There will be no sermon this week, since I will be traveling to New York City. However, I offer this personal essay instead.
+ + +
Peter
Morgan, creator and screenwriter for the Netflix series, The Crown, was interviewed recently on Fresh Air by Dave Davies.
The interview was a fascinating look inside a program which has captured
a sizeable following in its first two seasons.
Actress Claire Foy plays the young
Queen Elizabeth. Her life takes a sudden turn when she, as Princess Elizabeth,
learns of her father’s death and her ascension to the throne. The series, thus far, has plotted the early
years of her reign – basically, 1952 through 1964.
The series is, of course, “informed
speculation” of what transpires in the royal family, since no member of that
family would speak to outsiders of the dynamics within the palace. Morgan, the creator, has a team of researchers
which seeks all the bits of information they can find, from historical records,
royal archives, and people who were close to the events themselves.
Many of the episodes focus on the
dilemmas which the young queen faces as her reign moves through personal and
public trials. Royal decorum and
precedent restrict what the sovereign can do and say in specific
circumstances. So, we see, in the
program, the internal and external turmoil which weighs heavy on the Queen (“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”
William Shakespeare, King Henry the
Fourth).
Davies, Morgan’s interviewer, posed
a question which assumed that Elizabeth would have preferred a quiet, country
life, outside of public life. The
question acknowledged that Elizabeth’s life would have been much more simple
and uncomplicated if she had not been Queen.
Morgan responded by saying that his
opinion is that life would have been
more simple for Elizabeth, who he describes as shy and modest and not desiring
the limelight. He added to that
sentence: “But that says nothing about
her sense of duty… In a sense, you never hear people talk about duty.”
Duty. It is a potent word – and an important one in
the life of Elizabeth II. I recall the
Bishop under whom I served as Canon to the Ordinary for 14 years mentioning duty repeatedly during a series of
presentations he offered around the Diocese of Mississippi in 2001 and
2002. Duncan Gray III spoke of his
father’s generation as being strongly motivated by a sense of duty. Thus, we
had their responses and historic actions during World War II, along with their
Herculean efforts to build a strong, prosperous, just, and safe institutions.
Hence, the Greatest Generation.
My father taught me those same
lessons. Late in his life, I thanked him
for inculcating in me a strong sense of personal ethics. He was typical of his generation in response:
modesty. Much later, after reflecting on the Morgan interview, I realized what
he had actually bequeathed to me was a strong sense of duty.
I will readily admit: I have frequently fallen short of doing my duty. That is clearly obvious to me “looking back
in the rearview mirror.” But the call of
duty – genetically and culturally implanted within me – explains both my
discomfort and comfort over the years.
I am able to see how my previous
vocation – as a lobbyist – was so unsatisfying to me (except for my earliest
position, which involved what I called a white
hat organization). Later, my sense
of discomfort would rise as my job required me to articulate positions which
were not resonant with my spirit. I did not like a large, faceless entity
telling me what to be or do, regardless of conflicting personal values or
principles.
It becomes clear to me – again, in
hindsight – that it was a sense of duty, as much as anything, which drew me
toward seminary and the ordained ministry. As I articulated to the Commission
on Ministry in January 1984, I wanted to relate to people on a different level
– one that was less ambitious and manipulative and more fully genuine, human, and humane.
Let me be clear: I am
not equating myself with the Queen of England. But I can sympathize with the difficulties
that she has faced in confronting some dilemmas. Her sense of duty has caused
her to do some things and take come actions which were enormously painful (at
least according to The Crown). A point that Peter Morgan made in his
interview was this: The public has assumed that she took certain steps out of preference instead of out of duty, when the actual process may
have reflected precisely the opposite.
That dilemma confronts many of us. It
is hard to follow the call of duty in those circumstances, when people’s
emotions or vocations are at-stake and the personal price is high. The easy thing, the most expeditious thing,
is frequently contrary to what should
be done, based on duty.
I can look back at my vocation –
both before and after ordination – and see when those conflicting values have
clashed. There have been times when I
have responded to the call of duty and done things that might have been very
painful or difficult for me (and perhaps painful and difficult for others), but
they were ultimately the right
things. As the series The Queen has insinuated, there is
occasionally a personal price for doing the right thing.
At the same moment, I can reflect
and see other, different decisions.
There have been times when I have pulled
punches or not said what I knew to be the full truth out of concern of how
those words would be received or interpreted, or the price I would pay for my
honesty. In those moments, I have betrayed my inheritance and my personal
integrity. Likewise, when I have
failed to be completely frank in certain situations, I have denied the person
to whom I was speaking the chance to hear
the truth and to make changes which might be helpful.
In those moments of
less-than-honesty, I probably convinced myself that I was doing the right
thing. However, such evasive decisions
were a chimera of duty, and not the
real deal.
The call of duty is a high calling, and
requires one to be unflinching in its service.
No comments:
Post a Comment