Christian Cliches - "Die to Self"

"Die to self" is such a commonly used Christian phrase that most people never question where it came from.  But "die to self," as a phrase, isn't actually in the Bible.  When Jesus was teaching along these lines, he never used those three words in that order.  Here's one of the things He actually did say:

Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? Matt. 16:24-16

This teaching is in the context of Jesus asking His disciples who they thought He was, upon which Peter said He was the Christ.  Jesus then told His disciples that He was going to Jerusalem, where He would be crucified.  In the parallel passage in Mark 8:35, "whoever loses his life for me will find it" is rendered "whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it [emphasis added]." He was asking them to have the same mindset as He had in taking up His cross-- willingness to give up their own reputations and lives for Him, just as He was giving up His life and reputation for the gospel that He preached.  That gospel, according to Matthew 4:17 and Luke 4:18, was that the promises of the coming of the Messiah were fulfilled in Him, and that He had come to bring God's kingdom on earth.

In John 12:23-24 Jesus used similar words about life and death as He rode into Jerusalem the week before His death:

Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

The ideas of self-denial and losing one's life (or dying) are all present in these teachings.  But none of the passages actually, literally say "die to self."  "Die to self" can be considered instead a reworking of Christ's teachings into a sort of shorthand or slogan.  But slogans have a way of being somewhat less than accurate.  Does it accurately bring across the meaning that He saw fit to convey in several sentences, to reduce it to just three words?

These passages use the words "deny" and "self" together.  They also use the words "die" and "life" together.  What they do not do is use the words "die" and "self" together.  You see, when we "deny ourselves" we are simply making a decision to give up something we want.  But when we "die" we are letting go of something-- and that thing we are to let go of, Jesus says, is not our "selves," but our "lives."  Jesus was talking about having an attitude of willingness to sacrifice, of considering Him and His kingdom worth more than our own lives, of turning our plans and dreams over to Christ.  He was not talking about obliterating our very selves.

The difference is subtle, but I think it's important.  To deny the self still leaves the self intact.  To lose one's life is not the same thing as losing one's self.  What is getting lost in "die to self" is the idea that the individual human being, created in the image of God, has an identity that should be preserved.  When Jesus took up His cross, He did not lose His identity.  I don't believe He intends us to do so either.

I'm not saying that everyone who uses the words "die to self" is thinking this way.  Most of us aren't consciously saying or intending to say,"I'll turn self-denial into self-abnegation."  But words mean things, and over time, the words we're using as shorthand for a text, can change our mindset about what we're talking about.  In a very real sense in some Christian practices, the words "die to self" have had a way of removing  boundaries that should be there for the protection of healthy relationships between ourselves and others.  They have had a way of shaming us for wanting to keep our selves, our very identities-- what we mean when we think of who we are-- strong and intact.  They have had a way of making us feel we're doing something wrong when we take time to care for and rest ourselves, our bodies, our minds and emotions.  "Die to self" thus can easily become a tool for spiritual abuse.

Nancy Campbell, in her Above Rubies website article "Happiness or Misery?" is a prime example of this mindset:

Mothers are encouraged to take time for self-pampering. Does this make them happy? Unfortunately, no. I find that women who are so concerned about having time for themselves are usually more miserable than those who forget about themselves in the joy of serving their family.

It is a God-given principle that never fails to work. When we try to pamper self we lose our life. When we lay down our own life to serve others, we find our life. Jesus said in Mark 8:35, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it."  [Emphasis in original]

It's questionable in my mind whether the women who are supposedly so much happier never taking time for themselves, are actually simply less vocal about their own needs.  But look at the difference between what Nancy Campbell says the Bible is talking about and what Jesus actually said.  Jesus never said we would save our lives by laying them down to serve others.  He said we would save our lives by laying them down for Him and for the gospel-- the good news of the coming kingdom that He is inaugurating as Messiah.  Serving others is good, and it's something Christ wants us to do-- but it's not what He was talking about when He said "lose your life for my sake."

