I got back to reading M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth.
What
particularly stood out to me in my latest reading was a scenario that
Peck described on pages 131-134. It concerned a hypothetical woman in
her late forties who comes to church and slips out without greeting
anyone, even the pastor. If, by chance, she were invited to the coffee
hour after the service, she'd thank the person inviting her but would
decline, saying that she has another engagement, when really she's just
heading back to her apartment. She has a job as a typist, but she
doesn't have any social connections. In terms of activities, she goes
to the movies on Saturday afternoons. She currently has no pets, but
she once had a dog, who passed on eight years ago. If one were to tell
her that her life seemed lonely, she would respond that she rather
enjoys her loneliness. According to Peck, she is trying to avoid pain,
both the pain of loss and also the pain of rejection. But in the
process, Peck claims, she's missing out on things that make life "alive,
meaningful and significant": "having children, getting married, the
ecstasy of sex, the hope of ambition, friendship" (page 133). Plus, she
remains stagnant rather than growing.
This reminded me somewhat of the June 6, 2001 daily devotion in Our Daily Bread, which was entitled "The Loner".
In this daily devotion, Herbert Vander Lugt talks about a high school
friend of his who was a loner. This friend "spent his time reading
books, [and] isolated himself in his parents’ home until they died..."
According to Herbert Vander Lugt, this friend "never had to
sacrificially love a wife, never had his sleep disturbed by a crying
child, never agonized over a rebellious teen, and never cried over the
misfortunes of a close friend", and yet he also missed out on "some of
life’s greatest joys and deepest satisfactions." Herbert Vander Lugt
then proceeds to give us a little lecture about how God is not a loner,
as we learn from the doctrine of the Trinity, and he concludes by saying
that "Through faith in Jesus, God forgives us and brings us into
fellowship with Himself and others, saving us from the tragedy of being
loners."
When I first read Herbert Vander Lugt's "The Loner", I
was utterly disgusted. A significant reason was that, well, I'm a
loner, and thus I felt judged. I did not think that Herbert Vander Lugt
in that particular devotion really conveyed that he attempted to
understand why his friend became a loner. Rather, my impression was
that Herbert Vander Lugt talked about his friend being a loner, judged
his friend, gave a little lecture about how we shouldn't be loners
because God is not a loner, and then said that Christ brings us into
fellowship with other people. Unfortunately, I thought, things are not
so simple! For one, sure, God may not be a loner, but there are plenty
of people who are loners by temperament. Perhaps they're introverts, or
they are on the autism spectrum. Why should they be made to feel
guilty or second-class because they're not acting contrary to how they
are? Second, it's not easy for every Christian to fit into social
settings that have other Christians, or other people in general, for
that matter.
Perhaps Herbert Vander Lugt indeed did try to
understand where his friend was coming from, and his whole point about
his friend never having to sacrificially love anyone or agonize over
other people reflects why his friend chose to be a loner. I certainly
think that these are reasons that some choose a life of solitude: they
don't like to be bothered with people, who can be quite a hassle! But I
also think that Peck does well to offer other reasons: loners may fear
getting too close to people and losing them, and they may fear
rejection.
Herbert Vander Lugt and Peck may have a point that
loneliness is not an ideal situation. I have my reasons for being a
loner, many of which overlap with what Herbert Vander Lugt and Peck
discuss. I'd add other factors as well: my difficulty in coming up with
things to say when I socialize, my timidity, my fear of saying the
wrong thing, the fact that there have been times in the past when I have
said the wrong thing or said something in an imperfect way and thus
turned people off, bad relationships in the past in which I felt mocked
or dismissed, not wanting to give people the satisfaction of rejecting
me when I want to be their friend, etc. At the same time, it does feel
good to me when I realize that there are people who care for me, and
when I care for others (people and pets). Of course, these are
relationships in which I don't have to exert too much effort to be
accepted, so that's why I like them.
One area in which I object to
Herbert Vander Lugt and Peck's discussion is that they seem to suggest
that being married and having kids is for everyone. It's not. At this
moment, I don't think that I have enough love within me to be a father
and a husband. So why should I try to be a father or a husband, if I
feel I'm not cut out for that right now?
Another point that I want
to make concerns growth. Growth is a significant part of Peck's
conception of love, for he believes that we love ourselves when we
pursue growth, and we love others when we are concerned about their
growth. Peck said that the loner woman was not growing, and I've heard
similar things from other people: "If you isolate yourself, then how
will you grow?" This somewhat annoys me, for they should tell me why I
should even want to grow. I guess I can come up with reasons that I'd
like to grow: so that I can meet life with greater serenity, so that I
can get along better with others, so that I can have confidence and thus
have and do well at a job, etc. But, in the case of the loner
woman and Herbert Vander Lugt's friend, these people have already found
ways to support themselves or to be supported, plus they seem to be
fairly content with life. Why should they have to grow, to meet
somebody else's expectations as to what constitutes a fulfilling life?