Evangelical Reformation

Rockets do not lift off into orbit primarily by their own power, but rather they are mounted on solid rocket boosters that provide most of the thrust. For example, two solid rocket boosters provided 71.4% of the thrust for the Challenger. Likewise, usually a culture-shaping theory like that of Carl Rogers, described in our previous post, does not take hold on its own merit, but achieves its power through ancillary factors.

The stage-one booster that launched Rogers’ theories into space was its synergy with it dominant philosophical culture of the time—existentialism. Rogers’ ideas began to gain momentum in the fifties, but they took off in the sixties and beyond because they provided the missing ingredient that existentialism needed to gain power in main-steam America.

The central theme of the hippie movement, the embodiment of existentialism in our nation, was that the individual has a right to do his own thing. It doesn’t take much to convince a college student of this self-serving mantra. However, most New York executives and every Kansas farmer knows that this philosophy will fail in real life, that if everyone does his own thing, chaos will result. They recognize that human beings are self-centered, and therefore society can only succeed if people discipline themselves, or are disciplined by others, to do what is right as opposed to doing what they feel like doing. Consequently, existentialism, launched by our educational system and propelled by the news and entertainment media quickly got into orbit on college campuses, the make-believe existence where students live off their parents’ money. However, it did not get off the launching pad among those facing the realities of life, who recognized that it could not work in the real world.

The theory of Carl Rogers provided the fix necessary to make existentialism believable even in Peoria. As explained in the previous post, the heart of Rogers’ theory is that people have problems because significant others fail to accept them unconditionally. The solution to their problems is to extend unconditional acceptance to them, enabling them to accept themselves unconditionally, thus freeing them to be guided by their self-actualizing tendency and to become the person they were meant to be.

This understanding of human nature validates existentialism, not only explaining how it can work in the real world, but asserting that it is the only healthy approach to life. The parent that is accepting his child unconditionally is in effect acknowledging the child’s right to do his own thing. From the traditional perspective, one might conclude that this unconditional acceptance, this extending to the child is right to do his own thing, would spoil the child. However, Rogers, a highly credentialed psychologist with a more profound understanding of human nature, helped Americans realize that the traditional disciplinary approach to rearing children constituted a poisonous environment, conveying to children that they were accepted only by embracing the conditions established by their parents. If instead, parents conveyed unconditional acceptance, extending to the child the right to do his thing, this approach rather than spoiling the child, provided the very environment the child needed to grow into a healthy human being. In other words, the parent asserting that he would only accept his high school aged son if he would stop doing drugs and start studying would only warp his personality. Real change would only come when the parent made his son feel that he was accepted just as he was.

This approach was not only the key to effective parenting, but it also needed to be applied to education, our judicial system, and virtually every other aspect of life. Therefore, it turned out that those college students were right after all. They did have a right to do their own thing, and they could only be healthy human beings when the rest of society acknowledged it. Thankfully, Carl Rogers explained this mechanism of human nature to the folks in Peoria. Through his insights, even they understood that existentialism really worked in the real world, and our society was delivered from the harm of its traditional, judgmental, disciplinary approach and boosted high into the free atmosphere of unconditional acceptance.

We can see then that one of the reasons that Rogers’ theory gained popularity was that it entered history at a time when it provided the missing piece to our cultural mindset. It brought a divided culture into a oneness of mind.

All of this does not necessarily mean that Rogers’ theory is right. It only explains that it arrived at the right time. In our next post, I plan to describe yet another booster that gave Rogers’ theory even greater power.

The person who has most influenced American secular and evangelical cultures, and perhaps your life, is a man named Carl Rogers. Though well-known to psychology majors and others acquainted with the field, Rogers and his theory are unknown to many. One biography of Rogers begins with the pronouncement, “Carl Rogers (1902–1987) is the most influential psychologist in American history.” I agree with this analysis, adding that the reason for his influence is that Rogers’ ideas have thoroughly infiltrated and shaped our culture.

Rogers’ theory, called client-centered therapy, begins with the belief that the human being possesses an internal guidance system that Rogers calls the self-actualizing tendency. When the individual follows this tendency, it enables him to become a “fully-functioning person.” However, the human being also needs acceptance by a significant others—parents, friends, teachers, etc. If those significant others accept him unconditionally, that is, apart from performance (regardless of his behavior), he will be able to accept himself unconditionally (enjoy non-performance based self-esteem). This unconditional self-acceptance, and the resulting self-esteem, frees the individual to follow his self-actualizing tendency and become the person he was meant to be. However, if his significant others accept him conditionally, only if he performs (behaves) in a certain way, then he will accept himself conditionally, that is, only if he lives up to the conditions of acceptance conveyed by his significant others. As a result, rather than being free to be guided by his self-actualizing tendency so that he can become a fully-functioning person, the individual will be guided by the conditions of acceptance conveyed by his significant others, which will warp his personality and produce all sorts of pathologies. In addition, the person will probably fail to live up to the conditions of acceptance, which in turn will crush his self-esteem. Advocates of this theory have assigned almost every human malady—depression, alcoholism, relational problems, etc.—to this lack of unconditional acceptance and the resulting low self-esteem.

The therapist deals with these problems by developing a relationship with a client, thus becoming a significant other, and from that platform conveying unconditional acceptance to the individual. In response to this experience of unconditional acceptance, the client is able to accept himself unconditionally (will develop non-performance based self-esteem) and consequently be guided by his self-actualizing tendency. This results in the dissipation of his problems and his growth into a healthy personality.

The therapist conveys unconditional acceptance through non-directive therapy, that is, by guarding against imposing his ideas, attitudes, or values on the client. Only the client, through his self-actualizing tendency, knows what is right for him. Therefore, the therapist must give him the freedom to be guided by this internal guidance system. Non-directive therapy consists of mirroring back to the client what he has said: “I am really frustrated with my teacher for giving me a “C” on that paper.” The client-centered therapist would never, never suggest something judgmental such as, “Well, did you study?” or even, “Why do you think she gave you a low grade?” Rather he would say, “I am sensing that you are unhappy with the grade that you received.”

Though many Americans may not be familiar with Carl Rogers, most Americans accept the core concepts of his theory as self-evident truths. Of course we should accept others unconditionally and not impose our conditions of acceptance on them. Of course a judgmental attitude is bad and will injure the individual’s self-esteem and will result in behavioral, emotional, and relational problems. These far-reaching ideas form the core of our culture, finding application to almost every area of life including mental health, marriage, parenting, education, shaping of values, establishment of laws, judicial decisions, sales, etc. In essence, they have become a way of life. They have also become foundational to the eclectic view of evangelical psychology and the evangelical worldview.

In future posts we will discuss the reasons that Rogers’ theory has become so influential. We will also consider how evangelicals have incorporated his concepts into their theology, counseling, and living. In addition, we will discuss their validity.

Most of us want to think that the answer to this question is spiritual. “Jesus rules my life.” And that may be. But the lives of many people—even Christians—are largely governed by another power—culture.

Let me support my point. At least 75% (and that is a modest estimate) of evangelical churches in America either recently have undergone or will soon undergo a worship war, with a large segment pushing the music and worship style toward a more contemporary motif and another segment fighting this trend. Seldom is this a peaceful transition. Usually those on both sides of this conflagration—including spiritually mature people—will display hostility. Combatants on both sides are convinced that their style of worship is genuinely spiritual, and that the alternative is substandard, and perhaps of the devil, even though neither can make a biblical case for their contention.

Why don’t they settle this issue in love? The reason is that for many of these people culture trumps spirituality. They can’t get beyond their own cultural background in order to love the person with a different cultural background when that person’s culture is being imposed on them.

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not saying that the power of the Holy Spirit cannot and should not prevail. The point is that it often does not, that culture is so powerful that even in the lives of mature Christians it is sometimes dominant.

With culture holding such powerful sway among believers, who possess the power of the Holy Spirit, how much more control does it have over those not enjoying that advantage? A politically incorrect topic that manifests the power culture in the second world is found in racial differences. In our society it is okay to make mention of areas in which black people do better, note the movie title, “White Men Can’t Jump.” However, it is not permissible to identify areas where whites do better than blacks. People have been drummed out of the academic world for this sort of observation, valid research findings notwithstanding. However, one author who has taken on this topic is Dinesh DeSousa in his book The End of Racism. He comes to the still politically incorrect but not racial conclusion that areas of black poor performance are not genetic but brought about by cultural deficiencies, and that where blacks embrace better culture they display better performance. Hence, assuming he is correct, another example of the power of culture.

Of course, there are the more mundane yet still very serious issues over which culture wars are fought such as the superiority of our family, who opened their gifts on Christmas morning, had the toilet paper coming off the front of the role, and stored the drinking glasses open-end-down so that nothing could get in them (your bogus contention that the shelf paper might be dirty notwithstanding). These are causes worth fighting for.

Our previous postings have been dealing with the issue of psychology. Why have I switched to the topic of culture? Because the most powerful shaper of contemporary culture, both secular and evangelical, is psychology. (Evangelicals might question this assertion, but I will support it in future posts.) Therefore, if culture is a dominant influence in our lives, and psychology exercises a dominant influence over culture, psychology constitutes a force of great power in our society and in our lives as individuals.

Of special interest is the fact that the psychologist who has exercised the greatest influence over our secular and evangelical cultures is not a household name. Nonetheless, others share my opinion regarding the power of his influence. In my next post I plan to identify him and described his theory.