Day Twenty-Nine - Accepting Your Assignment
With this chapter Mr. Warren begins discussion of what he considers to be the third purpose of human life: to serve. With this emphasis, he takes the reader in a radically different direction vs. the prior seven chapters. There is enough practical wisdom in this book to instill in its readers a general confidence. However, the content is not developed systematically. Therefore, the nuggets of wisdom that may be found here and there float freely and deny anyone’s attempt to make a firm grasp of them. This difficulty already has been demonstrated a number of times, but as we progress through Mr. Warren’s purposes we see this disintegration demonstrated on a grand scale in that his purposes seem to clash with one another. Having confidently declared on page 173 that, “God’s ultimate goal for your life on earth is not comfort but character development,” he now tells us on page 227 that, “You were put on earth to make a contribution.” In the first case Mr. Warren is discussing a purpose to “become like Christ,” and the focus is upon the inner development of the self. In the second case he is discussing a different purpose that focuses outside the self.
It is true in a general sense that we ought to strive for continual improvement of character. At the same time it also is true, generally speaking, that we ought to be engaged in service of one kind or another. But the general sense in which these things are true provides us no insight into how, specifically, we might go about pursuing them. Nor does the general sense explain how these two purposes integrate. It certainly is a valid exercise to focus discussion upon sanctification or service alternately, in order to derive a more specific idea of each. But, such focus tends to abstract the ideas out of the integral unity in which they rightly cohere. Proper contemplation of each one will include deliberation of how each one integrates with the other in the larger system of Christian truth. One does not gain a completely true idea of character development without consideration of the service that his inner character would supply. Conversely, one cannot fully understand true Christian service without consideration of the personal qualities that must animate the minister. If care is not taken, one easily may end up with ideas of sanctification and of service that seem mutually exclusive.
Humanism cannot but to hold service and personal development in tension as conflicting ideals. In the modern world we see this tension exhibited in Socialism vs. Libertarianism. The ideal of Socialism is the “common good.” Socialism demands the individual to renounce personal ambition and to dedicate himself in service to humanity as a whole. The ideal of Libertarianism is the “freedom” of the individual. Libertarianism demands that the individual must be free of the tyranny of the majority to become whatever his potential will allow. It is not the present purpose to elaborate on the tension between Socialism and Libertarianism; it suffices only to note that in their respective concepts altruistic service and personal development are in conflict. The truly Christian ideas of service and sanctification are not in conflict, but integrate within the all-encompassing authority of the Word of God and the Lordship of Christ.
Mr. Warren’s treatment fits more into the Humanist idea of tension rather than the Christian idea of integration. It is granted that Mr. Warren does speak of integration. For example, on page 231 he says, “Jesus taught that spiritual maturity is never an end in itself. Maturity is for ministry! We grow up in order to give out.” These few sentences and the remainder of the paragraph are the sum of what Mr. Warren has to say about the integration of sanctification and service. These few words sound a theme that requires development. However, it is a theme that enjoys no development in this book. The bulk of Mr. Warren’s rhetoric is devoted not to Christian integration, but to Humanistic tension. His new emphasis appears to head toward integration. His remarks on page 231 serve to correct his errors on pages 173 and 177. However, what we find in this chapter as a whole is, in reality, not a correction, but a compensation. As we have had many prior occasions to note, Mr. Warren’s thesis fits best within a Humanistic outlook, in which everything exists in tension and errors require and compensate one another. On page 173 Mr. Warren wrongly asserted that character development is God’s “ultimate goal” for our lives. On page 177 he wrongly declared it a “simple truth” that, “God is far more interested in building your character than he is anything else.” Now, on page 231, he corrects these errors by declaring that, “spiritual maturity is never an end in itself.” Previously he had assigned “ultimacy” to sanctification. This was an error. Now, he takes away this ultimacy. The proper method of denying the ultimacy of sanctification is to integrate sanctification and service under the ultimacy of the Lordship of Christ. However, what Mr. Warren does is to deny the ultimacy of sanctification by means of ascribing ultimacy instead to service.
For example, he tells us on page 232 that, “We are only fully alive when we’re helping others.” In such a pseudo-profound formula, service is portrayed as the key that makes human life truly life. Thus ultimacy has been taken away from sanctification and has been ascribed instead to service. Also, on the same page he states in the most clear terms that, “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives.” Rather than truly being integrated with sanctification under the ultimacy of God, Mr. Warren wrongly raises service to a position of ultimacy as that which gives meaning to life. The error of having ascribed ultimacy to sanctification is not really corrected, but merely compensated by an offsetting error of ascribing ultimacy to service. And so begins yet another pendulum swing of the dialectical tensions that are characteristic of Mr. Warren’s book.
Mr. Warren guarantees the humanistic nature of his idea of service as he says, “We don’t serve God out of guilt or fear or even duty, but out of joy and deep gratitude for what he’s done for us.” (p. 228) Surely, there is great joy in Christian service, and surely, we must be seized by a deep gratitude for what God has done for us. However, these things never can replace or nullify the fear of God that must motivate our every thought and action (Jb. 28:28, Ps. 19:9; 111:10, Pr. 1:7; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26; 15:33; Ec. 13:13, etc.), nor substitute for the duty that we owe to God as our Creator and Judge. Joy is a consequence of Christian service, and gratitude is an experience derived from contemplation of our sin and of God’s grace in Redemption. As such, these never can replace the fear of God and our duty before God as the true and godly motive for Christian service. In suggesting that fear and duty may be replaced by the psychology of joy and gratitude, Mr. Warren only solidifies the Humanistic nature of his concept of service. In this conception, service is not a matter of obedience, but endures only so long as pleasant experience can be maintained. Mr. Warren has afforded himself six more chapters to flesh out his idea of service. We shall see whether perhaps a fuller treatment might give a more biblically refined idea of these things.
It is true in a general sense that we ought to strive for continual improvement of character. At the same time it also is true, generally speaking, that we ought to be engaged in service of one kind or another. But the general sense in which these things are true provides us no insight into how, specifically, we might go about pursuing them. Nor does the general sense explain how these two purposes integrate. It certainly is a valid exercise to focus discussion upon sanctification or service alternately, in order to derive a more specific idea of each. But, such focus tends to abstract the ideas out of the integral unity in which they rightly cohere. Proper contemplation of each one will include deliberation of how each one integrates with the other in the larger system of Christian truth. One does not gain a completely true idea of character development without consideration of the service that his inner character would supply. Conversely, one cannot fully understand true Christian service without consideration of the personal qualities that must animate the minister. If care is not taken, one easily may end up with ideas of sanctification and of service that seem mutually exclusive.
Humanism cannot but to hold service and personal development in tension as conflicting ideals. In the modern world we see this tension exhibited in Socialism vs. Libertarianism. The ideal of Socialism is the “common good.” Socialism demands the individual to renounce personal ambition and to dedicate himself in service to humanity as a whole. The ideal of Libertarianism is the “freedom” of the individual. Libertarianism demands that the individual must be free of the tyranny of the majority to become whatever his potential will allow. It is not the present purpose to elaborate on the tension between Socialism and Libertarianism; it suffices only to note that in their respective concepts altruistic service and personal development are in conflict. The truly Christian ideas of service and sanctification are not in conflict, but integrate within the all-encompassing authority of the Word of God and the Lordship of Christ.
Mr. Warren’s treatment fits more into the Humanist idea of tension rather than the Christian idea of integration. It is granted that Mr. Warren does speak of integration. For example, on page 231 he says, “Jesus taught that spiritual maturity is never an end in itself. Maturity is for ministry! We grow up in order to give out.” These few sentences and the remainder of the paragraph are the sum of what Mr. Warren has to say about the integration of sanctification and service. These few words sound a theme that requires development. However, it is a theme that enjoys no development in this book. The bulk of Mr. Warren’s rhetoric is devoted not to Christian integration, but to Humanistic tension. His new emphasis appears to head toward integration. His remarks on page 231 serve to correct his errors on pages 173 and 177. However, what we find in this chapter as a whole is, in reality, not a correction, but a compensation. As we have had many prior occasions to note, Mr. Warren’s thesis fits best within a Humanistic outlook, in which everything exists in tension and errors require and compensate one another. On page 173 Mr. Warren wrongly asserted that character development is God’s “ultimate goal” for our lives. On page 177 he wrongly declared it a “simple truth” that, “God is far more interested in building your character than he is anything else.” Now, on page 231, he corrects these errors by declaring that, “spiritual maturity is never an end in itself.” Previously he had assigned “ultimacy” to sanctification. This was an error. Now, he takes away this ultimacy. The proper method of denying the ultimacy of sanctification is to integrate sanctification and service under the ultimacy of the Lordship of Christ. However, what Mr. Warren does is to deny the ultimacy of sanctification by means of ascribing ultimacy instead to service.
For example, he tells us on page 232 that, “We are only fully alive when we’re helping others.” In such a pseudo-profound formula, service is portrayed as the key that makes human life truly life. Thus ultimacy has been taken away from sanctification and has been ascribed instead to service. Also, on the same page he states in the most clear terms that, “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives.” Rather than truly being integrated with sanctification under the ultimacy of God, Mr. Warren wrongly raises service to a position of ultimacy as that which gives meaning to life. The error of having ascribed ultimacy to sanctification is not really corrected, but merely compensated by an offsetting error of ascribing ultimacy to service. And so begins yet another pendulum swing of the dialectical tensions that are characteristic of Mr. Warren’s book.
Mr. Warren guarantees the humanistic nature of his idea of service as he says, “We don’t serve God out of guilt or fear or even duty, but out of joy and deep gratitude for what he’s done for us.” (p. 228) Surely, there is great joy in Christian service, and surely, we must be seized by a deep gratitude for what God has done for us. However, these things never can replace or nullify the fear of God that must motivate our every thought and action (Jb. 28:28, Ps. 19:9; 111:10, Pr. 1:7; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26; 15:33; Ec. 13:13, etc.), nor substitute for the duty that we owe to God as our Creator and Judge. Joy is a consequence of Christian service, and gratitude is an experience derived from contemplation of our sin and of God’s grace in Redemption. As such, these never can replace the fear of God and our duty before God as the true and godly motive for Christian service. In suggesting that fear and duty may be replaced by the psychology of joy and gratitude, Mr. Warren only solidifies the Humanistic nature of his concept of service. In this conception, service is not a matter of obedience, but endures only so long as pleasant experience can be maintained. Mr. Warren has afforded himself six more chapters to flesh out his idea of service. We shall see whether perhaps a fuller treatment might give a more biblically refined idea of these things.
posted by S. C. Mooney at 11:15 PM
0 comments
