Wilkie Au, S.J. 

CHAPTER FIVE

IS GOD THE TELLING
INFLUENCE IN MY LIFE?

"God desires our independence-which we attain when, 
ceasing to strive for it ourselves, we 'fall' back into God.'' (1)
DAG HAMMARSK]OLD, Markings

"OBEDIENCE" IS A term that disturbs many people, especially when it is applied to adults. Children should obey; dogs are sent to obedience school. But, the concept of obedience seems incompatible with notions of mature adulthood and personal autonomy. How are Christians to make sense of obedience as a virtue distinguishing their lives as followers of Jesus, who "learnt obedience, Son though he was, through his sufferings" (Heb 5:8)? Can contemporary Christians embrace obedience as a gospel value, without compromising their maturity as adults?

Obedience is, fundamentally, our affirmation of the good news that we are God's very own, chosen to be part of the family of God (Eph 1:14). As the letter to the Ephesians puts it, "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" has chosen "us in Christ before the world was made to be holy . . . and to be adopted" children (Eph 1:3-5). The heart of obedience lies in a joyful "yes" to this familial relationship with God. Through obedience, we humbly acknowledge that we have been created by a loving God and are called to express our gratitude through loving service. Accepting our nature as creatures, we confess that God is central to our lives, the raison d'etre of our existence.

"The obedience of faith," a phrase used by St. Paul, describes well our acceptance of God as the loving source and destiny of our lives. Speaking about his own role as a missionary to the Gentiles, Paul states in Romans: Through Christ "we have received grace and our apostolic mission of winning the obedience of faith among all the nations for the honor of his name" (1:5). His mission was to bring people to a surrender in faith to God. When we surrender to God in faith, we give up all our illusions about being totally self-sufficient and acknowledge our dependent relationship with a God who is both creator and Lord. In this fundamental sense, obedience is faith, and disobedience is unbelief.

In negative terms, disobedience is a denial of creaturehood. The spirit of disobedience deludes us into thinking that we are wholly self-reliant and a law unto ourselves. Thus, it militates against the kind of loving relationship with God that Jesus proclaimed to be the heart of our fulfillment as human beings. It leads to living a life that is totally devoid of any reference to a higher being from whom we receive all that is good. Disobedience is also human autonomy gone awry because it reflects an attitude of arrogance and domination. If we view human freedom and autonomy as absolute values, we will refuse to acknowledge anything that would interfere with our desire to be in complete control of our lives. This attitude makes us guard our independence like rebellious teenagers and pits us in opposition to God or anyone else who threatens our freedom. It al so impedes true interpersonal relationships because people who demand complete control of their lives are likely to treat others as objects. Avoiding closeness to others, such persons betray a deep insecurity about their identity as separate selves. They seem never to have developed an adequate sense of personal autonomy.

AUTONOMY AND OBEDIENCE

The ability to stand on one's own two feet, autonomy involves having a self-assured sense of oneself as unique and distinguishable from others. As such, autonomy is a mark of maturity. The developmental journey from childhood to adulthood requires that children gradually take upon themselves the authority that before had to be exercised by others. Acquiring an autonomous self involves a process called ego development. This process starts with the emergence of a self-concept, which helps infants to set themselves off as distinct from the wider environment of objects and people with whom they perceive themselves initially fused. Then through a sequence of stages, children gradually move from phases of dependence to adult independence. That movement is best understood as a zigzag pattern rather than as a straight line because it involves a struggle, in which there are alternating periods of dependence on parents and rebellion when the child tries to assert his or her independence. The negativity of the "terrible twos" and the stage of adolescent revolt illustrate the struggle. Perhaps the classic expression of the attempted assertion of independence during childhood is the young child who decides to run away from home.

Psychologist Robert Kegan recounts a delightful story that describes the quest for personal autonomy during childhood and the beautiful sensitivity of parents who try to support that struggle for individuality. An eight-year-old boy, deciding one afternoon that he had had it with his parents, declared his intentions to leave home. Trying to be sympathetic, the parents watched him pack a few things into a bag. They told him how much they would miss him and wished him well. As they watched discreetly from a window, their son walked away from the house and fell into playing with some neighborhood friends. Before too long it was dusk. The boy's friends quickly scattered for home and dinner. The parents watched their son as he stood for a long while by himself. He lingered for a long while by his little suitcase and then gradually, dejectedly started back home. Seeing the shame on their son's face and not wanting to humiliate him further, the parents were concerned about what would happen at their reunion. And so they ended up making what is often a wise choice when unsure of exactly what to do. When their son returned, they stayed seated, kept their mouths closed, and offered the boy a gentle undemanding attention. As they watched him sit down in a chair opposite them, they noticed that he too was quiet, pensive, self-absorbed. No one said a word. Finally the family cat dashed across the middle of the room. Looking up, the boy exclaimed, "I see you still have that old cat." (2)

Adult autonomy is achieved when people are both willing and able to leave home and live on their own. Taking responsibility for their own lives, autonomous adults are willing to make judgments and decisions. At the same time, they feel sufficiently confident of their independence to follow directions whenever they feel it is appropriate.

They value their own opinions while remaining open to the opinions of others without feeling threatened. As they grow in self-confidence, they experience a gradually decreasing emotional dependence on parents and others. While such individuals value the support of family and friends, they are confident of their ability to get along reliably well without them.

Furthermore, autonomous adults have their own present motives for doing what they do. Unlike Freudians who emphasize the force of motivational influences from the past, psychologist Gordon Allport states that most normal adult motives are contemporary and no longer related to roots in childhood. "The character of motives," Allport argues, "alters so radically from infancy to maturity that we may speak of adult motives as supplanting the motives of infancy." (3) His notion has been labeled "functional autonomy" to indicate that a habit-for example, practicing the violin at a certain hour each day-need not be tied to a motive from childhood. Although a musician may once have been spurred to mastery of the violin by a need to overcome inferiority feelings, his later love of music becomes functionally autonomous from its origin. According to Allport, the autonomy of an individual's motives is a measure of maturity. Having personal goals and a sense of purpose in life reflects the autonomy that we are all called to achieve in the journey towards adulthood.

A healthy sense of autonomy allows us to enjoy being individuals, while at the same time permitting us to respect the individuality of others. Autonomous persons are able to live peacefully with the inevitable restrictions imposed on personal freedom by the contingencies of group living. The rights of others always place limits on our own freedom. A mark of a healthy sense of autonomy is that it allows people to recognize the corresponding rights and individuality of others in the human community.

People who have not successfully achieved a healthy sense of independent selfhood are likely to struggle with authority and find cooperation with others threatening. They resist authority because anyone who has power over them is perceived as threatening. Reluctant to collaborate, they feel a resistance to going along with plans that others have suggested. They often appear to be irresponsible and willful because they disdain rules and regulations and fight against constraints. Such behavior reveals the dark side of autonomy. When personal autonomy is made an idol it easily leads to sin, disobedience and disorder. According to one writer, "The healthy drive towards autonomy is seduced and vitiated by an unhealthy drive towards egoism and pride." (4) Human autonomy can never be absolute. Yet we are constantly fooled by Satan's promise: "You will be like gods" (Gn 3:5). It is certainly significant that the sin of Adam (humankind) is presented in Genesis as disobedience arising from an overweening desire for autonomy-the very autonomy of God.

JESUS: AUTONOMOUS YET OBEDIENT

The modern problem of obedience requires reconciling personal autonomy with submission to the lordship of God. The example of Jesus, therefore, is key because in his obedient accomplishment of the mission given to him by God, Jesus retained his autonomy and freedom as a mature adult. The primary model of Christian obedience must be that of the adult Jesus. By following the footsteps of Christ, we can integrate autonomy and obedience, initiative and availability, creativity and receptivity.

The gospels clearly portray Jesus as someone with a strong sense of personal autonomy. He possessed a sense of who he was and what he wished to accomplish in life. His deeply rooted sense of identity and purpose allowed him to stay true to his goals, even when misunderstood by his own family, deserted by his early followers, and ridiculed by the religious establishment. In Mark 3:21, we re ad that his relatives "set out to take charge of him convinced he was out of his mind." Moreover, according to John's gospel, many of Jesus' disciples "left him and stopped going with him" (Jn 6:66), after hearing him proclaim that "if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you" (Jn 6:53). Near the end of his public ministry, Jesus' life was in danger and hence he "no longer went about openly among the Jews" (Jn 11:54). Following the raising of Lazarus and all the excitement stirred up by that event, the chief priests and Pharisees decided that Jesus should be killed to maintain law and order and to reduce the risk of armed intervention by the Romans.

Despite widespread opposition, Jesus pursued his mission with dogged determination. "As the time drew near for him to be taken up to heaven, he resolutely took the road for Jerusalem and sent messengers ahead of him" (Lk 9:51). The Greek text of Luke says literally that Jesus "set his face" towards Jerusalem, a Semitic expression used often in the Old Testament to connote opposition and hostility. Thus, setting his face toward the city where his mission would be fulfilled, is a symbol of Jesus' single-minded determination.

Although all four gospels present Jesus' constant journeying, only the Lukan journey narrative (9:51 to 19:28) delineates the goal so c1ear before his eyes. Jesus is here portrayed as a man on the move, with a strong sense of mission. The reader gets the sense that Jesus' campaign is stepping into full swing, as he sends out his disciples ahead of him like advance men in a presidential election. There is a sense of urgency, as Jesus' steps lead relentlessly to Jerusalem. On the way, he warns would-be followers that they must tolerate hardships because "the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (Lk 9:58). He al so admonishes those who want to delay in joining him that there is no ti me to lose. To one potential follower, he says: "Leave the dead to bury their dead; your duty is to go and spread the news of the kingdom of God" (9:60). And to another who wants first to return home to say goodbye to his family, Jesus says: "Once the hand is laid on the plough, no one who looks back is fit for the kingdom of God" (9:62). These responses sound harsh, unbending, and unreasonable, but they convey well the sense of urgency Jesus felt about his mission. Contemporary readers should not miss here Luke's use of hyperbole, the intentional use of exaggeration to make an effect. As scripture scholar Carroll Stuhlmueller states, "Jesus did not intend to be taken literally, but wanted to stir thought." (5) In any case, the invitation issued by Jesus to join his enterprise challenged the freedom of those who had to decide whether to follow him or not.

That Jesus was an autonomous person is unarguable. He stood his ground firmly and held on unwaveringly to his convictions in the face of bitter opposition. He al so kept his granite resolve to pursue his mission, even when slowed down by defections and disbelief. He also had his own motives for pursuing his course of action, which involved a treacherous journey to Jerusalem fraught with personal danger. Jesus makes explicit that he is not a tragic hero whose life is snatched from him by forces beyond his control. Rather, he asserts that "the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and as it is in my power to lay it down, so it is in my power to take it up again; and this is the command I have been given by my Father" (Jn 10:17-18).

Furthermore, the motive for Jesus' sacrificial action was clearly love of the Father. Although aware of outside influences, he remained unswayed by them. "I shall not talk with you any longer, because the prince of this world is on his way. He has no power over me, but the world must be brought to know that I love the Father and that I am doing exactly what the Father told me. Come now, let us go" (Jn 14:30-31). It is evident that Jesus' attachment to the Father motivates him to act. According to New Testament scholar David Stanley, this passage underscores "Jesus' complete freedom from any external coercion in carrying out God's designs for the salvation of the world. (6) "The prince of the world" who is the embodiment of evil had no coercive influence over him. The command that Jesus gives at the end of the passage, "Come, let us go," shows that he was in charge and self-possessed even in the midst of a crisis.

While Jesus exuded a strong sense of independence in all his actions, he was never seduced by the prince of the world into making his personal autonomy an idol. Jesus retained his identity and his freedom while maintaining throughout his life an unswerving attachment to his Father's will. In this, he demonstrated that personal autonomy need not be incompatible with obedience to God.

The supreme importance of obedience in the life of Jesus is illustrated throughout the gospel of John. Consistently, Jesus links his personal identity to his filial relationship with God, whose work he was sent into the world to accomplish.

My food is to do the will of the one who sent me, and to complete his work (Jn 4:34).

I can do nothing by myself; I can only judge as I am told to judge, and my judging is just, because my aim is to do not my own will, but the will of him who sent me (Jn 5:30).

When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of myself: what the Father has taught me is what I preach; he who sent me is with me, and has not left me to myself, for I always do what pleases him (Jn 8:28-29).

The world must be brought to know that I love the Father and that I am doing exactly what the Father told me (Jn 14:31).

These texts leave no doubt that Jesus valued obedience to his Father as strongly as he cherished his personal autonomy. Even more important, they convey the truth that his relationship with God formed the basis of his self-understanding. Jesus cannot be understood without reference to the one who sent him. His central identity as son links him inextricably to God as Father. The same is true for us. Our primary identity as creatures links us inextricably to God as creator. "Creatures" and "creator" are co-relative terms. They cannot be properly understood apart from each other, just as "up" cannot be understood apart from "down." This is why St. Ignatius of Loyola taught that the foundation of our spiritual life must be a deep awareness of our basic identity: we are creatures whose very existence depends on the graciousness of a loving creator and Lord. Disobedience, or the denial of creaturehood, leads to a distorted view of human life and separates us from God.

UNION WITH GOD THROUGH OBEDIENCE

Obedience, on the other hand, unites us to God in relationship. When we acknowledge with the obedience of faith that every good gift comes from a loving God, our hearts are filI ed with gratitude and a sense of indebtedness. We want to express our appreciation and to reciprocate love. As theologian Francis Baur states: "The spiritual person is the one who is animated by the giftedness of the universe, fascinated by the giftedness of life, especially one's own life, and hence quickened by the holy urgency to respond to that giftedness." (7) As Christians, our free and loving response to God's graciousness takes the form of loving obedience and service. Furthermore, it is through obedience that we become Jesus' disciples, his brothers and sisters. As the gospels remind us, Jesus calls his true relations those who do the will of his Father in heaven (Mk 3:31-35; Mt 12:46-50; Lk 8:19-21). Finally, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus highlights the importance of obedience for alI who want to be his followers.

It is not those who say to me, "Lord, Lord," who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?" Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evildoers! (Mt 7:21-23)

These are strong words! Jesus alludes to truly great deeds which, one would think, could only be done through divine power. What could be greater than to speak in God's name and to cast out evil from the possessed? Nevertheless, if alI of this is not God's will, those who perform sue h acts are calIed "evildoers." As this passage underscores so clearly, it is obedience that links our lives to God and makes our actions pleasing to the Lord.

DISTORTED NOTIONS OF OBEDIENCE

Merely doing what one is told, however, is not Christian obedience. In the era before pre-Vatican II, many people had the impression that Christian obedience consisted in childish compliance. This belief was partially influenced by a paternalistic voice from the pulpit telling them that "the duty of Christians is to pray, pay, and obey." Although the council made bishops and priests more sensitive about paternalism and clericalism, distorted notions of obedience persist in the church today. Before discussing the nature of genuine Christian obedience, it would be helpful to expose some false forms.

Obedience, if it is not to impede the adult maturity of Christians, must not be confused with mindless conformity and inaction. None of the following, for example, can be mistaken for authentic obedience: submitting passively to an abusive parent; yielding obsequiously to a tyrannical boss; placating a domineering spouse; or acquiescing fearfully to an authority figure. Christian obedience should not be based on fear, pragmatic necessity, or insecurity; nor should it be motivated by the desire for external approval or the rewards that come to those who quietly conform. All of these deficient motives have ill effects on people's lives. Like the obedience of Jesus, genuine adult obedience must be based on freely chosen motives and centered on the love of God. In imitation of Jesus, we are called to follow the lead of God's spirit which has been given to us to guide our lives.

WHEN GOD IS THE TELLING INFLUENCE IN ONE'S LIFE

Authentic Christian obedience exists when we recognize God's influence upon our lives and when we experience ourselves finding God in what we do. The root meaning of "obedience" is the Latin oboedire meaning "to listen." Thus, obedience involves prayerfully attuning ourselves to the word of God in the many ways in which it is addressed to us. God's voice can be heard in many places: in scripture, in the teaching of the church, in other people, in the signs of the times, in our consciences, and in the stirrings of our hearts. Because the whole world is the vocabulary of God, all reality can communicate the Lord's guidance. We must be sensitive to the promptings of the Lord everywhere-in our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, as well as in the opinion of others.

In short, Christian obedience consists in listening sensitively to the word of God speaking in our lives and submitting to it in loving trust. This obedient attentiveness can take a variety of forms. It can appear as a basic acceptance of ourselves, or an enthusiastic response to a special calling within the Christian community, or the "Amen" in accepting illness, failure and finally, death. We are obedient Christians when we pray with the prophet Samuel, "Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening" (1 Sam 3:10).

Christian obedience does not always guarantee that we are in fact doing God's will. Nevertheless, our desire to open our lives to the guiding influence of God will inevitably draw us closer to God. Thomas Merton expresses the genuine spirit of Christian obedience beautifully in a prayer.

My Lord God,
I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.
Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am
following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.
And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this you will lead me through the right road
though I may know nothing about it.
Therefore, I will trust you always though I may seem to be lost and
in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for you are ever with me, 
and you will never leave me to face my peril alone. (8)

THE VOW OF OBEDIENCE

In their search for God's will, some Christians feel call ed to take a vow of obedience within a religious order. Their desire to vow obedience stems from their conviction that the will of God for them can be best found by living within a particular religious group. They believe that the women or men whom they are attracted to join are sufficiently prayerful and in tune with the Spirit that the Lord's will can be authentically mediated for them through the authority structures of that community. They are al so convinced that they can better discern the will of God in a group of like-minded and similarly vowed Christians than they could operating alone. Furthermore, they believe that the church, by giving its official stamp of approval to these religious orders, guarantees that the spirituality of these groups represents a fruitful path to holiness. Seen in this light, the vow is merely a means that some Christians use to respond to the call shared by all Christians to live united with God's will.

OBEDIENCE AS TRUST IN DIVINE PROVIDENCE

An important reason why religious vow obedience is the desire to surrender their lives to the Lord in trust. Representing a generous self-offering, the vow is taken with the hope that the Lord, in accepting this gift, will enter more fully into their lives to dispose and shape them according to the divine pleasure. In relinquishing control, those who vow obedience testify to their belief that God desires what is best for them and can be trusted.

"God always throws a better party!" is another way of expressing this underlying attitude. A Jesuit friend once shared a part of his life story with me that concretely illustrates how God's providence often works through the human dynamics of obedience. When he was a young seminarian living in New York in the early 1950s, about to start the study of theology in preparation for ordination, he received a severe disappointment. Instead of being assigned to Woodstock College, Maryland, then the preeminent Jesuit school of theology in America, he was sent across the country to Alma College, a Jesuit theologate isolated in the mountains of northern California. This assignment created a crisis of obedience for him. For a bright and sophisticated New Yorker, being shipped off to the West was like being banished to a cultural wasteland. But, firmly committed to his vow of obedience, he reluctantly went West and spent four years there.

More than thirty years later, after returning to New York, his health had deteriorated to the point where his doctors urged him to return to California. At that point, he was forced to abandon his niche in New York and start anew. But to his surprise, he quickly discovered a new home in a distant country. Uprooted though he was, he was not lonely or isolated. In California, he was given a warm welcome by his old classmates from Alma College and quickly made to feel at home. In retrospect, he realized that his disappointing assignment to California thirty years prior had laid the groundwork for a future blessing. His subsequent life in Los Angeles was filled with happiness in community and obvious success in ministry. Shortly before his death, he shared his story with me to illustrate the importance of trusting in God's providence working within the framework of religious obedience. Sometimes the wisdom of God's ways may not be immediately evident. But when the other shoe finally drops, it becomes clear that the God to whom we vow obedience is indeed a faithful and trustworthy Lord.

A Talmudic story about a certain Rabbi Akiba illustrates well how Yahweh has a way of wringing good out of bad situations and how we must trust in a God whose ways are not always our ways.

In the turbulent first century, the rabbi once traveled in a strange country where mystery still dwelt. He had taken with him three possessions-an ass, a rooster, and a lamp-and had stopped at night in a village where he hoped to find lodging. When the people there drove him out, he was forced to spend the night in a forest nearby. But Rabbi Akiba bore all pains with ease, being heard always to say, "All that God does is done well." So he found a tree under which to stop, lit his lamp, and prepared to study Torah briefly before going to sleep. But a fierce wind suddenly blew out the flame, leaving him with no choice but to rest. Later that night wild animals carne through and chased away his rooster. Still later, thieves passed by and took his ass. Yet in each case, Rabbi Akiba simply responded by saying, "All that God does is done well."

The next morning he returned to the village where he had stopped the night before, only to learn that enemy soldiers had come by in the night, killing everyone in their beds. Had he been permitted to stay there, he too would have died. He learned also that the raiding army had traveled through the same part of the forest where he had slept. If they had seen the light of his lamp, if the rooster had crowed, or if the ass had brayed, again he would have been killed. And how did Rabbi Akiba respond? He simply replied as he always did, "All that God does is done well." (9)

Trust in divine providence, however, does not remove the need for personal responsibility. Allowing room for God to act graciously on our behalf is an important aspect of Christian obedience. Nevertheless, it must be balanced by an active component, which requires that we use all our human resources and talents to further God's desires for us. Without creative human initiative, religious obedience can become irresponsible and immature.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILlTY AND MATURE OBEDIENCE

The renewal of religious life since Vatican II has certainly challenged men and women to live their vows in ways that do not impede personal maturity. Twenty years ago, John Courtney Murray spelled out this challenge in a talk to fellow Jesuits. He warned that religious obedience poses a real danger to personal development if it fosters the abdication of responsibility for one's life choices. Obedience is a perilous path to personal maturity because this vow, if poorly lived out, produces people "who to a degree are purposeless, their lives not consciously and strongly patterned, not inwardly directed toward a determined goal with all the organized power of the whole self. " (10) The vow can provide an escape from bruising encounters with oneself, with one's own powers and the problems of their full exercise towards the achievement of a determined purpose.

Vowed religious can succumb to the trap posed by obedience by being overly submissive to authority figures in order to gain acceptance or to enjoy a kind of infantile dependence free from the anguish of personal decision making. Those who manifest these forms of immature behavior often justify their way of acting in spiritual terms, thus disguising what they are actually doing. When they say that they "just want to follow God's (or the superior's) will," it is sometimes simply a rationalization to defend their unwillingness to take responsibility for themselves. This becomes obvious when the superior has no strong feelings or particular preference about what should happen, and in fact would like the religious to assume some independent initiative and to indicate a clear preference.

Acknowledging this threat to maturity, a document on Jesuit formation makes clear that "the more the novices are stimulated to assume responsibilities with prudent and discerning charity, the more successfully will they acquire spiritual maturity and the more freely will they adhere to their vocation. " (11) Mature obedience is unattainable apart from the constant cultivation of a spirit of initiative and responsibility. (12)

RESPONSIBLE OBEDIENCE THROUGH A DISCERNMENT PROCESS

To foster personal responsibility within the framework of religious obedience, I have used the following eight-step model to teach novices a way of practicing discernment:

Step 1: Identify the decision to be made or the issue to be resolved. 
Step 2: Examine the underlying values or concerns (human, Christian, religious, and Jesuit) involved.
Step 3: Take time to pray over the matter, paying attention to how one is being drawn or led.
Step 4: Discuss the matter with a spiritual director.
Step 5: Dialogue with the superior and engage in a mutual search for God's will in the matter.
Step 6: Strive for a state of Ignatian "indifference," that is, a state of inner freedom and balance which allows one antecedently not to incline more towards one option than to another, but to allow one's preference to be shaped by the single criterio n of what will be most to God's glory. This state of equipoise makes possible the acceptance of whatever decision or resolution is finally determined to be for God's greater glory.
If a person is unable to achieve "indifference," discussing the matter in spiritual direction can bring valuable self-knowledge and clarity about how best to proceed in the search for God's will. Perhaps, more prayer and dialogue with the superior regarding conflicting values and perspectives may be needed before a peaceful closure and decision can be arrived at.
Step 7: Accept the superior's decision with trust in God's providence at work within the dynamics of religious obedience.
Step 8: Stay open to the emerging data of ongoing experience to check for confirmation. In a study of Ignatian obedience, John Futrell states that "the principal means of confirmation of the decisions of the superior . . . are the mutual contentment of himself and his companions and the proof of living experience." (13) If there is serious doubt that the superior's decision truly reflects God's will, the process of prayer, consultation, and dialogue must begin again.

This discernment process promotes personal responsibility and growth because it requires the active participation of those seeking God's will. In coming to a decision, they must work with their religious superior, rather than have things fully decided or resolved for them from above. Step l requires them to invest in the process by defining the parameters of the issue from their personal point of view. Step 2 involves a process of values clarification in which they state the values that are at stake in the decision. Steps 3 and 4 give them the chance to critique these values, both alone in prayer and together with a spiritual director. Steps 2, 3, and 4 press them to ask an important twofold question: "Am I free to pursue my values?" and "Are they worth the pursuit?" By requiring them to come to some kind of tentative decision before dialoguing with their superior, these steps deepen their sense of being a self, because decision making forces people to claim their desires and convictions. Finally, if attained, the spiritual attitude of Ignatian indifference provides them with the inner freedom that guarantees that their act of autonomous choice can be integrated with religious obedience. For in the end, Ignatian indifference allows them to accept whatever is decided with both a sense of having done their part as responsible adults and of being faithful to their commitment to obedience.

THE DISCERNMENT PROCESS IN LAY LIFE

This discernment model, while useful to those in religious life, can also be fruitfully employed by lay people. The first three steps can be followed just as described. Steps l and 2 clarify the issues and values involved by requiring reflection and thought. Step 3 moves beyond thought to prayer: we ask for God's guidance and try to be sensitive to how we are being drawn when the matter is brought to prayer. Here it is important to remember what was said in Chapter III regarding the interplay of reason, affect, and religious experience in the decision making process. God can influence us through our thoughts as well as through our feelings of consolation and desolation in prayer. Because discerning the movements of God can often be a complex task requiring assistance, Step 4 calls for getting help by sharing our deliberation with a spiritual companion. This spiritual guide could be a trusted friend, counselor, or minister. The important thing is that it be a perso n who is committed to finding God's will and being honest and persevering in the search. Because we are capable of being deceived, especially when trying to decide on matters that are deeply personal and emotional, we need help to be objective and honest.

Step 5, which asks the religious to discern the matter with her or his superior, contains an important element that lay persons should al so factor into their discernment. It is the element of communication with those who will be intimately affected by the decision being made. Too often decisions that affect spouses, children, and other loved ones are made unilaterally, without engaging the participation of those who have a right to be involved. These decisions, for example, may pertain to changing jobs, selling the house and moving, or caring for aging parents. Religious involve their superior in the discernment process because the superior represents the community, which is the central interpersonal matrix of religious life. Lay Christians, too, must make an effort whenever appropriate to ensure that important decisions are not made alone, but shared with the significant people in their lives.

By calling for Ignatian indifference, Step 6 contains an important aspect of discernment that applies equally to lay and religious life. By indifference Ignatius meant a radical openness to doing only what best leads to one's holiness and God's glory. It entails a strong attachment to God as the only absolute value in reality; everything in creation is seen as having only relative worth. Unfortunately, "indifference" is a bad choice of a word to convey Ignatius' meaning, since it often connotes apathy and complacency. The notion has nothing to do with the absence of feelings, nor does it mean disinterest in people and situations. In the Genesis account of God's testing of Abraham's obedience, we have a clear illustration of Ignatian indifference. Although he deeply loved Isaac, the long hoped-for fulfillment of a covenant promise, Abraham possessed the freedom and trust to let go of his dear son if that was what God required. Without doubt, God was the telling influence in his life. Similarly, indifference invites Christians to make God the telling influence in all their desires, decisions, and actions. Indifference is an inner freedom to choose only what leads them closer to God and to achieving their purpose in life.

Step 7 calls for the religious to accept the superior's decision with trust in God's providence at work within the dynamics of religious obedience. For lay persons, this step requires them to trust in God and to decide, even in the absence of certitude. Sometimes fears and doubts can paralyze people and cause them to procrastinate in making important decisions. Christians are called to live boldly and decisively. They must act, even though their carefully discerned decisions may remain clouded by uncertainty. They are called to trust in God's power at work bringing good out of everything. As St. Paul says in Romans: "W e know that by turning everything to their good God cooperates with all those who love him" with all those who have been called according to God's purpose (8:28). Finally, both religious and lay persons must be alert to their ongoing experience to verify whether their decision was good or not. If there is serious doubt that a decision truly reflects God's will, they must repeat the process by taking the matter up again in prayer, reflection, and dialogue.

PROJECTION AS AN OBSTACLE TO MATURE OBEDIENCE

God and others (parents, spouses, religious superiors, employers) are sometimes made accountable for the decisions of people who refuse to take responsibility for their lives as autonomous adults. These responsibility-shirking individuals make God or other authority figures accountable for choices that stem less from a process of spiritual discernment, and more from an unconscious distortion that blurs the distinction between the self and others. When the distinction between self and others is lost sight of, the danger of abdicating personal responsibility is great. A common cause of this confusion between self and others is projection, a defense mechanism that allows people to disown or deny unwanted feelings, attitudes, and traits by assigning them to others. Whereas repression appeared to be the most used defense during Freud's time, psychologist James Simkin speculates that projection is now by far the most commonly encountered defense. (14) People unconsciously project onto other persons those attitudes, attributes, and traits that they find unacceptable in themselves or are unwilling to claim as their own. They then blame and castigate the other person for whatever they do not like in themselves.

Projection is an obstacle to mature obedience when it fosters passivity and encourages Christians to blame others for what happens to them. Blaming others greatly impedes their active engagement in the process of desiring, discerning, and choosing - all legitimate aspects of the process by which they can come to know and do the will of God. The following are examples of possible projection:

-"I'm in a rut, but superiors won't let me take the risks of changing ministry or trying something new." (To probe for possible projection here, the clarifying question is: Is the unwillingness to risk actually coming from superiors, or is the person attributing his or her own unwillingness to superiors?)

-"l've no time to relax because my wife/husband expects so much from me." (Here the clarifying question is: Whose expectations are preventing the individual from getting proper rest, his or her own or the spouse's?)

- "I know I made a bad choice, but God expects us to live with our mistakes, no matter what." (Once again, the question is: Whose expectation is it really? God's or the individual's?)

PROJECTION AND DISTORTED IMAGES OF GOD

Just as we project unwanted attitudes and emotions unto others, we also project them onto our image of God. Speaking of this kind of projected image of God, J.B. Phillips states, in Your God is Too Small, "A harsh and puritanical society will project its dominant qualities and probably postulate a hard and puritanical god. A lax and easy-going society will probably produce a god with about as much moral authority as Father Christmas." (15) The psychological phenomenon of projection, therefore, exposes us to the danger of imaging a god with attitudes, feelings, and traits like our own-and with the same blind spots.

The resulting images are naturally distorted and consequently easily destroy the possibility of mature Christian obedience. For example, when our dominant image of God is that of a merciless tyrant, our corresponding response of obedience can only be servile. When our dominant image is that of resident policeman, then our response can only be fearful; when it is that of a judge, then our obedience can only be guilt-ridden. And when it is that of a demanding parent, obedience tends to be infantile and childish. The connection between our father or parent-image of early childhood and our later conception of God is obvious, especially in those of us who exhibit an abnormal fear of authority or an apprehensive attitude towards God. Destroying the possibility of a free and loving surrender to God's influence, this fear can often be traced to the tyranny of a dominating parent. When it is not recognized as the result of a false image of God and is permitted to dominate our religious consciousness, it undermines Christian obedience which has nothing to do with being fearful, servile, childish, and guilt-ridden.

GLORIFIED SELF-IMAGE

Related to projection, another obstacle to mature obedience arises from a compulsiveness rooted in one's self-image. Psychologist Karen Horney describes how some personalities, in order to make up for deep feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and insignificance, gradually and unconsciously create in their imaginations an idealized image of themselves. In the process, they endow themselves with unlimited powers and develop an overrated or glorified self-image. They come eventually to identify themselves with their idealized image. Then, instead of remaining a visionary image which they secretly cherish, "the idealized image becomes an idealized self." In other words, they imperceptibly become this image. This brings about an alienation from self because, according to Horney this idealized self becomes more real to [the neurotic] than his real self, not primarily because it is more appealing but because it answers all his stringent needs. This transfer of his center of gravity is an entirely inward process; there is no observable or conspicuous outward change in him. The change is in his feelings about himself. (16)

Horney terms this process of self-idealization a "comprehensive neurotic solution" because it promises implicitly to satisfy all the inner needs that have arisen in an individual at a given time. Furthermore, "it promises not only a riddance from . . . painful and unbearable feelings (feeling lost, anxious, inferior, and divided), but in addition an ultimately mysterious fulfillment" of oneself and one's life. (17) It is no wonder that this idealized self has such a tenacious hold on the person. These promises shift the person's energies from driving toward self-realization to illusory actualizing of an idealized self. Such a person often exhibits the need for perfection which aims at nothing short of molding the whole personality into the idealized self. This drive for perfection is sought through a complicated system of "shoulds" and taboos. Horney describes the emergence of "the tyranny of the should" in the neurotic personality:

. . . the neurotic sets to work to mold himself into a supreme being of his own making. He holds before his soul his image of perfection and unconsciously tells himself: "Forget about the disgraceful creature you actually are; this is how you should be; and to be this idealized self is all that matters. You should be able to endure everything, to understand everything, to like everybody, to be always productive" -to mention only a few of these inner dictates. Since they are inexorable, I call them "the tyranny of the should. " (18)

TYRANNY OF THE SHOULD

The tyranny of the should frequently invites projection. It directly hinders mature obedience when those driven by perfectionism blame others for these inner demands. In some cases, these expectations may in fact originate from individuals who impose their demands for perfection onto others. However, when no one in the person's present or past environment can be identified as the source of these felt demands, the person may be projecting.

God, parents, and superiors are prime targets for projection by neurotic personalities, who are unaware of the over exacting demands of perfectionism originating in the self and who are searching for a source of these demands outside of themselves. Some Christians drive themselves too hard in order to please some inner voice demanding perfection. This voice may be their own demands or the residue of childhood training, but it is unlikely to be the voice of the power behind the universe.

The pivotal question for those driven by perfection is "Where are the shoulds coming from?" If they experience these demands as coming from some outside source, they may very well be victims of authority figures who themselves are plagued by an idealized self and the tyranny of the should. These authority figures may fit Horney's description of the neurotic whose drive for perfection is externalized and imposed on others: "[this] person may primarily impose his standards upon others and make relentless demands as to their perfection. The more he feels himself the measure of all things, the more he insists not upon general perfection but upon his particular norms being measured up to. The failure of others to do so arouses his contempt or anger."19 If this is the situation, clearly no projection is involved, and those in authority need to be confronted. If, however, the source of the shoulds is within, the perfectionist needs to confront himself or herself with that truth.

Those driven by the tyranny of the should often feel that their despotic dictates come from outside (from God, superiors, parents, spouses, or others in the community). They frequently react in one of two ways, both of which indicate a compulsive overreaction rather than a free and mature response to authority. They either swallow the self through a compliance that is childish and self-depreciating or they try to salvage the self through a rebellion that is adolescent and self defeating. Both reactions preclude the possibility of mature obedience and affective maturity.

Presented here are three awareness exercises designed to deal with projection in one's obedience or to help others to do so in spiritual direction or religious formation. The first is a fantasy exercise useful to illustrate how susceptible we all are to using the defense mechanism of projection. The second, an exercise on images of God, is intended to help uncover projected images that demean religious obedience. The third is a clarification exercise aimed at helping people understand the various inner demands that, if left unexamined, can diminish their freedom.

A GROUP PROJECTION FANTASY: "THAT MA N IS YOU" (2 SAM 12:7)

Purpose
To understand through a personal experience the dynamics of projection.

Procedure
(1) In small groups of 4-5 people, ask for a volunteer to take on the role of focus person.
(2) Instruct the remainder of the group to create a fantasy revolving around the focus person. Each person is to fantasize an episode in which the focus person is the central character.
(3) Each person then shares his or her fantasy with the focus person and the rest of the group.
(4) After each person has shared his or her fantasy, the facilitator addresses the following questions:
       (a) To the focus person: "Which part(s) of the fantasy can you identify with and own? Which part(s) can you not identify with and own?"
      (b) To the creators of each fantasy: "Which part(s) can you identify with and own?"
(5) Discuss the responses to the questions above.

This fantasy exercise frequently shocks people into realizing how prone they are to projection. More often than not, participants will be forced to admit that many parts, if not all, of their fantasy had little to do with the focus person. Rather it represented projected materials from their own lives, such as their own needs, desires, and feelings.

This experiential awareness provides the participants with a fresh opportunity to live with greater responsibility, which according to Fritz Perls, the founder of Gestalt Therapy, means simply to be willing to say "I am l" and "I am what I am." To be a responsible self is to admit to one's projections and to reidentify with them. Honest admission of our condition contributes to growth by freeing us to perceive alternative responses to our lives.

WINDOW ON GOD: MAKING IMPLICIT IMAGES EXPLICIT

Purpose
To raise to explicit consciousness the images of God that influence one's life and behaviors.

Procedure
(1) Divide a sheet of paper in half with a straight horizontal line, and then in quarters with a straight vertical line down the middle. The sheet should now resemble an old-fashioned window with four panes.
(2) In the first pane, express God with a drawing, symbols, or words as he has been presented or taught to you by parents, teachers, and friends.
(3) In the second pane, express (once again through a drawing, symbols, or words) the image of God you have formed from your own experiences or personal search. Here you might describe moments when you experienced God in prayer, whether in happy or difficult times.
(4) In the third pane, express the image of the God whom you obey. 
(5) After finishing the three panes, study your page and note what the juxtaposition of the three images gives rise to in you in terms of insights, questions, and feelings.
(6) In the fourth pane, jot down how your images of God affect your life of obedience.

Comments on the Exercise

The value of this exercise is that it can help us see how inconsistent we often are in the way we view God. At times, our image of God reflects the maturity of adult faith because it is based on personal religious experience and theological reflection. At other times, our conception of God is still influenced by the outdated notions of God that we acquired uncritically in early childhood and adolescence. Realization of this discrepancy can foster adult obedience by ensuring that the image of the God we obey matches more closely our adult understanding rather than that acquired as children. In the ordinary course of faith development, maturity comes when our image of God is less filled with projected matter from the past, and more flexibly formed by the present revelation of the living God, who is "beyond all knowledge" (Eph 3:19).

THE "CROCK OF SHOULDS": RESISTING THE TYRANNY OF SHOULDS

Purpose
First, to help a person to become more aware of the shoulds he or she is experiencing in the present; second, to recognize the source of these inner dictates; and third, to clarify how he or she wishes to respond to each of them.

Procedure
(1) Make a list of the shoulds you are experiencing in your life in the present. Make your statements brief and simple, expressing directly what you feel you ought to be doing and feeling without giving any reasons or explanations. Give life to your pen. Be as spontaneous as possible, trying not to filter or censor what automatically surfaces in your consciousness. Merely record what occurs at each moment. Continue to list these "I shoulds" for 10-15 minutes. Write down whatever comes to mind, even if it means repeating yourself.
(2) Look over the list and put a plus (+) next to the statements about which you feel positive, an "x" next to those about which you feel negative, and a question mark (?) next to those about which you have ambivalent feelings.
(3) Try to identify the source of the shoulds that stir up negative feelings by asking "Where is this should coming from?" Can you associate any of these negative shoulds with a face or voice? Are these shoulds being imposed from someone in the environment or do they originate in yourself? Perhaps they originally carne from someone in the environment, but have since been internalized to such a degree that it would be truer to say that the source is within yourself.
(4) Once the source of the negative shoulds is identified, ask yourself how you want to respond to each at this time in your life. If the source is someone other than yourself, it could be someone dose by, distant, or even dead (since death ends a life, not a relationship). Knowledge of the source will help you decide how you want to and can respond.

Comments on the Exercise

The value of this exercise is that it can clarify, for those driven or paralyzed by the tyrannical voices of inner shoulds, where the battle for personal freedom is to be fought-with someone in the environment or within oneself. If the source of shoulds is actually within oneself and being projected onto others, it would be fruitless and destructive to look for a solution outside oneself.
This exercise al so helps a person to recognize shoulds that elicit positive feelings. Perhaps it would be more proper to label these as "wants" rather than "shoulds." Desires must be seriously respected in the discernment that accompanies Christian obedience. Writing about the connection between our spontaneous desires and finding God's will, Thomas Merton states "we must be prepared to take responsibility for our desires and accept the consequences . . . Such real, genuine aspirations of the heart are sometimes very important indications of the will of God." (20)

Through this exercise, we can al so examine those shoulds that stir up mixed feelings within uso By reflecting more concretely on our ambivalent reactions to these shoulds, we can gradualIy clarify our feelings and decide how we want to respond to them.

RECONCILING AUTONOMY AND OBEDIENCE

When the use of projection prevents us from responsibly directing our own lives, it retards genuine spiritual growth. It al so caricatures Christian obedience, which requires all of us to seek and do the will of God as autonomous adults. Mature Christian obedience entails:

(1) being prayerfully open to the presence of God in all the concrete circumstances of our lives;
(2) heeding earnestly the promptings of God who, being dissatisfied with loving us from a distance, has become flesh and drawn near to us;
(3) following trustingly wherever the Lord leads.

Lay Christians and religious share the same call to imitate the obedience of Jesus. What is distinctive about the obedience lived by religious is their desire and commitment to search for the will of God in the context of a religious community. Their search is not completely handed over to their superiors. Rather, adult living of the vow acknowledges that the search for God's will is shared equally by the individual and the superior who represents the community. Similarly, lay Christians acknowledge that their search for God's will also lies within the context of their community of family, friends, and colleagues.

Personal autonomy is incompatible with Christian obedience only when people abdicate responsibility through projection and blaming. Christian obedience requires persons who are truly self-possessed and spiritually mature. The more securely autonomous Christians feel themselves to be, the more ably they will dedicate themselves through obedience to the will of God. As Jesuits were told by their Thirty-First General Congregation in 1966, mature Christian obedience demands the constant cultivation of a spirit of initiative and responsibility. (21)