Two days ago, I walked 8 kilometres while listening to Christian teachings. I listened to Miroslav M. Kis’ teaching about the Holy Spirit’s impact on moral life (you’ll find it here). He compares the Holy Spirit to a bridgebuilder. I liked the speech, and I’d like to bring you a quote. Starting at 11:25, he says,
“But I’m still reluctant. It all looks hypocritical. My outward behaviour and my inner consciousness of sin and weakness do not match. My son, André, told me, “Dad, you’re telling me to be hypocritical.” I asked him, “Why?” He said, “You’re telling me to imagine, to grasp that I am forgiven and just to act this forgiveness out, but I know that I’m a sinner, so how can I act it?” So then I told him, “Son, apostle Paul tells us that it’s okay to be hypocritical in that sense.” Romans 6:11 says, “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin.” If we keep being realistic about our sinfulness, we will never move from status quo. We have to consider that what Christ said he has done, he has really done even if it doesn’t tastes, smells, or looks like it.”
Hmm, thought-provoking.. I think I get his point, but I’m not happy with the blunt formulation that it’s okay to be hypocritical. It is not. I agree with the main notion that we need to grasp that Christ has effected a real change in us – or rather, has effected a basis and continuous help for real change in us – but this is not hypocrisy; on the contrary, it is recognizing the true state of things (what Christ has done for us). Not as a thing we do with our minds, but as something we count as true with our entire being.
At the same time, the paradox is that recognizing sinful tendencies that might remain are also the true state of things – not that we need to obey them, but they are there, and in my experience some funny stuff tends to happen if we tell ourselves they are not there (that has often been one of my favourite excuses). I don’t think we are exhorted to not be aware (I can of course stand corrected). On the contrary, I think the exhortation is to let God renew our minds (and hearts) (Rom 12,1-2) for the very reason that, well, we need that on a daily basis. There is something to be said for Christian realism (I feel I need to pick up Carsten Johnsen’s Omega again soon).
I am weary of advocating that we should not pay attention to our state and place in the process we’re in. Being alert of pitfalls while at the same time recognizing that Christ is doing great things in us are not two opposites. Perhaps process is the key word for me. I was halfways expecting the guy to be Lutheran from the quote, but then I google him as an Adventist – which means he could be anywhere on the soteriological spectrum :p
Again, why I prefer biblical studies ;) And hope I’m making some sense at least..
By: Jonas on 23/06/2009
at 9:51 pm
Jonas: “I’m not happy with the blunt formulation that it’s okay to be hypocritical. It is not.”
The point is definitely not that it’s okay to be hypocritical. Not as far as I can see, at least. Notice that he says, “apostle Paul tells us that it’s okay to be hypocritical in that sense.” One might argue that it’s not hypocrisy at all, but I can see why people experience it that way. And I consider his response to his son very clever and encouraging.
Jonas: “in my experience some funny stuff tends to happen if we tell ourselves they [the sinful tendencies] are not there (that has often been one of my favourite excuses).”
The point is not that we should not notice them or even be unaware of them. The point is that we ought to disassociate ourselves with them, consider ourselves dead to them as if they mean nothing to us because we know what they are, and we know what freedom Christ has granted us. How else should we understand Romans 6:11?
Jonas: “On the contrary, I think the exhortation is to let God renew our minds (and hearts) (Rom 12,1-2) for the very reason that, well, we need that on a daily basis.”
I emphatically agree on this point.
“I was halfways expecting the guy to be Lutheran from the quote, but then I google him as an Adventist – which means he could be anywhere on the soteriological spectrum :p”
Miroslav M. Kis is in line with Dallas Willard, one of my favourite authors, and when I first posted this, I did consider quoting him as well. They both see a psychological dimension in Romans which was completely unknown to me one year ago. In “The Spirit of the Disciplines,” Willard even has a chapter called “St. Paul’s Psychology of Redemption.” I’ll bring a quote.
“So we bring the “old person” before our minds and, with resolute consciousness, we disassociate ourselves from him or her. We say, with confidence in God and our new life: “THAT is not, and shall not be, me.” And as for the remnants of sin still inhabiting me–those “automatic” tendencies to act and feel in ways that are wrong (the “law of sin which is in my members” [Rom. 7:23]). I recognize that “it is no more I, but sin that dwelleth in me” (7:17) Paul was enough of a psychologist to know that not all of the forces at work in the human self are expressions of our conscious will, and that we must effectually disassociate ourselves from our sinful tendencies or have our hopes for purity and health soundly defeated.”
Jonas: “I am weary of advocating that we should not pay attention to our state and place in the process we’re in. Being alert of pitfalls while at the same time recognizing that Christ is doing great things in us are not two opposites. Perhaps process is the key word for me.”
Process definitely is not a key word for me. First of all, I consider it absolutely pointless to try and evaluate how far you’ve come in this process. (You talk about “state and place”) Here’s the reason: The more Christ is perfected in you (I’m using Adventist terminology, so bear with me), the more sinful you’ll look in your own eyes. Sanctification gradually enables us to realize our fallenness. You briefly touched upon this, but I wonder if you noticed the implications of this. Therefore, we might easily make the wrong conclusion when we begin to consider how sinful we are, and how far we’ve come – we appear more sinful later than we did to begin with, and the path seems much longer now than it did when we started walking it. Therefore, I’m not concerned with “process” in this sense. Rather, I’d like to talk about “direction”.
I hope I made myself clear. :)
By: Lars Dorland on 23/06/2009
at 11:02 pm
It’s quite funny you mention Dallas Willard – in my original comment I actually referenced him but deleted the sentence because it didn’t fit in. He’s one of my favorites too. I like your exposition of the quote better ;) I would, on the other hand, be prone to think (from my initial reading) that while Willard is vigorously advocating renewal of the heart (inwards renewal) which will flow into outwards action (I can recommend ‘the divine conspiracy’ if you haven’t read it), and going against the Pharisaism of merely conforming to outward action, the quote you bring from Kis seems to focus more on outward action – I can see now I might be misreading him though; I guess I need to hear the whole sermon :p
What you touch on in your last paragraph, I do think is very important (using distinct Ellen White terminology though :p), though I did not really seek to go into that one. I think it goes very well with process, but that might just be me ;) I think the noticing of our sinfulness (or rather, our sinful tendencies, the false self that lives within us – or the traitor within us as a book I’m reading at the present likes to call it) is for a reason; so that we may be aware and act in a manner contrary to them. Not just ‘in the moment’, but rather more in planning our life as to avoid situations where that traitor will be in a good place to act. That the Spirit will convince us of paths of action that will help us steer clear of this evil that lies dormant in us. (am I going into hypocrisy here?)
Sorry to be turning this into a discussion forum. Think I’ve made my points now. On the whole, I do agree with your statements above.
By: Jonas on 24/06/2009
at 6:06 am
oops – substitute my last ‘hypocrisy’ for ‘heresy’ ;)
By: Jonas on 24/06/2009
at 6:07 am
I do indeed have the benefit of having heard the entire speech. His sermon is structured as a list of bridges made by the divine bridgebuilder, the Holy Spirit. The aim is definitely to change essentially, no doubt about it. I’m pretty sure that’s also what he’s hinting at when he says, “If we keep being realistic about our sinfulness, we will never move from status quo.” The point is, we’re supposed to be move away from our present state.
This quote is like one step in the stairwell. Whether he’s describing the experience of renewal chronologically, I’m not sure. But it makes sense when you look at the first sentence, “But I’m still reluctant.” Perhaps he’s less reluctant a bit further down his manuscript.
Consider what he says towards the end of his speech, “A vital element of pastoral care is to hold before them the power of the Holy Spirit to change the most unpromising human material into the moral likeness of Christ.”
I admit that it never crossed my mind that this quote by Miroslav M. Kis could be read as if he didn’t encourage real change. David Asscherick said in a sermon once that “if we say God is unable to defeat sin, we might as well worship the devil,” and I think he’s got a point. A preacher who says that we should just be satisfied with ourselves is not worth listening to, in my opinion. I certainly wouldn’t quote one here unless I meant to ridicule the fellow. ;)
By: Lars Dorland on 24/06/2009
at 10:58 am
By the way, I (also) agreed with your second paragraph, and I noticed no heresy. Whether there was any hypocrisy in it, I’m certainly not one to judge ;)
By: Lars Dorland on 24/06/2009
at 11:05 am