Sometimes the Scripture is approached as if Jesus was an authoritarian parent, giving us demanding lists of do’s and don’ts. As I was listening to the readings at daily Mass on Wednesday, and to the priest’s beautiful homily that followed, I could see how someone might only hear the do’s and don’ts. Don’t blow trumpets when you give alms, do give alms in secret; don’t pray on the street corners, do pray in your inner room; don’t neglect your appearance when you fast, do anoint your head with oil. *** My first instinct towards this way of receiving the scripture was reactionary and negative, like the whole point would be missed and the gospel misunderstood.
Moral & Spiritual Development
Yet as I reflected further, in regards to moral development and the maturation of the soul, solid parental rules are the best place to start (although authoritative parenting is considered the best, not authoritarian, but that’s another blog post…). When we are just beginning to learn morals as young children, according to Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory, we learn what is right and wrong in a black and white way, pending consequence and punishment. Early moral motivation is also very ego-centric, according to natural developmental stages. It’s necessary for children to develop a healthy ego. So perhaps in regards to interpreting scripture and learning Christian morals, hearing Christ’s word through a rule-based filter isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it’s just a starting place.
However, it is just a starting place: a beginning point that should act as the basis of eventual higher spiritual and moral development. As children advance through Kohlberg’s moral stages, they learn to base right/wrong action based on broader social principles, on the “Golden Rule” of reciprocation, and eventually on the basis of a “social contract.” We start to move beyond our own needs and ego to consider other’s well being.
The last stage of moral development, which Kohlberg said most people don’t ever reach, is one where right/wrong action is based on universal principles and intrinsic motivation; individuals in this stage are committed to upholding the universal principals even when they suffer unjust punishment by laws that violate these universal principles. Furthermore, Kohlberg says that children don’t “skip” stages; you have to grow through each stage sequentially into the next one.
While there are more recent theories about moral development and significant criticisms of Kohlberg’s research, I think this is a helpful sketch for understanding how people advance in spiritual growth. ** Our soul matures and is capable of greater love and deeper relationship according to how we accept God and humble ourselves to learn from Him. In the beginning, we need the solid black and white parameters to give us a solid base. But after that solid base is established, Christ calls us further. He invites us to embrace the Love and Reason that are behind/above/beyond those rules. For example, last week we heard this very call as Christ says rather than just not commit adultery, let us go above and beyond the mere avoidance of adulterous action to pursue a clean heart and pure thoughts (last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday).
Doodle by Rachel Elisa Gardner
Transparency, Not Hypocrisy
What could those higher levels of spiritual realization look like? In this Wednesday’s gospel, Jesus used the word “hypocrite.” The priest explained how part of the etymology for the word hypocrite is rooted in Greek theatre, and refers to someone who is impersonating someone else, or wearing a mask, merely “acting.” Christ is teaching his disciples how to take off their masks, how to live transparently, free before men and before God. This is the healthiest and the fullest way to live. A Catholic psychologist friend of mine once said that the best therapy is honesty before God. When are honest, we are who we are, nothing more or less. It’s not that our first ego is a bad thing or even a false thing, if we learn to let it be transformed. But when we hold on to those first rules and our first ego and refuse to grow, when we hide behind the mask of our showy moral actions for our own personal glory – then we have become hypocrites, we have invested in a false ego – and we reject our true selves whom Christ calls us to become.
Thus, while we first receive Christ’s teachings as a moral foundation, we are called to eventually follow Him higher, on the real path towards inner freedom. When we go into our “inner rooms” to pray, we are divested from ulterior motives or false pretense not because we are above them, but because we can see through them, to the reality of God. Though in our early years we need to develop a strong and healthy ego, we are eventually called to grow beyond the limits of our ego – not by denying self-interest or indulging in false humility, but by seeing through it. We see through – so we give alms in secret, we pray in our “inner rooms,” and our left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing – our choices and our lives are not motivated any longer by punishment or what other’s think, but by God alone.
With God as our only and primary motivation, our actions can be free, and our love, unhindered. Our spiritual life becomes deeply relational. No masks, no impersonations, just the transparent life of a person who loves God and is guided by His love. Yet in order to grow into such a place of transparency and deep relationship, we have to start at the ground level of learning about sin and grace through healthy guilt and just consequences by following Christ’s word.
On Wednesday when I went up to receive communion after the priest’s homily, I was completely struck but the transparency and sincerity of his face. His old, warm Irish voice, saying “the Body of Christ,” and his kind, caring eyes – he was totally present to me in that moment, not mumbling off a routine or hurrying the line of people along- just present. As he was present, so the Spirit was present, and I saw a glimpse of God, shining transparently through his face.
** Disclaimer: This is mostly where I see the comparison ending. Kohlberg’s model is really about individual’s moral choices before others, before laws, and in regards to society as a whole. It mostly has a horizontal dimension, with the only vertical dimension being this idea of universal ethics. However when we talk about morality in the Christian sense, we must talk about the relationship between individuals, society, and God, so there is a definite vertical element, a vertical relationship with the Person of God.
***Gospel MT 6:1-6, 16-18
Jesus said to his disciples:
“Take care not to perform righteous deeds
in order that people may see them;
otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets
to win the praise of others.
Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give alms,
do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
so that your almsgiving may be secret.
And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites,
who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners
so that others may see them.
Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door,
and pray to your Father in secret.
And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.“When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites.
They neglect their appearance,
so that they may appear to others to be fasting.
Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,
so that you may not appear to others to be fasting,
except to your Father who is hidden.
And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.”
I think I read that Kohlberg may have thought more people reach the 6th stage than he previously thought. Either way, I can see why it could be rare. Developing one’s morality without a guide, like Christianity, can make this more difficult. I wrote about this theory in relation to professional development and ethical reasoning. More specifically: conscience rights. A conscience is formed. So a mother and father form their child’s conscience much like God the Father and the Mother Church do – with “no” and then progressing further. I like your explanation as to what this ultimately looks like: being our true selves before God. Holding nothing back. That is true freedom! I think there is a strong parallel with Kohlberg’s theory here. A person in the 6th stage is truly free to make the ‘correct’ moral decisions, even if it makes him or her unpopular, break the law, or even die. A lot of saints are coming to mind…
Hi Carolyn! 🙂 Thanks for the comment! Absolutely. That’s really what it’s about, forming the conscience (which is innately there, but also in need of nurture by someone who loves us!). I have seen people like Ghandi and Mother Theresa referenced in that highest level of development – but I’d like to think many people reach this way of living, that there are many unsung heroes. I think we learn best when we have that ideal to reach for, when we know the truth of the hope that we are each called to “hold nothing back,” as you said so well!
Oh and I would love to read that paper on conscience!!
Rachel, this is a good piece of writing that hopefully will provide food for thought and soul. My only issue I would like to raise is about your disclaimer. You mentioned that “the comparison ends” because Kohlberg basically doesn’t talk specifically about God. I don’t pretend to know Kohlberg and his specific views on God, but I do want to say a lot of writing like this specifically doesn’t refer to God because it wants to present a larger tent to bring more people in. Or, if they don’t, we can just hold that if it is of value, it is of God. If you are a person of faith, God is definitely woven in that language. Just like God can be woven into secular songs, literature, etc. etc. For me, as a Christian, God is in everything. He is everywhere. Deep ethics and compassion are from God. Love is from God. As a pastor and counselor, to make my tent broader I will meet people where they are and sometimes just refer to things that are perhaps “secular” and let them find God in it. At there own. If that frustrates me, I kind of know that is about me, not about them or God. That way it doesn’t feel so “us and them”. If a person who doesn’t believe in God hears about love, then perhaps that will lead them to God. So I would say Kohlberg’s idea has God in it because God is in everything. He doesn’t have to agree or spell that out. If we are about dialogue, sometimes it is best to just know within ourselves that God is in everything good and not worry about whether that person says the same thing. We just know it, and sometimes it doesn’t feel as defensive or insisting or particular verbage.. For myself, that is the heart of evangelism. Meeting people where they are and trusting that God is the heart of all that is good. And so for me, Kohlberg IS referring to God in his writing.. But I won’t argue with him:) I also say this because I remember another post you wrote about being discouraged about more therapists not being open to the relationship between psychology and religion. If we are not careful, we possibly make that worse by seemingly insisting on it and finding others getting defensive and stubborn themselves. No one wins with that. Let’s make a wide tent, and let God be everywhere. In my experience, when we do, amazing things happen. And in my experience, people will start asking about it because they are curious that I’m not trying to change them….It’s funny that way. But again, a fine piece of writing. this is meant as a criticism, just food for thought. Grace and Peace.
Hi Ken! Thank you for the comments, I appreciate that you’ve read several of my posts, and that you share your honest thoughts. I have struggled with the issue that you brought up – is it necessary to explicitly name God? To recognize Him as Person? I do believe with you that God is in everything. Absolutely. And that ethics come from Him. And I do think the best path to dialogue as you said is recognizing God in the other, whether they say it that way or not. But for me ultimately I think there is more to the difference I described in the disclaimer than verbiage. For me, it is an interiorly different experience to be in relationship with a divine Other, with a Person, than to relate to an idea. I think ideas lead to the Person and come from the Person, and I also humbly respect however God is manifesting to others in those ideas. I am not frustrated when others relate to “that which is greater” as an idea. And at the same time, to me, it feels different to relate to a Person. The disclaimer was meant to show that difference. I would hope that my relating to God as Person wouldn’t make it “worse” for others; and that if in dialogue we became defensive, then we could both honestly look at that – like you said, it would mean that it was about us, that the ego was puffing up, that we both had some work to do towards becoming transparent. Thanks again for the comments, both of them, and for the care you took in writing, there is much kindness in your words!
sorry Rachel. I was in a bit of a hurry with this response as you can tell. Workday. I mean to say at the end, this is NOT meant as a criticism. Sorry about the hurried reply. And it is hard to see and edit in this little box! God bless.
