AMAZING GUILT, AMAZING GRACE
Marvin J. Parrish

Guilt feelings are a burden to many of us in the Church of Christ. It is common for many of us to fall into a recurring cycle of authority-seeking, authoritarianism, legalism, unrealistic aspirations, conflict and failure. Upon failing we feel guilty and the cycle begins again. Now let me indicate more precisely what I mean.

Overwhelmed with guilt we are desperately in need of some way to resolve it. We become authority seekers. When one is physically ill he generally feels more confident and secure upon hearing good news from an authoritative physician than he would were he forced to rely on the assessment of some unschooled friend. When one finds himself in spiritual distress he also seeks an authoritative source for relief. Within Christendom the authoritative source proclaims that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin:’ That should settle the issue, but often it does not. For many Christians lingering doubts remain as to the completeness of their atonement. Such doubts are often unconscious; that is, the individual is not aware of his doubts, but they are really there just the same. And they have a profound effect on his behavior.

In such situations one’s doubts are kept out of consciousness by the aid of an ego defense mechanism referred to as “reaction formation.” A person who engages in behavior which is opposite in value and direction to impulses he has repressed is said to be utilizing this mechanism of defense. For example, a mother who has hostile and hateful feelings toward her son and finding them objectionable in her value system might repress the hate and hostility and shower the child with an overabundance of toys --- all the while convincing herself quite completely in her own conscious mind that she loves her child dearly.

A similar process occurs in many in the Church of Christ. It may work something like the following: One’s lingering doubts about atonement are repressed and a reaction formation of dogmatic assurance and proclamation of one’s own salvation ensue. The rightness of the specific steps one has taken in achieving it are proclaimed not only as sufficient but as the only possible way in which salvation can be achieved. At this point our hypothetical Christian can be considered an “authoritarian personality:’ Just appealing to authority is not sufficient. He must also strongly identify with that authority. In fact his identification is so strong that he may no longer be able to distinguish the authority from himself. “It is not what I say; it is what God (or the Bible) says.” This sequence of psychological events helps mitigate these persistent feelings of guilt. However, as long as the belief system remains intact this psychological maneuvering must continue.

We then have a kind of repetition compulsion in operation. Obsessed with guilt our brother must compulsively go through a series of detailed requirements. By being compulsively faithful to this routine (proclaimed as the only way) our member reduces his feelings of guilt. At this point we have all of the necessary ingredients for legalism. The legalist must urge compliance with the letter of the law. He feels less anxious when he can be certain he has rigidly followed certain objective steps. To allow the system to be altered would remove its preeminent status and hence cast doubt on the authority.

Our legalist is caught in a stressing predicament. The biblical concept of the grace of God is too abstract in his system to have substantial practical consequences. His acute awareness of his own guilt coupled with the belief that he cannot be saved by his works leaves him in a real dilemma. He then must work out his own salvation through fear and trembling within a concrete, authoritarian, legalistic system which really stresses neither grace nor works but strict compliance with public rituals and unfaltering acceptance of in-group beliefs. This is the way the Church of Christ measures faithfulness to God. It seems like a sublimated way in which we “do our alms before men.”

A person within this system is already saddled with guilt and must engage himself in rather elaborate psychological action in order to handle it. However, a highly legalistic system is so confining and so constricting that it is well nigh impossible to comply with its demands all of the time-even within the sheltering confines of the local congregation or the Christian college campus. And failure to comply with its demands are so objective and so obvious ( “I did not see you at church last Sunday”) that it is difficult for the lawbreaker to find adequate psychological defenses for it. His only alternative within this tightly structured psychological system is to either feel guilty or bow out of the system. Bowing out, however, does not necessarily reduce the guilt. The acute feelings of guilt reinitiate this seemingly endless cycle.

On top of all this such a highly structured legalistic system cannot help but pave the way for conflicts when one steps into the real world. Caught in a conflict one feels condemned either way he elects to resolve it. It is sort of like opting for the lesser of two evils. However, a legalistic system does not allow one to exercise such options. The “lesser of two evils,” now called faithfulness, is already determined. The system has the answer in black and white --- and even makes one feel guilty for having a supposed alternative in the first place. Unfortunately, being faithful in this system does not guarantee being happy nor does it guarantee a satisfactory degree of psychological or emotional stability. If you do not believe that the system makes unrealistic demands, be honest with yourself and try to recall how many times you went against it when you were an adolescent or a young adult --- or maybe even now. Or if you think you have not ever gone against it --- perhaps because of circumstances or parental confinement --- how many times did you really want to?

Life by its very nature involves one in risk, frustration, and uncertainty. It could well be that the most significant psychological result of the authoritarian-legalistic Church of Church philosophy is that it leaves its adherent with so little with which he can face up to life.

The kind of emotional problems we have in the Church of Christ invites further conflict since they are considered a sign of spiritual weakness.

One having such difficulties is not likely to admit it even to himself until he is beset with relatively severe problems. Even when he admits his need for help, he is ambivalent as to where he should go to receive it. There is a marked distrust of mental health professionals. Our professional ministers are not trained to deal with such problems and hence are unequipped to handle them in a therapeutic manner. This weakness is unfortunate because ministers are more often consulted by persons with emotional problems than are psychologists and psychiatrists.

Suggestions are not solutions, but I will offer a few anyway. One suggestion is that we should be realistic and do at least one, but preferably both, of the following:

1) Encourage at least some minimal level of psychological sophistication for our professional ministers by providing some relevant psychological training. For example, it would be good for us to educate our professional ministers on how and when to consult with appropriate mental health professionals. I think it would be desirable for some ministers to also acquire some practical training in clinical installations as well.

2) Educate the membership of the Church of Christ on the advisability of acquiring the services of a psychiatrists or psychologist when their services seem indicated. One needs to be selective, of course, just as one should be when he needs the services of a physician or a dentist or a mechanic. Here again, the minister could be of some service were he so trained or so inclined.

Another suggestion, more closely aligned with prevention than with cure, is that we should proclaim through word and action a God of love. We have been so God-fearing a people that we have almost been afraid to do anything for fear it might be wrong and we would reap nothing for our efforts but the terrible wrath of God. We have often been afraid to perform good works in the world for fear of going to hell because of the method we used. So we sat on our talent and did nothing.

God gave us love; Jesus gave us hope. Anyone who has learned how to both give and receive these two enduring qualities is on the right path to good mental health and meaningful and lasting religious faith.

Marvin Parrish is a candidate for the Ph.D. in psychology at Washington University. He teaches a class at Central Church of Christ, St. Louis. His address: 325 Mueller Ave., St. Louis 63135.