Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -1-

A Christian Imago

QuickTimeª and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.

Image: “Adam and Eve”, by Peter Paul Rubens,1597

Christian Theological Seminary

Institution:
P 510 - Introduction to Psychotherapy
Course:
4/12/2008
Date:
Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -2-

Introduction

Dr. Harville Hendrix and his wife Dr. Helen Lakelly Hunt developed Imago relationship

therapy to aid couples, prospective couples and parents who are struggling in their relationships.

Their theory, according to its exposition in the book Getting the Love You Want: A Guide for

Couples, is rooted in an anthropology derived in part from evolutionary psychology, the

exchange theory of mate selection in social psychology and a persona theory of humanistic

psychology. The authors admit that even this amalgamation of theories is inadequate to explain

romantic attraction. They therefore turn to a psychodynamic theory and anthropology. My thesis

is that this too is an inadequate, even in some ways false, basis for understanding human

attraction and romantic love. The effectiveness of Imago therapy forces us to consider, if its

anthropological and theoretical roots are inadequate or even false, why does it work? Is there a

way of re-conceiving Imago relationship therapy that explains its utility?

John Milbank and others involved in the Radical Orthodoxy project have argued that a

truly post-modern worldview must shed the assumptions of modernity that inform most all

discourse. He and his colleagues have argued that what is required is a radical and

unapologetically Christian framework, one that is “not simply pure (supposed) Biblicist

condemnation on the one hand, nor flaccid accommodation on the other” (Smith, 2005, 12). I

believe that we have been given such a theological anthropology in John Paul II’s The Theology

of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan.

Critique of Modern Ontology

Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -3-

James Smith identifies the heart of Enlightenment thought as a “prejudice against

prejudice” and this prejudice forms the core of modernity. What is now billing itself in many

places as post-modernity is instead a “hyper-modernity” which continues to deepen the emphasis

on the autonomy of the self and intends to “secure the rights of the individual to do whatever he

or she wants” (2005, 32). Modern theology has seceded vast territory to an allegedly autonomous

reason based on an assumed antithesis between faith and reason. Milbank and others have called

for a truly post-modern critique of the “metaphysical, epistemological and anthropological

assumptions – or faith commitments – that undergird modernity” (71). Rational orthodoxy seeks

to offer “a confessional account of human experience in all of its elements” (73-74).

The metaphysical, epistemological and anthropological assumptions which Milbank has

critiqued include 1) a univocity of being – “an ontology that both flattened the world and

unhooked it from the transcendent, thus creating a new space untouched by the divine and an

autonomous reserve of reality outside the religious”; 2) the resultant notion of “an autonomous

reason that was supposedly neutral and objective, offering an account of the world

uncontaminated by the theological”; and 3) the human person became an “isolated subject…

endued with autonomy and inalienable rights” (Smith, 2005, 88-89). This vision of an atomistic

human society results in what Milbank has called “an ontology of violence” that governs human

relationships. Physicist Wolfgang Smith has called attention to these uncontested assumptions of

modernity under the aegis of an ideology he calls “scientism”. They have allowed scientists to

advance “philosophic opinions of the most dubious kind as established scientific truths, and in

the name of science have thrust upon an awed and credulous public a shallow world-view for
Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -4-

which in reality there is not a shred of scientific support” (Smith, 2000).

Psychology is perhaps the quintessential modern science. It’s great thinkers and pioneers

have frequently been avowed atheists or at least highly suspicious of religion and theology. The

founder of the psychodynamic view in psychology, Sigmund Freud, saw all religion as infantile

delusion and promulgated a theory of its origins that has had a devastating impact on the modern

mind. Freud believed that religion was the result of four factors – 1) ignorance of the workings of

nature 2) fear of operating in a world without the protection of a beneficent father 3) the product

of a wish for an all powerful, providential force and 4) guilt which served to guarantee moral

behavior (Kreeft, 1988). Perhaps more than any other thinker of modernity, Freud justified, in the

minds of many, the thesis that man makes God. This thesis flows from and fits into the modern

assumption of a radical human autonomy. Freud’s prejudices continue to have a powerful effect

on the field of psychology.

Evolutionary psychology, social psychology and the psychoanalytic anthropology of

Freud have common roots in philosophical assumptions of naturalism. None can admit the

intrusion of grace into nature and all hold that the human person and his or her behavior can be

satisfactorily explained without recourse to theology. This is the natural derivation of a univocal

ontology that “flattens out the world” (Smith, 2005). Evolutionary psychology is mired in the

mythos of Darwinism, which proclaims the supremacy of random chance. This is utterly

incompatible with a providential God “who worketh all things according to the counsel of his

will” (Eph 1:11b, DRV). The Darwinist account of human origins can only exist in an intellectual
Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -5-

environment that proclaims the independent existence of the world.

A New Vision

The solution proposed by Milbank and others in the Radical orthodoxy school is an

ontology of participation in the tradition of theurgic neo-Platonism which affirms the goodness

of creation and the “liturgical and doxological character of the world” (Smith, 2005, 187). It is

Milbank’s theo-ontology that can dispel the onto-theology of modernity. It is a participatory

ontology that “understands transcendence as an essential feature of material reality” (Smith,

2005, 185). We need to return to a view of being as a gift, rather than a right. God is not the

“ground of our Being” as Tillich asserted but rather being is suspended from and participates in

God. This sacramental ontology underlies John Paul II’s anthropology of human love.

The culmination of decades of pastoral experience and theological reflection, the

“Theology of the Body” was presented in 178 weekly general audiences given between

September 1979 and November 1984. The cornerstone of this theological anthropology is the

incarnation of Jesus Christ, God’s invasion into “enemy-occupied territory” (Lewis, 2001, 46). In

the encyclical letter Redemptor Hominis, the first of his pontificate, John Paul II wrote:

The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take
on light … Christ, the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and
of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling. (1979,
8)

This paragraph reveals the fundamental truth of humanity’s origin and teleology. Humanity is

created by God and has God as its’ end. The starting point for a Christian understanding of
Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -6-

human love must come from God’s revelation of Himself to humanity. John Paul II directs us to

the second chapter of the book of Genesis for an understanding of the nature and purpose of

human love. It is in this account of creation that we find “the most ancient description and record

of man’s self-knowledge” (John Paul II, 1997, 30). In this text we find that the good of humanity

exists not in isolation but in the communio personarum. Humanity is created “in the image and

likeness of God” (Gen 1:26-27) but in this image, humanity is created both “male and female”.

Human sexuality and the drive to union transcends biology or social conditioning. It is at the root

of our being. Sexuality is not an accident of nature but rather reveals something of God, since the

image of the creator can be found in the creation. Like in the myth of human androgyny

presented in Plato’s Symposium, this Christian mythos describes a humanity that only finds

wholeness in communion. This overcomes the ontology of violence inherent in modernity’s

account and places the relationships of persons onto the basis of charity rather than power.

Through the communio personarum, humanity participates in the image of the Trinitarian love,

that love which “moves the sun and all the stars”(Allighieri, 1971, 347).

Hendrix and Hunt have built their model of Imago relationship therapy on the theory that

we seek out the person who will heal our childhood wounds. They assert that “in [our] search for

the ideal mate… [we] relied on an unconscious image of the opposite sex that [we] had been

forming since birth” (Hendrix & Hunt, 2008, 38). Furthermore they theorize, “To a large degree,

whether or not you have been romantically attracted to someone depended on the degree to

which that person matched your imago (39). However, the authors paint a rather bleak picture of

romantic love, referring to it as “an illusion” (54); the result of “a mixture of denial, transference,
Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -7-

and projection” (62) and “a fairy tale” that “thrives on ignorance and fantasy” (63). This is love

under the regime of sin, where one’s partner is objectified and used to meet the needs of another.

This is the violation of the greatest commandment, “to love one another” (John 13:34, DRV).

Hendrix and Hunt present 10 characteristics of what they call a “conscious partnership”, in

contrast to the above characterization, which represent the “unconscious partnership”. Herein lies

the theological basis for its effectiveness.

In the postlapsarian state, human relationships have been corrupted by the self-seeking

engendered by original sin. We seek to satisfy our desires rather than fulfill our duties to one

another. When we compare Genesis 2:25 with Genesis 3:10 we see this consequences of the

destruction of original innocence. In the former “they were both naked…and were not ashamed”;

in the latter Adam answers the Lord “I was afraid, because I was naked”. Shame is thereby

understood as a consequence of the fall of man. Shame is the need to protect oneself from

objectification and abuse by the other. Original nakedness is therefore symbolic of the original

goodness of creation and its reflection of the deeper reality of God’s being (John Paul II, 1997).

Christ the Lord points us to this original condition of mankind in his dialogue with the

Pharisees in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. It is through the grace of the incarnation that we are

healed of this defect, “as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the

justice of one, unto all men to justification of life” (Rom 5:18, DRV). The redemption

accomplished by Chris makes it possible to fulfill the law; to love our neighbor as Christ as

loved us. That is totally, self-sacrificially. We are called to nothing less. The covenant of
Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -8-

marriage is sacramental, that is “an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our

sanctification”. It is meant to image God’s internal life of the Trinity, the love of Christ for His

bride the Church and our final destiny in the beatific vision. Hendrix and Hunt hint at the

necessity of recognizing this but in typical modernist fashion they are timid about naming it.

Their ninth characteristic of a “conscious relationship” is “You become more aware of your drive

to be loving and whole and united with the universe” (2008, 90). This sentence almost typifies

the modern philosophy of immanence, it’s “prejudice against prejudice”. It is not a “drive … to

be united with the universe” but rather a drive to be united with that which transcends the

universe, that is with God. In their desire to be inclusive and inoffensive they only succeed in

being vague and inaccurate. A Christian psychology cannot be shy about teaching the truth of the

human condition. We do no one any favors when we fail to proclaim the cross. Though the

“word of the cross” has been and will be “foolishness”, “a stone of stumbling and a rock of

scandal” to many, it is the only word we have.

Kevin Vail A Christian Imago -9-

Bibliography

Allighieri, Dante (1971) The Divine Comedy: Paradise. (Dorothy L. Sayers & Barbara Reynolds,
Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.

Hendrix, H. & Hunt, H.L. (2008). Getting the Love You Want: A Guide for Couples (20th
Anniversary Ed.). New York, NY: Henry Hold and Co.

John Paul II. (1997). The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. Boston, MA:
Pauline Books and Media.

___ (1979) Redemptor Hominis. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html.

Kreeft, P. (1988). The Pillars of Unbelief – Freud. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/pillars_freud.htm.

Lewis, C.S. (2001). Mere Christianity. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Originally published 1952.

Smith, J.K.A. (2005). Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.

Smith, W. (2000). The Plague of Scientistic Belief. Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Vol. C, No. 7.
Retrieved April 14, 2008, from
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%202000/belief.html.