Differences Between The Road Less Traveled and Further Along the Road Less Traveled

On pages 156-157 of Further Along the Road Less Traveled: The Unending Journey Toward Spiritual Growth (copyright 1993), M. Scott Peck states:

"I became a Christian several years after The Road Less Traveled was published----and remember, the very first sentence in that book is the great Buddhist truth 'Life is difficult'----although subconsciously I had been tending in that direction for quite some time, and The Road Less Traveled is full of Christian concepts.  An important man said to me, 'Scotty, it was so clever of you the way you disguised your Christianity in The Road Less Traveled in order to get the Christian message across to people.'  And I replied honestly, 'Well, I didn't disguise my Christianity.  I wasn't a Christian.'"

Indeed, my impression is that there are differences between The Road Less Traveled and Further Along the Road Less Traveled.  I'll talk about three issues in which this appears to be the case, while in some cases wrestling with the question of whether or not it truly is the case.

First, in The Road Less Traveled, Peck talks about humans growing to become like God in terms of having power in a number of situations.  In Further Along the Road Less Traveled, however, Peck criticizes Theomania, which is "the delusion that we human beings can be God" (page 192).  Now, one can argue that Peck is not really contradicting himself but is talking about two separate issues.  When Peck talks about human beings becoming like God, he means that therapy can help us to grow and arrive at a state in which we can navigate our way through life (including life's hardships) with a degree of poise and control.  When Peck criticizes Theomania, he's saying that human beings should accept that life does not always turn out as they'd like.  Can both concepts co-exist?  I'd say that they can, in the form of the Serenity Prayer: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."  Overall, though, I'd say that Further Along the Road Less Traveled has more of a God-focus than The Road Less Traveled.

Second, in The Road Less Traveled, Peck speaks about homosexuality as if it's a condition that needs to be cured.  In Further Along the Road Less Traveled, however, Peck acknowledges that homosexuality is complex, as some are homosexual due to nurture (i.e, dysfunctional families), some due to nature (genetics), and some due to a combination of the two.  Peck says on pages 104-105 that "when we regard homosexuality as just this or just that, we do violence to the subtlety and complexity of God's creation."  In response to the question of whether or not homosexuals should be ordained as priests, Peck says that "It depends on the homosexual" (page 105).

Third, Peck talks more about the afterlife in Further Along the Road Less Traveled.  He says that the Christian (or, in the case of purgatory, Catholic) belief in a post-mortem heaven, hell, and purgatory makes sense to him, but he's drawn more to C.S. Lewis' depiction of hell than he is to the notion that God will torment God's own creation forever and ever, without possibility of redemption.  Peck refers to Lewis' story about a professor who did not like heaven because there was no room there for him to advance above others, and so he chose hell.  Peck says on page 171: "My vision of Hell is distinctly like that of Lewis.  The gates of Hell are wide open.  People can walk right out of Hell, and the reason they are in Hell is that they choose not to."

Finishing The Road Less Traveled

I finished M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Growth.

My latest reading covered a lot of interesting ground, such as Peck's belief that God is guiding us to spiritual and moral advancement through our personal and collective unconscious.  Peck equates the collective unconscious with God, but he also says that the wisdom of the past has been transmitted to us genetically.  So does Peck maintain that God helps and guides us in spite of ourselves, or does he believe that we have to receive God's assistance in order to grow?  A little of both, I think.  In terms of physical and spiritual health, Peck observes a general resiliency within humanity, and he also notes that we have instincts that enable us to anticipate and avoid danger, sometimes in a psychic sense.  Peck also states that society is evolving morally, for a number of things that we would judge as bad (i.e., poor parenting) were not considered to be particularly bad in the past.  At the same time, however, Peck holds that we need to overcome our laziness to get better.  Peck refers to the story of Adam and Eve, who lazily followed the serpent rather than asking to hear God's rationale for why they shouldn't eat the forbidden fruit.  A priest on the television series Six Feet Under made a similar point.  

Peck also affirms that our goal in spiritual growth is Godhood.  I'm not sure if he believes that this relates to the afterlife, but he does appear to hold that our becoming like God has ramifications for the here and now: As we become disciplined and poised, we have power in a number of situations and challenges.  But Peck is clear that we should exercise that power with humility.  Peck also envisions people becoming agents of God's love.  Peck strikes me as quite mystical.  See here, here, and here for my posts on the concept of deification within ancient Christianity and/or philosophy.

Do I buy into what Peck is saying?  I don't know.  Perhaps there are times when there are coincidences that help us out.  Peck refers to a time when he was struggling to write a part of his book, and a lady who didn't even like him that much lent him a book that helped him over that hump.  Does the universe help us out, at times?  Personally, I have a hard time ruling out luck, especially considering the times in the world when people are not so lucky.

I'd like to close this post by quoting something that Peck says on page 309 about loving and being loved:
"Everyone wants to be loved.  But first we must make ourselves lovable.  We must prepare ourselves to be loved.  We do this by becoming ourselves loving, disciplined human beings.  If we seek to be loved----if we expect to be loved----this cannot be accomplished; we will be dependent and grasping, not genuinely loving.  But when we nurture ourselves and others without a primary concern of finding reward, then we will have become lovable, and the reward of being loved, which we have not sought, will find us."

It's better to give than to receive.  I should remind myself of that on a daily basis, especially when I'm afraid to greet people by name because I fear that they will reject me.

Peck Knew More Than Kathy About God: On What Basis?

In my latest reading of The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth, M. Scott Peck talks about religion and spirituality.  He discusses three case studies: a woman named Kathy who was weighed down by her Catholic views on sin and guilt, a woman named Marcia who had anti-religious parents and did not enjoy life, and a man named Theodore who was skeptical about religion but became more religious after he had addressed issues from his past, namely, being bullied by his siblings and his parents' tendency to take away things that he valued when they punished him.  While Peck acknowledges that religion can have negative psychological effects, as it did in the case of Kathy, he criticizes psychotherapy's overall antagonism towards religion.  He says that science itself has become open to paradox, and that he feels that God has assisted him in his efforts to help people.

There was one time in my latest reading when Peck appeared to be rather arrogant.  Kathy felt that she had to chant continually to appease God, for she was having sexual thoughts about other men and believed that God was displeased with her.  (Peck learned eventually that this was because Kathy's husband was homosexual and thus failed to satisfy his wife's sexual needs.)  But, when Kathy said that she feared that God would kill her for wanting to see an ex-boyfriend, Peck replies that he knows more about God than she does, and he notes that there are plenty of people who cheat on their spouses who are not punished by God.  I thought that Peck's overall argument was effective----although I will say that infidelity can bring its own negative consequences, whether God directly punishes or not----but I considered him to be rather arrogant for claiming that he knew more about God.  On what basis can Peck claim that he knows more about someone who is unseen, one we don't even know for a fact exists?  And how can we even know this being in the first place?  The Bible?  But the Bible contains the theme that God punishes sinners.  Catholics would then say that the church has the authority to interpret the Bible.  But Peck essentially encourages Kathy to question Catholic doctrine about sin and guilt and to start thinking for herself.  Experience?  That may be the basis for Peck's theology, but cannot experience be limited, even subjective at times?

I myself wouldn't jettison the notions of sin and guilt, for I believe that there is right and wrong.  At the same time, I sympathize with a psychotherapy that doesn't condemn but rather tries to find causes for people being unfaithful, while pursuing the patient's healing and reconciliation with his or her spouse.

Common Sense and Absolutizing the Bible's Commands

For my write-up today on The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth, I'll use as my starting-point something that M. Scott Peck says on page 148:

"There come many points on one's journey of spiritual growth, whether one is alone or has a psychotherapist as guide, when one must take new and unfamiliar actions in consonance with one's new world view.  The taking of such new action----behaving differently from the way one has always behaved before----may represent an extraordinary personal risk.  The passively homosexual young man for the first time summons the initiative to ask a girl for a date [;] the previously dependent housewife announces to her controlling husband that she is obtaining a job whether he likes it or not, that she has her own life to live; the fifty-year-old mama's boy tells his mother to stop addressing him by his infantile nickname..."

Something else that I'd like to note is a story that Peck tells on pages 152-153 about a patient whose minister father failed to protect her or himself from her abusive, manipulative mother.  The father exhorted his daughter to turn the other cheek and to be respectful and submissive towards her mother.

One reason that the passage on page 148 stood out to me was that Peck was commending a hypothetical homosexual for asking a woman out on a date.  This may imply that, at least when this book was written, Peck thought that homosexuality was a condition that could be cured.  The copyright on my book is 1978, and it was in that year that the American Psychological Association reversed its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.  What is Peck's stance on homosexuality today?  I do not know, but this article criticizes Peck by saying, "Peck also believes that homosexuality reflects God’s love for variety."
But I don't really want to focus on that subject in this post.  What I want to highlight is Peck's notion that people should stand up for themselves.  He mentions a wife who stands up to her husband and goes against his wishes, a son who stands up to his mother, and a father and a daughter who should stand up to someone who's abusive.

I was thinking about certain rules in the Bible and how a strict interpretation of them could land a person into trouble.  So we're supposed to honor and obey our parents (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:1).  A person who smites his father or mother is to be executed (Exodus 21:15).  A wife is to submit to her husband (Ephesians 5:22) and imitate Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him lord (I Peter 3:6).  We are to turn the other cheek when somebody hits us (Matthew 5:39).

In a sense, and this is my opinion, there is a degree of rationality that underlies these rules.  There's something to be said for respecting authority, honoring people, and accepting an insult rather than fighting back.  There has to be some respect for authority in our culture lest there be chaos.  And there are situations in which it's preferable for us to swallow our pride and take an insult, rather than exasperating the situation by retaliating.  On the whole issue of wives submitting to their husbands, I'm somewhat of an egalitarian, myself.  But I appreciate that the author of Ephesians has as his goal the promotion of an orderly and loving home----in which the wife submits to her husband, the husband loves his wife, and the two submit to one another----even if I may have questions about or problems with his exhortation.

But, if these commands are absolutized, problems can occur.  Suppose the parents are abusive.  Should their children, in that case, obey everything that their parents command?  And does someone who strikes his father to protect himself or someone else (such as his mother or siblings) seriously deserve to be executed?  Should a woman obey everything that her husband tells her, when she has a mind of her own and is hurting herself when she suppresses her own identity?  And, if we turn the other cheek in certain situations, can we become a doormat?

I'm not saying that people should be selfish.  In a lot of relationships, people may find that they have to put their desires to the side, at least sometimes.  But I think that there should be give-and-take.  If there's a marriage in which a husband forbids his wife to work, and the husband is not making any effort at all to understand his wife's needs, then there's a problem.  I agree with Peck that the wife should stand up for herself in that case.  There are Christians who may say that the wife should simply submit to her husband----that, even if her husband is not loving her as Christ loves the church, she should do her part by obeying God's command to her to submit, and, if that squelches her happiness and desire for fulfillment, she should seek her happiness and fulfillment in the Lord, through prayer, Bible study, and worship.  But I have my doubts that this would be the best approach for her to take.

What I like about Peck is that he's a spiritual person, and yet he also has a common-sense approach to how to live life----an approach that includes a recognition of one's own needs, but also an appreciation for the needs of others.  I think that it's a good idea to employ common-sense even when reading Scripture, rather than absolutizing certain biblical commands.  (Of course, there are commands that probably should be absolutized.)  But was our version of common-sense in the minds of the biblical authors?  In some cases, I'd say yes.  For example, David did not submit to Saul by allowing Saul to kill him, even though David probably felt that he was supposed to respect the king.  But I'm hesitant to project our version of common-sense onto the biblical authors, for they lived in a different culture.  I'm just talking about a way that one can read Scripture profitably and apply it to one's own life----one can allow Scripture to serve as a guideline and seek to gather whatever wisdom he or she can from it, seeking a reasonable rationale even behind commands that may rub him or her the wrong way.  But one can choose not to absolutize certain commands, and to use one's own common-sense to determine what is appropriate for specific situations.

And what is common-sense?  Well, part of it is the wisdom of our culture about what is healthy and unhealthy, based on people's experiences.  In my opinion, several things that M. Scott Peck encourages are examples of common-sense.  Would I absolutize our culture's common-sense?  Well, no, for even our culture can be wrong, as past cultures have been wrong.  But common-sense can appropriately play a role in the dialogue of decision-making.

The Loner

I got back to reading M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth.

What particularly stood out to me in my latest reading was a scenario that Peck described on pages 131-134.  It concerned a hypothetical woman in her late forties who comes to church and slips out without greeting anyone, even the pastor.  If, by chance, she were invited to the coffee hour after the service, she'd thank the person inviting her but would decline, saying that she has another engagement, when really she's just heading back to her apartment.  She has a job as a typist, but she doesn't have any social connections.  In terms of activities, she goes to the movies on Saturday afternoons.  She currently has no pets, but she once had a dog, who passed on eight years ago.  If one were to tell her that her life seemed lonely, she would respond that she rather enjoys her loneliness.  According to Peck, she is trying to avoid pain, both the pain of loss and also the pain of rejection.  But in the process, Peck claims, she's missing out on things that make life "alive, meaningful and significant": "having children, getting married, the ecstasy of sex, the hope of ambition, friendship" (page 133).  Plus, she remains stagnant rather than growing.

This reminded me somewhat of the June 6, 2001 daily devotion in Our Daily Bread, which was entitled "The Loner".  In this daily devotion, Herbert Vander Lugt talks about a high school friend of his who was a loner.  This friend "spent his time reading books, [and] isolated himself in his parents’ home until they died..."  According to Herbert Vander Lugt, this friend "never had to sacrificially love a wife, never had his sleep disturbed by a crying child, never agonized over a rebellious teen, and never cried over the misfortunes of a close friend", and yet he also missed out on "some of life’s greatest joys and deepest satisfactions."  Herbert Vander Lugt then proceeds to give us a little lecture about how God is not a loner, as we learn from the doctrine of the Trinity, and he concludes by saying that "Through faith in Jesus, God forgives us and brings us into fellowship with Himself and others, saving us from the tragedy of being loners."

When I first read Herbert Vander Lugt's "The Loner", I was utterly disgusted.  A significant reason was that, well, I'm a loner, and thus I felt judged.  I did not think that Herbert Vander Lugt in that particular devotion really conveyed that he attempted to understand why his friend became a loner.  Rather, my impression was that Herbert Vander Lugt talked about his friend being a loner, judged his friend, gave a little lecture about how we shouldn't be loners because God is not a loner, and then said that Christ brings us into fellowship with other people.  Unfortunately, I thought, things are not so simple!  For one, sure, God may not be a loner, but there are plenty of people who are loners by temperament.  Perhaps they're introverts, or they are on the autism spectrum.  Why should they be made to feel guilty or second-class because they're not acting contrary to how they are?  Second, it's not easy for every Christian to fit into social settings that have other Christians, or other people in general, for that matter.

Perhaps Herbert Vander Lugt indeed did try to understand where his friend was coming from, and his whole point about his friend never having to sacrificially love anyone or agonize over other people reflects why his friend chose to be a loner.  I certainly think that these are reasons that some choose a life of solitude: they don't like to be bothered with people, who can be quite a hassle!  But I also think that Peck does well to offer other reasons: loners may fear getting too close to people and losing them, and they may fear rejection.

Herbert Vander Lugt and Peck may have a point that loneliness is not an ideal situation.  I have my reasons for being a loner, many of which overlap with what Herbert Vander Lugt and Peck discuss.  I'd add other factors as well: my difficulty in coming up with things to say when I socialize, my timidity, my fear of saying the wrong thing, the fact that there have been times in the past when I have said the wrong thing or said something in an imperfect way and thus turned people off, bad relationships in the past in which I felt mocked or dismissed, not wanting to give people the satisfaction of rejecting me when I want to be their friend, etc.  At the same time, it does feel good to me when I realize that there are people who care for me, and when I care for others (people and pets).  Of course, these are relationships in which I don't have to exert too much effort to be accepted, so that's why I like them.

One area in which I object to Herbert Vander Lugt and Peck's discussion is that they seem to suggest that being married and having kids is for everyone.  It's not.  At this moment, I don't think that I have enough love within me to be a father and a husband.  So why should I try to be a father or a husband, if I feel I'm not cut out for that right now?

Another point that I want to make concerns growth.  Growth is a significant part of Peck's conception of love, for he believes that we love ourselves when we pursue growth, and we love others when we are concerned about their growth.  Peck said that the loner woman was not growing, and I've heard similar things from other people: "If you isolate yourself, then how will you grow?"  This somewhat annoys me, for they should tell me why I should even want to grow.  I guess I can come up with reasons that I'd like to grow: so that I can meet life with greater serenity, so that I can get along better with others, so that I can have confidence and thus have and do well at a job, etc.  But, in the case of the loner woman and Herbert Vander Lugt's friend, these people have already found ways to support themselves or to be supported, plus they seem to be fairly content with life.  Why should they have to grow, to meet somebody else's expectations as to what constitutes a fulfilling life?

Reluctance to Enter Therapy, and Neediness

In my latest reading of The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth, M. Scott Peck talked about the challenges of going into therapy, as well as needy people.

I could identify with what Peck was saying.  First, let's take the challenges of going into therapy.  Why are people so afraid to receive therapy?  And why, once they go into therapy, do they talk around issues rather than just being honest?  I can't speak for anyone else, but I can offer some ideas.  I think that there are a variety of reasons that people fear going into therapy.  They may want to feel that they are doing okay because, otherwise, they'd be racked with guilt, wondering if they are doing things right.  Perhaps they're afraid that the therapist would rebuke them, or recommend that they do things that they don't want to do, out of fear, or doubt about their own abilities, or resentment.  In my opinion, a therapist should be gentle.  Some are and some are not.

Peck talks about barriers that inhibit people from undertaking therapy, and he contends that depression can get them on the right track.  If people get to the point where they're depressed, they want things to get better, and they have some sense that the map that they're using to get through life is flawed, they may be open to therapy.

Second, let's talk about needy people.  Peck says on page 99:

"People with this disorder, passive dependent people, are so busy seeking to be loved that they have no energy left to love.  They are like starving people, scrounging wherever they can for food, and with no food of their own to give to others."

I think that a number of evangelicals believe that becoming a Christian and having a personal relationship with God will take care of this problem.  When people become Christians and cultivate their relationship with God, the spiel runs, then they will feel loved by God and thus won't be as needy.  Then they'll be able to love others.  Perhaps there's something to this.  Maybe it even works in a number of people's lives.  But it's not easy for everyone, for people cannot see God; consequently, they may think that they need love from a flesh-and-blood human being to feel complete.  But how can needy people get over their neediness, which hinders healthy relationships?

Discipline, a Loving Home, and Problem-Solving

I started M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth.  This book is the first of a trilogy.  I have the second book in the series, but not the third.  I'll probably blog through the second book, but I won't obligate myself to blog through the third book.  For one, I'm pretty stingy right now in terms of spending money, so I don't want to buy the third book.  And, second, by the time that I finish the second book, I may want to move on to something else.

When I thumbed through the first book of the series, I wondered if I would be able to adapt to Peck's writing style.  The second book of the series actually looked a lot more lucid than the first book!  But I got into the first book, and I found that I was reading it without any problem.  Actually, I enjoy Peck's anecdotes, and also his recognition that all of us (including himself) have flaws and are on a journey.

There were a number of things in my latest reading of Peck that resonated with me, but I don't want to get too personal on this blog, for a variety of reasons (i.e., I don't want to inadvertently insult anyone I know, I don't want potential employers to come onto my blog and read about my flaws, etc.).  But I'll still comment about things that I read.

My latest reading was about discipline.  I didn't finish that section, but Peck presented interesting thoughts in what I did get around to reading.  For one, Peck says that there are many who are undisciplined procrastinators because as children they did not have a loving home life, and so they went into the world with fear and suspicion: they felt that they had to have fun first and work later because they feared that they might not be able to have fun later!  Second, Peck distinguishes between neurotics and those who are character-disordered.  According to Peck, the former blame themselves, whereas the latter refuse or fail to take responsibility and blame others.  Peck states that most people are a combination of the two (neurotic and character-disordered).  Peck also criticizes ignoring problems in hope that they'll go away, for he is a strong proponent of problem-solving.

I don't consider myself to be a sage when it comes to how to live life, so please keep that in mind when you read my critiques of Peck's thoughts.  Peck is probably right most of the time, but I can only process what he is saying through my own way of seeing the world, however flawed that is.  Let's take Peck's first point about the importance of a loving home in instilling people with confidence.  Peck may have a point there, but it's possible to grow up in a loving home and to still go out into the world with fear and suspicion.  The reason is that this world can be a cold place.  Even if you're loved at home and people in your family are impressed by you, that doesn't mean that the outside world will like you or recognize your talents.  Could a loving home set people up for disappointment by making them think that the world is a warm, loving place?  Perhaps.  At the same time, I do agree with Peck that a loving home can instill people with confidence and the willingness to try, whereas an unloving home can deprive them of those things.  Even if the world can be a cold place, it's better to go into it with a leg-up rather than burdens, and a loving home can provide that leg-up.

On Peck's second point----about blaming oneself, blaming others, and ignoring problems----I'll admit that this is an area in which I struggle.  I hear so many different things from gurus, that I don't know whom to heed.  Therapists have told me that I'm too hard on myself.  Others, however, emphasize the importance of me looking for where I was at fault in a number of situations.  Some tell me not to fret about certain problems or obsess about them, and I find that heeding their advice helps my own peace of mind.  But others tell me that I have to solve my problems rather than ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away.  In my opinion, though, I shouldn't try to solve certain problems.  Some people won't like me, regardless of what I do or don't do.  Should I fret about that, or stress out over trying to appease those people?  I don't think so.

I think that the competing pieces of advice that I have heard highlights the value of therapy.  When should I criticize myself, and when should I not?  Can I solve such-and-such a problem?  If so, what are some steps that I can take?  What to do and how to approach a situation may vary on a case-by-case basis.  A therapist can provide you with feedback.  Moreover, I think that it's your choice what to do with your problems.  If you can live with your problems and you don't want to try to solve them, why not just let them be?  But if you are tired of repeatedly hitting your head against the wall, perhaps you should seek advice.