8 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I’m not much for poetry, but I agree enthusiastically with your summary. Much of our conception of God and prophets is culturally constructed. For Israelites, God’s presence was something to be feared because of the vast potentially destructive power of an impure mortal being in the presence of the purest being and creator of all. This is why we get so many visions of God in the OT being accompanied by the fear of imminent death (and surprise when it doesn’t happen.) |
“He’s not a tame lion” (C.S. Lewis) These do seem to go a bit counter to the countrified hymns like “Yes, Lord, Yes” and “Our God is an awesome God.” And the god of these lines can never be contained within stories about bicycles or about a little boy getting meaningfully smashed by a train. |
I love Elder Maxwell’s constant reference to Sadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. I love the paradox of communion with God portrayed in the poem. It brings to mind images of refiner’s fires. Although I do find communion with God to often be therapeutic, I have only once or twice been able to identify with a “secure” experience. I’m taken back to Youth Conferences with Michael McClane live singing “You’re Not Alone”. I agree, our approach only tells us about ourselves. |
I suspect at the moment of death, especially an agonizing one or one after a life of anguish, we are one with God in a way that belies description. A guy I know said something yesterday about God answering prayers. He said more often than not, God doesn’t fix the problem, He touches his heart with comfort or helps him change his attitude. Sort of off the subject, but this discussion is above me anyway. |
Matt, where do you find these amazing poems? And when did the discipline of English literature lose you as a rising star? The speaker in that poem never goes back to his house, does he? After the repetition of the “My house at last at peace and quiet,” I expected some return–but there was none. |
Thanks, folks. Should have gotten back here earlier, but I’ve been trapped in New Jersey for a while. I think I agree, actually, with everybody – and the CS Lewis quote is one of the few of his that I really like. (I think Mormons inappropriately assimilate him and that our attempts to do so are destructive to our own distinctiveness.) Naomi – this one, actually, from a theology class. I also find the internet has increased my facility with poetry, which is the exact opposite of what everybody seems to believe will happen. Curious, that. (And, to answer your other question, in spring 2001, when I realized I don’t understand Lacan at all.) And you’re right; he never returns, but dies in God’s arms. Heaven, here, is not like home. That’s significant, I think. Anne – I think you consistently underestimate yourself. :) |
Matt B: There is also the eroticism in the poem, which can also be uncomfortable, in the same way some of us might, after having read the Song of Solomon once, tape it shut to never be read again. If we were Freudians, we would talk about the “eros and thanatos” in it, the two life forces from the ultimate Giver of life. I’ve long enjoyed this poem, along with Margaret’s citation of John Dunne’s “Batter My Heart, Three-Personed God, For Thee.” And what do both of you think of Hopkins, namely “Thou Art Indeed Just,” “Carrion Comfort,” “God’s Grandeur,” and above all “Pied Beauty”? The relationship with God is ambivalent, erotic (or is it ambivalently erotic?), rapturous, dangerous, and above all sad. Some lines rudely ripped from these, but better savored in full context: “Them; birds build–but not I build; no, but strain, Time’s eunuch, and not breed one work that wakes. Mine, O thou lord of life, send my roots rain.” “But ah, but O thou terrible, why wouldst thou rude on me Thy wring-world right foot rock? lay a lionlimb against me? … Of now done darkness I wretch lay wrestling with (my God!) my God.” “And for all this, nature is never spent; There lives the dearest freshness deep down things… Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.” “Glory be to God for dappled things… All things counter, original, spare, strange; Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?) With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim; He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise him.” I couldn’t tell sprung rhyme from my stopped watch, but I love how this comes of the tongue when you read it aloud. Matt, re: Lacan. I never saw a reason to read much of him. If what he says is right, then I can’t understand what he, or any other writer, is truly saying anyway. So why bother to read it in the first place? And if he’s wrong, why waste your time? And to those who claim he is better in the original French, I can say I have done so and from what I have read, that claim is as much nonsense as Lacan himself. It is not a compliment to say so, but it is true his prose is improved once translated into English. |
Heh. Jeff – My comments on Lacan should be read as a tongue in cheek description of my twenty-one year old self’s encounter with English 3900 at the University of Utah. The eroticism is, I think, profoundly interesting, and of course it’s common enough in medieval mysticism. We’re uncomfortable with that today, being the post-Victorians that we are, but medieval mystics were quite comfortable using erotic love as the closest analogue to the ecstasy of communion with God. This, of course, is why I find our eagerness to toss the Song of Solomon overboard more or less misguided. |