1

Fatality of the

Spirit-Man by Jerrell Jobe

2

Fatality of the Spirit-Man

Part 1

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall , Humpty Dumpty had a great fal l . All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again.

This riddle dates back perhaps a thousand years or more. It has been translated into over eight European languages. It asked the question: What when broken, can never be repaired, even by the strongest or wisest individuals? The answer of course, ole Humpty himself. However, there was a fall greater than Humpty’s, the Fall of the Human race in Adam. In the Beginning What happened in the garden of Eden? We must understand that what happened in the garden of Eden is not simply a historical event that took place at the beginning of time with the human race as the Church believes. Nor is it merely what theologians call the Fall. We must understand how what occurred at the Fall relates to and influences us today. What happened in the garden of Eden that makes us the way we are? If we can connect with the reality of what transpired, we may find the key that unlocks all the problems of the Twenty-First Century and beyond.

“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”

(Genesis 3:6) Satan, subtly yet strategically laid out the baited hook of death. It came in the form of a powerful lie aimed to derail the soul from its submissive position to the spirit within. Man was designed to live from the inside out. Life would spring up from within his spirit, influence the soul and be lived out through his body. Satan knowing this, cunningly appeals to the body and the soul. The serpent engages Eve in a rational conversation, through which the Lie1 is sown. The potential truth of this deceptive statement is what initially caused Eve to continue to converse, consider, and eventually concede. Even Satan knows “that man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Luke 3:4; Deuteronomy 8:3). Therefore, if he can wooly what God actually said, he can diminish the quality of life one was designed to live. This most often comes in the form of a subtle question, “Has God indeed said?” (Genesis 3:1). 1 I have capitalized “Lie,” because the ramifications of this lie throughout Scripture are titanic.

3

Once the woman believed that there might be a possibility of truth in what the serpent said, the door was cracked for her to envision, even fantasize about other possibilities. Eve first “saw that the tree was good for food.” As she looked at the fruit, she inspected, considered and to some extent foresaw the good pleasure and joy this food may bring.2 The Lie, then gripped its claws deeper into the seat of the soul. Scripture goes on to say that the fruit was “pleasant to the eyes.” The Hebrew word for “pleasant,” goes way beyond something that might be delightful if tasted. Ta’avah, the Hebrew word used here means “desire, greed, wishing, longing, and lusting for something in one’s heart.”3 This was no mere gazing of the eye upon a ripened piece of fruit. In fact, the emphasis of the Hebrew word for “eye” focuses just as much on what is envisioned and seen in one’s mind as it does on the physical facilities of the natural eye.4 A longing began to grow deep in the soul that sprang up as a fountain that would soon affect the very nature and actions of man. The third description given about the fruit in Scripture is that it was “desirable to make one wise.” Eve, by this time, has seen the fruit, pondered the goodness of the fruit, and even fantasized about the joy this fruit could bring. This inner image that she saw, became a desire rooted deep within. The effects of the Lie are already growing within her soul. The desire for this fruit has swelled to uncontrollable proportions. The Hebrew word for “desirable” is chamad, it means “to covet.”5 It also means “ungoverned or uncontrollable desire.” Deception had run its course bringing about the action of disobedience, “she took the fruit and ate.” 2 “Saw” is the Hebrew word ra’ah (raw-aw). Ra’ah means “to see, look, inspect, consider and foresee.” (Old Testament Lexicon, ref. no. 7200). 3 Ibid., Old Testament Lexicon, ref. no. 8378 (tah-av-aw). 4 ‘Ayin (ah’-yin) is the Hebrew word for “eye” used in this verse. It means “eye, sight, fountain, think.” It’s used in the sense of “physical eye,” and also “as showing mental qualities.” It refers to a “spring” or “fountain.” (Ibid., Old Testament Lexicon, ref. no. 5869). 5 Ibid., Old Testament Lexicon, ref. no. 2530, (khaw-mad’).

4

Centuries later the Apostle John comments,

“For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world.” (1 John 2:16)

From these three sources all natural and moral evil sprang. The following is a diagram that contrasts these three temptations.6

This is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries of Scripture, the Fall of mankind. Perfection was short lived, as the serpent deceived Eve and lured Adam to disobedience (1 Timothy 2:13-14; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelations 12:9, 20:2). Through this act of disobedience they allowed sin to rule in their flesh/soul, the spirit lost its place of preeminence. However, none of this happened without divine warning.

Deception always precedes

disobedience.

“In the day that you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

Earth-Bound The Fall had detrimental effects on man. The spirit was no longer in intimate communion with the Spirit of God. Death came to the spirit, “for the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Thus, the soul was no longer in submission to the spirit. The soul was now the ruling constituent. This presented titanic problems. The only part of man (spirit) that had the ability to relate to God lost that ability. Now all that man had to 6 Ibid., Spirit-Filled Life Bible, p. 1515.

Temptation: The Two Adams Contrasted

Both Adam and Christ faced three aspects of temptation. Adam yielded, bringing upon humankind sin and death. Christ resisted, resulting in justification and life.

