I have been asked by the editor of THE OUTLOOK to write something about Transactional Analysis (T.A. for short). I assume that this request was occasioned by concern over the inroads that this pagan system is making among Christian Churches. On that point let me say a word before I go on.
lt is tragic to see how some Christians grab frantically at every new approach that comes down the pike. Among other things, this shows that those who do so are weak biblically and theologically (so that they do not know how to make a theological evaluation of the principles and precepts of a system like T.A.) or that they have learned to do exegesis and theology abstractly and do not know how to use the fruits of such studies in application to every day problems of living and in counseling (thus they eagerly search for some other system by which they hope to help others deal with life problems). Either way, it seems apparent that the acceptance of T.A. is a case in point, since in its origins and in its formulations it demonstrates hostility toward the Christian faith and constitutes an attack upon all the fundamental principles of authority. This is true of the writings of Eric Berne, its founder, and Claude Steiner and Tom Harris (“I’m OK – You’re OK”) his two best known disciples.
Since I do not have time for a full evaluation of T.A., I shall focus on two facts and let the reader judge for himself whether or not the system merits the Christian‘s attention. If he cares to do so, he may read further in the writings of the three men mentioned above to confirm the non-christian nature of their positions. Those two facts may be stated thus:
- What the Bible says can be done only by the Spirit of God working through the ministry of His Word, T.A. attempts to do without either. It is therefore competitive in its relationship toward Christianity.
-
What the Bible says man needs as an authority structure for living, T.A. attacks and attempts to destroy. T.A. denies Christian truth.
If these two positions can be shown to be true, then
T.A. in its goals, methods and principles constitutes a pagan substitute for the Christian faith.
First, before moving to a consideration of these two assertions, let us consider something of the background of T.A.
Eric Berne, the founder of the movement, was a close friend of Erik Erikson, the neo-Freudian and was strongly influenced by him. Erikson, in contrast to Freud, emphasized the primacy of the ego over the id. Yet in most respects, he remained within the general Freudian camp. Berne reflects Erikson. However, he popularized this neo–Freudianism by repackaging it in new attractive wrappers. And, he gave it a new name – Transactional Analysis.
Berne no longer spoke in formidable terms about Id, Ego and Surego. Rather, he renamed them Parent (superego), Adult (ego) and Child (id). These terms, it is apparent, made the product much more saleable. But change the coating if you will; the same bitter pill is within. Also Berne began to talk about “games people play,” and “life Scripts,” and used catchy titles (“Ain’t it awful?”) to these games and scripts.
Harris and Steiner have continued to popularize the viewpoint under such themes (Steiner wrote Scripts People Live; Harris, of course, wrote the bestseller I’m OK – You’re OK.) Harris is much the greater popularizer of the three; it was he, not Berne (now dead) or Steiner, who spread the movement widely among the general public. Steiner still retains something of the stiffer, stuffier academic approach from which Berne never fully separated himself.
Now let us turn to the two sample objections that I have raised.
First, I have raised that T.A. is competitive to Christianity since it tries to achieve what Christianity alone can achieve—and without the Spirit or the Scriptures. Consider Harris’ words:
“I believe Transactional Analysis may provide an answer to the predicament of man.”1
Something of the messianic spirit of T.A. can be seen from this statement which, in its context, even more clearly indicates the fact. Time Magazine wrote:
“Harris is convinced that only those who believe the ‘truth‘ of transactional analysis can win the battle against neurosis.”
They quote him as saying:
“You have to have absolute faith that T.A. is true; otherwise you’ll lose.”
As Time points out, “The book itself goes so far as to suggest that it may be able to save man and civilization from extinction.”2
And it is interesting that the way in which this “salvation” of mankind will take place is by individuals realizing “that the not-OK posture is an illusion.”3 That means, theologically speaking, that man’s sinful nature can successfully be dealt with by denying it! Like traditional Freudianism, T.A. wants to deny the reality of the sinner’s guilt before a holy God Whose law he has broken. T.A. approaches man’s problem humanistically, denying the need for grace and salvation.
Clearly these observations show how T.A. is at odds with Biblical teaching.
“But why don‘t you think that God can reveal truth even through men and systems like this in common grace? Isn’t all truth God’s truth?” One grows weary of such questions. By the theological gymnastics used in justifying T.A. and other counseling systems that are competitive to the Scriptures, the door is opened to proving atheism a good and useful system that we ought not to reject out of hand and from which we might learn a good bit and from which we might glean many helpful methods!
Of course God works in common grace! Certainly all truth is one. But what has that to do with T.A.? The issue is this:
1. Is T.A. truth (we may not assume so, thus begging the question); does it contain truth revealed by God’s common grace, or is it a godless system set up to rival Christianity? That question will never be answered by asserting that it is God’s truth. There is a way, however, by which to determine what God has given in His common grace—we may ask does T.A. square with the Bible?
2. We can be sure that God did not set up a system in common grace to do what He says can be done only by the Spirit working through the ministry of His Word. Common grace never replaces special grace. God is not a God of confusion, telling us one thing in the Scriptures and something different elsewhere.AU of us find much help in those truths that do come through God’s common grace. However, the area with which we are dealing is not one in which we should expect the same sort of help that we receive in other areas of life. Human living is the area to which the Bible addresses itself. In the Scriptures—and in the Scriptures alone—can one discover how to love God and one’s neighbor. And these selfsame Scriptures teach that such love begins and ends with Jesus Christ. Yet T.A. (and many other systems) say,
“Dogma is the enemy of truth and the enemy of persons.”4
and
“Truth is not something which has been bound in a black book.”5
Can we believe that this sort of thing is a blessing of God’s common grace? Can a system based upon such views be integrated with Christianity as some think?
Certainly not! God has told us that He has given all things necessary for life and godliness in the Scriptures. Surely. generations of Christians before Berne and Harris were not wrong in believing so! Any addition to the Scriptures (not to speak of substitutions or rival views) therefore must be suspect.
We have been seeing how our second statement is true – T.A. attacks the authority structure God gave us for life by relativizing truth. As a result, the Bible’s teachings about the Church, the home, and the state are undermined. And, the authority God gave to each is eroded. In the end, the authority of God—the Source of all authority—is opposed. Authority demands a submission relationship (clearly taught in the Bible) but undercut by T.A.’s concept of the naughty Parent whose authority must be rejected by the Adult.
T.A. teaches: “Truth is a growing body of data of what we observe to be true.”6
This bald statement in conjunction with Harris’ rejection of divine truth in the “black book” leads to a subjectivism in which T.A. is found to be superior to the Bible! On this basis there is, of course, no final standard or authority but one’s self. Indeed, this is what we are told:
“. . . When morality is encased in the structure of religion, it is essentially Parent. It is dated, frequently unexamined, and often contradictory Parent morality . . . impedes the formulation of a universal ethic. The position I’m OK – You‘re OK is not possible if it hinges on your accepting what I believe.”7
In speaking of what he considers to be the true religious experience Harris wrote:
“I believe that what is emptied is the Parent.“8
From this brief survey (much more could be said) it should be evident that T.A. is incompatible with the Christian faith and that those who become involved in its tenets do so at great peril.
1. Harris, I’m OK – You‘re OK, p. 258. 2. Time Magazine, August 10, 1973, p. 45. 3. Alan C. Reuter, “Psychology and Theology: A Return to Dialog.” Concordia Theological Monthly, VoL XLIV, May 1973, No.3. 4. I’m OK – You‘re OK, p. 260. T.A. dogma is excepted, of course!! One must have “absolute faith that T.A is true” Time, op. cit.5. It is perfectly dear what book he has in mind. Ibid., p. ’65.
6. Ibid., p. 265.
7. Ibid., pp. 260, 26l.
8. Ibid., p. 268 Remember, the Parent is religion, authority, dogma, etc.
Jay Adams is Editor of The Journal of Pastoral Practice and author of Competent to Counsel and a number of other books dealing with Christian counselling.