Scott McAndless, Author at St. Andrews Hespeler

#AnabaptismEnvy

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, July 22nd, 2018 in Minister

Hespeler, 22 July, 2018 © Scott McAndless

Genesis 17:1-8, Acts 2:37-42, Psalm 100:1-5

was raised in a Presbyterian Church as a part of a fairly typical Presbyterian family at that time which meant that I was baptized as an infant when I was only a few months old. Since I was born near the end of the famous Baby Boom and at a time when the vast majority of the children born in Canada were baptized, my parents stood at the front of the church with a large group of parents and we were all baptized one after the other in a kind of an assembly line.

And that wa s fine. I mean, I didn’t remember it, of course, but my parents told me that it had been done and I had no reason to be concerned that it hadn’t. But then I grew up and, in time, I came into contact with another group of Christians who didn’t do baptism in quite the way that it was practiced in my church. These Christians are collectively called Anabaptists – a group that includes denominations such as the Baptists and various kinds of Mennonites. These churches do not generally see a baptism that is performed on an infant as a valid baptism and will argue that, to be truly valid, baptismal candidates should be of an age where they can actually choose for themselves whether or not they want to be baptized.

And when I first came to know Christians who believed this way about baptism, I will admit that I found their position to be very interesting and even persuasive. It kind of made sense to me, this idea that baptism should be something that you enter into willingly of your own accord. In fact, I will even admit that I started to wonder whether maybe there was something invalid or even illegitimate about my own baptism.

So, yes, I went through a period of time when I questioned my baptism. And you know how it is when you are going through adolescence. Who doesn’t remember those days? You struggle with everything. If you are a person of faith, you almost inevitably question that faith at some point. You certainly struggle over your own moral choices and decisions and can be very hard on yourself when you (also inevitably) fall short. So I went through all of that too but, in some ways, it was complicated by the whole baptism question. I couldn’t help but wonder if my baptism was at the root of all my problems. Maybe if I had been baptized later, as a believer professing my own faith, it would have taken, it would have sunk in deeper and would have had a more lasting effect on my moral behaviour and my doubts. I suffered (and I am going to go ahead and hashtag this one because I think that it’s time) I suffered from #AnabaptismEnvy.

I suspect that I am not the only one. So I do think that the question that is raised in this morning’s reading from the Catechism is a very important one: “Who may be baptized?” Finding the answer to that question did not only put my own mind at ease regarding my own baptism, it also helped me to understand the real meaning and purpose of the sacrament.

First, let me clearly affirm what I learned as I matured as a Christian. Any struggles I had as I grew up and matured in my faith all stemmed from my own basic humanity and absolutely not from any deficiency in my baptism. I have known, and continue to call my friends, many Anabaptists. They are very fine people and highly committed to their faith and to doing what they see as right in the world. But the fact that they were baptized at a time and a place of their own choosing did not mean that they had been spared the struggles and the doubts that are common to all of us.

I have observed one thing in a number of cases: when a person comes to that point in their life when they decide to make their public commitment to Christ by being baptized, they will often go through a kind of a honeymoon period shortly afterwards. There will be a time when all is beautiful and wonderful and clear for them and their Christian lives are so easy. Such a time is a great thing and a wonderful gift for a person to experience. But the reality is that a baptism does not solve all your problems and unless you actually address the negative patterns and triggers in your life, sooner or later that honeymoon period will end and you will find yourself returning to old ways and old problems.

So, no, a baptism is not going to fix you. That is actually not what it is for. But what is it for? That is the question that really matters here, isn’t it? And to answer that question we really have to dig into the scriptures a bit. In our reading this morning from the Book of Acts, we find the Christian church at a very pivotal moment. It is several weeks after the resurrection of Jesus and the church is having its big coming out moment on the Day of Pentecost. Up until then there had been a discipleship group around Jesus – a group that is said, at one point, to have included at least 72 people. In other words, it wasn’t exactly huge. It was a somewhat limited group and its focus was not really on growth in numbers. But all of that changes as the church makes its big debut on Pentecost.

So after a bit of a fire and light show in which flames descend upon the heads of individual believers followed by a pretty impressive display of the disciples’ ability to speak a huge number of strange languages, the big moment arrives. Simon Peter gets up and preaches the first sermon of the Christian Church – a sermon that he begins, by the way, by saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, I know that we might look like it, but these people are actually not drunk.” That is personally my favourite first line of a sermon in all of Christian history.

But, however it begins, it is obviously a very persuasive first sermon because, at the end of it, a huge number of people – Luke says that there were three thousand of them – want to become a part of whatever this new thing is. “Brothers,” they say, “what should we do?”

This is an incredibly important moment. A movement is defined by its membership and so there is a real need to know who belongs. If you are organizing a new club, for example, you might set up bylaws or standards of dress or behavior. Only those who agree to abide by these things can belong. When you are starting is also the best time, of course, to establish membership fees. This is because, above all else, a movement is defined by who is in and who is out. So what Peter says next here is going to define the church for the next two millennia.

And what does Peter say? Are there any rules of behavior? Are there any dress codes, any fees? No. This is what Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized.” That is it. If you read the entire sermon, it is clear what Peter means when he says, “repent.” He has just spent several minutes describing the corrupt system of this world – the system that put Jesus to death. Based on everything that he has just said, to repent clearly means to give up and turn your back on the corrupt system of this world and seek a new basis for life. That is the only requirement and it is basically an exasperation with this world and its delinquent ways. It is about a desire to see change and to be a part of that change.

And, it is with that understanding that Peter offers the next step which is baptism: “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” What then is baptism? It is an outward sign that you belong to a different system.

The most important explanation of the meaning of baptism in the scriptures sees it as an image of dying and being raised up to new life. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Paul writes to the church in Rome.“Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Dying to something old in order to be raised up to something new is about the clearest image you could find of turning your back on one system in order to embrace another. That is exactly the same kind of transition that Peter is talking about in the Book of Acts.

So, more than anything else, baptism is a declaration of what system you belong to, of where your allegiances now lie. It is not a statement that you understand everything, that you have all of your beliefs worked out or that you have all of the answers. This Peter makes quite clear when he continues to speak to the Pentecost crowd, “For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

To the all important question of who may access this incredible power of baptism, Peter gives the clear answer, there are no real limits. It is for you, yes, but also for your children and note that no age limits are given. Even more surprisingly, he says, it is for those who are near – those who are already sympathetic to the message – but also for all who are far away and may have no understanding of these things. And he leaves the reason for this until the last when he declares that ultimately the grace that is received in baptism does not depend on the person who is being baptized themselves but only on the calling of the Lord our God.

So how is this any kind of answer to the question of Anabaptism envy? The Anabaptists are indeed correct that it is good to come to God and, as a competent adult, choose for yourself to be baptized as an act of personal commitment. And, of course, many people do exactly that in many different churches including our own. But Peter makes it clear in this passage from the Acts that this is not the only way, nor is it necessarily a superior way. This is because the grace of the baptism is not dependent on us but on God. And God can and does make a place for everyone. Can the person who has such a reduced mental capacity that he will never understand the meaning of baptism be baptized? By the grace of God yes. Can an infant who may or may not someday choose for herself to be a follower of Christ be baptized? By the grace of God, yes.

For baptism is nothing and has no power if it is not a celebration of the grace of God and no one can put limits on the limitless grace of God. The promise of baptism is a new start, freedom from this world’s madness and its corrupt systems. That promise is for you, wherever you are in your life, whatever you struggle with and whatever your level of understanding. You may have had it claimed for you when you were an infant but you can and should continue to claim that promise daily. That is how the promises of God always work.

Hocus Pocus

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, July 15th, 2018 in Minister

Hespeler, 15 July, 2018 © Scott McAndless

Galatians 3:23-29, Romans 6:1-11, Matthew 3:13-17

have here a perfectly ordinary box of pencil crayons. It is something so completely ordinary that you could find in most any household (or at least any household where there are small children hanging around). But what if I were to tell you that I can make these pencil crayons disappear? Yes, you heard me right, I can make them disappear in the wink of an eye.

Now you’re looking at me skeptically right now and I do not blame you! I mean, who could have to power to do such an amazing thing! But I tell you that all of your skepticism will disappear as fast as, well, as fast as these pencil crayons will in just a few moments.

So, without further ado, let’s just do it. Are you ready to be amazed? In a moment you will be when these pencil crayons disappear. 1, 2, 3 and gone! Oh, it didn’t work. That’s funny, it worked perfectly when I was practicing… box full… 1, 2, 3… woosh… What could I be missing?

Let’s try again. Prepare to be amazed. 1, 2, 3 and nope. What am I doing wrong? Does anybody know if there is one more crucial step you need when you are doing magic? I’ve got the banter, the slight of hand, what is missing? The magic word? Well, I guess that I could give that a try. What is a good magic word to use? Ok, let’s try hocus pocus. 1, 2, 3 and “Hocus Pocus!” And the pencil crayons are gone!

Here is a demonstration of the trick that I did:

And that is, is it not, the essence of magic. You take a perfectly ordinary, everyday thing – like a bunch of pencil crayons in a box – and you make them do something that those ordinary things are not supposed to do. But that alone does not make it magic because magic has got to be a performance. It doesn’t work if it doesn’t come with a good magician’s patter, exaggerated gestures and, above all, you have got to have some magic words.

But where does that idea come from? Would you be surprised if I told you that it comes from religion? Probably not. Various ancient and even modern religions have made use of what is sometimes explicitly called magic. The idea of witchcraft, for example comes out of various ancient pagan religions and there are even modern “witches” who claim to continue in those ancient belief systems.

But what if I were to tell you that that particular kind of show magic where an entertainer uses special gestures and magic words and everyone is supposed to know that it is not real magic but an act, that specifically comes from Christianity and was actually created as a parody of it.

How do I know that? I only have to look at the so-called magic words that I used this morning. “Hocus Pocus,” what do those words mean. Are they simply nonsense words? No, they are not. The “us” endings of the two words mark them, first of all, as imitation Latin words. And when those words “hocus pocus” first appeared way back in the seventeenth century, everyone knew exactly what Latin words they were imitating.

In the Roman Catholic Church at that time, and for many centuries after, priests always led the services in Latin, the language of the church. This was especially true when it came to performing sacraments – the most important of which was the mass, or what we would call communion. At the key moment in the mass, the priest would make a grand gesture – would lift up a piece of bread on high and break it while saying, in Latin, “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” which means, “This is my body.”

Now those English words, “This is my body,” are words that I have used many times myself – that most every Christian leader uses when leading a Communion service. They are, the gospels tell us, the very words that Jesus said when he broke the bread at the last supper, but that Latin formulation had a very different sense to it in the 17^th Century. Roman Catholics at that time (and to a certain extent still today) believe that when the priest makes that move and says those words, it is at that that moment that the miracle of transubstantiation occurs.

Now I’m not going to try and fully explain the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation here. I’ll just say that that church teaches that, in communion, the bread and the wine actually change in substance and become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (even while they still look and taste like ordinary food and drink). Protestants generally don’t agree with that idea, at least not completely. Presbyterians say that, while Jesus Christ is truly present when we have communion, that presence is spiritual in the community and not literally in the bread and wine.

Anyways, a few hundred years ago, everyone knew that those words, “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” were the words that many believed triggered a miracle. Of course, most laypeople couldn’t speak Latin so they tended to shorten the formula to a simpler, “Hoc est corpus,” or “This is body.”

Now, just try saying those words a few times fast: “Hoc est corpus, hoc est corpus, hoc est corpus,” and maybe you can tell me where those famous magic words, “Hocus Pocus,” came from. That’s right, early magicians, when they first created the magic show, chose to use magic words that were parodies of the key words from the Roman Catholic mass. In fact, the whole act, the waving of the hands, the very idea of magic words, were all a popular parody of what happens in every church where people gather to celebrate communion and other sacraments like baptism.

And here is my problem – here is why I bring up the whole thing: a few centuries later, I feel like people understand magic shows. They know that they are all make-believe. They know that it is all a trick and that nothing really changes – just like these pencil crayons have all been cut and glued together so that they drop when I stop squeezing the box. They also recognize that the whole patter and gesturing and even the magic words are really just gimmicks that are supposed to distract you while the musician puts one over on you. But that’s okay, of course, because it is not real. It’s just entertainment.

So we get how magic shows work, but do we understand the thing that they are parodying? Do we understand how sacraments work? I mean, do we even think that they work at all?

We recognize two sacraments in the Presbyterian Church in Canada. They are Baptism and Holy Communion. And there is no question that those two sacraments point to the two most important truths about what it means to be a Christian. Baptism speaks to us about how we all, each one of us believers, belong to Christ, that he has cleansed us and forgiven us and done it by grace and not by our works. Communion speaks to us of the truth that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, that he is alive and among us and we can know the power of his resurrection.

But I think that it is worth asking why we need sacraments to do that. I mean, aren’t we supposed to know that we belong to Jesus because we have chosen to trust him? Aren’t we supposed to believe that Jesus is risen from the dead because of the witnesses and their testimony? We know these things by faith; what do we need sacraments for?

I mean, what are sacraments but ordinary everyday things – a bit of water splashed on the head, a little morsel of food and a sip to drink – ordinary things that are dressed up with fancy costumes, a few fancy gestures and, yes, words that sound suspiciously like magic words. They kind of remind me of a magic show and does that mean that they really are just so much hocus pocus? Is it just a trick?

Well, it is true that we belong to Christ by faith alone. All that is really required of you to be a true follower of Jesus is that you trust him. But you do need to understand that faith is not just a matter of intellectual assent. That is what we usually assume, of course, that having faith simply means screwing yourself up to believe that certain things are true. If you can give that intellectual agreement then you have faith. But it doesn’t quite work like that.

This is partly because of how we operate as human beings. As much as we might like to think otherwise, human beings do not operate merely on an intellectual level. Just because you think something is true doesn’t mean that you have faith in it. You need to do something.

For example, you might think that another person is absolutely the perfect person for you. She or he (I mean, whichever one is appropriate for you) is beautiful, smart, interested in all the same things that you are interested in. They are perfect. But would you marry him or her without spending time together, without talking, without actually doing things together first? Of course not. But why not? Your intellect says that they are perfect for you and you for them.

The reason why you wouldn’t do that is because human beings don’t work that way. We don’t operate merely on an intellectual level and we certainly don’t make commitments only based on what we think is true. We need to do something that engages us, that makes our commitment concrete to us.

Well, sacraments operate something like that as we live in and grow in our faith in Christ. They don’t make us believe. They don’t really have anything to do with convincing our intellect of anything, but that does not make them useless or hocus pocus or trickery.

This is what the catechism says about the role of sacraments is in our faith: “The grace effective in the sacraments comes not from any power in them but from the work of the Holy Spirit. Rightly received, in faith and repentance, the sacraments convey that which they symbolize.”

So what does that mean? It means that the power of the sacrament is not found in the concrete and visible thing that is a necessary part of it. There is nothing special about the water that is used, nothing special about the bread or the wine. Nor is the power found in the gestures or in the words that might seem to operate like magic words to an uninformed spectator. The power is in none of these things. The power of them is to be found in the Holy Spirit working in the gathered people, not in the things.

Nevertheless, the things – the water, the bread, the wine – are needed because they give an anchor to our experience, they allow us to ground God’s power in things that we can touch and taste and feel because we need that. It allows our faith to progress beyond a mere intellectual agreement to something that can become a part of our identity and our very being – just like the time you spend with someone who is perfect for you allows mere intellectual knowledge to become this thing that we call love.

Now generally, when I preach about sacraments and their meaning it is during a service when we are observing a sacrament – either baptism or communion – but that is not the case today. I took up the topic today because it is in our reading from the church’s catechism. So normally I would leave you at this point to contemplate on how you can use the particular sacrament that we celebrate to deepen your faith.

But I am not going to direct you towards one of the two church sacraments today. They are the model for another kind of sacrament that God offers you in the world. If you approach it with faith, yes, you can find Christ in the waters of baptism and in the bread and wine of communion. But God also puts before you many other objects where you can discover Christ’s presence: something shared with someone in need, that can be a sacrament. A well-tended plant that grows and produces, that can be a sacrament. There are sacraments waiting for you in the forests, on the beaches, most everywhere you go if you have the eyes to see them. It’s not magic; it is the work of God’s Spirit upon you. So go from this place today and find the sacramental presence of God in a needy world.

