I feel that 'humility' still hasn't been properly located in this discussion (and by bringing that up I'm certainly not claiming to have the answer). Justin says that "Aristotle, in the first systematic treatment of the virtue, says that the magnanimous man 'believes himself worthy of great things, and is worthy of them.'” He then goes on to claim that "it is that virtue that allows you to do what is praiseworthy and honorable, even if you are not, in fact, praised or honored for having done it."
He goes on to explain this by reference to the idea that the Christian seeks honor in the eyes of God, not of society or other humans primarily. But this raises of the question of how one receives honor in God's eyes -- is it by doing things? We are back in the territory of the grace/works debate, wondering about what Christ's sacrifice does in the economy of salvation and what our actions mean in light of our union with Him.
Returning from those thorny issues to the question of humility though, where does it fit into this broader schema? Aristotle's magnanimous man who "believes himself worthy of great things" seems antithetical to the humble man, who considers himself worthy of nothing save what God in His fatherly love gives to him day by day. This is not a burning self-hatred (which is an expression of pride or despair), but a realization that one has no claim to assert upon God or upon society for any particular thing, save only that we cry for mercy.
Thanks for sharing this correspondence with us. It's tight, informative, and packs a punch. I especially enjoyed hearing de Tocqueville's observations about the deficiencies of American men and their democracy. I recognize myself and others in his words.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Matthew, and thanks for the compliment - "tight, informative, and packs a punch." All credit to Justin on that.
I'd be interested to explore worth/merit more in this regard. I think we have no condign merit before God, hence "no claim to assert upon God" of that sort. (Which Christ did.)
However, I do think we have congruent merit before God, in accord with our works. This is why our hope is not "only in the active righteousness of Christ," contra Machen. Our hope is that we may hear (as Machen did) "Well *done*, thou good and faithful servant."
The Psalmists also provide examples of making claims of justice upon God. E.g., "Vindicate me, Lord, for my enemies are accusing me unjustly, and I am suffering unjustly." I think Christ cried these things in accord with condign merit; I think the Psalmist cried them in accord with congruent merit, and so may we.
I defended congruent, "ex pacto" merit in Reformed theology in this paper at WTS. Not sure my professor agreed. ;)
Glad that you've already worked on this, Joel. We should talk more about it. My sense is that, although it clearly seems the case that we see assertions of congruent merit in Scripture, our congruent merit is nonetheless "patched up" by grace (because even our good works are filthy rags). Even our merit requires a supplement or a sprinkling for it function as merit. This acknowledgement seems to me to change the nature of the merit somewhat, and certainly changes how the one who asserts it brings that claim to God. Or is your argument that God accepts good but imperfect acts as congruent merit because they are asserted by one who possesses the condign merit of Christ, which is deeper and more grounding for the relationship?
The parable of the workers in the vineyard is an example. The workers work different lengths in the day and are rewarded not in accord with the quantity or hours of work done, but out of divine generosity.
There is a counterargument, since all the workers receive the same wage: That this is just talking about the one reward of salvation. But Catholic biblical scholar Nathan Eubank argues:
“Far from squelching such hopes (of earning heavenly wages), the parable depicts those who worked all day receiving exactly what they were promised by the master. … The point of the parable can hardly be that ‘everything depends on grace’ since the early workers received exactly what they earned. I would suggest, therefore, that the primary concern of the parable is to illustrate God’s generous provision for those who have done less work and to warn those who have done more not to resent this generosity."
I would argue both that Christ's condign merit is the deeper ground of justification and of all heavenly rewards, and that Christians' good deeds, though imperfect, are nevertheless truly good deeds. They are not merely called so nominally.
"By arguing that Christianity promotes human greatness rather than suppresses it, Boyle was anticipating and refuting Nietzsche’s argument to the contrary by about two centuries."
"Ambition today has no such object except the desire for more."
"...de Tocqueville inquired "why so many ambitious men and so little lofty ambition are to be found in the United States."" Holy smokes. I've been pondering this as a Canadian with British Loyalist and Italian roots.
Do you think it's correct to say that, for a Christian, ambition in holiness is magnanimity? I see Dr. Hawkins' definition: "As I understand it, magnanimity is the virtue that helps us relate rightly to the economy of giving and taking honors."
Loved the format as well, I've been considering something like this. Great to see an example. Thank you!
I think Justin would say that ambition in holding us is not quite enough. It depends if the holiness is separate, like I go to church on Sunday and pray a lot, but my ambition is still the open, ended desire for more. Or, the holiness could be about the ends we pursue, we pursue worthy and noble things, and ultimately our and others’ eternal good.
Thanks, I’ve been wanting to do this format myself! Went ahead and gave it a try this time. I think when people open the Substack app they want something to read. So doing interviews in text format seems really valuable, even though I’ve done video/audio interviews.
I did not realize that this misinterpretation of ambition was a thing in the faith. One of the deeper roots in my Presby background in reformed thinking is that the believer should strive for excellence and accomplishment without regard to worldly recognition as a way of honoring God. There is a plaque on the wall in my office with Proverbs 22:29 on it, given to me by some associates years ago. I guess I assumed that interpretation of ambition was more widely accepted. I love it when I read good work that expands my view. Thank you.
I’ve met a few people, usually from a solid Reformed or Presbyterian background, who are free from this problem! (Married one of them.)
Many of us run into it though; Aaron Renn has written about it; Emil Brunner wrote about it in the 1930s; and Robert Boyle in the 1600s, so I think it is indeed a recurring error in Christendom.
I feel that 'humility' still hasn't been properly located in this discussion (and by bringing that up I'm certainly not claiming to have the answer). Justin says that "Aristotle, in the first systematic treatment of the virtue, says that the magnanimous man 'believes himself worthy of great things, and is worthy of them.'” He then goes on to claim that "it is that virtue that allows you to do what is praiseworthy and honorable, even if you are not, in fact, praised or honored for having done it."
He goes on to explain this by reference to the idea that the Christian seeks honor in the eyes of God, not of society or other humans primarily. But this raises of the question of how one receives honor in God's eyes -- is it by doing things? We are back in the territory of the grace/works debate, wondering about what Christ's sacrifice does in the economy of salvation and what our actions mean in light of our union with Him.
Returning from those thorny issues to the question of humility though, where does it fit into this broader schema? Aristotle's magnanimous man who "believes himself worthy of great things" seems antithetical to the humble man, who considers himself worthy of nothing save what God in His fatherly love gives to him day by day. This is not a burning self-hatred (which is an expression of pride or despair), but a realization that one has no claim to assert upon God or upon society for any particular thing, save only that we cry for mercy.
Thanks for sharing this correspondence with us. It's tight, informative, and packs a punch. I especially enjoyed hearing de Tocqueville's observations about the deficiencies of American men and their democracy. I recognize myself and others in his words.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Matthew, and thanks for the compliment - "tight, informative, and packs a punch." All credit to Justin on that.
I'd be interested to explore worth/merit more in this regard. I think we have no condign merit before God, hence "no claim to assert upon God" of that sort. (Which Christ did.)
However, I do think we have congruent merit before God, in accord with our works. This is why our hope is not "only in the active righteousness of Christ," contra Machen. Our hope is that we may hear (as Machen did) "Well *done*, thou good and faithful servant."
The Psalmists also provide examples of making claims of justice upon God. E.g., "Vindicate me, Lord, for my enemies are accusing me unjustly, and I am suffering unjustly." I think Christ cried these things in accord with condign merit; I think the Psalmist cried them in accord with congruent merit, and so may we.
