Tonight, we express our sorrow at the news that blog-neighbor Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk) has gone home to be with the Lord.
Michael has been in the Christian blogging community for a long time, and it’s no lie to say that his voice and witness are irreplaceable. He will be missed.
I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die.
I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though this body be destroyed, yet shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not as a stranger.
We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
April 6th, 2010 | 8:39 am | #1
Sad news. The world is a little less brighter.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:05 am | #2
I know neither the man nor his ministry, but I know he was very highly regarded by many on the First Things website.
Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of one of His saints. May he rest in peace forevermore.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:26 am | #3
Can I suggest something without being taken the wrong way? Prolly not, but here we go.
Without any disrespect meant toward the honest and right-hearted mourning of Michael’s family and his legions of friends, let me suggest that the world is not any less-bright today than it was yesterday — especially for Michael. Today for Michael Spencer, the pain of terminal illness is over. Today for Michael Spencer, a lifetime of striving in a fallen world is over. Today for Michael, it is like the end of a hard crying jag due to the horrible weight of the world and its burdens, and he is breathing in the first sigh of relief; the cool air of the solice which can only be found when we see the Savior face to face is in him.
Today, Michael is not in purgatory. He is not working off his failings. We should see him as the rich man saw Lazarus, resting in the bosom of the one for whom he has longed all his life.
As one who simply did not have the chance to make peace with the man — due to my own fault, as always — I envy Michael Spencer today. He has something now I hope for, and long for, and want others to share in.
So to my original point, the world is not less bright today: it is brighter because we can know that Jesus saves, and Jesus saved Michael. He is now an example to us of how great a savior we have, and how deeply we need saving, and how greatly we are loved.
April 6th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #4
Out of the depths I call to you, LORD;
Lord, hear my cry! May your ears be attentive to my cry for mercy.
If you, LORD, mark our sins, Lord, who can stand?
But with you is forgiveness and so you are revered.
I wait with longing for the LORD, my soul waits for his word.
My soul looks for the Lord more than sentinels for daybreak. More than sentinels for daybreak,
let Israel look for the LORD, For with the LORD is kindness, with him is full redemption,
And God will redeem Israel from all their sins.
April 6th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #5
@frank
You are right, and wrong.
For me personally, you are correct – but I am not a friend nor family to Micheal. So it is easy for me to affirm your words today.
But if I was a friend or family, the world is a darker place today. There is sadness in this world, even though you of course are correct. But with time for grieving, the light would eventually shine through.
So today, I will grieve with those who grieve
April 6th, 2010 | 5:27 pm | #6
Thank you Frank for correcting the theology or something of Adam O, who as a friend of Michael’s (and I believe a former contributor to Michael’s Tavern blog) got carried away with emotion so that he felt the darkness of death.
Adam, my brother, I feel the darkness too.
April 6th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #7
“Can I suggest something without being taken the wrong way? Prolly not.” I said that already.
It’s somewhat bizarre that I can say, “take refuge in Michael’s salvation” in a robust way and there is offense taken.
April 6th, 2010 | 5:38 pm | #8
who took offense? Only you.
April 6th, 2010 | 5:44 pm | #9
Frank,
Agreeing with your basic point, but disagreeing with your nutshell statement:
Yes, Michael’s existence is brighter today than it was yesterday. Yes, we are reminded of the love and saving grace of Christ, and that is bright indeed.
No, the world is not brighter today. The grace of Christ is no brighter today than it was yesterday, and those of us who remain have lost a brother from our community. His friends have lost the comfort & joy of his presence; all of us have lost his voice, and all the fruitful labor he could have done. (Thus, it’s bittersweet, ala Philippians 1:22-23.)
(for Ken) So Frank, yes, we should be able to find some comfort in your observation. Your reminder may bring comfort to grieving hearts. But I’d say this earth is dimmer, not brighter, and those who grieve are right to see it that way.
Ken: Please, take it in the manner Frank intended it. It was at worst a little off, and pastorally clumsy. It wasn’t an academic correction of theology–it intended as encouragement.
April 6th, 2010 | 6:42 pm | #10
where is the delete button for comment #8? Get working on that Joe – I managed to overlook Ken’s comment, therefore mine is nonsensical (go ahead Frank – say it “Not the first time”)
April 6th, 2010 | 6:43 pm | #11
I do find the comment interesting re: your other post on what pastoral means….
April 6th, 2010 | 10:32 pm | #12
David –
I can expunge the record for you from the admin side if you like, but I’m curious: do you think my comment vis. Adam’s comment is actually unpastoral? I’m not a pastor, but it seems to me that the remedy for our perception of what we have lost in a time like this is not to underscore our limits — that path always leads to more grief. The remedy is the truth of death — which, for a person who is in Christ, and of faith, is the end of this corruptible life and its trouble and the start of eternity with Christ.
For me, for months I have prayed for Michael that God will be shown mighty in his recovery. Instead, we have what we have today — which is that Michael is entirely whole and in Christ’s presence and in need of nothing. We do not have Michael, but Christ does, and that’s better.
Isn’t it? Isn’t that the kind hand to hold out to grief — that our loss is overshadowed by 10,000-fold by Michael’s gain?
Please help me see your point of view here. I honestly don’t think I get it at all.
April 7th, 2010 | 12:25 am | #13
Frank Turk: You are absolutely right! Flesh and blood have not revealed this to you. Why do we proclaim the joy of Paradise until someone dies and then we feel obligated to deny what is most precious in our faith so that “people can grieve”? Do we in this way convey the message that for us too to die is loss, rather than gain?
Our Lord once wept at a funeral. But while everyone else was weeping because Lazarus had died, He wept because He knew He was going to bring back His dear friend from the place of unspeakable joy in order to lend authority to the words: “I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” The Gospel turns the way of the world upside down. As the children of the Gospel, it is our joy to testify to that truth.
Obviously we want to do that with compassion, because we know that to grieve is human. At the same time we should understand that to be human is to be a sinner and that grief is most often a preoccupation with one’s self.
Peace and Joy,
George A. Marquart
April 7th, 2010 | 8:57 am | #14
There is a little Gnostic odor wafting up from Mr. Turk’s first comment (not the most recent) and any others who wish to privilege the other-worldly to the this worldly. Creation is a good, and so is the human body. The world is less bright in the sense that we who are left must endure the genuine loss, and we must call it a loss. The divine plan was not to sever soul and body in such a horrendous way. Death is still an enemy that separates us from one another, and that separation is no less real because the one who has departed is in glory, even if we say with Paul that, although naked, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6-9).
I don’t quite buy the argument that Jesus was weeping because he had to bring someone back from glory any more than I would buy an argument that Jesus’ cry of dereliction was more for us than it was for him.
We still believe in the resurrection of the body and to my mind we ought to mourn, not as something sinful, but as a genuine human expression in the face of death–a death that ought not to be.
It is strange to me that we still default to talk about sin in terms of guilt and not in terms of a condition for which we join the entire created order with “sighs too deep for words” (Rom. 8:22-23) until that final liberation.
So, I would want any pastor to legitimize my grief not only as deeply human, but as giving genuine expression to something that should not be. This is who scripture uses grief, even with reference to God–God grieves at sin in all of its manifestations, and death is certainly one of them. At the same time, I think what Frank and George say about the other side must be kept in mind as well. . .we have a hope, and this hope does not disappoint.
Having said this, it has been salutary for me to watch the genuine theological struggle over this all-too-real difficulty that we must all face over the course of our lives.
April 7th, 2010 | 9:06 am | #15
Dale Coulter: “There is a little Gnostic odor wafting up from Mr. Turk’s first comment (not the most recent)”
A humorous opening sentence that deserves to be acknowledged for erupting chuckles in this remote corner of the blogosphere.
April 7th, 2010 | 9:32 am | #16
The last time I checked I think that death is still the last enemy to be destroyed. In a few moments I will officiate the funeral of a dear member of our Parrish who has joined her recently deceased husband. We will celebrate a long life well lived in Christ. Today we will not feel the darkness.
A few weeks ago I was at the funeral of a young pastor who died in a horrible accident. The preacher began by proclaiming, “We have not gathered to grieve but to celebrate!” Instantly the words went through my mind, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” Because he did not mourn with those who mourn I believe he failed to truly bring hope to the congregation. He preached it in all its technical correctness but he did not lead us by the hand to the truth. He made us feel guilty for mourning.
I don’t know why Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus, I don’t know why he groaned in spirit either. We really don’t know because we are not told. My guess is that he was angry over death itself and its invasion of all he had created. That’s just me.
Truth is truth. Scripture is scripture. But wisdom is wisdom and it is wisdom that guides the timing and manner of truth’s presentation.
Give me a few days and I will appreciate thinking about what Frank said. Today, my world without Michael Spenser is just a little darker.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:06 am | #17
I don’t know if my comment got it right, either.
My main thought is that we have to say it all with a both/and instead of with an either/or.
Ken, I agree: “We have not gathered to grieve but to celebrate!” is exactly the kind of either/or to avoid. We should be able to grieve our loss and to celebrate.
Pointing to the joy & hope doesn’t require denying that there is anything to mourn over.
I think I’m happy with this, from Frank’s second comment:
“For me, for months I have prayed for Michael that God will be shown mighty in his recovery. Instead, we have what we have today — which is that Michael is entirely whole and in Christ’s presence and in need of nothing. We do not have Michael, but Christ does, and that’s better.
Isn’t it? Isn’t that the kind hand to hold out to grief — that our loss is overshadowed by 10,000-fold by Michael’s gain?”
April 7th, 2010 | 10:12 am | #18
Ken –
I am sure I said, “Without any disrespect meant toward the honest and right-hearted mourning of Michael’s family and his legions of friends, let me suggest that the world is not any less-bright today than it was yesterday …” and not “let’s only celebrate!”
I do respect your loss, and your mourning, and since what I posted here has made that worse and not better, I apologize.
God be with you.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:46 am | #19
Actually, Frank, I took your words to heart. Thank you for them. I still miss Michael’s light, though. But you are right. He is shining brighter than ever.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #20
The day after my husband died, I would not have asked for him back. How could I have asked for him to return when he was in the presence of Jesus? Knowing the great joy he was experiencing gave me joy, which is not to say that I wasn’t suffering. My grief was real grief, but it really is true that believers do not have to go around grieving in exactly the same way as the heathen, who have no hope. We can grieve “with hope,” knowing that death for us is a step into something better and one step toward the glorious consummation of all things.
In my experience, other believers were way too hesitant to speak of this hope to me. I expected all gloom and doom from unbelievers, but when I couldn’t get other Christians to grieve and hope with me, it could be discouraging and isolating. I mean, they’re supposed to share my hope, aren’t they? How is it that they don’t bring it up in conversation? And when I do, why is it that they look at me like I’m nutty and delusional?
Yes we grieve, but we grieve with hope and Frank was right and pastoral (used in the weird way most people use it) to bring it up.
April 7th, 2010 | 1:16 pm | #21
@frank – no, I don’t think your comment was un-pastoral. I think it was indicative of a certain pastoral style (not necessarily a wrong or bad style)
I just found it illustrative.
April 8th, 2010 | 6:59 pm | #22
I wonder what Michael thinks of the fact that a post meant to honor his work and mourn his death has turned into a mini-argument with accusations like “Gnostic” and “un-pastoral” being thrown around?
Can’t we just be thankful for the impact Michael Spencer had, mourn his death, and also be thankful that his suffering is over? My hope is that right now Michael is finally experiencing the “Jesus-shaped spirituality” he longed for in a way that “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived”.
I, for one, am thankful that Michael, at least, is no longer lost in the “evangelical wilderness” but has reached the Promised Land.
April 9th, 2010 | 12:43 am | #23
“I wonder what Michael thinks of the fact that a post meant to honor his work and mourn his death has turned into a mini-argument with accusations like “Gnostic” and “un-pastoral” being thrown around?”
I don’t know what Michael Spencer would have thought about that. I don’t think he would have been surprised though.
April 9th, 2010 | 7:21 am | #24
As far as anyone of us knows, Michael Spencer is in heaven…I don’t think he gives a rip about who writes what about who… :)
April 9th, 2010 | 9:10 am | #25
David –
Then I took offense where none was meant, and I apologize.
Peace.
April 20th, 2010 | 9:37 pm | #26
Well, I think he is wrong on a few issues. I know of people that are glad that they became eastern orthodox but the eastern orthodox churches still have a lot of ethnical politics. Greek orthodox that supported Obama like the fact he was not as pro-Macedonia as Bush was but thought he didn’t defend Greek political interests as much as he should. And many ofconseravtive evangelicals are strongly influence by conservative Catholics on the cultual wars, in fact they listen to talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrham that are both catholic. So, both the Orthodox and Catholic traditions can drive people away just as evangelical churches can for different reasos.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact