« Honorary Intellectuelle Wins Award |
Main
| The Chautauqua ideal »
Holistic righteousness
Perhaps one basis of the alleged incongruity between righteousness and intellectual activity is the notion that righteousness consists of a number of observable actions. That is to say, righteousness is supposed to consist in good works. Before the fall Adam was obligated to tend the garden. Had Adam and the race continued in the estate in which they were created, there would no doubt have been public worship on the Sabbath, and even the discharge of economic duties as the population and civilization increased.
But these external actions, even before the fall, would not have exhausted righteousness. Righteousness also requires right thinking about God. The point is more clearly seen when we consider man's estate after the fall. His duties, in addition to public worship, now include ministering to the sick and unfortunate, restraining sin and crime, and to this end establishing civil government. But none of these external actions is righteous or pleases God, unless motivated by righteous thinking. It is the intellectual activity that makes the external action pleasing to God.
- Gordon Clark, "The Axiom of Revelation"
In an attempt to show the biblical relation between man and logic, Clark is addressing the pietistic objection to identifying God's image in man as largely consisting of rationality.
On a quick Google search for a workable definition for pietism (note the lowercase "p" - I mean to talk about the general sentiment that came out of the 17th century movement), I found it described well as "making our love for God the main focus of Christianity, instead of his love for us." But more specifically and for these purposes, we could say that pietists emphasize righteousness and sanctification to the point where doing is superior to mere thinking, and rationality is something to regard with suspicion, lest you fall into the (rarely plumbed, I daresay) depths of rationalism. If you've been around here lately, you may have been privileged to witness a textbook example of pietism.
But it is interesting to me that the kind of pietistic devotional books (indeed, it's hard to find any other kind) for sale in the typical Christian bookstore often emphasize obedience "from the heart." So they recognize that righteousness is more than outward works, and that sanctification is more than working into the habit of doing godly things. Yet in their determination to steer far away from anything that smells like intellectualism, I think they fail to make the connection between knowing what God's precepts are and, with that knowledge, acting on them. To say that true obedience comes from the heart is the exact same thing as saying that our minds must be in line with God's will as much as our actions are.
The application I'm trying to make is tired, I know, but so much more tiring is this ludicrous objection to thoughtful Christian living. People appeal over and over to the evidence of Jesus' self-denying acts of love and mercy. No one here will argue with you that his deeds were great and greatly to be imitated. But do you assume that he was always doing? Do you think he was being a poor steward of his time to set apart occasions for reflective prayer? Do you think he dealt with the educational aspect of his ministry grudgingly, wishing he could be out there "on the front lines" all day? And let's not forget that time when Jesus, at age twelve, stayed behind at the temple in Jerusalem to question (and answer, and astonish with his answers) the Jewish teachers. After his account of that event, Luke wrote, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." So let us do the same, ever acknowledging the significance of Christ's holistic lordship - we owe God all of our heart, mind, soul and strength.
Laura, this is a wonderful entry. I think that we are always so concerned with being "active" and being busy going about "doing" God's business or working to "improve" ourselves in our external Christian walk that we forget that what goes on internally matters a great deal - devotionally, intellectually and doctrinally.
This should also be remembered in the case of a persons who are outwardly unable to be doing much visible "ministry" (as in an older person who can't get around well, a person with physical handicaps, etc.)
It is also interesting to remember that unregenerate people can do outwardly righteous things, but that "whatever is not of faith, is sin"...I was reminded of this verse when I read this in your opening quote: "But none of these external actions is righteous or pleases God, unless motivated by righteous thinking."
Were you referring to the whole debate on modesty when you mention a textbook case of pietism around here?
Funny that you say you thought of that verse, because Clark goes on to talk about it in the next few pages. :)
"Were you referring to the whole debate on modesty when you mention a textbook case of pietism around here?"
No no, rather a certain unrelated debate within that debate. Unless that's what you meant.
I get the feeling that what Clark is doing is trying to reduce "being" and "doing" categories to intellectual ("knowing" or "thinking") categories. In other words, he might allow us to use "being" or "doing" language, but he would add the caveat that all personal categories are subsumed under intellectual categories, so my "being" and "doing" language can really be translated into intellectual categories and nothing is lost.
I would suggest that he is right in his criticism, in that we can't say that the "doing" or the "being" of righteousness can be properly separated or abstracted from the intellectual aspect. At the same time, however, I disagree with the positive view I think he offers. Specifically, I would suggest that these three kinds of categories are to be kept distinct and not to be reduced to one another (contra Clark's positive view), but at the same time I would suggest that without engaging all three you aren't engaging the whole person (pace Clark's negative criticism).
To say that true obedience comes from the heart is the exact same thing as saying that our minds must be in line with God's will as much as our actions are.
I got myself into a little trouble using the terms 'heart' and 'mind' in a recent post. I realize now that I did not make it clear that I view the two as inextricably linked. Love is not primarily a matter of the heart (i.e. feelings) but of the mind. Love is the result of our minds yielding to His, our minds sharing His thoughts, his Truth. But the Truth that we receive with our minds will effect our hearts.
"But none of these external actions is righteous or pleases God, unless motivated by righteous thinking."
"If I give all I possess to the poor...but have not love I gain nothing."
Righteous thinking (love) will always lead to good works, as James points out. However, good works will not always lead to righteous thinking. Love must come first, last and always. That's why "the greatest of these is Love."
Laura, this is an awesome post. So eloquent and insightful. What's a shame is that the "textbook case" himself will probably overlook it altogether or not get it. I hope he proves me wrong...
John, I so agree. Which is why I've got to read the Head, Hearts, Hands book that came out a few months ago (Murdock of the A-team blog is reading it). It's a book I've been meaning to write myself (it was published by InterVarsity Press, the publisher I would have chosen) so I'm curious to see how the author did it. I may even use it to help develop a resource that goes beyond the scope of a book, which is why I own headhearthands.org (but it reverts to my blog for now).
Yes, yes, yes! Too many people seem to want to simplify Christianity to a set of rules. But primarily it's about relationship, and relationships aren't predictable. Moreoever, people are created differently, with different gifts and abilities. The one who is called to serve should indeed serve (as should we all,when the opportunity is there and right). But others are primarily called to be other things - encouragers, or peacemakers, or administrators or teachers, and so on. I was very encouraged personally to read a phrase coined by Philip Yancey, about Christian writing: 'They also serve who only sit and click....'
But none of these external actions is righteous or pleases God, unless motivated by righteous thinking. It is the intellectual activity that makes the external action pleasing to God.
I agree with much of the sentiments expressed in Laura's post and the comments, however, this quote can be misleading. Is it not possible to have 'right" action and "right" thinking and a 'wrong' spirit? And doesn't it strike anyone as crazy to say that it is intellectual activity that makes an action pleasing to God? I suppose that is allowable if Clark defines the intellect as including the spirit, but Christ said true worshipers will worship "in spirit and in truth" making a disctinction and emphasis on spirit that I think we ought to uphold.
What about people who are mentally handicapped? Are they less righteous because their actions cannot be as motivated from "right thinking"?
Perhaps Clark deals with these issues and I would need to read the entire context. And I agree that there is a disturbing trend of anti-intellectualism in our culture and lifeway stores today.
I'm thinking about the woman who poured perfume on Jesus. Or those who fell down in gratitude and worship. Was it because of thinking how great Jesus is, or more of a pure feeling -- a sort of extravagant I-can't-contain-it love?
And what about emotional thinkers? (People who act on emotion more frequently than on reason.)
Very thought provoking.
Annie: Yes, I believe Clark is collapsing thinking and spirit into one, just as the internal faculties as opposed to external action. I would certainly agree that one can be thinking correctly (doctrinally) with a cold or prideful spirit. And to say that it is intellectual activity that makes an action pleasing to God is one thing, but to assert that it makes ANY action pleasing to God is quite another.
Gray: Well, that love, however extravagant and emotional, had to have come from some knowledge of who Christ was! As for "emotional thinkers..." ehm, I'm inclined to think that that's not the ideal, but I'm going to shut up now before I get myself into trouble.
Everything quoted from Clark here on this site has seemed a bit off to me, so I asked some of the fellows over at BHT about Him - there are quite a few theology and philosophy degrees over there so I was interested in their opinion. It started a small thread.
www.boarsheadtavern.com
Please don't interpret this as me being snarky - just letting you know I saw this (and that, at the BHT) and my response is "no comment."
Laura - I honestly don't understand what you mean.
When the truth is that we "see through a mirror darkly" and that Christ says if you love me you will obey me, that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul (not just mind) and Paul writes also that the greates of these is love, that if I have all knowledge and not love I am nothing and then not see a problem in It is the intellectual activity that makes the external action pleasing to God? How can that not be hyper-rationalism?
Can you give quotes and examples where Clark gives unity and equal emphasis to the heart and soul and not just the mind?
I really believe in what intellectuelle is trying to do and I am all for thinking deeply and advocating glorifying God with our minds. That is precisely the reason I resist Clark and his writing, because I do think that rationalism is dangerous.
I appreciate your post, and think that your comments make a good case for wholistic righteousness.
Annie, the "no comment" comment was because I was unaware of just how misrepresented and misunderstood Clark is, and I do not have the time nor the will nor the stamina to defend his reputation everywhere he is slandered. His position on a lot of things was contrarian, and to people who mock his anti-empiricism without examining the principles, of course it sounds crazy. So I'm taking this as a lesson not to glibly quote him just anywhere.
But to answer your question about this quote: I believe you are restricting the definition of "intellectual" here. Forget what the BHT said about his hyperrationalism for a moment and consider that by "intellectual activity" here, Clark simply means the internal faculty that directs the will, whether you want to call it attitude, spirit, heart, whatever. With that in mind, he could just as easily say, it is the intellectual activity that makes the external action abhorrent to God! He is not saying that we escape sin by reasoning through everything. I'm sure we can all agree with what he means - that an acceptable cup must be clean on the inside as well as the outside.
Annie,
Everything quoted from Clark here on this site has seemed a bit off to me, so I asked some of the fellows over at BHT about Him - there are quite a few theology and philosophy degrees over there so I was interested in their opinion. It started a small thread.
I think some of the guys at BHT are either confused, unfamiliar with Clark, or they're just kidding around. What else could explain Dale Courtney's calling Clark a "hyper-rationalist"?
Charging Clark with fideism, anti-empiricism, or anti-rationalism might be unfair but it would at least be in the right ballpark and lead to a good argument. But a hyper-rationalist? Maybe he added 'JN' on that post and I missed it.
I have not checked what was said on the site that is being referred to, but one might use the label "hyper-rationalist" in the sense that he doesn't allow for any contribution of sense perception in the knowing process.
Empiricism is the view that says ALL knowledge is via sense perception, and rationalism is the view that says some knowledge is acquired other than by sense perception, innate knowledge for instance (we are not born with minds that are a tabula rasa). Rationalists, in this sense, can be categorized two ways: 1) Ratioinalists who leave some room for sense perception in the knowing process [Augustine, Ron Nash, Robert Reymond etc.] and 2) Rationalists who deny that there is any contribution of sense perception in the knowing process[Plato, Clark].
Clark was a scripturalist (biblical deductivism), i.e. he maintained that all that can be known is that which is deducible from the bible by the mind apart from the senses. Some have criticized him by saying, "if the senses play NO role in the knowing process, then how can you even know what scripture says?!" Can you see the problem?
Anyway, this may be the reason why some may be using the term "hyper-rationalist." It's due to the fact that he denied ANY role of sense perception in his epistemology. An adherence to rationalism as over against empiricism does not require that degree of anit-sense perception. Or, it's possible that the one describing him as a "hyper-rationalist" really doesn't know what they are talking about. Once again, I didn't read the webpage referred to.
For those of you reading this, just keep in mind that "rationalism" can be used in different ways. When it is used in the context of epistemology, it can refer to an anti-empiricism view. Sometimes "rationalism" can stand for an autonomous philosopher attempting to reach metaphysical truth apart from divine revelation. Clark was definitely not of that sort.
Did I confuse you further? lol If so, then forget about it :-)
Annie said:
"the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul (not just mind) and Paul writes also that the greates of these is love, that if I have all knowledge and not love I am nothing"
Can you tell me what the difference is between your heart, soul and mind? Do you know things with your heart that you do not know with your mind? Do you have any knowledge seated in your soul which is not in your mind?
Is it possible that "heart, soul, mind" in scripture is just a Hebrew idiom for the whole person? The key issue in obedience, however, has to do with the motives residing in the mind. Whatever is not of faith is sin, and faith is primarily a mental or volitional activity and perspective.
I doubt that Laura or Clark doubt that obedience includes every aspect of the person, but the fundamental issue has to do with the mental framework through which that obedience arises.
ynottony - you aptly described empericism and rationalism - I was a philosophy major, so it didn't confuse me. I agree in the heart, soul, mind wholistic view - that is why I ask some one to show me where Clark gives that view instead of just using the word "intellect" which in our culture does tend to have the general meaning of mind apart from heart and soul.
Because Clark does have such a strange and radical epistomology, I think it is fair to ask for evidence that He includes heart. And I think it is amazing that he says there is no sense perception in our understanding of the Word. How else to the words of the Word make any sense to us, except that they relate to experiences we have had. When Jesus says, come and drink and you will never thirst, that wouldn't mean anything if I had never been thirsty. Plus the foundation of Scripture, our trust in it, is based on sensory experiences that Moses, the prophets and apostles had with YHWH and Jesus. If the apostles had not SEEN Jesus die and raise again, I doubt we would read their testimony as anything more than that of Josephus.
So much interesting stuff here.
Tony, I appreciated your explanation. When I think of rationalism, I think of Ayn Rand and the objectivists (confession: I've only see the movie Fountainhead, but I own a couple of her books and hope to tackle them someday when I have the time to indulge my philosophical side). Anyway, your distinction was very helpful.
One thing I've been wondering is if the word for "heart" in the Bible is always the same. I know a read a footnote for a Scripture in the Old Testament where it said that the particular word used in that passage for heart actually meant mind and soul as well--the whole person. So in other instances, does the Bible use a different word, one that just refers to the emotional part of a person?
The way I interpret Jesus' command (Luke reference) is this:
heart = emotions
mind = intellect
strength = action
soul = spirit which encompasses all of the above
I picture the soul as a circle around the other three.
I'm not sure where senses fit in, but I know that God gave them to us, so they must exist to help us enjoy and glorify him (if I can borrow from Piper). I see sensory perception as aiding in loving God will all of ourselves--we take in what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell and it becomes part of our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Helen Keller didn't worship better because she couldn't see or hear. In fact, she was part of a cult, but that's on a post on my blog.
Or am I taking this all too literally?
All of my formal education (except my freshman year at Westmont) has been secular, so I'm not very versed in the study of theology.
Oh, and what about C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce? (i.e. how the grass actually hurts their feet because it's so real) That book helps me understand "seeing through a glass darkly" (which by the way still implies seeing, just not fully) but I haven't got time to elaborate on this right now...
Hi Marla,
One of the things we need to be mindful of is that ancient Jewish people did not categorize the heart, mind, soul, and spirit references as we do. The tendency is for us to impose our categories and distinctions on them. I am inclined to believe that the command to love God with our heart, mind, soul and strength is just a Hebrew way of saying, "Love God with all that you are, even from the very core of your being." They are not trying to make fine distinctions between various soul, mind, spirit, and heart faculties.
In the OT, the heart thinks, the spirit knows, the mind emotes, and the soul relates to God thoughtfully and bodily. I recall something in Hebrew called step parallelism (I am no linguist by the way:-) In step parallelism, the same general idea is expressed using different words that add different dimensions and beauty to what is being said.
Word A (certain connotations)--->Word B (idea A with additional connotations)---> Word C (idea A & B with further connotations)
Loving God with the mind is no different in hebrew thought than loving him with our spirits, but the term "spirit" may have additional connotations that the author wishes to capture. In hebrew thinking, the soul and heart also add further dimensions, and it's not the case that these words are making fine distinctions (as some Greek philosophers might think) between these faculties.
Let's put it this way: we should love God with all of our bowels LOL How does that sound to you? Crazy? Well, in hebrew thought it would mean loving God with the core of who you are, with all of your guts so to speak. So then, I would encourage Marla and everyone else here to love God with all of their bowels HAHAHAHA
General comments:
Even though we have been expounding on Clark's epistemology and other issues, the bottom line of Laura's comments (as gathered from the Clark excerpt) seem valid to me. It seems to me that he is just refuting the pietistic notion that looks at righteousness in an action-based way. Rather, the bible emphasizes the motives of the heart, mind, soul etc. as being of fundamental importance in righteousness. Think about it this way. Wasn't God righteous before he created anything? God is intrinsically righteous because of his nature, which is logically prior to any actions the persons may do. Righteousness primarily consists in the affections of the mind, the mental framework and perspective so to speak. Righteousness is not in the bare act of feeding the poor, but in feeding the poor to the glory of God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (feeding the poor with a view to pleasing a particular God revealed in a particular way). This is what I gather from Laura's post and the Clark excerpt. While Clark's overall epistemological perspective may be troublesome to some people, I don't think it comes through in what was posted by Laura. I gather that Clark is speaking of the intellect in the way that I described above. The mind matters and it is of fundamental importance in acting righteously.
"I think it is amazing that he says there is no sense perception in our understanding of the Word. How else to the words of the Word make any sense to us, except that they relate to experiences we have had."
It follows from a biblical view of metaphysics - if God sustains all things, intellectual activity is included. In the first place, it impossible to explain how a sensation can provide knowledge.
If you see a glass of water on the table, how do you distinguish where the glass ends and the table begins? Sounds stupid, but really, at any given moment there is a barrage of sensory information to be sorted and categorized and - this is the clincher - somehow turned into knowledge. How does that happen? I submit that, given biblical metaphysics, it follows that God alone imparts knowledge, apart from the senses, so that our sensations are only the occasions on which we gain understanding. Sensations in themselves can do nothing to give us knowledge.
That's just an introduction to the countless problems with relying on sensory perception. I *know* it sounds outrageous, but when you think about it long enough, it starts to sink in.
Tony, you're right that the bit of Clark I quoted has nothing to do with his views of sensory perception. He was several pages away from addressing that! :D I don't remember how we got here...oh, it was the BHT.
Also, here is a better introduction to what I've tried to explain above, Annie. Among the questions he addresses is one similar to yours, and he provides links to further reading.
Laura said:
"I submit that, given biblical metaphysics, it follows that God alone imparts knowledge, apart from the senses, so that our sensations are only the occasions on which we gain understanding. Sensations in themselves can do nothing to give us knowledge."
It is true that God is the ultimate cause for any other being's knowledge, but it does not follow from this that he always mediates knowledge apart from sense perception. God can work through secondary causes. It seems to me that this statement admits some role of sense perception in the knowing process: "so that our sensations are only the occasions on which we gain understanding." Understanding is an aspect of knowledge. It is true that MERE sense perception cannot give us knowledge, but it does not follow from this that senses play no role in the acquisition of knowledge.
It would be a false either/or dilemma fallacy, I think, for us to posit either:
1) God alone imparts knowledge APART from the senses.
or
2) Sensations in themselves give us knowledge.
At least a third option is possible:
3) God can impart knowledge immediately to the mind apart from sensation, but he frequently mediates knowledge to human beings through sense perception.
I just peeked at the Cheung page and saw this at the beginning:
"Christians who embrace some version or some degree of empiricism"
There are no "degrees" of empiricism. Empiricism is the view that ALL ALL ALL ALL (did you get the all? lol) knowledge is by sense perception. It is rationalism that admits of degrees, not empiricism. As I said above: Rationalists, in this sense, can be categorized two ways: 1) Ratioinalists who leave some room for sense perception in the knowing process [Augustine, Ron Nash, Robert Reymond etc.] and 2) Rationalists who deny that there is any contribution of sense perception in the knowing process [Plato, Clark].
I just saw that at the top and had to respond, not that I have read Cheung completely yet :-)
Tony: Well, I would say that the difficulties with sense perception in itself rule out the third option. Hrm...but I am seeing your point. We may not understand how, but God could certainly use them and not make the means clear to us. Occasionalism just seems much more plausible to me, though obviously I have quite a bit more research to do on this. And I apologize for Cheung, but could you accomodate him? ;) I think he explains this much better than I can.
Hi Laura,
Sure.
Anyway, we should get back on track concerning the subject of your post, righteousness and the mind. We sure have followed some interesting tangents, huh? lol
