• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flickr
  • YouTube
Thinking Out Loud
  • Means of Grace

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 04, 2013

    My spiritual director once said to me that my way of knowing and experiencing God is more apophatic than cataphatic. Though I was slow to see it, he may have a point.

    According to scholars, like Roberta Bondi, the apophatic way of talking about God and of approaching God is characterized, as Roberta Bondi writes, "by looking beyond all created categories of sensation and thought to the God who can in no way be conceptualized." (Richardson, Alan, and John Bowden, ed. Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Westminster John Knox Press, 1983, "Apophatic Theology" 32)

    The apophatic way to God should, incidentally, be distinguished from the anaphylactic way, which can make you pass out and requires prompt treatment with an EpiPen. I've tried both the apophatic and the anaphylactic way, and, believe me, the apophatic is better and you regain consciousness faster.)

    The alternative to apophatic theology is cataphatic theology, which as Bondi explains has "as its object the intelligible names of God revealed in Scripture" and "involves contemplation of God as [God] is revealed in relation to the world." According to cataphatic theology, we can gain access to God through processes of revelation: God makes Godself known through creation, through prophets, and ultimately through Jesus of Nazareth.

    Karl Barth, arguably the greatest Reformed theologian of the twentieth century, critiqued both the apophatic and the cataphatic ways of knowing God. Especially in his remarkable The Epistle to the Romans (2nd edition, 1921), Barth spoke of the event of God entering human history in Jesus Christ as a point of intersection, "the crater made at the percussion point of an exploding shell, the void by which the point on the line of intersection makes itself known in the concrete world of history." In other words, history is the horizontal plane which we know through experience, and God intersects history in Jesus Christ on a vertical plane. But, even standing at the point of impact, we must be cautious about what we would say about God. We can describe "the crater," but the crater is always still on the historical plane.

    Barth goes on to speak of the incarnation-the point of intersection between the vertical and the historical plane-and of the crater formed by this intersection as follows: "Insofar as our world is touched by Jesus by the other world, it ceases to be capable of direct observation as history, time, or thing. Jesus has been - 'declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Holy Spirit, through his resurrection, from the dead.' In this declaration and appointment - which are beyond historical definition - lies the true significance of Jesus. Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah, is the End of History; and He can be comprehended only as Paradox (Kierkegaard)...." (Barth's Epistle to the Romans, Oxford University Press, 29)

    Some have spoken derisively of Barth's "crisis theology," describing it as a kind of pious agnosticism, but I think we should pay close attention to Barth's critique here. Barth provides a vital corrective to the Protestantism that dominated European theology in his time, and that has never entirely gone away. This sort of theology grows complacent of its concept of revelation, and overly confident in its own ability to scale the heights to conceive of God; it becomes audacious in its claims to speak about and (sometimes) to speak for God. The God this theology describes ends up bearing a striking resemblance to the theologians, preachers and Christians who are doing the talking. In Barth's time, they described a God who endorsed their own politics and national interests and imperialism. The Protestantism Barth opposed at this point in his life could have been characterized as cataphatic. He was right to caution us against the theology that envisioned such a God.

    But Barth also questioned the legitimacy of apophatic theology - often termed the via negativa to God because it speaks of God by saying what God IS NOT (whereas cataphatic theology, attempts to speak of God in terms of a via positiva). According to Barth, there is neither via negativa nor via positiva that reliably paves the way from us to God.

    "Where does that leave us?" we might well ask, as people who want to know God and say something about God.

    Barth's point was that we don't seek God and we can't reach God on our own. God seeks us (the great metaphor for this is God's seeking Adam and Eve who were hiding in the Garden of Eden) and God reaches us (we know God because God draws us to God and provides the means by which we come to God). And God never ceases to surprise us with God's own character (we never can capture God in our conceptions and statements).

    While Barth's critique remains valuable, I know of few practitioners of Christian spirituality who actually mess things up as badly as Barth seems to assume. He may have been tilting at straw mystics in some of his statements about apophatic spirituality. But in his critiques he was really targeting the confident guardians of High Protestant Liberalism at the close of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, the folks who had brought us an Imperialistic Protestantism and eventually a complacent religiosity that did not prevent and may actually have midwifed the birth of Fascism. These are the people who reveled in what Barth called "the No-God of this world, which we have created of ourselves."

    I encourage you to read Barth's Epistle to the Romans. It is a work that defies categorization. It is neither a commentary nor a theological monograph. But, however one identifies its genre, is an act of genius that should not be left solely to the Barthians! One reviewer described it as a bomb thrown into the playground where German scholars were at play - and it just keeps exploding today. Barth never lets us forget that all real knowledge of God is through God. God makes the way to us, and creates the way from us to God. All ways of knowing God are means of grace, first and last. 

  • Lift Up Your Hearts!

    by Michael Jinkins | May 28, 2013

    The immediate past president of Louisville Seminary's student body, Renee Hudgell, recently provided the devotional for the year's final meeting of the Seminary Council. In addition to serving as student body president, and an exemplary student, Renee also serves as pastor of a United Methodist congregation. She is a very busy person. Last fall I shared with you a devotional she provided to our President's Round Table. This recent devotional was equally insightful, and I asked Renee's permission to share it with you also.

    Renee presented to us the "Ten Paradoxical Commandments" written by Dr. Kent M. Keith. Dr. Keith originally published these "Commandments" in 1968 in a booklet to help student leaders. Here they are:

    1. "People are illogical, unreasonable and self-centered. Love them anyway.
    2.  If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Do good anyway.
    3.  If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway.
    4. The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
    5.  Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway.
    6. The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds. Think big anyway.
    7. People favor underdogs, but follow only top dogs. Fight for a few underdogs anyway.
    8. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway.
    9.  People really need help, but may attack you if you do help them. Help people anyway.
    10. Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you have anyway."

    As Renee told us, if you Google "Mother Teresa's prayer," you will find that it is based on Dr. Keith's "Paradoxical Commandments." But Mother Teresa adds a line: "In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway."

    That last line by Mother Teresa brings to mind a wonderful little book by Henri NouwenMaking All Things New. While the book was intended to be about living a spiritual life, I find his reflections especially applicable to the life of leadership. Nouwen writes:

    "Jesus does not respond to our worry-filled way of living by saying that we should not be so busy with worldly affairs. He does not try to pull us away from the many events, activities, and people that make up our lives. He does not tell us that what we do is unimportant, valueless, or useless. Nor does he suggest that we should withdraw from our involvements and live quiet, restful lives removed from the struggles of the world.

    "Jesus' response to our worry-filled lives is quite different. He asks us to shift the point of gravity, to relocate the center of our attention, to change our priorities. Jesus wants us to move from the 'many things' to the 'one necessary thing.' It is important for us to realize that Jesus in no way wants us to leave our many-faceted world. Rather, he wants us to live in it, but firmly rooted in the center of all things. Jesus does not speak about a change of activities, a change of contacts, or even a change of pace. He speaks about a change of heart. This change of heart makes everything different, even while everything appears to remain the same. This is the meaning of 'Set your hearts on his kingdom first ... and all these other things will be given you as well.' What counts is where our hearts are. When we worry, we have our hearts in the wrong place. Jesus asks us to move our hearts to the center, where all other things fall into place." [Henri J. M. Nouwen, Making All Things New: An Invitation to the Spiritual Life (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 41-42]

    I don't know about you, but I find these reflections from Dr. Keith, Mother Teresa, and Nouwen encouraging. It is probably completely normal to get bogged down from time to time in the sometimes discouraging detritus of organizational life - everything from the management of the rate of change to the management of perceptions, from attending to funding to the assessment of outcomes, from the challenges of personnel decisions to the support of constituents and stakeholders - and it is really important for this reason to lift up our hearts to remember what is ultimately at stake, to whom we are ultimately accountable, and why ultimately we are doing what we are doing. 

  • Ministry: The Stewardship of the Mystery

    by Michael Jinkins | May 21, 2013

    The 159th Commencement of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary was held on Sunday, May 19. The following is President Michael Jinkins' charge to the graduating class of 2013.


    I find that I lose my footing whenever I read the fourth-century theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I read him, in part, just for this purpose, to lose my footing. Cyril transports us to that "foreign country" of the distant past.[i] He takes us into the realm of our own Christian past, which we might assume would feel familiar. But when he speaks of the most ordinary Christian practices, such as baptism, these ordinary Christian practices become strange to us. These practices also, in Cyril's hands, take on a magnitude, a significance they seem to lack in our time. 

    Reading Cyril we find ourselves in a realm that revels in mystery. Describing a baptismal service he tells us how the candidates for baptism, "facing west and with hands stretched out, made a formal renunciation of the devil. Then, turning to the east, they solemnly professed faith in the Trinity and in the One Baptism of Repentance." They disrobed, were anointed with oil, and led to "the sacred pool of Holy Baptism." There they professed their faith again and were immersed three times to symbolize Christ's "three day sojourn in the grave." Then, arising from the water like the risen Christ from his grave, they were clothed in white garments, these neophytes (literally these "newly enlightened" ones), and they processed into the sanctuary where they received Holy Communion for the first time.[ii]

    C. S. Lewis once said, "Holy places are dark places... [and] Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood."[iii] Reading Cyril, we find ourselves tumbling head over heels into a holy world, a world blood-thick with mystery. Reading Cyril I am also reminded of Annie Dillard's wonderful reflections, where she says: "On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? .... The churches are children playing on the floor with a chemistry set, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ... straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets."[iv]

    Joseph Sittler once defined ministry as "the stewardship of the mystery." He wrote: "The principal work of the ordained ministry is reflection: cultivation of one's perception into the depth of the Word so that the witness shall be poignant and strong."[v]

    Today I charge you to be stewards of the mystery. I charge you to be mindful of what happens when we invoke holy things. I charge you to take seriously the sacred mysteries we handle.

    There are two mysteries in particular I charge you to reflect on and to handle with reverence: the mystery of God, and the human mystery, both of which are subject to reductionism in our time, to caricature and desecration. 

    Concerning the human mystery: Do not allow the powers and principalities of this present age to lead you to reduce a person to something less than a human being, created in love in the likeness and image of God. The people among whom you will serve are not consumers, or customers, or giving units. They are not even parishioners. They are human beings, children of God. And each and every one stands uniquely in the presence of a God who loves him or her. You are a steward of this great mystery. 

    Concerning the mystery of God:  We steward this great and fundamental mystery first by recognizing God's holiness, God's wholly otherness; and by recognizing that we are not God. But we also steward this mystery by recognizing that we belong (as the Heidelberg Catechism teaches us) body and soul, in life and in death, not to ourselves, but to our faithful savior, Jesus Christ. 

    There will be moments when you will be tempted to use another person for your own ends or to caricature another person's motives to win an argument. There will be moments when you will be tempted to take God for granted by making prayer a convenient zipper to begin or end a gathering, or a platform for you to posture in the presence of those with whom you disagree. 

    I charge you now to redeem those moments in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Every person we meet bears upon herself or himself the indelible stamp of God, and makes a claim upon our respect and love. And every moment in our lives is a gift from the most Holy God, who is always as near to us as our next breath. The steward of the human mystery and the mystery of God reflects on these mysteries and allows them to transform our life together. 

    May the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ be with you in your life and in your ministries;  AMEN.

    [i] Opening line of L. P. Hartley's novel, The Go-Between (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1953): "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." 

    [ii] F. L. Cross, Introduction to Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1986), xxv. 

    [iii] C. S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces (London: Collins, 1956), 58. 

    [iv] Annie Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 40. 

    [v] Joseph Sittler, Gravity and Grace: Reflections and Provocations, ed. Linda-Marie Delloff (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 49.

  • The End of the Beguine

    by Michael Jinkins | May 14, 2013

    A few weeks ago Marcella Pattyn died. 

    There's no particular reason most of us would have noticed. She did not produce a top-ten pop song or write a best-selling novel, or star in a blockbuster movie. She didn't achieve high political office or make a scientific discovery. She was 92 years old at her death. A quiet, chaste, simple soul, her eyesight profoundly impaired, who lived alone. Very much alone. She was the last surviving member of her religious body, the Beguines, a lay religious movement in which women lived in communities dedicated to prayer, useful service and chastity. The movement seems to have begun and spread almost spontaneously, particularly in the Low Countries of Western Europe, beginning in the twelfth or thirteenth century. 

    This was a women's movement in the Roman Catholic Church; some have said it was the very first. And, yet, the women were not nuns and they did not live in a convent. They were not bound by an order or by vows that governed the whole movement, but each community ordered its own life together. Perhaps most importantly, they did not live under the authority of male clergy. 

    While the last of these facts might not have been out of the question in the early medieval period - for instance in Britain where one even finds women religious figures exercising authority over men and women - it was unheard of in the High Middle Ages in Europe. Consequently, the Beguines were often suspected of all sorts of mischief, for which they suffered cruelly at the hands of many, not least at the hands of their own church. 

    Nevertheless, at one time, as was mentioned in Marcella's obituary in The Economist (yes, The Economist took note of her passing!), a single city such as Ghent "could count its Beguines in thousands" (The Economist, April 27, 2013, 86). Revolutions and reformations and counter-reformations, wars and secularism all took their tolls over the centuries, however, until finally Marcella Pattyn was left alone. 

    I first became aware of the Beguine movement because of the scholarly work of a very dear friend, Dr. Ellen Babinsky, a Church historian and scholar of Christian spirituality. A student of Bernard McGinn at the University of Chicago, Ellen translated and wrote the introduction to the beautiful critical edition of Marguerite Porete's classic theological and mystical study, The Mirror of Simple Souls. Porete was one of the best-known of the medieval Beguines. She was burned at the stake in 1310. In Ellen's introduction to Porete's book, in addition to providing a sense of the devotion, independence, and intra-dependence of this remarkable religious community, she tells the story of Porete's trial and execution. 

    "Marguerite," Ellen writes, "was put to death because she was a symbol of a threat, real or perceived, to the established order intimately connected with the strengthening of royal power." Ellen observes that Porete was even more troublesome than many other Beguines because, rather than staying put in a particular Beguine House or enclosure, she wandered freely around her region, teaching. She also wrote in vernacular French, making her teachings readily accessible. In other words, Marguerite Porete was seen by church and civil authorities not only as heretical, but also as popular. She was potentially beyond the control of the authorities. Her influence could easily get out of hand. (Ellen Babinsky, "Introduction," Marguerite Porete, Mirror of Simple Souls [New York: Paulist Press, 1993], 25-26) 

    Reading this classic of Beguine spirituality today, one may be a bit puzzled as to how it could possibly have been condemned by bishops and theologians, even 800 years ago - but only a bit puzzled. Woven throughout the beautiful piety was a message of spiritual freedom. 

    For example, when Porete encourages Christians to live according to the virtue of Charity, she writes: "Charity obeys no created thing except Love. Charity possesses nothing of her own, and should she possess something she does not say that it belongs to her. Charity abandons her own need and attends to that of others. Charity asks no payment from any creature for some good or pleasure that she has accomplished. Charity has no shame, nor fear, nor anxiety. She is so upright that she cannot bow on account of anything that might happen to her." (Mirror of Simple Souls, Chapter 4, p. 82) Here, and especially in other chapters (such as Chapter 6: "How the Soul, made loving by God, living in the peace of Charity, takes leave of the Virtues") one catches a glimpse of the indomitable spirit that so irritated the religious authorities, especially the Inquisition, as well as the thrill and threat of what some scholars who were contemporaries (e.g., at the University of Paris) saw as antinomianism lurking just beneath the surface of Porete's spiritual thought. And Porete burned. 

    It was common among Beguines to write in the vernacular languages, French and Flemish especially, much to the distress of religious and civil authorities. Porete was not unique among her sisters. The writer of The Economist obit reminds us that the authorities who persecuted the Beguines were inevitably male. The resistance and defiance of the Beguines against such oppression is beautifully expressed in their writings as lamentation, resignation, and consolation. Hadewijch of Antwerp writes: "Men try to dissuade me from everything Love bids me do. They don't understand it, and I can't explain it to them. I must live out what I am." (The Economist, April 27, 2013, 86) 

    And so Marcella Pattyn lived out her life. She was who she was. Staunchly, humbly, persistently, her own person in the grace of God. She found God's grace among this community of women who loved Christ and found in Christ (as the Beguines themselves said) a "bridegroom" and a "lover" worthy of their devotion. As Porete wrote, in praise of Christ (in a passage that must really have driven the Grand Inquisitor mad): 

    "O Lover of gentle nature,

    You are to be much praised:

    Generous, courteous without measure,

    Sum of all goodness,

    You do not will to do anything,

    Lover, without my will.

    And thus I must not hold silence

    About your beauty and goodness.

    Powerful you are for my sake, and wise;

    Such I cannot hide.

    Ah, but to whom will I say it?

    Seraphim know not how to speak of it."

    (Mirror of Simple Souls, Chapter 122: "Here the Soul begins her song") 

    So begin the beguine no more; but such an ending. 

    *Apologies to Cole Porter

  • Merton, Barth, and Salvation by Grace

    by Michael Jinkins | May 07, 2013

    Coincidences of the calendar are simply amazing. I recall my surprise, many years ago, discovering that C.S. Lewis died on November 22, 1963. The whole world's attention, of course, was utterly diverted that day from the death of arguably the most popular Christian writer of the time by the tragic assassination of the young American president. A fascinating coincidence of the calendar, but not the only one. 

    To me, an even more striking coincidence was the death on the same day of Karl Barth and Thomas Merton. Barth died in Basel, Switzerland, at the age of 82, at the end of a long and productive life. Merton died in Bangkok, Thailand, at the age of 53, at the height of his creative powers and influence. The date, December 10, 1968, came toward the end of a terrible year for the deaths of the great and the good.

    Rowan Williams, while he was Archbishop of Canterbury, marked the fortieth anniversary of this date with a lecture to the Thomas Merton Society on December 10, 2008. (The lecture, "Not Being Serious:Thomas Merton and Karl Barth," can be read here.

    In Williams' lecture he speculates "about conversations that might be going on in some heavenly waiting room between Merton and Barth. Apparently such very diverse figures: the greatest Protestant thinker of the twentieth century, and one of the most widely publicized and widely-read Catholic writers of the age." Drawing from Merton's book, "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander" (the working title of which was originally "Barth's Dream") and Merton's journals, Williams provides a remarkably full portrait of Merton's critical appreciation for Barth.

    Merton's "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander" opens with the sentence: "Karl Barth had a dream about Mozart." Merton goes on to say that in the dream Barth "was appointed to examine Mozart in theology." Barth, the champion of Protestantism, had always been bothered by the fact that Mozart was resolutely Catholic; Mozart criticized Protestantism as "all in the head" and as utterly uncomprehending of the meaning of the phrase: "The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world."

    Barth, whose devotion to Mozart is well-known, wanted to understand Mozart's faith and theology in the most sympathetic terms possible.

    Merton writes: "I was deeply moved by Barth's account of this dream and always wanted to write him a letter about it. The dream concerns salvation, and Barth is striving to admit that he will be saved more by the Mozart in himself than by his theology." Recalling that Barth began each day's labors as a theologian by listening to Mozart on his record player, Merton says that Barth was drawn to the "divine and cosmic music" that saves us through that love that meets us not only as "agape" (divine love) but also as "eros" (a very human love). Barth himself says that "it is a child, even a 'divine' child, who speaks in Mozart's music to us." Merton closes this opening passage with an exhortation: "Fear not, Karl Barth! Trust in the divine mercy. Though you have grown up to become a theologian, Christ remains a child in you. Your books (and mine) matter less than we might think! There is in us a Mozart who will be our salvation." (Thomas Merton, "Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander" New York: 1965, pp. 3-4)

    I wish Merton had written that letter to Barth and that a rich correspondence might have grown between them. We would all have benefited from these two reflecting on their differences and similarities.

    It is singularly interesting that Barth, toward the end of his life, laughs at how preposterous it would be for him to attempt to gain access to heaven pushing a wheelbarrow loaded down with his "Church Dogmatics." The image of the old theologian sweating, huffing and puffing, toward St. Peter's gate, pushing a load of books is delightful, and reminiscent of Merton's playful exhortation. Despite the brilliance with which Barth argued with his students, or the doggedness with which he quarreled with friends and foes alike, there was a childlike playfulness in Barth too which comes through in asides and letters. He was capable of taking himself lightly, as Williams says (of both Merton and Barth); and perhaps this side of Barth's character, the playful child, was fed as much by the bizarre and wondrous shenanigans of "The Magic Flute" as by the "Great Mass in C-Minor."

    I have often thought that Mozart's "Magic Flute" is his musical equivalent to Anselm's "Proslogian" in which the medieval theologian tries to explain how faith kindles understanding and why he was utterly convinced of God's existence. Mozart invites us into an incredible realm where a beautiful woman, the Queen of the Night, a vision of seeming light embodied in a soaring soprano, turns out to be a mortalthreat to our souls while the stern and foreboding Sarastro, a basso profundo in extremis, is revealed in the end as pure grace and goodness. Only by entering into the mysteries personally and at great risk can one discern the goodness of God in this life, Mozart seems to say. Barth understood this too when he says that "Divine revelation ... is the opening of a door that can only be unlocked from the inside." (Merton, "Conjectures" p. 10)

    Perhaps it is a fancy, but one shared with an Archbishop: what fun it would have been to overhear the conversation on December 10, 1968, between Barth and Merton. But I suspect as much as they enjoyed getting to know each other, they were both looking forward even more to that evening's performance of Mozart's latest opera, one we haven't heard yet. 


  • Divine Comedy

    by Michael Jinkins | Apr 30, 2013

    "At the mid-point of the path through life, I found/Myself lost in a wood so dark, the way/Ahead was blotted out." (Dante, "The Divine Comedy," tr. Clive James, New York: Liveright Publishing Co., 2013, 3)

    According to Emmanuel Levinas, a text only really exists when it is translated. If this is true, Dante's "Divine Comedy" surpasses almost every other western text in sheer existential heft.

    I have spread out before me on the dining room table this afternoon my four favorite translations: my all-time favorite by one of my all-time favorite poets, John Ciardi; a translation by mystery writer Dorothy L. Sayers; Robert Pinsky's wonderful verse translation of "The Inferno" in a bilingual edition; and the venerable Melville Best Anderson edition which I value almost entirely for the illustrations by William Blake. To these I now add the new translation by  Clive James, literary and cultural critic, novelist, and poet.

    T. S. Eliot once observed: "The majority of poems one outgrows and outlives, as one outgrows and outlives the majority of human passions; Dante's is one of those which one can only just hope to grow up to at the end of life." (T. S. Eliot, "Dante" in "Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot," Frank Kermode, Ed. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975), 216.) This certainly appears to have been the case for Clive James who encountered the "Comedy" in Italy in the 1960s with the woman who would eventually become his wife. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, James said that he came finally to translate the poem after a very serious illness at what he knows is the end of his life. Indeed, his hope throughout the translation project, was that he would live to finish it. 


    Reviewing James' translation for the New York TimesJoseph Luzzi complains that some of the "more dramatic moments" in the "Inferno" fall flat in this translation. And this will doubtless disappoint many devotees of the poem. For many - and I have to confess it had always been true for me - the "Inferno" is the most stimulating and (dare I say it?) fun part of the poem. But Luzzi's praise is highest of James' translation of "Paradiso," which many readers have found to be something of a snooze. Why is James able to bring it back to life? It is because Clive James gets Dante in a way that many previous translators simply did not. 


    Dante was writing a theological poem, and he makes no apologies for this. Yes, as a friend once told me, Dante does seem to be settling some old scores in populating hell with enemies. And, certainly, Dante's "Purgatorio" is rich with tension and poignant regret where the "Inferno" is packed with drama. But "Paradiso," though it may seem dramatically static, is straining to communicate divine beauty, the beauty of holiness, the beauty of God. James, far from being repelled by the theology that underlies and gives meaning to the poem, finds mature wisdom here. And, what is more, he finds divine beauty.

    Whereas in other translations I have resisted the last book of the poem, finding it (as did others) static and boring, I found myself drawn as a moth to a flame as James ascended the higher cantos.

    Listen, for example, to a few lines from Canto 30:

    "She said 'We have come through to the far side/Of Heaven's largest realm, to which you lend/The name of Primum Mobile, and here/We rise into a heaven of pure light -/Of intellectual light, light full of sheer/Pure love, love full of goodness true and right,/Love full of joy, joy so sweet as to shame/All other sweet things else.'"

    Or to a few lines from Canto 32:

    "Let's direct/Our eyes to where the Primal Love resounds/In silent light, so that your intellect/May enter, insofar as it's allowed,/His mighty fire."

    Sweet, pure joy; love full of goodness; light silent and clear; the fire of God's presence: "What is surprising about the poetry of Dante," T. S.  Eliot wrote, "is that it is, in one sense, easy to read. It is a test ... that genuine poetry can communicate before it is understood." (Eliot, "Dante," 206)

    Dante's is a rarer gift than possessed by most poets, even very fine ones, to communicate what not even he could understand, that which is beyond all comprehension, beyond all human knowledge, beyond even the powers of theological speculation. Through a theological imagination of breathtaking profundity and scope, Dante in the depths of divine light "saw, packed tight/Bound in one book by love, all that is sent/Abroad throughout the universe as leaves/Torn out and scattered: single, separate things." "But," he goes on to say, "here/All things and links that ever were and are/Were fused together so they might appear/To me as one pure light. I know I saw/The universal form of this intact/Complexity, because my joy, the more/I tell it, expands to mark the act/ Of speaking."

    Thank God for so many, and such fine translations. For "Inferno" perhaps Pinsky and Ciardi; and for "Purgatorio," it is Ciardi for sure. But the closer we get to "Paradiso," we have a new traveling companion to help us make sense of the path. James wins heaven by a length. 

  • Reality Bible

    by Michael Jinkins | Apr 23, 2013

    There is general agreement among Christians that the Bible is true, though sorting out what that means precisely could take up several volumes. We sometimes fail to realize, however, that the Bible is also real, a fact that could help us interpret it better.

    This thought came to mind with particular force recently while I was listening to a wonderful sermon by the Reverend Glen Bell, senior pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Sarasota, Florida. Glen was preaching on the Gospel text, John 12: 1-8, in which Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed the feet of Jesus with a pound of costly perfume. (Click here for audio of the sermon.)

    I have only heard this story a couple of million times. I've exegeted it and read commentaries on it, focused on the parallels between the story as told by John's Gospel and the versions told in Mark 14: 3-9 and Luke 7: 36-50, both of which place the story in very different contexts making it a very different story. The questions raised by the comparisons with these other versions are important in their own right, and potentially very productive. But this particular Sunday I noticed something I had never noticed before because Glen asked us to hear the story in its context in John's Gospel. He signaled this by observing that the story of Mary anointing the feet of Jesus occurs not long after he had raised Mary's brother Lazarus from the dead.

    What I had not noticed before about this story is the human dimension, the thing that any of us would notice first if this had happened in our neighborhood.

    Mary committed an act of extravagant over-the-top gratitude. She called up the equivalent of Saks Fifth Avenue and asked them to send her their most expensive perfume, perhaps one she had been denying herself her whole life. When Jesus arrived, she washed his feet, tired and dirty from the dusty road. She poured the contents of the whole container over his feet, bathing them in luxurious costly scent. The aroma filled the house.

    When we strip away the various editorial comments, the reflections on Jesus' approaching death (of which she would have had no knowledge) and either the self-righteous posturing of Judas (his holier-than-thou puffery) or the hypocritical criminal misdirection of Judas (if the editor of the Gospel is right about his motives), you have the generosity of a woman toward the man who brought her brother back from death to life. Surely this is a theological point equal in value to any of the rest.

    Judas emerges not only as betrayer of our Lord, but as a jerk as well. He couldn't or wouldn't appreciate the human feelings of gratitude that could lead a woman to empty her bank account in a single act.

    Wherever this story came from originally, and whatever its original context conveyed, in this Gospel, in the flow of this narrative, it stands out for its utter reality, its testimony to a human heart overflowing with thanksgiving. Because of its reality, the story becomes a complementary parable on the par with those equally extravagant stories of God's out-sized grace and mercy (the Prodigal Son story, for example). But here we see a woman demonstrating out-sized gratitude, gratitude on the grandest scale.

    Perhaps after we have allowed the story of Mary anointing Jesus' feet to speak in its own context of the common but extravagant gratitude of a woman whose brother was raised by Jesus from the dead, we are ready then to read the way the parallel story is used in Luke 7:36-50.

    In that story, in the house of Simon the Pharisee, the woman designated only as a sinner, anoints Jesus' feet with "an alabaster vial of perfume." She wiped his feet with her hair and covered them with her tears.

    Simon (in Luke's story) is critical of Jesus because Jesus allowed the sinful woman to touch him. In response to Simon's criticism, Jesus tells the story of two debtors, one who has a small debt forgiven, the other a very large debt. He asks Simon who is more grateful of the forgiveness of his debt, the small-time debtor or the one who owed lots of money. "I suppose the one whom he forgave more," Simon answered. Jesus turned then to compare the gratitude felt by those who realize the extent of God's mercy.

    There is a common thread between the stories: gratitude. Gratitude not of the perfunctory type, but on a scale that inspires a person to do that which some people are bound to judge as insane, inappropriate, or immoral. The women in these stories are gifted with the sort of imagination that allowed them to see what is real. And when they saw it, they acted appropriately. Extravagant grace called forth extravagant gratitude. 

  • The Prerequisite for Interfaith Dialogue

    by Michael Jinkins | Apr 16, 2013

    There is a suspicion in some circles that a person who is open to interfaith dialogue must not be fully convinced of his or her own faith. I suppose there are people who confirm this suspicion, but in my own experience I have found the opposite more often to be true.

    One of the most profoundly enriching experiences of my early ministry revolved around a multi-year conversation sponsored by an interfaith organization in Dallas, Texas, in which a group of rabbis and pastors entered into covenant to plan a community event together. Two years of frank and respectful conversation bore the fruit of a conference for Christians and Jews exploring the life and thought of the incomparable theologian Abraham Heschel. It was appropriate that our interfaith dialogue resulted in an event dedicated to Heschel. He was a towering figure of the twentieth century, respected by persons of many faiths. It was especially appropriate also because it was Heschel who said that the prerequisite to interfaith dialogue is faith.

    Thich Nhat Hanh, another towering figure of the twentieth century, deeply respected by both Thomas Merton and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., (Dr. King nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize) writes: "For dialogue to be fruitful, we need to live deeply our own tradition and, at the same time, listen deeply to others. Through the practice of deep looking and deep listening, we become free, able to see the beauty and values in our own and others' traditions." Nhat Hanh, one of the most respected Buddhist thinkers of his generation, makes a claim of enormous significance, writing: "Many years ago, I recognized that by understanding your own tradition better, you also develop increased respect, consideration, and understanding for others." (Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ," New York: Riverbend/Penguin, 1995/2007, 7)

    The equation can run both ways, however. I have seen Christians, for example, engage their Christian faith more diligently, with greater sensitivity and receptiveness, because they have studied another faith or have listened with care as a practitioner of another faith shared his or her tradition with a spirit of openness. Often what we discover is that our assumptions about the beliefs of others can be quite inaccurate.

    The prerequisite of interfaith dialogue is faith. But the fruit of interfaith dialogue may just be that flourishing of life and community to which we are called by the God of all creation. I have said on many occasions that if we do not get this pluralism thing right, our society is toast. But, let's turn that negative idea around, shall we! Imagine what could happen if we could get pluralism right, if we discovered the love of God that passes all knowledge, the love that makes brothers and sisters of mere ‘fellow-creatures.’

    One of the best examples of the good that can happen when we get pluralism right is the work of Eboo Patel, a winner of Louisville Seminary and University of Louisville's Grawemeyer Award in Religion. Patel is founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, an organization in Chicago which brings young people of various faiths together for acts of justice. Toward the close of his Grawemeyer Award-winning book, Patel writes, "Change happens internally before it takes place in the world.” When we listen to one another, when we hear the witness of the life of God in the lives of others, we are inviting change, the kind of change that can transform a world for the better.

  • Was Jesus an Extrovert?

    by Michael Jinkins | Apr 09, 2013

    A minister I knew several years ago proposed a Doctor of Ministry final project to prove that if Jesus took a Myers-Briggs personality test (the popular psychological inventory some refer to as "astrology for Episcopalians"), our Lord would have scored dead center on all personality indicators. In other words, Jesus, according to my colleague, would have been neither an introvert, nor an extrovert; neither tending to intuition nor sensory-based; neither more a thinker than a feeler; neither a perceiver who defers decision-making, nor a judgment-driven decider.

    I asked him why he believed this, and he said that it was obvious. Jesus Christ was not simply an individual person, but a representative of all humanity. Therefore, he had to represent all humanity in his personality.

    My response was that his thesis seemed to be based on a faulty Christology. After all, Jesus of Nazareth was, in every way, a particular person: a Palestinian Jew born in a particular family, in a particular place, at a particular time. My theological assumption is that the fact that his hair and his eyes were of a particular color does not undermine the reality that through the incarnation God united with humanity. I don't recall if this minister’s Doctor of Ministry project was ever finished, but his thesis came to mind recently when I was reading a new book, "Quiet."

    In this book, author Susan Cain explores many questions related to the rise of one particular characteristic identified in the Myers-Briggs, "extroversion," as the "cultural ideal” in American society. And, among the most interesting issues she explores, is the question, "Was Jesus an extrovert?" The idea Cain is, in fact, exploring is not the Christological question, per se, but the tendency in the American church to idealize extroversion to the point that we have, perhaps, idolized this one particular way of being in relationship. And this tendency may be undercutting the effectiveness of ministry.

    She quotes one church leader as saying: "The priest must be ... an extrovert who enthusiastically engages members and newcomers, a team player." Another church leader warns church members who are charged with recruiting a new pastor to take a close look at the Myers-Briggs personality test on every potential minister. "If the first letter isn't an 'E' [for extrovert]... think twice... I'm sure our Lord was [an extrovert]." (Susan Cain, "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking," New York: Random House, 2013, p. 65)

    Obviously, there are lots of strengths that extroverts bring to pastoral and other forms of ministry. Extroverts, by definition, gain rather than merely expend energy by being with groups of people and they tend to be better at processing ideas in conversations. We refer to this last attribute as being "external processors." These can be real advantages in church leadership. As the leader Cain quotes observes, extroverts are naturally outgoing team members. I have often said, in fact, that if I were wandering around a college campus, trying to assess who might make the best potential ministers, I would probably zero in on the person organizing a group activity in the student union rather than the one sitting alone reading under a tree. But that generalization may not be all that helpful in light of Cain's careful study of the vast range of organizational leadership.

    She found that a surprisingly high percentage of the best leaders in a wide variety of fields (business, church, non-profits, and political) are, in fact, introverts. She takes special care to scuttle the popular misconception of what the word ‘introvert’ means. It is not a synonym for shy, for example, or reclusive. An introvert primarily is a person whose energy is expended in large groups, and is restored in solitary engagements. And introverts tend to be internal processors, rather than external ones. She has an interesting barbed quip, by the way, related to this last characteristic of introverts. She says, "There's a word for 'people who are in their heads too much': thinkers."

    All of this is of particular interest to all of us concerned with identifying those people who may have potential for ministry. I often am asked the question, “Which personality type is best- suited for ministry?” The answer: It depends.

    It depends on the persons and the ministries and the moments. I have known the same church to need a different set of personality traits from its pastors depending on the particular point in the church’s history. I've known a church that consistently, throughout its history, thrived with the leadership of extroverts. And another that just as consistently favored the leadership of introverts. By the way, the core functions of ministry (pastoral care, proclamation, and leadership) were engaged in equally well by introverted and extroverted pastors in the congregations I'm thinking of. There are congregations that seem to need the gregarious leader whose personality is inevitably "on," and loves nothing more than the buzz of groups, whether in worship services, fellowships, large conferences, or parties. There are other congregations that strongly prefer the quiet pastor who is known for listening deeply, reflecting carefully, preferring to be in conversation with individuals or in small groups.

    Might it be that an extrovert has the edge in new church developments? Maybe. But the exceptions are pretty striking, like the well-known new church development pastor, a thoughtful preacher, spiritual director and very popular writer, who built a bustling congregation from nothing. And it has been shown in research at some of our leading MBA programs that charismatic and highly-articulate group participants (the very ones we most often choose to lead) frequently triumph in a committee decision-making process by the power of persuasion, but stifle the voices of quiet, thoughtful group members whose expertise or perspectives could have prevented a disastrous decision.

    One unfortunate aspect of our society's (including our church's) sometimes exclusive preference for extroversion is the guilt some introverts feel and the doubts they harbor about their faith and the value of their service. A Presbyterian evangelical minister whom Cain interviews confessed to feeling that "God isn't pleased with me" because he isn't an extrovert.

    Perhaps what we need to do, as we think about those qualities we might identify as demonstrative of promise for ministry, is to ask ourselves what we look for in various kinds of ministries, remembering that God gives God's people a variety of gifts to meet a variety of needs in the body.

    Hey, that sounds familiar. I'm almost certain I read that somewhere!

  • Is Tolerance a Christian Virtue?

    by Michael Jinkins | Apr 02, 2013

    There’s a New Yorker cartoon that shows a bearded, robed man standing on a mountain speaking to a crowd, saying, “If you believe in me, divide into sects, and kill and hurt as many from the other sects as you possibly can.”

    The cartoon recalls that earlier lampooning of Christianity’s sometimes schismatic and hateful traditions performed by Monty Python’s film, “The Life of Brian,” in which Brian (a very reluctant pseudo-messiah) in the course of running from his disciples, loses a sandal and drops his gourd. His disciples promptly split into two opposing sects, one taking the sign of the sandal, the other taking the sign of the gourd.

    We’ve given satirists a lot to work with over the centuries.

    In one particularly “fruitful” period of church history from 1750 to 1850 – “fruitful,” in the sense of the proliferation of church splits – the Presbyterians of Scotland split eight times. This included the mother of all Scottish church schisms called “the Great Disruption” (1843) in which the original “Free Church” split from the established Church of Scotland. One line of the descendants of the Free Church, which refused in the early twentieth century to reunite with the Church of Scotland, is known today as the “wee frees.”

    Despite John Calvin’s appeal to our possessing “charitable judgment” with reference to differences among us, there’s been a lot more judgment than charity.

    This is odd, indeed, given the fact that our official doctrine of the church vests our grounds for unity entirely in Jesus Christ rather than us.

    We are not “one” because we agree on biblical interpretations, doctrines, values, worship styles, etc. We are one because Jesus Christ, our “heavenly high priest” (Hebrews chapters 5, 9, and 10) holds us together. We are one body (like it or lump it!). We are one in Christ (whatever we may think or believe about that too!). We are only one in Christ. We have no other unity but in Christ. We don’t get to choose our fellow disciples. We don’t get to pick our brothers and sisters in Christ. Christ does that.

    In fact, according to the New Testament, not even our faith belongs to us. And our righteousness is not our own. Jesus Christ believes for us. Jesus Christ is our righteousness. He even became sin for us so that we might be redeemed. Jesus Christ, again according to John Calvin, is “the mirror of our sanctification.” All that we hope by faith to become is a reality only in Jesus Christ. And all the fullness of our humanity as God intended us to become is ours as a gift through Christ.

    I’m saying all of this just to remind us of an objective theological fact. We belong in the body of Christ because of Jesus Christ, and not because of anything we believe, do, value, or hope.

    So, in answer to the question, “Is tolerance a Christian virtue?” I am first compelled to say, “Oh, it’s a lot bigger than tolerance.” Tolerance is such a minimal standard for what we are responsible for that we just zip past it on the highway of faith without even noticing it in our rear-view mirrors. We are responsible to love. That’s the Christian virtue, if you will. And love requires a level of respect and compassion and commitment to the other and self-sacrifice for the other that is light years beyond mere toleration.

    Theodore Zeldin once referred to tolerance as “the reluctant acceptance of a burden, putting up with what one cannot avoid.” That is baseline toleration, the eye-rolling, sighing necessity of modern life, “tolerating” the obviously erroneous views of others in exchange for the minimal cultivation of a climate in which others will extend to me the privilege of expressing my (obviously) correct views. This is what we might call tolerance as forbearance. Bernard Williams has said, commenting on this minimal level of tolerance, that the difficulty “is that it seems to be at once necessary and impossible.” This is particularly the case, Williams continues, when it comes to matters of religious faith, where people are likely to find “others’ beliefs and ways of life deeply unacceptable.” Tolerance as forbearance represents an implicit expression of condescension cloaking an even more profound (though perhaps unconscious or unintended) disrespect of the other with whom we disagree.

    Today I’m going to say something obvious, but theologically pretty radical (radical meaning at the root of things): (1) We’re stuck with each other. God created us all (we’ll talk more about the theological significance of that fact in perhaps a future blog post about the doctrine of creation and interfaith relations); and Christ called us to be Christ’s body. We can chatter all day long if we want about whom we will recognize as real members of that body, but frankly it is all a lot of hot air. This is (literally) Christ’s call, not ours. St. Paul spoke eloquently about this issue in I Corinthians 13 which is a chapter designed to be read in the midst of a knock-down, drag-out church fight and not at a wedding. Those Christians who think that some parts of the body are better than others or are more representative to the “embodied-ness” of the Christian faith than others are all wet, according to St. Paul. We are stuck with each other because Christ made us into one body. Some time read I Corinthians 13 in its context: start with chapter 11 and don’t stop till you get to the end of chapter 15. (2) We are called to love one another and thereby to demonstrate that we are children of God. As we all learned to sing at church camp, “They will know we are Christians by our love,” not “They will know we are Christians by our self-righteous contempt of those who are different.” According to Jesus, we show our family resemblance to God by our mercy, not our self-righteousness or capacity to exclude others (Matthew 5). The author of the First Epistle of John is even more pointed: “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (I John 4: 8).

    So, “is tolerance a Christian virtue?” Close, but no cigar. We have been shown a more excellent way. As St. Paul said in the Epistle to the Romans, shortly before affirming that “we who are many are one body in Christ,” “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” “Let love,” Paul tells us, “be genuine” (Romans 12: 3-9).

    Ideas expressed in this blog are explored much more fully in the chapter, “Is Toleration a Christian Virtue? Beyond the Disrespect of Enlightenment Forbearance” in Michael Jinkins’ book: Christianity, Tolerance and Pluralism (London/New York: Routledge Press, 2004) and in the chapter, “Schism, the Unintended Consequence of the Reformed Project” in his book: The Church Transforming (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012).

  • Serpents of Wisdom: The Poetry of Norman MacCaig

    by Michael Jinkins | Mar 26, 2013

    There is wildness in Norman MacCaig’s poetry. Not just his poems describing the untamed western Highlands of Scotland, but those that are set in the Edinburgh University Staff Club. Seamus Heaney says of MacCaig, “His poems are discovered in flight, migratory, wheeling, and calling. Everything is in a state of restless becoming.” (From Roderick Watson’s “Introduction” to The Many Days: Selected Poems of Norman MacCaig [Edinburgh: Polygon, 2010]).

    It is hard for me to believe, but I only discovered MacCaig this past summer – and that was by accident. I was, in fact, looking for another poet in the bookshop in Oban, Scotland. I had just come across a brilliant poem by Hugh MacDiarmid and wanted to read more. The bookshop didn’t have any MacDiarmid, but they did have a pretty good poetry section – a rarity in bookshops these days. Working my way through the shelves, I came across MacCaig’s collection, The Many Days. Scanning the verses, I was immediately drawn in. Serendipitously, the volume includes two poems MacCaig wrote about MacDiarmid, the second of which is titled, “After his death.” The poem ends with these delightful lines:

    “The government decreed that
    on the anniversary of his birth
    the people should observe
    two minutes pandemonium.”

    MacCaig’s ability to communicate with humor and honesty in sixteen lines Hugh MacDiarmid’s great spirit is breathtaking. But even more amazing is his ability in a long poem to explore the intersection of a small human being and the vastness of the Scottish Highlands and western coastland, as he does in what I think is his finest poem, “A Man in Assynt.” This poem defies my efforts to summarize, demanding to be read as a whole. The poet takes us into the presence of pure transcendence, allowing us to meet among the mountains and diving cliffs of his beloved Scottish coast “Being expressing itself.” Humanity’s attempts to worship God in our “stone boxes” are not disparaged by MacCaig, they are merely placed into proper perspective, as though to say that human voices raised in praise of God are good, but listen now to creation’s praise which is greater still.

    Taking in the whole sweep of creation from a vantage point in the rugged Highlands MacCaig invites us to see:

    “These shapes; these incarnations, have their own determined
    identities, their own dark holiness,
    their high absurdities. See how they make
    a breadth and assemblage of animals,
    a perpendicularity of creatures, from where,
    three thousand feet up, two ravens go by
    in their seedy, nonchalant way, down to
    the burn-mouth where baby mussels
    drink fresh water through their beards –
    or down, down still, to where the masked conger eel
    goes like a gangster through
    the weedy slums at the sea’s foot.”

    The stubborn independence of the wilderness moves MacCaig. “I can’t pretend/ it gets sick for me in my absence,/ though I get/ sick for it. Yet I love it/ with special gratitude, since/ it sends me no letters….” Reading MacCaig’s description of his relationship to this wild place, I am reminded of Thomas Merton’s comment that he was won to God by the doctrine of divine aseity, the Christian belief that God does not need us.

    What is, perhaps, most remarkable about MacCaig is that he can move with such facility from the vast canvas of Assynt to the intimacy of “Memorial,” one of the most poignant poems I have ever read. It opens with the haunting words of a person in profound grief, a person unseated by the loss of the one he loves.

    “Everywhere she dies. Everywhere I go she dies.
    No sunrise, no city square, no lurking beautiful mountain
    but has her death in it…."

    And closes with these verses:

    “Ever since she died
    she can’t stop dying. She makes me
    her elegy. I am a walking masterpiece,
    a true fiction
    of the ugliness of death.
    I am her sad music.”

    MacCaig’s acerbic wit, his pathos, his sense of reverence all spring from an engagement with a land as hard and unforgiving as any on earth, but also soft, softly beautiful and inviting. The faith we share as Christians is complicated for its integration of a living pagan remembrance, but is strangely enriched, not depleted at all, by this syncretism. Nowhere is this reality conceptualized more powerfully than in his poem, “Celtic Cross,” which ends with words that firmly escort sentimentality from the scene:

    "The stone remains, and the cross, to let us know
    Their unjust, hard demands, as symbols do.
    But on them twine and grow
    beneath the dove
    Serpents of wisdom whose cool statements show
    Such understanding that it seems like love.”

  • Prophetic Voices

    by Michael Jinkins | Mar 19, 2013

    “Therefore, because you impose heavy rent on the poor and exact a tribute of grain from them, though you have built houses of well-hewn stone, yet you will not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine.” (Amos 5:11)

    Last fall my colleague and friend, David Hester, former dean of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, preached a moving and eloquent “pre-election” sermon about an issue he felt was getting very little attention from either of our two major political parties: the poor. David reminded us that in previous years and in many past elections, such was not the case. There were vigorous debates among major candidates of the two parties in those elections about how best to address the needs of the poor. But in the election that was bringing Americans to the polls last November, neither party seemed willing to address the needs of the neediest. The reasons were many. And I am relatively sure that political strategists would have had strong arguments about why both parties were best served by avoiding the topic. But, as David reminded us, Christians have certain obligations as adherents to a faith that still listens to the voices of prophets like Amos, Hosea and Micah, Mary the Mother of Jesus, St. Luke, and St. James.

    A few weeks ago my thoughts returned again to David Hester’s sermon as I read the most recent issue of the journal, Foreign Affairs, in which Jerry Z. Muller wrote the lead article on “Capitalism and Inequality” (Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2013; pp. 30-51). Dr. Muller teaches history at the Catholic University of America. In his essay, he explains that while capitalism has done great things throughout the world, nevertheless “inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it.” Furthermore, the increase of inequality, he maintains, “is a problem for everybody, not just those who are doing poorly or those who are ideologically committed to egalitarianism – because if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large.”

    David Hester provided a persuasive moral argument for persons of faith to address poverty. Muller provides a convincing pragmatic argument to do the same. And both are asking us to think systemically. That is, both argue for us to think and act at the deepest levels of the structures of society, rather than only to respond to poverty at a personal, individualistic, and ad hoc level.

    Muller’s essay is subtitled: “What the Right and the Left Get Wrong.” Like David Hester’s sermon, Muller’s reflections confront both parties. He writes: “As the 2012 U.S. presidential election and the battles over the ‘fiscal cliff’ have demonstrated, the central focus of the left today is on increasing government taxing and spending, primarily to reverse the growing stratification of society, whereas the central focus of the right is on decreasing taxing and spending, primarily to ensure economic dynamism. Each side minimizes the concerns of the other, and each seems to believe that its desired policies are sufficient to ensure prosperity and social stability. Both are wrong.”

    Muller’s appreciation for the goods accomplished by capitalism and his profound understanding of its inherent problems are likely to irritate ideological purists of the left and the right alike. His analysis of the shift in the cause of insecurity from nature to economy (a shift that emerged with modern industrialization) is fascinating, though too nuanced to do justice to it here. His observations on the subject of the increase of inequality, and the dangers this poses to human society, should cause everyone to pause and reflect seriously. But perhaps his most eloquent and important point relates to the present need for the political and social will to eschew ideology in favor of the common good.

    To bring this point home, Muller cites Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, who said: “Tis the portion of man assigned to him by the eternal allotment of Providence that every good he enjoys, shall be alloyed with ills, that every source of his bliss shall be a source of his affliction…. The true politician … will favor all those institutions and plans which tend to make men happy according to their natural bent which multiply the sources of individual enjoyment and increase those of national resource and strength – taking care to infuse in each case all the ingredients which can be devised as preventives or correctives of the evil which is the eternal concomitant of temporal blessing.”

    When we recognize that the insecurity and inequality inherent in capitalism can undermine not only its dynamism but the very foundations of a democratic society, while also recognizing the goods performed for so many people around the globe by capitalism as an economic system, it is simply obvious that political leaders have a duty reinforced by common sense to lay aside their factionalism and ideology in order to act for the good of the whole body. That underlies the pragmatic argument for addressing the profound needs of those who suffer most in the midst of the economic uncertainties and inequalities of our age. But David Hester’s argument still rings true from the perspective of our faith. And the prophetic voices at the heart of our faith speak not only of promises of God’s blessings, but warnings of God’s judgment. We would do well to heed them, too.

    PS: I particularly want to thank three of the Trustees of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary for helping me reflect on economics and faith. Brent Slay, a business leader from Grand Rapids, recommended a fascinating book this summer while we were together in Scotland, "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" by Ha-Joon Chang (Penguin, 2010). Chapters 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 provide a great place to start, especially in light of Muller's essay. Click here for video of a lecture Chang gave on the book in 2010. Jim Ramsey, president of the University of Louisville, read this blog for me before its publication, and suggested a classic text he has used in university classes (Jim is an economist): Arthur M. Okun, "Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff" (Washington: Brookings, 1975). And, finally, Scott Black Johnston, senior pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City also read the blog for me and offered some valuable insights related to the interplay of political and economic interests. Thank you to all of these trustees!

  • “I believe”: The Poetry of Wislawa Szymborska

    by Michael Jinkins | Mar 12, 2013

    There is something almost fragile, something disarmingly vulnerable and at times unwieldy about the poetry of Wislawa Szymborska; fragile, vulnerable, and unwieldy in a similar way to one of Mendelssohn’s “Songs without Words.” Her sense of irony undercuts any pretension (a vice that she seems completely to lack in herself), and becomes a weapon, deftly  
    of cutting and destabilizing any attempt                    
    by others to mask the truth.

    She is, I believe, the perfect poet of a country long occupied by the old Soviet Union, and, by extension, any country occupied by any ideological force. A Pole who survived the terrors of the Second World War, Szymborska early embraced Communism and tried to stick it out with that ideology, even while it became progressively obvious to many others that Soviet-style Communism was morally bankrupt, corrupt, and corrupting. By the mid-nineteen-sixties she had left the party that she had tried to “fix from the inside.” Her youthful acceptance of Communism, she later characterized as the result of “foolishness, naivety and perhaps intellectual laziness.” Her decision to stay in the Communist party so long, hoping to change it for the better, she came to characterize as delusional.

    But this does not mean that she is a poet without hope. Quite the contrary. She is one of the most hopeful poets I have ever read. I am applying “hopeful” to Szymborska here with the same reserve an old friend used of the term “joy” when he once said that “joy is a word we can only understand on Good Friday.” Hopeful is a word that only makes sense against the backdrop of loss, disillusionment, and disenchantment.

    Note, for example, what changes are afoot as the poem “Discovery” moves along from its first stanzas to its climax:

    “I believe in the great discovery.

    I believe in the man who will make the great discovery.

    I believe in the fear of the man who will make the discovery.

    I believe in his face going white,

    his queasiness, his upper lip drenched in cold sweat.

    I believe in the burning of his notes,

    burning them into ashes,

    burning them to the last scrap ….

    I believe in the refusal to take part.

    I believe in the ruined career.

    I believe in the wasted years of work.

    I believe in the secret taken to the grave.

    These words soar for me beyond all rules

    without seeking support from actual examples.

    My faith is strong, blind, and without foundation.”

    Reading these lines it is easy to see why she was selected in 1996 for the Nobel Prize in Literature, and why a year or so ago she was eulogized around the world when she died at the age of 88.

    Children at school in her homeland learn by heart her poems, such as “Cat in an empty apartment.” It is as accessible as lines we learned in school by Robert Frost. But there are lines also by Szymborska that I shall plumb for years and never exhaust, such as the closing lines of “Psalm.”

    “Only what is human can truly be foreign.

    The rest is mixed vegetation, subversive moles, and wind.”

    Or the lines from “The Letters of the Dead” which bring to mind Voltaire and Epicurus and Thomas Mann:

    “Everything the dead predicted has turned out completely different.

    Or a little bit different – which is to say, completely different.”

    The wry sense of humor, withering and devastating, are as much a part of her poetry as her courage and hope, as we see in “Advertisement.”

    “I’m a tranquilizer.

    I’m effective at home.

    I work in the office.

    I can take exams

    or the witness stand.

    I mend broken cups with care.

    All you have to do is take me,

    let me melt beneath your tongue,

    just gulp me

    with a glass of water.

    I know how to handle misfortune,

    how to take bad news.

    I can minimize injustice,

    lighten up God’s absence ….

    Sell me your soul.

    There are no other takers.

    There is no other devil anymore.”

    From her almost mythical short narrative poem, “Parable” (1962), to her new poems (1993-1997), there is such a wealth of insight and unflinching courage in her work. Her voice is unlike any other poet’s, to the extent that it simply magnifies the irony of one of her last poems, “Among the Multitudes,” which begins with the words, “I am who I am,” but then says:

    “I could have been someone

    much less separate.

    Someone from an anthill, shoal, or buzzing swarm ….”

    Perhaps she is right. Perhaps she could have been, but what a loss for her readers if that had been true.

    *For those wishing to read Szymborska, I recommend her Poems: New and Collected (1957-1997), translated by Stanislaw Baranczak and Clare Cavanagh (New York: Harcourt, Inc. 1998). This edition includes her Nobel Prize address, “The Poet and the World,” which is, by turns, witty and profoundly moving. See review here. The biographical information in this blog post is largely drawn from The Economist obituary published February 11, 2012.

    Read Szymborska's full bio here

  • Renaissance Woman

    by Michael Jinkins | Mar 05, 2013

    Sara (or Sarah) Losh would stand out in any age. In the age in which she lived (1785-1853) she was virtually unique. The grandchild and child of landed gentry in the Cumbrian region (northwestern England), Sara was reared in a home that valued education, curiosity, and independence. Her father, John (who inherited the land that was the cornerstone of their family fortune), and uncles, James (a barrister) and William (an industrialist and inventor) were leaders in their society. They encouraged Sara and her sister Katharine to cultivate an interest in mathematics, geology, engineering, archaeology, poetry, the arts, languages (modern and ancient), and politics.

    Though both Sara and Katharine were heralded as great beauties when they entered society in Carlisle (and portraits of Sara are consistent with this view), neither married. Both were involved throughout their lives in a wide range of activities. Their Uncle James, who was a close friend of William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and extraordinary political thinkers of the time, introduced them also to many of the leading lights of literature and radical politics. But Sara emerged in this male-dominated society as a figure of singular originality and brilliance.

    Henry Lonsdale, the nineteenth-century author, compared her intellect to that of novelist and translator George Eliot. More recently Simon Jenkins, the well-known English columnist for the Sunday Times (London) and author of one of my favorite books, ("England's Thousand Best Churches") describes Sara Losh as "a genius, a Charlotte Bronte of wood and stone." What Sara did that was so exceptional was to translate her own wide-ranging interests and transmute her own profound personal grief into building projects that stand to this day as among the most wondrous small masterpieces in the world.

    Recently Sara's story has been told by Jenny Uglow, a fine historian who brings her skills as a "group biographer" to bear on Sara's life, illuminating a family and circle even more than an individual, in her book, "The Pinecone" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012). The title of the biography relates directly to Sara's crowning achievement, the construction of the small gem for which she is remembered chiefly today, St. Mary's Church in the village of Wreay, the Cumbrian village where Sara and her family lived, about five miles south of Carlisle, England.

    St. Mary's Church, which was built between 1840 and 1842 was entirely Sara's project. This astonishingly independent woman volunteered to provide the land and funds to replace the crumbling village church provided, "I should be left unrestricted as to the mode of building it." The village elders (The Twelve Men or Wreay) gave their permission. Sara's relationship to this body was ironic in that as the region's major landowner her father had chaired the Twelve Men, and his heir would naturally have succeeded him; but Sara (his heir) could not even become a member of the body let alone its leader because of her gender, though after her father's death she remained throughout her life the largest landholder in the region and its primary benefactor.

    Sara's interest in architecture had been awakened while she and her sister Katharine were on a grand tour of Europe in 1815, especially during their visit to Italy. And smaller building projects offered opportunities for Sara to express her ideas in her village. But when she turned to the design of St. Mary's everything came together, her love of simple, clean architectural lines led her to design a Roman basilica with a rectangular nave and a semicircular apse, a design she felt reflected the beauty and simplicity of early Christian liturgical architecture. Her design ran directly counter to the fashion of the age for English Gothic Revival and anticipated by some fifty years the Arts and Crafts movement.

    Sara's grief and her interests intertwined in the ornamentation of the structure. Sara's world had been shaken in 1833 by the death of her beloved Uncle James, but even more so by the death of her sister Katharine in 1835, a loss from which she seemed never fully to recover. St. Mary's Church is richly adorned with symbols of eternity, resurrection and regeneration, creation and fertility, overwhelmingly drawn from nature: pinecones (lots and lots of pinecones) and pomegranates, a chrysalis and butterfly, lotus and other flowers, acorns and bees. The church has been described as a reflection "in stone and wood" of "the love of God for all creation." But it is not only a celebration of the contemporary natural world—it is one of past worlds, too. Ammonites and other fossil finds can be seen next to birds Sara would have seen in the surrounding woods and fields. While the baptismal font has a mirrored lid that gives the impression that living water lilies are floating in its waters and the lectern is upheld by a stork with neck and wings outstretched, the pulpit is carved from a bog oak to resemble a huge fossilized tree trunk. Past and present fuse in a symphony of symbols.

    Some have seen paganism at work in Sara's design. It is far more likely that we find a deep faith, suspicious of doctrinaire dogmatism, lit by natural and historical curiosity in a region abounding in Roman and Celtic antiquities, and in a time when people made revolutionary scientific discoveries at quarries and in laboratories every day.

    Among the most poignant symbols in St. Mary's are the arrows, which are said to memorialize the death of Sara's friend, Major William Thain, who was killed in the Afghan War in 1842. But among the most poignant facts emerging from Sara's life is the loss of her writings.

    Sara herself destroyed most of her letters and papers, but she kept a journal chronicling the European trip she and Katharine took together in 1815, a trip that fired her imagination and led to her architectural endeavors. This journal, in seven manuscript volumes, went missing after a family member loaned it to a friend in the 1870s. But perhaps even this is fitting. The lasting testaments to this Renaissance woman who not only designed but personally supervised her buildings, and who took turns carving the stone of her monuments, are the structures themselves. There we can read her character and see her imagination and brilliance fully at play.

  • Dwelling Places

    by Michael Jinkins | Feb 26, 2013

    Let not your heart be troubled,” says Jesus, in the Gospel of John. “Believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.

    As Erskine Clarke makes clear in his remarkable history of Antebellum Georgia, especially as seen through the eyes of the men and women and children, white and African American, who lived on a cluster of coastal plantations, Jesus’ words have been perceived as much as a threat as they have as a promise. The purpose of Clarke’s book, Dwelling Place: A Plantation Epic, is to bring to life this group of people. He elaborates on the intention of his book by quoting another scholar, Rhys Isaac, who wrote: “The final presentation of one’s research should not be primarily a record of the researcher’s labors, but a persuasive reconstruction of the experiences of past actors.”

    Clarke, by carefully reconstructing the experiences of these past actors, invites us into their lived experience. He first focuses on the extended Jones family, a white, slave-owning family. He especially wants us to understand the life of the central “actor” in this family during this period, Charles Colcock Jones. Jones, a Presbyterian minister who became known as “the Apostle to the Slaves,” was a man whose spiritual and cultural pilgrimage took him to Princeton Seminary and into the company of dedicated Abolitionists and Emancipationists. Jones became a close friend of Catherine Beecher (sister of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin). But, despite a promising start, his journey eventually culminated in a tragically conventional southern reinforcement of slavery.

    In the course of this aspect of Clarke’s study we glimpse the power of context and connections to distort even the most idealistic and well-intended of persons. The author warns us, early in the book, to expect that however high Jones’ vision had been cast while among progressive leaders during his university and seminary years, he would not sustain that vision. Though he left seminary dedicated to discover and pursue ways in which the “best interests” of enslaved Africans “could be promoted,” his attempts at finding what Clarke describes as a “middle path” ended in his compromising with and promoting the institution of slavery. While among his abolitionist and emancipationist friends in New England he wondered if perhaps the religious community of those who opposed slavery might provide for him “another kind of home—an alternative vision, a broader, less tribal way of understanding home in this world and the next.” In the end, the strong familial and communal bonds of his coastal Georgia “dwelling place” proved far stronger than the community he acquired as a student.

    These familial bonds were further reinforced by the economic self-interest of the southern planter class, of which Jones was a member. Jones, for all his personal piety and courtesy to individuals, seemed utterly unaware of the grotesque self-contradiction in trying to make a fundamentally inhuman and inhumane system of enslavement either kind or pious.

    What is perhaps most remarkable about Clarke’s study, however, are the voices, faces, and lives he illuminates of the families and neighborhoods of African-American slaves. Powerfully he names these men, women, and children who often remain unnamed and unknown. He takes us into their lives. He invites us into their homes. He reveals their often effective networks of resistance to the institution of slavery and the messages of subversion passed on in sophisticated codes from one generation to another. He also demonstrates the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to liberate enslaved persons, the power of the Gospel to usher generations of enslaved persons into a secure dwelling place.

    One of the most striking insights of the book relates directly to the proclamation of the Christian Gospel among enslaved blacks. Ironically it is the story that shows Charles Colcock Jones at his best.

    After returning home to coastal Georgia from seminary, Jones set about to persuade plantation owners of their Christian duty to see that their slaves received a Christian education. Jones had committed himself to organizing and leading this educational mission. Among some plantation owners, especially those who were themselves most ill at ease with the abominable institution from which they were profiting, Jones found a hearing. But even among these plantation owners there was a deep concern that the Bible, particularly the Gospel, would, if learned and believed by enslaved people, undermine the institution of slavery. Despite efforts by many white, southern clergymen to use the Bible to defend slavery, clearly many did not believe their own propaganda. And among some planters, Jones, to his utter surprise, found outright hostility to the Gospel, to Christianity, to Jesus Christ, because these planters saw in Christian faith a threat to their economic interests.

    One apologist for slavery, Whitemarsh Seabrook, a South Carolinian, attacked Jones and other southern clergy head-on, as Clarke writes: “’The intermixture of plantations and the employment of any one whose profession it was to teach the word of God’ Seabrook deemed filled with ‘insuperable objections.’ Clergy, he admitted, had an important function in society so long as they were kept ‘rigidly within the limits of their station.’… A ‘few of our reverend friends,’ he [Seabrook] wrote, ‘in their behavior and teachings, apply the same rules to the black as the white man,’ and they were thereby laying ‘the foundation for opinions inimical to the peace of the State.’”

    Clarke, a professor emeritus of American Religious History at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia, presents a portrait in his book of breathtaking honesty and trenchant insight. Not only do we gain a deeper perspective on the lives of persons living in the United States in the years leading to the Civil War, we also gain a deeper understanding of the claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I could not help but reflect, reading this book, on the claims of the Gospel as articulated in “The Theological Declaration of Barmen,” that Jesus Christ is Lord over all our lives. The power of the Gospel to liberate will not be fettered.

  • Thurgood Marshall, America’s Promise, and the “Devil in the Grove”

    by Michael Jinkins | Feb 25, 2013

    After a night of serious drinking at an American Legion hall dance in Lake County, Florida, one mid-summer evening in 1949, a 17-year-old girl named Norma Lee (Tyson) Padgett and her estranged husband, Willie Padgett, reported that they had been the victims of a violent attack by a group of young Black men. The young woman claimed she had been raped, though physical evidence did not support her claim.

    The truth was both much simpler and, because of the time and place in which these young people all lived, much more complicated. In fact, the young white couple, whose car had stalled on a rural road, had been the beneficiaries of the kindness of two young army veterans, both African American, who happened to be driving on the same road as the couple, saw their stalled car, and stopped to help. But after these two young Black men were unable to get the car restarted – and after suffering verbal abuse and racial epithets as recompense for their labors – one of the Black men retaliated, leaving Willie on the ground.

    Gilbert King, a journalist who has written on legal history for the New York Times and the Washington Post, and who tells this story in his gripping book, Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America, describes the scene: “The two friends stood for a moment, their eyes set on a motionless Willie Padgett lying sprawled in the grass beside a pasture fence. They hadn’t hurt him too badly, and he’d had it coming, but this was Lake County, and they could see the picture. Cross a white man wrong in these parts and you’re like to find your own black self lying dead in a ditch. Norma Lee Padgett, still clutching the near-empty bottle of whiskey, steadied herself on the sand and clay. Bathed in the bright moonlight and the glow from the Mercury’s headlights, she knew. She knew nothing good would come of this. They all knew.”

    The wrath of a notoriously violent sheriff, Willis V. McCall, was unleashed as soon as the couple made their claims, as was the brutality of the Ku Klux Klan. Homes were burned. Innocent men were murdered, and families were driven from the area. And, upon this stage, strewn with shattered lives, stepped a weary man from New York City, a lawyer for the NAACP, already deeply invested in other cases around the country, including the landmark case which he would argue before the Supreme Court of the United States, “Brown v. Board of Education.” Ignoring threats and in the face of harrowing violence – which had already claimed the life of one of the NAACP’s dedicated associates in Florida – future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, “Mr. Civil Rights,” took up this case personally and saw it to its end in a way that helped to change race relations throughout the country.

    Reading how this story unfolded is worth your time. And I commend Gilbert King’s book to you. But I would like to reflect on the story just a moment to understand a larger historical point.

    In his most recent book, The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation, Stephen Prothero assembles a sort of canon of American civil religion, a collection of nationally-sacred texts, arranged thematically as the Christian Bible is arranged from Genesis to Epistles, including Laws, Chronicles, Psalms, Prophets, and Gospels. Genesis includes “The Declaration of Independence.” In the “Law” section, we find the U.S. Constitution and “Brown v. Board of Education.” Among the prophets we find Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech, “I Have a Dream.” And in the epistles we have Dr. King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

    When we place in the same frame these astonishing texts and the story Gilbert King tells, the faith African Americans have placed in the deepest, foundational legal ideals of this country even when the practices of those charged with shaping, adjudicating, and enforcing specific laws have so often betrayed the ideals themselves, comes clearly into focus.

    Thus, Dr. King, in his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, says, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Standing in the shadow of Abraham Lincoln, Dr. King said: “In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check.”

    When a decade later, another great African-American leader, educator and legislator Barbara Jordan, said, one mid-summer evening in 1974, “My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total,” she was articulating the same hope in the fundamental claims of our republic that drove Thurgood Marshall to get off a plane in Florida to do battle with those who had perverted justice during that other mid-summer evening in 1949. It was the same hope that compelled Dr. King to have more confidence in America’s promises than many thought realistic.

    If there is anything the civil rights movement should have taught us it is that we should not give up on our country to live up to its ideals. One certainly can grow weary in the struggle toward fulfillment of those ideals, because the struggle is long; but there is no room for cynicism in a nation of people who have, against all odds, been roused again and again by Lincoln’s “better angels,” and Jefferson’s love for freedom, and King’s faith in a hate-conquering Love to find in our founding not an excuse for self-indulgence and license, but a call to the common good.

  • The Time is Ripe

    by Michael Jinkins | Feb 19, 2013

    Recently, Imam Plemon El-Amin, the distinguished Muslim leader and scholar, provided the devotional at our annual gathering of Presbyterian Seminary presidents and board chairs in Atlanta. Imam El-Amin read a passage from the Qu’ran: "The worst food is that which is taken from the poor."

    I am sure that all of us in the room that day felt the resonance between the sacred text of Islam and our own Bible, from the thundering call of the Old Testament prophets to our Lord Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to the book of James. I was also reminded, however, of another witness to justice that day, and how this passage from the Qu’ran shares his gift for coining a memorable phrase. I am thinking, of course, of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Almost immediately upon returning from the meeting in Atlanta, I turned to James Washington's collection of Dr. King's writings, and sought out in that collection a sermon Dr. King preached at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. on March 31, 1968.

    What Dr. King sees in this sermon is the intimate relationship between the plight of the poor and the bounty of everyone else, a relationship that may leave a bad taste in our mouths. His text at the National Cathedral was the story of Lazarus and Dives.

    You, no doubt, remember this story well. Dives was a rich man and Lazarus was poor and sick. Every day, Lazarus would struggle to the gates of Dives' palatial home, and there he would beg, hoping that Dives would see him and take pity on him and share with him the crumbs that fell from Dives' banquet table. Dives, however, never took notice of Lazarus in life, and never shared his bounty with Lazarus. In time, so the parable goes, both Dives and Lazarus died. Lazarus was gathered into the bosom of Abraham in heaven while Dives went in the other direction. Between the two men, the Bible says, was a "fixed gulf."

    Dr. King takes up this story with all the skill and power of a brilliant preacher and biblical scholar. He comments on the parable: "There is nothing in that parable that said Dives went to hell because he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against wealth... Dives didn't go to hell because he was rich. Dives didn't realize that his wealth was his opportunity. It was his opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother, Lazarus. Dives went to hell because he passed by Lazarus every day and he never really saw him. He went to hell because he allowed his brother to become invisible."

    Dr. King takes justice personally, but he sees the causes of injustice as something beyond the personal, as something systemic and social. And herein lies his genius. He understands that the comfort of every contemporary Dives depends on the desperate circumstances of many, many struggling Lazaruses. He describes poverty as "a monstrous octopus" spreading "its nagging, prehensile tentacles into hamlets and villages all over the world." He connects the hunger and poverty suffered by millions with the banquet before which so many of us sit. And he reminds us, in his distinctive cadences, that injustice depends not only on "the vitriolic words and violent actions" of the evil, but also on "the appalling silence and indifference" of the good.

    "Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God," says Dr. King. "The time is always ripe to do right."

    Perhaps if Dives had seen this he would also have seen Lazarus in life, and he would have built a bridge across the gulf that separated them—a bridge that would have spanned eternity. Certainly he would have discovered that while the worst food is that which is taken from the poor, the most delicious meals are the ones that we share.

  • Rosa Parks: Courage

    by Michael Jinkins | Feb 05, 2013

    The names roll down the ages like a roll call of the saints – the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Reverend Ralph D. Abernathy, Mr. Fred Daniels, Mrs. Rosa Parks and Dr. Moses W. Jones – African- American citizens in Montgomery, Alabama, who in 1955 and 1956 courageously led the Black community in a boycott of the Montgomery City Line buses. One name stands out, without whom the boycott would never have happened at all: Rosa Parks.

    On a perfectly ordinary Thursday afternoon (December 1, 1955) in Montgomery, a perfectly ordinary Southern city, Mrs. Parks moved the civil rights movement dramatically forward simply by refusing to give up her seat in the unreserved section of the bus where Blacks were permitted to sit so that a white man could have it. She wouldn't "move back." And she was promptly arrested and jailed; her trial set for the following Monday.

    Over the weekend, in an astonishing expression of both formal and informal means of communication, the African-American population of the city spread the word and agreed not to use the buses on Monday. Ministers, such as the Reverend Abernathy and Dr. King (then serving as pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery) endorsed the protest during their Sunday services. Then, after Mrs. Parks was found guilty on Monday and was fined $14 (a judgment she appealed), the ministers called for a meeting to be held that evening. Thousands came to the church. So many came that loudspeakers had to be set up outside.

    Following a speech by Dr. King, the Reverend Abernathy read a declaration which was immediately and unanimously adopted. Black citizens covenanted not to ride the buses until their modest conditions were met, including the guarantee of courteous treatment by bus operators and an agreement that passengers would be seated simply on a first come, first served basis.

    Mrs. Parks’ action was in response to what one reporter, L. D. Reddick, at the time described as "a long history of abuse by the bus operators." In his coverage of the bus boycott, titled, "They Have Already Won" (published in "Dissent," Winter 1956), Reddick wrote: "Almost everybody could tell of some unfortunate personal experience that he himself had had or seen... The outrage of the Emmett Till murder was alive in everyone's mind. The silence and inaction of the Federal Government, in the face of the daily abuse, beatings and killings of Negro citizens, was maddening." [Reddick's story appears on pp. 252-265 in "Reporting Civil Rights: Part One American Journalism, 1941-1963 (New York: Library Classics of the United States), 2003].

    So a woman with extraordinary courage did the most ordinary thing one could imagine. She remained seated. And a whole people rose up in response. Against almost every prediction by press and police, this whole people rose up in peace, actively disavowing violence and revenge. And this month the United States Postal Service put the face of the woman who evoked the movement on a stamp.

    I have a sheet of these stamps before me as I write this blog. Courage is printed down the left-hand margin, and that is fitting. On the stamp itself, Mrs. Parks looks right past me, as though she is looking at history, as though she is taking in the long, vast trajectory of our history, a history changed forever by one brave woman's actions.

  • Getting the Facts Straight about "Nones"

    by Michael Jinkins | Jan 29, 2013

    Recently I read an essay in the New York Times referring to the much discussed sociological category of "nones." That particular essay completely misread recent studies implying that "nones" are non-believers, even agnostics or atheists. I was just about to produce a blog on the subject when my colleague and friend Matthew Myer Boulton, President of Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, posted his excellent blog, which he has given me permission to share with you (below). After reading Matt's blog, I felt it would be largely redundant to write my own. I want to thank Matt for his insightful comments and his willingness to appear as a guest blogger this week on "Thinking Out Loud."

    Those who would like, may refer back to the blog I wrote when the Pew Study about the "nones" was originally announced or read the related news stories that followed publication of that blog.

    The following post was written by Dr. Matthew Myer Boulton, President of
    Christian Theological Seminary, and appeared on his blog "Salt & Light." Previously, Dr. Boulton taught at Harvard Divinity School. His most recent books include Life in God: John Calvin, Practical Formation, and the Future of Protestant Theology (Eerdmans 2011), and God Against Religion: Rethinking Christian Theology Through Worship (Eerdmans, 2008).


    Much Ado about "Nones"

    By Matthew Myer Boulton

    If you’re a reader of the New York Times, or a listener to National Public Radio, or a follower of the Religion News Service, you’d have good reason over the past week or so to come to the conclusion that the United States — and indeed the world — is becoming less and less religious.

    The Times recently ran an article on atheism in which, almost in passing, the author cites a Pew Forum study to support the claim that “roughly 20 percent” of Americans are “secularly inclined” as opposed to religious. National Public Radio ran a series this week entitled “Losing Our Religion.” Religion News Service ran a story that The Christian Century published under the headline, “Unbelief is world’s third-largest ‘religion’”.

    And yet all of this is misleading, subtly but decisively. Each of these stories, in various ways, combines and collapses three categories: “Atheist,” “Agnostic” (these two combined currently constitute only about 5% of the U.S. population), and “Unaffiliated,” that is, those who do not claim a particular religious affiliation (the so-called “Nones,” who constitute about 15%). But if you read the Pew Forum’s report on the rise of the Unaffiliateds, you’ll find that 70% of them believe in God; 60% call themselves either “religious” or “spiritual,” and 40% of them pray. Lumping together this group with atheists and agnostics, or calling their increase a rise in “unbelief” or a case of “losing our religion,” is sloppy analysis at best.

    Worse, this kind of categorization lends support to the false impression that U.S. society, and world society with it, is turning away from religious convictions and toward atheism or agnosticism — a conclusion the data simply do not support. Affiliation patterns are changing, it’s true (this is also true of political affiliations: “Independents” are on the rise in the U.S.). But we also live in a breathtakingly religious age: in percentage terms, religious belief and practice are basically holding steady in the U.S. overall, and globally, no less than 84% of the world’s 7 billion people claim a particular religious affiliation — and a great many of the other 16%, while they may not identify as members of a particular brand of religion, nevertheless call themselves “religious” or “spiritual.”

    Religion deeply, widely matters, and will continue to do so, both at home and abroad. Thinking otherwise will lead our thoughts astray, whether we are within or without religious communities. And the stories we tell about religious trends matter, too.

    The more we mislabel data and suggest that “roughly 20 percent” of the U.S. population are atheist or agnostic (to take the New York Times example), the more we run the risk of concluding that religion is on the way out — the “secularization thesis” that has come and gone, and now has come again, on the American scene. What’s more, this misunderstanding runs the risk of actually contributing to the trend it falsely announces, since it conjures visions of a stampede for religion’s exit door (“20 percent!”) — and as every antelope knows, stampedes attract followers. On the other hand, the secularization myth may be especially tempting for historically mainline churches today, since it provides a handy excuse for any failure to attract or retain younger generations (“well, it must be them, not us”). In other words, for churches, too, mis-telling the story leads us to misinterpret our situation.

    The point here is not that Christian communities should be complacent about the rise of the Unaffiliateds, or simply rest assured that religion is alive and well. Rather, the point is that we should read the data rigorously and wisely, resisting the “secularization” interpretation as long as the data do not support it, and instead working to be nimble enough to engage Unaffiliateds according to their own cherished values: independence and flexibility, to be sure, but also, in many cases, a genuine, vital interest in religion and spirituality.

  • Dr. King's Legacy

    by Michael Jinkins | Jan 22, 2013

    “I still believe that love is the most durable power in the world…. This principle stands at the center of the cosmos. As John says, ‘God is love.’ He who loves is a participant in the being of God.” [Martin Luther King, Jr., “The Most Durable Power,” sermon preached in Montgomery, Alabama, 6 November 1956, in James M. Washington (ed.), A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1986), 10-11.]

    There are so many aspects to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that it is very difficult to single out one. But among the greatest surely was his confidence in the power of love to conquer injustice and violence in our world.

    I was reminded of this fact again last week in a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Louisville Institute. The second day of our Board meeting fell on the birthday of Dr. King. In honor of the day, The Reverend Michael Mather, Senior Pastor of the Broadway United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, led the Board in a prayer service which alternated between scripture readings and passages from Dr. King’s sermons and speeches, culminating in a litany drawn from Dr. King’s writings. Michael has given me permission to share from this service of remembrance with you today.

    I was particularly struck by the juxtaposition in the service of the first reading from Dr. King, “There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love,” and the Epistle reading, 2 Corinthians 6: 2b-10, which begins: “See, now is the acceptable time; see, now is the day of salvation!”

    If there is any spirit at large in our nation and in our world today, it is the cynical spirit of defeat, the belief that the ordinary person of conviction cannot make a difference in this world, that the powers and principalities of the age, the vested interests armed with wealth and influence, are unbeatable, and that, therefore, we may as well give up and give in. “Behold!”, St. Paul tells us, “Look!” “See! now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!”

    Do not let this moment slip by us! we are told.

    Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. St. Paul, in this passage, speaks of servants of God who are willing to act, who are willing to exhibit endurance against great odds, to suffer afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger, even dishonor and the disdain of others for the sake of the good.

    And it is at this point exactly that Dr. King’s greatest legacy shines through. The love which he preached had the power to express profound disappointment in the way things are, and to effect change in such a way that, not only does change become a reality, but the hearts of those who resist can also be won for the good.

    Dr. King believed that non-violence was essential because his eye was on the prize, and the prize was not simply the winning of a political point or even the achieving of a single goal, but the changing of the hearts and minds of others, even those who bitterly opposed the good he hoped to accomplish. He believed this was essential because we are all bound together in what he called “an inescapable network of mutuality.” As Dr. King said: “It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality…. We aren’t going to have peace on earth until we recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of reality.”

    Yesterday we, as a people, observed the day set aside to remember Dr. King in a variety of ways. There were worship services and speeches and television and radio events. Something more is needed. We need to find ways not just to remember what he did, but to incarnate his legacy. And we can start by believing again in the power of love, that belief which, Dr. King said, is “at the center of the Christian faith.”

    Today I leave with you, then, the litany Rev. Michael Mather shared with us last week on Dr. King’s birthday, “An Affirmation of Faith Based on the Writings of Dr. King” (which he drew from an earlier Presbyterian litany):

    “I refuse to believe that we are unable to influence the events which surround us.
    “I refuse to believe that we are so bound by racism and war, that peace, brotherhood and sisterhood are not possible.
    “I believe there is an urgent need for people to overcome oppression and violence, without resorting to violence and oppression.
    “I believe that we need to discover a way to live together in peace, a way which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of this way is love.
    “I believe that unarmed and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. I believe that right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.
    “I believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.
    “I believe that what self-centered people have torn down, other-centered people can build up.
    “By the goodness of God at work within people, I believe that brokenness can be healed. ‘And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and everyone will sit under their own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid.’”


  • 1044 Alta Vista Road |
  • Louisville, KY 40205 |
  • 800.264.1839 |
  • Fax: 502.895.1096 |
  • Site Map
© Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary