Arrogant Self-Deprecation

This is a note I previously posted on facebook.

All of us need to be wary of arrogance. It lurks behind every victory, and it grows with every compliment. Sometimes, however, it lies hidden in some of the places we least expect. Arrogance not only thrives on the peaks of our successes but also in the depths of our struggles. When we are angry and disappointed with ourselves, we are often full of arrogance and misplaced confidence.

We showcase this type of arrogance all the time. We berate ourselves for not receiving a better grade on a paper or in a class. We get frustrated when we make mistakes on the soccer pitch or on the basketball court. We chew ourselves out when we do something stupid or say something we should not have. We tell ourselves that we are better than that, and that we are failing when we do not measure up.

             This is not humility; this is arrogance. We believe ourselves to be better than we are, and when we mess up, we cannot forgive ourselves. While there are times to be truly disappointed with ourselves, we often place too high of a standard for ourselves because we are arrogant to think that we are simply that good. Whether it is academics, sports, or our social life, we can imagine ourselves to be giants when in fact we are midgets.

             This type of arrogance also spills over into our spiritual life. To many times, true Christians become depressed because they continue to fail and to sin. We believe that we are good enough Christians that have received enough sanctification that we should do better than that. Each time we sin, we yell at ourselves, claiming that we are the worst of sinners and fall into self-deprecation.

             Now self-deprecation is different from true humility or recognizing one's absolute need for a Savior. Self-deprecation emphasizes our failures and how we should do better, sometimes resulting in depression and a weak spiritual walk. True humility recognizes our failings but cries out to the Lord for help instead of constantly chastising ourselves.

             Self-deprecation is rooted in the arrogant idea that we are more than we are: fallen creatures bound to sin and to fail.  Every weakness must be thoroughly fixed through our own efforts, and each failure to do so is an inexcusable sin. When we find ourselves continually failing, we begin to become discontent and depressed. In the end, we begin asking why God even loves us or why He continues to show us favor when we fail to meet these standards. While these are legitimate questions, they are not prompted from a spirit of humility but of arrogant self-deprecation.

             What we need to realize is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Christ does not love us any more or any less because of our successes and failures. He sacrificed Himself while we were still dead in our trespasses and sins. He looks at us as a parent looks at his children: He knows we will make mistakes and is disappointed when we do so, but He loves us anyway. If God is willing to remove our sins as far as the east is from the west, should we think berating ourselves for every failure is the best policy?

             It is only when we recognize our true position, destitute and bound to sin apart from God, that we can become truly humble. While we can be grieved even as God is grieved when we sin or fail, we can also look forward with hope and contentment to what God is molding us into. Rather than self-deprecation and depression, we should look to Christ to forgive our sins and live a life filled with hope, joy, and contentment.

             The idea that we are better than that is an arrogant lie from the pit hell. We need to recognize that we just are not that good, and we are going to make mistakes. What joy it is to know from that humble position that we have such a great God that loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us so that in the future we do not have to make the mistakes we make now.

What is Masculinity?

            Almost every conservative Christian observer recognizes that one of the major problems facing society today is a shortage of men. People everywhere demand that we raise up a generation that will supersede the perpetual adolescence of today. Too often in their cry for men, however, they fail to understand what they are actually seeking. Sure, we lack real men in our society. But what does a real man look like? What is masculinity? What is the line that distinguishes men from overgrown boys? Before we can hope for men, we must know what masculinity is.

            Defining masculinity is no easy problem. Even in conservative Christian circles today, masculinity is often times completely misunderstood. In some cases, the tendency is to adopt the modern understanding of masculinity, which is based upon physical fitness and social graces. In others, the tendency is to hide men from the realities of the world, resulting in innocent but timid and ignorant males. Both are incomplete and false understandings of masculinity.

             When discussing what masculinity is, it is helpful first to look at that which distinguishes masculine and feminine roles. Both are equal but distinct. While qualities from either role are often required in the other, the primary masculine role is to lead. Leadership requires many things, but the chief quality is confidence. Some may argue that humility is the first quality necessary. Confidence and humility, however, are inextricably linked as will be seen.

            For a male, confidence is tied to where he places his identity. He can place his identity in bodily strength, physical appearance, mental abilities, musical skills, et cetera. These places are the sources of his confidence. They are the means by which he can assert himself as an equal capable of leading. If a male has no sense of identity, he cannot have confidence. An adolescent who has been degraded his entire childhood and has no identity but shame cannot have confidence.

            Having a sense of identity, however, is not enough. Human nature tends to place its identity in social perception. Such a tendency is not all evil. Shame and honor would be meaningless without some emphasis on social perception. The problem arises when all identity is placed in that one basket. When a male derives his confidence from others, he is bound to have low self-esteem or arrogance. There is no middle ground. Either he will be elated by the opinions of others or he will be crushed. Identity must be placed in something else.

