Saturday, April 30, 2016

Those Brontë sisters

 Those Brontë sisters 

Not too long ago, I wrote about my friend Gaspar Stephens’ crabbed relationship with the church. (See here.) To summarize: Gaspar’s main difficulty is that he loves the sinner but hates the righteous.
     Having spent my evenings the last three weeks with the Brontë sisters, I can see why.

There are gaping holes in my sentimental education. Until this month, I had not read any of the sisters. But now I’ve read all three: the fast-paced if purple Tenant of Wildfell Hall; the dark, psychologically constipated Wuthering Heights; and the patchworked Jane Eyre.
No. 39
     One patch of the last has to do with the title character’s righteous cousin St. John Rivers’ righteous wish – or requirement – that Jane accompany him as his wife onto the mission field of India. St. John explains, if he doesn’t epitomize, why Gaspar reprehends the righteous – I’m afraid I believe - rightly.

St. John’s great ambition is to become one of God’s great servants. He presses Jane to join him in that ambition. In the beginning, before she knows what role he has written for her, she accedes to learning “Hindostanee” – because he asks her to and he is “not a man to be lightly refused,” who takes nothing lightly. “You felt that every impression made on him, either for pain or pleasure, was deep-graved and permanent,” she tells the reader.
     As her language “master,” Jane finds St. John patient; but even more he is exacting. And what he exacts finally is “a certain influence” over his pupil “that took away my liberty of mind,” so that Jane can “no longer talk or laugh freely when he [is] by,” because that is not what he expects of her. To please him, she finds, she will be required to “disown half my nature, wrest my tastes from their original bent, [and] force myself to the adoption of pursuits for which I had no natural vocation.”

There has been throughout the novel a conflict between custom and nature; in this case it is between St. John’s religion and Jane’s human desires. It is a conflict that Jane has often reflected on; it is one in which St. John has no interest whatever.
     Here is what he is interested in – and all he is interested in, his going to India to serve his “infallible Master; I am not going out under human guidance,” he tells Jane, “subject to the defective laws and erring control of my feeble fellow-worms; my king, my lawgiver, my captain is the All-perfect.”

St. John presses Jane to say she will come with him; but she will not say it. He asks her what her heart says, believing, whatever her tongue will not express, it must approve his plan; she answers that her heart, too, is “mute.” Then, he counters, he must speak for it – her heart; it says she must come.
     Jane continues to resist: she is “no apostle,” she says. And she asks for mercy, but he cannot grant it. Instead, St. John heaps up arguments why Jane should do what it is clear to him she will do. (His clarity is the clarity of the wholly unimaginative. He cannot begin to put himself in her place.) He grants that she is no apostle: She is right to be humble; but that is no excuse not to join in his work. Does she wish to fall into the sin of Demas, who forsook the Apostle, because he loved too much “this present world”?
     Perhaps Jane does love the world to much – or she loves life too much, because she knows that going with St. John will kill her. (She rightly describes his “persuasion” – advancing “with slow, sure step” – as an “iron shroud,” contracting round her.)
     Still, he requires her, a helpmeet “fitted to my purpose . . . fitted to my vocation.”

Be clear: St. John doesn’t love Jane; he doesn’t desire her. He has a purpose for her, his vocation. Listen: and you can hear in my purpose, my vocation a clear echo of my king, my law-giver, my captain. All belong to St. John. At least, he has no sense that his will for Jane can differ from God’s will for her.
     He is going to Cambridge the next day to say good-bye to friends; he’ll be gone two weeks. She must “take that space of time to [continue to] consider my offer,” not forgetting that “if you reject it, it is not me you deny, but God.” And “Here we are,” my marginal note reads: “Here we are, ever and again, among those men that are certain their wills are God’s will.”
     Jane feels, when her cousin is done preaching at – and threatening her, “an iron silence,” and in that silence she feels as well “the disappointment of an austere and despotic nature, which has met resistance where it expected submission; the disapprobation of a cool, inflexible judgment, which has detected in another feelings and views in which it has no power to sympathize.” And is this how God wills, austerely, despotically, coolly, inflexibly – relentlessly, without mercy. And “resolved on a conquest”?
          The silence cannot continue. That same night at “the [family] prayer following chapter” – Jane is living at this time with St. John’s sisters - St. John summons all his energy and “stern zeal,” and in deep earnest he wrestles aloud, “resolved,” it is clear to her, on a conquest.” The clear reference to Jacob’s nighttime wrestling with the Angel suggests that St. John is also wrestling with God. But it is not God St. John needs to wrestle with.
          These great men of the faith, they don’t. They do not need to say, “Not my will but thy will,” for how could God’s will differ from theirs. If they wrestle with God in prayer (for we have heard them do so), it is only rhetorically, for practically they have already defeated him. He has been brought onto their side long since; he can be on no others’. These great men of faith have left to conquer only those of us, hell-bent stragglers that love the world too much that don’t understand that the battle with God has already been won.
04.30.16

Monday, April 25, 2016

"Bible Week" winds down.

 “Bible Week” at The Ambiguities 

Monday’s child is fair of face. Ezekiel 1 – hold the mushrooms.
Psilocybe semilanceata


     In the thirtieth year, the fourth month, the fifth day, I was
     among the exiles by the Chebar canal.

04.25.16

Sunday, April 24, 2016

"Bible Week" continues - just two more days.

 “Bible Week” at The Ambiguities 

But the child that is born on the Sabbath day
Is bonny and blithe, and good and gay.       - “Then to the Gentiles . . . ?”

When the apostles and their followers who were in Judea heard that some Gentiles had received the word of God, from Peter, it was said, they wondered. So when he came back to Jerusalem, they asked him to meet with them. “How is it,” they said, “you went to Gentiles? And you also ate with them?”
     Peter’s explanation: “I was in Joppa, where Jonah sailed from to escape warning the Ninevites that they should repent. I was praying. And I fell into a trance, and this is what I saw:
shrimp cocktail
     “Something like a great blanket, coming down from the skies, held by each of its corners; and it was spread out before me: a picnic – Scots rabbit curry, pickled pigs’ feet, shrimp with cocktail sauce, lobster bisque, crawfish gumbo, gator-tail steaks, three different turtle soups, frogs’ legs, Aaron Sanchez’s grasshopper bacon bits, BLTs, Dagwood-piled-high ham and Swiss on rye. And more.”
     “And I heard a voice: ‘Peter, wake up and eat.’ But I said, ‘No,” because I had never eaten anything unclean.
     “The voice said again, ‘These are gifts of God – eat.’
     “Three times the voice said, ‘Eat.’ And three times I denied it. Then the picnic returned to heaven.
     “But at that very moment three men arrived at the house where I was staying in Joppa, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, “making no distinction,” It said. And I went, because this was the fourth command I had heard.
     “Six of us went, and we came to the house of the man that had sent for us. He told us how he had seen an angel in his house and how it had said, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon called Peter; and he will bring you a message by which you will be saved, you and your entire family.’
     “As I was thinking about my message, the Spirit suddenly fell on them just as it fell on us at the beginning, just as the Lord said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Spirit.’ So, that’s the way it was. I saw it. God gave these people the same gift God gave us when we believed. Who was I to stand in the way?”
     “Who was I?” suggested “Who are you?” The apostles of Judea had nothing to say to that, except, “Then to the Gentiles God has also granted repentance unto life?”

04.24.16

Saturday, April 23, 2016

"Bible Week" - the evening of that day

 “Bible Week” at The Ambiguities 

Saturday's child works hard for its living. Why shouldn’t Thomas doubt? (John 20:19ff.)

I read and re-read and re-read this story of “doubting Thomas,” because I can’t get over my sense that whoever gave him the name and however many have carried it on have done the man wrong. Isn’t Thomas the only one of the disciples, that when Jesus says they are going back into Judea (chapter 11) – isn’t he the only one that says, “Yes. Let’s go!”? The others quail before the prospect; they peep at Jesus, “You don’t want to go there. Weren’t they just going to stone you? And what if a stone should hit one of us?”
The ten. Night vision photograph.
     Now these others are gathered behind closed doors “for fear of the Jews.” Only Thomas, we read: “Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them . . . ,” meaning he is out and about! He is the only disciple not locked in, peeing his pants. I have to wonder why Jesus appears to the others and not to him. 
     Thomas must wonder the same thing; for when his ten spineless colleagues play gotcha, singing: “We have seen the Lord! We have seen the Lord,” meaning you haven’t - nanny-nanny-boo-boo, he lashes out at them that he’s going to more than see their Lord before he believes.And why should he believe what they say? Tell me if you know.

04.23.16

Friday, April 22, 2016

"Bible Week" - day 3

 “Bible Week” at The Ambiguities 

Friday’s child is loving and giving. Another story of Daniel.

After Daniel had dispatched Bel and his priests,# the Babylonians took up worshiping a great dragon.

And the king said to Daniel: “Now this is not brass; it is alive. It eats and it drinks – we have seen it. So, you can’t say it is no living god. Come and worship with me.”
     Daniel refused. “There is only one true and living God. This thing may be living, but it is no God. Tell you what: I can kill this dragon without a sword or a spear. The king said, “You can try.”
     Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and he mixed them together, he boiled them together; then he made lumps like loaves of bread of them. And the dragon (more fool he) ate them. And his stomach swelled up until it could swell up no more; then it burst. The dragon himself exploded. This happened in the presence of the king and many of the people.
      And Daniel looked at the king and said, “This was your God? You worshiped this?” The king answered, “I did, more fool I.” And he put himself under Daniel’s religious instruction.

This did not sit well with the Babylonian people: “The king is becoming a Jew,” they said. “First he has Bel destroyed; and now he has slain the dragon; and he has executed the priests of both,” because he had done that, too. So they came to the king, and said, “We’re sick of you, but we don’t blame you. It’s that damn Daniel. If you turn him over to us, we won’t destroy you and your house.
     So, the king did. He may have thought, “Let’s see what Daniel’s god can do – practically,” because all he had so far was Daniel’s word on that. But he may not have thought that at all. He was a king, and like most kings, he wanted to remain one. In short, he turned Daniel over to the people,
     Who – you know the story – threw him into the lions' den . . . and left him there six days. Six days with seven lions.
     Now normally, the seven lions were given every day two sheep and two human bodies. But these six days they were given nothing but Daniel.

Far away in Judea lived the prophet Habakkuk, who made his living as a cook and had just baked some bread and made a stew to take it to some workers in the field. But the angel of the Lord interrupted him. He said to Habakkuk, “You need to take this dinner to Daniel, who is in the lions’ den in Babylon.
     Habakkuk said, “I’ve heard of Babylon, but I have no idea to get there, and surely the food would spoil before I did.” The angel said, “Well, then, let me show you.” (There was spite in the angel’s voice, if that can be.) Then, he grabbed Habakkuk by the hair and flew him, barely hanging on to the bread and the stew, and in an instant dropped him down beside the lion’s den.
     His eyes watering, Habakkuk cried out to Daniel, “Please take this; it’s bread I baked and stew I simmered. Please!”
     Daniel hardly saw the other prophet, because he was always looking to the heavens, and now he said, “Thou hast remembered me, O God: neither hast thou forsaken this one that seeks and loves thee.”

This happened the first day, and there was enough stew for all the days Daniel was there, both for Daniel and for the lions. And the angel of the Lord took Habakkuk by the hair and dropped him home again, then left, leaving him to explain to the workers in the field why they had nothing to eat that night.
     On the seventh day, the king went to mourn Daniel, but when he came to the lion’s den and looked in, Daniel was alive among the lions, all sleeping the sleep of the just and well-fed.
     But Daniel woke up, when he heard the king crying out in a loud voice, “Great art thou, the Lord God of Daniel, and there is none other beside thee.” And the king had two of his servants bring Daniel out, while the lions continued to sleep.
     Then he had 42 of his servants march into the den the leaders of the people that had called for Daniel’s scalp. That woke the lions up.
­­_______________
 # See here.
 * TPFKAD (the prophet formerly known as Daniel)
 
04.22.16

"Bible Week" continues.

 “Bible Week” at The Ambiguities 

Thursday’s child has far to go. A story of Daniel, who will later be thrown into the lion’s den.

This is about Daniel when he was a servant of Cyrus of Persia and a favorite of the king. And it’s about a voracious Babylonian god, called Bel, who ate enormous quantities of food, who drank enormous quantities of wine, and who managed to die before he’d lived. It happened this way.
Bel the Great, after supper, feelin' good.*
     The king worshiped the great Bel; he went to see it every day; but Daniel never went with him. The king wondered why, and Daniel said it was because he didn’t worship idols, created by human hands but the God of all that created hands, bodies, brains, the heavens and the earth, God of all because he created all things – the living God.
     Then the king said, “Do you think Bel is not a living God? Don’t you see how much he eats and drinks every day?”
          “He doesn’t eat or drink anything,” Daniel said. “Ask his priests.”

So the king sent for the priests and told them what Daniel had said that Bel was eating or drinking nothing. If so, where was it going?
     The priests asserted that Daniel was a blasphemer, if Bel wasn’t eating and drinking all that was brought to him, Daniel should die. And the king agreed. “Only,” he said, “if Daniel is somehow right, you die.”

The king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel, and Bel’s priests went with them – there were 70 priests and all had families, and the families came into the temple, too. And the chief priest said to the king, “Here is the meat and the bread and the wine for Bel. We’ll leave it hear with him; we’ll go out; you can seal the door and mark the seal with your signet. Come back tomorrow, and see what you see.”
     And so it went, and they went out, first the priests, then the king and Daniel. But the king and Daniel did not go out before Daniel had spread a fine coating of ashes on the floor around Bel and his feast. But when all were out and the door was shut, the door was sealed with the king’s signet.

Night came, and the priests with their wives and their children entered the temple through a trap door, and they ate and they drank as they always did. While Bel looked on, they ate till they were full and more than full. Then they went out the way they had come in.
     And morning came, and the king came to the temple with Daniel. And they saw that the seals had not been broken. The broke them, opened the door, and the king saw the table, empty except for plates and cups and bones and crumbs soaking up spilled wine.
     And the king said, “See.” And Daniel laughed. “Yes, see,” he said. “Look at the floor.” And there the king saw the smear of foot-prints and buttocks-prints all around Bel’s table. These led Daniel to the trap door, which he opened for the king.

What happened next to the priests of Bel and their wives and their children, what happened to Bel and his temple, is it not written in the annals of Cyrus of Persia, kept by his servant Daniel?
_______________
* artist's misrendering

04.21.16

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

"Bible Week"

 “Bible Week” at The Ambiguities 

Wednesday’s child is full of woe. Three stories from 2 Maccabees.

It happened when Antiochus was retreating from Persia. (He had made the mistake of trying to take Persepolis, rob the temples, and rule the city.) He had come to Ecbatana, where he heard about the defeat of Nicanor and Timothy by the Jews. And he was (in what has become common parlance) pissed. And he decided he’d take out on the Jews the shame the Persepolites had put on him. So he ordered his charioteer to drive on, no stops until they got to Jerusalem, which, he said, he was going to make “a cemetery of Jews.”
     But the God of Israel, who sees all and hears all, saw Antiochus and heard what he said, and he struck him “an incurable and unseen [and obscene] blow.” As soon as the words were out of his mouth, Anti was “seized with a pain in his bowels,” for which there was no relief and no let up. It was torture. “And that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions.”

It was a different Antiochus, the son of Antiochus, that the wicked Menelaus, who kept hoping to be chief priest, “with utter hypocrisy” goaded on against his own people. But God, “the King of kings,” got into that, too, arousing “the anger of Antiochus against the scoundrel,” based on information Lysias had. So Antiochus ordered them to take him to Beroea “and to put him to death by the method which [was] the custom in that place.”
     So they did. And the method was this. There was a tower in Beroea, “fifty cubits high” (or about 75 feet)* “full of ashes, and it [had] a rim running around it which on all sides [inclined] precipitously into the ashes,” like a funnel. And they punished men “guilty of sacrilege or notorious for other crimes” over the edge. Naturally, they died, smothered in the ashes, and they were left there; they were not buried in the earth.
     And that was the fate of “Menelaus the lawbreaker” finally, and it was “eminently just, because he had committed many sins against the altar whose fire and ashes were holy.” So he “met his death in ashes.”

The same Nicanor that served the first Antiochus served the second. His long and inglorious career ended this way.
J. M.
     He came after the Jews with a ton of stuff, though his “abominable design” to attack them on the Sabbath failed. Still, a ton of stuff, and Judas Maccabeus saw that, that Nicanor had ranks and ranks of soldiers and a “varied supply of arms” and elephants. So Judas prayed to “God the righteous judge,” saying, “O Lord, thou didst send thy angel in the time of Hezekiah king of Judea, and he slew fully a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of Sennacherib. By the might of thine arm may these blasphemers who come against thy holy people be struck down.” By “struck down,” he meant annihilated.
     Nicanor must not have heard Maccabeus prayer, for “his men advanced with trumpets and battle songs, but “Judas and his men met the enemy in battle with invocation to God” and more prayers. And, of course, they prevailed, though they killed only thirty-five thousand men not one-hundred and eighty-five thousand. Still, they “were greatly gladdened by God's manifestation,” and when the action was over they turned toward home “with joy.”
     But on the way, they saw Nicanor. He was in full armor but dead. And interrupting, the army’s “shouting and tumult,” their blessing “the Sovereign Lord in the language of their fathers,” Judas, “the man who was ever in body and soul the defender of his fellow citizens, the man who maintained his youthful good will toward his countrymen, ordered them to cut off Nicanor's head and arm” so they could take them with them back to Jerusalem.
     And when they got there, he called everyone together, including the priests at the altar and those that were in the citadel. And he showed them “the vile Nicanor's head and that profane man's arm, which had been boastfully stretched out against the holy house of the Almighty.” Then, holding up the head, he cut out the “ungodly” Nicanor’s tongue, saying that he was going to feed it to the birds. And he was going to hang his head and arm, “these rewards of [the ungodly man’s] folly” opposite the sanctuary. And all looked to heaven and blessed the Lord “who had manifested himself” in the battle. And Judas did hang Nicanor’s head from the citadel, as “a clear and conspicuous sign” of the Lord’s help.
     This was the thirteenth day of the Adar, and it was by decree “by public vote never to let [the] day go unobserved, but to celebrate it as Nicanor’s day. And so it was.

Here endeth the lesson.

04.20.16


_______________
Quotes are from the Revised Standard Version.
 
 * This is really cool. (It may be found here.)

Monday, April 18, 2016

6.06

 6.06 

Writing, Philip Roth is right, is always a lie. It puts in order what has none; or it changes the order of things that said they wanted to be in a row. It fills in gaps that we once fell through, so that we can come through to an imagined end, when for us there is no end but death or paralysis, which comes abruptly.

Six years and seven days ago, Maureen Mastick, from whom Roz bought our house, died. It was a Monday, like today. End of story, except for the ragged arrangements made for her burial that Wednesday. The purpose of burial services, besides consolation, is to tie up loose ends. But Maureen's loose ends were Maureen's, no one else's. And she was dead and gone; she was absent from the dénouement, from the French for "untie," so originally the untying of a plot, not the tying up of loose ends.

