Purging my soul…one blog at a time.

“Crucified with Christ”: the Most Self-Centered Verse in the Bible

I accidently introduced radical bodily dualism to my three-year-old the other day. Claire Grace and I were getting something to eat in the kitchen. She said, “Dad, my tummy is making noises and feels funny.” I said, “Yeah, that’s your body telling you that you’re hungry.” She said, “Yeah…” and climbed up in her chair to eat a snack. Though she thought nothing more of it, I continued to think about what I had just said. She has no concept of the separation between soul and body or (for some) body, soul, and spirit. But I introduced it to her in that moment.

See, in the Western world, we have an unusual way of thinking about ourselves. Other nations throughout history have seen the human person as a whole – one part affects another and God saves all of us, not just part of us. With the Greek philosophers, the intellect was elevated above the body and emotions. With Augustine’s psychological analysis of the Trinity, we equated body, soul, and spirit with the corresponding with the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Once persecution stopped for the early Christian church, they began assigning ideas of martyrdom to sickness and tragedy. Phrases like “this is my cross to bear” which used to refer to death began to refer to disease. Today, phrases like “suffering for Jesus” reflect this thought. Due to Gnostic influence, Christians also began to equate the body as the source of evil. So now, as Christians, we see ourselves as tripartite or dualistic beings - where the flesh is the enemy and the spirit needs to be set free. Another example is when we talk a bout how many “souls” were saved in a revival meeting. So, what about their bodies? Did they stay in the pew while the souls floated down the aisle to fill out a commitment card? :) I basically helped Claire Grace mentally separate herself over a snack yesterday. Way to go, dad.

We read this approach to the body into scripture all the time. Of course, miss the point of scripture in the process. Take Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” We take this verse in evangelical circles to mean that in order for Christ to live in us, the flesh must die – the flesh must be crucified. Yet, if you take time to actually read the verse, there are seven references to self in the passage – a passage we normally equate with the eradication of self.  So what’s going on here?

I try to take a more “hebrew” approach to scripture and see salvation as a holistic event. God came to save all of you, not just save your soul and supress your body. As such, this scripture says as much about self-care as it does about Jesus living through you. Jesus meant to revolutionize all of  us, not just parts of us. He came to redeem the whole human. I think one of the attractions of Eastern religions is that they often take the body seriously, unlike the church.

Christians have gotten the wrong idea. And honestly we don’t live this way on a practical level. If someone pricks you with a pin you don’t say, “Ouch! You hurt my body!” You say, “Ouch! You hurt me!” If might be good idea to drop the mental gymnastics about the make up of a person and believe that God wants to permeate all parts of us. Our bodies are not the enemy. A negative focus on supression of the body keeps us from the positive aspects of godly living – focusing on our relationship with God. That’s the important part. If we do that, the body will follow.

February 11, 2008 - Posted by Sam | Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, children, family, parenting, religion, spirituality, theology | , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

15 Comments »

  1. Hey bro –
    I am partial the idea of salvation being a holistic process that affects all of us, not just part of us. After all, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says we’re a completely new creation in Christ. Still, I’m struggling with several things here, specifically the idea that our bodies are redeemed just as our spirits. You wrote “God came to save all of you, not just save your soul and suppress your body” and “Our bodies are not the enemy.” But what about Paul’s rant on the flesh vs. the spirit in Romans 6, 7 & 8 where he says things like “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells” (7:18) and “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (8:7,8)? I realize the word “flesh” here in the NKJV is more like a “sin nature” than our physical bodies. But still, there seems to be the implication when Paul talks about his “members” vs. his “inward man” (7:22,23) that he considers his body the natural catalyst for sin while his spirit is the part of him that communes with God. Instead of expecting God to change his flesh/sin nature for the better, he seems to suggest that we “reckon it dead” (6:11) and ignore it (by choice) in order to “walk in/be led by the spirit” (8:12-14). Even after introducing Jesus as the answer to his sin issues, he seems to summarize the whole situation with these thoughts: “with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin (7:25).” What do you do with those verses?

