14

Human Defensiveness:The Third Way1

David Powlison

David Powlison serves as editor of

the Journal of Biblical Counseling. He

also teaches at the Christian Counsel-

ing and Educational Foundation and at

Westminster Theological Seminary in

Glenside, Pennsylvania. Dr. Powlison is

the author of numerous articles and

several books including Power Encoun-

ters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare (Baker,

1995) and Competent to Counsel? The

History of a Conservative Protestant

Anti-Psychiatry Movement (Powlison,

1996).

IntroductionChange is brought about, not by newobservations or additional evidencein the first instance, but by transpo-sitions that were taking place insidethe minds of the scientists them-selves. In this connection it is notirrelevant to note that of all forms ofmental activity the most difficult toinduce, even in the minds of theyoung who may be presumed not tohave lost their flexibility, is the artof handling the same bundle of dataas before, but placing them in a newsystem of relations with one anotherby giving them a different frame-work.2

This article will introduce no newobservations and evidence. Indeed, it willwork with some of the oldest and mostfamiliar pieces of both “psychological” and“theological” data. But it is a transpositionof that data, for it presents a new frame-work—a new system of relations. It asksfor a flexible mind to relate what often func-tions as two discrete “departments” in theminds of Christians. It aims to portray sucha tight relationship between biblical dataand psychological data—between thesetwo “departments”—that neither one canever remain the same.

In some ways we are simply reassess-ing the nomenclature with which familiarthings are discussed. The French chemistAntoine Lavoisier revolutionized chemis-try in the 1780’s, and the core of his achieve-ment was the introduction of a new set ofterms. Subsequent to Lavoisier, even thosewho wished to dispute him were forced tofight on turf defined in Lavoisier’s terms.Something very similar happened with the

revolutionary psychological systems of thetwentieth century: they changed the termsin which we think about people and theirproblems. A reawakened biblical world-view will engage our culture in its termi-nology; we must offer something moreclear-headed, comprehensive, fruitful, eco-nomical, and true.

Lavoisier’s goal was to improve scienceby improving its nomenclature:

However certain the facts of any sci-ence may be, and however just theideas we may have formed of thesefacts, we can only communicate falseimpressions to others while we wantwords by which these may be prop-erly expressed.3

Our goal is to improve both the “sci-ence” of understanding people and the“technology” of trying to help them. Chris-tians often have been virtually forced todiscuss human problems in the distortedterminology of secularized psychology. Forexample, how common—and insidious—is the use of the nomenclature for“improved self-esteem.” Yet the very ter-minology casts our insight into people in aframework that is severely constricted andwarped; false impressions are inevitablycommunicated, and false counseling impli-cations are drawn from false impressions.Language about “more accurate selfknowledge, both causing and caused by ahigher esteem for Christ” is a far moreaccurate and comprehensive way to handlethe observations made of people whoexperience futility and a deep sense of fail-ure. It also handles observations of people

15

who are cocky and confident about theirabilities and successes.

This article, however, is not about self-knowledge but its obverse: self-deception.We will examine nomenclature related tothe ways people hide from themselves andfrom others. We will seek to redefine theturf of “defense mechanisms” in such away that will markedly “improve the sci-ence,” as well as improve the counselingwhich flows by implication from one’sframework of interpretation. This article isin two parts. First, we will generally dis-cuss human “defensiveness” as it hasbeen seen and analyzed by ego psychol-ogy and by behavioral psychology. Theclassic studies of “ego defense mecha-nisms” are rooted in the Freudian tradition;the more contemporary behaviorist discus-sion of “self-exonerating mechanisms” hasbeen initiated by Albert Bandura. Second,we will comment and interact from the bib-lical world-view. The topic is vast, and thepaper is short; hence, the discussion willbe in broad strokes.

Human “Defensiveness” in Egoand Behavioral Psychology

Much of the persuasive power ofFreud’s and Bandura’s analyses of humanmotivation rests on their explorations ofhuman hiding and self-justifying: they seemany ways that we all put on a “goodfront” both to ourselves and to others. Egopsychologists interpret these things as aris-ing from an inner dynamic process; theyare intrapsychic mechanisms. Put in sim-plest terms, these psychological activities(“ego defense mechanisms”) are designedto protect ourselves (“ego”) from invasiveanxiety, which arises when our desires(“id”) contravene the image we have ofourselves (“ego ideal”) and in turn ourinternalized conscience (“super ego”)

accuses us. Bandura interprets these samethings as behavior that is both internallyrepresented (i.e., cognitive behavior) andoutwardly expressed. These psychologicaland verbal activities (“self-exoneratingmechanisms”) are designed to protectourselves from the unpleasant experience(“self-contempt”) that arises when ourbehavior transgresses internalized stan-dards of performance that we have learnedfrom people we respect (“models”). Theparallels between these two interpretationsare obvious: both are psychic “mecha-nisms;” both deal with failure to attainstandards we have for ourselves; bothdescribe some process of internalizingstandards from others; both describeaversion to unpleasant emotions thatthreaten to destroy our sense of integrityand “OK-ness.” The differences in interpre-tive framework are also obvious: the oneis a psychodynamic paradigm; the other isa behavioral paradigm. Different as theyare, each is persuasive in its own way foreach “covers the facts.”

But each is also a serious distortion ofhow people work. We want to reinterprettheir data. People do the things that aredescribed, but the correctness of the termi-nology and the theoretical system in whichthose terms function are highly debatablematters. Freud and Bandura differ seri-ously with one another, but they are unitedin this: they attempt to account for human“defensiveness” without seeing human lifein its totality—behavior, psychologicaldynamics, interpersonal relations, physi-ology—as related to God. Accuracy abouthuman defensiveness is anchored in one’sunderstanding of the relationship betweenman and God. Defensiveness cannot bereduced to psychosocial mechanisms. Thebiblical view drastically differs with bothFreud and Bandura.

16

Before we get to the biblical view, wewant to look briefly at the bundle of data.What follows is a representative sample ofa number of “defense mechanisms” (1-10)and “self-exonerating mechanisms” (11-15). I have attempted to recast each in moredescriptive and less technical languagebecause, as we have noted, nomenclatureincarnates a theoretical framework. Secu-lar psychologists often have observedpeople doing these things. Psychologistsbring an interpretation to the observedbehaviors, seeking to distinguish amongthe many varieties of defensive behavior.But the interpretive categories are distor-tions—we might even say they are coun-terfeits—of the truth.

1. We fear that others harbor the samesinful motives we harbor and have notdealt with. We often accuse others of thesethings. Lust, anger, greed, and competitivepride are things often attributed to others.For example, a man has persistent fears thathis wife is unfaithful to him, and he grillsher about the slightest seeming inconsis-tency in her behavior, often making upwild interpretations. In fact, the man hasan active sexual fantasy life, an ongoingproblem with masturbation, and guilt overpremarital sexual intercourse that he hasnever acknowledged. This has been termed“projection,” and extreme cases of suchfear, accusation, hostility, and pride aretermed “paranoia.”

2. People cover up their failures, sin, andguilt by trying to be good or to make upwithout genuine repentance to God andothers. They deny the truth about them-selves to God, to others, to themselves.People try to manipulate and control otherswith niceness and great demonstrations of“love,” at the same time hiding from them-selves all awareness of what they are doing.Judgmentalism, anger, disappointment,

sexual lust, and desire to control others arefrequently covered. For example, a womanexudes a kind of sticky-sweet love andpiety, with great verbal protestations of thesame, when she is extremely frustrated andangry with her husband. This has beentermed “reaction-formation” because thetruth is concealed from consciousness byan “opposite reaction.”

3. People misdirect their attention fromimportant issues to secondary matters. Anyarea of failure or guilt can be avoided inthis way. For example, a Christian is pre-occupied with minutiae of eschatology andcontinually boosts the necessity of Chris-tians carrying tracts, while all the time hehas very poor relations with family andco-workers (because of his perceivedjudgmentalism and hypocrisy) and visitsprostitutes about once a month. This hasbeen termed “substitution” because allsorts of secondary preoccupations aresubstituted for attention to personal andinterpersonal problems (i.e., issues of sin).

4. People fantasize rather than face theirproblems biblically. Fantasy can coverfailed hopes, laziness, unrealistic ideals ofsuccess, unforgiven hurts, loneliness, etc.It can also express directly sexual, finan-cial, or status lusts, as well as a fundamen-tal thanklessness. For example, a lonelysingle woman with a job she considers bor-ing reads romance novels, watches soapoperas, and daydreams about being glam-orous, successful, and beloved. This hasbeen termed “fantasy” for obvious reasons.