In fact, what Jesus did when He and His disciples had been serving others all day long, was this:

Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.” Mark 6:31

Later in this passage, the people ended up following Jesus and His disciples to that quiet place, and Jesus, having compassion on them, went ahead and taught them.  This was self-denial.  But then, after performing a miracle in which everyone (including His hungry disciples) got fed, He again sent His disciples to a place where they would be away from the crowds-- this time in boat in the middle of the lake-- and He went off by Himself to be alone with the Father and refresh Himself (verses 45-46). That was self-preservation.  Jesus denied Himself, but He did not die to Himself.  He didn't serve to the point of losing His very Self.  He took the opportunity to get away, to take care of His own needs, as soon as it was practicable.

It wasn't "self-pampering" for Jesus and the disciples to go off and try to find some time for themselves.  It was self-stewardship.

The Missionary Care website describes the Christian doctrine of self-stewardship like this:

When Jesus came, he gave the promise of the Holy Spirit who would not live in the temple in Jerusalem but in his people (John 14-17). Paul later wrote about our being God's temple, the temple of the Holy Spirit and God living in us. . . .

As God's temple and his messengers to make known his gospel to those who do not know him, we have a responsibility to care for his dwelling place - us. . . We are not selfish to care for ourselves if our reason for doing so is not only for our own benefit but is also out of respect for our own value in God's eyes and so that we stay fit enough to be good servants of others. [Emphasis added]

Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend's book 12 Christian Beliefs that Can Drive You Crazy says:

 This crazy-making assumption-- "It's selfish to have my needs met"-- fails to distinguish between selfishness and a God-given responsibility to meet one's own needs. . . The Bible actually values our needs, which are God-given and intended to propel us to growth and to God.  Neglecting them leads to spiritual and emotional problems. [p. 17; Emphasis in original]

Here are a few more Bible examples.  Matthew 26:36-46 is the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. He is just about to give His life for the world. A greater example of self-sacrifice could not be shown. But listen to what He says to Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, His closest friends:

“My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” Isn't Jesus here expressing a deep emotional need, and asking His friends to help meet it?

"Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. 'Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?' he asked Peter." Isn't this an expression of disappointment that His needs have not been met, telling His friends honestly that they have let Him down?

Jesus did think about His own human needs and ask for things for Himself.  Even though in Gethsemane He was actually in the process of laying down His life, He didn't "die to self"-- instead, He asked for what He needed, and then spoke out about how He felt about not getting His needs met.

And then there's Paul in the city of Philippi, in Acts 16:12-40. He and Silas are preaching, and a group of powerful men arrange to have them arrested, beaten and thrown in jail. When the magistrates send for them the next day, saying “let those men go,” Paul says (verse 37), “They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.” Is Paul "dying to self" here?  Or is he standing up for himself and practicing limits on submission to those in governing authority over him? Isn't he acting in his own best interests? Isn't he asserting his own rights?

Yes.  And the passage says nothing to condemn what he has done, nor does Paul ever express remorse or show in any way that he believes he has done wrong. Paul was taking care of himself as best he knew how.  He knew he was made in God's image, valuable and loved.  He knew Jesus had said "Love your neighbor as yourself." He apparently didn't agree with the Christian teaching we hear so often nowadays, that Christians should not consider their rights, but only their responsibilities. Going to prison for preaching was self-denial.  But Paul stopped far short of self-death.

Finally, let's talk about the Proverbs 31 woman for a moment.  The Proverbs 31 woman is held up to evangelical women as their role model. Women are taught to focus on verse 13: “she . . . works with eager hands,” verse 15: “She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family” and on verse 27: “She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.” But look at verses 21-22: "When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.  She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple." [Emphasis added.]

Here we see a woman who treats herself to the finest. She clothes her household with scarlet  – good, high-quality clothing. But she makes her own clothes fine linen and purple – the very best! Yes, she gives and makes sacrifices for her family. But she makes herself a priority too. And nothing in the passage faults her for self-indulgence; in fact, she receives nothing but praise.  

In the way she dresses, the Proverbs 31 woman "pampers herself."  Perhaps Nancy Campbell ought to read this passage a little more closely before condemning other women who do so. 

In fact, if we say that it is wrong to seek good things for ourselves, or that it indulges our flesh to take care of ourselves, then what are we saying? Since Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” then if it is wrong to seek good things for ourselves or to take care of ourselves, then it wrong to seek good things for others or to take care of others. If good things for ourselves indulge our own flesh, then good things for others indulge their flesh, and the best thing we could do for others is to help them deprive themselves. But obviously, since the Bible teaches us to do good to and give to others, it cannot be wrong to do good to and provide for ourselves-- as long as that doesn't become our sole focus, at others' expense. 

In Colossians 2:22-23 Paul talks about the kind of service to God which looks good, but is actually "merely human commands and teachings." This type of service, he says, is characterized by "self-imposed worship, false humility and harsh treatment of the body." Humility to the point of neglecting our own bodies is not true worship to God and does not help us become more godly. This is not the kind of self-denial Jesus wants. The rest of the verse says that these practices "lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."  The reason for this is that we have within ourselves a strong instinct for self-preservation.  If we continually "die to self" to the point of ignoring our own needs and immolating our own identities, it will eventually backfire on us. Our own neglected needs will become so pervasive that we will be unable to concentrate on anyone else; nor will we have anything to give to others.  We may also become self-congratulatory over how "godly" we are in our self-abnegation, which is the antithesis of the humility Jesus taught.

Now, many of my readers may be saying, "But I never meant any of these self-destructive things when I said 'die to self'!" Aren't you just taking an innocent short-hand version of Christ's teachings, and making too big a deal out of it?

For many of us, that may indeed be true.   And I'm not saying to never use the phrase "die to self" ever again.  But I am saying we should be aware that Jesus never actually said "die to self," and that it can have this destructive meaning to it.  Samantha over at Defeating the Dragons knows exactly what I'm talking about.  As she puts it:

You might be used to being told that concepts like “self care” come from the “pseudo-science” of psychology, that “self care” is just psycho-babble for selfishness. You might have grown used to coupling “being a good Christian” with what is, in reality, burning yourself out. You might have been trained to dismiss the notion that “healthy people take care of themselves.” I’ve watched many of my childhood friends and women I grew up respecting have nervous breakdowns because of this. You might have been trained to be constantly looking for “areas of service.” You might have been trained, not even intentionally, to volunteer for everything. 

If you’re like me, you were taught that having boundaries and respecting your own needs was wrong. 

It’s taken me a very, very long time to learn that “taking care of myself” isn’t selfishness- it’s just plain necessary.

So let's love ourselves and care for ourselves-- because self-denial for the sake of the kingdom, and sacrifice when necessary for the good of others, are different from self-deprivation and self-neglect.  “Deny yourself” is supposed to be about putting His kingdom first (Matt 6:33). But we are part of His kingdom too!  And we have good desires and legitimate needs that God values.

Let's all value ourselves as God values us.

Christian Male Identity

This post is an invitation to a conversation, because I don't have all the answers. If you've found this blog, I'd like to know what you think.

J.K. Gayle over at Aristotle's Feminist Subject has brought up the current fear among many Christians that the empowerment of women is emasculating men. He cites the new book by William J. Bennett (former U.S. Secretary of Education under President Ronald Reagan and former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush) called The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood. Bennett appears to voice a concern I've read in several places on the Web, that women's social and economic gains are somehow leading to a male identity crisis.

My first reaction is to ask myself, why should it matter to men, ultimately, what women are doing? When Peter to said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" referring to Jesus' plans for John, Jesus answered, "What is that to you? You follow me." John 21:21-22. Shouldn't following Jesus be enough?

And yet as a follower of Jesus, I myself must not be selective in doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. What I would have done unto me is for my concerns to be taken seriously and listened to. So I must listen to my Christian brothers.

One thing I'm certain of. Men should not define themselves by whom they get to be in authority over. Is a man in slavery, beaten by a master, any less a man? Is a man interred in a concentration camp any less a man? So, even though the Christian Patriarchy movement seems to want to define men in terms of their "leadership" in the home, I cannot feel that a man must be in charge of someone else, in order to feel like a man.

Two Friars and a Fool, makes this point rather well. But the other thing they're saying also should be heard:

"Patriarchy is not masculinity. The two aren’t the same. But, apart from patriarchy, what is masculinity? The thing is, none of us know, because almost no one is thinking about it. Or worse the only people thinking about it are the ones who just want to push patriarchy in disguise... What is it to be a man, apart from either being part of patriarchy or being told how evil you are for being part of patriarchy? If I knew, I would tell you, but I don’t. I’d like to, though."

There is an interesting thing going on here. Women (except perhaps those embracing Christian Patriarchy), because we have traditionally been the "other" sex, tend to want to be viewed primarily as just people. We don't want to be defined by our sex, but by our humanity. But the question being asked here by men is, "what defines us as men?"

Traditionally, men have been the "default" sex. To be human has been viewed primarily in terms of being human as a male. The traditional name for humanity is "man." What humans do that makes them human has, through history, been seen in terms of what men do. Until recently, being a man meant just doing what men-- that is, people-- do. Working, resting, praying, having a family. Self-expressing through art or literature or craft or sport. Being in charge too-- but that was only part of it.

Now men are finding that the meaning of words have changed, as a concerted effort has been made in the last few generations to include women as part of the default of what "human" means. We no longer say, "man," we say, "humanity." And now many men seem to feel themselves at a loss. If "humanity" is no longer, by default, male humanity, what does it mean to be male, as opposed to being female? Particulary since women, who have always worked, rested, prayed and had families, just like men (only without being in charge, and with their self-expression largely suspected, suppressed and devalued), want to be defined mostly as just "people"? And maybe to get to be in charge sometimes too?

If you're a man, only you can be a father. And if you're a woman, only you can be a mother. And those are different things, and the differences are important. And there are physical differences, and hormonal differences. And they tend to affect the way we behave-- but not universally. There are always exceptions. And there are no good traits that are the exclusive province of one sex or the other. For Christians, Jesus is our example, and he modeled all good traits, all of what it means to be human. And Jesus was male, but was not afraid to describe himself as spreading wings like a mother hen and taking chicks under them!

Perhaps the answer is not to come up with a certain set of traits and call them "manhood," and another set of traits and call them "womanhood," whether the word "biblical" is attached to these terms or not. Perhaps men as well as women need to simply look to the humanity of Christ for an example of what being a human ought to be. If you're doing your best to be like Jesus, then you are a biblical man. You are also a biblical woman. Not because there are no differences. Males and females are different, and the differences should be celebrated. Christianity is not a religion that calls the spiritual good, and the physical bad. Our bodies are good, and they are part of who we are-- and our bodies are gendered.

But the problem my Christian brothers are expressing-- those who don't want to embrace patriarchy as part of the definition of manhood-- is not fully answered by saying, "Let's just all follow Jesus and not worry about it." One of the commenters on Two Friars and a Fool, Douglas Hagler, put it this way:

"I would say that I have been thoroughly taught to see masculinity as bad. Only recently have I begun to see the possibility of another view. That is, obviously, part of my motivation here. I guess I would also say that I have also been taught to see certain things as associated with masculinity - violence, domination, unconscious privilege, etc. - and that all of those things are negative things."


The problem also goes deeper than mere perception. There is also the fact that unconscious privilege is apparently now actively hurting men, particularly in education. MaryAnn Baenninger, in her article in The Chronicle: For Women on Campus, Access Doesn't Equal Success, notes that women are not really "winning" in the way William J. Bennett seems to fear-- but she also notes this:

"And while we were focusing on gaining access for girls and women, we neglected the needs of boys and men. We didn't plan well for the consequences of a society that taught one sex that it had to work harder to gain access, and the other sex that access was guaranteed. We find ourselves surprised each time we learn that the educational system is not serving boys and men as well as it might."

So though I disagree with the Christian Patriarchy movement as the right solution to the problem, I do not deny that there is a problem. Many men-- even egalitarian men-- feel a sense of disorientation. The traditional ways they have always acted are now associated with negative things such as domination and privilege-- even violence. Maybe it's not so much that men don't know who they are, as it is that they don't know how to act; they don't feel it's ok any more to just be themselves. And maybe it's not as easy for them, just living life, as it used to be.

Can we, their egalitarian Christian sisters, help them, without having to be ourselves forced into traditional, subordinate roles that we don't feel reflect the nature of the New Creation kingdom? Brothers, do you have input on how men can learn to be comfortable with themselves without returning to the patriarchy of the past?

If you have thoughts to share, please keep them respectful and accepting of others who may differ. Thanks!