Transcendence and Imminence

in Psychotherapy

RICHARD H. COX, Ph.D., M.D., D. Min."

The traditional dilemma ofthe compatibility of religion and psychotherapy is
discussed within the context of maturing beyond the language and behavior of
the imminent, i.e., the here-and-now. Transcendence is presented as a model
for therapist and therapeutic methodology.
ASCENDENCY OF PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology has become an idol of this age. Psychological terms have
become common household jargon. Everything seems to be measured by
the yardstick of the psychological model of development. Education,
industry, politics, law enforcement, and, indeed, even the Church now
teaches, follows, and reckons with a psychological definition of what
should be the norm. In the short time since Freud, an ethic stronger than
that of the Puritans has taken over. Religion no longer primarily speaks to
the issues of faith and life, but rather has adapted to the cultural mode of
psychology.
The "psychological revolution" of religion was in full swing by the late
fifties and early sixties in the United States. Churches were conducting
group meetings (therapy), "touchy-feely," and "tell-all" sessions, and a new
kind of "group forgiveness" following this new form of group confession
was bestowed. In recent years, a romantic haze has developed around the
word psychology. The church has become just as vulnerable to this gimmick
as any other instit~tion."~ In a day of waning church attendance and the
" ~ o isd Dead" movement of that time, methohs for revitalizing the Church
were very welcome.
Psychology had proved its value by that time. Psychological knowledge
and methodology had improved the educational component of the Church,
a sound basis for pastoral counseling had been established, missionary
selection had been improved, and seminaries were seeing the value of
looking at the overall psychological make-up of candidates for the ministry.
"President, Forest Institute of Professional Psychology, 1322 South Campbell, Springfield, MO
65 807.
Vol. 51, NO.4, F d 1997
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY,
AMERICAN
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

As often happens with new knowledge, the application of this field of

human behavior took on a zeal and power of its own. Psychological
methods and ideas became driving forces, and problems arose of an
entirely new kind. "Neuroses are often created which are more pathological
than those with which parishioners began."2 The message and method of
psychology was being mistaken for the message and method of religion.
The thrust of this article is not to detract from either religion or
psychology, but to state that they are not the same and that one cannot
replace the other. It speaks specifically to the issue of religion, the religious,
and the institutions of the religious, in an attempt to question the validity of
utilizing the language and method of imminence to convey and accomplish
the message of transcendence.

IMMINENCE
The language of imminence is the language of the here-and-now, i.e.,
that which is apt to happen unpredictably at any time. It is the language of
the age. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English3 gives the
following definition: "Imminence, that which is likely to happen soon . . .
the imminence of an attack made us all nervous." The term is usually used
in a negative context. Although psychology is not necessarily negative, it
certainly emphasizes the reality of the here-and-now, deals with that which
is apt to happen, speaks of predictable behavior, and in its most prevalent
form allows little if any room for faith and hope of the religious sort. When
psychology speaks of hope, it is speaking of faith in humanity. When religion
speaks of hope, it is speaking of faith in the transcendent. "Faith is the state
of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of
man's ultimate concernn4(p. 1).Tillich reminds us that man not only has all
the concerns of every other living creature, but also "has spiritual concerns-
cognitive, aesthetic, social, politicaln4(p. 1).

TRANSCENDENCE
Transcendence is to rise above, go beyond, experience more than the
here-and-now could predict or anticipate. In spite of the message, method,
and language of psychology often being that of the imminent, psycho-
therapy, although rooted in psychology, strives to attain the transcendent.
The "worried well" along with the most psychotic persons seek, and are
often able to find, hope and emotional relief that far exceeds the imminence
of the language and methods of psychology.
The Church has not gone out of the religion business; however, it could
be argued that in many circles it has gone into the psychology-of-religion
Transcendence and Imminence in Psychotherapy

business, or even the religion-of-psychology business. Psychology has

proved to be a most persuasive, socially acceptable manipulation of the
human mind; yet, as a basis for "faith and life," it has tremendous
shortcomings.
Every age in human history promotes a coveted image for all people.
The eminent psychoanalyst Erik H. Erikson is helpful to us in understand-
ing this concept. H e speaks of "generativity" as second to the highest form
for human living. He asserts that "ego integrity vs. stagnation" was the
eighth or highest age of life. In this "age," he reached for, and embraces
transcendence when he states, "healthy children will not fear life if their
elders have integrity enough not to fear death."5 Erikson is attempting to
establish a goal beyond the imminent. He had already established that
"hope is both the earliest and the most indispensable virtue inherent in the
state of being a l i ~ e . "Generativity"
"~ is defined by Erickson as "establishing
and guiding the next generation . . . is meant to include productivity and
~ r e a t i v i t ~When
. " ~ Erikson's "generativity" is coupled with his concept of
"ego integrity" and built upon the primary foundation of hope and trust, we
approach a next step, which we can legitimately call the transcendent.

IMMINENCE VS. TRANSCENDENCE

We must not buy imminence as a form of spirituality. Imminence is
devoid of faith, and by definition awaits negativity. Imminence awaits the
worst and expects bad things to happen. Most psychological methods and
tools are based on the assumption that we can by such modalities change
human destiny. Imminence speaks of the here-and-now and awaits the
troubles and failures that occur simply by existing as a human being.
Imminence is the harbinger of anxiety.
The religious view must by definition be based on faith and hope and,
therefore, transcendence. The ultimate human form is not the "generative"
person, or even the "ego integrity" person, but the "transcendent" person.
To transcend is to "go beyond the limits of, to be superior to, surpass."'
Within the definitions of "imminence" and "transcendence," we see clearly
why religion and psychology are mutual friends and mutual enemies.
The person of "faith" cannot be tied to the concept of "imminence,"
which expects disaster. The believer in "imminence" cannot understand
that which is known only to those who accept "transcendence." According
to the Bible, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen."8 Transcendence is the harbinger of hope.
It is interesting to note that both "imminence" and "transcendence" are
based on belief: The assumption of psychology is that its principles are
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

based on knowledge, even scientific knowledge. There are many parts of

psychology that are indeed based on laboratory findings and solid empiri-
cal research. Most of psychology dealing with human behavior, however, is
based on observation, phenomenological understandings, and clinical expe-
rience. Our "norms" are the result of acceptable statistical samples that
establish that which is normal, i.e., average. This definition can easily accept
"imminence7' as a base of operation, since humans certainly seem to
gravitate to the norm, or the mean of any statistical measure. However,
"transcendence" is the ability to rise above the norm, the belief that humans
can achieve a state of mind and resultant life style that is grounded in the
extraordinary, the "not yet seen but believed."
One of the basic principles of all psychotherapy, whether spoken or not,
is to give a person hope. The "generative person" established something to
work toward, i.e., "actualization" of hisher full potential9 However, the
energy for that journey is left to the innate abilities and creative potential of
the individual. The "transcendent person" has all that is humanly available
plus the energies of hope, faith, and a belief in powers greater than
himherself. Alcoholics Anonymous recognized many years ago that a
psychology of imminence was insufficient to provide the tools to deal with
addiction; therefore, its founders adopted a creed based on transcendence.
Step two of their Twelve-Step Program states, "Came to believe that a
Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."10They recognized
that when the end product is based only in the here-and-now, their pro-
gram would not work. Goleman," in his recent book Emotional Intelli-
gence, discusses hope as part of The Master Attitude, "having hope means
that one will not give in to overwhelming anxiety, a defeatest attitude, or
depression in the face of difficult challenges or setbacks" (pp. 86ff)
This is where religion enters the picture. It is where ethereal hope finds
a pragmatic modus operandz'. It is where psychotherapy and religion meet. It
is where psychotherapy and religion join together and become a gestalt, a
product greater than the sum of its parts. It is where psychotherapy is able
to transcend human understanding and offer human growth beyond
human expectation. Psychotherapy of this sort provides a stage upon which
the problems of life may be both acted out and resolved. A psychotherapy
of hope, by itself, frequently allows patients to understand themselves and
why they behave in a certain way, but is not able to actually change the
behavior. Without an ongoing experience in the "transcendent," anything
else is only "imminent" and is a dead-end street.
When religion and psychotherapy unite, we have a combination of
reality-based behavior and an energy for adaptation, growth, and change
514
Transcendence and Imminence in Psychotherapy

that is not rooted in negativism and is transcendent. It transcends not only

the norm but goes beyond that which has been measured, therefore, has no
norm.

RELIGIOUS CRISIS
The primary crisis in Western culture is a religious one. The understand-
ing of human development, human behavior, and the knowledge of how to
motivate change are valuable tools for anyone, religious or not. The
question is how to utilize basic knowledge without adopting the basic
assumptions upon which that knowledge was built, and the premises of
belief which that knowledge espouses. The question remains: is it possible
to combine religious values with psychological knowledge? The answer to
this question is "yes."
Long before there was a discipline called "psychology," its principles
were employed within the Church and throughout the world and that
continues to be done today. Many years before Freud and his predecessors,
even before we knew the knowledge of human behavior is "psychological,"
the knowledge and its results were used. The greater question has to do not
with the knowledge but the value base of a given psychological framework
and the tools that develop out of that knowledge base.
Confession, a discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, based on a
theology of its own, is a good example. The Protestant Church, which
disavowed confession as a religious discipline, resurrected confession
under the guise of "growth groups" in the late 1950s. It resurrected
"forgiveness" by offering "psychological acceptance." The results of confes-
sion, a dimension being sought by many persons, was missing in the
Protestant Church. Psychology, which understands isolation, guilt, and
abandonment, was instrumental in bringing back that missing element,
although not called confession and not offered within a theological frame-
work. Long before psychologists recognized the need for forgiveness, the
Church had seen the results in persons who through confession found a
way to "start over" and "transcend" their past. Religion and psychology
have a long history of working together.
Many psychologists started their formal training in theology, then
combined it with psychology. Such was the case with Carl Rogers, Rollo
May, and me. Others, such as Paul Tillich, remained in theology and
brought to us incredible psychological insights. These persons and many
others have shown that it may not matter so much which discipline is
considered primary. When psychology and religion are combined, a new
discipline results, which is more dynamic than either by itself.
AMERICAN JOURNAL O F PSYCHOTHERAPY

RogersI2illustrates the value of this fact in his concept of "unconditional

positive regard." Here we have a concept that in and of itself is totally alien
to human nature, i.e., gives other persons love regardless of who they are or
what they have done. This concept by any definition is not an ordinary
human characteristic. Rogers draws upon the transcendent to enable the
imminent. He began his studies at Union Theological Seminary, then
transferred to study psychology at Columbia University. Many persons have
found institutionalized theology devoid of the human element. Like him,
many persons who have studied both psychology and theology have found
a meaningful combination of these two incredibly powerful disciplines.
By the same token, there are many psychotherapists who have been
disappointed in the "imminence" of psychology and who then pursued
theological studies to find hope, faith, and transcendence. The high
incidence of persons who start with one discipline then go on to study the
other emphasizes the value and possibilities available to the therapist when
both disciplines are embraced.
Psychology is the language of human behavior. Religion is the language
of being human. To confuse these facts is to expect things that cannot be.
Psychology talks about what we have done. Religion speaks to what we can
do. Psychology recognizes what we aye, while religion looks at what we can
become.
In the language of human behavior, life takes on a very anemic hue at
best. Human behavior, even our own, is not that uplifting and worthy of
reward. Theological language allows for a more colorful picture with a
hope to live "above the ordinary" and not settle back into the "average."
However, just as psychology by itself, when speaking of human behavior,
can have a hollow ring, religion, likewise, can and often does have a very
hollow ring of a "pie in the sky" mentality.
The transcendent person lives within the bounds of imminence, while
actualizing herhis potential and reaching beyond the here-and-now with
both belief and method that are more than earthbound. There is no
necessity to become "otherworldly" and lose touch with day-to-dayreality.
To recognize both reality in the here-and-now and the reality of that which
is based in belief is not an easy task. Psychotherapy cannot be effective
without both. The ability to instill a faith in oneself beyond the reality of
one's current behavior is an art that only skilled, personally transcending
therapists have. To speak only of human behavior within the old clichi. of
"picking up yourself by your own bootstraps" is both a "put down" and an
untruth. Most patients would have long ago "picked themselves up" if they
could have done so. They would not be prone to spend time and money if
Transcendence and Imminence in Psychotherapy

their own "bootstraps" had been sufficient. Hence, to put forth that
argument is to only further exaggerate their sense of low self-esteem.
Virtually all psychotherapists utilize deeply rooted religious concepts in
their work. They speak of catharsis, i.e., confession; acceptance, i.e.,
forgiveness; and of empathy, i.e., love. They connect with many other
basically theological ideologies. They speak of "human potential," as if we
knew apart from a value base what that is. Some would argue that this takes
us back to a philosophical/theological debate as to the depravity or divinity
of the human being. Perhaps, but more useful is the discussion that
whatever we are and do, it is possible to become something greater and
perform better. This concept apart from a spiritual value base is meaning-
less. Psychotherapists instinctively, and by training and experience, know
this to be true. As a result, psychotherapists offer their hope and assistance
in helping patients to change. Herbert Benson,13 noted author of "The
Relaxation Response," states in Timeless Healing: "The sound of a doctor's
voice, the words he or she chooses, the hope he or she can instill, and the
time required to develop a good doctor-patient conversation promote
health in ways many doctors and most insurers underestimate today" (p.
252).

PSYCHOTHERAPIST AS AGENT
The psychotherapist as change agent must be examined in detail. It is
important to see the psychotherapist as an agent, which is "a person
authorized by another to act on his behalf."14 There are many inherent
assumptions, possibilities, and dangers in being an agent.
Rarely, if ever, does a patient know what he/she is doing when allowing a
therapist to act as an agent. Further, psychotherapists are not trained to
fully understand the huge responsibility that becoming an agent entails.
Most therapists see their task as helping to change certain behaviors or
certain specific ways of thinking. This is to take a rather shallow view of the
human being. We cannot be separated into segments, i.e., things we do and
things we think. The human is an entity: body, mind, and spirit. To treat one
part is to treat all parts. To ignore one part is to ignore all parts. It has often
been promulgated that if a psychotherapist has differing views on a given
subject, that subject should be either ignored or dealt with "neutrally."
Illustrative of this is the very issue of religion. Many psychotherapy trainers
teach that one should not "push your religious views onto a patient" or, for
instance, if the therapist's views on abortion, right to life, euthanasia, and
other controversial topics differ, they should be kept to oneself. Some
AMERICAN JOURNAL O F PSYCHOTHERAPY

would even suggest that the patient should be transferred to a therapist

whose views are more compatible.
This approach seems to be naive. To transfer a patient because of
differing views on one subject does not guarantee agreement on other
subjects between the new therapist and the patient. Even if one finds a
therapist who agrees on the "basic" issue, it is likely that many other issues
will arise upon which they do not agree. Further, differing opinions do not
make for mental health or mental illness. To separate the message from the
messenger is also not possible in a psychotherapist. In psychotherapy, the
messenger is the message. A therapist who has begun the journey of
transcending gives that message, and even large differences in belief matter
only slightly. The therapist who is enmeshed in the imminence of life
attempts to make each into a complete, perfect, and present thought system
as a shiny, finished product. None of us is that accomplished.
As agents for change, we do not determine the changes. It is easy for a
psychotherapist to honestly believe that he/she is treating, for instance, a
phobia. Sometimes we forget that we are treating aperson with a phobia. As
such, the phobia becomes secondary to the person. The patient may have
presented with a phobia because the real problem was too painful, or
altogether unknown. Dealing with the phobia as the true and only problem
may well be a disservice to the patient. Phobias are no doubt excellent
illustrations of being caught in the imminent. There is no sense of transcen-
dence in a phobia. The person with a phobia is painfully caught in the
here-and-now. To treat the phobia instead of the whole person is to have
both the therapist and the patient caught in the imminent. This perhaps
explains why so many patients are successfully treated for one phobia only
to find another. The phobia is not the problem. Being caught in the
imminent is the problem.
The transcendent psychotherapist is personally in the process of tran-
scending, always an unfinished, but continuing to-be-finished product.
This message is clear to all who come into contact with that therapist,
whether patient or not. Herein lies another important message. Psychothera-
pists do not develop techniques for patients. They develop styles of life,
communication, and energy that are vibrant and living. Without the
dynamic, psychotherapist techniques are sterile. The psychotherapist who
works within the concept of techniques tends to obscure the individual
patient and treat only "the problem." We teach students various skills. We
teach them to diagnose personalities and to treat problems. We do so
because we do not know how to teach students to transcend. Fortunately,
Transcendence and Imminence in Psychotherapy

many therapists learn the process of transcending and are able to communi-
cate such to their patients.
Skills are very deceptive. We teach certain methods for dealing with
various "human behavior" problems; therapeutic techniques that apply to
specific mental illness problems. We are once more reminded that the
fundamental problem that underlies all human problems is the fear of
death. In his stellar work The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker15 states "that
death is man's peculiar and greatest anxiety" (p. 70). From the earliest
philosophers and theologians through the most thoughtful psychologists
and psychoanalysts, we cannot escape this most primal of all human terrors.
Students learn various approved techniques; yet, in supervision, the
senior clinician is confronted with "Why didn't it work?" It did not work
because patients are immune to techniques. They are only open to transcend-
ing spirits who are able to rise above the technique. For instance, the only
person who ever truly utilized the Rogerian method was Carl Rogers, and in
that method, Dr. Rogers, as a person, was there far more than his method.
Learning methods and techniques does not make a psychotherapist. Utiliz-
ing methods and techniques as foundations allows the student to transcend
the tool and become a transcending therapist whose technique becomes an
extension of oneself.
The transcending personhood of the psychotherapist is the key. The
listening, sensing, feeling, responding essence of the person comes through
when skills and methods fail. The human is not a machine, and the
therapist is not a mechanic. Much has been written about the uniqueness of
the therapeutic relationship. Not so much has been written about the
uniqueness of the therapist.
As an agentfor change, what is the change? Is the change attempted that
which the patient requests? Is the change attempted that which the
therapist deems best? Is it the change that comes about as the result of
"following the flow" and waiting to see what happens? As an agent for
change, what is the responsibility of the therapist who has been assigned by
the patient as an agent to act upon the patient's behalf, even if the patient
does not know what to request?
"For many decades most psychotherapists have tried to deny the effects
of their personal belief systems upon their clients . . . studies suggest the
need to examine how the psychotherapist's practice is affected by his
personal beliefs, but we touch upon some very sensitive areas, when we
raise questions concerning the effects of religious commitment upon
professional practice"16 (p. 422). It seems so blatantly absurd that we
should question the effect of any part of the psychotherapist upon patients
519
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

from whom such honesty is expected. Herein lies the necessity for the
mature psychotherapist to be a person who is diligently traveling the
journey of transcendence. We can only share that which we have, and we
share all of what we have, both the imminence (i.e., our own anxieties), and
the transcendence (i.e., our faith and hopes). Patients frequently "read" the
therapist better than the therapist "reads" the patient. The patient knows
whether our "intervention" is a phony technique or if it emanates from
within a deeply spiritual person who may not know the answers, but does
know the right questions.
Transcendence and imminence are not simply linguistic terms. They are
ways of thinking, styles of living, types of maturity, and the bases for
development into a whole person. Understanding transcendence as a
psychotherapist is being part of the whole structure, and being able to
invite others into that wholeness is far more efficacious than agonizing
about why certain techniques do or do not work.
With the many changes coming about in the healthcare system, it will be
easy to become caught up in how to deal with patients quickly and how to
develop techniques that will bring about rapid changes. This may be the
most destructive move yet in the field of human services. It is important
that we keep our sense of transcendence and not sell out to the imminent.
The stage upon which psychotherapy takes place d also give deep
meaning to the patient. It will be difficult to communicate transcendence
when therapy is limited to certain conditions that must be treated within so
many sessions, and the use of only certain techniques are recognized. The
psychotherapist will inevitably be caught in one of the ultimate of all
paradoxes involving the imminent and the transcendent, namely, how to
really care for someone with faith and hope, while at the same time being
bound to an imminent here-and-now, time frame, cost frame, diagnosis
frame, treatment frame, and termination-of-treatment frame. How to be a
transcendent psychotherapist in a world of forced imminence will continue
to be our challenge.

SUMMARY
Psychotherapists who become bogged down in the language and behav-
ior of the imminent are by definition unable to move themselves and/or
their clients/patients to the creative and fulfilling level of the transcendent.
To be "generative" and to become "integrative" in the Erikson tradition is
laudable, albeit insufficient. That which one integrates and that which one
generates is fulfilling only if it transcends the human dilemma of the
here-and-now.
520
Transcendence and Imminence in Psychotherapy

The necessity of rethinking the task of the psychotherapist has never

been more important than today in the shadow of what appears to be the
most dramatic change in the practice of Western medicine and mental
health.
The intent of this discussion is not to detract from either religion or
psychotherapy, but to emphasize that they are not the same and cannot
replace each other. Attempts through the years to do so have brought about
gross confusion in the roles of each as regards wholeness of the mind.
Psychotherapists who are able to become transcending within their own
experience are likely to move beyond the barriers of the age and bring a
hope to others, which exceeds methods and technology.
REFERENCES
1. Cox, R. H . (1966).Pseudopsychology and the Church. Christianity Today, 10.
2. Cox, R. H. (1968).The being real neurosis. Christian Century, 11.
3. Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1995).Cambridge:
4. T i i c h , P. (1957).Dynamics offaith. New York: Harper and Row.
5. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society (2nd Ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
6. Erikson, E. H . (1964).Insight and Responsibility. New York: W.W. Norton.
7. Webster's New World Dictionary (1982).
8. The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version (1952).New York: Nelson.
9. Maslow, A. (1968). Toward apsychology ofbeing. New York: Van Norstrand.
10. Alcoholics Anonymous (1952). Twelve steps and twelve traditions. Alcoholics Anonymous Publish-
ing.
11. Goleman, D. (1995).Emotionalintelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
12. Rogers, C. R. (1959).A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed
in the client-centered framework. In Koch, S. (Ed.),Psychology:A study ofa science, Vol. 3. New
York: McGraw H111.
13. Benson, H. (1996). Timeless healin& New York: Scribner.
14. Random House Dictionary ofthe English Language (1967). New York: Random House.
15. Becker, E. (1973). The denialof death. New York: The Free Press.
16. Clement, P., &Warren, N.T. (1973). Can religion and psychotherapy be happily married? In Cox,
R. H. (Ed.),Religious systems andpsychotherapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.