Christianity and Self Sacrifice
Jonathan Rowe on Sep 1st 2008
Jim Babka’s recent comment to one of my posts brought to mind just how much Christians — even those who purport to believe the Bible infallible — differ on the proper interpretation of specific doctrines. Sometimes the differences don’t really matter; sometimes they do. I asserted Christianity teaches self-sacrifice. Babka replied: “Christianity is not about self-sacrifice, but living for a higher cause. The distinction is important.” I await his explanation. When you google the terms “Christianity” and “self-sacrifice” you see there is a strong current in biblical Christianity that teaches this is what Christianity is about.
Dr. Gregg Frazer’s thesis teaches Christianity is about self sacrifice. Indeed, he sees tension between that and the idea of “enlightened self interest” or “self preservation” as put forth by Locke et al.
I’ve come across a number orthodox Christians who don’t like John MacArthur’s interpretation (which is Dr. Frazer’s) of biblical Christianity precisely because it’s so similar to how Rousseau and Nietzsche characterized Christianity (before Marx) as a temporal opiate and hence something where tyrannical rulers can make Christians into good slaves. Yet, I find this interpretation of Christianity to be authentically biblical and well within the tradition of orthodox hermeneutics. After all, Nietzsche and Rousseau weren’t shabby thinkers. And neither is MacArthur.
It’s also notable that Gregg Frazer’s PhD thesis is from Claremont Graduate University which school is imbibed in Straussian thought. And the East Coast Straussians (who get the bulk of Frazer’s Straussian citations, though Harry V. Jaffa and the West Coasters get a couple too) tend to follow Rousseau and Nietzsche on authentic Christianity. Indeed they think Rousseau and Nietzsche to be of the most insightful and profound thinkers, albeit ones who teach dangerous truths. They want liberal democracies to follow Locke.
I blogged about something similar in my post entitled “Can One Be A Good Christian and A Good American?” where I quote West Coast Straussian (the ones who don’t like Rousseau and Nietzsche) Thomas West quoting Rousseau:
The citizens march readily to combat; . . . they do their duty, but without passion for victory. They know how to die rather than to win. . . . Christianity preaches nothing but servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that tyranny always profits from it. True Christians are made to be slaves” (Masters trans. 129-30).
West then notes how East Coast Straussian Walter Berns follows Rousseau’s understanding of Christianity:
Rousseau’s nasty remarks are supported, surprisingly, by respectable conservative scholars such as Walter Berns, who maintains, “The very idea of natural rights is incompatible with Christian doctrine.” According to Berns, if you don’t put your neighbor’s good ahead of your own, you are a bad Christian. But the natural rights doctrine of the founding says that you may put your own preservation first if it conflicts with another’s.
If Berns and other scholars like him are correct, you cannot be a good Christian and a good American. George Washington’s 1789 letter to the Quakers tactfully but firmly criticizes their refusal to serve in the armed forces. Good citizenship, Washington implies, requires that you be willing to kill the enemies of your country.
Now Drs. Frazer & MacArthur obviously don’t agree with the Christian bashing of R & N, however, they do note that the Bible DOES NOT teach political liberty and is entirely compatible with chattel slavery. If you are a chattel slave, what does it matter if you’ve got your salvation? You are still in a better position than the richest unregenerate slave master who owns more slaves and wealth than anyone.
This isn’t an interpretation of Christianity that I personally like. And I know many evangelical libertarians like Jim Babka don’t like it either. But, again, I do see a strong case to be made that THIS IS authentic biblical Christianity.
Filed in The Barracks, The Belfry, The Bistro, The Bureau
I would agree that it certainly is an authentic biblical Christianity. Whether it is the authentic biblical Christianity is not so clear. I am not sure which of these you are arguing, but obviously I favor the first one.
Jon, There’s a lot that can be said, and I’ll only scratch the surface with some random thoughts (this isn’t good enough to be a stand-alone blog post)…
1) I think it’s bad form to use critics of Christian faith as the standard by which to judge the Christian faith. Rousseau and Nietzsche are both critics and should not be expected to present a positive explanation of Christianity. Merely to help you understand where I’m coming from (because you know I value your work), “Would you want David Barton’s characterization of your position to be the standard by which an observer judged you?”
