Humility: Take more than one slice

I've been thinking a lot about the slow death of humility in our world lately.

I taught a Sunday School class this week with a lesson entitled, "Just have a look at how humble I am", and its overarching point was simple: Being humble, for Christians, isn't just cute--it's the exercise of a command.

I read an article from a college newspaper that decried the X and Y generations as simply the generations of the "I". The author was right on. Our generation, if you can call it that, is one that has chosen vanity over humility--the "I" over the "we".

The love of the self, it seems, has permeated every nook and cranny of postmodern life (I shudder to write the term). Wants and needs have become synonymous; the "high thinking, plain living" dictum of our early ancestors is now simply a useless anachronism, too far fetched to be considered legitimate.

Most cultural anthropologists agree that selfishness in the human animal is as a result of conditioning over time, and not a natural (read biological) occurence. This, however, is of no consequence to Christians. We are meant to live our lives in a way that pleases God, and to do that we often have to act against what many (Christians and non-Christians alike) believe to be our nature as human beings.

Such traits, whether by nurture or nature, have to be overcome in order to live a life that is pleasing to God.

It is God, after all, who opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble; He also lives to interecede for us. So why is it so hard for us to intercede for others? Why can we not see the folly of being guided by naked self-interest?

The simple answer could be this: We don't oppose the pride in our own lives, we often equate humility with weakness and we still believe that God's favor is reflected in our petty definitions of success.

Humility is just one of many fruits by which followers of Christ can be recognized, but it is certainly an important one--probably more banana than pear.

All that to say this: We should be different.

Don't pray like the politicians.

Don't give with strings attached.

Don't live your life as if it is your own.

In the New Testament there is a passage that states, in no uncertain terms, that the man who thinks he is something when he is nothing deceives himself.

What it doesn't say, however, is equally true: The man who thinks he is something, even if he is something, is not humble.

False Humility?

Since all this had been on my mind, I was shocked to hear this country's most popular (and most bombastic) radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, tell his audience that he "didn't believe" in what he called "false humility" in a recent interview.

Immediately my mind went in several directions.

Judging only by the manner in which he presented it, I do not doubt that many of his listeners took it as a point of pride for him--and, perhaps, a belief we should all emulate.

Further, it wasn't the first time he has used this quirky term. Because of this, we should be able to get a better grasp of what he means:

But I did want to make note that I finally have now acknowledged what everybody knows, and it is one of the reasons that I am the biggest target of the American left simply because of that power. This is a power, my friends, that could be used for good or evil. I choose to use it for good. ... It's the elephant in the room. Why deny it? That would be false humility, and there's nothing that grates on me more than a person that engages in false humility and tries to laugh it off. ... I'm not going to sit here and deny what you all know. --May 16th, 2007

To engage in false humility, then, is a failure to tout one's own power and prestige when both are self-evident.

This, it is clear, is simply a weasel phrase from a man who boasts of his talent being "on loan from God" on daily basis.

For Christians who believe not only in what the Bible says about humility but in Christ's example, there is no such thing as false humility--only humility. "False" is a misleading modifier.

Denying one's own self-worth is not the same as a failure to express it in one's own terms.

Limbaugh's own hatred for "false humility" is borne out of his "drunk off his own aura" love for himself.

And that, my friends, isn't "on loan from God", either.

It's official: Fundamentalist Christians can vote for Giuliani

Photo: thinkprogress.org

Fundamentalist Christians can now cast a vote for "America's Mayor" with a clear conscience.

No longer will they have to throw their support behind the "who?" candidates like Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee and the recently resigned Sam Brownback.

Now they can root for Rudy.

Why?

Well, because Pat Robertson says so.

Robertson made his endorsement of Giuliani known today in front of what I can only imagine was a stupified press corps in Washington, D.C.

Robertson, perhaps best known for his utterly ridiculous comments regarding the attacks of September 11th, 2001, is now endorsing the most socially liberal of all the Republican candidates for president. (You should recall Robertson blaming our refusal to put an end to abortion--amongst others things--as a causal factor that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people.) It is ironic, too, that it was Giuliani who became the poster boy for American vigilance after the attacks on his city.

What strange bedfellows these two make.

I would imagine both men walked briskly to the nearest bathroom sink after their handshake photo opportunity. Robertson probably used a wire brush and a half bottle of Comet. He would have to really put his shoulder into it to get all that tolerance and permissiveness off.

What this means

Simply put, legions of mindless fundamentalists will throw their support behind Rudy simply on account of this endorsement. Were it not so, candidates like Giuliani and Romney would not covet the endorsements of men like Robertson and Bob Jones III more than all the others. After all, evangelicals, perhaps more than any other interest group, vote as a bloc. These are the "values voters" that every Republican candidate is fawning over.

They won the presidency for Bush in 2000 (my apologies to the Supreme Court) and 2004 and they might just put Mr. Mayor over the top.

Robertson ran for President in 1988, so he is savvy politician in his own right. He knows that Giuliani is the best hedge against Hillary, and so he chose to set aside his long-held convictions on social issues in order to affect the outcome of the election.

Will it work? Of course it will.

My take

Robertson's endorsement is actually a hindrance to my support for his candidacy. I think Robertson makes Christians look ignorant and intolerant most of the time, and I will be hesitant to throw in with his kind.

That being said, the endorsement certainly helps Rudy more than it hurts.

For the Fundys, it's like a twisted rendition of an old hymn: "Pat said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me."