On faith, reason, and theology.

To apply his sermon on humility towards each other, Barton reminded us that humility is not developed in us passively but rather when we go out and practice it through service in the name of Christ. This advice comes straight from the mouth of our Lord.

And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mark 9:35-37)

It is striking that Jesus’ first suggestion for developing humility was to serve a child! Why did he use a child to illustrate his point? What is it about serving children that tends towards cultivating humility? Perhaps it is because children, of all people, are the least capable of paying you back or returning the service. They don’t understand the sacrifices you make for them, and more likely than not they will take you for granted. But for these very reasons serving children tends to magnify your motives – whether your service is directed towards the praise of man or the praise of God. (see also Luke 14:12-14) So consider the humbling, yet character-forming, experience of children’s ministry. Consider serving the children of Dunbar this summer at our Sonforce Kids camp.

The term “virtue” for humility in the title was purposefully chosen and is loaded with meaning. By stating that humility is a virtue rather than a preference or opinion is to say that the moral quality of “humility” is an objective and universal good, independent of culture (time and place). In other words, to state that the moral quality of humility is “good” and “right” is as much a fact (a truth) as to state, say, that the earth is round. This is in contrast to how we commonly think of morality in our day, which often understands moral precepts as being a matter of personal preference. To give an example: take the statement, “Drunkenness, which is a state of intoxication, is wrong.” That drunkenness is a state of intoxication is an undisputed fact. That drunkenness is wrong, however, which invokes a moral judgment on drunkenness, would be considered by many an opinion or a preference. To you it may be wrong with your cultural norms and standards, but to someone else it may be right. However, by saying that a quality like humility or sobriety is a “virtue”, one is saying that there are moral precepts like “humility” that exist as objectively good and right apart from the subjective, personal preference. One cannot, then, dismiss the notion that humility is “right” by claiming that it is only right for those whose context allows for it to be right. It is instead “right” for all people of all times, and therefore if one exercises the moral quality of humility, it can be truly said that he/she does what is right. There is no coincidence that both the religious and non-religious, the Christian and non-Christian, have all at one time recognized the virtuous quality of “humility.”

The claim of objectivity in moral precepts, however, is one that the Christian (and the Jew and the Muslim) can justifiably make, since for the Christian there exists an objective moral law that transcends all time and place and that has been infused into the world from the beginning of its created existence. For the Christian there exists an eternal lawgiver, God, who has put in place the objective standard for morally right and wrong activity. All human talk of right and wrong derives first and foremost from God, who created humans with the capacity to perceive notions of right and wrong. And, as has been revealed by Scripture and also attested to by many philosophers in history, the moral quality of “humility” is a quality that is right; it is a true statement to say humility is good for all people of all time. Humility is truly a virtue, rather than a cultural or situational preference. And the converse is equally true: pride is truly wrong and is truly a vice independent of subjective personal opinion or preference.

The next step is to ask this question: to what ends (or goals) are we to understand these notions of virtue and vice? So the philosopher and the theologian both agree that “humility” is a virtue: are we both, then, saying the same thing? To answer this question we must ask: are we to understand these qualities in a static way, so that the goal is to merely obtain humility and remove pride, or are there ends toward which our obtaining of humility and rejection of pride moves us? And are these ends for which the philosopher and the theologian strive the same? I hope to address this in the next post.

In Barton’s sermon on Humility, he mentioned a passage of scripture that has puzzled me. In Philippians 2:3 we are commanded to “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” And then starting in v5-11 we are given the greatest example of this kind of humility through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if vv5-11 are suppose to be illustrative of the commands in vv1-4, then does that not strike you odd that, in humility, Jesus considered us better than himself? I can picture him doing nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, and I can imagine him putting my interests over his own. But I have difficulty with Jesus, who is infinitely glorious (being in the very nature God), thinking I am better than he is. And looking to another translation does not help: NASB – “regard one another as more important than yourselves” or ESV – “count others more significant than yourselves“. So how it is possible that Jesus considers us better or more important or more significant than Himself?

This passage is theologically difficult to swallow if you have a high view of Jesus. If he is our God – our Creator, Redeemer, and Sovereign King – then our interpretation of Phil 2 cannot mean that, in humility, Jesus considers us to be of better worth or of greater value. That would be blasphemous. So what does “consider us better” mean?

First consider why he humbled himself. Remember that the illustration in vv5-11 ends with, “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place…“. That means Jesus humbled himself as a servant and died on a cross so that his glory would be exalted. In other words, Jesus’ humility ultimately serves his glory. Jesus did not humble himself because he saw our intrinsic worth or value as better than his. The truth is that he humbled himself in order to show how intrinsically worthy and valuable he is. So even before he stepped into our world, the Son had his future resurrected glory in view, and when he considered the existence of a Redeemed People – who would see and savor that glory for eternity – such was better than the pursuit of selfish ambition or self-preservation. He considered our eternal happiness in his glory as something better than the avoidance of harm or shame – so he gladly endured the cross, scorning its shame (Heb 12:2).

So a humility modeled after Christ is a humility that has the glory of Christ in view. And to “consider others better than yourself” means to consider your selfish ambition or self-preservation as nothing compared to helping others see and savor the glory of Christ. It means that you consider their eternal happiness in God as better than the avoidance of harm or shame. To have Christlike-humility means you are willing to lower yourself to the greatest of depths or to sacrifice the greatest of costs so that others would be able to attain the same sight of glory that you now enjoy. To simply consider others as better or wiser or stronger or prettier does not take a new heart – anybody can show that kind of humility. But only a regenerated heart can humble itself to such depths to bring other to such heights of glory.