Ads


Drifting Toward the Rocks

He drifted on the water, the man dozing on the inner tube, and didn’t wake till he nudged the wall of scree and shattered rocks at the far end of the reservoir. Not that there is much of a current in that little lake, formed by piling earth and broken boulders across the neck of a red-rock canyon. Just enough to coast him slowly, peacefully, inexorably down the hundred yards to the stone-littered hill of the dam—where he woke with a yelp and a startled leap at the touch of those sharp-edged stones.

She drifted on the shore, the woman in the floppy straw hat, a green-print towel draped over her legs, and the black leotard top of her swimsuit framing her sun-burnt shoulders. Poking at a computer tablet, she seemed to be coasting vaguely from one link or file to another, surfing videos—the little squeaks and tiny tintinnabulations of the computer speaker just audible around her.

I drifted, too, there on the faded gray wood of the old, wobbly dock off to the side, my feet dangled down in the water, while my daughter practiced her swimming, back and forth across the green-gray lake. And the younger children of other families, splashing in the bright sun, with the sky so blue in its frame of red rock cliffs—too blue, really: almost false, and decorated with the kind of wispy clouds that only the hokiest painter would dare put in.

And the long dusty red striations of the canyon, capped with green-black pines: Squint a little, and those horizon-topping rows of trees have always looked to me like caravans, camels and horses and people, heading off to trade with the nearby mountains. Whenever I drift a little and stare at them, I get to thinking that maybe I should have gone with them on their journey. That maybe I should have done things differently. That maybe I have wasted my life.

Then the man on the inner tube awoke with a shout as the rocks brushed his feet—sitting up suddenly, too hard and too fast, so the inner tube squirted out to flip up in the air behind him and dump him with a splash into the shallow water. I think it must have been painful—those broken stones down at the end of the lake are sharp—and he yowled, scrambling along on hands and knees after the inner tube, trying to stand up and stumbling each time as the rocks sliced at his tender feet, before he finally caught up with the spinning tube and surged across it, belly first, puffing like a loud and startled walrus.

My daughter pulled up, bobbing in the water to see what the fuss was. The splashing children all froze in the shallows. The woman in the hat bounced to her feet in worry, shielding her eyes with her computer tablet while she stared anxiously down the lake till the puffing man began paddling his slow way back up from the dam—at which point, interestingly, she turned to check on the children before the uneasy look faded from her face.

The lake is chillier than you’d expect on a bright summer day; fed by a cold stream tumbling down from the hills, it’s maybe twenty or thirty feet deep out in the middle and never really warms up. My daughter was trembling as she climbed up out of the water, so I wrapped her in a towel and hurried her to the car.

The dust of the dirt road swirled up behind us as we drove back to town, a beige so light it looked in the rear-view mirror like a white fog trailing after the car, while my shivering daughter leaned forward, almost touching the heater vents on the dashboard.

This broken western country is home for me; mountain lakes in red-rock canyons hold echoes of the years gone by, and the presence of the past is what makes a moment rich with meaning, thick with memory. But the future: That’s what makes the present important. That’s what lends each moment significance and weight. That’s what forces consequence into the choices we make and the paths we choose.

We cannot drift, really. We cannot coast forever. We cannot agree with a shrug to leave our children a world of abortion, and endless war, and corrupt policy, and hurt souls. Though there is no final victory that we can achieve on our own, still we must fight so things don’t worsen. To have children is to look to the future and glimpse the moment’s consequence. To have children is to understand what it means that down at the end of the easy stream, the rocks are sharp and the water cold.

Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.

Comments:

7.15.2010 | 9:09am
Mr. Bottum,

Engaging post; thank you: I am reminded of Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 24:6 - And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mark 13:7 - And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.

Abortion is an evil far greater than slavery; I'm afraid that, because we officially condone it, our nation will not long endure.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hurt souls." Has there ever been a soul who wasn't hurt somewhere along the way?
7.15.2010 | 10:03am
Tim Murphy says:
Jody, I'm glad you're out in red rock country. As usual, I'm in black dirt country. I wish however, that your essay had not excluded the childless, like Richard Neuhaus or me. Don't cut your feet on rocks.
7.15.2010 | 11:13am
paul h. says:
Sentimental, badly-written tripe like this is the reason that I don't subscribe to your magazine.

