Selfless: Without Self?

Commonly we hear the adjective ‘selfless’ used to ascribe a virtue to someone: altruism. Someone who sacrifices that which is dear in order to help another person is described as ‘selfless.’

Is there another sense of the word? To be without a self: what would that be?

There is a great fascination among humans about the self - both among followers of Jesus, among those who subscribe to the world’s institutional religions, and even among atheists. There is a great deal of talk about the self.

Note how the topic of the self arises in an otherwise unrelated discussion, written by Francis Chan, of having love for God:

It confuses us when loving God is hard. Shouldn’t it be easy to love a God so wonderful? When we love God because we feel we should love Him, instead of genuinely loving out of our true selves, we have forgotten who God really is. Our amnesia is flaring up again.

Chan seems to feel that it’s ideal to love God “out of our true selves.” What would our “false selves” be?

This topic exerts such a powerful hold on the human mind that Richard Rohr wrote a book subtitled, “The Search for Our True Self.”

Rohr begins the book by a considering the reaction of the people who first discovered the Resurrection: they fled. After discovering that Jesus had risen from the dead, they ran away, frightened, and said nothing to anyone. Why? Rohr speculates:

Such running from resurrection has been a prophecy for Christianity, and much of religion, just as in these early Scriptures. I interpret this as the human temptation to run from and deny not just the divine presence, but our own true selves, that is, our souls, our inner destiny, our true identity. Your True Self is that part of you that knows who you are and whose you are, although largely unconsciously. Your False Self is just who you think you are — but thinking doesn’t make it so.

From Francis Chan to Richard Rohr: a ceaseless rumination on the self. Why? And is this fascination a good thing?

Perhaps instead we might follow the advice of the New Testament, and fix our eyes on Jesus (Hebrews 12:2). Maybe Jesus should occupy more of my attention, and I should occupy less of it.

How easily those practices are hijacked - those practices which are intended to help us focus on Jesus, but which are instead hijacked to allow our attention to drift to ourselves: reading, study, prayer, meditation.

Introspection and reflection are good things, in moderation, and are useful in philosophy and psychology. The brilliance of Descartes, Locke, Hume, and others arises from such thought.

But in the spiritual realm, our self may prove to be barren soil. Jesus is far more fascinating. The self, by contrast, seems often empty or confused.

Those who devote effort to searching for the self, or even the “true self,” hope to find something of value. Rohr promises that the found self will be the basis for finding and understanding God:

The clarification and rediscovery of what I am going to call the True Self lays a solid foundation — and a clear initial goal—for all religion. You cannot build any serious spiritual house if you do not first find something solid and foundational to build on — inside yourself.

Do I really want to make the self the foundation of my religion, my belief, my faith, my understanding of God or my relationship to Him? The self isn’t reliable. It is the self, after all, which is affected by original sin, and which further commits its own active sins.

The self is limited in its ability to know, and prone to make mistakes.

Far from being the foundation of spiritual life, the self my prove to be empty, even absent. Are we human beings simply hollow in the middle? Waiting for the Holy Spirit to fill us during our encounter with baptismal waters?

The self is underwhelming. Even more, does it even truly exist?

The search for the self may be doomed to failure, if there is no self.

Is the discovery of the self really the ‘initial goal’ of all religion? That would be to begin the enterprise in entirely the wrong direction. Might we rather not begin by observing God as He approaches us with mercy and grace?

If we observe the self at all, it is only to discover our sin, which then prompts us to return our gaze to Jesus, Who is the only cure for our sinful status.

Jesus is only only omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but He is simply much more interesting that the self.

Caregiving Trumps Lawgiving

Sometime around 200 B.C. or 100 B.C., the Romans noticed that the Hebrews had a spiritual tradition which was unlike any other: it linked God to morality. It was unlike other cultures in the ancient world because it had one God, not many, and because that God took an interest in explaining to humans how they might act wisely.

History books often call this Hebrew innovation ‘ethical monotheism.’

The polytheisms of Rome, Greece, Scandinavia, and India had deities who were largely amoral, both in their dealings with each other, and in their interactions with humans. The gods of Greek and Roman mythology had no interest in explaining ethical wisdom to humans.

If the Romans erred, two thousand years ago, in failing to connect religion and ethics, perhaps we err, in the twenty-first century, by overly identifying faith with a specific moral code.

In the course of the ‘culture wars’ of the last several decades, more than a few people have come to see the words ‘church’ and ‘Christianity’ as synonymous with the promulgation of a specific morality. The result is a significant amount of toxicity around those two words.

In the New Testament, Jesus spent less time talking about specific moral prescriptions, and more time talking about God’s affection for humans - an affection which, in turn, motivates humans to live in service to each other.

Contemporary followers of Jesus might do well to step back from social conflicts about specific behaviors. Instead, David Brooks writes, they

could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.

Writing in the New York Times in June 2015, Brooks suggests that Jesus followers direct their energy to those distinctive tasks which are characteristically theirs and for which they have a passion:

Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.

Such a “step back” from the culture wars of litigation, legislation, and lobbying would not in any way be a compromise of moral standards. Jesus followers would still understand themselves to have a duty to live ethically.

Rather, it would be a living out of those morals, rather than a promulgating of them.

This culture war is more Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day than Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham; more Salvation Army than Moral Majority.

David Brooks writes that Jesus followers could be “doing purposefully in public what” they “already do in private.” There is significance in meeting physical needs - food, clothing, shelter - and spiritual needs - counseling victims of abuse or of addiction, grieving with those who’re mourning losses, or helping those with dysphoria or loss of identity. When those needs are met in the name of Jesus, personal and social transformation is possible.

Meeting those needs is an activity which Jesus followers have historically done well.

Leaving behind the conflict-driven style of culture war doesn’t mean abandoning moral standards. David Brooks writes that he doesn’t expect the followers of Jesus “to change their positions on sex, and of course fights about the definition of marriage are meant as efforts to reweave society.”

Rather, there is, and will be, a need for the kind of care which Jesus followers can give. Emotional pain and psychological suffering are real, common, and quite possibly increasing in our society. Spiritual caregiving is, and will be, needed, valued, and respected.

But the sexual revolution will not be undone anytime soon. The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable.

Perhaps the rancor of a political and media-driven culture war can be left to others. There are many Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and others who are willing to defend life from the moment of conception, and willing to define marriage as possible only between one man and one woman.

Let followers of Jesus, instead, devote their effort to shredding fabric, both of society and of individual souls. David Brooks writes that Jesus followers “are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace.”

A New Kind of Culture War

The followers of Jesus add something positive to any community. This is what the New Testament means when it speaks of them being “salt” and “light.” They can make a beneficial contribution to society.

But this is something different than the ‘culture wars’ which have taken place in North America over the last few decades. Those conflicts have proven divisive.

Jesus followers have something better to offer. They can give people a path to wholeness and healing, a path greatly needed in the current state of our civilization.

Depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and even suicide are the symptoms of a directionlessness which plagues many Americans. They’ve lost, or never had, a larger conceptual framework in which to view their lives.

Some of them are trapped in a prison of subjectivity, captive to the emotion of the moment. Others have been desperately wounded, but lack the knowledge to describe their wounds or to seek healing.

Writing in the New York Times in June 2015, David Brooks describes how society can benefit from the Jesus followers in its midst:

We live in a society plagued by formlessness and radical flux, in which bonds, social structures and commitments are strained and frayed. Millions of kids live in stressed and fluid living arrangements. Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. Many young people grow up in a sexual and social environment rendered barbaric because there are no common norms. Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through.

Followers of Jesus are equipped to communicate about the brokenness of the world and the brokenness of each individual human. To be human is to be flawed, and therefore to need help: to need forgiveness.

The news that such forgiveness is freely, joyously, given by God is the core of the message of Jesus. People can’t, and don’t need to, earn God’s mercy. God offers forgiveness without humans having earned or merited it. This is the meaning of the word ‘grace’ - “let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.”

This favor, which God so freely dispenses on humans, places life into a new perspective, and gives fresh motives and fresh energy to people in their daily lives. That’s good news.

By stepping back from the nastier combat in the ‘culture wars,’ Jesus followers wouldn’t necessarily compromise their integrity. They wouldn’t be stepping back from their convictions, but merely from the aggressive promulgation of those convictions through media, politics, and legislation.

The ‘culture wars’ might - surprisingly - continue without the Jesus followers. There are many Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, and others who are working, and will work, to defend human life from the moment of conception, or to defend the normal concepts of marriage and family.

Somebody else can manage the culture war for a while. Jesus followers may have more important work to do.

Being a Follower of Jesus: Life-Long Learning

When do you know enough about Jesus? What if you’ve read the New Testament cover-to-cover several times through? Read the usual assortment of Christian books and magazines, heard sermons, attended Christian music concerts, and gone to conventions with nationally-known Christian speakers?

What would it even mean to “know enough” about Jesus? “Enough” for what?

To truly know about Jesus is to know Jesus, and to know Jesus is to be known by Jesus, and to be known by Jesus is to be transformed.

Condoleezza Rice is a brilliant woman. She’s eloquent in French and Russian, and plays piano so well that Yo-Yo Ma enjoys her accompaniment. With a doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies, her skillful mind analyzes the complex chess game of international politics.

Someone like Condoleezza Rice might be smart enough to know “enough” about Jesus. She writes:

So much has been written about our Lord that one is tempted to ask if there is anything more to say. As the daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, I have been a follower of Christ since birth.

Yet even Secretary of State Rice finds surprises when thinking about Jesus. After an intriguing sermon, she recalls,

I turned to my cousin (also a Presbyterian minister’s daughter) and said, “I never thought of it that way.” Thankfully, our Lord’s story continues to be revealed by inspired teachers who tell it in language that brings it to life for our modern, troubled times.

Even a professor of theology who can read in Hebrew and Greek will find that he always has more to learn - which means, Jesus will find more and new ways to transform him.

If knowing about Jesus is to be transformed by Jesus, then the fact that we always have more to learn about Jesus means that there are always aspects of us which Jesus is transforming.

Indeed, nobody could “know enough” about Jesus, because Jesus is still at work. Jesus is active in our present, but He’s also got plans unfolding in our future. We can’t even know what they are yet.

The data about Jesus and His actions are still only partly known; much has yet to be revealed, as Rice phrases it, about

the impact that Jesus has had on human history, on the human condition, and on our understanding of the obligations of one human being to another.

So, keep your eyes - and your mind - open. Jesus is at work, now and in the future. Watch Him direct events, in both the micro and macro, as His effects on the world manifest themselves.

Taking a Break from the Culture Wars

The net result of America’s ‘culture wars’ over the last few decades may simply have been the accumulation of a fair amount of toxicity around the words ‘Christianity’ and ‘church.’

Quite aside from what these terms properly mean, there is the matter of what many people think they mean. And many people have concluded that these words stand for a set of moral views, and the more-or-less organized efforts to promulgate these views.

2,000 years ago, when Jesus began walking the rural back roads of the Ancient Near East with twelve assistants and a few other hangers-on, His goal was not to invigorate standards of public decency.

The followers of Jesus certainly strive for moral behavior, and do not endorse amoral approaches to living; but these questions are not their central focus.

The distinctive and unique mission of Jesus followers is to proclaim the unearned, freely-given love of God to all people.

Moral questions are important, but presenting this message about God is more important.

Over the last few decades, the news about God’s generous attitude towards humans has become diluted, even hidden or forgotten, amidst the battles of the culture wars. So much so, that ‘Christian’ is no longer seen as a synonym for ‘Jesus follower.’

Perhaps the time has come for Jesus followers to intentionally take a step back from the culture wars.

This is not to in any way compromise their moral standards. This is merely allocating their energy according to their priorities; time and effort should be put toward that which is most important.

Christians might also experience a pleasant surprise if others step unto the breach. There are Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and others who are willing to defend the cause of life from the moment of conception.

Among those working to protect the institutions of marriage and family are many who are explicitly non-Christian. Not every person working to rid society of the poison of pornography is a church-going, Bible-reading Christian.

In June 2015, New York Times journalist David Brooks wrote:

Consider putting aside, in the current climate, the culture war oriented around the sexual revolution.
Put aside a culture war that has alienated large parts of three generations from any consideration of religion or belief. Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex. Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose.
Consider a different culture war, one just as central to your faith and far more powerful in its persuasive witness.

Some of his assertions might be arguable, but perhaps Jesus followers would be well advised to redirect their energy to the causes of meeting the spiritual and physical needs of their fellow humans.

Those groups which have long followed that pattern have earned respect from friend and foe alike: the inner-city ministries which house countless homeless people and distribute free meals are seen as blessings to the community, even by those who don’t have significant spiritual leanings.

Proclaiming the unmerited forgiveness which Jesus offers to all humans is more central to the proper understanding of ‘church’ than lobbying Congress or funding lawsuits.

There is no compromising morality: Jesus followers fully understand that every human has fallen short, every person stands convicted and guilty before God, and every man or woman on earth is condemned with no chance of helping himself or herself out of a most unpleasant judgment.

If more people learn who Jesus is, and what He does, then it might even happen that some of the moral questions parsed in the culture wars will take care of themselves.

When the followers of Jesus do what they do best, they distribute meaningful help to others - to any and to all - not only to those who believe exactly as they do, but rather also to those who explicitly reject the beliefs of Jesus followers, and even to those who persecute Jesus followers.

In seeing this unconditional help given by Jesus followers, people see the personality and mentality of Jesus. That is an attractive thing.