Dearest Rachel –
You’re probably looking at that title, and bracing yourself for what is commonly referred to here on the interwebs as “a hot take.” There’s likely to be a heavy dose of self-justification and attempts to explain my position on this matter, especially considering that the words as put up there seem, on their face, to be morally indefensible.
And, to be honest, you’re probably right. But indulge me, if you will.
Yesterday’s message was, as you might be able to guess, about the pure of heart, and how they shall see God. According to Junior, it’s not entirely about what most people think. The conventional wisdom suggests that this blessing is the hereafter reward for those who follow Jesus; and while he doesn’t deny that, he adds that there’s an aspect of it that applies to the here and now. While we can, we need to actively pursue purity here on earth, because by doing so, we will be that much better able to see God, and in turn follow Him that much better.
All of which makes good sense, and certainly applies in so many ways to what we left here still consider to be ‘real life,’ in both spiritual and secular terms. When you’re doing right (especially if you’ve done wrong in the past, and therefore have a basis for comparison), you realize that it’s the proper way to conduct your life; Junior didn’t mention it yesterday, but it’s like once that proverbial plank is out of your eye, it’s so much easier to see what you’re trying to do (and even to help others with their own issues).
The thing that got under my skin, however, was the fact that the word that we read as ‘pure’ in the beatitude, καθαρός (we get the term ‘catharsis’ from it), can also be translated as ‘unalloyed.’ The implication is that there should be nothing ‘mixed in’ with our thoughts and behavior to contaminate it. Basically, we can’t have any ulterior motives behind the things we do and say; to do so ruins the purity of such deeds and words.
By way of example, he called out every husband who’s ever offered to give his wife a backrub. Considering this was how you and I began almost every Saturday morning session together, you can see where this is going, and why I’m about to take issue with it. Yes, it’s not an offer made out of complete altruism; it’s a near-literal example of “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.” It was a transactional exchange for each other’s mutual benefit, with each of us doing what we were best at for the other. By no means would anyone suggest I offered out of ‘pure’ intentions – indeed, the implication that I expected my ‘back scratched’ in return rendered it ‘impure’ by this standard, and not so much the fact that it wasn’t my back, nor did I want it scratched (the actual specifics of which would be what a secular person might think of as such).
Look, I’m not a big believer in Dr. Freud’s work – and if Daniel (who’s got a degree in the subject) tells me that his professors claim that he’s more or less discredited these days, I can’t say that I’m surprised. It may be a drastic oversimplification, but anyone whose theories basically boil down to a single, simple solution to the world’s problems – in this case, sex, and how much or little any individual, or society as a whole, is getting – then it’s probably safe to say that those theories aren’t as all-encompassing as he and the scientific community would like them to be.
At the same time, there’s no doubt in my mind that old Sigmund was, in fact, onto something. Left to our own devices, I do think that most of us men might still act like the brute beasts we would just as soon be. It’s only due to the civilizing effects of certain women (and our desire to have them in our lives, and… certain places in those lives in particular) that we learn to restrain ourselves for their sake. There is, to my knowledge, only one gender that can be ‘whipped’ by the other; we know which one that is, and why.
Further along in the march of civilization, so much of what we call ‘art’ and ‘culture’ can also be attributed to one man or another trying to impress one or more women, with the obvious end goal in mind. Not all, of course; not all artists were or are driven towards women, and there were and are plenty whose interests have been purely pecuniary (which, to be fair, is just a different sort of impurity, when you come down to it), but the trope of the muse-as-inspiration goes back to classical Greece. Ulterior motives have been a net benefit to society for literal millennia.
And of course, there is my own individual situation. Do you think for one moment that, if I truly believed that you and I were each other’s one and only soulmate, and I could hope for no future partner going forward, that I would continue along this self-improvement journey? Hardly; why put myself through this ordeal if nothing’s to come of it? Indeed, I might as well be as self-indulgent as I want to be; and if I should eat myself to death, all the better, as I’d be reunited with you that much sooner.
But I choose to believe (at least for now) that ‘Megumi’ is out there somewhere, and she would be more likely to find a thinner, healthier me more appealing and attractive than the version you left behind. In short, I’m using one deadly sin (lust) in an attempt to defeat two others (sloth and gluttony). That has to count for something, doesn’t it?
It may just be a case of how analogies eventually break them down at some point, too. Jesus’ sermon was delivered to a culture that had emerged from the Bronze Age (an alloy of copper and tin that proved to be stronger and easier to cast) into the Iron Age (a pure metal of a single element, decidedly superior to bronze for most applications), so they might have had some understanding of the superiority of a pure metal as opposed to an alloy. However, this breaks down when we arrive at our time, when most metal structures rely on steel (an alloy again, this time of iron and carbon) instead. What does this say about our (or, more to the point, my) impure, ulterior motives? Are they good, or are they bad.
Or, as Doctor Freud might say, are they sometimes just a cigar?
Letters to Rachel 