The Hourglass Nebula as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Author's note: I wrote this in 2005. Our family is a member of the United Parish of Auburndale, in Newton, MA. At the time, we were in a transition between ministers, and the congregation had to step up for four Sundays to deliver sermons. I don't know why I was tapped to give a sermon on one of these days, but I felt some obligation to come through.
This created a challenge for me - in effect, I had to write a sermon that delivered on the traditional Christian ideas of faith, but at the same time was consistent with my views as a scientist. What struck me is that people often dictate to us how we should view the world and our connection to it, whereas the connection is really a personal experience. Our perceptions and feelings can be reduced to psychological constructs, but these are not equivalent to experience. Music, literature, and art all have a place, as they speak directly to the world *as* we experience it, not as an explanation.
I include below the readings associated with the sermon, and at the end, I include a responsive prayer I used for the service. Extra points for those who can identify the original source of the responsive prayer.
The Wisdom of the Inward Parts
Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the
bands of Orion?
Can you bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or guide Arcturus
with his sons?
Do you know the ordinances of heaven? Can you establish their
rule on earth?
Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters
may cover may?
Can you send forth lightnings that they may go and say to you,
‘Here we are’?
Who has put wisdom in
the inward parts? or who has given understanding to the mind?
Job
38:31-36
In
Chapter 38 of Job, God appears out of a whirlwind and asks Job: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words
without knowledge?” We then
see a series of questions from God – mainly rhetorical. These are more than
statements of the limits of Job’s knowledge; they call out the connection
between Job and the larger world, of which Job is only a part. The natural
wonders that are named in the verses are with us today, as they were when the
book was written. If we look into the sky after dark on a cloudless night, we
see Orion, hovering high, now as then.
In
this passage, Job is asked, “Can you
bring forth the Mazzaroth in his season?” The word Mazzaroth is
a curious example of a hapax legomenon:
a word that appears only once.
From its context, and probable cognates, the passage likely refers to
the passage of the sun through the zodiac as a way of marking the passage of
the year in a celestial calendar. For farmers in the Neolithic era, this was
the only way to determine the times of the year to sow and to reap. It was
essential to their livelihood and connected the heavens, the earth, and the
people. With all of our modern conveniences, we often lose touch with this
connection, and yet when this passage was written, it was vital.
We
may never know precisely the meaning of the “wisdom of the inward parts.” It is
often interpreted as “intellect” – and, as such, is a way of saying that the
very intellect of Job doesn’t belong to him, as one might own a possession;
rather, it exists beyond him. God seems to be broadening not only Job’s, but
also our own narrow perspective of an elegant, if sometimes hostile
universe. We should keep in mind
that Job had lost what he found dear in life and was questioning his belief,
when God appears to him and the wonders of the world, of which Job is part, are
enumerated in this lyrical fashion.
The
term ‘inward parts’ is tuchah in
Hebrew. The only other occurrence
of tuchah in the Hebrew Bible is in
Psalm 51:6, “Behold, You delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me
wisdom in the secret heart.” Taken
with the passage in Job, this acts as a counterpoint to God’s words to Job,
where the speaker in this case praises Him for the gift of tuchah.
The passage in Job has a special
significance for me. At age sixteen, I was first learning about quantum
mechanics. I read that atoms hummed and rang like bells, with beautiful
patterns of vibration that dictated how they would bond with other atoms. In my
mind’s eye, I would visualize surfaces and materials made up of these
microscopic bells. When I read the phrase in Job, “Who made the wisdom of the
Inward Parts”, I associated it with the internal workings of nature – molecules
and atoms. In many ways, this sense of awe at the intelligence inside nature
has been a source of passion in my life as a scientist.
For a long time, I never strayed
into discussions about the relation between science and religion; however ten
years ago, I found myself in a position where I had to say something. My
physics collaboration had just discovered a new particle: the top quark. I
won’t bore you with details about quarks, but this discovery represented the
last major building block predicted by the theory that unifies the fundamental
forces of nature. My colleague and I were asked to sit in as guests on WBUR’s
“The Connection” when Christopher Lydon was the host. We talked about the
discovery, its implications, and then fielded listeners’ questions in the
familiar talk-radio format.
One person came on the line and said, “You know, you guys are great. You’ve made the new creation myth. You’ve
come up with the new Genesis, replacing the old one.” I shuddered, hoping I could duck
the topic. The host immediately seized it and said “What about science and religion? What’s your view?” I swallowed
hard and had a go at it. I said that I feel a sense of awe and reverence toward
the natural world, and that I don’t feel that I’m in a position to dictate what
is out there in the universe. My role as a scientist is to try to find new
things and describe them to others. My colleague’s response couldn’t have been
more different: she felt that science and religion just don’t mix, that they
are totally separate things and one shouldn’t speak of them in the same
sentence.
Why do we see science and religion as related, or as even as
opposing each other?
In
the west, this perception can be traced to the early Roman Catholic Church. It
wholly embraced the works of Aristotle as part of doctrinal canon. This
included Aristotle’s erroneous pronouncements on nature. One familiar example
is the description of the heavens. In the medieval Catholic doctrine, the earth
was the center of the universe. All celestial objects were perfect spheres and
revolved around the earth in perfect circles. The Catholic Church connected
pieces of scripture with its canons of science – for example, in Chapter 9 in
the book of Job, the 6th verse says, “Which shakes the earth out of her place, and the pillars tremble”.
During the middle Ages, some clergy used this to bolster the concept of the
earth as the center of the universe. The meaning of this verse is so vague that
one could easily construe this to support the modern theory of plate tectonics,
but nonetheless it was an element of Papal dogma supporting geocentricism.
Unfortunately
for the Church, the doctrine didn’t match what was out there in the cosmos. As
science progressed, it became clear that the earth wasn’t the center of the
universe and that celestial objects weren’t perfect spheres moving in perfect
circles. The church fought back, and scientists were obliged to invoke the word
“God” in practically every other sentence of their treatises to appease the
papacy.
Over
time, science was seen as a threat to religion. The battle over evolution has
been going on ever since Darwin published “The Origin of the Species”, and
shows no signs of abating. It seemed that the Church was in retreat, ceding
more and more ground to science.
Recently,
there have been attempts to employ concepts of science to reinforce religion.
I’ve heard religiously inclined colleagues say things like “God must be in the
Big Bang, I just know it.”
This view has become widespread. I was speaking with Jean Alexander
[incoming minister at the United Parish of Auburndale] at her welcoming
reception, and she asked me whether she should learn quantum mechanics because
all of her ministerial friends are learning it. Again, I shuddered and said, “No, I think you’re safe with what you’ve
got.”
I
have trouble with the notion that God is hiding behind the next unexplained
scientific mystery, be it the Big Bang, quantum mechanics or the nature of
altruism. Such a view invites trouble. People often invoke science or the
frontiers of science as a way of saying that God is something remote, like the
creator pushing a button in some remote corner of space and them and they
'mystery' lies there, and is only accessible to the Stephen Hawkings of the
world. However, that the sense of mystery and awe is manifest in the every day
workings around us. Is one to say that God isn’t here, in this room, but
is hiding somewhere else; behind the Big Bang, for example? I think this only invites
disappointment. Rather than approach natural mysteries with the sense that God
is hiding, perhaps we should instead recognize that they testify to a inner
wisdom that far surpasses our capacity to ever fully know the intricate
workings of the world around us.
Perhaps
the ultimate battle turf can be found in the so-called “God Gene”. On one side,
philosophers like Daniel Dennett at Tufts, and some evolutionary psychologists
have speculated that the institution of religion is the result of human
adaptation over a hundred thousand years. The concept is that belief in God is
merely a mechanism in our brain to ensure social order through a shared, ritual
behavior. On the other side, we have the continual attempt by fundamentalists
to force the acceptance of Creationism as science in public schools through
political action.
I
cannot help but feel that there is more than a hint of a power struggle going
on here: a battle over who controls the truth. If we look at the extremes of
these two opposing viewpoints, we might think that they couldn’t be farther
apart. Yet they share one very important characteristic: they sever the connection
between the individual and the world. In the case of the evolutionary
psychologists, they objectify people of religion, in effect, denying the
reality of their experience. The creationists tend to ignore the evidence in
the world around them. They are like a man who is driving down an old gravel
path, telling his wife that they’re really on the interstate highway, ignoring
his surroundings, and trying to warp the roadmap to fit his need of ego
gratification.
In
crass terms, both the evolutionary psychologists and the creationists may be
standing on the same side of a totally different kind of fence. I’m referring
to the dichotomy Jesus speaks of in Chapter 3 of John.
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of
the Jews: The same came to Jesus
by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from
God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is
old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit
is spirit. Marvel not that I said
unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it
goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things
be?
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art
thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We
speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our
witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye
believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
John
3:1-12
Nicodemus
comes to Jesus in the dead of the night and begs for insight. Jesus says to him
that a person must be born from above in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus speaks of two ways: one of the flesh and one of the spirit.
What
are we to make of this dichotomy?
What does it mean? To me, a
critical part of the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus is the reference to
the standing of Nicodemus as a man of religion. Jesus says (in a more modern
translation) “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.' 3:8The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear its
sound, but don't know where it comes from and where it is going. So is everyone
who is born of the Spirit."
When Nicodemus further questions
him, Jesus does not relent. He asks: “Are
you the teacher of Israel, and don't understand these things?” he asks. Clearly this schism of the
flesh and the spirit should not surprise Nicodemus, nor should it surprise
us.
Thomas Brown Junior is a white man, who received training in
the ways of the Apache scout from one of the last tribal scouts. In his book,
“The Way of the Scout”, he writes:
It
became obvious that to operate only in the flesh would be a liability and one
could never hope to achieve the powers of the scout only through physical
practices. Without the spiritual abilities, there could be no scout, and we
could not do most of what being a scout required. While studying tracking we also
studied people intensely. We had to learn every quirk, not just the ways that
are general to most people, but each little idiosyncrasy. We learned to look
for people’s patterns and ruts, what they observed and what they did not. We
watched their actions and reactions, and learned to identify their level of
awareness as well as their blind spots. We learned how people would look yet
not see how they became so focused on the flesh and out of touch with the
reality of the earth, spirit and other beings.
Indeed, one does not have to be a
Christian to recognize the juxtaposition of flesh and spirit; it is a common
theme in many of the world’s religions. The theme appears in Buddhist
scriptures over and over. In many native North American tribes, there is a
ritual called a “Vision Quest”. In this quest, a young Indian scout in search
of spiritual enlightenment ventures into the wilderness and sits inside a
circle drawn around him for days on end. Pain and hunger eventually give way to
a vision of connection to the universe, where the scout sees himself as an
inseparable part of the world. The inside and the outside are one. The old ways
of the flesh give way to a new way of the spirit. This spiritual awareness is
not something that we’re born with, but rather, it comes to us later in life.
Many times it comes to us under times of great stress, and is viewed as a gift;
a kind of watershed is crossed where one reaches a greater awareness of
connection. Even though we, in our flesh, cannot fully comprehend and understand
the wisdom expressed in the workings of the world, we are capable of
experiencing it fully. As Jesus suggests to Nicodemus, we should not be
surprised, but rather celebrate.
In
his book, Deep Survival, author Laurence Gonzales analyzes the psychological
characteristics of the survivors of dire situations. He finds that the most
crucial element that determines whether a person lives or dies is their
attitude. Frequently people in survival situations will experience one of two
reactions: panic or an opening of their mind. Those who panic tend to cling to
preconceived notions. Like the man who thinks the dirt road is really an
interstate highway, they twist the map to suit the way they think things should
be. In the process, they shut themselves off from reality and the very clues
that can help them survive. In
other cases, there are people in survival situations who report that their
senses open up, that time seems to stand still and they seem to have an
effortless perception of the beauty and profoundness of their surroundings that
opens up. Gonzales describes a large number of situations, but two in
particular are compelling: the experiences of Lauren Elder and Steve Callahan.
