Character
character
(Greek: engraving instrument)
The mark or trait by which the personality of one person is distinguished from that of another. The word is used to express the spiritual and indelible sign imprinted on the soul by the Sacraments of Baptism , Confirmation, and Holy Orders. The sacramental character marks the soul as distinct from those who have it not; as obliged to perform certain duties; as conformed to the image of God; as disposed for God’s grace. Baptism marks the soul as a subject of Christ and His Church; Confirmation as a warrior of the Church militant; Holy Orders as a minister of its Divine worship.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Character
Quite distinct from the technical meaning which the term character possesses in theological controversy is that attached to it in the language of common life, as well as in the literature devoted to psychology, ethics, and education. The interest surrounding the conception of character in these latter branches of speculation has been constantly increasing during the past hundred years.
PSYCHOLOGY AND CHARACTER
Different shades of meaning pertain to the term in different contexts. In general we may say that character is the expression of the personality of a human being, and that it reveals itself in his conduct. In this sense every man has a character. At the same time only human beings, not animals, have character: it implies rationality. But in addition to this usage, the term is also employed in a narrower sense, as when we speak of a man “of character”. In this connotation character implies a certain unity of qualities with a recognizable degree of constancy or fixity in mode of action. It is the business of psychology to analyze the constituent elements of character, to trace the laws of its growth, to distinguish the chief agencies which contribute to the formation of different types of character, and to classify such types. If anything approaching a science of character is ever to be built up, it must be a special psychology. French psychologists during the last thirty years have given us a large quantity of acute observations on the topic of character. Chief amongst them have been: MM. Azam, Pérez, Ribot, Paulhan, Fouillée, and Malapert. Still these contributions do not constitute a science.
The behaviour of each human being at any stage of his existence is the outcome of a complex collection of elements. The manner in which he apperceives or takes in certain present impressions, the sort of thoughts which they awaken, the particular feeling with which they are associated in his mind, and the special volitions to which they give rise are, in spite of the common nature in which he participates with other men, in a certain measure peculiar to himself. Taken collectively they are said to constitute or, more accurately perhaps, to reveal his character. At any epoch in mature life a man’s character is the resultant of two distinct classes of factors: the original or inherited elements of his being, and those which he has himself acquired. On the one hand, every human being starts with a certain nature or disposition–a native endowment of capacities for knowledge, and feelings, and tendencies towards volitions and action–which varies with each individual. This disposition is dependent in part on the structure of the bodily organism and especially of the nervous system which he has inherited; in part, perhaps, also on his soul which has been created. It forms his individuality at the beginning of life; and it includes susceptibilities for responding to external influences, and potentialities for developing in various ways which differ with each human being. A fundamental error in English psychology from Locke to John Stuart Mill was the ignoring or under-estimating of this diversity of native aptitude in different individuals. Much of the Associationist treatment of the development of the human mind proceeded on the assumption of an original equality or similarity of mental faculty, and consequently tended to ascribe all subsequent differences to a diversity of circumstances. It vastly exaggerated what has been called the part played by nurture as compared with that of nature. It overlooked the fact that the original capacity and disposition of the individual mind largely determines how it shall appropriate the experience presented to it by its environment. This error was peculiarly unfavourable to the affording of an adequate account of character. Since Darwin there has been a return to the older and truer doctrine which recognized fully the importance of the original endowment of each individual. For, although the author of the “Origin of Species” himself exaggerated the influence of the environment in his biological theory, he and his followers were driven to lay great stress upon heredity and the transmission from parent to offspring of individual variations and acquired habits.
THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS
The original endowment or native element in character with which the individual starts life is practically identical with what the Ancients and the Schoolmen recognized under the term temperament. From the times of Hippocrates and Galen they distinguished four main types of temperament: the sanguine, the choleric, the phlegmatic, and the melancholic. Curiously enough modern speculation from Kant to Wundt and Fouillée tends to accept the same general classification, though sometimes under other names. These different types of temperament the Ancients held to be due to the predominance in the organism of different humours. Modern writers variously account for them by differences of texture and varying solidity of the tissues of the body, by varying development of different parts, by diverse rates of activity in the processes of nutrition and waste, in the changes of nerve-energy, or in circulation, and by differences of tonicity in the nerves. Whatever be the true physiological explanation, the fourfold classification seems fairly to represent certain markedly contrasted types of disposition, though they leave room for subdivision and intermediate forms. Moreover, though scientists are still far from being agreed as to the precise elements in the organism on which temperament depends, the fact that different forms of temperament have an organic basis seems certain. The transmission from parent to offspring of hereditary dispositions, therefore, involves no conflict with the doctrine of the creation of each human soul.
Although our original temperament is thus given to us independently of our will, we ourselves play an important part in the moulding of our character, and we thus become responsible for certain ethical qualities in it. Character has been defined as “a completely fashioned will”. It would be more accurate to say that character is “natural temperament completely fashioned by the will”. It is, in fact, a resultant of the combination of our acquired habits with our original disposition. As the quality, shape, and structure of the organism and of its different parts may be variously modified in the process of growth–especially during the plasticity of early life–by variations in nutrition, exercise, and environment, so may the faculties of the soul be variously developed by the manner in which it is exercised, and by the nature of the objects on which its faculties are employed. Among the acquired elements which go to the building up of character may be distinguished those pertaining to cognition, whether sensuous or intellectual, and those belonging to the emotional and volitional activities of the soul. Exercise strengthens the power and widens the range of each faculty, creating, not uncommonly, a craving for further exercise in the same direction. The regular use of the intellect, the controlled activity of the imagination, the practice of judgment and reflection, all contribute so the formation of habits of mind more or less thoughtful and refined. The frequent indulgence in particular forms of emotion, such as anger, envy, sympathy, melancholy, fear, and the like, fosters tendencies towards these sentiments which give a subconscious bent to a large part of man’s behaviour. But finally the exercise of the will plays the predominant part in moulding the type of character which is being formed. The manner and degree in which currents of thought and waves of emotion are initiated, guided, and controlled by the will, or allowed to follow the course of spontaneous impulse, has not less effect in determining the resultant type of character than the quality of the thoughts or emotions themselves. The life of the lower animal is entirely ruled by instinct from within, and by accidental circumstances from without. It is therefore incapable of acquiring a character. Man, through the awakening of reason and the growth of reflection, by the exercise of deliberate choice against the movements of impulse, gradually develops self-control; and it is by the exercise of this power that moral character is especially formed. Character is in fact the outcome of a series of volitions, and it is for this reason we are responsible for our characters, as we are for the individual habits which go to constitute them.
TYPES OF CHARACTER
Starting from the basis of the four fundamental temperaments, various classifications of types of character have been adopted by different writers. The intellectual, the emotional, and the volitional or energetic stand for the chief types with A. Bain. M. Pérez, taking for his principle of division the phenomenon of movement, distinguishes characters as lively, slow, ardent, and équilibrés or well-balanced. M. Ribot, proceeding from a more subjective ground of division and excluding indefinite and unstable types as strictly speaking characterless, recognizes as the most general forms: the sensitive, subdivided into the humble contemplative and emotional; the active, subdivided into the great and the mediocre; and the apathetic, subdivided into the purely apathetic or dull; and the calculateurs or intelligent. By combination these again afford new types. M. Fouillée takes sensitive, intellectual, and volitional for his scheme and by cross-combinations and subdivisions works out an equally complex plan. MM. Paulhan, Queyrat, and Fouillée and Malapert have each different divisions of their own, thus establishing, at all events, the impossibility of attaining agreement on the subject.
ETHOLOGY
These efforts naturally suggest the question: Is a science of character possible? Mill devoted an important section in Book VI of his “Logic” to answering this query. He argues that there may be a true science of human nature, though not, as in the case of the physical sciences, an exact science. The laws which it can formulate are only approximate generalizations expressive of tendencies. It may not attempt exact predictions, owing to the complexity and uncertainty of the causes at work. Though mankind have not one universal character, there exist universal laws of the formation of character. The ascertainment of these laws constitutes the object of the science of ethology. The phenomena being so complex the method of investigation must be deductive. We have to draw inferences from general psychological principles, and then to verify them by study of concrete individual cases.
It is very unwise to lay down limits to the progress of knowledge; but it may be affirmed that, at all events, we have at present nothing approximating to a science of character. As we have said, there is already in existence a considerable literature devoted to the psychological analysis of the constituents of the different forms of character, to the study of the general conditions of its growth, and to the classification of types of character. But the results, as yet reached, have little claim to the title of a science. There are moreover two obstacles, which though not, perhaps, absolutely fatal to the possibility of such a science are graver difficulties than Mill realized. Firstly, there is the element of individuality lying at the root of each character and variously determining its growths even in like circumstances, as we see in two children of the same family. The mistaken view as to the original equality and similarity of different minds naturally involved an erroneous under-estimation of this difficulty. Secondly, there is the fact of free-will, denied by Mill. We do not maintain that free-will is irreconcilable with a science whose laws are approximate generalizations as Mill conceived those of ethology to be. All anti-determinists allow enough of uniformity in the influence of motive upon action to satisfy this condition. Still the admission of free-will in the building up of character does indisputably increase the unpredictableness of future conduct and consequently of a science of character.
ETHICS AND CHARACTER
Whilst psychology investigates the growth of different types of character, ethics considers the relative value of such types and the virtues which constitute them. The problem of the true moral ideal is, in some ethical systems mainly, and in all systems partially, a question of the relative value of different types of character. The effect on the agent’s character of a particular form of conduct is a universally accepted test of its moral quality. Different systems of ethics emphasize the importance of different virtues in the constitution of the ideal moral character. With the Utilitarian, who places the ethical end in the maximum of temporal happiness for the whole community, benevolence will form the primary element in the ideal character. For the Stoic, fortitude and self-control are the chief excellences. The egoistic Hedonist would seem bound to praise enlightened prudence as the highest virtue. For the Christian, Christ is, of course, the true example of ideal character. The vast multitude of varied types of moral perfection presented to us in the lives of the saints who have striven to copy Him show the infinite many-sidedness and rich fruitfulness of that ideal. In all conceptions of ideal character strength forms an essential feature. Firmness of will, fortitude, constancy in adhering to principle or in pursuit of a noble aim hold so important a place that in common language to be a man of character is frequently equivalent to being capable of adhering to a fixed purpose. But strength of this kind may easily degenerate into irrational obstinacy or narrow fanaticism. Another essential is the virtue of justice, the constant, practical recognition of the rights and claims of others-involving, of course, all our duties towards Almighty God. In addition to these, habits of charity and magnanimity, with temperance and self-restraint in the control of our lower appetencies, will be included. Finally, the richer the culture of the mind, the larger the intellectual horizon, the broader the sympathies, and the more balanced the springs of action in the soul, the more will the character approximate to the ideal of human perfection.
EDUCATION AND CHARACTER
The true aim of education is not merely the cultivation of the intellect but also the formation of moral character. Increased intelligence or physical skill may as easily be employed to the detriment as to the benefit of the community, if not accompanied by improved will. Both do not necessarily go together. As it is the function of ethics to determine the ideal of human character, so it is the business of the theory or science of education to study the processes by which that end may be attained and to estimate the relative efficiency of different educational systems and methods in the prosecution of that end. Finally it is the duty of the art of education to apply the conclusions thus reached to practice and to adapt the available machinery to the realization of the true purpose of education in the formation of the highest type of ideal human character.
———————————–
MICHAEL MAHERTranscribed by Rick McCarty
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IIICopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Character
(, impress, image), CHRISTIAN, is the force of a man’s moral personality, as modified and developed by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Christianity does not seek to destroy the natural and moral qualities of man, but to elevate, strengthen, and sanctify them. But the individual man, under the Christian system, is taught “of the Holy Spirit” the way of life; and, under his own responsibility, the influence of the Holy Spirit must be voluntarily accepted as the inspiring and controlling principle of the qualities which belong to him by nature. If this be not the case, the man remains a “natural man,” and his character is his natural character. But the beginning of a new moral course of life, through the work of the Holy Spirit, is regeneration, and in regeneration the true foundation of the Christian character is laid. But this regeneration, though it requires active faith on the part of man, is, nevertheless, the work of God, and therefore character is necessarily a divine work, “lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:9). Of course, all the practical forms of goodness, the cardinal virtues, so called (2Pe 1:5-7), and the special Christian virtue of charity, are elements of this Christian character. It manifests itself in the “fruits of the Spirit,” which always, in turn, react upon the character, bringing it constantly into nearer identity with the “inner” or “spiritual” man (Eph 3:16; Eph 4:23). It fixes the moral worth of the individual, as well as his fitness for the kingdom of God, in which the entire character, the whole man, is peremptorily required (Mat 6:24; Mat 12:23). Christianity demands the whole heart; for “out of the heart are the issues of life,” and the ruling disposition of a man’s heart forms the essence of his character. With Paul, character is the man: the holy character is the ” new man;” the corrupt character the “old man.”
But, though the Spirit works this Christian character in man, it leaves free play for the special gifts and endowments of the individual. Although “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,” there is room in Christ’s kingdom for diversities springing from temperament, race, or nationality. The apostles Peter, Paul, John, and Jude have been taken, by some writers, as types of the four temperaments, sanguine, nervous, lymphatic, and bilious. The Word of God is regarded, in the Christian system, as the rule of life and standard of appeal for the Christian character. On perfection of character, SEE HOLINESS; SEE SANCTIFICATION; SEE PERFECTION. Herzog, Real-Encyklop. 7:376; Bibliotheca Sacra, 3:22.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Character
CHARACTER may be defined as the result of the interaction between a personality and its environment; or, if the word is used in its special and favourable sense, as the advantage gained by personality over its environment, especially by the exercise of the will. In the terms of Aristotle (Nic. Eth. i. vii. 15), it is an energy of the inner life on the lines of virtue. The question to be answered is, How have the life and gospel of Christ made this more possible? First, He diminished the moral weight and dread of lifes environment. Secondly, He enlarged the resources and opportunities of personality.
1. The following are some of the powers which the soul has to meet in conflict:
(1) Suffering.If a perfectly good man foreknew what was going to happen to him, he would co-operate with nature in both falling sick and dying and being maimed, being conscious that this is the particular portion assigned to him in the arrangement of the Universe (Epictetus). Christ inspired men to put their foot on disease as an evil (Mat 10:8, Mar 16:18), and won His first fame by His own powers of healing (Mat 4:23-25; Mat 11:4-6 etc.). Such deeds were good on the Sabbath day (Luk 6:6 ff.), for it was a breaking of Satans tyranny (Luk 13:16).
(2) Death.He died to deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Heb 2:15). Jesus not only so faced death as to convince a Roman centurion and a dying criminal that He was more than man (Mat 27:54, Luk 23:40 ff.), but did not in His teaching allow it to have a decisive place in life, except to the fool (Luk 12:20). He spoke of it as a sleep (Joh 11:11 ff.), which the good man need not fear (Mat 10:28), and as a going to the Father and His many abiding-places (Joh 14:1-3).
(3) The world.
If but the Vine- and Love-abjuring band
Are in the Prophets Paradise to stand,
Alack, I doubt the Prophets Paradise
Were empty as the hollow of ones hand (Omar).
Jesus was in complete independence of all that the world offers, accepting poverty (Luk 9:58), repudiating popularity (Joh 6:15), not expecting to be waited on (Mar 10:45). Be of good courage, He said, I have overcome the world (Joh 16:33); and on account of the promise of His presence His disciples were built up in the same (Php 4:11).
(4) Racial barriers.It is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation (Act 10:28). Jesus struck at the limitations of race prejudice and enmity in the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luk 10:20 ff.) and the Last Judgment (Mat 25:31 ff.). Though He sought first the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat 10:5 f.), He opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers (Mat 8:10-13, cf. Mar 7:29), and thereby achieved on moral lines what the status of Roman citizenship created on legal lines. His short career was an encounter with the dead hand and narrowing force of nationalism (Mar 12:9, Mat 21:42-44), and it was in the name of Son of Man that He lived and died.
(5) Caste distinctions.It was the hereditary disability the Aryans had succeeded in imposing upon races they despised, which, reacting within their own circle and strengthened by the very intolerance that gave it birth, has borne such bitter fruit through so many centuries (Rhys Davids, Hibbert Lectures). A workshop is incompatible with anything noble (Cicero). Jesus kept the same way open to all without regard to social or religions status; did not reject the rich (Mat 8:7; Mat 9:18 f., Luk 7:36), but counted their wealth a disadvantage (Mar 10:21; Mar 10:23, Luk 6:20). He chose His companions from men who were mostly of no class (Mar 1:16; Mar 2:14), was known as the friend of publicans and sinners (Mat 9:11, Luk 15:1-2), and threw away His own triumph to give Zacchaeus a moral chance, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham (Luk 19:1-10).
(6) Family control.To every individual, says Sir Henry Maine, referring to the Roman civilization, the rule of conduct is the law of his home, of which his parent is the legislator. Though Jesus maintained the sanctity of the marriage tie (Mat 19:4 ff.), and illustrated as well as taught filial obedience and honour (Luk 2:51, Joh 19:26-27, Mar 7:11 ff.), He broke the decisive control of the family for the sake of the individual personality (Mat 10:35-37; Mat 12:48-50, Luk 9:59-62; Luk 11:27-28, Mar 10:28-30).
2. In the second place, Christ enlarged the resources and opportunities of personality, by making the soul conscious and confident of a new environment, in which it could find release and reinforcement. The secret of this spiritual environment which awakens and sustains the souls faculties of faith, hope, and love is grace, in which alone they can move and have their being. The essential fact of grace is illustrated in the teaching of Christ chiefly in the following doctrinesthe Divine Fatherhood, the Divine Forgiveness, the Divine Indwelling, and the Divine Reappearing. All that was dim or distorted in the human views of these truths, which mean so much to personality and character, He rectified and made authoritative.
(1) The clear revelation of the Divine Fatherhood had this immense bearing on character, that it brought out the worth of the individual soul. It is not necessary here to argue the question whether we are really Gods sons, apart from faith in Christ. It is enough for the purpose that Christ undoubtedly used the truth of the Divine Fatherhood as the chief motive to the new ethic. The first and most important effect on character is that the starting-point is trust. Trust in God is illustrated in contentment with circumstances, courage in regard to human opposition. Whatever be the straitness of life and however menacing the future, there may well be trust in One who cares for the individual with more than the purpose and solicitude of an earthly father (Mat 6:7-8; Mat 7:11, Luk 12:6-7; Luk 12:22-30). And as for hostility, it is well worth standing firm for truth and righteousness, for thus the approval of the Father is gained (Mat 5:11-12; Mat 16:24-27, Luk 12:4 ff., Joh 15:26 f., Joh 16:1-3). The natural vehicle of such trust is prayer, which Jesus Himself used for the solution of His perplexities and the bearing of His burdens (Luk 10:21, Mar 14:35 etc.), and which the disciples were also to use freely and urgently (Luk 11:5-13; Luk 18:1).
This leads to the second characteristic of a life that acts on the teaching of the Divine Fatherhoodits religion will be in spirit and truth (Joh 4:23). Prayer is no mere performance, but secret and real (Mat 6:5-8), in faith (Mar 11:22-24), with a softened heart (Mar 11:25), and looking for the highest things (Joh 15:10; Joh 16:26). Religion is not a matter of external or traditional compulsion, but rests upon a gospel of Divine love (Mat 11:28; Mat 23:37, Joh 6:44-45). The Father can care for nothing that is not spontaneous and sincere like childhood (Mar 10:15; Mar 10:51-52; Mar 14:9, Mat 18:21-22), and the fruit of real growth (Joh 15:8). The consummation of life is to be so sanctified by the truth as to enjoy God as Christ the Son Himself did (Joh 17:20-26).
