Skip to main content

Echoes

In her 1982 essay, "Living Like Weasels," Annie Dillard emphasizes the value of living instinctively, of pursuing one's life purpose with staid determination. She argues that life is best lived in the moment, forgetting all that surrounds you and embracing your time here with passion. One of her illustrations is a powerful one. She tells of a man who shot an eagle, only to find a weasel skull attached to its neck.The eagle apparently had taken hold of the weasel, which then instinctively turned for survival to bite into the eagle's neck.

Important to Dillard's essay is the contrast she strikes between mindlessness and consciousness, between living in "necessity"-- in spontaneous commitment to present circumstance with no regard for one's surroundings-- and living in choice, fully aware of the consequences of one's actions. It is a theme she lays down both here and as part of a memoir she penned five years later, called An American Childhood.

It is enticing to think about what one's life would look like if it was lived in complete instinct, and many of us regret the actions we never took to fulfill some dream or desire. Indeed, there is a longing in each of us to become that person we know were meant to be, a longing Dillard expresses by emphasizing the life of a weasel. At the same time, it is important to draw a distinction between an unabashed commitment to a life purpose, which represents this longing in Dillard, and a simply carnal response to one's passions. Like the rest of nature, humanity underwent a scarring of the worst kind when we violated God's law at Eden, one which left us more conscious of ourselves but which bound us perennially to the corruption we see so evident in this world.

It is easy to believe that one's heart, one's intuition, is a trustworthy guide to what is good and right; and while this can be true in many cases, given our continued awareness that some things are right and others are wrong, we are at the same time ridden with sometimes-imperfect motives, some of which are not always visible to us. In short, our hearts can be deceptive.

This is not to say that we should live under a shadow of uncertainty and doubt, which I believe is a common pitfall into which many Christians fall. Indeed, one of the reasons some of us welcome so readily the idea of following one's heart is that we are weighed down by our own guilt, filled with anxiety that our actions have led us inevitably to disfavor with God. We would never say so outright, but we live as though our actions fall on one or another side of a moral scale. One side represents our good actions, and the other represents our bad ones. If we can only outweigh the bad with the good, we will be right with God. We do not deceive ourselves without reason, however. Indeed, such a belief that we can outweigh bad with good gives us license to commit "bad" actions when we believe we have merited enough of God's favor with "good" ones. In the long run, though, there is little left in this lifestyle but guilt.

Importantly, it is often our hearts that express this guilt to us, not our minds. Indeed, any Christian with even a cursory familiarity with God's message would tell you that such a lifestyle is one of the main reasons Christ came to die. We cannot outweigh the bad with the good. When our actions alone are placed on this scale, it will always tip toward the bad. When Christ's sacrifice is included, it will always and infinitely tip toward the good, our own actions failing to register.

It is easy to misconstrue Dillard's meaning, then. Listen to her words here:
"I would like to live as I should, as the weasel lives as he should. And I suspect that for me the way is like the weasel's: open to time and death painlessly, noticing everything, remembering nothing, choosing the given with a fierce and pointed will."
When she speaks of "mindlessness," however, of an instinctive pursuit of life as it comes to us, she means that one should live in unashamed commitment to a purpose of one's choosing, as visceral in that commitment as a weasel with his prey. Only a short time later, she states,
"The thing is to stalk your calling in a certain skilled and supple way....This is yielding, not fighting. A weasel doesn't 'attack' anything; a weasel lives as he's meant to, yielding at every moment to the perfect freedom of single necessity."
Fix yourself, nay, bind yourself to your purpose and never let go. Far from any "freedom" we might feel from allowing our hearts to lead us unchecked, we find a freedom in living in commitment to a life purpose. Remembering to commit that purpose first to Christ, knowing that such commitment subjects one's heart to his accountability, we can pursue-- in the freedom Dillard intends-- the purpose we so naturally, instinctively, and passionately desire.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...

Experiment

My social studies students and I are studying Islam right now. The other day, we were reading about one of the Five Pillars, zakat (charity in Islam that means "that which purifies"). Muslims believe that giving away money helps to purify it and also "safeguards [them] against miserliness" (1). I asked the class if this was true, that giving money away makes us less greedy. They generally agreed that it does. I wanted to test whether or not they really believed this, so I handed a volunteer a $10 bill. I told the class that I would ask for the bill back the next day. I said that they should pass the bill around among their classmates, and that as a result, there would be no way for me to know who had the bill. For that reason, whoever wanted to keep the money could keep it. Even if I did learn who kept it, I told them, I would not punish that person. I wanted them to be motivated by their own honesty. The next day, I asked for the bill, and a student handed it to me...