a-Lenten-prayer-a-day, day 24, Tuesday, March 28, 2017

my-hands-2-27-17Note: As a personal, spiritual discipline, I write a prayer for each of the forty days of Lent; each petition focusing on a theme, truly, relating to a care or concern weighing on my mind and heart, at times, vexing my soul and spirit…

On words and prayer: O Lord, daily and day-long, I employ audible speech and written text to journey across the landscape that separates me from others; and they, too, with me that we might meet and communicate. So, also, in prayer, I set out to trek the terrain betwixt this earth and Your heaven, betwixt me and You with words spoken and scripted, as are these. (Yea, even when I seek You in the hushéd appeal of my heart, my call, my cry takes shape in human language.) Yet, surely, I need such not to address You Who dwells in the sheerest silence of the immenseness of eternity, You Who are the Silence of Everlasting Mystery. Yea, then, O Lord, in Your Love, teach me to speak in the tongues of angels.[1] Amen.

Footnote:

[1] My reference to 1 Corinthians 13.1a (my emphasis): If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels

tr(i)ump(hal)ism

Triumph (noun): achievement or attainment of an established aim, success or conquest as in a victory in a battle or contest.

Triumphalism (noun): an attitude or belief that an ideology or policy, principle or practice, system of discernment or action, whether personal and individual or communal, is superior to all others. Generally, the term bears a pejorative connation, for descriptions of triumphalist behaviors tend to fall in categories of schadenfreude (taking excessive delight in another’s error or failure) or xenophobia (considering one’s culture or society, people or nation greater, better than [up to and including deriding] all others).

Trumpism (noun): a statement made by one whose attitudinal self-perception is triumphalist, characterized by (1) a depreciated capability to connect one’s personal intent in word and deed and the perceptions of others, thus, being unable to appreciate and acknowledge the inherent variance between the two, (2) a diminished capacity to discern the ethical (moral impact) and political (communal effect) content and context of one’s words and deeds, and (3) an atrophied ability to admit to error or to confess a need or desire for forgiveness from persons or parties aggrieved by one’s words and deeds.

Yesterday

at a Wilmington, NC, assembly

(yep, he’s at it again!

would that he refrain!)

Donald Trump ignited a new controversy;

remarking, I perceive, ambiguously

tho’, too, presumably sincerely

(thus, not facetiously)

about the right to bear arms

that some interpreted as advocating harm.

To wit: “Hillary (Clinton) wants to abolish…essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Trump’s words (as all words, I aver, even when a speaker exercises greatest care in the service of definition and description) are equivocal. Did he mean to advocate violence against his chief rival for presidential office or to rally all staunch right to bear arms Second Amendment supporters to vote against Clinton? Trump’s response to the charge of the former: “Give me a break!”

Donald Trump’s repeated demonstrations of his lack of ability to acknowledge with generous honesty and gracious humility that his language, particularly his public-speak, can be perceived other than he intended and, when that happens (as it does for all of us) to admit his error and to ask for pardon, for me, make many (most?) his words tr(i)ump(hal)isms.