1 John 2:16

“the lust of the flesh”

“the lust of the eyes”

“the pride of life”

First Adam Genesis 3:6

“the tree was good for food”

“it was pleasant to the eyes”

“a tree desirable to make one wise”

Second Adam – Christ – Luke 4:1-13

“command this stone to become bread”

“the devil…showed Him all the kingdoms”

“throw Yourself down form here”

5

relate to God was his soul. However, the soul can only relate to the realm that can be seen with the natural eye and felt with the senses. Man was intended to be a spirit-lead being. The fruit of his spirit, influenced by God’s Spirit, was to be demonstrated through his life on the earth. This is ultimately what it meant to have life and to be spiritual. The Greek word for a person whose life is influenced by the motivations of the spirit is a pneumatikos. That which grew out of his spirit is what was motivating him and controlling him, making him a spiritually controlled person – a “spiritual man.” The true definition of a spiritual person still today, is not whether you can prophecy, not how much Bible you can quote, not how long you’ve been saved, but how much you are walking according to their spirit. That’s what determines your level of spirituality, or whether you are a spiritual person. After the fall, man lost the direct influence of the spirit, thus became influenced, motivated and ultimately controlled by the desires of his soul (flesh) – a psuchikos.7

“But the natural man (psuchikos) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 parenthesis mine)

Not only does this verse say he does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, but he cannot understand them. The Greek literally means one does not have the ability to understand the things of the Spirit. As a result of the Fall things became out of order within man. Things were out of place, thus man became lost. To be lost means to be out of place. “Something that is lost is something that is not where it is supposed to be,” Willard writes. “Therefore it is not integrated into the life of the one to whom it belongs and to whom it is lost.”8 The tragedy is that we have all been born into a fallen state (Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:21). Even worse, many don’t know they are lost or understand the results of the Fall. Many times I’ve been lost while driving, quite a while before ever knowing it, though rarely before my wife knows it. Adam lost several things: the life of God, an intimate knowledge of God, and the truth of God permeating his being. Man also suffered a grisly blow to the soul - much was lost. A sense of identity, purpose and destiny in life was lost. There was a separation from the Presence, which is, quite literally, what the Fall is. Ever since the Fall man has been restless. Adam’s first response after disobeying God was to run and hide. They ran from God and hid from each other.

7 Sarkikos (4559): carnal, from sarx (4561), flesh. Opp., of pneumatikos (4152), spiritual. Syn,: psuchikos (5591), soulish, with affinity to natural sinful propensities. The person in whom the sarx, the flesh, is more the ruling principle even as psuchikos and psuche (5590) is for the animalistic instincts. Sarx covers that entire domain of our fallen nature made subject to vanity in which sin springs up and moves (Rom. 7:18; 8:5). Word studies: Zodhiates 8 Ibid., Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart, p. 55.

6

Can’t See Past My Own Reflection

“7-Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. 8-And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:7-8)

At the moment of disobedience something happened. Their eyes were opened. What exactly did they see that they hadn’t seen before? It wasn’t their nakedness. Genesis 2:25 states that they were both naked and unashamed. It is apparent that this was indeed a physical nakedness. No doubt they had seen each other, been seen by the other, and enjoyed one another as God had designed. Scripture says their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked. To be naked means to be bare and exposed. But for the first time since creation they were naked, not physically but spiritually – they became exposed and uncovered without the cloak of the spirit. Immediately their attention was drawn inward to themselves, they became self-centered and insecure. There is a story found in Ancient Greek Mythology, penned by Ovid that illustrates the condition of mankind since the Fall. Once upon a time, there was a boy named Narcissus. He was the son of a god and he was very, very handsome. Many women fell in love with him, but he turned them all away. One of the women who loved Narcissus was a nymph named Echo. Echo could not speak properly – she could only repeat what was said to her, so she couldn’t tell Narcissus that she loved him. One day, when Narcissus was walking in the woods with some friends, he became separated from them. He called out “Is anyone here?” Echo replied “Here, Here”. Echo stepped forward with open arms, wanting to embrace. But Narcissus refused to accept Echo’s love. Echo was so upset that she left and hid in a cave, wasting away as “her body dries and shrivels” and “then she is voice only, for the bones are turned to stone.” Behind the scenes, the deluded lovers of Narcissus ask of Nemesis, the goddess of Rhamnus, that he may “love one day, so, himself, and not win over the creature whom he loves.” The plot was set, a snare to entangle young Narcissus. It happened one day as Narcissus was on a hunt. Weary and thirsty, he comes upon a spring. Bending down, “as he tried to quench his thirst … he saw an image in the pool and fell in love with that un-bodied hope, and found a substance in what was only shadow.” Narcissus becomes eternally infatuated with himself, his own image.

