Social scientists discover that morally exemplary individuals believe in God

Many exemplary people believe in God

In their 1992 study of American exemplars, Colby and Damon (1992) made an unexpected finding that sent ripples throughout the field of moral psychology.  The vast majority of the exemplars in the study reported faith in God.  It turned out that faith proved a major inspiration to care and a general support for moral functioning.  Many exemplars in the Colby and Damon (1992) study were detailed and explicit in accounts of how God's influence was the basis for their moral identity.  Most devout Christians would find this to be an intuitive if blatantly obvious connection.  But for a secular psychological community the Colby and Damon (1992) discovery was something of a surprise.  In one account a woman known as the "Queen of the Dump" spoke revealingly about her remarkable outreach to children living on top of a Mexican landfill:

I used to get away from the house and away from my kids and I used to ask the Lord "Am I in the right place?  Is this where you send me?"  Because if I didn't have that vision I would have gone back because of what I was going through.  But now my faith is stronger.  See, at that time when I started it was weak.  I was just going by that vision. (Colby and Damon, 1992, pp. 44-45)

There is a relationship between faith and moral functioning

With a generous grant from the Fetzer Institute, Kevin Reimer and Lawrence J. Walker (2004) explored the relationship between faith commitment and moral functioning in a unique setting.  L'Arche communities for the developmentally disabled are probably best known through the writings of Henri Nowen.  These Christian communities provide a unique opportunity to explore the relationship between spirituality and moral functioning.  As it turned out, for L'Arche assistants who work with the developmentally disabled, God is directly implicated in moral functioning related to a reciprocal self.

L'Arche cares for persons with developmental disabilities

Jean Vanier (b. 1928) with John Smeltzer, a member of L'Arche Daybreak

L'Arche (French for "the ark") is an international federation of more than one hundred communities in twenty-nine countries that cares for persons with developmental disabilities.  Although officially multidenominational, L'Arche is predominantly Christian in ethos and Roman Catholic in practice.  L'Arche is the genius of Jean Vanier, Canadian philosopher, religious leader, statesman and activist.  In 1962 Vanier established a residential community for the disabled that was marked by relational commitments of altruistic love, not simply from caregiver assistants to the core member, as the disabled are known, but in mutual exchange between assistants and core members.  Vanier's mission with the developmentally disabled led to a philosophy of agape love as the redemptive element in L'Arche communities where

everyone is of unique and sacred value, and everyone has the same dignity and the same rights.  People with a mental handicap often possess qualities of welcome, wonderment, spontaneity, and directness ... able to touch hearts and call others to unity through their simplicity and vulnerability.  In this way they are a reminder of the wider world of the essential values of the heart without which knowledge, power, and action lose their meaning and purpose. (charter of L'Arche Internationale, 1993)

L'Arche assistants are living altruists

In L'Arche communities, assistants and core members live peacefully together, sharing faith and everyday experience.  L'Arche assistants are widely considered to be living altruists, given the scope of their moral commitment (Post, 2002).  In the United States most L'Arche assistants live on a tiny monthly stipend of around $500.  Some leave lucrative careers to serve in L'Arche.  Assistants are invited to participate in community on the basis of theological commitments.  Individuals are asked to carefully weight their commitment in terms of a calling, which is typically ratified in year-long increments that require periods of spiritual discernment prior to renewal.  In his many books outlining the philosophy and spirituality of L'Arche, Vanier describes a downward mobility of care and compassionate commitment.

We live in a world of competition, where importance is given to success, a good salary, efficiency, distractions, and simulations.  Our world, however, needs to rediscover what is essential: Committed relationships, openness and the acceptance of weakness, a life of friendship and solidarity in and through the little things we can do.  It is not a question of doing extraordinary things, but rather of doing ordinary things with love. (Vanier, 1999) 

What motivates individuals to give up so much in order to serve others in this way?

The grant-funded study of moral identity in L'Arche focused on assistants.  What motivates individuals to give up so much in order to serve others in this way?  As before, what sustains these individuals in their moral commitments?  Not surprisingly, these questions were of interest to the leadership of L'Arche.  In the United States, L'Arche had discovered that many assistants burn out in their first year of service, sometimes leaving communities abruptly.  However, some assistants seem to overcome initial costs associated with their moral commitment to become long-term assistants of five, ten or even fifteen years.  To find out what was happening, two study groups of L'Arche assistants were selected.