(Hello, moderator! I'm sure you're about to delete this comment, but it doesn't make it any less true.)
7.15.2010 | 12:04pm
Kurt H. says:
Sentimental? Sure. Badly written? I didn't think so. Tripe (i.e., writing that is false or worthless)? Certainly not! Thank you, Mr. Bottum, for finding and sharing a metaphorical life-lesson in a simple trip to the lake.
7.15.2010 | 12:19pm
Dave Gecks says:
'Hurt souls' got my attention. All of the destructive consequences and manifestations enumerated in the last paragraph of the article involve, in part, removing God from the public square resulting in "hurt souls."

Floating 'free' from God and truth, goodness and beauty is dangerous for the soul.

From Hans Urs Von Balthasar's introduction of the first volume of Theo-Logic:

All of the perversions that human freedom can inflict upon being and its qualities always aim at one thing: the annihilation of the depth dimension of being....... Of course, the ultimate ground of the mysterious character inherent in the knowable is disclosed only when we recognize that every possible object of knowledge is creaturely, in other words, that its ultimate truth lies hidden in the mind of the creator, who alone can speak the eternal name of things. …. It is God, then who secures the transcendentals against all the assaults of human freedom- however much ruin this freedom might cause.
7.15.2010 | 1:10pm
Jim Cole says:
I am puzzled by Tim Murphy's comment that this essay somehow "excluded" childless persons. Using personal experience to illustrate larger principles necessarily excludes in some sense anything that is not part of that personal experience. If childless people such as Mr. Murphy write essays that make allegories of their experiences, that's fine, too. Father Neuhaus knew how to do that. We learn from each other by reading such essays that are not within our own experience and do not address our own circumstances. If it is legitimate to criticize an author for not trying to include everyone else's experiences as he writes about the meaning of his own, then individuality may as well go out the window, and we will all lose a large part of what is interesting about being human.
7.15.2010 | 1:32pm
This is not a sentimental piece. This is a poetic piece. It gently pushes with its frankness and honesty. Poetry does not have to spell out the meaning of the form, and this piece doesn't spell it out either. And yet, there is also a philosophical argument that takes place. Poet and philosopher, seemingly irreconcileable, in perpetual conflict, suddenly meet. Face to face. Eyes of art are seeing the eyes of wonder, and they realize that the form reflects being and harmony. In other words, beauty.

Lonergan spoke about drifting...we cannot be objective, nor can we make appropriate decisions if we drift. Soul will continue to suffer. I am currently working on a little book on acedia and its effects on our soul and your essay relates to it; drifting is certainly one of the symptoms. Drifiting (and acedia) encourages vagueness and anxiety. Sickness of the soul is a serious problem and despite the fact that we cannot achieve an absolute solution to the problem, we can try to do as much as we are able in the name of Truth.
7.15.2010 | 2:27pm
Mark says:
My father used to tell to never trust someone without a sense of humor. After reading Paul's "criticism", I would add that we should never, ever, under any circumstances, trust someone who mocks the sentimental.
7.15.2010 | 4:08pm
Mr. Bottum, I don't share your politics, not remotely. I'm a liberal Planned Parenthood donating gender studies professor.

But I share your love of the land, particularly of the West and the pioneers who shaped and were shaped by rock and soil and water. I love your poetry, especially the magnificent final lines of your "Undivided Heart":

"In Faith’s green age I climbed the hill
behind the cabin, through the pines,
to sit alone in the fire glade.

The aspens flashed like mirrored panes,
and in the breeze the rippled leaves
whispered there of light and dark,
death and love and sacrifice,
the undivided heart that springs
to fill the broken heart of things."

As the father to a daughter who will soon be two, the final line echoes in my head, and I recite it to her from time to time.
7.15.2010 | 9:14pm
Acedia, another word that makes one look deeply into our times, at the part of the world which is indifferent until a minor unpleasantness or personal upset strikes one's little inner tube. The other word, which I wrapped my "hurt soul" around when I first learned it, is anomie, the anxiety which comes with cultural disintegration, which I had felt deeply for so long. I had not known it was a human condition. I thought I was alone in my existential angst. However, not being a nihilist, I've yearned for meaning and a sense of place. I know it is iwhere God and faith are, but I just can't seem to touch or see that shore just yet.
7.15.2010 | 9:14pm
Martin Snigg says:
Thank you Prof. Bottum.

I have to admit it took time for the horror of abortion to bubble up into my understanding, perhaps I was numb. Now when I can't imagine a particular little one not existing I think of those futures stolen with scissors and incinerator. I do now hate why we refuse to allow them to live when we were given the privilege and the protection of the law. I do now ask how we could not fight this butchery, even while against the ghouls and resources of Planned Parenthood it sometimes seems there can be no victory.

Perhaps it was because you did keep fighting that someone like me was enabled to come to his senses. Thank you.

I'm chastened by the likes of Mr Schwytzer, who reminds me of my evil, the kind that with one hand appears to humanize but with the other actively, with money and teaching, destroys humans and their meaning. His sentiments remind me of the variety of affect that will not extend to mothers and their 2 y.o.'s who will never be - abandoned as they were and preyed upon in a moment of crisis by PP ideologues.

Like me before him it seems Mr Schwytzer, from the Christian perspective, is at best a tool for the chastisement of the faithful and, ultimately, for their glory when caused to fight and persist 'til the end.
7.15.2010 | 9:47pm
Eric says:
There is, I think, a cosmic mystery in Hugo Schwyzer's appreciation of Bottum's poetry. Peruse Schwyzer's blog and you'll quickly find him to be the Anti-Bottum.

He even has a post that comes about as close as you can to an "anti-Humanae Vitae".

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/07/07/the-longing-to-jump-the-life-to-come-a-reprint-on-shakespeare-contraception-and-risk-taking/

It seems their love of the land and poetic tastes are the joining peaks of inverse personalities.

And his profile shows that he is, surprise, surprise, an Episcopal youth minister.

He is precisely the man of whom we cannot shrug our shoulders and leave unopposed.

Hugo, that millstone you're wearing doesn't have to be permanent.
7.15.2010 | 11:50pm
I didn't come here to argue, or to derail the thread. But we who are on opposite sides in the culture war (I think we can all agree that such a state of conflict does exist and is ongoing) need to fight against the temptation to caricature our ideological enemies.

One way we avoid that temptation is looking for moments in which we can appreciate, however poignantly and with no small degree of bewilderment, that those on the other side of a cause we consider so basic and so central can nonetheless share the same loves, the same passions, the same aesthetic sense that we do. I wrote Bottum a fan letter years ago after he wrote a marvelous take-down of the mediocre Andrew Motion, then the poet laureate of England. He wrote me a short and kind note back.

I've subscribed to First Things for years. I like being challenged. I may be the stereotypical liberal L.A. Episcopal youth minister who supports gay marriage and a progressive sexual ethic, but I didn't arrive at my positions through intellectual laziness or through bad faith. I wrestled to get where I am (perhaps you think I lost the fight to You-Know-Who), and I wrestle still. I like knowing what my "opponents" are thinking, not least because I need to be reminded of how badly they want what I want, which is to build God's Kingdom and be faithful to His call, even if we interpret the specifics of that call in such stunningly different ways on some very important issues.

I teach in the same department with the philosopher Ed Feser, whose numerous works are probably well-known to many of you. He holds a weltanschauung fairly close to that of the FT editorial board, if not further to the right. He is a passionate advocate for making abortion illegal and for defending the limited marriage franchise. We are on opposite sides, and we get along splendidly.

We don't get along out of a sense of duty, or out of a sense of denial about the other's views, or out of a sense of moral cowardice. We get along because we see Christ in the other. We both think (I am fairly sure I can speak for him) a good deal about how our lives match up to the great call, we both struggle to be faithful. We each believe the other is a delightful man with absolutely appalling and wrongheaded views. And we pray for each other.

I do not ask to be unopposed. As a youth minister, a college professor, a blogger and an activist, I've chosen a modestly public role as an advocate for a particular position in the world. I didn't drop in to pick a fight, but rather to salute the prose and verse of a man whom I admire immensely, a man whose words never fail to stir both my emotions and my reflections.

The fact that his words, like those of Father Neuhaus, had no discernible effect on my politics will not, I hope, be taken as evidence of their lack of power and grace.
7.16.2010 | 1:07am
Eric says:
Hugo,

You commented on a post that was a reflective admonishment and rallying call to action against a corrupted and corrupting world, not least of which is wounded by abortion, its participants and enablers. Your comment opened by identifying yourself specifically as an enabler of abortion, and your blog shows you to be a participant, as well.

It presents a peculiar opportunity to commend Bottum's writing. The true aesthetic is not in his prose, but in his message.

I commend you for your civility, and I agree that my remarks came on the cheap. For that I apologize. My thinking was not charitably driven. The following, however, is:

The difference of your views from your 'opponents' is not a matter of 'politics'. It is a matter of blood. There is blood on your hands and the fruit of your counsel is death. Death. Your fight is not yet over, and is not yet lost. Repent and be saved.
7.16.2010 | 2:54am
Luke Patient says:
Your reflections reminded me of the following, lesser-known work of T.S. Eliot. These choruses happen to be a personal favorite of mine.

Of all that was done in the past, you eat the fruit, either rotten or ripe.
And the Church must be forever building, and always decaying, and always being restored.
For every ill deed in the past we suffer the consequence:
For sloth, for avarice, gluttony, neglect of the Word of GOD,
For pride, for lechery, treachery, for every act of sin.
And of all that was done that was good, you have the inheritance.
For good and ill deeds belong to a man alone, when he stands alone on the other side of death,
But here upon earth you have the reward of the good and ill that was done by those who have gone before you.
And all that is ill you may repair if you walk together in humble repentance, expiating the sins of your fathers;
And all that was good you must fight to keep with hearts as devoted as those of your fathers who fought to gain it.
The Church must be forever building, for it is forever decaying within and attacked from without;
For this is the law of life; and you must remember that while there is time of prosperity
The people will neglect the Temple, and in time of adversity they will decry it.

What life have you if you have not life together?
There is no life that is not in community,
And no community not lived in praise of GOD.
Even the anchorite who meditates alone,
For whom the days and nights repeat the praise of GOD,
Prays for the Church, the Body of Christ incarnate.
And now you live dispersed on ribbon roads,
And no man knows or cares who is his neighbour
Unless his neighbour makes too much disturbance,
But all dash to and fro in motor cars,
Familiar with the roads and settled nowhere.
Nor does the family even move about together,
But every son would have his motor cycle,
And daughters ride away on casual pillions.

Much to cast down, much to build, much to restore;
Let the work not delay, time and the arm not waste;
Let the clay be dug from the pit, let the saw cut the stone,
Let the fire not be quenched in the forge.

2nd Chorus from The Rock
7.16.2010 | 12:30pm
This is reminiscent of the best of Joseph Bottum, e.g. his lyrical stories of Christmas and Thanksgiving in Dakota (South, I think.)
7.16.2010 | 4:53pm
Marka in the Keys,

hang in there. To battle both acedia and anxiety, let yourself be guided into the world and experience of beauty. Seek the harmony and Truth and shore will be revealed.
My reading suggestions: Josef Pieper's "Leisure Basis of Culture," St. Augustine's "Confessions," Balthasar's Theological Aesthetics, volume 1, Benedict's Vatican address to the artists (you can probably find it on Vatican website) and his essay on beauty and contemplation (separate essay), and Fr. James Schall's "Life of the Mind."
7.19.2010 | 3:33pm
Texan99 says:
I have to wonder if Mr. Schwyzer would have found the piece equally sentimental if the author had not specifically mentioned abortion. There are people who simply cannot sit quietly when someone calls us to arms about abortion, but who wouldn't at all mind being called to arms in exactly the same "sentimental" style against racism or the unequal distribution of wealth. The objection to the style is an excuse. The issue of abortion is the sore point.
7.19.2010 | 6:19pm
Texan, I didn't find the piece "sentimental", at least not in the pejorative way. Read through the thread; you're confusing me with paul h.

As for the point, of course I disagree about the meaning of the story. As a good global-warming-is-happening-and-largely-caused-by-humans liberal, I think that we could change three or four lines in this beautifully written story and have it serve as a serious warning about the growing risk of carbon emissions.

