TIME AND TIME AGAIN
Time has no intrinsic substance; no force, per se, that can be substantively manipulated. Time is merely a conceptual tool for measuring the rate of movement and the measurement of decay from the point of view of a select moment in time.
The past, as we use it, is a compilation of recollections of a nonexistent present. The present is nothing more than a series of elusive moments that quickly become conceptualized as the past. The future is a compilation of anticipatory moments conceptualized as not yet realized. In terms of linear time, the future decays to the present and the present decays to the past with the past being the place of no-time, eventually becoming the point where time runs out, the point of singularity.
It is important to keep these definitions in mind, because we tend to imbue time with a force it does not possess. The fact is we humans are obsessed with measurements. We can't help it. It's what we do. After all, we're the differentiators, the namers of things, the measure-ers of them, the ultimate discriminating animals who identify same and different, and we struggle mightily with all of that. To that end, we have come to identify time as a measurement and differentiate it into past, present, and future, moment by moment.
Time is one of humanity's greatest conceptual achievements that almost all humans accept as a real entity in our lives. What we consider the force of time is in actuality movement. We're always moving. We're always active even if we sit still; we're still moving and wearing out. We see this in everything around us and we feel it in ourselves. At the same time, we experience movement as heading towards something, which we call the future. While we wear away, we anticipate that more shall come after us.
This differentiation of time into its various categories of past, present, future, seconds, minutes, hours, days weeks, years, eras, seasons, etc. has given it a hold on our perceptions and cognitive capabilities. Time captivates the human imagination as a reality we cannot escape until, perhaps, we're dead. Even then, the living mark the graves and memorialize the deceased by measuring the span of deceased's life as a moment in time and celebrate events of a loved one's life as if they're still subject to time.
PUDDLING THE PAST
Our relationship to time is largely bipolar. When thinking of time, we largely think of the past and the future. The present almost always gets us to think about where we've been and where we're headed. Our minds rarely stay put in the present.
Of the two poles, the past appears the easiest to comprehend. We may not adequately know where we're at in historical terms or where we're headed, but we think we know where we've been. The polarity of time, however, is merely conceptual. Past and future are not strict polar opposites. They are interrelated concepts, with the past casting a long shadow into the future.
The further back one looks at time, the more one tends to puddle events by confining them with generalized or specific dates and giving them distinct names like the Axial Period, the Dark Ages, Medieval Times, the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. History is our attempt to domesticate time by categorizing the random and unpredictable feelings that we associate with time as illustrated in Dickens' opening sentence in A Tale of Two Cities, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... ." Time is also domesticated by identifying events as recurrent seasons, as illustrated in Ecclesiastes 3:1, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven."
History does not preserve the past but rather it is an attempt to keep the collective memory of what has passed current. There is no way to accurately replicate the past, no way to accurately capture what people at the time felt or thought about the events swirling around them as they occurred. We can only speculate and reference them imaginatively through our own present-day thoughts and experiences.
In fact, people who lived through a recent event; experienced it first-hand and can remember it as if it just happened cannot replicate it exactly because all the elements of the time in which it occurred no longer exist as they have moved on and memory becomes imbued with meaning very quickly which creates a curved lens through which recall occurs. One's recall may be categorically accurate, but it can never replicate the exact experience because certain elements of that experience pass with the moment in which it occurred, which is a long way to say that memory can never produce an exact replication because time is not something that can be replicated and the human mind takes the million, if not billions, of pieces of information and stores them categorically.
Pragmatically speaking, time can only be recalled as the measurement of an event - "It started at this time and ended at this time" or "It took about so long." In other words, we puddle the event in the context of time passed. Memory is largely about meanings, and time, in recall, contributes to one's sense of meaning as a defining element. Every historian knows this.
THE CURSE OF HISTORY AND THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT
There is a saying attributed to different people that goes something like "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." A historian, whose name I unfortunately cannot recall, made an intuitive adjustment to this statement by saying history repeats but not in like. This cautionary insight helps avoid the tendency to concretize the meanings of history as a binding cause and effect relationships, "If this happens then this must occur." This type of thinking leads us to ignore the ever-elusive present. When events occur there are perhaps millions, if not billions, of factors that affect it, that give it its particular flavor.
The past, however, has a tremendous influence on how we interpret the present and how we forecast the future. We distill lessons from the puddles of the past that give definition to the events and situations of today and what we are looking for in the near future. What is problematic in using the past to interpret the present and in forecasting the future is imprecision. What comes to mind is the "butterfly effect," the possibility, if not the probability, that some isolated, unnoticed occurrence or series of occurrences creating a wave of causation that has a direct impact on current events. In retrospect, some of these butterfly moments can be discovered in a generalized way, but most cannot.
My cautionary approach to historical application is that humans are subject to engaging in self-fulfilled prophecies. History is very important in understanding where we've come from, but it is not prophetic. It cannot tell us with any precision where we're headed. Why we feel it does is because we can reference current events as being like past events. The problem is that current events are not past events. They may recall a certain flavor, but they're not concocted the same way.
NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV
This verse from the Hebrew Scriptures has likely shaped much of the West's thinking about the historical relationship between past and future. The fact is there have been a number of new things under the sun since that was written: industrialization, locomotion, air travel, space travel, telecommunication, the internet, advances in medicine to mention a few. What the "Teacher" was getting at and which is relevant to this discussion is that humans haven't changed much since that time. In fact, Ecclesiastes is a good read regarding the relativity of time in conjunction with the finitude of existence and the apparent immutability of human behavior.
But are we perpetually stuck with engaging in recurrent behaviors?
Does the concept of time, particularly the past, confine us to behavioral patterns that we are destined to repeat?
The Teacher in Ecclesiastes seems to be saying yes. For all practical purposes, this appears evident. Human history appears nothing more than an exhibition of repetitious behaviors within the context of variable circumstances. Our ability to scientifically examine the past, however, says maybe not; that repetition is merely a cog-like action in an expansive evolutionary system; that while we seem to behaviorally spinning our collective wheels, human behavior, in all probability, is slowly evolving.
What prevents us from seeing this, I believe, is our attraction, if not our addiction, to the past. As individuals we have difficulty in letting go of our personal pasts, especially that which has wounded us in some way; the things done and left undone to us and the things we have done and left undone to others. One of the Hebrew psalmists captured this sense of being wounded in Psalm 51:3, "For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me." The psalmist is not talking about the sin that will be committed but rather the sin that has been committed and about the person who cannot find a way around it.
I read somewhere that the ancient Greeks believed that the past is always in front of us; that the future comes from behind and sneaks up on us. The psalmist reflects this sense of the future; that in looking ahead we look through the lens of the past and that it is our past behaviors that are projected ahead of us as we speculate the future, and for many, if not most, it paints a grim picture.
Future-Fear, as I am using it in these posts, is connected to a fear of repeating the past or the past repeating itself. Such fears are based on our knowledge of the past; that from this knowledge we know what we are capable of doing. Unfortunately, what sticks most in our collective memories is not the good we have demonstrated a capacity for but rather the bad which has placed us on more than one occasion near the brink of universal devastation. One has only to read, listen to, or watch the news feeds to understand the validity of that statement; especially, as they relate to the recent past. As a whole, we are instinctually prone to be wary of predation and it is that which prompts us to probe the past for predicates of the future.
The past also possesses an allure to go back to the way things once were; particularly if one finds the present uncomfortable or encounters changes that have or appear to have little reference to the past. I will explore this time-related phenomenon in future posts, but the allure of past is similar to the fear of repeating the past. Both the allure and the fear of the past are illusionary. Nothing from the past can be replicated. The allure of the past is nothing more than a Siren's call that leads to stagnation and distortion of the present. Fearing what has occurred in the past as becoming a recurrent reality in the near future likewise serves to distort the lessons of the past; rendering them useless in understanding their application to the present.
Being from South Dakota, what comes to mind is weather forecasting as an example for the imprecision of using the past in predicting the future. From the past experiences and the study of them, we are given models, contexts in which weather patterns develop and can, with some precision, define today's weather conditions, but as is often the case, these patterns do not hold true when it comes predicting the weather precisely over time, let's say a week's time. That a storm is gathering in the previous week does not mean a storm will occur sometime this week, even though the historical pattern would indicate it happening. This does not mean we don't pay attention to what the forecast is saying. To ignore a forecast is like ignoring the patterns of history and risk being caught in a situation that could have been avoided, but it also means that we keep an eye on the present and understand that what was forecast a week ago is not set in concrete that conditions change - that a butterfly, somewhere, can change the course of the Jet Stream and change the course of history.
There will be more about the past as we look to present and then to future.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Thursday, April 12, 2018
LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI - A HEART FIXED ON TRUE JOY
This homily was delivered in Christ Episcopal Church, Yankton, South Dakota on March 18, 2018 on the Fifth Sunday in Lent.
* * * * * * * * * *
Almighty
God, you alone can bring into order the unruly wills and affections of
sinners: Grant your people grace to love
what you command and desire what you promise; that, among the swift and varied
changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed where true joys are
to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and
the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Amen
(The Collect for the Fifth Sunday in Lent, The Book of Common Prayer, The Church Hymnal Corporation, 1979, pg. 219)
(The Collect for the Fifth Sunday in Lent, The Book of Common Prayer, The Church Hymnal Corporation, 1979, pg. 219)
Walking through the doors of this church or any
church on any day; particularly, on day of worship like today is, in essence, an
act of public confession. We are saying, “I am a sinner in need of redemption.”
At the beginning of Lent, on Ash Wednesday, I
presented a homily in which I said sin could be defined by one word: selfish. I said that “Any term that can be suffixed
with ‘ish’ is an indication that it’s not the real thing but rather an
approximation that is less than real or presented as being more than what it is;
therefore, sin is anything that approximates us; lessens who we truly are, or
tries to make us look more than who we truly are.” We have all, in some way or another and at
some point or another, acted selfishly. As
the Apostle Paul wrote in his Letter to the Romans, “All have sinned and fallen
short of the Glory of God.” [1]
In our collect for today, we acknowledge, that despite
our selfishness God’s influence is pervasive; that God “alone can bring into order our unruly
wills and affections. What this prayer indicates is that sin/selfishness does
not nor cannot keep God at bay. God is always in search of the lost, and God
comes running to meet the contrite in heart as Jesus taught in his parable of
the Lost Sheep and the Prodigal Son.
In other words, God
goes where we go to get us to the place where God is.
In this prayer, we ask for grace, the unmerited gift
of God to love what God commanded, and what is it that God has commanded? It is what Jesus summed up as the greatest
commandant – to love that which God’s loves; to love our neighbors as ourselves,
to love our enemies; in short, it is to love all that is in order to fully love
God with all our hearts, souls, and minds.[2]
In this prayer, we ask for grace to desire what God
has promised, and what is it that God promised? God’s promise is the restoration of creation
and the redemption of humanity to the goodness in which and for which it was
made. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is
depicted as putting the promise of God in these terms, “I came that they (all) may
have life, and have it abundantly.”[3] Several Sundays ago in a homily on a
baptismal prayer we examined this sense of abundance in terms of finding the gift of joy and wonder in all of God’s works.[4]
In this prayer, we ask for grace that amidst the
swift and varied changes of the world; our hearts are fixed; are anchored where
true joys are to be found. Each age, in
which this prayer has been said; including our own, finds itself caught in the riptides
and whirlpools of current events that are ever in flux.
It is easy while walking on the troubled waters of
the present to be caught up in its turmoil and like Peter to lose faith, to
lose hope, and start caving inward, sinking into a deluded sense of self. It is
so easy in such an environment to drown in a vision of a faithless, hopeless,
and unloving world, to put on a truly dark lens that hides the reality of God’s
love for the world we live in and that prevents us from seeing ourselves for who
we truly are.
So where is true joy to be found?
Since I begin this series of homilies, I find so
many of our collects and prayers mentioning the heart. To the modern ear, all this talk about the
heart may seem archaic, if not sentimental.
Why not talk about the mind?
Isn’t the “heart” only a metaphor for what we now
call the mind, our thoughts and our emotions? After all, isn’t it what we think,
what we perceive as good and evil that gets us into trouble or keeps it out of
it?
Undoubtedly, there is a connection between our
thoughts and our troubles and joys. We know, scientifically, that there link
between what we perceive, think, and feel. Scripture acknowledges this
connection as noted in the commandment to love God with all one’s heart and all
one’s mind.
The heart and the mind are closely linked, but
function differently. Physically
speaking, the heart feels and the mind perceives.
Take the broad field of science, for example. As an
engine of science, the mind perceives that it is limited to and by what
questions it can answer as empirical fact.
It can answer when questions, where questions, what questions, and how
questions, but the question that all the empirical sciences struggle with are
the pure why questions; especially, the question why we exist – “Why anything?”
It’s at that point empirical science hits a wall, begins
to unravel, and becomes vacuous. Any attempt to answer the why of existence
causes the mind to enter the realm of speculation, philosophy, ontology, and
theology. Having said that, however, one
thing both theologians and scientists can and most do agree on is that there is
no scientific proof or disproof for the existence of God or why we exist, and
this, I believe, is where the heart comes in.
Our minds recognize another way of knowing that
comes by way of experience or feeling. To
know God is to feel God in some manner or another and that is why scripture and
our prayers talk in terms of the heart. We know God, not because we know what
God is, know how God is, or know where God is. We know God because we feel God
and the feeling by which we know God is called love.
Scripture
tells us God is love,[5]
and that feeling of love is centered in the core of our being, our soul, what
we call the heart where our made-in-the-image-of-God-self resides. Almost every personal encounter with God in
scripture is conveyed through an experience which conveys the feeling of God’s
presence. Read the Psalms, and consider the terms the apostle Paul uses to
describe our relationship to God: faith,
hope, and love. They are all feeling
terms, and they are found in one form or another in every letter Paul wrote.
Joy is a feeling.
The mind doesn’t feel. The mind processes feelings;
gives them a name, tells us where, what, and how we feel, but frequently can’t
tell us why we feel the way we do. We
can think happy thoughts that lead to happy feelings or we can think bad
thoughts that lead to bad feelings.
It is a scientific fact that our visceral feelings
can affect the physical heart’s health. Scripture intuitively gets the
importance of paying attention to what we feel as a matter of the heart more
than the head. Scriptures gets it right when obeying the greatest commandment
begins with the heart then moves through the totality of being to the mind, the
agency by which we perceive and comprehend the joy and wonder of creation as an
expression of God’s love.
As followers
of Jesus, we have come to understand that our true joy is experienced in the immense
parental love of God for all creation, a love we see in Jesus, a love we share
with Jesus and with all God’s children. It is that love; that feeling of joy
which anchors us against the tug of the
swift and varied changes of the world.
When our hearts are fixed on the
source of our true joy, God’s love for us and all creation, we can say with
Paul:
“For I am convinced that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things
to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[6]
When we came into this house of worship this morning,
we made a confession that we are sinful and in need of redemption. When we leave this place, by God’s grace, may we feel sent into the world professing that faith
and that hope which is fixed on our true Joy, the love of God we experience and
feel in Christ Jesus.
Amen.
[1]
Romans 3:23
[2]
Deuteronomy 6:5
[3]
John 10:10
[4] “The
Book of Common Prayer,” The Church
Hymnal Corporation, New York, 1979, pg. 308
[5] 1
John 4:8
[6]
Romans 8:38 & 39
Thursday, April 5, 2018
LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI - THE INQUIRING AND DISCERNING HEART
This homily was delivered at Christ Episcopal Church in Yankton, South Dakota on February 18, 2018 on the First Sunday in Lent.
Not being raised an Episcopalian, one of the prayers that caught my attention when Kathy and I joined this church occurred when we witnessed our first baptism here.
The prayer goes like this:
Heavenly
Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy Spirit you have bestowed upon
these your servants the forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to new life of
grace. Sustain them, O Lord, in your
Holy Spirit. Give them an inquiring and
discerning heart, the courage to will and to persevere, a spirit to know and to
love you, and the gift of joy and wonder in all your works.[1]
This quickly became one of my favorite prayers in The
Book of Common Prayer. Lex orandi, lex
credendi (what we pray reflects our deepest beliefs), as intimated in this
prayer, acknowledges that the heart is shaped by what it seeks and especially
by what it finds to be true.
Questioning has not been held in high regard
throughout much of the church’s history and remains so in some Christian
churches. Yet in the Anglican tradition,
our tradition, we have a unique theological perspective that shapes our
identity as Episcopalians. The 16th
century English Theologian, Richard Hooker, wrote:
“What
scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and
obedience are due; the next whereunto, is what a man can necessarily conclude
by force of Reason; after this, the voice of the church succeedeth”.[2]
This has become known as the three-legged stool upon
which Anglican theological perspective is derived: Scripture, Reason, and
Tradition. There were few Christian
denominations at that time and since that time that have given human reason, by
itself, a place of prominence in theological discernment and discourse. What
makes us unique among the Christian family of denominations is that we honor
the human faculty of reason as essential in discerning the will of God in the
light of Scripture and by its reflective wisdom embedded in our traditions.
Two individuals baptized as Anglicans came to mind
as I thought about this prayer: Charles
Darwin and Thomas Merton; both examples of individuals with an inquiring and
discerning heart.
CHARLES
DARWIN
Born to a free thinking father and a Unitarian
mother, Charles was baptized in the Church of England, the Anglican
Communion. Before taking his fateful
journey aboard the Beagle in which he weighed the plethora of possibilities why
so many diverse life forms in the world exist, Darwin had seriously considered
taking Holy Orders and becoming a curate in the Church of England. In reading his life story, I came to
appreciate the struggle he had with the knowledge he acquired; whether to
publish his findings that he knew would cause controversy and put him in a
spotlight he did not seek. He sat on
the knowledge his experiences gave him for decades and only published his
famous “Origen of the Species” when friends pleaded with him to do so. The weight of his reasoned discoveries and
the inner conflict it caused him took a toll on his health.
Our understanding of the world was forever changed
by his reasoning mind; his inquiring and discerning heart. Advances in the field of medical science are
largely traced to what he revealed.
Charles Darwin not only broadened our understanding of who we are and
how we came to be and the world we live in, he also broadened our understanding
of God. While that may not have been his
intent nor would he have thought it a result of his work, it certainly was an
outcome of it; traceable to God’s intent working through him. His findings
brought many religious communities, including our own, to rediscover the deeper
meaning of their scriptures and their traditions in a new and brighter light.
In 2011, when Kathy and I took our daughters on a
post-graduation tour of Ireland and Great Britain, we visited West Minister
Abbey in London. Appropriately, Charles
Darwin, an admitted agnostic in later life, was laid to rest in its hallowed
nave by a supporting church faithful in its vow to support him at his baptism.
As I stood looking down on his tomb, a few steps from the elaborate tomb of Sir
Isaac Newton in the north aisle, marked by a single marble slab bearing his
name, I could not help but think of him as a saint; a person who gifted us with
a deeper appreciation of the joy and wonder of God’s work in all creation. Fortunately for us, Charles Darwin found the
courage to will and persevere, whose integrity in speaking the truth of his
experience reflected the integrity of God’s truth expressed in all creation.
THOMAS
MERTON
Thomas Merton was the 20th Century
Trappist Monk who reintroduced Western Christianity to contemplative practices.
Merton was baptized an Anglican in the Pyrenees of South France. Educated in France and in Cambridge England,
he didn’t seem drawn to religion in his early life. At one point in his life, he claimed to be an
agnostic and fathered a child out of wedlock.
It wasn’t until some years later that he met a Hindu
monk, Brahmachari, who sparked his interest in religious life, but instead of
pointing Thomas to Hinduism, he pointed him back to his own religious roots,
Christianity, and told him to start there.
Merton eventually became a Trappist monk at the Abbey of Gethsemane in
Indiana. His books on contemplative prayer and his life journey are considered
Christian classics. His groundbreaking
work in interfaith dialogue with Buddhists, like Thich Nhat Hanh, helped Christians
everywhere better understand our scriptures and traditions through the lens of
what others have to offer.
My reason for briefly sharing their stories is that
we don’t know what wonders God will perform through those baptized into Christ
or where their journey will lead them and us.
Both Darwin and Merton encountered experiences that drew out a faith
that shattered previous held beliefs for them and for us. Both demonstrated what I would call the
integrity of faith by embracing their experiences, learning from them, and
sharing the knowledge garnered from them with the world.
BAPTISM
In the ritual of baptism we witness a symbolic
reorientation to one’s original state of grace – the death of a prejudicial
worldview that only sees sin and a sinner; a presentation of the clean slate
that every newborn and every reborn represents.
Baptism is a symbolic reset of creation to the goodness that it is. This is Christ’s mission in the world; a
mission we share. In that reset, we
honor the creative Spirit of God that each of us has been proportioned; the
inquiring and discerning heart that in its individuality is uniquely in sync
with the mind of Christ and the will of God in ways that stretch the
imagination.
I have come to see baptism as something that should
change how we see the person being baptized; a wiping away of our prejudicial
biases; to look at the recipient of this ritual sacrament as a grace filled
child of God who is set on a journey of inquiry and discernment, no matter what
their age or the circumstances they come from.
We need to remember that regardless of where that journey leads them, we
have pledged them our support. In this
baptismal prayer, the path to knowing and loving God in the joy and wonder of
creation is opened in ways for the baptized that we cannot see or understand at
the time.
DISCERNING
THE WAY FORWARD
This prayer also reminds me of the journey this
congregation is currently on. We are all headed towards something; an ending
that is likely a beginning whether we like it or know what that means and
nothing brings this to the forefront of a congregation’s awareness than when it
loses a pastor and is faced with searching for someone to shepherd its flock.
Now is the time for using our inquiring and
discerning hearts.
Now is the time to find the courage to will and
persevere.
Discernment is a unique process that asks us to
listen deeply to the heart of this congregation in order to find the mind of
Christ in our journey forward. Anyone
who has experienced a discernment process for ministry knows that it is not so
much about exercising one’s will as it is about letting go of it and letting
God lead the way forward.
Thomas Merton wrote what is probably one of the best
personal prayers regarding discerning the way forward which I am paraphrasing
for our collective use:
OUR LORD GOD, We have no idea where we are going. We do not see the road ahead of us. We cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do we really know ourselves, and the fact that we think that we are following your will does not mean that we are actually doing so. But we believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And we hope we have that desire in all that we are doing. We hope that we will never do anything apart from that desire. And we know that if we do this you will lead us by the right road though we may know nothing about it. Therefore, will we trust you always though we may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. We will not fear, for you are ever with us, and you will never leave us to face our perils alone.[3]
Amen.
[1]
“The Book of Common Prayer,” The Church
Hymnal Corporation, New York, 1979, pg. 308
[2]
Richard Hooker in “Laws of Ecclesial Polity.”
[3] Thomas Merton, (paraphrased) see original version From “Through the Year with Thomas Merton”
Thursday, March 29, 2018
LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI - THE OPEN HEART
This homily was delivered at Christ Episcopal Church in Yankton, South Dakota on January 7, 2018, the First Sunday after Epiphany.
Lex orandi, lex credendi is a Latin phrase that
comes to us from a little known fifth century theologian, Prosper of
Aquitaine. The literal translation of
this phrase is “The law of prayer (is) the law of belief,” or “What we pray
reflects what we hold true in our hearts.” Lex orandi, lex credendi is part of
our Christian and Anglican heritage.
During this interim period, while we are searching
for a rector, I would like to share some reflections on this heritage by taking
a closer look at the prayers we use and probing some of the nooks and crannies, maybe even a rubric or
two, found in the Book of Common Prayer that tell us something about ourselves.
Our Book of Common Prayer identifies churches of the
Episcopal Church, first and foremost, as places of Prayer and Praise. We take
seriously what Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew (quoting the prophet
Isaiah), “My house shall be called a House of Prayer.”[1]
Prayer shapes us and how we see and interact with
the world we live in. What we say also says something of who we are. Corporate
prayer is a shared intercommunicative process that presents us as a unit in an
intentional act of communing with God. In other words, coming together in a
service like Morning Prayer or Holy Communions adds a deeper dimension to
communing with God, as doing so involves communing with one another as the body
of Christ.
Corporate prayer and worship enacts what Jesus said
is the greatest commandment: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, all your soul, and all your mind’ and the second is like it, ‘You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.’” [2]
Our coming together to worship and pray is a visible sign and symbol of such
love in the world. This is perhaps the
most important gift our small congregation offers our community and those
seeking to better know the God who knows us better than ourselves – the
unifying love of God in Christ
In our increasingly polarized world where we can find ourselves divided on so many levels, it is in our common prayers that we find common ground and common purpose. Our prayers cross boundaries and collect us into a unified voice regardless of any apparent differences that exist. It is in the prayers that have be said by Christians throughout the ages that give us the assurance that differences can be set aside in the face of the mutual needs and in expressing gratitude for the grace of God that sustains us in faith.
The prayers in our prayer book are made up of canticles, collects, confessions, litanies, prayers of the people, sacramental prayers, suffrages, thanksgivings, and much more. All the prayers are highly crafted and present an economic use of words; saying a great deal in a few short statements.
One of the advantages to the prayers in our prayer book is that they can be said with great intention. You can study them, meditate on them, and think them through before saying them. Taking a few brief moments before the start of the service to look at the Collect for the Day and the other prayers allows one to say those prayers from the depth of one’s heart and with the totality of one’s mind and soul.
Prayer is also a kenotic act – an act of emptying
ourselves – of letting go and letting God.
Anyone who has been involved in Centering Prayer or any form of
contemplative prayer has experienced this practice of mindfully letting go and
letting God. In corporate worship, the
use of liturgical prayer is likewise intended help us let go of the smaller
self, the ego, in order to engage the large self, the Body of Christ.
So I want to start this series by briefly examining
the familiar kenotic prayer said at the beginning of every Holy Eucharist
service, a prayer we should be familiar with:
Almighty God, to you all hearts are open,
all desires known, and from you no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the
inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily
magnify your holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen[3]
This prayer is all about the heart, the core of our
being. And by core of our being, I mean
that the heart is where our God- image dwells – the essence of that being in
which we move, live, and have our being.[4] So
it should not come as any surprise that our hearts are open to God; that God
knows our desires better than we can express them, that there is nothing to
hide from God and nothing that can be hid from God.
Although God is addressed as Almighty, we know that
God is mightily in love with us – loves us deeper than we can love ourselves.
In this prayer, we acknowledge God as intimately knowing us beyond the limited
perception of our minds. There is no need to fear God knowing our desires and
secrets. Rather, we should feel a sense of comfort in knowing that we don’t
have a need for pretense or trying to find the right words to express what it
is we desire when seeking God’s help.
This prayer then asks that our hearts be cleansed-
emptied of the bothersome clutter of our thoughts – the anxieties, the emotional
baggage, the fear, the hatred and the wrong-minded desires and have them be
replaced with the breath of our origin – the inspiration of the Holy Spirit –
the purity of our original being. In that perfection – the perfection of God’s
image – we can love God as our true parent, and in that love, encounter a love
for all, that Love which words alone cannot express.
We end this prayer, as we end most collects as the
collective body of Christ, whose name we bear as our own – the name of Christ
who claims us as his own.
This is why we come to this place. This is why we worship:
To empty ourselves of all that is selfish and small
minded;
To find our true made-in-the-image of God selves, to
reclaim and proclaim our original state of grace, to be renewed by God’s
life-giving Spirit;
To commune with our larger self, the Body of Christ;
To love God perfectly, if only for a moment;
And this is why we keep coming:
Because once we walk out of these doors, we will
encounter a world that is alluring, deceptive, and imperfect; in short, a world
of our making that needs much forgiveness, much healing, and much love.
And if during this next week we are inspired by this
brief moment to bring about such forgiveness, healing, and love for just one
person; if we garner in these brief moments of prayerful worship enough
personal integrity and faith to kenotically dispense the grace offered us here
to others, the world will be a better place.
Amen.
* * * * * * * * * *
Until next time, stay faithful.
[1] See
Isaiah 56:7 and Matthew 21:13
[2]
Matthew 22: 37 - 39
[3]
“The Book of common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites
and Ceremonies of the Church together with the Psalter or Psalms of David” according to use of The Episcopal Church, The
Church Hymnal Corporation, New York, 1979, page 355.
[4]
Acts 17:28
Thursday, March 22, 2018
PRAYER - LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI
This post marks the beginning of a series of posts on prayer. The small Episcopal church I attend is in the process of searching for a new priest as our former priest has retired. As a result, the laity of our church has had to take on the role of conducting worship services in the form of Morning Prayer, a particularly familiar service to those in the Anglican Communion.
As my church's organist, I usually don't officiate, but I frequently give the homily during Morning Prayer. During this interim period between priests I am working on a series of homilies based on the prayers found in The Book of Common Prayer. I have named the series, "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" after the phrase coined by Prosper of Aquitaine, a disciple of Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century. I will be sharing these homilies or portions of them in this series. Before doing so, however, I would like to explore the topic of prayer and the manner in which I am using Prosper's phrase.
Prayer is defined in many ways: a conversation with a divine or spiritual other, contemplation, intercession, meditation, supplication, worship to name a few. Prayer is many things to many people. To define prayer, I am compelled to speak of it from a personal perspective in order to talk about it in a broader context.
FOXHOLES
What jumped into my mind as I began thinking about prayer is the saying, "There are no atheists in a foxhole." While the veracity of that saying is questionable, what brings this admittedly odd thought to my mind is that the foxhole represents the isolation that we humans face if left to fend for ourselves. Such a situation calls to mind the Impulse of Religion, the need of each other or the need of an other as a means of coping with an unembellished reality and the frailty of existence which we mostly go about ignoring until we find ourselves in one of life's foxholes.
Of course most people don't need a foxhole to bring them to prayer. The dramatic image of the foxhole, however, underscores the influence that human experience has on our attempts to reach beyond ourselves in order to appeal to and access a power beyond our collective and personal capabilities. Prayer projects one to the position of a observer of a condition that is either personal or involving others or both. All prayer has this projecting, observational quality.
To carry this analogy a bit further, the foxhole experience for the person on side A is like or likely to be a similar experience as the person on side B is having. They may be considered enemies, but they are entangled by virtue of their mutual situations that has placed them in such a miserable sympathetic position. Each understands the other's sense of deadly responsibility, misery, loneliness, vulnerability and desire for an end to being in a foxhole. Over time and if in close proximity, their conditional mutuality can lead to a conversant camaraderie, even if for brief periodic moments, as was noted in accounts of those stuck in foxholes and the trenches of World War I.
ENTANGLEMENT
Entanglement is a term associated with Quantum Physics in which particles interact with each other even if divided by great distances so that if one particle reacts to a stimulus the other also reacts even though it wasn't subjected to a stimulus. That's as far as I will delve into quantum physics, but entanglement phenomena would appear to have relevance in the macro world we live in. If this phenomena exists on a micro level, does it not carry over and exist on a macro/human level? Science has yet to explain why two particles theoretically separated by light years will react simultaneously if only one particle is being stimulated. What is their connection?
I believe prayer intuitively expresses this mysterious phenomenon in the form of a person being affected in some reciprocal manner by reaching out to one another by appeal or prayer. One can call this reciprocal reaching out intentionality. Naturally, this raises the question of whether prayer is effective.
It is to those who experience it as such and that's as far I can go regarding its effectiveness.
There is no scientific proof that prayer is effective, but then again, there is no empirical answer to the question why particles at the quantum level react when separated by great distances at the same time or the ultimate why of me or the why of you; or the ultimate why I am sitting at my computer writing this post or why you are reading it at this particular time on the other side of the globe, and so it goes on and on. The simple, unexplainable inference is that we are interconnected in various ways and at various levels with each other and the entire cosmos.
A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
As a Christian, I have come to see prayer as an intimate experience that oddly is not so much projected out into the macrocosm as it is projected into the microcosm of my own being. I have come to appreciate that at the core of my being lies a repository of human experience embedded in my made-in-the-image-of God-self that I share with others . I believe this is true for all humans and for all creation. In other words, connecting with my own microcosmic (personal) experiences ultimately puts me in connection to that Being in which we all live and move and have our being.
This is not always how I understood prayer. For most of my life, prayer was something I projected out and "up" to an imaginary realm of God and an imaginary image of what I thought God must be. I say imaginary because that was the only way I could visualize who God is and where God resides. I have since moved away from such imaginary visualizations and pay more attention to what I feel.
Today, prayer for me is personally directed to the seat of my feelings, the heart which I will talk about further along in these posts. For me, God is not only out there and all about but is both intimate and imminent - a heartbeat away and as near as my own breath.
