Les Murray- Church

Church

i. m. Joseph Brodsky

The wish to be right
has decamped in large numbers
but some come to God
in hopes of being wrong.

High on the end wall hangs
the Gospel, from before he was books.
All judging ends in his fix,
all, including his own.

He rose out of Jewish,
not English evolution
and he said the lamp he held
aloft to all nations was Jewish.

Freedom still eats freedom,
justice eats justice, love —
even love. One retarded man said
church makes me want to be naughty,

but naked in a muddy trench
with many thousands, someone's saying
the true god gives his flesh and blood.
Idols demand yours off you.

Les Murray- The last Hellos

The Last Hellos

Don't die, Dad--
but they die.

This last year he was wandery:
took off a new chainsaw blade
and cobbled a spare from bits.
Perhaps if I lay down
my head'll come better again.
His left shoulder kept rising
higher in his cardigan.

He could see death in a face.
Family used to call him in
to look at sick ones and say.
At his own time, he was told.

The knob found in his head
was duck-egg size. Never hurt.
Two to six months Cecil.

I'll be right, he boomed
to his poor sister on the phone
I'll do that when I finish dyin.



Don't die, Cecil.
But they do.

Going for last drives
in the bush, odd massive

board-slotted stumps bony white
in whipstick second growth.
I could chop all day.

I could always cash
a cheque, in Sydney or anywhere.
Any of the shops.

Eating, still at the head
of the table, he now missed
food on his knife side.

Sorry, Dad, but like
have you forgiven your enemies?
Your father and all them?
All his lifetime of hurt.

I must have,(grin). I don't
think about that now.



People can't say goodbye
any more. They say last hellos.

Going fast, over Christmas,
he'd still stumble out
of his room, where his photos
hang over the other furniture,
and play host to his mourners.

The courage of his bluster,
firm big voice of his confusion.

Two last days in the hospital:
his long forearms were still
red mahogany. His hands
gripped steel frame. I'm dyin.

On the second day:
You're bustin to talk
but I'm too busy dyin.


Grief ended when he died,
the widower like soldiers who
won't live life their mates had missed.

Good boy Cecil! No more Bluey dog.
No more cowtime. No more stories.
We're still using your imagination,
it was stronger than all ours.

Your grave's got littler
somehow in the three months.
More pointy as the clay's shrivelled,
like a stuck zip in a coat.

Your cricket boots are in
the State museum! Odd letters
still come. Two more's died since you:
Annie and Stewart. Old Stewart.

On your day there was a good crowd,
family, and people from away.
But of course a lot had gone
to their own funerals first.

Snobs mind us off religion
nowadays, if they can.
Fuck them. I wish you God.

N.T Wright on trajectories in Scripture

At a conference I attended recently, the speaker claimed that Tom Wright, in his book 'The Last Word' made an argument that we can take the trajectory of scripture and go further than scripture. This was said in the context of arguments about women in ministry leading to the approval of practicing homosexuals in ministry. The speaker was so shocked that Jim Packer (obviously a white hat)would recommend the book that he concluded that Jim 'must not have read it. Now, the speakers claim didn't sound quite right. But I didn't have the book in front of me, so I wasn't sure. So here is Tom, on page 125 "The New Testament is the foundation charter of the fifth act. No change of act in God's drama with the world (despite manifold changes in human culture) has occured between the time of the apostles and evangelists and our own.....We recognize ourselves as the direct successors of the churches of Corinth, Ephesus and the rest, and we need to pay attention to what was said to them as though it was said to us. We cannot relativize the epistles by pointing out the length of time that has passed between them and us, or by suggesting any intervening seismic cultural shifts which would render them irrelevent or even misleading. It is an essential part of authentic Christian discipleship both to see the New Testament as the foundation for the ongoing (and still open ended) fifth act (the church)and to recognizze that it cannot be supplanted or supplememted" I haven't re-read the whole book. But i can't find the kind of 'trajectory' argument the speaker accused Tom of. I can only assume the speaker did not read the book. N.B Another claim was made about Tom that he would not publically say that homosexual practice was against the teaching of scripture. Here are some public words from a public interview in a public paper "Can a Christian morality rooted in scripture approve of homosexuality? The word "homosexuality" is an abstract noun. What in the Anglican Church we've tried to do is restrict the debate to the practice of homosexual relations. Of course, many people claim to be "rooted" in scripture in a variety of ways. But if a church is actually determined to be faithful to scripture, then not only at that point but at several others -- for instance, some of our economic practices -- we would need to take a long, hard look and say, maybe we're getting this wrong. So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct? Correct. That is consonant with what I've said and written elsewhere. The speakers obviously have some political issues with Tom Wright. They feel (and indeed expressed this) that his personal desire for influence has led him to persecute a brother of theirs. And yet one wonders in both their other claims that their political differences with Tom have led them to misconstrue, mishear and mischaracterize him. In a conflicted situation, it is always, always dangerous to attribute motive. "Ahh, he says or does x simply because he is power hungry". We may disagree with people. We may disagree with the way they approach things. We may think we could do a better job. Nevertheless, we still need to listen carefully. (which is why, when I get the CD of the conference, I'll go back and check exactly the words of accusation against Tom)

2 Thesssalonians thoughts

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13-17, Paul reframes the early church as the restored people of God. Having been called by Paul's gospel, they are now loved by the Lord, chosen as a firstfruits of salvation (I'm going with NA27 on this one), sanctified by God's Spirit, and going to share in his glory. These are wonderful things to meditate upon in themselves, but there is something else going on here. All of these terms have been used to describe Israel and the Temple in the Old Testament. Israel is loved by the Lord, has been sanctified to him, and chosen to be delivered, (Deuteronomy 7:6-10) This is all due to God's faithfulness (2 Thess 3:3)for those who obey his commands. Which Paul reframes as obeys his (Paul's) commands (2 Thess 3:4). Interesting also in the Deuteronomy passage is that God will repay those who disobey him, a prominent theme of 2 Thess 1. Paul places his gospel on par with the commandments of God in marking out who will be accepted by God and who will be punished. It is through faith in the gospel of Jesus that the thessalonians have been marked out as the people of God. All this is in contrast to those who 'did not believe the truth, but delighted in wickedness'. I can only assume that 'the truth' in verse 12, is the same as 'the truth' in verse 13. That is, the gospel that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 17:3). Paul has already hinted at who these rejecters of truth might be in 1 Thess 2:14. Those of Judeea who reject their messiah, reject the messiah's people, hinder that message going to the gentiles and so pile up wrath for themselves. These are those who have both rebelled against their God 2:3 (and so will be repayed), and will rebel against the message of their Christ to pursue peace and to love their enemies, and so will rebel against Rome in AD66. Their rebellion will co-incide with the revelation of a man of lawlessness, who like the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28, like the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, like Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 11, will consider himself a God, above all Gods, will attack God's temple, but be destroyed in the process. As Paul writes, the current Emperor is Claudius, who has a fairly restrained policy towards christians. (He may have even protected them by kicking the jews out of Rome, but this is hard to tell). Nevertheless, he is, contemporary to Paul's writing, restraining his adopted Son, Nero, who turns out to be quite lawless. A murderer of all sorts of people, but particularly christians. Having taken his father Cladius out of the way, Nero become Ceaser and is gradually revelaed for who he is. When Judea revolts, Nero attacks. Yet Paul says that this man of lawlessness will be destroyed by the breath of Jesus' mouth and by the splendour of his parousia (2 Thess 2:8) Jesus had wept over Jerusalem, and her coming destruction. And yet he described this event as the coming of the Son of man in glory (Luke 21:27, and every other mention in Mark and Matthew. If you are concerned about the cosmic language about this event, go and look again at Isaiah 14 and the 'day of the Lord' destruction of Babylon by the Medes. Same language). This event is also connected with the gathering (or synagogui-ing) of the elect from all the nations, as is prophecied in Isaiah 43. Half way through the war on Jerusalem, Nero kills himself in suburban squalor. Jerusalem and the Temple are flattened in 70AD. From this point christians are no longer welcome in Jewish synagogues They are synagogued (gathered together) only around Jesus Christ. Paul takes the fundamental reality, that those who accept the gospel are the new people of God, and applies the prophets to that new situation, where the gospel people are opposed by both Rome and Jerusalem (sometimes together, and sometimes seperately), and predicts the destruction of both oppressors. He isn't talking about some far distant future end of the world, but events close to the Thessalonians.

whenever Jesus comes to us he always tends to bring his friends along with him as well

Just wanted to save this turn of phrase from Jason "whenever Jesus comes to us he always tends to bring his friends along with him as well"