If you’re interested, help me settle an internal debate:
There are two opposing statements about human nature that I’ve thought a lot about, and I want to contrast them here. I’m curious what the masses (read: you 7 who follow my blog) think and why.
First is the great CS Lewis. I admit to having Brother Lewis on a pedestal, because I agree with most of what I’ve read and I am so persuaded by his easy logic and ring of truth statements. Therefore, some of what he teaches about human nature has significantly affected how I think about myself and others. From Mere Christianity, I quote:
“When I come to my evening prayers and try to reckon up the sins of the day, nine times out of ten the most obvious one is some sin against charity; I have sulked or snapped or sneered or snubbed or stormed. And the excuse that immediately springs to my mind is that the provocation was so sudden and unexpected; I was caught off my guard, I had not time to collect myself. Now that may be an extenuating circumstance as regards those particular acts; they would obviously be worse if they had been deliberated and premeditated. On the other hand, surely what a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is? Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth? If there are rats in a cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats; in only prevents them from hiding. In the same way the suddenness of the provocation does not make me an ill-tempered man; it only shows me what an ill-tempered man I am.”
This makes sense to me. I spend a lot of energy trying to curb the “natural man” in me, striving to be pleasant and friendly and kind and slow to anger and all that. My frequent failure to do so, however, has resulted in a tendency to really beat myself up. I’ll lose my temper at someone on the freeway and suddenly I feel like I’ve lost any ground I’ve gained in the positive direction. Back to square one, basically. I assume that, like Lewis says, the “real me” is the me that comes out when I’m caught off guard, when I don’t have time to shape an “appropriate” reaction. And I’m here to tell you, this girl is sometimes very slow to process and that instant reaction is not always great. So if that’s the real me, then…..not great.
Enter S. Michael Wilcox, an LDS speaker and institute teacher. Bro. Wilcox also has a simple, reasonable tone but he also speaks so much of love and mercy. His words take my breath away sometimes, in the sense that they are exactly what I need to hear. In a talk called “Using Scriptures to Solve Serious Problems” he coins something he calls the “Doubting Thomas Trap.” Though he’s talking in the context of marriage, I heard it as concerning myself. Here you go:
Far too often couples fall into the Doubting Thomas trap.
If I were to ask this group to fill in the blank: ‘blank’ Thomas….You’re all going to say ‘Doubting’ Thomas. Poor old Thomas; he’s remembered at his worst. Isn’t that sad? Sometimes we say in a marriage that’s struggling a little bit, “Ah, now I know the real you.” And the ‘real’ you is usually you at your worst, right? So who is the ‘real’ Thomas? Doubting Thomas? And then I like to ask people a question: Can anybody here think of another story in the New Testament about Thomas? I rarely get a single hand go up. Nobody knows the other story about Thomas in the New Testament, and yet we see a different Thomas. It’s in the 11th chapter of John, when Jesus is going to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead. And the disciples are concerned, they say unto him, “Master the Jews of late sought to stone thee, and goest thou thither again?” Your life is in danger if you go back towards Jerusalem. But Jesus is determined to go. And in the 16th verse we read, “then said Thomas, which is called Didymus unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
Now how else could we fill in the ‘blank’ Thomas? Devoted Thomas? Loyal Thomas, Sacrificing Thomas? ‘Willing to die for Jesus’ Thomas? So who is the real Thomas? Doubting Thomas, or Devoted Thomas? I like to think that Devoted Thomas was Thomas at his best. If we could just realize this in our marriages…as I think of my own wife. My wife at her best is the most magnificent woman God ever created on this earth. I, at my best, am…not too bad. And an eternity with somebody at their best is probably worth a few times when the stresses and frustrations of life bring out maybe not their best selves. Let us always realize that the person we married is them at their best; the devoted Thomas part of them, not the Doubting part of them.
(Listen to this amazing talk here)
Can I tell you, when I heard this my entire paradigm shifted. That sounds dramatic; But I really struggle with guilt and self-doubt, so to hear someone say that the worst parts about me don’t define me has been more helpful than any council I’ve sought out in a long time. I can go easier on myself when I think that way. I still try to do better and improve, but when I have a moment of weakness it doesn’t have the snowball effect of making me feel like a terrible person. That’s the idea, anyway—the practice of it will take time, but I like the idea. And it really has helped.
So, time to compare. Is one right and one wrong? Does one ring more true to you than the other? I believe both of them but have found one of them to be sort of damaging to my self-image.
If I believe Lewis, then I haven’t really changed at all because I still get ridiculously angry sometimes; I still am unkind at times; I still have bad thoughts and temptations. Those things are the real me because they are they quickest, most raw sides of my personality.
But if I believe Wilcox, then I’m pretty great. I still have all those negative things in me, but at my very best I’m doing good things and am confident I’m ok.
