Sunday, July 20, 2014

We Are Climbing Jacob's Ziggurat

Jacob’s Dream, Our Dream - Genesis 28:10-19
Jacob lays his head on a stone to sleep. He is on the lam. Under the advice of his mother Rebekah he flees the wrath of his brother Esau. Here the story is somewhat complicated. Sometime before Esau, the older of the twins by virtue of being first out of the womb, gave up his birthright for a pot of stew. Now, more recently in the saga, Jacob connives with his mother to secure that same birthright through a ruse – tricking his aging and now blind father Isaac  - “he who laughs,” he who saw the knife in his father Abraham’s hand about to come down on him save for the grace of God and a ram caught in a nearby thicket – by impersonating Esau with an animal skin to make him seem like “an hairy man.”

Esau is angry – angry enough to kill his brother. It’s another Cain and Abel story of sorts. Except that Jacob survives and eventually reconciles with his brother – a parable for our time, no?

So as he lays his head down on a stone to get some rest one could say that Jacob is in a hard place – literally. We can imagine all that is running through his heart and head: deceiving his father, a father who has no doubt carried the burden of his own challenging childhood; stealing from his brother; plotting with his mother; meanwhile, Esau marries Ishmael’s daughter – Ishmael being father Abraham’s first son by Hagar, banished by orders of Sarah, and one day the patriarch of Islam. A parable for our time, no?

Jacob is on the run. He is in a hard place. We have all been there before.

So he has a dream. The Hebrew word pronounced khay-lem means to dream, but originates from a root word meaning to bind or to make dumb i.e. unable to speak. The word is also derived from a word that means “swirling” as with sand. Jacob whose heart and head are swirling is suddenly struck dumb, he is bound in a dream. It is a vision really – one might even call it a mystical experience. He sees what we have come to call a ladder, but it seems more likely it was a kind of ziggurat – a stairway – the original stairway to heaven! Angels are ascending and descending between heaven and earth. Perhaps this is always happening and only now when Jacob is in a hard place – between rejection and acceptance – can he see this. Angels are always coming and going.

Angels carry messages from heaven – from God. In this moment, his head on a stone, his heart and head swirling with all that has transpired in his family life. It is in this moment that he sees – “The Lord stood beside him.” When we are in such hard places it is necessary to see and remember that The Lord stands beside us.

The Lord speaks. “…all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your offspring. ..Know that I am with you and will keep you wherever you go…I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

Message delivered. Message heard. Jacob cannot speak until he has heard the message – he is bound, khay-lem. Mystical experiences are like this. There is nothing to say in those moments when the ineffable opens itself to us. Or, do we open ourselves to the ineffable? Or, does being in a hard place open us to see and hear what is there beside us all along?

As he awakens from this moment of mystical vision, Jacob speaks. “Surely the Lord is in this place—and I did not know it!”

There are so many distractions -so many that we do not know that the Lord is in this place – this place where we find ourselves right now. Even when we are in a hard place. Most especially when we are in a hard place – when we cannot tell a pillow from a stone.

“How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.”

That is where we are – this is where we stand. Day and night, night and day – we are in the house of God standing at the gate of heaven. The Greek word is oikos – now a popular brand of yogurt. Oikos means household. From this word we get oiko-nomos, the laws of the household, or in English, economy. And there is oiko-logia, or study of the household, or in English ecology. In Hebrew it is, of course, Beyit, which in its construct form is Beth – household of – the household of God. We sometimes call this the universe.

Jacob places a stone and anoints it with oil to remember the place….and calls it Bethel
“the Household of God”

Jacob’s vision- here we are in God’s household, our “fragile island home,” the Earth. You would not know this by the way we behave in it, nor in the way in which we treat it. How we behave with one another and how we treat this Earth, our home for we know not how long, lies at the very heart of this ancient saga of a young man on the run.

How might we understand ourselves, how might we treat others if we were to remember we are in God’s household, the Lord stands beside us, God’s messengers are forever in our midst to bring us words of comfort, challenge and inspiration? How might we treat the Earth if we were to remember it is God’s house, not ours?

If you ever feel sad
And the whole world is driving you mad
Remember, Remember Today
-John Lennon

May we remember Jacob and his dream. One day we too shall be climbing Jacob’s ziggurat. This stairway to heaven is right in front of us day and night here where we are – God’s own household. Beth-el.
Amen.




Saturday, July 12, 2014

Vincent van Gogh and David Mallet Meet in The Gospel...

Proper 10 – Romans 8:1-11/Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23
The Reverend Kirk Alan Kubicek, Saint Timothy's School for Girls

“…You are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you.”
                                                                                    - Romans 8: 9

We don’t often think of it, but of all the New Testament literature, Saint Paul’s letters are the oldest sources we have about Jesus – pre-dating the Gospels by a couple of decades. And Paul writes that for those who are “in Christ,” and “Christ is in them,” “the Spirit of God dwells in you.” This ought to strike us as an astonishing assertion. Not something we should take for granted. And we might ask, just how does this “Spirit of God, this Christ, come to dwell in us?

And “us” is the operant word here, since Saint Paul writes in the plural (something the English translation cannot indicate) – Paul rarely speaks of an individual’s relationship to Christ. He speaks almost exclusively of the individual in the context of the faith community – the community of Christ’s Body, the priesthood of all believers. How does Christ and the Spirit of God come to “dwell in us?”

Along comes the Parable of the Sower rich with varied depths of meanings to help us to see just what things, as our collect for the day urges, we “ought to do,” and just how we might find ourselves equipped with the “grace and power to accomplish them,” which things very well may prepare ourselves as a community to receive Christ and the Spirit of God into our midst – so that God’s spirit might “dwell” among us, a technical word in the Greek for pitching a tent, setting up shop, move into our neighborhood.

And the first thing we might notice is the repetition, “A sower went out to sow, and as he sowed…” That is, this is no random person scattering seed hoping gravity and good luck will take care of the rest. This sower is sowing, which points to a practiced skill. This seed goes where it is supposed to go. No soil is left bare. No soil is overplanted. Yet, even with such a sower, some seed lands on the road, or on stones, or among thorns.

Vincent Van Gogh, the 19th Century Dutch artist understood this. He understood that the seeds were God’s Word of the Kingdom – and Gogh knew as we all know that Christ is God’s Word of the Kingdom. Christ, the Word of God’s Kingdom, came to proclaim a message: I will set you free, I won’t let you be anything but holy, good and free.

Now what most people do not know is that the young Gogh set off to follow in his Protestant Pastor father’s footsteps – and spent some years evangelizing, bring this good news of God’s Word, to the poor, beginning with mine workers in Borinage. During this time he was able to identify with the miners, their families, and their lifestyles. His religious beliefs made him want to alleviate spiritual and physical suffering.

Only later did he turn to painting as another way to express his desire to bring people closer to God, closer to each other and closer to themselves. In 1888 he painted The Sower, a pivotal work in the history of art, and surely a scene related to our story here in Matthew. One sees the sower, practiced in the art of sowing, deliberately planting the seed in the soil. For Gogh the color yellow symbolized faith, triumph and love. The color blue represented the Divine – and so he combines these colors so they seem to move together showing the relationship of all living things. And there is something holy, good and free in the figure of The Sower – who in the parable of course is God in Christ planting the Good News of God’s kingdom in the soil of our hearts.

And the very thought that this seed, the Word of God, could yield a hundredfold would be heard by the farmers and fishermen Jesus addresses as simply fantastic! No seed known yields such bounty! Maybe ten, twenty or even thirty fold, but sixty or one hundred is unprecedented, unknown, simply unimaginable! We are meant to respond with awe that God’s Word possesses such grace and power – we are meant to want this Word planted in the soil of our own hearts, where we can tend to it, hear it, and be transformed a hundred fold ourselves. What a truly awesome gift from an awesome God.

Of course, the dangers of not tending to it are outlined. It is a parable of self-analysis: Are we fertile, well tilled, deeply mulched soil? Or, are we rocky ground? Do we welcome and make opportunities to tend to God’s word every day? Or, do we spend more time tending to the thorns of wealth and the cares of the world, such that the Word yields nothing?

Many who first heard Jesus tell this story figured out its meaning: we are the soil, the seed of God’s Word comes to rest in us, and for those who till and water and mulch and care for God’s word, we become sowers of the Word ourselves – like the young Vincent Van Gogh, like Saint Paul, like the fishermen, tenant farmers, soldiers and others who first heard this story.

In Maine lives a truly wonderful singer/songwriter by the name of David Mallet who wrote Garden Song, a song that speaks to what Jesus is calling us to do and be, and at the same time addresses the ecological crisis we face on the Earth, this fragile, island home of ours. As one sings it, or listens to it, perhaps it will move us to become more disciplined disciples of Christ – like the skilled Sower may we become more practiced in letting the Word take root in our lives so we might begin to feel and to know that what Saint Paul says is true: we are in the Spirit, God’s Spirit dwells in us. God’s son Jesus desires to pitch his tent and plant his Word in our hearts and minds and souls so that we might truly become holy, good and free!





Garden Song
by David Mallett
 
CHORUS:
Inch by inch, row by row
Gonna make this garden grow
Gonna mulch it deep and low
Gonna make it fertile ground
 
Inch by inch, row by row
Please bless these seeds I sow
Please keep them safe below
'Till the rain comes tumbling down
 
Pullin' weeds and pickin' stones
We are made of dreams and bones
Need a place to call my own
'Cause the time is close at hand
 
 
Grain for grain, sun and rain
Find my way in nature's chain
Till my body and my brain
Tell the music of the land
 
CHORUS
Plant your rows straight and long
Season with a prayer and song
Mother Earth will make you strong
If you give her loving care
 
An old crow watching hungrily
From his perch in yonder tree,
In my garden I'm as free
As that feathered thief up there.
 
CHORUS
 
©Cherry Lane Music Co (ASCAP)



Monday, July 7, 2014

Some Food for Thought on Things "Biblical"



Some Food for Thought on Things “Biblical”

The US Supreme Court ruled recently on the contraception-abortion-healthcare issue citing that a person’s biblical understanding of when life begins can be the measure of whether or not that person, or a corporation defined as a person, must provide contraception devices and medication as part of a health-care “package.” Somewhere buried in their decision the justices who so found sided with a notion that the Bible defines human life as beginning at conception. While such a notion may be scientific, it does not appear to be biblical.

From the beginning in Genesis chapter 2, the second of two creation stories in the Bible (the first being Genesis chapter 1), the first human is given life, or a soul (Hebrew: nefesh) with God breathing into a handful of moist dust (clay?):  Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Both the Bible and its earliest commentaries, the Talmud, have asserted that the life or ensoulment of the fetus begins when one draw’s one’s first breath outside the womb.  The act of birth changes the status of fetus from non-person to person.  Indeed, throughout the Bible the association of breath with life persists. In Job 33:4 we read, “The spirit of God has made me, the breath of the Almighty has given me life.”  Similarly the prophet Isaiah proclaims, “Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it…”

It is fair to say that the Bible knows nothing of modern medical notions of fertilization, implantation, viability and so forth. To argue a legal position supporting a “religious” held view based on the Bible, the justices might have done well to research what the Biblical view of life and when it begins. I have no illusions that this will convince anyone to change their point of view, but rather to point out the difficulties that prevail when one declares, “The Bible says….” Surely counter arguments will be made from texts such as Psalm 139 (“…you knit me together in my mother’s womb…”), although it is equally unclear whether it is an individual or the people Israel that is being knit together in such texts.

Further complicating a biblical view is the undeniable fact that although the Bible does not appear to have a view on contraception at all, it does offer conditions under which inducing a miscarriage (abortion)  is prescribed (Numbers chapter 5), and in Exodus 21 suggests that if a pregnant woman gets entangled in a fight between two men and accidentally miscarries the fetus, it is the life of the mother that is at stake, not that of the fetus.

All of which is to say that perhaps it is inconvenient at best to rely on there being “a biblical view” on either abortion or contraception.  Having wrestled with the texts for decades, the view that life begins with breath outside the womb appears to be what the Bible knows as when “life begins.”

Then there is immigration. It is undeniable that throughout most of the Bible the majority of people addressed by and discussed by the biblical texts are migratory people – Bedouin people who move with their flocks and herds from place to place seeking water and food in a region of the world that offers little of either. It appears that throughout most of human history people have been inherently migratory until relatively recently.

In fact, the people of the Bible are so often on the move that the language of the Hebrew texts is derived almost entirely from verb forms – that is, biblical Hebrew seems to reflect the constant movement of the people who become Israel – those who strive with God.

Further, looking at the current US crisis in immigration, remembering a little US history may be instructive. Under President James Polk, who was entranced by visions of “manifest destiny”, the US-Mexico war was provoked,  as we now know, as an intentional land-grab – the US simply provoked a conflict and occupied, stole, forced a settlement to take away much of the constitutional territory of Mexico including present day Texas (annexed before the war, but with no agreement with Mexico), Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah, Nevada, parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming!
All previously Spanish held territories that had been liberated from the European colonizers and made an independent Mexico. Like all of North America, the indigenous peoples had been pushed aside with notions of Manifest Destiny and Progress while an independent Mexico represented an attempt at reclaiming what had been natural migratory lands for peoples who had roamed and lived on these lands for tens of thousands of years.

It seems not to occur to the parties debating “immigration policy” that those of “us” determining who should be let across the borders were all either a) immigrants ourselves, or b) enslaved people forced to come to this continent against their will. And that the ancestors of those crossing the borders illegally or otherwise roamed these lands for tens of thousands of years before “we” even considered the idea that the Earth is round?

There is to be no question that the drug cartels manipulate the situation in an attempt to distract the US from interdiction of illegal drugs – which “business” is no-doubt threatened by the expanding legalization and propagation efforts growing (literally) throughout the US.

But does any of this justify the kind of populist xenophobia that is seeking to deny attempts to process and care for children, teens and women who are being squeezed from both sides, and who, for all we know, have some sort of DNA coding that hearkens back to a time, historically not so long ago, when their people freely roamed what we call the southwest in search of water and food for their herds and flocks?

The biblical view on such questions is clear and unequivocal: like Abraham hosting the three visitors by the oaks at Mamre (Genesis 18): you are to provide food, comfort and hospitality to the strangers in the land who have no resources. Resident aliens are a specific class of people who are to be welcomed and protected. Indeed, that is the original meaning of the Levitical command to love your neighbor – a command expanded to include people utterly unlike ourselves by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10).

So, to sell more chicken or more hobby supplies and increase the profit margin, we find persons (disguised as corporations!) hiding behind a supposed “biblical view” of things to get away with providing the least amount of health care possible to their employees, while at the same time we seek to deny safe passage to people whose ancestors never believed that they “possessed” the land, but that the land provided for them in direct proportion to the degree to which they took care of the land, so that we can continue to exploit the land’s natural resources to produce more widgets to sell to the very people we seek to expel from our country. All in the name of being “biblical” Christians!

Sure enough, the biblical view on things is terribly inconvenient when one actually reads the Bible.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

The Sword of Faith



“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

At the end of an online sermon on Matthew 10 which treats everything up to verse 34 a reader posts the following comment: “Yet again, another complete avoidance of Matthew 10: 34-39. I guarantee you the folks sitting in the pews are very curious about your views on these particular verses.”

There are several ways to go with this challenge. Given the current geopolitical-theological climate which tends to represent Islam as a religion of violence and warfare one might start here to say something like, “See, Jesus advocates violence just as the Quran does.” Not that such an argument is needed. Christianity has been as violent a religion as any in its nearly 2000 year history: the persecution of early heresies, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, the European Wars of Religion, complicity in the Atlantic slave trade, and complicity in the Holocaust to name just a few sad chapters of Christian history. This does not even take into consideration the ethical questions that remain after the only tactical use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population was ordered by President Harry Truman, a man otherwise described as a faithful Baptist.

Context is everything. Although it is true that the Quran has passages that discuss the rules of engagement in case the community of faith is attacked. These  revelations to Muhammad arrive in a historical period of intense tribal warfare in which the infant Muslim community in Mecca finds itself in the midst of daily persecution(the revelations are similar to Christian Just War theory – fighting only to defend, forbidding violence against women, children and non-combatants – a sign that groups like Al Queda, the Taliban, ISIS and others are not considered faithful or traditional Muslims if they are even Muslims at all).

Even after Muhammad and his followers flee Mecca for Yathrib (later Medina), the tribes of Mecca sought to wipe them out once and for all. Somehow the Muslims survive several years of attacks and eventually win a decisive battle. When they march into Mecca as conquerors the expectation is that the men of Mecca will be killed, the women and children enslaved. Muhammad surprises everyone – everyone is to be spared and allowed to continue life as they choose. Only the over 300 idols in the central worship space, the Kaba, are destroyed. Islam sets a new standard for peaceful resolution of tribal disputes. More to the point, as Islam expands and becomes the largest empire in world history, peoples from Spain in the west to the Indus River in the east are allowed to maintain not only their own religious traditions, but can maintain their governing practices as well. No one is required to convert to Islam. Whereas it would be Christianity that would baptize by the sword as it circumnavigates the world.

As for the context of Jesus in Matthew – it is sometime in the decade after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Roman Empire (70 ce). And it is some 40 years after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Not to mention a decade after the epistle called Hebrews wrote, “Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) Jesus’ use of the image of a sword precedes his description of what faith in him can and does precipitate: tribes and families divide. In the case of first century Israel, the family of faith did in fact divide and go two separate ways after the destruction of the Temple: one part of the family became rabbinic Judaism, the other part of the family became the emerging church. In the context of Matthew’s gospel, this division is well under way. Those going the way of the church began a long history of Christian Supercessionism and anti-Semitism which it has only begun to address in the years after the Holocaust.

As historic figures like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Martin Luther King Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others have shown – often to live one’s life out of the Word of God is to challenge the current dominant paradigm or world-view. This, says Jesus, has consequences. On the only recorded incident of one of his disciples using a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus ordered his disciples to put them away. Jesus himself chooses not to lead an army, not to fight back against Herod and Pilate, but rather to launch a revolution of faith and ethical behavior. He wrote no books, commanded no army, and yet, in less than 300 years the movement he began displaced the Imperial religion of Rome with the Emperor Constantine’s conversion and the edict of Milan. Considered a triumph of Christianity, it also shifts the young church from offering an alternative world-view to that of the empire’s to suddenly become the empire. Luther, Calvin and others would be on the leading edge of critiquing what a problem this became. Only in recent decades is the church as a whole beginning to see the downside of having been the empire and seek a way back to the kind of religious movement Jesus led in first century Israel.

What I hear Jesus saying in Matthew 10:34 is that we all need to allow the Word of God to judge the intentions and thoughts of our hearts so that we might turn our hearts and be the people Jesus calls us to be. Amen.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Science and The Trinity Redux

It is Trinity Sunday – the Sunday after the Feast of Pentecost. I attended Trinity College. I should understand this foundational doctrine of the Church. But, as Ringo Starr once put it, “You know it don’t come easy!” Back in those student days in Hartford, CT, I heard rumblings among some of the students that science was in search of a Unified Field Theory (UFT) - a kind of single explanation, or beautiful mathematical equation, that would "explain" everything within a field. Einstein coined the term while trying to reconcile relativity and electromagnetism. No UFT has yet been derived. Following Einstein, as quantum mechanics began to unfold revealing even deeper and more complex and even paradoxical aspects of the known universe, scientists set off on an even greater quest for a GUT -  a Grand Unified Theory of everything. Every thing. The very fact that we humans can even conceive of such a thing should force us to ponder that the most complex physical structure we have ever encountered is just six inches this side of the eyepiece of the world’s most powerful telescope - the human brain.

Christians have entertained, since about the 4th century, a sort of GUT - The Trinity. The Sunday after Pentecost is always celebrated as Trinity Sunday complete with reflections on the historic creeds and singing of Saint Patrick's Breastplate, perhaps the most elegant proclamation of just what we mean by The Trinity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is Christianity's attempt to describe our understanding of reality and our experience of the Divine. As a doctrine, it must be imperfect since whatever we attempt to say about God is necessarily limited compared to the reality of the Divine. Every year for the past five or six year I have read and re-read Science and The Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality by The Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS, past President of Queens College, Cambridge, Canon Theologian of Liverpool, and yes, a theoretical physicist! I am just beginning to grasp his argument - which is in all humility, and he is remarkably humble, to explore the possibility that The Doctrine of the Trinity very well may be the GUT science is looking for!

As astonishing as his claim sounds, it shouldn't be. After all, thanks to the Quran, the summary of 23 years of divine revelations to Muhammad, Muslim culture was able to establish the first international House of Knowledge, develop the precursor to germ theory leading to the establishment of hospitals with wards for people with similar symptoms, remove cataracts with a hollow reed, create municipal water purification systems, public water supplies and even indoor plumbing, all while Christian Europe was muddling its way through the dark ages more concerned with knocking one another off and putting serious scientists like Galileo on trial for heresy. By which I mean, the symbiotic relationship linking science and religion is not the problem 20th century western civilization made it out to be;

I cannot adequately recount Polkinghnorne's thoughts on the subject, but to say, the man is onto something - and anyone with a passing interest would do well to get his book and spend a few years reading it and letting it percolate into your brain cells and let the single most complex physical structure we have ever encountered do the rest of the work!

For instance, science has long held the view that the human ability to understand the universe far exceeds "anything that could reasonably be considered simply an evolutionary necessity, or as a  happy spin-off from that necessity. The universe has proved to be astonishingly rationally transparent" p 63 And further, it is believed that mathematically  "beautiful" equations prove most fruitful, while those that are ugly offer no hope for new discovery. We are capable of understanding and describing the mysteries of the universe. Polkinghorne finds that in Trinitarian terms our scientific ability to "explore the rational beauty of the universe is seen to be a part of the Father's gift of the imago Dei (the image of God)  to humankind, and the beautiful rational order of the universe is the imprint of the divine Logos [Word/Wisdom = the Son] without whom was not anything made that was made (John 1:3). Whether acknowledged or not, it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 15: 26) who is at work in the truth-seeking community of scientists. That community's repeated experiences of wonder at the disclosed order of the universe are, in fact, tacit acts of the worship of its Creator." p65

Another fundamental of Polkinghorne's analysis accepts that the Universe is more of a Jazz Improvisation than a carefully written and orchestrated score - that is both the universe and humankind are given freewill to unfold, or create themselves, which is the essence of evolution. That is, the universe and everything therein is not a static whole, but rather a dynamic becoming - a result of God's own kenotic act of self-limitation, such that God allows creatures to be themselves and make themselves. "A creation allowed to make itself can be held to be a great good, but it has a necessary cost not only in the blind alleys and extinctions that are the inescapable dark side of the evolutionary process, but also in the very character of the processes of a world in which evolution can take place." p 72 Translation: bad things can and do happen as a result of a universe that is unreliable, also known theologically as Theodicy. "That there is cancer in creation is not something that a more competent or compassionate Creator could easily have eliminated, but is the necessary cost of a creation allowed to make itself." Polkinghorne then argues that the depth of the problem posed by theodicy is only adequately met in Christian thinking by a Trinitarian understanding of the Cross of Christ, seen as the event in which the incarnate God truly shares to the uttermost in the travail of creation - Jesus is the 'fellow sufferer who understands,' or the One who is creation's partner in its pain.

A final thought about the Holy Spirit: the universe, it turns out, like humankind, is by nature relational. Quantum theory implies that once two quantum entities have interacted with each other, they remain mutually entangled however far apart they may eventually separate. Things, like people, are interconnected whether they want to be or not. That is, the subatomic world cannot be treated atomistically! By analogy this challenges the individualistic atomism that is so characteristic of contemporary thinking about human nature - particularly in western civilization. This turns out to be true of the universe as a whole which exists as a result of two opposing yet interconnected forces: the explosive force of the Big Bang that propels the universe ever outward, and the countervailing forces of gravity pulling matter together by the effects of what has come to be called Dark Energy - perhaps substantiating what my dear friend and colleague Dick Chiroff maintained all along - Dark Energy, the force and source of the interconnectedness of all things, is, after all, the Holy Spirit.

It should of course be stated forthrightly that none of this "proves" The Trinity - but rather, the Trinity in these few instances, and numerous others that Polkinghorne musters, does provide plausible ways of understanding the universe, all that is seen and unseen (since it is a creation that is still and forever becoming!). Perhaps a Trinitarian world view is a reasonable candidate for a GUT after all!

A final thought on this Trinity Sunday: eventually all of this, even in the hands of professionals like Polkinghorne, reaches limits to the completeness of our understanding that can be achieved through the enterprises of theology - and science. Yet, urges Polkinghorne, this should never deter us from attempting the task before us, nor should it encourage us to settle prematurely for some relatively undemanding form of understanding. Accounts that are truly convincing can be expected to have a richness and complexity that demands our best thinking. "It is scarcely surprising that only [demanding and complex accounts will prove] even partially adequate to the exploration of the inexhaustible riches of the Trinitarian God, the Ground of our existence and the Source of our everlasting Hope." p117
In the name of God
Earth maker
Pain bearer
Life Sustainer
Amen.