Keeping Jesus Out

Posted by Scott McAndless on Monday, July 9th, 2018 in Minister

Hespeler, 8 July, 2018 © Scott McAndless

Psalm 41:1-13, Matthew 25:31-46, Isaiah 58:6-10

ll my life I have heard Christian people explain the world’s problems. They know, you see, what has gone wrong. They know why it is that the churches are in decline, why gun violence and mass shootings are on the rise. They know the reason why people aren’t as kind and respectful as they used to be and why they do not engage in public service. They know the root cause of all of the woes of the modern world and they will not hesitate to tell you what it is. We struggle with all of these things and more, they’ll say, because we have kicked Jesus out. We have excluded Jesus from our schools, banished him from Main Street and thrown him out of our businesses. That is where our problems all began, they will tell you, and nothing will start to get better until we let Jesus in again.

And you know what, I would say that they are quite right. The problem really is a distinct lack of Jesus. But I’m not sure that I mean exactly the same thing that everyone means when they say that.

Think of it this way: You see a person by the side of the road, someone in some distress. Someone who is lost, confused, whatever it may be but they have troubles. But they are still a stranger – and not just any stranger but someone who clearly moves in a world very different from your own. It is someone, you are quite sure, that you would have nothing in common with. And it doesn’t even matter what it is that sets that person apart from you. It could be race or economic status. It could be gender or maybe even a lack of clarity when it comes to gender. They seem to have needs but there is just something that sets them apart from you. My question is this: how do you react?

One possible response is this: You don’t see them. I mean, yes, your eyes might record their existence there on your path but it is like your brain doesn’t quite make the identification of a human being. You notice little more than just so much empty space.

But sometimes you can’t help but notice that a person is there and so you do feel an entirely human impulse to respond and do something helpful. And then, naturally, you fight it. You begin to find all sorts of excuses for why you can’t do anything to help them. You know the rationalizations because we’ve all made them: “If I gave him some money, it’d probably get wasted on smokes or on booze.” “I’m not qualified to help and I’d probably make things worse.” Or “I’ll just let somebody else take care of the situation.” It is a great way to let yourself off the hook and I will certainly admit that that is how I sometimes react.

But sometimes you cannot talk yourself out of it and you feel you must respond in some way. What happens then? The tendency, is it not, is to minimize your contact with that strange person who is in need as much as possible. The easiest thing, of course, is to throw a bit of money at the problem and be done with it. You can get along with your day and nothing needs to penetrate your life – nothing needs to change.

That, I believe, is how we tend to react and that is what we stumble over: the contact with the person in need. We may say that our problems is that we are worried about the cost – that we cannot possibly afford to help every poor soul that crosses our path and that it would ruin us if we did. But I don’t think that it is about the economic cost. We certainly spend a whole lot of money on other, largely useless things without even thinking about it. No, the cost that bothers us is the emotional cost, the psychological cost of letting someone into the bubble that is our safe and secure feeling lives.

But what if, by doing that, you are missing out on the most important parts of that encounter? What if the thing that matters in your interaction with a person in need is not the specific help you offer, the money that you give, the food that you feed them? What if the point is actually the degree to which you actually get to know that person?

That is the frightening possibility that is raised by Jesus’ parable from the Gospel of Matthew this morning. In it Jesus talks to his followers, those who have called him their Lord throughout their lives, at the end of the age. And he separates them into two groups: sheep and goats. Their division is specifically based on how they deal with people in need: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, sick and in prison. The good sheep helped and the bad goats failed to help.

But Jesus, in this parable, doesn’t do what we would do. He doesn’t dwell on the help that was given, how much there was and whether or not it was effective. That is often exactly where we get bogged down. We worry about wasting money by using it in the wrong ways, we agonize over setting up effective projects. But Jesus doesn’t evaluate any of that because he focusses on a much more important outcome of the incidents. There was an encounter, he says, and in that encounter, you met me.

The biggest end goal of our response to those in need is not the alleviation of need or suffering. Yes, of course, we hope that the things that we do will make things better for people and we ought to do our best to make sure that our efforts have the best effect possible, but the harsh reality is that if that is the only reason why you do it you will discourage yourself and sooner or later and you will burn yourself out or give up because even your best efforts will fail and fall short at some point. Even worse, the deepest problems that plague this world – poverty, despair, hatred, sickness – they will never entirely go away despite what any of us does. If you enter into a caring ministry motivated only by the idea that you are going to fix everybody, chances are that you are only going to make everything worse.

But the good news is that that is not the only reason why we do anything that is directed towards those who are in need. We do it because, according to this parable, it is the only way that we will discover and know for sure that Jesus is alive and among us. If we respond to people in need in a way that allows us to get to know them, their fears, their hopes and their dreams, we will discover the living presence of Jesus, working with power, among us.

I certainly believe that this is true, not just because Jesus said it but also because I have experienced it and I’m pretty sure that I am not alone. I know that many people who have been involved in our ministries towards those in need here at St. Andrew’s have experienced it. I’m not saying that if you come out and volunteer for one night at the Thursday Night Supper and Social or do a shift at Hope Clothing that you will come away with the assurance that you just saw Jesus. It doesn’t happen like that. It is usually something that happens only in small glimpses and insights and not in some big dramatic event. It also usually happens after you have put in enough time to get to know people and they get to the place where they can trust you a little bit. But I have certainly come away with an encounter with Jesus and I know that others have as well. I can’t argue you into accepting that it is true, though; it is something that you have to experience for yourself.

The clear promise is that you can encounter Jesus when you get involved with people who are in need. I believe that that is the truth, or at least a part of the truth, that Jesus was trying to get across with this parable. And that creates a problem for the church and for society. If the greatest need that we have right now, as I said at the top, is for more Jesus, then, to the degree that we limit our interaction with people who are in need, we are cutting ourselves off from Jesus. We are cutting ourselves off from what we need most.

And it is not just that particular scenario that I have painted for you when you happen to walk by a person in need at the side of the road. The bigger problem is that we intentionally design our lives and our societies in such a way as to make sure that we do not encounter those who are in need. For example, one of the biggest domestic crises of our time is the opioid epidemic. People are dying and being permanently injured because of their addictions to opioids in unprecedented numbers. And I know that the causes of this epidemic are complicated and that there is blame to go around to a lot of people including some doctors, drug companies and, in some cases, the victims themselves, but I am not talking about blame. I’m talking about the enormous need and suffering and it is all around us. Do you realize that the fire department and paramedics have responded to opiate overdose calls in every neighbourhood in every part of Cambridge, Waterloo and Kitchener in the last year – every neighbourhood. There are no exceptions! It has happened within a few blocks of your house!

And people acknowledge the need and realize that, if we don’t do something to respond, the slaughter will only grow. And one of the few things that can actually help in the short term is supervised injections sites. There really isn’t much debate about that anymore among people who are informed. But I’ll tell you what there is debate about. There is debate about where you set that up. And where do people want you to set up safe injection sites? “Not near me.” That is where people want them. “Anywhere but near me.”

This is not really because of safety concerns although, of course, certain safety precautions need to be taken. There is no place that is really safe in the present opioid crises. As I said, it is all around us wherever we might live. This is about where the victims of the opioid crisis – the people in need – become visible. This is about people not wanting to encounter the people who are in need. But what if, by cutting ourselves off from them, we are cutting ourselves off from Jesus. And the world needs more Jesus.

Nowhere is this problem more evident than when you come to the question of immigration and asylum. For the past five years or so, the world has been passing through the largest refugee crisis that it has seen perhaps ever in terms of sheer numbers. There are more displaced people in the world today than there have ever been. This crisis has not been caused by the refugees themselves but by a variety of international crises like the Syrian Civil war and the Central American drug wars. If you want to talk about overwhelming need, the world’s refugees today are the poster children for need.

But, at a moment when the need is at an all-time peak what do we see – a huge, almost unprecedented global reaction against migration and the refugees themselves. The victims of this disaster are being turned into enemies and dangerous purveyors of violence despite all the evidence that is out there that migrants are actually less likely to commit crimes and, over the long-term, contribute more to the economy of a country than do native-born citizens.

