Dancing with God on Trinity Sunday -- A Lectionary Reflection

Proverbs 8:1-4, 22-31

Romans 5:1-5

John 16:12-15

Dancing with God on Trinity Sunday

            Why bother with the Trinity?  It’s a distraction from interfaith conversations with Jewish and Muslim friends, who find it difficult to reconcile the Christian claim to be monotheists with our affirmation of this idea of threeness in God’s nature.  Besides, Christians have been struggling with this doctrinal statement since at least the third century if not before.   We’ve come up with all manner of definitions that veer from tritheism (three gods) to Unitarianism.  In the fourth century, feeling pressure from the Roman government, leaders of the church decided on a formula (Nicene Creed) that drew from Greek philosophical categories that we no longer make use of.  We nod in agreement even if we don’t accept the philosophical foundations as useful.  So why not just abandon this idea of the Trinity and affirm a more radical monotheism? 

            As a pastor in a denomination that doesn’t put the Trinity front and center in its belief systems (because we’re non-creedal, that system is fairly open), and being pastor of a congregation that contains a number of members who would claim to be Unitarian or feel that the doctrine is irrelevant, I could skip Trinity Sunday and no one would complain.  And yet, I continue to embrace this doctrine, believing that it helps me understand and experience God’s presence and activity in a much fuller way than I could with a strict monotheism.  So, on Sunday, I will try to lead my congregation in celebrating the Triune nature of God. 

            For the Trinity to truly have value for my faith experience, it will have to be more than a philosophical construct.  There has to be a living engagement with the triune God.  Although there is the problem of gender particularity in the traditional formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I haven’t found an alternative that brings personal engagement.  Other formulas focus on roles, not personality.  Whatever formula we choose to embrace, the point is – God is not simple.  God is complex and ultimately ineffable.  Perhaps it’s appropriate that we find it difficult to adequately define God as Trinity, but if Christ is the center of our faith, then we must delve into this belief to make sense of our relationship with God through Christ. 

            The title of this post borrows from the reflections offered by my friend Bruce Epperly, who writes that “the Trinitarian God is constantly dancing, growing, choosing, and changing.”  We see this vision of the divine present in Proverbs 8, which offers a definition of Holy Wisdom (Heb. Hokmah).  Holy Wisdom is often seen in feminine form, reminding us that in the divine nature there is the feminine as well as the masculine.  While Proverbs 8 suggests that Wisdom is the first act of creation, and then is the partner with God in creating the world – serving with God as “master worker,” or perhaps better the “master builder.”  God sets out the plans and Wisdom brings the plan to fruition. 

The first four verses invite us to hear the call of Wisdom, who stands at the city gates and cries out to us, asking for our attention.  In the intervening verses, we hear a portion of this message and a reminder that Wisdom “dwell[s] with prudence; I have found knowledge and discretion” (vs. 12).  There is a reminder that there is a practical dimension to Wisdom, and thus to the nature of God.  In the verses that run from 22 -31, we hear the message of Wisdom’s role in Creation.  The first Creation, then serving with God, as the Master Builder, all that is created is created – and Wisdom was there with God. 

The reading closes with the verses that inspire the idea that God is a Dancing Trinity.  The Common English Bible brings out this sense more clearly than the NRSV.

I was having fun, smiling before him all the time,Frolicking with his inhabited earth and delighting in the human race.    (vs. 30b-31). 

I take this reference to be a key to the intimate and dynamic nature of God.  God the Trinity is not Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover.”  God isn’t the disinterested Creator of Deism.  God is the Dancing Trinity, who in the form of Wisdom, likes to have fun, who smiles, and frolics with the inhabitants of earth.   Can you get your head around this image of the God who loves to play?

            The readings from John and Romans are more formal, but they too help us recognize that there is more to God than a singular view might suggest.  In the reading from Romans 5, the focus is on peace and hope, both of which come to us through Christ.  We have peace with God through Christ.  It is a peace that is received by faith and brings to us righteousness because of his faithfulness.  God is the actor, and Jesus is the mediator of that action.  Yes, there are problems, challenges, even suffering, but as we persevere or endure, character is produced, and it is this character that leads to hope.  Hope isn’t mere whimsy – it’s deeply rooted trust that God is faithful.  This hope is related to the love of God poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us” (vs. 5).  There is a trinity of attributes – faith, hope, love.  We could add into the mix peace, but perhaps peace is the result of these three.  There is in this accounting an incipient Trinitarian formula.  It’s not developed or explicitly stated, but if you’re looking for it, you’ll find it.  Peace comes from God through Christ, and the love of God is poured out through the Holy Spirit.  And, keeping all of this in mind, we can hear another promise.  As Ron Allen and Clark Williamson point out, as reflect on verse five we should bear in mind that “the gift of the Spirit for Paul demonstrates that the community already lives in the age to come”  (Allen and Williamson, Preaching the Letters Without Dismissing the Law: A Lectionary Commentary, p. 38).  God already reigns, we just need to recognize that reign.  And if as is hinted here, God is triune, then there is depth to this relationship that we can delve into.

            When it comes to the word from the Gospel of John, we hear Jesus tell the disciples that there is more to be shared, but they’re not yet ready to hear it or understand it.  It takes time and experience to begin to understand this God who comes to us as Trinity, as divine complexity.  As I read this passage I thought of Robert Wright’s book The Evolution of God.  The book itself seeks to demonstrate that over time humans have developed a fuller and more coherent understanding of God, moving from early animism, through polytheism, henotheism, and on to monotheism.  If you take his trajectory seriously, Islam becomes the culmination in this evolutionary process, which means that Trinitarian thinking is something of an aberration. While we needn’t accept Wright’s theories, it is helpful to realize that our own understandings of God do evolve.  Because we can’t handle the entire truth all at once, we build, layer by layer understandings of God.  Some aspects or beliefs will be jettisoned, because they prove to be dead-ends, but the point is that we are seeking to better understand that which we have come to believe. 

In John 16, Jesus says to the disciples, “I have much more to say to you, but you can’t handle it now.”  At that point in the story, of course, Jesus is pointing toward the cross and the resurrection.  He is telling them that even if they don’t understand now, they will in time.  But, remembering that this is a Trinitarian vision, we hear a promise, the Spirit of Truth is coming, and the Spirit of Truth will guide us to the truth.  And what does the Spirit of Truth reveal?  The Spirit shares with the Spirit hears, and what the Spirit hears will glorify Christ, for the Spirit takes what is Christ’s and proclaims it to us.  The Trinitarian element is especially present in verse 15, where Jesus says that “everything that the Father has is Mine,” continuing the message that the Father and Son are one.  Then Jesus declares that the Spirit takes what is Christ’s and proclaims it to us.  And here is the promise – the Spirit makes that which is Christ’s available to us.  So that we don’t fall victim to a theology of glory that leads to triumphalism, we must understand that with any glory comes the suffering of the cross.  That is the way of God who comes to us as Trinity. 

            Returning to that vision expressed in Proverbs 8, are we ready to experience the delight of God.  Are we ready to embrace a Wisdom that seeks to have fun, who smiles before God, who frolics with the inhabited earth and who delights in the human race?   In other words, are we ready to dance before God, as one of our small children did this past Sunday as the children and their leaders sang “This Little Light of Mine?”  Is their joy in our embrace of this God who comes to us inviting us to join in the dance?    

Evangelicals Bring Christ to the Ivy League -- Sightings (Martin Marty)

Questions abound as to the place of religion in society.  Although it has been long believed by some that as one becomes more educated one will become less religious.  After all, religion is unscientific and unmodern.  Of course in this postmodern era, when rationalism has lost its savor, we're better able to hold things like faith and reason in tension.

In this week's essay, Martin Marty takes a look at an evangelical group that has made its claim to life on Ivy League campuses.  One of the questions asked by these groups concerns why they are deemed too exclusivist to warrant official recognition by these campuses.  They respond that other groups are equally exclusivist, though perhaps on other grounds.  As Marty notes, they may not have answers to their questions, but they do ask important ones.  Take a read and offer your thoughts!

****************************

Sightings

Sightings Evangelicals Bring Christ to the Ivy League by Martin E. Marty Monday | May 20 2013 The Ivy League Christian Observer arrives quarterly, beckoning for attention, whichSightings provides. The stated mission of Christian Union (CU), the Observer’s publisher, is this: to bring Christ to students attending elite American colleges and universities because alums have an outsized influence on culture and society. Every page of the Observer, including its ads, suggest “Evangelical,” but, curiously, in the current, Spring issue, the word appears only once—our quick scan suggests—in a mentioned book title. (The word “Evangelism," a related but different topic, appears a couple of times, for example in an article by a Catholic.) Every page should be welcomed and recognized as Evangelical in theme, preoccupation, and slant. Why not use the word? Theory one: the nasty media covering nasty subjects conflate “Evangelical” and “Christian” in many stories. There, “the Christian vote,” etc. does not refer to Orthodox, Catholic, or ecumenical Protestants, but only to Evangelicals, often of the militant and thus not fully representative sort. Theory two: the sphere of the Ivy League is the Northeast where “Evangelical” usually means “Fundamentalist with good manners” which is not the mien and scope of theObserver. Theory three: more happily, the Observer’s editors are genuinely trying to broaden the scope beyond traditional “Evangelical” boundaries. Should other-than-boundaried “Evangelicals” worry about transgression of boundaries? I think not; the transgressions may irritate and the arguments and accents won’t always be convincing, but they are not unintelligent and they may well stimulate discussion with complacent “secularists” and “other-Christians.” There is little belligerence in the Observer. The voices in the magazine, expressing CU’s goal of helping students “discover the intellectual validity of Christian faith,” may well offend others as they seek a place in the higher-education landscape from which, Christian Union-ists claim, often a bit whiningly, their kind of Christians and perhaps many kinds of Christians are edged out. The editors and reporters do pick some fights. They lose some, several times, and finally win some, when their local chapters seek full recognition on some campuses—formerly Princeton, currently Dartmouth—because they may try to convert others, or their hiring policies are seen as exclusivist on religious (and sometimes on gender, as in, on trans-gender) grounds. CU chapters argue that all kinds of approved campus organizations are exclusivist on other, often quasi-religious grounds. In the process, CU voices do stimulate thought and flush out prejudices among those they call “secularist.” While CU recognizes the many Christian and other ministries on campuses, its focus is chiefly on curricular and organizational boundaries. Not easily soluble and perhaps insoluble are puzzles and problems having to do with often taken-for-granted “modern preconceptions” among teachers, classmates, and textbook authors who judge texts on naturalistic grounds. CU people want more room for what we must call super-naturalist revelation in such texts. They and the authors featured in the Observer perhaps offend unnaturally, but one would think that the higher academy could have room for such voices. Now: are we, who see room for some CU (quasi-Evangelical) sorts, getting soft, too tolerant of other voices, too weary of fighting off those who challenge secularist assumptions? Matthew A. Bennett, Founder and President of CU, asks, “Why should an atheist student group have more rights to express their views than a Christian group?” He and contributors to the Observer may not have good answers, but they have reasonable questions. CU people are elitist in situation, intention, and practice, challenging voices today. Reference: Ivy League Christian Observer. Spring 2013. http://www.christianunion.org/christian-union/resources/ivy-league-christian-observer. Author, Martin E. Marty, is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com. Editor, Myriam Renaud, is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School.  She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.   QUESTIONS or COMMENTS? Email DivSightings@gmail.com

Gifted and Called -- A Sermon for a Service of Affirmation of Ordination

Ephesians 4:7-16

Why would anyone want to be a pastor? After all, there’s nothing glamorous about pastoral ministry.  

There are, according to Frederick Buechner, three popular views of clergy.  

• Some believe that clergy are "nice people" who try to make sure you know that they’re just like everybody else, just nicer!  
• Then there are those who think pastors "have their heads in the clouds" and don't get too involved in the real world. People feel embarrassed when they use bad language around them.  They also have "a lovely sense of humor” and get a kick out of it when you ask if they could do something about the rainy weather. For them, clergy know that their business is religion and leave more important matters to those who know better.
• Finally, pastors are seen as  "anachronistic as alchemists and chimney sweeps.  Like Tiffany Glass or the Queen of England, their function is primarily decorative."  They do the marrying and the burying, but not much else.   [Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking, (San Francisco:  Harper-Collins, 1992), 73.]

That doesn’t sound all that enticing, does it?   After all, the pay isn’t great, the hours can be bad, and you really don’t get any respect.  It’s not surprising that many parents prefer that their children pursue more rewarding careers. 

Despite the bad press, some hear the call and respond with the words: “Here I am, send me.”  Rick is one of those persons who has heard the call and said yes.  We gather here today to affirm that call.

The letter to the Ephesians speaks of call and giftedness. According to this letter, God has given each of us gifts designed to build up the body of Christ.  Ministry isn’t something that paid professionals do, it’s the task of the whole church. Since the church exists as a body of ministers, then we’re all responsible for the proper use of our gifts of ministry, whether ordained or not.  

God may call all Christians to ministry, but according to Ephesians 4, God also calls certain individuals to ministries of teaching and leadership.  And one of the ways the church has affirmed this calling is to lay hands on them (1 Timothy 4) and offer a prayer of blessing.  Those persons who are designated in this fashion take up what Donald Messer calls a representative ministry.  

Those of us who are ordained are set apart by the church to the representative ministry--not because we are less sinful or more holy, but in order to serve different functions within the life and mission of the church in the world.  Those persons called by God to this ministry, and recognized by the church, often receive salaries and benefits, but they’re not employees of the church, strictly speaking.  They are first and foremost called to be servants of God, and as servants of God they make themselves available to the ministry of the church.   [Donald Messer, Images of Christian Ministry, (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1989), 64.]

These women and men are gifted and called by God to lead and to equip the people of God so that they can fulfill their own ministries.  God has set aside some to be Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.  These are God's gifts to the church, who are called on to "equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13).

Ordination doesn’t make Rick smarter, brighter, or more clever.  It doesn’t make him holier or more saintly.  It doesn’t even make him a minister – that calling comes with baptism.  But through ordination the church recognizes God’s prior call.  Now, we’re not ordaining Rick today. We’re recognizing and affirming a previous ordination by a different part of the body of Christ.  We’ve come to celebrate the fact that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Michigan has chosen to recognize his ordination and grant him standing as a member of the ordained ministry in the Disciples.    

So today, as the church, in its Disciples form, and in its ecumenical form, let us receive his ministry among us.  We are recognizing that he has been called by God to this representative form of ministry, which includes the responsibility of preaching, teaching, leadership, and pastoral care. Although we’re not Presbyterian, I think it’s fitting to affirm Rick’s call to what the Presbyterians call the “Ministry of Word and Sacrament.”  

In this act of affirmation, we’re telling the broader church that Rick has the requisite gifts of ministry and has been called to serve the church at large as pastor and teacher.  We come today to support this call with our prayers and our witness. We recognize that he has been called to share in the ministry of leadership, helping to equip the body so that we can become spiritually mature adults who aren’t tossed around by deceit and trickery. 

  So, Rick,  as you go forth from this place today, remember the hands that are being laid on you.  Remember your calling.  Remember that you’re not "the" minister, but you are one of God’s ministers who has been called to lead, teach, and nurture your fellow ministers so that they can grow into spiritual maturity.  Remember the gift that has been given you by God, a gift recognized and affirmed today.  And regularly rekindle this gift through prayer, worship, and study.  And remember who it is you represent – Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  

May God bless you as go forth into the world, as an  ambassador of Christ. May we who gather here today, especially those who are members of Central Woodward Christian Church and who are representatives of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), continue to pray for and support Rick in his ministry, wherever it takes him!  

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, Pastor
Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
Service of Recognition and Affirmation of an Ordination 
May 19, 2013

We Are Children of God! -- A Sermon for Pentecost Sunday

Romans 8:14-17

“This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.”  

With this simple song, our children invited us to celebrate Pentecost Sunday by letting the light of God’s Spirit shine through us.  When the Spirit of God descended on the people of God, like a mighty wind, that Pentecost Sunday, flames danced above each head.  This flame symbolizes the light of God that shines through us, lighting our pathways as we journey with God into the world.  Bearing this light, we fulfill our calling to be a blessing to our neighbors – whether close by or far away.  

Not only does the song remind us that God has filled us with the light of the Spirit, but it also reminds us, that even if we’re adults, we’re still children of the living God.  As Paul puts it: “All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons and daughters” (Rom. 8:14 CEB).  

Of course, none of us are God’s natural born children.  No, we’ve been adopted into God’s family through the Spirit.  And, as God’s adopted sons and daughters, we’ve become heirs of God through Christ, our elder brother (Heb. 2:11-13).

So, what does it mean to be a child of God?  Above all else, it helps define our identity.  We all ask this question: Who am I?  Don’t you want to know who you are and why you are the way you are?  Science tells us that genetics plays a role, but so does the world in which we live – our parents, our friends, our church.  It’s not a question of nature versus nurture.  Both are involved!  And as God’s children, surely God plays a role.  In Jeremiah 1, the Lord says to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you, . . .”   

As we come here today to celebrate Pentecost, what does this declaration that we’re all children of God have to do with our identity?  What difference does it make? 

You might answer in terms of behavior, but surely there’s more to this than simply following divine law.  After all, the message of Romans is that in Christ, grace supersedes law.   

Perhaps the answer lies in Paul’s next statement: “You didn’t receive a spirit of slavery to lead you back again into fear.” Because we’ve been made children of God in Christ, there’s no need to fear.  

This is an appropriate word for our times, because there’s a lot of fear in our midst.  If you don’t believe me, just check out all the conspiracy theories that get passed around through e-mails and social media.  It’s bad out there!!  Or, so I’ve been told!   

Now, just because we’re free from bondage to fear doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be prudent about security.  Just the other evening, at the stewardship meeting, we talked about this very subject.  Having participated in a presentation on church security offered by the Troy Police Department to  the Troy Interfaith Group, our stewardship chair decided we should talk about protecting our building and the people who come to it.  Even if we sit here in one of Michigan’s safest cities, doors need to be locked when no one is here.  We need to be vigilant about who is coming and going.  And since we have a growing number of children, we need to make sure they’re protected. Yes, there are reasons for being careful and vigilant, but that doesn’t mean we have to live in fear. 

After all, the God whom we serve is defined by love, and as the Scriptures say – “perfect love casts out all fear” (1 Jn 4:18).  Besides, as Paul writes later on in Romans 8: “If God is for us, who can be against us.”  Yes:  

35 Who will separate us from Christ’s love? Will we be separated by trouble, or distress, or harassment, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, We are being put to death all day long for your sake.
   We are treated like sheep for slaughter.
37 But in all these things we win a sweeping victory through the one who loved us. 38 I’m convinced that nothing can separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus our Lord: not death or life, not angels or rulers, not present things or future things, not powers 39 or height or depth, or any other thing that is created.

If we can accept this as a word from God; if we Believe that God will be true to this promise; if we will let the Spirit reign in our lives; then, as children of God, we’ll be ready to head out on the adventure that lies ahead of us.

I enjoy watching our little ones run around without any sense of fear exploring their environment.  They seem to know that it’s okay to check things out, that their parents and grandparents and other recognizable faces are there to protect them.  This childlike curiosity is a key to the Spirit-filled life.  Walking in the Spirit is a spiritual adventure.   

Now, this childlike curiosity is the result of trust.  Our children know that their parents are nearby.  It’s the kind of trust that allows us, as God’s children, to address God as “Abba!  Father!”   

So off we go into the world, filled with the Spirit of God, who is our parent.  We go out into the world, knowing that since we’re God’s children we’re also heirs of all the promises that go with that status.  Every promise God made to the children of Israel has now been passed on to us as well.  We don’t replace the Jewish people, but in Christ we are now joint heirs with them of the promises made to Abraham, including that covenant calling to be a blessing to the nations.   

   

So, as God’s children in Christ, we receive this Pentecost power that empowers us to bear witness to the good news that Jesus is risen from the dead. Death has met its match, and as a result we can now embrace the life that God has set before us.  Yes, we’ve been commissioned by Jesus to go into the world and be his witnesses.    And as his witnesses, we go forth with the promise that Jesus makes to his disciples on the eve of his death.  In the Gospel of John, Jesus says to his  disciples. 

Trust me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or at least believe on account of the works themselves.  I assure you that whoever believes in me will do the works I do.  They will do even greater works than these because I am going to the Father.  I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father can be glorified in the Son.  (John 14:11-13 CEB).   

This may seem like a tall order, but as the children of God, we’ve been gifted for this work, and we’ve been given a Companion, the Spirit, who will be with us forever.  

So are you ready to head out as children of God on this next adventure in the Spirit?

Now, being children of God doesn’t mean that there won’t be challenges ahead.  Even as Jesus faced suffering, we may face it as well.   Theologian Karl Barth puts it this way:

In the Spirit, we are enabled to know the meaning of our life, as it is manifested in suffering.  In the Spirit, suffering, endured and apprehended can become our advance to the glory of God. This revelation of the secret, this apprehension of God in suffering, is God’s action in us. (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 301).  

As we discussed the meaning of the cross of Jesus at the Wednesday Bible Study, we talked also suffering.  Although we might not know why people suffer, and though God doesn’t always come to our rescue, that doesn’t mean that God has abandoned us.  God is still there with us, because we are children of God, and God is always present with God’s children! 

So, as children of the living God, and as heirs of all the promises of God, may the light of Pentecost shine through you as you venture out into the world!  Be not afraid – God is with you through the Spirit, whom Jesus has sent to us.    

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, Pastor
Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
Pentecost Sunday
May 19, 2013

  

           

William Barclay-- Insights: Love (Review)

INSIGHTS:  Love: What the Bible Tells Us about Christian Love.  By William Barclay.  Foreword by John Miller.  Edinburgh:  Saint Andrew Press, 2012,  xii +60 pages.

When I was in college, more than three decades back, studying Bible and Ministry, William Barclay's Daily Bible Study commentary series (now available as New Daily Study Bible: Complete Set, 17 vol. set)  was the go-to resource.  The equivalent today might be N.T. Wright's New Testament For Everyone Set, 18 Volumes.  

One of my Bible Profs used them as a text book, so I got to know them well.  Besides providing valuable exegetical help, they offered spiritual and theological insights that held value for us as individuals and as budding preachers.  

Barclay (1907-1978) was a well-regarded biblical scholar from Scotland who had a knack for speaking with clarity and grace to the general reader.  These commentaries were designed for the popular audience, but they were rooted in Barclay's critical scholarship.  He was Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University, and was considered liberal by some.  I would learn some years later, after reading his autobiography, that he considered himself a universalist.  He was willing to raise deep questions about the text, and yet I never found him off putting, despite the fact that at the time I was relatively conservative in my beliefs.  Perhaps I didn't pay that much attention to where he might diverge from my perceived orthodoxy.  

Barclay has long since departed from this world, and has has been replaced by other scholars, like Wright and Marcus Borg who have found a way of speaking to a broader audience.  Although Barclay isn't as well known today as yesterday, I think he has a few words of wisdom to share with us.  

And that's what he does in this little book of insights on love.  This small book is part of a series of books published by Saint Andrew Press and distributed in the United States by Westminster John Knox Press that pick up specific topics -- in this case love -- and provide readings from Barclay's commentaries on the topic.  In this particular book there are fourteen reflections.  

To give a sense of his style and perspective, consider this paragraph from his reflection on Matthew 5:43-48.  It's the closing paragraph:

It is the whole teaching of the Bible that we attain our humanity only by becoming Godlike.  The one thing which makes us like God is the love which never ceases to care for others, no matter what they do to it.  We fulfill our humanity, we enter upon Christian perfection, when we learn to forgive as God forgives, and to love as God loves. (p. 20)

Or consider this reflection on John 12:1-18, where we read of Mary's anointing of Jesus:

We see love's extravagance   Mary took the most precious thing she possessed and spent it all on Jesus.  Love is not love if it nicely calculates the cost.  It gives its all, and its only regret is that it has not still more to give. (p. 28).

If you're looking for brief, readable, insightful reflections on these issues and seek a word from Scripture that is interpreted with critical care and spiritual devotion, I think this set of books will be worth your examination.   Although the publisher sent me copies of each of the above mentioned topics, I've only read the book on Love.  But that was sufficient to remind me of Barclay's wisdom and grace.   

Sam Harris: Moral Clarity or Islamophobia? -- Sightings (Daniel J. Schultz)

Several years ago I reviewed Sam Harris' A Letter to a Christian Nation for Disciples World.. Unfortunately that journal no longer exists, and thus the review is not extant online. In any case, my concern with Harris and other New Atheists is that in their zeal to protect rationalism, they venture far into arrogance. In the case of Christianity they presume to decide who is the real Christian (fundamentalists) so that they can create a straw man to attack. More recently Harris has taken aim at Islam, which he perceives to be barbaric and irrational, and thus worthy of contempt. In this Sighting's piece Daniel J. Schultz suggests that Harris's views are colored by a Western neo-colonialist attitude.  I'm inclined to agree with the assessment, but want to invite your thoughts.

*****************************

Sightings

Sightings Sam Harris: Moral Clarity or Islamophobia? by Daniel J. Schultz Thursday |  May 16 2013 Last month a contentious exchange broke out between Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald and one of the torchbearers of the so-called New Atheist movement—Sam Harris. The quarrel began when Greenwald tweeted a link to an Al Jazeera article by Murtaza Hussain. The article argued that some of the New Atheists (Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens) endorse, under the guise of rational scientific discourse, forms (often venomous) of anti-Muslim rhetoric. Particularly problematic for Greenwald was Harris’ assertion—cited by Hussain—that “[the] people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.” Harris then wrote to Greenwald, protesting Hussain’s “quote-mining,” criticizing the Al Jazeera article as “defamatory garbage,” and expressing frustration with Greenwald for promoting the piece. However, reading Harris’ quote in context does little to call into question the conclusion reached by Hussain. Indeed, Harris confirmed Hussain’s conclusion when he explained to Greenwald that it was his (Harris) intention to “bemoan the loss of liberal moral clarity in the war on terror.” It is a curious line of reasoning that allows Harris to espouse positive views about fascist speech and about the “moral clarity” of the Christian Right (a group included in the context provided by Harris) without assuming any of the liabilities of these positions.  He endorses the “sensibleness” of their speech, neither as fascist speech nor as the speech of the Christian Right, but rather as the displaced speech of an authentic liberalism. Harris thus identifies his position with fascists and religious fundamentalists through his presumed ability to sanction their views without himself being identified with their practices. This is the reason Harris takes such offense at the accusation that he is a racist or an Islamophobe. He is, as he states, “not making common cause with fascists,” but rather recovering the reasoned liberal position of defending “civil society” – a task, he claims, that in recent years has “been outsourced to extremists.” Thus for Harris, the inability or unwillingness of secular, multicultural liberalism to press a vigorous critique of Islam is a symptom of its failure. With respect to Islam, liberals, according to Harris, ought to be ones “pointing the way beyond this iron-age madness,” but they have failed by virtue of their multicultural tolerance. One of the critiques, advanced by Hussain against New Atheists like Harris, concerns the way in which their rational thinking is not as free from history as it presumes; on the contrary, it often exhibits the tendency to rehearse oppressive (at times racialized) features of colonial thought. Harris’ phrase “this iron age madness” functions as a clear example of the way in which he codes ‘non-Western’ as traditional, backward, and repressive, allowing the West to represent itself as modern, forward thinking, and free. This form of reasoning confuses its descriptions with its presuppositions, using the former to covertly ground the latter. In a notable example of such confused reasoning, Harris asserted, in a Huffington Postpiece quoted by Hussain, that “the outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns.” Here we see Harris’ assumptions: 1) theological concerns cannot provide a basis for reasonable claims; 2) theological concerns are symptoms of a mistaken (traditional, backward, culturally determined) understandings of oneself and the world; 3) non-theological (atheistic) concerns as the only kinds of concerns capable of grounding an accurate view of oneself and the world. Harris’ assumptions mask the vast differences internal to modes of religious thought (an oxymoron for Harris) and religious life. It also obscures the fact that there might, in fact, be non-theological reasons for Muslims to feel outraged over US and British foreign policy. Harris’ new form of atheism sounds very much like an old form of colonialism. This is seen most clearly at those moments when Harris shows us the ethical character of his thinking. He writes, in the e-mail response to Greenwald, “one of my main concerns is for all the suffering women, homosexuals, freethinkers, and intellectuals in indigenous Muslim societies.” Appealing to the discourse of Western moral superiority, Harris invokes their plight as a way to justify belligerent attitudes against Islam. His reasoning predicates the West as the source of salvation and precludes the possibility of thinking meaningful social transformation outside the framework of an atheistic liberalism. References: Greenwald, Glenn. “Sam Harris, the New-Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus.” The Guardian. April 3, 2013. Greenwald, Glenn. “E-mail with Sam Harris.” Accessed April 3, 2013. Harris, Sam. “Response to Controversy.” Samharris.org. April 7, 2013. Harris, Sam. “Bombing Our Illusions,” The Huffington Post. October 10, 2005. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html Hussain, Mutaza. “Scientific Racism, militarism, and the new-atheists,” Al Jazeera. April 2, 2013. Lean, Nathan. “Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia.”Salon. March 30, 2013.   Author, Daniel J. Schultz, is a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy of Religions at the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is currently writing a dissertation on Foucault’s concept of pastoral power in relation to the visual transmission of theological discourse in Franciscan iconography. Editor, Myriam Renaud, is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center. QUESTIONS or COMMENTS? Email DivSightings@gmail.com

Faith in the Public Square -- An Interview

My book Faith in the Public Square (Energion Publications, 2012) has now been out for a little more than a year. In it I set out to start a conversation about the relationship between Faith and Public Life. The book is comprised of fifty plus essays that originally appeared as Sunday Op-Ed pieces in the Lompoc Record.

Earlier this year John Shuck, a Presbyterian Pastor from Elizabethton, Tennessee, interviewed me for a radio show he hosts for the local NPR station called Religion for Life. The interview is now available as a podcast. I would like to share it with you. Hopefully John's questions and my answers will encourage an important conversation around these two important parts of human life.-- and perhaps even entice you to buy a copy of the book!

I think you'll enjoy the conversation (about 29 minutes).  So, let's talk!