    Comment by Jamie | February 11, 2008 | Reply

  2. Jamie -

    Good questions! I figured that might come up since my post does seem to contradict some other “flesh” passages. You answered exactly as I would have – flesh most often refers to the human propensity to denigrate towards a sinful, self-serving choice. would I use the term “sin nature”? I wouldn’t, but the “carnal mind” or “members” terms represent the same idea.

    When Paul talks about “reckoning” ourselves dead but “alive to Christ”, to me he’s talking more about lordship. Of course our “flesh” has different ideas than God’s but as we grow as Christians we find our natural inclination begins to line up with a more God-like point of view. The point, like you mentioned is “being led” by the Spirit of God. Your physical body is not always at odds with all of your Christian decisions. Your body, like your emotions, is rather neutral. It reflects your innate desires and thought life. Your body with its various cravings merely adapts to what you give it – it doesn’t do things on its own. It’s merely a follower and outward expression of what’s going on in the rest of you. If you feed it ice cream everyday, it will come to expect it. You can’t get angry at it since you’re the one who gave it ice cream! In that way it’s merely part of the whole – and slowly adapts to following God if that’s what you ask it to do. When we most feel like our flesh is our enemy is when we are attempting to change its course after making it conform to a previous lifestyle. Take smoking for example. You body receives nicotine becasue you taught it to do so. Our “flesh” takes time to unlearn a particular behavior. Is this the devil working in your body. Nope. It’s your new direction clashing with the old direction you previously gave it. If you stop smoking, is your body suddenly “Christian?” No, it’s just doing what you told it to do. God redeems your body as it comes under lordship – just like every other part of you.

    Above all, Paul’s letters are examples of evangelizing in the context he’s given. Paul was a “situationalist.” He didn’t comment on marriage, tithing, tongues, or celebacy unless it needed his pastoral attention. Similarly, Paul was pastoring converted pagans who already believed in the dualistic or triparte nature of humans. So he had no problem asking God to keep us “spirit, soul, and body” – not because that was the only way to see humans, but becasue that’s the way his Greek converts already understood the human composition. Paul’s Jewish tradition saw humans more holisitcally, yet for the sakes of those he was writing to, he adapted his language to accomodate them. Elsewhere, he said “I have become all hings to all men that I might save some.” It’s not dogma – it’s context.

    Comment by Sam | February 11, 2008 | Reply

    • Good stuff, Sam. Perhaps this comes from my background in counseling, but I have found the term “ego” to work very well when referencing “the flesh.” I don’t think it’s just my counseling background though, because Laurence Freeman (http://www.wccm.org/item.asp?recordid=freeman&pagestyle=default) uses it a lot in his teachings on Christian meditation.

      Ego, of course, being that whole set of mental constructs we carry with us and kind of lay over the world. It contains our perspectives and perceptions, desires, propensities toward happiness or melancholy, felt needs – pretty much all of that stems from ego. With this definition, I think the word “ego” is also pretty interchangeable with the word “self.”

      Taken this way it would seem that self-denial is about getting beyond ego (flesh) and living from a different center entirely. This must happen in all the places where ego manifests itself, that is, in mind, in body, and in will. Redemption either happens in all of them or none.

      I loved your illustration involving your daughter the other day. I don’t think it went the wrong direction, though, as far as what you taught her! Though mind, body, and spirit (or will) definitely make up a whole, certainly our brokenness and fallenness cause them to often be at odds with one another. As I taught in a sermon a few weeks ago, “There are two yous. There is you, and there is the you that is sick of you.” (Paul in Romans 7)

      I like your thoughts on how the parts work as a whole.

      Comment by wildwinddave | September 21, 2009 | Reply

      • Hi Dave –

        I think that’s great that you mentioned Freeman – I’ve been diving into a lot of Richard Rohr lately…

        I agree with you about ego/self/flesh. Getting “beyond” ego as self-denial is a common way to look at it. I’ve been reading the Philokalia for several months and that same combative mentality exists in the Eastern monastic tradition as well. I also wonder, however, if we give that protagonist/antagonist concept to much control – as something to battle of its own accord. There’s no doubt that the “flesh” has a propensity to follow ungodly trends. But I also think that our ego is reactive – it responds to what we tell it to be. So, as you eloquently put it: redemption either happens in all of them or none. Should one be “overcome” more than the others? Western Christianity has taught us the importance of making that separation. Is it an artificial one? Probably so…but anything method for gaining understanding into our own spiritual formation is a good thing, in my opinion.

        I love the title of that sermon!! That’s hilarious…

        Sam

        Comment by Sam | September 22, 2009 | Reply

        • That’s what I’ve loved about the whole meditation thing – that meditation (silent prayer) stop the whole cycle of waging war against something, only to have it come back and flare up again (as with lust, for example). Turns out most of the war that is waged is simply one part of the ego (the part that desires spiritual freedom) waging war against another part of the ego (the part that wants gratification). Meditation as a discipline subverts this process completely by moving past ego, refusing to entertain it, since, as you said, we give the battle itself too much control. I have come to see meditation as stepping out of the battle entirely.

          Comment by wildwinddave | September 23, 2009 | Reply

          • That’s a great point – pitting one part of the ego again the other is not only counterproductive, it appeals to our general desire for legalism in religion (great post on perfectionism, btw). It almost reminds me of the Girardian idea of scapegoating at the level of ego when the real issue is much more extensive than tying a noose around the neck of a fairly recent psychological term. Adventures in missing the point, I think. Meditation keeps us looking toward relationship with God as repentence, rather than seeing repentance as merely the “absence” of a particular sin. Meditation (an strong relationally-oriented devotional style) does help us redefine the rules of the game so we can move beyond the battle. Good thoughts, Dave.

            Sam

            Comment by Sam | September 24, 2009

  3. Sam,

    Thanks for your postings. I’ve only started reading them and have a lot to go through to catch up, but this series caught my immediate attention.

    While being a cradle Catholic, I often tell people that I really only “got” a deeper sense of the implication, challenge and excitement of the spiritual quest (whether following Jesus’s lead or one of the other known leaders of spiritual searching) when I was somewhere in my 40s.

    What surprised me most about this dawning realization is that I felt on one hand the church and its 2000 years of history had crimped growth by teaching that all I needed was contained in cut-and-dried dogma, doctrine and ritual. While on the other, the words of myriad sages — from Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers, on up through Mother Teresa — seemed to exhort me to a simpler construct: humble pursuit of God’s will framed by an understanding that God’s will is simply defined as loving with all one’s heart, mind, soul and strength.

    In this sense, there seems to be a consistency of message that salvation is, as you suggest, meant to be holistic. The crux of the matter, even in Paul’s writing, is not so much that flesh is innately bad — but that it is a matter of human nature to first seek “things” or “desires” under the aegis of “I” (“I want.” “my,” “mine”), rather than what true Love wants. And until we surrender the “I” so God’s spirit lives in us, we are invariably going to be unfulfilled.

    What I don’t get is why, if my read of this is accurate, there isn’t more consistency of spiritual guidance, at least in the Christian tradition. I’m just a guy with a bachelor’s degree and there are a lot of smarter people out there.

    Comment by Seeker | February 24, 2008 | Reply

  4. Hey Seeker –

    You make some really points here – feel free to comment anytime.

    “I felt on one hand the church and its 2000 years of history had crimped growth by teaching that all I needed was contained in cut-and-dried dogma, doctrine and ritual. While on the other, the words of myriad sages — from Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers, on up through Mother Teresa — seemed to exhort me to a simpler construct: humble pursuit of God’s will framed by an understanding that God’s will is simply defined as loving with all one’s heart, mind, soul and strength.”

    I agree with you here – what your describing is what many Christians struggle with – the concept of “first-order” and “second-order” part of Christianity. Unfortunately, many people put too much emphasis on “second-order” items like dogma and ritual. Those were not meant to speak for Christianity – they were meant to describe the inner working of the heart. Your second grouping is the “first order” – we are to live in submission to the Lord with loving him and our neighbors as our central focus. The problem is that most Christians have it backwards, focusing on second order issues when God is MUCH more concerned about first order relationship.

    “not so much that flesh is innately bad — but that it is a matter of human nature to first seek “things” or “desires” under the aegis of “I” (”I want.” “my,” “mine”), rather than what true Love wants.”

    Right on! You should’ve written this post for me. :)

    “What I don’t get is why, if my read of this is accurate, there isn’t more consistency of spiritual guidance, at least in the Christian tradition?”

    Good question. I think it’s probably because, although church authority is important and should be honored, God never intended for pastoral guidance to supercede the relational interaction between you and the Holy Spirit. Of course, there are parameters, foremost God’s word, but I believe the consistency is found when all Christians love God enough to follow his lead in every aspect of life – essentially, to let God live life through them. That may sound optimistic and impractical…and maybe it is. However, I think God is a perpetual optimist ready and willing for anyone to take him up on the offer of “I in you and you in me.”

    Thanks for the comment….

    Sam

    Comment by Sam | February 25, 2008 | Reply

  5. I am an agnostic, and am leery of the idea of body and spirit being separate.

    For example, take lobotomy patients… They get their frontal lobe swished and undergo drastic personality changes. What does that say about the separation? The brain, its particular electromagnetic frequency, is the seat of the soul and it is irrevocably entwined with the body. We feel shame through the entirety of our bodies. Heartache literally rends the chest and turmoils the stomach. What of that?

    Comment by zxvasdf | August 25, 2008 | Reply

  6. zxvasdf –

    I’ve got an answer for you, and a Christian one at that. :)

    Recently, theologians (Nancey Murphy at Fuller being the most well-known) have begun to develop a theory called “nonreductive physicalism” basically the belief that the body cannot be reduced into segments (dualist or tripartite). The beauty of Christianity for those who believe in radical physicalism is that the resurrection actually becomes as important as the gospels say it is. Under classical views where the human spirit is automatically immortal, the gift of resurrection for the Christains really doesn’t make much sense: why gain immortality if we’re already immortal? Good point, huh? The gift of resurrection comes with death which is why the Apostle Paul said stuff like “O Death where is thy sting?” That’s why victory over death meant so much the the early church – many still held the Jewish view of “hell/hades” as little more than the grave. So resurrection meant something much more.

    I guess I’m saying, if that’s your biggest hangup about Christianity (which I bet it isn’t) then there are other approaches to belief in Christ that take modern standards of science into consideration.

    “We feel shame through the entirety of our bodies. Heartache literally rends the chest and turmoils the stomach. What of that?”

    I agree with you here. Even if someone (like me) adopts a dualistic view of the body and soul, they are very closely intertwined to the point of inseparability. The separation occurs at death.

    Good comments!

    Sam

    Comment by Sam | August 25, 2008 | Reply

  7. You can call me Sam. I’m not being facetious; that is really my name as well.

    About the approaches to belief in Christ; I’m starting to wonder about religion in general. In physics there’s a bunch of theories that try to explain the universe best they can in the parameters we’ve deducted, a bunch of completely different approaches that seem to be the right answer to the question, you know what I’m trying to say? Perhaps the same is true for religion in general? Just different facets in a diamond, peering inside for the truth that shines within.

    Truth be told, I don’t generally have hangups with Christianity, or any other religion in that matter (I was raised from birth a southern baptist, and as long as it is not destructive to others or self, what wrong can the belief do? Though I understand each denomination’s desire to save others because their particular doctrine is the one and true so this creates a sort of friction between the groups) apart from having known so many people who claim to be Christians but detract from being so, in my eyes, in light their behavior towards others. For a true Christian, a status symbol is insignificant but as a means of spreading the word. Unfortunately, there are people who glorify in their lofty positions in church or commerce and use it for personal gain, running contrary to their belief (which should be a central role in their lives, as the mission to save souls is a serious matter).

    As always I’ve let my thoughts run on… I wanted to say great blog and I’ll keep reading on.

    Comment by zxvasdf | August 27, 2008 | Reply

  8. Well, hey Sam!

    I can see your point about the facets of a diamond: everybody comes to Christianity with a slightly different “lens” of interpretation. I think the key is to make the basics essential and make everything else up for grabs. There are only a few truths about Christianity that are not debatable. I wrote about those in a post on Eastern Orthodoxy I think,

    I agree with you about the “fruit” of others – actions do so much in determining the appeal of the Christian faith. But religion is one of the only areas in life where we hold this standard. If we declared no one should ever be a father since one father abused their child, we would be over-reacting. People are gonna do wacked out stuff, and they’re gonna do it in God’s name. But personal failure should never obscure the deeper message: we need God and he wants us…

    I’m glad you’ll keep reading – you seem like a thoughtful and discerning soul. Feel free to comment anytime.

    Sam

    Comment by Sam | August 27, 2008 | Reply

  9. Re: “Crucified with Christ”: the Most Self-Centered Verse in the Bible”

    To me – the verse is Not self-centered! It means to me – sold out – Totally – to Christ. And it is a freeing idea – that it is no longer me that drives my life – but – my Faith in the Son of God – who loved me and gave Himself for ME now drives it!

    Many people feel that Christ/God is far away – that God does not take an interest in us – except maybe for gigantic occasions when He shows up – maybe! However – this verse says that He took the time to love me and care for me (or each of us personally!). And since I am a long-time married woman, I understand what it is to sacrifice yourself for another human whom you truly care about! And when the verse says: He Gave himself for me – I reflect on the sweet moments that my husband has done thoughtful things for me and has cared for me – through the good and bad times we have had. That is not selfish to understand that – that is appreciation!

    Jesus gave us the example of the church as a bride – And this verse exemplifies to me what a marriage vow is – to crucify your selfishness and sell yourself totally to that relationship and that person! What a freeing thing it is to totally surrender to Him! I appreciate His sacrifice for me (all of us) and I want to shout it out – As St. Paul did!

    “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

    Comment by Anita Lee | October 18, 2008 | Reply

  10. Sorry about my comment above that falls under Jamie’s post instead of under yours!

    Comment by wildwinddave | September 21, 2009 | Reply

  11. “Oh, what pains, and what a death it is to nature, to turn me, myself, my lust, my ease, my credit, over into “my Lord, my Saviour, my King, and my God, my Lord’s will, my Lord’s grace!” But alas! that idol, that whorish creature myself is the master-idol we all bow to. What hurried Eve headlong upon the forbidden fruit, but that wretched thing herself? What drew that brother-murderer to kill Abel? That untamed himself. What drove the old world on to corrupt their ways? Who, but themselves, and their own pleasure? What was the cause of Solomon’s falling into idolatry and multiplying of strange wives? What but himself, whom he would rather please than God? What was the hook that took David and snared him first in adultery, but his self-lust? and then in murder, but his self-credit and self-honor. What led Peter on to deny his Lord? Was it not a piece of himself, and self-love to a whole skin? What made Judas sell his master for thirty pieces of silver, but the idolizing of avaricious self? What made Demas to go off the way of the Gospel to embrace the present world? Even self-love and a love of gain for himself.

    “Every man blameth the devil for his sins; but the great devil, the house-devil of every man, the house-devil that eateth and lieth in every man’s bosom, is that idol that killeth all, himself. Oh! blessed are they who can deny themselves, and put Christ in the room of themselves! O sweet word: ‘I live no more, but Christ liveth in me!’ “ — Samuel Rutherford

    Comment by Larry | October 19, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »