good little church boy
I heard someone using the term "little church girl" the other day, and it brought back memories of being called a "good little church boy," even well into adulthood. That phrase and its variants, applied to me so many times in my life, always somewhat bothered me, but I never put my finger on it till yesterday.
It's interesting, isn't it, that the word "good" gets attached to the word "little." Of course, "big" goes with "bad." Is that because corruption is perceived to be simultaneous with growing up? Inevitable? Or maybe being "good" is something that seems an appropriate topic only for the young. This is why we try to keep children from cussing, but as soon as they reach — what age? — we stop, and it's okay for them to cuss. Well, if it's okay for adults, why isn't it okay for children? And if it's not okay for children, then is it for adults?
Maybe there's a self-preserving reason why adherence to moral virtue is the equivalent in many people's minds of velvet dresses and mary janes; why being good is something you're assumed to grow up and out of, so that an adult who still adheres is somehow not entirely adult.
To understand this, only think about why a girl I was on a date with several years ago called me a "good little church boy" when she found out about the cluster of behaviors that includes not getting drunk, not trash-talking about people, actually going to church, preserving my sexual behavior for marriage. She didn't say it scornfully; she actually sounded a bit impressed. But still, that was her phrase. After all, she could just as easily have said, "You're an admirable man of honor and integrity." That sounds more grown up, yes? But those words also put a burden on her that she may not want. She may not have wanted the responsibility of my integrity. Because integrity is something to aspire to; being a little boy is, by definition, not.
Mother Theresa hit on this in her Nobel Prize speech. We'd shut her off in the ghetto of Nobel Prize winners, saying, in effect, "You're so remarkable! You feed the poor! You deserve a prize!" In her speech, she punctured all that by saying that she didn't deserve any prize. She was only doing what Christ commands us all to do. I can only imagine the cricket-sound in the hall when she said it. She's of course right: feeding the poor is something good that we all can and should do. By giving her a gold star, we relieve ourselves of the burden of basic goodness, allowing ourselves to be categorized as normal while she's remarkable. If she's normal, then maybe we're deficient.
So I understand why so many people have tried to characterize me as either Goldilocks or Jerry Falwell, even when they know me well and know that I'm neither naïve nor hypocritical nor, I hope, on a high horse about my own blameless perfection. I'm merely a person who has decided to try to live by a set of principles. I've failed horrifically, but at least I've tried to build some strength of character out of it.
Meanwhile, I have female friends who do not have one man in their life — not one — who doesn't cheat on women. They watch their mothers and sisters and friends get cheated on, they watch their fathers, brothers, uncles, boyfriends, and husbands being unfaithful, and they think, "that's just men for you."
Why wouldn't they want to see our culture's definitions grow up?
It's interesting, isn't it, that the word "good" gets attached to the word "little." Of course, "big" goes with "bad." Is that because corruption is perceived to be simultaneous with growing up? Inevitable? Or maybe being "good" is something that seems an appropriate topic only for the young. This is why we try to keep children from cussing, but as soon as they reach — what age? — we stop, and it's okay for them to cuss. Well, if it's okay for adults, why isn't it okay for children? And if it's not okay for children, then is it for adults?
Maybe there's a self-preserving reason why adherence to moral virtue is the equivalent in many people's minds of velvet dresses and mary janes; why being good is something you're assumed to grow up and out of, so that an adult who still adheres is somehow not entirely adult.
To understand this, only think about why a girl I was on a date with several years ago called me a "good little church boy" when she found out about the cluster of behaviors that includes not getting drunk, not trash-talking about people, actually going to church, preserving my sexual behavior for marriage. She didn't say it scornfully; she actually sounded a bit impressed. But still, that was her phrase. After all, she could just as easily have said, "You're an admirable man of honor and integrity." That sounds more grown up, yes? But those words also put a burden on her that she may not want. She may not have wanted the responsibility of my integrity. Because integrity is something to aspire to; being a little boy is, by definition, not.
Mother Theresa hit on this in her Nobel Prize speech. We'd shut her off in the ghetto of Nobel Prize winners, saying, in effect, "You're so remarkable! You feed the poor! You deserve a prize!" In her speech, she punctured all that by saying that she didn't deserve any prize. She was only doing what Christ commands us all to do. I can only imagine the cricket-sound in the hall when she said it. She's of course right: feeding the poor is something good that we all can and should do. By giving her a gold star, we relieve ourselves of the burden of basic goodness, allowing ourselves to be categorized as normal while she's remarkable. If she's normal, then maybe we're deficient.
So I understand why so many people have tried to characterize me as either Goldilocks or Jerry Falwell, even when they know me well and know that I'm neither naïve nor hypocritical nor, I hope, on a high horse about my own blameless perfection. I'm merely a person who has decided to try to live by a set of principles. I've failed horrifically, but at least I've tried to build some strength of character out of it.
Meanwhile, I have female friends who do not have one man in their life — not one — who doesn't cheat on women. They watch their mothers and sisters and friends get cheated on, they watch their fathers, brothers, uncles, boyfriends, and husbands being unfaithful, and they think, "that's just men for you."
Why wouldn't they want to see our culture's definitions grow up?
Comments