Cana's Vats

The notes began, and filled my ears with peace:

                “Who but Thyself my guide and stay can be?

                Through cloud and sunshine, Lord, abide with me.”

And we beheld her there, below the trees;

A little wind flowed through the seated rows,

                Relieving summer heat, and finding joy;

                All heads were turned, all eyes were fixed to see

Her standing, blushing, in an eager glow.

She walked to stand beneath the little cross

                Beside him, and beheld his glowing face

                Which drank of all she was, as so she drank,

While all the world beside was counted loss.

They drank their covenant from the mortal cup;

                Oh Christ! Here from your veins let it be filled –

                Washed out from darkness, sanctified to yield

Two souls to God, who makes them into one.

And so they drink the wine of their new love

                Until the eyes should close, and life should pass

                And old wine-skins be burst for new at last

And Cana’s vats be filled with Calvary’s flood.

Homeschooling, Legalism, and Parallel Cultures

Is homeschooling a form of legalism? How about counter-cultural practices like courtshipⁱ and big families, which are common in homeschooling circles? Questions like these have caused me no small degree of confusion. I turn to my own family and many families that I have known, and confidently answer, "no." But then I find blog articles, comments of friends, and even reports on television which seem to credibly contradict my personal experiences. However, as I have repeatedly encountered these contradictions, I have also come across a probable explanation.

This article is partially written as a response to Thomas Umstattd's article, Why Courtship is Fundamentally Flawed. I found statements in his article describing courtship like, "the man must ask the woman's father's permission before pursuing the woman romantically," which is true for many families that I know, alongside statements like, "...the fathers are rarely gentle or kind," which is opposite of both my experience and the experiences of my brothers. I refuse to believe that Umstattd is misrepresenting his observations; the entire tone of his article denotes reason and honesty. The only conclusion left to me, then, is that he and I have lived in parallel homeschooling cultures which share a number of similarities and yet have key differences.

But what could cause such a division? Consider Umstattd's statement:

"Each year I waited for courtship to start working and for my homeschool friends to start getting married. It never happened. Most of them are still single. Some have grown bitter and jaded. Then couples who did get married through courtship started getting divorced. I'm talking the kind of couples who first kissed at their wedding were filing for divorce. This was not the deal! The deal was that if we put up with the rules and awkwardness of courtship now we could avoid the pain of divorce later. The whole point of courtship was to have a happy marriage, not a high divorce rate."

Umstattd's assumptions are evident in this quote, and did not change when he changed his ideas about romance. Consider his statement, "This was not the deal!" He – and all of his friends – saw courtship as a contract. They were to do their part even if they found it awkward, and God would then be obligated to do His part by giving them a fulfilling marriage. Thus, when this lie was revealed either by years of singleness or by an unhappy marriage, they rebelled against the idea of courtship, or even against marriage itself. Yet, in revising his beliefs, Umstattd retained the foundational idea that the ultimate purpose of dating methods, romance, and marriage, are the happiness of man.

The connection between Umstattd's foundational idea and the existence of parallel homeschool cultures, is that Umstattd's idea goes far beyond the practice of courtship. Paris Reidhead, in Ten Shekels and Shirt, stated that modern Christian fundamentalism has simply become another expression of humanism, where the ultimate end of salvation is the happiness of man. Umstattd's sentiments about romance and marriage have the same man-centered core. How can a Christian article about romance not mention the Glory of God, when God is the point of all of life, and when marriage is display of Christ and His church? My explanation of these parallel cultures, then, is that while outwardly similar, they are deeply divided along lines of theology.

Consider another assumption in Umstattd's article: "...if we put up with the rules and awkwardness of courtship now we could avoid the pain of divorce later. The whole point of courtship was to have a happy marriage..." He and his friends believed that success and happiness in marriage could be brought about by a simple courtship formula. Implicit in this idea, however unintentional, is a denial of the doctrine of the deep sinfulness of man. In contrast, most "courtshipping homeschoolers" that I know tell me that the success and blessedness of any marriage will depend upon how tightly its members cling to the finished work of Christ, the faithful grace of God, and His ability to heal two deeply sinful individuals, far more than upon the method of courtship or dating which began the marriage.

This theological divide would also explain the differences between the fathers observed by Umstattd and the fathers I have observed. A father who believes that courtship is the most important ingredient for his daughter's happiness will tend toward overbearing control, while a father who understands the sinfulness of man will understand his daughter's limitations, but also his own limitations and impossibility of finding a perfect suitor. Such a father will also tend to act with mercy toward all suitors, because of his deep gratitude and humility which come from understanding the depth of sin out of which Christ has rescued him.

Thus my conclusion regarding Umstattd's article is that he mis-diagnoses the problems he has encountered. He believes that they are rooted in a wrong methodology (courtship), whereas they are actually rooted in shallow or incorrect theologies. However, I have a much more important conclusion to make with regards to the homeschool movement in general, and I have one more point to make in support.

This point is that these problems are not intrinsic to particular families so much as they are intrinsic to particular "communities." In Umstattd's article, for example, all of his friends shared these same problems, which I have rarely encountered; similar articles reference entire churches or homeschooling circles where these problems are universal. Even granting possible exaggeration, it is hard not to conclude that Umstattd's problems are pronounced and out of control in some circles, while being uncommon and rejected in others.ⁱⁱ

So, my final conclusion is that these parallel cultures do exist, and that their division is not along lines of external practice but rather along lines of practical theology. I say practical theology because I do not mean that Umstattd does not believe in the deep sinfulness of man, or absolute worthiness of God. Rather, I mean that he did not (and still does not) live out these doctrines in his favored approach to romance.ⁱⁱⁱ

In the more general sense, I propose that some homeschool communities have failed to honor God in their counter-cultural practices because they did not set out to honor Him in the first place, but rather viewed these practices, such as courtship, as being primarily for their own happiness. Wiser methods of living applied in a void of deep theology are bound to become legalism and humanism. On the other hand, I hope that the doctrines of man's sinfulness, the victorious gospel of Christ, and the unfathomable character of God, drive my family and my homeschooling friends far more than any particular methodology of education or romance.

I will end with a recommendation for the repair all problems, both those found in Umstattd's culture and any found in my own:^iv we must preach the character of God and the gospel of Christ both in their transcendence and in their practical eminence. We must live by a deep humility and grace born of our understanding of our own sinfulness, and by a great hope in the power of Spirit to conform us to Christ in all areas of life, including courtship and marriage.

Certainly, my wife and I have found these things to be absolutely true at all times in our relationship; without them we would have failed to bring glory to God, and probably would not be married. Our road was too full of doubts, struggles, questions, and sins for us to have succeeded on our own, no matter what model of courtship or dating we had pursued. I could say the same for many marriages I know, both ones that began with dating and ones that began with courtship. I do believe that courtship provides a couple with a wiser start in matrimony; however, it is the heart and the applied theology of a courtship, or homeschooling family, or any thing else, much more than the particular method, which determines whether it is pleasing to God.

--- End Notes---

i  I use a very general definition of courtship here, as being the practice which is willing to change any aspect of the modern dating model using biblical wisdom, generally including an increased role for the girl's father, and a definite intentionality. In contrast to Umstattd, I must emphasize that intentionality does not mean that marriage is the goal of courtship. It means that the goal of a courtship is for the couple to determine whether marriage would be wise or not. A courtship which ends concluding that marriage would not be wise is just as successful as a courtship which ends in marriage, if the decision is wise. In my own courtship, I did not use the term "dating" simply because I felt that it would misrepresent my relationship with Kyleigh. However, I do not consider the term to be inherently sinful. It is the heart and the applied wisdom of a relationship which does or does not honor God, not the term used to describe it.

ii  Regarding Umstattd's website, it seems likely that persons struggling with courtship as a cure-all methodology would visit such a site in much higher numbers than persons with the conviction that the ultimate purpose of marriage is the glory of God, and that God's providence, much more than a method, is what brings believers together for marriage.

iii  I believe that this divide is also the best explanation for why people typically talk past each other when they disagree with each other on this issue. In our discussions, along with being humble and kind, we must understand where the difference is, and why we who have applied the same methods, such as courtship, have seen such vastly different results. Neither side is lying, neither side has its head in the sand, neither side is in denial, and neither side is expressing an isolated, uncommon situation. We who have seen courtship succeed ought to be merciful to those who have been wounded in what they believe is the same practice; they truly have been wounded. What they need is not a "more correct" practice of courtship, but a change in the cultures of their communities brought about by the depth of the gospel of Christ.

iv  Those of us who do not believe that our families have the problems described by Umstattd's article must use both humility and caution. "Let those who think they stand take heed lest they fall." If we have seen the grace of God working in our lives and our courtships, we can attribute precisely non of this to ourselves.

Voyage of the Bellus, Part II

And turning toward the yellow sky

I sank beneath the unmoved sun,

And cried "May Heaven's grace return

Or take us if our breath done!"

But in that hour, I felt a breath;

A kiss upon my burning skin,

And looked, and saw, there from the north,

A wind! Praise be to God! A wind!

And all the crew, up from the hold,

Was standing at the heaving rail,

"We're saved!" the bos'n cried, but I

Fell silent at the coming gale.

"Oh captain, keep the sails furled;

This is that ill-famed northern wind

Of which the old time sailor spoke,

'It blows to God-forsaken lands.'

"For sure, it brings the crew relief,

And sweeps the waves with glorious strength,

But only takes a ship one way -

To death," I said, "And to the grave."

"Away with him!" the bos'n cried,

And crossed me with an evil eye,

"We'll set the sails and take the wind

And reach our port, or else I die!"

The captain's face was turned away;

"We have no choice, my friend," said he,

And told the bos'n, "Set the sails,

And bring her 'round, back to the east!"

And so the ship heeled hard to port -

The seas were washing or'e the decks;

The wind had caught her, thrust her fo'ard,

The canvas strained, the rigging stretched!

I looked upon the darkening sky;

Black clouds descended with the wind

And towered, like the gates of hell,

Above the frantic, struggling men,

Whose faces wore unbounded glee

As from their lips the gale tore

Mad laughter which I could not hear;

Mad hope to see that eastern shore.

Voyage of the Bellus, Part I

Oh glorious day the Bellus sailed -

Took flight with full-spread canvas wings!

Our happy eyes beheld the land

Slip fast behind the sky and sea;

No comet flew, no prophet called,

The sea was shimmering in the light

The day we cast our mooring off

And set our faces toward the night.

A west wind1 took us swiftly out

And drove us thus for many days

And howled 'twixt sail and mast and line

Through wave and mighty, dark-green wave.

Each sailor raised his cider-mug

And climbed into his birth, content

That we should soon have crossed the sea

And reached that place where we were bent.

The captain, too, was in good state

As were the second mate and I,

And had not thought to see the hour

That long-blown western wind would die.

So we, becalmed upon that sea,

Gazed doubtful at the molten glass;

The wind had always blown for us -

This calm spell, then, would quickly pass.

"Oh sun, why mock us with thy rays!

Why, sky, withhold thy rain, thy breeze?"

The bos'n spoke when we had sat

Five weeks unmoved upon that sea.

At this each sailor bowed his head

Or cast his angry face away,

No man would meet me eye for eye

Or speak upon that silent day.

And silence passed from night to night

Until each man would only lift

His face to see the feeble waves

Upon which we were cast adrift.

Lonely Waiting

Slowly drum the fingers, empty is the hand,

Distant gaze the eyes, collecting nothing from the air;

Quiet is the breathing, quiet is the room,

Wond'ring is the mind unto the time when she was there.

Weakened are senses, languid is the soul,

Grinding turn the thoughts into the present lonely night;

Bowed, the head in weeping – O, mourn the foolish thought!

Which, lost amid the shadows, had forgot the blazing light!

Softly lay the head, the wond'ring soul is loved,

Close the eyes in peace and let thoughts dissolve away;

Quiet is the breathing, quiet is the room,

Waits the soul until the shadows flee before the day.

The Symbolism in Kyleigh's Engagement Ring

Kyleigh has asked me to write a document outlining the symbolism in her engagement ring design. I have happily obliged, and this is the result:

The Diamond

The first and most obvious symbolism in Kyleigh's engagement ring is the precious stone in the middle, which is a diamond. The jewelry industry has a lot of symbolism which it likes to attribute to diamonds, with such cheesy slogans as, “diamonds are forever” or “eight diamonds together are symbolic of eternity”. I reject these meanings – if not outright, then I at least reject them for the ring that I gave Kyleigh. I reject them because marriage itself is not forever, despite what every jewelry store merchant and commercial wedding planner cries from the rooftops. Marriage is only until death, where it then gives way to a much greater glory. I reject them because diamonds are not actually forever, and will pass away with the old earth. And from what I can tell, these industry slogans are a materialistic attempt to fill the void which has been left in society by the removal of a biblical understanding of what marriage is.

I think that it would be possible for Kyleigh and I to take the idea that “diamonds are forever” and bend it into a godly symbolism for her ring. However, I would instead like to use the symbolism of a diamond as rare and valuable. Anyway, diamonds have been symbolic of value since long before our society lost its soul to materialism.

To be succinct, the diamond symbolizes Kyleigh's value (Prov. 31:10). I could talk about how Kyleigh and I are so well matched in our tastes on so many things, or how many delightful inside jokes we have, or how similar our personalities are, or how beautiful she is. All of these things are precious gifts from God. However, her true value is in her love of God. It is rare to find a girl whose first desire is to glorify God in her life. But it is even more rare to find a girl whose life is disciplined, organized, and planned according godly wisdom, a deep understanding of theology, and a desire to live for His glory.

The Ring

The ring is not simply an indicator of relationship status. What I mean is that while Kyleigh's ring does indicate to others that she is engaged, it does this by implication rather than by direct meaning. It is not the relationship status bar on facebook. Rather, it is a symbol of the sacred covenant which is being formed between us. By implication of the covenant, we are engaged. However, the ring symbolizes the covenant, not the “relationship status”.

When a man gives a woman a ring in modern western culture, this is typically seen as “going to the next level of relationship”. But in giving Kyleigh her ring, we began our relationship as an unbreakable union (Matt 19:6), symbolized by the fact that the ring and the diamond form an unbroken circle.

Note: to be clear, the unbreakable covenant of marriage is not yet formed between Kyleigh and myself. However, in the interim, the ring symbolizes our promise to finalize the covenant on our wedding day.

The Vine

I knew for a long time that I wanted to have a custom ring made for Kyleigh, but I was uncertain of what design elements I would want to use. After some conversations between us regarding the theology of marriage, I began to realize that I wanted elements which would represent the eternal significance of the one-flesh union (Eph 5:31-32) contrasted with its temporary nature (Matt 22:30). After some searching, I came upon the symbols of the morning glory and the vine.

The vine is a symbol of the unity between Christ and the members of His bride (John 15:4-5). Christ is the vine, and we are the branches. We abide in Him, and He in us, and thus we bear much fruit. Having a vine as the primary design element of Kyleigh's ring symbolizes the eternal significance behind our temporal union: an earthly bride and groom are shadows of the heavenly bride (the church) and the heavenly groom (Christ). Our love is a shadow of His love, our faithfulness of His faithfulness, our perseverance of His perseverance, and our joy of the Joy that we will have with Him in eternity. And so, as we abide with each other in covenant love, we will be awaiting the completion of our union with Christ in heaven, of which our love will only ever be a shadow.

The Morning Glory

Unfortunately, due to the intricate design of a morning glory and the smallness of an engagement ring, I decided not to include any morning glories on Kyleigh's ring. Likely, they would have been hard to see on a surface roughly three millimeters across. However, I was able to locate a custom ring box manufacturer, and thus had a ring box made with a morning glory design on the top.

The symbolism of the morning glory is five-fold:

1. It symbolizes the temporary nature of marriage. The morning glory flower derives its name from the fact that it lasts only one day. It has one morning of glory before it wilts. It may very well have been the plant that Jesus referred to in Matthew 6 (vs 28-30). In any case, it will serve to remind Kyleigh and me that “all flesh is like the grass” (Is 40:6), and that the significance of our marriage is found in its eternal value, not its temporal glory.

2. It symbolizes the beauty of marriage. God clothes the lilies of the field with more beauty than Solomon (Matt 6:29), and He likewise has clothed marriage with the beauty of His design for it, as well as the beauty that he gives to marriages between His children by His Spirit's sanctifying power.

3. It symbolizes God's care for the marriages of His children. If He cares enough to crown each wildflower with more glory than king Solomon possessed, how much more will he adorn the marriages of those who fear Him, for His name's sake?

4. It symbolizes the toughness of a Godly marriage. Morning glories, often considered weeds by farmers, can be extremely difficult to get rid of. Cut them down, and they soon come back. A godly marriage is like this, too. No matter what the world and satan throw at it, it always returns to covenant love.

5. Finally, it symbolizes the way that a godly marriage receives its strength from Jesus. Many varieties of morning glory grow on vines. Similarly, our marriage must “grow on the vine” as we abide in the great vine, Jesus Christ (John 15:4-5).

Shadow and Glory

The endless deepness of the evening sky

Is filled with silent, burning orbs of light

Which everlasting, seem, to you and I,

And glimmer in their march across the night

Beside their king – the faceless, golden moon

Whose broken shape, in shards of dancing light

Is carried by the dark and wild sea

Which tosses spray, like sand, into the wind,

And swallows up the lights into the deep.

If all of this came from the Master's mind,

And slipped into its place by His decree,

And by His word, will fade and pass away -

Like sand amid this brilliance, what are we?

Like morning glories, dying in a day,

What worth comes from two souls joined into one?

They, like the morning glories, wilt away,

Before true Glory's endless day has come.

But from the blackness all the silent stars

Look on, enraptured by the passing scene:

Two souls made into one become a shadow

Of bride and Groom, in glory yet to be.