            Identity cannot be placed in anything within a male, for as time goes on, he changes and loses the ability to do what he had previously done easily. A male must place his identity outside himself in something more permanent than the shifting opinions of those around him. The only place of such permanence is Christ: the only solid rock. For a man to have true confidence, he must identify himself has a redeemed child of God saved through the sacrifice of His Son. Any other foundation can provide only temporary confidence at best.

            When a male places his identity in Christ, not only does he gain confidence, but he also receives humility. The fact that a male’s confidence is not based on anything he has done but on the work of Christ is very humbling. Since Christ is the only source of true confidence, humility is necessarily a part of confidence. Both together provide a foundation that allows one to strike a balance between low self-esteem and arrogance.

            Confidence and humility alone are not enough. Masculinity requires other, more tangible qualities. These qualities can be boiled down to four strengths: strength of character, strength of mind, strength of emotion, and strength of heart. Another way to put it is integrity, wisdom, emotional stability, and charity. All are necessary qualities of a true man.

            The first is integrity or strength of character. One needs look no further than today’s political landscape to recognize the importance of this quality. Politician after politician has lost his sway because of flaws in his character. Headlines are plastered with bribes and sex scandals. A male that stumbles into these pit falls is not capable of full leadership. Yes, it does not take character to be a general, but it does to truly lead in any capacity. Masculinity requires integrity.

            The second is wisdom. This quality is quite obvious. A fool never makes a good leader. Leadership requires wisdom to make the right decisions and carry them out. No one looks to a child in an emergency but to one who has experience and wisdom.

            The third is much more complex. Emotional stability is of utmost importance for masculinity. A male must be able to remain calm not only to exercise wisdom but also to serve as support for those who are weaker. A man has the unique privilege and responsibility to serve as the emotional rock upon which his wife and children may find stability. If the father is always losing his temper, he cannot lead well. This principle carries through in any capacity whether it is father, manager, or president. Emotional stability also requires that a man be strong enough to withstand the tempests of life. When all around him is falling apart, he must be able to remain emotionally strong. Such strength rises from true confidence in an identity placed in Christ.

            The final quality of masculinity is the one that gives purpose to all the others, and that is charity. Without charity, leadership is nothing more than a sergeant barking orders given to him from a superior. Love, particularly unconditional love, is the quality of masculinity that gives leadership a purpose. A male must love the ones he leads, and he must be willing to sacrifice for them. The best example of this is Christ as head of the Church, laying down His very life because of His unconditional love for mankind.

            All four strengths must be rooted in confidence and humility, which in turn sprout from an identity in Christ. Various manifestations or parts of masculinity can be seen apart from an identity in Christ, but true leadership and true masculinity are founded upon the confidence that only surrender to Christ can allow.

            Once a man has confidence, humility, and the four strengths, he is able to lead. But this leadership is not limited to the microcosm of the family. Such leadership ought to be filled with boldness. Boldness is often lacking from those who adopt the world’s definition of masculinity and those in the home school world that shield their sons from the world so that they are timid. Men ought to be strong and bold in their leadership. Such strength must be rooted in Christ. Our society will only see more men when people begin to place their identity not in social perception or human strength but in the cross. Until then, cries for men will go unanswered.

This truth should drive us to consider our own lives. Is your identity in Christ? Is your life marked with integrity, wisdom, emotional stability, and charity? If not, how can you expect others to be men if you fail yourself? Examine yourself. Be honest. Be a man.

Age and Wisdom

            In Homer’s Odyssey, Athena, the goddess of wisdom, assumed the form of Mentor, an old man, to give advice to Telemachus as he sought to find his father Odysseus. From that time, the term “mentor” has meant one who passes wisdom on to others and usually carries with it the connotations of older age. Even in our common understanding, we typically associate wisdom with the elderly and foolishness with youth. While these associations are often true, the correlation is not absolute. Age does not guarantee wisdom, and those who are young can possess wisdom.

            As the major premise for this blog, it is first necessary to examine how wisdom and young age can coexist. In the end, it should be seen that one who is young can obtain, possess, and communicate wisdom to others. This does not mean that one should disregard the elderly; on the contrary, those who have lived longer generally are much wiser. The point of this post is merely to explain that there are exceptions to the general rule.

            In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle divides wisdom into two categories: intellectual wisdom and practical wisdom. Sophia, or intellectual wisdom, pertains more to the theoretical and the high and lofty. Phronesis, or practical wisdom, is wisdom one encounters in everyday life, much like common sense. Many of the things contained in these essays involve both sophia and phronesis.

Sophia or theoretical knowledge can be obtained at any age. Someone who has not experienced a situation may still have theoretical knowledge about that situation. In fact, education as a whole often involves imparting theoretical wisdom so that the pupil may use that knowledge when they do experience the situation. Sometimes, the “hands-on experience” one receives in education is merely practiced theoretical knowledge. The point here is that anyone, so long as they have the mental capacity, may have theoretical knowledge of a subject without experiencing it. It is possible then for an extremely young person to have and communicate theoretical wisdom.

Phronesis, on the other hand, is a different matter. Practical wisdom requires more than head knowledge. Some may argue that practical wisdom requires experience, and that one who has not lived very long cannot be expected to have enough experience to speak definitively of phronesis. The two main premises within this argument are that practical wisdom is achieved through experience and that experience is tied to age. While there is some truth to both of these statements, neither is universally or exclusively true.

First, experience alone is not enough to guarantee practical wisdom. While experience is often the best of teachers, it cannot ensure an attentive pupil. Many may experience a situation multiple times and yet fail to gain wisdom from those experiences. Spend thrifts that constantly fall into debt, repeat criminals, and the imprudent that get taken in by scam after scam are examples of people who have experience but not practical wisdom. In fact, it is human tendency to return to previous errors. Though experience is vital to practical wisdom, it is not enough on its own.

If experience is not enough, then there must be other ways to obtain practical wisdom. One way, of course, is to be an attentive pupil and learn from one’s experiences. Even different personalities have natural tendencies in this area. Some personality types require only one experience to learn from the situation while others may require several times in order to learn. Some children need only be reprimanded once, and the lesson is learned. Others require extensive efforts by the parents to bring them into line. Attentiveness is not only something rooted in personality; it is also tied to the will. An individual who looks to learn from their mistakes will obtain practical wisdom much sooner than the individual who forgets the past and falls into the same mistakes. Attentiveness to one’s experiences is necessary for those experiences to be of any worth.

Another way exists to obtain practical wisdom: learning from the experiences of others. Perceptiveness is key to gaining practical wisdom. One may observe the successes and failures of another and analyze the means by which they succeeded or failed, thereby obtaining practical wisdom for that situation. Watching how one married couple manages to love each other into old age and another fails to last even a few years is key to learning how to become a good spouse even if one is not already married. Now, of course, merely perceiving is not enough to know all of the intricacies of a particular situation. Observing a married couple does not make one privy to all of the problems that can come with marriage, yet it greatly aids the observer in obtaining practical wisdom.

Experience alone is not enough to obtain practical wisdom. The pupil must be willing to learn for experience to be of any use. In addition, one may learn by observing the experiences of others. In the end, an attentive pupil who is observant of others’ experiences without having fully experienced the situations for themselves may have more practical wisdom than those who have more experience. Thus, the first major premise fails to include all the ways practical wisdom may be obtained.

The second premise is much easier to address. Though experience is typically tied to age, it is certainly not always the case. It is possible for one individual to have lived for many years with a sheltered life and have less experience than one who is much younger. It is often said that those who have had rougher childhoods are wise for their age because they have seen and experienced more. In another way, how one applies one’s self to what they encounter greatly adds to the experience. Thus, a soccer player who has played since he was a child may have less experience than a player who has only played for a few years and has exerted himself to a much greater extent. Though experience is generally tied to age, that trend is not absolute, and the second premise fails to be universally true.

Since it is possible to obtain practical wisdom through observation as well as through many experiences at a young age, then phronesis though generally tied to age is not of necessity. A young individual may then have something valid to say in regards to practical wisdom that much older people would benefit from hearing. This fact, coupled with theoretical wisdom that can be learned at a young age, means that even one who has not lived many years may have something reasonable to say on many issues.

Even this discussion so far, however, has only dealt with the theoretical side of wisdom. While it has been proved that wisdom may be obtained at a young age, it has not been demonstrated to have occurred in the past. As the previous analysis would indicate, even though the majority of great thinkers and writers of history have been older, some of the best have been young.

At only the age of thirty-five, Alexis de Tocqueville published what has become universally recognized as one of the premier discussions of democracy of his time and even up to the present. Democracy in America continues to have much to say about democracies, their benefits, their weaknesses, and their tendencies. Even one who was yet thirty when he toured the United States had much to say that the great thinkers of our day recognize as wisdom.

Another example is Jane Austen. At the young age of twenty, she wrote Pride and Prejudice, which has been recognized as an insightful and deep discussion of her contemporary society. Her analysis of marriage, the gentleman, propriety, and civility continues to provide a basis for discussion even in modern circles. The depth of the characters as well as the richness of the story would require a great understanding of her society that even a woman twice her age would be happy to posses.

The examples given above are not the only ones in history. Young people throughout the centuries have been able to communicate deep thoughts that would require both theoretical and practical wisdom. This is not to say that all young people are equal in wisdom to de Tocqueville or Austen. As already stated, these people are the exception to the general rule. They, however, demonstrate that a young individual may have much to say of value, and it is unreasonable and foolish to refuse to hear what a person has to say merely because they are young.

Consequently, when reading what a young person has written, one ought to examine it just as he would examine any other writing, recognizing that wisdom is independent of age even though there is a general correlation. Wisdom is wisdom, and truth is truth no matter the source. Wisdom can be found in both the words of the elderly and in the reflections of a young man.