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.