The novice assistants vs. the experienced assistants

The first group represented those assistants who had served in L'Arche for a year or less.  These were dubbed novice assistants.  In the United States, novice assistants tend to be young, mostly under the age of thirty.  Many novice assistants come to L'Arche through Americorps, a government-funded service program that allows individuals to volunteer while gaining experience and tuition subsidy against college or university costs.  The majority of novice assistants have little religious background.  The second group represented experienced assistants who had served in L'Arche for three years or more.  These individuals tend to be older and more religiously oriented.  Both groups are well-educated, with at least a bachelor's degree in hand.

The longevity of caring in L'Arche is related to the "kind of person God expects me to be." 

Die Krüppel (The Cripples), Pieter Bruegel, 1568

Both groups were interviewed with questions similar to the Camden study of adolescent exemplars.  This time, however, God was included as an "other" along with parents, best friend and romantic partner.  Actual selves of both assistant groups were compared to various others.  For the novice assistants the actual self is fairly isolated, reminiscent of the comparison adolescents in the Reimer and Wade-Stein (2004) study.  But for experienced assistants God is the closest and most significant other relationship relative to the self.  Clearly, experienced assistants understand their moral commitments around a relationship with God.  This suggests that the longevity of caring in L'Arche is related to the "kind of person God expects me to be."  These expectations become a significant motivator in experienced assistants.

Experienced assistants described their work with the disabled in terms of care giving but typically spoke of their relationships with core members in terms of mutuality where they learn from and were nurtured by the disabled

The Sense of Touch by Jusepe de Ribera depicts a blind man holding a marble head in his hands.

How might God's expectations become incorporated into moral identity?  This is a golden question of enormous significance to pastors, parents and educators alike.  Specifics of identity formation in L'Arche assistants were a primary concern for Ursula Moore, a doctoral student in psychology at Fuller Seminary.  Her work on the L'Arche project revealed that experienced and novice assistants spoke differently about their life experiences relative to their moral commitment to care for core members.  Experienced assistants tended to speak of their lives in terms of community and a sense of belonging.  It was rare for them to speak of individual achievement or friendship with specific individuals.  Those unique people described their work with the disabled in terms of care giving but typically spoke of their relationships with core members in terms of mutuality where they learn from and were nurtured by the disabled.  Many experienced assistants spoke of a crisis or transformational even while in L'Arche, where they considered leaving but prevailed in the end.  In a number of instances, these transformational events included spiritual references to God.  This is beautifully illustrated in the following narrative

When I tell my story this is the story I tell.  So this is an easy one to share.  It really was the turning point in terms of my understanding of God and L'Arche.  I was really seeing the gifts of the core members [disabled] and how I was beginning to receive a lot more than I was giving.  I was on retreat with Jean Vanier, and things were coming together.  I thought I'd already had transformative experience; I'd quit my job to live in L'Arche and do things differently.  When I got to Grandview, things were rough and I had to live in the house because we were so short of assistants. It was very difficult.  I was living in one of the houses and this was about six months into it.  Alan, one of the core members, he's blind and he has a mental disorder so he's on psychotropic medication.  He was in an institution all his life, since a year old.  They didn't think that he could ever be de-institutionalized because he was so violent.  Of course, he comes to L'Arche.  And he definitely had some bad moments at times, but every night he slept with his radio on.  My guess would be that in the institution he couldn't.  I had this real compassion for Alan and a real connection with him.  I could calm him down, I enjoyed him.  He was very clever.  I'd play with him for hours and I'd say, what's this?  And he'd feel it, and he has a singsong voice and he'd say, "that's a telephone."  Amazing things, things you wouldn't think he knew.  He was so institutionalized that he put his underwear and his shirt on his bed perfectly.  Just amazing.  One night I was giving him his bath and I was drying off his back.  He says, "you're my friend, right?"  I stopped for a minute.  What occurred to me is how many people had bathed this man, strangers.  How many people didn't see this sacred life in front of them, just wanted to get the job done.  How many times he had to put up with that.  What he was saying to me -- I get upset about it, he's so vulnerable -- what he's really saying is, Can I trust you?  Are you safe?  It occurred to me that this man has probably lived through hell.  Abuse.  People being incredibly insensitive to him.  And yet he still can trust.  I realized that I was in a transformative moment, knowing that I'm more broken than Alan.  I realized he was teaching me something that I hadn't learned.  God was really present in that moment.  That is when I could say that I didn't chose L'Arche, but L'Arche has chosen me.  That's our spirituality.

