The Weeds

The weeds in my garden rise up against me

as accusers of my sloth and indolence.

Their gauzy yellow heads bear fruit,

to my despair,

among my carrots

and beets

and the spinach I use for omlettes.

I cannot answer the God who raised them up,

these adversaries round about,

because I have failed in my calling

as a man,

as a gardener,

to keep them at bay by diligent care and scorn of slack.

But I look up to God on the Cross,

and fall at His pierced feet

and beg mercy, Lord,

for my little faith,

for my sins abundant as, and for,

the weeds in my garden.

Two Songs

I cannot sing the modern world -
the world unmade by man
and dragged through philosophy and deceit
behind the iron horse,
drawn and quarterly dividended,
bull and bears**t smeared across the face
of the made-up deep-throat media man
seeking ratings and euphoria at the
expense of truth and the legitimate uses of a
hypodermic needle.
Manself unmade is mute and none will mourn.

I can sing the only world made by my God,
and brother sun and sister moon, made rulers
with me therein, and friends, companions, all
unsuitable, the beats and fish and fowl, and
that one companion meet for me,
not any other than her whose belly is a heap of wheat
smoothed down with weight and love and child,
and Christ the elder brother and the Spirit,
that life that deepdown things believe
and all true poets sing back the only king.
That I can sing.

Two Years Ago

Two years and three quarters of  a day ago today
the world was seven-hundred and thirty revolutions unwound
and had seen four fewer transits each
of aphelion and perihelion.

Two years and one half of a day ago today
I was a young man
with a reasonably new
house, job, degree,
a very pregnant wife,
a nearly-two son,
a brother and family in Carolina,
and in Tucson,
a mother,
and a father,
sleeping soundly in bed.

Two years and one quarter of a day ago today
the September sky was beginning to wake,
almost to wingshooting light,
and the still morning was tangled
by phone calls and knocks on the door
and a hasty breakfast,
which made no dent in the
sick hollow of my stomach
(and my wife could not eat).

Two years ago today
we were gathered around
my mother, a widow,
fielding phone calls and questions
because somehow the news had not
been telegraphed around the world
that my father was dead, so we had to
explain,
and explain,
and (worst) explain carefully
to a nearly-two-year-old
that Grandpa was with Jesus.

Two years less a half a day ago today
we were going to bed
in the house I grew up in
(that my father built)
and were variously processing
the whiplash of a sudden death,
dropped down from heaven,
an unexpected anvil,
two years ago today.

The Spanking Verses

Not my turn of phrase, but a good one.  In question are:

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.
Prov. 22:15


Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.
Prov. 23:13

The rod and reproof give wisdom,
but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
Prov. 29:15

and finally, 

Discipline your son, for there is hope;
do not set your heart on putting him to death.
Prov. 19:18

The overriding practical question is whether to use hitting as a means of discipline. I am deliberate in that word choice, because it is physically descriptive, and has fewer connotations than some of the other options (on either side of the question).

History seems firmly on the side of disciplinary hitting, and it is often risky to part ways with the ancients.  Couple this with the seemingly straightforward reading of the above verses, and the question seems open and shut.  The only remaining issue is a question of tactics and timing, right?

The conservative Christian camp is also fairly unanimous in the employment of hitting, and is spurred on by the resistance to the practice from a sick and secular world that is always pushing to weaken and usurp the rightful role of the family. And this is often true enough.

So what is the issue? What do I think the discussion has omitted?

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deut. 21:18-21

I do not think that the foregoing discussion adequately considers the gravity of the laws of ancient Israel.  The death penalty was an available option for parents to employ against an intractable child.  We today like to read the spanking verses through the foggy glasses of metaphor, thinking about not condemning our children to lives of dissipation or something. This does no justice to the texts imploring against putting the child to death by stoning.

A related line of reasoning begs for a reconsideration of the notion of "the rod".  For those blissfully unaware of it, there exists a hitting tool so named, marketed to parents as a discreet, flexible, and effective whacking strop.  We are all very familiar with the twenty-third psalm, and I hope the incongruity of those images is not lost on you.  Does the shepherd carry a rod to whap the sheep when they get out of line?  David is very clear to Saul that his rod was turned against lion and bear and Philistine. Jesus is very clear about what the shepherd does with the stray sheep, carrying it back on his shoulder and rejoicing.

Are there circumstances that call for a physical intervention? Yes, plainly. Are there circumstances that call for hitting? I have not found any yet.  That is not to say that I have never used hitting for discipline, because I am an impatient sinner, but those times were not successful.  Sin lives in the heart, and hitting the body is not clearly addressing the issue. 

Ah, but it may be levied that I was inconsistent. Had I hit the same every time, there would be obedience.  This is true.  There is no argument - hitting is good coercion. But I assert that it is bad discipline. The consistency that would help is consistency in my voice, my disposition, my prayer for my children, and the consistency to point my children to Christ when they sin.

Compliance is a woefully inadequate and dangerous goal for our children. It may make us feel good, and it may get us praise for our well-ordered family and home, but compliance is skin-deep.  As soon as restraint falls away, so, often, do the children. I have witnessed this too frequently, typically correlated with the first year of college.  

If children know that they can think from an early age, they may let us help them explore the difficult parts of life.  They will know that we want their good. They will know that we point them to Jesus. If all we ever asked for was compliance, and all we ever pointed to was our "parental prerogative", we have no reason to expect our children to suddenly mature, love Jesus, and love us when they move out.

So let us act in love, if Christ has first loved us. And let us begin showing that love in our home, to our family.  That is our great parental prerogative. Let's use it.

Hagiography

We stood together,
or better, I stood by her stroller,
an incongruous American
beneath fourteen centuries of Bulgar brick,
slow-roasted by the candles
and gently eroded by the ever-rising prayers.

We listened together,
and I know she heard well,
for most anything wakes her,
to the peal and the rumble and the clear high tenor
singing to God and pleading mercy from the Lamb
same chant, same mercy, new every morning.

We looked together,
(but here I truly exaggerate,
for her hat slipped over her eyes - it was cold out),
at the gold and silver icons of the saints,
with round eyes and folded hands,
meeting death for their Lord in quiet submission and plain lines.

We left together,
past the historical plaques and gift shop,
where I bought a disc, "Penance, Lent, Resurrection",
and we stepped out into the cold city air,
a lanky American beside her round Roma eyes and folded caramel hands,
to face life for our Lord in quiet submission and plain lines.

Far Off, and Deep

After listening to Pauline Oliveros and the Deep Listening Band - The Ready Made Boomerang

Sit stock still and sense,
reaching back into the formless
and void un-world that never was,
before time
and sense
and light.
I catch you
eavesdropping on silence,
and peering through cracked curtains
into blindness,
walking in the well-worn way
of lonely individual art.
Would you look into this world?
Will you fall through the kaleidoscope,
shattered into shards,
but brilliantly colored?

Will you ever return?

That which has been is far off and deep,
very deep;
who can know it?

Merit and Jesus: From Slaves to Sons

Simeon's exclamation has intrigued me ever since I looked at the Greek - he addresses God as Lord, but using δέσποτα, despot.  He calls himself a servant, using δοῦλόν, slave.  Simeon's words always rang harsh in my ears - is it right to call God a despot?  Knowing that Simeon was a devout man, waiting for the consolation of Israel, would you call him a slave?

But last evening at church, I thought about Galatians.  Paul declares in 4:1:     I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.
   
Paul speaks of the heir of the covenant (Israel) as no different than a slave - a δούλος - until the date set by his father.  Simeon seems to have realized this dynamic, knowing far better than the Pharisees ("we are Abraham's children and have never been slaves to anyone!") what the condition of Israel truly was.  They were slaves, held under the Mosaic law, slaves to sin, which seized opportunity through the righteous law to kill them. 

Paul does not address only the law-slavery in Galatians 4 - he goes on to discuss the pagan slavery to those which are not gods, under which slavery died all from Adam to Moses, and all those outside the reach of the Mosaic law.  You are a slave to whom you serve.  The nations were enslaved in serving sin, idols, pleasure, debauchery, power, etc. (I'm still reading Plutarch's Lives, if you want any examples).  The Jews, however, were enslaved under the law.  They served YHWH!  They were forbidden from serving other masters, but God constituted them as his own spoil when he led them out of Egypt with an upheld arm.  God was to be king over them, and they were to be his people, his prized possession.  This is a glorious thing - redemption always is - but it is a shadow of the glory that would be revealed in Christ.  

In Christ, we have received the adoption as sons.  We have received the inheritance, the promised Holy Spirit as earnest, and the promise of the New Jerusalem.  The slaves have departed in peace, and the Father now welcomes his children, made such by his Son, Jesus.  All this because of Christ's obedience to the tutor, the law, which he kept on behalf of his Israel.  If the Mosaic Law did not create a works-based system (subservient to the greater scheme of grace, promised to Adam, Abraham, etc.), what is Paul worried about in Galatians?  Why worry about fulfilling various cultural-now-if-formerly-cultic practices like circumcision?  Clearly, Paul was OK with that sort of thing, vis-a-vis his shaved head and vows in Jerusalem and elsewhere. 

But Paul did those things with no idea of associating them with righteousness. 

The Galatians were associating the practice of Jewish ceremony with legal righteousness.

Paul says they are going backwards

Therefore, they were rightly interpreting the law - but abandoning the gospel!

Now, I must immediately qualify my assertion that they were rightly interpreting the law by asking you to engage in an exercise.  Imagine yourself a Hebrew just after Sinai, having seen all the plagues (both on Egypt and on the rebellious Israelites).  Would you think that you had to keep the law given by Moses?  I hope so!  Would you think you could perfectly keep it?  I hope not!  That chasm is bridged by grace.  Maybe you would comfort yourself with thoughts of Abraham and the promise - God is going to make us a people, OK, that's good, but I suppose it will happen in spite of ourselves...

This personal consideration should resonate with us - must we be holy as our Father in heaven is holy?  Yes!  Can we?  No!  But Christ has redeemed us, so we can walk with God in Him, not of ourselves.  Only, the church has no Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerazim.  The church has no promised land in which she reigns, but from which she may be vomited out if she is found in violation of the terms of the covenant.  The church does not lack for sanctions, to be sure, she is called to be governed by Christ, through His under-shepherds.  Individuals may be cast out, churches may have their lamp removed from the stand, but: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
(1 Peter 1:3-5)


Israels' inheritance was the land.  So much of the OT revolves around keeping the inheritance in the family, keeping the line going to possess the inheritance, etc.  But this was a type of heaven.  It could be (and was/is) lost to them.  Can heaven be lost to the believer?  Praise God no!  So, we are not under law, but under grace.  The law, which promised life for obedience, proved to be death because of our failings.  But the grace of Christ, which has been paid for in His obedience, blood and death, delivers life, making us sons.  Praise Jesus!

Merit and Jesus: Glory and Humility

I want to talk about the glories of the Savior, Jesus Christ.  This is a deep and broad subject, one I love, and one I am passionate about. It is also a topic too easily lost in the noise of arguments about sundry doctrines; it is a subject easily besmirched by the ones who pledge love to Christ, eat his flesh and drink his blood, and then bite and devour one another.  This discussion is necessarily incomplete - we are not yet in glory, and even there we shall never exhaust or comprehend the glories of our Savior.

Why is the glory of Christ such a big deal?  It's a big subject!  It is beyond comprehension: he laid it aside for us for a time!  Conveniently, Paul explains this by way of an exhortation to Christian humility:

    Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11 ESV)

Jesus volunteered for a mission: to accomplish the salvation of sinners.  This is an awkward construction, as acts of God outside time are poorly cast in the simple past tense, but since the Father chose to save some from eternity past, the Son volunteered (from eternity past) to accomplish (in history) the salvation, and the Spirit is sent (from eternity past) to apply to God's people this salvation (in time).  Timely, no?

But we must conclude that Christ, the eternal son of God, laid aside glory in entering the world as a man, humbling himself.  This is not simply a gesture, as Paul explains:

    Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

(interjection - note that Adam points forward to Christ - Christ is the reality, the antitype, the fulfillment - Adam was the shadow, the type, the promise)
    But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 5:12-21 ESV)

There is a symmetry of type and antitype, of sin and savior, of lock and key, as it were.  To save the sons of Adam, Christ had to become one of them.  He had to be numbered among the transgressors in order to qualify as their redeemer.

Adam in the garden was a picture.  I have often been uncomfortable with (though I confess to having indulged in) speculations about life without a fall.  If Adam had only obeyed, how lovely to see the city of God spread across the earth uninterrupted by sin and division!  The church is such a poor shadow of what could have been a glorious growth...

But I forget the direction of the arrow.  Adam points to Christ.  Adam's disobedience was, in a careful sense, necessary for Christ's obedience.  The picture of the perfect man in the perfect place falling into sin sets the stage for the reality of the perfect man in the fallen place conquering sin.  Adam becomes the shadow on the dawn of the world, the thorn in the garden.  Jesus is the light shining in a dark place, the Rose of Sharon in the desert.  The symmetry is beautiful, and indeed glorious.

Paul is not the only one to speak of the glories of Christ:
    I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
(John 17:4-5 ESV)

Jesus himself longs for the restoration of his glory - not selfishly, as a fallen king longs for restored dominion, but as you or I might long for home while yet on a long journey.  We know it is where we belong - but it remains distant until the accomplishment of some task.  Yes, Christ longed for heaven, and what's more, he longed for us to join him there:
     Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
(John 17:24 ESV)

Jesus wants us to be with him in glory - to enjoy heaven with him, which is to say, to enjoy him and thus be in heaven!  When does this occur? Not until the consummation of all things.  Rev. 21 portrays - the New Jerusalem in the new heavens and the new earth where righteousness dwells - that is to be the home of God's people, and of God himself.  But to Christ and the disciples in the upper room, this lies on the other side of the cross, of "it is finished", of the perfect fulfillment of the Scriptures.
 


Let's take stock: Adam points to Christ.  Christ becomes man, laying aside glory.  Christ longs to regain his glory, and share it with his people.  Christ receives this glory, highly exalted to the right hand of the Father, after the fulfillment of Scripture in his death and subsequent resurrection and ascension.

What Scriptures are these?

Certainly we can point to all manner of ancient prophesies and promises pictures, and there are so many explicit Old Testament references in the New, many of them self-consciously adopted by Jesus himself or by the apostles - the Son of David (messianic claim), Son of Man (Adamic identity, also used in reference to Jacob's dream of angels ascending and descending from heaven), Son of God, (used by Nathan in the same discourse, also by the exalted Christ in revelation), King of Israel (parallel to Son of David), and more could be adduced, but let's propose:

Christ is fulfilling more than just Adam.  Christ is fulfilling the whole history of Israel.  Israel longed for a king, and here is David's greater son.  Israel whored after other gods, Christ always does his Father's will.  Israel failed to drive out the brimful-sinful nations, Christ conquers sin itself, taking the sting from death.  Israel is dispossessed of the promised land in exile, Christ goes to prepare a place and receive us to our inheritance.  The picture of Israel is symmetrically completed by Christ - where they fail, he succeeds, where they walked with grumbling, he holds forth the Word of God to Satan.  After all, "Out of Egypt I called my Son".

And how does Christ earn his glory in the fulfillment of all these things?
    For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
(Hebrews 7:26-28 ESV)

Christ paid up.  The debt is settled.  That's half the bargain.  The other half, more glorious, if that were possible, is that Christ clothes us with his own righteousness, and so adorns his own glory.

The author to the Hebrews goes on:
    Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
(Hebrews 8:1-7 ESV)

Again we return to the direction of the typological arrow!  Adam points to Christ.  Moses points to Christ.  The warning given to Adam vented its fury on Christ.  The curses that were promised to disobedient Israel fell on her true king.  Grace alone remains for us, bought by the works of Jesus in his life and in his death.

We who are under grace get to taste glory.  Galatians is written against those who would return to any form of works, of resting salvation on our own merit.  But our salvation rests on merit.  It rests on a firm and sure merit, because it is built on the Rock of Christ, and we must pay attention to meaning of the song of the seraphim who ever cry "WORTHY IS THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN!"

There is no talk of merit where there is no legal basis.  Adam did not merit life - he crossed the line drawn by God.  The nation of Israel did not merit the land (the inferior promises in Hebrews 8) - they crossed the line drawn by God through Moses, and at the end of God's patience, were vomited out of it. 

Christ underwent the penalty of the law of Adam - death.  It has no more to say to him. 

Christ underwent the penalty of the law of Moses - hanging on a tree, cut off from his people, forsaken by God.  That law has no more to say to him.

Christ now offers us freely of the fruits of his victory, eating of the tree of life, inheriting the New Jerusalem, and living in the law of Christ, in the new commandment that is an old one, of loving God and loving our neighbor. 

Sinai is gone.  We have come to Mount Zion.  Let us glory in the glory of our king.




Brief postscript: This hasty essay is broadly aimed at the "republication controversy" swirling in my denomination.  It seems obvious that Jesus obeyed a law.  What law?  The law of Moses.  What happened when Jesus obeyed that law?  He merited heaven.  I'm not clear why people get fussy when God chooses to set up covenants with both positive and negative stipulations.  It's his prerogative, and Job may wisely remind us not to question his prerogative.  It may be helpful to remember that God knows the end from the beginning, and his dealings with his people in the OT are done by way of example to us (as Paul in 1 Cor. 10:11 declares), though they are, for lack of a better term real dealings.  Just because Adam was to be a counterpoint to Christ does not annul the real moral value of his actions.  Just because Israel at Sinai was being set up to show the inescapability of personal and corporate moral failure and consequent need of true redemption does not nullify the reality of the Mosaic law and its true goodness for Israel.  I have sought to argue from Scripture, but for those who, like me, are Presbyterian, I offer WCF Ch.8.5 "Of Christ the Mediator", which plainly declares that Christ purchased reconciliation and inheritance.  There has to be a contract under which said purchase is made, and that contract is the Mosaic Law (as 8.4 indicates).

If I may venture a conjecture: I am concerned that the republication discussions are (perhaps unconsciously?) a stalking horse for a deeper question about the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the Christian - or more pointedly, the Mosaic Law and civil society - which seems motivated in many by an anxiety over what I'll loosely call "things nowadays".  Thoughts?

Progress

think about the benefits of mechanized society
(think about the fathers who do not come home at night)
think about the conquest over cruel constricting piety
(think about the daughters who are simmering in shame)
think about the goods we have that nonexisted yesterday
(think about the mothers who are never satisfied)
think about the information only just a click away
(think about the sons who lust for shimmers on a screen)
think about the ease and speed of travel in a aeroplane
(think about the silence that you have not heard in years)
think about the power grid that lights a gold electric chain
(think about the skies tonight that never will be dark)
think about the progress made by man all over everywhere
(think about the loss of kith and kin and love and God)
think about the money news and goods that saturate the air
(think about the Word that says:

be still and know that I am God.