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

Why I Wear the Temple Garment

A recent New York Times story on temple garments did a good job of showing many sides of a sensitive story. But there was one side they left out: What spiritual meaning do they bring to the faithful?

Demanding Conversations About Violence

In the weeks since the premiere of the Under the Banner of Heaven miniseries, there has been a broad consensus that the show doesn’t quite work. Its attempt to paint Latter-day Saints as promoting violence just doesn’t land. And its depiction of Latter-day Saints simply doesn’t resonate because it’s too dissimilar. This of course must come as some disappointment to critics of the Church who had hoped the series would prompt more conversations around the issues they deem problematic such as how the Church promotes violence. Into this void comes a new argument made most prominently by Taylor Petrey, but also echoed by a student columnist at the University of Utah, and now promoted on Twitter by Benjamin Park—namely, that because there has been some violence done by some Latter-day Saints who use the language of their culture in perpetrating it, Latter-day Saints should watch the series with the intent to learn how to make their Church less violent. Both Petrey and Park had previously criticized the series for its poor job in portraying Latter-day Saints, but have since shifted. We don’t want to attack the Daily Utah Chronicle piece because it’s a student article. But Petrey and Park should know better. Some of us have been on the record defending Petrey as a serious scholar, despite the fact that his conclusions don’t often derive well from the available evidence. But Petrey seems to suggest in his article that any violence that uses the language of religion must have been inspired by that religion. We understand the temptation of this point of view. What else could we blame violence on if not the culture it arose in? But Petrey’s position assumes that human beings are naturally non-violent, and only become violent as a result of their culture. This is a major assumption in the Robert Orsi essay that Petrey relies on extensively. Parks’ tweets similarly assume that any conversation about Latter-day Saints and violence must concede that the faith contributes to the violence in some way. But the causes of violence are often complicated. Because of the importance of our innate nature in creating violence, even the most peaceful society would still produce fringe examples of extreme violence. Having a Latter-day Saint who becomes violent isn’t proof that the faith contributes to that violence, even if the perpetrator uses the language of their culture in perpetuating that violence. Cultural contexts can then increase or decrease the likelihood of that emerging, but no culture has discovered how to remove it altogether. And because Under the Banner of Heaven fails to present a clear picture of what most experience as Latter-day Saint culture, it doesn’t do much to establish whether a Latter-day Saint context is more prone to cause violence than others. Those who use Latter-day Saint or another religious language and context to perpetuate violence weren’t necessarily made violent by those cultures. But rather, violent individuals will leverage anything around them to perpetrate their violence. We’re aware of many other similar examples—of abusers, for instance, who used the language of therapy to perpetuate abuse. But it would be absurd to suggest that therapeutic culture caused that abuse. Even pacifist language has been known to be used to perpetuate violence by shaming survivors into silence. An abusive person will draw upon the most powerful language available within their given cultural context and weaponize that. This is not coincidentally the conclusion made by prosecutors in the Lafferty case, that the murder was about power and relationships and that religion was merely the pretext. Does the Church of Jesus Christ disproportionately create violent offenders? We’d be interested in reading any definitive social science research on the question, but unfortunately, those promoting this point of view or hoping to have this conversation have not yet presented any. And rather than attempt to answer this question clearly itself, Under the Banner of Heaven skips the question and takes it as a given. A study of this sort could start the conversation Petrey, Parks, and the student author hope for. Instead, we get a story about a 38-year-old murder that was notable mainly for how unusual it was among the Latter-day Saint community and perpetrated by someone who had recently been kicked out of the Church for their extremist views. It should not surprise anyone that it hasn’t prompted anyone to conclude there’s a problem with violence among Latter-day Saints.

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