7

At the crux of the drama, Narcissus cries out, “What shall I do?…What I want is with me, my riches make me poor. If I could only escape from my own body!” The tragedy escalates to an even higher level when Narcissus, at the moment when his tears disturb the pool, realizes not only that the loved image is his own, but furthermore that it can disappear – as if he had thought that, for want of touching, he could nevertheless be satisfied with contemplation alone (“let me keep looking at you always”), which was henceforth also became impossible. In desperation he “beat his bare breast with hands as pale as marble.” Sadly, Narcissus dies at the edge of his image. Ovid adds, “Even in Hell he found a pool to gaze in, watching his image in the Stygian waters.” When mourners, whose lamentations Echo repeats, prepare the funeral pile and seek his body, “they found nothing.” Much like Narcissus, at the fall man’s gaze lost sight of the image of God and dropped earthward only to become infatuated with one’s own image. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” Man could simply not see past himself. Where once man would look up to God first and then outward to his fellowman, he could now only look down in shame, inward at himself. To use C. S. Lewis’s telling image of fallen man, man is “bent.” Leanne Payne in her book The Healing Presence writes, “The unfallen position was, as it were, a vertical one, one of standing erect, face turned upward to God in a listening-speaking relationship. It was a position of receiving continually one’s true identity from God. But fallen man is bent toward the creature and trapped in the continual attempt to find his identity in the created rather than the Uncreated.”9 Payne continues,

As a result of the Fall, mankind slipped from God-consciousness into the hell of self and self-consciousness. Such a state is at once sinful and incomplete. This fallen self, turned inward and narcissistic, dwells in misconceived feelings and attitudes, those that arise from listening to the self-in-separation and to the voices of a fallen world.10

Looking at ourselves through the lens of the world and listening to it’s voice begins to affect our perception of ourselves as well. This perception is clearly seen in the familiar children’s story Winnie-The-Pooh. In this all time children’s classic, A. A. Milne similarly describes the fallen propensities of man in one of his famous characters.

Eeyore, the old gray Donkey, stood by the side of the stream, and looked at himself in the water. "Pathetic," he said. "That's what it is. Pathetic." He turned and walked slowly down the stream for 20 yards, splashed across it, and walked slowly back on the other side. Then he looked at himself in the water again. "As I thought," he said. "No better from this side. But nobody minds. Nobody cares. Pathetic, that's what it is." There was a crackling noise in the bracken behind him, and out came Pooh. "Good morning, Eeyore," said Pooh. "Good morning, Pooh Bear,"

9 Leanne Payne, The Healing Presence, (Grand Rapids, MI: Hamewith Books), p. 59 10 Ibid., Leanne Payne, The Healing Presence, 53.

8

said Eeyore gloomily. "If it is a good morning," he said. "Which I doubt," said he. "Why, what's the matter?" "Nothing, Pooh Bear, nothing. We can't all, and some of us don't. That's all there is to it." 11

Is it any wonder this gloomy donkey’s favorite saying is "I've lost my tail again"? Man had lost his covering and needed it desperately once again. But for now, he’ll settle for his own. Man-Made Coverings “They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Genesis 3:7). Though we’ve long since upgraded our fig leaves to Tommy Hilfiger, man is still searching to make coverings for himself. Leanne Payne, in her book The Broken Image comments of the searching that exists within fallen man.

We try hard to fit in, to be the kind of person that will cause others to like us. Craving and needing very much the affirmation of others, we compromise, put on any face, or many faces; we do even those things we do not like to do in order to fit in. We are bent . . . toward the creature, attempting to find our identity in him. Slowly and compulsively the false self closes its hard, brittle shell around us, and our loneliness remains.12

Adam and Eve hid, and we all, in one way or another, have used them as role models. Simon Tugwell, in his book The Beatitudes, explains:

And so, like runaway slaves, we either flee our own reality or manufacture a false self, which is mostly admirable, mildly prepossessing, and superficially happy. We hide what we know or feel ourselves to be (which we assume to be unacceptable and unlovable) behind some kind of appearance which we hope will be more pleasing. We hide behind pretty faces which we put on for the benefit of our public. And in time we may even come to forget that we are hiding, and think that our assumed pretty face is what we really look like.13

Adam’s sense of security and identity came from being intimately entwined with God. Thus, Adam was created to be dependant upon God alone. At the fall, Adam became independent of God, which meant He had to become co-dependent on something else to retrieve some sense of purpose. John Bradshaw defines co-dependency as a disease “characterized by a loss of identity. To be co-dependent is to be out of touch with one’s

11 A. A. Milne, Winnie-The-Pooh, (Copyright 1926 by E. P. Dutton, Copyright renewal 1954), Chapter Six 12 Leanne Payne, The Broken Image (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), p. 139. 13 Simon Tugwell, The Beatitudes: Soundings in Christian Tradition (Springfield, IL: Templegate Publishers, 1980), p. 130.

9

feelings, needs, and desires.”14 Indeed, Adam experienced all these things. Adam became the first prototype presenting to the world what it means to be co-dependent. He was driven by a compulsive desire to be perfect for all eyes to see. Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened and they knew-experientially nakedness, yet their mind was clouded, and their judgment confused. They ran from the presence of God (or at least attempted to do so). God came looking for Adam calling out, “Where are you?” Where Are You?

“9-Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ 10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.’" (Genesis 3:9-10)

The issue wasn’t that God didn’t know where Adam was; His question was to bring Adam to the revelation that he didn’t know where he was. Nor did Adam know who he was. Since then, all of Adam (including all the Adamites since) have been searching to find an identity. He’s looked to pleasure, wealth, power, relationships and money. An unending struggle to answer the age old question, “Who am I?” He can’t find it, because he’s not finding it in God. And so there’s this restless psuche wondering around – struggling, looking for identity. Payne continues in this vein of thought,

In absence of finding our identity in God, we fallen ones love selfishly. The drive to dominate, possess, or manipulate persons and things in order to meet our own needs taints (or replace altogether) the healthy, satisfying relationships we are designed to have and by which we are to be nurtured.15

This lack of identity causes man to live with an unquenchable craving to be noticed. His yearning for “compliments energizes his futile quest for carnal satisfaction. His bandages are his identity. Appearances are everything. He convolutes esse quam videri (to be rather than to seem to be) so that ‘seeming to be’ becomes his modus operandi.”16 Life is reduced to a rat race, like mice in a maze always seeking to find the cheese of another’s approval and applaud. This is clearly illustrated in Susan Howatch’s novel Glittering Images. The account spins around Charles Ashworth, a brilliant young Anglican theologian who suddenly experiences a complete moral collapse. Charles goes to a monastery to meet with his spiritual director, an older man named Jon Darrow. One day Jon comments, “Charles, would I be reading too much into your remarks if I deduced that liking and approval are very important to you?”

14 John Bradshaw, Home Coming (New York/Toronto: Bantam Books, 1990), p. 8. 15 Ibid., Leanne Payne, The Healing Presence, 60. 16 Brennan Manning, Abba’s Child (Colorado Springs, CO: NavePress, 1994), p. 33.

10

“Well, of course they’re important,” Ashworth exclaims. “Aren’t they important to everyone? Isn’t that what life’s all about? Success is people liking and approving of you. Failure is being rejected. Everyone knows that.”17

17 Susan Howatch, Glittering Images (New York: Ballantine Books, 1987), p. 162.

11

Fatality of the Spirit-Man Part 2

Sting of Rejection Not only was man restless, but there was a deep sense of rejection. Ever since the Fall man is prone to feelings, even expectations of being rejected. For example, picture yourself walking across the food court at the mall. You see an individual walking toward you. They are obviously looking at you, checking you out head to toe. As you are about to pass by them, they stop you saying, “Excuse me, I just wanted to tell you that you look very nice today. In fact, I love you.” What would your immediate response be? If you’re like most people, you would take a step back, look down at their hands and back up at their face, all the while thinking to yourself, “What do they want from me?!?”. Few would remain there to carry on a conversation. Many are they that would head for their cars. Would you believe them? Chances are that you will dismiss their words as some persuasive tactic to take advantage of you in some way. Now, picture yourself walking across the same food court. Once again, you see an individual walking toward you. They are obviously looking at you, checking you out up and down. As you are about to pass by them, the two of you bump into each other whereupon they respond, “Why don’t you watch where the heck your going! Are you blind? I can’t ever come to this mall without bumping into stupid people like you!” Providing you don’t lose your cool and indeed say something stupid, you are likely to walk away from this encounter believing that they meant what they said about you. Have you ever wondered why we so often are quick to distrust someone we’ve never met and prone to believe they think the worst of us? The sting of this can be so penetrating that fallen man has developed highly skilled defensive radar to avoid feelings of rejection. Unknowingly we often do this sacrificing our very need for intimacy. We most detach ourselves from those whom we feel will reject us. Many people play the part of a quiet, shy “introvert,” who are afraid to speak in public, where if the truth be known, they are merely afraid of being rejected by others. Or, perhaps the “life of the party,” always kicking the gig with cheer and laughter, afraid that in a moment of silence a question could be asked that would require introspection, thus disclosure of what’s really deep inside. It’s amazing how many with a gift to bring pleasure to others, remain trapped in loneliness. “It is important to recognize these self-commentaries for the mind tricks they are” Gerald May noted, “They have nothing to do with our real dignity. How we view ourselves at any given moment may have very little to do with who we really are.”18 Sooner or later, we all must ask the question: If the Imposter, who upstages so much of my life were to step aside, what would the real me look like? In that moment of spotlight, what would my genuine personality be? The degree of this definitely varies from person to person, but we all in one way or another are more prone to feelings of

18 Gerald G. May, Addiction and Grace (San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1988), p. 168.

12

rejection than acceptance, even as it relates to ourselves. Often our worst critic stands just on the other side of the mirror. Henri Nouwen observed,

Over the years, I have come to realize that the greatest trap in our life is not success, popularity, or power, but self-rejection. Success, popularity, and power can indeed present a great temptation, but their seductive quality often comes from the way they are part of the much larger temptation to self-rejection. When we have come to believe in the voices that call us worthless and unlovable, then success, popularity, and power are easily perceived as attractive solutions. The real trap, however, is self-rejection. As soon as someone accuses me or criticizes me, as soon as I am rejected, left alone, or abandoned, I find myself thinking, “Well, that proves once again that I am a nobody.” . . .[My dark side says,] I am no good . . . I deserve to be pushed aside, forgotten, rejected, and abandoned. Self-rejection is the greatest enemy of the spiritual life because it contradicts the sacred voice that calls us the “Beloved.” Being the Beloved constitutes the core truth of our existence.19 (emphasis added)

