Ever think the Biblical concept of humility is intended to quench one’s ambition? Consider G.K. Chesterton’s observation on humility from his book Orthodoxy (SO: KR):
What we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt — the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
Marrying humility and ambition is no forumulaic task, but one of the great challenges of all Biblical cultural engagement. I certainly am challenged to “seek first His kingdom and righteousness” when I see the reality of my sinful heart and tendencies. Yet, by the powerful gospel of Christ I can deny myself to serve others and pursue the call of God in and around me. Amazing grace, indeed.
Prior to that passage, my main man, Chesterton says,
His main contention is true humility produces great works. This “new humility” gets in the way of that.
Thanks Kerrin. Do you think an institutional culture can find the new humility useful in quelling dissent, and perhaps this utility is why the new humility has replaced the old?
Of course, it’s easy to project intent here on the institution and its leaders, but that is not what I am after. I think there is a Media Ecology component to this, that is, that the nature of a larger organization or institution is that it needs alignment of thought and action to grow and continue its mission. In this construct, a leader can have all the good intentions in the world, but a institution can’t help but institutionalize. And thus the new humility is more natural than the old. Ease is strengthened by the new, while the old humility is always calling for action, for disruption to the preset state of things (good or bad is not the issue at this level), for liberation and liberalism in the mist basic sense–of placing the individual’s conscience ahead of the (spoken or unspoken) norms of the institution.
Maybe this is what the 1960′s revolution confronts us with? Just some thoughts. Can you help us make sense of why this new humility seems so popular and even, in some circles, “godly” when less consideration is given to the relevance or “godliness” of the old rugged humility?
I think you could probably point to many factors for this “new humility.” I know Chesterton was going after a sort of collectivism or perhaps institutional thinking that stopped individuals from thinking for themselves.
Some, such as our feminist friends, might point to an antiquated view of submission and authority that breeds this “new humility.” A thread of thought worth examining. Biblically, there is an idea of mutual submission among believers that is often not talked about.
Chesterton seemed to think the problem was complacency on the part of some not willing to think for themselves and an authority of institutional religion that quelled thought. It’s where the individual fades into the collective and no longer maintains a distinctness. The paradox is then lost: unity requires distinct parts. And conformity is the “new humility.”
So yes, it seems “new humility” is easier for those in authority to foster conformity. And easier for those who desire to belong to a collective—they begin to conform without thought. Couched in the rhetoric of “godliness” this “new humility” becomes inescapable for those desiring to be “godly.”
I think this is a significant topic. Wherever we find the nexus of our virtue, whether that virtue is humility or something else, I think we find causal links to behavior and worldview. I did a post that I think has some relation to the topic.
Here: http://bit.ly/8WSfE
Debate is welcome!
To specify the connection I was making: I am pointing out that there is actually the potential for an egotistical humility. Humility is supposed to be, as Chesterton says, a virtue that informs our ambition, and is itself informed by truth. What I think we find today is that truth is up for debate and therefore virtues, such as humility, become a moving target. It becomes difficult to identify the boundary between an ambition that is complimented by humility, and an ambition that lacks humility. Perhaps the reason is, as a society we can identify the one, but have no clear definition for the other. Humble ambition becomes an enigma at best, a paradox at worst.
If we are seeking to be ‘right’ as moral beings, and have no bearings for what defines a humbly ambitious path, we will find ourselves paralyzed. Seeking to be ‘right’ without the liberating guardrails of the ‘Divine Reason’ will find us preoccupied with appearances…and that tends to be paralyzing.
Good points DC.
Rather than truth being “up for grabs” I might look beyond that to knowledge. Knowledge is perspectival. The problem comes when one person’s perspective (knowledge) comes in opposition to another persons perspective (knowledge). If the first person is in some authority over the other, this “new humility” will often be what is required of the “submitted” opposing view to be heard. This is often where Mark will point out a generational divide in the older generation being more ideological (holding ridged views) than the younger.
One recent example that comes to mind is Mark Driscoll being “corrected” by other leaders for not appearing to be a certain kind of humble. His perspective on humility was different then the older generations perspective, and still is to some degree. (I’m not saying he was right or wrong just using him as an illustration).
Think about theological issues that people differ on. These are not always truth issues, but perspectives on truth that result in a doctrinal difference. The differences in the Gospels further illustrates this point: they all were looking at the same truth, but had different perspectives. I see most sound doctrinal issues in a similar way (e.g., Calvinism doesn’t have all the true doctrines, or knowledge—it’s a certain perspective on truth).
Kerrin I think you illustrate why it is imperative to identify what the kernel of humility truly is.
As I read above, a couple of passages came to mind.
Paul says in his letter to the Philippians (3:15),”And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”
And also to the Romans (14:4)…
“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
The Philippians passage in particular seems a slightly surprising thing to say for one vested with authority as an apostle of Christ.
To me it seems that humility begins with submission to Authority and absolute truth. Christ said, “Sanctify them in your truth: your word is truth.” Certain theological, political, practical, and even ethical disagreements or variances there may be among us. However, submission to an Authority and his absolute truth is the starting point. Our humility toward other people is an outworking of our humility before God.
From this flows the unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, and charity in all things. This kernel of submission to an Authority and his absolute truth makes possible an honest and humble pursuit of clarifying and living what submission to that truth should look like in each situation.
Far from create a paralyzing concern for appearances (possibly my definition of the “new humility”) , instead it brings us out into the liberating arena of the ‘Divine Reason.’ After considering the perspectives and preferences of those around us we must eventually lift our eyes, and while submitting ourselves to God and desiring conformity to his truth, decide for ourselves what that means in each situation. I think this is the spirit of Paul’s encouragement to the Philippians.
Updated 7/1/09 at 1:10pm EST for typos and to add closing comment.
Great back and forth, Dave and Kerrin. There’s a lot to tease out here. I’d like to connect two threads that I think create the institutional challenge to humility.
Dave, you pulled the two threads when you said, “This kernel of submission to an Authority and his absolute truth makes possible an honest and humble pursuit of clarifying and living what submission to that truth should look like in each situation.”
Here we have Authority and individual pursuit. As Christians, we believe God is the source of all authority. And many think that means we are then to submit to all authority. Let’s call this conservatism for a moment. All the passion of those who believe in absolute truth can rally around pasages like Romans 13 and feel they have the right view of things, and what is left is simply for others to get with the program and submit.
But this cuts out the idea of humble, conscientious pursuit. Humilty is then cast as binary: you are for us or against us.
I believe there is a true humility in submitting to authority, but not without the conscientious pursuit. Without that, where is the check against the pride of those who run the institution? Should that check be left only to those in authority of the institution? If that is the model, then that cuts off conscientious pursuit of one’s own sense of God’s calling when it falls outside the dictates of those in authority, no matter how honorable and above reproach they are. There is an elitism that can form when leaders and followers don’t engage directly, and that strikes me a dangerous to both the individual and the institution.
Yet, one should not go too far and embrace militant anti-establishmentism. There is a good liberalism–a conscientious pursuit of improvements to the system. This is the old school humility I believe must be pursued and protected. Jesus was in ways the ultimate liberal. He sought liberation from religious authorities whose legalistic approach to God undercut the very gospel He came to establish. The gospel liberates. Obedience to legitimate authority liberates. Personal pursuit of what God has called you to do liberates. Mindless submission to institutional authority and culture does not liberate.
And neither does it conserve, in the long run. The mindless followers will lack the depth of argument and conviction to withstand the uprising of the conscientious. And that can rock the establishment to the core, and hinder the calling of those leaders to conserve the core functions of the institution that are indeed God-ordained per Romans 13.
I think the hippie movement to reject the GI Generation’s values fit well within this narrative. Indeed, I think the present gnarly web of politics illustrates this too. With GWB, we saw liberal opposition to government overreach following 9/11. Many Christians would then have gone along with the GOP and conservatives to denounce such liberalism as a threat to national security. And perhaps one some level they were right. And perhaps there are other bad actors working through the left to not purify our core American values and institutions, but overturn them. But the Christians gave themselves little room to stan outside party politics and humbly discern these different elements. They just went along with the program.
To me, that’s deadly foolish. And now that the shoe is on the othe foot, and the government overreach is from a Democrat, the Christian conscience is now aroused and, ironically, calling for liberation from Statism.
This is where Kerrin’s observations about perspective are key. There may be absolute truth. Indeed, I am certain there is. But I am also certain absolute truth is NOT my perspective of absolute truth.
And seeing that, I believe, is where the resolution is found. One can fully support an institution as God-ordained and defend its right to exist and exert it’s legitimate authority in the world. But this same humility can also enable one to see the easy pride that comes with leading and institution, and this this old humility will call one to speak out on the basis of conscience against any attempts by the institution to overreach.
This is how I view the proper marriage of liberalism and conservatism, which when taken together as tools of critical analysis, help protect the harmonious functioning of the individual and the institution. And this view is NOT absolute. It IS rooted in faith in God as THE absolute authority, and recognition that humble pursuit of “His good, pleasing, and perfect will” (Romans 12:1-2) occurs specifically, situation by situation, sometimes to conserve the institution, at other times to liberate the individual from it. And all this can take place with a humility of method rooting in “fear and trembling” before God as the only final Authority (Philippians 2:12-13).
And this should not be seen as a threat to those who lead the institution, but one of its greatest assets.
Another post…”for the love of the game!” By the way, I read your last post one more time and find that you and I are actually on the same page. It looks like you may have missed me in the beginning of your post, but we ended up at the same point in the end.
Paul says in his letter to the Philippians (3:15),”And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”
I think you might have missed what I was connecting to in the statement of Paul to the Philippians.
I am not sure if you’re seeking to paraphrase me in the statement: “Here we have Authority and individual pursuit.” I had said “Authority and absolute truth,” and do not intend to say that truth equals individual pursuit. I also do not intend to draw a dichotomy between Authority and absolute truth. God has no practical authority without revelation. If He cannot be known and has no definitive revelation or truth, He is emptied of practical authority.
Possibly this is precisely why the “new humility” is so insidious. Whoever has ‘the truth,’ will be tempted to claim authority and demand their constituents to submit–and the pressure to conformity from the leader will be strong. However, let me point out again that Paul does not reassert a claim to be the source of truth, but rather points to God as the source of truth. He is encouraging submission to an Authority beyond himself, and to an absolute truth that rules over him too. This is the difference.
Paul embodies humility as he submits himself and his “individuals” to God even though he is the leader. He engages the individuals who differ, and encourages their honest and conscientious pursuit. One key component of humble spiritual leadership is recognizing that God speaks to other people too. He will often use the established leader to enlighten, but that is not his exclusive method. Paul did not discard the use of persuasive effort, but neither did he make it divisive, and he also acknowledged that it was “to his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” There was no “you versus us” brow beating, but instead: “And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.”
—
Quoting:”Many Christians would then have gone along with the GOP and conservatives to denounce such liberalism as a threat to national security. And perhaps one some level they were right. And perhaps there are other bad actors working through the left to not purify our core American values and institutions, but overturn them. But the Christians gave themselves little room to stand outside party politics and humbly discern these different elements. They just went along with the program.
To me that’s deadly foolish.”
–
Going along with the party politics; the “new humility” quelling dissent; perspectival dogma; foolish. Totally agree.
For the record, I am highly appreciative of the liberal idea of liberating the nation from its evils as well as the conservative idea of conserving its good values. Both are good. So I’ll take a humility tied to reason and revelation from an overarching Authority. Should a pastor tell me to vote for something that I cannot conscientiously synchronize with that core, I will simply submit to a higher Authority.
A leader must have the same spirit that Paul exhibits here. It goes both ways of course and Paul wants to encourage the ‘kernel’ because he has it himself. Humility within my constituency begins not with others submitting to my leadership, but with others submitting to the higher Authority. Should you remove this, a supplanting charismatic leader could create a counter-culture and reveal that pliability and submission to the surrounding culture are not virtues.