Hi Rachel. I am about to head out with my wife, kids and grandkids for a needed summer vacation in (hopefully) cool Montana. We are literally packing but I wanted to quickly get back to you. I want to tell you I completely agree with you that talking about God specifically is not just about verbage. Not at all. I am pretty orthodox theologically and openly spoke that language when I was serving parishes. When I became a counselor, I quickly realized that I had a different “conversation partner”. Some were churchgoers, some grew up in church but stopped, some were of course very wounded by church, and some downright were hostile to the whole thing. My language was a bit different, while maintaining true to who I am and my relationship to God.
That is when I began to see that my ministry was more about listening to where people are than proclaiming anything. Not that there isn’t a time for that. Listening with, as we say, “the third ear”. Especially at the beginning. So my biggest point is that my understanding is that this blog site is aimed at least partly to evangelism outreach. Given that, there would be things I would say to a church group or group of colleagues that I wouldn’t say on a site like this. I try to be more aware of my audience in that sense. That is all I am trying to say. I have no absolutely no issues with proclaiming God loudly and clearly. And our vertical relationship to God. And there is nothing here that I am saying that you don’t already know. I was more aiming at the potential readers of this blog site.
By the way, I came to this site via my colleague, Mark, who practices in Austin. I have known him for a long time and we always kid him about really being a Catholic because as long as I have known him he seemed never to be without a book on Thomas Merton or Mystic Christianity or some sort or other. And he would always gravitate towards the Catholic and Russian Orthodox priests during social times. I don’t think he would mind me saying this… He is also one of the best at being able to bridge a gap between psychology and religion because he speaks all sort of different “languages” (not literally) pretty fluidly. He wouldn’t want to admit this:) but he is very orthodox. And pragmatic as all get out.
He is practicing full time again in Austin and what he has related to me is that the therapist community in Austin is really, really shifting more and more towards the dialogue between psychology and faith. He regularly has talks to different groups of therapists to help build that understanding. J. Pittman McGehee, another trusted therapist and Episcopal priest has moved his practice there and has a son who is also in practice in Austin. He works closely with the University in doing talks and workshops on self-compassion. It doesn’t use Christian verbage per se (because of the diversity of the audience) but is of course very spiritual in nature. And its not just touchy feely lets feel good about ourselves stuff. It is vertical, as you say. They both did a talk about self compassion at the Jung Center that UT professors had a lot of input into. So good news on the Austin front. And a lot of work needs to be done. Roll up your sleeves and get ready!
I have to go now, but blessings to you and my prayers are with you all the way through your journey. I am older and close (or maybe already there) to retirement and it is good to see passionate, intelligent folks like yourself coming in to fill this need. I’m off to Montana!
Blessings, sister in faith. No need to respond, I will be happily disconnected out there. Peace.
You really had me in this post until I got to the “disclaimer” in bold letters. I read it a couple of times and it felt really out of place. Something about one is mostly vertical and, what??? It is a shame, because the rest is really beautiful. But that comment really turned me off. And I can’t really say why….maybe it felt like all of the sudden it didn’t feel “relational” or free anymore. You gotta say the right words. I don’t know. Sad. No disrespect, just disorientation and confusion by what the point of that was. This is my first time reading this sight so I am sure it will get better. Good stuff in there.
Hi Kat! Thanks for reading – welcome to the site! And thank you for commenting, you gave really good feedback and I appreciate that. It’s interesting, I didn’t really think anyone would the disclaimer, but it’s getting attention, and that’s important. Thanks for pointing that out to me. To respond to what you said, I’d like to apologize because I made a confusing typo! Now it reads correctly – secular ethics is mostly horizontal (meaning it deals with the relationships between people), and Christian ethics, by nature, have the vertical element of relating to God, as a Person. The vertical element in Kohlberg’s theory is the idea of universal ethics. I wrote the disclaimer to explain that, for me, when I look up in need of inspiration, guidance, clarity, moral strength, etc., I hunger for more than an idea. My heart seeks a Person. While I agree with Ken that God is present in the secular ideas, and that ethics and morality come from God even when God is not explicitly named, it feels different to me to relate to a Person than to think about an idea. How does that feel to you? I’d love to hear your response! The disclaimer was rather truncated, you’re right, and did feel different than the post. Thanks again for the comment.
Thank you Rachel for your response. That does clarify it some. You mentioned hungering for a Person, or God as a person. I will be honest and say that I have had some issues of violence in my life from people and that at times relating to God as a person has scared me and given me nightmares. With a good therapist who is a Christian, she has told me that it is okay to think of God as love right now. It helps a lot. That doesn’t seem like an idea to me, but maybe it is. I guess it depends on what you call an idea.. Sometimes I do get overwhelmed and am afraid that someone is going to say I have to think of God as a person. One day I might be able to want what you want but right now it just doesn’t work for me. But thanks for you response. It makes more sense.
Hi Kat 🙂 I’m glad you are listening to what works – God always starts from we are, not where we (or others) think we should be. Like Ken said – he meets us where we are and we can trust in all that is good. It sounds like you have someone with whom you can talk, and I am glad for that, too. I respect how you are understanding God – all of our paths are hidden in Him in a completely unique way. I’ll be praying for you as you follow that love. Blessings and prayers to you, Kat.