At the Fall, death came to man’s spirit, he sunk helplessly from God’s presence to an earthbound existence and the soul was dreadfully scarred with a immeasurable chasm. Trying to communicate to Adam that he was not being chastised because of anger but because of justice, God “made tunics of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). It is very likely that these skins were taken off an animal, perhaps a lamb, whose blood had been poured out as a sin offering to God, by God. It was a prophetic revelation that one day, God would send His Son, as a Lamb to be slain, whose blood would be spilled for the covering of man once and for all, drawing all of mankind to Himself, granting access once again into His presence (John 1:29; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 5:12, 13:8, 17:8). Though man felt the warmth of the skins knitted by God, the soul’s scarlet letter remained and man would continue to rummage for a way to find acceptance, all the while running in rejection. Under Currents of Rebellion You have felt rejected. I have felt rejected. To one degree or another every person on the planet has experienced the sting of rejection from other people. Our world is filled with rejection. Three thousand and five hundred babies are rejected daily through the convenience of abortion. Children are abused and demeaned by their parents. Divorce shreds away at the fiber of our homes. Co-workers curse, rail and gossip about each other. Those less fortunate physically and mentally are mocked and made fun of. Even the best of circumstances we experience rejection. Rejection transcends race, culture and socioeconomic status. Hurtful words, withdrawn attention, unspoken gestures, unreciprocated love, malicious assault are all forms of rejection. Whether we call it rejection or not it hurts and the pain 19 Henri J. M. Nouwen, Life of the Beloved (New York: Crossroad, 1992), p. 21.

13

is very real. Often times no rejection was intended, but that doesn’t stop us from interpreting it as such. We have been created in such a way to desire acceptance and love. When we experience the opposite of this we become emotionally imbalanced. We process and rehearse these events repeatedly on our mental replay screens. Desperately, sometimes viciously we look for a way to cope, insulate or even revenge ourselves from such pain. The following is a fictitious response of a graduate student who applied to many universities for a teaching position. After receiving countless rejection letters, he was finally provoked to write this response to one of the universities.

Dear Professor Worthington, Thank you for your letter on March 23. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me an assistant professor position in your department. This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of opportunities, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals. Despite Whitson University’s outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will assume the position of assistant professor in your department this August. I look forward to seeing you then. Best of luck in rejecting future applicants. Sincerely, TJ Baggins

If only dealing with rejection were this easy to process. Unfortunately, rejection generally sinks a little deeper than we would like. In reality, rejection affects us more intensely than we often care to admit. The very walls and defense mechanisms that we erect around our hearts are evidence enough that rejection experienced wounded us more than we thought. “It’s tempting to respond to rejection with an inner vow: ‘That’s the last time I’ll let anyone else hurt me like that.’ We think we’re protecting ourselves from further rejection, but instead we’re trapping ourselves in a pattern of behavior that only binds us to the bitterness of the past. When we serve that need to stay protected, we relate to others in a way that only serves to escalate the volume of rejection we continue to encounter from them.”20 Sorge continues, “sometimes we are rejected by others. And sometimes we feel rejected when in fact we’re being accepted. Either way, the feelings of rejection are the result of our broken humanity, our fallenness, our ineptitude at relating to one another in the perfection of Christ.”21 20 Bob Sorge, Dealing with the Rejection and Praise of Man (Oasis House: Lee’s Summit, MO, 1999), p. 4. 21 Ibid., p. 5.

14

What happens inside someone when rejected? Often times, one will personalize and internalize the matter unto the point where they become desensitized to the one they initially perceived rejection from. This process almost always produces some form of rebellion. The root of rebellion is much more than a resistance to authority. The prophet Samuel, when rebuking King Saul said, “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Samuel 15:23). The nucleus of witchcraft is control, manipulating situations and circumstances, even people to align with the desires of the practitioner. When we don’t get our way and we subtly manipulate a situation or conversation knowingly to get our way, we are practicing witchcraft. How often are we to be selective in our conversing, leaving vital parts out, simply because its not necessary that another knows this part? How often are we tempted to phrase a question in a particular way to get the response we desire? This too is witchcraft, for we are manipulating the events in such a way to obtain the desired outcome for our pleasure. In essence we are knowingly and deceitfully circuitously wielding control over another. It’s perplexing how the Fall distorted man’s perception of life. Man stepped out from underneath the umbrella of God’s divine covering and became saturated with insecurity, rejection, and fear. Fear is another link between the sense of rejection and rebellion, or control. Fear is the rousing energy underneath the surface of most of the people we frequently classify as control freaks. Fear is oftentimes masked in the form of a perverted submission, resulting in one trying to dominate and control others. In Adam’s attempt to gain control of his own life, he lost all control. In his attempt to become free, he became enslaved to sin (John 8:34; Romans 6:16; 2 Peter 2:19). As a result the human race is insecure, lost, continuously searching, groping for a place of acceptance, belonging and purpose. However, inside we are pierced with an eternal void that only God can fill, try as we may. And try we (indeed) do. One of our means for coping is to remain in control. Control is typically exerted in one of two ways, either by advancing or retreating. By advancing, one is generally very verbal and expressive in their ideas and opinions. We often think of these people of nothing more than a Type A personality, however, much of the verbiage is rooted in a fear of rejection and of being left out. After all, the best way not be left out of a party is to be the one who comes up with the idea to have the party. The second way of exerting control is by retreating. One day I was sitting in church, people were starting to fill the pews. As I sat there, I picked up my Bible and began to read. After about five minutes, I heard the Lord speak to me saying, “What are you doing?” I assumed it was obvious, but answered nonetheless, “Reading my Bible,” inwardly hoping the Lord would think to Himself, “Wow! What a spiritual-Christian, arriving to church early, even reading his Bible. If only everyone would prepare themselves so diligently.” However, evidently these thoughts never crossed the Lord’s mind for He responded, “No your not.” “Huh?” I responded. “No you are not… you’re avoiding people. You don’t want to engage personally with anyone this morning and you know that if you sit there, head down, reading your Bible no one will approach you. You think, they will think, ‘He’s reading his Bible and praying. I don’t want to interrupt.’

