The Lame Shall Enter First

Flannery O’Connor drafted “The Lame Shall Enter First” in the summer of 1961 and finished the story by the end of the year, placing it as the sixth piece in her posthumous, second collection, Everything That Rises Must Converge. While the story derived significant inspiration from Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short story “The Birth-Mark,” current events in O’Connor’s world enhanced and modernized the story. Biographer Brad Gooch details that O’Connor’s Sheppard, with his “wish to reform wayward boys, shares a penchant for human engineering with Hawthorne’s mad scientist Aylmer”; Norton, Sheppard’s son, mirrors “Aylmer’s unwitting victim, his wife, Georgiana”; and “the stand-in for Aylmer’s cloddish assistant, Aminadab, is Rufus, the very incarnation of fundamental evil in the guise of a young boy” (340). O’Connor then infused the story with references to modern culture, such as to Alan Shepard, who became the first American in space in May 1961 when he made a suborbital flight on the Freedom 7. From Alan Shepard, O’Connor creates Sheppard, who excitedly purchases a telescope for Rufus. Additionally, Wild in the Country, starring Elvis Presley, showed for the first time in Milledgeville in July 1961, inspiring Rufus’s dance down the hallway wearing Nelson’s mother’s corset and singing Presley’s “Shake, Rattle, and Roll.” O’Connor eventually submitted the story to the new publisher of the Sewanee Review, her teacher from Iowa, Andrew Lytle, who had not cared for her writing as a student but was captivated by her mature work. Lytle eagerly accepted the story for publication in the magazine’s summer 1962 issue, also planning a special issue to appear that summer that focused solely on O’Connor’s fiction.

Through Rufus’s revelation, O’Connor uses a Biblical foundation to teach readers the importance of righteously helping others, simultaneously demonstrating the ultimate consequences of rejecting the Bible. First, O’Connor portrays Sheppard as self-righteous, characterizing his desire to help Rufus as wrongly motivated. For example, Sheppard angrily notes to Norton that “suppose you had a huge swollen foot and one side of you dropped lower than the other when you walked?” (“Lame,” 447). Sheppard’s fixation on Rufus’s physical handicap shows that Sheppard believes Rufus automatically requires help, although he proves to Norton that he does not need help when he says, “‘And I got ways of getting my own shoe. See?’ The child nodded, mesmerized” (453). Furthermore, Sheppard determines that “Johnson was worth any amount of effort because he had the potential. He had seen it from the time the boy had limped in for his first interview” (449), thus revealing that Sheppard’s desire to help Rufus stems from his intellectual capabilities. Sheppard reveals the depth of his self-righteousness when he lectures Norton that “I’d simply be selfish if I let what Rufus thinks of me interfere with what I can do for Rufus. If I can help a person, all I want is to do it. I’m above and beyond simple pettiness” (458). Automatically, Sheppard reveals that his intention to help Rufus derives from Sheppard’s arrogant desire to satisfy himself. He wants to help Rufus to maintain a charitable image instead of helping Rufus because he needs help. Therefore, in demonstrating Sheppard’s desire to help Rufus as wrongly motivated, O’Connor anticipates Rufus’s revelation.

Like a prophet, Rufus reveals a Biblically-inspired message that spotlights Sheppard’s wrongdoing. When Sheppard scolds Rufus for refusing to remove the Bible from the table where he, Sheppard, and Norton share a meal, Rufus “raised the Bible and tore out a page with his teeth and began grinding it in his mouth, his eyes burning. [...] His eyes widened as if a vision of splendor were opening up before him. ‘I’ve eaten it!’ he breathed. ‘I’ve eaten it like Ezekiel and it was honey to my mouth!’” (477). Rufus thus parallels himself to a prophet by directly quoting Ezekiel, an Old Testament prophet who receives God’s prophecy when a spirit literally feeds him a scroll. Ezekiel writes that “I opened my mouth, and [the spirit of God] fed me the scroll. ‘Fill your stomach with this,’ he said. And when I ate it, it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth. Then he said, ‘Son of man, go to the people of Israel and give them my messages’” (Ezek. 3.2-4 NLT). In the same way that God instructs Ezekiel to turn the Israelites away from their disobedience toward God, Rufus’s presence in Sheppard’s life eventually reveals to him the nature of his wrongdoing, thereby defining Rufus as a prophet and confirming O’Connor’s theological message for her story.

Similarly, Rufus appears as a prophet to Sheppard by referencing Hell and the need for belief in Jesus multiple times, Christian claims that Sheppard openly rejects. In his first interview at the reformatory, Rufus reveals that his “questions about life had been answered by signs nailed on pine trees: DOES SATAN HAVE YOU IN HIS POWER? REPENT OR BURN IN HELL. JESUS SAVES. He would know the Bible with or without reading it” (“Lame,” 451). Although Rufus makes his Biblical alignment well-known, Sheppard wholeheartedly rejects Rufus’s preaching, such as when Sheppard’s “despair gave way to outrage. ‘Rubbish!’ he snorted. ‘We’re living in the space age! You’re too smart to give an answer like that’” (451). Later, Sheppard once again rejects Rufus’s talk about the Bible when Sheppard says, “Nobody has given any reliable evidence there’s a hell,” and Rufus responds that “‘the Bible has give the evidence,’ Johnson said darkly, ‘and if you die and go there you burn forever. [...] Whoever says it ain’t a hell,’ Johnson said, ‘is contradicting Jesus. The dead are judged and the wicked are damned. They weep and gnash their teeth while they burn,’ he continued, ‘and it’s everlasting darkness’” (461). The Bible supports Rufus’s summary of the fiery damnation of Hell, such as in Revelation 20:10, which states that “the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (NLT). Jesus also preaches that, as Rufus notes, the wicked “will be thrown into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” (Matt. 8.12 NLT), language Jesus also uses to refer to the hardship and pain of Hell five other times in Matthew (13.14; 13.50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30) and once in Luke (13.28). Finally, Rufus asserts that Norton’s mother “is saved” and not in Hell if “she believe[d] in Jesus” (“Lame,” 462), which Sheppard unsurprisingly rejects. Therefore, Rufus confirms himself as Sheppard’s prophet.

Extending his Biblically-inspired message by reading the Bible with Norton further defines Rufus as a prophet and confirms O’Connor’s theological message. At first, Sheppard enjoys the view of Rufus and Norton “sitting close together on the sofa, reading the same book. Norton’s cheek rested against the sleeve of Johnson’s black suit. Johnson’s finger moved under the lines they were reading. The elder brother and the younger” (“Lame,” 475). However, Sheppard later becomes angry when he learns that the boys are reading the Bible, bellowing to Norton to “‘stop talking this nonsense,’ Sheppard said, looking sharply at the child” (476). When Sheppard subsequently asserts in his frustration that the Bible “is something for you to hide behind. [...] It’s for cowards, people who are afraid to stand on their own feet and figure things out for themselves,” Rufus menacingly warns that “Satan has you in his power” (477). As a result, Rufus confirms his position as a kind of Biblical prophet, supporting literary scholar Margaret Earley Whitt’s claim that “Rufus is O’Connor’s spokesperson for her dogmatic stance on orthodox Christianity” (143). As a result, Rufus’s portrayal as a prophet prefigures his later revelation.

Sheppard’s outward dislike of Norton anticipates Rufus’s revelation that Sheppard should help his own son instead of Rufus, evoking a Biblical message that defines the importance of rightly helping others. Sheppard makes no attempt to conceal his dislike for Norton and his belief that Norton is selfish, such as when Sheppard concludes that “it was hopeless. Almost any fault would have been preferable to selfishness – a violent temper, even a tendency to lie” (“Lame,” 446). Later, Sheppard’s frustration with Norton mounts when “it irritated him that the child showed no intellectual curiosity whatsoever” (460) and when “he gazed at the child’s dull absorbed little face. Why try to make him superior? Heaven and hell were for the mediocre, and he was that if he was anything” (463). As a result, Sheppard’s blindness by his extreme dislike toward his son masks Norton’s true neediness stemming from his grief over the death of his mother. When Sheppard tries to evoke sympathy in Norton for Rufus by telling him that his mother is not in the penitentiary like Rufus’s, Norton sobs that “‘if she was in the penitentiary,’ he began in a kind of racking bellow, ‘I could go seeeeee her.’ Tears rolled down his face. [...] He abandoned himself and howled. Sheppard sat helpless and miserable. [...] This was not normal grief. It was all part of his selfishness” (447). Therefore, scholar Robert H. Brinkmeyer critically highlights that, in his self-righteous blindness, “Sheppard continually ignores the needs and feelings of Norton, who is wracked with grief over the death of his mother” (94), which ultimately leads to Rufus’s condemning revelation that emphasizes the importance of rightly helping others.

Biblical passages foreground and confirm Rufus’s revelation that Sheppard should devote his energy to helping Norton, his “lame” son who truly needs his help instead of Rufus. For example, the Bible reveres children by stating that “children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him. Children born to a young man are like arrows in a warrior’s hands. How joyful is the man whose quiver is full of them!” (Ps. 127.3-5 NLT). Out of this reverence, the Bible asserts that parents have an obligation to care for their children by stating that parents should “direct [their] children onto the right path” (Prov. 22.6 NLT), should “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6.4 ESV), and should “not provoke [...] children, lest they become discouraged” (Col. 3.21 ESV). Instead of caring for Norton, Sheppard further provokes Norton into grief over his mother, revealing “the spiritual and emotional crippling of his loveless existence” that leads literary critic Frederick Asals to define lameness as “a metaphor for human limitation and suffering” (117-118). Therefore, while Rufus’s later revelation confirms that Norton, instead of Rufus, is “lame,” the Bible illustrates that Norton truly needs help because he is lame in spirit. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explains that “God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs. God blesses those who mourn, for they will be comforted” (Matt. 5.3-4 NLT). Jesus explains further that “healthy people don’t need a doctor – sick people do. [...] I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners” (Matt. 9.12-13 NLT). Therefore, Jesus demonstrates that in his ministry, he caters to the lowly, to the lame in spirit, those who know they need help. Ultimately, however, Sheppard disregards his Biblical obligation to care for Norton, his “lame” son, and to meet his needs.

Through blatantly characterizing Norton as “lame,” Rufus gives his revelation that specifically defines Sheppard’s misconduct in his wrongly motivated desire to help Rufus instead of Norton. Rufus first emphasizes that Sheppard’s intentions are wrongly motivated when, defending Sheppard, Norton says that “he’s good. [...] He helps people,” to which Rufus “hissed, ‘I don’t care if he’s good or not. He ain’t right!’ Norton looked stunned” (“Lame,” 454). Later, Sheppard self-righteously asserts to Rufus that “‘I’m stronger than you are and I’m going to save you. The good will triumph.’ ‘Not when it ain’t true,’ the boy said. ‘Not when it ain’t right’” (474). The apostle Paul supports Rufus’s conclusion that Sheppard’s idea of helping others is not “right” when he instructs that people should “not look out only for [their] own interests, but [should] take an interest in others, too” (Phil. 2.4 NLT), and that people should “not be concerned for [their] own good but for the good of others” (1 Cor. 10.24 NLT). Therefore, Paul reveals that people’s intentions for helping others should come from a true desire to help and not from a desire to promote one’s own self-righteousness, of which Rufus condemns Sheppard. As a result, Rufus exclaims his revelation that Sheppard “thinks he’s God. [...] The Devil has him in his power. [...] The lame shall enter first! [...] When I get ready to be saved, Jesus’ll save me, not that lying stinking atheist” (“Lame,” 480). Here, Rufus’s claims align with Biblical teaching that Jesus will save those with lame spirits, whom he honors above the self-righteous. Therefore, Rufus’s revelation defines O’Connor’s Christian theological message.

In the midst of Rufus’s exclamation, Sheppard begins to understand the severity of his wrongdoing when he realizes that “I did everything I know how for [Rufus]. I did more for him than I did for my own child” (480). In this way, Sheppard finally begins to recognize that he has neglected Norton, his own child, the one who truly needs his help. Sheppard importantly reflects on his deplorable conduct:

His every action had been selfless, his one aim had been to save Johnson for some decent kind of service, he had not spared himself, he had sacrificed his reputation, he had done more for Johnson than he had done for his own child. Foulness hung about him like an odor in the air, so close that it seemed to come from his own breath. (481).

O’Connor concludes in a letter that “this story is about a man who thought he was good and thought he was doing good when he wasn’t” (The Habit of Being, 490). Thus, Sheppard confirms that his desires to help Rufus are wrongly motivated and distract from Norton, who is the person Sheppard should be helping instead of Rufus. Sheppard begins to comprehend the nature of his wrongdoing by recognizing his selfishness that has negatively impacted Norton, leading to further contemplation that results in fully understanding Rufus’s revelation in the story’s conclusion.

Ultimately, Sheppard finally understands Rufus’s revelation, thereby characterizing O’Connor’s lesson for readers on the importance of righteously helping others. In the story’s conclusion, Sheppard comprehends Rufus’s revelation:

He had ignored his own child to feed his vision of himself. [...] His image of himself shrivelled until everything was black before him. He sat there paralyzed, aghast. [...] A rush of agonizing love for [Norton] rushed over him like a transfusion of life. The little boy’s face appeared to him transformed; the image of his salvation; all light. He groaned with joy. He would make everything up to him. He would never let him suffer again. He would be mother and father. He jumped up and ran to his room, to kiss him, to tell him that he loved him, that he would never fail him again. (“Lame,” 481-482)

While Sheppard proves that he understands Rufus’s revelation, writer Joyce Carol Oates points out that Sheppard’s “change of heart leads to nothing, to no joyous reconciliation. He rushes up to the boy’s room and discovers that Norton has hanged himself” (45). As a result, Norton’s death and Sheppard’s inability to right his wrongdoing emphasize O’Connor’s additional Biblical message of the ultimate consequences of rejecting the Bible. Jesus clearly explains that only those “who believe in [me] will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3.16 NLT) and that “anyone who does not believe in [me] has already been judged” (John 3.18 NLT). Therefore, Norton’s death as consequence for Sheppard’s rejection of Rufus’s Biblical message, even though Sheppard understands Rufus’s revelation about helping Norton, evokes the Bible’s point that death results from rejecting Jesus. Literary critic Davis J. Leigh captures the extent of O’Connor’s Christian purpose by concluding that “Sheppard’s transformation is tragic because it comes too late, but he certainly undergoes a sort of conversion to a less self-centered and more Christ-centered life” (374). Therefore, Rufus’s revelation ultimately creates a Biblical foundation that O’Connor uses to convey theological messages.

Works Cited

Asals, Frederick. “Flannery O’Connor’s ‘The Lame Shall Enter First.’” The Mississippi Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, spring 1970, pp. 103-20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26473852.

Brinkmeyer, Robert H., Jr. The Art and Vision of Flannery O’Connor. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State UP, 1993.

ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version. Translated by Crossway, ESV text ed., Wheaton, Crossway Bibles, 2011.

Gooch, Brad. Flannery: A Life of Flannery O’Connor. New York, Little, Brown, 2009.

Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Translated by Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Tyndale House Publishers, 2015.

Leigh, Davis J. “Suffering and the Sacred in Flannery O’Connor’s Short Stories.” Renascence: Essays on Values in Literature, vol. 65, no. 5, fall 2013, pp. 365-79. MLA International Bibliography.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “The Visionary Art of Flannery O’Connor.” Modern Critical Views: Flannery O’Connor, edited by Harold Bloom, New York City, Chelsea House Publishers, 1986, pp. 43-54.

O’Connor, Flannery. The Habit of Being. Edited by Sally Fitzgerald, New York City, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979.

---. “The Lame Shall Enter First.” The Complete Stories, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971, pp. 445-82.

Whitt, Margaret Earley. Understanding Flannery O’Connor. Columbia, U of South Carolina P, 1997.