There Is No Self in Righteousness

I have been thinking quite a bit recently about self-righteousness, and how it is so alive and well in our churches. Part of this thinking was inspired by a couple of excellent songs Derek Webb wrote, which I will put in another post. Now that I am writing this I am having trouble thinking of where to start, so I may post more thoughts later.

Self-righteousness: When being right becomes more important than doing right.

Jesus came down very hard on self-righteous religious leaders. All the prostitutes and tax collectors and Samaritans and drunkards and whatever sin of the flesh Jesus was compassionate to, because they knew their lives were sinful. They had lived in the depravity of sin, and they embraced every ounce of mercy they recieved, and it pleased the Lord to give it to them.

But then there were the religious leaders. They had it all figured out and there was no way that the Christ would go against their rules. They had it all figured out. They believed rightly.

How amazing how little humanity has changed in the past, oh, forever. I have been self-righteous, and I am sure that I will have bouts with it as I continue to try to serve the Lord. But I loathe it.

In the story of the adulterous woman from John 8, we forget that Jesus was the very one who could have caste the first stone, He didn't. He knew the hearts of men, and the very ones that the religious leaders condemned He did not. The very ones who had "pure and right" doctrine He condemned. He even admitted they were right on a couple of points. In Matthew 23:23-24 Jesus states, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices - mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Doctrine is tremendously important, but good doctrine preached and not lived is as bad if not worse than incorrect doctrine.

James says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27)." I'm afraid that we often use the second half to ignore the first half of that verse. Dealing with people in distress is not pretty, and often times they are in distress because of sin, whether theirs or others. To not be polluted by the world doesn't mean avoid places where there might be "sinners." It means overcome and bring God's love and compassion because it is stronger than what the world has. If we have good doctrine and the Holy Spirit and God on our side and the example of Jesus, I don't know what we are so afraid of. Maybe we will find out we are not better than the "sinners."

I was at a retreat recently where we did a lesson where everyone got a "label" put on their foreheads. Most were sins but a few were simply labels. It was to see how we react to certain groups or sins. We chose them at random and put them on. And we were honest with the labels. We had things like materialistic, gay, people pleaser, image obessessed, cheater, liar, whore, liberal, victim, pedophile, arrogant, etc. Nobody knew what label they had but they could read everyone else's. You can probably guess which ones were accepted (Oh, you're not that bad) and which ones were shunned (wow, get away from me). No one had much of a problem with self-righteousness. In fact when we pulled them off and the person who had it said, "Oh, that's not to bad." Other than it doesn't allow you to love most of the other people in the room. I suppose materialistic and arrogant would have been okay. And these are the people who Jesus was the toughest on.

Later in James he writes, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such a faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without cloths and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (2:14-17)" And yet we are more concerned if the brother or sister has been divorced, or thier belief on the creation, or if they have been baptized properly than we are that they are in need and desparately hungry. That is belief without action.

But James sums it up best in the previous verses, "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been mercyful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! (2:12-13, bold mine).

Maybe when we care and give compassion and stop worrying about what terrible sin everyone is in and LOVE THEM with no doctrine strings attached, they would want to find out who we live for. And maybe they will find Jesus, and He can work on their hearts and we won't have to do it. I can't work on anybody else's, I have enough trouble trying to keep my own pure. Or maybe they will reject Him. That is no reason to regret loving.

The world is full of people who judge, they judge Hollywood Stars, politicians, artists, co-workers, somebody they are standing in line behind at a restaurant. And sure it isn't right, but it their own judgment and they would probably admit that. But what makes self-righteousness so bad is that the very ones who have been given the Word of God and claim to know Him instead use it as way to set themselves up as more righteous, and instead of simply giving their own judgment, they try to sit in God's seat and proclaim His judgment. No wonder Jesus had harsh words for the Pharisees. No wonder He has some harsh words for the American church. It is one thing to judge in your own name, but another entirely to judge in the Name of God. May we get out of His chair, let Him back in it, and start listening. And we will learn to be compassionate.

There is no self in righteousness.

(Alison Krauss & Union Station-Lonely Runs Both Ways)

P.S. Doctrine really just means "healthy teaching." I am using it in the way it has come to be understood as "what we believe." I hope it someday recovers it's original meaning, like liberal and conservative, but that is a different rant.