Biblical Truth in the Marketplace: MAGA Christianity vs. Process Theology

Biblical Truth in the Marketplace

MAGA Christianity vs. Process Theology

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Christian culture leaders continue the age old practice

of manufacturing a God and a faith in their own image...

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Matthew 7.16

Introduction

The phrase “biblical truth in the marketplace” has become popular among MAGA-Christian leaders. At first glance, it sounds noble - a call to live faithfully in public. But when examined closely, it reflects a worldview in which Scripture is reduced to a rigid ideology, wielded as a tool for political and cultural dominance. It suggests that the Bible is a fixed code of divine decrees, directly transferable into legislation and policy, with the goal of imposing “God’s will” on any society - especially a pluralistic society.

By contrast, Process Theology (e.g., Process Christianity) approaches truth as dynamic, relational, and rooted in God’s persuasive love. It does not treat the marketplace as a battlefield to be conquered, but as a shared commons where truth emerges in relationship, responsibility, and creative dialogue.

To understand the difference, we need to look at four key areas: how each views Scripture, the marketplace, authority, and ethics.

Matthew 7:16 is part of Jesus's teaching on false prophets, stating, "Do people pick grapes from thornbushes; figs from thistles?" This illustrates that just as a plant produces fruit in keeping with its nature, so too will false prophets be identified by their actions. The "fruit," or outward manifestations of their faith, will reveal their true character and actions, allowing people to recognize them for what they are.  

Context of the Verse

• Beware of False Prophets: Jesus instructs believers to be wary of false prophets who appear righteous on the outside but are inwardly corrupt, like wolves in sheep's clothing. 

• Identifying False Prophets: The verse follows the analogy of a good tree bearing good fruit and a bad tree bearing bad fruit, meaning a person's true nature is revealed through their actions and behavior. 

Meaning of the Metaphor

• Fruit as Actions/Character: The "fruit" symbolizes the outward manifestations of a person's faith, which includes their behavior and works.

• Nature of the Tree: Just as a healthy tree produces its respective fruit (grapes from grapevines, figs from fig trees), a person's true character will produce corresponding fruits.

• Revealing True Nature: Therefore, by observing the "fruit" of a person's life—their actions and deeds—you can recognize their true nature, whether they are a true prophet or a deceptive one.

---

One Bible Verse BLOWS UP MAGA's

False Version of "Christian Faith"

1. The MAGA Approach: Truth as Weapon

MAGA-Christianity treats the Bible primarily as a literal and static text. It is read selectively, with emphasis on passages that reinforce hierarchical structures, exclusionary norms, and culture-war talking points. The marketplace — whether of ideas, politics, or economics — is seen as a battleground where the faithful must “stand firm” against secularism, liberalism, and pluralism.

This approach assumes that biblical truth is self-evident, unchanging, and universally binding in exactly the same form as ancient Israelite law or early church instruction. Any deviation is condemned as compromise or apostasy. In practice, “truth” becomes a tool to mark insiders and outsiders, to reward loyalty, and to punish dissent.

The consequence is that truth is turned into a weapon: a way of controlling discourse, excluding difference, and justifying domination. Rather than engaging society with humility, MAGA Christianity approaches public life with suspicion and hostility, confident that its interpretation of Scripture alone represents God’s absolute will.

• Literalized Scripture: MAGA-Christianity often treats the Bible as an inerrant rulebook. Truth becomes propositional, absolute, and transferable into slogans.

• Marketplace as Battlefield: Public life is seen as a zero-sum contest where God’s people must impose biblical standards over against “the world.”

• Power over Love: The emphasis falls on enforcing “God’s truth” through legislation, rhetoric, and dominance, with little regard for diversity or dialogue.

This approach mirrors the very forms of religious nationalism Bonhoeffer opposed in Nazi Germany: the fusion of religion and political ideology into a weaponized faith.

---

2. The Process Approach: Truth as Relational Becoming

Process Theology begins with a different assumption: reality itself is processual, always becoming, always relational. Scripture, therefore, is not a frozen rulebook but a dynamic witness to humanity’s evolving encounter with God. Its authority lies not in literal fixity but in its ability to call communities into deeper love, justice, and creativity.

The marketplace in this vision is not a battlefield but a commons. It is a place where diverse voices meet, where truth is not imposed but discovered together through dialogue and interaction. Process thought insists that God’s truth is persuasive, not coercive — it invites but does not compel. This means truth must be tested in community, weighed by its fruits, and continually reinterpreted in light of new contexts.

Where MAGA-Christianity closes the circle around what truth was, process thought opens the circle toward what truth is becoming. It insists that God is still speaking, still drawing creation toward greater beauty, harmony, and justice.

• Dynamic Scripture: In a process lens, the Bible is not a static code but a living witness to humanity’s evolving encounter with God. Its authority lies not in literal fixity but in its power to inspire justice, compassion, and creativity.

• Marketplace as Community: Rather than a battlefield, the marketplace is a shared space of dialogue and mutual influence. Truth is discerned in relationship, tested by its fruits of love and justice.

• Love over Power: In process thought, God’s truth is persuasive, not coercive. It calls humanity into cooperative becoming, not conquest.

Here, truth is not owned but shared. It does not silence the other but invites all voices into the work of co-creation.

---

3. Competing Visions of Authority

The difference in how each side understands authority is stark.

• MAGA Christianity: Authority is rooted in the literal text of the Bible, interpreted through the lens of conservative tradition and enforced by political power. This results in a rigid hierarchy: God speaks → the Bible records → we enforce. In this model, authority is top-down and unquestionable. Dissent is framed as rebellion against God himself.

• Process Theology: Authority is rooted in Christ as the living Word, mediated through Scripture but always discerned in context. Authority is relational and dialogical — God calls, but humans respond freely and responsibly. Scripture is authoritative, but never in isolation from conscience, community, and the Spirit’s ongoing work in history.

This difference leads to two contrasting visions of the marketplace. For MAGA Christianity, authority justifies domination; for Process Theology, authority enables dialogue and growth. One uses power to enforce compliance; the other seeks understanding and cooperation.

• MAGA Christianity: Authority rests in the literal text, interpreted through the lens of cultural conservatism and political power.

• Process Theology: Authority rests in Christ as the living Word, continually interpreted in context, always calling communities toward justice, compassion, and creative transformation.

Where MAGA-Christianity seeks to fix truth in the past, process thought seeks to embody truth in the present, always open to God’s ongoing call.

---

4. Ethics in the Marketplace

Ethics is where the contrast becomes most visible.

• MAGA Ethics: Right and wrong are defined by conformity to fixed codes. Success is measured by victory in cultural battles: passing laws, winning elections, controlling school boards, restricting rights. The guiding question is: Are we winning the fight to preserve biblical values against our enemies? This produces a binary ethic of winners and losers, insiders and outsiders.

• Process Ethics: Right and wrong are discerned through love’s reach and creativity’s expansion. Success is measured by whether actions increase the well-being of all — human and nonhuman, individual and communal. The guiding question is: Does this action contribute to justice, compassion, and the flourishing of life? This produces an ethic of cooperation, responsibility, and mutual care.

Where MAGA Christianity divides the marketplace into opposing camps, Process Theology seeks to weave it into a shared commons. One works to preserve dominance; the other works to foster relational wholeness.

• MAGA’s Ethics: Obedience is measured by conformity to rigid codes. The goal is victory — protecting “our” values against “theirs.”

• Process Ethics: Responsibility is measured by love’s reach and creativity’s expansion. The goal is cooperation — seeking the good of all in an interdependent world.

In short: MAGA ethics divides the marketplace into winners and losers; process ethics opens it into a shared commons of becoming.

---

Conclusion

When MAGA-Christian leaders speak of “biblical truth in the marketplace,” they mean a static truth wielded for political control. It is truth as weapon: exclusionary, rigid, and triumphalist. Process Theology offers a different vision: truth as relational becoming, discerned in community, tested by love, and persuasive rather than coercive.

The contrast could not be sharper. One approach seeks to control the marketplace; the other seeks to transform it into a commons where God’s truth is lived out in justice, compassion, and creativity.

Summary Observation: If truth is to have meaning in public life, it cannot be reduced to slogans of power. It must be lived in the costly, dynamic work of relationship. Biblical truth in the marketplace is not about conquest but about co-creation. It is not about controlling society but about participating with God in its ongoing renewal.

---

Bibliography

MAGA-Christianity / Culture War Sources

(Useful to understand the mindset and rhetoric, even if problematic)

• Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

  • Key text for how Bonhoeffer is repurposed in evangelical/MAGA narratives.

• Eric Metaxas, Letter to the American Church (Salem Books, 2022).

  • Explicitly frames today’s America as a replay of 1930s Germany, urging Christians to resist “cultural capitulation.”

• David Barton, The Myth of Separation (WallBuilder Press, 1992).

  • An influential but deeply flawed book promoting the idea of America as a “Christian nation.”

• Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2022).

  • A systematic argument for merging Christianity with political control in the U.S.

---

Process Theology & Alternatives to Culture War

• Tripp Ruller, The Rise of Bonhoeffer, multi-series podcast

• John B. Cobb Jr., Christ in a Pluralistic Age (Westminster, 1975).

  • A classic in Process Christology, emphasizing relational truth and interreligious dialogue.

• Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, God, Christ, Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology (Crossroad, 1982).

  • A clear introduction to Process Theology’s dynamic view of truth, ethics, and community.

• Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process (Fortress, 2008).

  • Explores relational truth, pluralism, and public theology in a process framework.

• Thomas Jay Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (IVP Academic, 2015).

  • Though not strictly process-only, it extends relational/process insights into theology of love and freedom.

• Bruce Epperly, Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God (Energion, 2011).

  • A very accessible introduction that connects process thought with daily ethical and public life.

---

Broader Critiques / Contextual Works

• Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (Liveright, 2020).

  • Essential for understanding evangelicalism’s drift into Christian nationalism.

• Samuel L. Perry & Andrew L. Whitehead, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (Oxford, 2020).

  • Academic sociological study of Christian nationalism as an ideology.

• Stephen R. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump (Eerdmans, 2018).

  • Directly addresses how Bonhoeffer has been claimed by both MAGA Christianity and progressive theology.

---

✅ Summary Observation:

• If you want to see how “biblical truth in the marketplace” is weaponized → Metaxas, Wolfe, Barton.

• If you want to see how Process Theology reframes truth relationally and non-coercively → Cobb, Suchocki, Keller, Oord, Epperly.

• If you want context and critique of the culture war itself → Du Mez, Perry/Whitehead, Haynes.

Bonhoeffer's Legacy Defies Maga-Christianity's Mis-Use

Bonhoeffer's Legacy Defies

Maga-Christianity's Mis-Use

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Christian culture leaders continue the age old practice

of manufacturing a God and a faith in their own image...

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Matthew 7.16

I'm not a fan of Eric Metaxas who wrote a "shaded" (not shady, tho' perhaps it is) biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Currently he's stumping about maga-Christian circles speaking to "biblical truth in  the marketplace" which is a lot of huey based upon maga-Christusnity's literalized view of their Bible. So I asked Chatbot as to it's thoughts or comments on the subject and this is what Chatbot and I came up with....

---

Me

Chat, what's your thoughts on the subject that Christian culture leaders have manufactured a God and a faith in their image?

ChatGPT

Yes, I share your concerns. Eric Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy is widely read, but among scholars of Bonhoeffer it’s considered “shaded,” as you put it—presented with a selective lens that tends to fit contemporary culture-war agendas rather than Bonhoeffer’s own complex theological and ethical context.

---

Framing the Discussion

1. Bonhoeffer’s Own Witness

• Bonhoeffer’s resistance to Hitler wasn’t grounded in a “literalized” biblicism, but in a deep Christocentric ethic of costly grace (Nachfolge / Discipleship).

• His theology was profoundly relational and incarnational: Christ present in community, in suffering, and in the neighbor. That makes him hard to “weaponize” for a movement centered on political domination.

• He also emphasized responsibility before God and others, not rigid proof-texting.

2. Metaxas’s Portrayal

• Metaxas tends to flatten Bonhoeffer into an evangelical hero-figure, casting him as a proto-culture-warrior who validates a conservative “biblical truth in the marketplace” approach.

• Historians such as Clifford Green, Victoria Barnett, and Charles Marsh have noted that this misrepresents Bonhoeffer’s theology, cutting him off from his Lutheran, ecumenical, and even progressive impulses.

3. MAGA-Christian Context

• The language of “biblical truth in the marketplace” in MAGA-Christian circles often amounts to a literalist, triumphalist rhetoric: “our Bible, our truth, our politics.”

• Bonhoeffer would have opposed precisely this conflation of God’s Word with nationalistic ideology. In Letters and Papers from Prison, he warns against religion used as a tool of power, advocating instead for a “religionless Christianity” that seeks the neighbor’s good and lives under Christ’s lordship without grasping for control.

4. The Deeper Irony

• To invoke Bonhoeffer in support of authoritarian or exclusionary politics turns his witness upside down. He stood against state-sanctioned ideology masquerading as Christianity.

• His true legacy is prophetic courage: the willingness to suffer, even unto death, for love of Christ and solidarity with the oppressed. That is radically different from “biblical truth as market slogan.”

---

✅ Summary

In my estimation, I’d say: Metaxas offers a popularized Bonhoeffer that resonates with evangelical culture warriors, but it strips away the depth of his theology and the nuance of his resistance. It’s closer to propaganda than to serious biography. - ChatGPT

---

Me

Create a side-by-side comparison of Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer vs. Scholarly Bonhoeffer, so the contrasts are clear.

---

Bonhoeffer: Metaxas vs. Scholarly Portrait

1. Theological Orientation

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Cast as a proto-evangelical, with strong affinities to American conservative Protestantism.

  • Emphasis on “biblical inerrancy,” personal piety, and simple moral clarity.

  • Downplays Bonhoeffer’s academic theology (Lutheran, Barthian, ecumenical roots).

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Deeply shaped by German Lutheranism, Barth’s Christocentrism, and ecumenical theology.

  • Theology is complex, dialectical, and incarnational — Christ encountered in community and in the “other.”

  • Wrote about costly grace (discipleship requiring suffering and obedience) and “religionless Christianity” (faith beyond culture-bound religiosity).

---

2. Political Engagement

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Portrayed as a clear, almost lone prophet standing against Hitler.

  • Becomes a poster-child for “speaking truth to power” in ways that resonate with MAGA-Christian culture wars.

  • Simplified into a battle of “true believers” vs. secular/evil forces.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • His resistance grew gradually and painfully, rooted in theological wrestling and communal discernment.

  • Was part of the Confessing Church movement, not an isolated hero.

  • Emphasized ethical responsibility before God and community, not a culture-war stance.

---

3. Use of Scripture

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Depicted as relying on literalized “biblical truth” — a direct link to contemporary evangelical proof-texting.

  • Often implied that Bonhoeffer validates present-day “Bible in the marketplace” slogans.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Scripture read Christocentrically, not literalistically.

  • The Word is always mediated through Christ and interpreted in community.

  • His approach to the Bible was dynamic, ethical, and incarnational rather than rigid.

---

4. View of Christianity

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Christianity is framed as moral clarity and heroic faith against secularism.

  • Fits neatly into the narrative of “Christian America” vs. enemies of God.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Christianity is lived in weakness, suffering, and responsibility — “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

  • Acknowledges ambiguity, failure, and costly obedience rather than triumphal certainty.

  • “Religionless Christianity” critiques any political/religious fusion.

---

5. Legacy

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Inspirational hero, mobilized for American evangelical and MAGA culture-war battles.

  • Becomes a symbolic validation of “fighting back” with God on one’s side.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Martyr who points toward humility, solidarity with the oppressed, and faithful resistance to tyranny.

  • His theology resists being co-opted by any ideology — left, right, or otherwise.

  • Legacy is about prophetic witness in love, not weaponizing faith.

---

✅ Summary

Metaxas presents a Bonhoeffer made in the image of American evangelical culture wars — simplified, heroic, and mobilized. Scholars present Bonhoeffer as a complex, Christ-centered thinker whose legacy warns precisely against the fusion of political ideology with religious certainty.

---

Bonhoeffer’s Words that Resist Fusion with MAGA-Christian Misuse and Abuse

1. On Grace & Discipleship

• MAGA Misuse: Bonhoeffer as a symbol of “moral clarity” and nationalistic defense of “biblical truth.”

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” (The Cost of Discipleship)

  • True discipleship is costly, involving suffering and loss — not triumphalist slogans or political conquest.

---

2. On Religion as Power

• MAGA Misuse: Christianity equated with political power and cultural dominance.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “What keeps gnawing at me is the question, what is Christianity, or who is Christ actually for us today?” (Letters and Papers from Prison)
  “We are moving towards a completely religionless age.”

  • Bonhoeffer warns against fusing Christianity with cultural/political power. He sought a faith stripped of domination, grounded in Christ’s presence with the suffering.

---

3. On Community

• MAGA Misuse: Faith used as an individualistic “truth weapon” in the marketplace.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “The church is the church only when it exists for others… not dominating, but helping and serving.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • Christianity is relational and outward-facing, not a tool for control or exclusion.

---

4. On Truth & Lies

• MAGA Misuse: Claiming monopoly on “truth” while aligning with manipulative politics.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction.” (Ethics)

  • Truth isn’t about slogans; it’s about living responsibly before God, even when it means opposing one’s own cultural tribe.

---

5. On Responsibility

• MAGA Misuse: Casting themselves as persecuted heroes while wielding power.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • Faith is not self-martyring theater — it is accountable, ethical responsibility to God and neighbor.

---

6. On Power & Weakness

• MAGA Misuse: Strength and domination framed as “God’s will.”

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • God’s presence is in vulnerability, not triumphalist displays of power.

---

✅ Summary

Bonhoeffer’s own words consistently undermine the ways he is being recruited by MAGA-Christianity. His Christ is one of costly grace, weakness, and solidarity with the suffering — not a culture-war general.

---

Conclusion

The true Bonhoeffer cannot be reconciled with the agenda of MAGA-Christianity. His writings dismantle the very fusion of religion and nationalism that many seek to justify by invoking his name.

Bonhoeffer’s legacy is not a call to culture war but a summons to costly discipleship, to a church that exists for others, to truth that resists manipulation, and to a God revealed in weakness and suffering love. To misappropriate Bonhoeffer for partisan battles is to silence the very witness for which he lived and died.

Bonhoeffer’s witness speaks clearly: Christianity is not about seizing control but about sharing in Christ’s suffering for the sake of the world. His life is a rebuke to those who would wield the Bible as a weapon of domination. If he speaks to us today, it is not to baptize the church's culture wars but to call us into a deeper, more sacrificial way of following Christ.

---

The Rise of Bonhoeffer

Bibliography

Here’s a bibliography of widely respected Bonhoeffer biographies and studies, followed by Eric Metaxas’s version for contrast. I’ve grouped them for clarity:

---

Respected Scholarly Biographies on Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Classic / Authoritative Biographies

• Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (Fortress Press, rev. 2000; first German ed. 1967).

  • The definitive, monumental biography by Bonhoeffer’s close friend and student. Exhaustive, detailed, and indispensable.

• Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906–1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance (T&T Clark, 2010).

  • A scholarly yet accessible biography, widely praised as the best modern single-volume study.

Accessible & Reliable Biographies

• Tripp Ruller, The Rise of Bonhoeffer, multi-series podcast

• Mary Bosanquet, The Life and Death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Harper & Row, 1969).

  • A concise, readable introduction for general readers.

• Victoria J. Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1992).

  • Not exclusively a biography, but an excellent contextual study situating Bonhoeffer within the Confessing Church.

• Charles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Knopf, 2014).

  • A well-written, literary-style biography. It stirred some debate among scholars for interpretation choices, but remains reliable and nuanced.

• Stephen R. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump (Eerdmans, 2018).

  • Explores how Bonhoeffer is misappropriated in contemporary American politics, particularly by the religious right.

---

Bonhoeffer’s Own Writings (Essential for Biographical Insight)

• Letters and Papers from Prison (Fortress, various editions).

• The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolge) (SCM/Fortress).

• Life Together (Gemeinsames Leben).

• Ethics.

These are crucial for letting Bonhoeffer “speak for himself” and provide an antidote to distorted portrayals.

---

Eric Metaxas’s Version (Popular but Problematic)

• Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

  • A New York Times bestseller, widely read in evangelical and MAGA-Christian circles.

  • Criticized by Bonhoeffer scholars for its selective interpretation, inaccuracies, and tendency to portray Bonhoeffer as an American-style evangelical culture warrior.

---

✅ Recommendation:

For depth and accuracy, start with Bethge or Schlingensiepen. For readability, Marsh is strong. For critique of misuse, Haynes is invaluable. Metaxas is useful only as an example of how Bonhoeffer has been co-opted.

What Is Christian Humanism?

Jens Zimmermann locates Bonhoeffer within the Christian humanist tradition extending back to patristic theology. He begins by explaining Bonhoeffer's own use of the term humanism (and Christian humanism), and considering how his criticism of liberal Protestant theology prevents him from articulating his own theology rhetorically as a Christian humanism. He then provides an in-depth portrayal of Bonhoeffer's theological anthropology and establishes that Bonhoeffer's Christology and attendant anthropology closely resemble patristic teaching. The volume also considers Bonhoeffer's mature anthropology, focusing in particular on the Christian self. It introduces the hermeneutic quality of Bonhoeffer's theology as a further important feature of his Christian humanism. In contrast to secular and religious fundamentalisms, Bonhoeffer offers a hermeneutic understanding of truth as participation in the Christ event that makes interpretation central to human knowing. Having established the hermeneutical structure of his theology, and his personalist configuration of reality, Zimmermann outlines Bonhoeffer's ethics as 'Christformation'. Building on the hermeneutic theology and participatory ethics of the previous chapters, he then shows how a major part of Bonhoeffer's life and theology, namely his dedication to the Bible as God's word, is also consistent with his Christian humanism.

Being and Becoming

by R.E. Slater

      Being Worldly

      Being Secular

      Being Humanist

Labels meant to make

people living them ugly

by those who are ugly

Words meant to divide and kill

create strife and separate

Meanings misused and misappropriated

twisted into definitions of exclusion

      We become our words

      We become what we say and do

      We become our ugly intent

Being is a beautiful thing

Becoming is part of living and maturing

Being is me

Becoming is too

Being meets Becoming 

Making both whole

      Becoming Worldly

      Becoming Secular

      Becoming Humanist

These are expressions made whole when

a God of Love is placed in front of them

      Who meets me with who I should become

      Who meets world with what it can become

      Who meets us to tell us Love, and be Loved

There can be no apology
for being who we are

There can be no pulpit
crying separation from the world

There can be no creed of
oneness with God if not also His people

      Godly worldliness provides experience where there is none

      Godly secularity sees beauty wherever it looks

      Godly humanism sees the possibilities of mankind at its best

Being and Becoming

Flowing and Movement

Balance and Harmony

      Let it be and become

      Undivided and Whole

      In this Life now to Life everlasting



R.E. Slater

June 7, 2020

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved

Christian humanism is not a new doctrine but an old observance from time immemorial found in the ancients, the major creeds of religions, the teachings of Jesus, and even today in BLM. It an attitude, a behavior, a significant and important form of communication with one another. It is built around the word Love. Too many think of humanism as replacing God. But what if it stood with God in exemplifying divine love and forgiveness? This is what is meant by "Christian" humanism. If religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism were to stay to their roots of grace and peace in God I would imagine our world would be a far better place. - re slater

Christian humanism sees people for who they are, serving where it can to help and aid. Jesus didn't say to hate the world but not to be corrupted by the world, including the corruption which comes with Christian secularity. A corruption which is silent in the face of racism and supremacy. If I was to chose between the world and the church I'd rather go it alone in God's creation than fellowship with false attitudes and doctrines. The church of God welcomes and embraces all. It does not seek to brainwash, strong-arm, place guilt upon, or shout down all who differ from its inhumane silence seeking power over God's love and weakness. - re slater

Wikipedia - "Christian humanism regards humanist principles like universal human dignity, individual freedom and the importance of happiness as essential and principal components of the teachings of Jesus. It emerged during the Renaissance with strong roots in the patristic period."

* * * * * * *

A look at psychology of the person and sociology of society

through the eyes of Process Psychology and Sociology

Twinkl - link

Being and Becoming trailer 2014

Being and Becoming explores the concept and ultimately the choice of not schooling children, but of trusting and letting them learn freely what they are truly passionate about. The filmmaker's journey of discovery takes us through the US, Germany (where it's illegal not to go to school), France and the UK. This film is a quest for truth about the innate desire to learn. Trailer Music: Variation on Schumann Kinderszenen by Jay Gottlieb.

* * * * * *

         

Who is Carl Rodgers?

Wikipedia - Carl Ransom Rogers (January 8, 1902 – February 4, 1987) was an American  psychologist and among the founders of the humanistic approach (or client-centered approach) to psychology. Rogers is widely considered to be one of the founding fathers of psychotherapy research and was honored for his pioneering research with the Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1956.

The person-centered approach, his own unique approach to understanding personality and human relationships, found wide application in various domains such as psychotherapy and counseling (client-centered therapy), education (student-centered learning), organizations, and other group settings. For his professional work he was bestowed the Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Psychology by the APA in 1972. In a study by Steven J. Haggbloom and colleagues using six criteria such as citations and recognition, Rogers was found to be the sixth most eminent psychologist of the 20th century and second, among clinicians, only to Sigmund Freud.

Biography

Rogers was born on January 8, 1902, in Oak Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. His father, Walter A. Rogers, was a civil engineer, a Congregationalist by denomination. His mother, Julia M. Cushing,[3][4] was a homemaker and devout Baptist. Carl was the fourth of their six children.[5]

Rogers was intelligent and could read well before kindergarten. Following an education in a strict religious and ethical environment as an altar boy at the vicarage of Jimpley, he became a rather isolated, independent and disciplined person, and acquired a knowledge and an appreciation for the scientific method in a practical world. His first career choice was agriculture, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he was a part of the fraternity of Alpha Kappa Lambda, followed by history and then religion. At age 20, following his 1922 trip to Peking, China, for an international Christian conference, he started to doubt his religious convictions. To help him clarify his career choice, he attended a seminar entitled Why am I entering the Ministry?, after which he decided to change his career. In 1924, he graduated from University of Wisconsin and enrolled at Union Theological Seminary (New York City). Sometime afterwards he became an atheist.[6] Although referred to as an atheist early in his career, Rogers eventually came to be described as agnostic. However, in his later years it is reported he spoke about spirituality. Thorne, who knew Rogers and worked with him on a number of occasions during his final ten years, writes that, “in his later years his openness to experience compelled him to acknowledge the existence of a dimension to which he attached such adjectives as mystical, spiritual, and transcendental.”[7] Rogers concluded that there is a realm "beyond" scientific psychology, a realm which he came to prize as "the indescribable, the spiritual."[8]

After two years he left the seminary to attend Teachers College, Columbia University, obtaining an M.A. in 1928 and a Ph.D. in 1931. While completing his doctoral work, he engaged in child study. In 1930, Rogers served as director of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Rochester, New York. From 1935 to 1940 he lectured at the University of Rochester and wrote The Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child (1939), based on his experience in working with troubled children. He was strongly influenced in constructing his client-centered approach by the post-Freudian psychotherapeutic practice of Otto Rank,[9] especially as embodied in the work of Rank's disciple, noted clinician and social work educator Jessie Taft.[10][11] In 1940 Rogers became professor of clinical psychology at Ohio State University, where he wrote his second book, Counseling and Psychotherapy (1942). In it, Rogers suggested that the client, by establishing a relationship with an understanding, accepting therapist, can resolve difficulties and gain the insight necessary to restructure their life.

In 1945, he was invited to set up a counselling center at the University of Chicago. In 1947 he was elected President of the American Psychological Association.[12] While a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago (1945–57), Rogers helped to establish a counselling center connected with the university and there conducted studies to determine the effectiveness of his methods. His findings and theories appeared in Client-Centered Therapy (1951) and Psychotherapy and Personality Change (1954). One of his graduate students at the University of Chicago, Thomas Gordon, established the Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) movement. Another student, Eugene T. Gendlin, who was getting his Ph.D. in philosophy, developed the practice of Focusing based on Rogerian listening. In 1956, Rogers became the first President of the American Academy of Psychotherapists.[13] He taught psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1957–63), during which time he wrote one of his best-known books, On Becoming Person (1961). A student of his there, Marshall Rosenberg, would go on to develop Nonviolent Communication.[14] Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow (1908–70) pioneered a movement called humanistic psychology which reached its peak in the 1960s. In 1961, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[15] Carl Rogers was also one of the people who questioned the rise of McCarthyism in the 1950s. Through articles, he criticized society for its backward-looking affinities.[16]

Rogers continued teaching at University of Wisconsin until 1963, when he became a resident at the new Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, California. Rogers left the WBSI to help found the Center for Studies of the Person in 1968. His later books include Carl Rogers on Personal Power (1977) and Freedom to Learn for the 80's (1983). He remained a resident of La Jolla for the rest of his life, doing therapy, giving speeches and writing.

Rogers's last years were devoted to applying his theories in situations of political oppression and national social conflict, traveling worldwide to do so. In Belfast, Northern Ireland, he brought together influential Protestants and Catholics; in South Africa, blacks and whites; in Brazil people emerging from dictatorship to democracy; in the United States, consumers and providers in the health field. His last trip, at age 85, was to the Soviet Union, where he lectured and facilitated intensive experiential workshops fostering communication and creativity. He was astonished at the numbers of Russians who knew of his work.

Between 1974 and 1984, Rogers, together with his daughter Natalie Rogers, and psychologists Maria Bowen, Maureen O'Hara, and John K. Wood, convened a series of residential programs in the US, Europe, Brazil and Japan, the Person-Centered Approach Workshops, which focused on cross-cultural communications, personal growth, self-empowerment, and learning for social change.

In 1987, Rogers suffered a fall that resulted in a fractured pelvis: he had life alert and was able to contact paramedics. He had a successful operation, but his pancreas failed the next night and he died a few days later after a heart attack.[17]

Theory

Rogers' theory of the self is considered to be humanistic, existential, and phenomenological.[18] His theory is based directly on the "phenomenal field" personality theory of Combs and Snygg (1949).[19] Rogers' elaboration of his own theory is extensive. He wrote 16 books and many more journal articles describing it. Prochaska and Norcross (2003) states Rogers "consistently stood for an empirical evaluation of psychotherapy. He and his followers have demonstrated a humanistic approach to conducting therapy and a scientific approach to evaluating therapy need not be incompatible."

Nineteen propositions

His theory (as of 1951) was based on 19 propositions:[20]

1. All individuals (organisms) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the center.
2. The organism reacts to the field as it is experienced and perceived. This perceptual field is "reality" for the individual.
3. The organism reacts as an organized whole to this phenomenal field.
4. A portion of the total perceptual field gradually becomes differentiated as the self.
5. As a result of interaction with the environment, and particularly as a result of evaluative interaction with others, the structure of the self is formed—an organized, fluid but consistent conceptual pattern of perceptions of characteristics and relationships of the "I" or the "me", together with values attached to these concepts.
6. The organism has one basic tendency and striving—to actualize, maintain and enhance the experiencing organism.
7. The best vantage point for understanding behavior is from the internal frame of reference of the individual.
8. Behavior is basically the goal-directed attempt of the organism to satisfy its needs as experienced, in the field as perceived.
9. Emotion accompanies, and in general facilitates, such goal directed behavior, the kind of emotion being related to the perceived significance of the behavior for the maintenance and enhancement of the organism.
10. The values attached to experiences, and the values that are a part of the self-structure, in some instances, are values experienced directly by the organism, and in some instances are values introjected or taken over from others, but perceived in distorted fashion, as if they had been experienced directly.
11. As experiences occur in the life of the individual, they are either, a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the self, b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the self.
12. Most of the ways of behaving that are adopted by the organism are those that are consistent with the concept of self.
13. In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized. Such behavior may be inconsistent with the structure of the self but in such instances the behavior is not "owned" by the individual.
14. Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of self.
15. Psychological maladjustment exists when the organism denies awareness of significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the self structure. When this situation exists, there is a basic or potential psychological tension.
16. Any experience which is inconsistent with the organization of the structure of the self may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these perceptions there are, the more rigidly the self structure is organized to maintain itself.
17. Under certain conditions, involving primarily complete absence of threat to the self structure, experiences which are inconsistent with it may be perceived and examined, and the structure of self revised to assimilate and include such experiences.
18. When the individual perceives and accepts into one consistent and integrated system all his sensory and visceral experiences, then he is necessarily more understanding of others and is more accepting of others as separate individuals.
19. As the individual perceives and accepts into his self structure more of his organic experiences, he finds that he is replacing his present value system—based extensively on introjections which have been distortedly symbolized—with a continuing organismic valuing process.
20. In relation to No. 17, Rogers is known for practicing "unconditional positive regard", which is defined as accepting a person "without negative judgment of .... [a person's] basic worth".[21]

Development of the personality

With regard to development, Rogers described principles rather than stages. The main issue is the development of a self-concept and the progress from an undifferentiated self to being fully differentiated.

Self Concept is the organized consistent conceptual gestalt composed of perceptions of the characteristics of 'I' or 'me' and the perceptions of the relationships of the 'I' or 'me' to others and to various aspects of life, together with the values attached to these perceptions. It is a gestalt which is available to awareness though not necessarily in awareness. It is a fluid and changing gestalt, a process, but at any given moment it is a specific entity. (Rogers, 1959)[22]

In the development of the self-concept, he saw conditional and unconditional positive regard as key. Those raised in an environment of unconditional positive regard have the opportunity to fully actualize themselves. Those raised in an environment of conditional positive regard feel worthy only if they match conditions (what Rogers describes as conditions of worth) that have been laid down for them by others.

Fully functioning person

Optimal development, as referred to in proposition 14, results in a certain process rather than static state. He describes this as the good life, where the organism continually aims to fulfill its full potential. He listed the characteristics of a fully functioning person (Rogers 1961):[23]

1. A growing openness to experience – they move away from defensiveness and have no need for subception (a perceptual defense that involves unconsciously applying strategies to prevent a troubling stimulus from entering consciousness).
2. An increasingly existential lifestyle – living each moment fully – not distorting the moment to fit personality or self-concept but allowing personality and self-concept to emanate from the experience. This results in excitement, daring, adaptability, tolerance, spontaneity, and a lack of rigidity and suggests a foundation of trust. "To open one's spirit to what is going on now, and discover in that present process whatever structure it appears to have" (Rogers 1961)[23]
3. Increasing organismic trust – they trust their own judgment and their ability to choose behavior that is appropriate for each moment. They do not rely on existing codes and social norms but trust that as they are open to experiences they will be able to trust their own sense of right and wrong.
4. Freedom of choice – not being shackled by the restrictions that influence an incongruent individual, they are able to make a wider range of choices more fluently. They believe that they play a role in determining their own behavior and so feel responsible for their own behavior.
5. Creativity – it follows that they will feel more free to be creative. They will also be more creative in the way they adapt to their own circumstances without feeling a need to conform.
6. Reliability and constructiveness – they can be trusted to act constructively. An individual who is open to all their needs will be able to maintain a balance between them. Even aggressive needs will be matched and balanced by intrinsic goodness in congruent individuals.
7. A rich full life – he describes the life of the fully functioning individual as rich, full and exciting and suggests that they experience joy and pain, love and heartbreak, fear and courage more intensely. Rogers' description of the good life:

• This process of the good life is not, I am convinced, a life for the faint-hearted. It involves the stretching and growing of becoming more and more of one's potentialities. It involves the courage to be. It means launching oneself fully into the stream of life. (Rogers 1961)[23]

Incongruence

Rogers identified the "real self" as the aspect of one's being that is founded in the actualizing tendency, follows organismic valuing, needs and receives positive regard and self-regard. It is the "you" that, if all goes well, you will become. On the other hand, to the extent that our society is out of sync with the actualizing tendency, and we are forced to live with conditions of worth that are out of step with organismic valuing, and receive only conditional positive regard and self-regard, we develop instead an "ideal self". By ideal, Rogers is suggesting something not real, something that is always out of our reach, the standard we cannot meet. This gap between the real self and the ideal self, the "I am" and the "I should" is called incongruity.

Psychopathology

Rogers described the concepts of congruence and incongruence as important ideas in his theory. In proposition #6, he refers to the actualizing tendency. At the same time, he recognized the need for positive regard. In a fully congruent person, realizing their potential is not at the expense of experiencing positive regard. They are able to lead lives that are authentic and genuine. Incongruent individuals, in their pursuit of positive regard, lead lives that include falseness and do not realize their potential. Conditions put on them by those around them make it necessary for them to forgo their genuine, authentic lives to meet with the approval of others. They live lives that are not true to themselves, to who they are on the inside out.

Rogers suggested that the incongruent individual, who is always on the defensive and cannot be open to all experiences, is not functioning ideally and may even be malfunctioning. They work hard at maintaining and protecting their self-concept. Because their lives are not authentic this is a difficult task and they are under constant threat. They deploy defense mechanisms to achieve this. He describes two mechanisms: distortion and denial. Distortion occurs when the individual perceives a threat to their self-concept. They distort the perception until it fits their self-concept.

This defensive behavior reduces the consciousness of the threat but not the threat itself. And so, as the threats mount, the work of protecting the self-concept becomes more difficult and the individual becomes more defensive and rigid in their self structure. If the incongruence is immoderate this process may lead the individual to a state that would typically be described as neurotic. Their functioning becomes precarious and psychologically vulnerable. If the situation worsens it is possible that the defenses cease to function altogether and the individual becomes aware of the incongruence of their situation. Their personality becomes disorganised and bizarre; irrational behavior, associated with earlier denied aspects of self, may erupt uncontrollably.

Applications

Person-centered therapy

Rogers originally developed his theory to be the foundation for a system of therapy. He initially called this "non-directive therapy" but later replaced the term "non-directive" with the term "client-centered" and then later used the term "person-centered". Even before the publication of Client-Centered Therapy in 1951, Rogers believed that the principles he was describing could be applied in a variety of contexts and not just in the therapy situation. As a result, he started to use the term person-centered approach later in his life to describe his overall theory. Person-centered therapy is the application of the person-centered approach to the therapy situation. Other applications include a theory of personality, interpersonal relations, education, nursing, cross-cultural relations and other "helping" professions and situations. In 1946 Rogers co-authored "Counseling with Returned Servicemen" with John L. Wallen (the creator of the behavioral model known as The Interpersonal Gap),[24] documenting the application of person-centered approach to counseling military personnel returning from the second world war.

The first empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the client-centered approach was published in 1941 at the Ohio State University by Elias Porter, using the recordings of therapeutic sessions between Carl Rogers and his clients.[25] Porter used Rogers' transcripts to devise a system to measure the degree of directiveness or non-directiveness a counselor employed.[26] The attitude and orientation of the counselor were demonstrated to be instrumental in the decisions made by the client.[27][28]

Learner-centered teaching

The application to education has a large robust research tradition similar to that of therapy with studies having begun in the late 1930s and continuing today (Cornelius-White, 2007). Rogers described the approach to education in Client-Centered Therapy and wrote Freedom to Learn devoted exclusively to the subject in 1969. Freedom to Learn was revised two times. The new Learner-Centered Model is similar in many regards to this classical person-centered approach to education. Rogers and Harold Lyon began a book prior to Rogers death, entitled On Becoming an Effective Teacher—Person-centered Teaching, Psychology, Philosophy, and Dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon, which was completed by Lyon and Reinhard Tausch and published in 2013 containing Rogers last unpublished writings on person-centered teaching.[29] Rogers had the following five hypotheses regarding learner-centered education:

1. "A person cannot teach another person directly; a person can only facilitate another's learning" (Rogers, 1951). This is a result of his personality theory, which states that everyone exists in a constantly changing world of experience in which he or she is the center. Each person reacts and responds based on perception and experience. The belief is that what the student does is more important than what the teacher does. The focus is on the student (Rogers, 1951). Therefore, the background and experiences of the learner are essential to how and what is learned. Each student will process what he or she learns differently depending on what he or she brings to the classroom.
2. "A person learns significantly only those things that are perceived as being involved in the maintenance of or enhancement of the structure of self" (Rogers, 1951). Therefore, relevancy to the student is essential for learning. The students' experiences become the core of the course.
3. "Experience which, if assimilated, would involve a change in the organization of self, tends to be resisted through denial or distortion of symbolism" (Rogers, 1951). If the content or presentation of a course is inconsistent with preconceived information, the student will learn if he or she is open to varying concepts. Being open to consider concepts that vary from one's own is vital to learning. Therefore, gently encouraging open-mindedness is helpful in engaging the student in learning. Also, it is important, for this reason, that new information be relevant and related to existing experience.
4. "The structure and organization of self appears to become more rigid under threats and to relax its boundaries when completely free from threat" (Rogers, 1951). If students believe that concepts are being forced upon them, they might become uncomfortable and fearful. A barrier is created by a tone of threat in the classroom. Therefore, an open, friendly environment in which trust is developed is essential in the classroom. Fear of retribution for not agreeing with a concept should be eliminated. A classroom tone of support helps to alleviate fears and encourages students to have the courage to explore concepts and beliefs that vary from those they bring to the classroom. Also, new information might threaten the student's concept of him- or herself; therefore, the less vulnerable the student feels, the more likely he or she will be able to open up to the learning process.
5. "The educational situation which most effectively promotes significant learning is one in which (a) threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum and (b) differentiated perception of the field is facilitated" (Rogers, 1951). The instructor should be open to learning from the students and also working to connect the students to the subject matter. Frequent interaction with the students will help achieve this goal. The instructor's acceptance of being a mentor who guides rather than the expert who tells is instrumental to student-centered, nonthreatening, and unforced learning.

Rogerian rhetorical approach

In 1970, Richard Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth Pike published Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, a widely influential college writing textbook that used a Rogerian approach to communication to revise the traditional Aristotelian framework for rhetoric. The Rogerian method of argument involves each side restating the other's position to the satisfaction of the other. In a paper, it can be expressed by carefully acknowledging and understanding the opposition, rather than dismissing them.[30]

Cross-cultural relations

The application to cross-cultural relations has involved workshops in highly stressful situations and global locations including conflicts and challenges in South Africa, Central America, and Ireland.[31] Along with Alberto Zucconi and Charles Devonshire, he co-founded the Istituto dell'Approccio Centrato sulla Persona (Person-Centered Approach Institute) in Rome, Italy.

His international work for peace culminated in the Rust Peace Workshop which took place in November 1985 in Rust, Austria. Leaders from 17 nations convened to discuss the topic "The Central America Challenge". The meeting was notable for several reasons: it brought national figures together as people (not as their positions), it was a private event, and was an overwhelming positive experience where members heard one another and established real personal ties, as opposed to stiffly formal and regulated diplomatic meetings.[32]

Person-centered, dialogic politics

Some scholars believe there is a politics implicit in Rogers's approach to psychotherapy.[33][34] Toward the end of his life, Rogers came to that view himself.[35] The central tenet of a Rogerian, person-centered politics is that public life does not have to consist of an endless series of winner-take-all battles among sworn opponents; rather, it can and should consist of an ongoing dialogue among all parties. Such dialogue would be characterized by respect among the parties, authentic speaking by each party, and – ultimately – empathic understanding among all parties. Out of such understanding, mutually acceptable solutions would (or at least could) flow.[33][36]

During his last decade, Rogers facilitated or participated in a wide variety of dialogic activities among politicians, activists, and other social leaders, often outside the U.S.[36] In addition, he lent his support to several non-traditional U.S. political initiatives, including the "12-Hour Political Party" of the Association for Humanistic Psychology[37] and the founding of a "transformational" political organization, the New World Alliance.[38] By the 21st century, interest in dialogic approaches to political engagement and change had become widespread, especially among academics and activists.[39] Theorists of a specifically Rogerian, person-centered approach to politics as dialogue have made substantial contributions to that project.[34][40]

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

*This section includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this section by introducing more precise citations. (October 2017)

Carl Rogers served on the board of the Human Ecology Fund from the late 50s into the 60s, which was a CIA-funded organization that provided grants to researchers looking into personality. In addition, he and other people in the field of personality and psychotherapy were given a lot of information about Khrushchev. "We were asked to figure out what we thought of him and what would be the best way of dealing with him. And that seemed to be an entirely principled and legitimate aspect. I don't think we contributed very much, but, anyway, we tried."[41]

Selected works by Carl Roger

1. Rogers, Carl, and Carmichael, Leonard (1939). The Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
2. Rogers, Carl. (1942). Counseling and Psychotherapy: Newer Concepts in Practice. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
3. Rogers, Carl. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. London: Constable. ISBN 1-84119-840-4.
4. Rogers, C.R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 21: 95-103.
5. Rogers, Carl. (1959). A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-centered Framework. In (ed.) S. Koch, Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw Hill.
6. Rogers, Carl. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. London: Constable. ISBN 1-84529-057-7.Excerpts
7. Rogers, Carl. (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become. (1st ed.) Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merill. Excerpts
8. Rogers, Carl. (1970). On Encounter Groups. New York: Harrow Books, Harper and Row, ISBN 0-06-087045-1
9. Rogers, Carl. (1977). On Personal Power: Inner Strength and Its Revolutionary Impact.
10. Rogers, Carl. (nd, @1978). A personal message from Carl Rogers. In: N. J. Raskin. (2004). Contributions to Client-Centered Therapy and the Person-Centered Approach. (pp. v-vi). Herefordshire, United Kingdom: PCCS Books, Ross-on-the-Wye. ISBN 1-898059-57-8
11. Rogers, Carl. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Rogers, Carl. and Stevens, B. (1967). Person to Person: The Problem of Being Human. Lafayette, CA: Real People Press.
13. Rogers, Carl, Lyon, Harold C., & Tausch, Reinhard (2013) On Becoming an Effective Teacher—Person-centered Teaching, Psychology, Philosophy, and Dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-81698-4
14. Rogers, C.R., Raskin, N.J., et al. (1949). A coordinated research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 149-200. Cited in: N.J. Raskin, The first 50 years and the next 10. Person-Centered Review, 5(4), November 1990, 364-372.