Try this:

"We cannot drift, really. We cannot coast forever. We cannot agree with a shrug to leave our children a continually warming world, endless war, corrupt policy, and hurt souls. Though there is no final victory that we can achieve on our own, still we must fight so things don’t worsen. To have children is to look to the future and glimpse the moment’s consequence. To have children is to understand what it means that down at the end of the easy stream, the rocks are sharp and the water cold."

I have a daughter whom I love. The fact that my high school girlfriend had an abortion, the fact that I have supported abortion rights for women for decades, the fact that I have helped pay for the abortions of teens in my youth group, the fact that I give to the National Network of Abortion Funds, means that my soul is in grave danger in the eyes of most of you. I take the stances I take prayerfully, humbly, acknowledging the possibility I could be wrong. I know I will stand before my God and be judged for what I did and what I failed to do. I approach that prospect with fear and trembling, as I suspect all of you do too.

But as monstrous as it seems to you, I also believe that when I do the work I do, teach the classes I teach, mentor the kids I mentor, write the checks I write, I am doing my best to "feed the lambs." To do otherwise would indeed be to wear the millstone.

The gulf between our positions is vast. But we can be civil, and more than civil, we can wonder at the God whose gift of common grace means that our ideological enemies can find beauty in the same rock, the same earth, the same sky, and the same wonder of creation in which we ourselves delight.
7.19.2010 | 10:19pm
Beatrix says:
Way back to comment #1 - Edward Alleyn @6:09 - Abortion is "an evil far greater than slavery"?

Abortion is a horror, but there is a genuine and legitimate tension - civil, moral, natural - between a woman's right to own and control her own body - including the right to have a foetus surgically removed from her body - and an unborn baby's right to live, even in a temporarically parasitic state. Pretending this tension doesn't exist or trying to sentimentalize it into oblivion just adds dishonesty to the question; and BTW I do loathe abortion.

A slave owns nothing, including his/her own body. Probably better to be aborted than to be born into slavery - an institution which has ground the lives of millions into dust over the millenia. There is no justifiation for it, no legitimate debate, no balance of rights; it is just evil.
7.21.2010 | 12:48am
Tim says:
Dear Hugo,

As I read your post in which you reflect about the "wonder of creation" -- and where you are implicitly congratulating yourself for sharing this "wonder" and for exercising "civility" with your "ideological enemies" --

I couldn't help but think that if you could only find the same beauty you see in rocks, earth, and sky in a small, innocent human child in the womb, you would not so cavalierly have "written your checks" to pay hired killers to dispose of those who inconvenienced you or others. Indeed, by your comments it appears that you may have even disposed of your own child in this fashion, who apparently also was not as worthy as rocks, earth, and sky to merit your wonder. This is deeply saddening.

In addition: as regards "civility" -- You know that the majority of FT readers and visitors to this site see abortion as the systematic murder of an entire class of human beings. For you to come here and so casually mention "the checks you write" and then attempt to whitewash over that statement by talking about how great it is that we all like rocks and wonder at creation -- that is the moral equivalent of coming into an African American community and saying "Yeah, I've hung a few n***ers in my day. Gave a lot of money to the KKK, too. But I really thought about these things and prayed to God and I'm pretty sure that it was the right thing to do. And anyway, hey, don't we all agree that the sky is beautiful, right?"

If this is civility, it leaves much to be desired.
7.21.2010 | 8:39am
Tim, would dishonesty be an improvement?

If comparing your ideological opponents in the abortion debate to Klansmen is part of your ongoing strategy for changing hearts and minds, brother, you've got a longer row to hoe than even this pro-choicer imagined.

I won't comment further, save to reiterate my fondness for Mr. Bottum's poetry.
7.21.2010 | 1:28pm
Tim says:
Hugo, I guess the problem is that I really don't see you as merely an "ideological opponent," or an "ideological enemy," as if all of this were some sort of strategic contest.

I see you as a fellow Christian who has fallen so deeply into error that his soul is in grave jeopardy. And the corruption of the best is the worst of all. I fear that in your language I can see the same pride that has led me in my past into all kinds of sinfulness, and the same intellectualized self-interest which led me into all sorts of excuses and rationalizations for my behavior. This struggle against the poison of sin is a battle which I still fight, thanks to the grace of God, all the time.