All of this causes untold misery and crushes hope for so many, but the worst part of it is that, if what Jesus said was true, by doing this what we are really doing is cutting ourselves off from Jesus who has promised that he is present in the strangers. And what the world needs – what we need – is more Jesus.

So those Christians are right. What we need more than anything in the church today is to reconnect with Jesus. Many here, I know, are seeking to do exactly that in their work at the church and in the community. I appreciate and honour that. I fear that far too many Christians, however, set themselves up to do the very opposite and cut themselves off from the very people through whom Jesus is manifesting himself to the world today.

All I’m saying is this: we need more Jesus. And at a time when Jesus is more available than ever (in the form of strangers in need), we need to think carefully about how we can get to know them.

Being Good Canadians

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, July 1st, 2018 in Minister

Hespeler, 1 July, 2018 © Scott McAndless

Romans 13:1-7, Mark 10:2-12, Psalm 20:1-9

Before I begin today, I want to say a few things about this sermon that I have written. This is my very first sermon preached after not preaching for ten whole weeks and that is actually something that is quite extraordinary for me because that has not happened to me for over a quarter of a century.

But there is something else that is rather unique about this sermon. I didn’t want to have it hanging over my head the whole time while I was away so I actually wrote it before I left and put it away and intentionally forgot about it for ten weeks.

Now think, for a moment, about what that means. I wrote today’s sermon without knowing who would be the Premier of Ontario on July 1^st. I did not know who would win the election, although I was pretty sure that, whoever it was, over half of the Province of Ontario would be upset with the results.

Even more stunningly, I wrote this sermon and chose to use as a text our reading from Romans 13, long before the Attorney General of the United States would use the very same passage to justify separating parents from their children for the so-called crime (actually a misdemeanor) of incorrectly crossing a border.

So a lot happened since I wrote it but I have decided not to change the substance of the sermon at all. I’ll leave it to you to decide if it is still relevant over ten weeks after it was written.

t is July 1^st, a good day to be a Canadian – a day to appreciate all of the benefits and blessings that come with being citizens of a wonderful and beautiful country.

But Canada Day also falls on Sunday this year, which reminds us that being a Christian in Canada means that sometimes you have some difficult judgments to make. And I am not just talking about the choice that every one of you had to make today – will I go to the Canada Day Parade or will I go to church. I mean, obviously, all of you made the right and wise choice on that one today so you don’t need any help on that account. I’m talking about some of the bigger questions related to what it means to be a Christian living in this country.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” In fact, some Christian supporters of Donald Trump in the United States have been making particular use of that passage a lot in that country recently as they try to convince their less supportive Christian brethren that they need to support their president no matter what doubts they may have. Of course, if those Christians had been as quick to apply the same passage to previous Democratic presidential leaders, I would be a little more impressed by their fidelity to the Bible.

For example, how do we deal with and relate to those who have been placed over us in power and authority? It seems to be a good question to ask at a time when we are hearing a lot of dissatisfaction coming from all sides on the federal, provincial and local level. We read a passage from the Letter to the Romans that is often cited whenever Christians struggle with this issue.

But should the passage be applied like that? I mean, yes, it is a good thing to respect the authorities in your country; clearly, if we all failed to do that, it would lead to chaos and it wouldn’t be good for anyone. But can we make that an unbreakable rule? Must leaders be respected no matter what they do? If they act unlawfully, for example? Or unjustly? Paul may well have counseled the people in his churches to respect the authority of the state – it sure was a good way to avoid getting into trouble with such powers – but I don’t think that even he could have seen this as an absolute requirement. Surely there had to be some things that crossed the line – that meant that you could not support the policies of a leader.

Jesus ran into one of those thorny political questions one day – though we might not realize just how thorny it was. You see, one of the really hot political questions in Galilee in the time of Jesus had to do with divorce. King Herod Antipas was the king of Galilee (technically his title was tetrarch but king was what he wanted to be). King Herod was an ambitious man. He wanted more and more power and wealth for himself. (I know, shocking, who ever heard of a politician who wanted that?) So Herod employed many strategies to get what he wanted – things like building projects and economic initiatives. But he also used a strategy often employed in the ancient world: strategic marriage.

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great so he was in the second generation of a ruling dynasty that had been around for a while, but it was a dynasty that many people looked on with suspicion. The Herods, you see, were not Jews – not really. They were foreigners that the Romans had placed over the Jews. And I don’t think that the Herods ever quite got over that. So Herod came up with a plan to marry someone who had a strong link to a previous line of kings – a very Jewish dynasty.

Her name was Herodias and, with her genuine Jewish royal blood she would have solved all of Herod’s problems – or so he thought at least. But there was one problem: she was already married and, in fact, she was married to Herod Antipas’ brother.

The solution was simple. Herodias just had to divorce the brother and marry Herod – something that she was quite willing to do because she recognized the benefits of allying herself to an ambitious man. So that is what happened.

But some people – can you imagine it – were upset with King Herod. They recognized this marriage as a cold, cynical political move made to benefit no one but Herod. Even worse, it caused a war! Herod also had to divorce someone to marry Herodias and his former father-in-law, an Arab King, was so mad that he invaded the kingdom and the war went very badly for Herod. So it turned out to be a disaster really.

Nevertheless, few could muster the courage to voice criticism aloud and no wonder. One man did it – a man named John the Baptist. John spoke up publicly and said the king shouldn’t have done it. Perhaps John thought he could get away with it because he lived way out in the wilderness but that didn’t save him. He was arrested and thrown in prison. Shortly afterward John lost his head, and, no, that is not a metaphor. His head was served up on a platter, we are told in a previous passage in the Gospel of Mark, at the instigation of Herodias herself.

Now that kind of measure has a way of sending a message. I’m pretty sure that anyone who set themselves up as a spiritual leader would have understood that commenting on the king’s marriage was a perilous thing to do.

Well, in the passage we read this morning from the Gospel of Mark, I believe that Jesus is asked to do exactly that. Now, I realize that the names of Herod and Herodias do not come up at all in our reading this morning. The Pharisees come up with a seemingly generic question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Are they not asking about the lawfulness of divorce in general?

Well, think of it this way: if a reporter came up to a religious leader today and asked the question, “Do you think that it is lawful for a man to have sex with a pornstar and then have his lawyer pay her off for $130,000?” would that be a generic question? It might have the form of one and could be applied to anyone who paid off a pornstar, but wouldn’t everyone in the crowd – and it doesn’t even matter whether the story was true or not – wouldn’t everyone know exactly who you were talking about with such a question? Of course they would.

Well, in that environment at that time, the divorce question was the same thing. Everyone knew exactly who the Pharisees were talking about and everyone knew just how explosive the question was. Did you notice that Jesus couldn’t even answer the question entirely in public? He had to give part of the answer privately to the disciples – that is a good indication that he knew exactly how dangerous the question was.

And I think that this makes an important point. I don’t particularly think that the church today should be involved in what I would call political activism. I certainly do not think that it is our role, for example, to become involved in party politics or to endorse particular candidates. But we have something to say – and the Christian gospel has something to say – about life in this world and what can make it better for everyone overall. We are required to speak up about these things.

An example might be the issue of divorce that comes up in this passage. I realize that it is a difficult issue because it is a very personal issue, but, wherever exactly you stand on the issue, I think that we all agree it is an important one. I believe that anyone who enters into a marriage should enter into it with the intention that it be a lifelong commitment. That is the strength of marriage and I believe it is mutually beneficial to the partners in that marriage. But I have also seen enough marriages fall apart to know that there are exceptions to that. There are relationships where the people are just too prone to tearing each other down to be salvaged. There are cases of abuse and worse where a divorce may be sad, but it is still the best way forward. I do believe many such exceptions are covered under God’s amazing grace.

But some religious folks I know would not allow such exceptions for the average person who finds themselves in a destructive marriage. They would force some people to remain in that relationship no matter what. But, we have learned, they do make exceptions in some cases. They make exceptions in the cases of the Herods, the elites, the Presidents on their third marriage who have affairs with an assortment of porn stars. They make the exceptions for the powerful people, at least the ones that they think will enact the policies that they want.

That’s what I see the Pharisees doing in this passage. They understand the divine intention regarding marriage, that it should be forever, but they are happy to give King Herod a mulligan. “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her,” they say. In other words, they say that Herod is technically correct – he hasn’t done anything technically illegal. It is weak support for a monarch that they know is corrupt, but that is what some religious folk do all too often when they are really only interested in seeking their own interest as I am sure these Pharisees are doing.

But Jesus is not going to let that slide. He goes on to affirm what God’s original intention in marriage was – a statement that is memorably summed up in the words, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Again, I do not think that that means that there cannot be any exceptions to that intention, but I think that, clearly in the context, Jesus is not allowing for an exception being offered to an ambitious king who just wants to advance his own career by marrying his brother’s wife.

The principle is, in other words, that powerful people – people like Herod – don’t get special treatment because they are powerful. They are to be held to the same standards and the same exceptions as the rest of us. And I honestly think that that is a principle that can guide us very helpfully as we seek to work out that thorny question of how we can navigate that question of living, as Christians, while we are also citizens of a country.

Do we owe respect to those placed in positions of authority within our society, yes we do, for no other reason than that we respect the mechanism by which they were put into that position – in our case, the democratic process that I do believe is a gift of God. But does respect mean that we do not hold them to account, does it mean that we do not require of them the same morality and basic decency that we require of ourselves and others? No, it does not.

And so, as Christians I do not think we should be afraid to stand up and speak according to our convictions – even when that boldness comes at great cost as it did for John the Baptist and it eventually did for Jesus. This, for me, is essential to what it means to be Christian citizens of such a great country as the one in which we find ourselves.

I love my country. But true love of country is not blind, must be critical when criticism is called for. True love of country comes with respect for institutions and leaders, but again, that respect must sometimes be bold to speak the truth to the powerful.

O Canada, because our patriot love is true, we can and must stand on guard for thee.

A Hymn for Canada Day

Posted by Scott McAndless on Thursday, June 28th, 2018 in Minister

At St. Andrew's Hespeler this Sunday (which is Canada Day) we are planning to sing the following as a hymn (not an act of patriotism but an act of prayer within worship). This was not conceived of as an addition to Canada's National Anthem but as a way of lifting up our nation in prayer and being open to acknowledge the contribution of those who went before.

1. O Canada,

our home and native land,

true patriot love

in all of us command.

With glowing hearts, we see thee rise,

the true north, strong and free;

from far and wide, O Canada,

we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free;

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

2. We, as we stand,

acknowledge those who knew

This place before

and from its waters drew.

They honour the Creator and,

with drum and sacred song,

They find the Divine Presence in

the herbs and winds so strong.

Let us, with them, make hope increase.

Keep Kanata* a place of life and peace.

Keep Kanata a place of life and peace.

3. Almighty Love,

by thy mysterious power,

in wisdom guide,

with faith and freedom dower;

be ours a nation evermore

that no oppression blights,

where justice rules from shore to shore,

from lakes to northern lights.

May love alone for wrong atone;

Lord of the lands, make Canada thine own.

*Kanata: “A term meaning sacred land in our language here. The land creator gave us.” – Margaret Mullin

v. 1 based on Robert Stanley Weir’s translation. Public domain

v. Albert C. Watson. Public domain.

I am on an intermission

Posted by Scott McAndless on Tuesday, April 17th, 2018 in Minister

I will be on an intermission that has been approved by the Presbytery of Waterloo-Wellington from April 16 to June 24, 2018. I am very grateful to be able to take this opportunity. Here are just a few notes I would like to leave with you.

I will not be updating this blog during the intermission period.
I will, however, be working on a personal project -- a podcast in which I retell Bible Stories. If you are interested in following this project, you will find all the information and links to each episode at this site: retellingthebible.wordpress.com/
I will not be available to offer pastoral care or assistance during this time. Each week I have arranged to have two local Presbyterian ministers available to visit people or otherwise offer care. They will also be available in the event there is need of services (such as funerals and memorials). The names and contact information will change from week to week and will be posted in the bulletin each Sunday. Please call the church office if you need help connecting with someone. I am very thankful to these colleagues who have willingly stepped up to do this and to our team of Deacons who are regularly involved in pastoral care.
Rev. Mark Gaskin is my Presbytery Liaison during this time. He will be available to the session and Clerk of Session to offer any assistance. If you have any questions or concerns to communicate to the session, you may do so through the Clerk of Session as usual. Thank you Mark!
I have arranged for an excellent and highly recommended group of people to preach during this time and I am truly grateful to each of them. I hope you support them with your presence and enthusiasm.
I appreciate the staff at St. Andrew’s and am thankful for all that they have done to pick up some of my usual tasks during this period. They are wonderful people!
We thank Nancy English who is taking on leadership for the prayer chair during the intermission. If you would like a prayer request placed on our prayer chain please email Nancy at Prayerchain AT standrewshespeler DOT ca. You can also call the office and your message will be passed on.
Above all, I am thankful for the extraordinary people of the congregation of St. Andrew’s Hespeler who I know will continue faithfully in the work that we believe our Lord Jesus Christ has given us to do in these days!

I will build my church

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, April 15th, 2018 in Minister

Hespeler, 15 April 2018 © Scott McAndless

Matthew 16:13-20, Matthew 7:24-27, 1 Corinthians 3:10-17

hope you all know by now that, after the Gala Dinner this evening, I will be starting a ten week period that is called an intermission in the Presbyterian Church in Canada. I will be away from the ministry of this congregation and of the larger church for that entire period. I decided to request this for a number of personal reasons – because I felt a great need to res t and refresh and to renew the passion that had nourished me over the past twenty-five years of ministry. So I certainly have a few personal goals that I want to work on, but, that is not necessarily what I wanted to focus on today.

I have been thinking a lot about what I wanted to preach about today, and I don’t really want to focus on me, but rather on the church. In particular, I want to ask how the church can grow and develop during a short season without a regular minister. I know what the natural tendency is, of course. I know that during a vacancy, for example, it is not uncommon for people to drift away from regular church attendance or for various activities of the church to pause or even languish. The problem seems to be that people assume that ministry is something that only the minister does and that if there is no minister for a period of time then there is no ministry. And I hope we can all prove over the next little while that that is a damnable lie from the devil.

It is maybe not too surprising that people think that way when you consider passages of scripture like the one that we read in the Gospel of Matthew this morning. In this passage, Jesus brings up the whole matter of building the church. He is not talking about setting up a church building, mind you, but is talking about establishing the church as a force in society – something that can have a real impact for good in changing times. In many ways, I believe he is talking about how you build a church for times such as the ones that we live in.

And Jesus seems to have some pretty clear ideas about how you build such a church. You build it on a rock, but not just any rock. Jesus wants to build his church on a very specific rock. This is what Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”

Now of course, it makes good sense, if you are going to build anything, that you should build upon a good foundation and building on a rock sounds like a good way to do that. But Christians, down through the ages, have disagreed about just what metaphorical rock Jesus is talking about in this passage. You have probably heard, for example, about the traditional Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage. It is based upon the nickname that Jesus gives to Simon. Jesus was apparently quite fond of giving people nicknames. We’re told that he called the disciple Thomas by the name Didymas which means “the twin,” no doubt because Thomas was the spitting image of someone. He called Mary Magdalene, which means “tower” and I sometimes like to think that he did it because he saw her as a strong protector who would watch over the movement that he had started.

Simon he called “Peter” which means rock – just plain rock. This nickname is not explained anywhere in the gospels (not even in this passage we read this morning, I would suggest) but you just have to think of the modern celebrity who also goes by the name of “The Rock” to get an idea of what the nickname might have been referring to. When you think of Dwayne Johnston what traits come to mind? Strong, certainly, stubborn, not someone you would want to get in a fight with and, how do I put this, not necessarily the smartest guy in the room, though you would never tell him that to his face! I like to think that it was those traits that led Jesus to call Simon by the name of Rock which was Keppa in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, or Petros in the Greek of the New Testament. We get the name Peter from the Greek.

But Roman Catholic theology has taken that nickname and made it the basis of its understanding of the church. They interpret this passage to mean that Jesus was promising to build the entire structure and the very being of the church on Simon Peter himself – that this one man alone would be the foundational rock of the church. Of course, Catholic tradition teaches that Simon Peter went on to become the Bishop of Rome and that is why they believe that Peter’s successor in that office, known today as the Pope, is the one man around whom their entire church is still structured to this very day.

Now, I don’t mean to offer any specific criticism of the Roman Catholic Church or its structures here. I may not agree with all of their teachings but I certainly respect the institution and many of the good works that the church does. My question is rather about what Jesus actually intended, not when you think about the structure but rather when you think about the day-to-day life of the church. We in the Protestant Church may not agree that the entire church should be structured around one man in Rome, but on a local level, I’ve got to ask, isn’t that exactly how we build our churches. In so many churches that I have seen, the weight of the church and its life and its work tends to fall on just a few individuals – they are the rocks upon which we build our churches.

Now I am not saying this as a way of complaining that all of that weight get loaded exclusively on the minister. That’s not what I mean. I know (and greatly appreciate the fact) that I am far from alone in doing the work of this church. But it is true in this congregation, as it is true in so many, that that weight does fall on relatively few. Our staff does carry a great deal of weight as do key volunteers. And I have to wonder, is that really how Jesus envisioned that it would be in the church. When we build the church on the foundation of a few rocks (if those rocks are people as one interpretation of this saying of Jesus would suggest) it is undeniably hard on those rocks and some of them crack and strain under the pressure. Some of those rocks break down, some of them step down before they really want to, some withdraw altogether. We’ve all seen it happen.

And one thing I particularly note is this, it is not necessarily the work of the church itself that tends to wear those rocks down. Most of the work of the church is actually a great joy. To teach the gospel message to children, that is a joy and honour. To visit the sick or struggling, that can be difficult but it is also very rewarding as is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and preaching the word of life. Most people who contribute to the work of the church in a way that utilizes their own personal skills and strengths find that, in general, the work itself builds them up. No, the things that tend to make those rocks crumble are the other things: criticism of themselves or others, being taken for granted or not being appreciated for who they are, griping, complaining and general negativity. These things, from what I have seen, are what are most likely to wear down the rocks upon whom we build our church.

And I think that the reason why we do that – why we so easily turn the joy of ministry into the burden of dealing with all the negativity of the church is precisely because of this idea that we have that the church is built on the foundation of a few rocks that are people. When we think that they are the ones who are supposed to hold up the church, it becomes easy to focus any negative energy that arises upon them. (And negative energy always arises simply because we are human and things will never go perfectly).

And, no, I don’t think that that is how Jesus wanted to see any church that came out of the movement he had started behave. And it is that, more than any historical differences in interpretation between Protestants and Catholics, that makes me think that it is not correct to suggest that Jesus, in this passage, is trying to say that the entire church should be built in such as way as to depend on one person – even such an extraordinary person as Simon Peter. I believe that Jesus meant something else.

Now, I could try to make my point here by delving into the original language and grammar of the passage. I have read many a commentary on this passage arguing over the connection between the name Peter (which is Petros in Greek) and the Greek word for rock (which is petra). Some people argue that it is obvious that both words refer to the same thing while others argue that it is obvious that they do not. Of course, as you find in so many debates these days, the only thing that is truly obvious is that everyone can only see whatever supports what they have already decided to believe. I don’t think we can count on grammar to solve this one for us.

And so, instead of focussing on that one word, rock, let us look at what Jesus has to say about the purpose of the entire project. This is what Jesus has to say about the church that he wants to build: “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” That is a pretty audacious promise and it is one that is often misunderstood. You see, it is often understood to be a promise about the defense of the church. People assume that Jesus is talking about the church being under siege – that the powers of Hades (or Hell or evil or however exactly you want to understand that) are attacking us and the promise is that they will not prevail, they won’t win.

But actually that is not what Jesus is saying at all, because he talks about the gates of Hades. And when have you heard of gates attacking anybody? You haven’t because gates are defensive structures, not offensive. The role of the gates of Hades is not to attack but to defend against attack. So the picture of the church that Jesus is painting here is not the picture of a church defending itself against the attacks of evil but rather a church on the offensive.

And I think that this is a very important point because so much of what we do in the church seems to be defensive. We are fearful of the loss of status of the church, we are fearful of change. We feel as if the church is under attack in society and that is the source of a lot of the negativity that we feel. We are always trying to keep up appearances, to pretend that nothing has changed and when we do that we tend to pile more and more on the people who do the work of the church. But right here, right in this passage, Jesus has revealed to us that the church is not made to be on the defensive. We have been made the storm the gates of Hades – to take the evil of this world head on – and not to cower in fear. If we really believed that, how different would our attitude be and how much weight would it take off of the foundation rocks of our church?

In the end, I don’t believe that the church depends on any one person – not on Peter, not on me, not on you. If the church does not find its foundation in Christ himself and in the confession of Christ that Peter made, it will not succeed. (And, by the way, I think that was what Jesus was saying when he spoke about building his church on a rock.)

I realize that the next several weeks will create somewhat of a shakeup in the human leadership of this congregation. It may not all go smoothly; there may be some disruption. But I honestly believe that it can be a good thing because if that can show us where the true foundations are, maybe we can stop being defensive or afraid and get on with the work that Christ has given all of us to do.

Highlights of the April 15 service:

Created in Christ Jesus for good works

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, April 8th, 2018 in Minister

John 15:12-17, Ephesians 2:4-10, Psalm 139:1-16, 23-24

incoln Alexander ______, it is such a wonderful privilege for all of us to be able to celebrate your baptism today. It is wonderful because it means that your parents and your brother have been willing to share you – their joy in you, their hopes and dreams for you – with all of us and with Christ in this very meaningful way.

I remember when we first heard from your parents that you were coming and how exciting that was. When I heard what they had named you Lincoln Alexander, I wondered (the way that you do) what significance there was in such a name. One thing that occurred to me, for example, was that you might have been named after one of the most famous presidents of United States. You could certainly do worse than to be named after a man of such vision, the great emancipator who changed the world for good. We certainly still need people who will stand up and stand in integrity for what is right, no matter what the cost may be. But no, your parents tell me that you weren’t exactly named after Abraham Lincoln.

Next I wondered whether you might be named after Lincoln Alexander. That is also not too shabby for a namesake. Lincoln Alexander is a very important barrier breaking leader as every Canadian knows (or at least as every Canadian should know and it is a tragedy if they don’t). Alexander was Canada’s first Black member of parliament and first Black cabinet minister as well as Ontario’s 24^th Lieutenant Governor. He blazed the trail for so many minority voices and leaders who have followed in his wake. But it appears that you were not named after him and the “Alexander” in your name is, not surprisingly, a gift to you from your father.

My next guess was that you were named after history’s third most famous Linc, the star character of the “Legend of Zelda” video game series. In fact, that is not really my guess at all but is actually who your father told me that you were named for. That too, is a great legacy – the hero of thousands of quests, the saviour of the beautiful princess Zelda – you could do worse! But alas, while your father does say that you were named after that Linc, I am not entirely sure that your mother agrees.

So we are left with what I am pretty sure is the ultimate truth. Lincoln, you weren’t named after anyone, not really. You are Lincoln, and your parents want you to be your own person and for you to grow up and set your own course and find your own destiny in life. That is what your parents hope and expect for you and for your brother overall and that, along with their love, is the greatest gift that they will ever give you.

The very concept of a God has long led human beings to struggle with strange concepts. We describe God as this being who is far beyond our limited human understanding. God is all-knowing and there is nothing in the entire universe that can ever escape God’s sight. We also believe that God is not limited by time and is able to view the past and the future just as easily as the present. Above all, we confess, God is powerful and nothing can resist the imposition of God’s will.

Now this understanding of God has created many problems in our philosophies and theologies. It makes us struggle with the problem of evil – if God is good and all-powerful like that, how is it possible that God would permit evil to occur? That is a great question and people of faith have been struggling with it for a very long time. Unfortunately, it is not a question we are going to be able to answer here today.

There is another question, connected to this idea of the nature of God, that I think we ought to deal with. If God is indeed all knowing and all-powerful, what does that mean about our own free will? Is the entire path of Lincoln’s life all laid out for him? Has it already determined what he will be and do – that he will be a great emancipator, or a breaker of barriers or a rescuer of princesses or some other thing? Is the whole future path of his life written for him? Is it written for you and for me? And if it is, what is the point of all the human plans, hopes and dreams that we cherish?

A quick reading of our responsive psalm this morning would certainly seem to indicate that we have very little control over our own paths through this life: “O Lord, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far away. You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord, you know it completely. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.” That certainly seems to be saying that all of our paths are completely determined – that God has literally hemmed us in and so limited our choices that we simply must move in the directions that God has given to us.

And, by the way, we don’t even need to appeal to an all-knowing God to run up against this whole question. The whole scientific approach to reality – where every effect has a cause – has led us to the idea that everything in a human’s life is pre-determined. For example, if the decisions that I make are determined by such things as the levels of certain chemicals in my brain, previous life experience and the circumstances that surround me, can I really say that I have free will to determine the course of my own life?

So what is it? Are we truly free beings who have an ability to set our own course in life, or is everything determined ahead of time and are we merely puppets who must follow a course that has been already set for us? To put it another way, who is Lincoln? Is everything that he is destined to be or to do already written? Is his destiny already decided by science? By his parents? By God? “In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.” Is that what that means?

It certainly is possible to read the Psalm from this morning and conclude that that is what it is saying. But I don’t necessarily agree that it is the way that we were intended to read it. The Psalm, you see, isn’t really about the freedom of human will, it is about how well God knows us and relates to us. The psalmist talks about how God is everywhere with him and how he could not escape God even if he tried no matter where he might go in the entire universe. “If I ascend to heaven, you are there;” he declares, “if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.”

This is not a matter of God chasing us everywhere we go or anticipating our every move with all-knowingness. It is rather the case that, wherever we go, God is already there, has always been there because there is no place in the universe where God cannot be. The psalmist is able to set his own path as he travels through the universe and through time, it is just that wherever he goes, he will discover that he has been able to do nothing outside of the grace and benevolence of God.

It is in that spirit that I understand the words, “you discern my thoughts” in this psalm. It is not that God is somehow reading your thoughts from someplace on the outside. It is more that God is already present in your brain just as God’s presence is everywhere else in the universe. The God who gave us the ability to think, reason and choose can hardly fail to completely understand the processes by which we make our choices – processes, by the way, that modern neurologists have only begun to understand.

That is why I do not feel as if believing in God means that you lose your free will. Your course through life is not all set. Even when you are acting in obedience to God, it is not the type of obedience you might expect from a soldier drilling on the parade square where every moment is programmed out. There is not just one path for your life that is God’s correct and sanctioned path for you. Rather than acting like your drill sergeant, God is your constant companion on the journey. When you are open to God’s presence, God becomes so intimately involved in the decisions you make that it’s hard to know where your thoughts end and God’s begin.

Lincoln’s baptism today is a wonderful reminder of the entire basis of our Christian faith. We have today welcomed Lincoln fully and completely into everything that the Christian faith can offer to anyone. We have offered him hope, forgiveness, salvation and life eternal. We have welcomed him into full membership in the church of Christ, though, of course, we will wait until he is older before we ask him to choose for himself whether he will take on all of the commitments and responsibilities that come with being an active member of this congregation. These are all wonderful, divine and valuable gifts – gifts that many in this world have not found.

But what has Lincoln done to gain these things? Basically nothing. He just showed up – that is it. He didn’t even have to demonstrate any faith or understanding and it was his parents and us who confessed faith today. So how is it possible that we could offer so much to Lincoln today when he has done little to nothing to deserve it? This makes no sense according to the logic of our world, but it is the greatest mystery of the Christian faith, perhaps best expressed in a couple of the verses that we read this morning, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God – not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” It is only by the grace of God, a gift freely given, that we can claim so much for Lincoln and it is because of the grace of God that none of us can claim anything more than what this child has been given.

But there is one other gift that we have claimed today that doesn’t always get the same attention. The apostle continues on from there to talk about the purpose behind it all. “For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.” What this is saying is that God has loved you, me and Lincoln so much that God not only gives us salvation and hope, God has also given us the great gift of meaning – that your life will mean something. God has something for you to do. Again, this is not just a matter of God having one specific thing for you to do and if you fail to do this one thing you will have failed. It is more like what we have been talking about that God will be there with you as you make your choices and develop what is actually important to you and that, if you are open to God’s presence, God will enable you to carry out the good works that have been prepared for you as you follow your path.

And this also we can celebrate today. We do not know what particular “good works” are in Lincoln’s future but we stand in awe of the great potential that is there in just one young life. Will he grow up to set free some in this world who are still in bondage like Abraham Lincoln did? Will he break yet unimagined barriers in politics, science, engineering, who knows what like Lincoln Alexander did? Will he save a princess? I don’t know, but I do know that some great good works have been prepared for him to do, that is why his heavenly father has claimed him, that isinin why his Lord Jesus has saved him and that is why we celebrate his baptism today.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, April 1st, 2018 in Minister

Luke 24:1-6a

he sun was rising on a new day, but it was also rising on a new reality. There, inside a borrowed tomb, had been a man utterly defeated. He had stood up against the greatest powers in this world – the power of hate, the power of privilege and exploitation, the power of death – and he had been defeated in the worst and most shameful way possible. The dark powers of this world had won as they always seem to win.

But on that Sunday morning, all of that had been changed. Defeat had been turned into victory. Shame had been turned into glory. And, in that place haunted by the regrets of what might have been, death had been turned into life.

I wonder if we understand what this really means. It means that the fighting is over – that the battle is won once and for all. The greatest and most persistent powers of this world have been routed. And I have long wondered, if the greatest dark powers of this world were defeated way back then, why is it that so many still to this very day are living in a world of shame, discouragement and death?

It turns out that, according to the Gospel of Luke, there were a couple of angels wondering that very thing. Specifically, they were wondering why the women were there. They had come to grieve and mourn and minister to the dead. They were stuck in the moment of defeat. But defeat was so three days ago! Now the victory had happened. “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” the angels wanted to know.

But those women aren’t the only ones. You still do that, don’t you? You seek the living among the dead. Don’t be surprised that I know your secret; I only know it because it is my secret too. We look for the things that give us life among the dead things of this world. Many seem to assume that wealth and possessions can give us life but these things are dead. How can they give life?

Some people live only for the pleasures of the body – no matter what those pleasures may be. The lusts of the flesh take many forms. And it is a good thing to enjoy these things – good food, pleasurable experiences, that feeling when you are strong or powerful – but remember that your body and the pleasures that it experiences are mortal and limited. When you live only for these things, you are spending your life pursuing what is ultimately dead. Is that not also a case of seeking the living among the dead?

No, we are not called to seek the living among the dead. As followers of Christ, the risen one, our job is to spend our lives for the sake of what is alive. Our job is not to perpetuate the ways of death – the philosophy that says that the only way to deal with the violence and killing of this world is with more killing and violence – our job is to show the way of life.

One way that we do that is by proclaiming, as we do on this day, that the tomb is empty, that Jesus is risen and that we have come to know him even though he did die. One way that we do that is by proclaiming that the power of violence and death have been defeated once and for all, that they are false lords sitting on empty thrones. One way that we do that is by gathering at this table where we celebrate a meal that is not merely eaten in memory of a great man who sadly died but is the feast of the living Christ.

When we eat and drink in hope at this table, we can know that he is alive and present with us in this moment and will continue with us as we leave this place even as these morsels of bread and sips of wine will go with us and remain part of us. He will be with us always, even until the end of the age.

Why do you look for the living among the dead? It is a good question. You don’t need to. He is alive. He is present and I invite you now to join together in the feast celebrating that new reality.

Luke 24:1-6a

Why do you look for the living among the dead? It is a good question. You don’t need to. He is alive. He is present and I invite you now to join together in the feast celebrating that new reality.

Hosanna! Save us how?

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, March 25th, 2018 in Minister

John 12:12-19, 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, Psalm 118:1,2 19-29

ave you heard the word? They say that that man from Nazareth has come to town. He’s here for the festival. You’ve heard about the stir that he has been causing up in Galilee. He’s a storyteller, they say, loves to tell these stories about farming and seeds. Obviously he’s coming down here to support the lo cal farmers and it is about time! Farmers don’t get the respect that they deserve. They feed us all! So what do you say, shall we grab a few of these palm branches, symbols of the fruitful earth, and be part of it? Hosanna! Jesus comes in the name of the Lord to save us from disrespecting farmers!

