Saturday, November 21, 2009

What is this greatness I speak of?

Last weekend I went to a conference at the University of Notre Dame, and I heard a talk that discussed the children's story by Shel Silverstein: The Giving Tree (1964). For those of you who are unfamiliar, The Giving Tree is about a relationship between a young boy and a tree in a forest. The tree always provides the boy with what he wants: branches to swing on, shade to sit in, apples to sell for money, branches with which to build a home. As the boy grows older he requires more and more of the tree. The tree loves the boy very much and gives him anything he asks for. And as the tree loses the branches, apples, and etc. she never grows any of them back so as to really be giving each once and for all. In the ultimate act of self-sacrifice, the tree lets the boy cut down her trunk so the boy can build a boat on which he can sail. The boy leaves the tree, now a stump. Many years later, the boy, now an old man, returns and the tree says, "I have nothing left to give you." The boy replies, "I do not need much now, just a quiet place to sit and rest." The tree then says, "Good! A tree stump is a great place to do just that! Come boy, sit down and be happy." The boy obliged and the tree was happy.

Now this story has classically been interpreted as depicting the greatness of self-giving love. The tree will do anything the boy wants even at the cost of giving away all that she has. In many ways, I believe the author intends to show a proper parent-child relationship. Parents give continually for the happiness of their children, and insofar as the child achieves happiness, the parent is also happy. However, in the end I hope you are as appalled at this story as I am. The selfishness of the child, especially late in his adult life, when he asks for the most substantial portion of the tree for a boat is unbearable for me. I could stay on this point, but I think there is an even more egregious part to this story: the action of the tree that is fundamentally opposed to love and greatness.

It is not enough to simply give ourselves away so that others can be happy. I have an assumption that the author knew what he was doing when he continued to refer to the man as a boy even until the end of the book. But who is to blame for this elderly boyhood? The tree is at least as much if not more at fault than the boy himself. A child is only supposed to be dependent on their parents temporarily, but eventually they are to learn how to be self-sufficient. (Mom/Dad if you ever read this, I promise I'm trying!) The point is that all self-sacrifice for others isn't good or loving. If the tree wanted to do what was truly good for the boy, the tree would have said "No." to him even though the boy wouldn't have liked it. Instead, what the tree was doing was poisoning the boy by giving everything he wanted immediately. The true good of the boy wasn't what made him happy in the moment, but rather the true good would have been a refusal of his immediate want so that he could learn to provide for himself. And good parenting, I can only suppose, would involve slowly teaching the child to provide for himself by giving less and less until eventually there is no need to give anything. I draw on this example because I wanted to remind us all that love is desiring or willing the good of another even over our own good, and good is not synonymous with immediate happiness. Good, rather, teaches others how to love in the same way.

Although I am reluctant to define greatness because it is such a broad thing and I don't want it to become narrow in my mind or anyone else's, I will say that it is aimed at this point: to bring out that which is good, or rather, that which is best in you and me. To use our tremendous human capacity to do amazing things (like flying to extra-terrestrial surfaces) in order to do more good than the world has ever seen. The greatness I speak of, and am striving to achieve, is the ability to love. More specifically, greatness is the ability to decide well (be prudent) about how, when, what, and who to love. Greatness is the ability to love those who truly need love but, by some injustice, are not being loved. Greatness is the ability to be strong and steadfast in love (especially when it is hardest to love). Greatness is the ability to moderate our love of others, unlike the giving tree. We are to try to love only to the extent that we can. And, love in a way that puts others in a position to be able to achieve greatness themselves. In this way, we don't concern ourselves with simply what people want, but we are concerned about what the actual greatest benefit of others is. Sometimes we are faced with decisions that are not between good and bad options, but between options that are either good or better. With this in mind, "great"-ness itself is by definition vague because it denotes the condition that is above or better than what is merely good. Though it is vague, it describes something real (not everything in life is simply concrete, we need to realize that our inner dispositions affect the concrete). Greatness is a culmination of knowing the truly good that we can do for others and the desire to achieve that good to the highest degree we can.

In my opinion, to define greatness any more than this would be foolish. There are as many expressions of greatness as there are people in the world. Each of us is made to be great, but perhaps the first question that each of us needs to ask is, "How am I, unique yet incredible, called to become great during this short life I've been given?" When the answer to this question is governed by understanding greatness as essentially about others, only then can we begin the journey for greatness. We will not be afraid or unhappy because our regard will not be primarily for ourselves (humility). We will not be suicide bombers, which may be supposed and bestowed martyrdom but is not true martyrdom. This is because we will have regard for ourselves insofar as we see that our lives are a gift and they are a gift to be given so that others may have full lives. The true martyrs in the world are those who embrace martyrdom each and everyday. No matter if they are blessed with the opportunity to give their lives once and for all, they are prepared to do the harder thing and give their lives completely again today as they did yesterday for the sake of what is truly Good.

Thanks for the comments you all made on my last post. Please continue to give me feedback.

With the tremendous capacity unique to humans, and love that expels all fear, let us pursue a greatness that the world has never seen!

8 comments:

  1. An appendix:
    It's been my experience that everyone has some sort of a longing to do great things. This is true for all of us at least at some point during our lives, even if we don't feel like we have that desire at present. I would encourage all of us that this is actually a good desire. But more than just doing some great things and influencing a political stance or making our names known or etc., it's my aim that we use our desire to become great in just the way that I have described above: to love others and desire what is truly good for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. a couple things...

    1) I also see greatness as the ability to love without expecting love in return, or needing love in return.

    2) We must also to be discerning in where our human capacity to love ends and where the Lord's love through us begins. Essentially, we should desire to love with His love, not our own, because we will fall short.

    ...and this also leads me to ponder the intention behind love. maybe next time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have a couple of issues with the post. First, you begin by arguing that the tree's love was not good love, for it handicapped the boy, making him a child for far too long. You say that the tree should not have given so much of itself to the boy. Well, what about Christ? And the martyrs? The tree still has a stump, but Christ and the martyrs have given EVERYTHING...are we to say that they have given too much? That their love was not prudent, but instead handicapped those whom they were giving their love?

    Secondly, I find this line to be quite errant: "This love (from a parent to a child) would involve slowly teaching the child to provide for himself by giving less and less until eventually there is no need to give anything." If this is my parents notion of parenting, then I am appalled! Certainly, over the years the physical, emotional, etc. support thatparents give children may differ, but to say that at some point parents no longer need to given anything to their child misses the point of parenting entirely. One can never know what tragedy, misfortune, loss of job, car crash, hurricane, emotional, psychological, religious distress, etc etc etc. that a child may encounter at some point in their lives, and it is the role of the parent to be their always encouraging, loving, and supporting their children. Amen. Alleluia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Anonymous,

    To your first point about Christ and the martyrs (and hopefully us as well, God willing): It's not a matter of simply giving everything, if it were, the tree would be a wonderful example. I hope that we can see that it is indeed about giving EVERYTHING but for that which benefits others the most, not just simply to make others happy in the moment. In my view Christ and the martyrs do this because they are giving everything for truth and the salvation of others. The tree only handicapped the boy insofar as the tree didn't have in mind what was best for the boy, but was simply short sighted in her giving to the boy.

    To your second point, I apologize for not giving an exhaustive account of the parent-child relationship (a book on the matter cannot even do that!). And I also apologize for presenting it in a way that allowed you to take my comment out of context with the story. However, I do not apologize for what I said. I didn't say "the entirety of parental love is consummated when the child can take entire care for himself" or anything like that! All I'm saying is that it is good for a parent to eventually teach the child to be on his own. In this sense, you and I are using the word "need" in different senses. I am saying that, at some point, it is good when the child is trained to take care of themselves apart from parental help. You are reading it as me saying that the child is never again allowed anything from his parents again no matter what. I neither said this nor do I think it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fight, Fight, Fight . . . Fight!

    Amen. Alleluia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just think it's funny that we're have a debate over what constitutes good parenting between two people who obviously have no clue what it's like to actually be a parent, much less a good one. Allahu akbar.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...wait, I got that wrong. Amen. Alleluia.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear other anonymous,

    Finally a good objection!

    ReplyDelete