Good question, Joy
My friend Joy posed an interesting question on her blog: What about mixed motives? You're doing something good and you have some good motives, but you also have bad motives, which may even cut in and take charge of the good--what do you do?
Here's my attempt to "keep the conversation going" (i.e. to answer):
What you're talking about is tricky business, to be sure. I've come to think "mixed motives" (depending on how we define that phrase) are an inevitable part of life, especially Christian life. There's just no getting around it: We need others, especially the Other Himself. As C.S. Lewis once wrote, no one can claim to love God disinterestedly. We desperately need Him, and to deny it and come to Him saying, "I don't need you--I love you only because I choose to, disinterestedly" is nothing short of madness. This same God whom we desperately need is the One who has constructed the universe such that good actions, in the immediate, often receive good reactions and are, in the end, rewarded in grand and unimaginable fashion. So what I'm saying is that the whole universe seems to slide in such a way that good action are rewarded with good reactions--which naturally predisposes us to have mixed motives. All of this, in short, is what makes me think mixed motives are generally inevitable and generally okay.
Still, though, we must never let our guard down entirely. There are of course wrong motives for doing right things, and sometimes those motives can be so wrong, they entirely blot out any good native to the original act. For example, it is okay to enjoy the praise one naturally gets from maintaining so brilliant, articulate, and crisply-written a blog as, say, this one, but it is shameful and inexcusable vanity to blog ONLY for the purpose of making people think you are really smart, philosophical, or deep. (For more on egocentric blogging, check out the site of my dear friend, Gabriel Peterson. [jk, buddy, jk])
All joking aside, the danger is indeed quite real. Thus the guarding against alterior motives is a never-ending task. We must ever be wary.
How do we battle against mixed motives? Spiritual disciplines...
All right, the semester is long, and my sleep cycles are disruptive. You folks have a good night. Peace!
Here's my attempt to "keep the conversation going" (i.e. to answer):
What you're talking about is tricky business, to be sure. I've come to think "mixed motives" (depending on how we define that phrase) are an inevitable part of life, especially Christian life. There's just no getting around it: We need others, especially the Other Himself. As C.S. Lewis once wrote, no one can claim to love God disinterestedly. We desperately need Him, and to deny it and come to Him saying, "I don't need you--I love you only because I choose to, disinterestedly" is nothing short of madness. This same God whom we desperately need is the One who has constructed the universe such that good actions, in the immediate, often receive good reactions and are, in the end, rewarded in grand and unimaginable fashion. So what I'm saying is that the whole universe seems to slide in such a way that good action are rewarded with good reactions--which naturally predisposes us to have mixed motives. All of this, in short, is what makes me think mixed motives are generally inevitable and generally okay.
Still, though, we must never let our guard down entirely. There are of course wrong motives for doing right things, and sometimes those motives can be so wrong, they entirely blot out any good native to the original act. For example, it is okay to enjoy the praise one naturally gets from maintaining so brilliant, articulate, and crisply-written a blog as, say, this one, but it is shameful and inexcusable vanity to blog ONLY for the purpose of making people think you are really smart, philosophical, or deep. (For more on egocentric blogging, check out the site of my dear friend, Gabriel Peterson. [jk, buddy, jk])
All joking aside, the danger is indeed quite real. Thus the guarding against alterior motives is a never-ending task. We must ever be wary.
How do we battle against mixed motives? Spiritual disciplines...
All right, the semester is long, and my sleep cycles are disruptive. You folks have a good night. Peace!
posted by Peter Rice at 4:44 PM
4 Comments:
Sorry I missed you over the break - maybe our paths will cross over the upcoming longer break. I hear you have some news you have neglected to share - tsk, tsk! :)
For the sake of discussion, here's my question. What is a "pure" motive? Even the most pure Christian motive is a mixed motive in a way. After all, won't we be rewarded for the good things we do on earth? Doesn't heaven give us incentive to be a good person? And by that standard, isn't performing any type of good deed a kind of hedonism (just one with an extremely long-term goal)? Can we ever be absolutely unselfish?
Yeah, I think you're right, Stephen: The hope of future reward makes "pure" motives practically impossible. Now, at certain, instinctive moments, an action may arise solely from "pure" motives, like a mother stopping a child from running out in front of a car, but once thought and reflection (distinctively human traits) enter in, "pure" motives seem to be impossible. Interestingly, I don't think motive was such a big deal until the Middle Ages (especially with a theo-philosopher named Peter Abelard in the 12th century). Maybe our over-emphasis on deeds has caused us to over-emphasize motives, as a kind of backlash. Long before the Middle Ages, the great St. Augustine said this: "Love, and do whatever you want." Maybe we've completely missed the boat by focusing on motives instead of love. Love, love, love... dah-dah-dah-dah, love, love, love...
Hi! Come across your blog because we have the same blog title!
Post a Comment
<< Home