Tuesday, November 6, 2007

selflessness


"From the heights we leap and flow
To the valleys down below;
Sweetest urge and sweetest will
To go lower, lower still."
from Hind's Feet on High Places, by Hannah Hurnard


Mutual submission and gender roles in marriage have been a frequent topic of conversation lately, especially as the c-groups at ECC have been studying 1 Peter 3. The other day one of my friends suggested to me that God would have all Christians live lives of utter selflessness, continually pouring out love and acting in the best interests of everyone else. If we really did live this way as a community, we wouldn't need to care for ourselves because our brothers and sisters would be caring for us fully.

I am convinced that such a pouring out of oneself is what God desires from each of us, whether or not the sustaining community is functioning as it should. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body I live through faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Christ is our utmost example of a life lived for the sake of others, and he is the one we are to imitate. Our lives should be characterized by extreme selfless giving.

And yet I hesitate.

First, as lovely as it would be for the body of Christ to so minister to one another that none were left empty, it does not function that way. We haven't figured it out, and we're all severely flawed. This makes it dangerous to live lives of extreme selflessness, because it leaves us vulnerable. If we are not caring for ourselves, and the church is not filling in, who is protecting and sustaining us?

The obvious answer is God himself. He picks up the slack, and cares for his children with perfect wisdom and love. Giving up that kind of control is terrifying, and it's incredibly difficult to fight the self-preservation instinct, but the result is always liberty and blessing.

So then here's the question. At what point should reckless abandon be superseded by caution and conservatism? In seasons of my life when I've been particularly outward-focused, I've made some decisions that other people have called foolish and dangerous. Opening the door to a bloody neighbor at 3AM after listening to hours of him fighting with his girlfriend? Probably not wise, but it was a good ministry opportunity. At least in that case I was only putting myself at risk. What about allowing a potentially dangerous individual to stay overnight at my place? That puts my roommate at risk, so is that crossing the line into actual, rather than just perceived foolishness?

Again, at what point should reckless abandon be superseded by caution and conservatism? Where is the balance between wisdom and foolishness, prudence and faithfulness?

1 comment:

b7 said...

Yes, I'm commenting on my own post. Some people have weighted in on this, and it's worth preserving.

Dan suggested that self-preservation is okay when the goal is not actually selfish. For example, it would be unwise to put yourself in danger by picking up a hitchhiker if you had a responsibility to stay safe to lead your family. The service to family trumps service to the stranger, and the right choice is the choice of self-preservation.

Speaking of the inner struggle of dying to self, another friend wrote "...our first responsibility is to cooperate with the sanctifying work God is doing in our lives trusting that the ultimate result will always be love expressing itself in service."

She also mentioned that negotiating the tension between reckless selflessness and prudence gets simpler as we get deeper in God, but that to get to the simplicity we have to work through the complexity. Ain't THAT the truth?