Leggo My Ego!
One of my professors recently said the biggest hurdle to authentic Christianity in Western culture is the idol of “personal autonomy.” We see it everywhere. Self-fulfillment is the foundation for much of what drives our society. The slogan for a new casino in St. Louis, is “Whatever turns you on.” Pick a political issue. At its core, it is a disagreement between personal autonomy/choice and perceived government control: abortion, gay marriage, Second Amendment rights, national security, etc. It’s even in the Declaration of Independence: the common rights to “life, liberty (personal autonomy), and pursuit of happiness (self fulfillment).”
Because there exists such emphasis upon the priority of the self, or “Ego,” we tend to reject concepts that emphasize submission to authority or that communicate judgment. Even community service and charity is marketed to the ego: “Feel good about yourself for doing the right thing.” Heaven forbid that we do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do!
To say the Bible cuts against this grain is an understatement. In Philippians 2:3-4, Paul says that we are to do nothing out of conceit or selfishness and to “count others more significant than yourselves.” It is a constant struggle to live for God and others. But our culture does not “struggle” as Paul did. It is not a struggle because it is widely accepted. To “rock that boat” or contradict the ego in any fashion is automatically discarded as offensive.
But it doesn’t just affect our treatment of others; it has also crept into Western theology. It colors our worldview and influences our beliefs, which are the foundation for how we live our lives and relate to others.
When we interpret information (experiences, scripture, etc.), we do so through a lens shaped by a variety of factors: culture, family, faith, education, socio-economic status, etc. When the culture’s default value is the “self,” we buck those aspects that contradict our worldview. We reject what contradicts us.
This is the nature of a worldview for everyone. It subtly shapes our understanding of truth and why we believe what we believe. Thus, when we read or study the Bible, we are predisposed toward explanations or interpretations that do not contradict us.
Philosopher and atheist Thomas Nigel (quite remarkably) says that he can’t help but come to the question of God’s existence with a biased hope for the outcome:
“I want atheism to be true… It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God: I don’t want the universe to be like that… I am curious whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God – anyone who, whatever his actual belief about the batter, doesn’t particularly want ether one of the answers to be correct.” – The Last Word, p. 130.
Tim Keller beautifully states the problem with this approach to non-contradiction in his book The Reason for God:
“If you don’t trust the Bible enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? In any truly personal relationship, the other person has to be able to contradict you… if a wife is not allowed to contradict her husband, they won’t have an intimate relationship… Now what happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You won’t! You’ll have a Stepford God! A God, essentially, of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it” (p. 113-114).
The other-centered nature of authentic Christian faith has the power to rock our self-centered culture. While we should expect it to offend, we would be self-centered ourselves if that stopped us from sharing and showing the radical other-centered love of God. Thank God that He wants a relationship with us enough to challenge our thinking and rock us out of our self-centered lives.
Posts
I like very much what you are bringing up here. I very much identify with the man who said he simply wants there not to be a God. I feel that way sometimes. I wish there were no God that would hold me accountable for things I do not wish to follow. I wish there were no God to question and receive no answers from. I wish there were no God to tell me not to lean on my own understanding and to just follow. These things go against my desires. They make it hard to defend my Christianity against those who would say I cannot freely think. In reality, I am too fearful of God to really say these things aloud. I do not want Him to tire of me and harden my heart. I want to love Him and have a relationship with Him. I want the Bible to be authoritative to me and facilitate a relationship. However, I spend more time questioning it…how to understand it, how to interpret it, whose commentary to follow, etc… to actually see it’s good. These are my ramblings today. I really like your entry today.
But there have been MANY cultures before us where the self or ego were the center. This is nothing remotely new.
I think part of finding the right religion/philosophy/spiritual ideas for yourself must involve figuring out what works for you in life (not that we can ever know that about ourselves for certain). For me, I am happy to consider myself the master of my domain and a monarch in my life, but I am reminded always to submit to the will and power of things bigger and larger than myself. Physics, passage of time, the immensity of the natural world around us, and the vast unknown remind me constantly of the impermanence and instability of me.
Bobbi,
Oh so true… Keller helpfully goes on to talk about how it is limiting or restricting ourselves that gives true freedom. A fish who is restricted to water survives, but the fish that is free to pursue life on solid ground will suffocate in it’s freedom. Likewise, we are most free and true to ourselves when we love others. There is nothing like a mutual cycle of relationship selflessness that fills a person with purpose and contentment.
Kyle,
“This is nothing remotely new.”
Oh absolutely. I don’t mean to claim otherwise, only that it is the modern challenge in the western world, for this generation.
“For me, I am happy to consider myself the master of my domain and a monarch in my life, but I am reminded always to submit to the will and power of things bigger and larger than myself.”
What if the latter conflicts with the former? What do you do when the will and power of things bigger and larger than yourself tells you that you are NOT the master and monarch of your life?
“Physics, passage of time, the immensity of the natural world around us, and the vast unknown remind me constantly of the impermanence and instability of me.”
So then, can anyone truly be their own master? Whether we believe in God or not, death alone is a decisively limiting factor!
Brad,
Yes, I can reasonably and logically see how saying a fish that is allowed freedom beyond the pond will suffocate there. It makes sense in my mind. What I have trouble with is likening my desires with the land outside the pond. I feel like free thinking and where it takes me upon conclusion should be within my freedom. I suppose our Creator gave us that freedom in that if we really want to go outside the pond and suffocate there then we can. I just struggle with why the land outside the pond looks so good and feels so good and seems so good and yet will end us up in hell. Why can’t the pond look good?
Bobbi
Bobbi,
“Why can’t the pond look good?”
Indeed! That is THE question posed to the audience reading Genesis 3. Adam and Eve had everything they ever could have wanted, so why did they crave more? Why did Eve believe the lie that she wasnt already created in God’s image? Why did Adam become so passive when he was created to protect? It makes no sense!!! And yet here we are, a people who do things that make no sense and genuinely desire the hell of the “land outside the pond.”
The latter constantly conflicts with the former! That’s a huge chunk of life: what I want conflicting with what is.
To be a master or monarch does not mean to have total control, nor does it mean to place oneself at the center of the universe. A prince should always think of others before himself so others feel safe within his domain. It’s a state of mind.
There are times when I feel beat down or subdued or even as if forces are oppressing me, denying me power in my life.
That is generally when a change of tactics is in order.
And from this agnostic to you, a Christian, if there is anything our shared dialogue should teach us, it’s that the question of death and the hereafter is anything but decisive. You and I can’t even agree on that. I can’t even barely decide on what might happen!
Brad,
Very nice post. I agree that the true Leviathan is our suffocating and pesky ego, the most frightening to face even as it silently stalks us…
And it has become Western culture to accommodate, to facilitate the machinations and delusions of the ego. We celebrate it, our false inner self, we throw parades (we call it fashion)! O the vanity!
But things weren’t always this way. Neither the Buddha nor Jesus the Christ would stand for the victory of the ego, and so under the Bodhi tree the ego was faced and gradually eradicated - the illusion was erased and the sage woke up. Jesus, it can be argued, went a step deeper. [Here at the risk of syncretism I won't dare assert that God was enlightened or had attained nirvana, etc -- though it is a worthy consideration...] He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant and died on the cross…but His death is oh so much more than a tragedy, isn’t it?
The passion of the Christ in dying is hope that we might die to ourselves as well. The glory of it all is that redemption is more than a secret to escaping ourselves — it is that He comes to live inside of us, transforming us. Buddhists confirm that it is emptiness out of which infinite potential springs. For the Christian, it is undoubtedly the living God that takes root into the soul once we awaken to the spoiled seeds and lies waiting for us within.
And so:
“Physics, passage of time, the immensity of the natural world around us, and the vast unknown remind me constantly of the impermanence and instability of me.”
Is all very good except the mystic would challenge one thing: Have you faced the giant waiting for you within?
Yes our mind is controlled by the ego. It is a drunken monkey swinging about the jungle. But it can be tamed by meditation - it can even be trained! Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the truest contemplative, Who can fulfill within us our greatest needs, uprooting the weeds of oppression planted by the evil one (whose best manifestation is the ego) and producing much (delicious) fruit.
undone,
chris
Kyle,
When I think of a monarch, I think of total control and highest authority. You describe a role that I normally think of as a “steward.” Would that be accurate for what you are describing? I agree with you in the responsibilities of this other-centered state of mind… the next question that comes to my mind in response is, where does this state of mind come from? Why is that the duty of the prince/monarch and not self-indulgent authoritarianism?
And as far as death goes… hehe, my only point in that was the assurance and limit of physical death. Beyond that… yeah, there’s quite a lot to consider.
Chris,
“Emptying oneself…” I dig it. Delicious fruit indeed. So what is it that Mike is hinting at? What makes us desire the dry land that ultimately brings our death? Would it matter what form that dry land took (glory, riches, comfort)? Methinks that you hit the nail on the head in pointing out that it was self-centeredness that caused the evil one to fall in the first place… spiritual warfare at it’s heart, is the tempting to fulfill one’s selfish desires over and above others. That tempting can come from various sources, but that is the real problem.
2 points I would like to make.
1. If its about Salvation by faith and not works then that in itself is pretty self centered. Because having faith doesnt include anyone but myself.
2. Where oh where in the Bible does it say I need to have a “personal relationship” with God.
isn’t interesting that Buddhism has popped up in a communcal society and it’s quest is for personal nirvana. Christianity has prospered in individualistic societies and it’s goal is communal harmony. this is a vast over-simplification, but such as it goes with internet posts.
“Why did Eve believe the lie that she wasnt already created in God’s image? Why did Adam become so passive when he was created to protect? ” -Mike
there’s that Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” crap again. cut it out. Women can protect just as well as men can, plus Eve wasn’t created in God’s image as that’s a cross read from Gen 1 onto Gen 2&3. Eve doesn’t know she was created in the image because she was never told.
and i think john t. hit the mark with his questions, esp. #1.
John,
1.) The gospel is both individualistic and communal. Being self-centered is the former at the expense of the latter. There is absolutely individual attention given by God, but that doesn’t mean it is centered on the self. If salvation is by grace, it is absolutely God-centered, since it is He who is responsible for it.
2.) If your wedding vows do not include the term “personal relationship” with your wife, does that mean you don’t have one?
Brad
Salvation may be by Grace, but if it is dependant on whether or not I accept it, then it has nothing to do with God and everything to do with me. That my friend means its SELF centered.
And as far as a personal relationship with God, well at least my wife showed up for the wedding in person and didnt send her Son and a Book.
John,
If it were self-centered, salvation would stop there… but it doesn’t. We are saved FOR good works (Eph 2:10), which is by definition other-centered.
“And as far as a personal relationship with God, well at least my wife showed up for the wedding in person and didnt send her Son and a Book.”
First, Jesus is God. Second, your wife didn’t perform miracles, preach good news to the poor, set captives free, or bleed to death on a Roman cross out of love for all humanity. Third, once again you switch paradigms when it is convenient for you. How exactly does that prove a lack of personal relationship found in scripture?
Brad
“How exactly does that prove a lack of personal relationship found in scripture?”
This is where I think most so called Christians miss the point of Scripture(IMO). The personal relationship is with each other and the expression of God is found in us, not outside of ourselves. Buddhism gets that, and I think Jesus got that. The problem is most of the followers of Jesus dont. I dont need the Bible to show me who is “Christ like”, there actions make it pretty obvious.
By the way my wife performed a HUGE miracle. My mom said it was a miracle someone married me lol.
John,
I really don’t understand what you are trying to say… why must it be either/or? Why can’t it be found through God in us and by our relationships with others?
“My mom said it was a miracle someone married me lol.”
Ouch! I’ll take your word for it, because I was blessed with a similar miracle…
The desire for the decaying land outside the pond - it’s still my beef. It’s so hard to understand why we still struggle to get outside the bounds we’ve been given when we are promised true freedom and joy within them. I suppose I chalk it up to the fact that I am stuck in the flesh for a little while longer.
Saved by God’s grace is self-centered? This is an odd statement to me. It’s all about Him. He gives the grace to save me. As far as it relying on me to accept it making it self centered - consider that the Holy Spirit’s job is to convict you of your need for Him and then God actually gives you the faith you need for salvation. Truly, the whole predestination idea is beyond my scope of ability but suffice it to say there’s enough in the Bible that eludes to the fact that maybe not much of it is really in our hands at all. He chose us, we didn’t choose Him, it says. Something to think about.
Bobbi
Luke,
“there’s that Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” crap again. cut it out.”
Am I to understand that you disregard biblical exegesis because some dude trying to make a buck claimed the same thing the bible did? That sounds like poor reasoning to me.
It says in Gen 2:15 that Adam was to work and keep the garden. The word keep is the same word used to mean possession by protection. Like the Keep of a tower. Seriously, look up the Hebrew word. You will find the translation “guard” for the same root in Ex 23:20, Josh 10:18, Ps 25:20, Ps 140:4, etc.
“plus Eve wasn’t created in God’s image”
Also, if you are honestly of the opinion that women are not made in the image of God, we have some major theological differences.
” that’s a cross read from Gen 1 onto Gen 2&3″
Gen 1 is intended to be cross-read into Gen 2&3. Even if you are of the opinion that multiple authors wrote Genesis you have to believe that the editor of the compilation would have been smart enough to recognize material that didnt line up! Genesis 2 is a microscopic view of the 6th day of creation from the macroscopic account in Genesis 1.
Mike
“Also, if you are honestly of the opinion that women are not made in the image of God, we have some major theological differences.”
So if Eve and Adam were made in Gods image, then God was a Hermaphrodite?
John T.
No, God is spirit. Both Man and Woman are spiritual beings. Animals have souls (ie unique personality), but they do not have spirits. Mankind is unique in this way, and as such are image bearers of God.
God is also communal. It says in Genesis 1:26-28 “Let Us…” Man and Woman are intended to be together with God as the uniting factor of their spiritual union, and in that way reflect the image of God.
There are many ways in which Man and Woman bear the image of God. These are just two.
“1. If its about Salvation by faith and not works then that in itself is pretty self centered. Because having faith doesnt include anyone but myself.”
John, if we grant you your very own personal definition of faith which has nothing to do with Jesus the Messiah, then perhaps you are right. But as far as I’m concerned, salvation is, and has always been, from the absurdity of being trapped inside my “self.” Your renditions of Buddhism is equally troublesome; I cannot find within any one of your comments something to distinguish it from pantheism. What sources have you studied in terms of Buddhism?
Furthermore, the theological angle you are taking here is compromised. As someone who spends quite a bit of time on the fringes of theological dialogue, I’m sorry to call you out, but no one would accept such a blunder as you’ve made with your supposed definition of faith as a self-centered act. Christianity, paradoxical as it is, is a theocentric religion, regardless of the nuances and pseudo-Gnostic fat you add to the mix.
I apologize for the harshness - but your comments have upset me a great deal because not only do I find them false and offensive - I believe they are rooted more in pretense to knowledge than the lesser sin of ignorance.
If the gift of faith, bestowed upon us by God were for the safe application to our glowing egos, then I would reject the offer of such a band-aid. But for those of us who dare accept Grace, NOT by our own selfish desires, but to be who we were created to be, for us, we will never be the same.
love,
chris
Furthermore, I find it difficult to turn any 5 pages in my Bible without finding a relational verse between God and humankind. To speak of God’s unfailing love (originally, striving toward loyalty, unity: chesed) or even the simple verb (yada) to know is often used in a sexual context…
Jesus calls His disciples friends for he shares everything with them. Is this personal enough?
As far as I am concerned (and the Biblical scholarship you’ve evidently missed out on) the burden of proof is on him who asserts that a personal relationship with God is unnecessary or missing from Scripture. I mean, honestly, 1)what is your point, and 2) has anyone argued this in print?
goodness gracious!
please respond adequately so that I can gather my wits and see what it is you’re trying to get at.
Chris,
To perhaps explain a little more where John T. is coming from, I think that his point (from back in comment #9) is that the phrase “personal relationship with God/Jesus” is nowhere in scripture, despite being so heavily trumpeted by the western Christian church.
Chris
I can claim ignorance, and seeing as I dont have lots of time to research the bible, I use individuals such as yourself and others to help educate me. Now I admit sometimes I poke the “Bear” to see how it moves
With that said though, the little knowledge I do have points out to me that not all is how you guys say it is. In fact there is much wiggle room for how one translates Biblical material. I have read some things on Faith and salvation and its not clear cut whether or not God will save us all or a limited group. At least in the Biblical sense. Mike was right on about what I was referring to in regards to the “personal relationship” thingie.
As far as relating to God, I have just this to say. I cannot see God, I cannot touch God, for that matter I cant even hear God. I have lots of Ideas from people on who God is or isnt but it is not tangible. The only real tangible thing for me is my relationships with People. Now if we are made in Gods image then this is how I work out my relationship with God, Through others. Such as yourself. I thouroughly enjoy your blog site even though I sometimes think you guys are full of sheit. By the way that was meant in Loving terms.
“In fact there is much wiggle room for how one translates Biblical material.” John T.
understatement of the century! haha!
“Now if we are made in Gods image then this is how I work out my relationship with God, Through others. Such as yourself. I thouroughly enjoy your blog site even though I sometimes think you guys are full of sheit. ” -John T.
wisest words i’ve read so far! RAWK!
John T., Luke,
Okay - I understand better now. Again, I apologize for the harshness of my critique, but, neither your words on Buddhism nor your explication of faith would be considered adequate in either arena. That’s OK - in fact, having your own interpretation of things is fine as long as you can back it up. However, cordial agreement on everything without critical analysis leads us down a road of nothingness (and not in the promising sense!).
I deeply appreciate the quest to find the divine within - to find God in others a la Rumi. In my opinion this journey is most fulfilled not by the deification of everything, though - but through the philosophy of panentheism - that is, an understanding that the divine is actively involved in the world and creation even as the creation is involved in the Creator. Check out the great Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel for more on panentheism (including his philosophy books: God in Search of Man, and Man is Not Alone — among other great books such as The Sabbath, and I Asked For Wonder).
I was directly responding to Post #9, (which Mike reposted) and still find the notion absurd. Brad’s marriage argument I think suffices, no? If not, see Jesus’ engagement speech in John 14.
I think I understand better where you all are coming from now, but I still would like more insight about your understandings of Buddhism. There are many important things to be stated regarding the relationship between Buddhism, Christianity, and the illusion of the self.
lovins,
chris
“In fact there is much wiggle room for how one translates Biblical material.” John T.
Wiggle room?
I don’t know that scholarship is the same thing as wiggling - maybe it is….but as far as I can tell from higher to lower criticism (with some exceptions) things are reasoned out pretty darn thoroughly, and “wiggle room,” while playful, is a dangerous term to use. It seems to imply something of a cafeteria, take what you want and ignore what challenges you. Don’t get me wrong, many a passage has been explained to mean the opposite of what I had initial thought - and hundreds of verses are in contention - but hardly is that contention wiggled out so much as it is held firmly in a grounded argument considering cultural, historic, and linguistic analyses.
A text taken out of its context is a pretext for saying whatever you want. (saith Dr. Mark Appold)
all you need is love
–cristofleas—
Chris
Catholic, presbyterian, united, pretrib, postrib, universalist, armenian, calvinist, mormon, gnostic, saved by grace, do some works, if that aint wiggle room, well then I must be a freaking Saint lol.
this blog just got a little sanctimonious.
You all are internet pros!
Understood — it’s just that you ought to make an argument for one of the spots within the wiggle room that you’re talking about. I can’t tell what you’re talking about, and within each of those different denominations, doctrinal positions, etc - there are very different ones. Which one is yours and why?
love,
chris
Chris
Ok, if I had to pick one, I would choose the one that best reflects a Loving Creator. So that would be Universalist, the rest are all about Judgement and control no matter how you try to slice it.
Wow… I leave for an afternoon and evening, and it takes me 30 minutes of reading to catch up… holy cow…
I love Chris’s comparison of “wiggle room” to picking and choosing from a cafeteria buffet. The problem with this (as he points out) is that it takes little to no consideration of authorial intent, audience, occasion, and other essentials of good writing (and that’s not even considering the doctrines of innerency or inspiration!). Relativism and selective reading have given way to a TON of different interpretations, but the existence of an interpretation does not mean it is correct or accurate. Many denominational differences have significant overlap, and only disagree on nonessentials. Regardless of their disagreement (assuming it is on a nonessential), they are still unified as Christian. This does NOT mean we can just pick and choose whatever we like. To do so ignores authorial intent and context.
I’ve used this example before. My wife sometimes says to me “you’re funny.” Now, this can mean a few different things. Sometimes it means “you have good jokes.” Sometimes it means “you are silly.” But other times it means “I disagree with how you chose to do that, and would do it very differently.” Now I can hear it however I want, but if I do not take her intent into consideration, my interpretation is FAR from truth! It may be easier to hear, but it is definitely far from truth.
This is the difference between subjective and objective truth. If we do not allow the context of scripture to inform our interpretation (exegesis), rather than OUR context to inform interpretation (eisegesis), then we have hardly found truth at all. It is a postmodern fallacy that there exists 2 truths: my truth and your truth. There is only THE truth, and it is our responsibility to wrestle with it’s reality, and not delude ourselves into believing that we can define it ourselves.
This concept is not limited to “scholarship” or academics, but pure common sense. Indeed, this whole tangent only supports the observation that it is “I” or the “Ego” who rules with authority. The Ego that seeks to define truth is merely banging his head against a brick wall.