• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flickr
  • YouTube
Thinking Out Loud
  • Jawanza Eric Clark's African-centered Theology: Is it Tenable

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 19, 2014


    Editor’s Note: Today’s blog is guest-written by Sekhmet Ra Em Kht Maat (McAllister), a second-year Master of Arts in Religion student at Louisville Seminary. Having completed graduate studies at Temple University in the Department of African American Studies, Sekhmet’s teaching and research interests include traditional African cosmologies and philosophies, Africana queer theology and African-centered theory and methodology for Africana studies.

    Can an African-centered theology serve the spiritual and socio-cultural needs of African American Christians? Jawanza Eric Clark, a 2008 Ph.D. degree recipient from Emory’s Graduate Division of Religion, writing in his 2012 Indigenous Black Theology: Toward an African-centered Theology of the African American Religious Experience, seems to think so. In just under two hundred pages and across five chapters, Clark builds his argument toward an African-centered theology that is grounded in an Akan theological anthropology, defining the relationship between the human condition, ancestors and the creator within the philosophy of the Akan of Ghana, West Africa. In doing so, Clark outlines a theology that, in his estimation, is a radical departure from the Protestant Christian “doctrine of sin and the doctrine of Jesus Christ as exclusive savior.”1 Because for Clark, “the belief that human beings are born with an ontological defect is (in fact) alien and antithetical to all indigenous West African religions.”2 Therefore, African Americans must reconsider the cultural implications of the doctrine of sin and salvation. Given this idea, Clark opens the text with a quote by Malcolm X stating, “You can’t hate Africa and not hate yourself,”3 proposing a theology, then, through which he hopes African American theologians, African American Christians and African American church folk in particular can seriously begin to redefine themselves in line with an African conception of salvation and find human value, again, in the African religious thought of their ancestors.

    Clark contends that African Americans suffer from a cultural and spiritual crisis that emerges from their ongoing engagement with Protestant theology. Unlike in the Caribbean and South America where the saints, symbols and rituals of Catholic enslavers fostered room for enslaved Africans to remember and transmit Akan, Yoruba, and Bakongo African religious systems across generations, the Protestant preachers, slave masters and church folk in North America attempted to curtail enslaved Africans’ incorporation of West African deities and theological constructs into Protestant liturgy and Christian life. For Clark, Protestants taught enslaved and free Africans in America, especially after the Great Awakenings, an interrelated theology that African culture, people and religions were sinful and that it was only through Jesus Christ that one could be saved from sin. As depravity, according to this theology, defines the human condition, Protestants viewed Africans in particular as heathenish creatures who were most specifically and naturally outside of the scope of salvation. Furthermore, Clarke also finds that the eighteenth and nineteenth century categories of sin, in relationship to the human condition, outlined in the doctrinal theologies of John Calvin, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards, are truth-claims that even eighteenth, nineteenth and surprisingly some twentieth century Black nationalists found very difficult to refute. African American Baptist missionary John J Coles, African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Daniel Payne, and Bishop Henry McNeal Turner, for instance, were avid supporters of the Christianization of “heathen” and “uncivilized” indigenous Africans.4 Clark’s overall point in the expanse of chapters outlining African and African Americans’ relationship with Protestant theology is that it is through the Protestant doctrine of sin and salvation and its resulting anti-Africa sentiment that many twenty-first century African American theologians, clergy and church folk, similar to their Protestant and Black nationalist predecessors, continue to define and understand continental Africans in relationship to themselves. In the final analysis, for Clark, traditional African religion, cultural and spirituality remain sinful, inhumane and therefore (anti-Christ)ian for African Americans because of the Protestant doctrine of sin and salvation.

    Clark’s response to this crisis is to offer an Akan theology that attempts to shift contemporary African American Christians’ thinking about sin, salvation and themselves. In his section on “Akan Anthropology,” Clark reviews the spiritual components comprising the Akan body, all of which are an extension of Nyame the creator. It is this notion of the “oneness of being” within Akan ontology and anthropology that allows for Akan people to suggest that the purpose of human existence is to reach the ancestral realm in which one continues to work on behalf of the community. Humans, then, come into existence with a destiny that is linked to the community and the creator, and humans are therefore already divine by their very existence. This is the reason why each Akan is given a Kradin (soul name) depending on the day one is born, as each day comprises one of Nyame’s specific energetic qualities. Kwame (biological male) and Ama (biological female), Kradin for Saturday born, for instance, signifies the creative potential of Nyame. So the destiny of Kwame and Ama are to work out acts of creative potential within their communities. (Hence, ancestor Kwame Nkrumah, for instance, the first president of Ghana in 1957 and along with other Ghanain pan-Africanists, challenged British colonial occupation of the territory.) The idea that human beings are born in sin and are in need of salvation from sin is improbable within the Akan anthropology because the Akan worldview holds firm to the idea that human beings are spirit endowed expressions of the source of existence, that which is all oneness, all possibility and all consciousness.

    Becoming an ancestor, however, requires that one lives in accordance with the most optimal ideals within the Akan cultural reality. For the Akan, this includes cultivating a balance between one’s ego and destiny, mastering one’s spirit in the face of adversity and working on behalf of the survival and sustenance of one’s community.5 This view of the human condition, then, does not require a “deity” to save one from depravity, according to Clark. Given this anthropology, Jesus becomes, for Clark, a model of an ancestor for whom one can aspire, not unlike many African ancestors who have lived the highest ethical ideals in the midst of chaos. It is Clark’s hope, it seems, that African American theologians and church folk can find promise in their West African ancestors by beginning to reorganize their lives in accordance with these ideals; this is salvation.  Clark’s work concludes that all who are interested in bringing about salvation in their lives can seek Jesus as a model for ethical living.

    Indigenous Black Theology is in direct conversation with new constructive theological projects. A new generation of African American theologians is beginning to take seriously the key role a traditional African worldview(s) plays in how African Americans can (re)create their religious lives. These new theologians are exploring the plausibility of (re)creating Christian-inspired theologies that include specific aspects of religious thought. For instance, using the Akan term Sankofa to ground his Christology, also writing in 2012 Brad Braxton writes that, “Christ - and by extension Christology - should be understood more as a process than a person. Rather than simply being Christ, the human Jesus faithfully yielded his life to a Christ-process that resulted in deification.” 6 What is radical here about Braxton’s Christology is that Jesus’ life-death is the process of becoming one with the Spirit (God). Likewise, challenging Christian monotheism that positions non-Christian religious traditions as the “other,” Vanderbilt educated theologian Monica Coleman critiques this rigid perspective as that which is non-pluralistic and dismissive of the multiplicities of the divinity in human experiences. Using Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy model, she concludes that the Yoruba “model of gods,” in other words, the orisha (deities) Shango, Oya and Yemoja, for example, from within the cosmology of the Yoruba cultural grouping of Nigeria, West Africa, can open the door for theologians to become more inclusive of that which is divine and to reconsider the need for religious pluralism within twenty-first century American religious life.7 Following within this theological tradition, Clark too wishes to offer a perspective that contributes to the call for ecumenicism within Christian thought and life, urging Christians in general and African American Christians in particular to reconsider the significance of Jesus, remember themselves as Africans and redefine, then, what it means to be Christian.

    As a second-year Master of Arts student with a concentration in Black Church Studies here at Louisville Seminary and as one who attempts to foster an appreciation for varying religious interpretations of God, the universe and human existence, several questions come to mind, several of which I ask our Seminary community to think about and comment on below in the comment section of the blog:

    •Do African Americans in general and African American Christians in particular suffer from cultural and spiritual crisis as Clark proposes? If so, what cultural and spiritual healing could this theology provide for African American Christians, in particular, who are unfamiliar with their African ancestral cultural and spiritual traditions? Is this theology necessary?

    •Is Clark’s argument and proposal of value to not only African American Christians, but to the larger Christian community who seek an ecumenical approach to building Christian community and ethical living? What would this framework add to mainline Christian theology and African American theology and ideas about freedom, destiny and human, social and personal responsibility?

    •In line with the thinking one of my favorite Seminary colleagues, I ask further, if Christ becomes an ancestral exemplar for ethical Christian living, is this perspective still a Christian perspective or another belief or tradition?  

    I definitely do not propose to have any definitive answers, but maybe we should all think about what would Jesus say in response to Clark’s theology? Was it not Jesus who urged his Hebrew sisters and brothers to return to their most optimal ethical traditions in the face of cultural, spiritual and political colonization?

    1Jawanza Eric Clark, Indigenous Black Theology: Toward an African-centered Theology of the African-American Religious Experience (New York: Palgrave, 2012), 2.
    2Ibid., 16.
    3Ibid., xvii.
    4Ibid., 46-51.
    6Brad Braxton, “’Every time I feel the spirit’: African American Christology for a Pluralistic World,” in Radical Christian Voices and Practice: Essays in Honour of Christopher Rowland, ed.  Zoe Bennett and David B. Gowler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 189.
    7Monica A. Coleman,  “From Models of God to a Model of Gods: How Whiteheadian Metaphysics Facilitates Western Language Discussion of Divine Multiplicity,” Philosophia 35 (2007): 329-340.

  • PC(USA) Relocation to Louisville

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 14, 2014


    Editor's Note: As we celebrate the 160th anniversary of Louisville Seminary’s founding, Thinking Out Loud readers will receive blog posts about key people and events in the life of Louisville Seminary. We'd love for you to share your memories. Email us!

    Today's blog post was guest-written by Dorothy “Dot” Ridings, a former Louisville Seminary Trustee who served from 1992 to 2008 (board chair from 2000 to 2008) and from 2009 to 2014. Ridings is also the former president and chief executive officer of the Council on Foundations, an association of more than 1,600 grantmaking foundations and corporations that promotes responsible and effective philanthropy. She held reporting and editing positions at newspapers in Bradenton, Fla., Charlotte, N.C., Louisville, Ky., and Washington, D.C. Ridings is a member of the Commission on Presidential Debates and a past president of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

    PCUSA Headquarters“5,000 Heroes” read the huge headline in Louisville’s Courier-Journal newspaper on a summer Sunday in 1987.1 Accompanying the story about the choice of Louisville as the new headquarters for the Presbyterian Church (USA) was a photograph of those 5,000 people gathered on Louisville’s Main Street, cheering and waving banners and releasing balloons to say “welcome” to the Presbyterians. The rally concluded with a moving rendition of “Amazing Grace,” sung by the 5,000 who participated in the noontime gathering.

    A video of that rally, which included spirited and warm greetings from local elected officials and religious figures, was part of Louisville’s presentation to the 655 people who mattered most: the commissioners to the 1987 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi – the people who would vote on where to locate the denomination’s headquarters following the union of its two former branches into the PC(USA). The video was the clincher in the 332-309 vote that chose Louisville over Kansas City, which had been the choice of a denominational committee on relocation.

    Many important factors led to the Louisville selection, with the gift of a building for the headquarters and local pledges to finance renovation of the building playing major roles. But so did many meetings with members of the denomination’s racial-ethnic caucus, hand-outs of miniature Louisville Slugger baseball bats to the commissioners, a Louisville information center open around the clock in Biloxi to aid commissioners with questions about the potential site, and much more.

    And Louisville Seminary was behind it all.

    Louisville was one of 47 cities that vied to become the denomination’s headquarters after the northern and southern branches of Presbyterianism merged and the two separate offices – in New York City and Atlanta – were to be combined. A General Assembly committee studied the issue for three years and recommended Kansas City, but Louisville didn’t give up. Persistent advocates were the seminary’s then-president, John Mulder; LPTS professors Grayson Tucker and Virgil Cruz; Louisville Presbytery execs Charles Stanford and “Camp” Edwards, and a host of other civic, church and seminary activists.

    It was an enthusiastic political campaign whose centerpiece was the donation by active Presbyterian David Jones Sr., CEO of Humana Inc., of a downtown building to be used as church headquarters. The city’s business community was convinced to pledge $6 million to cover renovations to that building. Hotels, moving and storage companies and consulting services promised discounts.

    Kentucky’s governor, Martha Layne Collins, flew to Biloxi to add her welcome to the Presbyterians. Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson went to Biloxi twice to meet with commissioners. Humana’s corporate jet ferried people, baseball bats and local newspapers back and forth all week during the General Assembly. (My favorite personal memory involves a plane ride to Biloxi from Charlotte, where I was engaged in a management training program for future newspaper publishers; I was observing a board meeting when a secretary came into the room and announced that my “jet is on approach to the Charlotte airport,” and eyebrows lifted and heads swiveled to affirm that the message was for this relatively young female newcomer in their midst.)

    Louisville’s presentation to a plenary of the General Assembly was made by President Mulder, Mayor Abramson, Professor Cruz and me. My role was to affirm Louisville’s adequacy of air service, which had been one of the negative factors put forth by the relocation committee. (I had just completed four years as national president of the League of Women Voters, and during that time had flown between Louisville and Washington weekly while also traveling across the nation and to 14 foreign countries to represent the League.)

    I guess we convinced the commissioners. But it’s clear that they recognized the significant stewardship that was offered to the church through the gift of a headquarters building, and were uplifted by the enthusiastic welcome from the community exemplified by those “5,000 Heroes.”

    One magazine article, however, called the “most valuable” attraction of the Louisville choice its “long leadership in reconciling northern and southern Presbyterians. The most notable fruit of that cooperation, and a central institutional player in the campaign to win the church headquarters, is Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Run cooperatively between the northern and southern Presbyterian synods since the move from the Centre College campus in 1901, Louisville Seminary had long promoted common action for the good of church and society at large. … To Kentuckians, Louisville seemed a natural place for the reunited church to settle.”2

    And so it has been.

    1Long, John C. “5,000 Heroes: Some of the untold stories of the epic battle of Biloxi.” Courier-Journal August 9, 1987: 5. Print.

    2Weston, William. “A Kentucky Home: How Louisville landed the national Presbyterian headquarters, and what it has meant to the city, the state and the church.” Kentucky Humanities 2001: 45-50. Print.

  • The Surprises of Seminary

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 11, 2014


    Pam LedfordEditor’s Note: Today’s blog post is guest-written by Pam Ledford, a Master of Divinity student at Louisville Seminary.

    “Why seminary?” I am often asked. I have been thinking a lot about theological education since beginning studies at Louisville Seminary last August. Part of that contemplation stems from those well-meaning inquiries of family and friends, but mostly it has its origins in my ongoing efforts to confirm, define and refine my calling to ministry in Christian education and publishing. The desire to answer that call inevitably led me to seminary, and, since I began studies here, I have been surprised by several aspects of theological education that differ from any of my past educational and vocational experiences.

    Perhaps because it has been more than fifteen years since I attended a postgraduate institution that I find it refreshing to discover again at this stage of life a simple joy for learning. We learn something new every day whether or not we recognize that fact. I spent more than a decade practicing law in which I was continually learning the industries of clients I represented, gathering facts, studying law and analyzing legal arguments and strategy in order to be an effective advocate. And while I was grateful that each workday was not exactly like another, in the practicality of everyday work I cannot say that I recognized the fact that I was learning or experiencing joy in the process as in my studies at Louisville Seminary. While our seminary courses will help make us productive in future ministry, even if we never enter formal ministry, what we learn here has value in and of itself in molding our theology in ways we never contemplated.

    Seminary education also reveals itself to involve far more creativity than I ever expected. I have not always viewed education in general as especially creative because my past education involved more honing of analytical rather than imaginative skills. But theological study, after all, is study about God, who the Bible testifies is enormously inventive and involved and loves diversity as evidenced by the wide array of God’s own creations. Louisville Seminary, specifically, embraces and encourages creative theological study by fostering an environment in which original thought can be expressed in a diverse learning environment. I am also more aware than ever of the sheer privilege of the freedom to take this time to devote to the discipleship of theological education to which many in the world do not have access.

    Theological education presents a wonderfully difficult dichotomy. While seminary offers the security of learning material that is pertinent to our fields of calling in an environment supported by a common faith in Jesus Christ, it can also evoke fear because it is a study that is inherently deeply personal. My legal studies and career rarely required – and often prohibited – my personal thoughts and opinions. Theological education, on the other hand, demands that we put all of our cards on the table. Attending seminary at any age or stage of life obviously requires a sacrifice of time, energy and financial resources. As I am just beginning to realize, however, theological education also necessitates the surrender of a part of ourselves that we can hold in reserve in most other types of educational and vocational pursuits.

    What we study here in seminary not only impacts our future in work and ministry, but affects how we look at the world, how we look at others, and, perhaps more pointedly, how we view ourselves, God and our relationship with God. I can think of no other type of study that is more directed to the core of who we are and no other pursuit that has the potential to change us from the inside out and impact every aspect of our lives. I began seminary last summer with faith that theological education would equip me to do good works for God. This year has demonstrated that the true value of theological education goes even deeper. I now trust that my seminary experience will equip me to be the kind of person God can use for good works.

  • Accessibility, Theologically and Legally Speaking

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 04, 2014


    Dianne ReistrofferEditor’s Note: Today’s blog post is guest-written by Louisville Seminary Professor Emerita Rev. Dr. Dianne Reistroffer. At the conclusion of the 2013-2014 academic year, Dianne retired from Louisville Seminary after 16 years of service. She is the pastor of Mt. Carmel United Methodist Church in Trimble County, Ky., and has enrolled in the University of Louisville’s Brandeis School of Law, where she is specializing in public service and family law.

    As I depart Louisville Seminary and head to Brandeis School of Law, my mind has wandered to a “first” in pastoral ministry twenty-five years ago: my first sermon as the newly-appointed pastor of Sherman Avenue United Methodist Church. While many members of the congregation greeted me after the service with words of appreciation about my message, one kindly man asked me if we could talk briefly and privately at the coffee hour. We did, and he told me in very sweet terms that my message was “inaccessible” and better suited for my seminary professors than for working class people like him.

    After soliciting examples of this type of inaccessibility in the day’s sermon, I could easily understand why “the challenges of theodicy” and “the gospel writer’s eschatological perspectives” were impenetrable mysteries to this dear man. What was I thinking!? I shall always be grateful to John for his willingness to teach a new preacher the importance of bringing together the biblical text and the texts of people’s lives in ways that are easy to understand and appreciate.

    I suppose this novice lapse in accessibility is predictable for new pastors fresh from the exciting, heady days of theological study. The familiar phrase in Scripture, “The word of God came to me thus,” never had such power until I learned exegetical methods and the original languages of the bible. Courses in doctrinal and historical theology opened up new worlds of inquiry and reflection. My professors worked hard to encourage us seminary students to think theologically, critically, reflectively and pastorally. The nexus between the theological disciplines and the arts and skills of ministry was crucial and always in the service of making God’s revelation accessible to our present and future parishioners.

    My first congregation lovingly reminded me to go back to my roots before seminary which, like that of most of the church’s members, was working-class and poor. I recalled my own childhood pastor, a learned man who had a way of creating word pictures and using visual illustrations (well before PowerPoint) in making the gospel accessible. I turned to Monsignor Conway’s example and, to my delight, my preaching improved as I strove to make the connection between sermon text and the congregation. I began to keep a pastoral journal in order to record the events and times of our lives, pastor and people. It became the stuff of accessibility.

    As I turn to the adventure of legal study, I have no doubt that the issue of accessibility will loom large as members of the entering class learn to read, think, analyze and write as attorneys. Right now, I have begun to read a couple of cases in order to learn the art of briefing. With practice, I’ll work to master the craft. As a hedge against becoming “inaccessible” as a law student and a future lawyer, I have read some of the personal writings and legal opinions of my favorite Supreme Court Justice, the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor. Her recent dissenting opinion in SCHUETTE v. BAMN is a masterpiece of legal scholarship and accessibility1 and serves as a reminder to budding attorneys that legal memoranda can offer lively, relevant and inspirational reading for non-lawyers. Her dissent from the Supreme Court’s 6-2 decision upholding Michigan’s voter-approved ban on affirmative action for public universities has been praised for its passion and for its resonance with themes of the contemporary debate concerning America’s so-called post-racial society. In no uncertain terms, Justice Sotomayor avers:

    “Race matters. Race matters in part because of the long history of racial minorities’ being denied access to the political process … Race also matters because of persistent racial inequality in society – inequality cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities.”2

    In a moving paragraph in this same section of the dissent, Justice Sotomayor makes race real:

    “And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away. Race matters to a young man’s view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighborhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman’s sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, ‘No, where are you really from?’, regardless of how many generations her family has been in this country. Race matters to a young person addressed by a stranger in a foreign language, which he does not understand because only English was spoken at home. Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: ‘I do not belong here.’ ”3

    Reading this section of the Justice’s dissent, I wonder if Sotomayor’s capacity to make her opinion accessible to lawyers and non-lawyers alike is rooted in her own life experiences as a Hispanic woman. In her autobiography, My Beloved World, she describes her own brush with racism from a high school nurse who questioned her high rating for “likely” admission to Princeton when two other students who ranked higher than Sotomayor were rated only “possible” admission.4 This early brush with anti-affirmative action attitudes no doubt informed the associate justice in making her dissent real, understandable and personal for the ones for whom race matters.

    Accessibility (making something clear and understandable) is a chief virtue for theologians and lawyers. Professional language and practices must always be translated and put in terms that are useful for those we intend to serve and that are real to us. We who are privileged to study in theological schools and in law schools and to serve in noble professions might draw insight from another Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes:

    “But, above all, we have learned that whether a man (woman) accepts from Fortune her spade, and will look downward and dig, or from Aspiration her axe and cord, and will scale the ice, the one and only success which it is his (hers) to command is to bring to his (her) work a mighty heart.”5

    1http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/12-682/dissent7.html, accessed on June 25, 2014.
    2Ibid., p. 20.  Fear not, my professors at Brandeis, I’ll soon learn proper citation for legal writing.
    3Ibid., p. 20.
    4Sonia Sotomayor, My Beloved World (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 2013): 118-119. By the way, Sotomayor was not only admitted to Princeton University, but also graduated summa cum laude in 1976.
    5Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., “In Our Youth Our Hearts Were Touched with Fire” (Memorial Day Speech, delivered on May 30, 1884, at Keene, NH), accessed at http://people.virginia.edu/~mmd5f/memorial.htm on August 2, 2014. NB: the text has been altered to make it more gender inclusive.

  • People of the Book

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 29, 2014


    Matthew S. CollinsEditor’s Note: Today’s blog post is guest-written by Dr. Matthew Collins, associate professor of bibliography and research at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and director of the Seminary’s Ernest Miller White Library.

    As a librarian, I am frequently asked if I think paper books and physical libraries will become obsolete soon and cease to exist at some point. My answer is almost always that books and libraries will go away at about the same time we have paperless offices for business.

    The paperless office was touted as just about to happen in the early 1990s, when networks and email use became common in business. We now use more paper and print more in our offices than prior to the advent of email. Predictions about the demise of one form of technology with the advent of a new form, such as digital versus print, have a long history: radio was supposed to be the end of newspapers; television was to supposed kill the radio; and the personal computer was supposed to eliminate television. Typewriters were even predicted to be the end of pencils and pens for writing.

    None of these predictions came true, as new information-sharing technologies and media rarely result in the complete replacement of preceding technologies. We still hand-write a few things, even though print has existed for more than 500 years. But new forms of communication technology do often cause changes in how we use older forms of technology and, more importantly, cause us to change our behavior and our relationship to the information we communicate. We relate to the content and information conveyed through our new technologies in new ways. The larger question, then, is not whether physical books will all be replaced by digital books, but how we will use the new books and how this new format will change our behavior.

    The invention of the moveable type press by Gutenberg did not immediately result in a vast change in behavior, but within less than 100 years, it appears to have been a key factor in the rise and spread of the Protestant Reformation. Elizabeth Eisenstein, in her book The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, makes a strong case that the Reformation and perhaps even the Enlightenment as a whole would not have been possible without the printing press. She states that the Reformation was “a movement that was shaped at the very outset (and in large part ushered in) by the new powers of the press."1

    More than 300,000 of Martin Luther’s 30 pamphlet publications were printed between 1517 and 1520! Luther's thoughts and writings gained a far wider audience than his Roman Catholic opponents because they could be printed, rather than hand-copied. (Luther's works were also printed in German and thus more accessible than many of the Latin responses from the Church.) Likewise, the quick and wide dissemination of Calvin's writings and the spread of Reformed thought were made all the more possible because books could be printed cheaply and quickly.

    The inexpensive printing and distribution of Bibles was, of course, a major factor in the Reformation, placing readable texts in the hands of an increasingly literate population.  The printing of the Bible was, in fact, a business venture for most early printers. Gutenberg originally started his printing business, with its subsequent innovation, as a venture to make money printing Bibles. He was not successful, lost money and sold the business.

    The change in information distribution technology after 1440, from manuscript to printed text, led to a rapid and widespread change in the church, to changes in the practice of Christian faith, and to widespread literacy. The question now is whether our newest information technologies will result in another dramatic change for church and faith.

    The media history of the church in the twentieth century is one of rapid adoption of new media to communicate to the faithful and share the gospel. The church quickly adopted and adapted the use of newspapers, radio and television. Church use of digital technologies like the Internet and email became expected by the late 1990s and early 2000s, to the point that most churches have some presence online. Social media use by churches followed a similar trend. But how has this use of digital tools changed the life of the church and the life of the individual Christian?

    I think adopting new information-sharing technologies affects us in many ways, some good and some not so good. We are in touch with more people in more places at once.  Sharing news and community goodwill enables us to sustain fellowship with individuals and groups we might not have otherwise. We are able to keep up with needs and respond to crises in other parts of the world with a rapidity not possible in the past. But, in some ways, this focus on what is distant sometimes distracts us from what is close to home, where we might have ministered more effectively in the past. So, while our communication can be much better and wider, it can also cause us to lose our local and personal connections. In relation to the biblical text, our new digital tools help us with Bible study and finding resources in ways we never dreamed possible. We can go online and search just about any translation, in any language, for words, themes and verses. We can in fact go online and look at some of the oldest biblical manuscripts in existence, with images, text and translation.2

    At the same time, those same digital tools by the way they are programmed, force us to relate to the Bible in different ways than we relate to a printed Bible. In a recent article, Alan Jacobs, a professor at Wheaton College, talks about how the physical form of the Bible has been theologically important in the history of the church.3 He notes that the paper printed Bible, as a thing, denotes both a certain kind of reading and a certain wholeness or integrity. With a printed book, we can see physically where we are reading in relation to the whole sequence of the text – Old Testament, New Testament, the arrangement of the books and letters all in physical order. The book, most often, sits in the hand as a whole thing, a unit of meaning quite apart from reading it. Ebooks and eBibles, on the other hand, while they can be read sequentially and can be “held” on our tablet, do not convey the same physical sense of integrity and sequence. There is no easily perceived sense of wholeness, just a metaphor for a whole text assembled out of electronic bits.

    A further complication that Jacobs also points out is that because of screen size and layout/design, we may see only a verse or two at a time. Our screen size (think smartphone) or browser window will only permit a certain amount of legible text. The sense of the whole and the sense of context are both entirely lost. The text becomes a series of short disconnected bits of information. As a result, while electronic text may enable us to share the Bible widely and quickly, this new format may present problems for our current understanding of the larger biblical messages or meanings. The use of short bits of biblical text, for example, is now common in arguments about what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The larger context of how a verse or two fits within a narrative or how such a bit of text relates to the cultural constraints of the authors of a text is entirely lost.

    All this being said, I do, in fact, think digital texts, translations and tools are great things in many ways. We can find information, look things up and share information in ways that greatly benefit our lives, our ability to minister to others and our pursuit of scholarship.

    As a “People of the Book,” however, I think we need to be reminded of the whole Book and, more often than not, read from a real, physical, printed Bible. This odd, old, physical object serves to remind us of the presence of all of the text, with all of its complications and history, and that we are real physical people in a real physical world.

    1Eisenstein, Elizabeth L., The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 148.
    2For a great example, see the Codex Sinaiticus Project, www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
    3Alan Jacobs, “Christianity and the Future of the Book,” The New Atlantis, (Fall 2011), p.19-36.  Jacobs is also the author of The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction (Oxford, 2011), a book well worth reading.


  • The Wonderful Women of Louisville Seminary

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 25, 2014


    Editor's note: As we celebrate the 160th anniversary of Louisville Seminary’s founding, Thinking Out Loud readers will receive blog posts about key people and events in the life of Louisville Seminary. We'd love for you to share your memories. Email us!

    Today's blog post was guest-written by Lucy Steilberg, a member of Louisville Seminary’s President’s Roundtable.

    I was so pleased to be asked to give my reflections on and memories of the wives of the presidents of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. This is an effort to honor them for their contributions to the Seminary on the occasion of the Seminary’s 160th Anniversary. This is a joyous task for me!

    From my observation, there are two characteristics that all of these women share. One is the unfailing, generous and gracious hospitality that they have displayed to students, staff, faculty, board members and President’s Roundtable members. I can speak with some authority concerning this since I have often been a recipient of this hospitality.  The other characteristic they share is that each one of them brought such marvelous and unique gifts to the Seminary. 

    Fannie CaldwellUnfortunately, I cannot speak with any knowledge of the presidents’ wives before the time of Fannie Caldwell, wife of Dr. Frank Caldwell. I had a lovely conversation with Anne Caldwell, who lives in Memphis, Tenn. She said that her mother was particularly concerned about the students, and she entertained them and others quite often. Fanny was a fine writer and used these skills as a member of the Monday Afternoon Club, a group of women writers that originated 127 years ago at Second Presbyterian Church in Louisville.

    Grace WinnGrace Winn, wife of Dr. Albert Curry Winn, had one of the most infectious and contagious laughs I have ever heard. It was impossible not to respond to that laugh! Grace had a special ministry to the students and their spouses. She had a gift of making a person feel that he or she had always known her. There was much turmoil in America throughout the 1960s. Students all around the country were protesting against the war in Vietnam and crusading for civil rights for all people. The students at Louisville Seminary were no exception. Grace was a compassionate sounding board and means of support for the students. During Grace’s time at the Seminary, she was an active session member at Crescent Hill Presbyterian Church, being one of the first women elders in our Presbytery. She also served on the Pastor Nominating Committee at Crescent Hill and taught Sunday school there. 

    Nancy Nelson, wife of Dr. Ellis Nelson, was a sensitive and caring mentor and friend to the spouses of the seminarians. Nancy also endeavored to be a bridge between the churches in our Presbytery and the Seminary. She was a valuable ambassador for Louisville Seminary and also served as an active session member at Second Presbyterian Church. 

    Mary MulderDr. Mary Mulder, wife of Dr. John Mulder, had the unique opportunity of being a student at the same time that she was the wife of the president. She earned a doctorate in rhetoric and composition from the University of Louisville and served as an esteemed professor and administrator at Jefferson Community and Technical College for many years. She was a wonderful model and example for Seminary students. They could observe that the wife of their president had been a student and then was a professor. Mary is also an excellent writer. I’ve had the good fortune to read many of her papers at meetings of the Monday Afternoon Club. Mary was the only president’s wife in recent history who had two young children when she moved into the president’s house. She nurtured and reared them while fulfilling her responsibilities to the Seminary.

    Rebecca ThompsonRebecca Thompson, wife of Dr. Dean Thompson, brought her special gift of music to Louisville Seminary. She had worked as a music teacher and a director of children’s music groups before coming to the Seminary. Whenever people were invited to the president’s house, Rebecca entertained the guests by playing her grand piano. One of her greatest gifts to Louisville Seminary was when she brought a youth orchestra comprised of Israeli and Palestinian youth to Caldwell Chapel to perform a concert. I don’t think any of the congregation on that day will forget that special experience. Rebecca also taught music at a local high school in Louisville.

    Debbie JinkinsDr. Deborah Jinkins, wife of Dr. Michael Jinkins, came to Louisville Seminary as an extremely well-respected and recognized tenured university professor and reading specialist. In her career, she has been a first-grade teacher, a school principal, a university professor and a writer. Her entire adult life has been focused on the education and well-being of young children. As she and her husband visit churches around the country to inform Presbyterians about Louisville Seminary and the Covenant For the Future it is obvious that their partnership is very effective in this endeavor since, as Christians and academics, they are both passionate about Seminary education. Debbie is very open and committed to all in the Seminary community and uses her many and varied gifts to benefit her family and Louisville Seminary.

    It is necessary to have a community of gifted and dedicated people - students, staff, professors, board members, President’s Roundtable members and many others - to keep an institution such as Louisville Seminary strong and vital. It is also necessary to have two people to lead and serve this community. We have been very fortunate through the years to have these extraordinary couples to lead and serve this extraordinary institution.

  • The Absence of Presence

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 21, 2014

    Bill HOlmesEditor’s Note: Today’s blog post is guest-written by Bill Holmes, M.D., M.Div. ’10, a retired pediatric neurologist and ordained Baptist minister (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). Bill is a chaplain at Norton Brownsboro Hospital and has done pulpit supply and interims in Baptist, Presbyterian and Nazarene churches in Kentucky and Southern Indiana. He is a member of Louisville Seminary’s President’s Roundtable and has a regular column in the Church Health Reader on the interface between faith and medicine.

    It is now our turn to confess that we no longer know what presence means.
    -Ralph Harper, On Presence: Variations and Reflections [1992 Grawemeyer Award in Religion]

    She had just been told she had metastatic cancer. At the oncologist’s request and with her permission, I sat at her bedside listening to her story. Six family members sat around the room, but only two appeared to be listening to what she had to say. The other four were staring at their smartphones; they were tuned into Facebook, checking emails or texting.

    At her hour of greatest need, some of her family was in cyberspace, a virtual world, or, ironically, on a “social network.” Their bodies were in the room, but their attention was elsewhere; they were not truly present to their loved one. There was an absence of presence.

    As with Ralph Harper, I see presence as not only our bodies being in spatial relationship to each other, but also a full awareness of what is happening and being said, both verbally and non-verbally. Presence is experienced by all the senses. We see each other with all of our wrinkles and scars; we hear each other with all our intonations and nuances; we touch each other with a touch that we have hopefully known before or will know again. Even our sense of smell at times might identify the scent of significant people in our lives, even before we see or hear them.

    In our age of “virtual” everything, our sense of presence to each other and to God has diminished. Sherry Turkle in Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (Basic Books, 2012) observes that technology has offered us a substitute for face-to-face connection. And we have bought into it as we have let technology redefine the boundaries between intimacy and solitude. Rather than investing ourselves in others, rather than getting to know each other face-to-face, we build a list of Facebook friends and then are left to wonder if they are really friends and what that means. As we “recreate ourselves as online personae” and avoid real-time happenings as they may take too much time, we may find ourselves feeling utterly alone. Knowing each other and God intimately takes investment of time and ourselves.

    At a recent chaplains’ conference, the virtues of technology were extolled as a means of spiritual presence. A good deal of excitement and affirmation was voiced for what I call “techno-spirituality.” While I see the possibilities offered by new technology, I fear we will be fooled into believing we are fully present to one another. Why must we feel more at home or comfortable with a virtual presence than a real presence? Is it because we are not capable of giving ourselves completely, an act that cannot be done in virtual space or cyberspace but requires what Martin Buber called "the real filled present”? 

    While there are some good things about social media, preoccupation with it can become a poor substitute for real presence, for face-to-face encounters. How do we come to know and understand the mystery of the other outside of real or actual presentness? If we must communicate through social media and texting ad nauseam, let us never fool ourselves into believing that we are in fact present to the other in our entirety, with our whole being. We risk remaining strangers to one another and failing to give ourselves to one another because we are able to sit face-to-face and listen in a life-giving manner. We keep ourselves for ourselves as we hit "send" or "post." To leave cyberspace for real presence is to give ourselves without the fear that we will have nothing left if we do.

    We cannot afford to be dismissive or take lightly that which is communicated by a grasped hand, a breathing pattern, an intonation, a look, and the ineffable experience of just being there. It is the face-to-face encounter with our iPhones turned off that we find real presence rather than loneliness and even darkness.

  • How Deborah Taught Me to be a Leader

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 14, 2014


    Arianne LehnEditor's Note: Today's blog post is guest-written by Rev. Arianne Braithwaite Lehn, associate pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

    Last summer, I found myself glued to a fresh, best-selling book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, by Sheryl Sandberg. It was a companion in my satchel, carried to cappuccino-teeming cafes, park benches and bustling trains while my husband and I traveled in Paris.

    Sandberg’s basic call is for women to be leaders. For the past thirty years, the number of women graduating college equaled, if not exceeded, that of men, yet men still hold the majority of leadership positions in both industry and government. Of the 195 independent countries in our world, women lead only seventeen.1 For those in leadership – or women in the workforce, period – many still face significant pay discrimination. Sandberg is quick to point out that eggs at the grocery store have gone up more in price, percentage-wise, than women’s pay scale.

    In the church, we know the sad truth that the reality is no different. In the Presbyterian Church (USA), half of active male pastors currently serve as a head pastor or co-pastor, but only one-fourth of female pastors serve in those capacities (despite the fact that women now make up nearly 40 percent of active pastors).2 In another recent survey, 97 percent of Presbyterians said they are most comfortable with a white man as their pastor.3


    Too often, the church looked to women in the Bible for lessons about meekness, self-denial and servitude, picking out women who cover their heads and speak only when asked. It’s why our denomination spent decades deliberating whether women could be ordained as deacons (finally allowed in the early 1900s), then elders (1930s), then pastors (1956). This didn't trickle down in an instant, though. My own congregation in Fort Wayne, Ind., didn't have its first female elder until the 1970s nor its first female associate pastor until the 1980s. Even in 2014, the leading denominations in my city do not consider the topic of female pastors even up for debate.

    My questions are: What happened? How did women possibly lose so much ground? Especially when we look back thousands of years to women of Scripture. One of my absolute favorites? Deborah.

    In the story of Deborah (Judges 4-5), we’re reminded that the Bible contains strong and bold women – leaders, chosen by God, who beckon our deepest admiration and conviction. In the book of Judges, no one appears to think twice about having a woman as their leader. In fact, like we see with the military leader, Barak, they’re nearly paralyzed to do anything without her.

    Deborah was an expert multitasker. In Hebrew, the name “Deborah” means, “bee.” Through her industriousness, wisdom, kindness and usefulness, Deborah fulfilled her name well. As the only female judge in all of Scripture, Deborah held positions traditionally given to men – military leadership, legal legislation and prophecy. Gender was clearly not a factor for God in choosing leaders.

    I’ve often put Deborah on a pedestal, thinking I don’t possess that kind of wisdom or courage to lead as she did. But God built Deborah. God developed her leadership. Old Rabbinic stories say that as a young woman, Deborah began her career making wicks for the Tabernacle lamps. Pretty mundane work, if you ask me. But for Deborah, no work was too humble, no task to small, when done in service to God.

    Deborah didn’t rise to power through her marriage nor was she born with the courage to lead armies into battle. God entrusts Deborah with more because she’s proven faithful with less. The saying, “new occasions teach new duties,” rang true for Deborah, and I would think, all of us. We learn as we go, living into the evolving roles God has for you and for me in this world.

    It can be frightening. I have a hard time believing Deborah was never afraid in doing what God called her to do. But sometimes following God is naming the thing you’re afraid to do and then doing it.

    We don’t need Sheryl Sandberg’s book to demonstrate the gifting God places within us and the power entrusted to us, irrespective of gender or any other societal measure. Deborah shows us that. So can your life.

    Faithfulness in the small tasks. Trust toward the big risks. Humility as the Spirit’s vessel.

    1Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 5.
    2Ida Smith, “Women Rule?” in Presbyterians by the numbers: Insights from Research Services, May 19, 2014. http://www.pcusa.org/blogs/presbyterians-by-the-numbers/2014/5/19/women-rule/.
    3Deborah Coe, “Race – and how little we understand,” in Presbyterians Today, Volume 104, Issue 5, June 2014, p.7.

  • Playing Favorites

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 07, 2014


    Rev. Jeff lehnEditor's Note: Today's blog post is guest-written by Rev. Jeff Lehn, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

    When you and I read Scripture, we all play favorites. We all pick and choose our favorite passages that seem most relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves today. We pay attention to certain passages and avoid others. For most of us, the parables of Jesus carry a lot more weight than the obscure laws of Leviticus.

    Biblical scholars have a fancy way of labeling this tendency. They call it creating a “canon within the canon.” While the Christian biblical canon runs from Genesis all the way to Revelation, we have this habit of creating a smaller canon within the larger canon of Scripture. We grab a favorite psalm here, a favorite parable there, and—voila!—we have our “canon within the canon,” our favorite parts of the Bible that purport to explain all the other parts.

    But the problem is that not all Christians agree on what this “canon within the canon” should contain. It reminds me of the cartoon with two people walking next to each other on the street. One of them says to the other, “I read the Bible and now I hate everybody who’s not like me!” The other one replies, “That’s weird. I read the Bible and now I love everybody that’s not like me!”
    It all depends on what you emphasize, doesn’t it? We can’t get around it. We all play favorites with the Bible, and it’s not always clear why we do it, but it’s crucial to admit that we do.

    My advice is to take your cue from Jesus. Do you remember the story where a Pharisee asks Jesus, “Which commandment in the law is greatest?” Now, if Jesus didn’t play favorites with the Bible, if he thought every single word of it was to be treated equally, he would have rejected the question by saying, “What do you mean? It’s all equally important. You need to follow all of it.”

    But he didn’t. In fact, he was happy to oblige. He was well aware of his favorites and rattled them off without hesitation. The greatest commandment in the entire law, he said, citing part of Deuteronomy 6, is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.” And then he adds a second from Leviticus 19. “And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    For Jesus, his favorites, his canon within the canon, was relatively simple: Love God and love neighbor. For him, these two commandments trumped all the others. If some other law in the Bible contradicted these two, they could be amended or done away with altogether if necessary.

    And isn’t this what we see Jesus doing again and again in his ministry? Playing to his favorites, the love of God and love of neighbor, above everything else? We watch him healing on the Sabbath, eating with outcasts and sinners, welcoming and blessing children, touching unclean lepers, protecting a woman caught in adultery and confronting the Temple authorities. When people criticized him, they had the Bible on their side. His opponents could quote chapter and verse. And they often did. But Jesus’ canon within the canon was different than theirs. Love of God and love of neighbor first, and after that everything else comes into focus.

    So, think for a moment with me. What are your favorites in the Bible? What is your canon within the canon? Which Scripture passages do you regard as most important, the ones you come back to again and again for comfort and wisdom and hope? The teachings of Jesus? The Old Testament prophets? The letters of Paul? A favorite psalm or two?

    Well, we can simplify things even further if we take our cue from Jesus. Two simple things above all else: love of God and love of neighbor. What would it look like if our canon within the canon were this simple and this challenging? Love of God and love of neighbor. Nothing more and nothing less.

    St. Augustine, the fourth-century North African bishop and probably the most significant theologian in the history of the church, noticed Jesus’ canon within the canon and decided to take it one step further.

    In his long and complex treatise On Christian Doctrine (1.35.40), Augustine paused for a moment of pastoral reflection to say this. “Listen up, I have a surefire way for you to detect if someone has misunderstood Scripture. Here’s the rule. If you ever hear a preacher—or any Christian for that matter—interpreting a passage of Scripture in such a way that it doesn’t promote the double love of God and neighbor, then they are flat-out wrong. It’s that simple.”

    All faithful interpretation of Scripture, Augustine said, must increase love of God and love of neighbor or it has missed the mark. Therefore, any interpretation of Scripture that hurts people, oppresses people or destroys people cannot be right. And he would insist, of course, that he’s only taking his cue from Jesus.

    Our “canon within the canon” can be that simple: love of God and love of neighbor. Some harmful traditions will lose traction. Some unjust laws will need reframing. But we may just find ourselves seeing new things in the most unlikely places, things we’ve never seen before, as we allow ourselves to focus on what matters most.

  • Luddite

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 30, 2014


    Dorothy S. RidingsEditor’s Note: Today’s blog is guest written by Dorothy “Dot” Ridings, a former Louisville Seminary Trustee who served from 1992 to 2008 (board chair from 2000 to 2008) and from 2009 to 2014. Ridings is also the former president and chief executive officer of the Council on Foundations, an association of more than 1,600 grantmaking foundations and corporations that promotes responsible and effective philanthropy. She held reporting and editing positions at newspapers in Bradenton, Fla., Charlotte, N.C., Louisville, Ky., and Washington, D.C. Ridings is a member of the Commission on Presidential Debates and a past president of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

    I’ve used the phrase many times: “I’m not a Luddite, but … .”   I belatedly realized I was using the term without knowing what it really means; I’ve never been a student of English history of the early 1600s.

    When I have used the term, it was to explain why I am not on Facebook and why I do not Tweet, Tumble or participate in any other form of what is called “social media.” I’ve used the expression to indicate that while I’m not totally opposed to these forms of electronic communication, it’s a close call with me. It has nothing to do with destroying manufacturing equipment, which is what the real Luddites of four centuries ago did. I learned this fact by (finally) checking the dictionary, where a Luddite is defined as “a person who is strongly opposed to increased mechanization or automation in any field.

    So I guess I need to find another way to explain why I’m not conversant or comfortable with most social media offerings. My reasons are many. The temptation and time it apparently takes to fully participate is a big one. Another is the apparent loss of privacy. And I get too many unwanted email messages already; “Spam” was something my mother fried in the skillet and made into sandwiches, and I don’t need more of the computer variety.

    But I may find myself altering my position on what to me are unfamiliar computer uses.  What has pushed me closer to the edge was enrollment in a MOOC – a massive open online course – that was encouraged by my undergraduate alma mater. The course doesn’t start for a few weeks, but I convinced myself that this is an opportunity to have more than uneducated opposition to online learning, especially in higher education. As both a trustee of Louisville Seminary (just ending 21 years in that role) and a board member of the Association of Theological Schools which oversees accreditation of theological schools, and with ongoing service as a university trustee in the town where I grew up, I’ve been faced with discussion and some decisions on how much investment should be placed in this rapidly growing form of learning and credentialing. The pace of that discussion is accelerating, as online learning becomes an even hotter topic in higher education.

    Some institutions have gone totally online with their course offerings. Others are more cautious, in varying degrees. But the transformations are speeding up, pushed heavily by the stunning increases in tuition rates. (As an aside, if you’re not aware that Louisville Seminary’s current capital campaign has the goal of ending tuition totally – for study on campus, unrelated to anything online – for all master’s degree students, do check out the Seminary’s Covenant for the Future website.)

    Other reasons for the substantial moves into online education have to do with allowing students to study and earn course credits on their own schedules, the increased pressures on faculty and staff who provide in-person learning, and the rising cost of that in-person learning in a classroom. My own reservation about computerized course work is based primarily on anxiety over the loss of those personal connections and learning opportunities that are enhanced by face-to-face dialogue between student and professor (and not on a computer screen).

    If all this is new to you, just Google “online learning.” Yes, I do use Google and other search engines, which supply a treasure trove (Google: a metaphor for “valuable find”) of suggested sources for information on any topic. Trusted print products are excellent places to catch up on this as well, and the search engines can point you to them.

    But the online genie is already out of the bottle, to employ another catch phrase. (Google: “Genie is out of the bottle” means something happened that has made a great and permanent change in people’s lives, usually negative. “Catch phrase” is an expression recognized by its repeated utterance.) At least I’m learning to check my own utterances to make sure I know what they mean.

    And I’ll try to be more objective about all of this when I participate in the MOOC. I don’t think I’ll ever put my observations on anything that requires a hashtag, though.

    (What?!  I’m writing this for a BLOG?!)

  • Higher Education: Scarcity Versus Abundance

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 25, 2014


    Will MullinsEditor's Note: Today's blog was guest written by William E. Mullins (MDiv '06). William is the university chaplain and a lecturer in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Muskingum University; a chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserves; a part-time parish pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Caldwell, Ohio; and a Ph.D. student in higher education at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.
    In his book The Uses of the University, Clark Kerr discovered that there are only eighty-five institutions that have survived without a single moment of interruption since 1520.i Some of the examples on this list are: Swiss cantons, the Roman Catholic Church and the parliaments of the Isle of Man, Iceland and Britain. The vast majority of the institutions that have lasted continuously for 494 years are institutions of higher education. In fact, seventy of the eighty-five institutions that have weathered war, numerous plagues, the Renaissance and the Reformation (and with these examples I have barely entered the 17th century) are universities.
    There is something resilient about a university if it survives continuously for the past half millennium in greater percentages than other institutions. As Steven B. Sample and Warren Bennis observed in a Los Angeles Times review of Derek Bok's Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education, "few things last longer or are more resilient than universities. Fortunately, they are not easily destroyed. A good university is like the Mississippi River. It is fluid, broad and can accommodate many changes along its shores without being fundamentally altered."ii

    There is a lasting and durable dimension to the enterprise of higher education. The institutions that creatively and adaptively engage in such an enterprise can be nurtured, structured and supported in such a way that they are truly built to last.

    Yet, as a Ph.D. student in my final semester of course work in higher education, there is another narrative with a different kind of pathos - a pathos with which I have become intimately familiar. It is remarkably different than Clark Kerr's observation of resiliency. It is a narrative of scarcity. Right now in public higher education, funding has become a major policy battle with real winners and losers. Since Bowen, Chingos and McPherson'siii landmark study of completion rates (a technical word for "graduating") at major public flagship universities, federal funding is now tied to completion rates rather than enrollment rates. Bowen, Chingos and McPherson's book, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities, is a centerpiece in the federal government's higher education policy. Crassly put, the amount of money depends on how many students walk across the graduation platform. The landscape isn't much rosier in the private higher education world. Many institutions in the Midwest are facing a falling demographic of high school students. It's a tough world out there in higher education.

    Then I heard what Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary is doing. Smack dab in this culture of scarcity which reigns supreme in higher education was a decision to offer full-tuition scholarships for every master's degree student in return for a commitment to ministry and service. As a scholar of higher education, an alumnus of the seminary, and as a university chaplain who advises students who plan to attend seminary, this was tremendous news. A study released in April of this year by the Auburn Center for the Study of Theological Education urges seminaries to address student educational debt.iv Louisville Seminary is answering that call. It would seem that our seminary realizes that many students bring additional undergraduate educational debt to seminary. The truth is that seminaries are struggling to attract applicants into a vocation with high educational indebtedness and modest compensation after completion.
    If you are really interested in a sobering dose of reality, take a glance at a survey released by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS).v The sample size for this data set (from 2012-2013) is 6,416 students from 181 seminaries. The ATS's findings suggest that 45.6% of seminary students bring between $10,000 and $40,000 of educational debt to seminary. When these same students graduate from seminary, 61% will have an additional $10,000 to $40,000 of educational debt, with 23.3% (of the 61%) having more than $40,000 in debt.

    Decisions like this do not happen with an entrenched mindset of scarcity. Things like this happen because we trust in the gracious abundance of God. Why would any of us have an entrenched mindset of scarcity when God in Jesus Christ so gently, so powerfully, and so gracefully identified with us in his life, death and resurrection? Faith and learning are rather resilient concepts. When these two powerful realities reside together in a seminary, you had better just plan for the future. Here's to the next 160 years!
    IKerr, C. (1995). The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    iiSample, S. B., & Bennis, W. (2003, July 13). Making Knowledge Accessible to All. Retrieved from Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/13/books/bk-sample13

    iiiBowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities. Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press.

    ivMiller, S. L., Early, K. M., & Ruger, A. T. (2014). A Call to Action: Lifting the Burden, How Theological Schools Can Help Students Manage Educational Debt. New York: Auburn Center for the Study of Theological Education.

    vThe Accrediting Commission. (2013, 8 31). Archived Student Data Reports. Retrieved from The Association of Theological Schools: http://www.ats.edu/resources/student-data/archived-student-data-reports

  • The Importance of Aiming HIgh

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 16, 2014

    Importance of Aiming HIghWe live in a time of modest goals, at least where the church is concerned. “Don’t Rock the Boat” is not only the theme song of hell, it has become our favorite hymn.  We worry and fuss over minutiae (especially the minutiae that divides) while gulping down camels whole.

    I am fairly convinced that the primary reason Mainline Protestantism is faltering is because we are stuck on talking about ourselves. The more we talk about ourselves, the more divided we become as a community, and the more boring we become to our neighbors. We have failed to inspire.

    G.K. Chesterton, the gadfly of British journalism in the early 20th century, critiqued his contemporaries similarly, and with greater wit than I can muster. Recently, while reading William James’ lectures on pragmatism, I came across a passage that James quotes from Chesterton’s classic, Heretics (1905), and it compelled me to dig out my Chesterton again.

    Chesterton writes that when a person’s body “is a wreck he begins, for the first time, to talk about health.” That hurt! He continues: “Vigorous organisms talk not about their processes, but about their aims. There cannot be any better proof of the physical efficiency of a man than that he talks cheerfully of a journey to the end of the world. And there cannot be any better proof of the practical efficiency of a nation than that it talks constantly of a journey to the end of the world, a journey to the Judgment Day and the New Jerusalem.” One more line from Chesterton: “The time of big theories was the time of big results.”

    Anyone who has led an organization of virtually any sort knows the truth of Chesterton’s observation. Timid organizations fail to accomplish much. Often they are stuck in their own self-regard and self-interests. Great organizations, however, inspire us because they cast their vision out beyond the horizon. Their aims draw them forward beyond the mundane drudgery of the moment. They tap into that deep human need to belong to something that matters.

    When it comes to the church, the compelling witness the church possesses is not to its membership and their interests; it is not to their qualifications for membership or their attributes; it is not to their values and strongly held opinions; and it is certainly not to the dull litany of their ills and points of division.

    The compelling witness the church possesses is to the God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth, a God who seeks us no matter how far away from God we have roamed, who forgives us no matter what lies we have told or believed and what evils we have committed, and who restores us in Jesus Christ to that life and character which was God’s original intention for us when God first imagined us into existence.

    When we as a church aim high, we inspire. For us, aiming high is all about the God who is love, who came not to be served, but to serve, who requires only that we do justice, love kindness and walk with God. We are not, ourselves, infinitely adorable or intrinsically all that interesting, but God is. The more we talk about who God is and what God is doing in the world, the better our aim will be.

  • Hypocrisy

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 10, 2014

    HypocrisyRecently, while leading an adult Christian ed class at St. Charles Avenue Presbyterian Church (New Orleans), I told a story I've told many times. In doing so, I asked a question I often ask. The story relates to something Dr. Thomas Long, Bandy Professor of Preaching at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology, said in a sermon several years ago.

    Tom observed that the greatest heresy facing the church today is "superficiality." But before telling the audience what Tom said, I asked them, "What do you think is the greatest heresy facing the church today?"

    I've gotten a lot of different answers to this question, but none more interesting than the one I got in New Orleans.

    "Hypocrisy!" someone said in a clear and confident voice.

    Strictly speaking, I'm not sure "hypocrisy" could really be termed a heresy, in that heresies are errors in doctrine or false teachings. But "superficiality" doesn't strictly fit the bill either, except in as much as it represents the essence of all heresy - losing the essential tension and paradox necessary for truthful statements of faith and settling for simplistic answers when only mystery is honest to God.

    But hypocrisy? Wow! While not strictly a failure of doctrine, here is a spiritual malady that has been mentioned through the ages as one of the most serious barriers to the life of faith. Even Jesus singled out hypocrisy. In a text always used in the Ash Wednesday liturgy, Jesus pronounces a serious "woe" on the head of hypocrites.

    Hypocrisy is also frequently mentioned among the unchurched as a major reason they do not want to hang with Christians. Indeed, as Gerardo Marti, the L. Richardson King Associate Professor of Sociology at Davidson College, observed recently in his Festival of Theology Greenhoe Lecture here at Louisville Seminary, hypocrisy is among the more common concerns about the church raised by emerging Christians.

    According to the New Testament, hypocrisy is a kind of disingenuous spirit or religious pretentiousness. The hypocrites upon whom Jesus heaped his "woes" loved to practice their piety publicly to the applause of others (Matthew 6). They were, in Christ's famous description, like whitened sepulchers sparkling in the sun but full of rotten flesh and dead bones (Matthew 23:27-28).

    Of course, the problem with hypocrisy is that it is always easier to spot in others than in ourselves. It is a thoroughly equal opportunity vice, favoring neither the left nor the right, neither liberal Christians nor conservatives. I'm relatively sure that most of us have at one point or another been guilty of hypocrisy in some form, whether swollen with our righteous pride or proud of our sincere humility.

    The story is told that a church member approached Carlyle Marney, the preacher and author of a wonderful little book titled Beggars in Velvet (Abingdon Press, 1960), to complain about "hypocritical deacons" sitting on the front row in church on Sundays though they were up to no good every Monday. Marney is said to have responded with characteristic generosity and grace, saying something to the effect that these deacons were only pretending to be what they wished they were. That has the ring of truth about it.

    We Christians really have no other claim to make than that we're forgiven sinners. So it isn't surprising to find hypocrites among us, or, perhaps more accurately, to find hypocrisy in us, along with a lot of other sins. Hypocrisy is, after all, just another garden variety of sin, and a pretty puny, pallid, timid, sorry excuse for a sin it is. Lest we let ourselves off the hook too easily, we should take note of the stumbling block hypocrisy can be, keeping other people who may be drawn by God's Spirit at a distance simply because they don't want to associate with ... well ... us.

    The great D.T. Niles once said that evangelism is just "one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread." Let's make sure we don't strut around so promiscuously as beggars in velvet that others seeking God's mercy don't feel welcome at the table.

  • Do It Now!

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 03, 2014

    Do it nowI used to have a marble plaque that sat on my desk with three words on it: "Do It Now!" I can't remember where or when I got the plaque. (Maybe as a premium for subscribing to "Procrastination Today" magazine. Great magazine. Really long intervals between issues, though.)

    Anyway, I think I acquired this plaque to remind me of how important it is in administration not to put off difficult, unpleasant or even routine tasks, but to just do them and move on. It took awhile, but "Do It Now!" eventually became a habit for me, and then a preference.

    If I detect the least bit of resistance in myself to doing the task at hand - if there's a phone call that I need to make, a note that I need to write, a visit that I would rather avoid, a job that I need to do - I tell myself, "Do It Now!", and I just get on with it. Usually, whatever dread I may harbor melts away by simply doing the task.

    There is one case, however, in which "doing it now" actually tends not to be the best practice. That is, giving someone an answer to a request immediately when they make it. I learned this the hard way as a dean, wanting very much to respond to requests of faculty and students when they came to meet with me in my office.

    At first, I just assumed I had to give an answer (yes or no) at the time they made the request. But, every once in a while, I found myself having to overrule my previous decision as new facts came to light or just on further reflection.

    One day, over lunch at the faculty club at The University of Texas, I shared my frustrations about this with Paul Woodruff, who at the time was the university’s dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies. Paul shared with me his approach. He said that, as a matter of principle, he never gives a response to any request, however routine it may seem, at the time of the request. He always relays his decisions after the meeting. That way, he has the opportunity to reflect further, get other perspectives on the issue, cool down his decision-making processes a bit, and get a little distance from the immediate request. Paul said that by not "doing it now" he found that he tended to make better decisions, and he seldom had to reverse them later.

