The following is an excerpt of an e-mail I wrote awhile ago in response to someone talking to me about being a gentleman. I thought I’d post some of my thoughts and ask you for yours.
Thanks.
I do not believe chivalry is dead. It is quite uncommon, and maybe it's even having convulsions of death, but it is still not dead.
You said: "There are nice guys in the world, like you, who are just by nature nice people and because of that, some people could see that as potential interest- not your fault."
I agree with this.
You said: "Bigger issue with that, is that because people like you are so nice, that when you actually are interested, there's not much change because you treat pretty much everyone the same way with the same gentility and all that jazz."
Now this part...not so much...let me try and explain...no, is too much let me sum up:
I do not think that by being a gentlemen, it reduces your range of affection. Rather I think it brings the entire scope of social consideration up a notch. Let me first look at what (I think) SOME of the characteristics of a gentle man are. I emphasize “some” because I believe being a true gentleman is a mark of excellence that overflows into all areas of life, however we are only considering the social interactions with opposite genders. For some reason whenever I think of being a "gentleman" I automatically think of opening doors for ladies. I don't know why that trait is thought of more than others, but it is. This act I believe is a good example of the deeper resolve in a gentleman...Respect for the lady. (When I say "the lady", I mean each and every feminine human that the gentleman comes in contact with.)
I think the courteous act of opening a door, or walking out to the car comes from (or at least I think should) the general conviction that every lady has value. You can even trace this back to a more universal Christian belief that all humans are created in the "Imago Deo" (the image of God) and for that reason alone have worth and value. Yet as a gentleman I want to take that conviction to the next step and not only acknowledge there is value to the individual lady, but if the social dynamics allow it, to find the unique characteristic that gives them that value. Now, obviously you can't do that with every single individual you meet! It would drive you crazy and soon all the individuals become one mass of collected social objects again. Which is why (I think) the act of opening the door was invented. For me it is the quick and simple way of saying "I may or may not have time to give you my attention, but know that this act of chivalry is an attempt to tell you that I recognize, and know that you have value, and deserved to be treated as such." Or something like that...I hope that this is the ordinary act and behavior of a gentleman.
Now to address the problem distinguishing the difference between gentlemanly behavior and actions of affection... See, I think that being a gentleman doesn't level out the amount of affection he gives to a lady in general (significant or not). I think it raises the standard. Obviously I don't think like I woman, but I suppose that if the extent of my significant other's acts of affection toward me were opening doors and letting me go first in line, I would be greatly disheartened. Not to say that there is no room for chivalry in love...No, but it does (I think) take on a completely different form:
"Chivalry in love has nothing to do with appearance. It has everything to do with the tenderness of a heart determined to serve. That is the first hard lesson to learn. You do not act under the impetus of charm but out of a commitment to make someone's life the joy you want it to be. In the early days of marriage, joy precedes the act. But this kind of care does not come easily. Only if it is taken seriously does it become a sheer delight of the heart. The reason we have a crisis in our gender relationships is not that we are culturally indoctrinated but that we would rather be served than serve. We would rather be the head than the feet. The Christian faith stands unique in pointing out that the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. The Son of Man came to serve. This means that the service He gave to humanity was when we least merited that sacrifice. There is a joy in service that transcends emotional temporariness." -Ravi Zacharias
So, I guess I do believe there is a line between leading on, and chivalry. I just think it's exceedingly hard to find sometimes. I still strive to look for it though. I’ve heard it said, and do agree completely with the statement: "It will always depend on how the other person perceives it" That is definitely true. Their view of the action can be completely distorted, and in their mind, create it to be something it is not. Yet, I don't think that means there is no line. There is the truth of the action, and someone’s perceived truth of the action...I try to find the truth of the righteous and pure action.
-James
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment