Living Wittily

"Why George Osborne is So Wrong" in 100 words.

Caring

Generous

Compassionate

Imaginative

Just

Supportive

Fair

Seven adjectives of social responsibility and common good.

Seven principles of community building and resource sharing.

Seven opportunities to make life more secure for all of us by making life less precarious for others.

Seven positives that give life and energy to social welfare policy.

But all these encouraging Yes words can easily be negated by the ugly, life diminishing little prefix "Un".

The Chancellor's speech yesterday was an Un-speech.

Uncaring, ungenerous, uncompassionate, unimaginative, unjust, unsupportive and unfair.

My prayer for our communities: "Give us (the poor especially) this day our daily bread".

The Chancellor George Osborne Just Doesn't Understand Me!

The deficit can be eliminated without raising taxes. Welfare benefits for working age people are frozen for two years. Some wee tax cuts for middle class folk with pensions. No comfort for those who don't have or can't afford pernsion contributions.

Austerity is once again the watchword of a millionaire Chancellor of a cabinet largely made up of other members of the millionaire club. Austerity, a word devoid of compassion, reeking of self-righteousness and scornful of charity - and by that word I point to its old fashioned meaning of grace gift, caritas.

An election is coming so no mention of increased taxes, and beyond the election if Chancellor Osborne has anything to do with it, there will be no need to raise taxes. Which for me raises the key question - why in heaven's name not? There is a more serious deficit to be acknowledged by a millionaire Chancellor - a deficit of understanding. He simply does not have the life experience, practical knowledge or social awareness to understand that not everyone is out only for themselves; not everyone thinks those on benefits are less worthy of care and support; not everyone thinks that the mantra of rewarding those who 'do the right thing' has any ethical, political or economic validity. At least no validity beyond the narrow confines of minds that have never wrestled with the disciplines of home economics, paying bills by juggling limited money, making choices between heat and food.

What's more George Osborne doesn't undetstand me. He hasn't a clue about people like me who accept that the welfare of those who are sick, elderly, out of work, struggling to make ends meet on a minimum wage and frozen benefits, is a responsibility which has its own moral logic, and which will inevitably cost me money. Likewise my personal commitment to the NHS, which does not belong to the Government of the day. Its future and its own health is a responsibility that ought to have a higher ethical priority than the self-interested posturing of those who find reasons to cut its resource allocations while pretending that the contribution has gone up in real terms. "In real terms" - there's an irony! I presume what is meant is in book keeping terms, which is not the same thing at all, is it, really.

So the Chancellor is urging us to choose the future not the past - a phrase he used repeatedly in his speech today. But excuse me,- we have no choice but to choose the future. The past is, well, past it. The question is will we choose an austerity future a la Osborne, or a different kind of future. Whatever future it is, be astonished Mr Osborne, as a matter of Christian principle and social justice, I would willingly pay more income tax to enable the funding of those institutions which contradict the austerity dictat imposed from above and by iron fisted intent penalises those least able to afford it.It is that unselfish if unglamorous acceptance that I have to pay more to make sure others are looked after that the Chancellor fails to understand.

And if he is really saying, and really believes, that the majority of the electorate will vote against any party which raises levels of tax, then maybe Mr Osborne has to ask himself his own question and answer it with his own strap line - choose the future. Ah, but what kind of future? Just or unjust? Austerity or caritas? Party or people? Rich or poor? Which deficit matters most - the national money deficit or the social justice deficit?

Behind the smiling Chancellor is the strap line "Securing a Better Future". Whose future? Better for whom? Who will be more secure?

Give us this day our daily bread - Aye, But Who Is Us?

Lots of Harvest Services going on today. Following on yesterday's thoughts on the Lord's prayer and daily bread and food banks, here's Walter Brueggemann on bread as both life essential and telling metaphor of a human and humane life.  The metaphor of banquet and bounteous table, he argues, is both spiritual motive and ethical imperative, because the sharing of food is a transformative social action in human relations.

"You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies"...an engagement of the metaphor of food is fundamental. There is no gesture as expressive of utter wellbeing as lavish food. Thus the feeding miracles of Jesus and the Eucharist are gestures of a new orientation, which comes as a surprising gift and ends all diets of tears."  (Praying the Palms, page 29)

As Nikoli Berdyaev pointed out, "Bread for myself is a material question. Bread for my neighbour is a spiritual one". Now that struck a chord, not least in this harvest season with all the fields either yellow or already cropped, and many of them decorated with those large straw swiss rolls. "Give us this day our daily bread...." That secon person plural is itself a spiritual and ethical imperative - who is us, if you'll excuse the grammar? That urgent question needs an answer. In my concerned but trusting prayer to my heavenly Father who do I mean when I say "Give us...."?

