T(r)oy's Marbles

More thoughts on being and doing

We’re drawing out principles regarding the mystery of “being” and “doing”. Specifically, we’re exploring the relation between “who we are” and “what we do.” I refer to this relationship as a mystery because, at times, there exists an accurate correspondence between our interior life and our exterior life, while at other times there exists a line of discontinuity between those two lives.

Let’s add, however, some more layers to this idea of correspondence. Specifically, today’s and tomorrow’s thoughts concern aspects related to

1. the public perception of self,
2. the private awareness of self,
3. “acceptance” of self,
4. immediate correspondence
and
5. ultimate correspondence

In the following, we’ll be looking at all 5 of these aspects, but we will not do so in linear fashion (one, two, three, four—so to speak). Rather, we will observe how each item of the five relates to the others.

Let’s consider the story of Ted Haggard as an example. Here’s what we know:

1. Ted Haggard established a church of many thousands of members. In the public “eye”, Mr. Haggard was thought to be a person who was passionate about following Jesus and helping others do so.

2. While all this was going on, however, Mr. Haggard was involved in taking drugs and engaging in sex with persons other than his marriage partner. No doubt, Mr. Haggard was self-aware that the public perception of his character did not match…

a) what was going on in his soul, nor
b) his private actions.

Here we should note that the actual condition of his heart found a way to manifest itself in concrete behaviors. This is what is meant when I use the phrase “ultimate correspondence.” A little explanation:

Ultimate correspondence (between who you are and what you do) carries the idea of inevitability. It is inevitable that, sooner or later, you will reproduce in your actions what you are in your heart.

This is what Jesus refers to when he says, “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit…Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:16-18, 20)

Now, lest we regard this statement as terribly fatalistic, we should remember that these words come in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. And, let it be remembered that, in this sermon, Jesus comes against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. That is, he points out how the Pharisees thought of themselves as “holier than thou”, but, in their heart of hearts, they harbored lust and hatred. In other words, though their outward behavior appeared righteous, their hearts were not right. So in reality, Jesus says, they were guilty of adultery and murder. But, how could this be? Is Jesus being too hard on them? Doesn’t this seem unfair? I mean: to be sure, they had not committed adultery, they had not murdered anyone. But, to God, it’s all the same for “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (I Samuel 16:7).

Put it another way: the source of adultery is lust and the source of murder is hatred. The fount of sin found a home in their heart. The conditions from which evil behaviors manifest themselves were harbored in their souls. So, in reality (remember the metaphor of the mirror?), they were no better than adulterers and murderers (for actions are mere reflections of—two-dimensional representations of—reality). Remember, it may be that our souls are more real (not less real) than our actions.

At any rate, Jesus is looking for the real deal here. He doesn’t just want us to do a bunch of good stuff. He actually wants us to be good.

It’s in that context that Jesus gives those words we read already in Matthew 7. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is telling us that this interior overhaul he wants to do in us is for our own good. For, ultimately, we will only be able to reproduce what’s in our invisible nature. Again, we may look healthy on the outside, but time will tell the value of what’s inside through what we ultimately produce.

Is it any wonder Jesus tells us we need to be “born again”? And is it any wonder that theologians refer to this event of “new birth” as “regeneration.” God is in the business of transforming us from the inside-out.

And, in that, there is comfort, for it “cuts both ways”. Yes, you will know a tree by its fruit. Yes, if we are by nature “bad”, we will only be able to produce—ultimately—bad fruit (even though we may temporarily be able to, somehow, fool people into thinking it is good fruit). But, the other scenario is equally true: A good tree produces good fruit, full stop. And, yes, that is a comfort.

This is why Jesus’ statement is not “fatalism” (and nor is it “karma”—in fact, it is deliverance from karma). To be precise, it is hope, real hope. For, in Jesus’ statement, he is telling us: “Let me do a new work in you. Let me regenerate you, birth a new thing in you, change you from the inside out.”

Now: in light of that, let’s bring this back to Mr. Haggard’s situation.

We’ve said that the public perception of Mr. Haggard held that he was a devoted follower of Jesus.

We’ve noted that there was, in fact, something else going on in his heart that was entirely different.

We’ve also noted that Mr. Haggard could contain no longer the actual condition of his heart. He needed to find some way to manifest what was going on there. We’ve called this compulsion to manifest our interior condition “ultimate correspondence”. That is, ultimately (inevitably) what we do springs from who we are.

But (now for some more layers) you’ll note that at some point we may wonder whether the things that were going on in his heart were there much longer than their initial manifestations. That is, did Mr. Haggard have this heat in his soul long before lighting the fire? Only God knows and, perhaps, Mr. Haggard (though, maybe not).

However, it is conceivable that, yes, in fact, this “shift” in his soul happened long before the shift in his actions occurred—that, at least, these behaviors were most likely many months (if not years) in the making.

Now: though we may be wrong about this, I bring it up as a possibility in order to serve as a way of thinking about the issue of “immediate correspondence.”

If we can say that “ultimate correspondence” refers to the inevitability that, sooner or later, what you do comes out of who you are, that does not mean that the correspondence between “being and doing” has a sense of continuous immediacy. In Mr. Haggard’s case (assuming that this shift in his soul took place some time long before he manifested that condition in external behavior) we can say that during that time he did not possess the dynamic of “immediate correspondence” between who he was and what he did.

What I’m saying is: though ultimately we cannot put off the inevitable, we do find ways of living life temporarily—doing one thing but thinking and feeling another; hiding, at least for a “short” time. However, it is only a matter of time before the truth comes out. And, with some, it can be a long time before that happens, while others are unable to bear the discontinuity between being and doing for very long.

