In the “Ideas” section of the Boston Sunday Globe, July 5, 2009, was an article entitled “The Nature of Temptation,” a follow up on the recent publicity given the marital infidelities of two US Senators (with many others, recapped). The article’s particular slant of trying to figure out why statements of morally conservative spokesmen are so often at odds with their behavior suggests differences between popular culture’s notion of what is “Good,” and the way Christians might think about the same thing. Even if one professes Christian ideals, he may in fact be embracing a cultural concept of Good at odds with the biblical notion of the role of goodness in our lives.
The Globe article looks at how people who try to do good often slip away from their "ideals." The writer points out that some closely held ideals may in fact counter a temptation to commit the very thing fought against, and that “…virtuous deeds are often a form of penance for thoughts a person is ashamed of.” Other examples are that human self control when exerted steadily, like a muscle, eventually tires. Quoting researchers, we may have instead of a moral compass “a moral “thermostat” reacting to “a sort of ‘moral set point,’ stubbornly set to a comfortable moral mediocrity.”
The analogies are insightful; at the same time we aren't fated for "moral mediocrity" if --big "if"-- we try to understand "goodness" as only a byproduct of the spiritual life, not as an ideal to be aimed at, or to be grasped for its own sake. Goodness for goodness' sake is idolatrous. ("Principles," and "Ideals," may fall into the same category; they may be useful descriptors within the field of ethics, but they are not, either, ends in themselves. This particular "approach" distinguishes philosophy, technically, from spirituality.) Christian psychology, illustrated through the teachings of Jesus, unlike Christianity as professional "do-goodism," describes a relationship with God, the source of all Goodness, that isn’t dependent upon our being Good.
Don’t we have views about what is right and wrong, and what is true and false, and good and bad? Yes, of course. But our identity as Christians, and our relationship with God is not determined primarily by our being “Good,” however we might define that. What is this relationship, and how might living it keep us off the front pages of the paper?
Our relationship with God calls out to a “higher self,” and demands that we act justly and exercise compassion when we might be tempted to act selfishly. But still, the message, I believe, is not essentially "fight harder" in order to be on the winning team for good over evil, but “Relax!” We are created in the image of God; we are created loveable and capable; we are a spiritual organism whose nature is to thrive and grow, like all other organisms. If we fail to thrive, it may be the result, paradoxically, of trying to live up to constricting societal or self-imposed, or parentally -- or religiously -- imposed ideals. This is arguably as much a root cause of making a bad choice as committing to a morally culpable, destructive and evil act over an act of kindness.
The opposite of love is not hate, so that we have to go into a battle armed against temptation, a battle for good, the article points out, we might very well lose. The opposite of love is not hate, but fear, and trusting ("faithing," as a Christian might say), as in developing a relationship, displaces fear and makes room to develop compassion -- especially for those who have "fallen from grace." The right kind of spiritual battle is a battle within ourselves to practice displacing fear with trust, as in a relationship, and not a fight to champion an external ideal of "goodness." It's exactly when we're not aiming at goodness, that it seems to happen: "a good time", for example, is always noticed in hindsight; it is never the goal at the time. (And, can anyone really "fall from grace?" Isn't the experience of grace precisely having already fallen, then been given the gift of God's friendship through repentance, yet again? Supposedly Christian terminology ("fall" / "grace") used in a purely cultural sense distorts the Christian message.)
Those who might scoff at the downfall of people in such a strait as the disgraced politicians ("dis-graced" not in any biblical sense, because we are most open to receive God's grace, never deprived of it, when in the position of the man on the front page, as in our example) -- (those who might scoff) may in fact be of a very similar mindset, insofar as one's focus might still be on an ideal, albeit one other than a (supposedly) Christian one: there may be many different visions of "Good," but that's still the problem: “The good that I would do, I do not, and the evil I would not do, that I do. O who will deliver me from this body of death?! Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Romans 7:24-25) There is another way.
As Christians we do try to do good -- but in “an oblique way:” Christians are not professional “do gooders,” and the essence of Christianity is not morality (living up to ideals). Morality is the fruit of a relationship, never credited to one's account as an individual's private accomplishment, because the focus of love is not oneself, but the other. Morality is not ideals successfully realized in behavior, but the byproduct of a focus not on the self's ability to be good, but on a humble walking with God, passing along the compassion one has experienced from him, to others. Along the other path, paragons of virtue (that phrase: we inherently dislike people who are "too good," don't we?), who aim to be good, as often as not shoot themselves in the foot, as the article points out.
The Gospel message is that “It’s not about you!” For some, that comes as good news, and is a relief. Others would rather have it be “about me,” despite the frustration that follows. The Gospel’s version of Good News is about relaxing -- trusting, that is -- in an accepting, forgiving God, who, through his acceptance allows us to take ourselves lightly, not ignoring sin, but simply, quietly, “looking over the shoulder of temptation” instead of imagining ourselves in an epic, titanic struggle, hoping to be crowned the victor and being recognized – publicly would be nice -- as “Good.” It’s not about us: Jesus said “Why do you call me good? There is none that is Good, but God alone.” True repentance, as the counterpoint to God's unconditional acceptance of us, is aimed for, and is the pyschological dynamic operating 180 degrees from the self-aggrandizement of our striving to be recognized as "a good person."
It’s always the penitent, and not the righteous, who are closer to God: their good deeds, their goodness as people, are almost unknown to them, so fixed are they not on themselves, but on God and the friendship he offers through Christ. If we forget this, we might end up on the evening news. ~ GKS
