Be

Why be? It fits the Elizabethan English of the King James version, but why maintain that language in the more contemporary translations? We already have an inverted syntax, which throws many of us off balance: "hallowed be your name" is not the way most of us would speak; most of us would say "your name be hallowed," with the subject before the verb. However, most of us have read enough poetry to be able to deal with the inversion. But what about the verb be? Without getting too esoteric, does it have anything to do with the subjunctive? Or is it a matter of tense? Or is it non-standard English that we hold onto because deep down we really miss the poetry of the King James?

Or, is the verb in the imperative: is it being used to express a command or a direction? Since an imperative verb has the understood subject you, is the statement actually saying "be hallowed your name"? This would mean that the prayer (and the pray-er) is saying that this is an action that must be undertaken. We are being directed to hallow the name. Still, this doesn't quite seem correct.

One colleague, asked about this construction, decided that it must be that the original construction might have included a modal, either should or must, which was dropped at some point, possibly for poetic effect. This would create a different kind of command, a statement which directs the pray-er that he or she must or should hallow the name of God.

I have often heard so-called comedians attempt affecting a dialect, using be in a non-standard way: "We be goin' to the store." The problem with this, aside from the fact that it is done in a mean-spirited and derogatory way, is that even dialect has rules for usage. In most dialect usage, be is used to express an action or state which continues on. "We be happy" indicates that the speaker is experiencing an emotion that transcend the moment; the earlier example of going to the store is only correct if the journey is an on-going quest and not a quick trip to the corner.

I cannot answer the question of why the verb is in the form it takes, but I believe that it carries a bit of all of the explanations that have been shared with me--and that I have shared here. Be carries a combination of imperative mood and progressive tense. It suggests that the attitude toward God must be and also that it is a state of the past, the present, and the future. Be suggests that we should exalt God, and that we should not limit our exaltation to the moment of prayer. Our attitude toward God should be on-going.

Many of us--too many of us--get stuck inside our own cultural paradigms. We think of everything, including our relationship with God, in the same terms we use to think of our telephones and televisions. We are so accustomed to being able to turn these things on and off, of being able to tune in when we want, to connect when we want, that we think of all communication in the same way. We trick ourselves into thinking that if we have not initiated that connection, it does not exist, when in fact we are more like the eponymous character in The Truman Show. We are like the Jim Carrey character whose every moment, waking or not, is being observed. We are in constant contact with God, even when we are not consciously talking with Him.

Of course, we are pretty limited creatures. Most of us have a hard time concentrating on one thing at a time. We cannot exalt God 24/7. Some of us (by which I mean me) cannot sing and clap at the same time; we can sing or we can clap, but not simultaneously. (My wife will object that I cannot sing and sing at the same time, but I am speaking of the process, not the product.) I have students, however, who claim that they must have several activities going on in concert in order to study: they must have music playing and snacks on hand in order to effectively tackle homework. While I am suspect of their study habits, I believe it does allow us to address the issue of how we might be able to accomplish our duty of connecting constantly with God.

Just as my students probably do not actively hear the music in the background as they are writing about imagery in poetry, we may not be actively aware of God in the background as we are doing our sundry tasks during each day. But I am pretty sure that the kind of music that the students listen to as they write influences their products. I am sure that somewhere, sometime, a graduate student has undertaken a study of the influences of types of music on particular tasks. I am aware of the studies that suggest that classical music (specifically Mozart) produces higher level brain functions than popular music (usually heavy metal or rap). I am suggesting that the same is true of our everyday lives. If God is our background music, He will affect the way we do whatever we undertake. We may not be actively thinking about God, but we can still be aware of Him on some level, we can still know that He is there. I believe that this is the way to constantly--past, present, and future--exalt God's name: we do it by making God the focus of all we do. We do it by knowing that He is with us always and that He is connected to all we see, all we think, all we feel, all we do.

Be is a little word, and in this context, at least for me (grammatically), an enigmatic word. But it seems to be an important word, a powerful word. It carries much within its mystery, which makes it appropriate in yet another way for applying to God. Be carries the idea of God (I am) and also the idea of how we are to relate to God. It holds much to think about.