I don't often read secular books for review, but many Christians have read this book as a guide to spiritual and personal growth. It appears in the inspirational section in bookstores, and is one of the most popular titles of the last twenty years. M. Scott Peck is a psychiatrist, but his content goes well beyond the realm of psychotherapy. The Road Less Traveled presents Peck's view of life, accompanied by a number of case studies illustrating his beliefs. Behind these beliefs are certain assumptions about the human condition, owing to Peck's concept of general revelation–how God reveals Himself to us in creation. The Christian reader will find that Peck approaches his subject from a very non-Christian standpoint, while retaining much Christian vocabulary.
In his book, Peck never addresses general revelation as such. Nevertheless, it is clear that his approach is largely one of natural theology. While he sometimes refers to Buddha or to the Bible, they are not the main authorities for his beliefs. He forms his views about God and human nature from his reasoning and experiences as a psychotherapist. The subjectivity of Peck's approach is contagious, as one reviewer notes: "Applying a scientific basis to his approach of religion without any trace of fundamentalism, his book allowed me to approach spiritual truths without fear of being wrong. In the end, I was left with a stronger conclusion than ever that there are multiple paths of approaching the same spot." [1]
From the classic Christian view of general revelation, we would say that Peck should be able to observe certain truths about life and spirituality by observing nature, but that some concepts will be beyond discovery by the method Peck uses. As a non-Christian [2], Peck's spiritual blindness will further obscure his ability to discover or accept the evidence available in nature as to who God is. This is especially evident in the early chapters, with Peck's emphasis on self-discipline and realism, and in his later talk of love as concern for others. Here he is on the right track. But he completely misses the truth on the spiritual issues that dominate the end of the book. In fact, his errors with regard to God and sin are so blatant that his book provides strong support for the arguments of those who reject psychology altogether as antithetical to Christian doctrine. It is worthwhile to examine some of Peck's presuppositions to see how he arrives at some of these conclusions.
As a follower of Jungian psychology, Peck places a great deal of stress on the unconscious. This is the unseen core of the human being, to which we have little access, and where all the subtle influences of our behavior dwell. Decisions themselves are part of the unconscious mind, and it is the consciousness that must be improved in Peck's presentation of spiritual growth. Jung in particular advocated a collective unconscious, a reservoir of concepts and archetypes common to all humanity. Peck's interpretations of his case studies show that he believes the unconscious reveals itself through dreams and psychotherapy, and that its images are often the key to enhancing one's spiritual well-being.
Toward the end of the book, Peck's glorification of the unconscious takes a disturbing turn: he flatly states that the unconscious is God (p. 281). He compares this to the Christian teaching of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but he errs by making that Spirit a part of the human psyche, and by placing the Spirit in every person. In 1 Corinthians 2:12-15, Paul says that we know the mind of God because we have the Spirit of God, but "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.... He cannot know them." Furthermore, the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit as a Person who speaks (Acts 13:2), and who in the Old Testament would come upon and leave people by His own choosing (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 10:9-10; 11:6). The Spirit physically transported some people (1 Kgs. 18:12; 2 Kgs. 2:16) and enabled others for special tasks (Exod. 28:3; 1 Cor. 12:11). None of this can be said of the collective or individual unconscious. Clearly, although Peck has given much thought to the unconscious and its inner workings, at best he took a very superficial look at the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit before making this analogy. At worst, he is simply applying Christian terminology to his own concepts to make them appeal to a largely Christianized audience.
Peck's opinion of the unconscious as God radically affects what it means to attain spiritual growth. The idea is to align one's conscious mind with the unconscious, thereby "to become God while preserving consciousness" (p. 283). This presumably is in contrast to the Eastern religions in which the goal is to abandon consciousness and individuality by becoming part of some cosmic Unity. Again, there are some superficial parallels with Christian teaching, as believers strive to match their will to God's. But there is an enormous difference between becoming Christlike in one's attitude and becoming God. As believers, we recognize that nothing good dwells within us, and that we do not look within ourselves but to God for wisdom (Jam. 1:5). Jeremiah 10:23 says, "I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps." Peck, on the other hand, places God within us and says, "if you desire wisdom greater than your own, you can find it inside you" (p. 281).
The deification of the unconscious also leads to a warped view of sin. Peck states that original sin is laziness, or entrpy (p. 272-277). In his view, Adam and Eve sinned because they failed to question God's commandment and simply broke it without a debate. If they had eaten the fruit after careful consideration, their authentic decision would have been justified. But laziness leads to a failure to update one's "map of reality" and creates a disordered consciousness which is then in conflict with the collective unconscious. This, according to Peck, is the root of all psychological dysfunction (p. 281). As intriguing as it is that one could arrive at the doctrine of original sin through natural theology, Peck errs in this matter as well. The biblical account shows that Eve did make consideration before eating the fruit (Gen. 3:1-6). It is nowhere suggested that Adam and Eve should have asked God for a rationale before obeying or disobeying His commandment. Most of the commandments in the Pentateuch were given without explanation, and people's reward or punishment did not depend on the thought they put into whether to keep or obey the law. If laziness were the issue, then it would be as wrong to obey God without question as to disobey Him without debate. And certainly there would be nothing wrong with rejecting a commandment after giving it careful thought and listening to both "sides" of the argument, as Adam and Eve did.
A second presupposition that permeates Peck's philosophy is that humans evolved from lower forms of life. This assumption leads him to the conclusion that our evolution is ongoing. Peck even considers his own "science-based" religion to be an evolutionary leap forward (p. 196). This is not the place for a debate on evolution (for which see this article), but suffice it to say that the Bible teaches that the basic forms of life are stable and that man was created separately from the animals. In fact it is the image of God, which separates man from the animals, that gives humans the capacity for spiritual growth.
Peck's hopes for the evolution of the race are optimistic. In his discussion of evil, he says that "the existence of evil is inevitable, at least at this stage in human evolution" (p. 279). Encounters with evil and social dysfunction serve as a warning to others and help them to contain their entropy. Ultimately, Peck believes we will outgrow evil through natural selection. But a look at history shows that evil does not tend to uplift the human race as a whole out of its depravity. From time to time a person or even a generation will rebel against the evil world around them and try to reform themselves and their culture. But such changes are almost never permanent. Whatever new-found sensitivities the world discovers are usually accompanied by a tolerance for even worse crimes.
Peck takes the idea of evolution and runs with it, even to the point of suggesting a personal evolution. It is from this that he concludes that the goal of spiritual growth is "the attainment of godhood by the conscious self." As one evolves, one eventually becomes "a new life form" of God (p. 283). To put it lightly, the Bible frowns upon exalting one's self to the heavens and comparing one's self to the Most High (Isa. 14:13-15). And of course, with Peck's emphasis on self-discipline, this personal evolution does not come without effort. He says that what hinders the journey to godhood is that we would rather let God "have all the responsibility for evolution" (p. 270). In other words, trusting in God for our salvation is the very thing that is holding us back. It is appropriate that Peck compares the attempt to join God in His rulership of the universe to an effortful treadmill (p. 271), for a treadmill provides plenty of exercise without really moving us anywhere.
Finally, though it is less central to Peck's worldview, there is a great deal of stress on love and discipline in the book. He sees love for others as the key to spiritual growth, and helping others in their spiritual journey has a secondary benefit of growth for the helper. Through many admittedly fascinating case studies, Peck makes a strong argument for self-discipline and acceptance of reality. Love is not a feeling, but is active and may–often must–involve commitment and confrontation. In all of these points, there is truth in what Peck says. Nevertheless, his extensive analysis of love is insufficient in at least two ways:
First, love involves more than Peck admits here. He discusses at length how romantic love is a myth and that love is not self-sacrifice. Yet while his case studies demonstrate that there are some cases of romance or sacrifice that do not involve love, he fails to argue convincingly that the love between husband and wife is not manifestly different from other kinds of love. Moreover, with regard to self-sacrifice (which he seems unable to distinguish from codependency), it was Jesus Himself who said that self-sacrifice was the highest form of love (John 15:13). Love's scope is narrowed further as Peck fails to show human love's relationship to the love of God. God's love for us prompts us to love others (1 John 4:19). Of course, it is unclear how Peck's collective unconscious could provide a standard for love, impersonal as it is. In Peck's system, it is unclear why we ought to love one another, outside of its being the key to our own spiritual growth.
The second shortcoming of Peck's opinion of love and discipline is that it is essentially (in theological terms) a works-oriented salvation. We achieve godhood through conscious actions taken throughout life. Peck conceives of grace as a force outside the consciousness that enhances our spiritual growth, but he would nto say that it alone can lead us to his kind of salvation. The grace-versus-works debate is age-old in Christian circles, but even when the paradox is discussed in the brief conclusion to the book (p. 306-311), the role of grace is never clearly delineated and seems to be relegated to the background.
Since the publication of The Road Less Traveled, I have heard that Peck's philosophy has become less skeptical and more Christian. I can only hope that whatever change has taken place in Peck has altered the presuppositions that have led him astray here. As the book stands, I see little in it that Christians can take and use in their spiritual lives or apply to ministry, other than to show the pitfalls of natural theology. Even the case studies, which at times show the value of responsible living, are tainted by counseling methods and interpretive schemes that leave much to be desired, even from the perspective of secular psychology. In some of these cases, Peck has even led the client in exactly the opposite direction he should have. I would not use this book to denounce all psychology as heretical, but nor would I bring it into a Sunday School class to teach from it (as some churches have done). It is my opinion that an honest reception of what God has revealed in nature yields much more than what we can glean from The Road Less Traveled. Christians desiring the help of a good book in this area would benefit better from the sermons of Jonathan Edwards or from more recent devotional books by J. I. Packer or Jennifer Kennedy Dean.
Drawing from Reformed theology, my understanding of our decision-making process is essentially this: that God has designed us to choose whatever we most want to do at the moment of decision, among our available options. What our greatest desire is can be determined by a number of factors, from our upbringing, to our basic personality, our current mood, established habits, and even the weather. Of course, we may often not be aware of why we want to act as we do. Many times we act on impulse, without thinking. The Bible says that "the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). And so there are motives that drive us, and of which we are not always conscious.
But psychotherapy, as developed by Freud, Jung, and others, drives a sharp divide between our conscious and unconscious motives. They believe our unconscious mind is engaged in a constant battle between our animal impulses, socially determined ethics, and a desire for balance. The goal in most psychotherapy is to unleash and understand these primitive impulses in a safe manner. From a Christian view, these impulses arise from the sinful nature. The Bible teaches from cover to cover that spiritual growth involves "denying ungodliness and worldly desires" (Titus 2:12). We should seek not to align ourselves with whatever dark passions may be lurking beneath the surface, but to open ourselves up to the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit, who alone can make us into the people God desires us to be (Rom. 6:12; Gal. 5:24; Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 1:14-15; 2 Pet. 2:12).
For a concise statement of my beliefs about human nature, see my Declaration of Faith.