I defended congruent, "ex pacto" merit in Reformed theology in this paper at WTS. Not sure my professor agreed. ;)
https://www.academia.edu/105012231/The_Wages_of_Cross_Bearing_Meritorious_Obedience_in_Reformed_Theological_Perspective
Glad that you've already worked on this, Joel. We should talk more about it. My sense is that, although it clearly seems the case that we see assertions of congruent merit in Scripture, our congruent merit is nonetheless "patched up" by grace (because even our good works are filthy rags). Even our merit requires a supplement or a sprinkling for it function as merit. This acknowledgement seems to me to change the nature of the merit somewhat, and certainly changes how the one who asserts it brings that claim to God. Or is your argument that God accepts good but imperfect acts as congruent merit because they are asserted by one who possesses the condign merit of Christ, which is deeper and more grounding for the relationship?
I think that congruent merit includes that acceptance of imperfect acts by grace. I do not think that Isaiah 64:6 applies to Christians' Spirit-wrought good works, however. Hey, John Piper has a good case on this one: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/your-holy-deeds-are-not-filthy-rags
The parable of the workers in the vineyard is an example. The workers work different lengths in the day and are rewarded not in accord with the quantity or hours of work done, but out of divine generosity.
There is a counterargument, since all the workers receive the same wage: That this is just talking about the one reward of salvation. But Catholic biblical scholar Nathan Eubank argues:
“Far from squelching such hopes (of earning heavenly wages), the parable depicts those who worked all day receiving exactly what they were promised by the master. … The point of the parable can hardly be that ‘everything depends on grace’ since the early workers received exactly what they earned. I would suggest, therefore, that the primary concern of the parable is to illustrate God’s generous provision for those who have done less work and to warn those who have done more not to resent this generosity."
I would argue both that Christ's condign merit is the deeper ground of justification and of all heavenly rewards, and that Christians' good deeds, though imperfect, are nevertheless truly good deeds. They are not merely called so nominally.
I appreciated Hawkins’ article in Plough so this follow-up interview was really helpful. Thanks for reaching out to him!
Thanks, Andrew! It’s a format I might repeat, perhaps the next time I read an interesting article.
Loved this. These three quotes stuck out:
"By arguing that Christianity promotes human greatness rather than suppresses it, Boyle was anticipating and refuting Nietzsche’s argument to the contrary by about two centuries."
"Ambition today has no such object except the desire for more."
"...de Tocqueville inquired "why so many ambitious men and so little lofty ambition are to be found in the United States."" Holy smokes. I've been pondering this as a Canadian with British Loyalist and Italian roots.
Do you think it's correct to say that, for a Christian, ambition in holiness is magnanimity? I see Dr. Hawkins' definition: "As I understand it, magnanimity is the virtue that helps us relate rightly to the economy of giving and taking honors."
Loved the format as well, I've been considering something like this. Great to see an example. Thank you!
I think Justin would say that ambition in holding us is not quite enough. It depends if the holiness is separate, like I go to church on Sunday and pray a lot, but my ambition is still the open, ended desire for more. Or, the holiness could be about the ends we pursue, we pursue worthy and noble things, and ultimately our and others’ eternal good.
Thanks, I’ve been wanting to do this format myself! Went ahead and gave it a try this time. I think when people open the Substack app they want something to read. So doing interviews in text format seems really valuable, even though I’ve done video/audio interviews.
Yes, nice work!
I did not realize that this misinterpretation of ambition was a thing in the faith. One of the deeper roots in my Presby background in reformed thinking is that the believer should strive for excellence and accomplishment without regard to worldly recognition as a way of honoring God. There is a plaque on the wall in my office with Proverbs 22:29 on it, given to me by some associates years ago. I guess I assumed that interpretation of ambition was more widely accepted. I love it when I read good work that expands my view. Thank you.
I’ve met a few people, usually from a solid Reformed or Presbyterian background, who are free from this problem! (Married one of them.)
Many of us run into it though; Aaron Renn has written about it; Emil Brunner wrote about it in the 1930s; and Robert Boyle in the 1600s, so I think it is indeed a recurring error in Christendom.
This was well worth the read!