Pharaoh’s Heart: a Case Study

Ex. 3:19-20: “But I know that the King of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand.  So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders I will do in it; after that he will let you go.”

The subject came to our evaluation facility after being fished out of the Nile River.  In spite of those somewhat humiliating circumstances he did not seem humbled, or aware of his status.  He refused to state his given name, even when offered a multiple-choice test [Please check one.  My name is a) Rameses II, b) Ptolemy I, c) Aten III].  Instead he insisted upon being addressed by his title.  After a brief consultation, the staff decided not to remind him he was by no means first or last of that title.  It is an unfortunate tendency of those kings to identity with their own pantheon—not merely as a representative of the gods but as a god himself (cf. Isaiah doc., 14:17).

The subject was asked to give his version of events.  He unfolded a grandiose drama of heroic resistance in the face of overwhelming odds: blood, hail, swarms of gnats and flies, thick darkness, etc.  He insisted that through it all, his will held firm.  The few times he appeared to waver and make concessions were only strategic retreats.

Examiner: How would you describe yourself at this point?

Pharaoh: Strong. Firm.  In spite of obstacles and blows.

Ex: “Bloody but unbowed”?

Ph: (pleased with the terminology) Exactly.

Ex. What made you finally release the Hebrews?

Ph. What made me?  Nothing made me.  They crept out like skunks.

Ex. Didn’t you receive a shock in the night? Wake up to wails and screams?

Ph. What do you mean?

Ex. Can you tell me who this is?

The subject was shown an image of his son, the crown prince.  After one glance, he turned away.  It might be more accurate to say he recoiled.

Ex. Sir?  Can you tell us?

Ph. I hate him.

Ex. Excuse me?

Ph. I do not excuse you, or your wretched, spiteful deity.

Egypt is my land.  He had no business—

Ex. What are your thoughts about this statement:

For this reason I raised you up, that I might show my power in you,

and that my name

Ph. Stop!  (pause) He’s a liar.

The man’s countenance twisted until it resembled one of the demons, which was rather unsettling.

Ex. One moment please.

After a whispered conversation, the Examiner returned and placed a document on the table.

Ex. I am authorized to read you the part of the official record in which

our supervisor revealed his plans ahead of time to his servant Moses:

You shall speak all I command you and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his hand.  But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you.  Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.  The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from–*

The subject rose to his feet, snatched the document, and stomped on it.  Not content with that, he jumped up and down on it, raging incoherently.  His words below are approximate, delivered in sputtering syllables:

Ph. NO ONE raised me up!  I am born of the Sun God Ra,

whose bright blood runs in my veins!

The subject was physically restrained.  After some moments evaluation continued.

Ex. Can you say your heart has softened at all?

Ph. What?

Ex. In our experience, all human hearts are in need of softening,

but yours shows a remarkably resistant composition—

Ph. Of course it’s remarkable!  Everything about me is remarkable!

Ex. We mean, the LORD provided additional rigidity for his own purposes,

but you were already—

Ph. That was not ‘the Lord’!  That was me!

Ex. Our record shows—

Ph. Let me see that.

He turned the now-rumpled document on the table and searched its columns.

Ph. There! You see?  Here, and here and here: “Then Pharaoh hardened his heart.”

The phrasing is slanderous, though.  It should read,

“Then Pharaoh displayed his iron will.” Do you have a stylus?

Ex. Er . . . No.  The record will stand.

It shows that you had ample opportunity to repent but declined to do so,

which we attribute to an obstinate refusal to yield to any authority outside yourself.

That is not remarkable.  Now, if you will step this way for further processing . . . .

The subject had not yet had his say, but with the application of moderate force he was sent below to the office of the Accuser, who had sufficient means to fire his heart to a coal.

Conclusion: This office has received complaints that the subject was not treated fairly but rather used as a pawn in the contest of “the gods.”  Let the record show that the subject possessed rich reserves of pride and obstinacy, intensified by his position (for which he could take no credit), and susceptible to the process our superior calls “hardening.”  His will, freely operating, fit within a greater Will.

Justice is served.

*Exodus 7:2-5

Faith Like a Dollar General Knockoff

She goes to church, loves her parents and Jesus, posts appreciative Instagrams about the latest homily she heard from the pulpit.

She sings about Bad Romance, twerks onstage in skimpy outfits, performs anthems celebrating the LGBT spectrum and identifies as bisexual.

To her fans, especially the religiously inclined, she’s an icon of “provocative faith.”  To me she seems pretty anodyne, even white-bread normal.

I have nothing against Lady Gaga and don’t presume to judge her inmost heart, or the heart of the writer of this piece in the Washington Post.  It’s not my purpose to dump on anybody, only to address a few misperceptions.  The article is about this year’s Super Bowl halftime headliner and how she exemplifies an open-hearted brand of Christianity not so far removed from that of Jesus himself. A lot of the content is not surprising: “She prays to an affirming God with expansive love, no a narrow-minded magician in the sky who damns nonbelievers to eternal conscious torment.”  Her audience resembles “the group of outcasts and misfits who flocked to Jesus.”  And finally, “She champions Christian values not of exclusion and discrimination but of empowerment, grace, and self-acceptance.”

Let’s unpack those values as they are understood in the culture at large.

EmpowermentI’m the one who knows me best and knows what’s best for me.  So shut up and mind your own business.

GraceThat’s all.  Just grace.  Got a problem with that?

Self-acceptanceOf course!  I mean, if you can’t accept yourself, who can you accept?  And God accepts everybody, except for those who don’t accept everybody because they’re too busy not accepting to be accepted by God.

That’s what I’m picking up from the zeitgeist. The article says “Lady Gaga’s faith confounds a popular narrative of religion in America.”  Um, don’t think so.  Her faith is pretty much the most popular brand going. It’s flying off the shelves.

Christian faith as Jesus taught it was never popular, not even in goody-goody Victorian times or witch-burning Puritan times, much less today.  Here’s a capsule version of it: Then he said to them all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).   To unpack again:

Deny yourself – Don’t listen to your heart because it’s deceptive.  Don’t assume that your deepest self is your best self because you’re inclined to rebellion.  Look at me.  Listen to me.  Obey me.

Take up your cross – The life of self-denial is a struggle because you keep bumping up against your worst self.  It can get discouraging, and sometimes not much fun.

Follow me – It’s a narrow road marked with bloody footprints.  I know because I walked it first.

Grace – Yes, just grace.  But if you knew what it cost me you might not be so glib.

Self-denial . . . Liberals don’t like it.  Conservatives don’t like it.  Mainstream Presbyterians don’t like it, nor Fundies either.  What’s more, I don’t like it.  And neither do you.

‘Cause baby, we’re born that way.

But that’s why Jesus came.  And if it makes you feel any better, he denied himself first.

Because every self is different, self-denial won’t look the same in everybody. For the pious evangelical, as well as the progressive, it might mean giving up the checklist that makes you feel superior (they look very different, but they’re still checklists).  For the exhibitionist, it could mean putting on some clothes and for the fundamentalist it may mean taking a few clothes off.  For the conservative it could mean separating Christianity from Americanism and for the liberal, reconnecting God’s law to man’s law.  For the ambitious writer (like me) it often means settling aside certain projects because I’m called to do something else.  And much, much more.

But it’s worth it–because he is.

About That Prayer Breakfast . . .

Andrew Klavan was there, and it warmed his formerly-secular-Jewish heart.  If you’re not familiar with Andrew, he’s a novelist and screenwriter whose memoir, The Great Good Thing: a Secular Jew Comes to Christ is on my reading list . . . er . . . as soon as it goes down to $2.99 for the Kindle version.  (I’ve been reading a lot of kids’ books for the World Magazine Children’s Book of the Year award, and my time for adult content has been limited, but that’s all over but the writing–yay!)

So, Andrew Klavan had an opportunity to attend the annual Prayer Breakfast, and he offers some context for the President’s odd prayer request for Arnold Schwartzenegger–basically, it was even odder than it sounded in the news bites.  But Andrew found the event to be very encouraging overall, not least because of Senate chaplain Barry Black’s rousing sermon.  And it was rousing–I took time to watch it on Sunday morning.  Was it gospel?  Not quite–he didn’t expound the sinner’s need for Jesus and offer an invitation. But boy, it was Jesus centered.

After some background about his boyhood in Baltimore (“I was sixteen before I ever shook hands with a white person”), he told about his own meeting with Jesus Christ in the pages of scripture, and how Peter 1:18-19 hit him between the eyes: . . . knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways of your fathers not with silver or gold or any perishable thing, but with the precious blood of Christ . . .  It suddenly struck him that

Even at ten I had sufficient analytical skills to know that the value of an object is based upon the price someone is willing to pay. And when it dawned on me, a little guy in the inner-city, that God sent what John 3 calls the only one of its kind, ‘His only begotten son,’ to die for me, no one was able to make me feel inferior again.

From there he went on to trace the appearance of Jesus throughout scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in as sweeping a birds-eye view as you’re likely to get anywhere, ending with a rousing doxology to the only Savior, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  Klavan says the room was rocking and rolling by then (it was a big room, too) . . . until Mark Burdett (of Survivor and The Bible fame) got up to introduce President Trump, and the mood sort of went sideways.

It sounds like it was a great time overall, though, and Andrew had some other encouraging news to share, so click the link above if you have time.

And you really should spare some time for Pastor Black’s prayer-breakfast sermon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr9sCtJ61_8

The Books of Ferguson

After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, blew the lid off race relations, three black men wrote books.  The first, published only a few months after Ferguson, was Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates.  Kudos to Mr. Coates for using the grammatically-correct pronoun in his title (“between the world and I” is one of my grammar peeves), but once past the title page his thoughts are disturbing, especially to white readers.  He writes out of an upbringing and experience that’s unique to the United States: that of a race of people who were once enslaved and forever after live at the mercy of white overlords who can’t stop thinking of themselves as overlords.

I don’t doubt that these are his true feelings.  What disturbed me was that he seems to mistake his feelings for facts, especially when it came to describing the attitudes of white people.  My truth is THE truth–none of his statements are open for debate.  The overarching despair came to feel like reading in a closet, with the walls closing in.  Early in the book (which he began as a long letter to his infant son), he confesses to being an atheist.  Aha, I thought–that’s one reason for the hopeless, angry tone of his letter to White America.

Yesterday I finished reading Tears We Cannot Stop, a current bestseller by Michael Eric Dyson, political commentator and ordained Baptist minister.  He’s not an atheist, obviously, and he expresses himself in warm, ecclesiastic terms.  I looked forward to learning from him, and yet much of what he says sounds like an echo of Coates, with the same blanket indictment of “whiteness” and its refusal to own up to vast injustice.  Dyson’s key term is white innocence, the bland assumption he ascribes to mainstream majority: everything is okay now and racism is over even if we can’t help thinking of our black neighbors as lazy and violent and the n- word always lurks at the back of our minds.  After finishing the book, it struck me: I don’t think Dyson ever mentioned Jesus, except once or twice, in passing. That’s what I missed.

Both Coates and Dyson speak from the heart and they speak powerfully.  The problem is, hearts are not all that articulate.  They make an emotional argument, but rationality takes a back seat.  I know much of what they say about the system is true: unless they have a rap sheet, white people don’t have to worry about getting pulled over by police for no reason or caught in inner-city crossfire.  The seniors among us (I’m one) don’t remember having to walk past empty seats on the bus in order to squeeze in at the back or bypass the nearest restroom because we’re the wrong shade.  The grievances are real and the roots are long; I get that.  I disagree that the US was founded on racism and its wealth owed everything to slave labor, but we can set that aside for now.  The question is, how do we go forward?

Coates has made a case for cash reparations for descendants of slaves.  Dyson is not against that, but until the politics line up he recommends “Individual reparations accounts,” where white people reach out to low-income black families and neighborhoods to provide tutoring, mentoring, computers, books, jobs—a genuine hand up.  (Here’s a clip where he argues that notion with Tucker Carlson.)  I’m all for that, but I can’t shoulder the additional burden of guilt he wants to lay on me, because his description of me is not accurate.

My World column about Between the World and Me ended like this:

“If there were some way to make real reparations for slavery and bigotry, we should not hesitate to pay the cost, shake hands, and go forward.  But Coates’ atheism misleads him: there’s no material compensation for spiritual harm.  The greatest reparation was made on a cross.  If he could meet me there, I would gladly ask his forgiveness for any perceived harm on my part, because that’s the only place he could forgive me.  Otherwise, resolution seems forever out of reach.”

The subject is relevant to me because I have several bi-racial relatives, including my oldest granddaughter, age ten.  There’s no question about it when you look at her.  Her eyes are so beautiful they knock me out: huge, and such a deep brown you can barely make out the pupil.  Before she was born my daughter fretted about how strangers would react to her.  I brushed it off—who makes a big deal about race these days?  Now I’m starting to get a little worried.

But I would be very worried if it weren’t for that cross.  Long ago I read a story about Frederick Douglass during his days on the abolitionist lecture circuit before the Civil War.  At one of those meetings, he made a speech that reflected the depression he was feeling: How long before the shackles were broken? How long before the bondsman’s stripes could be healed?  The gloomy atmosphere thickened until a piercing voice piped up from the back of the room.  It was Sojourner Truth, the feisty little suffragette and former slave: “Frederick!” she called out.  “Is God dead?”

I can hear her in my imagination.  Is God dead?

No, he’s not.  That brings me to the last book inspired by Ferguson, Under Our Skin by Benjamin Watson.  Watson knows what it is to be pulled over by a cop for no reason; he knows the pain of being sized up and rejected because of his color.  But he also knows Jesus, and that makes all the difference.  I wrote more about the book for Redeemed Reader this week, so check out the review if you’d like to know more.  And then read the book!

I wish I could persuade Ta-Nehisi Coates not to give up hope.  I wish I could show Dr. Dyson that I don’t have to become a white liberal to be sympathetic.  But God isn’t dead, and it’s going to be all right.

When NOT to “Pray about It”

“I’ve prayed about it and I feel at peace.”

Peace about what?

“About filing for divorce.  No—he’s not abusive or neglectful; we just can’t agree about anything.  We fight all the time and the kids are picking up on the tension.  This isn’t what marriage is supposed to be about.  He’s not going to lift a finger—of course—but if I file he won’t object.”

* * * * * * * * * *

“We’ve prayed about it, and it seems like the thing to do.”

What’s that?

“Leaving the church.  Yes I know, it’s only been two years since we formally joined and stood up in front of the congregation and made those promises, but we aren’t happy with the way things are going.  There’s also that one guy that really rubs us the wrong way . . . no, we can’t put our finger on why it is, but they made that guy an elder!  We’re going to start looking around next Sunday.”

But remember, we prayed about it.  It’s always good to pray . . . unless what you really mean is, We talked to God and decided we were all on the same page about what we should do.  But God already has a page, and that’s the one we’re supposed to be on.

How often do you catch yourself trying to get Him to agree with what you want to do, rather than searching out what he wants, and then asking for faith to do it?  Because—let’s face it—what he wants you to do is often going to be hard.  Maybe so hard it seems impossible.  Maybe you even know, way down deep, what God wants, but you personalize it or generalize it or rationalize it or hedge it around with so many qualifiers the central command is smothered.

