Musings

3 Poetic Responses to “Moving On”

by

What’s Left

 

We long

To stay strong.

But fall in a hole?

It’s a daily toll.

 

Our concerns

Have taken new turns

While we strive not to spurn

What’s new to learn.

 

Left to bereave

A need for reprieve

A time to rest

Without zest.

 

Seasons to us give

Reasons to live,

“No schema for grief”

A constant motif.

 

Lend deference

To remembrance.

The whole is changed

All, rearranged.

 

Every new dawn

Memory not gone

All planning thereafter,

Still looking Hereafter.

 

  • Mark Eckel, 26 August 2022, nine weeks after the death of my son, Tyler Micah

 

Care

 

Eye to eye

I did not lie

“Request in prayer?”

“That I would care,”

 

But, If I don’t

Does that mean you won’t

Value my condition

My honest admission?

 

Beliefs not changed

Though emotions ranged

From despair

To “I don’t care.”

 

Hard to be

How others see

A different me

Cork on the sea.

 

Storm tossed

Feel lost

A heavy cost

“Care” exhaust,

 

While I do my part

From the start

Do not expect,

When you inspect,

 

My soul.

I am not whole.

Tears fill my eyes

No surprise.

 

You may not see

Immediately

Cries collect –

I can deflect –

 

To another time,

More prime,

When I am alone

Emotion you can’t condone

 

If I say

What is true today

“Trying to care”

Think not, “he need repair.”

 

After that, I will not share.

I hope the same fare

You will not bear

But if…I will meet you there.

 

Moving on

 

An awful phrase

This, no phase

I don’t pretend

I’ve reached an end.

 

Can’t move

No groove

You want exposure?

The myth is “closure.”

 

My words profane

Some say “Refrain!”

Can’t be suppressed,

Stuff your protest.

 

Could care less

If you’re compassionless

Could not care in the least,

As I battle the beast.

 

My wound may scar

On memory a mar

I will carry it far

Unlike golf, there is no par.

 

My tattoo is not for you

My ink is not what you think.

No parlor you want to enter

See me, your welted mentor.*

 

*The poetry reflects a response to some who want those in grief to “get on with life.” The truth is, there is no timetable for grief. And it is important to say that no one fully understands another’s pain. Solomon’s wisdom prevails, “The heart knows its own bitterness and no stranger shares its joy” (Proverbs 14:10 ESV) and Paul’s solution is best, “Weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15).

3 Honest Poetic Responses to Suffering

by

The featured image is a book that Robin and I have read and highly recommend it to all. But honestly, I have been writing my way through grief because of Tyler’s death. What you find below are three of the poems I have written in the past couple of weeks. If you would like to follow the fullness of my writing do follow me on Facebook. You can find much more there.

Obligation

I do what I must

Touch of dust.

I reach, wanting return,

Into an empty cistern.

 

Dry well

Spiders swell.

Woven webs

Desire ebbs.

 

My core

Is no more.

Joy replaced

Tears on my face.

 

Work a drudge

Flow of sludge.

Obligation

My only motivation.

 

A smile will meet you

When I greet you.

It is a placeholder

For pain I shoulder.

 

For those who suffer

Give a buffer.

Grant space

And a little grace.

 

Set expectations aside

Stand by my side,

In silence

Quiet alliance.

 

Don’t ask, don’t tell

Your words, quell.

Let me be

But be with me.

 

  • Mark Eckel, 11 August 2022, seven weeks after the death of my son, Tyler Micah

 

Mandate

Edvard Munch

Art punch

Blood red sky

Silent the cry.

 

Solace

In silence

Sought;

But naught.

 

Early morning

No warning

Darkness descends

Starkness upends.

 

Bursts of interest,

Momentary.

Searches for rest,

Arbitrary.

 

Human

My acumen;

Unable

To label.

 

Real, not fake

For his sake

I continue

Seeking sinew.

 

Czeslaw Milosz

No gauche

The dead in living trust

So, living, speak, I must.*

 

*Czeslaw Milosz’s 1980 Nobel acceptance speech contains the truth, “Those who are alive receive a mandate from those who are silent forever.” Edvard Munch’s “Silent Scream” is an apt artistic depiction for all who have no words in their agony.

 

Loathing

Every step

A rep,

I, robot,

Caring, not.

 

Wishing passport

Chasing deport.

Every effort

To abort.

 

Caring gone

Seeking brawn

To carry on.

I, withdrawn.

 

What does it matter

If I scatter

To the wind,

My efforts thinned?

 

I’m lazy

Thoughts hazy,

Energy drained

Worship feigned.

 

Make no mistake,

I continue to ache,

Roiling tide,

Not soon to subside.

 

Having read,

Stay with my dread,

Keep up with me

Need of company.

 

Not as you suppose

With much prose.

Words abate,

Stay by the gate.

 

Soon, I hope,

To grab the rope,

To stay my fall

From this pall.

 

For me pray,

Do not say

You understand

Just with me, stand.

 

  • Mark Eckel, 31 August 2022, ten weeks after the death of my son, Tyler Micah

Death of a Child: A Parent’s Poetic Response

by
Inertia
Impetus?
Stimulus?
Got none
Gone, my son.
Reach deep
Can’t sleep
Wish I could
Know I should.
Easier said
Outta bed
Lookin’ high-low
Nothin’ to show.
Read? No.
Write? No.
Teach? Gotta.
Plan? Nodda.
Old desires
On the pyres.
All my files
Still in piles.
Grief?
Still chief.
The calendar?
A colander.
In a hole
No roll.
Wondering when
Tell you then.
Obligation
I do what I must
Touch of dust.
I reach, wanting return,
Into an empty cistern.
Dry well
Spiders swell.
Woven webs
Desire ebbs.
My core
Is no more.
Joy replaced
Tears on my face.
Work a drudge
Flow of sludge.
Obligation
My only motivation.
A smile will meet you
When I greet you.
It is a placeholder
For pain I shoulder.
For those who suffer
Give a buffer.
Grant space
And a little grace.
Set expectations aside
Stand by my side,
In silence
Quiet alliance.
Don’t ask, don’t tell
Your words, quell.
Let me be
But be with me.
by
Obligation
I do what I must
Touch of dust.
I reach, wanting return,
Into an empty cistern.
Dry well
Spiders swell.
Woven webs
Desire ebbs.
My core
Is no more.
Joy replaced
Tears on my face.
Work a drudge
Flow of sludge.
Obligation
My only motivation.
A smile will meet you
When I greet you.
A placeholder
For pain I shoulder.
For those who suffer
Give a buffer.
Grant space
And a little grace.
Set expectations aside
Stand by my side,
In silence
Quiet alliance.
Don’t ask, don’t tell
Your words, quell.
Let me be
But be with me.
What I feel like most often since Tyler’s passing. Doing what I must. Without passion. (11 August 22) The featured image is from the opening scene of “Joe Versus the Volcano” starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Those who have seen the opening five minutes of that film will understand both the image and my reason for using it.

Missing My Son: Two Poems

by

Shoreline

Waves wash across the shoreline of my mind

Memories lap against my bare feet in the sand

Receding back from whence they came.

Quickly capturing any remains of them

Leaves me nothing more than wet.

But it is something. It is a reminder.

It is not for nothing that I recall.

For there is another wave coming.

I see it in the distance, cresting my way.

And I find myself in anxious anticipation

Of his presence upon the shoreline of my mind.

  • Written the day after Tyler’s burial 21 June 2022

The Time

 

We were together

By each other’s side

The time we had

We could not hide.

 

Our talk reached heights

Discussing all our tutors

The time we had

Depth, breadth twin suitors.

 

Work in sweat or prose

Tasks for shouldering

The time we had

Collective sculpturing.

 

Or oft in silence

Standing in reflection

The time we had

Mutual affection.

 

And now I ponder all those times,

Happy, sad, I remember

The time we had on my mind

January through December.

  • Written on July 4th, 2022. A day to remember Tyler’s freedom from the war against paranoid schizophrenia

Holy Week

by

A brief summary of the important days of Holy Week

PALM SUNDAY Covering the path of someone’s entrance is a sign of honor, an anticipation of triumph. The celebration of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem noted by each gospel writer is a pointer to our Lord’s Kingship. Zechariah (9:9) foretold the event. The Psalmist (118:25-26) quotes the enthusiasm of the crowds, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” And The Church looks forward to carrying those palms of triumph once again as we sing, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev 7:9-10).

MAUNDY THURSDAY “I give you a new commandment” Jesus says in John 13. “Maundy” is the Latin equivalent of “command,” the reason for today’s title. Jesus’ last meeting with the disciples set the precedent for foot washing (servanthood), a meal (love feast), the sacrament (communion), and the “new commandment,” to love one another. Jesus set the example of humility – lowering himself to the place of the lowest household servant – by washing his disciples’ feet. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:5).

GOOD FRIDAY What is “good” about an innocent man being killed? The title given to this day is strange when one considers Jesus’ death on a cross. The background to the holiday’s name is nothing in comparison to the event itself. All the words we use today – redemption, forgiveness, regeneration, grace – have their origin, the fullness of their meaning, in Jesus’ sacrifice for human sin. The day’s meaning is well summarized with these words, “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
RESURRECTION SUNDAY Outside of Jesus’ Incarnation (God becoming human, two natures in one person), His resurrection from the dead is THE most important Christian teaching. Foretold in the earliest history of mankind (“the serpent will bruise His heel” Genesis 3:15, a non-fatal blow) triumph over death is THE reason why Christians have hope in this life and The Next Life, for He, after “destroying every rule and every authority and power,” also “destroyed death” (1 Corinthians 15:20-28).
[Truth in Two Video “Resurrection Biographies” here]
AFTERWORD What is the history of the phrase “Good Friday”? The short answer is, depending on who you talk with or what Christian tradition is followed, the name has various origins. The word “good” comes from the ancient meaning of “holy” or “piety” which indicates the purity, the distinctiveness of the day. Various Christian traditions by country or group focus on other words (e.g. “God Friday” = “Good Friday”). For my part, “good” is paramount for at least two reasons: (1) “There is no one ‘good’ but God” (Matt 19:16) who can eradicate sin by His purity (Heb 4:15), (2) In the general sense that Jesus died for our sin is “good” (Heb 2:17).

“Listen Up!”

by
How often do we say, “Listen!” or “Listen up!” or “Will you listen to me?!” The same concept exists around the world: parents to children, teachers to students, coaches to athletes. We all use these words. But do we abide by our own demands? And what voices do we attend to? For me, the repeated lines of Proverbs, “Listen to my words” are the imperative. J.R. Moehringer in his memoir The Tender Bar cuts to the chase,
Life is all a matter of choosing which voices to tune in and which to tune out, a lesson I learned long before most people, but one that took me longer than most to put to good use.
Like

Comment
Share

Postman’s Warning

by
I still remember sitting in my car, just having come out of the bookstore, beginning to read his book Technopoly. I had already read Amusing Ourselves to Death and considered him to be an American prophet. And it was in 1999 that my son and I got to hear him do a reading at a bookstore in downtown Chicago.
Neil Postman followed in the footsteps of other prophets, people like Orwell and Huxley. They warn us about ourselves and our focus on DISTRACTIONS. We think we have no need for a purpose outside of our own “personal peace and affluence” – that from another prophet, Francis Schaeffer.
If you have read this musing, this far, you might consider spending a few minutes contemplating the introduction of Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death. May it cause a pause in thought, pondering both the present and the future, the temporal and the eternal.
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another – slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Freedom or Fundamentalism

by

Over Spring Break I read Erik Larson’s The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz. Among the many great insights found in the book is a talk Churchill gave which included these words:

