• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flickr
  • YouTube
Thinking Out Loud
  • Sacrificial Living

    by Michael Jinkins | Oct 11, 2016

    Opening the Doors
    Sacrificial LivingOne year ago, September of 2015, marked a watershed moment for Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. It was then that we launched our Covenant for the Future Tuition Scholarship Program, which provides 100 percent tuition assistance to all master’s-level students at Louisville Seminary.

    The generosity of our seminary's many friends and supporters makes this possible. This program is almost entirely endowed now. So it will endure into perpetuity. This tuition scholarship program allows us to recruit and admit the students we assess as having the greatest promise for ministry; it liberates these students, when they graduate, to follow God's call wherever that call leads.

    From time to time, I am asked the question, "Doesn't this program feed a sense of entitlement among your students?"

    This is a good question. And it has been raised by people whom I respect a great deal. After all don't we appreciate something a lot more when we "have some skin in the game?"

    The reality, however, is that our students have invested "a lot of skin" in this game by the time they walk on to this campus. Many of them have sacrificed a great deal just to get here.

    Power of the Promise
    I think of the man who, having served as a new church development pastor for several years in an Evangelical denomination, after hearing one of our professors speak at a national conference, made the risky and costly decision to come to seminary because he realized that he needed a theological education if he was to be truly effective as a pastor. He and his wife and children left their home, their security, friends, family and the faith community they had known, so he could enter seminary. He has since become an inquirer for ordination in the Presbyterian church.

    I think of the young man who left a career in law enforcement to follow God's call. For the first year of his seminary career, he commuted hundreds of miles back and forth between his family and the school. And, while keeping up with all of his studies and his duties as a parent, he also established a vital ministry here in Louisville.

    I reflect on the young woman who walked away from an important position in the national office of her denomination because her work had awakened in her the gift of serving as a caring listener and counselor. Leaving behind her previous career to become a student again, she is now earning her degree to become a marriage and family therapist.

    Then there is the student who heard about our program while doing a year of humanitarian work in India. She has graduated and is serving in a leading church of our denomination, but she would not have been able to afford to come to seminary at all had it not been for the scholarship we offered.

    These are just four stories. There are scores more.

    They Have Invested Their Lives
    An alum of Louisville Seminary recently contacted me to say that she once felt that students needed more "skin in the game" if they were to get the most out of seminary. After all, she told me, she and her husband lived pretty lean when she was a student. But, she said, she has changed her mind after working closely with an intern from another seminary who is living hand-to-mouth, virtually homeless and on food stamps. She wrote to tell me that she now backs our Covenant for the Future Tuition Scholarship Program.

    Many of our students come from financially very modest backgrounds. As many as 87% of our students qualify for federal need-based financial aid. Many others, like the earliest disciples who left their nets to follow Jesus, have walked away from established careers, businesses, homes, churches, networks of friends, to follow God's call. The ministry is richer for their presence. They will bring their gifts, wisdom and experience to the leadership of our churches. The ministry is richer, but they are not. They will be entering a vocation that is among the least well-paid of all professions, but which requires a level of education consistent with the more lucrative professions.

    What we are doing does not come close to "compensating" these students for their sacrifice. But it will make it a little easier to get started in ministry, knowing that a mountain of educational debt ($25,000 - $40,000 debt is not unusual for seminary graduates) will not follow them.

    Our Investment, Too
    We have almost (but not quite!) endowed the Covenant for the Future Tuition Scholarship program. We need only another $79,000. And when that is done we will be adding more full scholarships that cover tuition, housing and some living expenses. I hope you will join us, if you haven't already, to make sure that the church's future ministers are liberated from seminary debt so they can concentrate on the ministries to which God is calling them.

  • Thomas Merton: The Patron Saint of Seekers

    by Michael Jinkins | Oct 07, 2016

    Editor's note: Periodically throughout the 2016-2017 academic year, "Thinking Out Loud" readers will receive blog posts that explore concepts of spirituality as they relate to the writings and teachings of Thomas Merton. We hope you enjoy this special series of "Thinking Out Loud." E-mail us!

    Saint of Seekers"One day, in the month of February 1937, I happened to have five or ten loose dollars burning a hole in my pocket. I was on Fifth Avenue, for some reason or other, and was attracted by the window of Scribner's bookstore, all full of bright new books." [Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain (New York: HBJ, 1948/1976), p. 171]

    Among the books on display in the window was Etienne Gilson's The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy. Merton had just signed up for a course in French Medieval Literature, so he decided to buy the book which consisted of a series of lectures Gilson had delivered at the University of Aberdeen.

    It was not until Merton was on his way home on the Long Island train that he noticed, on the first page of the book, words in small print, "Nihil Obstat ... Imprimatur" indicating that the book contained, as Merton put it, "safe doctrine," teachings approved and sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. He writes:

    "The feeling of disgust and deception struck me like a knife in the pit of my stomach. I felt I had been cheated! They should have warned me that it was a Catholic book! Then I would never have bought it. As it was, I was tempted to throw the thing out of the window at the houses of Woodside - to get rid of something dangerous and unclean. Such is the terror that is aroused in the enlightened mind by a little innocent Latin and the signature of a priest." (Merton, Mountain, p. 171)

    Merton didn't, however, throw the book out the train window. Drawn by his interest in what he termed the "Catholic culture" which suffused medieval Europe, and resisting the disgust he felt as a thoroughly enlightened thinker, he read on. Merton writes:

    "Now in the light of all this, I consider that it was surely a real grace that, instead of getting rid of the book, I actually read it. ... And the one big concept I got out of its pages was something that was to revolutionize my whole life." (Merton, Mountain, p. 172)

    What shall we call it? That strange sense of serendipity, of happenstance, that seems to leap out at you when reading Thomas Merton's Seven Storey Mountain, his autobiographical reflections that culminate in his entering Gethsemani Abbey?

    I've used relatively neutral terms above: "serendipity" and "happenstance." You could add, perhaps, "chance" if you want to try to remain neutral, although John Calvin would certainly hasten to differ. In Calvin's book, to say "chance" is to miss the theological point. "Fate," of course, is the deliberately pagan word for it, and a loaded word it is. But "providence" is the no less loaded Christian word: apparent chance, but with a divine purpose unapparent until the retrospect of faith kicks in.

    Merton simply calls it "grace." We know (and Merton knew) that grace is not an abstract quality free floating in the atmosphere. Grace signifies the active presence of God. When Merton says, it was "a real grace," he is saying, in effect, that God was present in his life at that moment. The Holy Spirit was at work in him in that bookstore on Fifth Avenue and in that rail car on the Long Island line.

    The force that brought creation from chaos worked its way into the heart of a most enlightened young man, transforming him from a potential literary star into a saint, arguably the patron saint of seekers, especially of those of us for whom the aesthetic is the primary threshold to transcendence.

    And what did the Holy Spirit disclose to Thomas Merton that was to "revolutionize" his whole life? It was a teaching of the church which on its surface looked as dusty as an ancient vestry neglected by brooms for a hundred years, the doctrine of divine aseity. Merton himself explains: aseity means "the power of a being to exist absolutely in virtue of itself, not as caused by itself, but as requiring no cause, no other justification for its existence except that its very nature is to exist." This idea impressed Merton so profoundly that he made a pencil note in the margin of the text: "Aseity of God - God is being per se." (Merton, Mountain, pp. 172-173).

    With an imagination ignited by grace, Merton moved from insight to insight with Gilson, as one after another voice from the ancient and medieval Christian world weighed in - Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, St. Bonaventure, St. Jerome - until finally Merton began to see the implications of the doctrine of divine aseity: God is being itself, uncaused, without need. God does not need creation. God does not need us. God did not create because of some necessity, some aching void that yearned to be filled. God creates because God is love. God's love is not based on need, but flows from an overflowing abundance of God's pure being.

    Gilson, Merton writes, described "the concrete and real Infinite Being, Who, Himself, transcends all our conceptions." And Merton found himself captivated by an intellectual encounter with divine transcendence ("a notion of God that was at the same time deep, precise, simple, and accurate") that upended his entire worldview ("charged with implications which I could not even begin to appreciate").

    "I think the reason why these statements, and others like them, made such a profound impression on me," writes Merton, "lay deep in my own soul. And it was this: I had never had an adequate notion of what Christians meant by God. I had simply taken it for granted that the God in Whom religious people believed, and to Whom they attributed the creation and government of all things, was a noisy and dramatic and passionate character, a vague, jealous, hidden being, the objectification of all their own desires and strivings and subjective ideals." (Merton, Mountain, pp. 172-174)

    Merton had resisted Christianity, not only because of intellectual pride on his part, and certainly not just because he carried an anti-Catholic or even anti-Christian bias, but also because of the smallness, sentimentality and reductionism he had seen in some expressions of Christianity. Merton takes upon himself so much of the responsibility for not understanding well Catholic and Christian thought. However, it should also be admitted that there existed and that there exists today Christianity whose God is "the objectification of their own desires and strivings and subjective ideals." Christianity, we would do well to remember, caricatures and stereotypes itself as thinly and falsely as any of its cultured despisers have done.

    Merton's encounter with the Christian thought exemplified by Etienne Gilson liberated him from his own prejudices about Christian faith, but also from the beliefs and practices of many actual Christians (Catholic and Protestant) for whom God is as small, noisy and jealous as they are. Merton's personal reflections are at once moving and convicting for any of us who have (intentionality or inadvertently) reduced God to something as small as we are.

    "What a relief it was for me, now, to discover not only that no idea of ours, let alone any image, could adequately represent God, but also that we should not allow ourselves to be satisfied with any such knowledge of Him." (Merton, Mountain, 174-175)

    What a relief! And what a challenge!

    Merton reminds us of something particularly important to remember today when churches are anxious about the shrinking numbers in pews, and when, in desperation, they are searching for ways to attract new adherents (or to "re-brand" themselves for a new "market"!).

    Merton reminds us that people are not hungering for something they can understand. A comprehensible god who simply reflects our own "desires and strivings and subjective ideals" is not God enough. Such a god is merely an idol made with our own hands. In our anxiety for the future of the church, as people who love the church, we too often focus on "delivery systems" and "technologies" and the "programmatic aspects" of our "religious organizations," not seeming to notice that the spiritual hunger of contemporary people is as great as ever, that their hunger is not for penultimate matters but for that Ultimate Concern which is none other than a living God. We should be savvy about the various technological and programmatic "how's" (of course!) but never is the How a substitute for the eternal Who!

    Merton speaks a prophetic word to the church of his time, and it remains prophetic today. Those people who search for meaning often do so with a diligence and depth, a curiosity and sophistication that puts the churchly to shame. Sometimes the things that prevent seekers from entering the church (metaphorically or literally) are the things we do to attract them, our attempts to make God relevant, understandable, more relatable, our attempts to evangelize, educate and entertain them.

    Perhaps Merton was speaking most autobiographically when he articulated the plight of those who will not enter the church because their seeking seems more serious than what is going on behind the church's doors. People like him stand outside looking in. "They stand and starve in the doors of the banquet," Merton writes, "the banquet to which they surely realize that they are invited," while others who take the feast for granted and even trivialize its riches, stuff themselves "at those tremendous tables." (Merton, Mountain, p. 175)

    The patron saint of seekers remains as prophetic today as when he first wrote those words.

  • Talking About "Talking About God"

    by Michael Jinkins | Oct 04, 2016

    Talking About GodMy pastor, Steve Jester, and I were sitting in a favorite spot, the patio of the Starbucks on Frankfort Avenue. When we meet for coffee, we talk about most everything, from the best uses of corn and rye in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky to the meaning of life. On that particular day, with the morning sun breaking through the clouds, we were talking about “talking about God.”

    We were lamenting, as many Christians are bound to do these days, the tendency of some folks to make absolutely certain pronouncements about God on the basis of which they proceed to exclude everyone who doesn't share their views. This tendency is not unrelated to Fundamentalism, but there are lots of non-Fundamentalists who exclude those whose doctrinal formulations differ from theirs. I've known otherwise perfectly nice religious folks who get mightily rigid and dogmatic as soon as the conversation takes a turn into the "higher math" of Christian beliefs. They seem to feel that it dishonors God if one does not share their favorite doctrinal statements.

    This tendency reminds me of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead's comment that it was unfortunate Christians developed the habit of "paying God metaphysical compliments." Perhaps this habit was inevitable, however, given the way Christian theology evolved in the centuries following the founding of our faith.

    David the Psalmist praises the mercy of the God whom, he believed, was with him wherever he went, even if he descended down into the depths of Sheol. "Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there," prays the psalmist (Psalm 139:7-8). But, by the time the church started reciting the Psalms morning, noon and night, and quicker than you can say "Neo-Platonic adaptation of Hebrew thinking," Christian theologians were saying that God is "omnipresent." The shift may not seem terribly significant at first glance. But, the Hebrew psalmist was talking about his own personal experience of God while the Christian theologians converted that personal experience into universal philosophical terms ripe for dogmatic codification.

    The distinction is crucial. We moved subtlety but decisively from confessing, "I just can't seem to get away from God," or "Whether I am experiencing joy, sorrow, anxiety, the depths or the heights of life, God is with me," to the metaphysical assertion that God is present everywhere. This transition, from one theological perspective (idiosyncratic personal experience) to another (metaphysics) sets us up for angels dancing on pinheads and riddles like, "Can God create a rock so heavy God can't lift it?" And, it places us in a posture to include those who agree ("I believe God is omnipotent") and to exclude those who don't or who confess that they just don't know.

    It isn't hard to move from a deeply personal and idiosyncratic confession to a statement that creates more problems than it solves. And once we have made this move, it becomes much easier to demand that others (whose experience of God may be quite different from our own) must either adopt our statements about God or remain excluded from our fellowship.

    Don't get me wrong, our personal experiences of God demand expression. And this leads, necessarily and inevitably, toward making some kind of positive theological statements about God.

    When the faith of the first followers of Jesus was awakened, and they came to believe that when they met Jesus of Nazareth somehow they had met none other than God in the flesh - even though this belief seemed to run counter to their centuries-old, deeply held faith that "God is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and that God is utterly beyond human conception and perception, indeed that "one cannot see God and live" (Exodus 33:18-20) - they were forced by their experience to find new theological wineskins. The doctrine of the Trinity, which can get theologically and philosophically pretty abstract and has proven as divisive as any other area of Christian faith, is itself grounded in personal experience.

    Theology as a discipline is made necessary by our experience of God. The key, as Christian theologians have long believed, is to hold our doctrines lightly, reverently and humbly. The key, to put it another way, is not to confuse our theologies with the God about which our theologies are trying to speak. We need to remember that our creeds and confessions of faith are simply stumbling and sometimes bumbling human attempts to express in the words and thought-forms available to us in our time and place the ultimately "Inexpressible Who" we have encountered.

  • The Alchemist

    by Michael Jinkins | Sep 27, 2016

    The Alchemist

    Great poets do not just make you admire their poetry. They make you fall in love.

    They evoke passion and desire, but also compassion, longing and awe. Even regret in their hands can be transmuted from salty tears to the blood of a passion-bitten lip. Even reverence is grounded in the mundane: the cut of an eye, the lift of a hawk, the transcendence of a salt marsh at daybreak.

    More alchemists than literati, great poets. More sorcerers than scribes. In their hands, pens become wands. At a flick of the wrist, skies weep for lost love, mountains leap like goats, irises rise from the dead drawing from the earth our beloved in their wake.

    Great poets steal out to the crossroads at midnight to make a deal with the devil. They play poker with Mephistopheles till the break of day, wagering a soul for the right word. They awaken in a wooded glen midway through life's journey so they can awaken all humanity to heaven and hell. They pay the price, and lose themselves, that we might see through their inky scrawls that which will lay siege to our souls.

    Once, at the beginning of an Advent sermon, I read a poem by that master magus himself, the late Seamus Heaney, about a boy imprisoned in a chicken coop - a poem of desperate longing and of a hope that would not die in the face of even more desperate cruelty. Later that day, a friend came by my office. He said that hearing the poem made him want to find a dark place where he could weep undisturbed. His reaction to Heaney's poem was a response of love evoked by the sorcery of a great poet. It seems to me that any compassionate person, if they are paying attention, must find his or her heart breaking. Often. Heaney fashioned a work of art from a nightmare scenario to remind us of this fact.

    Michael Mather, a good friend and a United Methodist minister in Indianapolis, slipped a book of poetry across the table to me at the beginning of a meeting last spring. He marked a poem he wanted me to read. I took and read. And the next day I ordered a copy of the book: Paula Meehan, Painting Rain, (Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University Press, 2009). I recommend the book and the poet. But, be warned before you read this collection of poems; know that this poet means for you to share her broken heart. She will make you fall in love, and you will feel the loss only lovers know.

    Meehan is an Irish poet, born in 1955 and raised in Dublin, where she lives today. Her poems conjure moments of excruciating yearning. Ghosts drift from memory to memory, as from room to room in some dark deserted house, haunting the poet, and through the poet, the reader.

    One cycle of poems titled simply, "Sea," observes the outer world, "a driftwood stick, a hazel wand," "a heron takes flight," "reams of brent geese," as surely as it observes the inner world of love and grief. The poem closes with these lines:

    "She who died by her own hand cannot know the simple love I have for what she left behind. I could not save her. I could not even try. I watch the way the wind blows life into slack sail: the stress of warp against weft lifts the stalling craft, pushes it on out."

    There's a lot about death in this collection. Stern stuff. Poems such as "She didn't know she was dying but the poems did" and "Her Void: A Cemetery Poem." But, you have to admit, there's a lot about death in life. Love pays the toll of grieving every day.

    One poem, in particular, "Snowdrops," evokes personal grief in such a true voice that when I invited my wife, Debbie, to read it, I warned her to find a very private place where she wouldn't worry about being interrupted and to allow herself extra time to recover after reading it. Such time and space are required by this poem which consists of eight taunt couplets. I'll leave it to you to read this one on your own.

    There's a sense of humor, a surprising joy, woven through these poems, reminding us of the connections between joy and longing, love and loss, laughter and suffering. But the tone of elegy predominates, what Miguel de Unamuno once called "a tragic sense of life."

    "Single Room with Bath, Edinburgh," which begins with the startling line, "I slept last night in a room where someone died," works its deft magic with a slight of hand (you may be tempted to say, after reading it, “a slight of heart”) that will steal your breath away no matter how many times you read it. The cycle of poems titled "Six Sycamores" includes a verse evoking Gerard Manley Hopkins' line, "all trades, their gear and tackle and trim." The reader of this poem cannot but feel the passion for life and creativity that fires the poet's sorrow. One careens from tears to laughter to tears again as one traverses Meehan's poetic imagination.

    The alchemists of old labored in their labs to change base metals into gold. Was it greed alone that compelled them? Curiosity? The lust for power and wealth? I suppose there are poets driven by such motivations, though they do not deserve our time. The best alchemists of verse, like Meehan, can change a moment of selfish obsession into a pearl of great price, or a moment of airplane turbulence into a meditation on human hope and frailty. They are driven by a love stronger than death.

    Perhaps there's no more appropriate celebration of the poet as alchemist than the poem, "liminal," from the cycle "Six Sycamores," with which I must bring this blog to a close:

    "I've always loved thresholds, the stepping over, the shapechanging that can happen when you jump off the edge into pure breath and then the passage between inner and outer.

    "Mist becomes cloud; becomes rain. Water. Ice. Water.
    In the daily flux, no telling where one will end or begin.
    Death can kick start and birth be the true El Fin.
    You jig and you reel through molecular spin, daughter.

    "Nothing can harm you or cure you. You've found a clear path through the chaos, a loaning

    "from history and whether you are free or bound is still in the balance. There's no gain in owning.

    "Old riddles still posit the same - what is the sound of one hand clapping? Is that the door opening or closing?”

  • Thomas Merton's 'Plowed Soul'

    by Michael Jinkins | Sep 26, 2016

    Editor's note: Periodically throughout the 2016-2017 academic year, "Thinking Out Loud" readers will receive blog posts that explore concepts of spirituality as they relate to the writings and teachings of Thomas Merton. We hope you enjoy this special series of “Thinking Out Loud.” E-mail us!

    Plowed Soul

    The sun as it rises casts long shadows across the furrowed fields surrounding Gethsemani Abbey south of Bardstown, Kentucky. A tractor makes its way steadily along, plowing the waiting soil, breaking and turning the earth, preparing the ground to receive seeds for a new crop. In the plow's wake, a cloud of black birds rise, shift and alight on the newly plowed ground making a meal of whatever is unearthed.

    Standing in the breeze on a hill above Gethsemani, the loamy aromas of the earth rising, you see fields gracing the rolling terrain, greens, browns and golds beneath a blue sky, the soft curvatures of nature cradling the sharper lines made by human hands. Hummus yielding to humanity. Plowing makes the land ours and places our productive mark upon it.

    There's a passage in Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain in which he speaks of his "plowed soul." Merton is sitting in worship, a "low Mass," listening to a sermon, reflecting on his own "infidelities" during the years when he refused to yield to God. He ponders the idea that perhaps God had withheld grace from him out of mercy, because God could see that he wasn't ready for faith, that he would only "waste and despise" grace and end up in ruin.

    "For there is no doubt that one of the reasons why grace is not given to souls is because they have so hardened their wills in greed and cruelty and selfishness that their refusal of it would only harden them more. ... But now I had been beaten into the semblance of some kind of humility by misery and confusion and perplexity and secret, interior fear, and my ploughed soul was better ground for the reception of good seeds." [Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain (New York: Harcourt, 1948/1978), p. 210]

    A synonym for "plowed" is the word "harrowed." While "plowed" has an almost peaceful feel about it, bringing to mind the image of a field of gently turned rows, the sort of scene we see from a hilltop, the word "harrowed" takes us down to field level, reminding us of the process of plowing, the violent cutting and forced turning of the packed earth, the rending, tearing and breaking of the soil that is necessary for seeds to be planted and to grow. Both words speak to the potential of new life, but “harrowed” reminds us that growth is not without discomfort and pain.

    Merton's idea of God plowing his soul might rankle some contemporary sensibilities. It is reminiscent of C.S. Lewis's well-known comment: "We are not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us, we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." Merton seems to share something of the understanding of God we find in John Donne's Holy Sonnets, where violent images are used to describe God's shaping of the poet's soul, or in George Herbert's image of a priest being "annealed" like stained glass in God's furnace so divine light can show through his life. Again, such a view of God is distasteful to many today, and for good reason. Such a theology has been used to justify not only a sadistic god, but to excuse the most cruel, violent and abusive of human behavior.

    Yet saints, from ragged Anthony the Great, taunted and tempted in his Egyptian desert, to Lady Julian of Norwich, wracked by her physical suffering, have found in and through their emotional, spiritual and physical trials the loving transformative purposes of God being hammered out. Perhaps we can only speak confessionally of such experiences in our own lives. Certainly we do well to resist speaking prescriptively to others. But many have found comfort in their perception that God worked through their suffering to transform them.

    It is significant, I think, that immediately after Merton comments about his "plowed soul," he describes the experience of walking out along the street at the end of worship that day, though he remained (in his words) "only a blind and deaf and dumb pagan as weak and dirty as anything that ever came out of the darkness of Imperial Rome or Corinth or Ephesus." Making his way down Broadway in New York City, suddenly he becomes aware that he is happy, at peace, content with life. "I was not yet used to the clean savor that comes with an actual grace," he writes. (Merton, Seven Storey Mountain, pp. 210-211).

    But the ploughed ground of Merton's soul was even then being made ready for planting. And he knew that the plowing marks us as God's.

  • The Beauty of Holiness, Revisited

    by Michael Jinkins | Sep 20, 2016

    Beauty of Holiness
    Recently, early on a cloudy and cool Louisville morning, fueled by an excellent Heine Brothers almond milk latte, I sat under the maple tree in our backyard re-reading Richard Gummere's introduction to his translation of the Roman philosopher Seneca's "Letters."*

    My thoughts had turned to Seneca, the aristocratic Stoic and contemporary of St. Paul, because a few nights before, unable to sleep, I had pulled from my shelf Paul Venye's commentary on Seneca** and found it strangely comforting. I know this sounds like heavy-going, but it wasn't I assure you. And Gummere, much more than Venye, has a real gift for writing a memorable phrase, as when he describes Seneca's fall from influence in Rome under the Emperor Nero: "a philosopher without the support of military power was unable to cope with the vices and whims of the monster on the throne."

    Toward the close of his brief introduction to Seneca's thought, Gummere addresses what might be described as Seneca's sense of reverence. He writes:

     "Finally, in no pagan author, save perhaps Vergil, is the beauty of holiness so sincerely presented from a Roman perspective. Although his connection with the early church has been disproved, Seneca shows the modern, the Christian spirit."***

    Seneca's only actual historical connection to the early church appears to have been through his brother Gallio, before whom the Apostle Paul was brought (Acts 18:12-17). But his spiritual or intellectual connection with Christianity lies in something far deeper. The God behind Seneca's Stoicism is the God in whom we "live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

    I turned from Gummere's introduction to that chapter (chapter XLI) in Seneca's "Letters" in which the translator tells us we will find the philosopher's understanding of holiness most vividly displayed, and I was not disappointed. Seneca provides food for contemplation which I think you will appreciate too. He does far more in this passage than communicate ideas. He renders an atmosphere of sanctity, evoking a sense of divine presence:

    "If ever you have come upon a grove that is full of ancient trees which have grown to an unusual height, shutting out a view of the sky by a veil of pleached and intertwining branches, then the loftiness of the forest, the seclusion of the spot, and your marvel at the thick unbroken shade in the midst of the open spaces, will prove to you the presence of deity. Or if a cave, made by the deep crumbling of the rocks, holds up a mountain on its arch, a place not built with hands but hollowed out into such spaciousness by natural causes, your soul will be deeply moved by a certain intimation of the existence of God."****

    Reading these passages I could not help but think of a path that winds among densely forested Kentucky knobs on the monastic property of Gethsemani Abbey. Sunlight there, even on a bright day, filters softly through a sheltering canopy of green, towering cathedral-like above altars of fallen tree trunks and chapels of low brush. Songs of praise raised continuously by woodland birds in these hills remind the visitor that the Creator is worshipped there even when no human is present.

    Reading Seneca, I cannot but recall the arches of stone rising out of the Atlantic Ocean on the Isle of Staffa, nature's own Gothic structures supporting hills and pasturelands above cliffs that dive abruptly into the crashing, turbulent sea hundreds of feet below. Looking down from the cliffs, your breath cannot resist being sucked from your lungs as you feel the sheer force of nature, and you glimpse, if only for a moment, the power beyond nature's powers that crafted these elements.

    Despite the fact that the so-called "proof from design" for God's existence is of far more use not as an argument but as a kind of contemplation on God's greatness by those who already believe, and in spite of the fact that we preachers have given a hard time to those who say, "I can worship God just as well watching the sunrise on a mountainside as sitting in a pew in any church building," there is something to say for the fact that God does speak to us powerfully and uniquely when nature renders us mute.

    Sometimes it takes a pagan to make us better Christians. Maybe this is why John Calvin wrote his first commentary on Seneca and not on a book of the Bible.
    *Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Epistles, Volume 1: Epistles 1-65, Richard M. Gummere, translator (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917/2006).
    **Paul Veyne, Seneca: The Life of a Stoic (London: Routledge, 2003). Veyne, who teaches at the College de France, does a remarkable job of placing Seneca in his own historical and philosophical context and of helping the contemporary reader understand this ancient philosopher's relevance in our own time.
    ***Seneca, Epistles, Gummere, "Introduction," p. xiv.
    ****Seneca, Epistles, (XLI, pp. 273-275). Those who have read Rudolf Otto's classic The Idea of the Holy, will recognize the resonance between Otto's evocative choice of words and that of Seneca, as in this passage: "illa proceritas silvae et secretum loci et admiratio umbrae in aperto tam densae atque continuae fidem tibi numinis faciet." See: Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational (New York: Oxford University Press, 1923/ 1958), 12-13; 76-77; and his Religious Essays: A Supplement to the Idea of the Holy (London: Pimlico Press, 2000), 280-312.

  • Thomas Merton: A Special 'Thinking Out Loud' Blog Series

    by Michael Jinkins | Sep 16, 2016

    Thomas Merton QuotePeriodically throughout the 2016-2017 academic year, "Thinking Out Loud" readers will receive blog posts that explore concepts of spirituality as they relate to the writings and teachings of Thomas Merton.

    A Trappist monk who resided in the Abbey of Gethsemani, Merton was one of the most influential Catholic writers of the 20th century.

    The first entry of this series will publish Friday, September 23. We hope you enjoy this special series of “Thinking Out Loud.”

    E-mail us!

  • A Summer Lament

    by Michael Jinkins | Sep 13, 2016

    A Summer LamentThis summer a number of folks debated whether they still want to live in this country. The feeling was widespread enough that billboards were erected by a South Carolina real estate firm advertising that if you want to move to Canada, they will sell your house for you. And the desire to escape, for others, was not limited to our national boundaries. There were times when one might be excused for thinking that humanity had lost its collective mind.

    One unspeakable act of cruelty, hatred and violence following another. The tragedies we witnessed this summer were punctuated by the depressing spectacle of American politics, which exhibited worrying (and growing international) trends toward nativism and tribalism, nationalism run amok, my-way-or-the-highway arrogance and know-nothing-ism.*

    In the midst of all of this, I found my own faith restored - at least partially and tentatively - by a rising chorus of lamentation. Sometimes the lament consisted more of tone than content. At other times it was full-out lamentation. Sometimes the laments came from like-minded friends, but often from people I do not know, with whom I may differ considerably when it comes to politics or religion.

    We tend to forget just how powerful lamentation is as a force for good. We tend to think that angry rhetoric is more powerful. But there is no human expression that deals so effectively with the tragic, the catastrophic and the awful as does lament.

    Lament expresses human grief, sadness and disappointment in the face of loss, devastation and oppression. Lament can become a vessel that carries wrathful denunciations of injustice, certainly, but also ironic tweaks of the nose to actual and would-be tyrants. The person lamenting can deliver her message through tears of sorrow or with a voice choked dry from having cried far too long. Lament even has a place for mocking scorn and the sort of laughter that puts the proud in their place. Lament appeals to a higher bar of justice than any earthly court and demands that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than momentary self-interest.

    Lamentation has the power to lift up those who are battered and damaged as well as those who do the battering and cause the destruction, because lament places history and its actors in the hands of the God of history while refusing to relinquish human accountability. Lament recognizes that no one but God has the power to restore both the broken and the breakers. This is why, of course, the biblical Psalms of Lament are ultimately heralds of redemption.**

    The growing chorus of lament this summer reminded me that God will not be left without a witness even on the darkest days. And it deepened in me the consciousness that is essential to prayer - and this is especially true of lamentation - of entrusting this world and all we love to the hands of God.

    As the tragic, devastatingly violent, and sometimes demoralizing events of the summer live on in our memories like nightmares from which we cannot wake up, I invite us all to join in the empowering and liberating act of lamentation. To pray a prayer of lament is to confess that despite its dangers, terrors, insanities and evils, this world is still God's world. God is willing to be held accountable for it. And God holds us accountable for it too.

    Ultimately, to lament is an act of hope, because the one lamenting believes, sometimes against a mountain of contrary evidence, that good prevails in the end because God is good. That's why so many laments begin: "How long, O Lord …?"


    *The lead article in an issue of The Economist this summer ("The New Political Divide") lamented the dangerous new politics that may be eclipsing left vs. right, i.e., open against closed. Noting the reemergence of isolationism on the left and the right in American politics, the magazine goes on to say: "America is not alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise nations should build walls to keep it out. Such arguments have helped elect an ultranationalist government in Hungary and a Polish one that offers a ... mix of xenophobia and disregard for constitutional norms. Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries." (“The New Political Divide," The Economist, July 30, 2016, p. 7.)

    **Among some fifty Psalms of Lament in the Psalms are: Psalms 13, 22, 25, 80, and 109. If you would like to read more about lamentation in the Psalms, I recommend Claus Westermann's Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987); Patrick Miller's They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994); and Walter Brueggemann's The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1984).

  • The First Shall be the Last

    by Michael Jinkins | Sep 06, 2016

    The First Shall be the LastIn June of this year, as Britain approached its referendum on whether to leave the European Union, Jo Cox, a Labour Party Member of Parliament, was brutally murdered on the streets of Birstall, West Yorkshire. As her assailant murdered her, he shouted, "Put Britain first."

    Like the demon whom Jesus confronted in Gadarenes (Mark 5:9), this man's name could be "Legion," as the demon said to Jesus, "for we are many." It seems ever more apparent that the common demonic zeitgeist of our time is a tribal spirit which threatens to split the human family into ever smaller units, to drive wedges between us in the name of nations, politics and religions, to erect impregnable walls so that the "we" on one side need never be sullied by the "them" on the other.

    There is nothing more "common" than the spirit that claims that our tribe is unique, that our little group is special, especially blessed by God, exceptional, Number One. There is nothing more "common," more vulgar, more primitive, few things more dangerous, and nothing less true.

    Tribalism appears in the disguise of pride; but, in fact, it reflects a profound lack of confidence and a deep insecurity, sometimes something close to self-loathing. Rarely (maybe never) does one find a genuinely secure, healthy, confident person or group of people possessed by this demonic force. Persons afflicted by such a spirit, though claiming to be guided by enlightened self-interest, tend to act instead on an instinctive fear of others. What we might describe as the "other-ness" of the "other" is the thing that threatens them most. So they attribute to the other the worst characteristics and tendencies imaginable. It does not matter one whit whether the tribalist is British or French, Ugandan or Argentine, Chinese or Libyan. The spirit that tribalism manifests is the same small-minded, insecure, ignorance and fear wherever it emerges, whether it is a mentally unstable British man shouting "put Britain first," or a cravenly opportunistic American politician claiming that it is America that deserves that position.

    Religion doesn't seem to make much of a dint in the tribal spirit. If anything, religion is most often co-opted by it.

    Whether we are exploring a history of the inability of Christian faith to thwart the imperialism pursued by most Western nations throughout the modern period, or the impotence of Christianity to curb the nationalistic chauvinism of Germany prior to the First World War, or the inability of Buddhism and other faiths to influence their followers to resist the rise of Japanese militarism prior to the Second World War, the thing that stands out is that religious faith seems powerless in the face of tribalism. Religion seems most often to make a secondary claim, at best, on the loyalty of those obsessed by the tribe's primacy. And in those times when religion appears to make a primary claim, that claim may be no less violent and destructive when it is linked to tribalism.

    The Christian preacher who stands in her pulpit pointing out that Jesus calls us to love not only the members of our own tribe, but strangers too, those unlike us, those who do not share our ways or even love us (Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32), is likely to taste the rejection of the tribe for herself. Yet, there are few things more true than that Christianity's genius, inherited from its founder, is its global universality. "God so loved the world," the fourth gospel tells us (John 3:16), not "God so loved my tribe."

    The story of Christianity is the story of good news that will not respect the walls erected by human hands, but opens the eyes of people to the fact that every partition we erect is called into question by the neighborhood of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:14). The Spirit of Christ runs counter to the spirit of the tribe, calling us to let go of the fears and self-hatred that separate us and to find in Christ the humanity that revels in God's love for everyone God created.

    But, of course, if you are still reading this essay, you probably already agree. And if you don't agree, you stopped reading long ago.

    How do we help the tribalist learn the love of God that overcomes self-loathing and casts out fear and that replaces the primitive distrust of the outsider with a confident eagerness to know the other? How do we act in society to limit the damage the tribal impulse can do while also seeking to recover the humanity of those who are possessed by this demonic force?

    The place we all have to start is with ourselves: first, to recognize the impulse toward tribalism that lurks in every heart, our own hearts included, and, then, to allow the light of the love of God to penetrate those hidden places. This is not easy. It may require some painful soul-searching. The spirit of tribalism takes many seemingly wholesome and religiously-sanctioned forms. But of this we can be sure, whenever we feel the compulsion to insist that "we are first" and our interests matter more than the needs and concerns of others, we are on our way to the back of the line. "The first," according to Jesus of Nazareth, "shall be last" (Matthew 20:16).

  • How Full is the Glass?

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 30, 2016


    Grace Winn EllisEditor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog post is guest-written by teacher and playwright Grace Winn Ellis (pictured), who is the daughter of the late Dr. Albert Curry Winn, president of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary from 1966 to 1973. Grace’s writings can be found on her website, gracewinnellis.com.

    Optimists see a glass half-full. Pessimists see one that is half-empty. I admit that I lean more toward the negative point of view. And recently I have been having half-empty feelings about the church—about the small congregation I am part of, about the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and about what we used to think of as “mainline” protestant churches—Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.

    The truth is that there are many signs to indicate that these churches are in trouble. Attendance is dwindling. Congregations are aging. The median age in the Presbyterian Church is now 61! Finances are strained. Any attempt to raise funds for maintaining our buildings would seem very risky to a financial analyst.

    My father’s generation rejoiced when their efforts reunited the Presbyterian denomination, which had been divided since the Civil War. Almost immediately, there were new divisions—ostensibly over the question of whether the patriarchal traditions of the first century still applied to the church. I grieved over that division. I grieved again a few years ago when a downtown church, where my father’s great uncle once served as pastor, left the denomination.

    The majority of the millennial generation—those born between 1980 and 2000—describe themselves as “nones”—vaguely spiritual but not attached to any particular congregation, denomination or religion. The minority who do attend church are more likely to be attracted to conservative churches, including some of those formerly part of the PC(USA). These statistics have played out in my own family. My husband and I and our six siblings have eleven children. Four have been part of conservative churches. Seven do not participate in any form of organized religion.

    Sometimes I feel drawn to those Psalms of complaint and despair: Oh, Lord, where are you? Why have you abandoned us? We have been faithful. Why do we suffer while others prosper?

    I find some comfort in the writings of Phyllis Tickle. In her book The Great Emergence (Baker Books, 2008), she tracks major shifts in history of the church. One key idea is that when there are splits, both the old and the new survive. When Christianity broke its ties with Judaism, when the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches split, when Protestants left the Catholic Church—all survived. All still seem to have a role to play in God’s plan.

    I also remember learning that in its earliest days, the Soviet Union brutally attempted to stamp out the Russian Orthodox Church. After great unrest, the government tried a new tactic. It forbade anyone to teach the faith to the next generation, but it allowed the old women, the babushkas, to come into the churches and dust and light candles, thinking that when all of them had died, that would be the end of the church. But as each generation of babushkas passed away, it was replaced by the next one. The church survived, and when the restrictions were relaxed, it bloomed again.

    So, here’s the thing. It’s not about whether the glass seems to us to be half empty or half full. It’s about God’s purpose, God’s plan, God’s will.

    Congregations one hundred years from now may be quite different from those today. Our systems of government may be altered. Buildings may be abandoned. New collaborations may serve community needs. Our job is to listen with attentive hearts to where God is leading us.

    As the Psalms and our favorite hymns teach us, with the eyes of faith, we can see the glass that is, in fact, neither half empty nor half full, but filled to the brim:

    “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.”

    “I nothing lack if I am His.”

    “My cup with blessings overflows.”

    Or in the words of a Taizé hymn:

    “Those who seek God can never go wanting … God alone fills us.” (In Spanish, “Solo Dios basta.”)

    God’s mercy is, quite simply, enough.

  • Learning from Disability Theology

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 23, 2016

    Debra MumfordBY DEBRA MUMFORD

    Editor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog is guest written by Dr. Debra J. Mumford (pictured), Louisville Seminary’s Frank H. Caldwell Professor of Homiletics.

    Earlier this year, I presented a paper on preaching and health at Societas Homiletica, the international homiletics conference in Stellenbosch, South Africa. During the question-and-answer period, I was asked, “If it is the will of God that all people experience good physical health, what do you have to say to good and faithful Christian people who experience illness and disease and who do not experience healing?” After the conference I began to wrestle with that question. I sought answers from a number of different theologians and found some of them in the work of disability theologian Nancy Eiesland.

    Eiesland was an ethics professor at Candler School of Theology and a pioneer in the field of disability theology. In her book, The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability, Eiesland sought to develop a theology of disability that would encourage Christians to embrace their disabled sisters and brothers and welcome them into their faith communities. She argued that if Christians could conceive of the resurrected Christ as disabled because of the impairments of his hands and feet which he suffered on the cross, then new possibilities of understanding the human body in relation to God could be realized.

    First, she asserts that the disabled God allows us to redefine what it means to be whole. The Greek term hugies, which is translated as whole in some of the gospels, can mean “to restore to health.” Yet, Eiesland argues, though Jesus was physically impaired, he was still understood by his followers to be holy and divine. Therefore, Eiesland believes that wholeness has more to do with relationships—with God and other people—than bodily perfection. If we apply Eiesland’s logic to those experiencing sickness and disease, then someone who has terminal cancer and is in right relationship with God and their neighbors, is indeed whole.

    Secondly, Eiesland contends that the disabled God calls upon all Christians to recognize and accept the limits of human physical bodies. Jesus’ physical body bore evidence of its limits through impairments acquired through abuse and torture. Eiesland deems acknowledgment of the physical limits of the human body as liberatory realism. Liberatory realism is freedom experienced by accepting the reality that all bodies have limits. It is the truth of being human.

    Eiesland highlights the disconnect between the idealized bodies that are paraded in advertisements and the real bodies of most of us that fall far short of physical perfection. Attempting to realize the ideal body prevents most people from loving and appreciating their bodies just as they are.1 For Eiesland, when all humans accept the reality that their physical bodies have limits, attention that is now focused on attaining and retaining human perfection can be redirected to issues of justice to insure that all people have access to resources they need to live full lives. Barriers that exclude and humiliate many can be torn down. Hope can be envisioned so that people with bodies outside of the previously accepted social norms will realize that their lives are worth living. Those with conventional bodies may be emboldened to embrace their own bodily limitations by acknowledging that even conventional bodies fail at times. Those with impaired bodies may be emboldened to affirm their own bodies as good, whole and beautiful just the way they are.2

    Thirdly, Eiesland believed that all human bodies are subject to contingency or chance and uncertainty. As a result, all human bodies come in three forms: temporarily able-bodied, temporarily disabled or permanently disabled.3 The temporarily able-bodied are those who have not yet experienced the effects of sickness, disease or age. She contends that even those who experience good health throughout their lives will, if they live to experience old age, also experience disability to some degree. Her point here is that being disabled or sick is not necessarily an indication of lack of faith or being in a sinful state. Rather, physical disability, sickness and illness are the consequences of being human. Period.

    To those who would argue that by imagining God as disabled we are simply downsizing God to fit into our human conceptions, I would say perhaps you are right. And, it is something we do all of the time. Throughout scriptures, in our denominational traditions, and in our daily lives we ascribe human attributes to God in an attempt to better understand the God we serve. However, if we can learn to embrace the spirit which is God, then we can stop attempting to create images of God in an attempt to be exclusive. We can rather embrace the spirit which allows us to be radically inclusive.

    So today, in response to the question, “If it is the will of God that all people experience good physical health, what do you have to say to good and faithful Christian people who experience illness and disease and who do not experience healing?” I would say, “Your illness can happen to any of us because we are human. God loves you just the way you are.”

    1Nancy Eiesland, The Disabled God: Toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 110.
    2Eiesland, The Disabled God, 95-96.
    3Eiesland, The Disabled God, 110.

  • Daniel Berrigan

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 16, 2016


    Mike MatherEditor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog is guest written by the Rev. Mike Mather (pictured), Pastor of Broadway United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. Mike is also a member of the Louisville Institute Board of Directors.

    “…they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
       and their spears into pruning-hooks;
    nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
       neither shall they learn war any more.” —- Isaiah 2:4

    I’ve often heard those words preached on, and I saw them lived in the life of Father Daniel Berrigan. At small and at large - and always suffused with laughter - Dan had a gift for turning swords into ploughshares, both joyful and rewarding work.

    When I think of Dan, I think of the words: “God’s Fierce Whimsy.” It was a book title by the Mud Flower Collective, but it captured my experience of Dan.

    During my years in seminary (1982-1985), I spent time with Dan. I met him at Kirkridge Retreat Center and was arrested with him in New York City. In conversations with him during those years he shaped and formed my faith.

    In my second year in seminary, I spent a month in prison for praying at the “christening” of a Trident nuclear submarine. People were upset with me. A friend set up a conversation between Dan and me upon my return from prison. I told Dan about the people who were unhappy around me. His response was, “Jesus said following him would divide people. Don’t you believe him?” Yes, I do.

    Dan went on. He told me that because following Jesus can divide people, we need to be as disarming as possible.  

    He told me a story about meeting with the head of the Jesuits after his arrest and conviction for pouring napalm on draft records in Catonsville, Maryland. The head of the order asked him sternly, “Do you want to remain a Jesuit?”  

    “Why yes, yes I do,” Dan answered. And then quietly, softly he turned the question on his superior, “Do you want to remain a Jesuit?”

    He looked at me and said, “Always be disarming.” I wondered about that as I left. What did that mean? How could I turn the sword of people’s anger and disagreements into ploughshares? I liked his words, but I didn’t know how to live into them.

    Years later, I am aware of how much I took those words to heart. Beating swords into ploughshares didn’t mean beating the sword carrier. In one way it means re-purposing the sword and the spear. It means taking what is in our hands and inviting people to use it as a tool for feeding one another.

    In a day and age when we use the term “peacekeepers” for people carrying weapons into war zones, I think that Dan may have been on to something. He turned those swords and spears into kitchen instruments for friends and enemies to use to share a holy meal together.

    Laughter filled the air around Dan. The best kind of laughter that carries both insight and challenge.

    Dan came to give a talk at the seminary I attended. Afterwards he met with the students over lunch. Dan was asked about the recent (at the time) silencing of the liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff. “What do you think is the future of liberation theology now that Boff has been silenced by the Vatican?” Dan’s response (whimsical as ever), “Liberation theology has been around a lot longer than the Vatican. At least since the Exodus. So, I would say that the real question is, ‘What’s the future of the Vatican?’”

    At that same lunch someone asked Dan why he’d done all the things he had done. Hadn’t it come at great cost, people wanted to know. “Well, if it wasn’t fun, I wouldn’t have done any of it.” People laughed, but he was serious. I thought of the words of Jesus in John 15 as he headed off to his death: "I came that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be full." With Dan it was always full.

    A year before, I had attended an appeal hearing in New York City for some of Dan’s friends who had hammered swords into ploughshares at the King of Prussia plant in Pennsylvania and were serving long sentences in federal prison. After the hearing, Dan invited the attendees (and defendants) to a restaurant in Chinatown. We gathered around a large round table sharing food and companionship. The sentences some were carrying around the table didn’t do anything to diminish the sense of freedom there was around Dan. Turning swords into ploughshares is rewarding work.

  • Our Shared Spiritual Path

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 09, 2016


    Fred TurpinEditor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog post is guest-written by Dr. Fred H. Turpin (pictured). Fred is a Louisville Seminary alum (MDiv ’72) and a member of Louisville Seminary’s Caldwell Society.

    Let me begin by stating that I am not, nor never have been, the pastor of a congregation. That has never been my calling. I have been a chaplain at hospitals and worked summers as a chaplain at national parks. Though I love to preach, I could never attempt 45 sermons a year. I envy the creativity of pastors who are able to do so regularly, just as I envy the ability of Michael Jinkins to write so many “Thinking Out Loud” weekly messages over the years.

    My spiritual pathway led from a chaplaincy at a hospital for the terminally ill (and finding amazing depth and even solace while holding those who were dying), to a five-year fellowship in psychoanalytic training in New York City. Add decades of marriage and raising children, directing three pastoral counseling centers in Manhattan at the same time, countless years of my own intensive training analysis, and additional years of spiritual direction - what life experiences can one include or exclude since each and every day shapes one’s spirit to attend to the hints and whispers of that great mystery we audaciously refer to as God?

    Over the years I’ve learned, with help from Rabbi Abraham Heschel, to be suspicious about creeds and dogmas, insofar as they claim to formulate rather than allude to a power that may only be illuminated and never indicated with any hope of precision. Far too often, the ego takes the words of creed and dogma as literal statements of truth, and in such cases dogma ends up being flat, narrow and shallow. Much of my own inspiration is found in dreams, in writing poetry, in walking along a path in quiet woods or in spontaneous prayer at the ocean’s edge.

    A very wise chief psychiatric supervisor once told a group of us to never place upon a patient an expectation that they would grow or change, as our unvoiced need to see such changes would inevitably create resistance to change in those we wished to help. He advised that if we had a need to see change, then buy a plant.

    Not too many years ago, a small group of clergy and laity met with me to review my ministry. The meeting opened with prayer and then a complaint by one of the pastors that the previous Sunday the man who was to read Scripture had arrived only fifteen minutes before the procession was to begin. This lay elder apologized to the pastor by saying that he and his wife had been out all night, as they were members of a group of swingers (as in participants at group sex parties). The pastor said he wished the man had never revealed this news, as now he could never again allow him to participate in worship.

    On the other hand, I heard this lay elder as presenting a very personal opening for later investigation, sensing what he revealed as possibly a form of confession. How often do we allow our own judgmental voices to close rather than open doors of inquiry? But my task, in my capacity as a therapist, is far easier than those who are pastors.

    First of all, I’ve had years of advanced training following a doctorate, hundreds of hours of supervision and personal analysis. Second, the boundaries are much tighter and in some ways more limited. I never go to dinner with a patient. I don’t even ask “How are you today?” as that begins a session on the level of social norms.

    Second, I know we each protect our deepest suffering with various levels of denial, pretense and persona. We far too often present ourselves as we think others wish us to be in the hope of finding approval. (Oh what a web we weave to prevent real, honest encounter.) Without the “I-Thou,” almost always accompanied by strong emotion and tears, we seem to be fencing rather than touching. In my office I keep a small statue of the Hindu god Ganesha, the god of resolving resistances. Looking at Ganesha from time to time reminds me to be aware, if not lessen, my own resistances to personal encounter in the moment.

    Only through God’s grace are we able to get out of our own way and notice that opening where meaningful relevance and ultimate mystery can be approached, affirmed and shared with others. I try to treasure those few seconds when I wake in the early morning and do not yet know my name. I also try to meditate upon my personal need to ask for and to offer forgiveness, and then to make time for gratitude at the beginning and close of the day. Without compassion for our own journey, without spending time in rapport with our soulfulness, what do we really have to offer to others?

  • Me, Myself, and My Cell Phone

    by Michael Jinkins | Aug 02, 2016

    Karen SchlackBY KAREN SCHLACK

    Editor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog post is guest-written by the Rev. Karen Schlack (pictured). Karen is the Pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Elgin, Illinois. She is also a Louisville Seminary alum (MDiv ’04), a member of Louisville Seminary’s President’s Roundtable and a member of Louisville Seminary’s Caldwell Society.

    My little idol runs on a battery. Its screen lights up. It obeys my command. It can provide me with just about anything. Friends. Information. Texts. My little idol is ALWAYS there. I keep it with me. I gaze at it. I spend hours with it. When I don’t have it, I feel lost.

    Familiar? Sherry Turkle’s recent book, Reclaiming Conversation (Penguin Press, 2015), contains hundreds of interviews with persons of all ages. In her book she noticed that the subjects of her interviews prefer the sense of community that social media offers. They are willing to settle for relationships and community online because it comes without the hazards of a real-world community. In the world she studied, there is a deep disappointment with human beings, who are flawed and forgetful, needy and unpredictable. The world our cell phones deliver is not wired to behave this way.

    Conversations, on the other hand, are messy. Especially family conversations. Turkle describes the family cell phone dilemmas as a vicious circle. Children can’t get their parent’s attention away from their parents’ cell phones. So parents give their children phones. Children take refuge in their phones. Parents use their children’s cell phone distraction as permission to keep their own phones out as much as they wish.

    Meanwhile, on college campuses, students practice continuous partial attention. The “rule of three” is used at meals. One must make sure enough people are participating in a group conversation before sneaking a peek at one’s cell phone.

    If we look over the top of our screens, we might observe some “real-world” facts. Human bonding begins when a mother gazes into the eyes of her infant. Eye contact is the most powerful path to intimacy. Being listened to by a real human being in our physical presence is the most precious thing we experience. Full attention to one thing (or person) has advantages.  Nothing gets done very well when it is buried in a pile of other somethings that are all done at the same time.

    Our world is crying out for conversation. Connection is a poor substitute. We live in a nation where almost everyone is connected, but more young adults (ages 18-34) are living at home with their parents than getting married. Baby boomers are far less engaged now than their predecessors were at the same age 20 years ago.

    We gray-haired folk who are better educated, financially resourced, and have decades of experience under our belts could put down our phones, stop trying to stay young, and rally to help people who actually are. Give your idol a rest and think about it. Jesus would smile. Look up from your phone, and see!

  • Martin and Paul Speak to the Church

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 26, 2016


    Amariah McIntoshEditor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog post is guest-written by the Rev. Dr. Amariah McIntosh (pictured) (MDiv ’01, DMin ’14). Amariah is Pastor of Cleaves Memorial CME Church in Evansville, Indiana. She also serves as President of the Louisville Seminary Alum Board of Directors.

    The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered a sermon on November 4, 1956, at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. The title of the sermon is Paul’s Letter to American Christians. He uses the form of a New Testament Pauline epistle to challenge the American church. He assumes Paul’s voice and questions whether Americans’ “spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress.” Dr. King says:

    "Let me rush on to say something about the church. Americans, I must remind you, as I have said to so many others, that the church is the Body of Christ. So when the church is true to its nature, it knows neither division nor disunity. But I am disturbed about what you are doing to the Body of Christ. They tell me that in America you have within Protestantism more than two hundred and fifty-six denominations. The tragedy is not so much that you have such a multiplicity of denominations, but that most of them are warring against each other with a claim to absolute truth. This narrow sectarianism is destroying the unity of the Body of Christ. You must come to see that God is neither a Baptist nor a Methodist; He is neither a Presbyterian nor an Episcopalian. God is bigger than all of our denominations. If you are to be true witnesses for Christ, you must come to see that, America."

    Although we are now into the second decade of the 21st century, and sixty years after Dr. King preached this sermon, we must be mindful that division is still rampant in the church. Our divisions are experienced in many ways. Not only are our divisions inter-denominational they are intra-denominational. We tend to look for ways to divide. We divide over membership, polity, doctrine, liturgy, politics, gender and sexuality. No matter what you come up with, what you introduce, how you feel about ministry and the direction it should go, it tends to divide more than it unites.

    During this political season, the church has not been exempt from the rancor and hatred that has become part of the national discourse. Denominational infighting has reared its ugly head in national conventions, churches have split and gone in different directions, and ultimately the Body of Christ has become more broken and fractured.

    Martin recognized that division is a cancer, a deadly disease that when allowed to spread wreaks havoc and destruction among the people of God. His ministry and advocacy was rooted in the belief that love, rather than hate, is what will make a difference in this world. Martin wants the modern/postmodern church to understand that when one Christian or one denomination claims to have what others do not have, issues of superiority and envy are introduced. When this happens, the church of Jesus Christ becomes ripe for division and separation and not unity.

    Dr. King closes his sermon with these words:

    “I must bring my writing to a close now. Timothy is waiting to deliver this letter, and I must take leave for another church. But just before leaving, I must say to you, as I said to the church at Corinth, that I still believe that love is the most durable power in the world. Over the centuries men have sought to discover the highest good. This has been the chief quest of ethical philosophy. This was one of the big questions of Greek philosophy. The Epicurean and the Stoics sought to answer it; Plato and Aristotle sought to answer it. What is the summum bonum of life? I think I have an answer America. I think I have discovered the highest good. It is love. This principle stands at the center of the cosmos. As John says, ‘God is love.’ He who loves is a participant in the being of God. He who hates does not know God.”

    Martin and Paul agree that love is the more excellent way. Jesus says, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35, NRSV)

  • There is No Free Will

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 19, 2016


    Robert ReedEditor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog post is guest-written by Robert Reed (pictured), a Louisville Seminary Honorary Life Trustee.

    Thomas was waiting for me at the corner of President and Biltmore. Thomas is a single twenty-year-old father living in subsidized housing about two blocks from a bustling drug trade corner in Cincinnati. He does construction in season. Right now he is out of work but going to concrete finishing trade school. How did Thomas miss becoming enmeshed in the drug scene within two blocks away and the easy ticket to fast money? Rodney Christian, the director of Christian education at Third Presbyterian Church, which is located about 10 blocks away, suggested I meet with Thomas. He may be one of the youth of the East Westwood neighborhood that might be helped. “Mr. Rodney” has been saving young men for 25 years.

    Wendy's would be our lunch place, and over the next 90 minutes I would listen. Thomas’ parents separated when he was young, and he lived with a very rigid, alcoholic, disciplinarian father who became physical when he drank. Thomas left home at 15 to live with his mother. She was not the strict disciplinarian, so Thomas dropped out of school and became a father; he has a son. Family life was good for this teenage couple, at least while the construction work lasted. When Thomas’ job ended at the last construction site, his girlfriend found the greener grass, and the relationship ended. "I never felt lower than that time of my life," said Thomas. Surely this would be a good time for him to go for the easy money. He did not.

    What kept Thomas from taking the easy road just two blocks down the street? He faced a difficult decision, and this time he chose wisely. Once per month, about 40 young men meet for breakfast and discussion at Third Pres. Thomas and Mr. Rodney worship here. One recent Saturday morning, Mr. Rodney posed this question from the Cain and Able story. “Am I my brother's keeper?” Willie, one of the older, wiser counselors and father of three boys, responded, “One always has the freedom to make a decision.” Willie was a staunch defender of the old free will school.

    On the way home that day, I puzzled over this answer. I kept returning to Thomas. Did he really have freedom to choose? Stephen Cave, a philosopher and author of Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How it Drives Civilization, wrote in the June issue of The Atlantic that there is no such thing as free will (“There is No Such Thing as Free Will”, June 2016). Some of us still believe we make choices independently. Today it may be naïve to believe in this old Church School dictum. But Cave (and, in my reading beyond Cave, he is not alone here) declares that free choice is an illusion. Our choices are determined by external forces. According to Cave, Libertarianism is dead and determinism reigns, but there are many opinions in between. But what happens when we jettison this concept? We are taught that our decisions have consequences and carry with them responsibility. If choice carries no responsibility, do we choose differently?

    According to Cave, psychologists (and he cites several interesting studies)  have proven that people are more prone to cheating and stealing when they no longer believe in free will. It would seem that with choice there is responsibility to make the morally correct choice. When I hear moral, I still think of God. When relieved of this oversight that is implied by choosing carefully (God is watching), one is now free to do just whatever seems most self-serving. The illusion of free will carries with it the illusion that someone really cares what happens. If we can just ignore God, as this seems to be the popular/secular thing to do today, why not just dial back the moral responsibility as well? In fact, we probably are not shocked when we read in that same June issue of The Atlantic, that only 2% of Donald Trump’s claims are true, according to PolitiFact. No one seems to care either.

    So, back to Thomas. He faces very difficult decisions. He is alone in the world. He still has respect for his strict father, but he is no longer in his life. What is implied is this: Mr. Rodney listens to me and cares about what happens. And what If Thomas fails to complete the concrete finishing course; what next? It would seem his choice is not free. There certainly are determinants here. The drug scene still beckons. Maybe all his decisions (and ours) are determined even before we leave the womb. I would agree, Mr. Cave, there are no free choices.

  • Shedding Greed

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 12, 2016


    Grace Winn EllisEditor’s note: Today’s “Thinking Out Loud” blog post is guest-written by teacher and playwright Grace Winn Ellis (pictured), who is the daughter of the late Dr. Albert Curry Winn, president of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary from 1966 to 1973.

    A few years ago I participated in a medical mission trip to Haiti. Since I do not have any medical training, my role was to help count and label pills the night before we held a clinic, and the next day, to give out numbered cards, take blood pressure, and hand out worm pills and hand sanitizer.

    When we arrived to set up our first clinic on the grounds of a church, about twenty people—most of them elderly—were waiting outside on benches.  Many had walked two or three hours to get there. Once we set up the areas for consultations and the pharmacy, people began to press forward. A man from the local village took dirty tattered bills (worth maybe a quarter) from each person as he or she was given a card.

    More people came, and everything moved fairly smoothly until the noon break.  At that point, our driver told us that we should leave by 2 p.m. because the water in the stream we had forded was rising. It was clear that we would have to leave before we could see everyone who was waiting.

    When this was announced to the crowd, pandemonium broke out. There was pushing and shoving and yelling. The “money-changer,” as I called him, tried to direct the flow, occasionally calling to the front someone who had just arrived. Our check-in table was nearly overrun.

    Although I wasn’t really afraid for my safety, I was distressed by the anarchy and commotion. I did not blame these Haitian people. Instead, I felt that I had witnessed something fundamental to human nature. When a resource is valuable, when there is not enough to go around, and when there is no fair set of rules for distribution, anybody will put up a fight. I remember feeling and acting the same way at an airport counter after a flight had been canceled.

    My experience of chaos at the clinic gave me a new perspective on the stories of Jesus’ healing miracles. Those crowds were surely pushing and shoving. And Jesus couldn’t just settle down in one village until he healed everyone. He was on the move. So people called out loudly from the side of the road, climbed up into sycamore trees, sneaked up and touched the hem of his garment, and even removed the roof of a house to lower their friend on a stretcher. No wonder Jesus was worn out and kept slipping off into the hills to pray.

    This kind of struggle among those who have next to nothing is understandable. What is less excusable is the behavior of those of us who have enough. Although we have plenty, we constantly worry about keeping what we’ve got. Thinking about this, I felt a spotlight shining on many of Jesus’ teachings. Stop trying so hard to hold onto your stuff, he keeps saying. When you’re obsessed with what you have, you can’t leave your nets beside the lake, walk away, and follow me. You can’t accept the invitation to the banquet. And you’ll waste your energy building bigger barns to hold your bounty.

    The point is not that the poor need our help—although they certainly do.  The point is that we need to divest ourselves of the things that consume so much of our time and energy. As we say in parts of the South, we need to “get shed” of them.

    The concept sounds simple but, of course, the action is far from easy. Because if we don’t store up for ourselves treasure on earth, if we don’t fight to get our fair share, we are denying a basic human instinct—part of the struggle for survival. But that is not the whole story. As Rebecca Solnit writes in her book A Paradise Built in Hell, sometimes calamities unleash a different impulse—to act together as a community, taking care of each other. The major influence on Dorothy Day’s life was the outpouring of love she saw after the San Francisco earthquake. Following Jesus means tapping into this kind of compassion. It means trusting God to remake us, to set us free from selfishness and greed.

  • Falling in Love All Over Again

    by Michael Jinkins | Jul 05, 2016

    Melanie HardisonBY MELANIE HARDISON
    Editor’s note: Today’s blog post is guest-written by Melanie Hardison (pictured), a dual-degree Master of Divinity/Master of Arts in Marriage and Family Therapy student at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

    Have you ever fallen in love? Have you ever fallen in love a second time? As church-nerd as it sounds, I have fallen in love with the wider denominational church all over again – hook, line, and sinker. Now, I’m a seminary student, you say. Shouldn’t I already be in love with the church? Yes. I have been part of and in love with the church all of my life. And yet, sometimes you experience love in a way that makes you fall hard, all over again, and that is what happened to me at the June 2016 meeting of the 222nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in Portland, Oregon.

    I remember attending my very first GA, more than 20 years ago. As a YAD (youth advisory delegate), I remember feeling absolutely enamored as I walked around the assembly, explored the exhibit hall, and engaged in dialogue and debate in committee meetings and plenary sessions. It was painful at times and uplifting at times, a tangible example that what we so often do in ministry is hold both pain and joy in tension together. That first GA sparked my journey of more fully understanding the breadth and depth of our national and global church. Later, after college, I found my way to the national church and served with the Presbyterian Mission Agency for 15 years.

    So I’ve had an entire career in the church. How and why do I find myself falling in love with it all over again? Maybe it’s because I was away from the national church for a few years. Maybe it’s because we were in lovely, spirited Portland. Maybe it’s because the church is experiencing a time of renewal. Maybe it’s because I was there in a purely learning and helping capacity.1 Maybe it’s because I reconnected with long-lost friends and made new ones. Maybe God is ready for me to be in a new place. Whatever the reason, I found a surprising amount of hope and inspiration and grace at General Assembly, and it is giving me life!

    For starters, this General Assembly made history several times, which was deeply moving to witness in person. The assembly adopted of the Confession of Belhar, adding to our Book of Confessions for the first time a confession that grew out of the Global South – particularly apartheid South Africa.2 The assembly elected our first Co-Moderators, two women (on the 60th anniversary of the ordination of women) who are modeling not only leadership in partnership but leadership in interracial partnership (one is African-American and one is white). And the assembly elected the Rev. Dr. J. Herbert Nelson II as our new Stated Clerk, a Louisville Seminary alum and the first African-American elected to this position. So many other stories inspired me, too, including the story of the woman who took a bus for three days to attend General Assembly, and the story of the Hispanic/Latino-a Caucus which served meals in a Portland homeless shelter rather than planning a banquet for its own constituents. The list of stories goes on.

    While I was inspired by stories and historic moments, I’m also aware that what I brought to GA made a difference in my experience. As a student and a volunteer, I detached myself from overtures, issues, and outcomes and adopted a posture of pure learning and discovery. I allowed myself to simply be there as a learner and a helper. And in doing so I found the Spirit moving in surprising and unexpected places.

    In the Presbyterian church, our corporate process is designed for democratic participation, our communal life together is designed for sharing and fellowship, our common purpose is discerning the mind of the Spirit – and yet, in all of their intentionality, in what ways are these thwarted by individual attitudes, attachments, and agendas? For me, adopting a posture of openness and hope paved the way for a deeply meaningful experience, a falling in love all over again with our big, wide church, in the way we love those closest to us, in the way we are called to love all of God’s people: fully accepting of brokenness and wounds, “warts and all.”

    I sense a fresh spirit of new life moving in our church, even though we have been hearing for years that the church is in decline. The strong yet simple pronouncement of our new Stated Clerk, Dr. Nelson, continues to ring in my ears: "We are not dead, we are reforming, we are alive, and we are well."

    We are alive, and we are well. Thanks be to God.

    1I attended as part of a course entitled “Presbyterianism: Principles and Practices,” taught by Cliff Kirkpatrick (Louisville Seminary), Paul Hooker (Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and Jerry van Marter (San Francisco Theological Seminary). I also served as a Student Assistant with the Office of the General Assembly.

    2For a study guide, see Race and Reconciliation: Confessions of 1967 and Belhar, by Cliff Kirkpatrick, LPTS Professor of World Christianity and Ecumenical Studies and former Stated Clerk of the PC(USA).

  • Cherry Picking Faith

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 28, 2016

    Cherry Picking FaithSomeone - I won't say who to protect the guilty - recently sent me an outrageously funny parody of a worship service that's making the rounds on YouTube. The service purports to be in a "spiritual but not religious" congregation.

    The preacher who presides is outrageously hip and cool. He is relevant to the point of the ridiculous. The person offering his testimony in the service is so utterly bizarre he defies description, sharing thoughts he has written down apparently under the influence of some "special" mushrooms or something equally hallucinogenic.

    I laughed till I wept. But, like a number of things I personally may enjoy, I will not recommend the video because it goes well over any acceptable boundaries of decorum. I won't encourage you to watch it. I won't provide a link to it. And I will only obliquely reference it here. Just to make a point.

    During the "sermon" in the video, the extremely appreciative congregation (which is as hip, cool and relevant as their pastor) "ooh" and "aah," nodding their heads and swaying with joy when the preacher stresses how different their church is from merely religious institutions. His sermon provides a litany of disconnected thoughts, disconnected not only from any clear coherent message, but from each other. The preacher cherry-picks first from one then from another well-known representative of spiritual thought, traversing a variety of sages and celebrities from different faiths and spiritual traditions. One quote abuts another in a veritable train wreck of ideas all of which were chosen either because the quotes sound cool or because the preacher wants to be identified with the sages and celebrities he's quoting, not because any particular quotation contributes to an actual engagement with a deep way of being human, spiritual or faithful.

    There's no way any description can do justice to how funny the video is, or how thoroughly it made me cringe to watch it. In the cause of "not being religious," the preacher and the congregation have reduced the meaning and content of their faith to something so thin, so superficial it would make a bumper sticker look profound by comparison.*

    Now, I want to get this straight: I don't particularly care for the word "religious" myself and probably have as much suspicion of organized religion as anyone around, though I also have deep respect for the faith that is conveyed in and through religious institutions.

    My Reformed theological roots make me suspicious of "religion" on theological grounds. Karl Barth, the greatest Reformed theologian of the twentieth century, wrote one of the finest sustained critiques of religion ever conceived in his brilliant theological commentary on St. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Barth differentiates faith in the God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth from the human collection of rites, ceremonies and practices commonly called "religion." Barth's argument is that religion, like every other aspect of human life and society, is fallen and stands in need of God's redemption. No religion can ascend a ladder "up" to God. In fact, from a Reformed perspective, religion can lead us as far astray from God as anything else in this fallen world.

    Religion can and often does simply enshrine our tendency to make "gods" of ourselves, which is why, although I am an official representative of a major Protestant mainline denomination, I am often as disillusioned as the most jaded among us of "institutional" or "organized religion." It is so easy for us to sacrifice humanity on the altar of institutions, religious ones included. However, I have also been hesitant to align myself uncritically with those who say they are "spiritual but not religious."

    The "spiritual but not religious" critiques often feel just a little too blithe and facile, a little too cool and trendy, to ring entirely true. I am often reminded of C.S. Lewis' senior demon, Screwtape, in The Screwtape Letters (1942) recommending that his nephew and novice demon, Wormwood, not bother to try to convince the new convert that Christianity is illogical. This is a dangerous strategy, Screwtape tells Wormwood, because once the new believer's mind is fully engaged he may discover the deep rationality of Christian faith. Rather, Screwtape advises Wormwood just to convince the new believer that Christianity is out-of-fashion with the trendiest people. Appeal to the convert's vanity, not his intellect, says Screwtape.

    These days far too many of the arguments against religion, in general, and the church and Christian faith, in particular, seem to follow Screwtape's script.

    When pressed to describe myself, I tend to avoid saying I'm religious. Instead I say that I am a person of faith. What I mean is this: I try, with only sporadic and moderate success, to follow Jesus of Nazareth while also trusting God's mercy to be more effectual than my faith or ability to follow. With every passing year, while I find Jesus more and more fascinating, more provocative, more beautiful and worthy of devotion and imitation, I also understand Jesus less and less. The mystery of Jesus of Nazareth grows larger and more profound the older I get. Thus, I tend to depend more on the vast treasury of Christian wisdom and experience than on my own individual experience. This treasury, sometimes referred to as "tradition," is deep and rich. And it is as conflicted about what we should call the "Christian thing" (religious, spiritual, faith, practice, devotion, or mysticism) as any contemporary seeker.

    The Reformed tradition to which I belong is deep and rich itself. And, in contrast to sectarian versions of Christianity, the Reformed tradition is invested in insuring that we value the larger Christian traditions from across history and around the world, from Irenaeus to Martin Luther King, Jr., from Gregory of Nyssa to Lady Julian of Norwich and Desmond Tutu, from Justin Martyr to Sor Juana Inéz de la Cruz to Gustavo Gutiérrez. According to the Reformed tradition, to be narrowly sectarian betrays the Spirit of Christ.

    Being a Christian means we get to tap into a particular and sustained "way" of being human and being faithful in God's world, a "way" which bears traditions and practices and even counter-traditions from one generation to another, and has drawn on renewals and reformations and counter-reformations for over twenty centuries. The variety of Christian faith understandings is further enriched by other deep "ways" of being faithful and human. Because we know the God who is Lord of all creation, we are free to partake of wisdom which comes to us through cultures and faiths other than our own.

    So I want to second the motion presently on the table that being a Christian does not have to mean we are exclusivist. Nor does being a Christian mean that we have to be card-carrying members of only one faith "club," especially a club that defines itself by fiercely opposing and demeaning other faiths. Nor does being a Christian require us to swear fealty to an institutional brand that secures its survival at the expense of humanity.

    We worship the free God, the living God. This God is passionately devoted to making us free so that we can live before we die.

    There is much to applaud in the various attempts to speak of the life of the Spirit in ways that cross traditional boundaries. There is much to applaud in learning from other faiths and practices. And there is much to applaud in the nurture of what we sometimes call "multiple faith identity" (that is, the conscious engagement and identification with more than just one faith tradition).

    Mature faith can be nourished by various streams of very different rivers of thought, very different ways of understanding God and humanity and the meaning of life. But mature faith grows when planted deep in fertile soil. Seeds sown on thin soil, as Jesus tells us, wither under the blaze of the noonday sun. Mature faith requires something more than slick slogans and cherry-picked smatterings of various philosophies and faith traditions however cool they may sound.

    I remember one day visiting a close friend who then taught middle school. Now, first, I want to say that anyone who teaches middle school students deserves the highest civilian honor our nation can bestow, and maybe a Purple Heart too. Walking around her classroom that afternoon, I saw cheerful posters intended to inspire students with lofty passages from famous philosophers. I can't remember the quotes, but a poster offering a quote from the French Existentialist Albert Camus hung next to one from Plato next to another from William James, and so on, all around her classroom.

    I told her I loved the quotes. But, I said, "You know, lifting them out of context like this, and putting them on the walls next to each other is really pretty incoherent. Each one of these philosophers is saying something he or she believed to be true, but they are saying it in their own terms from their own historical and philosophical contexts. And, frankly, they often contradict each other in really important ways."

    "What do you suggest?" She asked, as only a weary middle school teacher can ask when, at the end of a long day, she is trying to be patient with a tedious and pedantic friend.

    "I would suggest you tell the kids these quotes are really a sort of philosophical sampler or smorgasbord. Keep the quotes, but say something like this to the students: 'Camus sounds like he might be saying something similar to Plato, but really, they are in an argument, a centuries-old argument, about the meaning of life. It's an argument you might want to jump into the middle of yourself."

    I don't recall if she took my advice, which is just as well, but we are still friends.

    There are lots of times, listening to some very popular spiritual speakers (like the one parodied on YouTube), when it becomes clear that they aren't really engaging in any deep, coherent faith traditions or sustained understandings of life at all, but are just doing what John Lennon and Paul McCartney say they are doing in their song, "Michelle," singing: "These are words that go together well."

    Well, maybe, these words go together well. Maybe not. But, here's what I know. When the scorching sun comes out, seeds planted in thin soil just die where they lie.

    Learning from various faith traditions and philosophies of life is very much an aspect of the age in which we live, this secular age, which, as Charles Taylor has observed, is predicated on the power to choose. I, personally, believe the impulse to cross boundaries of faith and philosophy can enrich one's life immeasurably. But, when we engage in varied "ways," we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the faith traditions in which we engage and from which we borrow, to engage them deeply and with integrity.

    That takes time, attention, discipline, respect, and a willingness to be teachable, to possess what Zen master Shunryū Suzuki once called "the beginner's mind." It's certainly a lot more than cherry-picking cool statements from different spiritual or philosophical voices and forcing them into an incoherent mishmash. And it is a lot more rewarding.

    * A faith that can laugh at itself is, I think, a healthy and more mature faith; and a faith that can't take a joke is, I believe, pretty insecure. Thus, I'm always on the lookout for good religious satire that can help us see the ridiculous in ourselves and in our beliefs. Recently The Washington Post ran a story on a satirical website Babylon Bee, which is what The Onion might look like if it were written by and for Evangelical Christians. Among its headlines was the following: "Mountain Climber Recovering After Decision to Let Go and Let God." The website reminds me somewhat of that great source of religious satire The Wittenburg Door, although, frankly, nothing else has ever really taken the place of The Door at its best.

  • Like Steps to a New Dance

    by Michael Jinkins | Jun 21, 2016

    San Fran Zen CenterOne of the more interesting tidbits of information to have trickled out of leadership research in recent years tells us that people who are quickest to speak up in a group tend to give the impression that they are leadership material.

    Of course, this only works up to a point. There is a line which can be crossed here between appearing knowledgeable and just looking like a know-it-all. If you manage to stay on the right side of that line you can influence people. If you cross it, you can bore them or even turn them against you.

    For years I've made a practice of observing the ways people in leadership positions communicate, whether in formal presentations or small groups, not just with what they say, but how they say it, and the ways in which their approach to communication influences those they lead. I'm still unpacking an experience that occurred in San Francisco a few months ago because I'd never witnessed anything quite like it before.

    While in the area for a denominational meeting and some visits with seminary supporters, I had a Saturday morning free, so I took a taxi to the San Francisco Zen Center. The Dharma Talk (think sermon, then forget about anything sermon-like) that day was dedicated to a celebration of the life of the late Mitsu Suzuki, the wife of the founder of the Zen Center, Shunryū Suzuki.* The abbot was giving the talk.

    The room was crowded with Buddhist monks, other Buddhist practitioners, and some of the simply curious. All were greeted at the door with the same quiet, warm welcome. Chairs lined the back of the room while the remainder of the floor space was occupied by people on cushions sitting in the classic lotus or half-lotus positions. The abbot also sat in the lotus position, his notes before him. He began to speak. For the next thirty or more minutes, he related what he had learned from Mitsu Suzuki. The stories were wonderful, but it was the abbot's delivery of the talk which stuck with me.

    He spoke in a clear, gentle voice, just loud enough to be heard. Each word was weighed, each phrase spoken as though from a center of absolute calm. No word was wasted. No word was rushed, nor did one word crowd another or try to step on the heels of its neighbors. A sentence or two, sometimes three, would be spoken, deliberately, thoughtfully, as though the words were precious grains of rice each of which deserved individual attention. When the abbot came to the end of a thought, he would pause, sometimes for a long time, sometimes closing his eyes in silence, sitting with the moment calmly until he was prepared to speak again.

    The rhythm and modulation of the abbot's talk were remarkable. His listeners leaned in to hear him.

    He would gather his thoughts in silence, then speak. Speak. And speak. Now pause ... Pause ... Pause ............ And then speak again.

    We all waited together for the words to come. And because we all waited together - speaker and listeners - we were joined in an event of holy conversation, a kind of conversation that was not driven by a compulsion to speak up, to convince or compel, to argue, or persuade, or manipulate others verbally, but by a desire to attune ourselves to the deepest level of hearing. The entire Dharma Talk was a living and communal expression of Suzuki-roshi's admonition: "Moment after moment, completely devote yourself to listening to your inner voice."**

    I would say his approach was the very antithesis of our typical Western approach to communication, but that's far too limited an assessment. His approach contrasts with many Eastern approaches as well.

    The abbot's approach also runs contrary to that tendency some of us have to talk (and talk and talk and talk) until we figure out what we want to say, or to "hold forth" until someone else has no choice but to interrupt our soliloquy just to get a word in edgewise.

    The spareness of the abbot's words magnified their value. His comments never drew attention to himself unnecessarily, never seemed motivated by anything except the goal of honoring his subject. It seemed that the words he spoke proceeded from some center of wholeness, as though spoken from a place of solitude. Listening, I couldn't help but think of the similarities between the abbot's way of talking and the admonitions of the early Christian Desert Fathers to speak only when absolutely necessary and only from inner silence.

    Even as I sit here writing these comments this morning, I can conjure up the tangible sense of quiet calm that the abbot gathered around him like his robe, the peace and calm from which he spoke words of calm and peace. I can hear the pace of his words, each one placed with care like a foot upon a forest trail without a hint of haste, without a trace of anxiety. Conscious. Awake. Mindful.

    The abbot's approach to communication impressed me deeply, but it hasn't changed my preaching or public speaking style, not really. I will rely on the classical forms of homiletical rhetoric that brought me to the dance to take me home again. However, the abbot has profoundly affected my approach to communicating in a variety of other groups.

    What I have discovered is this: when I try to do what the abbot did, slowing down, listening more mindfully, weighing my words with deliberate care, pausing, not rushing to comment, I become much more aware of the impulses that drive me and the spirit of the group with whom I am in communication. I tend to create mental space to feel the anxiety when and if it rises in a conversation, especially when it is operating inside of me. I sense better when I am taking something personally. I sort through my feelings better, more able and readier to identify my own defensiveness when it arises.

    Slowing down the pace of my comments, choosing with greater care the phrases, pausing to gather my thoughts, listening until I am sure I have understood before speaking: all of this can drive some folks in a group a little nuts sometimes, especially if they are pretty anxious. But the good of this approach to communication far outweighs any momentary frustrations.

    Breathe. Pause. Listen. Speak, speak. Breathe. P A U S E. Listen. Breathe. Speak: Like steps in a new dance, a dance well worth learning, for leaders who have something to say and who value the relational context of communication.

    *Shunryū Suzuki's thought is widely known because of the collection of his teachings published under the title, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind (1970), a brilliant text grounded in the author's deep understanding of Soto Zen.
    **David Chadwick, a student of Suzuki-roshe, has written an illuminating biography of his teacher, Crooked Cucumber: The Life and Zen Teaching of Shunryū Suzuki (1999). This passage appears on p. 59.
    **Photo taken by Michael Jinkins at the San Francisco Zen Center, February 2016.

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