15

You may fool them, but you don’t fool me. As a result of your insecurity, you are manipulating the environment to keep them away. You may be reading the words of the Bible, but in this posture you will never hear them speak back to you.” How often do we do this? Refrain from speaking, or replicate the posture of prayer or some other form of spirituality? Nonetheless, retreating is still a form of control. This is not to say that everyone who speaks up or reads their Bible before church is controlling, but often the human tendency is to control. We often do this unknowingly. Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?”. If only we could experience the “perfect love that casts out all fear,” we could be free, releasing the reigns of control, learning the art of an open heart, walking past the walls that so often separate us from one anther (1 John 4:18). Sad to say, many have yet to enter into this rest, even those who bear the name “Christian”. Ever since the Fall, humans are prone to independence, pride, anger, hatred, murder and so on. The mode of operation for our society is customarily a dog-eat-dog mentality. We’ve gone so far as to become our own little gods. After all, isn’t that what Satan promised Eve when he said, “in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5 italics mine)? Man became his own god. At the Fall, he removed himself from God’s government. Eve saw the fruit as being “desirable to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6). As we’ve seen, the word “desirable” means to be “ungoverned”. Man became ungoverned, he was his own ruler, God was no longer his King.

“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6) “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

No longer did life entail the quest of experiencing God’s enclosed delight nor did an awareness of His pleasure permeate every facet and function of man’s existence. As god, man became consumed with himself and humanism was conceived. Humanism by very definition is “a doctrine or way of life centered on human interests or values.”22 In our day, many uphold selfishness as a virtue and a benefit. For example, humanistic philosopher Ayn Rand has expounded and defended this thesis in a number of her books.23 In one of them she says, “Man – every man – is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.”24 She even has the hero in her novel Atlas Shrugged raise the individual to the level of deity: “And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom

22 Webster’s New American Dictionary, (New York, NY: SMITHMARK Publishers, 1995), p. 251. 23 Ayn Rand’s egocentric philosophy is explained and evaluated in Norman L. Geisler’s book Is Man the Measure? An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), chapter 6. 24 Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (New York: Signet, 1961), as quoted by Geisler in Is Man the Measure?, p. 70.

16

men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I.”25 And as Blaise Pascal wrote, “God made man in his own image and man returned the compliment.” Philip Yancey in Christianity Today tells us,

The historian of Alcoholics Anonymous titled his work Not-God because, he said, that stands as the most important hurdle an addicted person must surmount: to acknowledge, deep in the soul, not being God. No mastery of manipulation and control, at which alcoholics excel, can overcome the root problem; rather, the alcoholic must recognize individual helplessness and fall back in the arms of the Higher Power. “First of all, we had to quit playing God,” concluded the founders of AA; and then allow God himself to “play God” in the addict’s life, which involves daily, even moment-by-moment, surrender.26

Without a compass directing his path, man became his own guide, leading only farther down the wide path of destruction (Matthew 7:13). Self-idolatry, thus rearranged the entire spiritual and moral landscape of the human race. Almost five hundred years ago, John Calvin said, “the surest source of destruction to men is to obey themselves.”27 But in man’s state, self-obedience seems like the only sensible pathway for him to take: “So blindly do we all rush in the direction of self-love, that every one thinks he has a good reason for exalting himself and despising all others in comparison.”28 Later, in the middle of the Twentieth Century Dietrick Bonhoeffer paints a similar picture: “Whereas the primal relationship of man to man is a giving one, in the state of sin it is purely demanding. Every man exists in a state of complete voluntary isolation; each man lives his own life, instead of all living the same God-life.”29 “Christians who remain in hiding continue to live the lie,” writes Brennan Manning in his book Abba’s Child. “We deny the reality of our sin. In a futile attempt to erase our past, we deprive the community of our healing gift. If we conceal our wounds out of fear and shame, our inner darkness can neither be illuminated nor become a light for others. We cling to our bad feelings and beat ourselves with the past when what we should do is let go.”30 As Dietrick Bonhoeffer once said, “guilt is an idol.”

25 Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (New York: Signet, 1961), as quoted by Geisler in Is Man the Measure?, p. 70. 26 Christianity Today, July 100, 2000, p. 2. 27 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), p.7. 28 Ibid., Calvin, p. 9. 29 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Communion of Saints (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p.71. 30 Ibid., Brennan Manning, Abba’s Child, p. 25.