I know God hates divorce, but— (the bills, the fights, the chill, the drag, the chain)

I know Christ loves his church but— (the leadership, the bad decisions, the misunderstandings)

If you find yourself rationalizing, the first thing to do is surgically remove that three-letter word BUT.  The reason is because it opens the door to every excuse.  So cut it off and kick it out.  When it whimpers and scratches at the door, harden your heart.  Expel the fatal conjunction, invite the conjunctive adverb:

I know God hates divorce.  Therefore . . .

I know Christ loves his church.  And so . . .

Yes, there are valid reasons to end a marriage or leave a church.  If the reason is not so valid, prayer will not get God on your side.  When not to pray:

  • When you already know what the Bible says
  • When you know your own will is leaning against what the Bible says
  • When you’re fishing for justification for those inclinations

Don’t pray about what you already know.  Pray for what you desperately need—the strength, faith, love, and determination to do it.

 

“Quite Contrary” Females

World subscribers may have read my column in the Jan. 21 issue called “Quite Contrary” (I didn’t pick the title but it’s a good one).  Columns about male-female relationships, especially in marriage, always gets a large response.  None was greater than “Upside-Down Headship” last March, when some men accused me of beating up on husbands while some women shared heartbreaking stories about being emotionally beat up.

The response to “Quite Contrary” was significant though not as great in volume.  The springboard for the column was  an article on the Atlantic blog about a translation controversy with the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible.  Way back in 2000 or thereabouts, the editors of WORLD made a style decision to use the ESV for all scripture quotes used in the magazine.  So the article caught my attention.  Apparently several Bible scholars have protested a decision by the ESV translation team to update their rendering of Genesis 3:16 to read “your desire shall be contrary to your husband” rather than “your desire shall be for your husband.”  To the disapproving Bible scholars, this puts women in an unnecessarily negative light.  I understand that response, but the point is not whether the translation is unnecessarily negative but whether it’s true—both to the original sense of the passage as well as to the behavior we observe around us.

And is it?  Probably not in every single case, but surely in mine.  I desire a loving relationship, but I want it on my own terms.  What those terms look like is often contrary to my husband, and it’s been a source of bitterness.  One little indicator: whenever anything goes wrong in my life, even a small thing like a habitually stuck drawer, my instinct is to blame him.  Not every time, but often enough.  Why? Because he’s not keeping up repairs or he made a bad business decision years ago or—or—  There’s always something.  But on a deeper level, it’s because my desires are so often contrary to his, and even contrary to him.

Some of the women who responded to that column have very interesting insights: “I react to my husband like I react to no one else,” wrote one (meaning, not in a good way).  Yes!   Another says, “[The common translation of Gen. 3:16] has long perplexed me, since by listening to most women, desiring their husband was not their strongest motivation.  On the contrary, his desire for her was more of a concern.” Yes!!  God created women to long for relationship, and we’re better at it—women tend to make friends more easily, bond to their children more quickly, and share their deepest thoughts with their husbands more easily (even if the guys are not always fascinated by our deepest thoughts). But it’s in our relationships that sin rears its ugly head, just as it’s the husband’s natural authority role that Satan loves to twist and corrupt.

Interesting fact: only one man disagreed with me about “Quite Contrary,” and it was more about the Bible translation I was using than the point of the article.  The wives agreed: Yes, that was me until I recognized what I was doing.  Many more men disagreed with me about my “Upside-down Headship” column, or they agreed in principle, but wanted to make sure I gave the faults of wives equal time.

My non-scientific instinct is that men tend to be a bit more defensive about their marriage relationships than women, which bears out what God said back in the garden: Your desire shall be contrary to your husband [relationship is where sin gets to us] but he shall rule over you [authority is where sin snares our husbands, either in the abuse of it or the neglect of it].  All the more reason to be grateful that God’s desire for us is greater than our tangled desires here on earth.

Don’t Make Your Husband Be Your Best Friend

They were such a cute couple.  He was a youth leader at church, and she was his high school sweetheart.  They tied the knot with style: with singing attendants, recorded expressions of love to each other, loads of family participation, and really nice dresses.  About a year after the wedding, I stopped by with a few friends to visit their little apartment (how we all wanted our own little apartments with that special somebody!).  They were happy as clams.  “Marriage is supposed to be this big adjustment,” she told us.  “But really, we were best friends for so long before we got married, there wasn’t that much to adjust to.”

Best friends . . . that might have been the first time I heard that description of husband and wife.  It made an impression.  Marrying your best friend seemed like a foolproof formula.

It wasn’t too long after that—two years, at the most—when I heard they divorced.  The story was that she’d cheated on him with one of their “best friends” from high school.

Huh.

This little story is probably apropos of nothing, except that “marrying your best friend” is not a foolproof formula.  When it comes to marriage, nothing is foolproof, but here (in bullet points) is why I think we’ve oversold the spousal-best-friend concept:

  • In general, men and women do friendship differently.  Guys are comrades, teammates, colleagues.  They bond over projects or goals.  They are capable of heart-to-heart talks, but only after establishing certain parameters.  The ladies, being more relational, always have their feelers out for attachment and the boundaries are much more permeable.  In a dorm room or a coffee shop or a late-night wine-and-chocolate fest with the gals, we tend to spill our guts.
  • Related to that, men and women have different expectations of friendship.  With guys, it’s working together to get something done or solve a problem.  With women it’s talking through the thing that needs doing or working through their feelings over the problem.  Yes, I know that’s a bit of a stereotype, but stereotypes have to come from somewhere–usually from the facts.
  • From eHarmony radio ads. I gather that everybody’s looking for a soulmate.  Whatever that is.  Soulmates are usually made, not found; made over a long period of time, with lots of patience and shared experience.  If you’re expecting, on the basis of a few deep conversations with your fiancée, that your souls will mate right along with your bodies, you’re probably in for a shock.
  • Marriages are under enough strain without the burden of best-friend expectations.  You’ve promised to love someone for as long as you both shall live, to stay together through all the circumstances of life (good and bad), to go one way even when you both want to go separate ways.  Those are crazy promises and they require crazy commitment.  Sometimes you are not going to be friends.  That person who is thwarting your will, that person you are stuck to for life can sometimes look a lot like an enemy.  Those dilemmas can usually be worked through—unless you convince yourself that since your spouse is no longer your best friend, the whole relationship is built on false premises and is therefore over.
  • Marriage and friendship are different relationships with different structures and purposes.  Friendship is side by side; marriage is face to face.  Friendship is cumulative; marriage is transformative.  One of the most striking insights I ever read about marriage was in a novel written by someone who wasn’t married at the time: “Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something together, are companions.  Those who enjoy or suffer one another, are not.”*  Marriage is enjoying or suffering one another, not necessarily in equal balance.  And speaking of equal, the equality that’s a necessary element of friendship is the last thing a husband or wife should be concerned about.

Of course, friendship is a great thing for a marriage to be; it just won’t always be that, or only be that.  When the marriage is under stress for internal or external reasons, loyal friends outside the marriage (not of the opposite sex) can an indispensable means of relieving some of the pressure.  It’s hard to find such friends.  I’ve written elsewhere how churches that focus so intently on building strong marriages tend to neglect building strong friendships.  But we need a theology of friendship (do I feel a book coming on?) to help build those strong marriages as well as to serve members who aren’t married.  Good friendships may even be rarer than good marriages.  But that’s a subject for another post.

Puppies! Because . . . puppies.

_______________________________________

*C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, Chapter 7 (“The Pendragon,” section 2)

 

Hallelujah!

My first Messiah performance was a university production augmented by community members.  I was one of the latter–a college dropout who didn’t know much about music but knew what I liked.  The director (I’ll call him Dr. Gunther) was passionate and volatile, the type who usually spells trouble for music departments.  By mid-term, he had already alienated half the faculty.  He dropped enough hints to indicate the nature of his faith: an artist’s Catholicism, invaluable as a source of inspiration but no use at all in curbing a rampant ego.

Gunther loved this music passionately, and over weeks of rehearsal had exhorted and molded the choir into a mean Messiah machine–or at least we thought so.  “I don’t care what your religion is, or even if you believe anything,” he told us after warm-up on performance night.  “But tonight–just for tonight–sing like you believe this.”

I already believed this, but was beginning to question why.  Why do some have faith and some don’t?  Was it entirely a choice, a Nietzschean “will to believe,” or did the Holy Spirit just muscle His way in to claim this lumpen territory for Christ?  The performance didn’t answer that question, but showed me what (or Who) mattered more.

The first chorus is a ringing proclamation: “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed.”  Each part takes turns asserting, “the mouth of the Lord has spoken it!”  If God makes a promise, we can take it to the bank.  Gross darkness covers the people, the bass informs us (to the accompaniment of low strings swirling like fog).  “But the Lord shall arise upon them.”  As his voice climbs the scale and the minor tone brightens, we hear the dawn.

The fulfillment of God’s promise is announced first to lowly shepherds.  The air fills with the rustling of wings as though the angels are too excited to hold still.  “Glory to God in the highest!” bursts out of the heavenly band, with “Good will!” tossed about in joyful benediction.  It’s too soon over (but listen as the last angel leaves the sky, in a quiver of violins).  Next, the babe has grown up and is walking among us, leading his flock in pastoral calm.  “Come unto him, all ye that labor . . .”

But Part II opens with “Behold the Lamb of God,” covered in blood.  The music itself, with its staggering intervals, lashing chords and jarring dissonances, lays on the stripes.  But why this sudden dance tune, incongruously lively?  “All we like sheep have gone astray”–can’t you hear it?  Giddy, foolish sheep, turning every one to his own way, dashing madly toward the devil’s pit, skidding faster and faster–until the basses drag the bleeding Messiah forward again: “And the Lord hath laid on him–” (“on Him! on Him!” every voice echoes in stunned amazement) “the iniquity of us all.”

Part III: The resurrection does not receive a grand choral anthem; instead the tenor assures us, almost matter-of-factly, that God “did not suffer [His] holy one to see corruption.”  Well, of course not!  The King of glory enters heaven to a tune both regal and merry, exhorting the very gates to “lift up your heads.”  What’s more, His people are destined to follow him there.  “The trumpet shall sound” (and so it does, in a stirring duet with the bass soloist) and we shall be changed into creatures worthy enough to shout, “Worthy is the lamb.”

The pounding chorus of “Blessing and honor” deals a joyful death-blow to the notion that heaven consists of sitting on clouds and strumming harps–to spend eternity singing such praises to such a Savior will be glory indeed!  The incredible “Amen” layers the voices of a multitude, of every tribe and nation, each in his own pitch and tone, woven into perfect harmony by Christ Himself.

At the end of that performance the choir was pumped, all excitedly congratulating each other and our sweating director.  (At the same time the orchestra was muttering that Dr. Gunther didn’t know how to direct, and the alto soloist resented some of the looks he had given her.)  I just sat there on the risers for a while, an emotional wreck.  No wonder; I’d been given a surround-sound refresher course in the gospel, plus a glimpse of heaven.

The coming of faith is when God inhabits time–the music, the images, the controversies and the daily grind–and makes it glow.  He was there, and my belief was neither act of will nor involuntary takeover.  It was Him, and it will always be Him, forever and ever.

Amen.

The End that’s Not the End

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace to you!”  But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.  Luke 23:36-37

Those two guys on the way to Emmaus—we never found out why they were going there.  But we know they didn’t stay.  “And they arose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem.”  They left Jerusalem in gloom; they return to a buzz of excitement:  “The Lord has risen indeed, and he’s appeared to Simon!”  Everybody’s talking: explaining, expositing, theorizing, speculating, repeating themselves over and over like TV pundits after big breaking news: Unbelievable!

Then Jesus shows up, and it really is.

Luke is sometimes unintentionally humorous—or it just may be that he writes this piece of the story with a smile.  Here they are, babbling on about the Lord’s appearances, and when he actually appears, they think he’s a ghost!  Or a “spirit”—something profoundly uncanny.  What were they expecting?

He probably looks different—perhaps something a little beyond human—but whatever the appearance, there’s enough of Jesus to recognize, yet something more to fear.  Not a tame lion, as we’ve heard tell of another character in Christian lore.  This is not the man they knew, who tramped the hills with them and broke bread with them and talked with them for hours on end.  It’s not (quite) the man who suffered and sighed and bled and died.

And yet it is that man—times infinity.

They couldn’t believe because they had never seen anything like this before.  No one had.  This was entirely new.

And yet . . . in a way it wasn’t.  That seed, planted in the virgin about 33 years ago, that microscopic marriage with a human egg—this unimaginable union of God and man they see before them–started back then.  But no—

Those interminable genealogies, those tedious “begats,” casting the bloodline back through the centuries: from Joseph to Heli to Matthal to Levi to Melchi and so on, all the way back to Adam.  It must have started then.  But no—

Remember when Got bent down and breathed life into a mound of clay, “and man became a living being.”  Surely it started then.  But . . .

Even farther back, Spirit broods over potential; a word trembles on the brink.  The Word.  Time and place have yet to be; all is joy and bliss and glory, filling the infinite.  The Glory has something in mind, and even though there’s no word for it now we’ll call it all things: each particular, various, after-its-own kind animal, vegetable, and mineral.  In His mind, they are made of particles so tiny that learned men in the far future, with all their subtle instruments, will not be able to track them.  But somewhere in the mind of the Maker, he draws a line at the frontier where the universe will begin.

With a “Let there be,” the future Son of Man crosses that line and brings forth all things.

touch-and-see

“Touch my hands and feet; it is myself.  Touch me and see.  For a spirit—as you understand spirit—does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

And flesh and bones—as we’ve always experienced it—doesn’t live forever.  But this flesh and bones will.

We have to go back in order to go forward  So he takes them back, maybe as far back as “man became a living being.”  Then forward through the Law and Psalms and Prophets, and they begin to see that in him, all things hold together.*

Soon, Spirit will cross another line.  Luke ends his story with a ragtag group of followers returning to Jerusalem, to be “clothed with power from on high.”  With wind and fire the Spirit will rush upon them, as upon Samson and Saul in the old days, not to work God’s will through them but to be God’s will in them.  But that’s getting ahead of the story—which, we see now, doesn’t really end.

The Father speaks, and light appears;

light

the Son enters a human egg and incarnation happens;

fetus

the Holy Spirit pierces a wall of flesh, and indwelling begins.

spirit-descends

He loves a good story, they say. By crossing that line at the birth of time, he began the greatest one of all.  And it goes on . . .

*Col. 1:17

______________________________________________

For the original post in this series, go here.

<Previous

Emmaus

That very day, two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.  Luke 24:13-14

 

What a walk that was, Cleopas—emmaus

A long way to haul a heavy heart

With bread for the journey and the bitter herbs

of recollection.  And it showed,

for that was his first remark: Why so sad?

Well, there’s some relief in telling what you know—

enlightening the ignorant, right?—and so

remember our surprise when he enlightened

us.

 

Such teaching!  Such pulsing, winged words

that beat upon our hearts and made them burn;

that joined the rough parts in smooth-sanded turn.

Miles unrolled like a scroll beneath our feet, until

our destination leapt out of the twilight.  Yet

we could not give him up.  Remember?

How he became our host; took bread and

broke:

 

And we saw it all–

 

Prophets, priests, kings; the law, the Lord;

the blood of all sacrifice, ceaselessly poured

into one body.              Taken, broken;

the satisfied sentence, once for all spoken.

We looked and we saw—then, swift as a dart

he vanished from sight and entered our hearts.

What a walk, Cleopas, and at its end,

with bread for the journey, we’d yet to begin.

 

For the original post in this series, go here.

<Previous

Nextemmaus>