Puncturing the Inflated Self

A highlight of the Evangelical Press Association’s annual meeting, this year held in Grand Rapids, Mich., was the May 12 address of David Myers entitled, “The Inflated Self: A New Look at Pride.” The Hope College psychology professor observed that we have long been sold the idea (promoted by many psychologists and bought by many religious leaders) that the remedy for many human problems and the key to greater happiness is the development of a high self-esteem. While a high self-esteem seems to pay dividends, making people less critical, encouraging them to effort and accomplishment, psychologists now are beginning to warn against the evils of self–serving pride. The speaker observed that there is an irony in the fact that as theologians copy the old psychology’s cultivation of higher self-esteem; the newer psychology’s observations are beginning to sound like orthodox theology’s warnings against the sin of human pride.

   

The speaker cited many evidences that we usually suffer from a self-.esteem that is too high rather than too low. People more readily accept credit for the good than responsibility for the bad which they do. Athletes accept credit for their wins but not blame for their losses. Drivers rarely acknowledge that they were at fault in accidents. When questioned in a variety of ways most people rate themselves “better than average.” “Can we all be better than average?” We find it easy to believe phony compliments. We tend to rewrite our past history to make it better than it was. We readily find arguments to justify our own actions. We more readily adopt optimistic than pessimistic forecasts of future developments. When something worthwhile needs to be done, more people say that they “would volunteer” than will actually do it. Even the self-disparagement which is taken to indicate low self-esteem is often pretended and self-serving. It excuses failure and increases credit for success.

The Bible teaches us that, although man was created in the image of God, he has become a sinner who needs and can be saved only by God’s grace. This produces in us a humility which is not self-contempt, but more like self-forgetfulness, freeing us from ego-trips and for lives of Christian service.

A little reflection on Myers’ point suggests that it is a message badly needed within our churches as well as in the larger society around us. For long we too have been subjected to the psychologists’ dictum that we must build up a better self-image, to the point that this principle has been undermining, if not destroying, the foundations of Christian doctrine and life.

Does this charge sound too strong? Consider how in our families we have been warned not to discipline our children because that would damage their self-esteem. The Biblical teaching that “He who spares his rod hates his son but he who loves him disciplines him diligently” (Prov. 13:24; cf. 23:14, 29:15; Eph. 6:4) has been superseded by the more permissive counsel of the child psychologists. Children reared without discipline, taught only to seek the interests of their sovereign selves, have not learned to face the responsibilities of the family, the job, or society around them. Reared to acknowledge no law but their own desires, they have been taught that sex relations in or outside of marriage were legitimate if only people felt sincerely attracted to each other. The results of this idolatrous worship of the self are only too apparent in the disintegration of our families and of all of the other structures of our society.

The churches’ teaching which ought to have been counteracting this subversive worship of self has shown many symptoms of surrendering to it. The Bible’s teaching about sin has been minimized or denied because it threatened people’s self-esteem. Paul’s Romans 7 complaint, “Wretched man that I am,” has been radically reinterpreted, first by Dutch theologians and then by their followers here, because it seemed to threaten the all-important Christian self-image.

Similarly the new forms of liturgy of our church services show the effects of this exaltation of the self-image. The realistic, Biblical stress of man’s sin and depravity to prepare him to appreciate and receive God’s grace has been minimized; displaced by the new forms’ dominant theme of “celebration.”

At the time when this “self–image” worship threatens to overwhelm us, as naturalistic Baal-worship over-ran ancient Israel, it is refreshing to hear a Christian psychologist expose the fallacies of this exaggerated “self-image,” and call us to a return to stressing the dignity of man as created in the image of God and the sin and depravity of man as in need of and saved only by God’s grace.

A renewed stress on the Bible’s teaching of man’s sin and depravity does not make us pessimists. It only delivers us from a false confidence in self which must always bring disillusionment, in order to give us a Christian confidence in the grace of God. “Where sin abounded, grace did abound much more exceedingly” (Rom. 5:20).

Regarding a proper self-image, the apostle went on to teach “through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3).

Surrounded by changing theories, let’s observe that one of the functions of gospel teaching in the life of the Christian is to deliver him from being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14) which blows through our society. The unbelieving world, lacking that guide, and the skeptical theologian, beginning to lose confidence in that guide, are tossed and swung about by the aberrant winds.

The Christian, learning from his inspired Guide, should steer a straighter course.

Peter De Jong  

Institutional Loyalty

As editor of our official church-paper, it is not hard to see why Kuyvenhoven feels obligated to defend Calvin Seminary and denounce the Mid–America Ref. Seminary. Chr. Ref. people in general have always had the peculiar weakness of being prone to defend their “sacred” institutions at all costs, come what may. I know several colleagues e.g. who have been and are very critical of Calvin Seminary, but when the opportunity arises for them to put their money (or actions) where their mouth is, they all retreat into the “safety” of “loyalty” to our “official” institutions. That’s always the easiest way out.

But I submit that loyalty and trust are things that must be earned. And it’s not at all surprising to me that this trust has been shaken in the minds of several people. Consider the following: Kromminga and the infallibility issue; Dekker and the love of God issue; Rugen and De Ridder and the women–in-office issue, and now Stek and the Adam and Eve question. Are matters like these designed to produce confidence in our Seminary? Even Harry Boer knows better than that. According to him “ambiguity is the hallmark of the CRC teaching on Scripture,” and it is his contention that if we continue to have denominational studies in which both sides participate, “we shall move from study committee to study committee, from decision to decision, and thereby from ambiguity to ambiguity. In the end this can have no other effect than to discredit both the nature and the authority of Scripture.” In much the same vein James Daane wrote some time ago:

I have followed the official history of the denomination we share (its classical and synodical actions and decisions) long enough to know how its official evasiveness and procrastination and compromising and ambiguity can tempt anyone, in the pulpit or the pew, to some cynicism and distrust and overreaction.

The honesty of Boer and Daane is commendable. Where the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, there will be confusion among the soldiers.

But of course we shouldn’t talk about these things. We should hush them up by issuing pious-sounding “official” statements from headquarters. Better to go down with the ship than sound the alarm. 

Jelle Tuininga

 

Naive Evangelicals

One of the most dangerous things that is occurring throughout the world is the well–meaning but naive attempt on the part of many people to get America to stop the arms race, and more particularly, the build–up of nuclear weapons. It is dangerous and naive because it is a one-sided effort based on the totally naive and false assumption that if the United States should lead the way in a nuclear arms freeze, the Soviet Union would certainly also stop producing armaments.

The tragedy of this thinking is that it ignores the fact of Soviet determination to destroy the West, and to force Marxism–Leninism on the world. It is a tragedy also because many of the people in the forefront of this peace movement are Evangelical Christians who ought to know better than to trust godless Communism. One of the best known of these Evangelicals is Dr. Billy Graham. In a recent trip to Moscow, Billy Graham reported that he was impressed with the effort in Russia to stop nuclear proliferation. He along with other Evangelicals, was in Moscow to attend the World Conference of Religious Workers for Saving the Sacred Gift of Life from Nuclear Catastrophe. In the words of columnist George Will, the title of this conference shows the Kremlin’s “audacious cynicism.” Who can be so naive as to think that the Communists can seriously talk about “religious workers” who are interested in the “sacred gift of life”? Again George Will asks, “A gift-from whom? Marx? And when did the Kremlin begin speaking of ‘the sacred’ ?”

When Billy Graham talks about freedom of religion in Russia, reporting that he was impressed with the large amount of freedom of worship enjoyed by the people, surely he is being naive. Dr. Mark Azbel, a Russian dissident now liv.ing in the United States, reacted vigorously against Graham’s comments, charging that he was taken in by the leaders of the state-controlled church. Dr. Asbel appeared on the ABC program, “This Week with David Brinkley.” He said that Billy Graham had done a great disservice to all Christians in Russia because of his naive support of the repressive regime. The Siberian Seven, living in the American Embassy in Moscow, are reported to have been bitterly disappointed at Billy Graham’s appearance in Moscow.

With all of these reports coming from Russian dissidents who speak of the determination of the Kremlin to continue all–out efforts to control the world, why do American Evangelicals and even Reformed Christians still naively pursue their attempts to get our country to unilaterally stop producing arms? No one wants a nuclear war, of course. But that is not the point. The point is that the only way to prevent a nuclear war is to have a strong defense that will deter Russia or any other country from aggression. Let us Christians lead the way in encouraging the United States in a stronger, not weaker, defense. Otherwise Lenin’s prediction will surely come true: America will fall like a ripe plum into our hands.

Henry Vanden Heuvel

 

Cause for Concern

Those who express concern about the church and her institutions are increasingly being labeled “troublemakers” and “schismatics” and their convictions are even publicly declared to be worth less than “two bits.” The April 9, 1982 issue of KERUX, the student paper at Calvin Theological Seminary reminded me how much reason those who love the Christian Reformed Church and who want to preserve her rich heritage have for concern.

A feature of KERUX is the “Insta–poll” which each week raises a series of questions and then invites responses from the student body. A recent issue had raised questions about the ordination of women to ecclesiastical offices. The results of that particular “lnsta-poll” are printed in the April 9 issue. Of the students responding to the question “Do you favor ordaining women to the ecclesiastical office of elder?” 42.9% said YES, 46.0% said NO and 11.1% were UNDECIDED. To the question “Do you favor ordaining women to the ecclesiastical office of minister?” 38.1% said YES, 49.2% said NO and 12.7% were UNDECIDED. Is it not a matter for concern, in fact for great concern when over 50% of the students responding either take a position which is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and our confessions or are unable to make a decision which is in harmony with the position of the church for whose ministry they are preparing?

Someone may argue that these students are young and need time to mature. It may be true that they are young and no doubt need time for theological growth and development of thought, but let us not forget that some of these students in a few years or even in a few months will be declared candidates for the ministry of the Word and Sacraments in the Christian Reformed Church. They will be called upon to give leadership in the consistory rooms of the Church, they will be exerting their influence at the meetings of classis and some will eventually be delegated to synod. What will that influence be? How will these students be able to sign the Formula of Subscription?

The question may be raised, “Are they being confronted with the clear biblical teaching forbidding the ordination of women to office in the church?” Are they being taught that neither our Confession nor our Church Order permit the ordination of women to office? Or are they being unduly influenced by those professors who by their words and actions have shown that, in spite of the teaching of Scripture and the official position of our creeds and church order, they favor the ordination of women to office in the church? This is a question which cannot be lightly brushed aside.

In the BANNER of April 12, 1982 the author of “Of Cabbages & Kings” shares with his readers the prayer that he prays as he is troubled by the situation in the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland. He tells us he prays: “Dear God, guide your churches everywhere in this age of confusion and keep them from adopting the ways of this world. Amen.” May the King of the Church answer this prayer also on behalf of the Christian Reformed Church.

Arthur Besteman