Contemporary Issues: Rise of the Therapeutic

The Rise of the Therapeutic

“The triumph of the therapeutic represents the advent of the expressive individual as the normative type of human being and of the relativizing of all meaning and truth to personal taste.” [Trueman, Carl. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, 50]

From Traditional to New Therapy:

Traditional view of “therapy” - what was normative

Therapy has traditionally been a type of counseling which seeks to understand the individual and how the individual relates to the broader cultural context in which he or she live. This dual-purpose understanding then leads the counselor to give advice to the individual so that he or she may better understand and function within the broader community. Community mattered.

“Traditionally, the role of the therapist in any given culture was to enable the patient to grasp the nature of the community to which he belonged.” [Trueman, 47]

But traditional “therapy” has transitioned from community-oriented to individual-oriented. For the purposes of this lesson, we will review three particular influences in this transition, as presented by Carl Trueman — expressive individualism, psychologizing of self, and emotivism. The purposes of this development is both review and understanding.

Anti-traditional therapy development

Anti-development in expressive individualism

Expressive Individualism is a hallmark of being a modern person. In reference to philosopher Charles Tayler, Trueman defines expressive individualism as this is the way in which “each of us finds our meaning by giving expression to our own feelings and desires. (Trueman, Carl. The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self. 46)

Anti-development in psychologizing of self.

For Philip Rieff, professor of Sociology,

“the latest player on the historical stage....was the psychological man — a type characterized not so much by finding identity in outward directed activities as was true for previous types but rather in inward quest for personal psychological happiness.” [ibid, 45]

Anti-development in emotivism.

Emotivism - According to Alasdair MacIntire:

“…the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling, insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character.” [ibid, 85]

Anti-institutions against expressive/psychologizing

These three developments, expressive individualism, psychologizing of self, and emotivism, are intrinsically disconnected from any meta-narrative or sacred order (bigger or cosmic reality). It is not the community at large, whether religious or not, that shapes the individual but rather the individual is to shape the community. Thus, institutions for education or religion are not places where the individual goes to be taught but rather stages on which to perform. In as much as the institution “oppresses the individual”, it becomes an institution that must be destroyed and replaced (i.e. family, education, church…etc)

“…in the words of Rieff, creating not a culture but an anti-culture, called such because its iconoclastic [characterized by attack on cherished beliefs or institutions], purely destructive attitude toward all that the first and second worlds hold dear...” [ibid., 89]

New Therapeutic Understanding Centered on Individualism and psychologized self.

This brings us full circle to our opening statement:

“The triumph of the therapeutic represents the advent of the expressive individual as the normative (standard or “the norm”) type of human being and of the relativizing of all meaning and truth to personal taste.” [ibid, 50]

From Creation to Gospel Application:

Scriptural (gospel response)

What exactly is the question we are being forced to face?

Is the modern individual the basis or source of truth — truth determined by his or her own feelings and given expression in life?

No. God created mankind as social creatures to love Him and love one another; and though sin has destroyed the social order, Jesus Christ is redeeming mankind to ultimate purpose.

Created social creatures (to be in community)

Genesis 1:26-28 reveals that God created mankind to be social creatures.

(1) Mankind was created in the image of God.

God is a social being. From the scriptures, it cannot be denied that God loves Jesus Christ (Mark 1, John 17). In addition, the scriptures affirm that Jesus existed before the creation of the world (John 8, Revelation 13, John 17, John 1:1-3). The conclusion is that God has had an eternal loving relationship with the Son. To be created in the image of God, at very least, means there is a social aspect of the being of mankind.

(2) Mankind was created with companionship.

God created them male and female. An appropriate deduction is that God made them to be social to some degree.

(3) Mankind was created and subsequently commanded to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish.

God created mankind to advance the number of human beings on the earth — an increase of social beings was to happen. Again, the reasonable expectation is that the social aspect would flourish too.

Application to primary question:

A modern individual can attempt to live as autonomous, but it is both unnatural and truly impossible. Mankind is a dependent being.

Created within objective (true for all) realities/truths

Genesis 1-4 reveals that God created both natural and moral laws. These natural and moral laws are objective truths/realities to be heard, recognized, respected, and obeyed.

(1) Natural laws are manifested in creational order, governance of night/day, herb bearing seed, animal procreation, gravity, thermodynamics (the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy)…etc

(2) Moral laws are manifested in God’s moral determination that man should not be alone as well as Adam’s response to first seeing Eve. Negatively, the implicit moral law is revealed in Genesis 4. Cain killed Abel, and God punishes Cain for this murder. It is important to remember that the moral law broken in Genesis 4 is a consequence of the moral law broken in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve sinned against God. The consequences of the Fall in Genesis 3 show that there were already laws in place to determine right/wrong.

Application to primary question:

A modern individual may attempt to create his own reality, but he or she will be confronted with real-life facts that cannot be changed.

These immutable realities do not need to be imposed by other individuals. These realities are baked within the very existence of mankind as a creature (realities: life/death; biology; procreation…etc)

Created with two great commands

The moral law is crystalized more succinctly later in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 6:5 reveals the first and great commandment. Leviticus 19:18 reveals the second commandment. Jesus Christ summarizes all the law and prophets with these two laws in Matthew 22:36-40. Origin of these commands upon mankind are in Genesis 1-4.

Application:

The modern individual may attempt to deny any meta-narrative; but the word of God is God’s moral law spoken, and Jesus Christ is God (Giver of Law) made visible.

Plunged into social disorder through sin

As previously noted, the Fall of Genesis 3 is where both of these commands are broken, and mankind is plunged into an ongoing spiral of being wrong and continuing in wrong.

Application:

The modern individual may trust his inner self, but intuitively mankind knows that social order requires governing laws because of intrinsic evil.

People lock their doors at night, not because they don’t believe in the goodness of mankind but because they believe in innate evil.

The Defund Police movement has been met with resistance. Why?

Christ is redeeming us to both relationship with God and with one another.

When someone believes the reality of God, the reality of their sinfulness, and the reality of Jesus’ Substitution — they are then commanded to repent and receive Jesus as Lord.

This response is the means whereby eternal life is appropriated to individual. Eternal life is knowing the true God (John 17:4). All those who know the true God, through Christ, are brought into fellowship. Locally, this fellowship is the church.

Application:

God created mankind as social creatures to love Him and love one another; and though sin has destroyed the social order, Jesus Christ is redeeming mankind to ultimate purpose.

Conclusion:

Is the modern individual the basis or source of truth — truth determined by his or her own feelings and given expression in life?

No. God is the Source of truth and NOT man. In particular, Jesus is the manifested Truth of God. (John 1:17, 14:6)