Multidimensional Perfectionism: A Response to Bland & Hoard (2026)

Abstract

This article is a response to Bland and Hoard’s article, “The Christian Filter: Lacan and being a ‘Good Enough’ Christian.” Rather than critiquing, we further engage with the concept of perfectionism through an empirical lens, examining its valence, directionality, and sociocultural domains in which ideals are constructed. Drawing from the multidimensional perfectionism literature, we highlight how perfectionism is not merely an intrapsychic phenomenon but also socially prescribed and culturally embedded. Placing Bland and Hoard’s Lacanian framing in dialogue with empirical models of perfectionism, we offer additional language for understanding Lucas’s oscillation between religious zeal and self-condemnation, as well as the interpersonal and symbolic forces that sustain the “Christian filter.” Ultimately, we suggest that clinical integration is enriched when psychological research and psychoanalytic-theological reflection are held together, allowing clinicians to see perfectionism as both a source of suffering and a space of grace where desire, lack, and faith may be reimagined.

In their article, “The Christian Filter: Lacan and being a ‘Good Enough’ Christian,” Bland and Hoard (2026) explore the concept of perfection within evangelical life through a Lacanian lens. They define perfection as an “amalgamated construct” characterized by binary thinking, resulting in individuals oscillating between the achievement-based and failure-based affective experiences. The authors first utilize traditional psychoanalytic perspectives to understand perfectionism, drawing on Melanie Klein to frame idealization as a defense against drive-related impulses and threats of destruction. They expand the thought further through the work of Hans Loewald, who views psychic experience through the metaphor of time. In this view, the meeting of memory and temptation in the “now” shatters ideals of goodness, leading to internal condemnation. The authors assert that a “Christian filter” is not maintained by theological knowledge alone, but is held in place by “relationally embedded approvals and prohibitions” (p. 167), including the individual’s formative relationship with God.

The article applies Lacan’s three registers—the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real—to the clinical case of Lucas, a patient who struggles to reconcile his religious identity with his desire for spontaneous romantic contact. Within the Imaginary register, Lucas pursues a fantasy of wholeness and being a “good Christian witness,” an image that requires constant defensive mechanisms to protect against the “in-breaking of the Real.” This register also informs his search for a “perfect girl,” whom he inevitably de-idealizes when her human flaws emerge. The Symbolic register represents the rules and social authority of the big Other, which in Lucas’s context is the conservative evangelical culture that defines the “correct” way to live. Finally, the Real acts as the impossible remainder that resists symbolization. The authors argue that Lucas’s “stealth” transgressions—such as gambling with his phone location disabled—are attempts to hide from a God of the Real who would haunt his messy human desires, allowing him to maintain a naive god who only judges what is seen.

In their concluding theological reflections, Bland and Hoard critique the American obsession with a “Plastic Jesus,” a figure existing solely in the Imaginary and Symbolic registers who values image, success, and self-reliance over vulnerability. They argue that when the Real Jesus is neglected, discipleship collapses into a curated image that forecloses genuine human experience. Invoking Donald Winnicott’s concept of the good-enough parent, the authors propose a shift toward a good-enough Christianity. They suggest that maturity is achieved not by erasing lack, but by consenting to it and receiving its disturbance at the space where love remains alive. Finally, they urge a turn toward the Jesus in the Real as a means to foster an integrative self—one that grows though developing the capacity to recognize, embrace, and mobilize imperfection.

A Discourse on Perfectionism

Strawn and Bland (2025) argue that clinical integration is hermeneutic in nature—a dynamic, formative process that unfolds within the relational encounter, with each subjectivity shaped by their respective social locations. Building on this premise, we draw on our backgrounds in perfectionism research and our experiences as third-culture individuals to expand the understanding of perfection. In doing so, we seek to illustrate how integrative meaning-making is mediated through the personhood of the Christian clinician.

We appreciate Bland and Hoard’s in-depth analysis of the concept of perfection from both psychoanalytic and theological perspectives. We concur with their observation that perfection, though an amalgamated and complex construct, is often experienced and expressed in binary terms. In response, we approach this dialogue from a stance of learning, informed by an appreciation for the multidimensional nature of perfection as articulated in the empirical literature. We begin by socially and professionally situating ourselves to help the readers know the locations we are speaking from. We then examine perfectionism as a multidimensional construct, articulating its valence, directionality, and sociocultural domains. We attempt to integrate these conceptual frameworks with Bland and Hoard’s clinical case to further illuminate the clinical and theoretical implications of perfectionism. We also raise questions as clinicians who normally conceptualize cases outside of the Lacanian framework, hoping our engagement will increase the “thickness” of our clinical understanding (Dueck & Reimer, 2009).

Social Location and Perfectionism

I (Eltice) identify as a Taiwanese Christian woman. Born and raised in Taiwan, I was brought up practicing a blend of folk religion, Taoism, and Buddhism, before coming to the Christian faith during college. Throughout adulthood, I moved between Taiwan and the United States and lived among diverse international communities. These experiences have shaped my curiosity about, and fascination with, the complexities of the world and the varied ways people experience and make meaning within it. My understanding of perfectionism is shaped by both cultural and religious influences, and my doctoral research examined how perceived perfectionism affects the well-being of religious leaders, with particular attention to women.

I (Kenneth) identify as a Taiwanese American Christian who has spent my life between Taiwan and the United States. Raised in a Christian family, I grew up with pressure to live up to high expectations of religious and moral purity—expectations that were often reinforced by my parents. As a scholar, I have conducted empirical research on perfectionism across cultures for the past two decades. More specifically, my work expands the study of perfectionism beyond an individual personality trait to the contextual environments that shape it, including family and religious faith. I also serve as a coach for perfectionists.

Perfectionism as a Multidimensional Construct

Perfectionism has been conceptualized and empirically supported as a multidimensional personality trait (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and is commonly differentiated into adaptive and maladaptive aspects (Hamachek, 1978; Slaney et al., 2001; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). More specifically, perfectionism is often understood in terms of two valenced dimensions: Standards, reflecting perfectionistic strivings toward high personal goals, and Discrepancy, reflecting perceived gaps between one’s performance and these standards (Slaney et al., 2001). Parallel to this, the adaptive aspect of perfectionism is characterized by perfectionistic strivings, whereas the maladaptive aspect centers on evaluative concerns, that is, a tendency to magnify one’s perceived imperfections and inadequacies. In addition, Hewitt and Flett (1991) conceptualized perfectionism in terms of its interpersonal directionality, emphasizing how perfectionistic standards can be oriented toward the self or embedded in social relationships. Their three-factor model distinguishes self-oriented perfectionism (self-imposed standards), other-oriented perfectionism (standards imposed on others), and socially prescribed perfectionism (perceived external standards). Of these, socially prescribed perfectionism—defined by heightened sensitivity to social evaluation—shows the strongest associations with negative affect and psychopathology, including anxiety and depressive symptoms (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Research has also examined how perfectionism affects functioning across interpersonal and sociocultural domains such as family and religion, which we will discuss later (Wang, 2010; Wang et al., 2018).