    So, now I suppose I need a new plaque: "Do It Now! (Except when you should wait!)"

  • Landmarks of Growth

    by Michael Jinkins | May 29, 2014

    Minister for Stewardship
    Second Presbyterian Church
    Louisville, Ky.

    Editor's note: for the next several weeks, as we celebrate the 160th anniversary of our founding, Thinking Out Loud readers will receive blog posts about key people and events in the life of Louisville Seminary. We'd love for you to share your memories. Email us!

    Today's blog post was guest-written by John M. Mulder, former Louisville Seminary president (1981-2002) and author of
    Finding God: A Treasury of Conversion Stories (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012).

    Puchett OrganI had the privilege of serving as president of Louisville Seminary for 21 years, from 1981 to 2002. Before I discuss highlights of those years, I want to make two observations:

    First, the achievements of those years were accomplishments forged by the labors of many people, and I had the good fortune to work with them—faculty, administrators, staff, trustees, alumni, students and friends of the seminary. This is an institution built by a “cloud of witnesses.”

    Second, some of the biggest events were those over which we had no control. The best example is the growth of the endowment—from $11 million in 1981 to $70 million in 2002. About one-third of that growth was due to fundraising. Two-thirds was the result of the greatest bull market in American history—from the early 1980s to the late 1990s.

    Here are some landmarks along the road (in no particular order):

    I can’t remember the size of the faculty when I arrived, but I do know it was lean. The number increased significantly in 21 years, and the faculty became more diverse. In 1981 there was only one woman on the faculty; in 2002 the majority were women. There were no African American faculty in 1981; in 2002 there were three. In 1981, there was one endowed faculty position; in 2002, there were nine. More than half of the full-time faculty positions were underwritten by named chairs.

    This is the same story: growth in numbers and in diversity. For example, in 1981, the seminary had one woman administrator. In 2002, the majority of the administration was composed of women. The diversity of the staff did not increase as much, but the numbers still grew.

    The Board of Trustees was almost entirely rebuilt in 21 years and significantly diversified. Perhaps the greatest change was the increase in the number of lay people. The Alum Board matured beyond its embryonic beginnings during Ellis Nelson’s years, and the President’s Roundtable was launched.

    The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the steady growth in the number of women students that began in the 1970s. By 2002, the student body was divided almost equally between men and women. They were also older, but student age was gradually decreasing by the late 1990s. We attempted to recruit more African American students, an effort that has been far more successful today.

    Student aid was the fastest growing segment of the budget during the 1980s and 1990s until we were able to provide at least a full tuition scholarship to all students who qualified according to financial need. The Covenant for the Future capital campaign to find funds for both tuition and living costs is a bold and inspiring new effort to curb student indebtedness and provide a financial foundation for future generations of students.

    On the campus itself, the highlights include the installation of the Roger Wood Puckett Organ (pictured to the right) in Caldwell Chapel, the acquisition and renovation of Gardencourt, the construction of Laws Lodge, the replacement of flat roofs on the quadrangle buildings with attractive sloped, copper roofs, annual improvements to facilities as they aged, and dramatically improved landscaping. Incidentally, the purchase of Gardencourt closed the same day the General Assembly approved Louisville as the site of the national offices in June 1987. That was a hectic day.

    In 1981, there was only one computer on campus—in the business office. By 2002, every office was equipped with a computer. The E.M. White Library collection was converted to the Library of Congress classification and put on line with other libraries, especially the Southern Baptist Seminary library. Students who did not have computers found ready access to them in the library.

    When I arrived, even many of the faculty described the course of study as “a political curriculum”: each faculty member taught a required course. Steadily emerged a much more integrated curriculum and an extensive amount of team teaching. The seminary also created the Master of Arts in Marriage and Family Therapy degree and became one of only two seminaries in the nation to offer a fully accredited MAMFT, now a major seminary degree program.

    Started in 1990 with generous grants from Lilly Endowment, the Louisville Institute has made 1,864 grants totaling $33.7 million. These grants have made a substantial impact on religious scholarship in America and strengthened religious leaders (e.g., the pastor sabbatical program, which began in part because of a comment by an alumnus concerned about clergy renewal). The Louisville Institute also convened many conferences, held at Gardencourt, and many people commented that there was something about Gardencourt that created a remarkable atmosphere of exploration and trust.

    Created in 1990 by the late H. Charles Grawemeyer (who also served on the Board of Trustees), the Grawemeyer Award in Religion is one of the five renowned Grawemeyer Prizes and is administered jointly by the University of Louisville and Louisville Seminary. The individuals who have won the award either were or have become significant figures in religious thought throughout the world in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

    Louisville Seminary operated with a balanced budget every year but one from 1981 to 2002. Perhaps the most significant financial decision was to replace local banks with national endowment managers in the mid-1990s and to diversify the endowment into many asset classes, ranging from traditional stocks and bonds to international securities and natural resources. Reliance upon endowment income was a necessity because of declining governing body support. Al Winn told me that during his presidency, 50 percent of the income came from denominational judicatories. By the end of my presidency, that source was less than five percent of the budget.

    On the occasion of the 160th anniversary of Louisville Seminary, join with me in thanking all those who have made Louisville Seminary a more effective servant of the church’s mission. I have mentioned no individuals by name because the list would be longer than the pantheon of heroes composed by the writer of Hebrews. As the seminary enters a new future with its own challenges, let us unite in humility and hope. We clearly do not labor alone. In the end, our destinies are ultimately not our own but belong to God, who has made us and saved us.

  • The Mirror Test

    by Michael Jinkins | May 27, 2014

    Mirror TestWhat do Peter Drucker, John Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola all have in common?

    Quite a lot as it turns out.

    Drucker, the “Dean of Management Research,” wrote an article, “Managing Oneself,” which was originally published in the Harvard Business Review in 1999 – and which appears now in a collection of classic HBR essays, On Managing Yourself (Boston: Harvard Business Review, 2011). In this now classic essay, Drucker recommends an approach to self-reflection he calls “feedback analysis.” Drucker writes:

    Feedback analysis is by no means new. It was invented sometime in the fourteenth century by an otherwise obscure German theologian and picked up quite independently, some 150 years later, by John Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola, each of whom incorporated it into the practice of his followers. In fact, the steadfast focus on performance and results that this habit produces explains why the institutions these two men founded, the Calvinist church and the Jesuit order, came to dominate Europe within 30 years. (On Managing Yourself, Drucker, “Managing Oneself,” p. 14)

    While the “obscure German theologian” to which Drucker refers was likely Berthold der Schwarze, a German monk and alchemist about whom we know very little, the other two sources, Calvin and Ignatius, are well-documented. They utilized processes of self-examination and reflection on the outcomes of actions that are very similar to Drucker’s “feedback analysis.”

    To summarize Drucker’s insight, feedback analysis is a process of reflection on our actions over a long period of time. What we are trying to determine are our greatest and most valuable strengths (not just the things we most enjoy doing) and our greatest vulnerabilities and weaknesses. We gain knowledge of this sort by observing the consequences or outcomes of our actions. Feedback analysis also helps us discover how we learn best (Drucker provides a very helpful discussion of this process), how well we work with other people, what are our most deeply held values, and what kind of environment is most conducive to doing our best work.

    According to Drucker, again, we can only really gain this sort of perspective on ourself over a long period of time by taking note of the outcomes and consequences of our actions, and not just our intentions (for example, by keeping a running journal that allows us to objectify and honestly assess the results of our own actions). From Drucker’s perspective, it is particularly crucial to engage in feedback analysis today because each of us has become our own “chief executive officer” and, I might add, our own “head of personnel development.” As the editors of Harvard Business Review put it, commenting on Drucker’s thesis: “it’s up to you to keep yourself engaged and productive during a work life that may span some 50 years” (On Managing Yourself, “Idea in Brief,” p. 15).

    For John Calvin, we are liberated to engage in self-examination because “Christ is the mirror of our election.” Or, as Calvin says in another context, “Christ is the mirror of our sanctification,” in whom “all parts of our salvation are complete.” In other words, because our salvation rests in the free grace of God, we can be vigorous in our self-reflection. Calvin writes, “But if we have been chosen in him (Christ), we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive him as severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, ed., Ford Lewis Battles, tr., Philadelphia:  Westminster John Knox Press, 1960, III.xxiv. 5. p. 970)

    For Ignatius of Loyola, we can reflect honestly on our strengths and weaknesses, and seek to understand how God wants to make use of us in this world, because God loves us without condition and uses all of life to draw us more deeply into his love. There is no better summary of the Ignatian call to self-examination than the translation of Ignatius’ “A Vision of Life – Principle and Foundation,” by David Fleming, SJ (“Ignatius’ Three-Part Vision,” Ignatian Spirituality, accessed May 22, 2014, www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-prayer/the-spiritual-exercises/ignatius-three-part-vision/) which my spiritual director, Father Paul Scaglione, shared with me during Lent this year. Ignatius writes:

    God who loves us creates us and wants to share life with us forever. Our love response takes shape in our praise and honor and service of the God of our life. All things in this world are also created because of God’s love and they become a context of gifts, presented to us so that we can know God more easily and make a return of love more readily. … Our only desire and our one choice should be this: I want and I choose what better leads to God’s deepening life in me.

    Drucker’s feedback analysis, as complex as it may be, can also be conceptualized quite simply as a kind of “mirror test.” He asks, “What kind of person do I want to see in the mirror in the morning?” This question can be asked freely, even joyfully, when we are conscious of the grace of the God who loves us without condition and who calls us to live into the fullness of the humanity revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.

  • Faculty Bedside Tables

    by Michael Jinkins | May 20, 2014

    Stack of BooksLast year, we had a great time finding out what was on the bedside reading tables of our faculty. The variety and range of books was really fantastic. So we thought we’d do it again.

    Carol J. Cook, Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling, tells us that there are four books right now on her nightstand. The first is by Wesley Ariarajah, Your God, My God, Our God: Rethinking Christian Theology for Religious Plurality (Geneva, Switzerland: World Council of Churches Publications, 2012). Wesley, a former Deputy General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, recently served as Louisville Seminary’s Henry Luce III Visiting Professor of Interfaith Studies and presented the Caldwell Lectures at our annual Festival of Theology. Carol is also reading Will Johnson’s Aligned, Relaxed, Resilient: The Physical Foundations of Mindfulness (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2000); Helen Vendler’s Dickinson: Selected Poems and Commentaries (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010); and Ann Patchett’s This is the Story of a Happy Marriage (New York: HarperCollins, 2013). Incidentally, I highly recommend Patchett’s book myself. It is one of the most wonderful collections of non-fiction essays I’ve ever read.

    Professor of New Testament Studies Marty Soards, interestingly, is reading The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson, edited by Thomas H. Johnson (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1960), as well as The Bhagavad Gita, translated by Juan Mascaró (New York: Penguin, 1962); The Koran, translated by N. J. Dawood (New York: Penguin, 1999), and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, translated by D. C. Lau (New York: Penguin, 1974). Marty is also reading Joseph M. Williams, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (New York: Pearson Education, 2007).

    Brad Wigger, our Second Presbyterian Church Professor of Christian Education, mentions three books, all of which came to him as gifts - two from friends and one from his son, David. On Reading The Grapes of Wrath (New York: Penguin, 2014) by Susan Shillinglaw and The Thread That Runs So True (New York: Touchstone, 1949) by Jesse Stuart are from friends; and, the book from David is Jonathan Safran Foer’s Everything is Illuminated (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

    Amy Plantinga Pauw, Henry Mobley Jr. Professor of Doctrinal Theology, is reading Cornelius Plantinga’s Reading for Preaching: The Preacher in Conversation with Storytellers, Biographers, Poets, and Journalists (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013); and Katherine Boo, Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity (New York: Random House, 2014). She is also reading the book which won the 2014 Grawemeyer Award for Religion, T.M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012).

    Frances S. Adeney, our William A. Benfield Jr. Professor of Evangelism and Global Missions, is also reading Luhrman’s When God Talks Back, as well as Sarah Osborn’s World: The Rise of Evangelical Christianity in Early America (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2013) by Catherine A. Brekus and Susan Fisher Sterling’s Women Artists: National Museum of Women in the Arts (New York: Abbeville Press, 2010). Frances mentioned that she was a founding member of the National Museum of Women in the Arts and recently had an opportunity to personally visit the museum in Washington, D.C. She reports that it is wonderful.

    Tyler Mayfield, Assistant Professor of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, writes: “Having returned recently from Israel and Palestine, I am reading Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel (New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2013) and Mitri Raheb’s Faith in the Face of Empire (New York: Orbis Books, 2014). Each of these excellent authors offer their unique and timely perspective on the current conflict. I am also revisiting Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium (New York: Harmony, 1999) as I continue to think about the thorny theological issue of violence. Finally, upon recommendation from Carol Cook, I’m reading Jaco Hamman’s Becoming a Pastor: Forming Self and Soul for Ministry (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2007).”

    Chris Elwood, Professor of Historical Theology, like Brad, is reading On Reading The Grapes of Wrath; he is also reading Masha Gessen's Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot (New York: Penguin, 2014); Gregory Orr's Poetry as Survival (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 2002); Mario Vargas Llosa's The Dream of the Celt (New York: Picador, 2013); and C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (New York: HarperCollins, 2009).

    Cliff Kirpatrick, Henry Luce III Visiting Professor of Ecumenical Studies and Global Ministries, is reading The Invention of Wings (London: Viking Books, 2014) by Sue Monk Kidd; The Great Equal Society: Confucianism, China, and the 21st Century (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2013) by Young-oak Kim; and The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012) by David McCullough, three “very different, but fascinating books” Cliff says.

    Matthew Collins, Director of the Ernest Miller White Library and Associate Professor of Bibliography and Research, mentions two new books, Max Barry's Lexicon: A Novel (New York: Penguin, 2013); and Clive Thompson's Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better (New York: Penguin, 2013).

    Johanna Bos, the Dora Pierce Professor of Bible & Professor of Old Testament, mentions that she recently finished Chris Pavone’s, The Accident (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2014). She says that Pavone also wrote The Expats (New York: Broadway Books, 2013). Before that, she read Megan Abbot’s Dare Me (New York: Reagan Author Books, 2012), “a book I could not put down but found claustrophobic as it forces one to spend the entire time inside the mind of a cheerleading-obsessed teenager,” said Johanna. She also recently enjoyed Anna Quindlen’s Still Life with Bread Crumbs (New York: Random House, 2014), which she found to be “a quietly intelligent novel.” She says Elizabeth Strout’s Abide with Me (New York: Random House, 2007) “was an unexpected pleasure” and Cathleen Schine’s Fin & Lady (New York: Picador, 2013), “an anticipated one.” She “devoured” Frances Fyfield’s The Art of Drowning (London: Hachette UK, 2012), Cold to the Touch (London: Paragon, 2010) and The Nature of the Beast (New York: Time Warner, 2002), and is soon to read Laura Lippman’s After I’m Gone (New York: William Morrow, 2014), Helen Fitzgerald’s The Cry (London: Faber & Faber, 2013), and Tessa Hadley’s The London Train (New York: HarperCollins, 2011). She is also planning to read Jan De Hartog’s memoir, A View of the Ocean (New York: Pantheon, 2007), and notes that recently while in Texas doing a series of lectures, she met people who had known De Hartog after his emigration to Texas. Johanna says that De Hartog also wrote “a history of the Quakers in novel form entitled The Peaceable Kingdom (New York: Scribner, 1972) and a stirring pacifist novel called The Captain (London: H. Hamilton, 1967).”

    Dean of the Seminary and Professor of New Testament Susan Garrett is a dedicated reader. Ministry and Money: A Practical Guide for Pastors (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), by Janet T. Jamieson and Philip D. Jamieson and Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy [Revised and expanded edition (Hoboken, N.J.: Jossey-Bass, 2007)] by William Bergquist and Kenneth Pawlak are both on her night stand, as well as the superb book by Gerardo Marti, Worship Across the Racial Divide: Religious Music and the Multiracial Congregation (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2012). Gerardo, a Professor of Sociology and Chair of the Sociology Department at Davidson College, served as our Greenhoe Lecturer at this year’s Festival of Theology and has just been named to the Board of Directors of the Louisville Institute. In addition to these three books, Dean Garrett has added another, which I also enjoyed immensely, 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction (New York: Pantheon, 2010)  by Rebecca Goldstein.

    My night stand? I’ve already mentioned the Ann Patchett non-fiction collection, but it bears repeating that this is a great book. I also just finished James McBride’s amazing novel about John Brown and his abolitionist followers, The Good Lord Bird (New York: Riverhead Books, 2013). I am also reading Melissa Fay Greene, Praying for Sheetrock (Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Books, 1991), which was a runner-up several years ago for the National Book Award; Elisabeth Sifton and Fritz Stern’s No Ordinary Men: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnanyi (New York: New York Review of Books, 2013); and Michael Lewis, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt (New York: W. W. Norton, 2014). As soon as one of these is finished, the next book I’ll begin is Barbara Brown Taylor's Learning to Walk in the Dark (New York: HarperCollins, 2014).

  • Political Leadership

    by Michael Jinkins | May 13, 2014

    Political LeadershipI paused long over the title to this week’s blog. Surely there are those who will think the phrase “political leadership” is an oxymoron that ranks beside “military intelligence,” “jumbo shrimp” or “airline food” for sheer foolishness. I’ll stand by it though, and not just as a possibility. Political leadership speaks of the ability to read and respond to the public in a way that helps them move forward together. It is an essential aspect of democracy, despite how badly democracy gets used and abused in its name. At some level, political leadership (at its best) expresses the capacity to act strategically.

    A really good political leader understands in his or her bones the wisdom of boxer Mike Tyson’s words: “Everyone has a plan ‘till they get punched in the mouth.” That’s why Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King’s College in London, takes these words from Tyson as the epigraph for his magisterial new volume on the history of strategy, Strategy: A History (Oxford University Press, 2013). This is a brilliant book, and well worth the time to study closely. Freedman takes a term that is used far too loosely in our society (strategy) and turns it every which way but loose. He helps us to see that strategy is necessary because conflict is essential to human society.

    Political leadership might be defined as the capacity to move people forward to deal with the challenges facing their society. It requires, as Freedman writes, “some recognition of the distinctive attributes of individuals who are potential opponents or allies, and sufficient empathy with these individuals’ situations to make it possible to influence their behavior.” Freedman adds that the “most effective strategies,” while they may make use of all sorts of motives and means, “benefit … from the ability to forge coalitions.” (Freedman, 9.) But those who would forge coalitions must be able to deal with often extraordinary adversities and sometimes adversaries, as well as the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and misfortune. Again: “Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth.”

    While the theoretical approach to studying strategy is valuable, it is considerably less interesting than the personal approach for the same reason that it is more interesting to watch a film of Muhammad Ali fighting Joe Frazier than it is to read about the history of pugilism. Although Freedman makes great use of historical anecdotes, even at their best, they don’t resonate like a good personal story told by an honest storyteller. I’ve come across two such storytellers recently. The first is well known to anyone who has had his or her television on in the past few months; the second is less familiar.

    Robert Gates served as secretary of defense in the administrations of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. This alone is remarkable. His memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (Alfred A. Knopf, 2014), makes great – and surprising – reading. It is especially surprising if all you know about this book is what you have seen on television. That’s because our media (left, right and whatever else) apparently “reads” (and the quotation marks have seldom proven as well-earned as in this case) a book to find something to stoke controversy rather than to add to the body of human wisdom. Go figure. If, however, you are reading in order to understand how people of integrity attempt to thread the needles of political and self-interest while trying to do some good on behalf of the country, this is a good resource.

    The realism is bracing, as when Gates writes: “I have never believed that one should make national security policy on the basis of trust. I think you make national security policy based on interests and on realities.” His insights into the Ukraine and Vladimir Putin are also fascinating, in light of recent developments there. I came away from the book mostly impressed by a set of values that to some will appear almost idealistic. Here is a person who really believes that a life invested in the service of one’s country matters, even against all the odds. He clearly did not enjoy being secretary of defense. He hated the partisanship, the self-obsessed Beltway world, the game-of-thrones wannabes, the bureaucracies that consume innovation, and the decision-making processes that virtually guarantee poorly-made decisions. Gates, however, rose to the challenge when asked by a succession of presidents, as he defined it, of “winning the fights that mattered while sustaining and even strengthening relationships … reducing the number of enemies and maximizing the number of allies.” As Gates moves from one personal recollection to another anecdote, one sees again and again the wisdom that Freedman describes more academically and that Tyson relates more pugnaciously.

    The next resource I shall recommend on political leadership is the shortest and the least familiar, Michael Ignatieff, Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics (Harvard University Press, 2013). Ignatieff, a Canadian writer, teacher and former politician, has had a distinguished scholarly career. He holds a joint professorial appointment at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. I became interested in his work in the late 1990s when he wrote a superb study of Sir Isaiah Berlin, Isaiah Berlin: A Life (Vintage, 2000).

    Ignatieff’s own political story began “one night in October 2004,” when he was visited by what he and his wife called, “The Men in Black.” These were three distinguished political insiders from Canada who persuaded Ignatieff to return home to run for Parliament with the hope of eventually becoming leader of the Liberal Party, which had long ruled the roost in Canada, but had recently lost its fervor and its way. Though Ignatieff had taught political leadership for a generation, he had never personally led anything more complex than a graduate seminar. His lessons in politics were to be brutally learned when he entered the parliamentary race and the campaign for leadership of the Liberal Party.

    There’s a great line in Dante’s “The Divine Comedy” about those who lose at dice departing sadly from the game, but sadly wiser for their loss (“Purgatory, Canto VI”). Ignatieff now knows the inferno of politics personally, and he is a wiser scholar and a wiser person for it. He complains of the deliberate and “tendentious political misreading” of his own past words by people bent only on using his words for their own political gain. He struggles with how our highest ideals and best intentions, as well as our pride and ambition, will make us act in ways that run counter to our own real and long-term interests, often to the great cost of those closest to us. Further, he reflects on the fickleness of fortune and how he never really understood Machiavelli until he entered the public realm and how political zealots lack any sense of humor or irony.

    All of this is to be expected of a truthful person who will not spare himself to tell the truth about his experience. He also tells us why democracy matters and why political leadership is not just a silly oxymoron: “The best thing about democracy is – or should be – that you have to earn everything, one vote at a time.” (Ignatieff, 13.) The really gifted and good politician has the ability to gather up the compulsions and interests of a people and to make more of them than they appear to be, something better of them for the society as a whole even than the sum of their parts. Real politics is locally rooted, because it is rooted in the needs of people who live in real cities, towns and villages. Writing of the people who came to hear him speak in local Rotary and Lions Clubs, in Legion halls and restaurants, he notes “an air of quiet decency about them and a polite skepticism that you were there to overcome. They were the delegates, and they had the power.” (Ignatieff, 55.) This is the genius of politics that we cannot afford to lose.

    Political leadership, of course, can become as mendacious and sordid a subject as any we can imagine. But it can become mendacious and sordid – it can even become an oxymoron of the silliest order – because its potential for good is so great. St. Augustine understood something of this long ago when he observed the potentiality for evil. The greatest evils are always perversions of the highest goods, Augustine knew. But that shouldn’t prevent us from working for the highest goods, should it?

  • Banned Books

    by Michael Jinkins | May 05, 2014

    Banned BooksThe author of Ecclesiastes famously wrote, "of the making of many books there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The banning of books appears to be endless, too.
    A recent case is especially interesting. On March 5, 2014, Wendy Doniger, a professor of the history of religions at the University of Chicago, wrote an Op-Ed essay, “Banned in Bangalore” for The New York Times. Her essay focused on the banning of her new book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, in India. The book was withdrawn from publication by Doniger’s publisher, Penguin Books, India, (and the court instructed the publisher to pulp stocks of it in warehouses) after an Indian school teacher brought a lawsuit against the author and publisher claiming that the book violated India's blasphemy law, which, Doniger states, "makes it a crime to offend the sensibilities of a religious person." (Wendy Doniger, "Banned in Bangalore" The New York Times, March 5, 2014).

    The subjectivity of such a law seems ludicrous to members of a religiously pluralist society. I doubt if it is even possible for anyone to make a religious statement, or a scientific statement for that matter, that would not violate this law. Of course, the banning of this book has only contributed to its record sales, even in India. Indeed, as it turned out, not a single book was destroyed because so little was warehoused. Bookstores sold out almost immediately after the verdict was announced, and there's simply no way for the court to effectively staunch the supply of electronic books. Her book, like other banned books through the years, has gotten a "banned book sales bump."

    Doniger spends most of her Op-Ed essay reflecting on the positive message of her book and its value in recovering various Hindu traditions, which have been marginalized and forgotten. Today, I would like for us to reflect for a few moments on book banning itself. To reflect on this subject, I'll tell you a personal story.

    Some people are "joiners." Though the percentage of those people has decreased in recent years (as evidenced by Robert Putnam’s now classic sociological study, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, 2001), there are still folks who join with other people in civic clubs and congregations to worship or do good or just have fun. I'm something of a "joiner," but I'm even more of a "grouper." Not the fish, but the kind of person who enjoys forming groups that I think other people might enjoy joining.

    One group among several I have formed over the years was a "Banned Book Club." Originally this group was formed in response to a Texas school district, which had just banned Maya Angelou's book, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1970). But, after reading Angelou's book, we went on to study the subject of book banning in some depth, and to read some more fascinating banned books including Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire (1976) (which is still one of the best books I've ever read on the problem of morality and incommensurable value systems) and Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer (1934). (That was a really memorable conversation!)

    I came away from that experience with a deep opposition to censorship. Censorship is a backhanded compliment to the power of ideas, but it is still a slap in the face. It is one form of violence that both the left and the right indulge in with equal ferocity. Ray Bradbury, in probably the most powerful challenge to book banning ever penned, Fahrenheit 451 (1953), reminds us that the banning of books is neither an exclusively conservative nor liberal sin; it is an enduring expression of "the terrible tyranny of the majority." And it is seldom indulged in without shrouding its violence in the robes of morality and justice.

    Librarians are among the staunchest champions of free speech in our country. They routinely oppose the banning of books and the ideas they contain. Partly, I am sure that is because librarians know the trajectory of history and the way in which ideas once banned sometimes win the day. I also suspect it is because they know that freedom of thought and freedom of speech not only go hand-in-hand, but are the indispensable fundamentals of a good and great society.

    Not long ago a delightful soul in Little Rock, Arkansas, gave me an old Mallard Fillmore cartoon that fractured the famous George Santayana quote as follows: "Those who cannot remember the past are a highly sought-after voting bloc."

    So, this week I encourage the readers of this blog to remember one of the greatest lessons of history, even if it cuts into our attractiveness as a potential voting bloc.

    Banning ideas (even ideas with which we strongly disagree) undermines a good and great society. I encourage you to go to your local library or bookstore (virtual or brick-and-mortar) and pick out a banned book or two or three to read. I suggest you choose more than one book so you can read something banned for opposing ideological reasons. I know Banned Books Week doesn't come around until next fall, but there's no time like the present to celebrate freedom. As for me, I intend to order a copy of Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History.

  • Two Simple Reasons to Give

    by Michael Jinkins | Apr 29, 2014

    Reasons to GiveMy daughter, Jessica, who sometimes just calls to share a joke with me, gave me a great cartoon from The New Yorker magazine a few years ago. I keep it on my desk. Moses stands on the mountainside holding the Ten Commandments up so the crowds below can see them. In the audience there’s a guy with his hand up, asking the question, “What’s the takeaway on all this?”

    Often, when I speak to people about Louisville Seminary’s work and how much we need their support, I explain why we are doing away with tuition by the fall term of 2015 and why we are eliminating housing costs for students by 2021. Our scholarships, I explain, will make it possible for us to recruit the students with the greatest promise for ministry and will allow our graduates to enter ministry with no Seminary debt. This will free our graduates to build new ministries, to take risks, to become more entrepreneurial, to serve wherever God calls them, even in those places where the pay will be far from guaranteed (and the pay in ministry is never great).

    I also tell the story of how our educational program, in addition to providing great biblical, theological, ethical and historical training, also teaches our students to be bridge-builders in this deeply divided world. I tell this story because it doesn’t matter one whit if an education comes to you cost-free unless that education is priceless. The theological education our students receive is not only great in every traditional category, it is also the most relevant to the needs of our church and society.

    Even as I deliver this message, frequently I feel like there’s a guy inside me with his hand up asking the question, “What’s the takeaway on all this?” Is there a purpose beyond the goods that we seek for our students and even our church’s future? Is there a greater end, an imperative rationale that compels us to act? I am asking people to invest, and to invest significantly, in our Covenant for the Future strategic plan. I’m not asking us to reach in our pockets for spare change, but to change our giving plans and even our wills to support this work.

    What’s the takeaway on all this?

    I have realized that there are really two simple but crucial reasons we should give and give generously. One has to do with the mission of God’s people in the world; the other concerns a strange but fundamental theological fact about who we are.

    The first simple reason we should give specifically to theological education is because we need well-prepared leaders to help us be the people we are called by God to be.

    I think of the young pastor with whom I was talking on the phone a few months back. When I asked him what he had done that day, he said, “Oh, the usual pastor stuff.” When pressed, I found out that, in the course of his daily rounds among the people in his urban-suburban neighborhood, he discovered that a worker at the local program that provides care to poor children and families had, herself, become homeless. It all occurred through a chain of errors, none of which were her fault. But the sort of mess that would be an annoyance and a nuisance to most of us literally put her struggling family on the street. By the time it came to this young pastor’s desk, it was a mess indeed.

    A clerical mistake at her bank, which they promised to clear up as soon as possible, caused her to overdraw her account, which made her rent check turn to rubber. Within a few days, and because of delays by the bank in getting the matter cleared up, she was evicted from her apartment. In fact, the eviction was improperly and illegally conducted. But she had no clout, and before she knew it, she and her children were in a local motel desperately piecing together rent each day. That’s when our young pastor found out what was going on. She asked for a day’s rent at the motel.

    The young pastor I spoke with spent a good chunk of that day contacting a banker friend (and member of his congregation) who helped sort out the mess that started everything. He found another landlord who was willing to show mercy, and mobilized some church members who helped the family to move into a new apartment and made sure they had supper on the table. Not only was this woman back at work the next day at the homeless shelter, not only was her family saved from homelessness too, but some of God’s people also had the opportunity to participate in Christ’s redemptive ministry in this world because of this pastor’s work.

    “Oh, the usual pastor stuff.” We could literally multiply that story a hundred or a thousand times over, every single day.
    There is a frightened child right now sitting with her hospital chaplain waiting for chemotherapy to begin.

    There is a woman who has suffered years of neglect and abuse, with trembling hand reaching out to open the door to a refuge that will take her in and protect her in the name of Christ.

    There is a couple struggling mightily to hold together their family against all sorts of odds, economic and emotional, pouring their hearts out to a pastor or pastoral counselor.

    There is a cup of hot soup and a warm bed awaiting a homeless person at the end of a long day on cruel city streets in a world that works overtime to tell him that he is not really human anymore.

    There’s a small group of friends who have gathered together to pledge to one another and to God that they will stay sober one more day.

    There is the life of God - the reign of God - going on all around us. This life, this reign, needs the best leadership and the broadest participation possible. Louisville Seminary is here to make sure those leaders are well-prepared to participate in and lead in God’s work throughout the world. That’s the first simple reason to give, and to give to theological education in particular. But there’s another reason why we should all give.

    Giving goes to the heart of what it means to be created in the image of God.

    As I said earlier, I get the privilege of asking people to give and give generously. As a Seminary president, it is just about the most rewarding part of my job. That may sound odd to a lot of folks, but it is true. The reason is simple. I get to spend time with people who have discovered the joy of giving.

    Among the varieties of people I have encountered, three groups stand out: takers, keepers and givers. The takers might be characterized by the fellow Michael Lewis mentions in his new book Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt (W.W. Norton & Company, 2014) about the darker side of Wall Street. The fellow says, “I’m not happy just to sit in first class. I’m only happy if everyone else I know is sitting in economy.” That’s a taker. Grasping, claiming, acquiring, when having has nothing to do with needing, but is only the outward manifestation of a sick soul. This group is the unhappiest I’ve ever met.

    There are also the keepers. Now, true to my Scottish heritage, I’m pretty conservative when it comes to money. There are, in fact, members of my family who will remain nameless who see me as “tight.” But keepers take sensible conservatism to the limit. They hold on to what they’ve got as though, in the words of songwriter Don Henley, hearses came with luggage racks. They have forgotten that what they have was given to them on loan from God. At most, we are temporary stewards of what we have. While the takers live in fear that someone else might get more than they will get, the keepers live in fear that they will lose what they possess, until their possessions possess them. They aren’t a happy group either.

    But I’ve also met givers. These are the happiest people I have ever come across, and I’ve often wondered why.

    Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, in a recent essay for The New York Times, links philanthropy and charitable giving, to “what psychologists call ‘self-efficacy,’ one’s belief that one is capable of handling a situation and bringing about a desired outcome. When people give their time or money to a cause they believe in, they become problem solvers. Problem solvers are happier than bystanders and victims of circumstance.” Giving, Brooks says, has a “transcendental benefit to donors and recipients alike.” Giving, he says, “creates meaning."1

    I think Brooks is right, but for a deeper reason.

    In his profound and beautiful meditations on the spiritual meaning of The Apostles’ Creed, the late theologian and priest, Hans Urs von Balthasar, writes movingly of the opening passage in the Creed, I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Balthasar writes: “Herein lies the most unfathomable aspect of the Mystery of God: that what is absolutely primal is no statically self-contained and comprehensible reality, but one that exists solely in dispensing itself: a flowing wellspring with no holding-trough beneath it."2

    God does not create because he is driven by need, by insecurities or by self-interests. God does not create from a relentless desire to take or keep. God creates from boundless love, love that finds its expression and joy in giving itself away.

    The core of our humanity, the deep secret of our human identity, the mystery at the heart of all we are is that we are created in God’s image and are never truly ourselves, never truly at rest, and never truly joyful until we participate in God’s love which gives itself away. We were made for this. We were created to live this life of God, the Giving Giver. That’s why givers are the happiest people I’ve ever met. They have found themselves in God. They live in the full flow of God’s love.

    I regularly invite people to give. I often invite them to give to Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and to other theological schools too, because I believe there are few better investments for the sake of this world that God loves. In the Presbyterian community, it is almost entirely through the endowments of our theological seminaries alone that the education of our church’s ministers is funded. Theological schools, overwhelmingly, pay for the education of our own students. When you give to a theological school, you make possible the preparation of ministers, pastors, counselors, chaplains, social workers, teachers and other members of the helping professions. You are investing through them in all the ministries that they will lead throughout the days of their lives. You are really helping to create ministries, multiplying your gift, well beyond your field of vision for generations to come.

    I also invite people to give to their churches and to other charities, too. I invite them to participate as broadly and as deeply as they possibly can in the culture of giving. Why? Because when we do, our lives find their truest meaning. When we give, we find ourselves resonating with the life of the God in whose image we are created. When we give, we discover a happiness and joy that endures.

    1Arthur C. Brooks, “Why Fund-Raising Is Fun,” The New York Times (March 29, 2014).
    2Hans Urs von Balthasar, Credo: Meditations on the Apostles’ Creed, David Kipp, tr. (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1990), 30.

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