As I've been pondering this question and studying the Lord's Prayer, and wondering about that loaf stuck right in the middle of this cry for the Kingdom, I nearly did my back in lifting Hans Dieter Betz's commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, down from the shelf and on to my desk - I exaggerate. But this massive commentary, 768 pages of double column exegesis, is the epitome of historical critical scholarship, and not the most likely place to find a determined rooting of the biblical text in the daily disciplines of following Jesus, you might think. You'd be wrong though.

Here is Betz at his best applying the text to the practicalities of following Jesus with the spiritual urgency and ethical demand of a preacher pastor:

"The bread becomes "ours" only through the collaboration of many people who in fact "give us" our portion. This fact is most vividly demonstrated by the ritual act of breaking the bread and handing the pieces around the table. If this giving depends so much on human givers, one is always uncertain whether they will in fact give it or deny it. If hunger occurs the reason is most often that those who are expected to "give" refuse to give. The giving, therefore, depends not only  on the production of the bread but also on the willingness to share it. Given the experience of human stinginess, one has every reason not to take human generosity for granted. God is therefore also asked to see to it that human providers are disposed in their hearts and minds to share what has been produced."

Just as important is the qualifying adjective daily. "The basic human needs are indeed the same day after day. ...Basic human needs are not timeless, and they are not simply a matter of the future. What counts is what happens today. ...As everyone who has faced starvation knows, it is "today" that matters, and neither past nor future can compensate for it."

So Give us this day our daily bread becomes a petition for justice and our own involvement in seeking the Kingdom of God in which daily bread is made available for all people. As Karl Barth noted, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." Makes me wonder why Harvest Services aren't politically charged, economically challenging and ethical change oriented.

Christian support for Food Banks is rooted in this prayer line, "GIve us this day our daily bread"as we seek to ensure folk have their daily bread , by embodying the breaking and sharing of bread.

Christian opposition to Food Banks is rooted in this same prayer line, "Give us this day our daily bread", as we seek to ensure folk have their daily bread by challenging and contradicting the mechanisms of a world where the hunger of millions is the accepted by-product of global consumer capitalism, or economic global imperialism. That of course is another, more complicated and contested story. Who said the Lord's Prayer would make life simpler?

 

Food Banks, Feeding the 5000 and the Lord's Prayer Edited

The other day Sheila baked spelt bread. For 5000 years spelt wheat has been grown and used in bread-making, and it was one of the staples of the Roman army. The recipe used was basic but with a little honey and olive oil added to it, the taste, texture, crunch....mmhmm. The smell of it baking is the unique aroma of food for the hungry, an invitation to eat and also a call to patience, waiting for it to be baked, to cool and then....then to eat it. 

"Give us this day our daily bread" is one of those lines in the Lord's prayer that, for me, is a mnemonic device to make sure as I lead a congregation in saying it my mind doesn't skip a track. In the centre of a prayer about the hallowing of God's name, the coming of the Kingdom, the forgiveness of sins and scary temptations there is a loaf. God's will is done and his Kingdom comes when people have daily bread. Daily bread, a phrase that sounds straightforward in English but which translates a word used nowhere else in Greek literature. The classicists and linguists have had a field day suggesting its meaning, but the more settled view is that it means 'bread for the coming day'. So if I pray it in the morning I'm thinking of today; if I pray it at night, I'm looking to tomorrow. Either way bread enough for one day - and this prayer reflected a society in which people were paid daily. Think about it, if you're sick and can't work, how do you eat?

Which brings me to food banks, the Lord's Prayer and the feeding of the five thousand. Food Banks are both a disgrace and a place of grace. That they should exist is a scandal, that they do exist is a mercy. A Food Bank by definition is a place where food is deposited; the hungry and poor are by definition the current account holders. Scotland (or UK if preferred) is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, so the existence of Food Banks is a scandal, a disgrace the indisputable evidence of political and economic failure. It is possible for an economy to grow out of recession and be a failure, because the economy is not an entity, a person or an agent; the economy is the word we use to describe how we do things in our country. And the way we are doing things means that for many people the Lord's Prayer asks the impossible, because for those without money the daily bread isn't forthcoming in an economy that trades in money.

Jesus knew about bread, and about hunger, about the rich and the poor, the powerful and the vulnerable. "Give us this morning bread for the day...Give us tomorrow bread for the day..." The same Jesus looked on a hungry crowd and multiplied five loaves and two fishes into an ad hoc food bank. That act of extravagant mercy is defining of the church, bread for the hungry, rest for the weary, a place to sit down and be nourished, space to be human. "Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it.." and so the Eucharist was handed to the church in broken bread gratefully shared. No the church isn't a food bank, it is a mountainside with loaves and fishes; and it is a community which resists the iron systems of economic discrimination, which calls in question cash value by demonstrating the genius for generosity, which contradicts the barcode with the made marketing that tells the customers don't buy one and get one free.

And just so we are clear. Food banks are centres of hope for the hungry, places of refuge for those harassed and helpless in a society where for some folk life just doesn't work.They are, however, an embarrassment that they have to exist at all in a country where austerity has become a godless mantra. I wondered about that phrase, godless mantra, but I leave it in. The God referred to in the Lord's Prayer is self-excluded from any set of policies that make it impossible for some folk to pray with trust for that loaf, stuck in the middle of the liturgy to remind us of our humanity.The God I believe in multiplies bread, gives thanks and breaks a loaf. We don;t live by bread alone, but we won't live long without it.

And yet. As a follower of Jesus I give food to food banks, and encourage churches to have donation boxes as prominent as the offering plates.Likewise, as a follower of Jesus I am called to match compassion and generosity on the one hand with a chronic discontent with things as they are so long as they stay the way they are. So the war on benefits, the minimum wage, the myth of 'the deserving poor' as if poverty is a choice, the in-built cycles of poverty, the loneliness of those on the margins, the convenience to the economy of zero hour contracts, and a bureaucracy increasingly heartless and sanction obsessed. Alongside these I place the scorn of Amos my favourite Old Testament political radical,'You sell the poor for a pair of designer trainers...you trample the poor in the dust...you who oppress the poor and drink expensive wine...you build your businesses but you won't prosper...but let justice roll down like a river, and righteousness like a never failing stream..."

Ok. Let us pray, "Our Father,...Give us this day our daily bread, and lead us not into the temptation of thinking that food banks are unnecessary, but deliver us from the evil of putting up with dehumanising poverty for the sake of the deficit." Or words to that effect.

A reverie About Christian Mission and An Old Walled Garden

The walled gardens at Drum Castle are a favourite place for a reverie. It's hard to have a reverie these days. Our minds aren't accustomed to the mental spaciousness and lapse of productiveness and reorientation of focus necessary for those episodes of creative restfulness and restful creativity. 

Walking on paths laid centuries ago, in a garden with historic borders and beds of old scent laden roses, and provided with a number of features intended to rest the mind and slow the body, like this old water feature not unlike a baptismal font, I reach for that word rendered obsolete by frantic lifestyles fuelled by acquistive habits, driven by dissipated attention, sustained by conveyor belts of desire-induced credit, and hostile to any use of time that is not work, entertainment, or retail activity. Reverie.

Reverie is to allow ourselves the freedom to notice; to be patient with and to feel this body that walks, talks and works; to remember rhythms of thought and movement that are respectful of place and time. Reverie isn't so much a time of thinking as a time of openness to thinking about the present as a requirement of being open to the future, and of not foreclosing on our past. 

Reverie is an imagination friendly environment, a space hospitable to thoughts however weird, wonderful or wide of the marks of the norm. Reverie is when we are not limited by here and not constrained by now, but when we are presented with the gift of wondering what it is like to be who we are, and to accept who we are without judgement, expectation, or disappointment.

Reverie is prayer if it is some or most of these things, because we are made in the image of a God who created for six days, and at the end of each day looked with critical appreciation and saw that it was good. We are made in the image of a God who at the end of the six days looked with critical appreciation and saw that it was very good, and then rested. The sabbath of God was a time of creative reverie, God rested, wondered, waited, allowed to be.

I wonder how much more effective Christian mission and activity would be if we rehabilitated the practice of inner sabbath, reverie. What would it do to our church programmes of discipleship, worship, mission and service if they arose out of a community comfortable with periods of critical appreciation, creative reverie, a wondering and waiting that was open to the present and therefore open to a different future?

One of the characteristics of the first Christians was their joy. Luke describes those days after the resurrection as times when the disciples disbelieved for joy. Paul lists joy immediately after love and before peace as fruits of the Holy Spirit. My point? The word reverie comes from obsolete French meaning rejoicing, revelry and is from rever meaning delirious! Now whatever else Christians have been accused of by the society they categorise as secular, we haven't been overburdened with charges of excess joy.  Maybe that's because there is insufficient value placed on Christians modelling a way of living in which reverie, creative wondering and imaginative care for the world, is the disposition out of which comes those redemptive gestures, out of which grows a spirit of reconciliation, and within which grows a community in love with the world God made, in which God became incarnate in Christ, which God loves into new life and new creation, and into which we are sent as revellers of the Kingdom.

Post Referendum: From Cacophony to Symphony

Been away a few days Livingston, Paisley, Edinburgh, and a family funeral forbye. Hence the non disturbance in my corner of the blogosphere vineyard.

Not a bad time to be offline though. The ongoing sniping and rewinding of one side and the evasions and qualifications and lies and damned lies of the other side, are creating an atmosphere in which it's hard to breathe, and think, and imagine our way into the best kind of future for Scotland and the other countries which make up the UK. Listening to the spokesperson for Mediation Network Scotland, he made the interesting point that reconciliation can come too quickly before the significance of the hurt and the magnitude of the decision have been registered.

He's right. It takes time for complaint and grief, grievance and hurt, to find words, to say truth as it is felt and as it affects the inner and outer climate of life. It takes time to understand both ourselves and those who voted differently. But then there is a need to accept, to move on, and to be part of that forward movement. When sufficient words have been said, and enough time has passed isn't easy to guage, and will vary from person to person, group to group, and depends on the magnitude of the issue - this one was huge. So when is enough time?

Well it can't be far away - indeed for Scotland's sake the sooner the better. The constant flow of the discourse of injustice, cheating and foul play is in danger of saying what happened was not a democratic process. It was, and the result is the reality we now have to deal with. The evasions, manipulative doublespeak and selfish agendas of Westminster are equally endangering the credibility of what is claimed to be a showpiece democratic process.

The First Minister promised he would accede to "the settled will of the Scottish people" - it's time he led by example in that direction and pursued the interests of all the Scottish people, 100%, not the 45% who voted in support of his vision, but also the 55% who chose otherwise.

The Prime Minister and his Westminster colleagues in party leadership promised a range of powers unconditionally - it's time he and they demonstrated the integrity of their words, and stopped the blatant vacillations, reeking policy smokescreens, and acknowledged the unprincipled arrogance in linking unconditional promises made to the Scottish nation with tawdry offers and late entry conditions made to assuage the anger of the crown princes of his party, and only made once the result was in.

So. When will enough time have elapsed for the 45% to start thinking of themselves again as part of the 100% that is our Scottish nation? How long will it take for Westminster to deliver what was promised, whether willingly or under compelling political pressure? The answer to that second question is inevitably linked to the answer to the first. Westminster needs to be confronted now and on into our future, by a united Scottish voice that won't take no for an answer. It is the First Minister's duty, and privilege, to serve the people of Scotland, all of us, and to defend the interests and rights of all the Scottish people post Referendum. So instead of leading the choir of complaint perhaps he should be putting together a choir and orchestra to premiere a new Scottish Choral Symphony - "symphony" - a consonance of voices. That's what Westminster needs to hear - a consonance of Scottish voices.  

Prayer and Poltics and the Future for Scotland

Same prayer today as yesterday. And you know, this prayer wouldn't be a bad basis for a political agenda off the back of the most remarkable democratic process in modern times in these lands. 

So today this prayer becomes a checklist of what Micah meant, "What does the Lord require of us but to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly...", with God and with each other.

 

 

Go forth into the world in peace;
be of good courage;
hold fast that which is good;
render to no one evil for evil;
strengthen the fainthearted;
support the weak;
help the afflicted;
honour everyone;
love and serve the Lord, rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit;
and the blessing of God Almighty,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
be amongst us and remain with us always.

Amen.

How Do You Create (or Restore) a Spirit of Comradely Friendship

One of the hardest things to do is to put the toothpaste back into the tube.  One of the even harder things to do is to speak wounding words and try to persuade those we have hurt that it was just politics, it wasn't personal, it was the heat of argument and we now move on. The First Minister says he will expect to conduct negotiations in the event of a Yes vote in a spirit of 'comradely friendship'. What in the name of the wee man does that sound like to all those other people (near 60 million of them) who have been lumped together in the Westminster and England bashing of the past months?

I get it that the Better Together campaign represents the stutus quo, and that the status quo needs radical and long reaching change. I also get it that there is an historic patronising and complacent attitude of taking Scotland for granted. And I am old enough to remember Winnie Ewing winning Hamilton, and Margo MacDonald winning in Govan, and have long understood the vision and excitement of those who long for an independent Scotland. I also realise that in the give and take of politics, that for the players in these brutal political tennis rallies in which facts are hammered across a dividing net with cut, volley and smash, it's the winning that counts, not the feelings of the opponent, or the way you win even if you win ugly. But there the analogy stops and the rally loses its cogency as metaphor.

This isn't a tennis match. This is a huge argument about our future, and the future of these islands - not just Scotland. National pride and longing, passion for change and long term discontent with the way things are, concern for our own and our childfen's futures, and the darker impulses of self-interest, getting even and nurtured resentment all coalesce and challenge the integrity and viability of mutual and reciprocal relationships centuries old. What we say in order to persuade our side to vote our way, especially when it is dismissive, abusive and at times offensive to those others with whom we share these islands will have a long half-life. It isn't possible to portray a people as the cause of all our griefs, to impugn motive and exaggerate differences, to vilify and try to silence voices on the other side which don't want us to go, and then assume we will sit down in comradely friendship - without even an apology, which if it comes will come too late - the toothpaste is out of the tube.

As a Christian I am embarrassed at much of the discourse of those who represent the Scottish people at Government level rubbishing all that has been achieved together; as I am embarrassed at much of the discourse of those who represent Scottish people at Westminster who at times have behaved and spoken disgracefully towards the rightful aspirations of a people to be self- determining through agreed democratic process. Lying, bullying, intimidation, demonising, orchestrating of institutions - the darker tones of political manipulation are well enough documented.

Whether the answer is Yes or No to Independence, we will live next door to neighbours who since the Union have shared some of our darkest and lightest experiences as a nation. In order to win Independence, there is no need to abuse our neighbours and cast up all our resentments and grievances just to win support by creating a climate of complaint and reserntment. These are not emotions that go away easily - and they will simmer on both sides of the border long after Friday's announcement.

So as a Christian, I am already committed to a ministry of reconciliation, a call to peacemaking, to live as a forgiven forgiver, to see and affirm and respect in each person I meet that of Christ, to see dividing walls of hostility as barriers to be subverted, and to hope and work for that Kingdom of daily bread for each child of God, to offer and work for forgiveness and reconciliation, and to stand with courage against those forces and influences that thwart justice, oppress the vulnerable and drain the eneergy and joy our of people's lives.  

 

The Neverendum Referendum - Scotland is Bigger than the Winners

 

 

It's impossible to be living in Scotland and not have an opinion on the question of Independence. Anyway, even if you don't have one, you'll soon be told the one to have! Most people have come to their view from a mixture of personal history, social location, political commitments, moral judgement, and issues of self-interest. That view is also influenced, adjusted, hardened by other people either shoring up that view by agreeing with it, dismantling that view by attacking it, or questioning it by debate and discussion. The last of these is the most creative and democratically coherent approach, - open, healthy, respectful, informed, passionate but fair exchange of views, opinions and prejudices - and this is what both sides say they wish the other side would respect.

I have never known my country more divided, not only in opinion, but in spirit. For all the disclaimers to the contrary, that this is only healthy and forward looking debate, there are powerful passions and high expectation visions and desperate hopes out there, on both sides. But only one side will win this Referendum - and in winning, whichever side wins, we are in serious danger of all being losers.

Those who wish to remain a United Kingdom will feel desperately let down and thwarted, because their sense of nationhood and self definition has been changed against their will; those who wish to be independent and no longer part of the United Kingdom will likewise feel desperately let down and thwarted, because their sense of nationhood and self-definition has been changed against their will. There are few passions more dangerous and volatile than thwarted nationalism understood as a people's sense of nationhood. Both Better Together and Yes Campaigners are arguing for the future of the nation to which we belong. The argument is about identity, belonging, history, cultural integrity, a nation's sense of self, as much as it is about economics, social justice and defence which are currently the levers used to push towards independence or pull back from it.

