Faith and works and self-delusion

Dtcwee asked a great question about scriptural references to how we work toward salvation.

How can we work towards salvation if “we” are not responsible for our faults and flaws, for redeeming and righting ourselves?

The same problem emerges in Buddhism where the main symptom of delusion is the impression of a self, yet it seems to be the ‘self’ who decides to become a Buddhist, meditates, studies the sutras and seeks enlightenment.

In a Christian context ‘works’ comes from the Greek ergon and can also mean actions, deeds, or accomplishments. Faith, on the other hand, comes from pistis which means ‘persuasion’ as in “God’s divine persuasion“.

It might seem that we are therefore responsible for our works and deeds and actions, but God is responsible for our faith, for persuading us to believe and trust in Him.

The orthodox answer to the problem of faith and works is therefore simple: faith is the cause of salvation, but we should see that reflected also in the person’s works or deeds, i.e. faith without works is dead.

In reality I think the controversy only exists if we accept our separation from God as real.

From the point of view of separation from God, I am the one in control of my beliefs and actions, the one responsible for my merits and my faults. (See “Better to reign in hell?” for more).

From this point of view, whatever I may do to save myself is fruitless. It is only through God’s intervention, through the gift of faith that I am saved.

Yet even then some Christians appear to hold that faith must be accepted as an act of will in the strong, voluntarist sense. In other words, even though faith is a gift from God, I still have to accept the gift in order to be saved. The illusion of responsibility will keep creating a role for “me” to play, because we are terrified of the idea that God is the author of it all.

Yet that is the conclusion we must draw from Paul’s letter to the Philippians:

“continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good pleasure”

Your willing and your acting are dependent on God. Your sense of responsibility and control over your willing and acting are due to pride, and an inflated, delusional sense of self.

Christians who cling to their sense of separation from God interpret these themes in terms of opprobrium for their will and acts and the state of their soul. They emphasise how flawed and degraded and sinful they are, how much in need of God’s grace and help.

They’re not wrong, but the flaws and degradation and sin rest on the very sense of separation, the pride that is opposed to God’s grace. The end is not to receive enough help to patch us up and send us on our way, but to realise our total dependence on God and the falsity of our pride and responsibility in the first place.

Consider the words that Jesus spoke to Catherine of Siena, the great saint and mystic:

Do you know, daughter, who you are and who I am? If you know these two things you have beatitude in your grasp. You are she who is not, and I AM HE WHO IS. Let your soul but become penetrated with this truth, and the Enemy can never lead you astray; you will never be caught in any snare of his, nor ever transgress any commandment of mine; you will have set your feet on the royal road which leads to the fullness of grace, and truth, and light.

Human beings exist, but our minds contain a strong sense of responsibility, agency, and self-control that we identify as “me”. This is the meaning of “you are she who is not”.

In paradise, Adam and Eve did not know that they were naked. That is, they lacked the self-consciousness and accompanying delusion of self-control that we inhabit.

In Christian terms, this is the root of all sin – pride, the delusion of responsibility and control.

But to overcome this sin, we need to embrace the paradox that we are not responsible for it. It might seem that dwelling on this sin and error and seeking to overcome it is the right path, but this only reinforces the sense of separation, the pride and false self that are the root of the problem.

It is much better to recognise that none of it has ever been within our control. But even to recognise this is not within our control either. We were never responsible in the first instance for the fault or flaw from which we now run and hide and from which we constantly seek to redeem ourselves, in our own eyes if nowhere else.

This is likewise the meaning of Christ dying for our sins, of him taking onto himself the punishment for all our faults. This dynamic of sin, punishment, and vicarious redemption never made sense to me as it does and has done to many others.

But it has the same effect of unburdening us of responsibility for our fault, our flaw, our fall.

It is, after all, the sense of responsibility for our grievous fault that underpins the subsequent grasping for control, the pride and the misery that accompany us through life.

I don’t like “God”

The etymology of God comes from the proto-germanic word for “that which is invoked”.

Which is not a bad term to use for a supreme being; so why don’t I like it?

Perhaps it is the sound: too short, too round, too hard. It should rhyme with cod, sod, mod, rod, but doesn’t; the vowel-sound is lengthened unlike any word I can find (in Australian English, mind you).

It stands alone, doesn’t fit, which could be fitting for the subject.

But the word of our ancestor’s faith is Deus. Deus from the same root as Zeus, both from a root that means to gleam or shine, God being the shining thing.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Perhaps “God” is an invocation now so worn from over and mis-use it no longer shines?

In via negativa fashion we don’t have to give it a name. “The name which can be named is not the eternal name”. And when denoting an ineffable transcendent reality, a name is only as good as its power to invoke the thing named, or as a reminder of what it is and what it isn’t.

It’s hard to go beyond “I am He who is”.

We are supposed to go beyond concepts, let alone beyond names. So there’s no problem in not liking “God”, when what we really don’t like is centuries of accretion, familiarity, worldly meaning and false piety.  The more important thing is to know what we’re naming, whether and however we name it or not.