Lauren
Elder is a painter and performance artist who lived in Oakland, California. In
the 70’s, she was invited to fly over the Sierra Nevada Mountains in a Cessna
to see Death Valley from the air. The plane crashed on Mount Bradley at 12,000
feet. The pilot died instantly. The pilot’s girlfriend died the next day, leaving
Lauren alone and stranded on the edge of a cliff with a broken arm, wearing
high-heeled boots, a torn blouse, and a skirt. She managed to climb down the
cliff and, after 36 hours, walk out to safety on her own. She reported that the
thing that kept her moving was a sudden reverence for her surroundings – as if
she belonged in the moment in that situation. She says of her experience, “I kept stopping to appreciate how beautiful
the place I was in was. There I was in this amazing wilderness and I had the whole
place to myself.”
Steve
Callahan was a sailor attempting a solo crossing of the Atlantic from the
Canary Islands to a landfall in the Caribbean. Several days into his passage,
his boat sunk in a storm and he was forced into a life raft for what seemed
like an impossible crossing of 1800 miles. He tried not to think about the
direness of his situation, but rather concentrated on the world around him in
the moment: living life one minute to the next. He experienced the expanded
consciousness I’ve been describing. In writing about a particular moment, he
says:
In
these moments of peace, deprivation seems a strange sort of gift….My plight has
given me a strange kind of wealth, the most important kind. I value each moment
that is not spent in pain, desperation, hunger, thirst, or loneliness. Even
here, there is richness all around me. As I look out of the raft, I see God’s
face in the smooth waves, His grace in the dorado’s swim; feel His breath
against my cheek as it sweeps down from the sky. I am constantly surrounded by
a display of natural wonders…It is beauty surrounded by ugly fear. I write in
my log that it is a view of heaven from a seat in hell.
These survival
stories seem to echo the tale of Job. Steve Calahan cursed God for his
misfortune and went through a stage of denial, and yet, his ultimate salvation
was to let go of his preconceived notions. Lauren Elder found herself
surrounded by tragedy. Perhaps we won’t be cast adrift at sea or be left alive
and alone after an airplane crash, or wake up to find that everything we had
was taken from us; yet none of us can escape tragedy or suffering. We cannot
escape hardships; but we can choose how to react. We, like Job, are left to
compare our ignorance with this “inner wisdom.” We can choose to step out of our
isolated circumstance, and realize that we are part of greater whole; we are part of a world that constantly reminds us that we
are related to the people around us. We can choose to objectify the people
around us and to ignore the universe that beckons our acknowledgement; or we can
choose to recognize the connection that transcends our individual being. The
choice is ours.
A scientist fakes data for personal fame and severs the
connection.
A politician punishes a scientist for delivering the
uncomfortable news about global warming and severs the connection.
A school board member insists on creationism in textbooks and severs the connection.
A pedestrian walks past a homeless person without eye contact and severs the
connection.
We can choose to accept the fact that we do not own our
lives, or we can cling to the perception that we own it as if we could sue God
for damages in a court of law. Our ability to act as part of a larger whole is
a gift that comes from within. It is the wisdom of the inward parts.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Responsive Prayer (bold face is congregation response)
Our security does not lie in the control we have over our
lives,
It lies in the
quality of attention that we bring to our lives.
If we care about our with relationship with other human
beings, that caring demands attention
Caring is attention.
When we really care about a person, we want that person’s
needs to be met.
We are present and
attentive. That person’s needs are our needs.
There is the possibility of sensitivity, intimacy,
communication and harmony.
We are open to a
larger perspective of self. We
learn to walk carefully on this planet.
We learn to see it.

Just curious how the sermon was accepted? It makes great sense to me but I am not a religious person.
ReplyDeleteThe image is hypnotizing and very well chosen. Thank you.
The United Parish of Auburndale is definitely what one would call a 'progressive' congregation. I also benefitted from previous sermons by our minister Ellis Johnson, who gave me some courage with this group. The late Simon Parker, who was a BU professor of theology, demonstrated to me that I could pull this off. Overall, it was quite well received.
ReplyDeleteThe only issue was the sound quality - Simon confused "mazzaroth" for "azimuth" - he tried to correct me, and then I explained it to him. But, that's really a minor point. Overall, I think people reacted favorably.