17

Fatality of the Spirit-Man Part 3

“11-And He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat? 12-Then the man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.’ 13-And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’” (Genesis 3:11-13)

It’s Not My Fault God comes to Adam in his hiding among the trees of the garden. God confronts the situation with a straightforward question, “Did you eat from the tree I commanded you not to eat from?” Adam immediately responded, “The woman You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” In other words, “Lord, it’s really not my fault. Truth be told Lord, You’re the one who gave her to me in the first place. If you hadn’t made her, I would have never eaten of the fruit. Don’t look at me, it’s not my fault.” The Lord, refraining from responding to Adam, turns His attention to the woman, “What is this you have done?” Eve, following Adam’s lead, once again shifts the blame to yet another, “Lord, the serpent tricked me. It’s not my fault.” Man had been given unprecedented authority and responsibility, yet shifts the delinquency of his folly onto another. Since the Fall, the uncanny ability to shift blame has become second-nature for mankind. Consider the following:

In 1980 a Boston court acquitted Michael Tindall of flying illegal drugs into the United States. Tindall’s attorneys argued that he was a victim of “action addict syndrome,” an emotional disorder that makes a person crave dangerous, thrilling situations. Tindall was not a drug dealer, merely a thrill seeker. An Oregon man who tried to kill his ex-wife was acquitted on the grounds that he suffered from “depression/suicide syndrome,” whose victims deliberately commit poorly planned crimes with the unconscious goal of being caught or killed. He didn’t really want to shoot his wife; he wanted the police to shoot him. Then there’s the famous, “Twinkie syndrome.” Attorneys for Dan White, who murdered San Francisco mayor George Moscone, blamed the

18

crime on emotional stress linked to White’s junk food binges. White was acquitted of murder and convicted on a lesser charge of manslaughter.31

A surfer recently sued another surfer for “taking his wave.” The case was ultimately dismissed because they were unable to put a price on “pain and suffering” endured by watching someone ride the wave that was “intended for you.” A woman went into Northridge discount department store to buy a blender. She decided to take the bottom box from a stack of four blenders from an upper shelf used to store extra stock. When she pulled out the bottom box, the rest of the boxes fell. She sued the store for not warning customers from taking stock from the upper shelf and for stacking the boxes so high. She claimed to sustain carpal tunnel syndrome and neck, shoulder and back pain. A minister and his wife sued a guide-dog school for $160,000 after a blind man learning to use a seeing-eye dog stepped on the woman’s toe. She sought $80,000 for medical bills, pain & suffering, humiliation and disability. Her husband sought the same amount for loss of his wife’s care, comfort and consortium. A college student in Idaho decided to “moon” someone from his 4th story dorm room window. He lost his balance, fell out of his window, and injured himself in the fall. Now the student expects the University to take the fall – he is suing them for “not warning him of the dangers of living on the 4th floor”. A woman went to her friend’s house and asked for a haircut. Unhappy with her new look, she claimed her friend had willfully, intentionally and maliciously cut her hair without her consent…and sued him for $75,000. A convicted bank robber on parole entered a bank, went up to the teller, and said, “Give me the money. I’ve got a bomb.” The bank teller did as instructed, except that hidden in the rolls of money turned over to the robber was an anti-robbery device that released tear gas. The device functioned as intended…and the robber sued the bank!32

“The old Puritan idea that the devil tempts men had this remarkable effect, it produced the man of iron who fought," writes Oswald Chamber; “the modern idea of blaming his heredity or his circumstances produces the man who succumbs at once.”33 Blaming isn’t just a Twentieth Century phenomena, it started in the garden with Adam, then Eve,

31 Ibid., Edward K. Rowell, p. 104 32 http://www.realpolice.net/lawsuits.htm, accessed September 5, 2002. 33 Oswald Chambers, Oswald Chambers, The Best from all His Books, vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Oliver- Nelson Books, 1989), p.318.

19

then… Whether consciously or unconsciously, we are all inclined to point an accusing finger, assigning blame for virtually every failure. Whenever we fail to receive the approbation for our performance, we often look for a reason. “Whenever we place blame, we are looking for a scapegoat for a real dislocation in which we ourselves are implicated. Blame is a defensive substitute for an honest examination of life that seeks personal growth in failure and self-knowledge in mistakes.”34 Thomas Moore stated, “Fundamentally, it is a way of averting consciousness of error.”35 Look as we may, often we’re left with no one to blame, we’re left receiving a mound of guilt and condemnation back on ourselves. The world we live in has in many ways conditioned us to make someone pay for failures or shortcomings. I learned this principle by the time I was three years old. I quickly learned that when something was broke, the best thing to do was remain silent and let my big brother take the blame and consequently the punishment. For every flaw we see around, there is someone near by qualified to receive our blame, ensuring that the one who failed is properly identified and punished. This ongoing game of blame erodes away at the very fiber of our being, as well as daily relationships. Psychologists refer to the consequences of this epidemic is known as Rational Emotive Therapy. This theory proposes that blame is at the core of most emotional disturbances. True as this may be, few psychologist ever actually get to the root of that blame. Man’s predisposition to denial and blame can never accurately be understood while being separated from the retribution of the Fall upon humanity as a whole. “IN TAKING ONESELF in practice (or humanity taking itself in practice) as God,” Willard writes, “the great world-historical force of denial comes into play. Denial of reality is a capacity inseparable from the human will as we know it, and it has its greatest power when it operates without being recognized as such. (Of course by “denial” we mean to include not only rejection of what is the case, but also affirmation of what is not the case.) In a world apart from God, the power of denial is absolutely essential if life is to proceed.”36 Willard continues,

Now when the light of the fundamental truth and reality, God, is put out in the heart and the soul, the intellect becomes dysfunctional, trying to devise a “truth” that will be compatible with the basic falsehood that man is god; and the affections (feelings, emotions, even sensations) soon follow along on the path to chaos. “They become futile in their speculations,” Paul continued, “and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” They pretended God was an animal – usually a monstrous animal or a human-like being – of some kind (Romans 1:21-23). But remember, the mind is now uprooted from reality. It is committed to the truth of a falsehood. “Garbage in, garbage out” is an old story, and then the strong desires, or “lusts” (epithumiais), plunge right into the garbage along with thought.

34 Ibid., Brennan Manning, Abba’s Child, p. 85. 35 Thomas Moore, The Care of the Soul (San Franciso, CA: Harper/Collins, 1992), p. 166. 36 Ibid., Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart, p. 52.

20

The human body becomes stockholder of a plethora of evil appetites. All of the pure desires that man was created with have now become perverted. All hungers, desires left to run their own course will evolve into an extreme. These hungers turn out to be nothing more than sensuality that cannot be satisfied. Paul, in writing to those at Ephesus said,

“17-This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18-having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19-who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.” (Ephesians 4:17-19)

Paul later stated,

“1-But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2-For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3-unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4-traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5-having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Once again, we will never correctly understand ourselves, our fellow-man and the world around us apart from the Fall of man and the implications it produced. Without this backdrop of understanding, a number of strange theories will be fashioned to explain away man’s fallen nature. For example, modern medicine and psychology have attempted to elucidate the predisposition of mankind to look perpetually at himself as Narcissus. They’ve developed what is known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I will quickly give an overview of typical characteristics of this disorder. As you look at these, compare them to effects of the Fall that were outlined in this chapter, as well as the two passages above.

21

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characteristic of being expressed primarily on four levels: Behavioral, Phenomenological, Intrapsychic and Biophysical.37

37 http://hometown.net/NAR.htm (Accessed October 2002)

Narcissistic Personality Disorder Behavioral: Expressively Haughty (e.g., acts in an arrogant, supercilious, pompous,

and disdainful manner, flouting conventional rules of shared social living, viewing them as naive or inapplicable to self; reveals a careless disregard for personal integrity and a self-important indifference to the rights of others).

Interpersonally Exploitive (e.g., feels entitled, is unempathic and expects special favors without assuming reciprocal responsibilities; shamelessly takes others for granted and uses them to enhance self and indulge desires).

Phenomenological: Cognitively Expansive (e.g., has an undisciplined imagination and exhibits a preoccupation with immature and self-glorifying fantasies of success, beauty or love; is minimally constrained by objective reality, takes liberties with facts and often lies to redeem self-illusions).

Admirable Self-Image (e.g., believes self to be meritorious, special, if not unique, deserving of great admiration, and acting in a grandiose or self-assured manner, often without commensurate achievements; has a sense of high self-worth, despite being seen by others as egotistic, inconsiderate, and arrogant).

Contrived Objects (e.g., internalized representations are composed far more than usual of illusory and changing memories of past relationships; unacceptable drives and conflicts are readily refashioned as the need arises, as are others often simulated and pretentious).

Intrapsychic: Rationalization Mechanism (e.g., is self-deceptive and facile in devising plausible reasons to justify self-centered and socially inconsiderate behaviors; offers alibis to place oneself in the best possible light, despite evident shortcomings or failures).

Spurious Organization (e.g., morphologic structures underlying coping and defensive strategies tend to be flimsy and transparent, appear more substantial and dynamically orchestrated than they are in fact, regulating impulses only marginally, channeling needs with minimal restraint, and creating an inner world in which conflicts are dismissed, failures are quickly redeemed, and self-pride is effortlessly reasserted).

Biophysical: Insouciant Mood (e.g., manifests a general air of nonchalance, imperturbability, and feigned tranquility; appears coolly unimpressionable or buoyantly optimistic, except when narcissistic confidence is shaken, at which time either rage, shame, or emptiness is briefly displayed).

22

Everyone since Adam has some narcissitic traits. I doubt it’s merely a personality disorder (not to negate that there is such a thing), rather a disorder and dysfunction within the nature of man, which is bent inward, downward and away from God. (Consider these Scriptures that detail the characteristics of the fallen nature of man Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-22; Colossians 3:5-9; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; James 3:3-16, 4:1-2).

How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb? (a) Just one -- but he has to wait for the whole world to revolve around him.

(b) None at all -- he hires menials for work that's beneath him.