Chapter 3 - Literature Review
The Foundation
Covey’s Position
Covey’s sub-title to his book 7 Habits, Restoring the Character Ethic, aptly summarizes the thrust of his writing. The Character Ethic is something that Covey uses to identify the central theme of the self-help and success literature of early America, “and this was seen largely through the lens of religious values and faith in God” (Covey, 1982, p. 47). In his studies of such writings from the late eighteenth century to modern times, he discovered that the writings of the first 150 years focused on who we are, whereas the writings of the last 50 years have largely taken one of two paths: “human and public relations techniques” or the cultivation of a “positive mental attitude” (Covey, 1989, p.18). The earlier focus calls to mind things like integrity, humility, patience, etc. whereas the latter seeks to create a façade or an external appearance, and may often revert to manipulation or deception to accomplish the task. Covey (1989) refers to this as the “glitter of the Personality Ethic, … that there is some quick and easy way to achieve quality of life …” (p. 35). The difficulty, Covey (1989) points out, is that the Personality Ethic is “illusory and deceptive … much like trying to get some place in Chicago using a map of Detroit” (p. 36). Life is filled with sequential stages of growth and development, stages that the Personality Ethic would seek to bypass.
Covey (1989) states that the fundamental idea behind the Character Ethic is “that there are principles that govern human effectiveness--natural laws in the human dimension that are … as unchanging … as laws … in the physical dimension” (p. 32, emphasis in the original). In the same way that natural laws (those governing the visible world around us) are undeniable and cannot be broken, Covey sees these principles as the objective reality that governs all with which we have to do. He refers to these principles as the territory – natural laws, or laws of the universe, that are woven into the very “fabric of every civilized society” that has ever existed; principles that are not unique to any faith or religion (Covey, 1989, p. 33). The product of this philosophy is a shared focus for all of mankind; a common denominator to which all civilizations will factor.
As Covey unfolds his 7 Habits, he seems careful not to name the name of God; could this be to permit a broader acceptance of his proposals? In an article on Covey’s meeting with President Clinton, Newsweek stated that “Covey, a devout Mormon, likens his teachings [in 7 Habits] to a secular version of his faith’s solid virtues. In other words: be upright, do good, and you will be rewarded” (Kaufman-Rosen, 1995, p. 72, emphasis added). In his book, The Divine Center, Covey (1982) states, “how to express in a brief but effective term the highest center for our lives … I have decided to use the term God/Christ-centered” (p. 72, 73, emphasis in the original). “By centering our lives on timeless, unchanging principles, we create a fundamental paradigm of effective living” (Covey, 1989, p. 123). The correlation is clear, for the purposes of the 7 Habits, timeless and unchanging principles have replaced God as the desired center for our lives. As a personal note to the book, Covey (1989) clarifies that, he believes “that correct principles are natural laws, and that God, the Creator and Father of us all, is the source of them …” (p. 319). Clearly, within the context of God as the source of these principles, it is important to come to understand Covey’s concept of who God is, and, subsequently, who man is, and how these two relate.
As already indicated, the God of Covey remains hidden in his most recent writings; however, in his book, The Divine Center, he openly discusses the subject of the divine and the human. When speaking of having a God/Christ-centered life, Covey (1982) underscores that this is to include the “entire Godhead,” made up of “God, the Eternal Father, and … His Son, Jesus Christ, and … the Holy Ghost” (p. 70). In a broad consideration of the Godhead, Covey (1982) goes on to note, “in purpose these three members of the Godhead are one, yet they perform different functions or roles …;” our concept of a Triune God is called “the apostate doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 70, 82). However, even though there is a described unity and oneness, there is also a decidedly clear individuality within the Godhead. Quoting from an address given by Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), Covey (1982) elaborates on the function of each member of the Godhead:
Our relationship with the Father is supreme, paramount, and pre-eminent over all others [of the Godhead]. He is the God we worship. … He is the one who was once as we are now. …
Our relationship with the Father is one of parent and child.
Our relationship with the Son is one of brother or sister in the pre-mortal life and one of being led to the Father by him while in this mortal sphere.
Our relationship with the Holy Spirit is quite another thing. This holy personage is a revelator and a sanctifier. (p. 72).
Even as our parents are considered the parents of our physical being, Covey (1982) contends, “God the Eternal Father is the father of each person’s spirit body” and that in “this combination we each inherit the potentialities and capacities of both God the Eternal Father and our earthly parents” (p. 76,77).
Perhaps the most concise synopsis of God from Covey’s perspective comes through a couplet he quotes and attributes to Elder Lorenzo Snow (of the LDS):
As man now is, God once was;
As God now is, man may become (Covey, 1982, p. 81).
Covey holds to an anthropomorphic concept of God (as do all LDS), a God in transition and “capable of eternal increase” (Covey, 1982, p. 81).
Within the synoptic couplet referred to, the intimation is that Covey holds that within man is the potential to become as God. “… the celestial world, where both the Father and the Son are present, [is] where we and our sealed posterity will be members of God’s eternal family and go on to perfection, to become like him in all respects” (Covey, 1982, p. 83). There is no mistaking that, in Covey’s mind, man has the potential to become exactly like God, an important matter to keep in mind when considering the second Habit a little later.
With God (as just defined) as the established source of these timeless principles that are to be the center of our lives, Covey (1990) sees them as self-evident and self-validating, forming an unchanging, objective and external “‘true north’ direction to our lives” (p. 19). It is his position that these principles cannot be violated without misfortune, whether we give credence to them or not, the consequences of violation will be ours.
In his book, 7 Habits, the concepts of territory and map form an important metaphor in the development of Covey’s position on principle orientation. “Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are …” (Covey, 1989, p. 28, emphasis in the original). To demonstrate our vulnerability in this area, Covey uses a visual suggestion technique to show just how subjective our observation can be (see Appendix B). Our subjective view of reality forms the map, and reality is the territory. Covey (1989) further identifies the “territory” as true north principles, that unchangeable terrain that we must navigate through, while our values form our map of the territory (p. 35). The map (our values) is only our “subjective attempts to describe or represent the territory” (Covey, 1990, p. 96). “Believing in the Creator of the territory … opens up to us the most accurate map of the territory, enabling us to see and understand it better;” and, even though Covey feels he has discovered the means to the most accurate map, he chooses to withhold this knowledge from the readers of 7 Habits (Covey, 1982, p. 13). This territory, with which we all have to do, is clearly, in Covey’s terms, not something we espouse, but rather originates with God, the Creator (stated plainly in The Divine Center; only end-noted in 7 Habits). Thus far, the metaphor seems clear, helpful, and makes good sense: we must navigate through a territory of principles (life) using the map of our values as a guide, the more our values align themselves with the principles, the more effective our navigation.
“When managing in the wilderness of the changing times, a map is of limited worth. What’s needed is a moral compass. … Principles are like a compass” (Covey, 1990, p. 94). To this point we have understood the territory to be the principles, those external, objective, self-evident natural laws to which we are all subject; the map that we hold of that territory is the values we hold, our paradigm of life, or simply “a theory, an explanation, or model” of the territory (Covey, 1989, p. 23). Covey (1990) states that “principles are like a compass,” which we may take to be a slip of the pen, for he goes on to say, “a compass has a true north that is objective and external…” (p. 94). It appears, from his further explanations, that it is this true north to which the compass points “that reflects natural laws or principles” (Covey, 1990, p. 94, emphasis in the original). Based on the broader scope of his use of this metaphor, it would appear that his intent is to equate principles with the true north object of the compass rather than to the instrument itself. Although the metaphor has sustained some damage, it is still salvageable. However, after being so careful to ensure we understand that the principles are objective, basic natural laws (the territory), Covey (1990) goes on to state that “when the territory is constantly changing, any map is soon obsolete” (p. 96). The wheels of the metaphorical vehicle seem to have finally come off; the dramatic shift has greatly impaired any useful application for the metaphor. Covey’s explanation that “metaphors are multidimensional and can be used from several angles in different contexts” seems entirely inadequate for this situation (Covey, personal communication, February 10, 1999; see Table 1 for further details).
A Biblical Response
The matter Covey is grappling with is coming to grips with that objective standard against which we can measure our lives, a universal gauge against which we are all accountable whether we recognize it or not. Covey (1989) has defined this as the law of nature, principles that “are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring, permanent value … essentially unarguable because they are self-evident” (p. 35). He cites virtues such as fairness, integrity and honesty, human dignity, service, patience, nurture, and encouragement, and grants them the weight of timeless, universal principles (Covey, 1989, p. 34). However, he “never offers a complete list of principles, nor does he ever quite nail down precisely what these principles might be beyond admirable virtues” (Walker, 1996, p. 20, emphasis in the original). The crux of what Covey is advocating comes in the argument that these principles are both “self-evident, self-validating natural laws” and “objective and external” (Covey, 1990, p. 19). In Covey’s words, to understand “the self-evident nature of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an effective life based on their opposites” (Covey, 1989, p. 35). The support that Covey appeals to is subjective rationalism (we are called to consider); because the principles (the virtues he cites) are reasonable and their antithesis unreasonable, and because they are deemed common to all great civilizations, Covey contends they are objective, external and universal. Covey’s self-evident natural laws are not really evident in and of themselves (which would be a proper definition of self-evident), but rather are natural laws which he argues are evident to us. “Although people may argue about how these principles are defined or manifested or achieved, there seems to be an innate consciousness and awareness that they exist” (Covey, 1989, p. 35, emphasis added). The reality is, Covey’s argument is that these principles exist because we say they exist; and furthermore, how these principles are defined, how they will be evidenced, and how they can be appropriated personally is largely open to debate. As already indicated, Covey’s “basis for coming to know these principles is a form of rationalism (‘self-evident’) and pragmatism (‘self-validating’),” with validation coming largely through “subjective reflection” (Walker, 1996, p. 17).
In light of this, consider for a moment Covey’s call. He is not, in his 7 Habits, calling us back to a Biblically-based theology of absolutes (although some of his language could be, and often has been, so interpreted), but to an acceptance of the openly rational process he has used to establish the objectivity of his view of universal principles. If he is successful at this point, he will have generated a seed of faith in something that at best is contradictory, and, at worst, plays into the hands of Satan by seeking to promote a man-centered philosophy of life. The essence of Covey’s argument, at this point, is for the existence of objective and universal principles, all the while appealing to rationalism, which is of necessity subjective, to make his case.
The contradiction of this position seems evident, but taken a step further it becomes equally clear that Covey’s philosophy of objective, universal principles is really man-centered. The objectivity of the principles is limited to our ability to be innately aware of their existence (even though what they are, how they show themselves, and how they can be achieved remains open to interpretation); in reality, Covey’s principles are highly subjective. The universality of his principles flows from his personal “doubt that anyone would seriously consider unfairness, deceit, baseness, uselessness, mediocrity, or degeneration to be a solid foundation for lasting happiness and success” (Covey, 1989, p. 35). “The reality of such principles … becomes obvious to anyone who thinks deeply and examines the cycles of social history. … [they] are part of the human condition, part of the human consciousness, part of the human conscience” (Covey, 1989, p.34). This sounds somewhat like what Paul referred to in Romans 2:14: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” Yet Paul goes on to make it equally clear that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his [God’s] sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). Even though Covey (1989) advocates adherence to these principles or laws as a means of “continuous improvement,” Paul, by contrast, makes it clear that there will be no justification before God in this approach (p. 304).
To the extent that Covey (1989) makes it clear that the universal principles are “natural laws that cannot be broken” (that is, our acceptance or rejection of them has no effect on them), he has made it equally clear that he sees them as part of who we are as human beings (p. 33). In an addendum to his 7 Habits, Covey acknowledges his belief that God is the source of these principles, but this is evidently only a reflection of what he believes personally. In keeping with the philosophy of the day, he has deliberately left the source of these principles to the individual. By leaving the source undefined, Covey’s call to these universal principles permits even the modern move toward relativism to fit within the framework he has constructed; the source could be God, Buddha, Mohammed, or even your inner self, without violation of the concepts developed. Even existentialism will find a haven here, for there is no defined truth, only a framework for discovering what will work personally (those self-evident, universal principles). “Though the author [Covey] believes there is only one true map, he leads SH [7 Habits] readers to believe, in typical New Age thinking, there are many roads to correct principles. Christians using his material are left to believe that their ‘biblical map’ is correct, though in truth Mr. Covey actually believes them to be following the adversary (Satan)” (Waldrep. 1998, p. 15). The subtlety, and inherent danger, of Christians seeing their Biblical map reflected in Covey’s ambiguous descriptions is the potential for identification with and subsequent adoption of Covey’s Habits without recognizing the wide gate through which they have entered.
Even though Covey’s presentation appears ambiguous, he knows no such ambiguity; he personally holds that there is only one true map, accessible only through the door of Mormonism, even while in 7 Habits he paints the illusion of a wide door through which virtually anyone will fit. “The whole world still is under the bondage of sin, of incorrect maps, but now there is a difference; for to the degree that people will be true to whatever light they have been given, they will receive more light until eventually they will be led to the true map of the covenant gospel and receive its fulness” (Covey, 1982, p. 15). Why the illusion? Considering his loyalty to the LDS, it would seem that his desire is to “teach and testify of many [Mormon] gospel principles” through the careful use of ambiguous language, or, at the very least, to create an appetite for his self-help concepts that will then lead, either directly or through his other writings, to LDS doctrine (Covey, 1982, p. 240).
Jesus spoke of a wide gate, and we would do well to heed His warning: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13,14).
When Covey speaks of true-north, external principles and natural law, as Christians, we may inadvertently relate this to the all-knowing, sovereign God of the Bible. “Christianity rests on the belief that God is the source of truth …. When Christians sever their ties to absolute truth, relativism reigns, and the church becomes merely a religious adaptation of the culture” (Colson, 1987, p. 244). Although Covey might agree with the words that Colson uses, he would not agree with Colson’s intent. The difference lies between what Colson calls absolute truth and Covey’s principles; they cannot, and must not, be used interchangeably (see Table 2).
Consider for a moment Covey’s (1989) definition of truth: “When we value correct principles, we have truth--a knowledge of things as they are” (p. 35). The correlation that exists between Covey’s concept of truth and his principles is clear, and therefore it is important to expose truth from his perspective. In his earlier writing, Covey (1982) elaborates:
In modern revelation, the Lord defines truth as “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). … Truth … is an internal mental understanding or grasping of the way things really are; it is the subjective accurately reflecting the objective, the personal correctly reflecting the real, the map truly reflecting the territory. This revealed definition suggests truth is in the mind; it is an internal rather than an external thing (p. 14, emphasis added).
The source of this revealed definition, as indicated, is the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the primary documents of the Mormon faith. Very clearly Covey’s concept of truth is subjective (for it is “an internal mental understanding”), even though he would contend this subjective accurately reflects the objective. However, keeping in mind his contention that “we all see the world, not as it is, but as we are,” it would follow that Covey’s concept of truth becomes either wholly subjective or entirely beyond reach (Covey, 1989, p. 28, emphasis in the original). What impact does this have?
According to Covey, truth is a product of valuing (mapping) correct principles, and truth is an internal mental understanding; therefore, it follows that truth, for Covey, is a subjective valuing of correct principles. Despite his contention that his subjective accurately reflects the objective, clearly Covey’s principles, being without definition, become very individualized. What Covey fails to do in 7 Habits is identify the truth. He identifies a process for discovering truth (as he as defined it), but leaves the process decidedly open. However, in his book, The Divine Center, Covey (1982) is very specific about the truth, that one true map:
The correct map … has been made available at various points in history. … through Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Savior himself. …
The nineteenth century would see the last of the restorations of the true map. …
Joseph Smith was an honest, spiritually minded young man and he earnestly sought to know the truth. … As a result our Heavenly Father and his Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith, officially rejected all the existing maps, and commenced the reintroduction of the correct map. …
… Joseph Smith under inspiration identified the “creeds of the fathers” as “the very mainspring of all corruption” (p. 14-17).
The true map (or truth), according to Covey, lies within the confines of LDS doctrine, and all other maps are corrupt. However, by not identifying (in 7 Habits) the truth he is referring to, Covey portrays an openness that in reality he does not accept. Why this seeming contradiction? Could it be that by reading and accepting Covey’s seven Habits readers will be drawn to his other writings and “receive more light until eventually they will be led to the true map of the covenant gospel …” (Covey, 1982, p. 15)? Truth does not fare well in 7 Habits, but Covey’s handling of it fits very well with a society that is becoming increasingly relativistic in its outlook.
As we have seen, Covey holds to an anthropomorphic concept of the God with whom we have to do: God was once what man is, and, conversely, man can become what God is. The concept of God and man are rolled into one, for “man is … a God in embryo” (Covey, 1970, p. 74). This places more than simply a spark of divinity within man, and, in fact, makes man a God-in-development, as “sons and daughters of God the Eternal Father, we possess in embryo his nature and potential” (Covey, 1982, p.166).
There are several difficulties with this concept of God. Numbers 23:19 states plainly that “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent ….” Here is a clear declaration in Scripture that God is not a man! Elsewhere in Scripture we read the words of Jesus that “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Yet the LDS (and this would include Covey) insist that God was once a man, as we are, and that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). LDS theology has adopted four volumes as their authoritative scriptures: the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, and the King James Version of the Bible, “which they accept as part of the Word of God ‘insofar as it is correctly translated’” (Martin, 1992, p. 177). It is evident that of the four pillars of their faith, the Bible carries the least significance, for when the Doctrine and Covenants come into conflict with the Bible (as noted above) the Bible is set aside as erroneous on that particular doctrine. In fact, the LDS are very suspicious of historical Christianity from the time of Jesus until the “renewed revelation” that came through Joseph Smith. Covey (1982) states his position on this very clearly:
… in our efforts to avoid “sectarianism” [orthodox Christianity] we Latter-day Saints get nervous and defensive …. Conscious of the Savior’s words to Joseph Smith condemning the various creeds, we subconsciously tend to negate also the emphasis which much of sectarian Christianity places on Christ-centeredness. Rather naturally we associate that emphasis with such false concepts as easy salvation by grace alone. … We should not allow apostate doctrines and interpretations to preempt in any degree the unquestioned centrality of the Savior to the true gospel we enjoy …” (p. 68).
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6, see also Isaiah 44:8; 45:5,21). Upon these and other equally clear Scriptures is based our Christian position of monotheism, that there is “but one God and … the divine nature is undivided and indivisible” (Thiessen, 1949, p. 134). Into this unity is incorporated the mystery of the Trinity: “three eternal distinctions in the one divine essence, known respectively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Thiessen, 1949, p. 135). The teaching that there is only one God is unmistakable within Scripture, yet Covey (and the LDS) would have us believe that we will all become equal with God if we live in obedience to their doctrines. This is clearly a position of polytheism (many gods), and sounds much like the pride of Lucifer that caused him to be cast from heaven (Isaiah 14:12-15).
Perhaps even more critical to our discussions is Covey’s concept of man. As we have already seen, Covey lowers the God of the Bible to the level of man and raises the level of man to God. He (1982) states that
One of the great behavioral consequences of the apostate doctrine of the Trinity [that held by orthodox Christianity] … is to lead people to believe that we are a creation of God rather than his literal offspring. Even though some holding that concept may speak of being made in the image of God and being the children of God, they mean this in a symbolic or figurative or spiritual sense; they do not deeply believe they are literally the spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God. … This is one of the major flaws in the sectarian Christ-centered doctrine. They do not see that we are the children of Elohim, capable of becoming like him … (p. 82, 83, emphasis in the original).
This is central to LDS doctrine, and clearly Covey holds this position very tightly, for as “we align ourselves with correct principles, divine endowments will be released within our nature …” (Covey, 1989, p. 319, emphasis added). Covey can only mean our growth as the literal offspring of God, which will culminate in becoming God in our own right, the fulfillment of “the measure of our creation” (Covey, 1989, p. 319).
By contrast, Scriptures tell us that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). Even after man’s fall into sin, the image of God remained a part of who he was (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). “While the image of God (imago Dei) makes man like God, it does not make him a god” (Hanegraaff, 1993, p. 131). Nowhere in Scripture do we see man portrayed as anything other than man, although there is clear evidence that we can become children of God. However, this is not to be interpreted as the literally begotten of God (as the LDS do); rather “ye [addressing the Christians in Galatia] are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26, emphasis added). “Far from being a reproduction of God, humanity is more correctly portrayed [in Scripture] as a reflection of God” (Hanegraaff, 1993, p. 118). Man was created to have a relationship with God, one of fellowship and communication, a relationship that is renewed and revitalized through Jesus. In the Garden of Eden God communed with man; this was a relationship made possible because we bear the image of God, an attribute that sets us apart from all the rest of creation.
Covey (1970) holds to the presence of an irrepressible divine nature within man:
… religion is not an external set of rules and regulations and laws, but rather principles and laws natural to, and internalized in, man’s highest nature (divine self). … One wars with himself if he resists true religion [LDS doctrines]. This is why one cannot sin with all his heart and soul. It will split him apart, for it is a conflict with his own divine nature. But, for the same reason, one can serve truth and live righteously with all his heart and soul (p. 75, emphasis in the original).
Although Covey (1989) advocates a process for growth, improvement, and renewal in his seventh Habit, his upward spiral of “learn, commit, and do” is, once again, more than appearances might predict (p. 306). In The Divine Center, he exposes the true basis for this upward-spiral philosophy:
Consider … four interlocking processes [reduced to three in 7 Habits]. First, educating the conscience; second, listening and hearing the promptings of the Spirit of the conscience; third, committing ourselves to obey the general commandments [of the LDS church] and the personal promptings; and fourth, obeying, fulfilling that commitment. Put these four processes on this ever-enlarging, spiraling path. An investigator of the gospel may be at the low end of the continuum, but he is undergoing the same process nevertheless. He is being taught the discussions by missionaries. In other words, his conscience is being educated. He listens and learns. He commits himself to do what the missionaries counsel him to do, and he does it. As he acts, his conscience is enlarged. It becomes more educated, more open, and susceptible to more learning, commitment, and obedience (p. 217-218, emphasis added).
At the other end of the continuum, Covey (1982) sees “President Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet of God … as nearly perfect as far as mortal possibilities are concerned (p. 218). Covey (1982) goes on to explain the progress on this upward spiral is an all-consuming effort, requiring one hundred percent commitment “if you really want to educate your conscience; if you want to someday be living the kind of life you know you must live to be worthy of eternal life; if you want immunity from all these worldly temptations; if you want full forgiveness of past sins” (p. 219, emphasis added).
By contrast, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually;” much different from “one cannot sin with all his heart and soul” (Genesis 6:5; Covey, 1970, p. 75, emphasis in the original). The apostle John acknowledged, “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). The children of Israel demonstrated the depth of man’s depravity over and over during the time of the judges: “and it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers …” (Judges 2:19). The propensity of the heart of man toward evil is undeniable: “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). On the other hand, the Scriptures are equally clear that we cannot move on an upward spiral to perfection through our own supreme efforts: “For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9; see also Matthew 7:22, 23; 1 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). The sweat and determination of Covey’s upward spiral stands in bleak contrast to the grace extended to mankind by a loving God, a grace that is efficacious only through faith in Jesus as our Redeemer and Lord.
Some time has been spent delineating certain aspects of Covey’s theology and anthropology, important information to have in hand when considering his Habits; and particularly important when considering the first three Habits that deal with the individual. Taking the time to expose the paradigm from which Covey writes on these matters is invaluable to grasp how his self-help system has flourished, and to understand its relationship to Mormonism and to aspects of the New Age movement.
After conducting an analysis of Covey’s 7 Habits from various sociological views, Fenwick and Parsons (1995) state that “Covey is explicit about the Judeo-Christian platform of his own beliefs and their deep connection to the ‘seven habits’…” (p. 6). As we consider this statement, two things must be kept in mind: 1) Fenwick and Parsons’ approach is from a cultural or sociological perspective, not theological; and 2) a cultural or sociological expression of a typically Judeo-Christian position does not equate to genuine Judeo-Christianity. However, this is a significant statement and deserves closer examination; indeed, has Covey explicitly stated a Judeo-Christian position?
On confirming the sources for such a statement with Fenwick and Parsons, it is only fair to take time to give consideration to several of these evidences:
1. The first evidence they cite is that Covey quotes from Scripture; the specific (and only) example being a quote attributed to the Psalmist, “Search your own heart with all diligence for out of it flow the issues of life” (Covey, 1989, p. 21). In reality, this cannot be found in the Bible, and appears to be Proverbs 4:23 (“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life”) with a twist, perhaps an example of one of the “inspired changes” made by Joseph Smith (Covey, 1982, p. 202). Although this does acknowledge Covey’s willingness to make Judeo-Christian references in his work, it also reveals that his source is not the Scriptures, the Judeo-Christian standard. Could this be a subtle way to lower the defenses of the Christian reader?
2. A second evidence cited is Covey’s reference to the story of Joseph from the Old Testament (which Covey openly acknowledges as being fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition). The story is used as an illustration of our need to focus on “being instead of having;” with no mention of the God who orchestrated Joseph’s life and Who, by Joseph’s own confession, meant it for good (Covey, 1989, p. 89; Genesis 50:20). Rather than a demonstration of the presence of God in life’s circumstances, Covey sees in Joseph’s life an example of how to live proactively, a focus on the man while ignoring the God who sustained the man. What this reference does is reveal the true focus of Covey’s Habit-based philosophy of life – man. The hero of both Mormonism and Coveyism is man; for Judeo-Christianity, it is God – a fundamental difference!
3. Fenwick and Parsons cite Covey’s willingness to quote a work that references the work of Christ within men as further evidence. Covey (1989) quotes from Ezra Taft Benson: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. … Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.” (p. 309). As with Covey’s writing, an understanding of the context from which these words come is essential. Ezra Taft Benson served as the President and prophet of the LDS from 1985 until his death in 1994 (LDSWorld, 1999, “Ezra Taft Benson”). This is the same man who in 1980, as the LDS President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, declared fourteen fundamentals for following the LDS prophet, which included:
FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works [Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible].
THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet ….
SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture ….
FOURTEENTH: The prophet and presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency [made up of the prophet and his counselors]--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer (Benson, 1980).
Despite using a language that sounds Christian, it is clear, contextually, that the words of Ezra Taft Benson have no place within Judeo-Christianity, for they come from a prophet of the LDS Church. Covey (1982) affirms his position that anyone who “is in opposition to the Lord’s anointed prophet is also in opposition to the Lord … he is being guided by another spirit” (p. 225).
4. The final significant evidence cited comes from A Personal Note that Covey (1989) attached to his book:
… I would like to share my own personal conviction concerning what I believe to be the source of correct principles. I believe that correct principles are natural laws, and that God, the Creator and Father of us all, is the source of them, and also the source of our conscience. I believe that to the degree people live by this inspired conscience, they will grow to fulfill their natures….
I believe that there are parts to human nature that cannot be reached by either legislation or education, but require the power of God to deal with. I believe that as human beings, we cannot perfect ourselves. To the degree to which we align ourselves with correct principles, divine endowments will be released within our nature in enabling us to fulfill the measure of our creation. In the words of Teilhard de Chardin, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience” (p. 319, emphasis added).
The emphasized phrases in the above statement are cited as evidence of Covey’s Judeo-Christian basis; and to the casual observer they may appear to be just that. However, a closer examination will reveal something quite different; obviously, to maintain a massive audience appeal, overt Mormon theology could have no place in 7 Habits. What more powerful way to influence unsuspecting readers than a word of personal testimony at the end of a self-help book? This covert reference to Mormonism merits a moment of closer examination.
As already noted, Covey is advocating a significant shift of focus from his earlier writings; a shift from God, the Source, to correct principles which flow from God; from being God-centered to being principle-centered. In some respects this is not unlike the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were caught up in the maintenance of the law without really knowing the God who gave the law, and who received Jesus’ condemnation for it (Matthew 23:23; John 5:37-39). Walker (1996) summarily states, “life is in God--the giver of principles, not in the principles themselves” (p. 26).
In addition, it would appear that, in making this shift, Covey has taken a calculated risk by diluting what he truly believes. “If we were to pull true principles out of their source … they would die and wither. … it is not enough to teach correct principles. We need to emphasize also their living, integrating source” (Covey, 1982, p. 158). Walker’s (1996) observation is particularly astute: “Yet is this not exactly what he has done with the popularization of his material?” (p. 34). The shift to principle-centered living is a significant reversal of position for Covey, and for what purpose? Could it be to make his message more palatable to a wider audience?
In the Personal Note, there is more evidence to support Covey’s Mormon theology (“God, the Father of us all;” and “divine endowments will be released within our nature”) than a Judeo-Christian position (Covey, 1989, p. 319). The noted references are indicative of his Mormon belief in the divine nature that indwells all of mankind. Within the context of his theology, Covey (1982) states plainly, “man is God’s own child”; which would, if it were true, make God the Father of us all (p. 206). Yet the Scriptures make it clear that such a Father/child relationship is conditional, and not the automatic inheritance of all of mankind (John 1:12; and conversely, Romans 9:8).
Advocating a Judeo-Christian basis for Covey’s 7 Habits is a poor fit at best, and a travesty of the essence of Judaism and Christianity at worst. What must take place for such an evaluation is an elevation of the fruits of the Judeo-Christian tradition to the level of the tradition itself; or, to phrase it another way, the cultural evidence of the tradition is substituted for the tradition. In this way, Coveyism (and even Mormonism) may actually be misconstrued to reflect a Judeo-Christian position, whereas in reality it only reflects some of the same cultural views as Judeo-Christianity. How can Mormonism be Judeo-Christian when it denies many of the essential doctrines of Judaism and Christianity?
However, and this is worthy of special note, Covey does use a language that may easily be misunderstood as Christian by someone with a Judeo-Christian paradigm. Evidence of such a misunderstanding is reflected in a review of 7 Habits done by Chuck Stober; he concluded that Covey “writes a prescription for a vocationally frustrated pastor” (Stober, 1992, p. 76). He states 7 Habits “is about creating habits for primary greatness,” and likens the qualities of primary greatness achieved through adhering to this self-help book to the fruit of the Spirit (Stober, 1992, p. 76). Stober’s apparent failure to be discerning leads him to embrace Covey’s seven Habits. And if the seven Habits, then why not Mormonism as well, since 7 Habits is admittedly a “secular version of his [Covey’s] faith’s solid virtues” (Kaufman-Rosen, p. 72)? Has Stober unwittingly fallen into a pit opened by a lack of discernment, or is this simply a case of positive tolerance taking root?
In introducing this study, time was taken to paint a picture of our present society, a scene indicating a shift away from definitive right and wrong, a move to be accepting of all belief systems, a general decline in the clear convictions of Christians, and a willingness to accept and hold conflicting truths. Whether any of these are contributing factors in the conclusions reached by Fenwick, Parsons and Stober is not the primary concern of this study (however, it is noteworthy that even though Fenwick and Parsons advocate a Judeo-Christian basis, they do not support Covey’s seven Habits from their sociological analysis). What is of concern is how easily some would outfit Covey in the garb of traditional Judeo-Christianity, and even parade him as a Christian hero, and yet miss his subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, departure from orthodox Christian doctrine. We have already noted why the Christian community has been so open to Covey, but how does he receive such worldwide acceptance when he presents timeless, unchangeable principles in a day when relativism is in vogue?
Although Covey takes great pains to underscore that these principles are common to all, they are only defined within the terms of what mankind generally will consider good virtues. He holds that his principles are not unique to any faith or ideology, but are “a part of most every major enduring religion, as well as enduring social philosophies and ethical systems …. It’s almost as if these principles or natural laws are part of the human condition, part of the human consciousness …” (Covey, 1989, p. 34). This sounds amazingly like the philosophy of the New Age Movement that holds a “belief in the oneness of all life and in themselves as part of the Universal Self or Consciousness” (Hunt, 1983, p. 5). This is not to say that Covey is a guru of New Age philosophy, but there is no denying the shared ground. By removing the Mormon theology from The Divine Center, Covey has fine-tuned a seven-step process for success that will dovetail with anyone’s philosophy of life, a critical point in a day when truth has been replaced with tolerance.
The correlation between New Age philosophy and Covey goes even further (see Table 3 for a more complete analysis). Benjamin Creme, a strong advocate of New Age philosophy and the source of the ads heralding the coming of Lord Maitreya, has proclaimed Maitreya’s message as “Man is an emerging God. … My plan and my duty is to reveal to you a new way … which will permit the divine in man to shine forth” (Hunt, 1988, p. 229). There is little difference between this and “man is … a God in embryo” (Covey, 1970, p. 74). Covey (1997) draws on the words of New Age advocate Marianne Williamson to depict “the fullness of the human condition and nature”:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. … You are a child of God. … We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone (p. 348).
There can be no denying the similarity that exists between LDS doctrine and the New Age philosophy, a similarity that Covey recognizes by quoting Williamson; Covey has removed all doubt as to the acceptability of New Age philosophy within the framework of his doctrines. The common ground that the philosophy behind Covey’s 7 Habits shares with the New Age movement is evident.
Covey’s seven Habits are hung upon a structure of personal growth, from dependence to independence, to interdependence that hinges upon our adherence to the seven habits. If we learn, commit, and do the things Covey advocates, we will grow. “As we become independent … we then can choose to become interdependent--capable of building rich, enduring, highly productive relationships with other people” (Covey, 1989, p. 187). Clearly, within Covey’s consideration, interdependence is the ultimate achievement, a fact further confirmed by his model of the seven Habits (see Appendix A). Interestingly enough, this is also one of the key concepts that the New Age globalists use to describe their ideal. There is no denying the growing economic interdependence in today’s world, but, as the New Age educators describe their goals for a global society, it becomes painfully evident that interdependence takes on a whole new meaning:
[T]he concept of individuality and the whole man are not synonymous. The individual man is stirred by independence, autonomy, and self-reliance; the holistic man by interdependence, collectivism, and reliance….
A collectivized individual is multiple rather than singular. If the traditional notion in the West has been one God, one love, one job, one identity, one country, and one planet, the futuristic notion is many gods, many loves, many jobs, many identities, many countries, and many planets (Tofler, 1974).
The subtlety of the concept of interdependence for the Christian observing either Covey or the New Age is that the Scriptures also teach about interdependence. However, the Biblical concept of interdependence is not unqualified (as are the Covey and New Age concepts), but is limited to understanding the inter-relationship that exists between the members of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12:12ff). To further clarify this qualified application, we, as Christians, are admonished to maintain a separation from the rest of the world (John 15:18,19; 2 Corinthians 6:14ff); although we live in the world, we are not a part of the world (John 17:9,15-16; Ephesians 5:11; 1 John 2:15-17). This is a subtle, but significant difference.
Covey would have us become obedient to a law that he sees as being undeniable and self-evident (more correctly, evident within ourselves). Such obedience is couched in the most inviting of settings, for “all of Covey’s stories [used to illustrate his Habits] have the same plot: People. Trouble. Habits. Happiness. There is never an unsuccessful application of a habit. No one questions the system [of Habits] and wins” (Wolfe, 1998, p. 31). Within Covey’s religious paradigm, obedience to their laws is all-important, for, within Mormonism, the grace of God is dependent upon “obedience to gospel standards of righteousness” (Covey, 1982, p. 158). Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS, went so far as to view “civil law with contempt, as if society were a vast conspiracy organized to prevent the true believers from finding God as they saw fit” (Wolfe, 1998, p. 31). By declaring the seven Habits as a means of access to universal laws, Covey subtly seems to follow the tradition of Smith by placing his system above the law of the land; where there would be contradiction, clearly the universal law would be the one to follow. Wolfe (1998) states that “the laws to which our obedience must be pledged are not the laws of the land, they are the Seven Habits of Effective Everything” (p. 32). By contrast, the Scriptures advise us to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake … as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers …” (1 Peter 2:13, 14; see also Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1).
Conclusion
It has become evident that, as an Evangelical Christian, there is more than a little concern with Covey’s position, and it is equally clear that this may not be initially obvious. One of the ploys used by cults to gain a hearing is the use of common terminology, but with a redefinition that is usually not evident to the casual observer. Although Covey’s 7 Habits would not necessarily be considered cultic philosophy, the correlation it has with its Mormon source and the New Age movement has been established. Walter Martin (1992) makes an astute observation about the study of cults that finds a parallel application with Covey:
The student of cultism [and in our case, Coveyism] … must acknowledge the very real fact that unless terms are defined when one is speaking or reading cult theology, the semantic jungle which the cults have created will envelop him, making difficult, if not impossible, a proper contrast between the teachings of the cults and those of orthodox Christianity (p. 18,19).
Martin has cited two challenges to which we as evangelicals must be willing to rise: the clarification of terms used and the need to contrast these against the Biblical standard. As we have seen, this is no less critical with Covey, who, by his own admission, uses the technique of redefinition.
We have observed that Covey is particularly unbiblical in the foundation that he lays for his seven Habits. The premise that he builds upon is that all of mankind “possesses in seed form all of the ultimate capabilities and powers God himself possesses” (Covey, 1982, p. 206, emphasis added). This may not be explicitly stated in 7 Habits, however, what is very evident is that man is the center and focus of the foundation he lays for his Habits, and even the objective principles are discovered within us. On what basis does Covey feel comfortable with such a focus? It can be nothing less than his Mormon understanding of the “limitless potential that lies within us” (Covey, 1989, p. 105). The writer of Hebrews calls us to “run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith …” (Hebrews 12:1, 2). Our focus is not to be on ourselves or on what we might think we are be able to do to improve ourselves, but on Jesus who paid for our redemption from the penalty and power of the sin that keeps us from fellowship with God.
As Covey (1989) states so eloquently, “we see the world, not as it is, but as we are”; and we, as Evangelicals, are no different (p. 28). We read and listen, often unaware of the contextual nature of our interpretation of what we are attuned to, and it is at this point that we fail to be discerning. It is so much easier to accept words at face value, rather than take the time and effort to understand what is really being said. The focus of our faith revolves around God and man’s relationship with God, and so it would hold that the definition of these two terms (God and man) is critical to the interpretation and subsequent acceptance or rejection of any new doctrine. It is at this juncture that we must acknowledge Covey’s erroneous focus: man. Although this may not immediately negate any further observations he may make, it does require us to exercise due caution and discernment in handling his teachings.
Be Proactive
Covey’s Position
The essence of this first of Covey’s seven Habits is what he calls “self-awareness”, or the “ability to choose your response (response-ability)” (Covey, 1990, p. 40). He sees this as a continuum from a low, where blame for decisions is transferred to other people, events, or the environment, through to a high where “you are aware that you are the creative force of your life. You are not the victim of conditions or conditioning. You can choose your response …” (Covey, 1990, p. 42). The suggestion is not a repression of natural feelings, but rather a recognition of them, and then choosing to “subordinate feeling to values” (Covey, 1982, p. 177).
Covey (1989) states further that self-awareness is the ability to “think about your very thought process,” the ability to evaluate and learn from our experiences, and even from the experiences of others (p. 66). In beginning his discussion of self-awareness, Covey suggests that the reader “project your consciousness upward into a corner of the room and see yourself …” (Covey, 1989, p. 66). He cites our ability to carry out this type of activity, as well as being able to sense our mood and identify our feelings, as the essence of “why man has dominion over all things in the world” and the reason “he can make significant advances from generation to generation” (Covey 1989, p. 66).
Being proactive is the first in the order of three Habits that Covey uses to focus on the individual, and which he sees as foundational to our inter-relationships with others. He views the essence of his Habits as unique human endowments that set us apart from the animal world, that permit us to carry on activities that are beyond the most intelligent animals. Therefore, since we have self-awareness, we are responsible for our lives; “our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions” (Covey, 1989, p. 71). As already noted, this does not mean that feelings are repressed, simply that they are not in control. He contends that we have the ability to make our feelings subject to our values, and, by doing so, become proactive rather than reactive.
Herein, then, is the heart of being proactive: rather than reacting according to feelings, circumstances, or our environment, it is the ability to respond to or to be guided by values. Covey (1989) refers to this as focusing on our Circle of Influence (see Appendix C), using our positive energy to change those things over which we have direct control (like our habits), to change our influence on those things where we may have indirect control, and to change our attitude toward those things over which we have no control (p. 85,86). By focusing our energies on those things we can do something about, Covey contends that our Circle of Influence will actually increase. As a proactive response, the “energy is positive, enlarging and magnifying” (Covey, 1989, p. 83). On the other hand, a reactive response will focus on blaming, accusing, and feeling the part of a victim; all considered “negative energy” (Covey, 1989, p. 83). “We are responsible for our own effectiveness [hence 7 Habits], for our own happiness, and ultimately, I would say, for most of our circumstances” (Covey, 1989, p. 93).
Covey (1989) also states that, although we have the freedom to choose our own actions, “we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions” (p. 90). “Natural consequences follow violations …. We’re subject to natural laws and governing principles--the laws of the farm and harvest” (Covey, 1990, p. 161). Just as there are results that will naturally occur from planting and cultivating, there are equally sure results from not planting and not cultivating. In the same way, our choices made in keeping with these governing principles will result in growth and positive fulfillment; whereas choices made in violation of them will result in misery. Therefore, “the degree to which people … live in harmony with them [natural laws or principles] moves them toward either survival and stability or disintegration and destruction” (Covey, 1989, p. 34). On a more personal level, Covey (1989) notes, “our behavior is governed by principles. Living in harmony with them brings positive consequences; violating them brings negative consequences” (p. 90,91).
A Biblical Response
Covey (1989) cites our self-awareness, the ability to “think about your very thought process,” as the reason we have dominion over all things in the world, in essence, it is that one thing that sets us over the rest of the world (p. 66). As Evangelical Christians we recognize that the Scriptures tell us explicitly about our dominion and how we were created: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion … over all the earth …” (Genesis 1:26). Before God even expended the energy to create mankind He determined two things: (1) man would be created in the image of God, and (2) he would have dominion over all the earth. In the former case, there is a clear differentiation between man and the rest of creation, and it is clear that the difference is that man is to bear the image of God. In the latter instance, those qualities due to his unique creation, “in which man resembles God, qualify him for dominion, and constitute him lord of all creatures …” (Murphy, 1873, p. 64). The dominion granted man seems less a matter of his ability to think about himself, and more “a consequence of man being created in God’s image” (Taylor, 1974, p. 90).
There is a question that begs our attention: is the Biblical concept of the image of God to be equated with Covey’s self-awareness? The short answer is, “No.” Covey (1982) reveals his source for this Habit as the “scriptures which teach us that we are made to act and not to be acted upon” (p. 176). The scriptures in question are:
And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:14, the Book of Mormon).
Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29,30).
The scriptures that Covey uses to formulate his concept of self-awareness are Mormon, and, therefore, we must diligently exercise caution and discernment in this matter.
Covey (1982) finds fault with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, because it leads people to believe “we are a creation of God rather than his literal offspring. Even though some holding that concept may speak of being made in the image of God …, they mean this in a symbolic or figurative or spiritual sense; they do not deeply believe they are literally the spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God” (p. 82, emphasis in the original). In addition, we have also seen that he contends that present within every human being is the divine; man “possesses in seed form all of the ultimate capabilities and powers God himself possesses” (Covey, 1982, p. 206). It only follows, therefore, that the concept of self-awareness, to Covey, really means being aware of the divinity that lies within all of us.
For the Christian, man as the image of God “tells us that man as he was created was to mirror God and to represent God” (Hoekema, 1986, p. 67, emphasis in the original). Therefore, it follows that the image of God is seen as “involving both the structure of man (his gifts, capacities, and endowments) and the functioning of man (his actions, his relationships to God and others, and the way he uses his gifts)” (Hoekema, 1986, p. 73). However, to reflect the Creator adequately, all of these were focused with an instilled direction that makes “God the supreme end of man’s being” (Strong, 1907, p. 517). Although with the fall into sin this image was “so damaged that what remains is an ugly deformity,” we have also noted that it was not obliterated (Lane, 1987, p. 62). From this perspective, self-awareness becomes an acknowledgment of our own sinfulness and our accountability to God, as Paul expressed it: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Romans 7:18).
Within the Habit of “Be Proactive,” Covey makes a strong case for the responsibility of the individual for their response to what life brings along. In many respects, this appears to be contrary to the prevalent philosophy of today “that refuses to assign individual blame or responsibility” (Colson & Eckerd, 1991, p. 78). Covey (1989) identifies a “fundamental principle about the nature of man: Between stimulus and response, man has the freedom to choose” (p. 70, emphasis in the original, see Appendix D). Within the confines of this narrow focus, we as Christians would tend to agree with him. However, once again, we must examine the context to understand more completely Covey’s full intent.
An examination of the intent of Covey’s freedom-to-choose concept reveals that his focus is on man, and those “endowments that make us uniquely human,” or, more specifically, his first three Habits (Covey, 1989, p. 70, see Appendix D). What this does is place the entire responsibility for our response to life or the improvement of our condition on our shoulders. A moment’s reflection on the plight of man through the years will raise serious doubts as to whether there is any hope within such a philosophy. Whereas the apostle Paul unhesitatingly recognized the futility of trying to get himself to do what he knows he should (Romans 7:14-23), Covey (1989) contends that “if our lives are a function of conditioning and conditions, it is because we have, by conscious decision or by default, chosen to empower those things to control us” (p. 71). In theological terms (based on this statement), Covey would argue that if we sin, it is because we choose to sin; therefore, in essence, we are responsible for freeing ourselves from sin. Elsewhere, he clarifies that “… every person is responsible for his own sins and can choose his response to this ‘programming’ or conditioning. … if we find them [our sins] unworthy of us we can begin a process through obedience to the [LDS] commandments so that we transcend them. We then rise above them; they no longer have any place within us” (Covey, 1982, p. 170). It is important to take a moment to establish the correlation that exists between salvation, as Covey understands it, and his noted need to rise above our sins.
Mormons hold to two kinds of salvation. Joseph Fielding Smith (1962), “popularly regarded as the LDS Church's chief theologian and spokesman on doctrinal matters,” wrote that “Salvation is twofold: General – that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ – and Individual – that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (Joseph; p. 76). General salvation, often referred to by Mormons as universal salvation or simply, salvation, applies to all mankind, but this “salvation, meaning resurrection, is not exaltation” (Richards, p. 5, emphasis in the original). Therefore, when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace alone, it is this general salvation they are referring to; and as Bruce McConkie (1966) says, “those who gain only this general or unconditional Salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or telestial kingdom. They will therefore be damned” (p. 669, emphasis in the original).
On the other hand, individual or full salvation involves what Covey (1982) sees as a state where our sins “no longer have any place within us” (p. 170). As already noted, this full salvation is based on individual merit as defined within LDS doctrine. McConkie (1966) expanded on the extent of what is involved in this concept of salvation:
Full salvation is attained by virtue of knowledge, truth, righteousness, and all true principles. Many conditions must exist in order to make such salvation available to men. Without the atonement, the gospel, the priesthood, and the sealing power, there would be no salvation. Without continuous revelation, the ministering angels, the working of miracles, the prevalence of gifts of the spirit, there would be no salvation. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (p. 670, emphasis added).
Not only do the LDS hold to a salvation based on personal merit and achievement, but they also see full salvation as restricted to those within their own numbers. In sharp contrast, Paul concluded, “a man is justified by faith [in the Lord Jesus Christ] without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28), with no place for works in meriting salvation. Good works are a product of our salvation, but not a premise for our salvation (see Ephesians 2:8, 9; Philippians 2:12; Titus 3:5, 6; James 2:17).
Once again, the extent of Covey’s self-help process becomes more evident. In keeping with the self-achievement process of salvation advocated by Mormonism, Covey (1989) encourages us to “move on an upward spiral … of continuous improvement” that “requires us to learn, commit, and do on increasingly higher planes” (p. 304, 306, emphasis in the original). This is identical to: “… the steady course to achieve perfection involves four processes that are independent yet interfused and are continually moving on this upward-spiralling course. … these processes … are: 1) learning; 2) listening or hearing; 3) covenanting; 4) obeying or doing” (Covey, 1982, p. 180). Clearly Covey’s self-help process does not depart from the Mormon tradition of success (or full salvation) obtained through a lifetime of good works: “… all that call upon the name of the Lord, and keep his commandments, shall be saved” (Doctrine and Covenants 100:17, emphasis added). Just as evident is the contrast that exists between this philosophy for life and the Bible, our Standard for truth.
Covey (1989) states that “living in harmony with [the principles] … brings positive consequences; violating them brings negative consequences” (p. 90,91); and goes on to say that “we are responsible for our own effectiveness, for our own happiness, and ultimately, I would say, for most of our circumstances” (p. 93). Even though Covey (1989) does provide some room in this statement for circumstances that come our way over which we have no control, he maintains that, “it’s not what happens to us, but our response to what happens to us that hurts us” (p. 73). Once again, the focus becomes his freedom-to-choose model, the responsibility to choose our response, and the assumption we control our conditions by our choices. We read in Scripture that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7), to which Covey would undoubtedly concur. However, is this the full extent of what Covey is saying? It would appear not, for Covey (1989) goes on to state that
the law of the harvest governs; we will always reap what we sow – no more, no less. The law of justice is immutable, and the closer we align ourselves with correct principles, the better our judgment will be about how the world operates and the more accurate our paradigms … will be (p. 305, emphasis added).
Clearly he contends that we are “responsible for our own lives” (whether by decision or response), and the closer we come to adhering to correct principles the more “positive consequences” we will enjoy (Covey, 1989, p. 71, 91).
A moment’s reflection will lead to the conclusion that this “law of harvest,” as Covey outlines it, is not quite reality. Perhaps the most extensive illustration of this is the life of Job, a man who is described by God as being “perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed [or shunned] evil” (Job 1:1), but who suffered great loss in every aspect of life; a loss that was not attributable to anything he had done (or, not done) nor to any choice he had made, but rather to a spiritual contest between God and Satan (Job 1:9-12; 2:4-6). Clearly, this does not reflect Covey’s “law of harvest,” for by God’s own confession we realize that it was not Job’s actions or responses that resulted in his hardship. As we read Job’s story we come to understand that there is much more taking place within our lives than what we may perceive; we are far less in control of our circumstances than we might like to think. Yes, we will reap what we sow, but our lives are not made up of only the harvest of our own choices, as Covey would have us believe.
Conclusion
“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23). The writer of Proverbs is advising the necessity of right priorities, but not only that, there is an emphasis on the need to focus on who we are. We may not be able to control our situation, whether it is the circumstances around us or the people with whom we have to do, but we can control, or focus our energies on controlling our response to what is about us. Gordon MacDonald (1985) concurs that the Creator “made us to work most effectively from the inner world [the heart] toward the outer” (p. 23). Our Lord Jesus made this very clear as well: “For every tree is known by his own fruit. … A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:44, 45). Jesus further admonished us to seek “first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things [food, drink, clothing] shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). Clearly setting our hearts to seek after God and His righteousness is to be our primary focus, and He will attend to those things that pertain to our survival. When Covey draws our attention to the Circle of Influence, he is calling us to establish right priorities, to occupy ourselves with those things about which we can do something. “We worry about the things we want to do, but can’t, instead of doing that which we should – but don’t” (McKenzie, 1980, p. 572). The message is clear in each case: establish right priorities and expend your energies in those areas of direct control. Covey’s Circle of Influence, from this perspective, is a good reminder of our need to establish right priorities.
For the Christian, the image of God brings to mind man’s uniqueness within God’s creation, the fact that man reflects, however imperfectly, his Creator. Self-awareness (when considered to be self-reflection and creative thought) would seem to be a result of being created in God’s image. For Covey there is far more involved in this than simply being self-conscious, or capable of thinking about who you are; and, in fact, the root which Covey (1990) is seeking to reach is the divine within (“you are aware that you are the creative force of your life”) which is clearly in keeping with his Mormon theology (p. 42). He never departs far from the focus of his self-help process: man. As we have seen, herein lies the sharp contrast between Covey and Biblical Christianity; that enduring gulf that cannot be bridged from man (or Covey) to God, but only from God to man.
To demonstrate self-awareness, Covey (1989) suggests the reader “project your consciousness upward into a corner of the room and see yourself … reading” (p. 66). “California Business magazine reports that more than half of the 500 presidents and company owners it surveyed have involved their employees in New Age training seminars that make use of various ‘consciousness-raising’ techniques …” (Hunt, 1988, p. 39). Incredibly, we need not to be surprised at the reception Covey is receiving from the business community; but what we do need to be more aware of is the New Age appeal of some of Covey’s doctrines and techniques, “the charm of Stephen Covey’s new-age psychotherapy” (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 1996, p. 58). When Covey and the New Age advocate the use of the same techniques in their seminars, at the very least a flag of caution should be raised in the mind of today’s Christian.
In a day when there is strong emphasis on the rights of the individual, Covey’s first Habit will find easy lodging. “We need to get out of our material mindset and realize our spiritual potential through self-awareness …” (Smith, 1986, p. 17). This observation is attributed to Shirley MacLaine, guru of New Age philosophy, not to Stephen Covey; yet the similarity of their philosophies at this point is clear. This does not establish Covey as a New Age proponent, but does demonstrate the wide-open door in Covey’s philosophy through which the New Age gurus can enter. When the principles are as nebulous as Covey makes them, clearly there is no cause for concern within modern relativism, for the universal principles take on individual expression.
Begin With the End in Mind
Covey’s Position
The human endowments that make up Covey’s second Habit are imagination and conscience. This second Habit is based on the “principle that all things are created twice,” that there is a mental or first creation, and a physical or second creation to everything – much like the conceptual drawings of an architect that precede actual construction (Covey, 1989, p. 99, emphasis in the original). This second Habit encompasses the mental or first creation process.
Clearly imagination and conscience have to do with the mental processes that we all participate in to varying degrees, and it is to this that Covey appeals for first creation activity. “Through imagination, we can visualize the uncreated worlds of potential that lie within us. Through conscience, we can come into contact with universal laws or principles with our own singular talents and avenues of contribution …” (Covey, 1989, p. 103). Two concepts flow from this assertion: our imagination becomes the tool for visualizing what we would like to see take place in our lives; and our conscience is our means of contact with those universal principles within the context of our own gifts and abilities. Coupled with self-awareness (Habit 1) there is empowerment to create our own script for life, to write our own story, or, perhaps more accurately, to engage “the process of ‘rescripting,’ or paradigm shifting”, changing the way we see and respond to life (Covey, 1989, p. 103). “Habit 1 says, ‘You are the creator.’ Habit 2 is the first creation” (Covey, 1989, p. 100).
Through the effective use of imagination, Covey sees the development of hope and purpose through visualizing the future without the influence of the restrictions and failures of the past. “I have created the future in my mind. I can see it, and I can imagine what it will be like” (Covey, 1990, p. 42,43). A bright future is visualized, and steps are taken to embark on a course of action with that future in mind.
“The conscience is the internal voice, our sensitivity or awareness, our sense of right and wrong. It is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, which is given to every person who comes into the world” (Covey, 1982, p. 180). Covey (1982) goes on to say, “the conscience is the repository of divine knowledge, truth, conviction, and spirituality …” (p. 181). Once again, the focus is on the divinity within all of us that seeks to grow and mature to become like God in all respects, and, in this regard, Covey contends that the conscience must be educated, requiring “regular feasting on inspiring literature, thinking noble thoughts and, above all, living in harmony with its still small voice” (Covey, 1989, p. 305).
Covey (1989) concludes, “we already live with many scripts that have been handed to us,” and through self-awareness will begin to recognize the scripts that are ineffective (p. 103). He goes on to say, “many of us discover ineffective scripts, deeply embedded habits that are totally unworthy of us …. We are response-able to use our imagination and creativity to write new ones …” (Covey, 1989, p. 104). “I can live out of my imagination instead of my memory. I can tie myself to my limitless potential instead of my limiting past. I can become my own first creator” (Covey, 1989, p. 105).
According to Covey, the most effective way to realize Habit 2 is to develop a personal mission statement, a statement of who we want to be, our underlying values, and what we want to do. This means beginning with our Circle of Influence and a determination of our values, how we view the world – what makes up the center of our lives. It is this center that is the source of our security (our sense of worth, of self-esteem), guidance (our source of direction), wisdom (our perspective on life as a whole), and power (our capacity to act) (Covey, 1989, p. 109). When these four interdependent factors are present and functioning together in our lives, they form the support for every other dimension of life; and each of these flow out of our center, the very core of our being. “… neither [family nor Church] provides the requisite security, guidance, wisdom, or power in and of itself;” for this, Covey (1982) contends, we must look to “God and Jesus Christ” (p. 66,67, emphasis in the original). Covey (1989) states, “by centering our lives on timeless, unchanging principles, we create a fundamental paradigm of effective living” (Covey, 1989, p. 123; for more on this see Appendix E).
It is within this context that personal leadership skills are developed, a focus on doing the right things. As we embrace the laws of nature (“correct principles [that] do not change”), as we express these principles through a balanced harmony of security, guidance, wisdom and power, and as we visualize our future, so we will exemplify quality leadership and personal freedom (Covey, 1989, p. 122). It is within our Circle of Influence where we examine the principles upon which we base our paradigm of life, where we use our “conscience as a compass” to determine our gifts, and where we use our imagination “to mentally create the end we desire” (Covey, 1989, p. 109). The interdependence of these first two Habits is clear.
A Biblical Response
Covey (1989) sees imagination as “the ability to create in our minds beyond our present reality” (p. 70). We all employ imagination to varying degrees, particularly as children. It is the source of creativity, music, art, and inventions, which have become an integral part of our everyday lives. An old axiom states that “wherever there is a thing, there must have been a preceding thought … and where there is a thought, there must have been a thinker” (Swindoll, 1986, p. 195). Covey’s purpose is that we become that thinker, but for a purpose greater than mere creativity.
Adam demonstrated an amazing use of imagination when he named all the animals and birds that God had created (Genesis 2:19). Even after the fall, God recognized the potential that man’s imagination represented, for, at the construction of Babel, He said that unless something was done “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (Genesis 11:6). However, God also recognized the bent of man’s imagination since the fall, for, after purging the earth with the flood, even while He declared that He would never again purge the earth in this manner, He also stated that “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Clearly, the imagination is a powerful tool, a part of who man is; and just as evident is the propensity for evil that lurks within this tool. The key to the effective use of the imagination lies in Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing [‘a complete change for the better’] of your mind [your faculties of ‘perception, understanding, feeling, judging, and determining’], that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Logos).
Covey would concur that conscience is an “innate ability to sense right and wrong” (MacArthur, 1994, p. 36). However, our conscience is not infallible; it functions more as a sponge than a faucet, as “a skylight, not a light bulb” (MacArthur, 1994, p. 39). The conscience can be informed or influenced as much by our traditions as by truth, and so it may, at times, either excessively condemn or justify our actions. In either case, our conscience ceases to function as a reliable guide, and, even in this, Covey would agree. As already indicated, Covey sees the need to educate the conscience through inspiring literature, more specifically: “to educate the conscience we must also privately study the word of the Lord with diligence and devotion” (Covey, 1982, p. 185). However, for Covey the word of the Lord would include the “King James Version of the Bible … ‘insofar as it is correctly translated,’” the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Mormon (Martin, 1985, p. 177). As already noted, the latter three volumes are given the greater weight of authority; so, even when Covey speaks of the need to educate the conscience on the word of the Lord, he is not speaking of the Bible. “Look to the present prophet and Church leaders and official Church policies for the manifestation of the Lord’s will and interpretations to the Church and world today. The inspired words of living prophets may be of greater worth to us than the words of the dead prophets. Their words can also be scripture” (Covey, 1982, p. 199).
Covey (1989) makes some interesting observations in the matter of educating the conscience:
… education of the conscience is vital to the truly proactive, highly effective person. Training and educating the conscience, however, requires even greater concentration [than training the mind or body], more balanced discipline, more consistently honest living. It requires regular feasting on inspiring literature, thinking noble thoughts and, above all, living in harmony with its still small voice (p. 305, emphasis added).
In keeping with his focus on a broader audience, no mention is made of the Scriptures within the text of his writing, only inspiring literature, which would include anything that “connects you with these timeless principles” (Covey, 1997, p. 301). However, in expounding the critical nature of educating the conscience, he makes what appears to be a circular reference: the conscience (as evidenced by the “still small voice”) becomes the most important element in its own education! In his personal note to 7 Habits, Covey (1989) identifies God as “the source of our conscience. I believe that to the degree people live by this inspired conscience, they will grow to fulfill their natures …” (p. 319). From this, it would appear that the “still small voice” would be God speaking to us, being the source of our conscience. However, Covey (1990) does not leave the matter there, but goes on to state:
[Carl] Jung believed it [the conscience] primarily to be part of the collective unconscious, transcending the mortal overlay of culture, race, religion, gender, or nationality.
I believe Jung was right … (p. 323).
For Covey, the conscience is a part of the collective unconscious, “God is the true name and source of the collective unconscious,” and, thereby, Covey (1990) has linked the conscience to the Mormon God within, and his concept of God with New Age philosophy (p. 324).
Sigmund Freud described an “unconscious side to consciousness, and he concluded that it was in fact the most important part. … Jung decided (with encouragement from his spirit guide, Philemon) that at this unconscious level all minds were a part of … the collective unconscious …” (Hunt, 1988, p. 136, emphasis in the original). This seems to dovetail quite nicely with Covey’s concept of universal principles that “are already deep within us, in our conscience and our common sense” (Covey, 1989, p. 44). M. Scott Peck (1978), an influential psychiatrist, who identifies himself with Christianity yet propagates New Age doctrine, helps identify, in his comments on the collective unconscious, the bridge over which Covey crosses:
… we still have not explained how it is that the unconscious possesses all this knowledge which we have not yet consciously learned … we can only hypothesize … [that] our unconscious is God ….
I am indebted for this analogy to Jung, who describ[ed] himself as “a splinter of the infinite deity….”
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 … (p. 266-283).
The language and intent of Peck is identical to that of Covey, when we bring together the doctrines presented in The Divine Center and 7 Habits. Considering “Peck’s rejection of absolute and objective truth” it seems clear that Covey’s doctrines also lie outside orthodox Christianity (House, 1996, p. 31).
Covey (1989) goes on to say that “combined with self-awareness, these two endowments [imagination and conscience] empower us to write our own script” (p. 103). It is his contention that as we develop our introspective analysis (sharpen our self-awareness) we will discover “deeply embedded habits that are totally unworthy of us, totally incongruent with the things we really value in life” (Covey, 1989, p. 104). This sounds very much like the dilemma the Apostle Paul experienced, “for the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19). However, this is where the similarity ends. Paul’s self-awareness leads him to the conclusion that “in me … dwelleth no good thing”, but it is “sin that dwelleth in me” (Romans 7:18,20). Paul finds rescue from this propensity to do what is contrary to what he knows through an external Source, the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25); he finds nothing within himself that will produce the works of righteousness that he so desires to do – he becomes a new creation, the work of God alone (2 Corinthians 5:17, 18). By contrast, Covey (1989), because he is self-aware, declares, “I can change. I can live out of my imagination instead of my memory. I can tie myself to my limitless potential instead of my limiting past. I can become my own first creator” (p. 105, emphasis added). Paul demonstrates a humble dependence upon God, while Covey is brashly self-sufficient; clearly, these are opposing positions.
When Covey speaks of his limitless potential, he is making reference to “the ultimate powers [that] are latent within man’s own nature,” namely the potential to become God (Covey, 1982, p. 206). “In the world of success/motivation seminars, imagination is considered to be the key that unlocks infinite human potential …” (Hunt, 1985, p. 156). The concepts addressed are identical, the only difference being that Covey (1982) has identified the source of this limitless potential as “all of the ultimate capabilities and powers God himself possesses” that lie within us “in seed form” (p. 206). What is not evident in 7 Habits is that this limitless potential is really not available to everyone. Only as people are “led to the true map of the covenant gospel [LDS] and receive its fulness. … Then there will be no limitations on the full development of their capacities and potential” (Covey, 1982, p. 15). Covey believes that this limitless potential is only available to those who have turned away from “false maps, false ideas in the form of beliefs or doctrines or creeds” and have embraced the doctrines and practices of the LDS (Covey, 1982, p. 15).
Conclusion
Although we clearly share some common ground with Covey in matters pertaining to the imagination and conscience, there is also a fundamental difference that must not be overlooked. There is general agreement that these two human endowments are a part of who we are, and a common understanding of what they are: the seat of creativity, and a malleable sense of right and wrong. However, once again, a full understanding of Covey’s intent reveals a disparity that may not be initially evident, but which lends credence to his contention that “… we [Mormons] shouldn’t hesitate to work within the vocabularies of others to communicate our meanings …” (Covey, 1982, p. 240).
Following Covey’s teachings in this area will open the door to the New Age movement. Consider for a moment Covey’s introductory paragraph to this Habit:
Please find a place to read these next few pages where you can be alone and uninterrupted. Clear your mind of everything except what you will read and what I will invite you to do. … Just focus with me and really open your mind.
In your mind’s eye, see yourself … (Covey, 1989, p. 96).
What he is asking the reader to participate in is, by his own confession, a “visualization experience” (Covey, 1989, p. 97). This is more than an exercise of the imagination, more than the mental image of a finished product an artist or builder might have. “According to its New Age advocates, visualization, which combines mental concentration [Covey’s focus with me] with directed imagery [Covey’s see yourself …], is a powerful tool for achieving personal and corporate goals and changing physical, psychological, and spiritual reality” (Weldon, 1996, p. 18). Visualization seeks to place within the grasp of the individual the ability to determine his own destiny, to establish “contact with that inner guidance system at the heart of your Circle of Influence” (Covey, 1989, p. 97). There can be no doubt that Covey’s call to focus and to see yourself fits neatly within the criteria for New Age visualization, and feeds on the present popularity of such activity (see Table 4).
Weldon (1996, No. 2) outlines four principal components that are a part of most “popular and occult types of visualization”:
With these four components in mind, consider how closely this parallels what Covey has to say:
The parallels within 7 Habits to the four components of visualization that Weldon has outlined for us are strikingly clear.
The one element of visualization that seems to rise above all the others is the idea of divinity within. Jesus said, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:21-23). Far more pervasive than the ability for good that may lie within us, is the propensity for evil. “To find the ‘divine’ within, with its suggestion of universalism, the words of Christ must be ignored or reinterpreted” (Weldon, 1996, No. 2, p. 25).
Hunt (1985) proposes that “the real disadvantage would be to those who visualize, for they have been led to trust in their own imagination rather than in God” (p. 165). An integral part of visualization is drawing from the higher self within, rather than recognition of our need for the God of the Bible. A.W. Tozer (1964) understood the inadequacy of such a self-focused philosophy when he stated:
Divine revelation assures us that certain things are true which imagination will simply not grasp.…
… we cannot be right unless we think right, and to think right we must distinguish believing from visualizing. … Unwillingness to believe proves that men love darkness rather than light, while inability to visualize indicates no more than lack of imagination, something that will not be held against us at the judgment seat of Christ….
The ability to visualize is found among vigorous-minded persons, whatever their moral or spiritual condition may be.…
The wise Christian will not let his assurance depend upon his powers of imagination. (p. 68,69).
What Covey calls deeply embedded habits is what God refers to as sin, not a habit unworthy of us, but a state into which we are born – it is who we are. Covey looks into the heart of man and sees God-potential; God looks into that same heart and sees sin, an innate propensity to do wrong, an indelible stain that we are incapable of removing through visualization or any other technique. The reality is that the essence of our being is sinful and any hope we may have for the future must rest in what God has done for us through Christ on Calvary, and on our response to His call to salvation. Jesus paid the price for our sins in full; the salvation that He offers is complete and free.
Put First Things First
Covey’s Position
Covey’s third Habit focuses on “the second creation, the physical creation” (Covey, 1989, p. 147). This becomes the culmination of the first two Habits: in Habit 1 we discover our role as creator, in Habit 2 we visualize our destination, and now we “proactively carry out the program that we have developed” (Covey, 1989, p. 148). There is a sense that we need to understand who we are, where it is we want to go, and finally, how to get there. It is in this third Habit that we use our endowment of an independent will – we can “act instead of being acted upon” (Covey, Merrill & Merrill, 1994, p. 112). The degree of success that is achieved is dependent upon the measure of our personal integrity, “the value we place on ourselves. … our ability to make and keep commitments to ourselves, to ‘walk our talk’” (Covey, 1989, p. 148).
There is a strong sense of not only progression, but also interdependence among these first three Habits; taken individually they lose much of their appeal. Proactivity (Habit 1) without a sense of direction (Habit 2) would lead to aimless activity; a visualized end (Habit 2) without a will to make it happen (Habit 3) is day dreaming; and a will to accomplish a task (Habit 3) without a vision (Habit 2) is mere determinism, a grit-your-teeth-to-get-the-job-done approach. It is the passion of vision that “gives us a new understanding of independent will”, that moves us from white-knuckled control to be “a follower of our inner imperatives”, reconnecting disciple and discipline (Covey et al., 1994, p. 112). “Most people say their main fault is a lack of discipline. … The basic problem is that their priorities have not become deeply planted in their hearts and minds. They haven’t really internalized Habit 2” (Covey, 1989, p. 157-158).
It is within Habit 3 where effective management takes place, the discipline of doing things rightly. “Management is the breaking down, the analysis, the sequencing, the specific application, the time-bound left-brain aspect of effective self-government” (Covey, 1989, p. 147). Effective management is where putting first things first comes into play; what those first things are has already been determined (Habit 2), it is now a matter of arranging our priorities such that the first things occupy first place.
Covey (1989) refers to the traditional time management matrix to clarify the process of prioritization, even though he feels time management is a misnomer and the challenge really is “to manage ourselves” (p. 150, see Table 5 for further details). He points out that Quadrants I and III (of the matrix) will “work on you”, they are those urgent matters that will demand your attention and time (Covey, 1989, p. 156). Quadrant IV holds those things that are pleasant or fun to do but really are not that productive in achieving any goals. Quadrant II, on the other hand, is where things like planning, preventive maintenance, and vision development would take place, those things that can make all the difference in the bigger scheme of things. Covey cites four generations of management style that can be observed, each deals with the Quadrants in a different manner (see Table 6). However, because Quadrant II items do not demand our attention (they are not urgent), they tend not to naturally occupy top spots on our list of priorities. Covey (1989) advocates that the “key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule, but to schedule your priorities”, to proactively approach Quadrant II items, and to appropriate time that would otherwise be spent in Quadrants III and IV (p. 161). “The enemy of the ‘best’ is often the ‘good’,” and therein lies the challenge that we all face (Covey, 1989, p. 157).
A Biblical Response
The focus of this Habit is on time management, or, as Covey (1989) astutely puts it, “the challenge is not to manage time, but to manage ourselves” (p. 150). Central to this theme of self-management or self-discipline is the independent will of man: man’s ability to determine his action based upon values and priorities rather than mere response or reaction.
MacDonald (1985) would agree with Covey that our lives are often the product of the demands of the urgent, and “yet not everything that cries the loudest is the most urgent thing” (p. 78). The adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease may be a reflection of much of life, but it reflects a response to an outside annoyance rather than the unfolding of a personal plan. Our lives are much better when we permit those non-Quadrant II things to “flow around the priorities and into available slots [of time, rather] than when things are the other way around” (MacDonald, 1985, p. 84, emphasis in the original). The conundrum that we find ourselves in, and often fail to face, is that Quadrant II activities will not happen without a deliberate act of our will.
The will of man has been the subject of much theological debate through the centuries, and the fact that man was created with a will, a self-determining ability to choose his course of action, is a matter that is evident from the time of his creation. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16, 17). God created man with the ability to choose his action, even though the consequences for his action were predetermined. The Scriptures are replete with the conditional promises of God: if you will obey, then I will …; but if you disobey, then I will … (see Leviticus 26:3-39 as an example – results of obedience 3-13; results of disobedience 14-39). Even the “gospel-in-a-verse” (John 3:16) contains the element of choice: if you believe, you should not “perish, but have everlasting life;” the implication being that if you do not believe, then you will perish and will forfeit everlasting life.
Clearly, the matter of putting first things first calls for prioritization of actions, goals, and values. However, the process of making this determination may not be as simple as it appears. Baldry (1994) points out that “effective personal management must include coming to grips with the question of our real versus our imagined priorities” (p. 161). The point being made is that the reality of our priorities will be more evident in our actions than in our words; we may pay lip service to specific priorities, while the choices we make tell another story. “Freedom is rejecting the entanglement of possessive influences … to speak, move, and think in line with … [our] life’s purpose” (Shank, 1990, p. 97). In other words, freedom is found in making choices (an exercise of the will) that are in keeping with our purpose in life, those Quadrant II issues. The entanglement of possessive influences would be the Quadrant I and III issues that seek to consume our attention and our time, and trap us into living outside our priorities. Shank (1990) goes on to say that “the only thing more pitiful than a person who is a slave and knows it is a person who’s a slave yet thinks he is free” (p. 98).
James refers to the instability of the double-minded man, a man who holds two opposing thoughts or priorities and who will vacillate between them (1:8). As Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, He declared that our first priority must be to seek the “kingdom of God, and his righteousness”, and, as this forms the focus of our living, He promised that the needs of life (i.e., food and clothing) would be attended to (Matthew 6:33). What tends to occupy the largest portion of our time? Very likely it is the acquisition of those essentials of life, yet we are admonished not to make this the focus of our attention. Even though making a living may occupy the largest portion of our time, it must remain a means to an end and not an end in itself. Clearly, the ordering of our lives, and the care we take in establishing our priorities, will influence how life unfolds for us.
Conclusion
Covey’s emphasis on the need to elevate Quadrant II activities in ordering our lives is something that we as believers would do well to heed. If we are honest, we will admit to spending too much of our time on matters that are really of no long term value, or may actually be counter-productive in the big picture. However, the exercise of our will, our determination to put first things first must flow from a desire to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), and not from a progression of introspection (self-awareness), visualization (imagination), and self-affirmation (conscience). The difficulty that arises with Covey is the focus of his Quadrant II thinking: he (1989) maintains, “a Quadrant II focus is a paradigm that grows out of a principle center” (p. 158). As Christians, our focus must be on God, who He is, and what He has done for us, and on Jesus, “the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Our need to learn the discipline necessary for the unfolding of Quadrant II activities is undeniable, but we must exercise diligence and discernment that our basis for carrying out these activities is pleasing to God. Unless our focus is on God (not universal principles), we will unwittingly fail understand what Quadrant II activity should be, for “life is in God – the giver of principles, not in the principles themselves” (Walker, 1996, p. 26).
Covey’s Position
Covey’s sub-title to his book 7 Habits, Restoring the Character Ethic, aptly summarizes the thrust of his writing. The Character Ethic is something that Covey uses to identify the central theme of the self-help and success literature of early America, “and this was seen largely through the lens of religious values and faith in God” (Covey, 1982, p. 47). In his studies of such writings from the late eighteenth century to modern times, he discovered that the writings of the first 150 years focused on who we are, whereas the writings of the last 50 years have largely taken one of two paths: “human and public relations techniques” or the cultivation of a “positive mental attitude” (Covey, 1989, p.18). The earlier focus calls to mind things like integrity, humility, patience, etc. whereas the latter seeks to create a façade or an external appearance, and may often revert to manipulation or deception to accomplish the task. Covey (1989) refers to this as the “glitter of the Personality Ethic, … that there is some quick and easy way to achieve quality of life …” (p. 35). The difficulty, Covey (1989) points out, is that the Personality Ethic is “illusory and deceptive … much like trying to get some place in Chicago using a map of Detroit” (p. 36). Life is filled with sequential stages of growth and development, stages that the Personality Ethic would seek to bypass.
Covey (1989) states that the fundamental idea behind the Character Ethic is “that there are principles that govern human effectiveness--natural laws in the human dimension that are … as unchanging … as laws … in the physical dimension” (p. 32, emphasis in the original). In the same way that natural laws (those governing the visible world around us) are undeniable and cannot be broken, Covey sees these principles as the objective reality that governs all with which we have to do. He refers to these principles as the territory – natural laws, or laws of the universe, that are woven into the very “fabric of every civilized society” that has ever existed; principles that are not unique to any faith or religion (Covey, 1989, p. 33). The product of this philosophy is a shared focus for all of mankind; a common denominator to which all civilizations will factor.
As Covey unfolds his 7 Habits, he seems careful not to name the name of God; could this be to permit a broader acceptance of his proposals? In an article on Covey’s meeting with President Clinton, Newsweek stated that “Covey, a devout Mormon, likens his teachings [in 7 Habits] to a secular version of his faith’s solid virtues. In other words: be upright, do good, and you will be rewarded” (Kaufman-Rosen, 1995, p. 72, emphasis added). In his book, The Divine Center, Covey (1982) states, “how to express in a brief but effective term the highest center for our lives … I have decided to use the term God/Christ-centered” (p. 72, 73, emphasis in the original). “By centering our lives on timeless, unchanging principles, we create a fundamental paradigm of effective living” (Covey, 1989, p. 123). The correlation is clear, for the purposes of the 7 Habits, timeless and unchanging principles have replaced God as the desired center for our lives. As a personal note to the book, Covey (1989) clarifies that, he believes “that correct principles are natural laws, and that God, the Creator and Father of us all, is the source of them …” (p. 319). Clearly, within the context of God as the source of these principles, it is important to come to understand Covey’s concept of who God is, and, subsequently, who man is, and how these two relate.
As already indicated, the God of Covey remains hidden in his most recent writings; however, in his book, The Divine Center, he openly discusses the subject of the divine and the human. When speaking of having a God/Christ-centered life, Covey (1982) underscores that this is to include the “entire Godhead,” made up of “God, the Eternal Father, and … His Son, Jesus Christ, and … the Holy Ghost” (p. 70). In a broad consideration of the Godhead, Covey (1982) goes on to note, “in purpose these three members of the Godhead are one, yet they perform different functions or roles …;” our concept of a Triune God is called “the apostate doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 70, 82). However, even though there is a described unity and oneness, there is also a decidedly clear individuality within the Godhead. Quoting from an address given by Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), Covey (1982) elaborates on the function of each member of the Godhead:
Our relationship with the Father is supreme, paramount, and pre-eminent over all others [of the Godhead]. He is the God we worship. … He is the one who was once as we are now. …
Our relationship with the Father is one of parent and child.
Our relationship with the Son is one of brother or sister in the pre-mortal life and one of being led to the Father by him while in this mortal sphere.
Our relationship with the Holy Spirit is quite another thing. This holy personage is a revelator and a sanctifier. (p. 72).
Even as our parents are considered the parents of our physical being, Covey (1982) contends, “God the Eternal Father is the father of each person’s spirit body” and that in “this combination we each inherit the potentialities and capacities of both God the Eternal Father and our earthly parents” (p. 76,77).
Perhaps the most concise synopsis of God from Covey’s perspective comes through a couplet he quotes and attributes to Elder Lorenzo Snow (of the LDS):
As man now is, God once was;
As God now is, man may become (Covey, 1982, p. 81).
Covey holds to an anthropomorphic concept of God (as do all LDS), a God in transition and “capable of eternal increase” (Covey, 1982, p. 81).
Within the synoptic couplet referred to, the intimation is that Covey holds that within man is the potential to become as God. “… the celestial world, where both the Father and the Son are present, [is] where we and our sealed posterity will be members of God’s eternal family and go on to perfection, to become like him in all respects” (Covey, 1982, p. 83). There is no mistaking that, in Covey’s mind, man has the potential to become exactly like God, an important matter to keep in mind when considering the second Habit a little later.
With God (as just defined) as the established source of these timeless principles that are to be the center of our lives, Covey (1990) sees them as self-evident and self-validating, forming an unchanging, objective and external “‘true north’ direction to our lives” (p. 19). It is his position that these principles cannot be violated without misfortune, whether we give credence to them or not, the consequences of violation will be ours.
In his book, 7 Habits, the concepts of territory and map form an important metaphor in the development of Covey’s position on principle orientation. “Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are …” (Covey, 1989, p. 28, emphasis in the original). To demonstrate our vulnerability in this area, Covey uses a visual suggestion technique to show just how subjective our observation can be (see Appendix B). Our subjective view of reality forms the map, and reality is the territory. Covey (1989) further identifies the “territory” as true north principles, that unchangeable terrain that we must navigate through, while our values form our map of the territory (p. 35). The map (our values) is only our “subjective attempts to describe or represent the territory” (Covey, 1990, p. 96). “Believing in the Creator of the territory … opens up to us the most accurate map of the territory, enabling us to see and understand it better;” and, even though Covey feels he has discovered the means to the most accurate map, he chooses to withhold this knowledge from the readers of 7 Habits (Covey, 1982, p. 13). This territory, with which we all have to do, is clearly, in Covey’s terms, not something we espouse, but rather originates with God, the Creator (stated plainly in The Divine Center; only end-noted in 7 Habits). Thus far, the metaphor seems clear, helpful, and makes good sense: we must navigate through a territory of principles (life) using the map of our values as a guide, the more our values align themselves with the principles, the more effective our navigation.
“When managing in the wilderness of the changing times, a map is of limited worth. What’s needed is a moral compass. … Principles are like a compass” (Covey, 1990, p. 94). To this point we have understood the territory to be the principles, those external, objective, self-evident natural laws to which we are all subject; the map that we hold of that territory is the values we hold, our paradigm of life, or simply “a theory, an explanation, or model” of the territory (Covey, 1989, p. 23). Covey (1990) states that “principles are like a compass,” which we may take to be a slip of the pen, for he goes on to say, “a compass has a true north that is objective and external…” (p. 94). It appears, from his further explanations, that it is this true north to which the compass points “that reflects natural laws or principles” (Covey, 1990, p. 94, emphasis in the original). Based on the broader scope of his use of this metaphor, it would appear that his intent is to equate principles with the true north object of the compass rather than to the instrument itself. Although the metaphor has sustained some damage, it is still salvageable. However, after being so careful to ensure we understand that the principles are objective, basic natural laws (the territory), Covey (1990) goes on to state that “when the territory is constantly changing, any map is soon obsolete” (p. 96). The wheels of the metaphorical vehicle seem to have finally come off; the dramatic shift has greatly impaired any useful application for the metaphor. Covey’s explanation that “metaphors are multidimensional and can be used from several angles in different contexts” seems entirely inadequate for this situation (Covey, personal communication, February 10, 1999; see Table 1 for further details).
A Biblical Response
The matter Covey is grappling with is coming to grips with that objective standard against which we can measure our lives, a universal gauge against which we are all accountable whether we recognize it or not. Covey (1989) has defined this as the law of nature, principles that “are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring, permanent value … essentially unarguable because they are self-evident” (p. 35). He cites virtues such as fairness, integrity and honesty, human dignity, service, patience, nurture, and encouragement, and grants them the weight of timeless, universal principles (Covey, 1989, p. 34). However, he “never offers a complete list of principles, nor does he ever quite nail down precisely what these principles might be beyond admirable virtues” (Walker, 1996, p. 20, emphasis in the original). The crux of what Covey is advocating comes in the argument that these principles are both “self-evident, self-validating natural laws” and “objective and external” (Covey, 1990, p. 19). In Covey’s words, to understand “the self-evident nature of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an effective life based on their opposites” (Covey, 1989, p. 35). The support that Covey appeals to is subjective rationalism (we are called to consider); because the principles (the virtues he cites) are reasonable and their antithesis unreasonable, and because they are deemed common to all great civilizations, Covey contends they are objective, external and universal. Covey’s self-evident natural laws are not really evident in and of themselves (which would be a proper definition of self-evident), but rather are natural laws which he argues are evident to us. “Although people may argue about how these principles are defined or manifested or achieved, there seems to be an innate consciousness and awareness that they exist” (Covey, 1989, p. 35, emphasis added). The reality is, Covey’s argument is that these principles exist because we say they exist; and furthermore, how these principles are defined, how they will be evidenced, and how they can be appropriated personally is largely open to debate. As already indicated, Covey’s “basis for coming to know these principles is a form of rationalism (‘self-evident’) and pragmatism (‘self-validating’),” with validation coming largely through “subjective reflection” (Walker, 1996, p. 17).
In light of this, consider for a moment Covey’s call. He is not, in his 7 Habits, calling us back to a Biblically-based theology of absolutes (although some of his language could be, and often has been, so interpreted), but to an acceptance of the openly rational process he has used to establish the objectivity of his view of universal principles. If he is successful at this point, he will have generated a seed of faith in something that at best is contradictory, and, at worst, plays into the hands of Satan by seeking to promote a man-centered philosophy of life. The essence of Covey’s argument, at this point, is for the existence of objective and universal principles, all the while appealing to rationalism, which is of necessity subjective, to make his case.
The contradiction of this position seems evident, but taken a step further it becomes equally clear that Covey’s philosophy of objective, universal principles is really man-centered. The objectivity of the principles is limited to our ability to be innately aware of their existence (even though what they are, how they show themselves, and how they can be achieved remains open to interpretation); in reality, Covey’s principles are highly subjective. The universality of his principles flows from his personal “doubt that anyone would seriously consider unfairness, deceit, baseness, uselessness, mediocrity, or degeneration to be a solid foundation for lasting happiness and success” (Covey, 1989, p. 35). “The reality of such principles … becomes obvious to anyone who thinks deeply and examines the cycles of social history. … [they] are part of the human condition, part of the human consciousness, part of the human conscience” (Covey, 1989, p.34). This sounds somewhat like what Paul referred to in Romans 2:14: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” Yet Paul goes on to make it equally clear that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his [God’s] sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). Even though Covey (1989) advocates adherence to these principles or laws as a means of “continuous improvement,” Paul, by contrast, makes it clear that there will be no justification before God in this approach (p. 304).
To the extent that Covey (1989) makes it clear that the universal principles are “natural laws that cannot be broken” (that is, our acceptance or rejection of them has no effect on them), he has made it equally clear that he sees them as part of who we are as human beings (p. 33). In an addendum to his 7 Habits, Covey acknowledges his belief that God is the source of these principles, but this is evidently only a reflection of what he believes personally. In keeping with the philosophy of the day, he has deliberately left the source of these principles to the individual. By leaving the source undefined, Covey’s call to these universal principles permits even the modern move toward relativism to fit within the framework he has constructed; the source could be God, Buddha, Mohammed, or even your inner self, without violation of the concepts developed. Even existentialism will find a haven here, for there is no defined truth, only a framework for discovering what will work personally (those self-evident, universal principles). “Though the author [Covey] believes there is only one true map, he leads SH [7 Habits] readers to believe, in typical New Age thinking, there are many roads to correct principles. Christians using his material are left to believe that their ‘biblical map’ is correct, though in truth Mr. Covey actually believes them to be following the adversary (Satan)” (Waldrep. 1998, p. 15). The subtlety, and inherent danger, of Christians seeing their Biblical map reflected in Covey’s ambiguous descriptions is the potential for identification with and subsequent adoption of Covey’s Habits without recognizing the wide gate through which they have entered.
Even though Covey’s presentation appears ambiguous, he knows no such ambiguity; he personally holds that there is only one true map, accessible only through the door of Mormonism, even while in 7 Habits he paints the illusion of a wide door through which virtually anyone will fit. “The whole world still is under the bondage of sin, of incorrect maps, but now there is a difference; for to the degree that people will be true to whatever light they have been given, they will receive more light until eventually they will be led to the true map of the covenant gospel and receive its fulness” (Covey, 1982, p. 15). Why the illusion? Considering his loyalty to the LDS, it would seem that his desire is to “teach and testify of many [Mormon] gospel principles” through the careful use of ambiguous language, or, at the very least, to create an appetite for his self-help concepts that will then lead, either directly or through his other writings, to LDS doctrine (Covey, 1982, p. 240).
Jesus spoke of a wide gate, and we would do well to heed His warning: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13,14).
When Covey speaks of true-north, external principles and natural law, as Christians, we may inadvertently relate this to the all-knowing, sovereign God of the Bible. “Christianity rests on the belief that God is the source of truth …. When Christians sever their ties to absolute truth, relativism reigns, and the church becomes merely a religious adaptation of the culture” (Colson, 1987, p. 244). Although Covey might agree with the words that Colson uses, he would not agree with Colson’s intent. The difference lies between what Colson calls absolute truth and Covey’s principles; they cannot, and must not, be used interchangeably (see Table 2).
Consider for a moment Covey’s (1989) definition of truth: “When we value correct principles, we have truth--a knowledge of things as they are” (p. 35). The correlation that exists between Covey’s concept of truth and his principles is clear, and therefore it is important to expose truth from his perspective. In his earlier writing, Covey (1982) elaborates:
In modern revelation, the Lord defines truth as “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). … Truth … is an internal mental understanding or grasping of the way things really are; it is the subjective accurately reflecting the objective, the personal correctly reflecting the real, the map truly reflecting the territory. This revealed definition suggests truth is in the mind; it is an internal rather than an external thing (p. 14, emphasis added).
The source of this revealed definition, as indicated, is the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the primary documents of the Mormon faith. Very clearly Covey’s concept of truth is subjective (for it is “an internal mental understanding”), even though he would contend this subjective accurately reflects the objective. However, keeping in mind his contention that “we all see the world, not as it is, but as we are,” it would follow that Covey’s concept of truth becomes either wholly subjective or entirely beyond reach (Covey, 1989, p. 28, emphasis in the original). What impact does this have?
According to Covey, truth is a product of valuing (mapping) correct principles, and truth is an internal mental understanding; therefore, it follows that truth, for Covey, is a subjective valuing of correct principles. Despite his contention that his subjective accurately reflects the objective, clearly Covey’s principles, being without definition, become very individualized. What Covey fails to do in 7 Habits is identify the truth. He identifies a process for discovering truth (as he as defined it), but leaves the process decidedly open. However, in his book, The Divine Center, Covey (1982) is very specific about the truth, that one true map:
The correct map … has been made available at various points in history. … through Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Savior himself. …
The nineteenth century would see the last of the restorations of the true map. …
Joseph Smith was an honest, spiritually minded young man and he earnestly sought to know the truth. … As a result our Heavenly Father and his Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith, officially rejected all the existing maps, and commenced the reintroduction of the correct map. …
… Joseph Smith under inspiration identified the “creeds of the fathers” as “the very mainspring of all corruption” (p. 14-17).
The true map (or truth), according to Covey, lies within the confines of LDS doctrine, and all other maps are corrupt. However, by not identifying (in 7 Habits) the truth he is referring to, Covey portrays an openness that in reality he does not accept. Why this seeming contradiction? Could it be that by reading and accepting Covey’s seven Habits readers will be drawn to his other writings and “receive more light until eventually they will be led to the true map of the covenant gospel …” (Covey, 1982, p. 15)? Truth does not fare well in 7 Habits, but Covey’s handling of it fits very well with a society that is becoming increasingly relativistic in its outlook.
As we have seen, Covey holds to an anthropomorphic concept of the God with whom we have to do: God was once what man is, and, conversely, man can become what God is. The concept of God and man are rolled into one, for “man is … a God in embryo” (Covey, 1970, p. 74). This places more than simply a spark of divinity within man, and, in fact, makes man a God-in-development, as “sons and daughters of God the Eternal Father, we possess in embryo his nature and potential” (Covey, 1982, p.166).
There are several difficulties with this concept of God. Numbers 23:19 states plainly that “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent ….” Here is a clear declaration in Scripture that God is not a man! Elsewhere in Scripture we read the words of Jesus that “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Yet the LDS (and this would include Covey) insist that God was once a man, as we are, and that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). LDS theology has adopted four volumes as their authoritative scriptures: the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, and the King James Version of the Bible, “which they accept as part of the Word of God ‘insofar as it is correctly translated’” (Martin, 1992, p. 177). It is evident that of the four pillars of their faith, the Bible carries the least significance, for when the Doctrine and Covenants come into conflict with the Bible (as noted above) the Bible is set aside as erroneous on that particular doctrine. In fact, the LDS are very suspicious of historical Christianity from the time of Jesus until the “renewed revelation” that came through Joseph Smith. Covey (1982) states his position on this very clearly:
… in our efforts to avoid “sectarianism” [orthodox Christianity] we Latter-day Saints get nervous and defensive …. Conscious of the Savior’s words to Joseph Smith condemning the various creeds, we subconsciously tend to negate also the emphasis which much of sectarian Christianity places on Christ-centeredness. Rather naturally we associate that emphasis with such false concepts as easy salvation by grace alone. … We should not allow apostate doctrines and interpretations to preempt in any degree the unquestioned centrality of the Savior to the true gospel we enjoy …” (p. 68).
“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6, see also Isaiah 44:8; 45:5,21). Upon these and other equally clear Scriptures is based our Christian position of monotheism, that there is “but one God and … the divine nature is undivided and indivisible” (Thiessen, 1949, p. 134). Into this unity is incorporated the mystery of the Trinity: “three eternal distinctions in the one divine essence, known respectively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Thiessen, 1949, p. 135). The teaching that there is only one God is unmistakable within Scripture, yet Covey (and the LDS) would have us believe that we will all become equal with God if we live in obedience to their doctrines. This is clearly a position of polytheism (many gods), and sounds much like the pride of Lucifer that caused him to be cast from heaven (Isaiah 14:12-15).
Perhaps even more critical to our discussions is Covey’s concept of man. As we have already seen, Covey lowers the God of the Bible to the level of man and raises the level of man to God. He (1982) states that
One of the great behavioral consequences of the apostate doctrine of the Trinity [that held by orthodox Christianity] … is to lead people to believe that we are a creation of God rather than his literal offspring. Even though some holding that concept may speak of being made in the image of God and being the children of God, they mean this in a symbolic or figurative or spiritual sense; they do not deeply believe they are literally the spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God. … This is one of the major flaws in the sectarian Christ-centered doctrine. They do not see that we are the children of Elohim, capable of becoming like him … (p. 82, 83, emphasis in the original).
This is central to LDS doctrine, and clearly Covey holds this position very tightly, for as “we align ourselves with correct principles, divine endowments will be released within our nature …” (Covey, 1989, p. 319, emphasis added). Covey can only mean our growth as the literal offspring of God, which will culminate in becoming God in our own right, the fulfillment of “the measure of our creation” (Covey, 1989, p. 319).
By contrast, Scriptures tell us that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). Even after man’s fall into sin, the image of God remained a part of who he was (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). “While the image of God (imago Dei) makes man like God, it does not make him a god” (Hanegraaff, 1993, p. 131). Nowhere in Scripture do we see man portrayed as anything other than man, although there is clear evidence that we can become children of God. However, this is not to be interpreted as the literally begotten of God (as the LDS do); rather “ye [addressing the Christians in Galatia] are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26, emphasis added). “Far from being a reproduction of God, humanity is more correctly portrayed [in Scripture] as a reflection of God” (Hanegraaff, 1993, p. 118). Man was created to have a relationship with God, one of fellowship and communication, a relationship that is renewed and revitalized through Jesus. In the Garden of Eden God communed with man; this was a relationship made possible because we bear the image of God, an attribute that sets us apart from all the rest of creation.
Covey (1970) holds to the presence of an irrepressible divine nature within man:
… religion is not an external set of rules and regulations and laws, but rather principles and laws natural to, and internalized in, man’s highest nature (divine self). … One wars with himself if he resists true religion [LDS doctrines]. This is why one cannot sin with all his heart and soul. It will split him apart, for it is a conflict with his own divine nature. But, for the same reason, one can serve truth and live righteously with all his heart and soul (p. 75, emphasis in the original).
Although Covey (1989) advocates a process for growth, improvement, and renewal in his seventh Habit, his upward spiral of “learn, commit, and do” is, once again, more than appearances might predict (p. 306). In The Divine Center, he exposes the true basis for this upward-spiral philosophy:
Consider … four interlocking processes [reduced to three in 7 Habits]. First, educating the conscience; second, listening and hearing the promptings of the Spirit of the conscience; third, committing ourselves to obey the general commandments [of the LDS church] and the personal promptings; and fourth, obeying, fulfilling that commitment. Put these four processes on this ever-enlarging, spiraling path. An investigator of the gospel may be at the low end of the continuum, but he is undergoing the same process nevertheless. He is being taught the discussions by missionaries. In other words, his conscience is being educated. He listens and learns. He commits himself to do what the missionaries counsel him to do, and he does it. As he acts, his conscience is enlarged. It becomes more educated, more open, and susceptible to more learning, commitment, and obedience (p. 217-218, emphasis added).
At the other end of the continuum, Covey (1982) sees “President Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet of God … as nearly perfect as far as mortal possibilities are concerned (p. 218). Covey (1982) goes on to explain the progress on this upward spiral is an all-consuming effort, requiring one hundred percent commitment “if you really want to educate your conscience; if you want to someday be living the kind of life you know you must live to be worthy of eternal life; if you want immunity from all these worldly temptations; if you want full forgiveness of past sins” (p. 219, emphasis added).
By contrast, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually;” much different from “one cannot sin with all his heart and soul” (Genesis 6:5; Covey, 1970, p. 75, emphasis in the original). The apostle John acknowledged, “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). The children of Israel demonstrated the depth of man’s depravity over and over during the time of the judges: “and it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers …” (Judges 2:19). The propensity of the heart of man toward evil is undeniable: “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). On the other hand, the Scriptures are equally clear that we cannot move on an upward spiral to perfection through our own supreme efforts: “For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9; see also Matthew 7:22, 23; 1 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). The sweat and determination of Covey’s upward spiral stands in bleak contrast to the grace extended to mankind by a loving God, a grace that is efficacious only through faith in Jesus as our Redeemer and Lord.
Some time has been spent delineating certain aspects of Covey’s theology and anthropology, important information to have in hand when considering his Habits; and particularly important when considering the first three Habits that deal with the individual. Taking the time to expose the paradigm from which Covey writes on these matters is invaluable to grasp how his self-help system has flourished, and to understand its relationship to Mormonism and to aspects of the New Age movement.
After conducting an analysis of Covey’s 7 Habits from various sociological views, Fenwick and Parsons (1995) state that “Covey is explicit about the Judeo-Christian platform of his own beliefs and their deep connection to the ‘seven habits’…” (p. 6). As we consider this statement, two things must be kept in mind: 1) Fenwick and Parsons’ approach is from a cultural or sociological perspective, not theological; and 2) a cultural or sociological expression of a typically Judeo-Christian position does not equate to genuine Judeo-Christianity. However, this is a significant statement and deserves closer examination; indeed, has Covey explicitly stated a Judeo-Christian position?
On confirming the sources for such a statement with Fenwick and Parsons, it is only fair to take time to give consideration to several of these evidences:
1. The first evidence they cite is that Covey quotes from Scripture; the specific (and only) example being a quote attributed to the Psalmist, “Search your own heart with all diligence for out of it flow the issues of life” (Covey, 1989, p. 21). In reality, this cannot be found in the Bible, and appears to be Proverbs 4:23 (“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life”) with a twist, perhaps an example of one of the “inspired changes” made by Joseph Smith (Covey, 1982, p. 202). Although this does acknowledge Covey’s willingness to make Judeo-Christian references in his work, it also reveals that his source is not the Scriptures, the Judeo-Christian standard. Could this be a subtle way to lower the defenses of the Christian reader?
2. A second evidence cited is Covey’s reference to the story of Joseph from the Old Testament (which Covey openly acknowledges as being fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition). The story is used as an illustration of our need to focus on “being instead of having;” with no mention of the God who orchestrated Joseph’s life and Who, by Joseph’s own confession, meant it for good (Covey, 1989, p. 89; Genesis 50:20). Rather than a demonstration of the presence of God in life’s circumstances, Covey sees in Joseph’s life an example of how to live proactively, a focus on the man while ignoring the God who sustained the man. What this reference does is reveal the true focus of Covey’s Habit-based philosophy of life – man. The hero of both Mormonism and Coveyism is man; for Judeo-Christianity, it is God – a fundamental difference!
3. Fenwick and Parsons cite Covey’s willingness to quote a work that references the work of Christ within men as further evidence. Covey (1989) quotes from Ezra Taft Benson: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. … Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.” (p. 309). As with Covey’s writing, an understanding of the context from which these words come is essential. Ezra Taft Benson served as the President and prophet of the LDS from 1985 until his death in 1994 (LDSWorld, 1999, “Ezra Taft Benson”). This is the same man who in 1980, as the LDS President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, declared fourteen fundamentals for following the LDS prophet, which included:
FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works [Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible].
THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet ….
SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture ….
FOURTEENTH: The prophet and presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency [made up of the prophet and his counselors]--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer (Benson, 1980).
Despite using a language that sounds Christian, it is clear, contextually, that the words of Ezra Taft Benson have no place within Judeo-Christianity, for they come from a prophet of the LDS Church. Covey (1982) affirms his position that anyone who “is in opposition to the Lord’s anointed prophet is also in opposition to the Lord … he is being guided by another spirit” (p. 225).
4. The final significant evidence cited comes from A Personal Note that Covey (1989) attached to his book:
… I would like to share my own personal conviction concerning what I believe to be the source of correct principles. I believe that correct principles are natural laws, and that God, the Creator and Father of us all, is the source of them, and also the source of our conscience. I believe that to the degree people live by this inspired conscience, they will grow to fulfill their natures….
I believe that there are parts to human nature that cannot be reached by either legislation or education, but require the power of God to deal with. I believe that as human beings, we cannot perfect ourselves. To the degree to which we align ourselves with correct principles, divine endowments will be released within our nature in enabling us to fulfill the measure of our creation. In the words of Teilhard de Chardin, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience” (p. 319, emphasis added).
The emphasized phrases in the above statement are cited as evidence of Covey’s Judeo-Christian basis; and to the casual observer they may appear to be just that. However, a closer examination will reveal something quite different; obviously, to maintain a massive audience appeal, overt Mormon theology could have no place in 7 Habits. What more powerful way to influence unsuspecting readers than a word of personal testimony at the end of a self-help book? This covert reference to Mormonism merits a moment of closer examination.
As already noted, Covey is advocating a significant shift of focus from his earlier writings; a shift from God, the Source, to correct principles which flow from God; from being God-centered to being principle-centered. In some respects this is not unlike the Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were caught up in the maintenance of the law without really knowing the God who gave the law, and who received Jesus’ condemnation for it (Matthew 23:23; John 5:37-39). Walker (1996) summarily states, “life is in God--the giver of principles, not in the principles themselves” (p. 26).
In addition, it would appear that, in making this shift, Covey has taken a calculated risk by diluting what he truly believes. “If we were to pull true principles out of their source … they would die and wither. … it is not enough to teach correct principles. We need to emphasize also their living, integrating source” (Covey, 1982, p. 158). Walker’s (1996) observation is particularly astute: “Yet is this not exactly what he has done with the popularization of his material?” (p. 34). The shift to principle-centered living is a significant reversal of position for Covey, and for what purpose? Could it be to make his message more palatable to a wider audience?
In the Personal Note, there is more evidence to support Covey’s Mormon theology (“God, the Father of us all;” and “divine endowments will be released within our nature”) than a Judeo-Christian position (Covey, 1989, p. 319). The noted references are indicative of his Mormon belief in the divine nature that indwells all of mankind. Within the context of his theology, Covey (1982) states plainly, “man is God’s own child”; which would, if it were true, make God the Father of us all (p. 206). Yet the Scriptures make it clear that such a Father/child relationship is conditional, and not the automatic inheritance of all of mankind (John 1:12; and conversely, Romans 9:8).
Advocating a Judeo-Christian basis for Covey’s 7 Habits is a poor fit at best, and a travesty of the essence of Judaism and Christianity at worst. What must take place for such an evaluation is an elevation of the fruits of the Judeo-Christian tradition to the level of the tradition itself; or, to phrase it another way, the cultural evidence of the tradition is substituted for the tradition. In this way, Coveyism (and even Mormonism) may actually be misconstrued to reflect a Judeo-Christian position, whereas in reality it only reflects some of the same cultural views as Judeo-Christianity. How can Mormonism be Judeo-Christian when it denies many of the essential doctrines of Judaism and Christianity?
However, and this is worthy of special note, Covey does use a language that may easily be misunderstood as Christian by someone with a Judeo-Christian paradigm. Evidence of such a misunderstanding is reflected in a review of 7 Habits done by Chuck Stober; he concluded that Covey “writes a prescription for a vocationally frustrated pastor” (Stober, 1992, p. 76). He states 7 Habits “is about creating habits for primary greatness,” and likens the qualities of primary greatness achieved through adhering to this self-help book to the fruit of the Spirit (Stober, 1992, p. 76). Stober’s apparent failure to be discerning leads him to embrace Covey’s seven Habits. And if the seven Habits, then why not Mormonism as well, since 7 Habits is admittedly a “secular version of his [Covey’s] faith’s solid virtues” (Kaufman-Rosen, p. 72)? Has Stober unwittingly fallen into a pit opened by a lack of discernment, or is this simply a case of positive tolerance taking root?
In introducing this study, time was taken to paint a picture of our present society, a scene indicating a shift away from definitive right and wrong, a move to be accepting of all belief systems, a general decline in the clear convictions of Christians, and a willingness to accept and hold conflicting truths. Whether any of these are contributing factors in the conclusions reached by Fenwick, Parsons and Stober is not the primary concern of this study (however, it is noteworthy that even though Fenwick and Parsons advocate a Judeo-Christian basis, they do not support Covey’s seven Habits from their sociological analysis). What is of concern is how easily some would outfit Covey in the garb of traditional Judeo-Christianity, and even parade him as a Christian hero, and yet miss his subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, departure from orthodox Christian doctrine. We have already noted why the Christian community has been so open to Covey, but how does he receive such worldwide acceptance when he presents timeless, unchangeable principles in a day when relativism is in vogue?
Although Covey takes great pains to underscore that these principles are common to all, they are only defined within the terms of what mankind generally will consider good virtues. He holds that his principles are not unique to any faith or ideology, but are “a part of most every major enduring religion, as well as enduring social philosophies and ethical systems …. It’s almost as if these principles or natural laws are part of the human condition, part of the human consciousness …” (Covey, 1989, p. 34). This sounds amazingly like the philosophy of the New Age Movement that holds a “belief in the oneness of all life and in themselves as part of the Universal Self or Consciousness” (Hunt, 1983, p. 5). This is not to say that Covey is a guru of New Age philosophy, but there is no denying the shared ground. By removing the Mormon theology from The Divine Center, Covey has fine-tuned a seven-step process for success that will dovetail with anyone’s philosophy of life, a critical point in a day when truth has been replaced with tolerance.
The correlation between New Age philosophy and Covey goes even further (see Table 3 for a more complete analysis). Benjamin Creme, a strong advocate of New Age philosophy and the source of the ads heralding the coming of Lord Maitreya, has proclaimed Maitreya’s message as “Man is an emerging God. … My plan and my duty is to reveal to you a new way … which will permit the divine in man to shine forth” (Hunt, 1988, p. 229). There is little difference between this and “man is … a God in embryo” (Covey, 1970, p. 74). Covey (1997) draws on the words of New Age advocate Marianne Williamson to depict “the fullness of the human condition and nature”:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. … You are a child of God. … We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us, it’s in everyone (p. 348).
There can be no denying the similarity that exists between LDS doctrine and the New Age philosophy, a similarity that Covey recognizes by quoting Williamson; Covey has removed all doubt as to the acceptability of New Age philosophy within the framework of his doctrines. The common ground that the philosophy behind Covey’s 7 Habits shares with the New Age movement is evident.
Covey’s seven Habits are hung upon a structure of personal growth, from dependence to independence, to interdependence that hinges upon our adherence to the seven habits. If we learn, commit, and do the things Covey advocates, we will grow. “As we become independent … we then can choose to become interdependent--capable of building rich, enduring, highly productive relationships with other people” (Covey, 1989, p. 187). Clearly, within Covey’s consideration, interdependence is the ultimate achievement, a fact further confirmed by his model of the seven Habits (see Appendix A). Interestingly enough, this is also one of the key concepts that the New Age globalists use to describe their ideal. There is no denying the growing economic interdependence in today’s world, but, as the New Age educators describe their goals for a global society, it becomes painfully evident that interdependence takes on a whole new meaning:
[T]he concept of individuality and the whole man are not synonymous. The individual man is stirred by independence, autonomy, and self-reliance; the holistic man by interdependence, collectivism, and reliance….
A collectivized individual is multiple rather than singular. If the traditional notion in the West has been one God, one love, one job, one identity, one country, and one planet, the futuristic notion is many gods, many loves, many jobs, many identities, many countries, and many planets (Tofler, 1974).
The subtlety of the concept of interdependence for the Christian observing either Covey or the New Age is that the Scriptures also teach about interdependence. However, the Biblical concept of interdependence is not unqualified (as are the Covey and New Age concepts), but is limited to understanding the inter-relationship that exists between the members of the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 12:12ff). To further clarify this qualified application, we, as Christians, are admonished to maintain a separation from the rest of the world (John 15:18,19; 2 Corinthians 6:14ff); although we live in the world, we are not a part of the world (John 17:9,15-16; Ephesians 5:11; 1 John 2:15-17). This is a subtle, but significant difference.
Covey would have us become obedient to a law that he sees as being undeniable and self-evident (more correctly, evident within ourselves). Such obedience is couched in the most inviting of settings, for “all of Covey’s stories [used to illustrate his Habits] have the same plot: People. Trouble. Habits. Happiness. There is never an unsuccessful application of a habit. No one questions the system [of Habits] and wins” (Wolfe, 1998, p. 31). Within Covey’s religious paradigm, obedience to their laws is all-important, for, within Mormonism, the grace of God is dependent upon “obedience to gospel standards of righteousness” (Covey, 1982, p. 158). Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS, went so far as to view “civil law with contempt, as if society were a vast conspiracy organized to prevent the true believers from finding God as they saw fit” (Wolfe, 1998, p. 31). By declaring the seven Habits as a means of access to universal laws, Covey subtly seems to follow the tradition of Smith by placing his system above the law of the land; where there would be contradiction, clearly the universal law would be the one to follow. Wolfe (1998) states that “the laws to which our obedience must be pledged are not the laws of the land, they are the Seven Habits of Effective Everything” (p. 32). By contrast, the Scriptures advise us to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake … as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers …” (1 Peter 2:13, 14; see also Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1).
Conclusion
It has become evident that, as an Evangelical Christian, there is more than a little concern with Covey’s position, and it is equally clear that this may not be initially obvious. One of the ploys used by cults to gain a hearing is the use of common terminology, but with a redefinition that is usually not evident to the casual observer. Although Covey’s 7 Habits would not necessarily be considered cultic philosophy, the correlation it has with its Mormon source and the New Age movement has been established. Walter Martin (1992) makes an astute observation about the study of cults that finds a parallel application with Covey:
The student of cultism [and in our case, Coveyism] … must acknowledge the very real fact that unless terms are defined when one is speaking or reading cult theology, the semantic jungle which the cults have created will envelop him, making difficult, if not impossible, a proper contrast between the teachings of the cults and those of orthodox Christianity (p. 18,19).
Martin has cited two challenges to which we as evangelicals must be willing to rise: the clarification of terms used and the need to contrast these against the Biblical standard. As we have seen, this is no less critical with Covey, who, by his own admission, uses the technique of redefinition.
We have observed that Covey is particularly unbiblical in the foundation that he lays for his seven Habits. The premise that he builds upon is that all of mankind “possesses in seed form all of the ultimate capabilities and powers God himself possesses” (Covey, 1982, p. 206, emphasis added). This may not be explicitly stated in 7 Habits, however, what is very evident is that man is the center and focus of the foundation he lays for his Habits, and even the objective principles are discovered within us. On what basis does Covey feel comfortable with such a focus? It can be nothing less than his Mormon understanding of the “limitless potential that lies within us” (Covey, 1989, p. 105). The writer of Hebrews calls us to “run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith …” (Hebrews 12:1, 2). Our focus is not to be on ourselves or on what we might think we are be able to do to improve ourselves, but on Jesus who paid for our redemption from the penalty and power of the sin that keeps us from fellowship with God.
As Covey (1989) states so eloquently, “we see the world, not as it is, but as we are”; and we, as Evangelicals, are no different (p. 28). We read and listen, often unaware of the contextual nature of our interpretation of what we are attuned to, and it is at this point that we fail to be discerning. It is so much easier to accept words at face value, rather than take the time and effort to understand what is really being said. The focus of our faith revolves around God and man’s relationship with God, and so it would hold that the definition of these two terms (God and man) is critical to the interpretation and subsequent acceptance or rejection of any new doctrine. It is at this juncture that we must acknowledge Covey’s erroneous focus: man. Although this may not immediately negate any further observations he may make, it does require us to exercise due caution and discernment in handling his teachings.
Be Proactive
Covey’s Position
The essence of this first of Covey’s seven Habits is what he calls “self-awareness”, or the “ability to choose your response (response-ability)” (Covey, 1990, p. 40). He sees this as a continuum from a low, where blame for decisions is transferred to other people, events, or the environment, through to a high where “you are aware that you are the creative force of your life. You are not the victim of conditions or conditioning. You can choose your response …” (Covey, 1990, p. 42). The suggestion is not a repression of natural feelings, but rather a recognition of them, and then choosing to “subordinate feeling to values” (Covey, 1982, p. 177).
Covey (1989) states further that self-awareness is the ability to “think about your very thought process,” the ability to evaluate and learn from our experiences, and even from the experiences of others (p. 66). In beginning his discussion of self-awareness, Covey suggests that the reader “project your consciousness upward into a corner of the room and see yourself …” (Covey, 1989, p. 66). He cites our ability to carry out this type of activity, as well as being able to sense our mood and identify our feelings, as the essence of “why man has dominion over all things in the world” and the reason “he can make significant advances from generation to generation” (Covey 1989, p. 66).
Being proactive is the first in the order of three Habits that Covey uses to focus on the individual, and which he sees as foundational to our inter-relationships with others. He views the essence of his Habits as unique human endowments that set us apart from the animal world, that permit us to carry on activities that are beyond the most intelligent animals. Therefore, since we have self-awareness, we are responsible for our lives; “our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions” (Covey, 1989, p. 71). As already noted, this does not mean that feelings are repressed, simply that they are not in control. He contends that we have the ability to make our feelings subject to our values, and, by doing so, become proactive rather than reactive.
Herein, then, is the heart of being proactive: rather than reacting according to feelings, circumstances, or our environment, it is the ability to respond to or to be guided by values. Covey (1989) refers to this as focusing on our Circle of Influence (see Appendix C), using our positive energy to change those things over which we have direct control (like our habits), to change our influence on those things where we may have indirect control, and to change our attitude toward those things over which we have no control (p. 85,86). By focusing our energies on those things we can do something about, Covey contends that our Circle of Influence will actually increase. As a proactive response, the “energy is positive, enlarging and magnifying” (Covey, 1989, p. 83). On the other hand, a reactive response will focus on blaming, accusing, and feeling the part of a victim; all considered “negative energy” (Covey, 1989, p. 83). “We are responsible for our own effectiveness [hence 7 Habits], for our own happiness, and ultimately, I would say, for most of our circumstances” (Covey, 1989, p. 93).
Covey (1989) also states that, although we have the freedom to choose our own actions, “we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions” (p. 90). “Natural consequences follow violations …. We’re subject to natural laws and governing principles--the laws of the farm and harvest” (Covey, 1990, p. 161). Just as there are results that will naturally occur from planting and cultivating, there are equally sure results from not planting and not cultivating. In the same way, our choices made in keeping with these governing principles will result in growth and positive fulfillment; whereas choices made in violation of them will result in misery. Therefore, “the degree to which people … live in harmony with them [natural laws or principles] moves them toward either survival and stability or disintegration and destruction” (Covey, 1989, p. 34). On a more personal level, Covey (1989) notes, “our behavior is governed by principles. Living in harmony with them brings positive consequences; violating them brings negative consequences” (p. 90,91).
A Biblical Response
Covey (1989) cites our self-awareness, the ability to “think about your very thought process,” as the reason we have dominion over all things in the world, in essence, it is that one thing that sets us over the rest of the world (p. 66). As Evangelical Christians we recognize that the Scriptures tell us explicitly about our dominion and how we were created: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion … over all the earth …” (Genesis 1:26). Before God even expended the energy to create mankind He determined two things: (1) man would be created in the image of God, and (2) he would have dominion over all the earth. In the former case, there is a clear differentiation between man and the rest of creation, and it is clear that the difference is that man is to bear the image of God. In the latter instance, those qualities due to his unique creation, “in which man resembles God, qualify him for dominion, and constitute him lord of all creatures …” (Murphy, 1873, p. 64). The dominion granted man seems less a matter of his ability to think about himself, and more “a consequence of man being created in God’s image” (Taylor, 1974, p. 90).
There is a question that begs our attention: is the Biblical concept of the image of God to be equated with Covey’s self-awareness? The short answer is, “No.” Covey (1982) reveals his source for this Habit as the “scriptures which teach us that we are made to act and not to be acted upon” (p. 176). The scriptures in question are:
And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:14, the Book of Mormon).
Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29,30).
The scriptures that Covey uses to formulate his concept of self-awareness are Mormon, and, therefore, we must diligently exercise caution and discernment in this matter.
Covey (1982) finds fault with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, because it leads people to believe “we are a creation of God rather than his literal offspring. Even though some holding that concept may speak of being made in the image of God …, they mean this in a symbolic or figurative or spiritual sense; they do not deeply believe they are literally the spiritually begotten sons and daughters of God” (p. 82, emphasis in the original). In addition, we have also seen that he contends that present within every human being is the divine; man “possesses in seed form all of the ultimate capabilities and powers God himself possesses” (Covey, 1982, p. 206). It only follows, therefore, that the concept of self-awareness, to Covey, really means being aware of the divinity that lies within all of us.
For the Christian, man as the image of God “tells us that man as he was created was to mirror God and to represent God” (Hoekema, 1986, p. 67, emphasis in the original). Therefore, it follows that the image of God is seen as “involving both the structure of man (his gifts, capacities, and endowments) and the functioning of man (his actions, his relationships to God and others, and the way he uses his gifts)” (Hoekema, 1986, p. 73). However, to reflect the Creator adequately, all of these were focused with an instilled direction that makes “God the supreme end of man’s being” (Strong, 1907, p. 517). Although with the fall into sin this image was “so damaged that what remains is an ugly deformity,” we have also noted that it was not obliterated (Lane, 1987, p. 62). From this perspective, self-awareness becomes an acknowledgment of our own sinfulness and our accountability to God, as Paul expressed it: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Romans 7:18).
Within the Habit of “Be Proactive,” Covey makes a strong case for the responsibility of the individual for their response to what life brings along. In many respects, this appears to be contrary to the prevalent philosophy of today “that refuses to assign individual blame or responsibility” (Colson & Eckerd, 1991, p. 78). Covey (1989) identifies a “fundamental principle about the nature of man: Between stimulus and response, man has the freedom to choose” (p. 70, emphasis in the original, see Appendix D). Within the confines of this narrow focus, we as Christians would tend to agree with him. However, once again, we must examine the context to understand more completely Covey’s full intent.
An examination of the intent of Covey’s freedom-to-choose concept reveals that his focus is on man, and those “endowments that make us uniquely human,” or, more specifically, his first three Habits (Covey, 1989, p. 70, see Appendix D). What this does is place the entire responsibility for our response to life or the improvement of our condition on our shoulders. A moment’s reflection on the plight of man through the years will raise serious doubts as to whether there is any hope within such a philosophy. Whereas the apostle Paul unhesitatingly recognized the futility of trying to get himself to do what he knows he should (Romans 7:14-23), Covey (1989) contends that “if our lives are a function of conditioning and conditions, it is because we have, by conscious decision or by default, chosen to empower those things to control us” (p. 71). In theological terms (based on this statement), Covey would argue that if we sin, it is because we choose to sin; therefore, in essence, we are responsible for freeing ourselves from sin. Elsewhere, he clarifies that “… every person is responsible for his own sins and can choose his response to this ‘programming’ or conditioning. … if we find them [our sins] unworthy of us we can begin a process through obedience to the [LDS] commandments so that we transcend them. We then rise above them; they no longer have any place within us” (Covey, 1982, p. 170). It is important to take a moment to establish the correlation that exists between salvation, as Covey understands it, and his noted need to rise above our sins.
Mormons hold to two kinds of salvation. Joseph Fielding Smith (1962), “popularly regarded as the LDS Church's chief theologian and spokesman on doctrinal matters,” wrote that “Salvation is twofold: General – that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ – and Individual – that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (Joseph; p. 76). General salvation, often referred to by Mormons as universal salvation or simply, salvation, applies to all mankind, but this “salvation, meaning resurrection, is not exaltation” (Richards, p. 5, emphasis in the original). Therefore, when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace alone, it is this general salvation they are referring to; and as Bruce McConkie (1966) says, “those who gain only this general or unconditional Salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or telestial kingdom. They will therefore be damned” (p. 669, emphasis in the original).
On the other hand, individual or full salvation involves what Covey (1982) sees as a state where our sins “no longer have any place within us” (p. 170). As already noted, this full salvation is based on individual merit as defined within LDS doctrine. McConkie (1966) expanded on the extent of what is involved in this concept of salvation:
Full salvation is attained by virtue of knowledge, truth, righteousness, and all true principles. Many conditions must exist in order to make such salvation available to men. Without the atonement, the gospel, the priesthood, and the sealing power, there would be no salvation. Without continuous revelation, the ministering angels, the working of miracles, the prevalence of gifts of the spirit, there would be no salvation. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (p. 670, emphasis added).
Not only do the LDS hold to a salvation based on personal merit and achievement, but they also see full salvation as restricted to those within their own numbers. In sharp contrast, Paul concluded, “a man is justified by faith [in the Lord Jesus Christ] without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28), with no place for works in meriting salvation. Good works are a product of our salvation, but not a premise for our salvation (see Ephesians 2:8, 9; Philippians 2:12; Titus 3:5, 6; James 2:17).
Once again, the extent of Covey’s self-help process becomes more evident. In keeping with the self-achievement process of salvation advocated by Mormonism, Covey (1989) encourages us to “move on an upward spiral … of continuous improvement” that “requires us to learn, commit, and do on increasingly higher planes” (p. 304, 306, emphasis in the original). This is identical to: “… the steady course to achieve perfection involves four processes that are independent yet interfused and are continually moving on this upward-spiralling course. … these processes … are: 1) learning; 2) listening or hearing; 3) covenanting; 4) obeying or doing” (Covey, 1982, p. 180). Clearly Covey’s self-help process does not depart from the Mormon tradition of success (or full salvation) obtained through a lifetime of good works: “… all that call upon the name of the Lord, and keep his commandments, shall be saved” (Doctrine and Covenants 100:17, emphasis added). Just as evident is the contrast that exists between this philosophy for life and the Bible, our Standard for truth.
Covey (1989) states that “living in harmony with [the principles] … brings positive consequences; violating them brings negative consequences” (p. 90,91); and goes on to say that “we are responsible for our own effectiveness, for our own happiness, and ultimately, I would say, for most of our circumstances” (p. 93). Even though Covey (1989) does provide some room in this statement for circumstances that come our way over which we have no control, he maintains that, “it’s not what happens to us, but our response to what happens to us that hurts us” (p. 73). Once again, the focus becomes his freedom-to-choose model, the responsibility to choose our response, and the assumption we control our conditions by our choices. We read in Scripture that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7), to which Covey would undoubtedly concur. However, is this the full extent of what Covey is saying? It would appear not, for Covey (1989) goes on to state that
the law of the harvest governs; we will always reap what we sow – no more, no less. The law of justice is immutable, and the closer we align ourselves with correct principles, the better our judgment will be about how the world operates and the more accurate our paradigms … will be (p. 305, emphasis added).
Clearly he contends that we are “responsible for our own lives” (whether by decision or response), and the closer we come to adhering to correct principles the more “positive consequences” we will enjoy (Covey, 1989, p. 71, 91).
A moment’s reflection will lead to the conclusion that this “law of harvest,” as Covey outlines it, is not quite reality. Perhaps the most extensive illustration of this is the life of Job, a man who is described by God as being “perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed [or shunned] evil” (Job 1:1), but who suffered great loss in every aspect of life; a loss that was not attributable to anything he had done (or, not done) nor to any choice he had made, but rather to a spiritual contest between God and Satan (Job 1:9-12; 2:4-6). Clearly, this does not reflect Covey’s “law of harvest,” for by God’s own confession we realize that it was not Job’s actions or responses that resulted in his hardship. As we read Job’s story we come to understand that there is much more taking place within our lives than what we may perceive; we are far less in control of our circumstances than we might like to think. Yes, we will reap what we sow, but our lives are not made up of only the harvest of our own choices, as Covey would have us believe.
Conclusion
“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23). The writer of Proverbs is advising the necessity of right priorities, but not only that, there is an emphasis on the need to focus on who we are. We may not be able to control our situation, whether it is the circumstances around us or the people with whom we have to do, but we can control, or focus our energies on controlling our response to what is about us. Gordon MacDonald (1985) concurs that the Creator “made us to work most effectively from the inner world [the heart] toward the outer” (p. 23). Our Lord Jesus made this very clear as well: “For every tree is known by his own fruit. … A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh” (Luke 6:44, 45). Jesus further admonished us to seek “first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things [food, drink, clothing] shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). Clearly setting our hearts to seek after God and His righteousness is to be our primary focus, and He will attend to those things that pertain to our survival. When Covey draws our attention to the Circle of Influence, he is calling us to establish right priorities, to occupy ourselves with those things about which we can do something. “We worry about the things we want to do, but can’t, instead of doing that which we should – but don’t” (McKenzie, 1980, p. 572). The message is clear in each case: establish right priorities and expend your energies in those areas of direct control. Covey’s Circle of Influence, from this perspective, is a good reminder of our need to establish right priorities.
For the Christian, the image of God brings to mind man’s uniqueness within God’s creation, the fact that man reflects, however imperfectly, his Creator. Self-awareness (when considered to be self-reflection and creative thought) would seem to be a result of being created in God’s image. For Covey there is far more involved in this than simply being self-conscious, or capable of thinking about who you are; and, in fact, the root which Covey (1990) is seeking to reach is the divine within (“you are aware that you are the creative force of your life”) which is clearly in keeping with his Mormon theology (p. 42). He never departs far from the focus of his self-help process: man. As we have seen, herein lies the sharp contrast between Covey and Biblical Christianity; that enduring gulf that cannot be bridged from man (or Covey) to God, but only from God to man.
To demonstrate self-awareness, Covey (1989) suggests the reader “project your consciousness upward into a corner of the room and see yourself … reading” (p. 66). “California Business magazine reports that more than half of the 500 presidents and company owners it surveyed have involved their employees in New Age training seminars that make use of various ‘consciousness-raising’ techniques …” (Hunt, 1988, p. 39). Incredibly, we need not to be surprised at the reception Covey is receiving from the business community; but what we do need to be more aware of is the New Age appeal of some of Covey’s doctrines and techniques, “the charm of Stephen Covey’s new-age psychotherapy” (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 1996, p. 58). When Covey and the New Age advocate the use of the same techniques in their seminars, at the very least a flag of caution should be raised in the mind of today’s Christian.
In a day when there is strong emphasis on the rights of the individual, Covey’s first Habit will find easy lodging. “We need to get out of our material mindset and realize our spiritual potential through self-awareness …” (Smith, 1986, p. 17). This observation is attributed to Shirley MacLaine, guru of New Age philosophy, not to Stephen Covey; yet the similarity of their philosophies at this point is clear. This does not establish Covey as a New Age proponent, but does demonstrate the wide-open door in Covey’s philosophy through which the New Age gurus can enter. When the principles are as nebulous as Covey makes them, clearly there is no cause for concern within modern relativism, for the universal principles take on individual expression.
Begin With the End in Mind
Covey’s Position
The human endowments that make up Covey’s second Habit are imagination and conscience. This second Habit is based on the “principle that all things are created twice,” that there is a mental or first creation, and a physical or second creation to everything – much like the conceptual drawings of an architect that precede actual construction (Covey, 1989, p. 99, emphasis in the original). This second Habit encompasses the mental or first creation process.
Clearly imagination and conscience have to do with the mental processes that we all participate in to varying degrees, and it is to this that Covey appeals for first creation activity. “Through imagination, we can visualize the uncreated worlds of potential that lie within us. Through conscience, we can come into contact with universal laws or principles with our own singular talents and avenues of contribution …” (Covey, 1989, p. 103). Two concepts flow from this assertion: our imagination becomes the tool for visualizing what we would like to see take place in our lives; and our conscience is our means of contact with those universal principles within the context of our own gifts and abilities. Coupled with self-awareness (Habit 1) there is empowerment to create our own script for life, to write our own story, or, perhaps more accurately, to engage “the process of ‘rescripting,’ or paradigm shifting”, changing the way we see and respond to life (Covey, 1989, p. 103). “Habit 1 says, ‘You are the creator.’ Habit 2 is the first creation” (Covey, 1989, p. 100).
Through the effective use of imagination, Covey sees the development of hope and purpose through visualizing the future without the influence of the restrictions and failures of the past. “I have created the future in my mind. I can see it, and I can imagine what it will be like” (Covey, 1990, p. 42,43). A bright future is visualized, and steps are taken to embark on a course of action with that future in mind.
“The conscience is the internal voice, our sensitivity or awareness, our sense of right and wrong. It is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, which is given to every person who comes into the world” (Covey, 1982, p. 180). Covey (1982) goes on to say, “the conscience is the repository of divine knowledge, truth, conviction, and spirituality …” (p. 181). Once again, the focus is on the divinity within all of us that seeks to grow and mature to become like God in all respects, and, in this regard, Covey contends that the conscience must be educated, requiring “regular feasting on inspiring literature, thinking noble thoughts and, above all, living in harmony with its still small voice” (Covey, 1989, p. 305).
Covey (1989) concludes, “we already live with many scripts that have been handed to us,” and through self-awareness will begin to recognize the scripts that are ineffective (p. 103). He goes on to say, “many of us discover ineffective scripts, deeply embedded habits that are totally unworthy of us …. We are response-able to use our imagination and creativity to write new ones …” (Covey, 1989, p. 104). “I can live out of my imagination instead of my memory. I can tie myself to my limitless potential instead of my limiting past. I can become my own first creator” (Covey, 1989, p. 105).
According to Covey, the most effective way to realize Habit 2 is to develop a personal mission statement, a statement of who we want to be, our underlying values, and what we want to do. This means beginning with our Circle of Influence and a determination of our values, how we view the world – what makes up the center of our lives. It is this center that is the source of our security (our sense of worth, of self-esteem), guidance (our source of direction), wisdom (our perspective on life as a whole), and power (our capacity to act) (Covey, 1989, p. 109). When these four interdependent factors are present and functioning together in our lives, they form the support for every other dimension of life; and each of these flow out of our center, the very core of our being. “… neither [family nor Church] provides the requisite security, guidance, wisdom, or power in and of itself;” for this, Covey (1982) contends, we must look to “God and Jesus Christ” (p. 66,67, emphasis in the original). Covey (1989) states, “by centering our lives on timeless, unchanging principles, we create a fundamental paradigm of effective living” (Covey, 1989, p. 123; for more on this see Appendix E).
It is within this context that personal leadership skills are developed, a focus on doing the right things. As we embrace the laws of nature (“correct principles [that] do not change”), as we express these principles through a balanced harmony of security, guidance, wisdom and power, and as we visualize our future, so we will exemplify quality leadership and personal freedom (Covey, 1989, p. 122). It is within our Circle of Influence where we examine the principles upon which we base our paradigm of life, where we use our “conscience as a compass” to determine our gifts, and where we use our imagination “to mentally create the end we desire” (Covey, 1989, p. 109). The interdependence of these first two Habits is clear.
A Biblical Response
Covey (1989) sees imagination as “the ability to create in our minds beyond our present reality” (p. 70). We all employ imagination to varying degrees, particularly as children. It is the source of creativity, music, art, and inventions, which have become an integral part of our everyday lives. An old axiom states that “wherever there is a thing, there must have been a preceding thought … and where there is a thought, there must have been a thinker” (Swindoll, 1986, p. 195). Covey’s purpose is that we become that thinker, but for a purpose greater than mere creativity.
Adam demonstrated an amazing use of imagination when he named all the animals and birds that God had created (Genesis 2:19). Even after the fall, God recognized the potential that man’s imagination represented, for, at the construction of Babel, He said that unless something was done “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (Genesis 11:6). However, God also recognized the bent of man’s imagination since the fall, for, after purging the earth with the flood, even while He declared that He would never again purge the earth in this manner, He also stated that “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Clearly, the imagination is a powerful tool, a part of who man is; and just as evident is the propensity for evil that lurks within this tool. The key to the effective use of the imagination lies in Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing [‘a complete change for the better’] of your mind [your faculties of ‘perception, understanding, feeling, judging, and determining’], that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Logos).
Covey would concur that conscience is an “innate ability to sense right and wrong” (MacArthur, 1994, p. 36). However, our conscience is not infallible; it functions more as a sponge than a faucet, as “a skylight, not a light bulb” (MacArthur, 1994, p. 39). The conscience can be informed or influenced as much by our traditions as by truth, and so it may, at times, either excessively condemn or justify our actions. In either case, our conscience ceases to function as a reliable guide, and, even in this, Covey would agree. As already indicated, Covey sees the need to educate the conscience through inspiring literature, more specifically: “to educate the conscience we must also privately study the word of the Lord with diligence and devotion” (Covey, 1982, p. 185). However, for Covey the word of the Lord would include the “King James Version of the Bible … ‘insofar as it is correctly translated,’” the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Mormon (Martin, 1985, p. 177). As already noted, the latter three volumes are given the greater weight of authority; so, even when Covey speaks of the need to educate the conscience on the word of the Lord, he is not speaking of the Bible. “Look to the present prophet and Church leaders and official Church policies for the manifestation of the Lord’s will and interpretations to the Church and world today. The inspired words of living prophets may be of greater worth to us than the words of the dead prophets. Their words can also be scripture” (Covey, 1982, p. 199).
Covey (1989) makes some interesting observations in the matter of educating the conscience:
… education of the conscience is vital to the truly proactive, highly effective person. Training and educating the conscience, however, requires even greater concentration [than training the mind or body], more balanced discipline, more consistently honest living. It requires regular feasting on inspiring literature, thinking noble thoughts and, above all, living in harmony with its still small voice (p. 305, emphasis added).
In keeping with his focus on a broader audience, no mention is made of the Scriptures within the text of his writing, only inspiring literature, which would include anything that “connects you with these timeless principles” (Covey, 1997, p. 301). However, in expounding the critical nature of educating the conscience, he makes what appears to be a circular reference: the conscience (as evidenced by the “still small voice”) becomes the most important element in its own education! In his personal note to 7 Habits, Covey (1989) identifies God as “the source of our conscience. I believe that to the degree people live by this inspired conscience, they will grow to fulfill their natures …” (p. 319). From this, it would appear that the “still small voice” would be God speaking to us, being the source of our conscience. However, Covey (1990) does not leave the matter there, but goes on to state:
[Carl] Jung believed it [the conscience] primarily to be part of the collective unconscious, transcending the mortal overlay of culture, race, religion, gender, or nationality.
I believe Jung was right … (p. 323).
For Covey, the conscience is a part of the collective unconscious, “God is the true name and source of the collective unconscious,” and, thereby, Covey (1990) has linked the conscience to the Mormon God within, and his concept of God with New Age philosophy (p. 324).
Sigmund Freud described an “unconscious side to consciousness, and he concluded that it was in fact the most important part. … Jung decided (with encouragement from his spirit guide, Philemon) that at this unconscious level all minds were a part of … the collective unconscious …” (Hunt, 1988, p. 136, emphasis in the original). This seems to dovetail quite nicely with Covey’s concept of universal principles that “are already deep within us, in our conscience and our common sense” (Covey, 1989, p. 44). M. Scott Peck (1978), an influential psychiatrist, who identifies himself with Christianity yet propagates New Age doctrine, helps identify, in his comments on the collective unconscious, the bridge over which Covey crosses:
… we still have not explained how it is that the unconscious possesses all this knowledge which we have not yet consciously learned … we can only hypothesize … [that] our unconscious is God ….
I am indebted for this analogy to Jung, who describ[ed] himself as “a splinter of the infinite deity….”
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 … (p. 266-283).
The language and intent of Peck is identical to that of Covey, when we bring together the doctrines presented in The Divine Center and 7 Habits. Considering “Peck’s rejection of absolute and objective truth” it seems clear that Covey’s doctrines also lie outside orthodox Christianity (House, 1996, p. 31).
Covey (1989) goes on to say that “combined with self-awareness, these two endowments [imagination and conscience] empower us to write our own script” (p. 103). It is his contention that as we develop our introspective analysis (sharpen our self-awareness) we will discover “deeply embedded habits that are totally unworthy of us, totally incongruent with the things we really value in life” (Covey, 1989, p. 104). This sounds very much like the dilemma the Apostle Paul experienced, “for the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19). However, this is where the similarity ends. Paul’s self-awareness leads him to the conclusion that “in me … dwelleth no good thing”, but it is “sin that dwelleth in me” (Romans 7:18,20). Paul finds rescue from this propensity to do what is contrary to what he knows through an external Source, the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25); he finds nothing within himself that will produce the works of righteousness that he so desires to do – he becomes a new creation, the work of God alone (2 Corinthians 5:17, 18). By contrast, Covey (1989), because he is self-aware, declares, “I can change. I can live out of my imagination instead of my memory. I can tie myself to my limitless potential instead of my limiting past. I can become my own first creator” (p. 105, emphasis added). Paul demonstrates a humble dependence upon God, while Covey is brashly self-sufficient; clearly, these are opposing positions.
When Covey speaks of his limitless potential, he is making reference to “the ultimate powers [that] are latent within man’s own nature,” namely the potential to become God (Covey, 1982, p. 206). “In the world of success/motivation seminars, imagination is considered to be the key that unlocks infinite human potential …” (Hunt, 1985, p. 156). The concepts addressed are identical, the only difference being that Covey (1982) has identified the source of this limitless potential as “all of the ultimate capabilities and powers God himself possesses” that lie within us “in seed form” (p. 206). What is not evident in 7 Habits is that this limitless potential is really not available to everyone. Only as people are “led to the true map of the covenant gospel [LDS] and receive its fulness. … Then there will be no limitations on the full development of their capacities and potential” (Covey, 1982, p. 15). Covey believes that this limitless potential is only available to those who have turned away from “false maps, false ideas in the form of beliefs or doctrines or creeds” and have embraced the doctrines and practices of the LDS (Covey, 1982, p. 15).
Conclusion
Although we clearly share some common ground with Covey in matters pertaining to the imagination and conscience, there is also a fundamental difference that must not be overlooked. There is general agreement that these two human endowments are a part of who we are, and a common understanding of what they are: the seat of creativity, and a malleable sense of right and wrong. However, once again, a full understanding of Covey’s intent reveals a disparity that may not be initially evident, but which lends credence to his contention that “… we [Mormons] shouldn’t hesitate to work within the vocabularies of others to communicate our meanings …” (Covey, 1982, p. 240).
Following Covey’s teachings in this area will open the door to the New Age movement. Consider for a moment Covey’s introductory paragraph to this Habit:
Please find a place to read these next few pages where you can be alone and uninterrupted. Clear your mind of everything except what you will read and what I will invite you to do. … Just focus with me and really open your mind.
In your mind’s eye, see yourself … (Covey, 1989, p. 96).
What he is asking the reader to participate in is, by his own confession, a “visualization experience” (Covey, 1989, p. 97). This is more than an exercise of the imagination, more than the mental image of a finished product an artist or builder might have. “According to its New Age advocates, visualization, which combines mental concentration [Covey’s focus with me] with directed imagery [Covey’s see yourself …], is a powerful tool for achieving personal and corporate goals and changing physical, psychological, and spiritual reality” (Weldon, 1996, p. 18). Visualization seeks to place within the grasp of the individual the ability to determine his own destiny, to establish “contact with that inner guidance system at the heart of your Circle of Influence” (Covey, 1989, p. 97). There can be no doubt that Covey’s call to focus and to see yourself fits neatly within the criteria for New Age visualization, and feeds on the present popularity of such activity (see Table 4).
Weldon (1996, No. 2) outlines four principal components that are a part of most “popular and occult types of visualization”:
- Pantheism or monism: an underlying divine energy – the one power or cosmic reality – interconnects everything.
- Humans are divine in their true nature and control their personal destinies; they are an integral part of this divine energy and can experientially realize this through proper technique and instruction.
- The mind of each human has “infinite” potential; the “higher self,” unconscious mind, or some such concept provides the connecting link to the infinite, and is believed to be the repository of vast wisdom and power.
- Visualization is an important technique that taps the higher self and initiates contact with the ultimate cosmic reality (p. 20, emphasis added).
With these four components in mind, consider how closely this parallels what Covey has to say:
- “To the degree to which we align ourselves with correct principles, divine endowments will be released within our nature …” (Covey, 1989, p. 319, emphasis added).
- “I can become my own first creator” (Covey, 1989, p. 105, emphasis added).
- “I can live out of my imagination instead of my memory. I can tie myself to my limitless potential instead of my limiting past” (Covey, 1989, p. 105, emphasis added).
- “In effective personal leadership, visualization and affirmation techniques emerge naturally out of a foundation of well thought through purposes and principles that become the center of a person’s life. They are extremely powerful in rescripting and reprogramming …” (Covey, 1989, p. 134,135, emphasis added).
The parallels within 7 Habits to the four components of visualization that Weldon has outlined for us are strikingly clear.
The one element of visualization that seems to rise above all the others is the idea of divinity within. Jesus said, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:21-23). Far more pervasive than the ability for good that may lie within us, is the propensity for evil. “To find the ‘divine’ within, with its suggestion of universalism, the words of Christ must be ignored or reinterpreted” (Weldon, 1996, No. 2, p. 25).
Hunt (1985) proposes that “the real disadvantage would be to those who visualize, for they have been led to trust in their own imagination rather than in God” (p. 165). An integral part of visualization is drawing from the higher self within, rather than recognition of our need for the God of the Bible. A.W. Tozer (1964) understood the inadequacy of such a self-focused philosophy when he stated:
Divine revelation assures us that certain things are true which imagination will simply not grasp.…
… we cannot be right unless we think right, and to think right we must distinguish believing from visualizing. … Unwillingness to believe proves that men love darkness rather than light, while inability to visualize indicates no more than lack of imagination, something that will not be held against us at the judgment seat of Christ….
The ability to visualize is found among vigorous-minded persons, whatever their moral or spiritual condition may be.…
The wise Christian will not let his assurance depend upon his powers of imagination. (p. 68,69).
What Covey calls deeply embedded habits is what God refers to as sin, not a habit unworthy of us, but a state into which we are born – it is who we are. Covey looks into the heart of man and sees God-potential; God looks into that same heart and sees sin, an innate propensity to do wrong, an indelible stain that we are incapable of removing through visualization or any other technique. The reality is that the essence of our being is sinful and any hope we may have for the future must rest in what God has done for us through Christ on Calvary, and on our response to His call to salvation. Jesus paid the price for our sins in full; the salvation that He offers is complete and free.
Put First Things First
Covey’s Position
Covey’s third Habit focuses on “the second creation, the physical creation” (Covey, 1989, p. 147). This becomes the culmination of the first two Habits: in Habit 1 we discover our role as creator, in Habit 2 we visualize our destination, and now we “proactively carry out the program that we have developed” (Covey, 1989, p. 148). There is a sense that we need to understand who we are, where it is we want to go, and finally, how to get there. It is in this third Habit that we use our endowment of an independent will – we can “act instead of being acted upon” (Covey, Merrill & Merrill, 1994, p. 112). The degree of success that is achieved is dependent upon the measure of our personal integrity, “the value we place on ourselves. … our ability to make and keep commitments to ourselves, to ‘walk our talk’” (Covey, 1989, p. 148).
There is a strong sense of not only progression, but also interdependence among these first three Habits; taken individually they lose much of their appeal. Proactivity (Habit 1) without a sense of direction (Habit 2) would lead to aimless activity; a visualized end (Habit 2) without a will to make it happen (Habit 3) is day dreaming; and a will to accomplish a task (Habit 3) without a vision (Habit 2) is mere determinism, a grit-your-teeth-to-get-the-job-done approach. It is the passion of vision that “gives us a new understanding of independent will”, that moves us from white-knuckled control to be “a follower of our inner imperatives”, reconnecting disciple and discipline (Covey et al., 1994, p. 112). “Most people say their main fault is a lack of discipline. … The basic problem is that their priorities have not become deeply planted in their hearts and minds. They haven’t really internalized Habit 2” (Covey, 1989, p. 157-158).
It is within Habit 3 where effective management takes place, the discipline of doing things rightly. “Management is the breaking down, the analysis, the sequencing, the specific application, the time-bound left-brain aspect of effective self-government” (Covey, 1989, p. 147). Effective management is where putting first things first comes into play; what those first things are has already been determined (Habit 2), it is now a matter of arranging our priorities such that the first things occupy first place.
Covey (1989) refers to the traditional time management matrix to clarify the process of prioritization, even though he feels time management is a misnomer and the challenge really is “to manage ourselves” (p. 150, see Table 5 for further details). He points out that Quadrants I and III (of the matrix) will “work on you”, they are those urgent matters that will demand your attention and time (Covey, 1989, p. 156). Quadrant IV holds those things that are pleasant or fun to do but really are not that productive in achieving any goals. Quadrant II, on the other hand, is where things like planning, preventive maintenance, and vision development would take place, those things that can make all the difference in the bigger scheme of things. Covey cites four generations of management style that can be observed, each deals with the Quadrants in a different manner (see Table 6). However, because Quadrant II items do not demand our attention (they are not urgent), they tend not to naturally occupy top spots on our list of priorities. Covey (1989) advocates that the “key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule, but to schedule your priorities”, to proactively approach Quadrant II items, and to appropriate time that would otherwise be spent in Quadrants III and IV (p. 161). “The enemy of the ‘best’ is often the ‘good’,” and therein lies the challenge that we all face (Covey, 1989, p. 157).
A Biblical Response
The focus of this Habit is on time management, or, as Covey (1989) astutely puts it, “the challenge is not to manage time, but to manage ourselves” (p. 150). Central to this theme of self-management or self-discipline is the independent will of man: man’s ability to determine his action based upon values and priorities rather than mere response or reaction.
MacDonald (1985) would agree with Covey that our lives are often the product of the demands of the urgent, and “yet not everything that cries the loudest is the most urgent thing” (p. 78). The adage that the squeaky wheel gets the grease may be a reflection of much of life, but it reflects a response to an outside annoyance rather than the unfolding of a personal plan. Our lives are much better when we permit those non-Quadrant II things to “flow around the priorities and into available slots [of time, rather] than when things are the other way around” (MacDonald, 1985, p. 84, emphasis in the original). The conundrum that we find ourselves in, and often fail to face, is that Quadrant II activities will not happen without a deliberate act of our will.
The will of man has been the subject of much theological debate through the centuries, and the fact that man was created with a will, a self-determining ability to choose his course of action, is a matter that is evident from the time of his creation. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16, 17). God created man with the ability to choose his action, even though the consequences for his action were predetermined. The Scriptures are replete with the conditional promises of God: if you will obey, then I will …; but if you disobey, then I will … (see Leviticus 26:3-39 as an example – results of obedience 3-13; results of disobedience 14-39). Even the “gospel-in-a-verse” (John 3:16) contains the element of choice: if you believe, you should not “perish, but have everlasting life;” the implication being that if you do not believe, then you will perish and will forfeit everlasting life.
Clearly, the matter of putting first things first calls for prioritization of actions, goals, and values. However, the process of making this determination may not be as simple as it appears. Baldry (1994) points out that “effective personal management must include coming to grips with the question of our real versus our imagined priorities” (p. 161). The point being made is that the reality of our priorities will be more evident in our actions than in our words; we may pay lip service to specific priorities, while the choices we make tell another story. “Freedom is rejecting the entanglement of possessive influences … to speak, move, and think in line with … [our] life’s purpose” (Shank, 1990, p. 97). In other words, freedom is found in making choices (an exercise of the will) that are in keeping with our purpose in life, those Quadrant II issues. The entanglement of possessive influences would be the Quadrant I and III issues that seek to consume our attention and our time, and trap us into living outside our priorities. Shank (1990) goes on to say that “the only thing more pitiful than a person who is a slave and knows it is a person who’s a slave yet thinks he is free” (p. 98).
James refers to the instability of the double-minded man, a man who holds two opposing thoughts or priorities and who will vacillate between them (1:8). As Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, He declared that our first priority must be to seek the “kingdom of God, and his righteousness”, and, as this forms the focus of our living, He promised that the needs of life (i.e., food and clothing) would be attended to (Matthew 6:33). What tends to occupy the largest portion of our time? Very likely it is the acquisition of those essentials of life, yet we are admonished not to make this the focus of our attention. Even though making a living may occupy the largest portion of our time, it must remain a means to an end and not an end in itself. Clearly, the ordering of our lives, and the care we take in establishing our priorities, will influence how life unfolds for us.
Conclusion
Covey’s emphasis on the need to elevate Quadrant II activities in ordering our lives is something that we as believers would do well to heed. If we are honest, we will admit to spending too much of our time on matters that are really of no long term value, or may actually be counter-productive in the big picture. However, the exercise of our will, our determination to put first things first must flow from a desire to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), and not from a progression of introspection (self-awareness), visualization (imagination), and self-affirmation (conscience). The difficulty that arises with Covey is the focus of his Quadrant II thinking: he (1989) maintains, “a Quadrant II focus is a paradigm that grows out of a principle center” (p. 158). As Christians, our focus must be on God, who He is, and what He has done for us, and on Jesus, “the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Our need to learn the discipline necessary for the unfolding of Quadrant II activities is undeniable, but we must exercise diligence and discernment that our basis for carrying out these activities is pleasing to God. Unless our focus is on God (not universal principles), we will unwittingly fail understand what Quadrant II activity should be, for “life is in God – the giver of principles, not in the principles themselves” (Walker, 1996, p. 26).