# Any thoughts on Maslow's Holistic Dynamic Needs Hierarchy?



## ReformedWretch (May 12, 2005)

Here's what it is if you don't know:

http://www.wynja.com/personality/needs.html

I am considering basing my next blog entry on childcare on his findings. Are they in any way unscriptural? If so can you elaborate?

Thanks!


----------



## BobVigneault (May 12, 2005)

Adam, you hit on a touchy subject for me. It's the reason I've been looking for a church for a couple years.

Just a quick reply to the question "Are they scriptural?", the quick answer is no because it is one more model that puts the self at the center of everything. The last thing we need to reinforce in our kids today is the hellish message that "You are the center of the universe. It's all about you and what's most important is that you feel good about yourself."

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is extremely popular at buisness empowerment seminars. It's all about self-empowerment. To dramatize my point, take a look at this Wiccan site. 

http://www.witchvox.net/wren/w_editorials/self_actualization.html

This is one of many, many wiccan sites that carry Maslow's message. Maslow was not a witch but this model fits the agenda of self-worshipping pagans very neatly.

So here's what happened to me. I was a very visible leader in our church and I coordinated all the sound and video production during the live 'performances'. Ugh!

Christmas eve the church was packed for two services. Lots of spectacular music. I've always said our church was the greatest show in town, and it was.

That night the pastor spoke not from the scriptures, but he shared Maslows hierarchy of needs. At the end of explaining each of the needs he said, "And what is amazing is that Jesus Christ satisfies every on of these needs. That is the perfect example of using the pulpit to speak to the felt-needs of man.

I was sick. I was so jealous for the gospel. Because I was an elder I had to confront him and I did. I printed out the Maslow gospel from one of the wiccan sites and I went to him and I said, "This is what you preached Christmas eve." He looked at the wiccan headline and I explained to him that he had chosen a subject so general that it has equal appeal to wiccans.

He admitted that he had fallen down on this one and defended himself by saying, "I knew there would be a lot of people there and so I wanted something that would relate to everyone.

"The Gospel, the Gospel" I replied. "Everyone needs to hear the gospel and you didn't even come close." He apologized, said he messed up and he asked me to keep him accountable. For the next two years he completely shunned me and worked behind the scenes to make me very uncomfortable there. Vastly outnumbered by arminian feel goodists and goat-sensitive leaders, I left. (It wasn't long after the doxology was removed from the 'worship' service because it broke the flow of the 'program'.)

So Adam, In my humble opinion it's new age nonsense and not scriptual. I can elaborate more if you would like but for now, THANKS FOR LETTING ME GET THIS OFF MY CHEST! (sigh) I feel better.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 12, 2005)

B.L.U.F. (bottom line up front):
Maslow's hierarchy has little to do with human makeup from the Biblical perspective; it is thoroughly evolutionary in its psychological perspective.


Psychology can occasionaly provide observational insights, when actually producing and using hard facts. However, like most sciences today, because academia has largely rejected God's foundations for knowledge, after only a few steps removed from the data they lose their way. Science, and in this case Psychology as a field, has absolutely no way to integrate its findings coherently. (Psychiatry OTOH is almost pure toxic waste--no redeeming value there.) Maslow makes observations about the "physical man" and constructs an entire mental order which is purely sensualistic in its presuppositions.

Maslow begins with man as a pure biological organism, just a BODY. The Bible always views man as a spiritual being, a body-soul. _Man,_ according to the Bible, does have various needs. His body needs fuel, or sleep, but when Jesus said, "Man does not live by bread alone," he was not hierarchicalizing man's needs. (And even if one argues that he was, he was definitely putting something down as equally basic or more so than food!)

Maslow might use the term "his body," but he'd hardly be using it in a proper sense. The primal urges of food, sleep, and probably reproduction, are firstly instinctual--as in every "evolved animal." So "his" needs in this scheme--at this level--simply means: the biologicaly _male_ organism has functional requirements.

Maslow's set up teaches that humans, as biologically evolved creatures, advance with fair consistency through the various stages of needs, only advancing to the next set after the former level has been effectively dealt with (along the lines of the discredited "ontogony recapitualtes phylogeny"). Maslow's set up, if follwed through consistently, treats each man as a perfectly _selfish_ creature.

So we might ask the question: how do unselfish acts (for example, a mother's sacrifice for her children) fit into Maslow's scheme? If a mother foregos food so her children can eat, is she doing psychological damage to herself because she is violating the laws of need fulfilment? It would seem the answer would have to be "yes" if Maslow's hierarchy is to have any objective value (i.e., its true under all the various circumstances, and without respect to our "feelings"). And if it is true, how do we judge a mother who lets her child starve, because she has only enough food for herself? After all, she's only following her instinctual needs, and these must be satisfied before self-actualizing, "altruistic" needs like caring for others ought to be met.

Maslow, by the way, is a perfect justification for the welfare state--such a woman (above) _may_ be judged by the state (as embodiment of group social values--the only and subjective source of law under this view) only after she has no such excuse for neglect because society has provided the "saftey net," nullifying her self-serving excuse. Unless she can prove ignorance of the welfare state's provisions: "Oh, I didn't know I could have gotten food stamps! Now I'm just angry that my little child had to die. It's really your fault--you should have told me..."

Maslow's chart doesn't care about these issues, because Maslow's chart doesn't begin with man, made in God's image, a spiritual being with built-in ethical requirements dictated to him by the intelligent Creator.

Now that I've attacked Maslow's foundations, let me change tack and ask: is there any biblical basis for recognizing that people's needs include certain elementary bodily comforts? Yes, of course. Maslow simply took common-sense observations about human behavior and applied an evolutionary gloss to them. In other words he assumed biblical irrelevance (no neutrality) and all natural lusts as grounded in biology.

When we engage in mercy-ministry, we are usually addressing needs at the lowest one or two of Maslow's "levels." But Christian mercy-ministry is always viewed as means to an end. We are removing _surface_ problems/distractions so that we can open doors for addressing greater (i.e. more _vital)_ spiritual needs. The most fundamental obligation (obligations are more fundamental than needs, Dr. Maslow) we have is to glorify God no matter whether we have food in our bellies, oxygen in our lungs, shelter over our heads. This "abstraction" barely fits on the chart in Maslow's scheme.

After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, Maslow posits "belonging and love" needs. Because he has no ethical norm, the next need to "emerge" is social. The group (or dominant individual) establishes social order and social rules. Maslow suggests that our need for security naturally leads to a need to fit into the order (whatever that is) around us. We want acceptance and that leads to learning the rules of conformity.

Balderdash. Man wants to be a god. This is his essential problem. And no, he doesn't want acceptance by God, nor conformity to his regulation. Man wants _unconditional_ acceptance, by everyone around him. He'd prefer it if everyone served him like a god, but he'll settle for whatever indulgence he can wheedle or demand.

After that he arrives at "esteem." If anything is whacked out in Maslow's scheme, this certainly is. The Bible says our biggest problem is "self-esteem," not it's lack. "Once we are loved, we can finally love ourselves"? Where have we heard this before? From all the TV shows. From typical educators both public and private. From Robert Schuller. Here is psychiatry's (and to some degree, certain branches of psychology) goal--get the "patient" to the place where he feels good about himself.

Thus, if Maslow's chart demonstrates the truth any part of biblical revelation it is this: that sinful man hierarchicalizes his needs to serve his ultimate end--HIMSELF. Maslow's evolutionary scheme is selfishness itself.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 12, 2005)

Thanks guys. Any suggestion as to how I can type something up that shows the needs of the children in care are often not being met because they are not being loved? I mean I've made that statement but I wish to expound on it. 

What amazes me is that not a single person, including those who are my critics, have argued against my statement. I honestly believe that children's lives would be changed, and they would be more open to the gospel message IF they were loved by the childcare workers within the industry.

I am not looking for anyone to write my article for me, just any suggestions for direction?

Thanks!


----------



## BobVigneault (May 12, 2005)

Adam, I think you will definitely need to define 'love' for the people you are writing for. Especially if you are writing to people who are working with kids that have come from orphanages or who were abandoned very early. Many of these kids have RAD - Reactive Attachment Disorder. You have probably heard of this and experienced it in the girls you've worked with. The people who deal with this diagnosis usually are familiar with a book called "When Love is Not Enough : A Guide to Parenting Children with RAD" by Nancy L. Thomas. 

As you can see from the title, followers of 'the purple bible' as it's called may be critical of your premise that kids in the system need more love. Do you think it's these people who were critical of you?

I recently preached on faith, hope and love and I defined love as 'the God given ability to run toward the pain'. It means to set your preference on someone to meet their needs no matter what it costs you. I think you would probably be promoting that kind of love. Most people when they hear the word love think of the sentimental kind.

So my suggestion is make sure you clearly and specifically define 'love' for your audience and then make your proposals.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 12, 2005)

> I defined love as 'the God given ability to run toward the pain'. It means to set your preference on someone to meet their needs no matter what it costs you.



*EXACTLY!*

This is absolutely perfrect. May I quote you in my next article? That was simply amazing and exactly what I am talking about. 

As for RAD, we never once studied or discussed it in the facility I worked for over twelve years. They talk alot about "caring" and "supporting", etc. but never about love, never about self-sacrafice. Until recently they never even spoke about developing relationships with children! Fact is, for years they taught that developing strong relationships with the children in your house was *wrong!*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 12, 2005)

Maslow's hierarchy could only be biblical if it was turned on its side. I hope that made sense...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 12, 2005)

Adam,
I agree with you and Bob that so much of the problem with troubled youth (and others) is that they have no idea what love is. They see sentiment and lust, and they have no clue. They see selfishness passed off as love, when really love is giving.

If you can show the ones you deal with that you love them by giving to them your valuables: time, sustenance, shelter, rules and discipline, etc.; if you can show them how much you love God by the way you give to him (honor, obedience, service, etc.); if you can teach them that they must themselves love--that by themselves giving they put love into practice and bring it full circle; if you can show them "this is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us... (1 John 3:16; cf. 1 Peter 2:21)--you shall have succeeded, I think. And I think you shall see the fruit of your labors and be satisfied.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 12, 2005)

Thanks Bruce, may I quote you as well if need be? I love the quotes I get from my brothers and sisters in Christ here!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 13, 2005)

Well, Adam, I don't think I'll be quotable here, but the book of Proverbs is full of the examples and definitions of true love in relation to raising children. Perhaps you can quote a few of them in your article


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 13, 2005)

Adam,
You can quote whatever suits your purposes anytime you like. I don't even care if you reference me by name or put it in quotes. 
I doubt if I've ever had a truly original thought anyway. 
I only care about being mis-understood, mis-quoted, or mis-represented. 
"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches." Prov. 22:1


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 13, 2005)

I so seek to teach or explain what it is when I talk about loving these children. What amazes me (well, maybe not) is that none of my critics have even attempted to argue against my charge of them not loving these children.

Here is a good example.

My last place of employment hates my blog (as to be expecteed I suppose) but the executive director, who I had always respected as a good man for the most part, had been very excited to attend our daughters College graduation this Saturday. He often told me and our daughter that he was so thrilled to finally see on of the homes children graduate from college! 

Now he told Alisha that he was happy for her but would not be able to make it.

It's acceptable to be upset and disagree with me and my points in my blog. It's acceptable to treat me poorly, even ignore me completely if that is what you wish to do. But to kiss off a child who should make you proud, to go back on your word, to take out your frustration with me on my child is just sickening.

THIS is the kind of people I had to deal with for years. It never bothered me that bad until I woke up and saw how it effected the children they claim to help. THi sis a perfect example.

They disgust me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 13, 2005)

Adam,
These guys who disgust you--what a perfect opportunity for you to show your girls how to love people who make you


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 13, 2005)

If I didn't have any love for them, I wouldn't keep the blog that I do. I wouldn't seek to reach them, or converse with them. I compromised witht hem for 12 years, I will do so no longer. I will however reach out to them in the name of Christ and offer what I believe are GOdly ways to work with and love children.

I can't make them listen to or respect that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 13, 2005)

Way to go. I'm just counseling that you bury the disgust part (that you so freely and publicly expressed) well under a genuine love, and let your girls or boys see only that love that transforms the disgust you have for these misguided people (or their methods) into compassion for them and the children that their methods fail.

True love never compromises its principles. Jesus wept over a Jerusalem (Lk. 19:41f) that he nevertheless planned to come to later in judgment, "on the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 24:30). In this you are being faithful. Just let all read clearly about your love and concern, and not the bald contempt that "They disgust me," conveys.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 13, 2005)

Good point Bruce, I will be more aware of of that.


----------

