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
