Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled: A Case Study in the Integration of Faith and Learning at Louisiana College

Dr. Charles Quarles, Vice President for Integration of Faith and Learning

Printable PDF Format

Recent discussions regarding the appropriate use of Peck’s Road Less Traveled have stirred considerable interest throughout the student body of Louisiana College. Questions surrounding Peck’s book provide students an excellent opportunity to exercise critical thinking skills, an exercise that is fully appropriate in this academic setting. However, if students are to form well-reasoned opinions regarding the appropriate use of this text at Louisiana College, they must know some very important facts about the content of the book.

The course in which RLT has been used is Philosophy 300: Introduction to Value Study. The catalogue description of the course states: “A course designed to study the nature of values, the process by which they are chosen and their development within the life of the individual. Emphasis is given to Christian approaches and concepts.” The required emphasis on “Christian approaches and concepts” creates an expectation that the primary text used in this course reflects Christian thought and Christian perspectives on the process by which values are formed. Furthermore, Louisiana College’s mission of offering an education “informed by the Christian faith” requires a distinctively Christian perspective especially for a course of this nature.

RLT is clearly not a Christian text. By the author’s own admission, he was a Zen Buddhist at the time that he wrote RLT: “I came to God through Zen Buddhism, but that was just the first stretch of the road. . . I became a Christian several years after the Road Less Traveled was published—and remember, the very first statement in that book is the great Buddhist truth ‘Life is difficult’” (Further Along the Road Less Traveled, 156-57). Peck went on to tell of an important man who complemented him for the way he disguised his Christianity in RLT to which Peck replied: “Well, I didn’t disguise my Christianity. I wasn’t a Christian” (Further Along, 157).

Peck’s Buddhist convictions frequently surface in RLT. Peck states, for example: “It is a thesis of this book that Nirvana or lasting enlightenment or true spiritual growth can be achieved only through the persistent exercise of true love” (RLT, 96). The influence of Tantric Buddhism on Peck is exhibited by his claim that one enters into a temporary oneness with the universe (which in Peck’s mystical view constitutes union with Deity) and briefly reach Nirvana through orgasm both in intercourse and masturbation or through the use of psychoactive drugs (RLT, 95-97). In his later writings, Peck clearly stated his view by claiming “Shocking as it may seem, I think there is a genuine sexual element in the relationship between human beings and God” (Further Along, 229). He adds “this sexy God’s love for us is profoundly seductive—‘He is a God who is continually on the make’” (Further Along, 230).

Readers of Peck who are not well-informed about the essential doctrines of historic and biblical Christianity may assume that Peck was a Christian writer since he frequently used such Christian terminology as “God,” “fall,” “sin,” and “grace.” However, Peck gave new idiosyncratic definitions to these terms, definitions that are at odds with historic Christian theology. Peck’s work drastically reshapes many of the most important doctrines of the Christian church:

Theology Proper: The Doctrine of God
Peck claimed that an individual’s unconscious is God. Peck, adapting Carl Jung’s view, stated: “To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us. We were part of God all the time” (RLT, 280). Peck later added, “Since the unconscious is God all along, we may further define the goal of spiritual growth to be the attainment of godhood by the conscious self. It is for the individual to become totally, wholly God. . . We are born that we might become, as a conscious individual, a new life form of God” (RLT, 282). Peck also stated:

It is not my intention here to become involved in theological niceties, and I hope the scholarly will forgive me if I cut through all the ifs, ands, and buts of proper speculative theology. For no matter how much we may like to pussyfoot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it eventually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood. God is the goal of evolution. It is God who is the source of the evolutionary force and God who is the destination. This is what we mean when we say that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. . . . It is one thing to believe in a nice old God who will take good care of us from a lofty position of power which we ourselves could never begin to attain. It is quite another to believe in a God who has it in mind for us precisely that we should attain His position, His power, His wisdom, His identity (RLT, 269-70).

This affirmation of the individual’s evolution into Godhood is contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. The BFM 2000, Article II, “God” states: “There is one and only one living and true God. . . The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.” Views which affirm the Godhood of beings outside of the Trinity are clearly incompatible with the college’s doctrinal statement. However, readers must not conclude that Peck has merely challenged a peripheral doctrine peculiar to Southern Baptists. Trinitarian doctrine has been recognized as a Christian essential since the earliest ecumenical Christian creeds and confessions. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a foundational doctrine in the theology of many modern churches and denominations. It is one of the pivotal doctrines on which both Catholics and Protestants agree. Theologians typically view a denial of trinitarian doctrine as a hallmark of pseudo-Christian cults.

For Peck, “God” is the pantheistic monistic force of Near Eastern mysticism (RLT, 269-70, 280-82) rather than the personal Creator who transcends His creation. Peck’s God has more in common with Yoda’s force than with the God of the Bible.

Hamartiology: The Doctrine of Sin
For Peck, the “fall” was occasioned by humankind’s unwillingness to listen to the God within (RLT, 273) rather than an act by which the first couple sought to attain their own Godhood as described in Genesis 3. “Sin” is the laziness that prevents humans from seeking to attain Godhood (RLT, 273-77) rather than failure to live the righteous life that God demands.

Anthropology: The Doctrine of Human Beings
Peck denies that human beings as bearers of the divine image are superior to or distinct from other animals or even inanimate objects: “The distinction of ourselves as humans being different from “lower” animals and plants and from inanimate earth and rocks, is a manifestation of maya, or illusion, in the mystical frame of reference” (RLT, 108). Peck’s claims about humankind are the logical conclusion of his view that God is all and is in all.

Soteriology: The Doctrine of Salvation
For Peck, “grace” is pushing the plane of evolution forward so that other people are deified along with us (RLT, 282-84) rather than the undeserved love of God which moves Him to grant forgiveness to sinners through Jesus’ sacrificial death.

Eschatology: The Doctrine of Last Things
The influence of Near Eastern mysticism on Peck’s thought surfaces in his suggestion that people in the western hemisphere need to entertain more seriously the possibility of reincarnation: “Since birth and death seem to be but different sides of the same coin, it is not at all unreasonable to pay closer heed than we usually do in the West to the concept of reincarnation” (RLT, 74). Peck’s denial of the Christian doctrine of resurrection is clearly expressed in his later work: “On the other hand, I find distasteful the traditional idea of Christianity which preaches the resurrection of the body. Frankly, I see my body as more of a limitation than a virtue, and I will be glad to be free of it rather than having to continue to cart it around” (Further Along, 169). Although Peck claimed to be a Christian at the time that he wrote this later work, his teaching is clearly incompatible with the views of biblical Christianity. Although denial of the resurrection may not so much as raise an eyebrow for readers who are more influenced by postmodern pluralism than by the Scriptures, the New Testament reaction to such teaching was forceful:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is without foundation, and so is your faith. In addition, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified about God that He raised up Christ—whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Therefore those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. If we have placed our hope in Christ for this life only, we should be pitied more than anyone (1 Corinthians 15:13-19).

Even a cursory reading of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 or other historic Christian confessions will show that Peck exploits Christian terminology to promote non-Christian views. Just as the wolves in sheep’s clothing in Jesus’ proverbial warning appear to be one thing but upon close examination are seen to be something quite different, Peck’s lingo gives the impression of Christian orthodoxy but promotes aberrant doctrine.

Peck was clearly a non-Christian at the time that he wrote RLT, but his book makes several statements that might better be classified as anti-Christian rather than merely non-Christian. For example, during his discussion of several case studies, Peck related his “success” story about moving a patient from belief in God to agnosticism or atheism. Peck noted, “In Kathy’s case it was necessary for the therapist to actively change her religious ideas in order to bring about change in the direction of a dramatically diminished influence of the God-concept in her life” (RLT, 210). Peck later added, “Is belief in God a form of psychopathology? . . . . The answer sometimes is yes. Kathy’s unquestioning belief in the God her church and mother taught clearly retarded her growth and poisoned her spirit. Only by questioning and discarding her belief was she able to venture forth into a wider, more satisfying, more productive life” (RLT, 221). Peck sarcastically remarked, “I used to tell people only somewhat facetiously that the Catholic church provided me with my living as a psychiatrist. I could equally well have said the Baptist church, Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church or any other" (RLT, 206).

Road Less Traveled also promotes views of morality that are antithetical to Louisiana College’s mission and confession. Examples of morally abhorrent material include 1) Peck’s approval of a therapist’s sexual relationship with a patient if the therapist determines the relationship will benefit the patient (RLT, 202); 2) Peck’s view that open marriage (marriage in which spouses are free to pursue sexual relationships with partners other than one’s spouse) is the only mature marriage that is “healthy and not seriously destructive to the spiritual health and growth of the individual partners” (RLT, 93, 158-59); and 3) Peck’s attacks on the Catholic and Evangelical churches because these Christian traditions frown on adultery (RLT, 206). Unless properly critiqued, such material is contrary to the college’s commitment to encourage students “to develop an active Christian commitment” (See mission statement in college catalogue), antithetical to its mission of providing an education “informed by the Christian faith,” and inappropriate for a course which promises emphasis on Christian concepts.

Although this material is antithetical to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, historic Christian convictions, and clear biblical assertions, it would be inappropriate for Louisiana College to “ban” Road Less Traveled. The model for the integration of Christian faith and learning that the college administration has proposed (see “The Integration of Faith and Learning at Louisiana College” on the college website) insists that students should be exposed to a variety of different perspectives. However, the Academic Freedom Policy of Louisiana College states clear guidelines for treating these alternative perspectives: “Sensitive and controversial topics that are germane to the subject matter should be handled in a manner which honors the mission of the college and advances the purpose of the course. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to understand and teach in accordance with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 relative to these topics and, through responsible teaching methods, refrain from advocating contrary views.” A text like Road Less Traveled might be helpful in a course like Introduction to Value Study under certain conditions. For example, the text might serve as an ancillary text that illustrates values widely held in modern American culture. However, in a college whose mission is to offer an education “informed by the Christian faith” and in a course promising emphasis on Christian concepts and approaches, devoted Christian faculty should compare and contrast Peck’s objectionable perspectives with the Christian view and champion the Christian perspective for the students. In such an approach, it would be highly appropriate for faculty to critique the non-Christian or anti-Christian material discussed above as theologically aberrant and/or morally abhorrent. This is especially true since most students who enroll in Introduction to Value Study have not previously taken Introduction to Christian Doctrine and may be confused by Peck’s claims.

The title of Peck’s book, The Road Less Traveled, clearly borrows from one of my favorite poems by Robert Frost titled “The Road Not Taken.” Frost’s poem describes the poet standing at a crossroads, facing a seemingly small and insignificant choice but one that will change his destiny forever. After carefully evaluating both of his options, Frost chose the less traveled path. The poem concludes, “And I shall be telling this with a sigh, Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.” In our secular age, evangelical Christianity is probably more of a “less traveled” road than Peck’s New Age ideology. But Louisiana College made a decision long ago to travel that road, that narrow and sometimes difficult path, because our founders were convinced that only this path leads to God. Today, Louisiana College remains committed to our mission of offering an education “informed by the Christian faith,” because we are convinced that our commitment to Christian truth will make “all the difference” in the lives of our students and the destiny of our world.