And the bearing of the Divine Fatherhood on our relations to our fellows produces a wise tolerance. The disciples of Christ are to imitate the character of Him who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and refuse to treat any man as an enemy (Mat 5:43-48). Indeed, the truth of the Fatherhood is the great inspiration to kindness and charity. The positive character of the Golden Rule, which is its Christian distinction, is directly drawn from the ways of the Father in heaven (Mat 7:11-12), and the blessedness of peacemakers is in being called sons of God (Mat 5:9). The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37) illustrates in particular what the parable of the Great Assize (Mat 25:31-46) sets forth with ideal completeness, that there is no real love to God which is not expressed in spontaneous and appropriate help to every human being that requires it. Thus in the teaching of Christ went forth an edict of Universal Love; humanity was changed from a restraint to a motive (Ecce Homo, ch. 16). And that this was the secret of the Christian message, is indicated in the parting commission, Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Mat 28:19).
(2) The gospel of Divine Forgiveness has had a distinctive and powerful effect upon the characters of those who have accepted it. Indeed, it has produced a new type of character, which can be described only as being born again (Joh 3:3, 2Co 5:17-18). Forgiveness was by no means a new idea, for it has never been set forth with more beauty and completeness than in the Prophets and the Psalmists of the Old Testament. But Jesus was the first to apply it to the individual soul with the view of producing the character of a child of the Kingdom; and it was this which made His teaching seem revolutionary and even blasphemous in the eyes of the guardians of the Old Covenant (Mar 2:5-12, Luk 7:39-50). The average good person is now as much as ever inclined to resent the opening of the Kingdom of heaven to all believers through the remission of sins. It contradicts the view accepted by all average moralists that it is by the maintenance of virtue that heaven must be won, and that any contradictory doctrine must loosen the bands of character. Their view is necessary as a caution, not only against the Antinomians, who treat the fact of forgiveness as a term of logic, and argue let us sin that grace may abound, but also against all who preach faith as something apart from ethical enthusiasm. But St. Paul had learned the secret of his Master when he flung himself into the advanced position of justification by faith. It was Jesus Himself who had the daring originality to base character on a new foundation without fearing to debase it (Luk 7:47-50, Mat 26:27-28).
It must, however, be remembered that it was not so much the intention of Jesus to set up a rival type of character, as to restore the character of those who had lost it; to give a new chance to the personality that was overborne and fettered by its environment. He was essentially a physician of the sick (Luk 5:27-32), a seeker of the lost (Luke 15; Luk 19:10, Mat 18:12 ff.), a giver of rest to the heavy laden (Mat 11:28 ff.), fulfilling the words, He shall be called Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins (Mat 1:21, cf. Joh 3:17). The great contribution, then, to the forming of character in the gospel of Forgiveness is not that it adds anything to the ideal of virtue, but that it unseals the great motive of humble and adoring gratitude, and opens the way for that tide of love which is itself the fulfilling of the Law (Luk 7:47; Luk 19:8-9). The business of Jesus was not the chiselling and polishing of character, but primarily its creation among the multitudes who would be shut out by the Pharisees from the kingdom of righteousness. The gospel does not so much teach now to be good as why to be good. Yet it must be admitted that in this teaching of grace as a redeeming power, Jesus did not simply profess to level sinners up to the virtuous. Rather He made the beatitude of the forgiven appear in comparison with the self-complacency of the virtuous as sunshine to moonlight (Luk 6:22-26; Luk 18:9-14). The result of thus opening the fountains of a great deep was to be seen in a new humility and tenderness, an unexampled moral scrupulousness and solicitude, for the pride of the natural man is overwhelmed by the sense of what be owes (Mat 18:21-35, Joh 21:15-19, Gal 2:20, Col 3:12-13).
(3) The third illustration of grace through which the scattered forces of character can be regathered is the Divine Indwelling, which, although not made conspicuous in the Synoptists, is essential to the Christian conception of character. The remarkable transformation which came over the chief Apostles after the events of Calvary and the Garden, was expressly attributed by them to the fulfilment of Christs promise to return and dwell in them through the Spirit (Act 19:1-6; Act 2:16 f., Act 2:38, Joh 14:15-18). The character that has learned its worth from the Divine Fatherhood, and found its release in the Divine Forgiveness, gains its strength and means of independence from the Divine Indwelling. The real strength of character from the Christian point of view lies in the sense of weakness and the dependence on grace. Its ideal is not self-possession and self-complacency, but a possession by Christ (Gal 2:20), and a pleasing of Christ (Php 1:20). And because its standard is so high, namely, the perfection of God Himself (Mat 5:48), the only chance of attaining it is to realize that the sufficient power comes from the imparted life (Joh 20:21-23), to take the yoke of Christ (Mat 11:29), or to abide in Him (Joh 15:4). If we can rely on Gods Fatherhood, we can be sure He will give the best gift, the Holy Spirit (Luk 11:13), which is to enable the disciples to do greater things even than Jesus Himself (Joh 14:12), because thus His own power will be multiplied in and through them (1Jn 4:12-13).
From the Christian point of view, then, character depends for its final strength and beauty on the measure of its surrender and receptivity. Its turning-point is found in that decisive acceptance of Christ which is called conversion, and which is not mere acquiescence, but allegiance as well, not only requiring an attitude of the soul, but also its adventure with and for the Lord it has recognized. When room has been made for the Divine indwelling in immediate sequence to the Divine forgiveness, there may be an assurance that through grace and with much patience the fruits of Christian character will come (Mar 4:8; Mar 4:20; Mar 4:26-29). Christian character depends on Christs indwelling; for its virtues, which are more appropriately termed graces, are called fruits of the Spirit, indicating that they are not the attainment of the old nature, but the growth of the new, according to the law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. In Gal 5:22-23 they are thus given: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance; and in 2Pe 1:5-8 : faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. From which it will be seen that there is no ordered system of ethics in the New Testament; but the sum and substance of it is that life is primarily to be the gradual demonstration of the Divine indwelling, that the world may see that Christians are alike possessed and controlled by a power and spirit not their own.
(4) There is one further contribution to the making of character in the name of grace which belongs to the Christian revelation, viz. the Divine Reappearing. However erroneously it was conceived, there can be no doubt that it exercised a powerful effect upon the moral qualities of the early Christian community (1Th 1:9-10), and its essential truth is still responsible for much that is unique in Christian ethics. It was sufficient to slay worldly ambitions outright, so that men sold their possessions (Act 4:34), and at a later age secluded themselves in hermit or monastic dwellings. The journey of Israel to the Promised Land became the framework of the Christian conception of lifea pilgrimage through a wilderness. The result of this view has been the withdrawal of much imagination and energy from the problems of the present world in the name of an expected heavenwhereas the real watching is in right employment here and now (Luk 17:20-21; Luk 19:11-27). But it would be a mistake to miss the great contribution made by the doctrine of Christs reappearing to the improvement of character (Luk 12:35-37, 1Th 5:23). When it is understood in the light of the words and example of Jesus Himself rather than of Messianic expectations, which again and again He disappointed in favour of spiritual interests (Luk 9:54-55, Joh 6:14-15; Joh 6:25-26; Joh 6:41; Joh 6:65-68, Act 1:6-8), its effect is purifying and searching to the last degree, and arms the personality with the weapon of a new hope in the conflict with its environment (Php 3:13-14). The reappearing of the Saviour, whether it be when physical disabilities fall from us at death, or in some other way, is essentially a final judgment (Mat 7:21-23; Mat 13:30; Mat 25:31-33; cf. 2Co 5:10) in which hidden things will be brought to light (Luk 8:17; Luk 12:2-3, Mat 25:35-45).
Firstly, it gives a motive to purity of life which no other religion has been able to supply (1Jn 3:3; 2Pe 3:11-14), and to a consecrated use of every natural faculty (Rom 12:1). The promise of the resurrection rescues the body from the contempt with which philosophers were inclined to regard it, for as companion of the soul it is both sacred and serviceable (1Co 6:19-20). It is to be changed from a body of humiliation to the likeness of the body of His glory (Php 3:21), and meantime its members are to be disciplined as instruments of righteousness (Rom 6:13), every ability being turned to good account (1Pe 4:10-11, Col 3:16-17).
Next, it gives a deeper sanction to the social relationships of life. The spiritual side of marriage has been greatly developed by the revelation of the issues of life (Mat 19:4-9, Eph 5:22-33). The relations of parent and children, of master and servant, were likewise dignified by being seen sub specie aeternitatis (Col 3:20-25; Col 4:1), and in the remembrance that for responsibility we must give account (Luk 12:45-48). It was this truth which gave its special meaning to Church membership, so that the Christian community was knit together with bonds unknown in any contemporary clubs or guilds (Mat 18:19-20, Eph 1:18-23; Eph 2:19-22, 1Co 12:12-30). Though there was discontent and division in the Church, and even an occasional subsidence to the vicious levels of pagan society, the ideal could be steadily built up again in the sure hope of a radiant future, when the secret working of the absent Bridegroom in His own should be accomplished (Eph 5:27, Col 3:3-4; 1Pe 1:3-5). And this hope was a continual summons to every Christian to rise and be worthy of his calling (Rom 13:11, 1Co 3:10-15; 1Co 9:24).
Finally, the hope of a Divine reappearing exercises its influence upon the common toil and appointed duty of every day. It is as if the owner of an estate went away entrusting to each man his work, and bidding the porter to watch (Mar 13:34). It is required that a steward be found faithful (1Co 4:1-4); and it is well for the Christian if he has used to advantage the talents given (Mat 25:19-23), and the opportunities offered on every hand for the wider human service (Mat 25:34-40), for there is an appropriate reward (1Co 3:12-14). Lowly service is the path to ennoblement and the seats of influence (Mar 10:43-45, Luk 12:42-44).
The promise of the Divine Reappearing thus supplements, as it were, the promise of the Divine Indwelling; for whereas the latter brings out the need for the Christians faith in a power not his own, the former requires that he be faithful with the powers that are his own. And taking all four aspects of the revelation of grace through Jesus Christ together, we see that they equip His followers for that conflict with environment out of which character emerges, by giving the soul a new worth, freedom, power, and motive.
This revelation is above all in the Cross, in which Christ was most fully manifested (Luk 9:22, Joh 10:11; Joh 12:23). There we see convincingly the love of the Father (Rom 8:32, 1Jn 4:10), who counted men of such value (Mat 18:2-14, Luk 15:10) that He would have all to be saved though at infinite cost (Joh 3:14-16). There is the place of the breaking forth of forgiveness (Mat 26:28), the supreme illustration of that redeeming love by which mens freedom is purchased (1Pe 1:18-19, Rom 14:7-9, Rev 1:5-6). There the life was surrendered to the Father (Joh 10:17-18), to be bestowed as an enabling power (Joh 14:12-14, Act 4:10) by an indwelling Spirit (Joh 1:12, Rom 8:9 ff.), wherewith He might bring many sons to glory (Heb 2:10). And there, finally, the eternal future was clasped to the tragic present (Joh 12:24-32) as the ever-living Son submitted to taste of death (Heb 2:9; Heb 2:14), that neither earthly trouble nor spiritual principality might ever separate His people from Him (Rom 8:31-39, Php 1:21-23).
In another summary, it may be said that the Christian ethic revolves between two poles which are discovered in the light of Christs teaching, the inwardness of religion, and its practical nature. The first had been neglected by the Jew and the second by the Greek. And one-sidedness is still only too possible, when, for instance, in the name of Christianity the ascetic visionary holds to the first alone, or the social revolutionary to the second. But all ethical deductions can and must be rectified by reference to the work and word of Christ, who started from inward character and aimed at social regeneration.
And in a final analysis of what Christ has distinctively done for character, it may be said that (a) He treated the personality as a whole. All ethical systems are based on one or other element of our threefold nature. The pivot of the good life was, according to Socrates, knowledge; according to Epicurus, feeling; according to Zeno, the will. Christ gave a due and natural place to each of these; for character with Him was not a system, as it was with Greek, Jew, or Roman, or as it is with Confucian or Mohammedan, but a growth from within, deeper even than our own nature, rooted in the ever-living grace of God. (b) He treated it as free. This also is crucial to Christian character, and depends on the truth that the ultimate fact of life is not Fate, but a God of grace, a Father. Jesus looked for repentance as the first consequence of His good tidings (Mar 1:15). Whatever a mans past had been, he could be released and renewed, if out of the darkness and bondage he put forth the hand of faith. And so in the last resort life is self-determined. These two essential truths for the making of character, viz. the integrity and the freedom of personality, have been recognized and realized in the light of the four great truths enumerated above. Thus Christ has enlarged the resources and opportunity of personality, and enabled it to be victorious over its material and moral environment.
Literature.Sidgwick, History of Ethics; Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory; Seeley, Ecce Homo; Illingworth, Christian Character; Wilson Harper, The Christian View of Human Life; Church, Discipline of Christian Character; Knight, The Christian Ethic; Martensen, Christian Ethics; Garvie, The Christian Personality; Kilpatrick, Christian Character and Christian Conduct, etc.; Herrmann, Protestant Ethics; Sermons by Butler, Newman, Martineau, Paget, Maclaren, Inge, etc.
A. Norman Rowland.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Character
Of Saints:
– Attentive to Christ’s voice
Joh 10:3-4
– Blameless and harmless
Phi 2:15
– Bold
Pro 28:1
– Contrite
Isa 57:15; Isa 66:2
– Devout
Act 8:2; Act 22:12
– Faithful
Rev 17:14
– Fearing God
Mal 3:16; Act 10:2
– Following Christ
Joh 10:4; Joh 10:27
– Godly
Psa 4:3; 2Pe 2:9
– Guileless
Joh 1:47
– Holy
Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2; Col 3:12
– Humble
Psa 34:2; 1Pe 5:5
– Hungering for righteousness
Mat 5:6
– Just
Gen 6:9; Hab 2:4; Luk 2:25
– Led by the Spirit
Rom 8:14
– Liberal
Isa 32:8; 2Co 9:13
– Loathing themselves
Eze 20:43
– Loving
Col 1:4; 1Th 4:9
– Lowly
Pro 16:19
– Meek
Isa 29:19; Mat 5:5
– Merciful
Psa 37:26; Mat 5:7
– New creatures
2Co 5:17; Eph 2:10
– Obedient
Rom 16:19; 1Pe 1:14
– Poor in spirit
Mat 5:3
– Prudent
Pro 16:21
– Pure in heart
Mat 5:8; 1Jn 3:3
– Righteous
Isa 60:21; Luk 1:6
– Sincere
2Co 1:12; 2Co 2:17
– Steadfast
Act 2:42; Col 2:5
– Taught of God
Isa 54:13; 1Jn 2:27
– True
2Co 6:8
– Undefiled
Psa 119:1
– Upright
1Ki 3:6; Psa 15:2
– Watchful
Luk 12:37
– Zealous of good works
Tit 2:14 Righteous, The Righteous Described
Of the wicked:
– Abominable
Rev 21:8
– Alienated from God
Eph 4:18; Col 1:21
– Blasphemous
Luk 22:65; Rev 16:9
– Blinded
2Co 4:4; Eph 4:18
– Boastful
Psa 10:3; Psa 49:6
– Conspiring against saints
Neh 4:8; Neh 6:2; Psa 38:12
– Corrupt
Mat 7:17; Eph 4:22
– Covetous
Mic 2:2; Rom 1:29
– Deceitful
Psa 5:6; Rom 3:13
– Delighting in the iniquity of others
Pro 2:14; Rom 1:32
– Despising saints
Neh 2:19; Neh 4:2; 2Ti 3:3-4
– Destructive
Isa 59:7
– Disobedient
Neh 9:26; Tit 3:3; 1Pe 2:7
– Enticing to evil
Pro 1:10-14; 2Ti 3:6
– Envious
Neh 2:10; Tit 3:3
– Evil-doers
Jer 13:23; Mic 7:3
– Fearful
Pro 28:1; Rev 21:8
– Fierce
Pro 16:29; 2Ti 3:3
– Foolish
Deu 32:6; Psa 5:5
– Forgetting God
Job 8:13
– Fraudulent
Psa 37:21; Mic 6:11
– Froward
Pro 21:8; Isa 57:17
– Glorying in their shame
Phi 3:19
– Hard-hearted
Eze 3:7
– Hating the light
Job 24:13; Joh 3:20
– Heady and high-minded
2Ti 3:4
– Hostile to God
Rom 8:7; Col 1:21
– Hypocritical
Isa 29:13; 2Ti 3:5
– Ignorant of God
Hos 4:1; 2Th 1:8
– Impudent
Eze 2:4
– Incontinent
2Ti 3:3
– Infidel
Psa 10:4; Psa 14:1
– Loathsome
Pro 13:5
– Lovers of pleasure, not of God
2Ti 3:4
– Lying
Psa 58:3; Psa 62:4; Isa 59:4
– Mischievous
Pro 24:8; Mic 7:3
– Murderous
Psa 10:8; Psa 94:6; Rom 1:29
– Prayerless
Job 21:15; Psa 53:4
– Persecuting
Psa 69:26; Psa 109:16
– Perverse
Deu 32:5
– Proud
Psa 59:12; Oba 1:3; 2Ti 3:2
– Rebellious
Isa 1:2; Isa 30:9
– Rejoicing in the affliction of saints
Psa 35:15
– Reprobate
2Co 13:5; 2Ti 3:8; Tit 1:16
– Selfish
2Ti 3:2
– Sensual
Phi 3:19; Jud 1:19
– Sold under sin
1Ki 21:20; 2Ki 17:17
– Stiff-hearted
Eze 2:4
– Stiff-necked
Exo 33:5; Act 7:51
– Uncircumcised in heart
Jer 9:26
– Unclean
Isa 64:6; Eph 4:19
– Unjust
Pro 11:7; Isa 26:18
– Unmerciful
Rom 1:31
– Ungodly
Pro 16:27
– Unholy
2Ti 3:2
– Unprofitable
Mat 25:30; Rom 3:12
– Unruly
Tit 1:10
– Unthankful
Luk 6:35; 2Ti 3:2
– Untoward
Act 2:40
– Unwise
Deu 32:6 Wicked, Described
Good
Pro 22:1; Ecc 7:1
Defamation of, punished
Deu 22:13-19
Revealed in countenance
– General references
Isa 3:9 Countenance; Face
Firmness of
– General references
Psa 57:7; Psa 108:1; Psa 112:7; Mat 10:22; Mar 4:20; 1Co 7:20; 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:3; Heb 10:23; Heb 13:9; Jas 1:25
– Instances of firmness:
b Joseph in resisting Potiphar’s wife
Gen 39:7-12
b Pilate
Joh 19:22
b Paul
Act 20:22-24; Act 21:13-14 Decision; Stability
Instability of
– General references
Pro 24:21-22; Pro 27:8; Jer 2:36; Hos 6:4; Hos 7:8; Hos 10:2; Mat 13:19-22; Mar 4:15-19; Luk 8:5-15; Luk 9:59-62; Mat 8:19-22; Eph 4:14; Jas 1:6-8; Jas 4:8; 2Pe 2:14 Indecision; Instability; Decision; Perseverance; Stability
Instances of instability:
– Reuben
Gen 49:3-4
– Pharaoh
Exo 8:15; Exo 8:32; Exo 9:34; Exo 14:5
– Solomon
1Ki 11:4-8
– Israelites
Exo 32:8; Jdg 2:17; Jdg 2:19; 2Ch 11:17; 2Ch 12:1
– King Saul in his treatment of David
1Sa 18
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Character
(Gr. character from charassein to engrave) A name for the collective traits, emotional, intellectual and volitional, which constitute an individual mind. — L.W.