My main concern, and I mean concern, in this post, is the reality that the debate, however refreshing, exciting, unprecedented and historically significant, will nevertheless leave a legacy of deep discontent for almost half of Scotland's population. Whethere and where such disaffection, anger, anxiety, resistance and sense of powerlessness in face of a fait accompli can be safely channelled and creatively redeemed into generous hopefulness and constructive commitment to the common good, is quite another question. And it is the one to which the leaders on both sides should be paying more attention. The use of the word 'Celebration' by the First Minister, should it be a yes vote is understandable, some would say obvious and natural, but it is politically immature and unnecessarily provocative, and threatens to expose the partisan over-againstness that has characterised the Yes campaign.

And on Friday morning, if the supporters of whichever side wins forgets the other side which has lost, then it's hard to see in what sense we are either better together or better apart, because the loser will be Scotland. Dancing in the streets when the other half of the population feel they have lost something that defines who they are is not the way to bring about consensus around a shared and better future. There are powerful subterranean forces in a nation's consciousness of itself and it is dangerous and naive for any group that represents only half a nation to ignore these, or assume the winner's rostrum with a champagne bottle surrounded by the like-minded as if they are the only ones whose passions, aspirations and decisions matter.

One of the tests of a mature democracy, is learning to use power wisely - and whoever assumes such power on Friday would be wise to speak in the chastened tones of those who know the family have come through serious differences, and what is needed before Friday is a recognition that Scotland is bigger than the winners.

The Feast of the Holy Cross: "Love that gives, gives ever more..."

Early this morning I read much of that slim masterpiece, Love's Endeavour, Love's Expense. You know those times you wake up and know you won't sleep again? There doesn't have to be an explanation, at least not one that tries to make out that the occasional refusal of the body to sleep is explicable or a problem. A large mug of tea, a couple of hours of quiet, and a favourite book, with margin marks as footprints of previous readings of this book whose first reading in 1977 set me on a theological trajectory the impulse of which still propels my theological research and spiritual quest.

Today is the Feast of the Holy Cross. So I sat reading Vanstone, and now and then gazing across the study at the sculptured wall panel, a study of the XII station of the cross, a gift from my friend with whom I've talked often about art, tragedy, beauty and God. Without planning or intention, those early hours in silence and peace became prayer as words and image coalesced, and the cruciform shape of love formed and reformed around words like redemptive, creative, reconciliation, peace and life through death as death dies.

This book has instructed my mind and heart throughout my years of ministry and learning. When Jesus said, "Come to me all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest", he went on to extend that invitation beyond the promised renewal of rest to a call to lifelong learning. "Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart..." 

It's hard to find a better definition of a Christian - one who takes on the yoke of Christ and learns of Him,for the rest of their lives. The yoke, which harnesses the strength and energy of the ox to purpose; the student, who learns by being with the Teacher; combine them and you have the meaning of folloqwing faithfully after Jesus. This book, even in its title, is profoundly and enduringly Christ focused and crucicentric - it is about God's love, precarious, vulnerable, sacrificial, expensive, risky and with no guaranteed outcome. God's love becomes effective by not being cost effective, love wins without coercion and therefore risks losing. Vanstone's hymn says all this, a masterpiece of evocative theology which looks on the suffering love of God, in all its tragic triumph, and because of the clear vision of what the cross means to God and to Creation, looks without flinching. The cross reveals love;s endeavour and love's expense, and the response is theology lifted to doxology.     

Morning glory, starlit sky,
Leaves in springtime, swallows' flight,
Autumn gales, tremendous seas,
Sounds and scents of summer night;

Soaring music, tow'ring words,
Art's perfection, scholar's truth,
Joy supreme of human love,
Memory's treasure, grace of youth;

Open, Lord, are these, Thy gifts,
Gifts of love to mind and sense;
Hidden is love's agony,
Love's endeavour, love's expense.

Love that gives gives ever more,
Gives with zeal, with eager hands,
Spares not, keeps not, all outpours,
Ventures all, its all expends.

Drained is love in making full;
Bound in setting others free;
Poor in making many rich;
Weak in giving power to be.

Therefore He Who Thee reveals
Hangs, O Father, on that Tree
Helpless; and the nails and thorns
Tell of what Thy love must be.

Thou are God; no monarch Thou
Thron'd in easy state to reign;
Thou art God, Whose arms of love
Aching, spent, the world sustain.