It’s obvious which one is the more attractive school of thought. Of course I want to believe that I’m great, but it’s much easier to believe I’m not. This may not be true of everyone, but it’s true of me. Perhaps this is just the age-old debate about whether man is basically good or basically evil. Anyway, I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this. A note, however: I’m not looking for validations or comments about me. I use me as an example because, well, I’m most acquainted with my own experiences. I’d really like to hear about other people’s thoughts.
.JPG)
9 comments:
This is a great thing to think about. Maybe what comes out as a quick reaction is the natural you, but that doesn't make it the true you. We are all here to try and be perfect and with a quick reaction we haven't taken time to consider the best, most Christ-like way to react. But once we have that second to think of how God would want us to act, makes us a celestial striving person, the true us, the person we're aiming to be. Maybe then the true us is who we are everyday striving to be and not who we are trying to get away from the natural us (man).
i don't believe i have anything useful to say at this point.
but i read it, and i'm thinking.
I was basically about to say exactly what Ashlee said. Maybe that's why I've always liked her so much. I do think it's worth trying to improve yourself all around and be closer to the Spirit (to get a little sappy) so that we don't snap and freak out on a dime. When I say a sincere prayer in the morning for patience with my kids, it actually works. They catch me off guard a bazillion times a day, but when I've prayed, my basic, instinctual reaction is better. But when I've let spiritual things slide a little in my life, my first reaction is almost always anger. Hmm, does that make sense? Thanks for the deep thoughts, it's been awhile since I had any :)
welcome back to the blog world (I left for a while too). It's good to hear more of Stef's deep thoughts- I missed them. I loved this post. It made me think. Which I don't always love. And here's my thoughts. I believe both of them. I do think that your knee-jerk reaction is a part of you. Yes, it's your "natural man." But does it define you? If we were defined by all of our knee-jerk reactions, we'd all be terrible people. Some of us are intuitively more patient (like me) and others have to work harder at it. But that's just one tiny little part of us that makes up our whole character. But obviously we have been given these weaknesses so that we can grow- all part of the plan. Now, the best of us...that's us too. And, I think the person we are is who we can become. Who would you be more proud of? Someone who was gentle and patient and charitable naturally who never had to work at it, or someone who had the counter weaknesses who overcame them? Wow, I just have a ton of thoughts in my head that aren't coming out the least bit sequentially. Do you get my drift? I absolutely love that Wilcox quote and can't wait to listen to the whole thing. Wow, if you could go into a marriage with that core belief and truly live it, then...wow. wow
The frame of mind of CS Lewis reminds me a little of James Joyce (who was also Irish). Though totally different writers I swear that Irish catholic guilt runs deep throughout generations. As for me, I try to define myself as God sees knowing that He understands me more than I understand myself. I feel His love and not His judgments. I disappoint Him at times, but I try to do better. I don't feel He is judging me as a whole saying that my natural tendencies are inexcusable. He wants me to do better and will help me, he knows my heart.
P.s. you think too much ;)
So, the natural man is an enemy to God. Our job is to choose Him over the natural urges. However, we are human and will make mistakes every day in things we do or say or whatever. He knew that we were going to do that, and so did we, but that is why God gave us His Son. Yes, we need to try to control ourselves and master the Natural Man, but not beat ourselves up over small failures. Jesus came that we might repent of our weaknesses, and find love and joy and peace. So long as we are working on progression we are headed in the right direction. Both quotes may be true, but Wilcox has the better, more Christ like perspective.
Steph- Such a great post. It definitely has me thinking. All I know is that I am a much more terrible person after the twins if the C.S. Lewis idea is true. :)
I think the "disguise" that Lewis talks about is our very human efforts to be extrahuman. If we can't count our best ambitions, intentions, and efforts as part of our true selves, then none of us is anything more than a sleeping mute. On God's un-time-line, we are just as much our future as we are our present and past. You are already a millennial mother and an exalted executor. There's no reason to feel guilty for the lack of fruit in your presently tiny sliver of blueberry pie. You put on your disguise every day with the idea that slowly it will add more filling to the pie that is you; that it will turn you into something more than you currently are. I think that's what Hope is. And allowing other people to do the same without judgment is Charity. Knowing that J the C is the time-traveling pie maker is Faith.
One thing about CS Lewis - and Mere Christianity specifically: It was written almost 20 years before Lewis' spiritual self-immolation and subsequent rebirth that accompanied the death of his wife. His view of Christianity became a lot more merciful after that. I think if he would have written Mere Christianity 20 years later, he would have left out the entire quote in question.
I like this stef and I know that my first reaction to something is not always who I really am. So... Sorry C.S. Lewis you usually nail it for me but not this time!
-Becca C. of twoladiesandnobaby
Post a Comment