So I was grieved to hear a fellow Christian rationalizing his participation in the greatest evil of our time. I felt deeply saddened as I read of your use of our faith to justify your extensive support of so great an evil. And experience has shown me that those who have intellectually justified their involvement in evil are often the hardest to reach. Eric's counsel, above, seemed to go unheard.

Flannery O'Connor said "To the hard of hearing, you shout. To the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures." Perhaps the comparison I made is fundamentally unfair. But I'm not sure that weaker tonic would have any effect at all on one so deeply in danger.
7.21.2010 | 3:26pm
I'm sorry that my tone came across as prideful. I hold my positions prayerfully and humbly, and my views on sexuality have been developed through (with apologies to Mr. Wesley) reasoning, experience, Scripture and tradition. I reason imperfectly and with imperfect interlocutors; my experiences and those of those around me are only part of the story; I read Scripture with a particular hermeneutic and a very poor knowledge of koine Greek; I honor tradition but am (obviously) no slave to it. You think I've got it all wrong and my soul is in jeopardy. I appreciate that your concern is real, and I thank you for it.

Yes, we are fellow Christians on opposite sides of what we both agree is an important issue -- perhaps the most important contemporary issue. We would not be Christians if we didn't worry about the state of the souls of those who disagree with us, just as we would not be mature believers if we didn't sometimes wonder about the state of our own souls.

But I don't come to First Things because my guilt-ridden soul hungers for the truth. I come out of sincere appreciation for the mission of this journal and the quality of the writers who grace its pages.

I thank you, Tim, and Eric, for your eagerness to see my repentance and the charity that underlies that call. But as inexplicable as it may seem to you, I have prayed long and hard on this issue, studied long and hard on this issue, and am ready to answer for all that I have said and done on this issue. I fear judgment, as we all ought to. I am sure I sound obstinate, prideful and willfully ignorant of a great evil. I think the same of many of those who insist that women's bodies are mere vessels upon which other organisms can rightfully make claims from conception onward.

But we all know where this rhetoric ends. Anyone who wishes can contact me through my blog, but I won't abuse FT's comment section any further.
7.23.2010 | 11:44am
Josh says:
Hugo's comments and the responses they gathered are interesting: Helping to procure abortions in the name of "feeding the lambs" is a positively Satanic perversion of Christ's words, but Hugo seems genuinely prayerful, well-intentioned, and, what surprised my prejudices most, unwilling to employ the glib dismissal of conservative or orthodox opponents as lacking in intelligence or enlightenment I've come to expect from left-wing Christians. (You'll find that on the right too, but glibness about ideological opponents is endemic on the left--the right has it's own problems.)

Hugo seems like someone I could have a beer summit with.

This distinction between one's ideas and person is sometimes a mystery to me--probably because my development in Christian charity is incomplete. It reminds me of something (probably apocryphal) I read once: Scalia was asked how he could be such good friends with Bader Ginsburg, given their often opposing ideologies, and he said, "Very good people can have very bad ideas."
10.12.2010 | 1:03am
Pink Rose says:
Lonergan spoke about drifting...we cannot be objective, nor can we make appropriate decisions if we drift. Soul will continue to suffer. I am currently working on a little book on acedia and its effects on our soul and your essay relates to it; drifting is certainly one of the symptoms. Drifiting (and acedia) encourages vagueness and anxiety. Sickness of the soul is a serious problem and despite the fact that we cannot achieve an absolute solution to the problem, we can try to do as much as we are able in the name of Truth. I've subscribed to First Things for years. I like being challenged. I may be the stereotypical liberal L.A. Episcopal youth minister who supports gay marriage and a progressive sexual ethic, but I didn't arrive at my positions through intellectual laziness or through bad faith. I wrestled to get where I am (perhaps you think I lost the fight to You-Know-Who), and I wrestle still. I like knowing what my "opponents" are thinking, not least because I need to be reminded of how badly they want what I want, which is to build God's Kingdom and be faithful to His call, even if we interpret the specifics of that call in such stunningly different ways on some very important issues.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact