(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
Promise not to laugh at how poorly this poem expresses its inspiration…. I was reflecting on what some different Christians emphasize in the Eucharist (aka Lord’s Supper or Communion). For some, it’s primarily retrospective: remembering how Jesus sacrificed himself for us. For others, it’s primarily prospective: looking forward to the Feast in Heaven. For others, it is mainly about God’s provision here and now. Do really clever believers celebrate it all three ways at once?
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
First, the occasion for this poem: I’m slowly working through Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and I thought I should figure out if–and how–Paul actually defines the key word euangelion (usually translated “gospel” or more literally “good news”). He certainly goes a long way toward characterizing the word.
When I was a little boy, my father—ever the seminary professor—had no use for mere parroting. We’d read a passage of Scripture in family devotions, and then Dad would say, “Now put that in your own words.” I have written elsewhere how annoying that was… and how right he was!
Eugene Peterson would probably have done the same thing. He and Dad both knew that real understanding can be lost in overly familiar words.
If you do a search for “gospel” in the helpful (and FREE!) YouVersion app, you’ll find that most English versions choose that word–“gospel”–to translate euangelion (https://www.bible.com/search/bible?query=gospel). But specify Peterson’s “The Message” as the version in your query and you won’t find it used even once. Does that mean that Peterson didn’t value “the gospel”? I’m guessing the very opposite is true: It was because he valued the gospel SO MUCH that Peterson insisted on using his own words. He didn’t want its glory obscured by familiarity.
In this poem, I started out with the concept of words as suitcases of meaning. I began writing, and let the words take me where they would. As is often the case, it got a little dark.
If you ask around for people’s definition of “the gospel,” you’ll find there are different emphases concerning what the “good news” is about. Many will say it’s good news about God’s Kingdom. For some reason, I usually think of the gospel as “good news” about the availability of eternal life in a resurrected body in a restored creation. It’s very good news indeed! But that good news implies bad news, the news that apart from grateful reliance on God (my own words for “faith”), “life’s too short.”
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
[22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Romans 1:22-23 NIV
I’m slowly crawling through Romans these days. Currently, I’m pondering how and why God’s “wrath is revealed” against the unrighteousness of man (Romans 1:18). At the same time, I have perennial curiosity about what it means that man was made in God’s image. [As an aside, my current thinking is that man was fashioned to reflect God’s invisible character in the visible world. For instance, as God “sees” us metaphorically, we literally look and behold others (thus becoming aware of their needs and inherent beauty). It’s our behavior by which we image God—or fail to do so.] Given my fixation with the imago dei, it’s likely I’m unfairly injecting the concept into Paul’s exposition. You may notice the resulting conflation in my little poem.
Here are some pointers to what I’m exploring in the poem:
Matting and framing are how I chose to represent “worship” or “idolatry.”
“On unpleasant paper” expresses the corruption of succeeding generations. It may also reveal something laughable in my finicky nature. Does anyone remember thermal fax paper that came in rolls for use in fax machines? Maybe you have to be old and “on the spectrum” to remember how gross that paper was to the touch!
“Self portrait” serves here as a metaphor for the imago dei–man’s being created in God’s image.
Leonardo da Vinci is not to be confused with God. He just happens to have done a self portrait that suited my poem. On the other hand, one could argue that he reflected God pretty well in terms of his own creativity and of appreciating God’s creation! When it came to seeing, da Vinci saw very well.
Did these comments open up the poem for you? I’d love to get your feedback! Reply by email or comment below.
__________
(frame image adapted from one by Alexander Lesnitsky on Pixabay; da Vinci self portrait is from Wikimedia Commons)
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
As I continue to struggle—and mainly fail—to understand Romans, I was struck this morning by Paul’s parallel statements about RIGHTEOUSNESS and WRATH:
[17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Romans 1:17-18 NASB1995
I suspect we need to think DEEPLY about how righteousness and wrath compare and contrast.
PHRASES TO NOTICE IN THE POEM: “Night and Day by moon and sun” depicts the impersonal, unending aimlessness of someone who scorns God’s guidance.
“Grateful, leaning pray” expresses my current understanding of saving faith: it is grateful reliance on God.
“Older Brother’s warm embrace” This re-imagines the story of the Prodigal Son. But in this case, the older brother is not bitter but embracing. Also, I chose “embrace” as an expression of the believer’s being IN Christ.
(background image adapted from a photo by Junior Peres Junior on Pixabay)
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
Do you ever feel like, “God isn’t pleased with me and never will be”? I suspect that is a thought that hangs over many of us, even those who are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Well, every now and then, I just feel like saying “Go jump in a lake” to the accuser. In plain language, I suspect that in Heaven, God will express far more pleasure with us than Satan would have us anticipate.
There are two odd, but purposeful wording choices in this poem: 1) “be proven to have been” That could easily have been “prove to have been,” which would be far easier to read! But I wanted to steer clear of any mistaken notion that the “wine” will do the proving. It’s God who will prove anything. I can imagine Him saying “Here, look at this,” or “Here taste this,” or “Consider how this servant demonstrated my goodness.”
2) “favored year” was originally “favorite year.” But then I realized that was too exclusive, which was the opposite of my intent! More than one year can be favored. When God’s the one favoring, all the years can be favored. And again, “favored” suggests the year receives God’s grace and provision, not that it earns his approval. From my reading of Scripture, “favored” is closer to reality than “favorite.”
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
A friend pointed out to me that in this poem, as in another recent poem (“Joyful Chagrin“), I may be going beyond anthropomorphizing or personifying nature, and am now flirting with a philosophical view called panpsychism. I had to look up the term, and sure enough, I do flirt with that view. It’s hard to escape when, for your entire life you have read about trees “clapping their hands,” and how “even the wind and waves obey him.”
The Title, “Matter’s Obedience” I tried a couple of inversions in coming up with the title. The first attempt was “Matter Loves God,” which is an inversion of the recognition that “God loves matter.” Then, I inverted “Obedience Matters” to the current title: “Matter’s Obedience.” Those two attempts are related. Obedience is an evidence of love.
Can the physical universe really respond to God in loving obedience? I’ll keep saying it can, until God tells me “No, silly Brad. But I love you nonetheless.”
(background image adapted from one by “wal_172619” on Pixabay)
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
This poem springboards from reading an argument that Jesus’ divinity is present in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), not just in John. In the actual argument, Brant Pitre shows that Jesus did things that his first century Jewish observers would have interpreted as implying his divinity (see the comparison below, taken from p124 of Pitre’s The Case for Jesus). So the Synoptics implied what John stated.
Face of the Deep In using the phrase “face of the deep,” I am playing with the King James Version rendering of Genesis 1, verse 2:
And the earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
This is a poem in search of a theodicy. It asks, “How is God good if only a small percentage of the men and women he created are to be saved from destruction?”
Let me put that more personally… This poem is an actual prayer. I want God, the Potter, to answer. I trust his goodness, but I wish for him to verify that his goodness is displayed even in pots being made for destruction.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
My father was a theologian who spent his entire adult life thinking and writing about the Kingdom of God. Was he right or wrong about the Kingdom’s current status? I don’t know.
Maybe it’s like the Queen in “Through The Looking Glass” would put it: “You think this is the Kingdom? I could show you a Kingdom compared with which you’d call this a pile of manure.”
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
This morning, after I awoke, and long before I got out of bed, I began imagining a travel guide for people visiting my island. In this guide, I would introduce travelers to three groups of people they’re likely to encounter: God-deniers, God-fearers, and God-danglers.
You’ve probably never heard of God-danglers. These people may or may not utter the curse “God dangle it!” In fact, many of them would be far too proper for something so close to profanity. The term “God-dangler” originally* referred to people who wear a chain with some form of religious pendant. And—this is important—they wear it AS a talisman. In other words, they think of God as their magic charm.
But a pendant is close to the heart, and it’s important to understand that God isn’t really close to the heart of God-danglers. That’s when it occurred to me that God-danglers sometimes dangle swords at their sides. Swords, like talismans, are something people rely on to get their way.
So there you have the complete history of the term “God-danglers.” These are people who don’t technically DENY God. They also don’t really FEAR God. Rather, they see God as someone they’d better dangle along to insure they get their way while getting’s to be got.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
Recently, I have been reading or listening through Romans repeatedly. I’m trying to understand this epistle independently, largely ignoring all I have been taught by others. I DID purchase a book* that surveys views of Romans across the centuries, but I’m hopeful that reading that book will leave me still capable of honest, independent thinking. Don’t be alarmed… I have a conservative hermeneutic, so I’ll almost certainly land on orthodox ground.
Paul gives us a severe assessment of man. But he also acknowledges those “who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality.” We know such people. Some—perhaps many—of them are not followers of Jesus Christ. Yet they outshine many Christians in their goodness. How does this reality affect our understanding of Romans and the power of salvation?
[Note] Below is a stanza I thought of after signing this poem. It’s a poet looking for a sharper metaphor. There’s a slim chance I’ll try to fit it in some day:
Sipping whiskey and vermouth, A liar cries out, “Liars, tell the truth!”
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
The idea behind this poem still needs a lot of work. In the meantime, maybe it will make sense to you and even resonate….
When I was young, I sometimes dreamed of being a mountaineering guide. And I had definite ideas about how kind and understanding a guide should be to the slowest and weakest of his clients.
Just now, I had a vision (not literal, but almost so) of myself as that slowest and weakest one on the trail. Is there comfort in my perception of the Good Guide?
The trail is real, and physical, and hard. But there is a reality just out of sight, a realm of rest and realization. It parallels the trail, but is permanent, and more real than the trail. The Good Guide will transfer me to that realm at the perfect time. Not too soon, and not too late.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
By the end of his long life as a theologian, my father had concluded–like John Stott–that the Bible teaches what’s called “conditional immortality.” The comforting implication of conditional immortality is that men and women who do not accept God’s offer of salvation may suffer briefly at the Resurrection, but will not suffer for all Eternity. If you ask me, I’ll point you to his paper on the subject. I know how committed Dad was to the authority of Scripture, and to being intellectually honest. His paper on the subject is worth considering.
What Dad could not arrive at is Universalism–the eventual salvation of ALL people. That’s a position I and more than one of my best friends wish we could honestly arrive at. It’s what one of my main heroes in the faith, George MacDonald espoused.
This poem is an actual prayer. I have learned that poems in the form of prayer are read by God, if by nobody else. He knows how I struggle with this doctrine!
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
My crawl through Acts is very slow these days. Sometimes I only make it a verse or two before something blows my mind. This morning it was Acts 10:38, where Peter is talking with Cornelius about the widely-known good report about Jesus. What God did for Jesus, in enabling that ministry, Jesus secured for his followers as well. Thus, He turned servants into friends and family. I consider Jesus’ sharing of status and power an incomparable generosity.
Look at Acts 10:38, and then recall Luke 24:49. I’m bolding the words that popped out for me.
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
Acts 10:38
I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
Halfway through my second year in college, I went through a period of questioning my faith. Actually, I was questioning “my inherited faith,” since Christianity was what I grew up with. The questioning was a healthy process. I came out of it with a recognition that I could not–and need not–prove anything about God definitively.
One book that I read at that time was In two minds: The dilemma of doubt & how to resolve it by Oz Guinness. Since it has been over forty years since I read the book, I can’t swear to this, but I seem to recall Guinness suggesting that doubt often arises from ingratitude. Over the years, that seems to have been borne out in my own life: stop thanking God for all He supplies, and soon I’m struggling with doubt.
With that background, you’ll understand why, when I recently tried to throw out all my presuppositions about Romans and come to my own fresh understanding, there’s one presupposition I wasn’t willing to throw out just yet: that the kind of faith Paul is talking about could be characterized as “grateful reliance.” That’s really what this poem is about. When I posted the poem on Facebook, here’s what I wrote:
My flight through the Bible has my little plane struggling for elevation to clear the mountain range called Romans.
This little poem is me thinking “out loud” about how Abraham’s exemplary(?)* saving faith may have differed from the faith of his descendants.
*Caution: the QUALITY of Abraham’s faith may not be Paul’s point. I look at it because many of those whose condemnation Paul mentions surely had their own measure of faith. Was it different? Is that important? I don’t know yet.
(the background image combines a night sky photo by Chemnitz/Deutschland on Pixabay; a desert scene by Greg Montani, also on Pixabay; and Genesis 15:5 in Hebrew)
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
Well, this is embarrassing! This is probably a lousy poem. I wrote it as flow of consciousness while studying Romans. And now, I don’t recall what I was thinking. Wow. That’s lame.
I do recognize a perennial lament of mine: that there’s always someone out there interpreting our efforts in the worst possible light.
Here, for what it’s worth, is what I wrote when I first posted the poem:
Sometime it would be nice to ask of Jesus, “Are we really friends? When you look straight through me, do you see anything of yourself?”
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
GOD’S LOVE AND KINDNESS IS BEFORE AND ABOVE ALL
I have a deepening impression that our obedience and disobedience to God are the result of whether or not we believe that God is reliably loving and kind.
Most recently, this impression was strengthened as I contemplated Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7. As I see it, he’s recounting a history of Israel rejecting God’s promises and provisions.
I also think of the Sabbath. God tells Israel that they can take it easy on the seventh day, and seventh year and in the jubilee year. He will provide! Keeping the sabbath was first and foremost a matter of believing God’s amazing promise and provision. But almost immediately, Israel turned the delightful provision into a duty.*
Just now, I looked back at Genesis chapter 1. God’s first action toward man is to bless and give.
GOD IS GOOD, but large swaths of Christianity concentrate more on dos and don’ts than on God’s goodness.
*[I must confess that I understand how that could happen when the first thing out of the gate was a disobedient Israelite getting killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath…. I’m trusting God will enable me to understand this some day]
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
PONDERING THE UNFATHOMABLE King David’s blessed man meditated “day and night” (Psalm 1) and Mary “treasured all these things in her heart” (Luke 2). These two passages provide my model of humble, intellectually honest pondering.
I assume that we please God more by pondering his words and ways than by pontificating on them. As a man of limited intellect and porous memory, I take shelter and comfort in this assumption.
The background image for this poem is a “map” of the Mariana Trench produced by the Nasa Earth Observatory.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
This little throw-away poem was my attempt to capture some of what’s being communicated by Stephen in Acts 7, especially the somewhat cryptic “uncircumcised hearts and ears” in his summary indictment:
You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did!
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
I’m not your guy to explain eschatology (what happens in the future, according to Scripture). Frankly, I doubt anyone’s got that completely right. But one book I’m reading now fired up my imagination about the last trumpet, and what trumpets do—they gather.
Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
[WARNING: this is me “thinking out loud.” I haven’t come to conclusions; I simply invite friends to keep pondering God’s word with me]
I just read a long sermon in which the preacher waxed eloquent about what it meant for the curtain in the temple to be torn from top to bottom at the moment of Jesus’ death. The preacher made absolutely no direct reference to scripture that might—or might not—support his interpretation. All my life, I have heard only one interpretation of the significance of the rending of the temple curtain… until yesterday. Now, I’m reading Fleming Rutledge’s excellent “The Crucifixion.” She represents a slightly different tradition of Christianity than the one in which I was raised. Her different perspective gives me much to ponder. It prompts me to observe the Gospels, and Hebrews more closely, and to tune out the echo of a lifetime of sermons.
I suspect this is the main thing I need to fully embrace: it is not my feet that carry me into the holy of holies. It is my forerunner Jesus, my relationship with him. The author of Hebrews put it this way (note the present status of the curtain):
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
TODAY’S LUNCHTIME THOUGHTS I have been camping out in John 18 for about a week now. This is the chapter where Jesus is arrested and Peter denies him. John switches back and forth between Jesus and Peter. One is protecting others, the other is protecting himself. As I reflect on what Jesus would have me learn from this section, I naturally think about the spheres in which I can and should look out for others: in my family, church, at work, on boards…. Am I being a good shepherd?
HOW ABOUT GOD? The poem pushes on John’s claim that Jesus loved his disciples to the end, and that he did not fail in protecting them. I’m convinced that God does not mind us asking hard questions about his goodness. To do anything less is to not take him seriously. So, is God good?
What I have written in the poem is not a full answer to that question. Hah! But it’s part of the answer. His loving purpose for us is not accomplished in 70 years, or even 100.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
I’m nearing the end of Michael Reeves’ “Delighting in the Trinity.” In the section I read this morning, he was trying to convince me that God’s love is not at odds with His wrath. I think Reeves might even say that God’s love and wrath are inseparable. I’ll have to keep thinking about this one, mainly by testing words in poetry.
To be honest, this is the sort of poem I might have written when I was young and thoughtless. The truth is that God’s wrath is something I don’t really understand. I think I understand his love, but not his wrath.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
THE CHRIST This morning, as I crawl through Jesus’ prayer in John 17, I think back to Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). Some of us may tend to hear Peter’s confession solely as a recognition of Jesus’ greatness. But where there is an annointed one—the literal meaning of christos—there is an annointer. As we can clearly see in John 17, Jesus was determined that his disciples know WHO had sent him, WHO had annointed him, thus making him the Christ. For him, that was paramount.
Consider the kind of humility it would take for a United States Ambassador to proclaim: “I am merely a deputy.” Jesus was far more than a deputy. But such was his humble perspective.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
Every now and then, I’m struck by things I’ve taken for granted. In my crawl through John, I’m to chapter 17, which is entirely Jesus praying to the Father. How is it possible that mere man can witness, and understand such an exchange?! If the answer seems easy, you may not have thought this through.
NOTE: The WIDENING of God’s love in that last line had double meaning to me. The less obvious meaning: the rift or chasm Jesus felt when he cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It meant more than I succeeded in articulating.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
LISTEN SELECTIVELY If the voices we listen to are a constant barrage of criticism leveled at “the other side,” we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves falling into this sin.
God help me see this sin as clearly in myself as I see it in others!
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
These days, I’m reading slowly through the Gospel of John. This morning, I got to the end of chapter two, where John notes that whereas people were believing in Jesus because of his miracles, he was not entrusting himself to them:
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
John 2:23-25
Here’s one thing that caught my attention: John uses the same verb in “many believed” as he does in “did not entrust.” The verb is a common one for belief: pisteuo. It struck me as a play on words that begs for the reader to dig deeper. The main question that comes to my mind is, does this suggest that there are elements in the witnesses’ belief and Jesus’ entrusting that are parallel? Do they contrast?
I haven’t gotten to the bottom of my question, but as I read what commentators say about the passage, I found some of them pushing one of my buttons: they denigrate people for basing their belief in Jesus on his miracles, as though there were a better basis for belief! But John himself summed up the purpose for his Gospel like this:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:30-31
The Poem I registered my objection by writing the poem above. In the third line, “God at rest” stands for a God who is not active, doing things, interacting with his creation, performing miracles.
The last two lines are the test I propose: is there anything we can see or know about God apart from his actively making himself known?
Next time you hear someone piously pray, “God, I worship you not for what you’ve done, but for who you are,” pull them aside and remind them that God IS a creator, lover, healer, savior. Who he is cannot be separated from what he does. Thank God that’s so!
Caveat I could be wrong. I’m the son of a theologian, and I have friends who are philosophers. But I am not one of them. Any time I refer to Plato, just know that I’m in the deep end, and don’t know how to swim.
(background photo by Joshua Woroniecki on Pixabay)
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
As I try to get caught up with posting poems here on my blog, I’m encountering some poems written so long ago that I don’t recall what I was thinking! I do remember that this poem was an emotional response to Luke 7. One of the questions that’s often on my mind when I read the Gospels is “What did Jesus and his listeners think that salvation means?” Of course we can read the accounts with the benefit of systematic theology, but I’m uneasy about that process. A theological grid can obscure as much as it reveals.
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
[NOTE: this could also be called “End of the Internet.” Anyone who has ever sought comfort in doom-scrolling may know what I mean]
I struggled for an hour to express this feeling and realization. I almost captured it in another poem, but that poem was too much of an abstraction. The simple truth is that I try to fill too much of my life with useless knowledge, and too little with useful service. It’s one hazard of being a poet, but I’ll not pretend that’s an adequate excuse.
So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind.
Ecclesiastes 2:17 ESV
[NB: I almost always try to stuff more than one meaning into my poem titles. “End” in this title is intended to suggest two questions: where does knowledge get you, and what’s it for?]
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary; click the title above)
Commentary
I wrote this poem in response to what I was seeing in Luke chapter twelve.
Luke wants us to pay attention to several things. Some of them I haven’t figured out (e.g., Luke’s repeated mention of the growing crowds). Some of them, I THINK I’m starting to figure out, like how Jesus valued the anticipated gift of the Holy Spirit. How much do I value—and rely on—that gift? What outcomes do I seek to ensure by other means? What storehouses am I foolishly building?
(if you are viewing this via email, the website has a recording of this poem and commentary)(background photo adapted from one by “ilamag” on Pixabay)
Commentary
When I try to shock myself and others out of our complacency, I usually discover that we’re well insulated.
I get the impression that the Gospel author Luke wanted to shock his readers. In story after story, he illustrates Jesus’ absolute demands on his disciples… and the disciples’ absolute compliance. The central passage may be this one:
So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33
In Luke’s account of how the disciples followed Jesus, we see that renouncing of everything. For instance, when Jesus calls Simon, James and John away from their career as fishermen, here’s how they respond
And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.
Luke 5:11
“Everything” — that’s more than I have renounced. And that makes me uncomfortable. What also makes me uncomfortable is how quickly my mind tries to supply excuses. You know, stuff like decorum, not being a burden on others, being “wise.”
I sat on this poem wondering how I’d explain the weak understanding that it reveals. Then a friend messaged me out of the blue to thank me for being open and vulnerable. So here you go!
Understood, But Just Barely Having been a Christian from my youth, having studied theology, etc., etc., I “know” many things about Christianity. But it seems that the longer I live, the more I realize that I barely understand some of its concepts.
I talked about this with a friend, who teaches theology at the seminary level…. I confessed to him that every time I hit Hebrews 5, I flinch. This passage immediately follows the discussion of Melchizedek:
11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Hebrews 5:11-14
“Elementary” Truths My friend, the theologian, pointed out that there’s infinite depth to the most simple concepts of Christianity. Admitting that I don’t understand something fully, is actually laughable. Who does?
When I was ten, we moved to the States from a country where practicing religion was always costly. Mostly, the cost was self-imposed, as many thought they could earn God’s favor. For a few, the cost was appropriate, and unavoidable, as they could not be comfortable with surrounding culture. IN CONTRAST, what I saw here in the States was that practicing religion seemed to cost nothing. That concerned me then, and it concerns me still.
Someone may respond, “I’m not comfortable with surrounding culture! So, wouldn’t you agree that I am paying a price to be a Christian!” My answer: maybe, maybe not. The thing about culture is that it is never merely “surrounding.” Rather, it works its way into much — if not all — of what we think and do. We’re part of it. It’s part of us.
Simply being upset at others’ immorality is not enough. Jesus’ prescription is not “Get mad at the world.” His prescription is, “You! You. If necessary, cut off your own arm. Gouge out your own eye. Renounce everything that YOU have.”
So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
This is a poem I started writing yesterday and finished up this morning. Yesterday, I thought of the phrase, “running out WITH time,” and asked myself how that might upend the notion of “running out OF time.” So, I didn’t know where I was going to go with the poem, but started writing anyway.
In a friend’s Sunday School class several few years ago, the friend asked us all if we thought there would be no time in Heaven. It seemed that my friend and I were the only ones willing to assert, “I don’t know of any reason why time should NOT continue to exist!” It surprised me that we were in the minority on this one.
Where do people get the notion that time will cease to exist in the eternal state? I suspect one source is a spillover of neoplatonism. But take this with a huge grain of salt. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, “I served with a philosopher. I knew a philosopher. A philosopher was a friend of mine. I am no Philosopher.” Regardless, the theory is that people with this thinking lump time in with matter, and therefore consider it unworthy of their ideal, immaterial “Heaven” (a disgusting non-place, if you ask me–I’m looking for the restoration of God’s GOOD creation).
Another possible source is an old translation of Revelation 10:6
And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
Revelation 10:6 KJV
Most modern translations render that along the lines, “that there should be no more delay.”
I ran my poem by a philosopher/theologian this morning, and he assured me that whatever reasons people come up with for saying that there will be no more time in Eternity are a matter of “blindly swallowing [wrong notions of secondary issues] without theological reflection.” Whew (it could have been me)!
Back To The Poem: Time Our Fellow Inmate Here’s how I got around to using my upended phrase…. It occurred to me that people may think of time as one of life’s evils… that it limits us, perhaps even imprisons us. If so, the answer is to think of time not as the prison, but as a fellow inmate! Someday the prison of current limitations will be torn down. Then we’ll escape our prison cells and joyously run out WITH our fellow inmate, time.
Background image is a mashup of three images from Pixabay. Mountain scene by Jörg Peter; tower by “Jazella”; night sky by Felix Mittermeier.
Commentary
This morning, I watched a YouTube video in which a professor of “Christian Psychology” explained various approaches that he and Christian peers take to secular insights. He went a long way toward helping me categorize and understand a complex subject. I especially appreciated the irenic tone he takes toward approaches that differ from his own.
Shortly afterwards, I learned that professor had been ousted from Southern Seminary because the rest of the faculty in his department are of the mind that Scripture is all we need for counseling, and that no secular insights are welcome or allowed. Not so irenic on their part!
The Title:When Every Hill’s a Place to Die A certain gentleman once complained to me about people who say things like, “That’s not a hill worth dying on.” I should say he was a “very certain gentleman.” When I asked him if there aren’t some secondary issues in Christianity for which he wouldn’t die, he answered, “I’d die for everything I believe.” I know he probably considers himself brave and loyal. Perhaps he is. But I suspect he’s also inordinately proud of his ability to fully comprehend all those issues. God is not simple; the world he created is not simple. We need to be humble about our understanding. Ask Job!
Shelter in Redoubt In warfare, a “redoubt” is a fortification to which combatants can retreat. It is often their final resort, their last defence. I picture a theological combatant (unlike the irenic professor described above) retreating to a simple structure that he thinks he fully understands. The complexities of others’ thoughts cannot defeat him as long as he is in his theological redoubt. “God said it; I believe it; that settles it,” yells the proud, combative theologian from within his little fort. He forgets that what God said isn’t always so easy to understand!
I keep encountering this notion that abrupt changes cannot possibly be God’s will. I’ve encountered it in others, but also in myself! Run your mind across the testimony of Scripture. Does the notion hold up? I don’t think so.
Abruptly “Abruptly” has a negative connotation. It’s used when people are inconvenienced. One might say, “Because she changed her mind abruptly, all my careful plans were brought to nothing! I had to scramble!” One would never say, “My fondest wishes were fulfilled abruptly!” So, the speaker of the poem is complaining. His words should be read with a whiny voice. Notice the repetition of “our.” He feels entitled. Finally, he offers biblical allusions as self-serving platitudes.* He’s confused, and a sinner somewhere is surely to blame!
We Think Not Based on his own thinking — or is it his lack of thinking!? — the speaker arrogantly decrees that nothing can be done abruptly. He speaks for all who consider themselves worthy judges of how life should unfold.
*How often I have heard 1 Corinthians 14:33 used as a proof text supporting mere personal preference!
This poem is a bit of (hopefully) sanctified imagination. Please don’t take it as a theological statement! However, if it fires up some thoughts you’d like to discuss, let’s do so… either privately via my contact form, or more publicly, with the comments form below.
A friend asked me if there should be a comma after time. Here’s what I told him:
The absence of a comma opens this up to at least three interpretations. I know this style’s not everyone’s cup of tea. Are you familiar with ee cummings’ “my father moved through dooms of love“? That poem brings me to tears whenever I read it.
The slight effort of getting past the absence of punctuation in cummings may add to its emotional impact. Speaking of tea…. Coffee is better than tea precisely for its body, that it slides down not so easily.
So, here are some pointers to meaning:
“In time” can mean “eventually”
“Time out of mind” is unimaginably long, think Eternity.
In a polarized world, it is always “us” versus “they” (deeper in grammar, “us” receives the malevolence that “they” inflict — objective vs subjective). I like to think of a time when there is such peace between a broad diversity of people, that all of us are “WE,” and we never even think of “THEM.”
Currently, things are not as they should be. Even at home, we know we are not where we wish to be. A time is coming when we’ll be where we long to be. Then and there, we’ll be at ease. Then and there we’ll be content with here and now.
Where will we be? In the presence of the One who is making all things new, the One who will satisfy our hopes and dreams. Now, He often seems distant. We refer to Him in second person, as “He.” Then we’ll address Him face-to-face as “You.”
