The Seven Deadly Sins – Solomon Schimmel
Book review by Fr. Rand York
Introductory Note
Dr. Solomon Schimmel, Professor of Education and Psychology at Hebrew College, Newton, MA is the author of The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth ; Wounds Not Healed by Time: The Power of Repentance and Forgiveness ; and The Seven Deadly Sins: Jewish, Christian and Classical Reflections on Human Psychology , (all published by Oxford University Press), and numerous articles and book chapters on Jewish thought, psychology of religion, and Jewish education. He was a Fulbright Senior Research Scholar and Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University, England in 1998, has been a National Science Foundation Research Fellow at Harvard University, and a Visiting Professor at Brandeis, Bar-Ilan, and Hebrew Universities, and most recently, a Visiting Scholar at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan.
The Seven Deadly Sins Notebook – Rand York+
The Seven Deadly Sins by Solomon Schimmel is a difficult book. It is not difficult to read or to understand, but it is difficult to make sense of. As a collection of wisdom through the ages, it is a wonderful reference tool. When Schimmel references Seneca, Thomas Aquinas, or Jeremy Taylor, the reader is awash in practical wisdom for the mind, heart, and soul. When Schimmel wanders off into his own theories, he reveals all too often that he himself misses the point. These observations are reflections on things that caught my attention while reading the book. It is in no way meant to be exhaustive, even of my own reactions.
Chapter 1
The Persistence of Sin
“The torture never stops.”
-Frank Zappa
Theories and Therapies
Schimmel’s overview of various psychological schools of thought on pages 4 ff. are exceptionally helpful in providing a landscape of modern understandings of morals and values, and a menu of therapies designed to address anomalies and deviations, which are known to the religious as “sins.” Schimmel makes clear that sins have a much broader scope than merely being violations of religious commandments:
“Because sin is associated with religion, secularists think that it is irrelevant to them. But many of the sins of tradition, and particularly the seven deadly ones, are primarily concerned with what it means to be human and humane and the responsibilities that we have to fulfill if we want to be considered as such” (p. 4).
Elimination or Catharsis
Schimmel insists on the elimination of “feelings of rage, envy, greed, vanity, and lust,” rather than a catharsis (p. 8). His point is well taken, but unfortunately it is taken in the context of a person confessing sin to God, to a priest, or to a spiritual mentor. Schimmel seems to think that this is catharsis, which in psychoanalysis is the purging of emotional tensions. Catharsis is not the point of confession; healing is. Healing includes, but also goes far beyond, the mere elimination of sin. It is the sacrament of restoration, and as such it is far more powerful than psychotherapy. This is not to say that psychotherapy does not have its rightful and useful place; but it is to say that confession, rightly understood and practiced, is a necessary prerequisite to recovery.
Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian
Schimmel provides a basic overview of the three traditions he believes best help us to understand sin, its consequences, and its remedies: specifically Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian (pp. 10-18). This abstract is a brilliant introduction to the book, laying a helpful general foundation for the reader.
Vices and Sins
“Vices are character traits. Sins are specific acts of commission or omission” (p. 14). This is an interesting and helpful differentiation on Schimmel’s part.
Pelagius and Augustine
Schimmel notes a major difference between Judaism and Christianity “in their assessment of man’s ability to subdue his evil impulses” (p.20). The rabbis taught that mankind had the responsibility and the ability, with God’s help when necessary, to control evil impulses. Christianity, on the other hand, especially in the theology brought into the church through Paul, despaired of mankind’s aptitude and capacity for such an undertaking outside the context of God’s constant grace. This was, however, a contentious issue within the Christian church for centuries. While the Eastern church remained silent on the issue, it came to a head in the Western church during the controversy between Pelagian and Augustinian teaching in the fifth century. The Augustinian concept of man as utterly dependent on God won the day and has defined western Christianity since. If Schimmel is right regarding Judaic understanding, then Pelagian Christianity is actually fairly close to the Old Testament understanding of sin and responsibility.
Chapter 2
Pride
“I’m hot ‘cause I’m fly
You ain’t ‘cause you’re not
This is why
This is why
This is why I’m hot”
-Mims
Chiefs and Indians
Schimmel, discussing the headiness of pride versus the objectivity of humility, provides an excellent example when he notes that, “freshmen at prestigious universities, used to being the stars of their class in high school, often experience the humbling realization that they are less outstanding than they had assumed” (p. 28). This is particularly true at an institution such as Wheaton College, where the average student is likely to have been a Christian leader among his or her peers back home, and must now adjust to a new paradigm of too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Brokenhearted
“Man is happy when he has a utensil that remains whole and is saddened when it breaks. God, on the other hand, whose most cherished possession is man’s heart, delights when it is broken in humility” (p. 29). So says Schimmel, before supporting his statement by quoting Psalm 34:19, “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted, those crushed in spirit he delivers.” Here I must take issue with Schimmel. The Lord is close to the brokenhearted. He does not delight in broken hearts and crushed spirits. He made hearts and spirits to be whole and strong, not broken and crushed. This is why God delivers those who are crushed in spirit, that they might be restored to their original design.
Queen of Vices
“Gregory the Great…did not include pride as one of the seven cardinal sins, but rather considered that it breeds the seven, which in turn breed a multitude of other vices…designating it the mother and Queen of all vices” (pp. 32-34). In this helpful section, Schimmel embarks on unpacking the implications of Gregory’s wisdom in his understanding of pride as the fount of sinfulness.