“We seek no treasure, we seek no territorial gains, we seek only the right of man to be free; we seek his right to worship his God, to lead his life in his own way, secure from persecution. As the humble laborer returns from his work when the day is done, and sees the smoke curling upwards from his cottage home in the serene evening sky, we wish him to know no knocking of the secret police upon his door will disturb his leisure or interrupt his rest.” Churchill concluded his talk by assuring “Britain sought only government by popular consent, freedom to say whatever one wished, and the equality of all people in the eyes of the law.”
Churchill’s words are imperative in times like these when freedoms are being eroded. Yale law school students who heckled and ruined a planned talk between an atheist and Christian who were seeking common ground is one such example. Working on the public university campus I am constantly trying to help students see the benefits of freedom and the detriments of tyranny. And in my mind, this tyranny arises out of fundamentalism.
I remember growing up in fundamentalism. Degrees of separation always followed. One couldn’t associate with anyone who did X (2nd degree), those who associated with those who associated with those who did X were separated from (3rd degree), and so on. There are all kinds of fundamentalism; degrees of separation follow. At Yale we have an example of current cultural fundamentalism. [And I shudder to think about the future of our court rooms if law students cannot practice courtroom decorum in a university environment.] The specific event here had nothing to do with LGBTQ+ folks (which was the supposed rationalization for the riotous interruption). It had everything to do with freedom of speech.
An atheist and a Christian finding common ground in an open dialogue. I believe in the importance of free speech and open dialogue. My crying concern for this or any culture is freedom. Silencing voices – in whatever community context – is the death knell of free speech. Erik Larson’s “The Splendid and the Vile” comes to mind again. In 1940 the German propagandist Goebbels began a punishment campaign against Germans who listened to the BBC.
He ordered heavy sentences for radio offenders and told his propaganda lieutenants that every German must be clear in his mind that listening in to these broadcasts represents an act of serious sabotage.
Goebbels did, and Yale law school students do, adhere to their own forms of fundamentalism. The dividing line of separation is freedom. My responsibility in the public sphere is to accept all people, no matter their belief. I personally refuse any sort of fundamentalism. And I will always stand for freedom of speech.
If speech is not free for everyone, speech will not be free for anyone.
I will continue to speak out for freedom and freedom of speech. If free speech is lost, America freedoms are lost.
Picture credits: Luke Renoe
Goebbels – By Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-17049 / Georg Pahl / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5415572
Sir Winston Churchill – By digitized by: BiblioArchives / LibraryArchives – Flickr: Sir Winston Churchill, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41991931
Erik Larson book – https://eriklarsonbooks.com/book/the-splendid-and-the-vile/

What Are You Willing to Die For?

by

The question, “What are you willing to DIE for?” has been in the back of my mind all week. Yes. It is a question I have pondered often. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted a renewed concern.

I was listening to Bari Weiss talk about “Things Worth Fighting For.” Her impassioned, logical, historical comparisons had me shaking my head up and down. Weiss’ appreciation of President Volodomyr Zelensky goes on for paragraphs. Here is one:

And yet here was the real article. A leader showing courage, real courage, and in doing so inspiring bravery in others that they did not think themselves capable of. Duty, responsibility, moral clarity—he is breathing life into virtues many Americans thought were on life support or already dead.

This brief post is not for adversarial head-banging. Straight up, I’m not interested in your counterpoints. What I am interested in, is to simply ask, “What are you willing to die for?” I’m going to give you, my list. I hope you will make your own.

  1. My beliefs, including the biblical message of human sin and redemption only found in Jesus
  2. My family, my wife, children, grandchildren, my mom, my sister and her family
  3. My students and neighbors, a Scriptural focus on “others”
  4. My country and what it stands for: freedom

Those who know me, who have heard me speak or teach, who have read my writings or watched my videos will not be surprised by this list. Just for a moment, I want to focus on #4. In my online reading this week I ran across Matthew Hennessey’s column in The Wall Street Journal. The title of the article is editorial clickbait. But after reading the results of the Quinnipiac University survey, honestly, I agree with the rather salty response of Hennessey, “What in the hell has happened to this country?”

So, without fanfare, you don’t need to argue with me, I leave my friends to consider the question for yourselves, “What are you willing to die for?”