I submit that the tension between science and faith should be resolved not in terms either of elimination or duality, but in terms of a synthesis.

 Teilhard de Chardin

You tell your six-year-old son to go back out there and punch that kid in the nose the 'way he punched you!' Why?

You march in a demonstration protesting the Vietnam war. Why?

You give one-tenth of your income to your church. Why?

You do not report your good friend to the Internal Revenue Service, although you know he is guilty of gross tax evasion. Why?

You accept responsibility for the mistake of an employee. Why?

You are for fair-housing laws but forget to vote. Why?

You tell your daughter she must stop associating with a certain friend who comes from an undesirable home. Why?

You do not report the malpractice of a colleague even though you know people are being harmed. Why?

You do not allow your children to watch Divorce Court, but they may watch The Man from UNCLE. Why?

Every day most people make decisions of this kind. They are all moral decisions, or decisions of right and wrong. Where does the data which goes into these decisions come from? From the Parent, Adult, and Child. After you have examined all of your own Parent data, kept some and rejected some, what do you do if you do not feel you have the necessary guides for decision making? Abdicate? Once you have an emancipated Adult, what do you do with it? On moral questions, can you figure things out for yourself - or do you have to go ask an 'authority'? Can we all be moralists? Or is that for very smart and wise people?

Page 152.

If we don't seem to be doing very well, where can we go for new data? Where are we deficient? What kinds of reality can the Adult examine? Reality is our most important treatment tool. Reality, understood through the study of history and the observation of man, is also the tool by which we construct a valid ethical system. We are not reasonable, however, if we assume that the only reality about man is that within our own personal experience or comprehension. Reality, for some people, is broader than it is for others, because they have looked more, lived more, read more, experienced more, and thought more. Or their reality simply is different from someone else's reality.

Our need for direction in the journey through life is similar to the navigational problem of an airplane pilot. Pilots in the early days of aviation flew 'by the seat of their pants' and relied on their vision, comparing what they saw below them - rivers, inlets, railroad tracks, and towns - with the maps they had spread before them. This, of course, was unreliable when vision was obstructed, even for a short time. Therefore, navigational aids were devised to 'take a fix' on two points. (The two points are special radio stations. Each emits a signal informing him of the compass radial his plane is on in relation to the station.) He draws the two radials as lines on his map, and where the two lines cross is where he is. If he took a fix in only one direction he could not find his location. He might discover he was on the equator. But where on the equator? He would have to 'look' in another direction for the data to answer that question.

I feel that many psychiatrists and psychologists have been guilty of 'one fix' treatment in that they have devoted all their time to looking at only one reality, the past history of the patient - what he did - and largely ignored an examination of the types of reality that might help him understand what he should do.

We are hopelessly impoverished if we believe that the only realities that concern our mental health have to do with a state of affairs wherein 'I am So and So because when I was three years old Mother hit Father with my potty seat on Christmas Eve in Cincinnati.' Archaeology of this kind reminds me of H. Allen Smith's story about the little girl who wrote a thank you note to her. grandmother for giving her a book about penguins for Christmas: 'Dear Grandmother, Thank you very much for the nice book you sent me for Christmas. This book gives me more information about penguins than I care to have.'

We can spend a lifetime digging through the bones of past experience, as if this were the only place reality existed, and completely ignore other compelling realities. One such reality is the need for and existence of a system of moral values.

Establishing value judgements has been seen by many 'psychological scientists' as an abominable departure from the scientific method, to be shunned righteously, and at all cost. Some of these people steadfastly insist that scientific inquiry cannot be applied to this field. 'That is a value judgment; therefore, we cannot examine it.' 'That is in the field of beliefs; therefore, we cannot assemble plausible data.' What they overlook is the fact that the scientific method itself is totally dependent on a moral value - the trustworthiness of the reporters of scientific observation. Why does a scientist tell the truth? Because he can prove in a laboratory that he should? Nathaniel Branden has devoted a paper to the serious problem raised by those who hold that scientists have no business concerning themselves with moral values:

Page 153.

Central to the science of psychology is the issue or problem of motivation. The base of the science is the need to answer two fundamental questions: Why does a man act as he does? What would be required for a man to act differently? The key to motivation lies in the realm of values. The tragedy of psychology today is that values is the one issue specifically banned from its domain. It is not true that merely bringing conflicts into conscious awareness guarantees that patients will resolve them. The answers to moral problems are not self-evident; they require a process of complex philosophical thought and analysis. Effective psychotherapy requires a conscious, rational, scientific code of ethics - a system of values based on the facts of reality and geared to the needs of man's life on earth. {1}

Branden charges that psychiatrists and psychologists bear a grave moral responsibility if they declare that 'philosophical and moral issues do not concern them, that science cannot pronounce value judgments', if they 'shrug off: their professional obligations with the assertion that a rational code of morality is impossible and, by their silence, lend their sanction to spiritual murder.'

A frequent response to such a question as, this is, 'If everyone lived by the Golden Rule everything would be fine.' The inadequacy of this answer lies in the fact that what we do unto others, even though it may be what we would have them do unto us, may be destructive. A person who tries to solve his not ok by a hard and continuous game of 'Kick Me' does no one a favour by projecting this 'solution' on someone else. The Golden Rule is not an adequate guide, not because the ideal is wrong, but because most people do not have enough data about what they want for themselves, or why they want it. They do not recognize the I'm not ok - you're ok position and are unaware of the games they play to relieve the burden. Persons stop taking the Golden Rule and many similar 'beliefs' seriously, because in their own experience these beliefs do not work.

Bertrand Russell writes:

Many adults in their hearts still believe all that they were taught in childhood and feel wicked when their lives do not conform to the maxims of the Sunday School. The harm done is not merely to introduce a division between the conscious reasonable personality [Adult] and the unconscious infantile personality [Child]; the harm lies also in the fact hat the valid parts of conventional morality become discredited along with the invalid parts. This danger is inseparable from a system which teaches the young, en bloc, a number of beliefs that they are almost sure to discard when they become mature. {2}

Are there then, as Russell suggests, 'valid parts of conventional morality'? One function of the freed Adult is to examine the Parent so that it may have a choice of accepting or rejecting Parent data.

Page 154.

We must guard against the dogma of rejecting the Parent in toto, and ask, Is there anything left worth saving? It is clear that much Parent data is reliable. It is, after all, through the Parent that our culture has been transmitted. Anthropologist Ralph Linton notes that 'without the presence of culture, conserving past gains and shaping each succeeding generation to its patterns, homo sapiens would be nothing more than a terrestrial anthropoid ape, slightly divergent in structure and slightly superior in intelligence, but a brother to the chimpanzee and gorilla'. {3}

Moral values thus can be seen as appearing first in the Parent. We think of 'should' and 'ought' as Parent words. The central question of this chapter is: Can 'should' and 'ought' be Adult words?

Is there an objective morality that has claims on all men, or must we construct our own individual, situational moralities? Viktor Frankl comments on the despair of the youth today who find themselves in what he calls an existential vacuum, where each person is the centre of his own universe, where there is a denial that there are any claims upon him which come from 'without' himself. {4} All morality in this vacuum is subjective. If this is true, we must then consider that in the world today there are 3 billion 'moralities', with 3 billion people going their own way, denying that any objective principles may govern the relatedness between people. Yet the fact is that the search for these objective principles and the longing for relatedness is a universal reality. It is also felt as a personal, experiential reality. The fact is that people cannot and do not want to live unrelated to other people. Some persons who are devoted to the use of LSD base their devotion on what they report as the transcendence of the psychedelic experience, that 'out there' they are discovering a common essence that ties all men together. Though their vehicle of transcendence may be controversial, we must take into account this longing for relatedness, the capacity for the feeling of oneness, the evolution of the human mind to the point where it comprehends and feels and accepts that human beings, because they are related to one another, have claims on one another.

The longing for relatedness is a fact, even though the principles governing that relatedness cannot be arrived at empirically. The strongest arguments for ethical objectivity, states True blood, are not empirical but always dialectical. He states,

When we face these carefully, noting that subjective relativism can be reduced to absurdity, we are driven to believe in an existent moral order, even though our understanding of it in any one period or in any one culture may be dim indeed. What then do we mean by an objective moral order? We mean that reality in reference to which a person is wrong when he makes a false moral choice, either in his own conduct or in the judgment of another. The conclusion that there is such an order, which the dialectic requires, is not the same as knowing precisely or even approximately what the nature of the moral requirement is. When men differ about moral standards, it does not mean that they should give up the struggle to learn what they ought to do. {5} [Italics mine]

Page 155.

Those who reject the idea that there is an objective moral order, or a universal 'should', must stop to consider the difficulties implied in this rejection. The existentialists have rejected this notion. Sartre contended that man creates his own human essence through a series of choices, of acts that fashion him. He maintained that man, through his actions, creates his own definition of man, that man's existence, in short, precedes his human essence. Not only does man create his own essential humanity, but he simultaneously creates all human dignity. He can only choose what is good for him, but what is good for him must be good for all men.

Joseph Collignon reminds us, however, that there is a reverse of the coin:

Man must therefore take the responsibility for every act, not only for himself but for all men. It is not without reason, then, that Sartre finds 'anguish, abandonment and despair' a part of his lot -and the lot of every existentialist. For if no one and no creed can help one in a decision, cosmic in its significance, one can readily imagine the despair implicit in such a philosophy ... Existentialism has a strong appeal for the young. There is a thrill in thinking the world absurd, for it gives them a sense of superiority over the established order, of mastery over themselves. The world for them ceases to have cut-and-dried philosophical unity; there is room for action, in creating, if only for themselves, a human dignity.

But disillusionment is there, too. At the completion of a lecture on existentialism about a year ago, I found many of the students enthusiastically taking the philosophy to heart. The final lecture was interrupted by the crushing news of President Kennedy's death. In the stunned silence that followed, one voice jarred, brash and strident: 'It was a perfect existential act.' Though he was quieted in no uncertain terms by the class, many of whom were crying, the thought persisted: Yes, it was a perfect existential act. Nothing had to be said; to act individually, freely was wonderful, but who would control the free action of assassinating a young President who had given most of his adult years to devoted service of his country? The act of killing a President may have been a rewarding experience in the free exercise of will for Lee Oswald, but for the rest of the country and the world ... {6} [Italics mine]

If there is no universal 'should', there is no way of saying that Albert Schweitzer was a better man than Adolf Hitler. If not, the only valid observation we may make is that Albert Schweitzer did such and so, and Adolf Hitler did such and so. Even though we make further notations that Albert Schweitzer saved so and so many lives and Adolf Hitler instigated the death of millions of people, we see these only as statistical markings on the page of history and discount any relevance of ethical reflection towards the modification of human behaviour. The worth of people, or persons, after all, cannot be proven scientifically. Albert Schweitzer thought he was right. Adolf Hitler thought he was right. That they were both right is an obvious contradiction. But by what standard do we. determine who was right?

Page 156.

I would like to suggest that a reasonable approximation of this objective moral order, or of ultimate truth, is that persons are important in that they are all bound together in a universal relatedness which transcends their own personal existence. Is this a reasonable postulate? The most helpful analytic concept in attempting to answer this question is the concept of comparative difficulties. It is difficult to believe that persons are important, and it is also difficult to believe they are not.

The denial of the importance of persons negates all our efforts in their behalf. Why all this elaborate fuss about psychiatry if persons are not important? The idea that persons are important is a moral idea without which any system of understanding man is futile. Yet we cannot establish this importance at the end of a syllogism. History, ancient and modern, with its detailed account of denigration and human destruction, would seem, conversely, to substantiate a position that human beings are of little consequence. The birth, torment, and death of the billions of persons who have lived on this earth, if there were no direction or design to human existence, would seem more logically to support a position of futility in all our efforts to understand men's minds and to bring changes in human behavior. We cannot prove they are important. We have only the faith to believe they are, because of the greater difficulty of believing they are not.

