The current psychological orthodoxy is that we are most fulfilled when we are being most wholly 'true to ourselves’. The belief is that 'whatever I am is good and should be fully expressed’, and out of this comes one strand of the rights agenda.
Yet there seems to me to be an inherent flaw in this argument that I don’t hear expressed.
So how should we express and be ourselves? Should we express those inclinations that are clearly bad? For example, as we naturally covet the things that other people have, should we go ahead and just take them; if I am naturally a thief, then should I go ahead and be a thief?
Most people would recognise this a bad idea, for thieving is not just illegal but is immoral, unethical.
What about if I am naturally drawn to watch pornography? Should I go ahead and express this side of myself? This is a legal activity (where it involves adults), so the judgement is not about legality, but can be about morality or ethics, for those involved in the production of pornography may be coerced or indeed trafficked! It is also a question of whether this behaviour enhances or damages my own life and those around me.
Yet we use the argument about having a 'right to be myself' as if it is a self-evident truth and without any consideration of whether a behaviour is good or bad, ethical, moral, life-enhancing or harming.
So, how come it is acceptable, indeed good, to resist the temptation to be a thief or to act in other ways that are damaging, and yet we still claim our ‘right to be ourselves’?
For Christians, the matter is explained by the fact that we were made in God's image, yet are fallen beings living in a fallen world:
- Christians know from Genesis that God made men and women in his image; alone of all creation, humankind is said to be made in God’s image (Gen 1v27). After all, if God made us good (Gen 1v31), it is incumbent upon us to be who God made us to be!
- Yet we are all ‘fallen’ (see Gen 3), and in fact, not very much of what I am is actually good even by human standards, let alone by God's standard!
So we rely on the God the creator to distinguish what is good and to be expressed, and what is fallen and is to be rejected.
In fact, if I recognise that I am a fallen, sinful being, rather than harming my well-being or stunting my expression of myself, I am free to enjoy a fulfilling relationship with God, with others and to be fully the person God created me to be.
There is no ‘right to be myself’. In fact, be yourself at your peril!
There are two common pitfalls into which Christians may fall.
First, there are many good Christians who know Jesus as their Lord and King. They know that the Bible is God’s Word and is to be obeyed, and they know about the seriousness of God’s judgement. They know that God is the Lord and King who commands – and they are to obey. And when they read ‘Do not be afraid!’ they hear this as a stern rebuke. So they grit their teeth and go and try to do what God has commanded - in their own human strength.
Second, there are many other good Christians today who revel in God’s love for them, feel his personal touch, His loving caress (as it were), they know his voice, and are familiar with him saying “Do not be afraid for I am with you” and they know these are the words of the Good Shepherd and lover of their soul. They enjoy being in his presence, loving and adoring him. But they may miss his command to obedience, to strike out beyond their comfort zone and be obedient to his command.
The first group know Jesus as Lord and King, but may know much less of Jesus the Shepherd and about staying in His presence as He comes alongside them to put His arms around them; they may have little experience of His presence close to them and His touch deep in their lives and how He can work in and through those who rely entirely on Him.
The second group know Jesus as the loving Shepherd, but they know much less about Jesus’ as the Lord and King who expects to rule in their lives and commands obedience.
What does a King do? He commands and rules, and expects to be followed, to be obeyed; he is a judge, and is all-powerful, and is to be feared …
What does a Shepherd do? Guides, leads, feeds, protects, gathers together, holds close, goes looking for the one loved, lost sheep …
If you just know Jesus as Lord and King, you don’t know him fully. If you just know him as Loving Shepherd, I’m sorry to say you don’t know him fully either. He is both! You cannot separate these characteristics or choose the facet that happens to suit your inclination or preference. If we hold to one facet without the other, we are worshipping nothing more than a man-made creation, not Jesus of the Bible; one without the other is unbiblical(1). Jesus is the Shepherd-King!
For those who do know Jesus as their Shepherd-King, when he calls them to do something quite outside their normal experience, in obedience to their calling they may move well outside what is comfortable, but all the time they remain in the familiar arms of their loving Saviour who says: "I have commanded you to do this, but do not be afraid, for I am right here beside you; I can accomplish this through you even though you cannot do it yourself!”.
However, even when we are submitted to God's will, this does not mean that we are immune from difficulty, for he leads us through, not around such experience. But we can pray that most difficult of prayers, “I put myself into your hands, with no preconditions, trusting that wherever you lead, and whatever happens, you will be there with me.”
---
(1) If you are unsure about the Biblical basis for this, here are some references to get you started:
- Isaiah, prophesying of Jesus, said: "‘Here is your God!’ See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power, and he rules with a mighty arm.
… He tends his flock like a shepherd: he gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart...” (Isaiah 40 v9-11)
- David is the prime ‘type' of Jesus in the OT, and he was a shepherd-king. In 2 Samuel 5v2 it says: "All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, ‘We are your own flesh and blood. … And the Lord said to you, “You shall shepherd my people Israel, and you shall become their ruler.”’
- Matthew and Luke tell us about the birth of Jesus. There were only two groups of people who came to see the baby Jesus: they were shepherds from the hillside and the Kings (or Magi). Is that just a coincidence? (Matt 2 & Luke 2)
- Jesus, who made it clear in many places that he had come to bring in the Kingdom of God, also said “I am the good Shepherd” (John 10v11).
- Jesus is described in many places as Lord or King, but he is also described as the ‘Chief Shepherd’ (1 Peter 5v4)
If you are a person who knows Jesus primarily as Lord and King, go and do a study on all the references to Jesus as Shepherd. And if you are a person who knows Jesus as your Shepherd, go and do a study on Jesus as Lord and King. See how often the two appear, and how often they appear together, side by side!
---
I am grateful for hearing a talk on this subject from Ellel Ministries, and acknowledge their input into this post.
The secular psychological approach to helping people to handle change is generally to say "take small steps, don’t get ahead of yourself; graduated exposure; get in plenty of practice and you’ll improve; then you’ll be able to tackle the new task or situation in your own strength as your ability and self-confidence grow."
If only God saw it that way!
If you look at the examples in the Bible of God commanding people to do something, these were frequently radical and well outside the person’s ‘comfort zone’. It seems that often God’s way is to hurl us headlong into the unknown and unfamiliar, well outside our comfort zone or human competence.
So is God unfeeling? Does he not know that we are frail humans and are not good at doing things right outside our experience?
Yet, God’s strategy, again and again, is to command someone to do something quite outside of their ability, even outside their experience. But in each case He follows up his command by saying “Do not be afraid, for I will be with you”. For his purpose is not cruel, but steeped deep in love, teaching us to trust in Him alone and see what he can accomplish when we let him work though us - which is far greater than any of our puny human skill or effort.
As Lord and King, Jesus expects obedience; but as a Shepherd he says he’ll stay close beside us. "You will do this task I have commanded, but not by relying on your own ability; rather, you will need to rely on Me!”
It’s not self-confidence that matters, but confidence in Jesus.
Christmas is supposed to be a time for sharing, for giving, for getting together, and for peace and love. And there are plenty of romantic, feel-good movies to watch on television to get us into the mood.
Working as a counsellor, I also know that too often it is a time of loneliness, stress and family strife.
While we like the romantic ideal of togetherness and harmony, we also know that it is 'not real life', that love is not measured in tinsel or by the price of a present, and that everything returns to normal within a very few days.
Here is the real message of love at Christmas: that, while people were greedy, selfish, divided and warring, the loving God sent his son Jesus into the world to freely offer peace, joy, total fulfilment and eternal life to all who would accept it.
It wasn't romantic: the stable was smelly, Mary and Joseph were poor, and they had to become refugees as they fled in fear of their lives. And there was no feel-good ending - for it led to a painful and bloody death on a cross.
But it was an act of total love, giving everything for us, who did not, and do not, deserve it!
We value being trusted; it's a mark of a good relationship. Conversely, we don't like being distrusted, or the sense of suspicion that comes with it, for this strongly undermines a relationship - we become guarded, careful about what we share, less open and more distant.
There is another part of us that wants to be certain about things, to know for sure. We are wary when we don’t know all the details - are we being ‘taken for a ride’, is there something hidden and not being shared, is there something underhand going on?
But there is a paradox involved in holding the above two common characteristics together, which is at root a battle between love, which is willing to take the risk of trusting, and power, which controls and minimises any risk of threat and not knowing.
Think of a close personal relationship: in order to build trust the people in that relationship need to act in trustworthy and consistent ways as trust develops. Even once there is a considerable degree of trust, the people in the relationship do not know everything about the other, or even need to know everything - for there is willingness to trust that the other’s attitude and actions will be loving without our trying to exert any control over them.
Such confidence and trust is not based on full knowledge or on power, but rather on shared values and experience, and a willingness to believe in the other’s benevolence.
Now think of the national security services: their business is not trusting, but gaining all the possible information about others that they can, just in case there is some deception or latent hostility or threat to be uncovered. When this intelligence gathering is aimed at political or military enemies, the mutual distrust may make such intelligence gathering understandable, even necessary for self-protection. But where this takes place between allies, or is directed towards ‘innocent third parties’, then this is not a benign protecting against threat; it destroys trust, builds suspicion and increases the level of threat!
The paradox is that we must take the risk of trusting another in order to get close to them and build a safer world. Where we seek to eliminate that risk, then we inevitably endanger relationships and increase the level of threat.
Those who say they act in our best interest to protect us whilst also spying on us, may or may not be sincere, but either way they are mistaken. For you cannot have trust without taking a risk, and you cannot have security without a good deal of trust.
Imagine a person in a small boat plotting a course. Ultimately, their desired destination is across the great ocean, which would involve navigating by charts and the stars, and risking unpredictable weather and currents. They may decide this is too daunting, and decide instead to follow the coastline, staying within reach of the familiar coves should storms arise.
Which course to plot?
We each plot a course for our lives, making choices between felt safety and reaching our destination on the other side.
If we plot a safe course, we can take 'day excursions' which offer a taste of the ocean but never leave the sight of land. In this way we can steer from one familiar harbour to the next and so may gradually, one step at a time, travel some distance.
But the ultimate destination can never be reached except by setting sail across the deep ocean, relying on the charts, a compass and the stars, accepting that this also involves a greater sense of danger.
So, which course do we plot in life? Do we keep to the shallows and the familiar landmarks, assuming that this keeps us safe? Or do we set sail across the great oceans, trusting our charts and risking the storms, and so head for a destination that can never be reached by any other course?
In my experience, it is only by trusting the ‘chart’ that is the Bible, and trusting ourselves into the hands of Jesus to protect us when the inevitable storms come, that we can find the one truly safe haven on the other side.
We human beings seem naturally inclined to push boundaries, to explore the limits of what is feasible or is allowed. On the one hand this means that we push the limits of our abilities - to prove ourselves stronger, faster, cleverer, or tougher than our peers. It also means that if a speed limit is set at 50, we want to go 55. In fact, if we learn that the police won't pay attention until we break the limit by a certain margin, then we exceed the limit by exactly that margin … or by just a little more! We expect to 'get away with it'.
The Government works full-time to set the rules for society by enacting more and more detailed legislation about every aspect of life. In this way, rather than setting out what is good, just and honest, they set out in ever-increasing detail what is illegal and punishable.
As the law becomes ever more complex and detailed, people employ lawyers to help explore and exploit the limits and loop-holes of what is legal.
But this is not the same as doing what is good or right or ethical!
It is has been said that "the Lord's Prayer has 59 words, the Ten Commandments have 297, the American Declaration of Independence has 300, and the [EU Food Supplements Directive] has 10,038" *
You cannot make people good by telling them what they must not do, for this just leads to legalism - at best merely observing the letter of the law, or more likely exploiting its outer limits.
Jesus asserted that all the law is summarised in these two short sentences, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind', and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Luke 10v27). Although he knew full well that our hearts are evil, yet, surprisingly, he set down the law as the good for which we are to strive.
What is legal, and what is good, are two different things. So when people justify their behaviour by saying that what they are doing is legal, it seems very unlikely that they are aiming for what is good!
-----
* Hansard, 20/1/2003, vol. 398, c99