On the day between her death and her burial, a train running blithely along the track from Mals to Merano crashed between Latsch and Kastelbell-Tchars when it ran into a landslide, the mud falling at the moment the train was passing. Nine people were killed; the stories they were telling themselves – constantly doubling back to tuck in a stray line or snip a loose end – went black like a movie theater in a power outage. Even the exit signs may fail. A child whimpers, a man curses, the lovers in the corner of the balcony freeze just as he was about to        her

04.12.10 & 04.18.16

Monday, April 11, 2016

Fore

Four from Uncle Albert:

          ¤ No matter how hard we all try, not everyone can be a victim.
          ¤ When we are alone, we crave company as if the meal that made us ill might cure us.
          ¤ Run away from those determined to be their best, truest selves. You have embarrassments 
            enough of your own without joining in others'.
          ¤ In time of plenty, the prophets threaten want; in time of want they threaten plenty. 

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Another parable

If Gaspar Stephens continues to poke at me, especially about matters of religion, that's a good thing, I think. But if I become provoked and write as I did to him recently that I find myself reading Scripture more and more as parable, is that (a good thing)?
    Consider the story from The Ambiguities of April 6th , "Phineas the Impaler." How could it be a parable? What lesson would it teach - that is, if parables are lessons!

               A man came to The Teacher. "I have heard that you say that we should never kill, or 
          even become angry with others, lest we judged. Can the past ever pass away?" The man 
          said this not because he was anxious about his past but because feared the future.
               The Teacher said: "The kingdom of God was once compared to a man who brought 
          a foreign woman to his tent. And a priest, when he saw it, went and fetched his spear; 
          and he followed them, and when he had found them, the man on top of the woman, 
          he ran the spear through both of them, the man's back and the woman's belly, and 
          into the bloody ground.
               "Who has ears, let him hear."

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Carping about the day

 Carping at the day                                                                           

After three days sick to death, I’ve forgotten how to get out of bed. Instead, I daydream, fantasize, listen to the radio, read; I belch, fart, drink the coffee the dog brought me, and consider not remembering – the Proust fantasy without all the friends dropping by: I have no desire to “receive”; I am completely happy with my imaginary playmates. But, I’ve promised to get to work at least by this afternoon.
     Eventually my bowels will force me out. Then, the day – as distinct from the night before – will begin. “One at a time!”

Uncle Albert thinks that, “one day at a time,” is a selfish philosophy. He may be right; it’s certainly not an expansive one.
          Or, it is. This day will come and go like many others in a jagged series of small, restless movements, stuttering like a wind-up clock, quivering like a rabbit, looking back over its shoulder at Easter, and ahead as far as it can sniff, then lurching off sideways in a hop borrowed from the Ministry of Silly Walks.

04.07.16

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

By the Numbers

 By the Numbers                                            

It’s a job he relishes. Crying “peace” but waging battle, Gaspar Stephens makes me aware again and again of the hypocrisy of the church, an institution he both disdains and holds in very high regard or, at least, to a very high standard.
          I didn’t remember this story – I don’t think I ever knew this story – until I joined a group of like-minded church fools reading, for reasons none could explain, 1 and 2 Maccabees. There the furiously angry Mattathias* is likened to Phinehas, with whom God made “the everlasting covenant of priesthood,” from which Mattathias – and his sons – descended. But with Phinehas also God made an everlasting covenant of peace.

Here it is, then, Phinehas’ story, from the TRV.


04.06.16

For links to other TRV stories, click here.
_______________
* On Mattathias’ anger, no his fury! see 1 Mac 2:23-26 and 2:42-48, where after swearing neither he nor his sons would be turned aside to anything other than the way they should go, when a “a Jew came forward . . . to offer sacrifice upon the altar in Modein, according to the king’s command,” Mattathias “gave vent to righteous anger” and ran to kill him upon the altar, which he then tore down – dammit! – because “he burned with zeal for the law, as Phinehas did “against Zimri the son of Salu.” After this, Mattathias and the sons flee into the wilderness, where they decide the laws of the Sabbath can be violated, so they can go to war on the Sabbath day; and they organize an army to strike “down sinners in their anger and lawless men in their wrath,” to tear down Gentile altars, and to forcibly circumcise all the uncircumcised boys that they find within the borders of Israel. It must be so, because you can “never let the sinner gain the upper hand,” lest he become filled with arrogance. “It is a time of ruin and furious anger,” Mattathias says, again and again.