'A man will continue to research," wrote Teilhard de Char-din, 'only so long as he is prompted by some passionate interest, and this interest will be dependent on the conviction, strictly undemonstrable to science, that the universe has a direction.' {7}

We are not honest men of science if we disregard the fact that this 'passionate interest' has, in fact, persisted throughout the history of mankind, through pogroms and dark ages, through wars and concentration camps. We may believe the universe has a direction, or we may disbelieve it. But we cannot, as reasonable men, ignore the fact that the question of man's importance has been a persistent philosophical enigma. If we cannot prove the importance of persons, and if we cannot reasonably ignore the issue, what are we to do? Since every culture differs; in its estimate of the value of persons, and since this information is transmitted through the Parent, we can find no way of relying on the Parent to come to any agreement on the worth of persons. In many cultures, including our own, killing is condoned by the Parent. The worth of persons, thus, is conditional. In war, killing is acceptable. Capital punishment is legal in many countries. Infanticide was practised by many early cultures, with the rationale of preserving the best of the species. The practice of infanticide has been reported even in the twentieth century. For instance, among the Tanala, in Madagascar, there are two groups differing markedly in skin color, although they seem to be much alike in their other physical characteristics and are nearly identical in culture and language. These groups are known by terms roughly translatable as the Red Clan and the Black Clan. Normal members of the Red Clan are a very light brown, and normal members of the Black Clan are a very dark brown. If a dark child of unquestioned clan parentage is born into the Red Clan, it is believed that he will grow up to be either a sorcerer, a thief, a person guilty of incest, or a leper. It is therefore put to death. {8} This belief about the value of 'that kind of person' is passed from generation to generation through the Parent.

Page 157.

The cultural Parent of most Western nations does not agree. It does, however, condone other forms of discrimination, which also may end in death.

Neither can we rely on the Child for agreement as to the value of persons. The Child, crippled by its own not ok, has little positive data about its own value, let alone the value of others. The Child in any culture, if provoked sufficiently, may break out in murderous rage, or in murder itself, even mass murder.

Only the emancipated Adult can come to agreement with the emancipated Adult in others about the value of persons. We can see how inadequate words such as 'conscience' are. We have to ask, 'What is the still, small voice inside us? What is this conscience we live by? Is it Parent, Adult, or Child?" Bertrand Russell, never content to let a sleeping dogma lie, said: 'This inner voice, this God-given conscience which made Bloody Mary burn the Protestants, this is what we reasonable beings are to follow? I think the idea mad and I endeavour to go by reason as far as possible.' {9}

The Adult is the only part of us that can choose to make the statement 'I Am Important, You Are Important'. The Parent and Child are not free to do so, being committed to that which, on the one hand, was learned and observed in a particular culture and, on the other hand, what was felt and understood.

An Adult assertion that Persons Are Important is quite different from the statement made by a woman patient who, while clenching her fists, said effusively, 'I love people.' This statement of variations thereof came from her adaptive Child: 'Now go kiss Aunt Ethel, darling!' Four-year-old Darling dutifully does so even though Aunt Ethel horrifies her. But she does it, and she underlines it, 'I love Aunt Ethel', and she canonizes it, 'I love people'. She is still, however, clenching her fists.

We must all examine our own versions of 1 love people' to understand how we really feel and where this data is coming from. Most of us claim certain beliefs, but often they are the products of Child acceptance of Parent indoctrination, rather than the conclusions of the Adult on the basis of a purposefully attained body of data.

The Adult's approach to the worth of. persons, in contrast, would follow these lines.

I am a person. You are a person. Without you I am not a person, for only through you is language made possible and only through language is thought made possible, and only through thought is humanness made possible. You have made me important. Therefore, I am important and you are important. If I devalue you, I devalue myself. This is the rationale of the position I'm ok - you're ok. Through this position only are we persons instead of things. Returning man to his rightful place of personhood is the theme of redemption, or reconciliation, or enlightenment, central to all of the great world religions. The requirement of this position is that we are responsible to and for one another, and this responsibility is the ultimate claim imposed on all men alike. The first inference we can draw is Do Not Kill One Another.

Page 158.

One afternoon a colleague confronted me in the doctors' parking lot and said gleefully, 'If I'm OK and you're OK, how come you're locking your car?'

The problem of evil also is a reality in the world. In the face of all the evil we see, this fourth position, I'm ok - you're ok, may seem to be an impossible dream. It may be, however, that our civilization is rapidly arriving at an unprecedented confrontation: we either respect each other's existence or we all perish. And, even in a most detached manner, we would have to say this would be a shame, to bring to an end what has taken so long to build.

Teilhard, who with exquisite wonderment perceives the unfolding of the universe as a refining and converging evolutionary process which is still going on, nevertheless ends his great work The Phenomenon of Man on a note of pain as he contemplates the evil in the universe, wondering if perhaps all the suffering and failure, tears and blood, 'does not betray a certain excess, inexplicable to our reason, if to the normal effect of evolution is not added the extraordinary effect of some catastrophe or primordial deviation?'

Are we an evolutionary mistake? Or do the remarkable events in the development of man promise still greater preserving events in the future? Teilhard speaks of that moment when the first man reflected, when he knew himself to be, as 'a mutation from zero to everything'.

Perhaps we are approaching another significant point, where because of the necessity of self-preservation we shall undergo another mutation, we shall be able to leap again, to reflect -with new hope based on the enlightenment of how we are put together -1 am important, you are important, I'm Ok - You're Ok.

I believe Transactional Analysis may provide an answer to the predicament of man. Despite the seeming presumptiveness of this assertion, I take courage from J. Robert Oppenheimer's vision that there be 'common discourse, a continuous interplay between the worlds of scientists and the world of people at large, artists, farmers, lawyers, and political leaders'. In 1947 he wrote,'... because most scientists, like all men of learning, tend in part to be teachers, they have a responsibility for the communication of the truths they have found'. In his view expressed in 1960, men in 'high intellectual enterprise must contribute to the common culture, where we talk to each other, not just about the facts of nature ... but about the nature of the human predicament, about the nature of man, about law, about the good and the bad, about morality, about political virtue, and about politics.' {10}

Page 159.

We have a responsibility to apply our findings in the observation of the transactions between persons to the broader problem of the preservation of mankind.

I believe it is possible from the data at hand to say something new about the problem of evil. Sin, or badness, or evil, or 'human nature', whatever we call the flaw in our species, is apparent in every person. We simply cannot argue with the endemic 'cussedness' of man. I believe the universal problem is that by nature every small infant, regardless of what culture he is born into, because of his situation (clearly the human situation), decides on the position I'm not ok - you're ok, or the other two variations on the theme: I'm ok - you're not ok or I'm not ok - you're not ok. This is a tragedy, but it does not become demonstrable evil until the first game is begun, the first ulterior move is made towards another person to ease the burden of the not ok. This first retaliatory effort demonstrates his 'intrinsic badness' - or original sin - from which he is told he must repent. The harder he fights, the greater his sin, the more skilful become his games, the more ulterior becomes his life, until he does, in fact, feel the great estrangement, or separateness, which Paul Tillich defines as sin. {11} But what he does (games) is not the primary problem; it is rather what he considers himself to be (the position). Tillich says, 'Before sin is an act, it is a state.' Before games were played, a position was taken. I am convinced that we must acknowledge that this state - the position I'm not ok -you're ok - is the primary problem in our lives and that it is a result of a decision made early in life under duress, without due process and without an advocate. But as we see the truth of the situation, we can reopen the case and make a new decision.

One of my patients said, 'I play a game of "Internal Courtroom", with my Parent acting as a judge, jury, and executioner. It's a fixed trial, as my Parent decides in advance that I'm guilty. I never realized that a defendant is entitled to a lawyer. I never attempted to defend my Child. My Parent did not permit me to question its judgement. But my computer finally clicked and made me aware that there is another option open - my Adult can evaluate the situation and intercede for my Child. The Adult is the lawyer.' Through the enlightenment that I'm not ok was a wrong decision conies the reprieve after which one can begin to understand it is safe to give up games.

The Parent-Child nature of most Western religions is remarkable when one considers that the revolutionary impact of the most revered religious leaders was directly the result of their courage to examine Parent institutions and proceed, with the Adult, in search of truth. It takes only one generation for a good thing to become a bad thing, for an inference about experience to become dogma. Dogma is the enemy of truth and the enemy of persons. Dogma says, 'Do not think! Be less than a person.' The ideas enshrined in dogma may include good and wise ideas, but dogma is bad in itself because it is accepted as good without examination.

Page 160.

Central to most religious practices is a Child acceptance of authoritarian dogma as an act of faith, with limited, if not absent, involvement of the Adult. Thus, when morality is encased in the structure of religion, it is essentially Parent. It is dated, frequently unexamined, and often contradictory. {12} I pointed out earlier that since every culture differs in its estimate of the worth of persons, and since this information is transmitted through the Parent, we can find no way of relying on the Parent to come to any agreement as to the worth of persons. Thus, Parent morality, rather than advancing the idea of a universal ethic, which has a claim on all men, impedes the formulation of a universal ethic. The position I'm ok - you're ok is not possible if it hinges on your accepting what I believe.

I am limiting the following observations to the Christian religion, because it is the only religion about which I have enough data to warrant observation. The central message of Christ's ministry was the concept of grace. Grace is a 'loaded' word, but it is difficult to find a word to replace it. The concept of grace, as interpreted by Paul Tillich, the father of all the 'new Christian theologians', is a theological way of saying I'm ok - you're ok. It is not you can be ok, if, or you will be accepted, if, but rather, you are accepted, unconditionally.

He illustrates this by referring to the story of the prostitute who came to Jesus. Tillich said, 'Jesus does not forgive the woman, but he declares that she is forgiven. Her state of mind, her ecstasy of love, show that something has happened to her.' Tillich stated further, 'The woman came to Jesus because she was forgiven', not to be forgiven. {13} She probably would not have come to him had she not known already that he would accept her in love, or grace, or I'm ok - you're ok.

This concept is incomprehensible to many 'religious persons', because it can only be perceived by the Adult, and many religious persons are Parent-dominated. The Parent has too many reservations about the other guy and reads the creed you can be ok, if. The Child, on the other hand, has devised many games to evade the judgement of the Parent. An example of such a game is 'Religious Schlemiel', a variation of the game 'Schlemiel', described by Berne. {14} This is a game wherein the Sinner (who is It) goes through the week, foreclosing his tenants, underpaying his employees, belittling his wife, yelling at his children, spreading gossip about his competitors, and then, on Sunday, says a singsong I'm sorry' to God, thereupon leaving the church with the assumed assurance that '12 o'clock and all's well!' - which is the payoff.

Not all 'sinners' are such blatant game players. However, because their internal religious dialogue is predominantly Parent-Child, they are continually caught up in an anxious scorekeeping of good and bad works, never sure of how they stand. Paul Tournier states that religious morality 'substitutes for the liberating experience of grace [I'm ok - you're ok] the obsessive fear of committing a mistake'. {15}

Page 161.

If, like Tillich, we understand our primary problem as a state (an estrangement, a not ok position, or sin, singular) and not as an act (acts of sin, games to overcome the position, or sins, plural), then we see the ineffectiveness of 'confession of sins', over and over again, in producing change in a person's life. Tillich says that for some people, grace is the 'willingness of a divine king and father to forgive over and over again the foolishness and weakness of his subjects and children. We must reject such a concept of grace; for it is merely childish destruction of human dignity.' {16} Such a view only adds to the not ok. It is the position which we must 'confess', or acknowledge, or comprehend. Then it becomes possible to understand games and to become free to give them up.

A confession by the Adult is quite different from a confession by the Child. Whereas the Child says, 'I'm sorry ... I'm not ok ... please forgive me ... ain't it awful,' the Adult can make a critical assessment of where change is possible and then follow through. Confession without change is a game. This is true whether in a sanctuary, a pastor's study, or a psychiatrist's office.

The non-Adult transmission of Christian doctrines has been the greatest enemy of the Christian message of grace. The message has been distorted throughout history to fit the game patterns of every culture to which it has been introduced. The I'm ok - you're ok message has been twisted again and again to a we're ok - you're not ok position under which sanction Jews have been persecuted, racial bigotry has been established as moral and legal, repeated religious wars have been fought, witches have been burned, and heretics have been murdered. The doctrine of grace (I'm ok - you're ok) is hardly recognizable in such doctrines as The Elect and Predestination, preached by the Parentdamning and Child-raging Elmer Gantrys and Jonathan Edwardses who saw the glories of heaven in terms of a ringside seat at the right hand of God to watch the spectacle of the damned burning in hell.

