In this part of our study we wish to discuss the meaning of true spirituality. As stated earlier, we shall examine this topic for two principal reasons: first, in order that we may see how we are to put our ethics into practice so that we can comprehend the logical implications of our ethics; and second, in order that we may correct some of the current misconceptions about the nature of spirituality that are prevalent within the religious world today.
To some readers it may seem academic to suggest that we need to analyze how we put our Christianity into practice in our day-to-day lives. For many, Christianity has become so deeply rooted in their existence and become such a controlling factor in their lives that they can hardly perceive the idea of not living within its precepts. But whether we have matured in our Christian walk to this degree or not, we ought nevertheless to realize that most of us are still waging a daily struggle to put ourselves under the lordship of Christ, and we all face decisions each day that require careful consideration and analysis. A close study of our expected behavior is therefore beneficial, not only for our own personal growth but but also in helping us demonstrate to the unbeliever how the Christian may indeed live consistently with his beliefs.
This point of consistency is our primary consideration, because it is essential that whatever ethical system one may adopt he should be able to live consistently within the system. If we look at our determinist and existentialist friends, for instance, we will find that it is impossible for them to live consistently with their beliefs about man and what man is. For example, a person who believes that the universe is all chance may argue persuasively in the lecture hall that the universe and life are nothing more than random chance, but when they leave the classroom we find that they do not live their own lives by chance. To take but one example, the late modern composer John Cage believed in the proposition that everything is chance, and he expressed that belief when he created musical compositions using various methods of randomly determining what notes to write. But Cage, who also was an amateur mycologist, never utilized the chance method when gathering the mushrooms he intended to eat for dinner! It is clear then that man simply cannot live consistently with the proposition that everything is chance, for to exercise chance in mushroom gathering would likely result in a rapid cessation of personal existence.
Likewise, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre was unable to live consistently with his belief that we live in a universe without meaning. Sartre taught that despite the meaninglessness of man, we should nevertheless attempt to authentic ourselves by an act of the will. Exactly how one might choose to act does not matter in this system — it is the act itself that counts. As Sartre himself stated it, “To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil.”(1) In other words, what we choose is good simply because we choose it. As an example we might cite a circumstance in which a man sees an old lady attempting to cross the street in busy traffic. In Sartre’s system the man should act, but it does not matter in which direction he acts — whatever action he chooses will authenticate his existence. The man might act to help the woman across the street to safety, but he might just as well act to run her down with his car. In either case he will have authenticated himself by performing an act of the will. Neither action would be considered by Sartre as immoral, because morals do not exist in his system.
Sartre often argued with his colleague and fellow-existentialist Albert Camus because Sartre felt that Camus did not live consistently with their shared philosophical beliefs. Camus never gave up the hope that man may someday discover morals, in spite of his belief that the world apparently is without meaning. But despite his arguments, Sartre himself failed to live consistently with his system, and he fell from grace in the eyes of many of his followers when he signed the Algerian Manifesto which condemned the war in Algeria as an immoral war. Hence, neither Sartre nor Camus (nor any other existentialist) could live consistently with the beliefs they espoused.
This is important to note when we attempt to teach people about the truth of what is. What many people believe in theory is not true of the real world. But what Christianity teaches is true of the real world, and it provides a system with which man can live consistently. The Christian, unlike the determinist or existentialist, is able to demonstrate in his own life the consistency between what his religion teaches and how the real world actually is. As Carl Henry has expressed it, “It is characteristic of the religion of Christ to say not simply you must, with an absolute sanction and validity absent outside the Hebrew-Christain revelation, but you can, and to show how the amazing quality of the Christ-life can be shared and approximated even before it becomes a fully accomplished fact in the life to come.”(2). Our point is that one can live consistently with Christian ethics.
This is an essential tenet of our belief, not only in proving the reality of God’s will to the unbeliever, but also in helping us to determine our decisions in the grey areas of life. If we make a decision that renders us incapable of remaining consistent with our basic Christian position, then we must rethink our decision. That is to say, if we make a decision with which we are incapable of remaining consistent with our beliefs, we either have made a wrong decision of have made it for the wrong reason. We will deal with this point again later in Part Four of our study.
In addition to the question of consistency, we also want to look at what it means to be a spiritual person in order to correct some misunderstandings many people have in regards to spirituality. This is a point that concerns all of us, for every Christian should desire to demonstrate spiritual growth throughout life. Spiritual growth is an essential function of the Christian, and where it is absent there is a withering and death of the spiritual process.
But as we each seek to attain that growth, it is imperaticve that we maintain a clear view of that for which we are striving. If we set our course without a proper understanding of our desired goal, we are bound for frustration and sometimes even the attainment of unsought and unwanted results.
Our era seems to have spawned a particularly large number of well-intentioned Christian men and women who, while seeking to please God, have become increasingly confused as to the course they are to take in His service. Most of us find it quite easy, for instance, to feel that we are embarking on a spiritual path when we have just heard a stirring sermon on the importance of dedicating ourselves to the work of the church, or when we have just attended a workshop dealing with the importance of Christian missions. At times such as these we often feel certain of our goals and become intent on reorganizing our priorities in order to accomplish these greater works for our Lord. But when we turn again to our daily routines and our clearly mundane existence, too often we feel that the crushing realities of our lives as a wife, father, student, or employee are thwarting our endeavors to press on to our higher calling.
Such a view of our various stations and duties in life as hinderances to the spiritual walk we desire is prevalent among many religious bodies today. Quite often we hear of people who have given up their jobs, friends, and even families so that they can dedicate themselves more fully to “spiritual” matters. And while it is true that there are instances in which such actions could be necessary, it also must be borne in mind that the reasons behind many such decisions are based on an improper understanding of the nature of true spirituality. Seeking what they believe to be a higher calling, many are doing nothing less than abandoning the spirituality they seek.
We therefore must consider seriously the question of the meaning of true spirituality and what it means to be a spiritual person. It is hoped that this section of our study will aid us in answering these question so that we each may grow into the kind of parent, teacher, factory worker, administrator, housewife, or church worker we should become, for we will be dealing with the question of spirituality not only within the context of our responsibilities to the Lord’s church in areas we already recognize as spiritual, but also will do so within the conext of our day-to-day experiences and affairs.
Let it be impressed upon the reader’s mind from the outset that too often many of us make improper distinctions between activities and actions that we deem as residing exclusively within either a “sacred” or “secular” category. In actuality, we do not find any such strict dichotomy presented in the Word of God. Instead we find that according to Scripture, there is nothing that we as Christians may do or think that is strictly and exclusively secular in nature; contrariwise, there is also nothing that is strictly sacred that would preclude the interplay of our humanity.
The division of everything into sacred and secular categories has its origins at least as far back as the Greek philosopher Plato. Plato taught that physical objects were but impermanent manifestations of representations of unchanging spiritual Ideas, and he drew a sharp distinction between physical matter and spiritual matter. This concept of a strict dichotomy (sometimes referred to as a “Platonic dichotomy”) was later espoused by some of the pagan converts in the early church. When a person perceives all things as existing exclusively within either a sacred or secular category, there are two possible logical conclusions that may result, and we find examples of both of these within the early church at Corinth. St. Paul spends much of his times in his epistles to the Corinthians refuting this philosophy.
Some of the Christians at Corinth were holding to this dichotomous view of the universe and made sharp distinctions between good and evil, light and dark, spirit and matter, and sacred and secular activities and actions. Their reasoning concluded that the body and everything connected with it are evil; the spirit and all concerning it are good. From this view arose two schools of thought. One group held that, since the spirit and body are two separate entities and mutually exclusive, one can do whatever one wants in the body so long as the spirit remains holy. Thus they could perform any number of immoral acts in the body while at the same time keeping the spirit aloof, worshiping God and singing His praises. (We also encounter that same heresy in St. John’s epistles.) St. Paul has to remind these errant Christians that the body is the temple of the spirit, and that we should glorify God in the spirit and in the body (I Corinthians 6:12-20).
