(re)Imaging Endurance

Posted in Uncategorized on April 28, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife

hang in there

And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,  and endurance produces character, and character produces hope . . . .

—Romans 5:3-4

Well, we have reached that time of the year, again, where endurance seems to trump knowledge.  Platitudes like “hang in there” and “push through” and “buckle down” slip past our lips and define Facebook posts.  To add to the platitudinal whirl, I offer my own, bearing a hope for something more: Keep focused so that what you plant is lodged deep in the soil of your mind, taking root in your soul to endure for a lifetime.

For some encouragement, enjoy this poem from one of YHC’s own, Byron Herbert Reece.  Read it, study well, and “hang in there.”

Peace, much peace.

“The Generations of Thought”

By Byron Herbert Reece


The young tree’s reaching root

Spreads from the fallen fruit,

Golden and shaped like day

Before it knew decay.


The infant life, the child

Hopeful and undefiled

Springs from the unity

Love makes of two that die.


And though we guess not how

Thought thrives behind the brow.


The tree and child, who press

Onward to nothingness,

Scatter their seed and mate;

Themselves perpetuate.


And the generations of thought

That know not root nor sire

Nor seed nor even desire

Prosper and perish not.


(re)Imagining Life

Posted in Uncategorized on April 21, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife

When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”  After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.  Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”  When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

–John 20:19-23

Yesterday, for many in the Christian faith, it was Easter—a time to reflect on the faith, life, and new life.  Jumping slightly ahead along the Christian calendar deeper into the Easter season, the above reading from John’s gospel is sometimes called the Johannine Pentecost.  John’s Pentecost recounts Jesus’ appearance to his disciples following the resurrection and Jesus’ giving of the Holy Spirit.  This Pentecost story and the more familiar story of Pentecost from Acts have several differences and similarities.  Unlike the account told in Acts, here, Jesus personally gives the Spirit to his disciples and that gift is not delayed but offered immediately after the resurrection. While those and other differences are interesting, what are most useful, on this occasion, are those parts of the story that overlap with the Pentecost story from Acts.  In both accounts, the disciples are gathered in an upper room, locked behind closed-doors, and waiting for something, anything that might turn tragedy into joy.  

In that moment of trepidation, as the story goes, the Spirit comes—whether delivered by a mighty wind or through the words of precious friend.  And, that gift of the Spirit has a transforming effect.  Captured in the words describing the inherited authority gifted to the disciples, the effect simultaneously boldly asserts yet subtly implies.  As a bold assertion, the disciples receive the authority to forgive and retain sin, a powerful capacity granted a group just moments before found cowering in a locked room.  Importantly, it is through this grant of authority that the subtly implied effect appears.

Prior to this moment, only God was assumed to possess the capacity to forgive sins.  Recall the condemnation of Jesus following his efforts to forgive sins in Mark’s gospel:  “‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’”  (Mark 2:7)  Jesus was reject, in that story of forgiving, precisely because he asserted an authority to forgive sins, an authority assumed to be God’s alone.  In other words, by forgiving sins, Jesus is claiming something about himself and his proximity to Divinity.  (Hence, the charge of blasphemy!)

Yet in this passage from John’s gospel, the disciples receive the very capacity that before was believed to be reserved only for God.  So, in a subtle way, Jesus moves the disciples to a position he held while on earth.  The disciples now stand proximally to God as Jesus understood himself to occupy.  Said another way, the disciples become significantly more than what was implied in the sending narrative at the end of Matthew’s story of the Sermon on the Mount.  In that story from Matthew, the disciples come to represent Jesus and the kingdom.  In this pentecostal moment, the disciples cease simply to represent God but to become God’s embodied presence on earth, a presence previously embodied by the incarnate Word named Jesus. 

Both the Pentecost stories from John and Acts suggest this transformation.  Remember the formulaic patter established in scripture for the suggestion of divine presence.  Think of the second creation story, where stuff of the earth and Spirit of God unite to make the embodied presence of God called humanity.  Consider the story of the incarnation, where the stuff of the earth, i.e., Mary, and the Spirit of God unite to make the embodied presence of God called Jesus.  In both instances, stuff plus Spirit unites to mark the Divine’s incarnate, real presence.  Therefore, it is no surprise, that in each Pentecost story, the disciples transform from the hidden to the empowered, from fearful shadows of themselves to the embodied presence of God.  In a new moment yet in a repeated way, those disciples are the stuff of the earth that unites with the Spirit of God to make the embodied presence of God called the Body of Christ.

The story of Pentecost, whether told here or in Acts, is the story that reminds us that the faithful are not simply God’s representatives but God’s actual embodiment.  Divinity is not distant and reserved—the story reminds us—but present and active.  It is because of this embodied character that I regularly mind those who will listen that people are God’s hands and feet, eyes and ears, heart and head in the world.  The challenge, the responsibility is never to forget to hold and to help those in need, to go to those who struggle and suffer, to see injustice and to hear the cries of oppressed, to care and to love with God’s compassion, and to imagine new solutions and new possibilities when and where previous attempts have failed. 

Recently I learned of a Haitian proverb.  That proverb states that God only gives but does not share.  On the surface, such a declaration seems, at best, contradictory and, at worst, potentially offensive.  Why would someone claim that God gives yet simultaneously does not share?  That seems internally inconsistent and incongruous.  Alternatively, why would anyone want to claim that God selfishly hoards?  Such a claim seems cruel in a world with so much and such poor distribution.  Yet, upon deeper reflection, the proverb seems as if it could have directly emerged from this passage of scripture from John’s gospel.  What the proverb suggests is that God, out of generosity and love, gives everything. However, God leaves the sharing of those gifts to humanity, the hands and feet and eyes and ears and heart and head of the Divine.  It is the church’s responsibility as God’s continuing presence on earth to complete the work entrusted to humanity. 

What a gift.  What a challenge.  What an opportunity.  We have a busy day, week ahead of us.  There is a lot to be done and many to serve.  Get to work.  I will see you along the way.

(re)Imagined Perspective

Posted in Uncategorized on April 14, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife


The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

—Psalm 19:1

After this weekend and its warm breezes, sunny afternoons, and blooming wildflowers overtaking my front yard, my mind shifted, reflecting less on winter and hoping more for spring.  To mark this shift, I offer this poem by Henry Van Dyke, a poem melting the winter in our hearts, leaving behind the dancing rhythms of birds and bees and waterfalls.  So, enjoy this ballad to spring.

See you along the way.

“Spring in the South” 

by Henry Van Dyke


Now in the oak the sap of life is welling,

Tho’ to the bough the rusty leafage clings;

Now on the elm the misty buds are swelling,

See how the pine-wood grows alive with wings;

Blue-jays fluttering, yodeling and crying,

Meadow-larks sailing low above the faded grass,

Red-birds whistling clear, silent robins flying,–

Who has waked the birds up? What has come to pass?


Last year’s cotton-plants, desolately bowing,

Tremble in the March-wind, ragged and forlorn;

Red are the hill-sides of the early ploughing,

Gray are the lowlands, waiting for the corn.

Earth seems asleep still, but she’s only feigning;

Deep in her bosom thrills a sweet unrest.

Look where the jasmine lavishly is raining

Jove’s golden shower into Danae’s breast!


Now on the plum the snowy bloom is sifted,

Now on the peach the glory of the rose,

Over the hills a tender haze is drifted,

Full to the brim the yellow river flows.

Dark cypress boughs with vivid jewels glisten,

Greener than emeralds shining in the sun.

Who has wrought the magic? Listen, sweetheart, listen!

The mocking-bird is singing Spring has begun.


Hark, in his song no tremor of misgiving!

All of his heart he pours into his lay,–

“Love, love, love, and pure delight of living:

Winter is forgotten: here’s a happy day!”

Fair in your face I read the flowery presage,

Snowy on your brow and rosy on your mouth:

Sweet in your voice I hear the season’s message,–

Love, love, love, and Spring in the South!

(re)Imagine Space

Posted in Uncategorized on April 7, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife

creating space

When you get a sense of how faith fits into a campus, you get a better sense of the community as a whole.[1]

Mary Jacobs is right; understanding how faith fits into a campus community is essential.  In her article, “Soul Searching: Students Can Make College Search a Spiritual Journey,” Jacobs noticed that how faith fits into a campus discloses the value that an institution places on educating the whole person, because, as we know, education is not just about the depositing of data.  Our word “educate” comes from a root—educere—meaning “to lead out.”  In other words, while education does include the exchange of bits of information, education is more than simply the accumulation of fact upon fact.  If education is anything, it is an exercise in moving from one place to another, from one way of thinking to another way of thinking and seeing and perceiving.  Education is self-transformation, preparing us for world alteration—on grand and modest scales—through gaining insights, data, skills, and techniques.  Education is fact accumulation.  But it is, also, so much more.  Education’s primary objective is to change us.

Education and faith have a lot in common.  After all, isn’t faith but another way of saying change, change from one way of being to another, from one way of seeing the world to another, from one set of loves to another?  The more central the role granted faith the more profound and sacred the transformation possible . . . be our task education or community service or raising a family or whatever.  The United Methodist Church, the denomination that founded and still supports Young Harris College, has always intuitively sensed this vital connection between a robust faith and deep, transformative learning.

Nearly three hundred years ago, two young brothers—John and Charles Wesley—and their college friends gathered regularly for prayer, bible study, and mutual support at Oxford University.  This self-described “Holy Club” recognized at its inception the indelible connection between intellectual pursuit and spiritual discipline.  For them and ultimately for the church that emerged from that Oxford gathering, intellectual pursuit could never be adequately realized without spiritual discipline, i.e., the pursuit of perfection—wholeness—was an integrated intellectual and spiritual endeavor.

So, education is central to the history and ministry of the faith tradition underpinning our College.  But, in a creative turn, The United Methodist Church has always understood that faith is central to our education because education is about the transformation of the whole self—body, mind, and spirit.  For this transformation to bear the sacred imprint of faith, conversations about meaning and purpose and the Divine should not be marginal or arbitrarily inserted but permeating the ethos of a place, found in its cultural and intellectual DNA.

Colleges and universities of the church—like Young Harris College—are naturally well suited to this comfortable comingling of faith with education because of our longstanding commitment to create inclusive and celebrative atmospheres that nurture and support the faith journeys of students, faculty, and staff.  We don’t have to be reminded to welcome faith into our conversations, to promote the spiritual as a fundamental conversation partner in our efforts at self and world transformation.  Such conversations and promotion, on our best days, are simply part of who we are and how we seek to engage each other, our academic disciplines, and the world around us.

For more than 125 years, our College has located itself firmly and comfortably within this same tradition, a tradition that generally appreciates the mutual, essential benefit of a mind-full faith and a faith-filled mind.  YHC affirms this connection between faith and intellect by joining together with other United Methodist affiliated colleges and universities—like Wesleyan and LaGrange, Emory and Duke, Syracuse and Boston University—in a covenantal agreement.  This covenantal agreement ensures our institution will always promote an enduring link between faith exploration and intellectual development.  I want to take a moment to explore the first of the six principles of our common educational covenant.  I think this first principle deserves a little unpacking, an unpacking that both affirms the particularity of our College as a college of the church and our College’s openly welcoming and nurturing diverse religious expression and exploration.  Seemingly oppositional, these two ideas may function comfortably within the same context.

As alluded to above, that first principles reads: “CREATE an inclusive and celebrative atmosphere that nurtures and supports the faith journeys of students, faculty, and staff.”  The United Methodist Church is an unapologetically Christian denomination that celebrates its faith and heritage.  That heritage includes a longstanding practice of forming a sectarian college that advocates for a nonsectarian education, i.e., generating an inclusive and celebrative atmosphere for all faith journeys present on our campus.

But, what does that really mean?  What is sectarian and nonsectarian?  How are they related?  How are they different?

Sectarian is a term describing our College’s historical and meaningful connection to a particular religious tradition, a tradition with unique and distinct commitments, i.e., we are a United Methodist institution.  These unique and distinct commitments connect it to other traditions and define our separateness.  One of the distinguishing features of that United Methodist heritage is a belief that knowledge and faith are comfortable companions in the formation of a holistic life.  And, somewhat surprisingly, that heritage advocates for life that maintains a loosening grip all sorts of potentially impinging influences because this particular religious tradition relies upon a belief in the inherent goodness of all life and the undergirding and permeating nature of God’s ubiquitous loving grace.  Because of this heritage defined by such a predominantly positive construal of reality, a natural comfort emerges with an education that is free and open—free from the need to advocate for one way of thinking or believing over another and open to persons of another or no faith becoming part of the learning environment.  This comfort with a free and open environment becomes a crucial characteristic of a United Methodist college’s educational experience, i.e., a nonsectarian education.

Nonsectarian is a term denoting our College’s commitment to an educational system and the substantive material it teaches that is not reliant upon a certain set of religious commitments.  In other words, we teach what is the best knowledge and skills that contemporary and rigorous critical thinking might produce without fear that such teaching delimits or denounces the Divine or our heritage’s particular construal of divinity or faith.  Facts and faith are not mutually exclusive but different aspects of the same world, describing different features and functions and possibilities without, automatically, rendering each other null.  In fact, The United Methodist tradition demands rigorous thinking, teaching, questioning, engaging, challenging, and debating.  Nothing is taken for granted, not even what we assume faith is.  Faith, the tradition claims, is a relational category, not an intellectual one. So, the growth and development of faith or knowledge does not demand the reduction or negation of the other.  They are mutually informative, mutually transformative.  In a strange way, our United Methodist particular commitments allow for a tradition defined by a general, broad openness and a comfort with challenging and deepening complexity and mystery.  Rather counterintuitively, it is the College’s commitment to its understanding of Christianity that actually longs to create space that is open and encouraging of (religious) diversity.  So, our College strives to be both particularly United Methodist and happily so, expressing its peculiar and positive understanding of Christianity.  While, simultaneously, our College hopes to welcome debate and dissention, difference and common dignity.

This posture frequently proves confounding.  On the one hand, some resist any expression of particularity by the institution, as if particularity is the same thing as hegemony or as if particularity might ever be eliminated in any substantive way from anything.  On the other hand, this posture leads some to resist any expression of welcoming religious diversity and open promotion of plurality, as if welcoming others and creating space for varied expression is tantamount to a denial of holiness, forgetting that holiness has its root in the idea of perfection as wholeness. Often, this particular yet diverse commitment proves difficult to maintain.  However, its maintenance is needed nonetheless.  We, as an institution, work daily to create space for both celebrating the tradition from which we emerged and that still sustains us and welcoming as equal, valid members of this intellectual community those who disagree and diverge from that tradition.

Recently, according to education researcher Arthur Chickering and his colleagues, the rest of the academic world has begun to appreciate what our College has understood for more than a century.  Chickering and his fellow authors observed that “at colleges and universities around the country, an expanding and increasingly vigorous dialogue has begun, centered on examining personal values, meaning, purpose—including religious and spiritual values—as part of the educational experience.”[2]  Education, to be thorough, requires intentional spiritual exploration, the kind of exploration colleges like ours come by naturally.

So, if Chickering and his colleagues are right, then Mary Jacobs was onto much more when she noticed that understanding the role of faith on the campus acts as an indicator of the character of a campus community.  More than just an indicator of campus character, the role of faith, also, acts as a barometer of an institution’s capacity to educate in truly deep and transformative ways.

Have a great week and see you along the way.

[1] Mary Jacobs, “Soul Searching: Students Can Make College Search a Spiritual Journey,” The United Methodist Reporter, March 12, 2010.

[2] Arthur Chickering, et. al., Encouraging Authenticity and Spirituality in Higher Education, (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2006), 2.

(re)Imagine Sight

Posted in Uncategorized on March 31, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife

eye heart

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.

John 9:1-7

One of the assigned scripture readings for this week in the Christian calendar is this story of healing from John’s gospel.  In this story, we read John’s recounting an occasion when Jesus met a blind man, engaged in a rather esoteric conversation with his disciples around the connection between sin and impairments, and, then, healed the blind man.  This story continues with additional debates amongst others regarding sin and impairments and a realization that Jesus is the anticipated Son of Man.  This story captures many themes that define John’s text: (1) this passage has one of Jesus’ famous “I am” sayings, (2) the light and darkness contrasts are apparent, and (3) it evidences Jesus’ very public ministry, a ministry that offers repeated signs indicating who Jesus is.  This very public healing and the surrounding debate concerning the nature and propriety of Jesus’ actions amongst those within and outside Jesus’ inner circle stands in stark contrast to a similar healing story that takes place in Mark’s gospel. 

In the middle of Mark’s gospel, Jesus encounters another blind man.  In that story from Mark’s gospel, Jesus, also, heals a man who is blind by rubbing saliva on his eyes.  Yet, there, in Mark’s gospel, the story has a rather different tone:

They came to Bethsaida. Some people brought a blind man to him and begged him to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, ‘Can you see anything?’ And the man looked up and said, ‘I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.’ Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. Then he sent him away to his home, saying, ‘Do not even go into the village.’

Mark 8:22-26

Instead of performing a public healing, Mark has Jesus doing two very different tasks, directly contrasting John’s story.  First, Jesus takes the blind man away from everyone else so that Jesus’ healing might not be witnessed by others.  Second, after the healing, Jesus asks the blind man to go directly to his home, avoiding the village (and, therefore, public recognition of what Jesus just did.) 

Curious!  Why would John’s story and Mark’s story differ so significantly?  Why would John assume that Jesus’ healing was meant to give evidence as to who Jesus is while Mark wants Jesus to remain obscure?  The answer seems to reveal the agenda motivating and permeating both writers’ gospels. 

On the one hand, Mark is writing for a community uncertain about Jesus’ ultimate character and their perseverance with a faith in the midst of suffering and an uncertain future.  Mark wants his community to understand that knowing precisely who Jesus is will always remain somewhat mysterious, blurry.  And, that such uncertainty about Jesus and their futures and faith is a natural and expected condition for a follower of Jesus.  In other words, they are in good company, and they are experience faith as it is expected to be experienced. 

On the other hand, John is writing from a completely different perspective, penning his text much later in the life of the early church and writing from a position evidencing more confidence and certainty as to who and what Jesus is—I mean, just look at his prologue to the gospel!  In John’s text, Jesus never obscures who he is but boldly offers sign after sign and repeatedly declares “I am this” and “I am that,” intentionally echoing the encounter with Moses and God at the burning bush and Moses asking God’s name—a name recorded as “I am who I am.”  In other words, Mark’s gospel is about a faith that requires extra work to see well, while John’s gospel is about a faith that supplies a light, i.e., Jesus, by which to see the world better: “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 

As interesting a point as it is that both these distinct healing stories sit within the same New Testament, it is equally compelling that both these healing stories are part of the assigned texts suggested be read this year during the season of Lent.  Just a few weeks ago, the Mark text was assigned and, now, John’s healing narrative is assigned, here.  What are we to do with these two texts, and why are they both offered to us during this time of the year?  While there may be several answers to these questions, here, I propose a few I find useful.

As already mentioned, these gospel writers seem to be wanting to accomplish different tasks with their stories.  Mark wants us to be comforted in our struggles while John wants us to turn our gaze upon the world, looking at it with the eyes/light of Jesus.  This last point leads to my second thought. 

Mark’s text is assigned earlier in the lectionary cycle for the season of Lent, reminding us that as we being our introspective Lenten journeys that ignorance, uncertainty, and confusion are appropriate companions.  The time spent in introspection will lead to some clarity, but clarity is rarely found on the first try.  John’s text, conversely, comes closer to the end of the Lenten season, as a prompt to draw our thoughts out from ourselves and toward the world, beginning a transition from looking at ourselves with greater clarity to looking at our world through the eyes/light gifted to us via introspection.  As it turns out, there are many ways to look at the world, and the Lenten season is but a reminder regularly to view it through the sight of love and grace, justice and peace offered through a life of faith. 

So, this week, we are challenged to view the world with a greater level of intensity and through an enlightened lens of love.  Conveniently, there are several occasions this week that the College offers that will aid in our efforts to see our world differently. 

First, tomorrow, April 1, YHC’s Center for Appalachian Studies and several other vital community partners will sponsor an event called Poverty Hurts, an interactive poverty simulation to learn about and become more aware of poverty in our area.

Second, on Wednesday, April 2, we will hold our annual mental health and suicide prevention worship service, bringing to the fore issues of mental health for our campus to consider and appreciate those issues impact on our students, faculty, staff, administration, families, friends, and others.

If you are able, join us this week at one of these events, laboring to see the world through new eyes.  And, regardless, continue your own journey of faith, struggling to see the world through new eyes each and every day.

Have a good week and see you along the way.

(re)Imagining Trust

Posted in Uncategorized on March 24, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife


Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul!

I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God all my life long.

Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.

When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.

Psalm 146:1-4

On Friday afternoon, as I—inexplicably, I might add—watched Duke’s men’s basketball team loose to Mercer and suddenly realized that the rest of my March would surprisingly be freed up, these verses from Psalm 146 entered my mind.  In particular, I ruminated, festered on the passage “Don’t put your trust in princes . . . .”  (If given the liberty, I might augment that sacred text, adding “and Duke(s),” including another noble class to the category of the untrustworthy.) 

All joking aside, Friday’s basketball outcome was a necessary and useful reminder that in whom or what we place our trust requires intentional (re)evaluation.  Trust, it turns out, is less descriptive of absolute certainly based on past data and more descriptive of present and future hope predicated on an enduring relationship.  But, how do we know what or, more importantly, whom to trust?

Our English word “science” derives from a Latin word, scientia, meaning “having knowledge.”  Scientia comes from another Latin root, scindere, meaning to split or cut off.  For those familiar with Ockham’s Razor, such a definition of science seems most appropriate. In an almost identical way, Christian theology proposes two ways for knowing, particularly to know God: (1) kataphatic and (2) apophatic.  Kataphatic knowledge is knowledge by analogy, i.e., by words.  Kataphatic knowledge includes positive, definitive descriptions, like attempting to make absolute claims based on past data.  Apophatic knowledge is knowledge by negation, i.e., saying what cannot be said about a given subject.  Through negation, what is left unsaid is the essence of the subject sought.  And, often what is sought is God. 

God is an enduring presence beyond our definitive certainties.  In this apophatic construction, God is the Mystery that we engage.  In addition, as scientists remind us, simply discovering something does not lead to a sudden reduction of mystery but an expansion of mystery. Put another way, the answering of one question does not eliminate a question as much as produce countless additional questions. 

Thus, God is not simply the “God of the gaps,” i.e., God is not the default space filler for whatever we do not know.  Rather, we come to realize that God is the very Reality, the Mystery, the Truth that we relate with in pursuing what we see as “reality” or “mystery” or “truth.”  Science and faith are about “knowing” something or someone.  Science and faith are not adversaries but cohorts.

These disciplines, also, become more about intimate knowledge of a subject or, more accurately, a Subject.  Both are activities that demand dedication, struggle, perseverance, passion, and love.  They are disciplines not committed to accumulation of data but about the journey into the very heart of Mystery, as much interested in the questions as the answers.  We come to trust something or someone not just because we have more undisputed data but because of the time spent in the contemplative, investigative endeavor.  Trust is not about certainty but constancy.  The Psalmist pens this hymn to remind those who read it of this very truth, the truth of God’s enduring presence in the midst of struggle and difficulty.  Trust and truth become virtually indistinguishable. 

So, over the coming week, spend a little time (re)evaluating what we know and think we know for certain, remembering that knowledge and trust are different than data and facts.  Knowledge and trust are relational categories, connecting us to each other, the world around us, and the divine, inexplicable Mystery.

Have a great day and see you along the way.

(re)Imagining Today

Posted in Uncategorized on March 17, 2014 by yhcreligiouslife


Today is Saint Patrick’s Day, otherwise known as the Feast of Saint Patrick.  The feast day, established in the seventeenth century, marks the day that an early leader of the church in Ireland died.  Patrick is thought to have been born in what is present-day Wales in the fourth century to a Roman family.  According to legend, as a teenager, Patrick was kidnapped and taken to what is now Ireland.  After spending some six years as a shepherd, he escaped and sailed home to Wales.  Ordained a priest back in Wales, the story continues, Patrick returned to Ireland to spread Christianity, particularly teaching his Irish converts about the Christian notion of the Trinity by referring to the shamrock or three-leafed clover.  This association of the clover with Patrick has bolstered the link between his feast day and wearing green.

Tradition, also, connects Patrick to a hymn, purportedly written by him.  On this St. Patrick’s Day and our first day back from Spring Break, I offer the words from that hymn as a reminder that all life, including the life of faith, needs a little play and patent frivolity.

Enjoy and see you along the way, wearing green I hope!

“I Bind unto Myself Today

I bind unto myself today
The strong name of the Trinity
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this day to me forever,
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation,
His baptism in the Jordan River,
His cross of death for my salvation,
His bursting from the spiced tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom,
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the starlit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea,
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, his might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need,
The wisdom of my god to teach,
His hand to guide, his shield to ward,
The Word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

I bind unto myself the name,
The strong name of the Trinity
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three,
Of whom all nature has creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word.
Praise to the Lord of my salvation;
Salvation is of Christ the Lord!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.