This was hard game playing designed to make individuals squirm. Many ministers today 'keep their cool' about questions of the sin and repentance of individuals and have turned their attack on the sin of society, in an attempt to make society squirm. This 'attack' varies from a mild sociology lecture to an angry assault against social injustice. However, slums and ghettos and put-downs are not going to disappear in society unless slums and games disappear from the hearts of people. A convincing example of this fact is the outcome of the vote on California's Proposition 14 in 1964. This, in effect, was a proposition against fair housing. 'Society's' stand was clear: Almost every major organization in the state officially opposed it -almost all religious organizations, boards of education, the major political parties, chambers of commerce, labour unions, the State Bar Association, and the PTA, to name just a few of the representative organizations. Yet the proposition won by a two-to-one vote. What society should do is one thing. What individuals dare do is another.

Failure to make a difference in these relevant areas has driven many ministers to despair, has caused many to leave the ministry, and has pushed others back into a resigned acceptance of the 'conservative view', in which, despite lofty doctrinal pronouncements, the church, in effect, is a repository of Parent dictates designed to keep things as they are - cooperate with the chamber of commerce, pay for the building, baptize, marry, and bury. There is goodness in much of what is done, but, considering the state of the world, these activities are hardly enough.

Page 162.

Young clergymen graduating from seminaries today, inspired by Bonhoeffer, Tillich, and Buber, become depressed and disillusioned when they find they have been hired to referee the games of the church, babysit, plan nice social events for the young people, and keep young girls from getting pregnant. The contract is that we don't really have to change; after all, we are such nice people. It is highly probable that the historical Jesus would be turned away from many Sunday morning worship services. Jesus was called a winebibber and a  glutton, because he enjoyed the communion of ordinary Persons. The twentieth-century wasp {*} Parent says, 'You are judged by the friends you keep; don't associate with their kind.' Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep.' The Parent says, "That's what we pay our preacher for.' Jesus said, 'Blessed are the poor and meek.' The Child says, 'Mine's better than yours.' Jesus said the greatest commandment is, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself.' The Parent says, 'We don't want them moving into our neighborhood.' The child is involved, too. The Child is afraid of them.

Unfortunately, many of the people whose Adult cannot 'buy all that inconsistency and hypocrisy' have, as in the case of the baby and the bath water, dumped Christ's original message along with the muddy waters of 'Christianity'. It is to the task of restoring the simple message of personal liberation and clearing away the mud of institutional dogma that the 'new theologians' have turned their efforts.

If personal liberation is the key to social change, and if the truth makes us free, then the church's principal function is to provide a place where people can come to hear the truth. The truth is not something which has been brought to finality at an ecclesiastical summit meeting or bound in a black book. The. truth is a growing body of data of what we observe to be true. If Transactional Analysis is a part of the truth which helps to liberate people, the churches should make it available. Many ministers who have been trained in Transactional Analysis agree and are conducting courses in Transactional Analysis for members of their churches as well as using it in pastoral counseling.

Is there such a thing as a religious experience, or is such an experience simply a psychological aberration? Does the mind 'just get carried away' with a wish, as Freud {17} suggested, or is there more to it than fantasy? True blood states,

The fact that a great many people representing a great many civilizations and a great many centuries, and including large numbers of those generally accounted the best and wisest of mankind, have reported direct religious experience is one of the most significant facts about our world. The claim which their reports make is so stupendous and has been made in such a widespread manner that no philosophy can afford to neglect it. Since we cannot hope to build up a responsible conception of the universe unless we take into consideration every order of fact within it, the claim of religious experience with objective reference cannot be lightly dismissed. The very possibility that anything so  important might be true gives our researches into these matters a necessary mood of seriousness. Since the claim is conceivably valid, there is the heaviest reproach upon those who fail to examine it seriously. When the claim is cavalierly rejected, without a careful examination, this is presumably because of some dogmatic position. {18}