Is there a core to the self? How science and the Bible agree.

The question “how to lead from your core”, presupposes that there is such a thing as a core to the self. In other words, do we have a true self, or an essence? If you ask this question to Chat GPT, you get an unsatisfactory answer. It says that I’ve asked a very complex, philosophical question, and the answer depends on the belief system that you are coming from. Ask a psychotherapist and you’ll hear that the self is a collection of desires, feelings, and traumas. Ask a psychoanalyst, and the self is composed partly of conscious and partly of unconscious elements. Ask a cognitive psychologist, you get an answer that the self is a complex mix of perceptions, thoughts, feeling sensations, and memory. Ask a Zen master, you will hear a doctrine that the concept of self is an illusion and does not exist at all. They would say that the self is responsible for basal urges, greed and quests for material possessions, and should therefore be banned altogether to obtain inner peace.

The science of the ‘self’

While the statement that the self does not exist at all is both logically and empirically untenable, some philosophers, like David Hume (1739), indeed think that an ‘essence’ to the self is hard to pinpoint. He said that upon serious introspection, he did not encounter an object of self; he found only some perceptions, but no ‘essence’ or ‘core’. Immanuel Kant in his 1797 work Critique of Pure Reason, however, retorted that the self cannot, indeed perceive itself as an object, but the self can perceive itself perceiving some other object. You can, as it were, catch yourself on the act of doing, seeing, or thinking something. This meta-cognition is, actually, an inherently spiritual function we call ‘consciousness’.

They would say that the self is responsible for basal urges, greed and quests for material possessions, and should therefore be banned altogether to obtain inner peace.

For a scientist like me, the notion that the self does not exist defies the common sense of empirical observation, because the self is wrapped into an identifiable body. Everyone who is in relationship with others interacts via different bodies as empirically identifiable agents. So empirically speaking, there must reasonably be a self that is different from another ‘self’ and hence a personhood must exist. But there is also another esoteric extreme, where people say you have to be in touch with your “core” or “true self” and always act accordingly. This is a big leap that first deserves some critical reflection. Social psychologists like Baumeister in his book The Self Explained disagree with extreme standpoints that either say there is no self at all or that there is a singular ‘true’ self. Instead, Roy Baumeister purports that the self exists in quite a dynamic sense and flexibly obtains properties and functions in response to the demands and expectations of a social environment.

The self, according to Roy Baumeister, is therefore a dynamic entity: it is always in flux and in relation to a social environment. Indeed, we play many roles that define for a large part who we are. For instance, I am a husband, a (grand)father, a teacher, an academic, a supervisor, a mentor, a pianist, a church member, citizen of the Netherlands, and employee at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. And depending on which of those social identities are relevant in a given situation, I will act according to expectations associated with them. In that sense, am I then a plurality rather than one central, true, or core individual? Identity researcher Herminia Ibarra calls this the identity paradox. If people say: “Just be yourself”, Ibarra then questions which of various social roles, provisional selves and identity projects are meant? How can you be true to a future self that is still uncertain and in process of being formed? In fact, a strict adherence to being “true to yourself” can stifle leadership development, for instance when advancing into a leadership position with more responsibility requires different behavioral repertoires from a leader. Rigid adherence to a particular version of yourself that is shaped by past experiences can prevent us from properly growing as a person.

How can you be true to a future self that is still uncertain and in process of being formed?

A person who cannot let go of pain resulting from some trauma stifles his/her own healing, if (s)he says: “This is who I am; this is who I have always been”. To venture into painful, traumatic parts of the self can be scary, and takes courage. Yet, psychotherapists agree that this is imperative if one wants to heal from trauma. Sometimes, a leader must experiment with a new aspect of the self (e.g., “I as an active listener”) and momentarily de-emphasize a more familiar part of the self (e.g., “I as someone who gives clear direction”). Strengthening new version of yourself, so-called ‘provisional selves’, and incorporating them into your self-definition is a way of growing as a leader, and as a person. Herminia Ibarra argues that “being yourself” is being coherent, such as when what you think and feel and do are coherent, without being too rigid in one’s self-interpretations. To be true to yourself, would then mean being a ‘coherent’ plurality of self.

The latter is consistent with Roy Baumeister’s interpretation of four major functions of the self:

(1) The self has a consciousness, which means that I can catch myself on the act of perceiving something (Kant). This meta-cognition allows for a form of self-knowledge and self-awareness. Think of aspects such as self-esteem, self-insight, self-concept.

(2) The self allows for what we call ‘executive function'’. This entails the self doing things. We make choices (which implies a sovereign ‘will’), seek to control things, and regulate ourselves. This executive function also implies making moral choices between right and wrong, harmful and benevolent.

(3) The self allows us to function in a social system. A notion of ‘self’ exists for the purpose giving and receiving of love, kindness and nurturing. The ‘self’ suffers when it feels rejected. All of this implies that the self serves our functioning in a cultural system. It implies relating to other individuals in our social network, but also functioning as a member of a group.

(4) The self provides inner unity (or coherence) across time and situation. The self must be identifiably the same, or at least similar, across social situations in a complex social world.

The meaning of the ‘heart’ in the Bible

After the Enlightenment period, people like Descartes, Hume, Kant developed their own, purportedly scientific and ‘rational’ interpretations of the self, in a way that departed from the received wisdom from sacred text of the Bible. Interestingly though, if you study the Bible in detail and from the original source text, the Bible actually reflects quite accurately this degree of complexity of the human self in academic descriptions. This is remarkable because the text of the Bible is between 4000 and 2000 years old!

To begin, the Bible interprets a human being comprised of body, soul and spirit. At its interior core, or center point, is the heart. The heart literally means center point both in Hebrew and Greek. This is the case physically (heart as a crucial, central organ in the body) as well as spiritually as center of spiritual and mental (‘inner’) life. In other words, the heart (Greek: “Kardia”; Hebrew: “Lev”) is considered the center of one’s personhood, the locus of one’s inner life in terms of thinking, feeling, and cognition. This includes aspects of perception, wit, emotion, reflection, but also hidden urges, passions, and traumas. This is quite a complex and all-inclusive understanding. Quite similar to what we learn from the science of the self! It is interesting to note that the four functions of the ‘self’ identified by Roy Baumeister are present in what the Bible talks about as the ‘heart’.

To begin, the Bible interprets a human being comprised of body, soul and spirit.

The heart as self-aware

The bible talks quite specifically about a heart that is self-aware, reflective, that can have an inner conversation, that notices things and is capable of growing. The Bible states: “A fool thinks in his heart: there is no God” (e.g., Psalm 14). Hebrews 10: 22 says that we can have heart that has been sprinkled clean from the consciousness of guilt. Shame and guilt stem from a meta-cognitive ability we call consciousness. Note that consciousness is an inherently spiritual state of mind. There is no scientific equivalent to it in sensory or chemical processes in the body. Personhood is not accurately summarized by a set of chemical fluids in the body. This, in and of itself, proves that there is a spirit to a man that obeys the laws of God’s eternal reality. The state of consciousness behind personhood is an aspect of the life-giving spirit (ne’shama in Hebrew) that has been given to us upon creation (Genesis 2: 7: Isaiah 42: 5). The Bible writes in Proverbs 20: 27 “The spirit (ne’shama) in a man is like lamp, it shines into the inner recesses, and hidden chambers of the belly (i.e., the unconscious or repressed part of the heart). This spirit has different layers, ranging from mere vitality (which all living things have), to self-reflective consciousness (which all humans have), to a living spirit that is connected and revived by God Himself if we connect with God through Jesus.

This active shining into darker places of the heart is a crucial (meta-cognitive) function. However, if that part of the heart is repressed, damaged or hurting, it impacts our leadership. Leaders often lead from that place while unaware that they do so. A heart is also like a container that yields that which it is filled with and in which it is trained (e.g., guilt, lust, greed, hate, revenge, fear, pride, etc). This leads to a great deal of pathologies in leadership. Leadership researcher Ryan Gottfredsen recently stated that 60% of employees stated that their direct leader damages their self-esteem while 75% or the organizations rate their own leadership development programs as ‘broken’ because of unresolved trauma in organizational leaders. In that sense, we all lead from the heart, whether we are aware of it, or not.

The heart as the locus of connection and intimacy. Further, like what is confirmed by the contemporary psychology of the self, the heart is the locus of connection with others. In the Bible this connection is established first of all with God, and then with others, as our ‘neighbor’. In a famous passage in Luke 10: 27 (see also Matthew 22: 36-40; Mark 12: 28-31) Bible scholars ask Jesus what is the most weighty commandment in the Law. Jesus responds by quoting a passage in Deuteronomy 6, saying “You shall love the lord your God with your whole heart, with all your soul, all your strength / mind, and [love] your neighbor as yourself.“ A major function of the heart is that it allows us to connect at the deepest level with God and others. The deepest joy and peace, beyond all understanding is found in intimate connection with Him in (and through) our hearts. It is a state when our spirit and God’s spirit become one, as in: fully united. We abide in His presence. There is nothing like it, really. His presence is a palpable, weighty presence, which has been called his ‘shechina’ in the original Hebrew. The term is based on a root which means to ‘abide’. His presence is called after this verb because He wishes to abide with us. Being in that presence provides such a state of flow that a sense of time seems to disappear. This is correct, because it is a state of ‘olam’, which God’s eternal, timeless reality.

A major function of the heart is that it allows us to connect at the deepest level with God and others.

The heart the center of the will and one’s (moral) decisions. The heart is described as center of one’s will and decisions. In other words, the heart is the one in the driver seat. For instance, if Christians talk about “giving your heart to Jesus”, it means that I give up my self-righteous thinking that I can live my life MY way, decide myself what ‘good’ for me, and control my own destiny, which is all illusory and leads me astray. The decision to give your my heart to Jesus implies that I want to live my life in accordance with His destiny for my life (which is MUCH better for me), behave according to His statutes and ways, and that I follow Him and ask Him to fill me, guide and lead me in my decisions. It also implies that I open up my heart to have that great connection with Him that I just described above.

The heart suffers when in disarray and thrives when “united”. The Bible teaches that the heart is not singular, but it functions well when it is united. This happens when our passions, feelings, thoughts, focus their attention and exist as one. The heart is suffering when it is in disorder, in disarray, disconnected, even numb (i.e., tohu in Hebrew). We often feel it literally in our chest area or in our belly when our heart is suffering. Psalm 86: 11 says: “Teach me your ways, o Lord, and I will walk in your truth. Unite my heart to fear your name.” The picture of this inner unity of the heart becomes even more clear when we consider what the bible describes as the ‘bones’ of a man’s inner personhood. It is a beautiful allegory because just as our deep inner life, we have many bones of different sizes, but when they are united, they form a unique inner structure, and provide the strength and order of one’s personhood. We suffer when bones are out of joint, so does the heart suffer when out of joint, out of the order of God (Psalm 22: 15; Job 30: 17; 33: 19). A united (as in: coherent) heart is figurative for inner strength (e.g., Isaiah 58: 11). We also suffer when our bones dry up, when the moisty marrow inside of it dries up (e.g., Psalm 32: 4). Dry bones break easily, moisty bones are sturdy. This marrow inside the bones prevents it from breaking and is figurative of the Spirit of God, giving us vigor, vitality and inner strength, like in our younger days (see Job 21: 24).

Leading from the heart

So is there an essence to personhood? Yes, there is. But it is not a simplistic, singular entitative essence. It is rather a dynamic acting as one. Just like the Godhead is plural (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but acts united as One (Deuteronomy 6: 1). This united quality allows us to learn and incorporate new aspects into our selfhood and prevents a rigid or stale selfhood that stifles growth and development. It so happens to be the case that the inherently plural self-concept of bones (etsem) also means ‘essence’ and ‘myself’ in classical and modern Hebrew. When Adam saw Eve for the first time in the garden of Eden, he cried out: Wow, she is flesh of my flesh and bones of my bones” (Genesis 2: 23), which actually also means she is ‘essence of my essence’. Beautiful.

The heart suffers when in disarray and thrives when “united”.

Can you lead from this ‘essence’? Yes you can. In fact the Greek word for ‘authority’ is ‘exousia’, which literally means that power and strength exudes “from the essence.” But this is not your essence, it is God giving marrow to your bones and unison in their operation. The true strength of a man resides his connection with God. Also note the Hebrew word for heart is “lev”. The two letters that make up that word: the letter Lamed (originally a shepherd rod, but also meaning ‘to learn’ or ‘teach’) and the letter ‘bet’ which means ‘house’ or ‘inside’. Taken together, this means the heart is a “Teacher inside”, has a “shepherd (God) in the house”, and acts as a “leader from the inside.” This inner teacher is first and foremost the Holy Spirit dwelling your heart if you would let Him. The challenge is, of course, to get to this place, that is to have a fully functioning, united heart that is filled with His spirit. But this is what Jesus came to do: to bind up the broken hearted (Isaiah 60: 1) so that He can come and abide with us.