We were once contacted by a lady in relation to an episode within the Bible class of a church she had recently begun attending. The teacher of the class had vociferously and dogmatically asserted that the biblical "days" of creation represented twenty-four hour periods of time. It was soon apparent that on this as well as other points of possibly alternate opinion, one's options were limited to either agreeing with him or being wrong.
To her regret, this lady had suggested that perhaps the essential point here was not so much one's defining of the term "day" as in recognizing that by right of creation the earth belongs to God and that following Adam's self-assertive failure both earth and mankind had come under judgment - thus setting the stage for God's redemptive plan. As the underlying theme of Scripture, might not this constitute the more important emphasis? Her remarks served only to incite further dogmatism. In our assuring the lady that she had not been wrong, we also pointed out that Scripture itself had subsequently defined the seven days of creation as "the day [singular] in which the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" (Gen. 2:4).
The lady was considerably troubled by what had taken place. Our further answer to her went something like this: While wisdom is little served by arguing with such dogmatists, the individual to whom she referred is apparently possessed of a need to demonstrate his spirituality by means of superior knowledge (cf. I Cor. 8:1-3). Persons of this nature seldom change - as witness the spiritually self-absorbed of Jesus' day. So why afford the gentleman the opportunity he seeks by responding to his efforts to gain attention and recognition? (The concerned lady, we might as well mention, is a rather close relative.)
It all brought to mind the uncertaining I used to experience relative to Paul's appeal to "you who are spiritual" in the Galatian church (Ga. 6:1). Would not such require a certain self-estimation somewhat analogous to Ben Franklin's observation that "The moment I think I have it [i.e., humility], I have lost it"? Does not one's sense of superior spirituality, in and of itself, become self-negating? Indeed, the apostle continues, "If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself" (vs. 3).
Within this frame of reference, we recall an instance in which, with regard to an essentially peripheral matter at a church business meeting, one individual advised the membership that, "those of us who are spiritual see it this way." Simply stated, the defining mark of such pseudo-spirituality is basically two fold: 1.) focus on self, and 2.) need for dominance and control. To the degree that such is achieved, Jesus observes, "they have their reward."
What then of Paul's appeal to "you who are spiritual?" We must first recognize that the word "spiritual" carries the sense of "pertaining to spirit." Hence the fact that the apostle's exhortation immediately follows his listing of the "fruit of the Spirit" as involving inner quality and relational attributes in terms of others (Gal. 5:22-25).
Secondly, the exhortation itself becomes self-defining. In the awareness of one's own vulnerability ("lest you also be tempted," Gal. 6:1), the truly spiritual desire the weak brother's progress and growth in the faith. Not only so, but the fact that "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6; I Pet. 5:5) lends further incentive in maintaining an objective sense of what it means to be "spiritual."
We need, do we not, to frequently remind ourselves?
Burl Ratzsch
