A woman gazes into a mirror that reflects darkness, portraying the emptiness behind the illusion of self-love.

The Illusion of Self-love: What Christ Taught Instead

Is self-love the key to healing? True wholeness comes through connection, not isolation or self-focus.

Download Print-Friendly Version

In our contemporary culture, therapy is often sought as a means of improving or cultivating an individual’s “self-love.” For many practitioners of psychotherapy, improving a client’s sense of self is a central feature of any therapeutic modality and a core essential “need.” Across a wide variety of theoretical orientations, seemingly limitless sources suggest different methods toward the cultivation of self-love. This movement and orientation should be of particular interest to Christians, whether they are the therapist or the client. 

Self-love is hard to define, and when professionals make the attempt to do so, they often contradict one another. Definitions lie in great extremes, such as “treating oneself” with little restraint (often like a benevolent arrogance), to self-acceptance or self-discovery. When subscribing to such vague paradigms, this lack of clarity leads to difficult moral questions and possible negative consequences. What does self-love look like? And, how do you know when you love yourself enough? One therapist notes: “[self-love] sets you up to ring a high bell that’s unattainable, because loving yourself doesn’t come with a certificate or finish line.”

What does self-love look like? And, how do you know when you love yourself enough?

Such vague understandings tend to create an environment where individuals can easily justify their egocentrism. Even further, this worldview has the potential to increase narcissistic behaviors and self-focused mindsets in the name of “healing.” These potential consequences should be concerning to those who profess to follow Jesus. After all, Paul described one symptom of the Apostasy as “men shall be lovers of their own selves” (2 Timothy 3:2).

However, many Christians will cite Jesus in the New Testament as evidence for this perspective. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” has been frequently interpreted as the declaration that “you must love yourself before you can love others.” This idea seems appealing because it has significant support from therapists, influencers, and philosophers. 

This is a serious assertion to consider. At the core, proponents of this view are saying that the capacity to love others is contingent on the level or quality of love for self. Such thinking invalidates nearly any effort or declaration of love offered by one who does not meet the proper criteria or threshold of self-love, ambiguous as that may be. After all, in our state of imperfections, would we ever be able to achieve a perfect state of loving oneself? And in subscribing to such ideas, could we ever then truly love someone else? 

Rather than saying we need to love ourselves to love others, C.S. Lewis reversed these ideas in Mere Christianity by implying self-love is already a given in our humanness and that, rather than giving more attention to it, we need to give that love to others.

It is notable that the law to “love thy neighbor as thyself” also appears in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:18, which was perhaps the point of reference for those in the New Testament. Consider the context of Christ’s reference as he was questioned by a lawyer about which is the greatest of the commandments. Perhaps this is part of the old law that He came to renew, as Christ later taught:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven … For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? (Matthew 5:43-46).

Jesus seems to redirect the commandment from simply loving “as thyself” to instead loving beyond that, further, or more than yourself.

In response to those questioning Him, He explained the existing law was to love your neighbor as yourself. However, shortly before His sacrifice, He introduced a new, higher law that would distinguish His disciples: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” (John 13:34-35). This law is distinctively different from simply loving others as oneself. 

In reality, Christ asked His disciples to look to Him as the reference of love, rather than to themselves. Additionally, He asserts an eternal truth regularly restated throughout scripture: “as I have loved you.” Christ first established that we are loved by Him and we are to show His love, not our own. Perhaps, with Jesus Christ fulfilling the law as was His role, from this new commandment we can understand “love thy neighbor as thyself” with new eyes: we are to love our neighbors as we are loved by Christ.

It is only in relation to others that we are even able to form a sense of self.

While a therapeutic relationship is certainly different from our individual relationship with Christ, we can take important cues from how Christ explores the idea of love. Many people enter the office of a therapist because they feel they are not experiencing love in meaningful ways, and their relationships not only suffer, but instead cause suffering. Many have been raised in abusive households, others are in incredibly dark and hopeless situations. If someone feels they have lived a life completely bereft of love, potentially from those very people given the responsibility to provide it, would self-love be the solution to their problem? I propose the answer is a simple and profound, No.

While I’m certainly not advocating for self-deprivation as opposed to self-love, a focus on self-love has the tendency to further isolate those who could benefit from genuine interactions with others. When we explore self-love in a philosophical sense, it creates an understanding of self that is completely independent of other people. However, it is only in relation to others that we are even able to form a sense of self. A person’s individual cognition—or reason—does not hold the true reality of a self, as “it is not thought, but relations, the object or substance of thought, that is in the mind” (Houser, 1983, p. 345). By others, we are able to form a sense of self, the world is given meaning and form (Bergo, 2019; Vygotsky, 1997, p. 12). Fundamentally, human beings are relational beings, we form a distinct self because we are in relation to others. 

A woman gazes into a mirror and sees, along with her own reflection, those who contribute to her sense of belonging.

When one understands oneself relationally, there are many alternatives available for a hopeless individual to find help and healing, particularly from a Christian perspective. No one has made it to where they are alone. There has always been a parent, a sibling, a friend, a teacher, a mentor, someone involved and invested in the individual’s life that contributes to a sense of belonging, a relationship of co-constitution, even if they may not recognize it. Fundamentally, as Christians, we believe God is always a person to whom we belong. Perhaps helping others become aware of the loving relationships around them is more helpful than encouraging strict self-reliance, which may result in isolating the individual even further. Rather than encouraging radical egocentrism, introducing new voices of love, broadening horizons of relationships, or practicing loving-kindness meditation can help liberate and expand the individual to a more integrated sense of self. 

An example of turning outward for meaning rather than finding it within ourselves is found in an interaction between Dr. Whoolery and a student, taken from a presentation to the American University in Bulgaria: 

I had a young man speak to me recently … Imagine yourself and his situation as he explained feelings of despair and hopelessness, not even sure that he thought life was worth living. 

I asked him, “Why are you still alive?” 

He said, “Well, I’d feel bad for my family.” 

I said, “Well, why would you feel bad for your family?” 

“Well, because they would be sad.” 

“Why would they be sad?” 

“Well, because they care about me.” 

I said, “Okay, well, why would you feel bad for making them feel sad?”

“Well, because I care about them.” 

And I said, “Love from your family and to your family seems like a good place to start your life, and I think it can form a basis for where you go from here” (TEDx Talks, 2024).

This is an excellent example of how a therapist may redirect their clients toward the loving relationships they may already have, especially toward Christ. In recognizing our love for others, we can also begin to recognize the love given to us by others. Such an orientation can allow people to live more in the world rather than within themselves. Additionally, by facilitating and encouraging relational connection, individuals can cultivate an awareness of their own support structure. Dr. Whoolery again proposes this type of awareness when he explored his own family dynamic and culture:

There are six of us in our family of four girls. If we each think about ourself, we have one person concerned about our needs. When we think about each other, we have five. So if she just thinks about everybody else and doesn’t worry about herself, everybody else is going to take care of her anyway (TEDx Talks, 2015).

Whether it is through biological family, found community, church, or any other kind of support system, we are stronger together than we are in isolation. In Western American culture, suffering often becomes an isolating experience. However, if we can shift in our understanding and realize we are necessarily linked and connected to others in meaningful ways, we can become aware of the fullness and love that surrounds us. In turn, we can extend such love to others who may be suffering, feeling isolated, or feeling unloved.

Perhaps the simplest solution to self-love … is to simply cut the phrase in half: we need to practice love.

For those practicing or in psychotherapy, it is crucial to understand and be aware of potential hidden philosophies, implications, and consequences evident in the concept of self-love. The encouragement to simply “love oneself” is not only ambiguous, but can easily lead to isolating behaviors and attitudes inconsistent with a gospel understanding of selfhood, which comes inextricably from ties to others in meaningful ways.

Perhaps the simplest solution to self-love—a concerning practice—is to simply cut the phrase in half: we need to practice love. Maintaining the simplicity of love allows us to locate reality in the between: between a person and the world, others, the past, and the future. Living a life relationally and open to others, yielding to the love given to us rather than living in an isolated shell, can liberate those seeking a more meaningful life and help us become ever more connected with God and those around us.

 

 

About the author

Joseph Chamberlain

Joseph Chamberlain is the husband of an incredible wife and father to three amazing children. He is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of West Georgia. His research centers on morality, relationships, religion, and narratives.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Formula Shortage Hits White House + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Under Pressure to Act White House Says It Will Address Formula Shortage Annie Karnie—New York Times Last week I highlighted a distressing news story about a baby formula shortage. The Biden administration has recently spoken about the issue and has promised to find ways to address the concern. Factsheet: Overview of Refugees Fleeing Religious Persecution Globally United States Commission on International Religious Freedom USCIRF has released a report on what it calls an “unprecedented” global refugee crisis. Latter-day Saints who have been asked to help support in this area can benefit from the report’s bird-eye view of the situation. ‘If someone asked you why the priesthood restoration was so significant, what would you say?’ Joseph Smith Papers historian answers Morgan Jones—LDS Living Spencer McBride, historian for the Church focusing on Joseph Smith, sits down with Morgan Jones to discuss the restoration. His insights help put us in the mind of Joseph Smith and better understand his life and ministry. Deconstructing? There’s a coach for that. Ericka Andersen—Religion News Services A trend to keep an eye on, Religion News Services reports on an increasingly likely decision of believers to not merely leave their faith but to use the help of life coaches to try and deconstruct their beliefs so they can find a way to still identify with their faith tradition while rejecting its beliefs.

Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

Why Bother Engaging with Stupid, Duped, or Evil People?

This is the sixth in a series by Arthur Peña, Charles Randall Paul, and Jacob Hess called “Inevitable Influencers: Why (deep down) we all want—and need—to persuade each other of what we see as good, beautiful, and true.” Previous pieces include “Why Persuasion Should be a Sweet (Not a Dirty) Word”; “The Threat of Persuasion,” and “My Truth? Your Truth? No Truth?”; “The Virtues of Strong Disagreement,” and “Our Judgment Against Judgment.”

What Else Happened January 6th

Many Americans continue to be shocked by alarming portrayals of January 6th. But certain possibilities and realities about the day are simply not being heard.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This