2) Christian Fathers is a tricky term. They differ, depending on their age. But I think all bets are off once the Christian faith gets subsidy from Constantine. To my mind, the Roman Catholic Church has had a distorted view on sex — and continues to bear vestiges un-Biblical asceticism. The Catholic distortion is that sex isn’t supposed to be so much fun (I Timothy 4:3). It was Augustine that devised an original sin that was sexual in nature. Sex, from the Pope’s perspective, is for making babies. And if you’re pent up enough, you’re sure to produce bunches of them, who will continue to expand the Roman church’s membership rolls.
3) Provisionally, I’m a fan of Christian Hedonism (minus the Calvinism that permeates the thinking of the man who created the term). Christian Hedonism is the idea that the highest beauty is God, and that happiness comes from seeking that beauty.
4) I am aware of no verses in the Bible that call for “self-sacrifice” other than for God (martyrdom) and on behalf of the Christian community (the LOCAL church). Sharing is an ethic of community, and in-line with point #3, following God is not considered a sacrifice, but the ultimate form of happiness. How can pursuing happiness be a sacrifice?
5) I’ve written about suffering on this blog before. Religion, regardless of form, should have something to say about pain, sacrifice, and death. How one responds to difficulties and persecution is a testimony to the world. One cannot know what role their suffering plays in the unfolding of history. Job couldn’t have known that his suffering would serve as a comfort and a lesson to billions. That doesn’t justify the suffering, but the attachment of meaning does make it more bearable.
6) On a closely related issue, slavery is not embraced in Scripture as an ideal — as a moral good. Quite the contrary. But the Scripture is a book of Hebrew realism. A humble slave could be a testimony to his master, and having won him, secure his own freedom. An obedient and industrious slave could, by applying Christian practice, advance to a better station.
But the Scripture was also a book of Hebrew idealism. Philemon was a slave master, reminded by Paul that he should treat his runaway slave as a brother — a brother! In the early church there was no Jew or Greek, “slave or free” — all members of that church were brothers and sisters. This was a revolutionary ethic. And like our national founding principles, the ideal has not always been achieved, and work remained to be done.
But it should come as no surprise that the leaders of the English and American abolitionist movements, the American civil rights movement, and the European anti-communist movement, tended to be Christian.
7) I’m no fan of the prosperity gospel. I think it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and a poor testimony. I can tell you as well, that the younger generation of Christians (under 35) are waking up to the failure of this “God will make everything happy and nice approach.” There’s very little evidence that it works for anyone, other than the televangelists who sell it. But the deepest problem is that it sells a faux Christianity. To hear the likes of Paul and Jan Crouch, Creflo Dollar, or Rod Parsley tell it, St. Paul was apparently a horrible practitioner of the faith — or worse, didn’t have any (2 Cor. 11:24-27). The Christian faith is one where you are called to “take up your cross” — where you must “count the cost.”
Jim
On #2 Christian Fathers is not so tricky. There are traditions from the Patristic era that are more followed in the East and those more followed in the West. But who they were is only fuzzy on the boundaries.
On #3 are you pretending that Jesus mention of “prayer and fasting” and his fast in the desert were not an example to follow at all? Or that the St. Antony desert fathers were not following their ascetic path without Scriptural support?
Furthermore asceticism (in the East) isn’t centered on sex but on quelling the “passions” and prayer and fasting are the primary weapons in that fight.
I’ll admit I’m biased here, unlike yourself I’m a practicing Eastern Orthodox and believe asceticism, prayer, and “self-sacrifice” are part of a Tradition that goes back to the first century. I think that’s a supportable notion. Self-sacrifice is not a “thing invented” by a Augustine.
#6 is trickier, especially with St. Paul repeatedly proudly announcing that he is a slave (doulos) to Christ. But otherwise I’m in agreement with you there.
Jim,
Pretty good explanation but I am confused by your interpretation of Augustine. Isnt it pretty standard that Original Sin was disobedience and the only relation to sex was that some sexual consequences followed from it, and sex is not unique in this regard-consequences from original sin permeate all human concerns,
Isnt Protestantism even more of joy-killer?. At least it was when it was really believed in.
Jim, before you go banging on the Catholics, please see Aquinas on sex. It’s the official position of the church [see also JPII's "Theology of the Body'].
Although perhaps not as hedonistic as you’d like, it’s quite beautiful, and yes, the shared pleasure and resultant bonding are a big part of sex, not just making more little Catholics.
[...] so it is when I write about things like historic Christianity and sex, self sacrifice, revolt against government, I really look back at the big picture. Jim Babka leaves a thoughtful [...]
James H.: re the difference between “a” and “the” historic understanding of Christianity, I think I will, for once take the “Straussian-Socratic” position and “hide the ball,” as it were.
Anonymous, I generally don’t respond to someone unwilling to identify themselves. However…
Even though I’m Protestant, my wife and I took a Natural Family Planning (NFP) class from the Couple to Couple League, in a Catholic Church! I very much enjoyed learning more about my wife’s body, and saw (and still see) real beauty in that. Tact and discretion compel me to limit myself from further explanation about such personal matters.
I also watched Christopher West videotapes and read some of his material. I just realized, while I was writing this, that I haven’t received anything in the mail from the Couple to Couple League, or the group One More Soul, for a few months now. But I’ve read lots of their materials as well. I also listened to Janet Smith on Contraception.
Abstinence is not for marriage. I learned through experience — through giving the Pope’s Theology of the Body the old “college try” — that contraception is a blessing. No one can accuse me of not being familiar with the Catholic Church position and not giving it due consideration.
And I’m not alone. Garry Wills, in his book, Papal Sin (particularly Chapter 6), explains the pain this approach has caused for other married couples. (In fact, since you’re giving me reading instructions, and I read your stuff, maybe you could make time to read Mr. Wills’ highly readable book.) But NFP didn’t cause me pain per say, but it was frustrating to my wife and I — certainly not the positive that had been advertised, and we were more than relieved to give it up.
St. Paul said it is better to marry, than to burn. He also said that the marriage bed is undefiled. God doesn’t want people to “burn” in marriage. And he doesn’t care if they choose to enjoy each other’s embrace, yet deposit the seed in some place other than a woman’s womb. And contrary to Janet Brown, I’m not “using” my wife.
The prudish view of sex comes Catholic asceticism — monks in the dessert and St. Augustine (who felt guilty about his own past behavior). This position is found in a church who mistakenly believes that Mary remained a virgin, even though married, and who prohibits marriage for an entire class of people. But that’s not the Biblical view (I Timothy 4:1-4).
Guilt about how married individuals do sex; or trying to fit sexual relations into a calendar (destroying spontaneity); or telling someone who says they’re done producing children that they’re guilty of fornication; or even prohibiting masturbation — these ideas aren’t found in Scripture. They’re a creation of men — people who have tyrannical control issues.
To be fair… I think there is a Theology of the Body. I think there are some really cool things in JPII’s thinking. I’m even grateful for what I learned during those six months. But the Roman Church messages on abstinence (in marriage) and contraception are wrong. The official Catholic position on married sex is, in my humble but well-considered opinion, anti-love, artificially righteous, un-Biblical, and no fun. And again, I speak from both study and experience.
Sorry, Jim—”anonymous” above was me, Tom Van Dyke. Internet scramble, as I always sign my name around here.
This thread has fallen off the main page, so I guess this reply is for The Ages. I [& my wife, duh] also attended “pre-Cana” Catholic marriage classes. Admittedly, far too clumsy for sophisticates like you and me.
As for the beauty of sexuality, it was there. As for contraception, well, I have no children. But as for “abstinence” in marriage, well, it’s not necessary or recommended. Unless you don’t want a pregnancy. That’s your choice.
To do the nasty or not, according to The Theology of the Body, like anything else in life, the old Spanish proverb fits:
Take what you want, God says, and pay for it.