The second group in Corinth reached an almost opposite conclusion regarding moral behavior. Believing in the strict division of body and spirit, they came to feel that in order to keep the spirit holy they should deny the body anything that gives it pleasure and should adopt an ascetic manner of life. These errants too St. Paul corrects in I Corinthians 7, teaching husbands and wives to render to one another their due benevolence. In teaching this, St. Paul demonstrates not only the innocence of the expression of conjugal rights, but he also goes further to point out that it is our duty to perform these “secular” acts as a means of maintaining spiritual purity. To St. Paul, a view of spirituality that divides the body and spirit into exclusively warring factions was contrary to Christ’s teachings. As Ridderbos has observed, “every ascetic element that seeks sin in the natural or created, or which attempts to further the avoidance of sin by the avoidance of the natural use of things, is alien to [Paul].”(3)
Although such extremes in thought are rarely found within the church today, we do find practices that prove themselves clearly to be the children of the same error. These may be seen among Christians who divide activities into sacred and secular categories. (Note that we are not here talking about activities that are expressly forbidden to the Christian, but rather are discussing ordinary daily activities.) Those who hold to such distinctions do not maks such sharp divisions between spirit and body as did the Corinthians, but they nevertheless often make distinctions between, say, attending services of the church or participating in mission activities (“sacred”) and working at one’s job or spending an evening at the opera with one’s family (“secular”).
But it should be observed that since Scripture teaches a view of man that includes his whole person, it is just as wrong for any of us to divide our activities into dichotomous sacred and secular categories as it was for the Corinthians to divide their perception of the world into two mutually exclusive dimensions. To demonstrate why this is so, we might consider the following similiarities.
The sensulaists at Corinth, who believed that one could perform any kind of act in the body so long as the spirit remained pure, did not understand that what one does in the body has consequences that affect our spiritual lives as well. They believed that simply by maintaining this distorted spiritual purity (which was accomplished wholly outside the realm of humanity), they remained pleasing to God. There are still those today who seem to hold a similar view when it comes to works. They believe that they may do as they please in their secular lives, so long as they counterbalance those actions with good works that will offset whatever evil they might fall into. There are even some religious groups that hold to the view that salvation is accomplished through good works, and that what we do in the secular realm doesn’t matter so long as we do what is expected of us in the spiritual realm.
On the other hand there are those today who remind us in many respects of the Corinthians ascetics. The acsetics believed that they needed to deny themselves all pleasure in order not to be tainted in the spirit. To them only the spiritual was important, and the less one was concerned with the body and with matter the more one could devote time and energy into seeking spiritual things. (We are not speaking here of those who choose asceticism as a means of personal spiritual discipline, but of those who believed that all matter — including the body — is inherently evil.) They sought no earthly pleasure, no comfort, nothing for the body at all beyond what was absolutely necessary for maintaining life. They had gone so far as to deny themselves marital relations, not just “for a season,” as St. Paul advised, but on a permanent basis, believing that such acts only called attention to the body and pulled one away from spiritual pursuits. All of I Corinthians 7 is taken up with St. Paul’s admonitions to this group. St. Paul told them that husbands and wives should render their due benevolence in order to avoid fornication. That is to say, those who were denying themselves the “secular” pleasures in order to become more spiritual were instructed that the way to become more spiritual was instead to perform the very benefactions they were avoiding.
Some religious people today again resemble these admirable but mistaken disciples of the first century. By dividing all works into sacred and secular realms, the present-day adherents of this view have merely taken the same dichotomy and applied it to a different property. Seeking spiritual growth, they conclude that only the sacred tasks really matter; the secular works are to be performed only out of necessity in order to sustain life and to provide a means of supporting the family. Whatever lies beyond the absolutely essential must be denied or minimized in order to seek out the higher spiritual goals.
What the groups from both eras fail to recognize is that God did not create man as a dichotomous being or place him in a dichotomous universe. God created our bodies and matter just as He did our spirits, and in creating them He pronounced them good (cf. Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). To say that the material world is evil simply because it is material is to take a non-Biblical view of the world, for Scripture clearly teaches that the world is part of God’s creative handiwork. (It also should be remembered that it was this same heretical view of spirit and matter that led to the great iconoclastic heresy of the eighth and ninth centuries.) The Lord told St. Peter not to make distinctions among God’s creation when He said in Acts 10:15, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”
In like manner, we must not view man as a dichotomous individual. (Indeed, it is even a contradiction in terms to call him such, for the very word “individual” means one that is indivisible.) God created man as a whole being, a unified creature possessing both spirit and flesh. If we are to serve Him as He wishes, we are to serve Him in the whole person, including both spirit and flesh. Such is to say that whatever we do as God’s children, we do it unto Him — not solely in our “spiritual” lives but in all things. As The Preacher has said, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). Our spirituality is not to be found only in the churchly activities in which we engage, but in all aspects of our lives. Carl Henry has said that “When Paul outlines the effect of the Spirit in man’s inner life, his stress does not fall on resultant religious tasks for which men are now gifted, nor on such factors as power in preaching, prayer, and soul winning. His stress is on ethical factors, on the way of the Spirit that contrasts so sharply with the way of the flesh.”(4) He goes on to point out that while it is true that St. Paul does bring out the charismatic expressions of the Christian life, ”his emphasis is on its moral and religious forms also.”(5)
We see then that all of life is spiritual to the Christian, and spiritual in that we do what it is our duty to perform. It is not ours to classify activities as sacred and secular. If anything is worthy of being done, it is to be done unto the Lord. St. Paul said as much both to the Corinthians but also to the Thessalonians, some of whom had stopped working in order that they could wait upon the Day of the Lord, which they believed was imminent. “It appears here [in Thessalonians],” writes Ridderbos,
All of this is not to say, of course, that certain elements of our lives cannot be overemphasized or that activities, though spiritual, cannot be taken from their proper perspectives and allowed to become obstacles in our path. It is, however, to emphasize the honor and glory in all our tasks, however insignificant or lowly they may appear to us, and to impress upon us the evil that is intrinsic in our discrediting such works as unimportant or, worse, as holding us back from greater things.
This section, then, is designed to serve these two purposes: to help us see our ethics in action, and to help us understand the true and Biblical meaning of spirituality. In reaching this understanding of what it means to live spiritually, we should begin to see that indeed all of life is spiritual and that we merely need to properly recognize priorities within the whole of our spiritual lives.
with great clarity that faith in Christ on the one hand, and applications with diligence and order to one’s daily work that one may thus earn his own bread and be an example to others on the other hand, are not two things that have nothing to do with each other or of which the first would even stand in the way of the second, but that it is precisely obedience and faith in Christ that constitute a most powerful and unmistakable incentive for an industrious life.... It is to this effect that Paul also, in rejecting all manner of ascetic and spiritualistic heresy, writes to Timothy that godliness is profitable for all things, having promise for life for the present as well as for the future (1 Tim. 4:8). The revelation of Christ does not abrogate the order of the natural and present life, but makes it recognized and practiced, from the viewpoint of Christ, exactly in its divine significance.(6)
1. The spiritual person demonstrates the character of God in his life
Man has an essence, a purpose for being, that preceded his existence. And that purpose for existence — which modern man cannot explain — is that we are to love the God who made us and show forth His glory in our lives. This means that we are to be a living demonstration of the fact that God exists as a personal God who has a divine character of holiness and love. “Whatever is not an exhibition that God exists,” writes Schaeffer, ”misses the whole purpose of the Christian life now on this earth.”(7)
I Peter 1:9,10 teaches us that Christians are called with a purpose, and that is to “proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” As His children, we are to offer visible evidence of three essential facts: first, that God exists; second, that this existing God is a personal God with a divine character; and third, that this God has reached down to us in love through His Son, and in the marvelous work of the Atonement has given victory to those who will follow Him. We might summarize our entire ethics in these three points by saying that our ethics is to be a demonstration of God’s reality, including the reality of the kind of God He is and what He has done for mankind.
When we say that we are to live in such a way as to give evidence to the fact that God exists, we do not mean to imply in any way that God’s existence were contingent upon our behavior, as though He were some mystical postulate as modern man often perceives Him. Rather, we recognize His existence as an objective reality, and we order our lives in consequence to that fact. We might demonstrate how this works by using an analogy. If someone could show us that a fire existed in the building where we are currently sitting, we certainly would be sure to order our lives in consequence to that fact. The destiny of our lives would, in fact, be dependent upon how we reacted to the fact that our building was on fire. Similarly, once we realize that God exists — really exists — we are forced to accept the consequences of that reality.
The fact that God exists has a profound effect upon our perception of life and the world in general. We perceive that there can be meaning to the universe and that it is conceivable that this existing God has communicated truth to man, for in Him we realize there can be absolute truth. If we, then, who believe in God fail to give evidence of that fact in the ordering of our lives, how could we expect the skeptic and atheist to be drawn to the awareness of God’s existence and to reorder their own lives to His will? Although the fact that God exists can been seen in creation in general, His character is to be observed in our lives and in our behavior. Schaeffer points out that “Christians are to demonstrate God’s character, which is a moral demonstration, but it is not only to be a demonstation of moral principles; it is a demonstration of his being, his existence.”(8) Elsewhere he states, “If the individual Christian, and if the Church of Christ, is not allowing the Lord Jesus Christ to bring forth his fruit into the world, as a demonstration in the area of personal relationships, we cannot expect the world to believe.”(9) Though there are certainly evidences outside ourselves that point to God’s reality, we as Christians are to live our lives as further proof that God exists.
Further, we show in our demontsration the character of the God who exists. We do this because we know that He has communicated His will to man, and His will is that we are to like Him. This is not, as some skeptics would maintain, unreasonable of a personal God. Some insist that if God had created us as individuals, He would want us to be ourselves and to behave as individuals; He wouldn’t ask us to be something we’re not by conforming to His ways. But what these skeptics fail to realize is, first, that we are a fallen race. By conforming to His divine character, we are reassuming the rightful role mankind had in the beginning. Second, they seem not to grasp that beauty is found not in diversity alone, but in harmony. What is the beauty of nature but the beauty of the harmoniousness of all creation, all things working in concord? In the same way, moral beauty is seen in life’s harmonious connection with the nature of the God who created us and made us to bear His image. We can understand this even in the human realm by observing that it is perfectly natural for a parent to desire his children to imitate his better qualities; and so it should not be either unnatural or unreasonable for God to wish such an imitation on the part of His own children. It was such a desire in God’s heart from the very beginning, for when He created man He did so in His own image.
There was, it may certainly be assumed, much more involved in the act of creation of man than the bestowing of a soul and a reasoning mind to distinguish him from all other creation. There was inherent in the act of creation the desire, which was present before the foundations of the world were spoken into existence, for a being who would approach God’s own likeness and who would aspire to His infinite goodness and mercy. For what was God’s purpose in creating man but to share of Himself with beings formed in mind from within His very heart?
In history we find that this same element has played an integral, if not preeminent, part in man’s relationship to God. What did God see in Noah but a will fashioned after His own (Genesis 6:8,9)? What was King David’s greatest attribute but that he was a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22)? God has ever desired of man that he might show forth His divine character on earth.
But simply because man is expected to conform his life to the will of God does not preclude man’s individuality. Just as we observe a great diversity within nature working together in harmony, so man need not surrender his individuality to render his will in harmony with his Creator’s. Conformity does not imply anonymity. But where individuality and free will are sought to the exclusion of this divine harmony, only sin can result, for such was the nature of man’s fall. Diversity within life is part of life’s beauty, but when diversity alone holds sway there is no unifying feature, no beauty, no righteousness, no reflection of the reality of God. It is only when life’s diversity reacts within the context of the harmonious character of God’s will that moral actions can be seen to demonstrate the beauty and reality of the universe that exists.
God, who is holy, has said therefore that we, as His creation, are to be holy in our own lives. This He has spoken from the giving of the Law (Leviticus 11:44) to the giving of His Son (I Peter 1:16). It bears worth noting that God made this desire known no fewer than five times in almost exact wording throughout Scripture: You shall be holy, for I am holy (cf. Leviticus 11:44, 20:7,26; 21:8; I Peter 1:16).
As we saw in the first section of our study, the Christian’s God is not like the god of pantheism who is an impersonal force beyond good and evil. The Christian’s God is a lover of righteousness and a hater or evil (cf. Psalm 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9). Therefore, our demonstration of His holy and righteous character must include a moral demonstration conforming to His holiness. Just as the fact that God exists has a consequence in our lives, the fact that He is holy likewise has a moral consequence in our lives. It demands that we imitate His character and live in a manner consistent with this reality.
But in addition to being holy, God’s character is also that of love. These two are inseparable and are instrinsic to His being. Scripture, through which God has communicated to man and has revealed Himself to us, tells us that these divine qualities are more than mere attributes. They represent God in His very being. God is not just a holy and loving Person, but He is the very imbodiment of holiness and love. I John 4:8,16, Psalm 99:3, and 111:9 express this quite clearly. Because these qualities or characteristics represent God in His very being, we as His children must demonstrate these qualities in our lives in order that the character of God may be evidenced through us.
Since God is holy, it was necessary that a propitiation be made before fallen man could assume his rightful place before Him. SInce God is love, He would send His own Son to be that propitiation. So it was through His divine character that divine grace has been made known to all men, and it is through man’s demonstration of like character that many may know that we are His and may, in turn, give glory to God, just as Jesus said in Matthew 5:16: “‘Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.’” Regardless what our station in life might be, we are instructed to adorn ourselves with the character of God. St. Paul asked this even of slaves in Titus 2:9,10: “Exhort servants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.” As Christians, the slaves were to adorn themselves with God’s character and to demonstrate life’s beauty in all that they did. This is not to say that the slaves could make life beautiful (indeed, it is difficult to conceive of the life of a slave as beautiful), but that they were to show life’s beauty by adoring the doctrine of God and by reflecting His marvelous character.
The Psalmist expressed most perfectly the heart of every true follower when he said, “One thing I have desired of the Lord, That will I seek: That I may dwell in the house of the Lord All the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the Lord, And to inquire in His temple” (Psalm 27:4). When we do likewise and endeavor with our every breath to “inquire of the Lord” and to demonstrate His character, we have come a long way in our spirituality, for we recognize that this demonstration is a moment-by-moment demonstration that encompasses every partical of our lives.
Nor should this demonstration be construed as a mechanical obedience to an arbitrary legal code of behavior, as though we were striving for an adherence to a legalistic concept of justification by works. Our relationship with God is a personal relationship based on the person and work of Jesus Christ. As Schaeffer has said, “Our relationship with God must never be thought of as mechanical. That is why a strong sacerdotal system must always be wrong. We can never deal with God in a mechanical sense, and we should not deal with him on a merely legal basis, though there are these proper legal relationships. Our relationship with God after we have become Christians must always be a person-to-person relationship.”(10)
By so living, we not only give evidence of God’s existence and to His personal character, but we also give evidence of the third part of our demonstration which is the victory that has been won in the Cross. We demonstrate the validity of Christianity which says that through the Cross we are made new creatures and are put again in a proper relationship with our God. We demonstrate that salvation is not simply a future reality — not an event that will transpire only in some faraway time — but that it is a present reality in an eternity that has already begun. We demonstrate that we have already passed from death to life and already possess the eternity that shall be more fully realized at the Judgment.
As Christians, we are perhaps most culpable on this point. Too often we fail to exhibit the truth that God has reached down and has given us a sure victory over sin and death. We fail to acknowledge this victory in our lives. But note how Jesus spoke in John 5:24 where He said, “‘Most assuredly [He did not say ‘probably’], I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in Him who sent me has [not ‘will have’] everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has [not ‘will have’] passed from death into life.’” Jesus said that those who believe in Him posses now, at the present time, everlasting life and have already, today, passed from death into life. Such a promise should have us on our knees thanking God daily for the victory He has already delivered to us, both as a future expection and as a present reality.
Our demonstration, then, is an attestation to the God who is true and to the truth of His promises. The demonstration of God’s character must include the trust in His promised Word, and itself is a fundamental proof of true spirituality. It is not a demonstration affected in order to come into a realtionship with Him, but is one that is made in consequence to the relationship we enjoy in Him already. We glorify Him through this as a thank offering, just as the Psalmist wrote in Psalm 50:23: “Whose offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving glorifieth me” (ASV).
2. The spiritual person values man as made in the image of God
Just as we saw in the first part of our study, we make most of our moral and ethical decisions when we choose our view of man. Consequently, the Christian neither views man nor treats man the same as those who take a lesser view of mankind. To the Christian, “Even the lowliest, weakest, least interesting human being on earth is one to whom God has given life and an eternal future. This realization evokes respect.”(11)
Unlike citizens of the world who seek to use people for what can be gotten out of them, and unlike even those who praise the greatness of Man with a capital M but are unconcerned with the individual, the Christian maintains a high view of man both individually and collectively because he recognizes him as made in the image of His Creator. The Psalmist said, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:4,5, ERV). Whether we see man as crowned with glory and honor or view him as a cosmic accident has a profound effect on our moral decisions regarding our fellow man.
The existentialists and the determinists cannot hold this high view of man because niether system gives man any reason for existence. In a deterministic system, where man is reduced to the sum total of his molecules, man is ultimately perceived as a being of no real worth and who is not responsible for his actions. In this system, man is reduced in the end to nothingness — just as he is in the existential system — because when all is said and done we find that, since he is nothing more than a machine, man becomes equal to non-man. In either system morals have no meaning, and cruelty and non-cruelty become equal. Therefore, man’s treatment of his fellow man is left up to the caprice either of individual human choice or of genetic codes. In either system, man logically comes down to the bottom of the scale because, unlike all the animals and other forms of life on this planet, man can never be fulfilled — he is a fish with lungs, because he possesses personality in an impersonal world.
But the Christian does not so view his fellow man. Instead, he sees not only purpose and meaning, but also value, because man is made in God’s image, a living icon of His Creator. The Christian should never wish to use, abuse, or manipulate another person, or do anything that would cause another person to feel less than human because his humanity is significant and valuable since it is God-given. Rather, we should endeavor to treat all men with respect because we recognize, even when the person in question does not, just who and what he is. Jesus surely realized the tremendous importance of our view of man when He said that the second greatest commandment of all is to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:39). St. John likewise, in his first epistle, expresses the same sentiment: “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (I John 4:16b). “Whether this high ethics shall be applied by a Christian to a particular person,” writes Henry, ”is not based upon the character of that person nor upon the relationship that exists between the Christian and that person. Love is rather a fundamental principle of Christian ethics....”(12)
The story is told of an old monk who, whenever someone visited him in his cell, would prostrate himself before them and kiss their feet in welcome. His fellow monks did not consider this inappropriate when a prince or other noble visitor came to him, but when observed doing the same even with beggars and thieves, he was asked why he would treat them so. The old monk replied that whenever he looked upon his fellow man he saw in them the image of God Himself, and he was compelled therefore to bow down and venerate them as living icons — even when the image was tarnished and when the bearer of the image was not conscious of the gift they possessed.
Our relationship with our fellow man is formed in consequence to God’s relationship with us, for if we are abiding in Him we are reflecting His divine character, and that character is that of love. By acknowledging this, and in seeing that our fellow human beings are also made in God’s image (whether they recognize it or not), we endeavor to behave toward them in a godlike manner, treating them with love, respect, honor, and dignity.
3. The spiritual person shows that the demonstration of the power of God in his life is real, but not perfect
While the Christian is to walk in God’s light and live according to His will, he nevertheless mustc realize that his demonstration of God’s power in his life will always be far from perfect. But because his demonstration is imperfect does not mean that it is not real. We are but finite creatures endeavoring to live lives demonstrative of the character of an infinite God, and we should never expect our ability to do so to reach sinless perfection. Rather, we are to show in our own feeble way the reality of our grasp of God’s perfect character.
But because we cannot achieve perfection in this does not mean that we are to accept anything less than perfection as our standard. We are always to walk in the light of God’s perfect character, just as St. John instructed us in I John 1:5-7: “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.” It is important to note here that St. John does not speak of walking in perfection as a requisite for having fellowship with God, but rather that we are to walk in the light “as He is in the light.” Walking in the light represents an imperfect demonstration of the infinite God, but it is nonetheless a real grasp of His divine and perfect character. Just as the love we might have for a fellow human being need not be perfect in order to be real, so our demonstration of God’s character need not be perfect to be real. And just as love should become the reference point for our behavior toward the individual we love, however flawed or inadequate our demonstration of it may be, so God’s perfect will becomes our reference point for moral behavior in the realm of ethics. “It is true,” Henry observes, “that the believer at no point perfectly incarnates the will of God. Yet the regenerate life is now placed consciously within the Divine orbit, and the will of God becomes the determinite reference point for the behavior.”(13)
No Christian should ever expect his life on earth to become so perfect that he is able to rise above sin. St. John himself warned his readers of those who delude themselves into thinking they have achieved sinless perfection (cf. I John 1:8,10). But in spite of St. John’s warning, many Christians (and perhaps many more would-be Christians) entertain gross misunderstandings about spirituality in terms of perfectionism. Many feel that the call is to absolute prefection, and some have indeed deluded themselves into thinking they have achieved a higher state of Christianity than the rank and file and have been admitted into a spiritually elite clique; others have realized through an honest acknowledgement of their faults that they cannot attain perfection and have grown discouraged in their attempts to live the Christian life. Indeed, one of the chief excuses often heard why people who believe in Christ refuse to accept Him as their Savior is because they feel they just aren’t good enough to be Christians since they know they cannot lead perfect lives. Even some who do accept Christ later throw away their faith because they cannot walk in it perfectly.
But what every person — and especially every Christian — ought to recognize is that God does not expect sinless perfection out of any of us. He knows all too well that “There is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). What He does expect is a real and honest surrender of our lives to His will. But even this surrender will be imperfect, for we can never entirely overcome sin’s influence in this life. What we can overcome, with God’s help, is sin’s utter control over our lives.
If the Apostle John makes anything clear in his first epistle it is the fact that every Christian sins and none is perfect. That is why he tells his readers of the Advocate they have in Jesus Christ, because he knows that no Christian walks in sinless perfection. “My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (I John 2:1). When the Christian falters, he need not abandon his walk with God. He has an Advocate in Christ who will plead the Christian’s case before the Father. What is required of us is the acknowledgement that we have sinned — we must not attempt to excuse ourselves or call sin anything less than what it is — and “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9). We must never make the mistake of believing we can rise above sin in this life, for if we do we are not demonstrating our achievement of the goal of perfection but are only showing the world that the truth is not it us (I John 1:8). And if we say we are without sin, St. John says, “we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1:10).
Sometimes we see Christians led astray by such men as St. John here describes, those who say our call is to absolute perfection and who claim to have apprehended that goal in their lives. Those who listen to and believe these false teachers often are honest people who realize that they themselves have not yet reacher perfection and probably never will. Hence, many of these otherwise faithful Christians abandon their walk because they see it as a hopeless pursuit. This they ought not do, because our call is not to sinless perfection but a call to a walk in the light. While we ever strive for perfection (for to do less would be to have a lesser standard), we must acknowldge that our walk is never of itself perfect. As Schaeffer has pointed out, “we must not insist on ‘perfection of nothing,’ or we will end with the ‘nothing.’”(14)
But because we cannot walk in absolute perfection does not mean that we are to surrender all efforts to reach toward perfection, nor does it mean that we are to become complacent and self-satisfied. Jesus said in Matthew 5:48, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Our standard is the perfection of God Himself, and we are not to lower that standard, however far we are from achieving it. The Christian is always to strive toward that goal and to measure his life by it. Where we fall short, we simply pray, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” then continue on in our struggle. In that way we each demonstrate that the power of God in us is real and genuine, but it is never equal to the greatness of God Himself.
4. The spiritual person carries this reality into all areas and every moment of his life.
The Christian is called to be both a priest and a citizen of a holy nation (I Peter 1:9,10). Therefore, he is called to show forth God’s excellence, beauty, and reality in his life. God’s controlling influence should be seen in every area and in every moment of our lives — not just in those areas we term “spiritual,” but in every area of life. As Rudnick states, “The worshipful response of the new person is surprisingly broad in scope. It is by no means confined to the sanctuary and to personal devotions. Ultimately, all of life and work becomes an occasion for recognizing God and for reacting with faith and with praise.”(15)
St. Peter’s first epistle is clear about the universality of our religious demonstration in life. I Peter 2:11,12 teach us that we demonstrate the beauty of God in our lives by our deeds and our conduct, and this is all-inclusive, referring to all the “good works which they [the Gentiles] observe.” If we could look back at the original Greek word here translated “good,” we would note that the word connotes that which is beautiful. In this way we see that our moral actions are in themselves aesthetic and beautiful, because beauty is intrinsic to moral behavior. Just as we observe nature to be beautiful because in it we see all things working together in harmony, so moral behavior likewise is beautiful because it demonstrates a heart that is in harmony with the God of heaven. When the Psalmist spoke of the beauty of holiness, he was not speaking metaphorically but was describing the intrinsic beauty of holy living. Beauty is instrinsic to moral behavior because holiness is intrinsic to God Himself. Therefore the Psalmist could speak of the beauty of the Lord in Psalm 27:4 and be speaking synonymously of His holiness. It is by that same concept of equating righteousness with beauty that St. Peter instructs wives to adorn themselves in chaste behavior in I Peter 3.
I Peter 2:13-17 teaches us that we are to carry this reality of beautiful conduct into the areas of citizneship and neighborliness. Some people claim that they are good citizens in spite of the fact that they are Christians. This is a contradiction. We are to be good citizens because we are — not in spite of being — Christians. For examples, we might look at several early converts who not only were Christians but also were soldiers and public servants in the Roman Empire — a clearly non-Christian entity at that time. We note, for instance, that the first Gentile convert, St. Cornelius, was a centurian in the Roman army (Acts 10). A Roman jailor also was among the first Gentile converts to Christianity (Acts 16), and St. Paul speaks of having preached the Gospel to the entire Praetorian guard (Philippians 1:13). Publicans (tax collectors) were often seen associating with Jesus and were among His earliest followers. In none of these cases do we have evidence that these converts renounced their civic duties. Rather, they carried the reality of the power of God into those areas of their lives as well. (Observe the change in the publican Zacchaeus after His contact with Jesus in Luke 19:8: “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.”) St. Paul himself, a Roman citizen, neither renounced nor flaunted his citizenship, but he used it to God’s glory and to further God’s cause on earth (cf. Acts 16:37-40; 22:25-29). So ought we to be good citizens, “For this is the will of God, that by doing so you may put to silence the ignorence of foolish men.”
I Peter 2:18-25 show us that this demonstration is to be taken even into our menial tasks as servants or employees. If we suffer for having done right in our work, then we are to bear it patiently and so be approving to God, for by so doing we show the example of Christ who, being without sin, bore our sins on the Cross. He did not revile or threaten when He was revlied or threatened, but He trusted in Him who judges justly. He bore our sins that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. We have been healed by His wounds. Our ethical life proceeds from the Father because of the saving work of Christ. This reality too is to be demonstrated in every area of our lives.
In I Peter 3:1-6, St. Peters proceeds to give instruction to Christian wives to adorn themselves with a beautiful life. The very actions we perform as Christians are to attest to God’s excellence and beauty, to His holiness and love. It is most regrettable that many people have the idea that we serve God only when engaged in something called “religious” activity. In truth, we serve God in everything we do: in our work at home as Christian housewives, in our jobs as Christian employees, in our civic duties as Christian citizens. Christianity is not something we engage in which gives us feelings of ecstacy and euphoria, but is a moment-by-moment awareness of the excellence of God and a moment-by-moment demonstration of that excellence in our lives. As Schaeffer has illustrated, our religious experience doesn’t end in the moment of our justification, but the clock continues to tick; “and in every moment of time, our calling is to believe God, raise the empty hands of faith, and let fruit flow through us.”(16) Unlike the Platonists who perceive life as a dichotomy, Christians are to recognize that we serve God in the whole person. And since the whole of life is religious, the whole of life is Christianity. “To believe him, not just when I accept Christ as Savior, but every moment, one moment at a time: this is the Christian life, and this is true spirituality.”(17) I Peter 3:8-12 sum up St. Peter’s discussion by drawing to mind this very quality in our lives, that we do not obey God simply by observing some ritualistic observances but by turning away from evil and doing right, “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous.” Our lives are to be beautiful, and beautiful in that they demonstrate the beauty intrinsic to righteous living. This is not done by centralizing our focus upon the outward man, but by focusing on the inner person, the unseen personality or character. Our reference point is not self or even humankind. Our reference point is God. True spirituality is theocentric.
As we have seen, the Platonists and secularists often encourage people to leave their first duties in order to pursue that which they perceive to be spiritual and religious. Sometimes we even hear Christians say, “I neglect my study or my work to do that which is spiritual.” This writer well recalls a particular incident that occurred while in charge of a group of student workers in a college dormitory during his undergraduate days. One of the workers, who was scheduled to work at a particular time, was nowhere to be found. This necessitated a hasty shuffling of schedules to compensate for his unexpected absence. After all that hassle, the student later walked in, very late. It turned out that he had been engaged in a religious discussion with someone outside the dorm, and he felt that “higher” act automatically excused him from his “secular” responsibilities. Now we readily acknowldge that, on rare occasions, a person in extreme spiritual crisis may require our immediate services, in which case all other responsibilities become secondary. In this instance, however, such was not the case as it was simply a discussion of certain matters that could have been addressed at a later hour. So this student, though well intentioned, presented a dichotomous view of the world by shirking his job so that he could discuss something of a religious nature. He demonstrated the view that his religious discussion was scared whereas his job responsibilities were secular and therefore unimportant by comparison.
Fortunately, as this student grew he later readjusted his thinking in such matters. But regrettably, his earlier actions reflected the perception of spirituality held by a large number of Christians. We should understand that we do not glorify God by being unreliable employees. Instead, we glory God by performing our duties well. When a Christian is a student, his study becomes a spiritual pursuit. When a Christian is an employee, his work is a spiritual endeavor. Whatever we do, if we do it to the best of our abilities and to the glory of God the Father, it is spiritual.
But we reiterate that this is not to say that all activities are of equal importance and that there are no priorities to be observed. For instance, we are not to infer from this example that the student’s religious discussion was unimportant or that his dormitory work was somehow more important. It is simply a matter of establishing priorities, and common sense generally will show us which takes priority in a given case. As a Christian, this young man’s first responsibility was to demonstrated God in his life. As a Christian employee, he was to glorify God by fulfilling the demands of his job. He could not abandon that obligation, except under abnormal circumstances, without forfeiting his priorities. When he saw a need that resided outside his first obligation, he was responsible to arrange to meet that need. But he could not properly forfeit one need to meet the other on the basis that one is more spiritual than the other. What is a person’s religion if it allows him to make a mockery of his job in order to debate a point of Scripture, in light of II Thessalonians 3:6-12? What is the Gospel if it allows one man to fail in his responsibilities to another — in this case an employee to his employer — in light of Matthew 7:12? Do we not, in these instances, first show the power of the Gospel by being the best employee we can be? We do not fail to teach or to demonstrate the Gospel of Christ when we refuse to abandon “secular” responsibilities in order to hold a religious discussion. Indeed, we are teaching, through example, that it is important for the Christian to be an honest, responsible individual who meets his responsibilities and performs his tasks to the glory of God. And as we thus teach by example, we are demonstrating to others what it means to be a Christian and are showing how they too ought to live and act and arrange priorities in their lives.
But what are we to say of the numerous ambiguous circumstances in which we find ourselves from time to time — circumstances in which we are forced, as this young man was, with making a choice between two evidently good alternatives? In analyzing such situations, it may help us to remember three points.
First, we should remember that whatever we do it is to be done to the glory of God. But in saying this, we must be certain that we understand what that phrase implies. Sometimes we use a good phrase so often that it ceases to have any real meaning, and we must be careful not to do that. To glorify God means that whatever we do is to be that which will give Him honor and glory based on the person-to-person relationship we enjoy with Him. Too, it is that which will honor His name among the unbelievers who observes our behavior. Most of our difficulties in establishing priorities arise from our having an erroneous or inadequate concept of the type of relationship we have with God. We tend at times to think of it in terms of a legal arrangement rather than as a personal commitment. We ought never to forget the personal, one-to-one relationship we enjoy, and that in this relationship we are to strive to do what will gloify and honor Him.
Second, if we have examined our options and found (as in this case) that both are courses of action that could honor God, we then must ask which, under normal conditons, would be our first priority at the time in question. If we are faced, as our student was, with choosing between working at our job or continuing a religious discussion, which would have the higher priority under normal conditions?
Third, once we have decided which course would be of higher priority under normal conditions, we then have to ask whether the conditions now presented would take precedence over our normal first priority. To continue with our example, we recognize that under normal conditions our student should be working in the dorm at the time in question. But suddenly something else comes up — a friend wants to talk about a religious question — and he has to decide whether this impinging responsibility will take precedence over his normal first priority. As stated before, had this friend been in an extreme spiritual crisis, that might well take priority over his normal first obligation (though it would not have prohibited him from notifying his employer!). In the actual case, this was not the circumstance as they were simply discussing a point that could have been continued at a later time, after he had gotten off work. In that case, would the discussion have taken priority over his normal responsibility of working in the dorm, or would he have honored God more by performing his allotted duties and arranging to continue the discussion later? Common sense should reveal our answer.
Let us use two other examples to help illustrate the point. Suppose that Saturday evening some friends drop by our house unexpectedly, and we enjoy their company well into the night. The next morning we awake and realize the house is still a mess. We recognize as Christians that keeping our house clean and in good order is important and that we honor God by maintaining an orderly house. But, does cleaning the house take priority over our normal obligation to worship in the Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning? Obviously it would not, as the cleaning could easily be performed at a later time. Only a distorted view of priorities would consider cleaning the house as something that could not be delayed in preference to the Divine Liturgy.
But instead let us consider a different set of circumstances. In this case we are preparing as a family on Sunday morning to attend the Liturgy when our small son falls and hits his head against a table, injuring himself so that obviously some stitches will be required. Under normal circumstances, our first priority is to attend the Liturgy at this time. But due to the impinging responsibilities suddenly thrust upon us by our son’s injury, we then must ask whether attending the Liturgy would remain the primary duty. In this case we should see that taking our son to the hospital would take precedence over attending the Divine Liturgy.
In most areas of life when we are faced with such choices we should have relatively little difficulty deciding what to do if we remember our first point — that we are to do what will give honor to God in our person-to-person relationship with Him. The reason many of us have difficulties in this is simply because we forget what kind of relationship we enjoy. If we view our relationship with God in terms of a legal contract rather than as a father-son relationship, we often feel that when circumstances such as these confront us we are torn between fulfilling our legal obligation and remaining acceptable to God, or violating the contract and being rejected by Him. One who takes the directive of Scripture not to forsake the assembly and extends it to a legalistic extreme comes to believe that nothing (short of perhaps one’s own illness or death) should ever keep a person away. Attending the Liturgy comes to be viewed not as a privilege but as a legal requirement, a duty that must be fulfilled regardless of circumstances or motive. But we must view our relationship in its proper context, as a person-to-person relationship, just as the relationships we have with our own children and our children to us.
But having said that common sense should generally help us determine our priorities, we also must acknowlegde that there are occasional instances in which our decisions are not so easy and in which common sense alone does not help. There are occasions when we are confronted with circumstances in which both our options seem to be equally important and it seems impossible to determine which should take priority over the other. But in these circumstances it is still essential to keep in mind our personal relationship with God. In so doing we can avoid the paralyzing fear with which the legalist must approach his decision, fearing that by making a wrong choice he may risk losing his realtionship altogether. Such fear would be justified if indeed our relationship were a legal one, for in that case there would only be black and white in every situation. But our relationship with God in reality is more like that between a father and his son. Children too often face tough choices in their lives, and not always between right and wrong but sometimes between two rights, one of which must take precedence over the other. If a child makes a decision and chooses the poorer of the two courses, the father does not as a result disown him. He still loves him and encourages him. The important thing to the father is not so much the decision that was made but the reason the child made it. When a son has taken a given course of action in the belief that it will please his parents and give them honor, then he is at least working from the right base and is endeavoring to do what will enhance his relationship. It is not as though the son has certain legal duries to fulfill in order to stay in the parents’ favor. Rather, he has a one-to-one, person-to-person relatioship, and he seeks to maintain and enhance that relationship through his actions.
Similarly, we have this kind of relationship with God. There are times when we will make a choice in favor of a poorer course than God might have preferred. But God is not a high-minded magistrate waiting for us to make one false move. He is our Father, and He understand the difficulties we have and forgives our mistakes. Of more concern than the decision we make is our reason for making it. If made on the basis of selfish ambition, even the better course would be wrong. If made in an honest effort to do what we think will best glorify God and enhance our relationship, even the poorer course will be acceptable. God will forgive our mistakes and encourage us and help us see the better course as we mature in Him.
Having said that circumstances often will alter our course of action, we must not be led to assume that this means Christianity reflects a form of situation ethics. This simply is not so. Unfortunately, many people may perceive our discussion in this fashion, especially those who lean toward legalism and see everything in terms of black and white. But there is a tremendous difference between what we have been discussing and situation ethics. Situation ethics says that in certain circumstance things that are normally wrong may become right. Adultery, murder, lying — all may be perfectly correct actions in certain situations according to the situationist. But it should be clearly noted that we are not here discussing cases in which we are confronted with making a choice between something right and something wrong. We are talking about priorities of right conduct. In all the examples thus far cited, all actions in themselve are right conduct. It is not wrong to work at our job, to clean the house, or to take an injured child to the hospital. We are simply discussing which action, under a given set of circumstances, maintains a higher priority — a choice between two rights. If a parent were to neglect a child’s injuries and attend the Liturgy instead, he would have done wrong, of course. But his wrong would not lie in his going to church. His wrong would lie in his failure to meet the needs of his child. It is very important that we define ourselves properly in these instances because failure to do so leads many people to confuse what we’re discussing with situation ethics. (We will address the problem of situation ethics in greater detail in Part Three of this work.)
One further danger that one must avoid in these circumstances lies in the fact that some people who are always looking for excuses to shirk their responsibilities may satisfy themselves with the false idea that they are glorifying God in a decision when in reality they are only trying to avoid meeting other obligations. This isn’t always just in the area of “church work,” but it often entails choosing an alternative in order to avoid being with one’s family or to avoid fulfilling some other resonsibility. Sometimes we even see the whole picture turned backward and find a person engrossed in “church work” so that he can avoid having to perform manual labor or being with his family. These people will pervert the ideas we’ve discussed here and will twist them around to excuse themselves. This is a danger to avoid. But so long as we keep that first point in mind — to honor God, truly honor Him, in all that we do — then that danger should be negligible.
A final caution: Those who hold to the belief that only “spiritual” things in life take unequivocal precendence over everything else often experience problems not only in choosing between “sacred” and “secular” activities, but also in choices they must make when involved in large and active churches. Many churches today maintain a great multiplicity of programs for the parishoners, and if a single indvidual became involved in several of these programs he easily could be away from his home every evening of the week. A person thus involved is often praised and held up as an example for others to follow. But unless that person is single or otherwise free to devote so much time to these programs, one wonders whether he is honestly fulfilling his Christian responsibilitis to his family. Often we have witnessed children of supposedly faithful, hard-working Christians grow up and leave the church, and we wonder why. Sometimes it is the result of a parent who became so engrossed in parish-related activities that he virtually excluded his family from his list of priorities and never devoted the time to ensure that his children were growing in the nurture of the Lord. It is good that parishoners become involved in the programs available to them, but they must arrange all aspects of their lives so that one responsibility is not forsaken in order to fulfill another. (Most parishes that offer a variety of programs do so in order to help people avoid this problem. They encourage people to participate in the programs through which they may best utilize their specific talents and which will help them meet both the needs of the parish and community as well as their own personal or family needs.)
Too often many Christians look for spirituality in the spectacular and extraordinary. But true spirituality is seen in the ordinary. One’s actions and outlook in life are to be controlled by his constant realization that he stands before God as His creature, and he maintains in his consciousness an awareness of who God is and what His character is like. If a Christian is a wife, that is a spiritual vocation. If a Christian is a student, that is his spiritual vocation.
This writer recalls with sadness having read an article once in a Protestant church bulletin that told of an incident in a congregation that had gotten of fire for personal evangelism. One of the sisters in this church was married to a man who was a total invalid. This kind woman waited on her husband night and day because he was unable to look after himself. It was only a result of volunteer help from other members of the church that she was able to leave him long enough to attend worship on Sunday. She was a sensitive lady and had been moved by the many sermons that addressed the necessity of personal evangelism. This lady deeply wished that she were able to join her fellow Christians in Bible studies and outreach, but the needs of her husband precluded any such activity on her part. She talked with the minister about her dilemma, but the minister informed her that unless she got out and began winning souls for Christ, she was going to hell.
How sad that some would perceive Christianity as such a heartless religion! Spirituality is not found in the spectacular, monumental sacrifices that we might make in order to perform some spiritual task. True spirituality is found in the ordinary, day-to-day tasks that we all must perform. A Christian housewife is involved in a spiritual vocation, and a wife who tends to the needs of her invalid husband is performing a beautiful spiritual service. To the Christian mechanic, adjusting an engine and changing the oil are spiritual. To the Christian janitor, sweeping the floor and cleaning the windows are spiritual. To the Christian scientist, his study of the universe is spiritual.
Probably no other writer expressed this concept better than the Scottish novelist George MacDonald in his novel Sir Gibbie. In chapter twenty-four we find Janet, a simple Scottish Highlander housewife, dusting the rafters of her farm cottage with a broom attached to a long stick. A neighbor comes by and is surprised to see such a sight. Janet answers her by explaining that earlier that morning a clap of thunder had caused a “snot o’ soot” to fall from the rafters into her husband’s breakfast. “That cudna be as things war inten’it, ya ken,” she says; “sae what was to be said but set them richt? ... I cudna put it aff. Wha kenned whan the Lord micht come? — He canna come at cock-crawin’ the day, but he may be here afore nicht.... Wha kens whan he may be at the door? an’ I wadna like to hear him say — ‘Janet, ye micht hae had yer hoose a bit cleaner, whan ye kenned I micht be at han’!”(18)
Janet, the simple farmer’s wife in the Highlands of Scotland, realized what every Christian, high or low, ought to know, and that is that everything we do is spiritual in that we do it with God in mind. Not only are our churchly tasks dedicated to His glory, but even our sweeping the soot from the rafters. Life is spiritual.
5. The spiritual person serves God in his whole person
The Christian is neither an anti-intellectualist nor a rationalist. But at the same time, he is not irrational. Christ once said, “Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:17b). St. Paul also, in writing to the Corinthians, said to “be not children in understanding” (I Corinthians 14:20). The spiritual person recognizes that he is to serve God with his mind every bit as much as he serves Him with the spirit and the body. Charles Kingsley’s proverb “Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever” is an un-Christian concept.
We have discussed the Platonists of the early church who held to a dichotomous view of man. As a rule, they perceived man as composed of a soul which is good, a body which is evil, and a mind which is suspect. But such a view does not fit with the biblical view of man. God created man as a whole person composed of body, soul, and mind, and all of these constituents are to be used in his service.
Much modern religious thought says that man should bypass the mind when engaged in religious pursuits and should retreat into mysticism in order to find meaning. In this sense the modern theologians differ little from the Sufis, Muslim mystics, who hold “that the soul can receive a revelation of God by a direct religious experience (not through the senses or the intellect) and by this means enter into fellowship with him.”(19) Modern Christian theology insists likewise that there is no rational way to discover God or find religious meaning, so it says we must take that non-rational leap of faith about which Kierkegaard spoke in an effort to find some kind of meaning.
As Christians, however, we are to recognize that since God created our intellect it is not to be suspended but is to be used in our service to Him. The idea that experience rather than intellect must be relied on in the area of religion is unbiblical, just as belief without substance is also unbiblical. Colossians 3:17 says, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” In Christian ethics we must realize that the whole person is to be brought under the Lordship of Christ, and that includes the mind. The intellect is not to be bypassed as we approach either our religion or our ethics. Rather, the mind is to be employed in all our ethical decision making. As we have stated previously, Christianity is not a keeping of oneself from a certain number of religious taboos but is a bringing of oneself under the Lordship of Christ.
We have stressed the use of the intellect in great measure in this study, but it is not for the purpose of minimizing the heart. Both are to be utilized in our Christian walk. But too often we seem to encounter a form of Christianity that is all heart and little or no intellect. This is what we must guard against. There is a rational basis for our beliefs, and it is imperative that we recognize this and teach others this fact — especially our young who tend to fail to see the rationality behind their beliefs.
When we accept our religious beliefs on the basis of faith alone — whether we are speaking in the realm of theology, doctrine, or ethics — we are only joining with modern man and are stating in effect that rationality has no place in religion. But unless we can defend our beliefs rationally, we have no basis for knowing whether what we believe is true or false. Hence St. Peter instructed all believers to “be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (I Peter 3:15). William Barclay points out that this verse teaches us plainly that our hope must be a reasonable hope. “It is a logos that the Christian must give,” he says, “and a logos is a reasonable and intelligent statement of his position.... As Biggs puts it, he was expected ‘intelligently and temperately to discuss matters of conduct.’”(20) Barclay further points out what should be self-evident in this, that our faith must be a firsthand discovery and not a second-hand story. There is a mental process involved in the thinking out of one’s beliefs so that one may, as St. Peter instructs, be able to defend what he believes and tell others why he believes it.
One factor that led to the rise of anti-intellectualism in recent years was the purposeful distortion of the statement that God cannot be proved. Everyone who is honest with himself must admit, as we saw in the first part of this book, that in the sense of absolute proof the statement is correct. The problem has arisen from the fact that many of us stop there without considering also the fact that, in absolute terms, nothing can be proved — not even one’s own existence! Yet because many have accepted the one side of the statement that God cannot be proved (absolutely), they have concluded that proof is not a requisite to a belief in God and therefore that the mind is useless in the pursuit of religion. Elton Trueblood addressed this problem at some length in his book A Place To Stand, where he says:
The greatest danger that comes from the frequent repitition of the phrase, “God cannot be proved,” is that it lodges in the public mind the idea that reason has nothing to do with the matter at all. This leads millions to the impotence of mere “fideism.” The word means acceptance of “faith alone,” with no concern for intellectual content. The crucial difficulty of this position, however popular it may be at times, is that it provides no means of choosing between radically different faiths. It gives no basis for rejecting the Nazi faith or even the faith of voodooism. Once the life of reason is rejected, there is no reason why any one faith is better or worse than any other. The pathetic fact is that the people who say they do not need to give reasons for the objective reality of the faith they espouse do not seem to realize how sad the consequences of their position are.(21)
Trueblood was an honest apologist. He clearly recognized that if our beliefs are irrational, they ought not to be held. In another place he admits, “If God is not, then the sooner we find it out the better. If belief in God is not true, it is an evil and should be eliminated from our entire universe of discourse. False belief is evil because it diverts energy from the practical tasks that require attention. If prayer is not an objective encounter with the Living God, we shall do well to make this discovery and give up the nonsense as soon as possible.”(22)
Our minds play an integral part in all this. We cannot divorce our minds (or our hearts) when we approach God. Both are essential. If our religion is without intellectual content it is an insufficient religion. If it without emotional content, it is likewise insufficient, for it would not address man in his whole person.
Sometimes we run the risk when stresing the importance of intellect in religion of being criticized for diminishing the emotional side of faith. It is granted that sometimes people do go too far when engaging the intellect, but that is far less common in today’s world. More often we find the emphasis to be almost exclusively on the emotional, experiential side of religion. There are two principal reasons why we should engage the intellect. In the first place, the more one understands about God from an intellectual standpoint the more he grows in an understanding of and appreciation for the loving, merciful things He has done for man. Such understanding draws one’s heart in love and awe to God’s Atoning sacrifice made through His Son. Therefore, it is difficult not to be drawn to God emotionally when one develops the proper rational understanding of what He has done for mankind. On the other hand, if one leaves the mind behind and relies only upon his own emotional experiences as the criteria for his faith, he may experience things that make him feel good, but what he fails to realize is that these experiences are almost always empty and without context. He isn’t aware of this because he has no rational way to analyze his experience. With the proper balance between intellect and emotion, he can see that the spiritual person, in serving God with his whole person, is fervent but not frenzied, as the experiential person tends to be.
There was a painting that was popular several years ago that showed a group of people walking into church. The painting was not very unusual except for the fact that none of the people had any heads. Regrettably, this is how many people perceive their faith. To them their religion is a mindless pursuit in which reason and rationality have no place. They have chosen their beliefs not on the basis of what is true, but only on the basis of what they perceive to be true for them. Hence the reason so many of the more liberal denominations have all but ceased to engage in any type of evangelistic outreach is because they feel that there is no objective validity to their faith and any one belief is as good as another; no religious belief at all is equal to non-rational religious belief. All this occurs when we separate reason from religion.
But as Trueblood has written,
The more rational we become the more we are concerned for the objectivity of truth. The same proposition cannot be true for one man and false for another, because then the confusion would be intrinsic and the effort to know the truth would be a meaningless undertaking. Here the clarification provided by Alec Vidler is particularly helpful. Speaking of the Christian faith, Vidler has written, “Either it is true for all men, whether they know it or not; or it is true for no one, not even for those who are under the illusion that it is true.” Though the subjective judgment of any individual man or group of men may be mistaken, it is essential to the life of reason to recognize that there is something which the individual or the group is mistaken about. What men are mistaken about is what we mean when we refer to the truth, regardless of the character of the inquiry. What we must do, as finite persons, is to try to improve our methods of inquiry so that, whether we are speaking of atoms or of the Living God, we can be brought progressively closer to knowing what is, in distinction to what we happen to believe. “I prefer to believe” is an un-Christian sentence.(23)
What we must do, he says, “is to try to improve out methods of inquiry.” Mindless religion is no religion at all. St. Paul said in I Corinthians 14:14,15: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding [mind] is unfruitful. What is the result then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.” If we pray in the spirit alone, St. Paul says, the mind is unfruitful. In such a case what are we to do? St. Paul says we are to pray with both the spirit and the mind. Whatever we do, we are not to suspend the mind. In true prayer we are conscious of who God is, and we pray to Him intelligently and not in ignorance or meaningless jibberish. We come before Him and praise Him in the whole person.