Paradox
“One can have high self-esteem without being ‘proud’ and one can be humble without feeling inferior. One writer even goes further, paradoxically maintaining that high self-esteem is a prerequisite for humility. The proud sinner actually suffers from feelings of inferiority” (p. 38).
This quote is central to a proper understanding of pride and humility. Pride is not an issue of self-esteem, but rather one of focus. For one who is proud, “It’s all about me.” Such narcissism naturally leads to introspective analysis, where the proud person cannot possibly like what they see. This can lead either to self-aggrandizement (as a defense mechanism) or to self-hatred, but in all cases pride is the root of the evil. For one who is humble, there is no need for self-defense. The humble already stand on the strong foundation of objectivity, which requires a self-esteem that is high enough for the bravery required to face reality. The focus is not inward, but outward. Schimmel goes on to cite other theologians who disagree, and then seems to equivocate in his conclusion, but the inclusion of this discussion is crucial to the understanding of pride.
Superior or Inferior
“Pride as actually believing oneself to be superior and pride as a compensation for feeling inferior require quite different therapeutic approaches and moral evaluations. The former’s self-esteem has to be deflated, whereas the latter’s underlying low self-esteem has to be bolstered…” (p.39).
All this talk of deflating and bolstering is to miss the point. Feelings of superiority and inferiority are not objective. The answer is to take our eyes off of ourselves, and to forget ourselves as we learn to revel in reality instead of floundering in fantasy, for “He who seeks to find his life will lose it…” (Matthew 10:39).
Still, Schimmel is absolutely on target in recognizing pride as the root of both feelings of superiority and inferiority: “Both he who blames himself unduly for his perceived failures and he who praises himself unduly for his perceived successes are guilty of pride…” (p. 51).
Introspection
“The person who honestly aspires to extirpate his pride and cultivate his humility must engage in frequent introspective analyses in order to ferret out any of these impure motives” (p.39).
I must again respectfully disagree. Introspection won’t work. Looking to Christ, upward and outward, is the key.
Merton on Humility
“If you were truly humble you would not bother about yourself at all. Why would you?... A humble man can do great things with an uncommon perfection because he is no longer concerned about incidentals, like his own interests and his own reputation, and therefore he no longer needs to waste his efforts defending them” (Thomas Merton – New Seeds of Contemplation, pp. 189-190).
We find this quote on page 40 of Schimmel’s book. It is a brilliant illumination on this difficult topic, and another example of how Schimmel shines when he is quoting others.
Taylor on Pride of Knowledge, Wealth, and Status
Schimmel quotes Jeremy Taylor on:
- Knowledge – “To be proud of learning is the greatest ignorance in the world” (p. 41).
- Wealth – “If he be exalted above his neighbors because he has more gold, how much inferior is he to a gold mine?” (p. 42).
- Status – “It is rather common that he who boasts of his ancestors is in effect admitting his own lack of virtue or honor” (p. 42).
Logs and Specks
“When the tendency to accentuate our neighbor’s evil is combined with our opposite tendency to give greater weight to the good in ourselves while ignoring our own evils, we have a formula for sinful pride. We should, says Taylor, be fair and just in our evaluations…Humility requires honesty and integrity” (pp. 44-45).
This advice is reminiscent of the teaching of Jesus on this very topic:
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then your will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye” (Luke 6:41-42).
The Critique of an Enemy
“Our enemies do not seek to protect our self-image with falsehoods and often monitor our behavior more accurately than does many a friend. Therefore, our enemies’ admonishments are often of greater value to us in exposing our faults than are the kind and soothing words of a friend” (p. 46).
This observation by Schimmel is so acute and so valuable that there should be a proverb that expresses it. Two decades of standing in trading pits where many people demonstrate a low regard for each other in brutal honesty has shown me repeatedly the truth of Schimmel’s statement.
Self-esteem
Getting back to self-esteem (see “Paradox” above), Schimmel engages in a discussion of in on page 48. I would only add that high self-esteem is not the same as pride, nor is it compatible with pride. Low self-esteem is not the same as humility, nor is it compatible with humility. God created and delights in us. We must learn to see our real selves (and each other) through His eyes.
Dust and Ashes
“We all revert to dust and ashes after a very brief life. Therefore feelings of superiority over others belie the most fundamental truth about who we are…Therefore to ascribe any unique importance to ourselves is blind and foolish” (p. 53).
This statement is well meant, but misguided. If God did not see each of us as uniquely important, he would not have made us to begin with. Dust is not who we are, but how we are made (Genesis 3:19 notwithstanding).
Chapter 3
Envy
“And I’m lookin’ in the mirror all the time
Wondering what she don’t see in me
I’ve been funny, I’ve been cool with the lines
Ain’t that the way love’s supposed to be
I wish that I had Jesse’s girl
I wish that I had Jesse’s girl
- Rick Springfield
Pathologically Envious
The parable of the envious man and the greedy man is one that forces one to consider the potentially destructive nature of extreme envy. As Schimmel puts it: “The pathologically envious are willing to suffer great injury as long as those they envy suffer even more” (p. 61).
Cain’s Offering
Everyone knows the first murder resulted from envy. What is not as clear to many people is why God favored Abel’s sacrifice in the first place. I remember being taught as a child in Sunday school that God wanted animal sacrifice and that Cain should have known that. I remember feeling sorry for Cain, but only in the first part of the story and before he killed his brother. After all, the way I read it, Cain was a whole verse ahead of Abel in offering a sacrifice of any kind at all to the Lord. Besides, Cain grew crops, while Abel raised animals. I thought both of their sacrifices quite appropriate. But I had missed that one little word “firstborn” in Genesis 4:4. Abel gave God the first and choicest of what he had. Cain did not: “Cain’s offering was from the fruit of the soil – not the choicest of the fruits. He only grudgingly acknowledged his debt to God for providing for his needs” (p. 62).
Cain perceived a slight where there was none. Even a personal talk with God himself did not change Cain’s heart. Cain nursed his envy and allowed it to master him, the very thing God had warned him against: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7).
Solomon’s Judgment
The cruelty of envy is revealed in the choice of the false mother in the matter of the disputed child. Two mothers both claimed the child and brought their case before King Solomon. When he offered to cut the child in half, the love of the real mother was proven and the envy of the false mother revealed: “She preferred the child dead rather than allow someone else to enjoy what she lacked” (p. 62).
Sour Grapes
Schimmel lists ten strategies for dealing with envy, some of which are quite helpful. One of them, however, is wrong on a number of levels, and it is one that Schimmel uses in his own practice. It is strategy number 2: “Deemphasize the value of the envied objects either for yourself or for the person who possesses them.” (p. 63) This is essentially Aesop’s famous “sour grapes,” and should have no place in therapy. Why? Because it keeps the envied object the focus of attention, albeit with a new negative value attached to it.
Schimmel used this therapy with a patient who coveted his neighbor’s wife (pp. 67-68). He suggested, among other things, that his patient assume that the sexual pleasure his neighbor enjoyed was less than he imagined. He urged his patient to consider that, “Many beautiful women and handsome men suffer from sexual dysfunction or incompatibility with their spouses” (p. 68). This was to be considered as somehow more realistic than the fantasies his patient had previously entertained. The problem with the approach is that it kept the patient focused on the neighbor and his wife, and in a way that may have been no more realistic than before.
Schimmel’s patient was having a direct run-in with two of the Ten Commandments. The more obvious of the two is the tenth commandment, which states: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife…or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:17). But the seventh commandment also states: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). From a legalistic Hebrew perspective, Schimmel’s patient was not doing this, but from a Christian perspective, he was. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).
My brother-in-law, Dr. Gene Frost, once preached a sermon on the Ten Commandments, in which he turned each commandment from a negative prohibition into a positive exhortation. When he got to the seventh commandment, “Don’t commit adultery” became “Love your wife (or husband).” God has placed a great gift right in front of your nose! This is exactly where the focus needed to be for Schimmel’s patient. His mind and heart needed to be out of his neighbor’s house and back into his own. This is real beauty and real life. Rather than making assumptions about his neighbor, he could begin making discoveries of real blessings in his own home.
One additional problem with the “sour grapes” program of therapy is that it directly contradicts Paul’s admonition to, “Rejoice with those who rejoice…” (Romans 12:15). We cannot genuinely rejoice with someone over something we are busy belittling in our own minds. Belittling the good fortune of others is to denigrate everything good. It also makes it impossible to enjoy the good fortune of others as it spills into your own life. A most treasured friend, Leanne Payne once said that to appreciate beauty in the right way makes a person more beautiful.
Count Your Blessings
Strategy number 4 in Schimmel’s arsenal of therapy approaches is that of counting your blessings, and it reads this way: “Compare yourself to those less fortunate than you rather than to those more fortunate than you” (p. 63). While this is a time-honored way to look at it, going all the way back to childhood when your mother told you to eat your dinner because there were children starving in Africa, it does not really go to the root of gratefulness. I am grateful for my eyesight, but not because there are others who are blind. Rather, I am simply grateful that I can see, period. The beauties of the sunset over the ocean, my wife (at all times), flowers in the Spring, mountains in the distance, and the stars at night are not hidden from me. God has given me the capacity to enjoy all of these, and I am grateful.
In counseling his teenage patient who was jealous of her girlfriend for being asked out more often than she was, Schimmel counseled her to compare herself with girls less fortunate than she (pp. 68-69). This keeps the focus in the wrong place, namely on comparisons. She needed to be brought out of comparison mode and into gratefulness mode. Perhaps this was his ultimate intent, but the pathway of keeping her focus in the very place that caused her distress to begin with seems to me to be more like treating symptoms than going to the root cause of the disease.
Weep With Those Who Weep
St. Basil observes an interesting feature of envy, in that it can be alleviated through the misfortune of the envied.
“This is the goal of his hatred – to behold the victim of his envy pass from happiness to misery, that he who is admired and emulated might become an object of pity. Then when he sees him weeping and beholds him deep in grief, he makes peace and becomes his friend. He does not rejoice with him when he is glad, but he weeps with him when he is in sorrow” (pp. 72-73).
Envy and Hatred
Basil and Plutarch differ on the relationship between envy and hatred. Basil calls envy, “the most savage form of hatred” (p. 73). Plutarch, on the other hand, differentiates between the two: “Men forgo hostility and hate…when convinced that no injustice is being done them…[but this] does not wipe out envy” (p. 73).
Negative Focus
The third feature of envy that Basil observes is its negative focus. “We are always seeking to find fault in others, to minimize their virtues and positive achievements, and to call attention to their weaknesses and faults” (p. 74).
Emotions Incompatible with Envy
Schimmel provides a helpful section suggesting the cultivation of emotions (his word – I would prefer “attitudes”) of love, compassion, and contentedness (pp. 75-79).
Jonathan and David
Compare envy with genuine love such as a mother has for her child. Schimmel says, “If we truly love someone we want to see that person flourish – even, at times, at our own expense.” There is no better example of this kind of selfless love than that of Jonathan and David (p. 75).
Love – I Corinthians 13
Love is the answer to envy, and Schimmel provides the best summary for this when he quotes I Corinthians 13:4-8, noting that, “The real challenge of loving another human being is when the person isn’t naturally lovable (p. 77).
Compassion
“Whereas envy is sorrow at another’s good fortune, pity or compassion is sorrow at another’s bad fortune. It is very difficult to envy and pity the same person at the same time. Therefore, if one envies someone, it is useful to try to think about ways to feel compassion for him. As the compassion becomes stronger, the envy will become weaker” (p. 78). This is a practical and powerful application of love.
Contentedness
Since envy is rooted in discontent, contentedness will act as a garden trowel in uprooting the weeds of envy. Contentedness, Schimmel notes, can arise from belief in either Supernatural Divine Will, Natural Fate, or Stoic Self-satisfaction (p. 79).
Jealousy, Indignation, Emulation
Schimmel also describes three emotions that are often confused with envy: jealousy, indignation, and emulation (pp. 80-81).
Chapter 4
Anger
“After all the expectations
Have shattered on the kitchen floor
You just see another human suffering
And you wonder what the war was for”
– David Wilcox
Love Your Enemies
Schimmel makes an innocently ignorant assertion when he states: “Jesus, in preaching ‘Love your enemies,’ was primarily concerned with the spiritual rather than the psychological import of his teaching…” (p. 86). How does Schimmel know this? I would submit that Christ as a great teacher (a view not disputed by Schimmel) was more likely than not to have understood mankind as a complete package of body, mind, and spirit. I believe Jesus is God, and as such the creator of all that is (a view not shared by Schimmel). This would imply that Jesus definitely understood mankind as a complete package of body, mind, and spirit. The teachings of Jesus carry great spiritual and psychological import, and Jesus, more than anyone, would recognize that.
Anger is Worthy of Neither Man nor God
This statement by Schimmel at the bottom of page 86 is at odds with the entire Old Testament, which is rife with God’s anger. How can God so consistently engage in something not worthy of him? With respect to man’s anger, Paul tells the Christians in Ephesus to, “be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger” (Ephesians 4:26).
In short, Schimmel is wrong. Anger is worthy of both man and God. That does not mean it isn’t dangerous.
Seneca: Harpagus & Praexaspes
Seneca’s position that anger is always undesirable is underscored by the responses of Harpagus and Praexaspes in their respective stories told by Seneca (pp. 88-89). I will not here recount the brutality and twisted evil of these stories, other than to say that neither Harpagus nor Praexaspes acted as a man or as a father. There is nothing in these stories to suggest that these two men even had any anger to suppress. Their response is too bizarre to be rooted in reality, and perhaps they were indeed shocked right out of reality. If so, pure natural anger may not have even existed here, as these two men wandered into the world of the insane. Simply put, in the best case scenario, Harpagus and Praexaspes were both too crazy to be emulated. This behavior, by the way, is in sharp contrast with Christ’s command to turn the other cheek. Harpagus and Praexaspes both ignored the evil committed, pretending it did not happen. Turning the other cheek is very different because there is no pretense. It acknowledges injury and invites more, spotlighting the shame of the abuser.
Aristotle and Taylor
Aristotle got it right when he said, “A person is praised who is angry for the right reasons, with the right people, and also in the right way, at the right time and for the right length of time.” Jeremy Taylor adds some color to this by saying that, “anger against sin is a holy zeal” (p. 89). This is in keeping with anger as modeled by Jesus. Unfortunately, Aristotle goes on to say, “It is a slavish nature that will submit to be insulted or let a friend be insulted unresistingly.” This, too, is in contrast to Christ’s admonition to turn the other cheek.
St. Francis de Sales vs. St. Thomas Aquinas
No, this isn’t a sporting event between two Catholic schools, but rather a theological joust between two Catholic schools of thought. De Sales adopted Seneca’s view, while Aquinas (“the big dumb ox”) went with Aristotle (pp. 90-91). There is a modern (or post-modern?) pop song called “I’m too sexy for my shirt.” I would suggest that St. Francis de Sales was too peaceful for his pen. The decision goes to St. Thomas Aquinas in a knockout.
Angry Terrorists
The ideology of terrorism is certainly “the vice of anger at its most heinous” (p. 91). Enough said.
Raising Children
All this is not to say that Seneca has nothing to teach us. In child rearing, Seneca submits a simple and brilliant suggestion that a child should, “gain no request by anger; when he is quiet let him be offered what was refused when he wept” (p. 93).
Weak Spot
Again, Seneca shares practical wisdom when he says, “We are not all wounded at the same spot; therefore you ought to know what your weak spot is in order that you may especially protect it” (p. 95).
Forgiveness
If “Anger is aroused when a person suffers a real or perceived injury” (p. 87), and, “One can injure another in three ways: out of ignorance, from passion, and by deliberate intent” (p. 99), then we have a simple matrix for understanding where anger may come from, and how easy or difficult it may be to dissipate it. Utilizing Seneca’s “finely discriminating scale of intentionality” and Taylor’s “reasonable discourses to excuse the faults of others” (p. 101), we can reach a place where “compassion, empathy, forgiveness, or philosophical tolerance” is possible. While not widely used among today’s psychotherapists, forgiveness in particular has the power to free people from the burden and subsequent guilt of anger (p. 102). “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Money and Honor
Materialism and Ego are often major culprits for gratuitous, unreasoning anger. As Seneca said, “…with what laughter should we attend the things that now draw tears from our eyes!” (p. 103).
$100 to the KKK
According to Seneca, “Anger will cease and become more controllable if it finds that it must appear before a judge every day” (p. 104). If awkwardly worded, it nonetheless remains a compelling assertion. Literally putting your money where your mouth is could augment this even further. Schimmel does Woody Allen one better when he says, “If I know that every time I lose my temper my therapist will send a presigned $100 check of mine to the Ku Klux Klan, I will have a very strong incentive to control my anger” (p. 105). Either that, or a very strong incentive to lie to his therapist!
Tune Out, Delay, and Listen
Seneca’s assertion that, “the mark of true greatness is not to notice that you have received a blow” (p. 105). This “tuning out” is very different from turning the other cheek, as it refuses to acknowledge reality, whereas Christ’s directive takes reality firmly into account and then responds in an unexpected manner. To live in unreality is not a mark of greatness, so I must disagree with Seneca here.
Delay, on the other hand, is a prudent alternative to the proverbial “knee-jerk” reaction. Schimmel notes that delay benefits both self-interest and social justice. It benefits self-interest by protecting us from unreasoned impulse and the embarrassment (or worse) it might later bring. It benefits social justice by making our response to injury a considered one (p. 105).
Listening is the response that sings to my heart the most. This is what I am naturally inclined to do with my own children, and I never cease to be amazed at the thoughtfulness of their perspective (albeit perhaps a perspective less informed by events than it might be).
“How frequently do some of us vent our anger and frustration on our children without first giving them an opportunity to explain their behavior! Their view of right and wrong may be different (sometimes justifiably) from ours or there may have been mitigating circumstances of which we were not aware” (p. 106).
This is the basis for real engagement. This sets the angry who are looking for pity apart from the injured who are looking for healing.
Suppression vs. Dissipation
“It is important to realize that the fundamental approach of the moralists is not that we ought to suppress anger but rather dissipate it…Whereas long term suppression of anger might result in explosive outbursts of rage or in more subtle expressions of it, dissipation means that the anger no longer exits, at either the subconscious or conscious levels” (pp. 109-110).
I am with the moralists on this one. Our only difference may lie in dissipation methodology.
Chapter 5
Lust
“There’s a rose in the fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can’t be with the one you love
Honey, love the one you’re with”
- Stephen Stills
Best Test
Schimmel makes a most interesting and helpful observation in his treatment of the story of Amnon and Tamar:
“True love between persons is enhanced and reinforced by the sexual act. But lust, interested in the other as an object rather than as a person, finds no use for the object once the gratification it afforded has been attained. One of the best tests of authentic love is how affectionate one feels towards one’s partner after intercourse but before sexual arousal has recurred” (p. 120).
Lust and Love
“Lust is transient, fickle, and egocentric. Love is permanent, steady, and altruistic. Lust uses another’s body to satisfy its appetite for pleasure. Love gives of oneself, soul and all, to make another happy” (p. 122). This one stands on its own and needs no help from me.
Differing from the Bible
“Some current views about the permissible range of moral behavior differ on good grounds from the Bible’s” (p. 124). Schimmel says this by way of introduction to his summary of the Judaic tradition regarding lust, but nowhere in the chapter does he demonstrate it, beyond footnote number 2 (twelve pages earlier) which cites not the Bible, but current religious teachings (e.g. Catholic prohibition of contraceptives, or the Orthodox Jewish ban on men listening to women sing). To acknowledge a biblical base for such current prohibitions either grants them the authority they claim, or it belittles the Bible as authority. Schimmel is confusing the issue by placing the Bible on the side of any Neanderthal who claims the Bible is on their side, and then pretending that he (Schimmel) is therefore somehow more enlightened than the Bible.
Summary
Now, let’s be fair and permit Schimmel his entire summary (which is actually a rather good one) of the Judaic portion of this chapter:
“Some current views about the permissible range of moral behavior differ on good grounds from the Bible’s. Where, however, the sexual act is unethical it should not be performed. If we are unfaithful, dishonest, violent, exploitative, or in some other way harm others or ourselves, we are morally guilty of lust. Since most of us can control our sexual appetite, if we fail to do so when required, we should feel guilty. Feelings of guilt and shame are appropriate, however, only insofar as they act to make us aware of our failures and prevent us from repeating our offenses. They are not useful if all they do is emotionally debilitate” (p. 124).
Chaste Sex
“For Aquinas, chaste sex, which he defines as neither intemperate nor unjust, is morally good” (p. 125). Once again, Aquinas saves the day.
Comfortable Client
“I was convinced that my client was comfortable engaging in premarital sex, and I had no qualms about helping her prepare emotionally for it” (p. 127).
Wow. Where do we start? I am sure Schimmel has lucid, well thought out answers to all of these, but here goes: First off, Schimmel has picked a classic exception to the rule by choosing for his illustration a Catholic virgin in her mid-30’s who never experienced an orgasm. Secondly, if she was already comfortable with the idea of engaging in premarital sex, why did she need preparation for it? Or does Schimmel mean by this that sex itself is far deeper and more meaningful than the inexperienced can imagine? If so, why would he recommend it outside of the commitment of marriage? Thirdly (and most importantly) why did Schimmel have “no qualms” about it? The list of statements about sexuality that he drew up for her are actually most appropriate for someone who is already getting married, but is afraid of the wedding night. This includes point number 3, which is absolutely true as written, and carries with it no indication that there is any need to find out ahead of time.
My advice to her would have been: “Don’t worry sweetheart. God made you, so I’m gonna bet your plumbing works just fine. The only thing a sexual discovery project is going to accomplish is to lighten your wallet and fatten mine, and I believe that would be a best case scenario. Just invite me to your wedding.”
Instead, Schimmel’s advice to her was to read the last chapter of God’s marvelous mystery story first. He clearly chose this illustration because it appears to be a success story – so far.
A Culture of Sex
Schimmel, I think, nails it when he says that we live in a “sexually obsessed public culture [that] bombards us with sexual stimuli…Were we not exposed to these stimuli we wouldn’t be paying much attention to sex as long as we were leading reasonably satisfactory sex lives” (p. 129). This phenomenon is not unlike fifth century Byzantine culture which was obsessed with theology, or twentieth century inter-war German culture with was obsessed with politics.
Ethically Neutral
“Today, more options are acceptable to many, such as living together in a monogamous but nonmarital relationship or self-stimulation through masturbation and fantasy. Although these latter are traditional sins of lust, unlike rape, adultery, or incest they are ethically neutral and psychologically benign. If done in moderation they are often beneficial, since they alleviate sexual tension when no partner is available” (p. 131).
Christian teaching is at odds with this, but since Schimmel does not subscribe to Christian teaching, we will just skip this one.
Moderation
In the chapter on gluttony, Schimmel makes reference to Wollersheim’s weight control program, which encourages participants “to eat properly and to eat like a gourmet…By changing one’s eating habits, one can ‘eat less but enjoy it more’” (p. 145). The same applies to sex Schimmel contrasts sexual hedonists from religious moralists, “who maintain that sexual experience is moral and even desirable, [and who] preach moderation. Just as one should not be a glutton in food, one should not be lecherous in sex” (p. 134).
Ethics
Schimmel encapsulates sexual ethics in three general categories: the ethics of mutual consent, the ethics of love, and the ethics of marriage (pp. 136-137). As a reference tool, this is a very helpful section. Then to wrap it up, and almost as an afterthought, he says, “To divorce sex from ethics and charity is the sin of lust” (p. 137). Had he changed his “and” to “of” he would have poignantly appealed to the highest ethical level: the ethics of charity.
Chapter 6
Gluttony
“Eat it, eat it
Open up your mouth and feed it
Have some more yoghurt
Have some more spam
It doesn’t matter if it’s fresh or canned
Just eat it”
- Weird Al Yankovic
Moral Philosophy
By way of introduction to the topic of gluttony, Schimmel presents the problem of preoccupation with food, the need for gluttons to recognize their obsession, and a short list of available treatment programs. At the end of his introduction, however, Schimmel zeroes in on the one thing needed: “What nearly all lack, even the moderately successful treatments, is a moral philosophy about food” (p. 141). To fill this void, Schimmel turns to the moralists, but leans most heavily on Taylor and Wollersheim for guidance.
Gourmet
Wollersheim’s weight control program, “is designed to add to their pleasure of eating by teaching them to eat properly and to eat intentionally like a gourmet, one who really enjoys her food to the fullest with all of her senses (visual, olfactory, tactile, gustatory). One who eats indiscriminately just stuffs food hastily into her mouth without really enjoying the eating experience. By changing one’s eating habits, one can ‘eat less but enjoy it more’” (p. 145). Brilliantly said.
Health
Jeremy Taylor helpfully observed that temperance could bring greater happiness than gluttony (p. 146) and that intemperance destroys health, thus making it impossible to enjoy happiness or pleasure on many fronts (p. 151).
Social Rejection
Taylor’s focus on spiritual and health issues combines with Wollersheim’s egocentric concerns of social rejection (p. 153) to bring a tag-team, one-two punch to the problem. Schimmel also applies the fear of social rejection with his own clients: “Have you ever given thought to how you appear to others when they observe your gluttonous behavior?...Don’t deceive yourself that no one pays attention…” (p. 159).
Appetite
Taylor’s wisdom fills this chapter. Here is another one of his gems: “A constant full table is less pleasant than the temperate provisions of the virtuous…for necessity and want makes the appetite, and the appetite makes the pleasure” (p. 156). Schimmel applies this with his patients: “Which do you think you would enjoy more – a cool glass of water that would quench your extreme thirst on a hot day, or a third milkshake on a satiated stomach?” (p. 156)
Chapter 7
Greed
“Everybody I know says they need just one thing
When really what they mean is they need just one thing more”
- Rich Mullins
Epicurus
I took just one Economics class in all of my undergraduate years at Wheaton College, but something the teacher said on the first day has stuck with me ever since. He passed out the syllabus and said, “There are two kinds of wealth: multiplicity of possessions and simplicity of wants.” He did not credit Epicurus, because that is not exactly what Epicurus said. Epicurus observed only one kind of wealth: “…not in having great possessions but in having few wants” (p. 167).
Why?
Why do people aspire to and strive for wealth? Schimmel gets the conversation going with seven suggestions of his own (pp. 168-169).
1. Hedonism – In the language of the trading floor, “tics & chicks.” With tics being price fluctuations that traders seek to capture profitably, and chicks being the young women on whom those traders will then spend the money. It is a crass but snappy way of saying, “I pursue wealth in order to live as hedonistically I wish, and answerable to no one for it. “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” But you have to have money to get to Vegas. As Schimmel puts it: “We may want gourmet food, luxurious residences, exotic vacations, or sexually attractive partners, all of which are expensive” (p. 168).
2. Game – Some people just enjoy the challenge of amassing wealth, and compare themselves to other “players” in what they consider to be a great game. Their bankbook is their scorecard.
3. Envy – People who pursue wealth out of envy are also comparing themselves to others, but not for fun. They do it to address their own insecurities, and so they flaunt their success to make sure others know. It is crucial not only to keep up with the Joneses, but also that the Joneses know it.
4. Spouse – Pressure from a spouse is a powerful catalyst for the pursuit of wealth. Inability to arrive at a common understanding of how much is enough, of what a family’s real needs are, can put people on treadmills they are not made for, and ultimately has the power to destroy a family.
5. Future – As Americans live longer lives, anxiety increases about whether there will be adequate resources to maintain lifestyles to which we have become accustomed. We want to live life in our old age on our own terms. We fear the words Jesus spoke to Peter: “I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go” (John 21:18).
6. Calvinism – This is an interesting one that Schimmel (who is Jewish) has thrown in. To stereotype Calvinists in this way without also mentioning Jews is to overlook the biggest stereotype of them all when it comes to the accumulation of wealth.
7. Altruism – Perhaps the best motivator in this field, is the desire to use natural money-making talents to create wealth to use for the good of others.
When Never Enough is Too Much
The stories of Naboth’s vineyard (p. 170) and of King Midas (p. 173) are good illustrations of the truth of what Aslan said to Digory and Polly in The Magician’s Nephew: “All get what they want; they do not always like it” (chapter XIV). Edmund Spenser put it most acutely when he spoke of that “Most wretched wight…Whose wealth was want, whose plenty made him poor; Who had enough, yet wished ever more” (p. 175).
Liberality
“Liberal people do not easily become rich because they are not interested in retaining money” (p. 180). Schimmel notes that the vice this can lead to is prodigality, squandering wealth on indiscriminate (versus considered) giving to others, or squandering it on self-indulgence. Opposite this is the miser, who engages in the illiberal hoarding of wealth.
Seneca
Seneca offers another Stoic gem when he notes that, “the wise man does not love riches, but he would rather have them; he does not admit them to his heart, but to his house…” (p. 181).
Capitalist versus Socialist
At the bottom of page 182 Schimmel disclaims that he is not comparing the relative moral values of capitalism and socialism. I believe, though, that it is important to note that both systems are rooted in materialism.
Jesus vs. Paul
“Jesus had a much more negative view about wealth and a much more positive one about poverty…Whereas Jesus had demanded that his followers give away all their riches and serve God alone, the early Church had a more realistic attitude” (pp. 183-184). Schimmel also offers I Timothy 6 as a case in point of Paul and the early Christian Church breaking with Jesus on wealth and poverty, or at least modifying Jesus’ teachings. The implication here seems to be that the early Church did not follow the teachings of Jesus on this, and that it’s a good thing they didn’t. This of course is not true, but it is too big a subject to debate within the scope of this essay. It is the same view as that found in the bestselling book, The 100, which assigns places to the 100 most influential people in the history of the world. In it, Paul ranks 2nd, and Jesus ranks 4th. The reasoning is that Paul gave the world Christianity, which is very different from the religion Jesus gave his followers.
Jesus vs. Old Testament
“Jesus’ condemnation of wealth and exaltation of poverty goes against the attitude of the Hebrew Bible…” (p. 184). Again, Schimmel ascribes a specific one-size-fits-all moral philosophy to Jesus regarding wealth, and then proceeds to diminish Christ’s authority by contrasting such a straw philosophy with other real ones. As God, Jesus fulfills the Old Testament; he does not cancel it. In fairness to Schimmel, he does not recognize Christ’s divine claim and so cannot be expected to understand Christ in any capacity other than he does.
Chapter 8
Sloth
“Laziness cuts me like fine cutlery
I need a miracle”
- Pedro the Lion
Explicitly Religious
Connecting sloth to a lack of purpose or meaning n life, Schimmel ties in the demise of religious commitments with the rise of malaise. He proceeds to quote Carl Jung’s arresting observation that, “Among all my patients in the second half of life…there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life” (p. 191). Schimmel himself goes on to say that, “Sloth is the most explicitly religious of the seven deadly sins” (p. 197).
Acedia & Tristitia
“The sin of sloth has two components: acedia, which means a lack of caring, an aimless indifference to one’s responsibilities to God and to man, and tristitia, meaning sadness and sorrow” (p. 193).
Exclusively Judeo-Christian
It is quite interesting to note that sloth is the only one of the seven deadly sins that is treated as a disease rather than a vice in the Greco-Roman world. The Judeo-Christian worldview stands alone in ascribing sinfulness to it (p. 198).
Violent Sloth
At first blush, the words “violent” and “sloth” do not appear to belong together. But Schimmel makes a good case for it in the examples he presents of Charles Stuart (p. 199) and the New York Central Park “wilding spree” of just a few years ago (p. 200).
“The absence of a sense of moral responsibility and of spiritual purpose creates a vacuum which is filled by the deadly sins and their offspring” (p. 200).
Living on in Our Children
“We also live on in our children, which is why we undertake the often painful and frustrating tasks associated with childbearing and parenthood” (p. 206). I could not disagree more. I have undertaken the tasks of parenthood because I love my children, not because I “live on” in them. Just as egocentric is Schimmel’s assertion that, “more importantly we live on by the effects our lives have on others” (p. 207). These kinds of statements border dangerously on New Age philosophy and have no place in Judeo-Christian thinking. Of course we want our impact to be a good one, but it must be for the Lord’s glory, not our own. “He must increase, and I must decrease” (John 3:30).
Puzzle the Poster Boy
This is not in Schimmel, but Phil Kenyon, an old and dear friend, once said that Puzzle is the poster boy for sloth. Puzzle, the donkey in The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis, has a good heart, but an untrained mind, and a will that is easily co-opted. He acquiesces and defers to Shift on almost everything. He exhibits no agenda or purpose of his own, and so we see him docilely doing Shift’s bidding at every turn, be it diving into Caldron Pool to retrieve a lionskin or going to Chippingford for bananas. Puzzle’s is not the purpose driven life.
Chapter 9
Sin and Responsibility
“The devil made me do it”
- Flip Wilson
Relativism
With a view of man that is completely different from the Judeo-Christian worldview, modern secularism finds itself answering to modern society (i.e. itself in application to humanity), rather than answering to an external authority (e.g. God). There can be no absolute values, because nothing is absolute. Because of this, “secular psychologists and other social scientists adopt a relativist ethic” (p. 221). Context becomes everything. We are free now to sin as much as we wish.
“But his freedom from one master, God, makes him all the more vulnerable to enslavement by many gods, [and] the fact that secularism is unwilling or unable to address these needs is one of its main shortcomings from a psychological point of view” (p. 223).
Paul Johnson’s best selling and Pulitzer Prize winning Modern Times is a history of the twentieth century that begins with the argument that Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity essentially put the final nail into the coffin of absolutism, revealed religion, and responsibility for actions. What began with the Enlightenment ended with science itself declaring itself to be unreliable, not because it was poorly executed, but because it proffered as absolute truth that no truth can be absolute. With this foundation, anything can be deemed acceptable within a conforming context. In this spirit, the world was freed from universally accepted values and went on to make the twentieth century the bloodiest and most destructive century ever.
Meaning
Some clarification is needed for Schimmel’s assertion that, “Religions invest human existence with meaning by establishing goals and value systems that apply to all aspects of a person’s life” (p. 222). Religions, maybe. Christianity, no. Christianity does indeed do these two things (goals and values), but that is not what gives human existence its meaning. Such things may invest “meaning” (small “m”), but they do not reveal “Meaning” (big “M”). I read back over what I have just written and realize that this observation may obscure more than it clarifies, in which case it just becomes a jumping off point for a good long conversation at Starbucks some evening.
Free Will vs. Determinism
Free will is discussed on pages 223 ff. Schimmel’s summaries and examples are helpful. In the end, he comes down on the side of determinism for use in psychotherapy: “My own view is that the determinist model is more scientifically useful than the free-will one in the search for a better understanding of why we behave as we do [but recognizing that] the free-will model will often be unjustifiably harsh, and the determinist model unjustifiably lenient” (p. 230).
Sin or Disease
Having endorsed (with qualifications) the determinist model, Shimmel begins to poke at it to see just what it is made of. An example is his section on sin as illness.
“One way we avoid responsibility for our vices is to call them diseases or addictions. This suggests that they are caused by forces we cannot control” (p. 232). He goes on to note on the following page that in the Middle Ages, sins were often considered diseases of the soul. This view is consistent with the root of “Lord have mercy” or “Kyrie Eleison” encompassing God’s mercy and the oil that is poured on a wound to bring healing.
Repentance
Free will makes repentance possible, and Schimmel points out common roots in both Judaism and traditional Christianity (pp. 234 ff.). He then contrasts this with the determinism of Calvinist Protestantism and points out what such determinism has in common with modern psychotherapy. Schimmel quotes from Mowrer’s explanation of the appeal psychoanalysis has for many Protestant clergy:
“…the doctrine is that when we are confronted by an apparent option of good and evil, we can choose only the evil, and are fully accountable for having done so…Salvation comes, if it comes at all, only by the grace and unpredictable favor of God…Psychoanalysis takes the further step of making man irresponsible and unaccountable, not only for his salvation, but also for his sins as well…Calvinist Protestantism took the first major step toward that brand of personal irresponsibility which is sociopathy…” (p. 238).
Conclusion
All in all, Schimmel has produced a fascinating book, but one that needs to be absorbed critically if it is to be at all helpful. I recommend it, but take it with a grain of salt.
©2012 Rand York
