Shape and Substance

meditations on faith and church

Shape and Substance, No.11

Elegy for a Quiet Man
For JEC, Jr. 1924-2024
Requiescat in pace

Goodbye, fierce and gentle warrior,
farmer with your hands full
of good soil. You grew things.

You made your choices for weal and woe,
held your power loosely, let it go;
asked nothing of others
you asked not of yourself.

In extraordinary times, you were an ordinary man—
not a hero, not a saint, not a role model.
You looked into our eyes and told the truth
as best you understood it. We did not listen.

We wanted fairy tales of false greatness,
glib promises of never-ending good times,
eternal morning in a land immune to night—
Lies, all, and so you warned us.

But comforting calumny is easier to hear
than stony fact. We turned away
to worship at their shiny altars
these gods of glory, greed, and gore.

You wavered not an inch from your convictions,
smile undimmed by public humiliation;
you went back to planting crops
in fields where no one else thought they could grow:

Peace in bloodied ground,
homes in urban lots,
love stretched like a wedding canopy
over time and patience and simple faith.

Do not despair.
The fields you plowed still wait their harvest.
See, even now they bear your quiet fruit.

Shape and Substance, No. 10

29 December 2024


The Darkling Thrush
by Thomas Hardy

I leant upon a coppice gate
When Frost was spectre-grey,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
Had sought their household fires.

The land's sharp features seemed to be
The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
Seemed fervourless as I.

At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.

So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
And I was unaware.

New Year’s Eve is always filled with a mixture of dread and hope for me, endings of things familiar and beginnings of things as yet still dark and foreboding. This year perhaps more than most I feel that sense of the passing of fall into winter, the passing of the known into the unknown. I think that’s why Thomas Hardy’s poem, “The Darkling Thrush” appeals to me, and why I return to it time and again. The poem was first published on this date in 1900 in The Graphic and then appeared again three days later, on New Year’s Day, 1901, in the Times of London.

Like many of you who follow my writings, I find the gathering gloom of political events more than a little dread-full. I look toward the future with diminished confidence and heightened concern. Still, I will listen, like Hardy, for the birdsong among the branches, for the Hope that, however fantastical and far-fetched, may yet be the harbinger of a coming spring. I don’t know where I will find it—in poetry, perhaps, or the Eucharist, or maybe the sun as it rises above the ridge across from my back porch. Maybe in the touch of someone I love. Winter does not last forever.

I hope you find your “blessed Hope,” whereof the thrush knew, whether you are aware of it or not.

All the best,

Paul

___

If you know of someone who would enjoy this little encyclical of mine, please share it with them and encourage them to email me with permission to add their email to the distribution list. Or, if they would prefer, to go to www.shapeandsubstance.com and, once there, subscribe to the blog using the appropriate button on the lower right of the screen. And, as always, please feel free to engage with me either by commenting on the blog or return email. I would love to hear from you.

Shape and Substance No.9


Not the Point

The star is not the point.
Nor is the manger nor the shepherds
nor the angelic caterwauling in the night.

The mother and father are not the point,
nor the cattle lowing while the world snores on,
nor—at the risk of heresy—the squalling newborn.

The Holy slips so softly into the world,
unnoticed in creation’s warp and weft,
the hawks laser-eyed for signs of voles
don’t see it.

Nor you, from tallest steeple.
It makes nary a ripple in the water
nor transubstantiates the bread and cup.
You’re bound to miss it. But know this:

if urgency of affairs or commands of kings
would hustle you away from purported holiness—
fear not. The star is not the point.

Paul Hooker, The Longing: Poems. Eugene OR: Resource Publications, 2024, p.97.

____

At the risk of antagonizing all my friends, I think Christmas is not about Baby Jesus or Mary and Joseph, or the shepherds and angels. They are, as the poem suggests, Not the Point.

Once, on a hot August afternoon now more than thirty-four years ago, I waited in a long line that snaked through courtyard beside the sanctuary of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, wound its way down stone stairs into the basement. I was waiting to see the Site of the Nativity, the place where, it was said, the manger once stood that cradled the newborn Jesus. I was, I think, vaguely hoping to capture some sense of the Holy, that rarefied Something that had brought pilgrims like me to this site for how many centuries. The line filed past an ornate grotto the size of a manorial fireplace. The space was hung with thuribles secreting incense-laden smoke that mainly contributed to the oppressive closeness and humidity of the choked and crowded passageway. At its center, bolted to the floor, was a metal star, intended, I suppose, to mark the precise location of the Incarnation. As I approached, I could sense my anticipation growing, almost against my will (I didn't and don't think this was the Actual Spot...but what if it was?), sense myself hoping for an encounter with the Holy (however unlikely). I paused before the grotto, waiting in expectation. Was it here?

'Twas not to be. A security guard hired by the Church and charged with the task of crowd management prodded me on, pointing in the direction of the long line behind me. "Close in two hours" he managed in broken English (was it that obvious I was American?), "Many people behind you. Move on please." I moved, and the Holy—if it was there at all—receded into the incense cloud and evanesced.

Out in the August sunlight again, I wondered what I had waited in line to see: a tin star riveted to a church basement floor? An over-large fireplace stuffed with the paraphernalia deposited by generations of the religious? A tourist trap? I still don't know.

I decided to cross the square in front of the Church to a souvenir shop apparently frequented by those released from their Visit to the Manger. Suddenly, I was missing Pat, at home halfway around the world. So I bought her a malachite necklace, which she still has in her jewelry case. Every time I see it, I am back before the grotto, beclouded by incense and jostled by the crowd. Every time I see it, I am waiting again for the faintest glimpse of the robe-hem of the Holy, retreating from view. That day, I thought I had been deprived of my moment with the Numinous. But perhaps not....

Shape and Substance No.8

Shape and Substance, No.8

17 December 2024

O magnum mysterium,
et admirabile sacramentum,
ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,
iacentem in praesepio!
Beata Virgo, cujus viscera
meruerunt portare
Dominum Iesum Christum.
Alleluia!

O great mystery,
and wonderful sacrament,
that animals should see the newborn Lord,
lying in a manger!
Blessed Virgin whose womb
is worthy to bear
the Lord Jesus Christ.
Alleluia!

The American composer Martin Lauridsen set this ancient Latin text, the fourth responsory for Matins on Christmas Day, to unforgettable music, first performed in Los Angeles on 18 December 1994, thirty years ago tomorrow. It has since become a staple of Christmas repertory for choirs and chorales all over the world. I’ve sung it a dozen times. Pat is playing the Robert Shaw recording of it while I write these words and she bakes my birthday cake (pineapple upside-down cake, if you must know). When I heard the opening strains, I got up from my desk and padded into the kitchen, sat down at the island to listen, while tears rose in my eyes. It is one of the two or three most beautiful, transporting pieces of music I have ever sung.

As the last notes disappear into the ether, I find myself wondering why this piece moves me so. The answer, I think, is this: it is a musical rendering of mystery, characterized by what one reviewer, Susanne Stähr, called “volksliedhafte Schlichtheit, ätherisch entrückte Klänge, eigenwillige Expressivität (“folksong-like simplicity, ethereal otherworldly sounds, personal expressivity”).[1] Stähr is right; Lauridsen’s music soars into the ether on the wings of rising open fourths and falls back to earth in open fifths. Dissonant seconds sustain tensions that resolve finally into thirds, never cloying but somehow soothing. The music moves, but the movement seems more like stillness than motion. And through it all, one has the sense of sitting in the nave of some grand cathedral while the air fills with unknowable, inexplicable mystery.

The text Lauridsen uses is the sung response to Lesson IV in the liturgy for Matins of Christmas Day. I am not Roman Catholic, but what I understand of the Roman liturgy of Christmas Eve/Christmas Day is that Matins immediately precedes the Midnight Mass, which then gives way to Lauds, the liturgy of praise on Christmas morning. Before the praise comes the dark and the silence. Matins on Christmas is a liturgy for and in darkness and wordlessness. In this fourth responsory, there is not a single human or divine figure to be found, other than Mary (and she only as a womb, rather than a whole person). No shepherds, no wise men, no innkeeper, no Joseph, no Herodian guards prowling about—no people to confuse the moment with commentary and obscure the scene with sensationalism. There are only the animals, and they alone are admitted to the “admirable Sacrament.”

Don’t misunderstand; this is not some PETA-ized Christmas column, no misanthropic rant. Rather, what I’m pointing to is the silence, the absence of talk, the sheer awestruck wonder that transcends words and can somehow best be appreciated by those beings for whom words are both inaccessible and unnecessary, who live every breath and heartbeat in the presence of Mystery. I confess to no small envy of them.

We’ll be in worship on Christmas Eve. We’ll sing the appointed songs and read the appointed texts (and hear the inevitable sermon ostensibly derived therefrom), confess our sin in scripted unison and mumble “the peace of Christ” in the general direction of our fellow congregants to the accompaniment of a holy fist-bump. By the time all is said and done, I trust that most of the gathered worthies in the sanctuary will have some sense that they have celebrated the advent of the One into human life.

I doubt that I will, however. I suspect that the hour spent robed and seated in the choir loft singing and listening to the words of Christmas will leave me pretty much as it increasingly does: with the sense that I’ve sat through a ritual that has outlived its usefulness for me (I recognize this is an idiosyncratic sense not necessarily shared by others). I am weary of words said in worship, having spent my life writing and saying them. Words are like clothing: they conceal more than they reveal, provide places to hide as much as occasions to communicate. Words are little invitations to dishonesty. It’s not that I don’t believe them (although some of them I don’t); it’s that, used too often or too glibly, they cease to deliver what they promise, are flattened like champagne left open on the table overnight.

It won’t be until later, perhaps in the middle of the night, perhaps just before dawn on Christmas Day, that I will experience the Incarnation in the way I have come to know it best: in the wordlessness of the Great World that curls itself beneath my windows and waits just outside my door, in the chill of the pre-dawn frost, in the twinkle of stars alight in the windswept darkness of the night sky—in short, in a cosmos brimful-to-overflowing with the presence of the One who speaks not a word and yet who gathers all words and all things unto Itself. I will stand in the dark on my back porch and draw my bathrobe closer against the cold and open myself to the Sacrament once again.

And then it will be Christmas.

Here is a poem:

Matins, Christmas Morning[2]

O magnum mysterium …

                        -Fourth Responsory for Matins on Christmas Day

Mystery needs no consecration.

It sighs in the wind,

crackles in the hoarfrost,

burrows earthworm tunnels in the loam,

eddies in the water where trout hold, unheard, unseen—

…et admirabile sacramentum…

I wake before the house,

stand on the back porch in the wintry air

of the not-yet-dawn of day.

Cold flash-freezes sleep within my brain.

The dog is attending to his urges,

aware, I imagine, that the brittle grass he sniffs

and the wisps exhalant from his nose

are pregnant with Mystery.

It waits to be born.

Or no—

it is already here, has always been here,

before we began these daily offices

of field and forage.

He knows.

He knows because he is Mystery.

He clothes Mystery in the soft swaddling of his fur.

…ut animalia viderunt…

Borrowed Question:

Why is this night different from all others?

Answer 1: It is the same as every other.

Answer 2: There has never been another like it.

Answer 3: It is the womb of a new creation.

Dawn breaks, a birthing mother.

Fluid light soaks the horizon.

Mystery is being born. Again.

Each morning is birth,

each evening is death,

…dominum natum iacentem in praesepio…

Sanguine and pure,

Mystery pulses in the veins of creation,

coursing with the nourishment of life—

or spills, pouring out onto the land,

a death that does not die

but seeps between the living rocks

into the light-starved caverns of creation,

an aquifer recharged by wonder,

life come at last

to the womb’s dark heart.

It gestates there, in night-bound silence, waiting…

O beata virgo, cuius viscera meruerunt portare dominum Iesum Christum…

The dog has finished his oblations.

I cinch my robe against the cold

and reach behind me for the doorknob.

Inside is warmth, and food, and she, asleep.

Why is this day different from all other days?

It is no different.

There will never be another like it.

Mystery is born this day. Again.

Alleluia.

Merry Christmas.


[1] Susanne Stähr, “Morten Lauridsen O magnum mysterium”klassik-heute.com 15 February 2007.

[2] Paul K. Hooker, The Longing: Poems. Eugene OR: Resource Publications, 2024, p. 49.

Shape and Substance No.7

Monday, 9 December 2024, was the thirty-fourth anniversary of the day Patricia Ann Thiede promised before God and a few intrepid witnesses to be my wife, and I her husband. We have been at it ever since, and I am the better for it.

A few years ago, I wrote this poem as a celebration of another couple’s anniversary, so it is not autobiographical. I wound up not using this poem as my gift to them, and writing a different one. But something about this first effort, until now unpublished, has always had a place in my heart. So, as I think about anniversaries as they mount up in increasing number, I offer this poem as a reflection on what it means to be married to someone a long time.

Still Here

At least in the beginning, they were two—

strong, independent, not of one root or ring.

Yet in their own peculiar way, they chose

to lean against each other as if to form

a sort of makeshift shelter from the storm,

limbs bearing up each other’s faltering weight.

They wrapped about their parabolic trunks

a robe of something that resembles hope.

For the time being, and until tomorrow,

they said,

Here we are.

Growing made them pull against each other.

Scraping bark and cracking fragile branches

report their protest in the frosty silence.

Impatiently they strain for sun, for air,

the price each pays to grow in its own light.

Yet force of something that resembles loyalty

bound them even then to one another

until at last they looked at one another,

and said,

There you are.

They seemed to know without acknowledgement

they were creating space, an empty place

where seeds could germinate ‘til winds could take them,

But seeds must weather their own fates and fortunes

in realms apart, and under different suns.

So, one by one, seeds flew and left behind

a space for something that resembles longing.

The empty place was empty once again,

and emptiness the answer to their yearning.

They asked,

Where are you?

Around them all these years have seasons changed

‘til now, though at increasing pace. They learned

to dress themselves in colors not their own,

hues that fade in fading light, will fall

like disregarded shawls from sloping shoulders.

Still, they wear them proudly while the sun shines,

a cloak of something that resembles grace,

as though to any neighboring bird or beast

they say,

Here we are.

Grace and peace and Godspeed to all who brave the treacherous currents of marriage and climb the far bank safe and, if not whole, then well. I am grateful beyond words to be among your number.

Shape and Substance, No.6

3 December 2024

Annunciation, 1898. By Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859-1937). Philadelphia Museum of Art

Annunciation

The feast of the Annunciation falls in April, nine months before Christmas. That’s logical; it takes thirty-six weeks to gestate a human being. Yet every year I want to hark back to that moment at the beginning of Advent when we stand on the verge of seeing what the Annunciation began. I want the Annunciation to be the word that is Advent’s annual starting gun.

In truth, I don’t think time means much in the biblical universe. Or, to put it a bit more precisely, I don’t think time has any meaning in the reality of the One, in which all times—like all things—are one. In the reality of the One, there is only one moment, the eternal moment, in which all moments are gathered and in which there is no separation between one moment and another. So I feel some justification in rehearsing the myth of the Annunciation here at the beginning of Advent. If it’s all the same to the Holy, it’s all the same to me.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

Here is a poem:

Annunciation

Luke 1:26-38

Suppose it was not an angel,

But dust motes floating in a shaft of light,

an idle breeze billowing the curtains

whispering the wild and wordless wonder

of the ages.

Suppose it was not a message

from gods no one has ever claimed to see,

and from whom only madmen claim to hear

promises like these that strain the limits

of belief,

but merely a poor girl’s fantasy

who had no sense of natural causation

and no better explanation near to hand

than godly violation of the sanctum

of her womb.

Tell me, could you blame her

for telling such a tale and, tale once told,

believing with a girl’s ferocious power

relying on the growing evidence

of her belly?

And if she believed it,

kept it within her heart, then why not we?

Why not the world—can it not make good use

of a god who yields up life in service

to the Holy?

Here I am, she said,

a statement less of certainty than hope.

And wondering if we could say as much,

we follow at a distance on the road

to Bethlehem.[1]

Occasionally, people ask me to tell them what I intended a poem of mine to mean. My standard answer is that I want it to mean whatever it means to whoever is reading it whenever it is read. I can’t determine meaning; that is the province of the reader.

But I can tell you what was on my mind when I began writing it. I was sitting in my study in the late afternoon, and sunlight was streaming through the half-closed louvers on the windows, creating an alternating grid of light and shadow on the floor. In the illumined spaces, where the light poured in as though from some sort of celestial ewer, I could see dust-motes floating in the air, moving aimlessly in every direction.

I don’t remember if I had been reading Luke’s story of Gabriel’s visitation to Mary, but something about the dust and the alternating pattern of light and dark and the silence of the room and the stillness of the world made me think of that young girl and her angel.

I never think of angels as embodied. Which is why I love this painting by Henry Ossawa Tanner, the African American artist who painted it in 1898. Tanner doesn’t show the traditional angelic figure, robed in white and standing in the midst of a heavenly aura. Tanner in fact doesn’t yield to our anthropomorphic arrogance at all but gives us instead an angel who is a shaft of brilliant, white-hot light, almost too bright to look at, and surely too unsettling to get comfortable with. Which is why, I think, Tanner depicts Mary as a shy teenage girl, seated on her bed, a little hunched as if to make herself smaller, looking sideways and upward with apprehension on her still-childlike face. This is not a mature woman who is ready to declare the eschatological revelation that will turn the world upside down. This is a frightened daughter of timid parents who know what it is like to live with the boot of the oppressor on your neck and his hands in your pockets. This is a child who knows more about threat than promise, more about fear than hope. And yet…

… there is something defiant in her glance, too, and in those quiet hands clasped in her lap. Not the eyes of the terrified, the rabbit suddenly aware of the wolf, the deer illumined by fast-approaching headlights, but the eyes of the wary and worldly, who know how to look out for themselves. Not hands raised in self-protection or flung forward in fright, but hands stilled and patient, as if to say, let us see what is in store, what the future already unfolded in the ken of the One who sends the light will show to rest of us who wait in the mottled time-bound darkness. She is saying, let us play this out, ravel this skein to the end, well beyond a manger and even all the way to a cross.

I suppose something like that is what I was hoping to convey with my Mary. Pregnant by some cause—does it really matter whether human or divine?—she is gathering her grit and mustering her moxie to take on this charge to bear the One into the many. I think she knows it will not be easy to carry this child, that there will be plenty who want to take him from her. Some of them sit on queasy thrones and would take her child because they need to feed their visions of grandeur with the blood of innocents. Others—and herein are most of us—dream up visions and versions of our own desiring and would take Mary’s child as the sigil of our own self-aggrandizement. I pulled up behind a car in traffic today, which bore a sticker on the rear window: “Just a girl who loves Jesus.” No, you don’t, I thought. The “Jesus” you think you love is a figment of your imagination, created to suit the predilections of your own life and lifestyle. The same, I then thought, is true of mine. And yours.

There is quite likely only one “girl who loves Jesus,” and that is the teenager reticent and yet somehow resilient, who sits and faces the Light that falls from the One, terrifying as it must be (Rilke once said, “Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich – Every angel is terrifying”), and still musters courage and voice to say, “Here am I; let it be with me as you would have it.” Loves him enough to accept the angelic assignment: pregnancy and delivery, motherhood and martyrdom and myth, heaven’s light and tomb’s dark. Here am I, she says, incredibly. So be it. 

I don’t have that kind of courage. The best I can do is to follow her at a distance, as she makes her way toward Bethlehem, and Jerusalem, and into the world beyond, and finally into the mystic wonder of the heart. It is, I suspect, a holy and harrowing journey.


[1] Paul Hooker, The Longing: Poems. Eugene OR: Resource Publications, 2024, pp. 95-96.

Shape and Substance, No.5

Grateful

is too delicious to use

dismissively, like “Thanks,”

half-mumbled at held-open doors

to a stranger passing in life’s other lane,

or when receiving a pack of gum from

a clerk’s hand in some convenience store.

Grateful must linger on the palate, be savored

until the juice of gratitude has passed

across the tongue and down the throat

into the stomach, digested and dispatched

throughout the bloodstream, so it is possible

to feel, to think,

to speak, to hope,

to live.

—Paul Hooker, 2019 I wrote this poem the day after Thanksgiving, five years ago. It’s been published in an Austin Seminary publication and again in The Presbyterian Outlook. I had forgotten about it until I was combing through the archives of my writing. I thought it might be worth reoffering. I hope your Thanksgiving was a day of gratitude for whatever gifts populate your life. You are among those that populate mine.

Shape and Substance No. 4

Nudifidian 

PRONUNCIATION:

(noo-dee-FID-ee-uhn) 

MEANING:

noun: One who believes that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. 

ETYMOLOGY:

From Latin nudus (bare) + fides (faith). Earliest documented use: 1616. 

NOTES:

The term often emerges in theological discussions about “sola fide” (faith alone), a cornerstone of certain Protestant doctrines during the Reformation. Nudifidians believe that salvation is attained solely through faith, without the need for good works, though they don’t necessarily reject good works, but rather see them as a result of faith, not a prerequisite for salvation. 

USAGE:

“Yet a Christian must work — for no nudifidian, as well as no nullifidian, shall be admitted into heaven.”
Thomas Adams; The Three Divine Sisters, Faith, Hope, and Charity; Robert Carter; 1847. 

________________________________________________________________________________________

My friend Jan Williams of Santa Fe, NM, knowing my fondness for obscure words and the way they roll off the tongue, sent me this word. Nudifidian. Say it two or three times, for no other reason that the sheer and slightly tingly joy it gives your mouth to say a word that has its home in the numinous but its roots in the naughty. Nudifidian.

Jan said I should write a column about it, and I always do what Jan says.

Among the hallmarks of the Protestant Reformation was the notion that we are not saved by the good works we amass but by the faith and trust we place in Jesus Christ. Sola fidei—“faith alone”—was one of three “watchwords” (so our Presbyterian Book of Order, F-2.0104) by which it was possible to tell a trustworthy and reliable Protestant from one of those questionable Catholics,[1] the other two being Sola gratia—“grace alone”—and Sola scriptura—“Scripture alone.” By the Wordsmith.org definintion above, we Protestants are all nudifidians. There, you see? Our Roman Catholic brethren have been right all along: there is something a bit scurrilous and sleazy about us (and here we thought we were just sexy).

Nudifidian, obviously, has its roots in the Latin nudus, the source of our English “nude,” and fides, “faith.” Nudifidians are naked believers. “Nude” is a societally proper word for “naked,” which is in turn the morally upright if still slightly risqué rendering of the great Southern word, “nekkid.” If you don’t know the difference between the latter two terms, let me refer you to the late Southern comedian and columnist Lewis Grizzard, who said that “Naked is when you don’t have any clothes on; nekkid is when you don’t have any clothes on and you’re up to something.” To be nude is to be without the costumery that defends our modesty and (usually) disguises our intentions.

How, then, did a word arising (image intended?) from nakedness slink its way into proper academic speech? I wasn’t around to hear the original exchanges, but I imagine that someone described those morally opprobrious Protestants as standing naked before the throne of God without the benefit of the clothing of good works to make a positive impression on the divine. We are nude before the Seat of Judgment, they must have said, and judged us who hold such notions as sola fidei to be as scandalous as a skinny-dipper.

As a lifelong Protestant, I confess an affinity for nudifidianism. I like the notion that I don’t have to earn my standing before the divine—can’t earn it, in fact; that it is as gift I can neither be worthy of nor revoke by insufficient merit. I like the fact that my status with the eternal is not conditioned on my behavior, which is inconsistent at best and more often problematic. And while it’s been many a year since such notions were truly scandalous, I like the fact that we Protestants were once looked upon as theologically risqué, like a strippers in a sanctuary. I find myself attracted to a “naked faith.” I want to write some more about this “naked faith,” but to do so now would launch us into a conversation larger than this format will tolerate. Suffice it for now to say that as my theological journey lengthens and steepens, I’m finding it necessary to shed more and more of the heavy clothing of my former convictions. I’m getting closer to naked all the time.


[1] My beloved Roman Catholic friends and family members who read this blog must know, because they know me well enough not to entertain thoughts to the contrary, that I speak here with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Shape and Substance, No. 3

God, Breathing—some thoughts about creating a future

Let’s start at the beginning. “In the beginning,”—bereshith,  in Hebrew—begins the story in Genesis 1:1. It has always fascinated me how spare and direct these first sentences of the Bible are. “In the beginning”—the narrator says, as if he or she is privy to things before there were things to be privy to. As if she or he is party to knowledge inaccessible to mere mortals, but the rest of us must accept his words as a sort of curtain drawn across the stage of human consciousness behind which we are not permitted to peek. As if it were possible to know that which is cloaked in eternal darkness, even if that darkness already contains all the light that will ever be. In the beginning—bereshith

            Bara’ ‘elohim—“…God created….” As far as I know, the Hebrew Bible, which uses this verb bara’ on a number of occasions, never uses it to describe human agency, but only the act of the Creator, either directly or indirectly. I take this to mean that to create is to invade a province that belongs to the Creator. To use it of ourselves—or to encourage our children to “be creative,” or (heaven forbid!) to preach sermons on the subject of creativity—is, it seems to me, Promethean in the extreme. We are stealing the fire of the gods here.

            But, as they say, fools rush in… For the next few minutes, I invite you to think with me about creation and creating. I’m going to suggest that, when we exercise our creativity—and especially when we exercise it in the service of faith—we are doing something only God can do. We are mimicking the Creator. There is something a little dangerous about that. There is also something a little divine.

            Look again at Genesis 1. If you’ve studied ancient history, you know that ancient Babylonian culture told the story of its origins in a mythic account tthat has come down to us as the enuma elish. It was the story of a great cosmological struggle between the patron deity of Babylon, Marduk, who was a warrior god, against the terrifying power of Tiamat, the chaos dragon. The battle is joined, and Marduk isn’t faring too well. Marduk has loosed all but one of his arrows at Tiamat, only to have them bounce harmlessly off her scaly hide. At last, nearly disarmed and powerless before her towering might, Marduk prepares to die. Tiamat opens her mouth and prepares to swallow Marduk. But at the last moment, Marduk fires his last arrow into her gaping maw; it penetrates her stomach and sends her into her death agony. Marduk speeds the process along by leaping atop her still-writhing form and carving her up with his sword. Of the pieces of her carcass Marduk creates the world, and with her black blood he makes human beings, forever to be his servants in gratitude for his victory. So the Babylonians believed.

            Scholars have thought for generations that Genesis 1, the first of the biblical stories of creation, was written while the Israelites were in exile in Babylon. They heard the enuma elish recited every year at the Babylonian New Year festival, and they decided to write their own version. But, as exiles and prisoners often do, they made their story something of a parody of the stories of their captors. Tiamat, the chaos dragon, becomes tehom, the Hebrew word for “the deep,” an infinite, formless, shifting, but not particularly ravenous body of water. And instead of God locked in some life-or-death fight with a dragon that overmatched divine power, God simply “breathes”—the Hebrew word ruach, translated “Spirit” here can also mean, “breath”—across the watery surface. And perhaps in the way breath across water creates ripples, the divine breath began to ripple the landscape of reality. And then, when the moment is right, God speaks…

            The Hebrew word is vayyehi, “let there be.” It’s an interesting word, this first divine utterance. Grammatically speaking, it’s not an imperative—“do this, go there”—but a jussive—“let there be.” It’s an invitation for something to happen, a space within which something that isn’t, might come something that is. Stephanie Paulsell and Vanessa Zoltan observe about this word:

God does not decree creation like an authoritarian ruler signing executive orders.  God sets unpredictable, creative possibility loose in the world:  let there be light, let there be fish in the sea, let us make human beings in our own image.[1]

Something about creativity—divine creativity and, I think, human—is not prescriptive but permissive. It does not so much force as to allow; it does not so much control as to conduct. Creativity sets loose the unpredictable, the unexpected, the unprecedented into the world, and waits for it to turn the world upside down.

            But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves, or at least ahead of the story. I mentioned at the outset of these remarks that the first word of Genesis 1—bereshith, “in the beginning”—is like a curtain drawn across the stage of human consciousness behind which we are not permitted to peek. But where knowledge fails us, imagination may succeed. So let me invite you into an act of imagination.

            Jewish mystics from the 17th century onward have toyed with a concept called tsimtsum. The word means “contraction” or “withdrawal,” and since the 17th c. it has been used as metaphorical figure for what happens before the bereshith. In truth, it was the answer to a problem: Jewish thought postulates that God is limitless, all-inclusive, Infinite, and without internal division or dichotomy. There is even a special name for this limitless one: ‘Ein Sof, which means, literally, “without limits” but is often translated, the Infinite or the One. In the silence before the beginning, say the mystics, there is and can only be the Infinite. But if that is true, then how can anything that is not the Infinite—including the whole of creation and all of us—exist? There is no place and no condition that is not the Infinite, so there is no room for creation. In response to this problem, the mystics suggested that before uttering the first vayyehi, “let there be,” the Infinite underwent tsimtsum. That is, the Infinite—“God” if you will—withdrew within God’s self, contracted, and thereby made a space within God that was not God, and into that space could come into being all that eventually comes to be: the sun, the stars, the skies, the seas, the land, the living beings, and yes, even the likes of us. Tsimtsum is the moment of infinite possibility, in which all things exist in potential and nothing exists in particular. In my imagination, tsimtsum is God inhaling, drawing into the divine self the breath of the divine self, before exhaling the first word: vayyehi—let there be. In my imagination, the first act of creation is not God speaking. The first act of creation is tsimtsum, God, breathing.

            Some of you are asking, now wait a minute; Genesis doesn’t say anything about this. Some others of you are remembering right about now St. Augustine’s facetious answer to those who ask, What was God doing before creation: “Preparing hell for those who pry into mysteries.”[2] Others of you, perhaps being better versed in paleogeology, are thinking, come on now, we know it didn’t happen this way. There are dinosaurs and trilobites and protozoic amoebae. And you’re right, all of you.

What I am suggesting is that you exercise your imaginations, allow the poet inside you to slip the leash and wander free for a moment. If you can do that, even for a moment, if you can grant me what Samuel Taylor Coleridge once called “the willing suspension of disbelief,” you can see that at the beginning of every creative act there is an emptiness, a silence, an open space. And in that emptiness, all things are possible, and there is no limit to creative possibility.

            Every poet knows that, before beginning to write every poem, there is a blank page (or, in my case, screen) on which nothing is written. That blank screen holds the infinite possibility of every word known to humankind, and even words not yet known or thought of. When the first word is written, that infinite possibility begins to take form and structure, becomes a word, then a line, then a stanza, and finally a poem. But before every poem, there is an emptiness.

            Every musician knows that, before the first note of a piece is played, there is a silence, a quiet. That silence holds the infinite possibility of every note and every sound including those not yet known or played. When the conductor’s downbeat falls and the first note is played, that infinite possibility begins to take form and structure, becomes a phrase, then a melody, then a passage, and finally a symphony. But before every musical piece, there is an emptiness.

            Now why have I put you through all this? I promised you in the beginning that I wanted to observe something about creativity. I want to suggest that to create—and by creating I don’t just mean writing a poem or playing a piece of music, but also making plans for the future of a life, a community, a nation, and a world—to create is to mimic God.

            We have this notion that creating our future is about making choices and sacrifices, about commitments of time and energy and resources, and perhaps most of all, to apply energy and effort to ensure that our will is done, our vision is brought to fruition, our project is successful. We think that creating is about imposing our will on chaos by act of main force. That may all be true, or most of it, anyway.

            But it is not where creativity starts.

            If it is true that to create is to mimic God, then perhaps creating begins not in pressing forward with an agenda, but in withdrawing in silence and patience, allowing the emptiness to fill with infinite possibilities, some of which we have not imagined. Possibilities that might elude the snares of partisan politics, the labels of progressive or conservative. Possibilities that might reveal a future no one has imagined yet because our vision is captured by a past no longer sustainable. Possibilities that might have us become something we have not yet imagined we are.

            And if we can wait, can practice a season of silence (instead of shouting down the opposition), perhaps when the vision begins to form, it will be possible not to force it into birth, but simply to release it, to let there be… let there be light, let there be land, let there be life, let there be community, let there be hope. Creativity is not about force; it is about permission. It is not about requiring; it is about allowing.

            I don’t know what will be the shape and substance of our future as a nation among the peoples of the world. But I am increasingly convinced that, if we are to create a sustainable future, to say nothing of creation as a whole, it will not merely be the result of one agenda stamping out another. It will be something none of us has imagined yet. It will come into being not because we force it but because we release it. We will create a future when we stop shouting about what we know, become comfortable with silence and emptiness, and listen to the sound of God, breathing.


[1] S. Paulsell and V. Zoltan, “Creativity: The Joy of Imagining the Possible, Imagination, and Joy,” in Joy: A Guide to Youth Ministry, Sarah Farmer and David F. White, eds. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020 p. 214.

[2] Augustine, Confessions, 11.12.

Shape and Substance No. 2: Beyond Moralizing

Shape and Substance

Paul Hooker

15 November 2024

No. 2

I want to follow up my comments on moralizing preaching with some additional thoughts. Several of you have been kind enough to respond with some critique, for which I am immensely grateful. Your comments have been thoughtful and wise. I might summarize those reactions as concern that, in this era of diminished moral responsibility at both the top levels of government and across society in general, we cannot afford to lose the moral imperative of preaching. Additionally, a few of you have expressed concern that you would prefer moral directives over flights of preacherly fancy.

It seems important to me to distinguish between moralizing and moral vision. The former amounts to someone telling me what to think or do, most often accompanied by all manner of homiletical hand wringing over the state of the world. The latter, it seems to me, sets forth a compelling image of beauty, hope, and peace, and invites us to enter that vision and absorb its values and attributes.

Above is the famous Russian icon, painted by Anton Rublev in the early 15th century. There is a tradition in Russian iconography of depicting the visit of the three angels to Abraham beside the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18) to convey to him the news that he would have a son to inherit the blessing. In both Eastern and Western Christianity, the visitation of the angels is taken to be an image of the Trinity. So much so, in fact, that in many renditions the background of the dwelling and the oaks still visible in Rublev’s icon disappear completely in favor of the three figures, each of whom bears specific attributes associated with one or another person of the Trinity.

A Google search of “Rublev icon” will open for you the world of commentary about the icon and its theological significance, far more than I have time or space to explore here. I only want to illumine one aspect of the painting. You will note that the three figures (the Father in the center, the Son at the Father’s right, and the Spirit to the Father’s left) are seated at something like a table, on which rests a vessel of some sort. Perhaps the vessel holds the water, bread, cakes, or meat Abraham has called to be prepared (18:2-8). Or, as some have suggested, perhaps is a chalice that holds Eucharistic wine, and the three are gathered at the Eucharistic table. Part of the beauty of art is its flexibility and openness to wonder.

I rather like the Eucharistic reading of the icon, and I note one thing further. As on looks at the painting of the seated Three, there appears in the center foreground an open space, as though there is a place at the table presently unoccupied and waiting for the arrival of the final guest. As one approached the painting, one has the sense that this place belongs to the viewer, that the Three invite each and all of us to enter the fellowship of Beauty in and through the Sacrament.

I want to suggest that, like the Eucharist, the best preaching is an invitation into the divine fellowship. I want to suggest that, beyond all the shoulds and oughts we are tempted to adjure, the most effective means of transforming life and lives is the offer of a place more lovely, more compelling, more fulfilling than any moralizing can finally be. I want to suggest that preaching point in the direction of Beauty and remind us that there is a place waiting for us at the table.

I am not advocating sacramental escapism, dousing the very real fires of a passion for justice with sacramental wine. I am not suggesting that the Beautiful Vision does not carry with it some expectation of change on the part of those who see it. Precisely the opposite. As Reformed theology has taught for generations, to be the invitee into the divine relationship is to become what one was created to be, not merely continue being what one already is. However, we change not in hopes of getting an invitation to the feast, but because we already have that invitation in hand and want to dress appropriately. Beauty makes us want to become.

The coming years will have more than their share of moral horrors on which to reflect (although, one hopes there may be some good in them, too). We who wear the homiletical mantle will be tempted weekly to decry the ugliness we see displayed on the evening news. Some of that, I would agree, is necessary. But can preaching be more than decrying the ugly? Can there be also and finally a vision of Beauty that draws us beyond the grit, grime, and grimace of the daily grind? Can there be an opportunity not to escape but a summons to fulfillment? Can there be a sanctified imagination that asks what is possible, not merely what is practical or pragmatic or politic?

I hope so. What about you?