I suppose the problem of having such passages so ready-to-hand is the mental hinderance that superficial familiarity can be to actual understanding. By contrast, I suppose the benefit of having such passages so ready-to-hand is the sudden, fortuitous return of the truths that endure on a deeper plane, requiring no impetus beyond the words themselves as they bob to the surface.
As Horatio said of the grave digger, "Custom hath made it in him a property of easiness," and it is the ease of such recollections that allow for flippancy. But the easy recollections can also be, as for Sydney Carton, a "chain of associations that [bring] the words home, like a rusty old ship's anchor from the deep."
So, in short, as I sat on my couch today staring into space, Paul's words struck me differently. Here they are:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (ESV).
Now regardless of your religious persuasions (or lack thereof), I think you may find these qualities Paul attributed to life in the Spirit to be valuable ones. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if we were asked (without being put on guard) to name the qualities we most value in ourselves and others that the list would look the same. Conspicuously absent are our conventional American values.
Imagine if the verse read, "But the fruit of the Spirit is independence, charisma, ambition, intelligence, talent, power, wealth, and self-confidence."
It is not just the absence of these qualities that struck me, but the stark difference between them and the ones specified. I have been reflecting on these things, in part, I believe, because of the recent death (May 8th, 2013) of my favorite contemporary philosopher, Dallas Willard. The greatest vindication of his vast corpus of philosophical theology is the quality of the life he lived--or to put it in terms closer to his own articulations: who he was proved to be the best evidence of the truth of what he believed.
Dallas Willard was fond of describing Jesus as "relaxed," and his own life was marked by a similar disposition. If we look at the first few qualities ascribed to the Spiritual fruit, we find fairly relevant characteristics.
Love:
Was it Aquinas who first defined love as "willing the good" to a person or object? Is there anything so great and so humiliating as love? Love is essentially other-oriented. Is there not, to the contrary, an undercurrent of Self that pulls the alternative set of qualities toward their fulfillment?
Joy:
Joy ain't happiness (or at least not as we understand it in modern terms), but a pervasive sense of well-being; one that persists in spite of circumstances or personal outcomes. In today's context, would an ambitious, motivated leader be comfortable (and fully content) not taking the complete initiative in his own pursuits?
Peace:
Shalom. Rest. A good person can be peaceful? Do we instead think of the ever-studious, the diligent, the organized, the (dare I say) workaholic as a better model of personal success? Perhaps there is some truth in our impressions, and perhaps there is some deceit. How can we be such spendthrifts with our time in an ultimate reality begging us to lie down in green pastures and wander by the still waters?
Patience:
Oh God, I am a failure here. No comment.
Kindness:
You mean I should treat other people well? Even if it doesn't help me achieve my personal goals?
So far the fruit of the Spirit looks like a nice old man from a fairy tale. Where are the kick-ass qualities of "real" men that we all know lead to real happiness? Let's look further down.
Gentleness:
Whoopsie. I should have skipped that one. Our traditional heroes sit uncomfortably in the shadows. Perhaps George Washington would not approve (certainly not Thomas Jefferson). My apologies.
Okay let's stop before "self-control." That might make us all a little depressed.
-----------------------------
My point is that one who dwells with the Spirit or "in" the Spirit, whatever that means (and presuming it is something good) is a person whose primary character traits generally apply, by modern standards (and ancient standards, for that matter), to weaklings and nobodies, people who don't get what they want because they don't assert themselves or they don't have the "right" kind of education.
If I'm not too far mistaken, these traits also apply, however, to the people we know deep down to be much happier, better persons than we are, to the ones we want to be around and to be like, the ones we want to be with forever.
And with God's help perhaps we will get there.
good post. thanks for that!
ReplyDelete