Hey, what are you sitting around wasting your time here for? Haven’t you heard that Jesus has come to town? He is the one who has made his name up north for being such a good exorcist. He’s been casting demons out right and left. And you know that those Galileans up there are all yokels – not sophisticated like us Jerusalemites. They are likely to blame all sorts of things on evil demons including mental health issues like depression or bipolar disorder. So you know what that means, don’t you? It means that he will be leading a campaign against mental illness. Grab a palm branch, we need to be part of this.

Jesus is coming to town – you know, Jesus – the one who when he was asking his disciples who people were saying he was and one of them said he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, he didn’t deny it – that Jesus! Well, if he is the Christ, that surely means that he has come to gather the people, form and army and drive the Romans out of this country for good. That is a campaign that I can support. Who is with me? Arm yourselves with palm branches and let’s go kick out the bloody Romans!

Jesus? Jesus? Oh yeah, I’ve heard of him. Isn’t he the one who said, “The poor will always be with you”? In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s the only thing I’ve ever heard about him. Hey do you suppose that means that he’s all about helping rich folks get richer? Maybe he’s got some good stock tips or investment advice and I’m all in on that kind of thing. See this palm branch? It is green, a symbol for money! Wave it around and lets all get rich!

And so it went. I like the way that the Gospel of John tells the story of Palm Sunday – it’s just a little bit different from what you find in the other Gospels. John puts it like this, “The next day the great crowd that had come to the festival heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him.” The way John tells it, it seems like more of a spontaneous thing with people turning out for their own reasons and Jesus and others, like the Pharisees, responding to what was happening. I like that. I think it must have happened pretty much like that. But it also puts particular emphasis on the problem that people have always had with this story.

People have always wondered how it could have happened like that – how there could have been this huge crowd of people welcoming and shouting the praises of Jesus one day and then, just a little bit later (less than a week) the same crowd was screaming for his death. And the traditional answer to that question – the answer that I heard from the pulpit as I was growing up – was that it was all a big misunderstanding.

You see, I was taught that the people of Jerusalem were welcoming Jesus because they had some very specific expectations of what kind of messiah he was going to be. They thought that Jesus was coming, as the messiah was often pictured in certain passages of the Old Testament, to lead some kind of armed revolt against the Romans and set the land free from the people who occupied it. They got all excited about that, but when Jesus didn’t turn out to be exactly what they were expecting (they were mad when Jesus didn’t take on the entire Roman Empire at once) they turned against him and, kind of ironically, delivered him up to the representative of the Roman Empire to be killed.

Now, I am not saying that that is entirely wrong, but I will tell you one key thing that I learned in my New Testament studies courses at seminary that causes a problem with that interpretation. This is actually a pretty well-kept secret and I was kind of shocked when I learned it so I am a little worried that I might just blow your minds here but this is what I learned: we actually don’t know what Jews were thinking in the time of Jesus. Shocking, I know! But this is a very important point.

And this is not just a matter of not being able to read the minds of people who lived 2000 years ago. The fact of the matter is that we actually do not know very much about the state of Judaism in the time of Jesus because Judaism, as we know it, actually didn’t exist back then. Judaism, what we know as the various sects of Rabbinic Judaism that are followed in the world today, only started to come into being a few years after the time of Jesus. In Jesus’ time, the Jews still had the temple, the sacrificial system and the priesthood; things that together defined their religion. But that was all taken away from them at once, about forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus when the Romans destroyed the temple. In 70 AD, the Jews lost everything that had once told them what it meant to be a Jew and so they basically had to reinvent their entire faith from scratch.

Most of the things that we associate with Judaism, including their devotion to the scriptures, many of their worship and their rituals really only came into being after the time of Jesus. And I tell you that mostly so that you will understand that nobody has a really clear idea what anybody was thinking when they went out to greet Jesus waving their palm branches. Their thoughts are almost completely alien to us.

Where they expecting something from Jesus? That seems clear. They were shouting “Hosanna!” and hosanna means “save” or “help.” They clearly wanted Jesus to do something for them and were hailing him as someone who had come “in the name of the Lord” to save them. But saving and helping can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Save me from what? Help me how?

At least some of them also seem to have been greeting him as messiah, but, again, what did that mean? We don’t know what Jews in Jesus’ time were looking for in a messiah. In fact, the only indications that we have are that there was a great variety of expectations. Sure some may have been looking for a leader of an armed revolt, but there are also indications that some were looking for someone who would lead a religious reform or for someone who would lead the people to submit to Rome. The fact of the matter is that there were probably as many different expectations of what Jesus would do for them as there were people in the crowd. In fact, isn’t that exactly how things often go?

I don’t know if you have noticed this, but we seem to be living in a golden age of populist leadership. It is a time when the people who seem to have the greatest success as leaders are not necessarily those who are able to communicate the best policies but rather those who are best at presenting an image that people can connect to. People seem to vote for or follow such leaders not for what they specifically plan to do but because of how people feel about them. The best of such populist leaders don’t get very specific at all about what they are going to do, they somehow present themselves in such a way that people just believe that they are going to be for whatever they want them to be for.

Donald Trump is an excellent example. He seems to be a master at getting a lot of people to project the things that they hope for or the fears that they want to be protected from onto him. For example, it seems that a whole lot of white Evangelical Christians came to believe that he was one of them and would save them, despite a large amount of evidence to the contrary. It is all about image, getting lots of attention and allowing people to project their desires onto you. And Trump is hardly the only example we could look at. It seems to me that Justin Trudeau employed a populist approach in his own way – at least to the extent that his success was more based on his personal image than it was on his policies. His popular image certainly allowed some people to project their hopes onto him. Now that it seems that that image is tarnishing somewhat, we may see if he is able to adapt to a new kind of leadership. The early indications of the new PC leader, Doug Ford, also seem to be that he is taking a very populist approach to the upcoming provincial election campaign.

What am I saying, that these leaders are all the same? No. Nor am I saying that there is no place for populism in leadership. Populist leaders can do a lot of good (though there is no question that they can also do a lot of evil – there are historical examples). No, I think that the real danger is not the leaders as much as how all of us deal with the image of the leaders. There is a problem when we are more interested in image than we are in substance. There is a problem when we turn off our critical thinking and just react to image. Lots of people have gotten in trouble by doing exactly that.

I do not believe that Jesus set out to make a populist entry into Jerusalem. He did apparently set out to project a particular image on that day. It says that “Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!’” But the image he was projecting was one that, at the very least, should have made people stop and think critically about the expectations that they were projecting into him.

Jesus was a good leader – we would even say a perfect leader – who had truly come “in the name of the Lord.” He did his best to communicate what he had really come to do both in word (as in, for example, his many parables of the kingdom of God) and in public relations actions (like, say, riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey). But none of this prevented people from projecting their own expectations, prejudices and fears onto him.

It is easy for us to do that with Jesus too – to make Jesus stand for and represent what we want him to represent. It didn’t just happen on Palm Sunday, it has happened throughout Christian history. Jesus has been used to promote slavery and to lead the charge against it. Jesus has been used to keep women in their traditional subservient place and to break them out of it. Racists and white supremacists had only been too happy to claim to have Jesus on their side but so have civil rights leaders and campaigners for equality.

Here’s what I would challenge all those people with – the truth that Jesus didn’t come to be on your side or on anybody’s side. Yes, people went out to him waving their palm branches and putting their expectations on him, but Jesus met them on the back of a donkey. He wasn’t coming to promote your idea or your way of fixing what you see as wrong in the world. He was coming to call you to change, to repentance and to be part of a new world. If there is one lesson that you can take away from Palm Sunday, it is to lay down your own ideologies and ideas about how to fix the world and just be open to allowing Jesus to change your mind and your heart.

So, by all means, let us join the throngs and wave our palms; let us shout “Hosanna,” which means save. But let us not assume that we can do it without allowing Jesus to challenge all of the ways in which we live in this world. He will challenge us on how we treat others. He will challenge on us on questions of fairness and justice. Palm Sunday isn’t just a party; it has to be the beginning of a redeemed world.

Sermon Video:

« Previous 1 … 30 31 32 33 34 … 52 Next »