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?

The Maddening Crowd

I was pondering what it would be like to be able to heal people. I have the feeling that it would be initially thrilling, but increasingly taken for granted by others. 

It is probably like being rich, famous, or attractive (thank heaven I am none of those). I imagine that people look at you with mercenary eyes if they know about your wealth or fame; no wonder celebrities are so peculiar. In fact, the oddity is when one isn't strange. People wouldn't approach you or spend time with you for the sake of getting to know you or because they were interested in you. You would never be sure, entirely, whether a new acquaintance made after the onset of wealth or success was genuinely your friend or was simply trying to exploit you for their own ends.

I wonder if Jesus was ever discouraged. He must have been tempted to become cynical, when blind beggars and lepers would cry out to him, "Rabbi, heal me! Have mercy upon me!" Here he was trying to spread the word that God's kingdom was at hand, that salvation and remission of sins was about to become available, that the irretrievable gap between humanity and Heaven was about to be bridged...and people came to him to get their temporal problems solved. "No, no, that's all right, Jesus," they said. "We're not interested in eternal life or any of that. But if you could just heal my crippled legs or bleeding problem, that would be wonderful. Is that agreeable?" It reminds me of a comedian who did a bit musing if Jesus was ever asked to use his carpentry skills in conjunction with his healing. "Yes, could you heal our son? And we'd love some new shelves." As ludicrous as it sounds, that's kind of the attitude that seems to permeate much of his ministry on earth. "Well, fine, that's great that you stepped out of deity to compress yourself into the form of a man, die of torture for no good reason, and rise again so that people could be saved from their sins, even though quite a lot don't want to be saved and don't even consider themselves sinners! But, focus, please: all we're after is the evening meal. Could you whip something up out of your bag of tricks?"

If you're at all like me, you being a modern, enlightened, well-read Christian who's acquainted with a great many theological texts and teachings probably look with magnanimous tolerance upon the ancient contemporaries of Jesus. "Yes, well, we mustn't judge them too harshly. After all, they weren't acquainted with all the facts that we posses. We don't take Jesus for granted nowadays." That smug satisfaction only lasts until a problem crops up. "Jesus, my leg is hurting. Jesus, I need a job. Jesus, I'm lonely. Jesus, did I mention that my health's not too good at the moment?" Hmmm, remind you of anything? Just to ease up the cannon-fire you may feel I am leveling at you, these are all prayers I have prayed in the last two months, some of them as late as yesterday.

And lest we forget, "Jesus, I need to be forgiven again." Disregard the Biblical debate of the necessity of this for believers; it's still a request we want Jesus to fulfill. Do you suppose that Jesus ever thought, I wish they'd want me for me. Not out of arrogance, though it wouldn't be on his part, or self-pity, but simple exasperation! I know they're needy, Father, but can't they ever stop thinking about themselves for five minutes' time?

But we really can't, can we? Even as I write this, I'm acutely aware of my lack, my poverty, my self-centeredness, my needs. I can't even forget them when I'm admonishing the Church for that very problem! How sweet are those moments when my heart and mind are fully transported to Jesus, the Father, and Their Spirit. Usually on Sunday mornings, but occasionally at random times. What a relief to forget about my issues and angst, and focus on who He is.

Am I, after all, any better than the friends who lowered their crippled buddy down from the roof? Or the nine lepers who forgot to say, "Thank you"?

Life is not a Game of Perfect

I played golf today. As usually happens, my play was erratic. I played from the tips, the tees farthest back from the hole, which significantly increased the difficulty of the holes. The front nine was rough; faced with challenging shots and lengthier approaches to the green, I played decently but not well.

The second nine was a different story. I shot 2 over par, a great score for me.

C. S. Lewis, in his book The Screwtape Letters, refers to the Law of Undulation. Everything has peaks and troughs, high points and low points. It is a fact of life that sometimes you’re up, and sometimes you’re down. Boethius called it the wheel of fortune, where the downtrodden can rise and the privileged can tumble.

Golf is a game of undulation. In the span of a single hole, you can hit a terrific shot, followed by a terrible shot, followed by a great shot. Or any permutation thereof. What’s great about golf, and here is where the game parallels life in general and Christianity in particular, is that there’s always another shot. If you botch a hole good and proper, the next hole offers a chance at redemption. Conversely, if you do well, you can build on that and string together a good round, as I did on the back nine.

I sinned pretty badly today. I won’t bore you with details, but it’s nothing new and it depressed me. Not so much that I sinned; that’s old hat by now. But rather that I failed to live the life of Christ in me. I believe that I am cleansed from all sin, that I have the capacity to live a sinless life in me (if, that is, I allow the Spirit to live His life in me), so when I sin it means that I failed to do that, the most fundamental principle of Christianity. It’s sad. I feel like God would be disappointed in me, that one of these times He’ll turn in disgust and write me off as a wasted investment. This is definitely a valley.

Golf requires an even keel. You can’t let the good shots take you too high, or else the bad shots will shatter you completely. You can’t let the bad shots take you too low, or else even good shots won’t counteract that loss of confidence. Enjoy the good shots and forget the bad shots, realizing that we all make bad shots, even pros. The pros just do it less frequently and their bad shots aren’t as detrimental as ours; plus, they have the ability to recover from bad shots easier and better than us. That’s what makes them pros. Simultaneously, and this may seem contradictory, it helps to feel confident and positive every time you stand over a shot. When putting, the only thought that should be in your head is, I’m going to make this. If you’re thinking about how you’re probably going to miss the putt, how you are terrible at these putts, then the likelihood of you making that putt isn’t great to begin with. But if you believe that you will make the putt, if you don’t allow doubt to creep in, you’ll perform better, strike the ball with a more confident stroke, and make more putts. I’ve tried this, and it works. Expect success and success is more likely, if not sure, to follow. 

I think I set myself up for failure whenever I take my spiritual eyes off Jesus. Because He is my confidence. When it comes to living the Christian life, there’s no doubt whatsoever as to not only the best (and only) method of doing so, but also that it will happen if I put the method into practice. So when I approach a situation or a temptation that I struggle with, I can either rely on my own sinful patterns, which is akin to thinking about how horribly I handle these situations, how I always miss these three foot putts; or I can believe that I will handle the situation because I don’t have to handle the situation. I know the putt’s going in; I know that Jesus can handle the situation. Moreover, He promised that He would.  

And yet I still sin. Some worse than others, at least in how they make me feel. All are equally abhorrent in God’s eyes. I am keenly aware of the disgusting nature of sin, and so sin has a devastating effect. Like an errant tee shot, it can set up a chain reaction that ruins the whole day, or week. Heck, it can even have lifelong ramifications! Even saints redeemed by the blood of Jesus, declared to be the righteousness of God, united with the Living Spirit, can suffer under a spirit of condemnation and depression. The troughs look so dire and deep that we despair of ever coming out. So the first principle is to recognize the isolated nature of sin. It happened. Turn to God, renounce your fleshly desires, and cover yourself with His righteousness which is ever available. Don’t let the bad wrap chains around you and prolong your spiral. Remember, every shot is a brand new opportunity, and we get numerous shots per day. 

At this point you might be thinking, that’s all well and good but it’s hardly the things Jesus referenced during his stint on earth, the “life and that life more abundant” he promised, that “it is for freedom that you have been set free.” Sin, repent, repeat. What is this, the old covenant? Are we doomed to continually struggle with sin? To always fail and shuffle to the throne of Grace in need of a fresh cleansing? Doesn’t sound very appealing to me. Well, here’s where the second principle comes into play. If you believe that you’re doomed to sin, like being doomed to miss those six foot putts or mishit the 7-iron because you always do, then what are you more likely to do? Miss the putts! Sin! 

And similarly, just as you are more likely to make the putts or put a good stroke on the ball with that pesky driver if you feel confidence and tell yourself positive things, you will find that when a temptation or trial crops up you can overcome it if you trust in the indwelling Spirit of God to handle that situation, to reject and resist that temptation, to speak words of life and encouragement instead of worldly words. Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Or Romans 6: 1-14. Tell yourself that Christ lives in you, that He provides the holiness, the strength, the self-control, the patience, or whatever attribute and virtue you require for the situation in which you find yourself. And the putts will start to sink.

Holmes Sweet Holmes

I’ve just watched the first episode of the BBC series Sherlock, a modern reimagination of the classic detective stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I’m hooked.

First, the dialogue is fantastic. Say what you will about the British, but they can write dialogue that far surpasses 80% of stuff you find across the pond. At one point, in reference to being a sounding board for Holmes, Watson remarks, “So I’m replacing a skull.” “Oh, don’t worry, you’re doing fine,” Holmes replies. I was in stitches. Why are the British so good at writing witty remarks that just roll off the tongue? If I had to hazard a guess (and by gum I do; it’s my blog), I’d reference the stereotype of the stoic repressed nature of Brits, who find it necessary to express themselves with words rather than facial expressions and wild gesticulations, the way Americans tend to. When Anthony Hopkins loses his temper and barks, it’s much more impactful given the quiet and controlled nature of the characters he invariably depicts. Contrast that with the likes of Tom Cruise or Al Pacino, who seem incapable of conveying great depths of emotion and intensity without raising their voices a few hundred decibels or so. When everything’s exaggerated and loud, the occasional outburst packs much less of a dramatic punch. So in lieu of relying on very expressive body language and vocal modulations, the British convey their inner thoughts through words. How droll.

Quite apart from the actual storyline, which was brilliant and literally had me on the edge of my seat, I find myself irresistibly drawn to Sherlock Holmes and his faithful cohort Dr. John Watson. I’ve read the stories many times; in fact, I once wrote a paper for an Agriculture class using a Sherlock Holmes story as the illustration, so deep were the tales permeating my psyche. I’ve seen several film adaptations; my favorite, of course, being the spoof Without  A Clue with Michael Caine and Sir Ben Kingsley, which cleverly inverts the classic tale by portraying Holmes as a stumblebum drunk womanizer incapable of the slightest deduction, and Watson as the longsuffering criminologist who endures Holmes due to public demand. I thoroughly enjoyed the recent film Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downy Jr. as the detective, and Jude Law as Watson; the film portrayed Holmes as a borderline autistic savant full of bohemian frivolity and Watson as the straight-backed foil who cannot resist the thrill of the hunt.

Perhaps the best recent adaptation of the original stories’ dynamic is found in the medical show House, in which the title character is a brilliant yet caustic doctor who diagnoses mysterious diseases that have baffled every other medical mind. Wilson is his only friend and acts as the counter to House’s misanthropy, providing that all-important banter. After seven seasons, the show has evolved away from the original concept of a new medical mystery each week to focus more on the interpersonal relationships that revolve around the center character and his team of doctors who work with him. A medical drama, it has nonetheless provided me with more hilarity than any comedy this side of Seinfeld or Arrested Development, as House levels his sarcasm and bile at ordinary people and their quirks.

This show promises (dare I say) to surpass even the transcendence of House, if the pilot is any indication. It helps that it’s being written by Brits (he is, after all, an Englishman originally), and transpires in the original context of solving crimes in the bustling metropolis of London. Holmes is once again a manic-depressive social recluse who mocks the police and pierces through the ordinary to notice the seemingly mundane yet essential details that lead to the mystery’s unraveling. And Watson is a war veteran who craves something out of the ordinary, seeking adventure and the unusual. The actors acquit themselves excellently, delivering dialogue and action with distinction and realism. I could rave on, but you really should see for yourself.

What prompted this entry, however, is something that I’ve recognized in my tastes for a while now: some really good banter. My favorite scenes in House are when House and someone (usually Wilson) are going at it hammer and tongs. Another of my favorite movies is Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, a somewhat recent movie with the aforementioned Downy and Val Kilmer, two men trying to solve a mystery that falls into the pulp noire genre. They bicker and discuss the ins and outs of the case, among other things, with great relish; Downy thrives with biting exchanges, as seen in his own take on Holmes. Other examples include Lethal Weapon, written by the same screenwriter as KK,BB. Even The Princess Bride features some smashing good banter, as well as other of Bill Goldman’s movies like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or Maverick. It’s the wordsmith in me that delights in a great comeback or a clever turn of the phrase. Heck, to complete my anglophile profile, I admit that my most beloved passages of the Harry Potter series are when Ron and Hermione are going back and forth; Ron in particular has some riotous one-liners that are sadly lacking from the film adaptations.

One theme that resonates with me deeply is the notion of a loner, misunderstood and despised by most, who finds a companion who can understand him or at least appreciate him (or her, I suppose, though I can’t think off-hand of female characters that fit this bill). Holmes has perennially been such a one, the genius at deduction and observation impatient with those who fail to see and grasp the revelations hidden within minutiae. Most of us have come across such a one sometime in our lives; a person who offers a different perspective on life than virtually everyone else, and who consequently suffers because of it. One of my favorite moments on House occurs when a prolific musician confronts House, noting that most people don’t have that “one thing” that elevates their hearts and minds to great heights, at the cost of being “normal” and enjoying the everyday elements of life. The very thing that distinguishes them from the masses isolates them from the masses; they cannot participate in life as we do. So when they can find someone who will put up with or appreciate their genius, it makes it that much sweeter than if they had lots of friends and raised a pint at the local pub regularly. When you don’t have very much of something, you appreciate what little you do have more than if you enjoyed bounty in that area.

I am no genius, but I am abnormal. (And don’t start on that vein of “what is normal?”; I know it’s mostly a social construct, but the reality is that the vast majority of people in a society behave in similar ways). I have always fancied, during bouts of self-pity, that I am actually in a worse state than those tortured geniuses who produce greatness at a high price, since I don’t even have the consolation of being a great artist or athlete or arithmetician to go along with my loneliness. I just find it difficult to make friends, to find people who appreciate me. Which means that when I do, I tend to be overeager to spend time with them, like a thirsty man in the desert gulping water at the first oasis he happens upon. The Lord has been working on that with me, and I am leagues beyond where I was 8 years ago in this area, but it’s still a struggle not to call up my few friends on a daily basis to hang out with them. Man is a social beast; one of the first conclusions God drew from His observation of Adam was that it wasn’t good from him to be on his own. We need companionship; not just in the physical sense, but even more so the friendships, the relationships that are built not upon common need and desire, but upon common interest and enthusiasm. (I merely repeat what C. S. Lewis posited in The Four Loves, but we all mostly repeat Jack when we discuss a practical truth about humans).

It is, in essence, the greatest testament of genuine affection found on earth, the true friend. For a lover, spouse, parent, or child all love and are loved with ulterior motives. The lover craves physical satisfaction, the experience of ecstasy and affection for themselves as well as the beloved. The spouse wants the same, as well as companionship and stability, a fellow traveler on the road of life and a helper in domestic matters. The parent and child are two sides of the same coin; the parent loves the child, but also takes solace in the continuation of the human race and the satisfaction of creation from their offspring. The child appreciates parents for providing affection and protection during early childhood, as well as guidance and counsel throughout their lives. There is no disinterested affection in life, save the Friend.

The Friend does not appreciate you for anything you can provide to them. I am referring to the ideal of a Friend, as Plato would have it. If two people are friends because one has money or access to luxuries and the other appreciates that access, then they are not true Friends; their friendship is contingent. An ideal Friend does not care what the other person has to offer, but rather that the other person is willing to offer it to them. I enjoy golf, and when I was friends with Johnny Vines, it didn’t matter what golf course we played at or whether he paid for my round or I for his; we enjoyed each other’s company and the common interest that united our hearts and minds. Gloriously, we shared many common interests, and as our friendship deepened, it expanded to encompass these other things. But I wasn’t friends with him because he had cable TV, which I would take advantage of; were that the case, we would not have been true friends.

If you have never had a true Friend who asks nothing from you and from whom you hope to gain nothing, then you are truly missing out. For a friend like that will truly stick closer than a brother; brothers and sisters, after all, are accidents of birth. We don’t choose our family; we do choose our friends, and our friends choose us.

And by the way, what a Friend we have in Jesus.