Practically speaking, we sacrifice “immediate correspondence” at a great cost to our hearts and the hearts of those who love us. Prolonged hiding hurts everyone—you and others (especially those closest to you). In the first case, the longer one goes before admitting to oneself the truth, the harder it becomes to reclaim an integrated life. In the second case, the longer one goes before others see the truth, the harder the truth hits when it does come out. Once they realize who you really are, they may find it difficult, if not impossible, to trust you—or others—again.

All this to say: “Immediate correspondence” has to do with the notion that what I do in the present corresponds accurately to who I am in the continuous present—that is, this “accurate correspondence” is more than a mere potentiality for some months (or years) to come. It carries the idea that “what you see is really what you get”, that one is not “hiding.” That you are “the real deal”. In the here and now.

For the person who has been “born again”, immediate correspondence also carries with it the idea of “a long obedience in the same direction.” It is that phenomenon that we’ve all observed where a person lives a life of consistent obedience (where they act consistently with who they have now become) so that “days turn into weeks; weeks turn into months; months turn into years; years turn into decades--and decades turn into a lifetime.” True, it is rare to see someone who has actually lived this way, but it happens from time to time.

Take Billy Graham, for example.

Early in his ministry, Mr. Graham came to a crossroads: would he continue to be a simple preacher of the cross of Christ or would he, perhaps, shift his vocation in order to become an educator? At that point in his life, Mr. Graham determined that he would always preach the “basic gospel message” in simplicity whenever he had the opportunity to speak, teach, write, etc. This decision was made with a sense that it was who God was calling him to be. In fact, he often made it clear that he didn’t feel this is what everyone needed to do, but for him personally, this was what he should be about. No doubt, over the years, this conviction came under various forms of “opposition”: attack, ridicule, doubt. And this “opposition” was not just from others, it also came from personal (internal) sources. But, Mr. Graham “made a commitment” and whenever “temptations” came (to waver from that commitment), he chose to continue acting out of who God called him to be.

In other words, in Billy Graham we see what it looks like when immediate correspondence touches ultimate correspondence; that is, we see how the two interact with each other. We see, to be precise, that his actions accurately represented who he was in the continuous present (the “here and now”), and we see that ultimately, inevitably, he produced good fruit, because he really was a good person. Throughout his career, Billy Graham had many skeptics. There were many who thought it was just a matter of time when the “dark”, “secret” truth would really come out about Billy Graham (I mean, who really lives like that, nowadays?). At the end of his life, however, all those doubts were laid to rest. Mr. Graham’s life silenced all the critics, because “at the end of the day” Billy Graham was shown to be the real deal. He really was a good person. If he was not, we would have known it for, as we’ve seen in other instances (and as Jesus teaches): “a bad tree cannot produce good fruit”.

And, lest we think this is a single exception, I will throw out other names for you to consider: Mother Teresa, St. Francis of Assissi, my grandmother, Deela Dyck, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Edith Schaeffer, Joy Grant, Corrie ten Boom, Hudson Taylor, William Wilberforce, John Newton, John Wesley, and the list goes on. In fact, you can probably fill in more names here.

Now: let it be noted, however, none of these people were good in and of themselves. No, Jesus reminds us it is not because of our own doing, but because of God’s continuous work of regeneration in our hearts.

Note the word “continuous” in that last sentence. It is "because of God’s continuous work of regeneration in our hearts". I point this out now because I have an inkling that evangelical theologians have sold us short on the concept of regeneration. That is, theologians often refer to the “regenerating” work of the Holy Spirit as a work that is performed at “conversion”—and is completed at that point. But, something tells me the new birth experience carries with it a sense of continuous immediacy, and we are called to embrace it with continuous (daily) immediacy—and urgency.

This, in my mind, is the chief difference in the two “characters” we’ve mentioned today. On the one hand, while it is true that Mr. Haggard did in fact have a real experience of “conversion” (a real moment when he was “born again”), the recent events of his story tell us that, at some point along the way, he was not experiencing the dynamic of continuous death and birth in the ongoing present of which the Scriptures speak clearly.

I believe this is crucial for us to understand if we are going to live truly integrated and holy lives. Otherwise why would Paul describe the Christian life in the following terms: “We…are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory…” (2 Corinthians 3:18)

Note the word “being” in that sentence—with an emphasis on the “ing” part of that word. It’s a continuous verb. It’s a work that’s always in the present and never completed.

And this adds more, now, to the “mystery” of “being and doing.”

Specifically, “being” refers in one sense to “who I am”. But in another sense it can mean “who I am becoming.” (Or, ironically, “who I am not yet”!). In this light, who you are now should be seen in the light of “who you will be.” And, in this sense, we should act in the present according to what God has destined for us in the future (that is, what God intends for us to become).

This means that, as Christians, we should act in the present as though we have been transformed (this means we have a sense of comfort and security in our present battle with sin), but we should also act in the present as though we are still being transformed (which means we also should have a sense of vigilance and urgency in our present battle with sin). Thus, victory in our battle with sin is both a present potentiality and a future reality.

In that light, note: once again, this way of looking at our battle with sin turns our view of reality on its head! Notice: the real me is found in the future, not the present. We often think of ourselves as more real in the here and now, but, in actuality, we will be more real, we will be more truly ourselves, when that great day of final liberation comes! No wonder the apostle John says, “So be it. Come, Lord Jesus!”

So, life is a process of becoming. I guess this dynamic to our faith (that is, this interplay between the future and the present) should come as no surprise to us since God is eternal. I mean, if he sees all time at once, to him we really are “transformed” and “being transformed” at one and the same “time.” And, that too, should come as a comfort to us.

Perhaps tomorrow I’ll share another story about Henri Nouwen as it relates to these themes and, maybe, I’ll have the chance to write some about what this means regarding “accepting” ourselves. For now, I hope this has been a help.

To read the next post in the chain, click here.