The Law and the Heart
July 22, 2010
It is indeed a most lamentable consequence of the practice of regarding religion as a compilation of statutes, and not as an internal principle, that it soon comes to be considered as being conversant about external actions, rather than about habits of mind. This sentiment sometimes has even the hardiness to insinuate and maintain itself under the guise of extraordinary concern for practical religion; but it soon discovers the falsehood of this pretension, and betrays its real nature. The expedient indeed of attaining to superiority in practice, by not wasting any of the attention on the internal principles from which alone practice can flow, is about as reasonable, and will answer about as well, as the economy of the architect who should account it mere prodigality to expend any of his materials in laying foundations, from an idea that they might be more usefully applied to the raising of the superstructure. We know what would be the fate of such an edifice.
It is indeed true, and a truth never to be forgotten, that all pretensions to internal principles of holiness are vain, when they are contradicted by the conduct; but it is no less true, that the only effectual way of improving the latter, is by a vigilant attention to the former. It was therefore our blessed Savior’s injunction, “Make the tree good” as the necessary means of obtaining good fruit; and the holy Scriptures abound in admonitions, to let it be our chief business to cultivate our hearts with all diligence, to examine into their state with impartiality, and watch over them with continual care. Indeed it is the heart which constitutes the man; and external actions derive their whole character and meaning from the motives and dispositions of which they are the indications. . . .
Yet though this be a truth so obvious, so established, that to have insisted on it may seem almost needless; it is a truth of which we are apt to lose sight in the review of our religious character, and with which the habit of considering religion as consisting rather in external actions than internal principles, is at direct and open war
Another excerpt from William Wilberforce, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity (1797). The book is available in its entirety at the link. Here is a three-page pdf file of this excerpt, plus last week’s excerpt plus surrounding text. Note that, as was common in his day, when Wilberforce uses the word “religion,” he most often is referring solely to Christianity.
Comments
3 Responses to “The Law and the Heart”
Got something to say?
Allow me to make an observation on the analogy implied in the following phrase from the excerpt above: ” ‘Make the tree good” ” as the necessary means of obtaining good fruit.” “Make the tree good” implies that the tree is not good in and of itself; and that apart from some “intervention” to “make” the tree good, it will not produce good fruit. In the quote cited the author implies that the only way to obtain “good” fruit is to “make” the tree good. In other words, apart from some human effort to “make” the tree good, it will not yeild good fruit. This, of course, is an entirely “homocentric” viewpoint. The tree- and the fruit- is only good if it is good for me- as a human being. In other words, what is “good” is what is good relative to me as a human being. Consider this: Is an apple tree “good” in and of itself? Or is it “good” only as it relates to my needs? Can I make an apple tree “good”? Is the concept of “goodness” only relative to myself as a human being? In other words, can an apple tree- and thus its fruit- be “good” in and of itself”? Or can it be “good” only if “we” “make” it good? How do we “make” it “good”? Were there no “good” apples until the advent of human interaction with apple trees? Does “good” in this sense only refer to a human perspective? How would we- qua humans- be capable of understanding it in any other way?
I think that we would want to say that indeed an apple tree (and its fruit) has some “goodness” apart from its relationship to human needs and desires. But can we, despite “wanting to”, do that? How do we establish that as the “truth”? Is it possible for us, as humans to “examine into their [our hearts] state with impartiality”? Wilberforce’s tree analogy belies the fact that, as human beings, it is not possible for us to examine our hearts with impartiality. The concept of “goodness” in relation to fruit trees or the human heart is entirely a “homocentric” matter. “Goodness” is relative to the human condition.
Wilberforce is quoting Jesus from Matthew 12:33. In Luke 3:43-46 Jesus goes into more detail on the image:
“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”
“Good” is clearly related to doing what Jesus says – and doing this both internally and externally. Thus this is not a man-centered viewpoint but a God-centered one. Jesus says, “Your heart and your actions must be aligned with what I say if you are to be good.”