Evangelical Reformation

Is the therapeutic approach of Carl Rogers Christian? I had one conservative counselor and pastor tell me that Rogers had stumbled unwittingly onto an essentially biblical approach to understanding people and dealing with their problems. Therefore, he contended that though Rogers might be humanistic, his ideas were essentially Christian.

At least at first blush, this seems to be the case. Here’s how it all fits together.

As I described in a previous post, the essence of Rogers’ theory is that we need unconditional acceptance by significant others. As they accept us unconditionally, we can accept ourselves unconditionally—experience self-esteem “just because I’m me”. This, in turn, will enable us to develop into the person we were meant to be. Therefore, unconditional acceptance is the key commodity of life—to being a healthy person. It is the change agent. We are messed up because we don’t receive it. We get better when we do.

That understanding of human nature seems to dovetail precisely with the teaching of Scripture. Grace might be viewed as another name for unconditional acceptance, since it seems to refer to God accepting the individual apart from performance, hence unconditionally—in the words of the old hymn, “Just as I am.” Therefore, the central theme of the Rogerian approach turns out to be the central theme of Scripture. Grace and unconditional acceptance are essentially the same.

Scripture also runs parallel to Rogers’ theory in that grace (unconditional acceptance) seems to be the change agent in both. It is as we experience God’s grace, His unconditional acceptance, then we can accept ourselves unconditionally (enjoy self-esteem not based on performance), and become the persons that God designed us to be.

In my next post, I will show even more parallels between the Rogerian theory and evangelical Christianity. However, the similarities we have considered so far suggest that my pastor/counselor friend was right after all. Rogers’ theory is essentially biblical. In fact, the gospel is actually an improvement on, a completion of, Rogers’ theory. Rogers offers no basis for our unconditional acceptance. Evangelicals understand that we are accepted unconditionally, and we can accept ourselves unconditionally, through Christ. Therefore, the evangelical worldview is in essence completed Rogerianism.

All of the above makes perfect sense, seems perfectly legitimate, to the contemporary evangelical. These concepts are obviously correct and provide the heart of the contemporary evangelical worldview.

However, might it be that this seems so right, so self-evident, so intuitive because these concepts form the basis for our secular culture? In other words, might it be that because we have adopted Rogerian concepts from the secular realm that we so easily accept and synthesize them with a Rogerian version of Christianity? Could it be that what seems so obviously right to contemporary evangelicals might in fact be blatantly unbiblical? That is the topic for future posts.

We are more like locomotives than we realize. A train doesn’t think about where it is going, it simply follows the rails. We tend to believe that we are thoughtful about who we are and what we do, but, as noted in an earlier posting, culture has a greater shaping influence on us than we realize. Our culture provides the rails on which we run our lives. Often we do not consciously adopt those rails any more than a train decides what rails to travel, and often we are unaware of what they are. We absorb these beliefs from our environment and accept them as valid guiding concepts.

The ideas of Carl Rogers have gained acceptance and maintained power because they make good rails for a culture to run on. By good rails, I do not mean that they are necessarily valid concepts. I do mean that they are sufficiently accessible and have broad enough application to provide guiding principles for life. The central, unifying concept in the Rogerian theory is that unconditional acceptance allows for unconditional self-acceptance (non-performance based self-esteem), which produces a wholesome personality. Therefore, the change agent and the essence of a wholesome environment is unconditional acceptance. This concept has become the cornerstone of our culture. We embrace it and its tenets as self-evident truths and apply them to virtually every aspect of life. The fact that the Rogerian theory has become embedded as the set of rails along which our culture runs gives these ideas great power and durability.

Rogers’ ideas have been good candidates for adoption as cultural rails because of their accessibility. Anyone can grasp them and make the application to his life. This is not the case with some other theories, such as Freudian psychology, which requires a professional for accessibility. Only a highly trained therapist can extract and understand what is going on in the individual’s unconscious. This discovery process, requiring frequent visits over several years, makes this approach to life financially and practically inaccessible to most people.

It is not so with Rogers’ ideas, which, because they are within the reach of the individual, became the impetus for the self-help movement. Though therapists use these concepts, the self-help movement invited the individual to read a book and apply Rogers’ ideas to his own life. For example, people can work on their own self-esteem, and parents can seek to accept their children unconditionally. This accessibility also spawned the therapy group movement, which encouraged individuals to apply Rogerian concepts to the lives of one another. A group can work toward the unconditional acceptance of its members, seeking to eliminate any judgmental attitudes, thus enhancing one another’s self-esteem. Therefore, the applicability of Rogers’ ideas made them candidates for a populist movement, as opposed to the elitist nature of Freudianism, making them a good fit for the American democratic orientation.

Rogers’ ideas are not only easily accessible; they are also broadly applicable. They lend themselves to virtually every aspect of life. They can be used as foundational tenants in educational philosophy, and they have. Books have been written revealing the pervasive influence of self-esteem in American education. They are applicable to marriage, the ideal marriage being described by secular and evangelical counselors as two people who accept each other unconditionally. They are applicable to parenting, the secret to raising psychologically healthy children being an atmosphere of unconditional acceptance, which promotes self-esteem. They are applicable to morality: to accept regardless of performance is moral, and to condemn is not, consequently the change in attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality across the previous several decades. They are applicable to our judicial system, recognizing that condemning criminals only represents a continuation of the conditional acceptance that made them criminals in the first place, the solution being the conveyance of unconditional acceptance. Rogers’ concepts may also be applied as the elixir to virtually every behavioral, emotional, and relational malady. Oppression ultimately finds its source in the failure of significant others to accept unconditionally, crushing the individual’s self-esteem. The solution is unconditional acceptance, enabling the individual to accept himself as he is.

Because of this accessibility and applicability, the concepts of Rogers have become the self-evident truths guiding American culture. To judge or condemn is wrong. To accept and approve is right. Regardless of the answer, using a red pen to grade is a bad thing. The student must not be made to feel judged. The answer on the paper is his answer and therefore must be valued. In so doing the student will feel valued and grow up to be a healthy personality. After all, this is the ultimate objective, isn’t it? Is conforming to society’s rules on grammar really more important than that? American culture says no, and that because of Carl Rogers.

In our next post, we will consider the synergy between Rogers’ ideas and the evangelical worldview.

Would you like to experience ecstasy, the drug form, that is? Here’s a testimonial from a user: “Despite the bad reports I had heard in the media I figured that I would try it at least once. Well, what a great decision that was because I had one of the best times of my life.” Not only, but the joy goes on: “In my case, I’m a lot more into the music scene then I was before, and I don’t drink very often at all although I still smoke a fair amount of weed. I’m also much healthier and more physically active. It has also diminished many of my inhibitions when speaking and interacting with people.”

No, I’m not selling, but a lot of secular and evangelicals sources are pushing the psychological version. Just the theory of Carl Rogers is enough to generate a sense of wellbeing—and the application, well that can send you into ecstasy.

The message contains the really great news that if you have a problem with anger, alcoholism, anorexia, anxiety, bulimia, and on down through the alphabet, your problems is that you don’t like yourself enough—you haven’t learned to like yourself just the way you are, just because you are you. You are basing your self-esteem on your performance or some other erroneous criterion. The solution is to like yourself more, not by doing better, but by recognizing how special you are just the way you are. The error is to think you should like yourself because you have performed better. The truth is that you will perform better once you learn to like yourself, i.e. self-esteem comes first, and performance is the byproduct. Therefore, your goal in life should not be to live better, but to love yourself more. Then you will live better spontaneously. A theory asserting that your problems stem from a failure to love yourself, and that the solution is to love yourself more, is enough to make you ecstatic.

Equally as exhilarating is the insight that the reason you don’t like yourself is because others have not accepted you unconditionally. It’s not your fault. Your parents, teachers, spouse or others have conveyed conditions of acceptance and made you feel that they would only accept you if you lived up to their conditions. The solution, then, is to find friends, a spouse, a support group, or a therapist that will convey unconditional acceptance to you, accept you just as you are, regardless of how you live. (Usually you have to pay someone to do this, but ecstasy costs money, too.) Then you will be able to accept yourself unconditionally and become a fully-functioning person—the person you were meant to be.

This approach to life is far more appealing than the old secular and Christian message of guilt for bad behavior with self-discipline as the solution. That view was so harsh and critical and negative and demanding. This one is full of warmth and love. No rules—just right.

Not only is this theory everything a person wants to hear, but the application produces what the individual wants to feel. It feels so good to be accepted just as I am, regardless of how I am living. Likewise, it feels so good to like me just because I am me, without guilt because of performance. Persons experiencing these feelings of unconditional acceptance and unconditional self-acceptance testify that they have never felt so good. I recall a woman who, when someone suggested that this was not a biblical perspective, began to cry, saying, “But you have no idea how much better I feel since I started accepting myself unconditionally.”

It is little wonder that the secular and evangelical public quickly latched onto this Rogerian ecstasy. It is difficult to imagine a concept with more appeal.

Don’t buy any ecstasy yet. Research has demonstrated that it damages the brain, reducing our capacity to remember and learn. The cost of feeling good is more than just what you pay for the stuff. It makes you wonder whether the psychological ecstasy of Carl Rogers may have some detrimental effect. For example, might it be that the Rogerian approach makes the individual feel good but destroys relationships and leads to divorce? Is living with someone who wants to be accepted unconditionally and accepts himself unconditionally your ideal for a relationship?

That issue is for a future post. Currently we are considering why the theory of Carl Rogers gained instant popularity. The next post will provide yet another reason.