When applied specifically in the religious realm, researchers have identified zealous religious dedication and religious self-criticism as two main dimensions of religious perfectionism (Wang et al., 2020). Zealous religious dedication represents an earnest commitment that is overall adaptive in nature and parallels the striving aspect (Standards) of general perfectionism, whereas religious self-criticism is characterized by harsh condemnation of oneself which mirrors the evaluative concern aspect (Discrepancy) found as maladaptive. For example, being religiously zealous was positively correlated with spiritual well-being, whereas religious self-criticism was linked with anxiety and burnout among Christians in the U.S. (Wang et al., 2023). It is worth noting is that religious perfectionism has often been associated with scrupulosity, an obsessive preoccupation with sin and with obtaining God’s approval (Abramowitz et al., 2002), as well as heightened experience of guilt and shame (e.g., Allen et al., 2015). To further elaborate on the perfectionism’s specific directionality and domains, Wang and colleagues (2018) introduced the construct of perceived perfectionism from God, describing how individuals experience perfectionistic expectations or a sense of constantly falling short in God’s eyes. From this perspective, the source of Standards and Discrepancy is external and located in the divine, making it a form of socially prescribed perfectionism. Similarly, Wang’s (2010) work on perceived perfectionistic expectations within the family shows how perfectionistic stress can be experienced as arising from relational contexts rather than solely from the self. Together, these studies underscore that perfectionism is relationally mediated—a dynamic that is particularly salient in Lucas’s experience.

To illustrate the case of Lucas through the language of the perfectionism literature, we observe his constant striving to embody what is imagined as the perfect Christian, alongside his inevitable fixation on his own (or others’) failures to meet this ideal—an experience analogous to both religious zealousness and religious self-criticism. Although religious zealousness is often associated with spiritual well-being, Lucas’s case invites a closer examination of the cultural and social mediation within the evangelical context in which he grew up. His pursuit of what is “good” appears less grounded in theology alone than in mandates from significant social authorities—a dynamic that resonates with Richard Rohr’s assertion that we are created in our image of God (as cited in Boyle, 2024). This dynamic can be understood through the lens of socially prescribed perfectionism, in which distress is closely tied to a preoccupation with the gaze of others and efforts to meet perceived, internalized expectations. In this sense, the Christian filter is not merely a setting on a dating app, but an embodied and relational experience. His heightened, often unconscious sensitivity to social evaluation thus becomes the organizing force of his subjective experience. Within this framework, turning off his phone or disabling the Christian filter can be understood as symbolic strategies that temporarily relieve the pressure of externally imposed perfectionistic demands.

Lucas’s case also exemplifies the multiple directionalities of perfectionism at play. He self-imposes idealized Christian standards, projects these standards onto others (e.g., the women he dates), and experiences perceived perfectionism in the form of an internalized ideal of the perfect Christian mediated through his relationships with his family, church, and God. What is particularly interesting to us is that, although this perceived lack appears to trouble Lucas, from a Lacanian perspective, perceived lack functions as a motivating force that gives rise to desire and love. In this sense, maladaptive perfectionism or religious self-criticism, though often associated with feelings of guilt and shame, remains worthy of our curiosity and attention.

Building on Bland and Hoard’s discussion of Lacan’s three registers, we are drawn to consider how socially prescribed expectations—mediated through social and relational norms—shape how language is used, including what is spoken and what remains unspoken in Lucas’s experience. Reflecting from our high-context communication style and Asian cultural background, we understand language not primarily through what is said, but through how it is said—and, more importantly, through what remains unsaid. Language, or the Symbolic in Lacanian terms, resides in subtexts, gaps, and the collectively mediated approvals and prohibitions through which meaning is structured. Lacan’s later work seems to also foreground the role of the body in language and the unconscious (Soler, 2014), and we are intrigued by the possibility that when Lucas turns off the Christian filter on his dating app or turns off his phone during moments of thrill-seeking, it is not simply a reduction of God to a “plastic Jesus,” but rather the body speaking a language his mouth cannot. Therefore, his “sins” or symptoms (e.g., gambling, pornography) may be understood as corporeal articulations of truths that his “good Christian” discourse seeks to disavow.

Finally, the ideals of a perfect believer can look different across traditions and individuals. Similar to Bland and Hoard, we will not argue theologically what a perfect Christian should look like. However, we want to note that research has identified how believers can have very differing ideals of religious perfection across and within faith traditions. For example, Lin et al. (2023) identified ten themes describing how an ideal believer is understood among Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims in China. These themes cluster into four broad domains: commitment to the self (self-discipline and moral practices), commitment to others (other-centeredness and spiritual influence/leadership), commitment to God or faith (God/faith-centeredness, religious knowledge, adherence to teachings, and religious practice/activity), and commitment in the world (relinquishing control and duty to country/world). Between-faith differences were also observed. For example, there was a relatively stronger emphasis on moral practices and relinquishing control for Buddhists. In contrast, for Christians and Muslims in China, relatively more weight was placed on God/faith centeredness and adherence to teachings. Moreover, in a study with Latter-day Saints, nine themes emerged around the topic of how a perfect believer in God’s eyes is depicted (Wang et al., 2016). The themes stretched across three overarching domains: personal growth (trying one’s best and repentance/improvement), doctrinal compliance (obedient/no sin, spiritual practices/activities, Christ-like/God-like, atonement/impossible), and character traits (other-focused, virtues/disposition, and pure intentions). We consider varying definitions of perfection to emphasize the necessity of further understanding each client’s experience within their particular sociocultural context. As for Lucas, his perfectionistic ideals appear to reflect what is espoused by American evangelicalism, which privileges moral and sexual purity—or, at minimum, the performance of such purity. Understanding these definitions of perfection deepens our curiosity about Lucas’s ambivalence regarding what constitutes a “perfect” Christian girl and the conflicts he held about relationships and whether exploring this thoughtfully might help him come to terms with the impossibility of his ideal and facilitate his acceptance of the perceived lack.

In summarizing the theoretical framework of perfectionism, we aim to provide a structure to understand Lucas’s perfectionism through the lens of the empirical literature. Specifically, we suggest that a multidimensional understanding of perfectionism from its valence, directionality, and sociocultural domains offers not only conceptual clarity but also concrete clinical pathways for intervention. For instance, the interpersonal directionality of perfectionism provides a useful map for clinical inquiry. Lucas’s self-oriented perfectionism may emerge as harsh internal demands to embody an ideal birthed out of a popular version of American Evangelicalism, while socially prescribed perfectionism may manifest in his preoccupation with how he is perceived by the significant others within his particular social context. Clinically, this invites exploration of whose voice is being carried in his conscience: Is it the voice of divine grace, the voice of evangelical subculture, or the voice of early attachment-based expectations? Helping Lucas externalize and name these sources of pressure may loosen the fusion between God and the punitive big Other, creating space for a more differentiated and relationally grounded experience of faith. Moreover, Lucas’s “stealth transgressions” may be understood not simply as moral failures but as psychologically meaningful strategies of affect regulation and resistance against impossible standards. From this perspective, the clinician might approach these behaviors with curiosity, asking why relief or embodied desire becomes possible only outside the Christian filter. Such an approach resonates with both Lacanian attention to lack and Winnicottian good-enoughness: The goal is not the eradication of desire or imperfection, but the integration of disavowed parts of the self into a more honest and compassionate subjectivity.

Conclusion

Integrative clinical work with religious perfectionism requires particular sensitivity to the client’s theological and cultural world. Exploring Lucas’s implicit image of God and where it originates may be essential: Does he experience God as primarily surveilling, disappointed, and contingent upon performance, or as present, compassionate, and secure? Interventions may include making connections between his high standards and scrupulosity to the functional impact of these standards. The cultivation of practices that emphasize belovedness and compassion rather than achievement may also be helpful. In this way, the therapeutic task is not to remove the Christian filter entirely, but to transform it—from a rigid perfectionistic screen into a permeable space where the coexistence of faith, desire, relational vulnerability, and imperfection is made possible. By integrating Lacan’s concept of lack, the clinician can provide a lens for him to explore desire and the experience of love. Such work may allow Lucas to move toward what Bland and Hoard describe as a “good-enough Christianity,” in which lack is no longer a site of condemnation but a space where love remains alive.