I have recently been intrigued by an interesting concept I heard in a lecture by Tim Keller, which also reminded me of—and seems to correspond with—the same sentiments of an old quote from CS Lewis: “Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in; aim at Earth and you will get neither.” Tim Keller’s quote was similar: “If you pursue happiness without righteousness, you’ll get neither. But if you pursue righteousness, you’ll get both.”1
The main idea behind both of these quotes suggests that we typically think of spirituality, morality, and ethics as diametrically opposed to happiness, pleasure, and freedom—but that’s not necessarily true. In fact, Lewis and Keller point out that you don’t have to make a choice between either morality or happiness; rather, by choosing the ethical end of the spectrum, you actually gain all that you hoped for in pursuing the happiness end of the spectrum.
Overall, this idea conveys that pursuing the hedonistic extreme of the spectrum ultimately doesn’t fulfill you and actually leaves you even emptier than before; yet, pursuing the godly extreme of the spectrum ironically gives you both. One end of spectrum makes a promise it cannot keep; the other end maintains its promise for one but ultimately gives more.
And this isn’t a call for legalism at all. Don’t get me wrong. The idea appeals to the foundations of human design—if we were designed to live in fellowship with God, then running away from him will not bring the pleasure we hoped for, but disappointment. Gratification from running away from God and into the world might come in the short run, but certainly not in the long run (1 Jn 2:15-18). As theologian Dave Harvey puts it, “A life of self-indulgence is like a steady diet of Oreos. Sure, it tastes great, but it never really satisfies the appetite.”2 Conversely, when we understand that God’s ordinances were established for our best, then as we live under them, we will experience pleasure that is truer, stronger, and longer lasting.
In fact, we see this idea clearly in the parable of the prodigal son: the younger son rebelled against his father, lived an incredibly hedonistic lifestyle, experienced a hangover of all sorts, and returned to the father certain that life with him was, indeed, much better. The spectrum that the prodigal son had concocted and assumed his whole life was, to his dismay, totally busted on one end and unbreakably fulfilling on the other. However–and this is important–the older brother figure in the story who lived in complete obedience to the father also missed the abundant life the father offered, even though he fronted an impeccably admirable and blameless moral appearance. Why? Because beneath that veneer of behavioral compliance and loyalty, the older brother’s heart churned with the same self-interest as his rebellious younger brother. Both brothers aimed at getting wealth, power, status, freedom, and satisfaction from their father–they just went about doing so in two different ways: The younger brother took the rebellious route as the means to achieving it, and the older brother took the moral route as a means to achieving it. Both external immorality and morality were used as a means to gaining internal idols. While the appearance of both was different, their hearts beat to the same rhythm of selfish ambition.
Yet, ironically, their pursuits for wealth, power, status, power, and freedom wasn’t achieved by leaving the father nor by using the father; rather, it was only found with the father. And the younger brother understood that before the older. The older brother played the game of loyalty so that he could get what he want. But still, the Father bid him, “son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours” (Lk 15:31). I think this speaks to alot of Christians, especially me: seeking the Father’s hand without seeking his heart will never get you his hand. But in seeking his heart, you’ll find arms wide open. God knows your heart. Evaluate your motives. Fundamentally, the younger and older brother had the same motives, yet just expressed them in different actions. Both wanted what he could give them, not who he was. But truly, who he is, is everything that they ever could have wanted–which is the truest end of the moral spectrum anyways: not a lifestyle to live up to, but a Person to live with.
As I continue to chew on this general idea of spectrums, I am led to believe that it applies to a broader scale of things too that we initially, yet falsely, categorize as opposites. Using the same structure as Lewis and Keller, here are some things that I think are true:
If you pursue leadership without service, you’ll get neither. But if you pursue service, you’ll get both.
If you pursue pleasure without purity, then in the long run you’ll get neither. But if you pursue purity, you’ll get both.
If you pursue respect from others but don’t respect others, you’ll get neither. But if you respect others, you’ll get both.
If you pursue resolution without forgiveness, you’ll get neither. But if you pursue forgiveness, you’ll get both.
If you pursue esteem without humility, you’ll get neither. But if you pursue humility, you’ll get both.
If you pursue freedom but disregard design, you’ll lose a sense of both. But if you live by your design, you’ll gain a sense of both.
If you pursue Christian morals without pursuing Jesus, you’ll get neither. But if you pursue Jesus, you’ll get both.
If you desire heaven but not God, you’ll get neither. But if you desire God, you’ll get both.3
This is all because:
True leadership comes from service.
True pleasure comes from purity.
Respect from others comes from respecting others.
Only forgiveness can give true resolution.
True esteem and confidence comes from humility.
True freedom comes from living according to your design.
True Christian morals only flow out of following Jesus.
Heaven truly is the presence of God.
As can be inductively inferred from CS Lewis’ quote: The bounties of earth can only be realized as such when under heaven’s point of view. And same with Keller’s: True happiness only comes from righteousness, being in Christ. Indeed, just as house’s foundation is not pitted against the rest of the structure, but rather supports it firmly, so also does virtue to reward, service to leadership, purity to pleasure, Jesus to Christian morals, and so forth.
Certainly, there are thousands of other examples that fit this conceptual framework. Nonetheless, a general theme proves true in each: when God and his qualities are made first, everything else becomes flavored with his goodness.
1. Tim Keller, “Tim Keller on True Happiness,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP39WYwAkAA
2. Dave Harvey, “Am I Called?: A Summons to Pastoral Ministry,” (p. 21).
3. John Piper, “God is the Gospel,” (page unknown).
Extra Thoughts:
When we are not bound to the things of the world (i.e., we have a found a greater treasure in Christ), that’s precisely when we can start truly enjoying the things of the world all along! Indeed, when we are full in Christ, we will no longer feel need to approach the things of the world as a means to primarily satisfy ourselves—but rather, we can begin to enjoy them simply for what they are. And when they disappear (which they eventually will… or we’ll die), our joy will not, because it’s not primarily rooted in those things, but Jesus, who is eternal.