5. People whitewash or candy-coat real-ity about others rather than facing thingshonestly and responding constructively(i.e., biblically). For example, a widowwhitewashes the memory of her deceasedhusband in her own mind and in conver-sation with others. He was a drunk, adul-terer, and deadbeat, but she reiterates that,

17

“He was really a good man.” This has beentermed “inversions” because the truth isturned inside out.

6. People generate physical symptoms ofproblems rather than face them. Pride,unreal images of oneself, anxiety, anger,and a host of other things can be expressedin “psychosomatic” ways. For example, aman who has an image of crying as a signof womanish weakness will get intenseheadaches whenever he thinks of his wife’sdeath. A pastor who will not face that he isafraid of what people think of him tendsto get sick on Saturdays and is developingan ulcer. This has been termed “conver-sion” because a genuine addressable prob-lem is converted into physical symptoms.

7. People scapegoat, blame, and attackinnocent, helpless, or even guilty parties(or inanimate objects) rather than face andsolve problems biblically. For example, aman yells at his wife, kids, and dog after atough day at work. He throws an ash traythrough the television screen when hisfootball team loses; he perpetuallygrumbles and rages at minor injusticesdone against him—drivers who tailgatehim, a mechanic who ripped him off—andnever recognizes the fundamental pridethat rules his life. This has been termed“displacement” because the emotion isdirected away from its genuine object. Theproblem that needs to be solved is avoided.

8. People deny or avoid reality to save face,preserve their pride, or hide fromconsciousness of guilt. For example, amother excuses her son’s drunkenness andtroubles with the law by saying, “He’sreally a good boy; he just got in with a badcrowd.” This has been termed “denial” andcan serve as a kind of catch-all for the wholegamut of defensive behavior.

9. People cover failures with other suc-cesses instead of facing problems and limi-

tations constructively and realistically. Forexample, a woman with a bad marriagepours herself into her children and volun-teer work. This has been termed “compen-sation” for obvious reasons.

10. People rationalize, make excuses, andshift blame to put themselves in the bestlight. For example, a man and woman ra-tionalize their fornication by saying, “Wereally love each other. Society’s standardsare wrong, and people need to be free.” Awoman says she is justified in her bitter-ness at her husband because he is an alco-holic. A homosexual says God made himthat way, and Romans 1 only applies tonatural heterosexuals who engage inhomosexuality. This has been termed“rationalization” and, like denial, can serveas a catch-all for many of the masks peopleput on.

11. People use euphemisms about them-selves and others to avoid guilt or anyattribution of responsibility for something.For example, “I’m just irritated, not angry.”“I just had a few drinks.” “He acts that waybecause he has a low self-esteem.” “Whenyou said to me, ‘You have a problem withanger,’ you became fused with a primitiveand punitive part of my super-ego and thatmade me very angry with you.” This hasbeen termed “euphemistic labeling.”

12. People compare themselves to others

to try to look good and justify themselves.For example, “I know I have my faults,but I’m not as bad as a lot of other people.”“Well, I might have slacked off some onmy job, but at least I didn’t smoke dope inthe bathroom like most of the employees.”This has been termed “advantageouscomparisons.”

13. People shift blame from themselvesto others, God, circumstances, sickness, etc.For example, “It’s only human to get angry.It’s just the way God made me. If my wife

18

would only treat me with respect Iwouldn’t get angry.” “My life is messed upbecause my parents got a divorce.” This hasbeen termed “attribution of blame.”

14. People spread around responsibility toavoid culpability. If everybody does it, thelaw allows it, or society accepts it, then it isOK. For example, “Everyone cheats on hisincome taxes.” “The Supreme Court deci-sion makes abortion all right, and 68% ofthe American people agree we ought to befree to choose.” This has been termed “dif-fusion of responsibility.”

15. People ignore and minimize conse-

quences of their actions. For example, “I sup-pose my wife is hurt when I curse her outand threaten to leave, but she should knowI don’t mean it.” This has been termed “dis-regard of consequences.”

These are but a sampling of the “egodefense mechanisms” and “self-exonerat-ing mechanisms” that various psycholo-gists have detailed. There are all sorts ofexamples of similar behavior evident in allsectors of daily life. The theoretical freightthese fifteen samples carry in psychology(they are given technical labels and sup-posedly describe real entities) can mask thefact that these sorts of things are only a fewexamples plucked from among many.These same things can be described in veryuntechnical terms: we “wear masks”; weduck, weave, and dodge “the light” of self-knowledge and honesty before God andman; we wear fig leaves.

The following provides only a smatter-ing of further examples of the fig leaves thatwe wear:

1. We change the subject or crackjokes if an awkward or threatening(i.e., anything we are not dealingwith biblically) subject comes up.2. We ramble and monopolize con-versation, filling silences to keepourselves from seeming to be fail-

ures and to keep others at bay.3. We live or die vicariously with asports team.4. We “run from problems” bywatching TV, drinking, smoking,promiscuity, work-alcoholism, com-pulsive eating.5. We mock or “put in a box” otherswhose opinions or problems wouldthreaten our own commitments andbehavior.6. We “get defensive” and testy, talkloud or get accusatory, try to bullyothers to defend ourselves and makea show of competency.7. We overdo penance by, “Poor me;I’m so horrible and such a failure,”express maudlin repentances, andwallow in failures.8. We minimize the seriousness ofproblems—”It’s nothing”—or thedifficulty of change—”I promise I’llnever do it again.”9. We lie outright, either to look goodor to avoid looking bad.10. We lie subtly, putting the bestlight on ourselves by innuendo,embellishment, or careful selectionof data. This is often allied withsubtle expressions of contempt orcriticism for other people.11. We think highly of our own opin-ions on every issue.12. We tie up our identity in certaingrandiose roles, like “counselor” or“parent” or “pastor.” Any of ourfunctions and successes, real orimagined, can become fodder forself-deception.13. We pray for help before perform-ing a certain responsibility, and thenrehearse our own success afterwardswithout thought of God.

It should be evident that it does not takea psychologized theory of ego defensemechanisms or self-exonerating devices totrack down countless instances of self-deception, self-aggrandizement, manipu-lation, and deception of and by others. Infact the powerhouses of modern thoughtare precisely the dissectors of false con-sciousness, who pierce the illusions ofindividual and collective life, exposing theshame and game: Marx, Kierkegaard,

19

Nietzsche and a host of others join Freud.Nietzsche once observed, “‘I did that,’ saysmy memory. ‘I could not have done that,’says my pride, and remains inexorable.Eventually—the memory yields.”4 Or asT. S. Eliot put it, “Human kind cannot bearvery much reality.”5

A Biblical Evaluation of Human“Defensiveness”

The greatest critic of human hypocrisyand dissembling, however, is the Bible,which speaks the mind of the Searcher ofhearts and exposes illusions and false con-sciousness, using an entirely different gridthan those of Marxists, existentialists, orpsychoanalysts. There is much that can besaid biblically on the subject of humandefensiveness, but in this article we willmake seven general points.

First, the data of human defensivenesslooks like the biblical description of theworkings of sin. “Defensiveness” incar-nates all the blindness to the truth aboutoneself which might be denominated“pride.” It has that combination of self-deception and deception of others that fitsunder the heading “the deceitfulness ofsin.” It embodies a primal resistance tohonesty about oneself, an evasiveness,excuse making, and blame shifting, all ofwhich are captured in a host of colorfulmetaphors: stiff-necked, hardened or dark-ened in heart, foolish, and so forth.

Also, the bundle of data describingdefensiveness is clearly not well explainedby calling it a set of intrapsychic mecha-nisms. It has an evident interpersonalcomponent. Defensive people are almostinvariably offensive as well. There is acurious blindness in the psychologicalanalyses of the phenomena, for self-decep-tion and defensiveness are only one sideof the story. The other side is the trouble

such behavior causes for others: spouse,children, parents, boss, fellow employees,and counselors all suffer hardship and frus-tration in attempting to build meaningful,honest, and constructive relationships with“defensive” people. They are variouslyaggressive, evasive, deceptive, manipula-tive, and yet all the while somehow blindand driven, unable to help themselves. Ofcourse, they are we! We all recognize our-selves in these descriptions of defensivebehavior. Also it is no accident that otherssuffer hardship and frustration in cultivat-ing good relationships with us.

We also intuitively recognize that psy-chological diagnosis does not ring true tothe whole picture of what a human beingis. It fails to capture that perverse combi-nation of desire for good relationships, yetsuspicion and fear of others; of tolerancefor others’ failings, yet self-aggrandize-ment and despising of others; of momentsof brilliant self-awareness, yet habitualblindness to what about us is obvious toothers; of patience with counselees, yetpetty anger with family members; of lovefor self-knowledge, yet stubborn resistanceto correction. In picking a good metaphorto capture the vast data of “defensiveness,”the metaphor “mechanisms” would neverdo. The metaphor “warmaking” is far morecogent; it gets at the interpersonal compo-nent; it includes both the defensive andoffensive activities, both fear and aggres-sion; it includes the self–justifying rational-izations for what we do; it describes peoplewith vast competencies and aspirationswho somehow have gone awry; it implieswe are both victims and victimizers; itimplies the peacemaking that the gospelaccomplishes in order to transformhabitual warmakers into peacemakers. Theidea of “defense mechanisms” representsa severe constriction of the data; it only has

20

appeal because of a presuppositionaltunnel-vision that looks at people as “psy-chological” entities rather than as covenan-tal beings existing in relationship to Godand neighbor.

“Warmaking activities” explains thedata far more lucidly and comprehensivelythan does “defense mechanisms.” It shouldnot surprise us that this is so. Secular psy-chology is always hamstrung by its pre–commitment to view human problems as“ontological” problems—as “things” thatare not working right. Hence something asbasic as self-deception is inevitably ana-lyzed as a psychological “mechanism.” Butthe Bible never views human problems asontological but as relational or “ethical” attheir cores. Problems exist between man andGod and between man and man. That ourpsyches are unhinged—or futile, darkened,alienated, ignorant, hardened, deceived,and desire-ridden, as Ephesians 4 puts it—does not mean our problems are psycho-logical. The disorientation that manifestsitself in our psychic life is only symptom-atic of an interpersonal disorientation: ouralienation from God. The very efforts ofFreud, Bandura, et al, to describe theseproblems as essentially ontological thingsor mechanisms is a manifestation of thatsame disorientation.

Second, if we are going to understandso-called “defense mechanisms” as partand parcel of human sin, how do we makesense out of the seemingly “unconscious”character of so many of the problems that“defensive” people manifest—those thingsthat usually are spoken of as “psychologi-cal or emotional problems”? It is evidentthat in part of the discussion above (forexample, the “fig leaves” culled from dailylife) I have indiscriminately mingled rela-tively “conscious” acts, like lying, withrelatively “unconscious” acts, like projec-

tion by an angry paranoid. Psychodynamicpsychology has stressed the relativelyunconscious character of defense mecha-nisms in neurosis and psychosis. Forexample, compare the concealed anger ofa “reaction formation” with the concealedintentions of a Casanova on the make: theformer genuinely does not seem to knowor to be able to admit the truth; the lattercould admit in a moment the sexualmotives under the debonair and caringexterior. The whitewashing and image-manipulation of a political ad campaign isa calculated affair. The “inversion” of awidow whitewashing her husband’smemory is automatic and unconscious.Conscious dissembling is not “ego-defensemechanisms” according to the theory. Butthe failure to connect these two thingsderives from a constriction of vision in thepsychological theory.

In practice, conscious and unconsciousare not that easy to distinguish. They areon a continuum. It is remarkable how themost “unconscious” person knows he isresponsible for his sinful reaction as soonas it is brought out into the light. The stickysweetness of a “reaction formation” van-ishes as soon as the person becomes hon-est. And the most “conscious” person isdeeply deceived. How full of rationaliza-tions the Casanova is. However much theguilt has been denied and twisted, the“defensive” person is guilty. The well-psychoanalyzed person may be able toidentify each of his defensive machinationsas it happens, but in a sense he remainswholly deceived as to what those “mecha-nisms” really are. The fear of the LORD isalways the beginning of true wisdom, how-ever things may appear when anotherinterpretive framework is forced ontohuman life. The “phenomenological sta-tus” of a particular problem is no safe guide

21

to what that problem is. However uncon-scious or conscious a particular pattern ofwarmaking activity seems, it is still funda-mentally warmaking. The biblical doctrineof sin easily accommodates the reality of“unconscious” actions: sin is a darkeningof the mind, a blind compulsion, a slavery,an automatic and indelible proclivity.Especially as sin is understood in terms ofits inner hold on human life—variouslyanalyzed as pride or unbelief or idolatrousdesires or self or a drive for autonomy fromGod—then the fact of the automatic char-acter of so-called “defense mechanisms” issimple and poignant testimony to thedeceitfulness of sin, to human culpability,not to the excuse of “psychological prob-lems.”

Third, people (psychiatrists, the man onthe street, many Christians) have troubleseeing “emotional and psychological prob-lems” as intimately related to sin. Casanovahad a sin problem. But a troubled personhas “emotional problems.” And a paranoidschizophrenic or a case of reaction forma-tion is a matter of “psychosis” or “neuro-sis.” It is common to view defensivebehavior such as we have been describingin some other category than sin. There aretwo simple reasons for difficulty in seeingsuch problems as matters of human sin.First, the typical view of sin is that it con-sists in outward acts consciously chosen,where one could have chosen the righteousalternative. Second, the typical attitude orstance taken towards sin is a moralistic one,condemning the person and/or tellingthem to shape up by an exercise of willpower. The paranoid—to pick the extremecase—seems clearly not to have chosen tobecome that way. And telling such a per-son to shape up has never worked in thewhole history of mankind!

But the view of sin that focuses on willed

actions is a denial of the biblical view ofsin. It is the heresy known as Pelagianismin the history of theology. That it is the“natural” theology of the man on thestreet (psychiatrists included!) and thatfor Christians it is the most common func-tional view of sin do not make it even anapproximation of biblical truth. Where sinis viewed primarily as willed outward acts,overt evil with “malice aforethought,” thenthe deep and complex inner troublespeople have will tend to be absorbed underother categories. But this typical view ofsin which creeps almost spontaneouslyinto all of our thinking misses the deepinner hold of sin, the dislocation andconfusion of our hearts that is the core ofthe biblical view of sin. Both the “high-handed” sins and the subtle sins, likeanxiety, are embraced within the biblicalview. Other categories communicate falseimpressions.

The attitude or stance taken towards sinnaturally follows from the view of sin. Anexternal view of sin will imply a moralis-tic stance towards sin. But an attitude ofcriticism or an exhortation to will power isa frank denial of the gospel. For mostpeople “sin” connotes criticism or moral-istic exhortation. But for the Bible—and fora counselor or counselee who desires trueself–knowledge rather than some speciesof rationalization—it both denotes and con-notes the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Itimplies compassion and love offered tothose who would know both themselvesand God. Christ did not come to judge orto say, “Shape up!” He came to save, toinvite to an inner transformation of mind,heart, motives, will, identity, and emotions.He came to draw to himself people who,standing on their own, are already judgedand are powerless to change themselves.“Christianity transformed the lives of men

22

not by appealing to the human will, butby telling a story. The lives of men are trans-formed by a piece of news.”6

Historically, attitudes towards troubledpeople have often been moralistic in West-ern society and in the church. Secularpsychology might even be viewed as a “tol-erant” reaction against moralism, for itsought to accept people rather than judgethem, to show acceptance rather than topromote guilt, to make problems be psy-chological or behavioral maladjustmentrather than sin. Such themes are prominentin the life histories of men like Carl Rogers,B. F. Skinner, Ernest Jones, and many of theother founders of psychiatry. It is no acci-dent that the history of secular psychologyand psychiatry is intertwined with theo-logical liberalism and has continued toappeal where there is a “liberalizing” trendgoing on in the church. The pendulumswings from error to error, from moralismthat condemns men before God to liberal-ism that sets men free of God. The para-dox is that, in the name of tolerance (i.e.,non-judgmentalism and supposedly objec-tive psychological science), the truth thattroubled people have a deep sin problemis withdrawn—and so is the gospel thatdeals with that sin problem. A personwhose heart is tangled up—is “deceitfulbeyond all finding out; who can under-stand it?” as Jeremiah 17:9 so eloquentlyputs it—is taught psychological euphe-misms to diagnose his problems. He is thengiven the unconditional regard and accep-tance of the therapist as a substitute for theself-giving love of the Lamb of God. “Thewound of my people is healed lightly forthey say ‘Peace, peace’ when there is nopeace” (Jeremiah 8:11). Both legalism (“thisis willful”) and psychologism (”this is adefense mechanism”) are profound distor-tions. Jesus Christ is a distinct third way.

Fourth, both Bandura and the egopsychologists assume that the only twoalternatives are either stifling moralism(“character flaws,” lack of will power,judgmentalism, the way most religionistsand the man on the street interpret behav-ior) or liberating psychological science(deeply penetrating into unconscious anddissociated behavior; non-judgmental; theway most psychologists interpret behav-ior). The gospel, however, is a third way. Itis exactly the truth—of the radical anddenominating nature of sin and of the radi-cal and reorienting power of the Light, ofthe forgiving love of Christ—that defen-sive people need and respect. In counsel-ing it is striking how “schizophrenics,” theparadigm case for powerful unconsciousdefensiveness, “track” to the themes ofpride and hiding. They are large children,full of “folly” in the Proverbial sense, andthey know it. It is striking as well how“madmen” become sane as they begin tograsp the implications of justification byfaith, the substitutionary atonement, thealien righteousness of Christ, adoption aschildren of the Father, the Lordship of thecrucified Savior (of course not in such poly-syllabic language at first!). Biblical Chris-tianity is a third way. It is hard truth thatheals deeply. It is not a set of euphemisms,like “ego defense mechanisms.” It is not aset of criticisms, like, “If he wanted to, hecould shape up.”

Fifth, when we look closely at thethought structure in which ideas like “egodefense mechanisms” or “self-exoneratingmechanisms” are generated, we realize thatthey involve a deadly irony. These verycategories are a case in point of the thingsbeing described. Their own categories con-demn them. The nature of rationalizationis to hide oneself from hard facts, fromblows to one’s pride. The notion of uncon-

23

scious defense mechanisms that define oneas “sick” (rather than profoundly deceivedand/or deceptive) is a choice illustrationof a “defensive” self-exonerating rational-ization. Human responsibility is muted;there are “other reasons” for our problems.The psychodynamic explanation of humanhiding and self-deception is itself a system-atized and well institutionalized “defensemechanism.” It is a self-exonerating ratio-nalization. Similarly Bandura’s theory ofself-exonerating mechanisms is itself anexample of euphemistic labeling takingplace. He takes the data of human sin andeuphemizes it. He writes, for example, “Itis self-exonerative processes rather thancharacter flaws that account for mostinhumanities.”7 It would be much moreaccurate to write that sin—in all its self-deceptive power—evidences itself ininhumanities, character flaws, and self-excusing. Euphemism makes deep (seri-ous) things shallow, and Bandura isshallow in his analysis of human knots.Some of Paul Vitz’s recent work, in whichhe shows how Freud’s analysis of theOedipal complex is a damning explanationof Freud’s atheism, makes an analysis simi-lar to the one we are making here.

Sixth, one of the most persuasive argu-ments in favor of a view of problems as“emotional and psychological” has alwaysbeen that people with such problemsalmost invariably have had real scars fromtheir upbringing. Especially when one hasa moralistic view of sin, it seems somehowcruel to say, for example, that a womanwith multiple personalities (an extremeform of the defense mechanism “fantasy”)has a basic sin problem. Such a person typi-cally underwent constant criticism, wassexually abused, had horrendous role mod-els, and lived a life of constant failure anddanger. But a biblical view of sin and coun-

seling is tailor-made to help people withsuch deep problems. She was sinnedagainst grievously and repeatedly—bothin being given negative models of how tolive, and in the direct attacks against her.Jesus Christ has great compassion on thosesinned-against: He can give this womancourage and a reason to face now whathappened and to forgive. She is alsoenslaved in sin—she lives multiple lies, isruled by fear and bitterness, gives nothingto others, manipulates, does no work, hasblasphemous ideas about God, and doesnot trust in Jesus. That she was bothextremely provoked and consistentlytaught to sin does not lessen the fact thather life is controlled by sin. In fact, her sinagainst God is the “10,000 talents,” for herlife is owed to him and is completely alien-ated from him; the sin against her is the“100 denarii,” a huge amount (a denariusis a day’s pay). Such large pain of beingwronged will be converted into forgivenesswhen she sees her bigger wrong againstGod. Jesus Christ has great compassion onsinners: as she faces Him, responsible forwho she is and has become, and finds for-giveness, she will gain reason and courageto live and to forgive.

Seventh, all this is to say that the “egoideal” which “ego defense mechanisms”are defending and the violations of one’sinternalized moral code which “self-exon-erating mechanisms” are busy justifyingare far from being mere “psychological”categories. These are “theological” issuesto the core: the pervasive outworkings ofhuman pride in seeking—automaticallyand blindly as well as willingly—to liveautonomously from the Creator andRedeemer. Let us carefully use the descrip-tions and observations of secular psycholo-gists. People indeed do and say the thingsreported, and secular men and women

24

have often been more careful to ob-serve these than Christians have. Butan interpretive framework isincarnated in the reports of theseobservations. Technical terminology isthe bearer of unbiblical, speculativetheory. Let us be wary of the termi-nology, for it sets the terms of thediscussion of human problems in aworld view that is false. “Projection,”for example, is a mechanical term fora decidedly human, interpersonal,and covenantal activity! It is a termfreighted with distorted theory. Itcommunicates false impressions.Machines project; people act. Humanbeings do not have mechanisms, how-ever automatically they react. Seem-ing automatisms in human behaviorare better seen as illustrations of“slave-like behavior,” not machine-like activity. Just as the notion of“warfare activities” thrusts us into apersonalistic world, so the notion thatbehavior is “ruled,” not mechanical,forces us to see people more accuratelyand personally. Sin, the desires of theflesh, the world around us, and thedevil are all portrayed as rulers thatenslave and command behavior.8

They are personalized powers thatdeceive people and induce them to“warfare activities,” whether peopleknow that they are ruled or not. Slavesand machines have many similarities.To show a slave how he is a machinemay give him a sense of control and aworld-view in which to interpret hisexperience. But though his anxietylevel is reduced and he functions moreself-confidently, he has been deceivedmore profoundly.

If they could be isolated from theirsystem, none of the terms would be

bad. Euphemistic labeling, fantasy,rationalization, and others are reason-ably concrete words with which todescribe behavior. But functioning astechnical terms, they are theory-laden.The triumph of Lavoisier’s nomencla-ture was the triumph of Lavoisier’ssystem! Simple descriptive languagethat incarnates a personalist world-view may be more useful than techni-cal terminology, so long as the seculartheoretical framework continues to beimplicit in the vocabulary. Freudiansand Bandurans have some notion oftruth which serves as a frameworkwithin which to determine what iseuphemistic, fantastical, or rationalis-tic. But their notion of truth is a shal-low and distorting gloss when seennext to Scripture. They observe theevidences of human sin in massivedetail, but they do not see sin nor hearJesus. There is a vast differencebetween saying, “That is a case ofeuphemistic labeling,” and saying,“You are using euphemisms.” Theformer places us in a world of secularmechanisms needing repair; the latterlocates us in the world of human sinneeding redemption.

ConclusionLet us be ruthless to root out theo-

retical structures that view people aspsychological or socio-psychologicalabstractions: the phenomena observedare not “ego defense mechanisms” butare pride’s offensive, defensive, anddeceptive strategies. And let us alsoforswear the therapeutic assumptionsthat are consequent to the theory: theyare poor and deceptive substitutes forthe gospel of Jesus Christ. If—and itis a large if—biblical categories con-

trol, we can revel in the descriptiveacuity and case-study riches of psy-chologists. With biblical categories, weourselves will mature as psychologistsin the best sense of the word: acuteobservers of human life, experiencedin cases and case studies, consistentlywise in our counseling methods. Wewill know people deeply enough toknow exactly how they need JesusChrist. We will remember that Chris-tianity is a third way. The alternativeto moralism is not psychologism; thealternative is Christianity. “Warmak-ing activities” are omnipresent. JesusChrist came and made true peace.Blessed are the peacemakers who helpothers into the peace of God that is inJesus Christ. With biblical categorieswe will become men and women whoknow people—including ourselvesfirst of all—and who know how tohelp with the help that is help indeed,with the paraklesis (“comfort”) withwhich we ourselves have been com-forted by God (2 Cor 1:4).

ENDNOTES1“Human Defensiveness: The ThirdWay” was first published in the Jour-

nal of Pastoral Practice 8 no. 1 (1985)40-55. Used by permission.

2Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of

Modern Science (New York: Mac-milan, 1957) 1.

3Antoine Lavoisier, The Elements of

Chemistry, trans. in Great Books of the

Western World, vol. 45 (Chicago:Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1952) 1.

4Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good

and Evil, trans. Helen Zimmern(London: T. N. Foulis, 1914) 86.

5T. S. Eliot, “Burnt Norton,” in Four

Quartets (New York: Harcourt,

25

Brace & World, 1971) 14.6J. G. Machen, Christianity and Liber-

alism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1923) 47-48.

7Albert Bandura, Social Learning

Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1973) 158.

8Eph 2:1-3 is an exceedingly richsummary passage that includes allof these. Rom 6:11-22; Gal 5:16-24;Rom 12:2; and 2 Tim 2:26 describeeach in turn, as well as the alterna-tive: “slavery”—to righteousness, tothe desires of the Spirit, to God’swill—a “slavery” which is freedom.