According to pagan practices and to some modern Christian beliefs, worship is supposed to be an ecstatic experience. But St. Paul says it must be intelligent. If the mind is unfruitful in the exercise of speaking in tongues, then it is not to be done. The spirit and the mind must be used simultaneously in our worship, not alternately. Though St. Paul says we are to be childlike in malice, in mind we are to be full-grown (I Corinthians 14:20).
The spirit of anti-intellectualism is far too prevalent in modern Christian thought, and it has creeped even into many conservative churches as well. The world has bred among us pragmatists who do not approach a given doctrine or biblical precept with the question “Is it true?” but instead “Does it help me? Is it valuable from my viewpoint?” Beacuse many of us have failed to instill in our young people the proper framework from which to make ethical decisions, young Christians are more and more prone to approach ethics pragmatically. Somewhere along the way we have failed to show them that there is a rational, objective reality to our moral and ethical beliefs, and many young people today feel that we accept these standards on nothing more than subjective faith — and perhaps some of us do.
Pragmatists think that religion should be merely practical. If it seems impractical in a given area, then that area must be rejected or revised. True Christianity is the truth of what is, and we should be concerned with understanding, not with what seems pragmatically useful to our subjective experience.
Experience cannot serve as our test for truth. Our criteria for truth are the Holy Scriptures and Canon Law. One of the noblest features of man, who is made in God’s image, is that he has the ability to think. Luke 12:54-57 teaches us very plainly that we are to apply in the spiritual realm the common sense we use in the physical. Communication in words presupposes a mind that can understand them. God has communicated to us through words; shall we not then use our minds to understand them?
I Corinthians 10:15 and Ephesians 1:17 both teach that we can know the Word of God and have true knowledge. We cannot know anything exhaustively, but what knowledge we possess can nevertheless be true. Colossians 1:9,10, John 4:24, and Luke 10:27 also speak of our using our minds in God’s service. This includes the use of our minds in establishing our Christian ethics, for self-control is primarily mind-control. What we sow in our minds and hearts we reap in our actions. Again, it is with the whole man that we serve God.
When St. Paul taught the truth to others he said that “we persuade men” (II Corinthians 5:11). His method of teaching was not revivalistic as much of today’s preaching is in the Protestant world, but it utilized the process of persuasion. Revivalism works on the emotion by gathering together large crowds and building up excitement. This appeals to many people because it gives them a good feeling. But if they could step back and analyze the teachings they’re hearing, they might just see that often they are empty of content. Most who become caught up in revivalism do not do that, however, because they enjoy that subjective experience and apparently enjoy suspending the intellect in the process.
But this was not the method of St. Paul. Though one could hardly claim that St. Paul was unemotional (cf. Philippians 3:18, II Corinthians 1:4, etc.), he certainly placed great stress on the importance of the intellect for he recognized that it is with the whole person that we serve God. St. Paul did not go about flattering people’s intellectual conceits, but he did appeal to their intellectual integrity. We ought also to approach others in the same manner, and we further should realize that the uneducated person is just as rational as the well-educated. While one may lack the degree of knowledge of the other, both are fully capable of rational thinking. Emotionalistic religion is not designed for one class of people and intellectual religion for another. Both qualities are expected, in proper balance, of all classes of people, for in Christ no class is recognized.
When once we begin to see that man is not dichotomous but that he was created as an integrated whole, we also should realize that all of creation was made in like manner. There can be no distinction between sacred and secular.
One outgrowth of the Platonic view is that some people believe that everything that gives pleasure is sinful. The Essenes of our Lord’s time held this belief and denied themselves the benefit of anything that would make their lives easier or more enjoyable. Likewise the mystics felt the same, “that no soul can have [the] direct experienc of God if not first purified from self; the cleansing of the soul of self-love and from sensuality is essential for those who would attain to the Divine Wisdom of the Vision of God.”(24) Even the Reformer John Wesley was of the same persuasion, and he went to the extreme of refusing to allow his children to play because he reasoned that if they play as boys they would play as men.
But we are never taught that pleasurable things are wrong in and of themselves, provided we keep them in their proper God-ordained context. On this point Rudnick has observed, “The Christian does not need to be pampered or indulged, for that would be materialism and worldliness. However, he does need food, rest, fun, and comfort in suitable amounts. Because material things are also God’s good gifts, the Christian has a right, even a duty, to enjoy them and to show his thanks to God for them by so doing.”(25) Even sex, which many Christians somehow construe to be an innately evil indulgence, within the institution of Holy Matrimony is both pleasurable and beautiful, and St. Paul strongly warns those who deny themselves this beneficence of the dangers such denial can present to one’s spiritual life. All things are beautiful when kept in their proper sphere, because all things were created by God and ordained by Him. It is only when we take them out of their proper sphere, pervert them in unnatural ways, or indulge in them to excess that they become unwholesome and sinful.
The idea that pleasure and mirth are intrinsically evil is not at all a biblical view. Even in Christ we find examples of humor and levity. In Matthew 6, Jesus draws a caricature of a type of spirituality, and we would do well to recognize the humor in his illustration. The humor is clearly present in this passage, and it may perhaps be more easily recognized if we substitute for “hypocrites” the word “actors” or “pretenders,” for such is the meaning of the original Greek. Jesus uses humor here to make a point about the absurdity of self-righteousness. In the caricature of the alsmgiver, He presents a facetious picture of a man who glories so much in the praise of other men that he blows a trumpet before giving his alms. Putting that in a modern setting, we can see how ridiculous it would be if someone took out a trumpet and blew on it before dropping a large bundle of cash into the collection basket. There is humor here, just as there is in verses 5, 7, and 16 of the same chapter. This is not comedy, for comedy generally makes light of values; but it is an effective, humorous way of presenting profound truths about man. Elton Trueblood, in his book The Humor of Christ, cites at least thirty places in the Synoptic Gospels where examples of humor can be found in Christ’s teaching.
St. Paul also used humor in the form of irony when he addressed the Corinthians, and we should recognize the humor there as well (cf. II Corinthians 11:16-12:13). Man is the only creature God has endowed with a sense of humor, and as man is to serve God in his whole person even that aspect of our humanity must be used to His glory.
To reiterate, there is no aspect of man, of life, or of the universe that, taken in its ordained perspective, is evil in and of itself. God cannot create anything evil for such would be a contradiction of His own infinite goodness and holiness. Evil arose when God’s creatures began to distort and corrupt the goodness of His handiwork and rebelled against His will. The Christian’s obligation is to endeavor to maintain a proper view and a true understanding of all things in order that he may utilize them to the glory of the God who is the Creator of all things. This effort must begin with our recognizing that he is a unified being created as an integrated whole to serve our God.
6. The spiritual person lives by Scripture
As has been stated previously, one of the greatest temptations confronting the Christian is to adopt his world-view and his system of ethics from contemporary philosophy. But he who desires to please God and to present his body as a living sacrifice must avoid this temptation and instead get his world-view from Scripture.
Scripture is the standard by which all other things are to be judged. This does not mean that we must take a legalistic position as the Pharisees did because, as we have shown, Scripture does not gives us rules to govern every aspect of our lives. But it is from Scripture that we are given principles, on the basis of which Canon Law is formed and from which we are to make our moral and ethical decisions. St. Paul tells us to “Test all things; hold fast to what is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). The good things are determined by the norms of Scripture.
In I Corinthians 14:37, St. Paul also says, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him ackowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Our spirituality, therefore, is to be determined by our reliance on Scripture and its interpretation by the Holy Church. It is not to be contingent upon our adherence to a set of arbitrary prohibitions and requirements set up by man, but is to be contingent upon our bringing our lives into harmony with the divine communcation of God. Spirituality is seen in the mundane, ordinary aspects of our lives and not in some extraordinary or supernatural way. The spiritual person therefore finds God’s spirit through Scripture and the Church, not through ecstatic experiences. His reliance on God’s revealed Word is preeminent in his life. This, of course, does not mean, as some have felt, that he is to abandon all other pursuits but the study of Scripture, but that in all his pursuits, however great or small, his life and actions are to be governed by the norms of God’s Word. In the realm of ethics, too, he finds his decisions shaped and controlled by these directives. It is only when we allow our lives to be so governed that the Word of God becomes, as the Psalmist wrote, “a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psalm 119:05).
Copyright © 1983 & 2005 by Oswin Craton. All rights reserved.