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.