SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 10:05 AM

    David Cross earned new bragging rights at the White House a while back, according to a Fox News report yesterday. That’s what he was after, and that’s what he gained, when he did cocaine at a dinner there in 2009: “It was just about being able to say that I did it, that I did cocaine in the same room as the president,” he said in a recent interview.

    He is an actor—a famous one. I have known aspiring actors who have thought a TV role would mean that they had really arrived. It does not seem to have been so for him. He was invited to a White House dinner. Many of us would consider that all we could ever need to boast about. But apparently for David Cross, that wasn’t quite enough, either. He needed to score one more point: to be able to add to his being a famous TV star, and his having been to dinner at the White House, “I did cocaine in the same room as the president.”

    And what does it feel like to be able to make that boast? “I’m not proud of it, nor am I ashamed of it,” he said. If I’m reading him right, it didn’t mean all that much after all. It was nothing to get excited about, just one more thing he had done. That’s not so surprising, for why should it mean more than that? Still the emptiness makes my heart ache.

    It hurts in part because of how very human it is, and how close it hits to home. I look back on my aspirations year by year throughout my career so far, and I see how getting what I’ve wanted has always left me wanting something more. I started out as a trombonist in a Christian band, part of a major missions organization. I thought it would be great to lead a band like that, and I had the opportunity, but then I thought it would be great to be involved more with higher-level leadership in the organization. For a few years I was on a mid-level national leadership team, where I discovered that there were other leaders I’d like to be associated with, and others doing work I thought I’d like to do, too. I got promoted, and then—you guessed it—I discovered there was another level yet to reach.

    I don’t want to misrepresent the organization or the leaders I have worked with, whom I consider among the most humble and godly men and women in all the world. I’m not talking about them but about myself, and how I see in David Cross’s empty quest an image of myself.

    C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is, among other things, an insightful portrayal of one man’s deathly drive to enter the “Inner Ring.” It is an ambition made hideous by the fact that its fulfillment is forever out of reach; for there is always another ring further in. (Not “further up and further in,” for those who have read The Last Battle; just further in.) There is no arriving at the inner ring. Not for musicians or missionaries; not for TV stars or White House dinner guests. There is only the empty discovery that each level of achievement leaves one in touch with others who can boast about a bit more than you can.

    This constant hunger and thirst for more is a very human thing. Its successes lead inevitably to failure; for it is a nearly universal principle that there is always more to be had, and more to want, than what one has, whether that be position, prestige, money, popularity, or whatever one might seek.

    How astonishing it is in light of that that there is an exception. There is something for which fulfillment is assured, precisely because of desire. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” The Psalms (16, for example), the Prophets (Jeremiah 29:12-13), and the Lord (Luke 11:9) promise satisfaction in God for those who seek it in him. Is there anything else of which we can say, “The more you want, the happier you’ll be?” Is there anything more surprising than a promise like that?

    It is a human thing to want more. In humanness there is always the trace of the image of God; so in fact it can be good to want, when one wants what is good, what is right, and what is promised. Thankfully I have also seen this confirmed in my experience. It is possible to find satisfaction—whatever position I am in—if I seek it in what is sure to fulfill.

    Also at Thinking Christian

    12 Comments

      Ancius
      February 23rd, 2012 | 11:25 am | #1

      I see that my last comment was deleted. Would it help if I added an affirmation of devotional literature’s value?

      Tom Gilson
      February 23rd, 2012 | 12:16 pm | #2

      Please feel free to comment, Ancius.

      Please note, however, that I wrote this post intending it to be devotional literature, and I think most of us here do have an appreciation for it. Among the several things you mentioned in your comment, “devotional literature” was not what led First Things’ web editor to decide to delete it.

      Ancius
      February 23rd, 2012 | 12:36 pm | #3

      So what did lead the web editor to delete it?

      Tom Gilson
      February 23rd, 2012 | 1:02 pm | #4

      If I answered I would have to delete my own comment.

      Ancius
      February 24th, 2012 | 11:02 am | #5

      This response is not credible. Was it my use of the word “toilet” that required the deletion? (So will you now have to delete this comment?)

      Tom Gilson
      February 24th, 2012 | 11:23 am | #6

      Ancius, you are contributing to other discussions, and you are more than welcome to do so. You’re welcome to contribute here, too, if it’s a substantive point you’re making.

      Regarding your earlier comment here, however, an editorial decision was made and it stands, whether you understand it or not, and whether you agree with it or not. Enough said.

      Ancius
      February 24th, 2012 | 11:30 am | #7

      And my observation stands: the editorial censorship here appears to be unprincipled and indefensible.

      Tom Gilson
      February 24th, 2012 | 11:38 am | #8

      I will be glad to bring your observation to the attention of the editor.

      Joe Carter
      February 24th, 2012 | 11:44 am | #9

      And my observation stands: the editorial censorship here appears to be unprincipled and indefensible.

      Commenting on this privilege is not an immutable right. The staff of FT gets to decide what comments will appear and which will not. Yours did not because we found it to be unhelpful, rude, and unnecessarily crude.

      Ancius
      February 24th, 2012 | 12:32 pm | #10

      I think you’re jumping to bad conclusions Mr. Carter. First, no one is challenging your right to delete comments. Second, if there is something problematic about a comment, you might consider letting it stand next so that others can object to it, correct it, or instructively learn. Often a comment that first appears unhelpful to someone (especially to a third party observer, like yourself) will actually stimulate a relevant and productive conversation (about devotional literature, instead of about censorship). As an person who deletes the comments of others, I would even suggest that you review the insights of J.S. Mill.

      Eric Rasmusen
      March 4th, 2012 | 9:38 pm | #11

      Every website I know deletes too few comments for low quality, so I will guess that this was a wise editorial decision. Delete more! Bad talk drives out good. Remember what Strunk and White said about useless words in writing: delete every one, because anything that is not useful is harmful.

      Eric Rasmusen
      March 4th, 2012 | 9:40 pm | #12

      It’s interesting that somebody claiming to use cocaine in the White House is not noteworthy enough to make the newspapers.

      I wonder–could that actor be convicted of federal drug law violations using his admission as evidence? Of course, Mr. Obama is unlikely to allow him to be prosecuted, and could even supply the cocaine and get away with it if he wanted to, so long as they stay in DC away from state prosecutors.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact