Do nothing according to self-interest or according to vain conceit, but in humility be esteeming one another surpassing themselves. (Philippians 2:3; Berean Literal)

The word in Greek is ἐριθεία eritheia, and means mercenary or self-seeking.  At a casual glance, this might rule out self-interest as Godly, but a fuller quotation suggests otherwise:

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.  Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others… (ibid 2:3-4 ESV)

In verse four, Paul is saying we should look to self-interest along with that of others.  In point of fact, self-interest as motive is Biblical.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:

‘Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.’  (Matthew 6:19-20)

Made in God’s image, humans are motivated by gain – for is Creation not God’s work that he might be glorified? – and while Jesus says to deny yourself in the temporal, he promises reward secured and secure in the eternal.  Some may argue that they have no need of such motivation because righteous deeds flow from love; but there are challenges in which weak human love will be sorely tested – forgiving a grievous wrong might be one.  A follower of Christ may suffer grievously at the hands of an unrepentant enemy, yet is commanded to forgive.  

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (ibid 6:14-15)

In such instances, love might be ousted from the heart by pain and/or anger, then hope of heavenly reward is the better motivator.

What then of altruism?  Surely being altruistic is at the very heart of Christianity?  Biblically – and surprisingly to many Christians – the answer is no!  Perhaps then it is important to define altruism and examine from whence it came.

The concept of altruism does not feature in the Bible as it is a recent ‘invention’, a product of the Age of Enlightenment.  This philosophical movement that dominated European intellectuals in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries included a range of ideas that put reason and the pursuit of happiness front and centre.  Of course, this immediately set up a tension, because the two often act against each other.  And this is seen especially with wealth inequality.  So, reason might tell me that if my neighbour is poor, he might resent me and I am not safe; on the other hand, sharing my wealth with him would make me unhappy!

Of course, such tension is not new and the God of the Bible addresses such inequalities with moral law.  The Law of Moses expressly required justice, as celebrated here:

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
    maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.  (Psalm 82:3-4)

However, the other major element of the Enlightenment thinking is the separation of church and state.  This the precursor to the removal of God, that occurred through first deism (that accepted the fact of a deity, but not His influence) and then atheism, which initially meant absence of believe, then came to mean rejecting the concept of the divine.

Once God is removed along with His morality, there was no logical reason that anyone should not act entirely for short-term gain and entirely to the satisfaction of their narrow interest.  How then can any be motivated to consider the good of other people?  The answer came late to Enlightenment thinking and it was altruism.

The word ‘altruism’ derives from the Italian alturi via the Latin alteri ‘other (people)’ and was coined by French Enlightenment philosopher, Auguste Comte (1798-1857) whose ideas provided the foundation for the development of the branch of social sciences, especially sociology.

He proposed that humans have the ability to act disinterestedly in respect of others’ welfare and can choose to act and bestow benefit on others without the motivation of personal gain.   In this way, altruism is posed as the opposite to egoism, whereby all actions are driven by the endless need to the ego to be satiate characterised by the ruthless pursuit of personal gratification.

Notwithstanding, Comte’s ideas were quickly contested by others who asserted that ‘true’ altruism cannot exist, as even apparently selfless acts can carry intrinsic reward, for instance, in upholding one’s self-image as a good person. ‘Feeling good about yourself’ is thus deriving benefit.

Any concept of ‘doing good’ that came out of the Bible had to discarded.

Even the Golden Rule, ‘do as you would be done by’ is not altruism.  Consider the Good Samaritan, what recompense did he receive for his consideration toward the man left for dead by robbers on the road to Jericho?  He might hope that, should he be in the same predicament, someone would also be that solicitous?  More likely, his hope is that he will never by at the mercy of such murderous thugs.

Moreover, the futile superstition in miracles as earthly reward had to be done away with. Miracles as exemplified by the story of an early Christian, Tabitha, a woman so ‘full of good works and acts of charity’ that the apostle Peter was sent for in order that he bring her back from the dead – and note that as with all miracles, the central aim was to promote faith:

(Peter) gave her his hand and raised her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. (Acts 9:41-42)

The Enlightenment would crush such faith under the burden of worldly wisdom.

From altruism came the principle of the ‘greater good’, and that it is the concern of states not individuals to enshrine altruism in the constitutions, especially any new republics created after the overthrowing of divinely ordained monarchy.

The concept of the ‘greater good’ was not new as it was derived from Plato, who didactically posed this question: Do we know of any greater evil for a state than the thing that distracts it and makes it many instead of one, or a greater good than that which binds it together and makes it one?  (Republic 462b)

Enlightenment figures, were greatly influenced by Platonic philosophy, especially as found in Πολιτεία, Politeia or ‘Republic’ which concerns the ‘just’ city-state as an expression of the ‘just’ man.

And the pretext of the ‘greater good’ has been hitherto employed by every totalitarian regime – at least, tyrants in Biblical times were honest about their self-aggrandisement and were utterly unapologetic, as here Nebuchadnezzar’s hubristic declaration:

‘Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?’ (Daniel 4:30)

The fact is that altruism is a nice idea, but it does not work because man is not just; human reason is always trumped by human desire.  Many attempts have been made to establish states founded on the greater good, yet all too quickly they come to serve interests of a few – indeed, the good of one man, the despot.

That said, it is possible for the Christian to appear to practice altruism, but only if the focus is on eternal reward, for this will ‘compensate’ them ultimately for their immediate loss – disinterested piety simply fails.

The teachings or Christ are counter to earthly reason, if only because they demand faith in deferred, not immediate reward.  So, the Apostle Paul says this:

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.  (Colossians 2:23-25)

And note, in faith, it can be understood that all actions have consequences.  Biblically, doing wrong is any undertaking that comes from self-agency. 

So altruism is clearly not Godly.  Jesus explicitly states that doing his will, not obeying your own, is paramount, and says to any who would define ‘doing good’ and seek to justify their actions as pious:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’  (Matthew 7:21-23)

Given this dire warning, how then is the disciple meant to know what to do? Be instructed by, and apply, Jesus’ teaching through fearful study.

Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
    teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
    and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.  (Proverbs 9:9-10)

The wise man can be instructed, but can only begin if he fears God – and the word translated ‘fear’ is the Hebrew יִרְאָה yirah the feminine form of yare, which embraces a range of meaning including awe, reverence and dread; but the translation is ‘fear’, not ‘reverence’, because if the loving God notwithstanding, ceases to be an object of terror, the foundation of the relationship is all wrong.

The ultimate consequence of the Enlightenment was to ‘cancel’ God, as many ‘humanists’ aimed to release humanity from the tyranny of being God-fearing.  But actually, God already allows people to disbelief him and his existence.  However, if he does exist, he is the sovereign Creator and fearing him is the best chance anyone has; furthermore, faith in him and his promises of eternal reward will definitely incline people to do good – and appear more altruistic!