By Eric L Johnson, PhD
Carl Jung was one of the first therapists of modern psychology to offer a model of what mature human nature is like. He termed the process of becoming the ideal “individuation,” in which a person integrates and harmonizes the disparate aspects of his conscious and unconscious life and becomes whole self. He also called this “coming to selfhood” or “self-realization.” (Jung, 1966, p. 173). As is well known, Jung believed that each individual is composed of many internal dynamic structures including one’s ego, interpretations and motives within the personal unconscious, and the archetypes. Through the first phase of life, the person becomes a unique individual with distinct personality characteristics, a process he called differentiation. Jung believed that during middle adulthood, some persons come to terms with the many diverse aspects of themselves and come to consciously accept these parts (Jahoda, 1965), while they also learn to let go of the image of themselves that they have been projecting to others (their persona; Jung, 1966). As a result, the person becomes a “psychic whole” (Jahoda, 1965). Jung saw the universal symbol of this process to be a circular pattern called a “mandala,” which signifies that the path of life, individuation, leads to the center and that center is the wholeness of oneself (Jung, 1983).
An even more influential classical construction of the human maturity ideal of modern psychology was Maslow’s concept of the process of “self-actualization.” He (1954) argued that humans (and all organisms) have a tendency to promote their well-being (p. 116) and realize their full nature (p. 183). Since that nature includes a hierarchy of needs that humans had evolved, its realization entailed satisfying lower-level needs, which made it possible to be motivated by the higher needs, which in turn could be satisfied. At the top of the hierarchy was the need for self-actualization. Those who were motivated to act at this highest level were termed “self-actualizing people,” and Maslow believed that the study of such people could demonstrate empirically what the human maturity ideal looks like.
What were the traits of the self-actualizing people he studied? He (1954, pp. 203-228) found such people were characterized by an accurate perception of reality, a deep self-acceptance, a joy in living, a spontaneity, a need for privacy, an autonomy from others and simultaneously a great capacity for deep interpersonal relations and concern about the well-being of others, a sense of oneness with all of humanity, a sense of humor, and creativity, and periodic peak experiences (see also 1968, pp. 71-95). Maslow (1968) later drew a conclusion similar to Jung’s, that self-actualizing people are characterized by a healthy fusion of their internal structures and motives, resulting in “a true integration of the person at all levels” (p. 96; see pp. 207-208). He also came to regard self-actualization as less a state one permanently arrives at and more a quality of life that some people experience more frequently and fully (p. 97).
Maslow (1968) asserted that one characterized by the above qualities seems to be “more truly himself, more perfectly actualizing his potentialities, closer to the core of his Being, more fully human” (p. 97). He believed the pull to self-actualize was derived from an “inner core” of motives that move humans to seek their own good and to realize their potentialities (p. 155). This inner core must be accepted, trusted, and allowed to express itself (pp. 190ff).
In light of his research, Maslow (1968) became convinced that it was possible to discover empirically the most basic values about human nature, for example, where humans should be heading, what our purpose is in life, and what is good for us and what is bad. Since these values are intrinsic to our nature, Maslow wrote that they do not come from a supernatural God (p.170); Research alone should enable us to define what is a “good human being,” that is, the human maturity ideal.
Because of their significant similarities (noted by Maslow, 1954, p. 116), we will lump together Jung’s and Maslow’s models and call them the classical modern psychology (CMP) model of human maturity (to distinguish it from more recent, relevant work by positive psychology and evolutionary psychology). Aspects of these models have been discussed and appreciated by Christians (see Browning & Cooper, 2004; Dodgen & McMinn, 1986; Kelsey, 1986; McMinn, 1996; Watson, Milliron, Morris, & Hood, 1995; Watson, Morris, & Hood, 1990). To begin with, both the Christian model of sanctification and the classical model of modern psychology refer to the characterological maturation that can occur in adulthood. Moveover, there is significant similarity between Christian features of human maturity and those identified by Jung and Maslow (for example, joy and concern for the well-being of others). There likely is something like the kind of motivational hierarchy that Maslow described that God built into human nature. CMP posits that human maturity involves an integration of inner dynamics, something usually left out of theological discussions of sanctification, probably because Christians would resist anything that might justify the integration of their sinfulness into their mature self-understanding. However, the Christian psychologist, Kierkegaard took human sinfulness very seriously in his accounts of human maturity that entailed a Christian kind of integration (which he called “transparency before God,” 1848/1980), yet which resulted in the “purity of heart is to will one thing” (1847/ 1938).
Nonetheless, we should expect that people from different worldview communities (like the Christian and the modern) might have different maturity ideals. Yet, before we critically evaluate the CMP model from a Christian standpoint, we should consider how Christianity might explain the existence of self-actualizing non-Christians, people who are more reflective, principled, content, caring yet detached, and honest than most people (even more honest than some Christians). It simply won’t do to say that they aren’t really happy, since happiness is a conscious state and they report and evidence a state of happiness that is evident and attractive to those who know them. This observation is important, because the fact is not all Christians are happy and not all are troubled and unhappy. While many non-Christians are troubled, most do not appear to be acutely dysfunctional, and there is a significant minority of Christians who by most standards are outstanding human beings and who seem to be quite at peace within themselves, yet they have no relationship to the Christian God. As a result, Christians must be willing to countenance God’s creation grace (or what has traditionally been called his “common grace”), that is, his willingness to grant great blessings to those who have no interest in him (or least, do not subscribe to the Christian understanding of God). Why does God grant these blessings? Because he gets glory from all of his unwarranted generosity (and this includes, of course, what he gives to Christians!). Second, since the law of God is written on all human hearts (Ro. 2.15), it ought not to surprise us that many individuals throughout the world, including followers of Eastern religions and secular belief systems, can recognize the main contours of this law and have developed ways to live more or less accordingly, but without God. It may also be worth noting that both Jung and Maslow were raised in conservative religious homes (though both homes were dysfunctional), which in significant but only partially acknowledged ways contributed to their own self-understandings and views of reality, and helped to form them into the kinds of “searchers for the good” that they became.
So what might be some Christian concerns regarding the classical modern psychology model of human maturity? For one thing, they were clearly expressions of modern Western individualism (Browning & Cooper, 2004; Roberts, 1993; Vitz, 1994). In a secular world devoid of God, the Self becomes the supreme orienting principle/person in human life (Vitz, 1994). In such a framework, the mature self is assumed to be an absolutely independent being (though Jung and Maslow would obviously acknowledge that individuals are dependent upon others in childhood and that proper human maturation involves healthy relations with others and is sharply distinguished from selfishness or a crass egotism, e.g., see Maslow, 1954, pp. 235-260). As result, because their understanding of the human telos or maturity ideal do not involve a necessary relationship with the Creator, it makes perfect sense to construe human maturation fundamentally as “individuation,” “self-realization,” or “self-actualization”—that is, to become more fully oneself and more internally integrated, only on the basis of one’s own resources. Both Jung and Maslow were what moral philosophers would call “ethical egoists” (Browning & Cooper, 2004)—that is, they assumed that the highest norm for human life is the realization of each individual’s own biologically-based potentials. As a result, autonomy from God is obviously basic to the model, since a relationship with him is not intrinsic to the ideal, but in a less obvious sense, autonomy from other humans is also basic, since there are no higher ethical or spiritual considerations in the ideal than the realization of the individual’s potentials, including those of justice or love.
In contrast, within a theocentric framework, the self (and its maturation) is fundamentally relational, first, since the self is defined in relationship with its Creator—since human beings are understood to be preeminently the image of God—and second, since the Creator is revealed to be a Trinity in Christianity, it follows that being in the image of God means humans are (and ought to be) profoundly interdependent on one another. Another implication of the Christian relational framework for its maturity ideal is that humans are considered to be accountable to God, so their telos involves conformity to a transcendent standard, outside the self: God’s holy, loving character. The CMP maturity has no place for any such standard beyond the individual. Perhaps because of this, Maslow has no place for notions like sin, guilt, repentance, and mortification, since he assumes a good or at least a neutral human nature (Maslow, 1968, p. 194). Jung, at least, recognized what he called the “shadow,” a concept that is a little closer to a Christian understanding of human sinfulness, but Jung’s shadow is still a natural, internal dynamic structure, and not something alien to humankind and necessarily unclean, like sin.
The importance of this relational distinction between Christian and classical modern maturity ideals cannot be overstated. The most important values within one’s world-view (and one’s edification framework) cast a certain light on everything else. It is simply naive to believe that one can remove the most significant good to Christianity, God, and leave everything else in the system unaffected. According to semiotics, words (and ideas and persons) exist within a system of interrelated units that gives each individual unit its meaning in relation to the other units (Barthes, 1964). This is certainly the case regarding one’s values (which is foundational to every therapeutic and religious system), since they necessarily form a hierarchy with core values becoming the goals of the lower-level values in one’s value framework (Rescher, 1969).
Moreover, while their lists of virtues are in the main laudable, Christians can raise legitimate questions about the particular configuration of virtues that has been isolated and the absence of others virtues. For example, while self-expression certainly has some value to the Christian (after all, creation was an act of God’s self-expression), it is likely that Christians would place it much lower in importance than Maslow does. By contrast, virtues very high in the Christian scheme of things, like humility, gentleness, a fixedness on eternity, or self-sacrifice, are absent or seriously distorted when compared with their Christian articulation (Browning & Cooper, 2004; Roberts, 1993; Vitz, 1994). Perhaps the greatest contrast is seen in the fact that the climax of moral and spiritual perfection within the Christian tradition has long been understood to be, not individuation or self-actualization, but self-denial and self-emptying.
The greatest difference is that, for both Jung and Maslow, human maturity was not compatible with an exclusive, dogmatic religion like orthodox Judaism or Christianity (see Maslow, 1954, p. 221; 1970; Jung, 1983, p. 239-40; 253ff). As a result, perhaps Christians should trust them on this point. Perhaps their maturity ideal really is incompatible with a Christian. It seems likely that they knew their systems very well and what is and is not compatible with them. We too, then, should avoid a facile identification of a Christian view of human maturity with theirs, and simplistically apply the terms “individuation,” “self-realization,” and “self-actualization” to the Christian process of maturation. Christians
“should be careful not to equate formal similarity with actual identity. Baboons and humans have many similarities [sharing over 95% of the same genes], but their differences are quite profound and are the reason they are grouped in different families. Overlooking such differences would not be tolerated in biology. The problem is even more serious with psychological concepts like self-actualization because considerations regarding the ultimate motivation principle of human life are so dependent on socially-constructed formulations that involve fundamental world-view, moral, and theological commitments.” (Johnson, 1997, p.23)
In light of the foregoing, it would seem best for Christians to leave such terms to the modernists, and we should use our own terms, like sanctification or conformity to Christ, and develop our own distinct understanding of human maturity, more consonant with the fundamentally relational, ethical, and spiritual contexts of a Christian worldview.
Eric founded the Christian Psychology Institute a decade ago while serving in Christian higher education. Since retiring from Houston Christian University in May 2024, he has devoted himself to building CPI into a national hub for training, scholarship, and certification in Christ-Centered Therapy.
An accomplished author and editor, Eric is widely respected for his work at the intersection of theology and psychology. He brings over 25 years of pastoral counseling experience and is a frequent speaker at conferences and academic events.
Eric is married to Rebekah and cherishes time with their two children and three grandchildren. In his free time, he enjoys hiking and bike riding.
References
Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New York: Hill & Wang.
Browning, D. S., & Cooper, T. D. (2004). Religious thought & the modern psychologies (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Fortress.
Dodgen, D. J., & McMinn, M. R. (1986). Humanistic psychology and Christian thought: A comparative analysis. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 14, 194-202.
Jahoda, J. (1965). The way of individuation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Johnson, E. L. (2007). Foundations for soul care: A Christian psychology proposal. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Jung, C. G. (1966). The relations between the ego and the unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G.
Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.). The collected works of C.G. Jung (Vol. 7, pp. 123-244). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1928)
Jung, C. G. (1983). Integration, wholeness, and the self. In A. Storr (Ed.). The essential Jung (pp. 229- 298). Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
Kelsey, M. T. (1986). Christianity as psychology: The healing power of the Christian message. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Kierkegaard, S. (1938). Purity of heart is to will one thing. New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1847)
Kierkegaard, S. (1980). A sickness unto death. (H.V. Hong, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1849)
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
McMinn, M. R. (1996). Psychology, theology, and spirituality in Christian counseling. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.
Rescher, N. (1969). An introduction to value theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roberts, R. C. (1993). Taking the word to heart: Self and other in an age of therapies. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Vitz, P. C. (1994). Psychology as religion: The cult of self-worship (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., Hood, R. W. (1990). Intrinsicness, self-actualization, and the ideological surround. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 40-53.
Watson, P. J., Milliron, J. T., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1995). Religion and the self as text: Toward a
Christian translation of self-actualization. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23, 180-189.
