Let us pray: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all our hearts be acceptable to you, O God, and may they be to your glory. Amen.

    I wonder if you’ve been watching the debate going on primarily in the United States that pits the scientific community against fundamentalist Christians. The debate centres around belief in “creation science” versus “evolution”. At risk of oversimplifying the issues in the debate, let me try to summarize it for you. First of all, the term “creation science” has largely been relegated to the past, replaced instead by the term “intelligent design”. The purpose behind this change has been an attempt to legitimize a theological concept that has mostly been proven unfounded and unprovable according to scientific method. In a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1987 the teaching of “creation science” was deemed to contravene the separation of church and state clauses in the American constitution. Thus, the term “intelligent design” was created as an attempt to secularise the science in order to allow it to be taught in schools.

    I think the whole debate is foolish. As I said in a recent meditation, I have no problem understanding evolution as a created process - wondrously fascinating and divinely complex. Scientific research has proven time and again that the more we discover about the universe in which we live, the more there is to know and that ultimately the objective questions being purused by the scientific community offer very little in the way of answers to the “why” questions as they pertain to the meaning of life, our existence in a vast universe and the work of God, the creator. Science mainly answers “how” questions. Faith answers the “why” questions.

    I bring the subject up today because in large part the “creation science” or “intelligent design” folks take the Genesis stories of creation as their primary source. I fail to see how the metaphorical concept of God working creation into a six day work week can be taken so literally. Now don’t get me wrong - I love the story. It is told with dramatic effect with whimsical and meaningful insights. In my mind, the story is not real, but it is deeply and meaningfully true. After all, stories about how human beings arrived on this earth form part of who we are as those same human beings. I love all the creation stories - whether they come from the Judeo - Christian tradition, various aboriginal traditions all across the globe, or out of the wild imagination of some sci-fi writer or speculative fiction author. Each of them adds a layer of insight to the whole question of who we are and what he are here to do.

    Today is named Trinity Sunday in the Christian calendar. Here is yet another interesting source of debate among the Christian community. I hope you noticed when I spoke earlier about the “intelligent design” and “evolution” debate that I said it was between the scientific community and fundamentalist Christians. There are millions of  scientists who are also Christian, and who have no trouble whatsoever holding “evolutionary theory” and their Christian faith together without any trouble. So now, back to Trinity Sunday. Celtic Christianity is replete with references to the Trinity. The title for this reflection comes from Celtic writing, naming the Trinity as Three in One: One in Three. I get the impression, perhaps mistaken, or perhaps because I just want to put this spin on it, but I get the impression that the concept of a three sided deity was one which opened up understandings of how to imagine God. And yet, so often now in my interactions with other members of the Christian community, the concept is used to shut down other ways of imagining and describing God. Three ways of describing God is clearly more expansive than one way, but just as surely it should not be used to limit our understanding to only three. The beauty of the concept of Trinity is that it opens up the option to define and describe God with different names, descriptions and imaginings. I believe the happy result of this is that the transcendent - beyond description nature of God is thus also opened up for us. As we search for new ways of imagining and describing God we are exposed to the part of God that is indescribable - experienced more than spoken of, and felt more than framed.

    It looks as if this is Trinity Sunday in more than one way, for there is a third conflict exposed by the readings for today. It revolves around the meaning and intent of the Great Commission as described by Matthew in his gospel. So much good and wrong has been done with this passage as the spark. It’s not hard to see why. The evangelistic intent of these verses seems transparently clear. Go and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - there’s the trinity formula again. There was a time in my life when I understood that as a commandment - and felt guilty when I wasn’t as zealous as I thought I should be. I still stand in awe of many people who took that passage as their guide and gave up much in order to serve God as missionaries. I am also keenly and sadly aware of the way the directive has been abused and misused. It is difficult to weigh the good against the bad, but I think right now the bad of all that has surpassed the good. I am both pleased and afraid of the consequences for the church when the Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission will begin its hearings. It is going to be a hard time for us, as a church and as church people. I also believe it is both necessary and healing for the commission to happen. The residential school system I believe is a direct result of the misinterpretation of the Great Commission. Again, risking oversimplification of all the issues, I believe that at least part of the story is explained by the mistaking of culture for faith. We just don’t do a very good job when we go into a situation with ideas that our ideas are superior - that we know better than the locals, and when we mistake our way of life for a complete belief system.

    In fact, if you were to summarize the issue behind these three controversies or conflicts I think you would discover that it revolves around the idea of being closed versus open. A story which proposes one understanding of how the world came into being is good as long as we understand it as “a” story and not “the” story. We can learn much from such a story - the truth there is to know from it - not the factual truth, but the mythical truth. A concept which proposes more than one understanding of the nature of God is good when we understand it as a way of opening the door to other ways of describing, experiencing and naming God. A commission to go and share our story with others is good when it is done with an open spirit. “Here’s what has worked for me, what has worked for you?”  is a much better statement than “Here’s what has worked for me, and  you must do it too.”

    And so, on this Trinity Sunday, we have a trinity of controversies inspired by our scripture readings today, and a threefold encouragement to be open to the presence of God in creation and stories of creation, in a variety of descriptions and names, and in being sensitive to the many ways in which the words and ways of Jesus can be followed. Amen.