counterproductive. However, even casual observation reveals that. Across the past several decades both our secular and evangelical societies have been immersed in a culture of self-absorption and self-esteem. Would we conclude that our society is better or worse for it? And what about the individual, is he healthier or more pathological? The answer to that question might be found in another. Has the use of psychotropic drugs increased or decreased? Or another, are individuals sensing a need for more or less therapy?

There are two major problems with this self-focus, especially when its objective is to look in and like what we see. The first problem is that there is much not to like. All of us sin against God, our kind and loving creator and redeemer, and we do so on a fairly regular basis. If someone could videotape your thought-life for the past 24 hours, would you want the video shown in public? If the answer is no, and I have not yet run across an affirmative response, then apparently our self-esteem is not rooted in reality. If we are such noble creatures, one would think that we would be eager for everyone to see our hearts publicly displayed.

This being the case, the self-esteem advocate is calling us to play let’s pretend, to live in a fictitious world in our view of ourselves. Such self-deceit is unhealthy. In fact, for most of us it is impossible. We just can’t fool ourselves that much. Therefore, the call to look inward just makes us more miserable.

Then there is the person who looks inward and likes what he sees. He is comfortable with who he is. This person is the most pathological of all because he is unaware of how bad off he is. Like the church of Laodicia in Revelation 3, he is unaware that he is “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” The push in our society to get everyone to be like this person has produced the obvious, it has spread the pathology.

The solution is found in the admonition in the great commandment to love God with all of our heart and soul and mind and strength. By maintaining a focus on Him, and on others for His sake, we develop psychological health, relational enrichment, and spiritual well-being. We need an evangelical reformation that encourages this biblical and healthy approach to life.

This is the old question used to put people in an untenable position. You condemn yourself regardless of whether you answer “yes” or “no.” The questioner corners you by limiting you to those two alternatives. Self-esteem advocates seek to do the same. If you express concern that self-esteem seems to be both unbiblical and unhealthy, they respond by asking, “You don’t think God wants us to have a low self-image, do you?”

They advance this question as if it is rhetorical, that it is obvious to anyone with any sense that the answer would be “no, certainly God would not want us to have a low self-image.” This inference that self-esteem is unquestionably good while a low self-image is devoid of all value reveals that the person asking the question is more influenced by contemporary culture than by biblical content. In Scripture we find God looking with favor on the penitent who would not so much as lift his eyes toward heaven, while He rejected the Pharisees with a great self-image (Luke 18:10-14). The Sermon on the Mount, perhaps the foundational teaching of the New Testament, begins with the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Contrary to popular belief, a little humility might do us all some good.

Having said that, my answer to the self-esteem advocate would be to agree with his inference that God does not want us to have a bad self-image. However, in asking the question, the self-esteem advocate is setting the old “are you still beating your dog” trap—he is limiting us to two options, a good self-image or a bad self-image. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may not be trying to trick us. Perhaps these are the only two options he can think of. Unfortunately, he is missing the most significant option—the biblical one.

Identifying that option takes us back to a point we have made in a previous posting, that esteem can be a noun or a verb. In terms of our capacity to deal with our self-image, we can do nothing directly about the noun side of the issue. If you tend to feel awkward around other people, to second-guess yourself, to feel inferior in comparison with others, there is no button you can push that will change your inner psyche to be otherwise. The television commercials tell you that Paxil is the solution. A stiff cup of Starbucks probably has a similar effect. But neither is God’s answer.

God’s answer is found in relation to the verb aspect of esteem. Viewing esteem as an action, we recognize that both a good and bad self-image find us thinking about ourselves. The person with a good self-image is thinking about himself and liking what he sees, while the individual with a bad self-image is thinking about himself with disfavor. The question above asked by the self-esteem advocate assumes that we must always be thinking about ourselves—trying to decide whether we like ourselves are not. You may have heard of the young man with a great self-image who said to his date, “Well, I’ve talked about me long enough, why don’t you talk about me for awhile.” Likewise, the question by self-esteem advocates suggests that the only available or worthy object of focus is ourselves.

The blessed escape offered by the New Testament is found in thinking about God and others for a change. Though there are times when it is appropriate to think about self, that is not the scriptural norm. Life should consist predominantly of seeking to be a blessing to others. This is the essence of agape love, an outward focus that reflects interest in and a desire to minister to others. This focus on others alleviates the burden of self-image. As we are absorbed in caring for others, the “how do I feel about me?” question is no longer a factor.

We need an evangelical reformation that encourages us to shift our focus from self to God and others. That reorientation will not only enable us to be a blessing to others, but also it will build better relationships and enable us to be healthier people. Lord willing, I will be expanding on this biblical alternative to self-esteem—and to a bad self-image—in Monday’s posting.