Source: Balswick, Jack O., Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, locations 3140 to 3187.

Augustine (354-430) blames the fall of Rome on declining morals instead of Rome's adoption of Christianity as the state religion

The Consecration of Saint Augustine (1460) by Jaume Huguet

That the gods of the Romans never took any pains

to save the commonwealth

from being destroyed

by evil ways

Venus, Mars, and Cupid on a wall painting from Pompeii

Rome was evil even before Jesus Christ's incarnation

Sol Invictus, or Christ depicted in his guise. 3rd century AD

But as to the present question: however worthy of praise they say the commonwealth was or is, it had, according to their own most learned authors, already become entirely evil and profligate long before the coming of Christ.  Indeed, it no longer existed, and had perished utterly by reason of its most corrupt morals.  To save it from perishing, then, the gods who were its guardians ought above all else to have given precepts of life and morals to the people who worshipped them: by whom they were worshipped in so many temples and with so many priests and kinds of sacrifice, with such a number and variety of ties, and with so many solemn feasts and celebrations of such fine games.  But the demons did nothing except look after their own affairs.  They did not care how their worshippers lived: or, rather, they were content that their worshippers should live in wickedness provided only that they continued, under the dominion of fear, to do all these things in their honour.

The commonwealth descended into civil wars

Apparent bust of Sulla in the Munich Glyptothek

On the other hand, if they did give such precepts, let something be produced or displayed.  Let something be read out to show what laws of the gods were given to that city only to be despised by the Gracchi, when they threw all things into turmoil by their seditions; by Marius and Cinna and Carbo, when they proceeded even to civil wars -- undertaken for the most unworthy causes, cruelly waged, and more cruelly ended; and, finally, by Sulla himself.  Who would not shudder at the life and character and deeds of Sulla as described by Sallust and other writers of history?  Who would not admit that the commonwealth had by then perished.

The gods deserted Rome prior to Christianity

Virgil Reading the Aeneid to Augustus, Octavia, and Livia by Jean-Baptiste Wicar

In view of the conduct of citizens of this wort, will our adversaries perhaps still venture to reply, as they usually do, with the passage from Virgil in defence of their gods? -- 'All the gods upon whom this real stood have gone, forsaking shrine and altar.'  If so, then, first, they have no reason to complain that the Christian religion so offended their gods that they deserted them.  For their own forebears, by their evil ways, had already driven all these numerous little gods away from the city's altars like so many flies.  But where, in any case, was that swarm of divinities when, long before the ancient ways had fallen into decay, Rome was taken and burnt by the Gauls?  Present but asleep, perhaps?  For at that time the whole city fell into the power of the enemy, apart from the Capitoline Hill; and even that would have been taken had not the geese, at any rate, been awake while the gods slept.  From this incident, Rome almost descended to the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship beasts and birds; for they honoured the goose in a yearly festival.

Rome's moral standards were corrupted little by little and then collapsed

Original film poster by Renato Fratini

But these extrinsic things -- evils of the body rather than the soul, which are inflicted by enemies or by some other misfortune -- are for the moment not at issue.  For the time being, I am concerned with the collapse of those moral standards which, corrupted little by little at first, then tumbled pell-mell like a torrent until, though the house and city walls remained intact, the commonwealth was so ruined that even its own most eminent authors do not hesitate to say that it was lost.  To be sure, if they had given precepts concerning the good life and justice to the city and the city had ignored them, all the gods would have been right to give Rome up for lost, 'forsaking shrine and altar'.  But what kinds of gods were they, I ask, who refused to dwell with a nation that worshipped them when that nation lived wickedly only because they had not taught it how to live well?

That the vicissitudes of the temporal world depend not upon the favour or opposition of demons,

but upon the judgment of the true God

Marcus Aurelius (head covered) sacrificing at the Temple of Jupiter



Did the gods desert the excellent Regulus and assist Marius, but not help Marius escape from falling into the hands of Sulla?




Regulus returning to Carthage (1791) by Cornelis Cels

Furthermore, what of the fact that the gods seem to assist men in the gratification of their desires, yet manifestly do not help them to achieve restraint?  Marius, for example, was an upstart and a man of low birth, a most bloodthirsty author and wager of civil wars.  Did they help him to become consul seven times, and to die an old man in his seventh consulship so that he might not fall into the hands of Sulla, who was soon to become victorious?  For if the gods did not help him to achieve these things, then it is no light matter to admit that men way acquire so much of that earthly felicity which they so dearly love even without the favour of their gods.  It is no light matter to admit that such a man as Marius can amass and enjoy good health, strength, riches, honours, renown and long life in spite of the anger of the gods, whereas such men as Regulus can be tormented by captivity, servitude, poverty, sleeplessness and pain and suffer death even though the gods are their friends.  If our adversaries grant this much, they concede at once that the gods bring them no benefit and that their worship is superfluous.  For it seems that the gods are eager for the people to learn the very opposite of those virtues of soul and righteous ways of life whose rewards are to be hope for after death.  It seems also that, with respect to transient and worldly goods, they do nothing either to injure those whom they hate or to benefit those whom they love.  Why, then, are they worshipped?  And why is the fact that they are not worshipped so grievously deplored?  Why, in hard and sorrowful times, is it murmured that the gods have departed because they are offended, and the Christian religion subjected to the most unworthy reproaches for their sakes?  For if they have power to do either good or harm in these matters, why did they assist Marius, the worst of men, in them, yet desert the excellent Regulus?  In view of this, are they not to be deemed wholly unjust and wicked?

Roman rulers were rewarded and punished regardless of their worship of the Roman gods

Detail of Catiline in Cesare Maccari's fresco in Palazzo Madama

And let no one suppose that their injustice and wickedness is to be thought all the more reason for fearing and worshipping them.  For we do not find that Regulus worshipped them any less than Marius.  Let no one suppose either that, because the gods are thought to have shown more favour to Marius than to Regulus, a wicked life is to be preferred.  For Metellus, most highly esteemed of Romans, had five sons who became consuls, and was fortunate in temporal affairs besides; whereas the evil Catiline was unfortunate: borne down with poverty and destroyed in a war brought about by his own wickedness.  Moreover, the truest and most certain felicity is in any case possessed only by those who worship the true God, by Whom alone it can be conferred.

The gods lent impetus to Rome's depravity and corruption of its morals, ensuring Rome's destruction

"Marius Amid the Ruins of Carthage" (1807) by John Vanderlyn

So, then: when the commonwealth was perishing because of its evil ways, the gods did nothing either to guide or correct its morals so that it might now perish.  On the contrary, they lent such impetus to the depravity and corruption of its morals as to ensure its destruction.  And let them not make themselves out to be good, as if they had withdrawn because offended by the iniquity of the citizens.  Beyond doubt they were present; they are exposed, they are convicted: they could neither help by admonishing nor hide by remaining silent.  I leave aside the fact that Marius was commended by the compassionate men of Minturnae to the goddess Marica in her grove, so that she might prosper him in all things, and that from a most desperate plight he returned to the city unharmed, in cruel command of a cruel army.  Those who wish to do so may read in the works of those who have written on the subject how bloody his victory was: how unworthy of a citizen and how much more brutal than an enemy's.

The real reason for the rise and fall of Rome was the providence of God

Bust of Gaius Marius at Munich Glyptothek

But, as I have said, I leave this aside; nor do I attribute the bloodstained good fortune of Marius to Marica, or to I know not whom else, but rather to the hidden providence of God.  For he shuts the mouths of our adversaries and frees from error those who are not actuated by prejudice but who prudently give heed to this truth: that, even though the demons may have some power in these matters, they can do only as much as is permitted them by the mysterious dispensation of the Almighty.  This is so that we shall neither unduly value earthly happiness, which is often granted even to bad men like Marius, nor, on the other hand, pronounce it evil, since we see that many pious and good worshippers of the one true God have enjoyed outstanding felicity in spite of the demons.  Nor should we suppose that these same most unclean spirits are to be propitiated or feared for the sake of these earthly goods or evils.  For, like wicked men on earth, they also cannot do all that they wish, but only as much as is allowed by the ordinance of Him Whose judgements no man wholly understands and no man justly condemns.

Source:  Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Edited and translated by R.W. Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, Book II, Chapter 22-23, pages 80-84.

While our goal in life should be to become reciprocating selves, when God entered into covenant with Noah and Abraham, He did not expect reciprocity

God's covenant with Noah

Noah's Sacrifice by Daniel Maclise

The central point of covenant is an unconditional commitment, which is demonstrated supremely by God.  Genesis 6:18 is the first biblical mention of a covenant.  God says to Noah, "I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark."  Noah is told by God what he must do: "[Take] your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.  And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female" (Genesis 6:18-19).  In Genesis 6:22 we read: "Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him."  In Genesis 9:9-10 God repeats this promise of covenant: "I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you."  Notice that the passage also indicates that this covenant is extended to include nonhuman creatures.

God's covenant with Abraham

Abraham's Journey from Ur to Canaan by József Molnár.

In Genesis 15:18 the covenant is extended to Abraham.  Genesis 17 amplifies on the covenant God made with Abraham:

The LORD appeared to Abram and said to him: "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.  And I will make my covenant between me and you, and make you exceedingly numerous."  Then Abraham fell on his face; and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations ... I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your offspring after you." (vv. 1-4, 7)

Genesis 17:9 focuses on Abraham's role in the covenant: "God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.'"

Neither Noah nor Abraham was offered any choice in matter and the covenant was not based on Noah or Abraham's keeping their end of the bargain

Noah's Thanksoffering (c.1803) by Joseph Anton Koch. Noah builds an altar to the Lord after being delivered from the Flood; God sends the rainbow as a sign of his covenant.

These two accounts reveal several important characteristics of God as the covenant-maker.  First, we see that neither Noah nor Abraham was offered any choice in the matter.  God's covenant offer was not "Now I am going to commit myself to you if this is your desire."  It is clear that the establishment of the covenant was based entirely on God's action.  God's offer was not contractual; it was not based on Noah's or Abraham's keeping their end of the bargain.  Whether Noah or Abraham accepted the covenant or not, God's commitment was firm.  The second thing we learn about God as covenant-maker is that he strongly desired (some might say commanded) a response from both Noah and Abraham.  The strength of God's desire did not, however, make his covenantal offer conditional.  God was not free to retract the offer if Noah or Abraham did not reciprocate.  God's offer was "an everlasting covenant."

The potential benefits or blessings were conditional upon Noah and Abraham's agreement to fulfill their end of the bargain

The Vision of the Lord Directing Abram to Count the Stars (woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld from the 1860 Bible in Pictures)

A third aspect of God's covenant was that the potential benefits or blessings it provided were conditional.  Noah and Abraham were given an option by God within the covenant.  If they were to benefit from the covenant, Noah and Abraham had to agree to fulfill their end of the bargain.  While receiving any of the blessing was conditional, the continuation of God's love was not conditioned on the nature of Noah's or Abraham's response.  A fourth observation is that God extended the covenant to more than just these two individuals.  Noah's and Abraham's families were included in the covenant as well.  In the case of Abraham God extended "an everlasting covenant" to "generations."  Even more extensive, God's covenant with Noah was extended to include "every living creature."  Further evidence of the unconditional nature of the covenant is the fact that Noah could not respond on behalf of the animals, nor could Abraham anticipate the obedience of his descendants.

Source: Balswick, Jack O., Pamela Ebstyne King, and Kevin S. Reimer, The Reciprocating Self: Human Development in Theological Perspective, locations 548 to 571.