Tuesday, October 14, 2008

What's The Passion About Passion???

Something seems to have happened in the past decade. It seems that everybody in the church thinks that passion is a good thing. People are encouraged to act on the basis of passion; to follow their passions as a basis for the decisions they make in life; to develop a passion; evangelism is seen as the outflow of a passion for the lost. Many new Christian songs take up this basic idea; many books lining the shelves in Christian bookshops will take up the word in the title.

It hasn't always been this way. Where once (in my young adult years, an age not too far gone in the "golden" past) the focus had been on commitment, now the focus is on passion. I am always interested when there is a change in the language of our Christian culture. I wonder where it comes from. (I'm not convinced, by the way, that the focus on commitment was any better, but one thing about commitment was that it had the human will in its focus; passion has human emotion as its focus. See http://www.newcreation.org.au/books/covers/238.html to download Grant Thorpe's really helpful critique of commitment theology.")

There seems to me to be a double origin to this current fad. Firstly, as has often been the case in recent Western church movements, we seem to have borrowed the language of business and motivaton speakers. E.g. “Pursue the Passion follows the lives of people passionate about their careers and encourages everyone to pursue their own passions in life.” - a blurb for a website for a young group of guys travelling the US with their motivational message.

Secondly, we are living in the legacy of a philosophical and social movement called Romanticism. This movement, beginning in the late 1700’s, was a reaction to the scientific and rationalist thrust of the Enlightenment, and placed great emphasis on emotional reaction to the (spiritual) powers of nature as a more authentic truth than the analysis given by the rationalists. Charles Baudelaire: "Romanticism is precisely situated neither in choice of subject nor exact truth, but in the way of feeling." This movement has had its most recent flowering in the “hippy” and “new age” movements.

One main effect in the Church of this movement towards “passion” is a shift of emphasis in where we seek for the gospel to make its impact – a shift from the will to the emotions. This is – I believe – a fatal error for strong and vibrant faith in the long run, even though those who operate in this way definitely have in mind the stimulating of vibrant faith. I'm sure that they believe that, by evoking a strong emotional response to some aspect of the message of Christ, people will be motivated towards useful action for the kingdom. In fact, what seems to happen is that people become addicted to the emotional experience, seeking “hit” after “hit” but who rarely are transformed by this experience in such a way that the plaguing temptations to sin that they face are overcome and that they develop a strong and steady faith.

Jesus has a clear thrust in his teaching that emotional and enthusiastic responses to his teaching were not adequate. It is not only those who hear his word, but those who put that word into practice that inherit the kingdom. There will be those who have called out to him, "Lord, Lord!" in this world who fail to enter the world to come, but who rather enter hell. Jesus told a parable about two sons (Matt. 21) who are asked by their father to do a task. The first refuses outright, but then later duty works in him and he goes and does it. The second enthusiastically, passionately responds, but does not do what was asked. Who does the father's will?- clearly the first. (In the parable, it is clear that the work in Jesus' mind is believing in him, trusting in him as the revelation of the grace of God in history,)

Titus 2:11-15 is an important passage in this matter. Here, as in many places in the New Testament, rather than being passionate the focus of exhortation is on Christians being self-controlled (Gal. 5:22-23; 1Thess. 5:6-8; 1Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8; 2:2,5,6,12; 1Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; 2Pet. 1:5-9.) In fact, passion is seen very negatively in the New Testament as whole (Rom. 1:24; 6:12; 7:5ff; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-17,24; Eph. 4:22; 1Tim. 6:9; 2Tim. 2:22; Tit. 3:3; Jam. 4:1; 1Pet. 1:14; 2:11; 2Pet. 1:3-5; 1John 2:15-17.) The usual word for self-control is literally “inner strength” (ενκρατεια) – the idea being that of inwardly-working strength: a person is not ruled by the (emotional) forces (e.g. lust, ambition, fear) found operating within him or her, but rather has these forces in hand. Self-control generally has the sense of either perseverance, steadfastness, or restraint with reference to sexual matters. It has a verbal form that means “to abstain from something.” The word for passion (επιθυμια) has the idea of desire or enthusiasm intensified to be a ruling power. It is this kind of ruling inner power that self-control must take in hand and rule, subjecting it to the will of God.

Paul in this passage makes clear that grace of God teaches or trains us. There is a behavioural outcome to the gospel’s work in us. What God has done for us in Jesus Christ is brought home to us in the work of the Spirit in such a way that we ourselves now submit to and follow the leading of the Lord, rather than the leading of ungodly and worldly passions. Teaching and training is a long-term and ongoing process, not an immediate “download” of material. Self-control is itself taught and learned in a setting requiring persistence and perseverance!

In this passage, self-control (not actually ενκρατεια here but rather σωφρονως) is linked with uprightness (righteousness – carefulness to do the will of God) and godliness (“good religion” – honourable piety.) Self-control is then not simply mastery over oneself, but the determined doing of the will of God.

The grace of God that has appeared in the Lord Jesus Christ – in his incarnation and his resurrection from the dead – is what teaches us to be self-controlled. The very essence of sin is to be driven along by passions. Sin affects us deeply so that not only do we do wrong, but our desires are for the wrong (see esp. Eph. 2:1-3). It is the grace of God which trains us towards a God-pleasing life by changing the heart so that, even though we find sin still dwelling in us, in fact our longing is towards the will of God. Sin still dwells in our passions – and if we give ourselves over to them, even for godly purposes, finally they will lead us astray. The only trustworthy thing in our lives is outside us, the grace of the Lord Jesus. We must keep looking there, learning the depths and nature of that grace, and letting it transform and keep our wills in obedience to the Father. This grace does train our desiring too, so that we say with Christ, “Not my will, but yours be done.”

7 comments:

moof said...

We can never trust anything that comes out of this body of sin and death, only in the Father and the works that he has prepared beforehand for us.

He is indeed faithful.

AK said...

Martin Bleby forwarded this on:

On 3rd August 1770, George Whitfield was asked what he understood by 'the witness of the Spirit'. He said it is not 'an impression on the imagination, by some immediate communication from the Spirit, that your sins are forgiven, and that you are a child of God' (!) Rather he agreed that it is 'an influence of the Spirit of God, exciting such love for God and Jesus Christ, such clear views of their character, as that the subject of it knows from experience and from Scripture, that he is a child of God and an heir of salvation'. It was said of Whitfield: 'Now he scarce preaches a sermon without guarding his hearers against relying on impressions, and telling them that faith, and a persuasion that we are justified, are very different things, and that a holy life is the best evidence of a gracious state'. (From Iain Murray, 'Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography', Banner of Truth, 1987, pp. 489–490.)

pizzahead said...

I think that the film "dead poets society" heralded a change towards romanticism.

Noel said...

The matter is really important, and it is really good to see it addressed. Passion need have no connection with reality (and certainly none with the reality of faith), but it will always be linked to a dream/image/ideal. It seems to me that idealism (another side of Romanticism) and passion are inevitable contenders for disillusionment and its more hardened offspring: cynicism.

AK said...

Ray Bell forwarded this on:

Thanks for taking up the subject Andrew. It articulates some of what we have been seeing over the past years and perhaps haven't exactly been able to put a finger on. The drive for passion comes with the age of "I feel, therefore I am." John 2:23-25 speaks of many who believed in the name of Jesus because of what they saw him doing - yet Jesus would not entrust himself to them for "he knew all men . . . he knew what was in a man." This is by no means demeaning our humanity - but is being realistic and true to our fallen nature and tendency to be briefly fascinated . . . until hardship or the next best thing comes along. As you have said, "passion" tends to override self control - Paul didn't tell Titus to control his passions but to be self controlled and that the grace of God teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions . . . I guess one could then argue or ask - can we have "godly" passions?
To me - passion seems to come from within oneself and if Jesus wouldn't entrust himself to men because he knew what was in them then perhaps we'd do well to follow suit. On the other hand, "the love of Christ constrains (or controls) us." This is from outside of us, from a True and trustworthy source. We would do well to live in and proclaim the grace and love of God which teaches and constrains us rather than "following our dreams" or "going with our passions".

AK said...

From Grant Thorpe:

Thanks for the article. I think you are right about emotions becoming the new piety for many, rather than doing the will of God (I found that connection helpful.). The problem is not confined to young people I suspect. For example, using feelings, or the lack of them, as a guage of acceptance with God is pretty common. On the other hand, the feelings have certainly taken centre ground so that it is hard to get a hearing except by being 'inspiring', or something like that.

Jonathan Edwards was in the flow of the early Romantic movement and espoused certain aspects of their thought, I understand, because of the sterility of what had gone before. He emphasized the affections, in the sense of making choices based on what one loved. I don't know what you think of this as a way of opening up the Scriptures to people caught up in emotional piety. Do you think 'affections' communicates anything to the present young adult culture? I have in mind passages like 2 Cor. 5 where Paul speaks about being constrained by the love of Christ.

I'd be interested in where you go with this. My own heritage of being taught to 'do the right thing' has needed an emphasis on the constraint of love—a love that is holy and clears the conscience and knows there is no future outside of Christ as Lord. Practical holiness has arisen in this context, and of course, no-where else. The modern Western generation has been largely taught to do what they feel like, but I'm not sure what other message will deal with their situation.

Timothy Staff said...

Emotion is so often used as the means for a person to be saved in modern/post modern Christian rallies. "Pray this prayer with me, and make sure you really, really mean it, sincerely from your heart, and make sure you mean it!"
AK is absolutely right, that the Total Depravity of Man, means that something good in-and-of-itself like Passion is now defiled, and is only a conduit for lawlessness. A man's Passion has a bent toward trangression. However, I must ask for clarification on the Passion of the New Man in Christ. Is not the New Creature given New Desires (Romans 7)? Therefor the Passion that comes from the New Creation is Pure Passion. Yes? No?

-Nathin