Sunday, August 09, 2009

Being True to Yourself

There's something I've noticed where the Church is blindly following society, and getting into all kinds of trouble as a result.

In general, it's more of a problem the more the church understands and identifies with contemporary society. So I'd guess that a clear majority of charismatic evangelical leaders I know believe this in some form, with fewer conservative evangelicals going along with it (but then, I think charismatics are usually better at relating to postmodern society - conservatives are often still relating to modern society, which explains why in university towns people doing artsy subjects tend to be a lot more charismatic than people doing sciencey subjects).

Liberals seem to believe this far more than traditionalists. And I've hardly come across it at all among conservative Anglo-Catholics, but they often seem to relate to modern society by having rituals which contrast dramatically with it.

The belief that I think the Church has absorbed from culture is this:

It is very important to have "personal integrity" - to be true to yourself and to act in a way that fits with who you are.

I want to think about this area briefly. I think it's very important. For example, I think it is one of the key issues underlying the whole gay debate, and unless it is dealt with, could well lead to a big split among evangelicals.

Personal Integrity

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that's not what "personal integrity" means. Personal integrity means keeping your word, even when it hurts (Ps 15:4) and sticking by moral principles rather than by some sense of who I am.

God's Integrity

The closest passage I can think of in the Bible to this common view is 2 Timothy 2:13 - "if we are faithless, God will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself." But things are different for God, because he's perfect. Compare the following two sentences: "I should not disown God." and "I should not disown myself." Which is more important? Isn't it obvious that the key issue is not disowning God rather than no disowning myself? Why? Because to disown God means acting in a way that doesn't fit with his perfect character. God cannot disown himself, so we should not disown him.

The crunch issue here is the Incarnation and the cross.

Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death —
even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:4-8, NIV

Was Christ true to himself? In the sense of being true to his Father and to his Father's moral character, yes he was. But in today's sense of being true to who he himself was, he most certainly wasn't true to that. He was something and made himself nothing. When the moral and ethical imperatives of being true to God clashed with the ontological imperatives of being "true to himself", Jesus Christ became nothing, and he did it for us.

The Way of the Cross

And actually, that's meant to be a big part of the pattern for our lives.

Then Jesus called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.
Mark 8:34-35, NIV

Are we meant to be true to ourselves? No. We're meant to deny ourselves, be true to Jesus and to his Father, and follow in the glorious way of the Cross and Resurrection into new life in him.

The Way of the Cross in Mission

We are called to be Christ in our societies - Christ crucified to our old lives and raised in our new ones. And part of what that means is extreme adaptability in missions, because Christ became human and made himself nothing for us.

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
1 Corinthians 9:19-22

Those words grate with contemporary assumptions about being true to yourself. We have got so good at becoming like modern society to win modern society, that we have absorbed far too many of the unhealthy aspects of it. Some of us have often ceased to be merely in the world - too often we are of it as well. And others are not sufficiently in it because we spent so long in a past world that we got wedded to that instead.

Paul was willing to place the issue of who he was up for grabs, because it was far more important that he reach people for Christ than that he be "true to who he was". Paul was true to Jesus - willing to deny himself. Are we?

6 comments:

Lydia said...

Interesting thoughts John as always...I definitely agree with you when "being true to yourself" is being used as an excuse for not following God's ways and living as He wants us to, but certainly when I think about "being true to myself" that isn't what I mean. I really believe that my life is hid with Christ in God. I believe that for my brothers and sisters in the church. I believe he made me and planned my life out so I have a purpose and destiny to fulfil (hat tip to St Aldates!). My true self then is my redeemed self. This self has desires which matter because they are God given desires. So for me, and I expect this is probably what many pastors are intending to say when they say this from the front, being true to myself means being true to my real self - the new creation in Christ. So I can dare to break the mold of my culture not out of a need to prove myself but because I know who I am in Christ.

I'm probably not expressing myself clearly - but essentially what I'm getting at is that for Christians being true to yourself is being true to your real, redeemed self - and therefore following God and being true to him. I think one of the most beautiful things about redemption is that God not only gives us the desires of our hearts, but he molds those very desires until they are in line with His, so there becomes less and less of a conflict - though of course we still struggle with our sinful (zombie!) selves.

So therefore if you're in Christ being true to yourself ends up being true to Him. (In my logic anyway!)

Lydia said...

Apologies for rambling - I'm essentially saying it's a question of identity and when your identity is in Christ, I see no problem with being true to yourself!

Mike Dowler said...

Lydia, whilst what you say is correct, I think it runs the risk of being misunderstood. After all, if Christians are allowed to be guided by the idea that we should be 'true to ourselves', then why shouldn't we extend that same possibility to others. Why can't being 'true to yourself' be a valid guiding principle across the whole of human society?

The answer of course (as you note), is that Christians are not like the rest of human society - we have been crucified with Christ and raised to new life in Him. But because this distinction is not universally acknowledged, it would be better for Christians to refrain from such language, and make a point of using the sort of language John suggested - we should aim to be true to God and His gospel. The meaning may be the same to us, but it will be understood very differently by those in society we talk to. As John suggests, it certainly illuminates the debate about homosexuality in the church.

Lydia said...

Absolutely - I wouldn't advocate using the language of "being true to yourself" from the front at all and would be very concerned if I heard it from my church leader! You're correct on the implications for our attitude towards homosexuality - that's very helpful John, thanks.

Whilst I agree with you and John on the language that should be used in church (i.e. being true to God not ourselves), I would add a caveat that we mustn't relegate the place of desire in the Christian faith and reduce it to a duty-motivated obedience. I'm with John Piper and CS Lewis on the idea of Christian hedonism, and would love more Christians to get hold of that concept.

In terms of outreach there are some interesting possibilities here: perhaps we as a church could use the evident desire in our culture for freedom, authenticity and rooted identity and think about how we can show people how Christ supplies that. Saying "be true to God not yourself" in an outreach situation may sound to someone like "be chained not free", so I'm just thinking through other ways of trying to communicate what we as Christians mean when we say "be true to God" - that true freedom is found there and the desires of our hearts can be met in Him.

It's worth saying I'm not a church leader, so thinking about this from a slightly different perspective.

John said...

I think it's slightly more complex...

I am in Christ, and I am a new creation. But there are still bits of the old me around, and still bits that need to be put to death. Some of my self-identity arises from them, and should be resisted and killed.

Some bits of me are incidental - the fact that I am middle-class and academically inclined, for example. It is far too easy for me to start to include bits of that in my sense of who I am. And I should be willing to deny and reject those. I'm a middle class academic, but if God would rather I was an unintelligent working-class sports fan to reach unintelligent working-class sports fans, then that's ok too. That shouldn't be part of my identity.

My identity as who I am in Christ - that I am an adopted child of God, that I am part of the church who will be the bride of Christ - that is inalienable and what I need to be true to. And that's actually part of the holiness imperative in the New Testament too - we need to live as the people who we are in Christ.

In terms of evangelism and self-affirmation, I think it's better in terms of speaking of people becoming who they were made to be than becoming who they want to be. I agree that evangelism should engage the desires more, but at the same time desires are fallen and often miss the target.

Yes, we should be engaging the desires, but often the desires need recreating before we can engage with them...

Liam Beadle said...

Thank you for this. I confess that I have never felt that to be true to oneself is necessarily a virtue, given that I was put to death with Christ in my baptism. That said, I have been mistaken for a conservative Anglo-Catholic on more than one occasion. It must be the way I walk.

I wonder if this is creeping into our hymnody? I am thinking of John Bell and Graham Maule's Will you come and follow me.

"Will you love the 'you' you hide
if I but call your name?"

If I'm hiding it, it might be for a reason!

Hope all's well, John.