I find that prayer deepens me as I get older. I find myself easily conversant with the God-particle of my being. I think this is because I have come to experience many things and I am now at an age and in a position to examine the value of those experiences as the transfiguring moments they were which have brought about a deeper understanding and appreciation of the life I am part of. Prayer comes quickly and is done quickly. I'm a minimalist when it comes to prayer, perhaps that is because I am influenced by my Episcopalian affiliation.
I belong to the prayer group in my church. When there is a request for prayer, the information is about as sparse as it can be unless the person making the request wants to forward specific information about a need, but for the most part the only information the members of this group receives is a first name and request for comfort, guidance, healing, peace, and God's presence.
That's it, and that's all we need. We don't need specifics. I don't need to know who the person is in any detail beyond being a person; an individual made in the image of God like myself. All I need is a name, and a request for prayer. After all the named person shares this life with me and whatever her or his need is I have only to delve into my inner experiences with doubt, suffering, anxiety, the will to carry on experienced in faith, the longing for resolution experienced in hope, and the type of pain experienced in deep love will fill in the blanks; for these feelings are ever-present in a request for prayer. And in no time at all, I am finding myself one with that person and the person's loved ones which leads me to breathe a word of prayer for all concerned.
CORPORATE PRAYER
What about corporate prayer?
As an Episcopalian and part of the broader Anglican Communion, I am very fond of the Book of Common Prayer. It's prayers; particularly, its collects are well-crafted, saying a great deal in a few short statements. The prayer book is, itself, a study in prayer and its very forms.
Prayers in the Book of Common Prayer are brought to the level of a fine art. If you want to know what we Episcopalians believe and how we see the world; how we understand God, how we relate to Christ Jesus, read our prayers. What I find intriguing in corporate prayer and especially in the well-crafted prayers found in liturgical services known as collects, litanies, suffrages, and other prayers of intercession and thanksgiving is that they shape the perspective of the person who prays them.
Formal prayer is not everyone's cup of tea. The notion of spontaneous prayer has been promoted by some as being more heartfelt and more directed in its intentionality to a specific need of a person or congregational concern. Let me be clear that I do not object to spontaneous prayer, but I would point out that such prayers seem, at least to me, to have a form and prescribed manner that identifies them as being spontaneous which in turn, permits one to readily identify the person's denominational affiliation.
Formal prayer runs the risk of being said with little or no thought, but for those of us who use them regularly, we know when they're missing or a word is changed, which is to say that these prayers become part of who we are which brings me to Prosper's statement.
As my church's organist, I usually don't officiate, but I frequently give the homily during Morning Prayer. During this interim period between priests I am working on a series of homilies based on the prayers found in The Book of Common Prayer. I have named the series, "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" after the phrase coined by Prosper of Aquitaine, a disciple of Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century. I will be sharing these homilies or portions of them in this series. Before doing so, however, I would like to explore the topic of prayer and the manner in which I am using Prosper's phrase.
WHAT IS PRAYER?
Prayer is defined in many ways: a conversation with a divine or spiritual other, contemplation, intercession, meditation, supplication, worship to name a few. Prayer is many things to many people. To define prayer, I am compelled to speak of it from a personal perspective in order to talk about it in a broader context.
FOXHOLES
What jumped into my mind as I began thinking about prayer is the saying, "There are no atheists in a foxhole." While the veracity of that saying is questionable, what brings this admittedly odd thought to my mind is that the foxhole represents the isolation that we humans face if left to fend for ourselves. Such a situation calls to mind the Impulse of Religion, the need of each other or the need of an other as a means of coping with an unembellished reality and the frailty of existence which we mostly go about ignoring until we find ourselves in one of life's foxholes.
Of course most people don't need a foxhole to bring them to prayer. The dramatic image of the foxhole, however, underscores the influence that human experience has on our attempts to reach beyond ourselves in order to appeal to and access a power beyond our collective and personal capabilities. Prayer projects one to the position of a observer of a condition that is either personal or involving others or both. All prayer has this projecting, observational quality.
To carry this analogy a bit further, the foxhole experience for the person on side A is like or likely to be a similar experience as the person on side B is having. They may be considered enemies, but they are entangled by virtue of their mutual situations that has placed them in such a miserable sympathetic position. Each understands the other's sense of deadly responsibility, misery, loneliness, vulnerability and desire for an end to being in a foxhole. Over time and if in close proximity, their conditional mutuality can lead to a conversant camaraderie, even if for brief periodic moments, as was noted in accounts of those stuck in foxholes and the trenches of World War I.
ENTANGLEMENT
Entanglement is a term associated with Quantum Physics in which particles interact with each other even if divided by great distances so that if one particle reacts to a stimulus the other also reacts even though it wasn't subjected to a stimulus. That's as far as I will delve into quantum physics, but entanglement phenomena would appear to have relevance in the macro world we live in. If this phenomena exists on a micro level, does it not carry over and exist on a macro/human level? Science has yet to explain why two particles theoretically separated by light years will react simultaneously if only one particle is being stimulated. What is their connection?
I believe prayer intuitively expresses this mysterious phenomenon in the form of a person being affected in some reciprocal manner by reaching out to one another by appeal or prayer. One can call this reciprocal reaching out intentionality. Naturally, this raises the question of whether prayer is effective.
It is to those who experience it as such and that's as far I can go regarding its effectiveness.
There is no scientific proof that prayer is effective, but then again, there is no empirical answer to the question why particles at the quantum level react when separated by great distances at the same time or the ultimate why of me or the why of you; or the ultimate why I am sitting at my computer writing this post or why you are reading it at this particular time on the other side of the globe, and so it goes on and on. The simple, unexplainable inference is that we are interconnected in various ways and at various levels with each other and the entire cosmos.
A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
As a Christian, I have come to see prayer as an intimate experience that oddly is not so much projected out into the macrocosm as it is projected into the microcosm of my own being. I have come to appreciate that at the core of my being lies a repository of human experience embedded in my made-in-the-image-of God-self that I share with others . I believe this is true for all humans and for all creation. In other words, connecting with my own microcosmic (personal) experiences ultimately puts me in connection to that Being in which we all live and move and have our being.
This is not always how I understood prayer. For most of my life, prayer was something I projected out and "up" to an imaginary realm of God and an imaginary image of what I thought God must be. I say imaginary because that was the only way I could visualize who God is and where God resides. I have since moved away from such imaginary visualizations and pay more attention to what I feel.
Today, prayer for me is personally directed to the seat of my feelings, the heart which I will talk about further along in these posts. For me, God is not only out there and all about but is both intimate and imminent - a heartbeat away and as near as my own breath.
I find that prayer deepens me as I get older. I find myself easily conversant with the God-particle of my being. I think this is because I have come to experience many things and I am now at an age and in a position to examine the value of those experiences as the transfiguring moments they were which have brought about a deeper understanding and appreciation of the life I am part of. Prayer comes quickly and is done quickly. I'm a minimalist when it comes to prayer, perhaps that is because I am influenced by my Episcopalian affiliation.
I belong to the prayer group in my church. When there is a request for prayer, the information is about as sparse as it can be unless the person making the request wants to forward specific information about a need, but for the most part the only information the members of this group receives is a first name and request for comfort, guidance, healing, peace, and God's presence.
That's it, and that's all we need. We don't need specifics. I don't need to know who the person is in any detail beyond being a person; an individual made in the image of God like myself. All I need is a name, and a request for prayer. After all the named person shares this life with me and whatever her or his need is I have only to delve into my inner experiences with doubt, suffering, anxiety, the will to carry on experienced in faith, the longing for resolution experienced in hope, and the type of pain experienced in deep love will fill in the blanks; for these feelings are ever-present in a request for prayer. And in no time at all, I am finding myself one with that person and the person's loved ones which leads me to breathe a word of prayer for all concerned.
CORPORATE PRAYER
What about corporate prayer?
As an Episcopalian and part of the broader Anglican Communion, I am very fond of the Book of Common Prayer. It's prayers; particularly, its collects are well-crafted, saying a great deal in a few short statements. The prayer book is, itself, a study in prayer and its very forms.
Prayers in the Book of Common Prayer are brought to the level of a fine art. If you want to know what we Episcopalians believe and how we see the world; how we understand God, how we relate to Christ Jesus, read our prayers. What I find intriguing in corporate prayer and especially in the well-crafted prayers found in liturgical services known as collects, litanies, suffrages, and other prayers of intercession and thanksgiving is that they shape the perspective of the person who prays them.
Formal prayer is not everyone's cup of tea. The notion of spontaneous prayer has been promoted by some as being more heartfelt and more directed in its intentionality to a specific need of a person or congregational concern. Let me be clear that I do not object to spontaneous prayer, but I would point out that such prayers seem, at least to me, to have a form and prescribed manner that identifies them as being spontaneous which in turn, permits one to readily identify the person's denominational affiliation.
Formal prayer runs the risk of being said with little or no thought, but for those of us who use them regularly, we know when they're missing or a word is changed, which is to say that these prayers become part of who we are which brings me to Prosper's statement.
LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI
The law of prayer (is) the law of belief.
Where was Prosper of Aquitaine when the Council of Nicea met?
He was on to something that the council could have used; that prayer and our beliefs are enmeshed. Lex orandi, lex credendi is a bit ambiguous. What Prosper was getting at is that how we pray (and he gives prayer a broad definition that includes liturgical worship) shapes what we believe. Being equivalent statements, however, permits one to reverse the order and conclude that what we believe shapes our prayers and the way we Christians worship.
BELIEVE AND FAITH
As most of my readers are aware of by now, I am cautious when it comes to using words like belief and believes in my theological musings, but one cannot escape its relevance in Western Christianity and Western thought. To recap my cautious approach to using belief-language in theological discussion is that it skews the meaning of faith-language (trusting without knowing) found in the original Greek texts of the New Testament where faith is used as a verb, which then became translated in Germanic and Latin languages as believe. In its Greek verb form, faith is not synonymous with believe.
Having said that, believe has become the predominant term used to express the active form of faith in Western thought. It was obviously used in Western Christianity by Proper's time in the fifth century. What is important to understand is that the reason for the odd correlation between believe and acting in faith is the connection both terms have with the heart. Believe is Germanic in origin and is etiologicaly connected to beloved,as something loved in the heart. Credo or credendi is also etiologicaly connected to cor, the Latin word for heart. Faith as trust is also more a matter of the heart than of the head. The problem is that the terms believe and belief have evolved in Western thought to become matters of the mind rather than the heart.
A MATTER OF THE HEART
Lex orandi, lex credendi is best understood as a matter of the heart. The equivalency of these two terms allows for a circular interplay between them. What brings us to prayer are our deepest, heartfelt needs that engage the affective elements of life in Christ described by Paul: faith, hope, and love. When cognitively engaged, these elements bring us to God in the form of prayer where heart and mind meld intentionally. As such, prayer becomes the deepest expression of faith. Prayer is the most personal form of creed. Ultimately, prayer shapes one from the heart up.
COLLECTED
The same principles mentioned above are involved in corporate prayer. The term Collect is used to describe a prayer in liturgical worship that is a collection of short petitions intended to be said in a collective setting such as a congregation. One of the subtle and most important aspects of these ancient and thought-through liturgical prayers is that they break down the ideological barriers that separate us. They collect us as one heart, one mind, and direct our collective attention and intention in common purpose. They have been said for centuries and remain relevant in every age they are said and that is why I find them so meaningful and important in this age.
This coming together in prayer is demonstrated in the Episcopal Churches I know and in most liturgically-based denominations. The Episcopal Church was once noted as being "The Republicans at Prayer." That is no longer the case.
The Episcopal Church in the U.S. is very diverse today and in those brief and treasured moments of worship an interesting phenomenon occurs. No matter what our political, social, economic, or even our religious views are we become collected as a family of faith directing our intentions in common purpose as expressed in our ancient, traditional prayers, and that is a beautiful thing to behold and be part of.
Prayers that are thoughtfully written serve as a catechism on life, a life grounded in source of our being, God, and for Christians, grounded in the experience of Christ Jesus. Ultimately, such prayers, as do all prayers, finds their effectiveness in shaping who we are as individuals and collectively as a world.
Until next time, stay faithful.
He was on to something that the council could have used; that prayer and our beliefs are enmeshed. Lex orandi, lex credendi is a bit ambiguous. What Prosper was getting at is that how we pray (and he gives prayer a broad definition that includes liturgical worship) shapes what we believe. Being equivalent statements, however, permits one to reverse the order and conclude that what we believe shapes our prayers and the way we Christians worship.
BELIEVE AND FAITH
As most of my readers are aware of by now, I am cautious when it comes to using words like belief and believes in my theological musings, but one cannot escape its relevance in Western Christianity and Western thought. To recap my cautious approach to using belief-language in theological discussion is that it skews the meaning of faith-language (trusting without knowing) found in the original Greek texts of the New Testament where faith is used as a verb, which then became translated in Germanic and Latin languages as believe. In its Greek verb form, faith is not synonymous with believe.
Having said that, believe has become the predominant term used to express the active form of faith in Western thought. It was obviously used in Western Christianity by Proper's time in the fifth century. What is important to understand is that the reason for the odd correlation between believe and acting in faith is the connection both terms have with the heart. Believe is Germanic in origin and is etiologicaly connected to beloved,as something loved in the heart. Credo or credendi is also etiologicaly connected to cor, the Latin word for heart. Faith as trust is also more a matter of the heart than of the head. The problem is that the terms believe and belief have evolved in Western thought to become matters of the mind rather than the heart.
A MATTER OF THE HEART
Lex orandi, lex credendi is best understood as a matter of the heart. The equivalency of these two terms allows for a circular interplay between them. What brings us to prayer are our deepest, heartfelt needs that engage the affective elements of life in Christ described by Paul: faith, hope, and love. When cognitively engaged, these elements bring us to God in the form of prayer where heart and mind meld intentionally. As such, prayer becomes the deepest expression of faith. Prayer is the most personal form of creed. Ultimately, prayer shapes one from the heart up.
COLLECTED
The same principles mentioned above are involved in corporate prayer. The term Collect is used to describe a prayer in liturgical worship that is a collection of short petitions intended to be said in a collective setting such as a congregation. One of the subtle and most important aspects of these ancient and thought-through liturgical prayers is that they break down the ideological barriers that separate us. They collect us as one heart, one mind, and direct our collective attention and intention in common purpose. They have been said for centuries and remain relevant in every age they are said and that is why I find them so meaningful and important in this age.
This coming together in prayer is demonstrated in the Episcopal Churches I know and in most liturgically-based denominations. The Episcopal Church was once noted as being "The Republicans at Prayer." That is no longer the case.
The Episcopal Church in the U.S. is very diverse today and in those brief and treasured moments of worship an interesting phenomenon occurs. No matter what our political, social, economic, or even our religious views are we become collected as a family of faith directing our intentions in common purpose as expressed in our ancient, traditional prayers, and that is a beautiful thing to behold and be part of.
Prayers that are thoughtfully written serve as a catechism on life, a life grounded in source of our being, God, and for Christians, grounded in the experience of Christ Jesus. Ultimately, such prayers, as do all prayers, finds their effectiveness in shaping who we are as individuals and collectively as a world.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
KEEPING FAITH IN GOVERNMENT - Standing with the students of Douglas Stoneman High School
Dear Representative Noem, Senator Rounds, and
Senator Thune
In
January 2013 I started to write a letter to our state’s congressional
delegation after the devastating shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I never sent that letter because I felt that
surely something would be done to protect the public from a lone shooter with
an automatic gun. Nothing was done.
Since
that time there have been multiple incidents of mass shootings: of congregants having a Bible study at church
in North Carolina, of patrons of night club in Orlando Florida, of an audience
at an open air concert in Los Vegas, to name a few. Here we are, five years Sandy Hook, talking
about another school shooting, this time in Parkland Florida at the Douglas
Stoneman High School. Each time something like this occurs, I go back to our nation’s Constitution and wonder why its Preamble receives such little attention in the debate about gun regulation.
“We, the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our
Prosperity, do ordain and establish the CONSTITUTION for the United States of
America.”
The Preamble
to the Constitution is the one part of the Constitution that is sacrosanct and
unamendable; that should it change the Constitution would be void. Every other part of the Constitution is
contextual both in its history and in its applicability, including the
amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
As such, the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is also contextual both
in its history and applicability. Unlike
the Preamble, the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct nor is it
unamendable.
If the
Second Amendment is to be protected, it must answer to the context of the age in
which it is being applied. Congressional
failure to address gun violence and regulate the proliferation and sale of
military-grade guns such as the AR-15 to our nation’s civilian population is a
failure of constitutional proportions.
That
Congress has done nothing to stem the sale of military-grade guns serves only
to undermine the purpose of the Constitution stated in its Preamble. As such, Congress appears negligent in establishing
justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense,
promoting the general welfare, and in securing the blessing of liberty to
ourselves and our prosperity.
When
this nation lacked a standing military force and adequate law enforcement
entities in the late eighteenth century, Congress relied on the local citizenry
to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility as mandated by the
Constitution because it did not have the means to do so nationwide. At that time, Congress acted responsibly in ratifying
the Second Amendment. A historical fact
relevant to our time is that the Second Amendment was written at a time when
guns were single-load weapons.
Today,
we have a standing military, established law enforcement agencies, and military-grade
automatic guns designed to cause massive casualties being legally marketed and
sold to our civilian population with very little legal oversight. We also have
a civilian population periodically targeted by individuals to whom these guns
are being sold to. The type of guns being
sold and the unlimited amount of guns that can be legally owned by an
individual is, in itself, a dramatic contextual shift from the time in which
the Second Amendment was ratified.
When the
Second Amendment was drafted, gun ownership was a necessity in providing for a
well-regulated militia. That context has
change, and Congress must, for the sake of our constitutionally ordained
liberties recognize the glaring fact staring our nation in the face: It is easier to regulate things than it is
to regulate people; in particular, the individual armed with an automatic gun. This fact, so readily dismissed by many in Congress
has been well established by other liberty-loving, democratic nations who have strict
gun laws which have greatly reduced gun violence in those nations.
Our
mental health system certainly requires help, but improvements in mental health
alone will not prevent an undetected psychopath armed with such a weapon who is
intelligent and has no regard for his or her own life or that of anyone else; who
if faced with the prospect of being killed will likely take out as many people
possible, as was notably demonstrated in the case of the Los Vegas shooter.
What
Congress can immediately do to curb gun violence is to regulate guns, a
creation we humans made and something we can control. Guns, per se, are not protected by the Second
Amendment. The Second Amendment is there
to protect the basis upon which the Constitution was written, its Preamble. In today’s context, such protection extends to
the regulation of military-grade guns being sold to civilians.
The ignored
reality is that the legal sale and proliferation of military-grade guns has
resulted in allowing individuals to act as militias unto themselves, vigilantes
who take it upon themselves to right the wrongs they perceive others have done
to them. Any person who commits such
horrendous acts will be likely diagnosed after the fact as having some form of
mental health disorder that went undetected or untreated.
Perhaps
the broader mental health question applicable today is why any civilian would
own such a gun as an AR-15; much less numerous guns of that type. Is it because they are led to believe that
our government is the enemy or could become the enemy as some militant groups do
– a sign of paranoia? Is it the thrill
of watching things being decimated for the sake of recreation as some claim – a
sign of underlying insecurity and/or an expression of delusional fantasy? Is it
because Congress does nothing but tell the
People of the United States that we must fend for ourselves (as in arming
public school teachers) because it lacks the will to regulate a thing made by humans to cause massive casualties?
I
respectfully ask you to act and end gun violence by fulfilling the mandate of
our Constitution’s Preamble in this age by regulating the sale and
proliferation of military-grade guns to civilians. I am confident that the force of law will
prove more effective in protecting our public spaces from gun violence than relying
on the use of force by civilians armed with automatic weapons to do so.
Sincerely,
Norman
Wright
* * * * * * * * * * *
Until next time, stay faithful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)