Renunciation
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wants to follow me he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.' " (Matt. 16:24)
Our Human Nature rebels in a very basic, fundamental way against the notion of self-denial. Many modern philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand and Bertrand Russell scornfully assailed this ancient Christian principle. They said that self-denial was what was keeping humanity back from self-fulfillment, from becoming bolder, wilder, better and stronger. What they meant, however, was that Christianity was keeping them from becoming more "in-your-face," more me-versus-you, more competitive and more a proponent of survival of the fittest, shrewdest, most cunning and most ruthless.
Jesus said: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." (Matt. 16:25) A paradox explodes into consciousness here. To live we must die, when we die for Christ, we live. To cling to life leads to us slipping into death. To renounce life--give it up--hearlds one's first birth cries.
Twenty-five years ago when I was at college, a particular guy used to heckle me--good naturedly, in an odd way. You see this guy, Shep, was a Christian, and in his own somewhat peculiar, confused way, he was a friend.
One day, as I walked a path under the shade of some broad, leafy horsechesnut trees at Willamette University, Shep called across the Quad in a loud voice: "Give it up, Strobel." I shouted back something like: "Never. I will never surrender." Shep was always into pushing others (and himself) out of their comfort zones. I think he knew I wasn't as bold as I wanted or needed to be. By heckling me, he tried me and toughen me in a safe way for a Christian brother. When he cried out his challenge I imagine he looked forward to my reply, "Never surrender," echoing Winston Churchill's defiance against Nazism during World War Two.
But Jesus calls us to surrender, to "Give It Up." Maybe Shep had said what he did for a different reason. Paradoxes often have many levels, that seem to mutually exclude each other. In either way I hear a call to Life.
Long before Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings had been taken over by Peter Jackson, I had fallen under the magic of Middle-earth. The epic renunciation tale of Frodo Baggins worked in my heart and imagination in ways that formed and transformed me. The Lord of the Rings relates a mythic quest in which the protagonist, a half-sized hobbit, must take a great treasure, a ring of power, and cast it to its unmaking in the bowels of a volcano. Instead of going to find some kind of treasure and win great renown, Frodo journeyed into darkness in order to lose something, and in the process he loses all joy in remaining in this world. He tells Sam, his closest friend, at the end: "I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."
Renunciation bites. But it gives birth to eternal life. I know of too many people, often myself included, who refuse to renounce their desires and purposes. Marriages are shipwrecked on the insistence to build up oneself at the expense of one's spouse or one's family. Narcissism reigns far and wide, elevating Self over God or others. Yet, as Jesus foretold: this only leads to our death and alienation. Ayn Rand's philosophy of The Virtue of Selfishness is fundamentally flawed in eternal regards. The idea of Enlightened self-interest only works so far as it is tempered by society, the police, laws, and a government of checks and balances. And even then, it is only temporary: this (wrong) side of the tapestry where only criss-crossing threads and bundles of knots give vague hints to the astonishing design we will be blessed to behold once we die and can see the right side of the tapestry from God's perspective.
I choose Frodo as a better example for me to learn from than any Ayn Rand would offer in The Fountainhead. It is true: there are those who must give things up, lose them, so that others may keep them. We are those called to such a renunciation for the sakes of our families, our spouses, our children, our students and clients, our patients and customers, our neighbors and friends, and even the ungrateful and undeserving. Ultimately we do it for Christ's sake that He may make all things new.
posted by J. Pete Strobel at 8:26 PM
,+Leavenworth+July2008+094.jpg)
3 Comments:
Charles Williams wrote about the Way of Negation. Christianity embraces both the Way of Negation and the Way of Affirmation. Although they sound mutually exclusive, they are, in fact, mutually supportive. At times individuals within the Christian community (The Church as a whole body, regardless of denominational distinction) embrace more one way or the other. Priests and monks renounce marriage. Married people renounce adultery, other romantic relationships. The Amish renounced earthly luxuries, some renounce liquor or gambling or dancing. These Ways of Negation elevate austerity and self-discipline. The Ways of Affirmation elevate joy in the Created World: Wine at Communion; banquets, rich music, art, architecture, gothic cathedrals, quality literature. These things praise God's creation given to delight our senses.
In turn we embrace first one, then the other. But never should we criticize too vehemently those who have chosen to focus on only one of the Ways. For all of us together provide a balance for one another.
So People yelled out to you calling you Strobel, looks like we have the same nicknames. I like what you said I think that people often have ambitions, both good and bad. I believe those bad ambitions are a perversion of the originally good desires a man is born with. C.S. Lewis I believe said in Mere Christianity that when a person is complimented on something they have done well, the fact that the compliment elevates their spirits is not a sign of evil but rather that they are reacting in a good and natural way. We are supposed to be happy about doing what is right.(that doesn't mean we should only do what’s right if we are happy, we must always choose what’s right, regardless). The perversion comes when we start to do that something that we did well, in order to hear compliments, as opposed to simply doing the good act by virtue of itself. C.S. Lewis illustrates that evil and Good are not separate forces battling for control but rather Evil is a perversion of the original creation which was entirely good. This makes much sense to me because how could God create evil? I believe God did not create evil but rather one of his good creations (Lucifer) became perverted. Perversion is not exclusively a sexual sin. To pervert is to take the original good that God created and twist it into an evil thing. In The Lord of The Rings mythology Tolkien illustrates this by the history behind the evil creatures of Middle Earth. In middle earth The evil creature that are seen throughout the series are all perversions of originally good creatures, for instance Orcs are a perversion of Elves, Dragons of eagles, and trolls are a perversion of Ents.
The purpose of explaining my definition of good and evil is so I can better illustrate my perception of the passage Matt.16:24. I believe the negation that must be done is found in our perverted selves. I believe that all of humankind are perverts; I know that sounds a bit drastic, but it’s just another way of saying we all sin. To deny ourselves we must not deny all our ambitions, we must deny the all of the perversions that we encounter with in our own selves. I believe that humans all have a will, and that this will is its original intention is good , but often human wills become so mudded down in sin that we seem to almost have an opposite will of where we started from. I believe the solution is to align our will to Gods will. To align this will we deny our selfish ambitions and this is found in the passage Matt.16:24 "Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wants to follow me he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.' ”
The second part the “…and take up his cross and follow me.’ ” I believe is telling us to, after having denied our selfish ambitions (our perversion), take on the virtues ambitions of the cross. We are supposed to take up or own crosses, not one single cross I think this is important. Our cross is taken up when we mold our will to God’s will. I believe Gods will is for Human beings to be conformed to the image of God. So we take up our own crosses by being conformed to the image of Christ. Another way to look at this is in order to follow Jesus we take up our cross, or take up in our practice the virtues of the cross. I believe the virtues of the cross, or at least some of them, are sacrifice, and Agape love. When Jesus died on the cross he sacrificed himself for people who wanted to kill him. This sacrifice also shows us that Jesus was not selfish and explains the earlier part of the passage, the part where it says to deny ones self. We deny our selfish ambitions because we are taking up our cross, because on the cross there was no selfishness. Getting back to the before mentioned agape love, Jesus had and has and will have agape love for every human being ever created. We must conform ourselves to the image of Christ and take on this virtue. We must take up our cross and take on the virtue of agape love. We must see every human being as a worthy and loveable creature of God. We must, if we are to take up our cross love everyone. And then we shall be following Christ.
Brent:
What a great post. Thanks for writing. You had some excellent ideas from CS Lewis and Tolkien. I've thought about the nature of evil in the same way. Must have come from all that reading of Lewis so many years ago.
God bless. Papa
Post a Comment
<< Home