Accept Freudian technique means rebuild it on our Doctrine

In my last post, I very strongly supported the application of Freudian psychoanalysis in the congregation. But it doesn’t mean we have to accept everything Freud serves before us, we have to modify it. That is what Pfister did. He didn’t accept Freudian technique as what it was. But he modified it according to the doctrines on which he built up his life. To prove it I would like to quote a letter which was sent to Pfister by Freud in Feb 1909. It is as follows.

Berggasse 19

Vienna IX,

9.02.1909

Dear Dr. Pfister,

I  have to-day re-read your valuable paper, to which I shall open a discussion to-morrow in our small circle,  and I should like to hear more from you on the subject than I can gather from the printed word and say more about it than can be put in a letter. Perhaps the opportunity for such an exchange of ideas will arise. To-day I shall confine myself to throwing light on the difference between your field of activity and the medical, as you can also confirm in Stekel.

The permanent success of psycho-analysis certainly depends on the coincidence of two issues: the obtaining of satisfaction by the release of tension, and sublimation of the sheer instinctual drive. If we generally succeed only with the former, that is to be attributed to a great extent to the human raw material -human beings who have been suffering severely for a long time and expect no moral elevation from the physician, and are often inferior material. In your case, they are young persons faced with conflicts of recent date, who are personally drawn towards you and are ready for sublimation, and to sublimation in its most comfortable form, namely the religious. They do not suspect that success with them comes about in your case primarily by the same route as it does with us, by way of erotic transference to yourself. But you are in the fortunate position of being able to lead them to God and bringing about what in this one respect was the happy state of earlier times when religious faith stifled the neuroses. For us, this way of disposing of the matter does not exist. Our public, no matter of what racial origin, is irreligious, we are generally thoroughly irreligious ourselves and, as the other ways of sublimation which we substitute for religion are too difficult for most patients, our treatment generally results in the seeking out of satisfaction. On top of this there is the fact that we are unable to see anything forbidden or sinful in sexual satisfaction, but regard it as a valuable part of human experience. You are aware that for us the term 'sex' includes what you in your pastoral work call love, and is certainly not restricted to the crude pleasure of the senses. Thus our patients have to find in humanity what we are unable to promise them from above and are unable to supply them with ourselves. Things are therefore much more difficult for us, and in the resolution of the transference, many of our successes come to grief.

In itself, psycho-analysis is neither religious nor nonreligious, but an impartial tool which both priest and layman can use in the service of the sufferer. I am very much struck by the fact that it never occurred to me how extraordinarily helpful the psycho-analytic method might be in pastoral work, but that is surely accounted for by the remoteness from me, as a wicked pagan, of the whole system of ideas.

Let me express the hope that your interest will not fade if the first phase of striking successes gives way to the familiar second phase in which the difficulties tend to obtrude. After overcoming the latter one attains a feeling of quiet confidence.

 I make practically no use of the association technique and see no advantage in it over my own technique of free association, which has not been fully communicated yet. However, in intractable cases- as I knew and as is confirmed once more from your reports- it is very valuable, and for dealing with psychotic states such as dementia praecox it is indispensable. That is because our neurotics suffer severely and put a high degree of cooperativeness at our disposal.

It is certainly not the least of our friend Jung's services that he has become the source of stimuli such as impelled you to your work. Let us hope that the spark that we keep from going out here by laborious fanning will turn you into a fire from which we in our turn will be able to fetch a flaming torch.

Yours with grateful thanks,

Freud

Congregation and Psychoanalysis

 Some of my friends have been accusing a Biblical fellowship of teaching Freudian Technics. Actually, these fellows had been working among the people of this fellowship for decades.  Before we criticize anything, we have to know enough about it. Each and everyone doesn’t know everything. But the ability to access the required information and assimilate it quickly then react to the situation is also known as wisdom. Without it, blindly accuse somebody or something is the job of fools.

 But I am not going to check why they criticize, but as usual, everything is a material before me to study, I decided to study the subject ‘teaching believers Freudian psychoanalysis’, to know how much or to what extent it is a sin. I have read Freudian theory before but in this case, I needed to read it from a different point of view. So I searched for the literature related to psychoanalysis. By God’s grace, in the first attempt itself, I got what I needed.  The e-book titled “Psychoanalysis and faith” from the archive of UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES. When began read, I totally discouraged because it is a collection of letters. Later I could understand that the same was I needed for the present situation. I would like to copy the preface, written by Heinrich Meng, of that book. This preface itself closes the mouth of those foolish criticizers who pretend as scholars and wise men. It is as follows.

OSKAR Pfister, the youngest of the four sons of a Protestant pastor, was born in Zurich in 1873. He lost his father at the age of three. After attending school in Zurich he studied theology, philosophy, and psychology in Zurich, Basle, and Berlin. His first congregation was at Wald in the canton of Zurich, and in 1902 he joined the Zurich circuit, of which he remained a member until his retirement in 1939. In 1934 he received an honorary degree from the theological faculty of the University of Geneva.

His first wife, Erika, nee Wunderli, died in 1929, leaving a son who is now a psychiatrist in Zurich, His second wife was a widowed cousin, Martha Zuppinger-Urner, who already had two children, to whom Pfister was an admirable father.

During the first years of his ministry, Pfister wrote a paper protesting against 'the sins of omission towards the psychology of present-day theology'. In 1908 he came across the work of Freud, which provided him with the tool for which he had long sought, enabling him to give additional aid to those whom his spiritual aid alone had been insufficient. He made his way to the unconscious and half-conscious sources of anxiety states, doubts of conscience and obsessional ideas of those who sought his help and, in so far as medical intervention was not called for, worked with them in loosening up and dispersing their psychological difficulties, fixations and repressions, and independently laid the foundations of a psychologically oriented system of education and pastoral work.

Between 1909 and his death in 1956 he published numerous books and papers in which he described his work and observations, in particular on psycho-analytic technique, on the aetiological importance of sexuality in the formation of the neuroses, on religion and hysteria, the psychology of art, philosophy and psychoanalysis, analysis in pastoral work, Christianity and anxiety, and related themes.

A matter of especial concern to him was the application of psychoanalytic findings to education, a field of study to which he gave the name of paedanalysis.

It would be a great mistake to assume that because of his work in the field of psycho-analysis Pfister neglected his pastoral work or his spiritual duties. He was a man incapable of doing things by halves, and in his ministry he was wholeheartedly and utterly sincere, radiating warmth and benevolence and helpfulness to all who turned to him. His friend Pastor Pfenninger writes of him: 'As the representative of a free Christianity he was opposed to all dogma, but he met with understanding and love those who held fast to dogma because of inner ties . . . and he was backed by the love of his congregation.'

His relations with Freud continued through all the years of his ministry and were consolidated in numerous letters and occasional meetings. The two men were real friends. Their correspondence demonstrates how close and productive was the bond between them. Their temperaments, and the honesty and integrity which characterized both, often brought them into sharp conflict, but they also always showed true tolerance and mutual understanding.

Pfister's Illusion of a Future, written in reply to Freud's The Future of an Illusion, illustrates the personal courage, critical ability, practiced skill, as well as respect for Freud's greatness, with which his theologically and psychoanalytically trained colleague opposed his master. This controversy is an example of how scientific discussion with Freud should be conducted. The difference from Freud does not mean breaking with him. On the contrary, as Goethe said, differing opinions on a subject need part men only when their basic outlook differs. But in this Freud and Pfister were closely akin. At the roots of both lay love of truth, indeed love itself, as the central factor in obtaining an understanding of mankind, a total lack of compromise in relation to the ultimate and highest values, and incorruptibility by praise or blame.

A number of Pfister's works were stimulated by conversation and correspondence with Freud, and similarly, Freud took suggestions from Pfister for his own work. There is, for instance, no doubt that he accepted the most varied suggestions for the technique of child analysis from Pfister's very concrete communications concerning the psycho-analysis of children and young persons at the stage of puberty.

In accordance with Pfister's calling, it was in the pastoral field that his analytic work was most fruitful. It is interesting to note that Freud, who speaks of himself as a 'secular pastoral worker',  has an open ear for the technique and experiences of the religious and spiritual pastoral worker Pfister, while the latter emphasizes the objectivity of Freud, who described himself as being devoid of religious feeling. In this connection Pfister quotes the letter Freud wrote him in which he said:

In itself, psycho-analysis is neither religious nor non-religious, but an impartial tool which both priest and layman can use in the service of the sufferer. I am very much struck by the fact that it never occurred to me how extraordinarily helpful the psychoanalytic method might be in pastoral work, but that is surely accounted for by the remoteness from me, as a wicked pagan, of the whole system of ideas.

Pfister's contributions to the practice of psycho-analysis are contained in numerous publications. Even more important than the written word was the impact of his personality. His thesis that true religion can be a defense against neurosis was not denied by Freud, though he thought that in this loveless world it was a rarity and therefore not a thing not to be depended on.

When he talked about his correspondence with Freud, Pfister was full of gratitude, pride, and pleasure of the structure on which the two 'architects' had worked over the years. In 1944 he entrusted joint responsibility for its publication to the undersigned, subject to the condition that he also imposed on Anna Freud, namely that nothing should be published that might give offense to any living person.

                                                                                                                                                                      Heinrich Meng