My youngest son is enamored with the musical Hamilton. He has memorized a lot of the lyrics (and has had to be helped with the navigation of some of them!). A central theme in this story is the idea of not throwing away one's shot. Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of America, starts things off by singing about his unlikely beginnings, his ambition and the fact that he is not going to throw away his shot.
Because I have heard this song both played and sung many times in the recent weeks this phrase has been turning over in my mind and may have collected some other thoughts, snowball fashion...
The premise is that we have all been given a shot - "at life", if you like, and we should use it. If we don't use it, we are like the man who is given the talent and buries it in the ground. He presents it at the resurrection and says "look, I still have exactly what you gave me - take it back and be happy with me". The response is equivalent to "I never knew you".
On the other hand what is the shot, exactly? And what should we use it on?
Firing one's shot implicitly means that one does not have it anymore. It is used up - not saved; it is not buried in the ground; it becomes marred by use, like the jacket in the fairy tale concerning the sons of the king.
Alexander Hamilton, in a duel at the end of the musical, deliberately fires upwards so as not to kill his opponent and thus looses his own life. This possibly apocryphal story ties in nicely with the theme. The ability to kill a person is not "the shot" that we must not throw away: in other words by throwing away this lead bullet Hamilton has not thrown away but rather confirmed his shot. It is true that we have this freedom, this ability to hurt others. But "our life above others" is not the investment opportunity we have been given.
There is a curious story about a man named Onan in the Bible. Because it is somewhat controversial, and used to support some controversial doctrine, many people have heard of Onan and the other protagonists in this tale: patriarch Judah and his daughter in law Tamar. The whole somewhat sordid story may be found in Genesis 38, and can be found here. I won't retell the story, but will instead comment on it.
The first thing to note is the intense important of "seed" - one's descendants, one's inheritance. Through the eyes of these ancient actors you can see that this is of primary importance. There are echoes of God's promise to Abraham:
"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty. Walk before Me and be blameless. I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly." (Genesis 17).
And before that:
"Then the LORD said to Abram, “Leave your country, your kindred, and your father’s household, and go to the land I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
so that you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you
and curse those who curse you;
and all the families of the earth
will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12)
(As an aside - looking at these two passages together you can see a transition in what God was asking of Abraham. Initially it was enough for him to be obedient to a call to adventure. But as things progress he is being asked to "walk before me and be blameless". I think of this as being the beginnings of the path "back to the garden" - away from the savagery of men's beginnings on the Earth. This proves to be a very long journey indeed.)
This theme is repeated over and over again through the Bible - the importance of one's bloodline. And over and over again there is the emphasis on the importance of having a son. This reminds me of some lines that I wrote, motivated by my reaction against a friend's disappointment when his wife gave birth to a baby girl:
For unto us a Son is Born
It is a boy! - This cry of long-awaited joy
Also describes the alternate -
Daughter; disappointment; a blank fired
O foolish ones, how slow your hearts are to believe
All that was prophesied.
For never was there but one Son,
And he already born.
No proud father here on Earth has ever known
This fulfilment, long foretold
Save Joseph - no father; almost husband; fully mystified.
Echoes of this event still
Sound and resound in our minds
But what deliverance do we look for when we thus
Desire a son, someone to carry on our line?
What long awaited hope will he
Carry us towards?
Why seek we Him among those yet unborn?
The consummation has already come.
There is now no line to be continued save for His,
And in Him all sons and daughters may find equal hope,
All families of earth be blessed.
In the story, responsibility came knocking on Onan's door: his brother dies, and now he must marry Tamar and continue his brother's line. That he must do this was clearly known to him and Tamar and to his father Judah - at a time when none of the myriad laws of the Old Testament had yet been set in stone: suggesting that it was part of an underlying canon of truth which the OT laws in part embodied. However you wish to slice this cucumber I don't think you can argue against the fact that Onan knew what he was doing was wrong and that he did it anyway.
And why did he rebel against what he ought to do? It was because he realized that he only had one shot and he did not wish to throw it away continuing his brother's bloodline.
Some people have taken this story to be a warning against masturbation or contraceptives, concluding that the intent to impregnate must never be artificially foiled. I shy away from this explanation as being overly specific and simplistic. Without arguing against such claims (I do not want to throw away my shot in this essay!) I argue that this story is all about avoided responsibility.
It is interesting to note that the bloodline which Onan refused to participate in was that of Christ Jesus.
In fact the only way we come out with more than we went in with is by giving what we have away. That is what an investment requires.
Alive and kicking today is the idea that we have more than one shot. If one views procreation as the essential thing then this conclusion naturally follows. You can see that Solomon, with his thousands of concubines and wives, could be said to have had many shots in this sense. But in reality he only had one and that one he muffed up. It could well be said of him that no man in history was ever given so many talents - whether you define this as weight of gold or ability. Initially it seemed that his investment was wise. But by means of subsequent investments, the multiplication of shot attempts if you will, he was finally left destitute.
Courtship - the winning of love and an opportunity for commitment - is one of the most exciting things on earth. And it is something that there is a longing to do more than once.
I've thought many times before about the impulse of a knight errant to rescue a damsel in distress. It is a wonderful impulse - and a couple may, in a very real sense, thus offer "salvation" to each other. There may be offered stability, friendship, pleasure, family - even a rescue from a current dragon whether that be mental, spiritual or physical. Don't get me wrong, this works both ways: there is just as much "rescuing" that happens from woman to man as the other way.
And so, on to a confession. I've been happily married for some time now, but as life goes on I've seen other "damsels in distress" and wondered what I could offer them. (The answer isn't the easily identified "one night with the King".) Stability, a new life, appreciation, happiness? Some of this impulse might be easy to see through as selfishness, an inflation of the value of what I have to offer. But the real antidote is the full truth: I do have such gifts to offer, but I may only give them once. I only have one shot. Following on, one sees that we cannot "re-offer" this gift once given, for it invalidates the gift. Let me be blunt: if I am unfaithful to my wife in order to offer faithfulness to another woman, what is the value of this "faithfulness"? This logic also applies to the other aspects. Thus, the whole imagined romance (knight & damsel, slain dragon, sunset) falls apart into a much more sordid tale, leaving a ruined family in the wake of what is now clearly a selfish intent.
Read carefully here, for I am not saying that love is not large enough to reach outside the circle of a family.
Another confusion that arises is that we have but one shot in this life for glory or fame. This equates glory with the root purpose of life, whereas it may be a byproduct can never be an end. There is a very satisfying exposition of this by Bishop Robert Barron in his talk at Google. Out of such a view comes disappointment, a sense of failure, when one dies (or approaches death) having "only" been a good father or mother; worked to put bread on the table; worked to be fair and just in one's small dealings in one's small social group. I would argue that such a person has succeeded in not throwing away their shot, although wealth, fame and glory may not be theirs.
A life lived may lead one up to the summit of Everest, but what is important will always be how one treated the guides and fellow climbers rather than the achievement of the summit. One may arrive in positions of great power, responsibility and glory. But even in the most magnificent palace known to man only the foundational principles will remain what is important about one's life.
Do you love your wife?
Are you livin' as a servant
With all you've got inside you
Are you layin' down your life?
What about the others?
To your sisters and your brothers?
Do you make the poor man beg you for a bone?
Do the widow and the orphan cry alone?
(Don Francisco, Steeple Song)
To those who do not throw away their shot, He will say:
"Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
No comments:
Post a Comment