Vanity, Thy Name is Smith

I am vain. C. S. Lewis called vanity the most harmless form of pride, which is like calling something the least dangerous shark or handgun. I don’t think I’m alone in this regard; who doesn’t enjoy the praise and attention of others? It’s egocentric, but it requires other people to be impressed, making it less perilous than straight-out arrogance, which subjugates the opinions and desires of all other things beneath one’s own. Still, it’s pride, and pride even watered-down shifts one’s focus away from where it truly belongs. 

My vanity takes a somewhat unconventional form. I deprecate myself with the aim of eliciting objections and corrections from other people. If I take my looks into question, my friends will reproach me for bad self-talk and confirm that I don’t in fact belong under a bridge. 

If they playfully agree with my self-assessment, I change tactics and fall into false humility. The poor self-esteem changes from an act to reality. Either way, my focus is on me, me being validated and praise, or me being woebegone and self-pitying. It’s truly a vicious circle. How does one break the circle?

As always, the answer is both simple and hard. These are inevitably the characteristics of the precepts of Christianity: any answer to a Gordian knot of a problem usually involves radically shifting one’s perception and priorities, which is why humans so often are unable or unwilling to grasp and practice the answers. In this case, the solution is simply to be humble. As the old song says, “Let’s forget about ourselves, and magnify His Name, and worship Him.” Or another tune: “Turn your eyes upon Jesus, look full in His wonderful face, and the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of His glory and grace.” 

The common factor in the two techniques of vanity is that the focus is on myself; I’m trying to be comforted, approved, validated, consoled, and encouraged, based on my needs and desires, and I manipulate my friends and loved ones into doing so. It’s actually quite insidious of me, to take advantage of their genuine love for me to such diabolical ends. 

But humility says, “What I feel doesn’t matter; how other people view me doesn’t matter. I could care less whether a woman ever finds me desirable and attractive, or if I ever achieve acclaim for being a writer or teacher or golfer. Jesus is all that matters to me. He is the object of my life, and to know Him in ever increasing measure is all my desire. I don’t even care about my progress in being conformed to His likeness, or my own victories over sin and addiction! If I’m with Him, I’m fulfilled and euphoric. How great a salvation!”

O God! Give me such humility! Release me from the burden of pride, the chains of self-awareness, the dungeon of the world’s approval! I crave to feast upon Your presence, Your Grace and Mercy, Your loving-kindness which is better than anything or anyone in this life. Have supremacy in my heart’s hierarchy, Jesus. Cleanse me from guilt and shame, from my desires and lusts, from worrying about my needs and wishes.

Of Cliffs and Leashes and Sinking Ships

The recent riots in London, coupled with a rising tide of discontent and malaise among the younger generation, reinforced a notion that has been coalescing in my mind of late. One of the commentators who reacted to the London riots noted that the utter disrespect for other peoples’ rights, property and dignity shown by the teenagers and young adults mostly responsible for the carnage has been imbued by the lack of discipline and authority, of strict rules and punishments, in the realms of the home, school, the courts, and government at large. This writer’s contention was that the welfare mentality allows people to dwell in perpetual adolescence, never being forced to take responsibility for providing for a family or even themselves. Their only motivation is sating their appetites, be it for entertainment, sex, or food and drink. Their gods are their stomachs, and therefore themselves.

Whether it is the responsibility of the familial unit, the educational system, the judicial system, or governmental policies, the fact remains that in order for children to grow up into responsible, productive, decent members of society, they must have a definite and clear sense of boundaries. Do this, and you shall be punished. And of course, the punishment must occur once the transgression transpires, or else the lesson is meaningless. 

I have heard the analogy to guardrails along mountain roads in conjunction with the principle of moral guidelines and prohibitions. Guardrails restrict your freedom, but the only thing you could do by exceeding the place where guardrails prohibit is to invite disaster and destruction; drive past the guardrail and you’ll hit a car or go over a cliff. 

We all know this, at some level. Or at least, we used to. In olden times, most guardrails were implicit in moral codes; in Western civilization, this usually meant Christian ethics. One did not practice promiscuity because the Bible forbade it, and consequently society condemned it. Similarly, homosexuality, adultery, greed, envy, lust, and even gossip or discourtesy were policed by everyone. No one needed to be told to view prostitutes with disgust or dismay; it was a natural reaction to their clear violation of the codes of conduct society as a whole agreed upon. And a young person destroying another’s property was unthinkable except by the most wicked blackguard. Who would be universally recognized and condemned as a blackguard. 

How did this change so dramatically? How is it that drunkenness and promiscuity are acceptable, nay, encouraged (if popular culture in the form of movies, TV shows, and commercials are to be believed) barely a century after it was scandalous to become slightly tipsy unless on very special occasions, and a reputation for being promiscuous was to become a social pariah? Well, I believe that the steady assault on Christianity in popular society as a code of conduct and behavioral regulation has led to the sad state of affairs we are witnessing with each school shooting or flash mob. 

“God is dead!” cried Nietzsche’s Madman. “We have killed Him!” And with God perished any semblance of absolute truth, of a strict standard of moral behavior (even though such a code is but the binding on the great Novel of Christianity) from society. Herein lies the great irony that is my true subject. For the freedom that comes from Christian rules is freer than the chaotic anarchy from the society that rejects God in search of vague concepts like ‘self-actualization’ and freedom of expression. 

Within the guardrails, there is safety and freedom. Children can be free to frolic and romp in safety and joy as long as they respect the fence along the edge of the cliff. Parents need not pay close attention nor worry for their children’s safety if they have done their parenting well, for the children will obey orders to avoid the fence, or the dangerous river, or any other peril that may present itself. However, remove the railing from the cliffside, allow the children freedom to disobey their parents’ orders, and what is the result? Tragedy or tyranny. Let me explain. 

The world needs rules. It’s really that simple. The pursuit of one’s own happiness, given preeminent status since the Sexual Revolution, cannot be the absolute standard for human behavior. “It’s okay as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone” is a pernicious and erroneous creed, unsustainable in the harsh light of reality. For in reality, who can say what consequences an action might entail? 

Two lusty teenagers have sex. Disregard the obvious consequences that might proceed, like pregnancy or disease, and ponder the impact it may have on their lives henceforth. Perhaps the sexual temptation is harder to resist the next time; perhaps the marriage bed will prove insufficient to slake the thirst for titillation. Perhaps the two become cynical about relationships, seeing everyone through that prism of animal appetite that marred their first relationship. Not physical consequences, no (though it certainly could lead to them, could it not?) but are emotional and spiritual consequences any less real? Do they cause any less pain? Indeed, even more pain, longer-lasting and more debilitation to the whole person. Why are psychologists and psychiatrists so prevalent and busy listening to people talk about their uphappiness? Like children playing on the edge of a cliff, disaster is all too possible. 

Tyranny is the second possible outcome of a society that permits everything. This may seem at first blush to be contradictory; after all, wasn’t the point of discarding the moral imperatives of systems like Christianity to liberate humans from rules? Surely we are freer now, are we not? As we have seen, however, nature abhors a vacuum. 

One of the more interesting results of the recent outbreaks of civil unrest is the call for curfews. In England, heavy fines will be levied against the parents of minors out past 9pm. Metal detectors adorn the hallways of high schools, and middle schoolers are suspended for bringing a pocket knife to class. There are ratings systems on video games, and the gun control lobby continues to push for firearms to be removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens. 

In other areas, strictures and mandates are getting harsher. Some public universities (who reject any semblance of Christian values) come down hard on students having sex in dormitories. Grade school children are being taught to practice safe sex, which serves to make them aware of sex at earlier and earlier ages, which naturally leads to them having sex.

Cigarette smokers are viewed with the same disgust once reserved for coke fiends and meth heads; in New York City, one cannot smoke outside except in certain designated areas. As for smoking indoors, forget it! Not even in the privacy of your own house are you allowed to light up.

I am not here going to debate the merits of gun control or anti-smoking laws. That is not my point. My point is that with the gradual diminution of internal moral guardrails such as are found in the Bible and religious precepts, external controls are becoming more necessary as a reaction to the logical outworking of the principles espoused by the Enlightenment and its spawn the Sexual Revolution. To keep the children from falling over the cliff, the parents must restrict their actions severely. The commentator called the rioters beasts, animals; what better illustration to demonstrate this opinion than the child leashes now used to rein in small children? Is this really where society has fallen to? We must harness our children as if they were mindless beasts, dogs straining to their leads?

So much for a greater, freer, nobler society resulting from the abandonment of archaic traditions and concepts like morality, chastity, truth, and God. Perhaps the saddest thought that emerges from all this is the notion that it is extremely unlikely that the world would ever recant their declaration of independence from Christian values to combat the ever-worsening state of behavior. “This is my ship,” is their refrain. “I will go down with it!” I wonder: will this change once the icy waters rise to their neck? Or will their stubborn pride and defiance endure even to the doorstep of their own annihilation?

Crazy, Stupid, Sex

A recent film called Crazy Stupid Love came out in theatres. I won’t get in to specifics of the plot, but will touch on a few general themes which are developed in the film, so be forewarned if you plan to see it.

As one might expect from a film with ‘love’ in the title, it’s a romance story, with a lot of comedy. Since it’s a new movie, it incorporates sex as a major theme of the movie; in fact, one might well make the argument that the movie is about sex, or at least, the role of sex in relationships. Hardly any modern movie involving romance does not include sex, so this will hardly come as a surprise. 

(A quick side note: as a Christian, I subscribe to the reservation of sex to the marriage bed, and understand the outrage and disapproval that the wanton promiscuity that pervades modern society’s cultural expressions, like movies, elicits in religious people. Simultaneously, it is undeniable that sex is a major element of both the impetus to commence relationships, and a component to preserve and enhance current ones, both of which are dealt with in the movie. So while I cannot condone the portrayal of sex in the vast majority of media, the importance and scrutiny the subject draws is a legitimate conversation to have, and incidentally may be an avenue to share one’s faith and beliefs with non-Christians.)

What is surprising about the movie, and ultimately redeemed its rather salacious first act, is the acknowledgement of, and indeed celebration of, a monogamous relationship. After adultery and fornication are tasted and tested, they ultimately fail to satisfy the characters, the two male leads in particular. Which is a bit of a switch from the general consensus of postmodern sexual liberation, encouraging people to have as many sexual encounters as one desires, with whomever one desires. 

In fact, the more I ruminate on seminal movies in the romance genre over the years, the concept of finding that one true love, of a monogamous relationship with the soul-mate, crops up repeatedly. I think of movies like Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, You’ve Got Mail, Titanic, High Fidelity, About A Boy, Hitch, or countless others. Even raunchy films I am ashamed to have seen like Wedding Crashers or the 40-Year Old Virgin, which seem to celebrate and proselytize the old adage of sowing wild oats end up admitting that such a lifestyle is in the long run unsatisfying.  Other movies that mix genres even fall into this category, like Zombieland, Shaun of the Dead, Grosse Point Blank, Braveheart, and Gladiator. This is to say nothing of the continual popularity of classical love stories like Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Romeo and Juliet, or the Scarlett Letter which are remade once a decade. (Just kidding. Romeo and Juliet is bosh.)

These movies’ themes generally run in one of two ways: the lead character is a serial fornicator who skips from one sordid encounter to another, and eventually comes across someone who captures their heart and mind in such a way that they are compelled to renounce their lifestyle to be with that person. Or, the lead character is introverted and awkward, and is coaxed out of their shell to reveal their true appeal, usually in order to win the affection of “the one”.

Is it not astounding, after all the trouble that the Sexual Liberation movement went through to shuffle off the restrictions of traditional monogamous relationships that imprisoned society for centuries (due to the fierce and hypocritical judgementalism and oppression of organized religion, usually), that after forty years of sexual freedom we still gravitate toward monogamous relationships? And lest you object that I am speaking beyond my ken, I respectfully point out that the success of such movies as previously mentioned, both commercially and historically, suggests that people seem to appreciate this theme in movies. The proof is, after all, in the pudding, and you only have to examine the longevity of such movies in the affections of the audience, as well as their commercial success at the time, to discover how most people prefer to see relationships portrayed.

(Please indulge a side rant. I am no different; in fact, it was this very issue that elicited such loathing and disgust with Evangeline Lilly’s character of Kate on the TV series Lost. She was inconstant, unfaithful, worse, double-minded: first she wanted Jack, then Sawyer, and back, and forth, and back, and forth. It was relational Ping-Pong! I hate Kate.)

Now, this is not to say that all movies that steer their relationships this way are perfectly fine in how they handle them. Usually the relationship is consummated before marriage, and sometimes marriage is never mentioned. Some radicals have said (I’ve even debated this with Christians) that as long as you dedicate yourself to a monogamous relationship with that other person, you don’t need to endure the falderal of the marriage institution. In a sense, you are emotionally married; what is the need to “legitimize” it by reciting words before a holy man and filling out a license?

That is a slightly different issue, though intimately related. Suffice to say that when you formalize it with a wedding and register it with the state, it’s kind of like a business contract. Actually it’s precisely a contract that you enter in with the other person (and God, even if they don’t admit it) as well as the witnesses, that you’re dedicating yourself to another, and only another. When divorce still had a deeply shameful taint, this was an added impetus to go to extraordinary lengths to preserve marriage; now that the humiliation of a divorce has lessened, this is no longer the obstacle it once was.

What does all this tell us, if anything? Anecdotal though it may be, it suggests to me that the desire for a personal, monogamous relationship with someone at the deepest level possible is written at the core of human’s hearts. We earnestly seek that one person who will complete us, who will enrapture us, fulfill our desires and banish our loneliness for good. Isn’t that the motivation behind dating and marriage and sex? What could be more legitimate than that? Christians do it as well as non-Christians, though usually the order of business is different for unbelievers.

Why then did Crazy Stupid Love’s opening scene feature a confession of adultery and desire for divorce, the catalyst that spurs the entire narrative into motion? Why do so many marriages fail? Why do people cheat on the one they once saw as their sole mate? Why do many who don’t stray see the ardor and passion fade from their marriage, left only with a sense of stability, loyalty, obligation to children, and/or obedience to religious beliefs? Why do some married men I speak with jokingly advise me not to get married, yet with a hitch in their voice that tells me their jest is not wholly vain?

Quite simply, the Lover of our souls is not to be found on earth. No person, no matter how perfect, sensitive, understanding, or honest they are, will ever be able to fully comprehend me, will ever fully penetrate my heart and mind, will ever fill my deepest loneliness. Every man and woman is, ultimately, an island, and the chasm between each other cannot be crossed. What then remains? Why are we cursed with such a desire if no solution exists? Would evolution inculcate such a bewildering thrust in our hearts and minds? Do other animals exhibit such a longing, a loneliness, a particular attachment to another? Or is it a romantic fancy that humans have constructed to control our base animal desires?

I humbly submit that we were Designed to have that need satisfied, that the loneliness we feel is not due to a fancy of appetite or genetic impulse, but due to the loss of One who can penetrate the deep recesses of our hearts and minds, the spiritual thirst for fulfillment a Jewish carpenter promised to quench once upon a time. When the need lies beyond the physical and emotional, the solution must also surpass the physical and emotional. Who but Jesus can travel the dark, twisted paths, surmount the walls and roadblocks, and unlock the gates and doors of my heart and soul and spirit? Who but He possesses the ability and the desire to pursue me to the bottom of my heart?