Category: Minister

https://youtu.be/ngwYP-ZmxSQ

November 17, 2024 © Twenty-Sixth Sunday after Pentecost 
1 Samuel 1:4-20, 1 Samuel 2:1-10, Hebrews 10:11-25, Mark 13:1-8 

I would like to invite you into the opening scene of our reading this morning from the First Book of Samuel. A family has come down to the Temple at Shiloh. They have come to sacrifice. 

The whole family comes. The father of the family is Elkanah. And he brings with him both of his wives Peninnah and Hannah. He has two because that is just how things are done in this world. And he also brings with him his sons and his daughters, all of whom are the children of his wife Peninnah because, it seems, Hannah cannot have children. 

These, together with household servants and extended family make a very large company that goes down to Shiloh. And they bring with them the young ram that they have raised all year on their little farm. This animal has been part of their family ever since its birth. They have nurtured it, taken it out to graze and kept it safe from any predators. 

Rambo 

They have loved this animal. The children even gave him a name. Rambo, they called him. But, at the same time, they have never forgotten that they raised this sheep for one purpose only: for this sacrifice. 

It is a holy thing when this happens when a living being gives its life so that a family can eat and be strong. That is why they do it so rarely – often no more than once a year. That’s also why the animal must come to the temple. It is something to be done in a holy setting. 

The Sacrifice 

And so, they take the ram to the old priest, Eli, who inspects it and declares that it is healthy and fit for a sacrifice. The whole family approaches and lays their hands on the head of Rambo, giving thanks to God for this bounty and to the animal itself, as the priest draws the blade across its throat. 

Later, after the priest has taken the animal and butchered it properly, the family gathers around the altar. Those parts that the family will not eat – the fat, the blood, a number of the organs and other bits – are burnt in the fire. That is how Yahweh, the God of Israel, joins the family in their feast. It creates a precious fellowship with God, making everything all the more holy. 

Giving out the Portions 

But then what happens? Elkanah, the patriarch of the family, is given the rest of the meat, all perfectly cut and arranged on a slab. And they take it and put it in one of the great cauldrons that are provided for the worshippers at Shiloh. They boil up the meat with various herbs and vegetables that they have brought with them to create a hearty stew. 

Ah, but then comes that awkward moment. Elkanah, as patriarch, has the right to distribute the stew. After the priest has come to claim his portion as payment for safely slaughtering and butchering the meat, Elkanah takes the rest and carefully doles out the portions. 

Into the bowl of his wife Peninnah, he carefully ladles one big scoop. Then he goes on down the line to his sons and his daughters and for each he measures out the same amount. Then he gives the same amount to each of the servants and workers and some extended family that have come along for the sacrifice. 

Finally, he comes to Hannah. He smiles at her for a moment, but it is kind of a sad smile. There seems to be some pity in it. And then he takes out the big bowl, much larger than any of the others and places it before her. He fills it up with scoop after scoop of rich stew before finally filling up his own bowl with a similar serving.  

An Emotional Table 

Now, how do you feel sitting at that table? You smell the savoury broth and you long to dig in and scoop up the meat that you have been craving for months. You can hardly control yourself.  

But hunger is not the only powerful feeling at the table, is it? You can practically feel the resentment seething from every person present as they cast baleful glances towards Hannah where she sits at her end of the table.  

And Hannah, she is, if anything, more upset than anyone else. Large tears roll down her face as she stares at the stew before her as if it were poison. She knows she should eat it – that she needs the meat as much as anyone. It should make her stronger, healthier. Who knows, it might even make her fertile. But she doesn’t feel as if she can stomach it.  

How could she when she knows that it causes Peninnah, who could be like a sister to her, to hate her? How could she when she knows that it puts a distance between her and the children whom she could love and care for in other circumstances? 

And worst of all is her husband sitting right beside her who, by the look on his face, thinks that he has done a wonderful thing. “Eat up, honey, he says as he shovels the food into his mouth. It’s delicious!” She knows what he is going to say next because he says it all the time. It always makes her cringe.  

“Hannah, why do you weep? Why do you not eat? Why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?” 

A Dysfunctional Family 

I know that the opening chapter of 1 Samuel is all about the birth of the Prophet Samuel and about how God brought it about and saved his mother Hannah from the shame and scorn of being an infertile woman. It is an amazing story full of hope and possibility.  

But I don’t think you can really appreciate the good news in that story without understanding just how messed up that opening scene really is. It shows us just how dysfunctional that particular family was. But it is also a reflection of how the human family often deals badly with the challenges and problems that come with life in this world. 

Peninnah 

I think that many of us, for example, are like Peninnah. She is a woman who is able to do the one thing that women were valued for in that society – she can have children. And she is valued for what she can produce.  

There are many people just like that. In this society, where everything seems to be measured through productivity, there are many who seem to have decided that their entire self-worth is measured by how much they earn, their place on the corporate ladder or their relative wealth. 

But there are perils that come with such a way of thinking, aren’t there? Peninnah may have fulfilled her purpose as seen in that society, but she doesn’t seem particularly happy. 

Indeed, we are told that she torments her husband’s other wife, Hannah. She “used to provoke her severely, to irritate her,” it says, “because the Lord had closed her womb.” Is that kind of aggression indicative of someone who has a happy, well-balanced life? Of course not. 

Putting Others Down 

And haven’t we all met people like that – people who seem to have achieved success as this world defines success, but they love to rub other people’s noses in it? Why? Because they are trying to make themselves feel good by putting somebody else down. 

Here is a life tip for everybody. If you need to put somebody else down to feel good about yourself, there is something wrong. There is something deep inside that is making you feel inadequate. 

 And we know what is making Peninnah feel inadequate. What she produces may be valued, but she is not valued for who she is. She is not loved. 

And how many people in the world today are caught up in that mad scramble to earn love through what they produce? And no matter what you do, no matter how good your work is, it will never be enough. Peninnah, sitting at that table, is symbolic of the flaws of a society that values productivity over everything else. 

Hannah 

But then there is Hannah at the table too, isn’t there? And she hardly seems better off. She has the love. Her husband claims to be devoted to her. So, what is missing for her? 

She lives in a society in which women are really only given one way to contribute. And she is not able to contribute in that way. And so, though she is loved, she has been robbed of a sense of being significant. 

The two women in this story are miserable because some of their most essential needs are not being met – the need for love and the need for significance. And the really odd thing about that is that they each have the one thing that the other wants most. 

Looking at What Others Have 

It is so easy, isn’t it, when you are struggling in yourself to look at something that somebody else has and to be jealous – to think that, if only you had what they have, your life would be okay. But the mere fact that neither of these women is okay puts a lie to that way of thinking. 

The solution is rather to work on yourself – to aspire towards what is truly meaningful to you, to be sure. But it is also to recognize that the reason why you feel inadequate is not because you are inadequate but rather because the expectations that have been placed upon you are baloney. How much happier would both Peninnah and Hannah have been if they had just realized that. 

Elkanah 

And let us now turn to the third so-called adult at the table – Elkanah, the patriarch of the family. I’ve got to say that I am not particularly impressed with his efforts to improve anything about the whole situation. His favouritism to Hannah only sets her apart from everyone else who might give her support. 

And when he says, “Am I not more to you than ten sons?” it makes me cringe so I’m sure it did Hannah too. He essentially dismisses her needs and self-centredly thinks that he can fulfill her on his own. That, let me tell you, never helps somebody who is struggling. 

Dealing with the Real Issues 

So what is wrong with Elkanah? Why is he such an abysmal failure at bringing peace and functionality to his family? It is because he does not deal with the real issues at the table. He does nothing to address Peninnah’s bitterness and anger – apparently thinking that, if he ignores it, it will just go away. 

And when he sees Hannah’s deep sadness, he does not help her to address the unrealistic expectations that society has put upon her. He does not even bother to assure her that her worth and value are not dependent on meeting these expectations. All he does is essentially try to make her put on a smiley face by bribing her with extra portions of meat and professions of affection. 

Healing the Malfunction 

May I suggest that if you ever find yourself giving some leadership to a family or other group that is malfunctioning in any way, do not follow the example of Elkanah. Don’t make it all about yourself. Don’t just try to deal with the surface issues – with the appearance of things. Don’t assume that serious issues will just go away if you don’t talk about them. Dig in. Get to the heart of the matter and the real hurts and wounds that people are carrying. 

I’m not saying that it will be easy. It might well feel much more uncomfortable before it starts to feel better. But it is worth the effort and the discomfort. 

And so, we have three people feasting at Shiloh. None of them are happy; none of them are fulfilled. And I will bet that each one of us can find ways in which we, at some point in our lives, would have identified with at least one of them, if not all. They are a reflection of the dysfunction of this world and its ways. 

Where is Hope? 

And where, you should be asking me, where is the hope? The hope is found in getting past our habit of ignoring problems and hoping they’ll go away, in a willingness to get to the heart of what is really dragging people down. It is found in honest communication. And it is found in God. 

When Hannah goes to God and God finally gives her the thing that she desires: a son, it is not just the end of her infertility that heals her life. It is also her encounter with a God who hears her and is willing to overturn the entire system that had subjugated her. God saves her by turning the world upside down: 

“The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low; he also exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honour.” 

And that is where the real hope is found. That is what we celebrate in the season that is to come. 

https://youtu.be/E7ZNbV3v0VA

Hespeler, November 10, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Remembrance Sunday 
Genesis 13:2-12, Psalm 146, Hebrews 9:24-28, Mark 12:38-44

Tomorrow at 11 o’clock we will solemnly remember an event that no living person can actually remember. It happened 106 years ago. There are maybe about half a million people alive today who are over 100 years old, but only a small fraction of them would be over 106. And of course, none of them would have been old enough to be aware of what happened on November 11, 1918. 

What happened then? That was the day that the bombing and the shooting and the killing stopped following the most devastating war that the world had ever seen. And I don’t think that any of us could possibly imagine the feeling of relief that swept over people as the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month tolled and the fronts that had been filled with so much death finally fell silent. 

No One Living Remembers 

And you might find it odd that we still observe an armistice that no one can remember. And part of that is, I know, that the meaning of that day has transformed since then to become a day to remember those who have served in many wars that came after the “War to End All Wars.” It has become a day to pray and work for peace for all.  

But I also think that it is significant that we celebrate that particular armistice and the Treaty of Versailles that codified the peace about a year later. Treaties matter; they shape our world. In fact, I would argue that the treaties of the past have had more influence on the world we live in today than the wars. And that is certainly true for the Treaty of Versailles (which was not particularly successful at ending all wars). I would suggest that we ignore treaties to our peril. 

Indigenous People and Settlers 

So, I would like to tell you about a treaty that you may have never heard of, but that I believe we are all called to honour today. When European settlers first came to this place, as you know, they found it to be already inhabited. That did not prevent them from claiming the land as their own possession, of course. They had this false “Doctrine of Discovery” that allowed them to dismiss the inhabitants as mere “savages.” But their first concern was not really for the possession of more than little bits of land. Their first concern was for that constant goal of Western civilization: profit. 

And they definitely saw the indigenous people here as a useful tool for driving that profit. They persuaded the indigenous people to go out and use their considerable skills to extract valuable resources from the wilderness around here, most valuable of all being, of course, the furs and the pelts. 

When Trouble Began 

This strategy of wealth production was enormously successful. It was most successful, as always, for the European investors. But the indigenous people also did very well and were able to gain valuable trade goods, at least at first. But as also often happens, problems began to crop up. In the beginning, the resources were abundant, but the drive for profit soon began to see them dry up. Some species were pushed into extinction in easily accessible regions. This forced people to hunt and trap farther afield. It also pushed First Nations into competition with each other. It also led to environmental destruction and to war between the various nations. 

I know that we are not generally very aware of these fur wars because the settler colonists weren’t really directly involved. But, like all wars, they were devastating both to the people and to the natural environment. The need for peace for all those who were involved became extremely urgent. 

Settlers in Canaan 

That is a part of the history of the place where we are now sitting. Well, you’re sitting and I’m standing but you get the idea. One thing that particularly strikes me about that history this morning is that it strongly parallels our reading from the Book of Genesis. It tells the story of two men who have come to the land of Canaan from far-off Mesopotamia. Their names are Abram and Lot. 

And, like the colonialists who came to this place, they came to get very rich. They measured their wealth in terms of herds and cattle instead of furs, but it is basically the same old story. And just like what happened around here, they didn’t do the manual labour themselves. They hired the local indigenous population to be their herders. Indeed, the story explicitly mentions, while talking about problems among their workforce, that “at that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites lived in the land.” 

The Land Could Not Support Them 

But there was a problem. And it is a problem that often arises when we pursue ever-growing profits as more important than anything else. The Bible puts the problem like this: “the land could not support both of them living together because their possessions were so great.” 

When we relentlessly pursue extraordinary profit, the result is often that the land cannot bear it. Natural resources begin to be stretched. And this has devastating effects on the land. In their case, the resources being stretched were not beaver and bison pelts but rather ground water and grazing land, but apart from that, the story is very much the same and, again, is as old as time! 

The Treaty of Lot and Abram 

And what was the result of that in old Canaan? Exactly the same as what happened here: strife and conflict – not between the wealthy men but amongst those who were working for them. “Thus strife arose between the herders of Abram’s livestock and the herders of Lot’s livestock.” 

Now, to Abram and Lot’s credit, they recognized that this was a problem. Even though they were not the ones suffering, they decided to fix the problem, and they did so by creating a treaty between the two of them. It wasn’t really a treaty that solved the root problem because they just decided to separate so that they could continue to relentlessly exploit the land. But at least they did something to alleviate the suffering among their indigenous workforce. 

The Strife Right Here 

Things didn’t quite work out so well in this area. The lords of the fur trade, it seems, didn’t mind the strife among the various First Nations who were providing them with their furs. As good capitalists, they probably thought that the competition was good for their bottom line. And so, the strife spread. 

In this area, the Mississaugas, an Anishinaabe Nation, were pushed out of their traditional territories by the Haudenosaunee and fled north and west. But then, a few years later they return in alliance with the Odawa and the Chippewa and it seemed that open war against the Haudenosaunee was inevitable – a war that would quickly spread and would be devastating to all indigenous nations.  

But wisdom prevailed and a treaty was made. This treaty was not created by the wealthy fur companies like what happened in Canaan. In fact, they did not like the idea at all and never officially recognized the treaty. 

A Dish with One Spoon 

No, the First Nations understood that they would have to make their own peace. And they did so according to an ancient indigenous concept: a dish with one spoon. There is evidence that the idea of a dish with one spoon may be at least a thousand years old. It is one of the foundational concepts that governs Indigenous people’s relationship to the land.  

Now, I am not an indigenous person, and I would not presume to speak for them. Indeed, I would love to hear more about this from native elders some day. But my pretty basic understanding is this. They see the land as being like a dish. And all the things that the land produces are there to feed and support people and animals. And everyone can have a share of that bounty.  

But they recognized that, if everyone takes from the dish without limit, especially in a relentless pursuit of profit, that would not be sustainable. That’s where the one spoon comes in. Instead of everyone eating at will with their own, consumption would be limited by the need to share one spoon. It is a simple concept, but a very powerful and important one. It had been foundational to how the indigenous peoples lived on this land. 

The Treaty that Shaped this Area 

So, the First Nations made a treaty which they called, fittingly, the Dish With One Spoon Treaty. The treaty was formally adopted in Montreal in September of 1700. They did not sign the treaty in the European fashion. Instead it was solemnized in the traditional fashion by the creation and presentation of a wampum belt. 

But even if it was adopted in Montreal, it changed everything here. It brought peace. As part of the treaty, the Mississaugas, who had claimed this land where you sit since ancient times, agreed to give up their exclusive claim and share it with all nations according to the law of the Dish with One Spoon.  

I know that the world has changed a lot since 1700. About eighty years later, this land right here was given away by the British Crown to the Iroquois of the Six Nations (a Haudenosaunee people) as a part of a treaty for another war – the American War of Independance. The Crown did not own the land that it gave – it had been shared with all by the Mississaugas in the previous treaty, but apparently the crown was not concerned about that. 

All Treaty People 

Have you ever thought about that – that there is an incredible history of various peoples living on and relating to this land where we have our houses, do our work, and live our lives. And these treaties are a very important part of that history. I know we often only think of treaties as applying to the indigenous people. Their ancestors entered into these treaties but they are still bound by them. But our ancestors entered into them as well. Are we not also bound by them? If we live on land that was shared or given by treaty, is there not some sense in which we ought to be living according to that treaty, or at least according to the spirit of that treaty? 

And yes, I know that our history has made that question very complicated, especially those parts where our ancestors did not keep the treaties that had been made. But I think that there are some very important lessons that we ought to take to heart from the story of the treaty made between Abram and Lot, and the story of the Treaty of a Dish with One Spoon. Let these treaties remind us that our relationship with the land that we live on is fragile. If we exploit it in ways that forget the dish with one spoon ideal, if our only concern is a relentless pursuit of profit, we may well find, like the two patriarchs did, that the land cannot support us. 

Living as Treaty People 

And the result of that is that it will lead to conflict and suffering. And who will suffer? Abram? Lot? The wealthy fur barons? No, don’t worry about them; they’ll be fine. It will be the people of the land who will suffer – the herders, the indigenous nations, the low-wage workers and ultimately the great majority of people. 

I hope that the stresses we continue to put on the land through the relentless pursuit of profit will not lead to new conflicts and the need for new treaties. I just know that that is what has happened many times before. But could we perhaps avoid that eventuality by deciding to learn from the biblical treaty between Abram and Lot? And perhaps we could avoid that by learning from the treaty that saved this very land from becoming a field of slaughter over 300 years ago, by teaching us that this land is a dish and that we all need to share the spoon.  

https://youtu.be/xypx1gJCclE

Hespeler, November 3, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
Ruth 1:1-18, Psalm 146, Hebrews 9:11-14, Mark 12:28-34

In the Book of Ruth the two sons of Naomi have rather odd names. They are named Mahlon and Chilion. These are, of course, Hebrew names, so you may not have thought much about them. But wait until I tell you what those names mean in Hebrew. Mahlon means “sickly,” and Chilion means “frail.”
Think about that for a moment. How could they have ended up with such names? What mother would name her child “sickly”? What father would choose to call his son “frail”? But these are apparently the names that they got. And, while we are imagining, think about Orpah and Ruth, meeting such men as prospective husbands. What would you think if your future spouse bore such a name? I can’t imagine that they would have been very thrilled.

Names Make Sense in the Story

So, the names do not make a lot of sense in practical terms. The names do make a great deal of sense, however, in terms of the story that is being told. They are, in fact, perfect names from the narrator’s point of view because they give a strong signal to the reader of what is going to happen to these two young men. No sooner are they introduced, and they are barely married, than they both die. Hmm, do you think that their wives should have taken their names as a bit of a warning?
So, what’s the real story behind the naming of these young men, Frail and Sickly? And, yes, I am going to just forget about their Hebrew names that no one ever remembers anyway and call them who they are: Frail and Sickly. That is, after all, basically their entire identity in this story.

There are No Accidents

Is it possible that the author of this story just made up the names of these characters – kind of like when Shakespeare created the character of Desdemona (whose name means ill fortune) in his play Othello? That does seem possible. It is generally thought that the Book of Ruth was written centuries after the original events, so maybe he had no record of their names and had to make something up.

But I usually prefer to think that, if something is there in the Bible, it’s not just there by accident. No, I prefer to think that, rather than just making a name up to cover up what he doesn’t know and is hoping we won’t notice, I think he chose these names very intentionally. Frail and Sickly are there to teach us something. But what could that lesson be?

The Period of the Judges

The Book of Ruth is a book about a major shift. The book is set, as it says in the opening words, “In the days when the judges ruled.” This was a time when the people of Israel were little more than a collection of tribes living in the land. Each tribe basically took care of their own affairs. There was nothing like a united national government.

But when the tribes were faced with something that they couldn’t handle on their own, like invaders or raiders, they would band together and a judge would be appointed to lead them, to call up the tribal militias or do whatever else was needed to counter the threat.

That was the system. It was likely not perfect, but it had allowed the tribes to maintain their independence and to survive for about as long as anyone could remember. But the Book of Ruth is not really about the tribal system. It is about the transition to something new.

The Transition to Monarchy

The book ends by telling us that its main character has a child who will become the grandfather of the great King David. This book is about the transition from a tribal to a national, monarchical government.
And major transitions like that do not come out of nowhere. People are generally conservative about such things. They know that big changes will cause much disruption and chaos, and so they tend to resist them. It takes a lot to make people want a transition.
And yet we are told in the Bible that the change to a monarchy only came because the people demanded it. The Prophet Samuel and even God warned them that the change would be costly to them, but they insisted, and so God gave them what they wanted. That’s how the story is told.

Living Through Transition

I suspect that is what the author of this book is trying to address with these two characters, Frail and Sickly. They are ancient Israelite tribesmen – Ephrathites from Bethlehem in the tribe of Judah. They represent the insular tribal past – a past that clearly had its strengths and its benefits. But the world was changing and, because the world was changing, the old institutions had become frail and sickly.

The reason why the Israelites demanded a king, we are told, was because they wanted to be “like other nations.” (1 Samuel 8:4) But you need to understand that this was not just a matter of feeling jealous of what other nations had. It had more to do with the fact that neither threats and problems nor economic opportunities could be managed by the old system anymore.

Fragile Institutions

If that is what these two characters represent, then I think it is very important for us to reflect on them. I would suggest that we are also living in times of great transition. And what often happens when you are living through transition is that you find that the institutions and leadership that were set up to manage and meet the challenges and opportunities of the way things used to be no longer quite work in the same way anymore.

Instead of being strong and robust to meet the challenges of the day, we discover that they are surprisingly frail and sickly. I realize that that is somewhat inflammatory language. But I’m not choosing that language, it comes from the author of the Book of Ruth.
We see that in our times as various institutions no longer quite seem to function as well as they once did. Political systems break down. Policing, education and financial institutions are no longer as effective as they once were. We seem to have been experiencing a lot of that kind of thing recently.

The Old Situation

But let me speak of this in terms of something we can relate to – the recent history of the church in this area. This congregation was founded and built in a very different world from the one where it finds itself today. It was built in a small industrial village. It was built at a time when the closest Presbyterian churches in places like Galt, Preston and Doon were a good 60 minutes away across country roads on horseback.

More recently, this congregation built up its strength at a time when the professional clergy drove the church. It thrived at a time when every congregation (or at least a couple of congregations together) could call and afford to pay a full-time minister who would lead the charge and set the policies. And all of our government and systems were optimized to benefit from that sort of church.

Transitions

Have you noticed that that is not really the same situation where we find ourselves today. Thanks to the construction of the world’s busiest highway right on our doorstep, distances between churches are not what they used to be. And many of those churches that are now so much closer are facing crises in terms of calling and affording ministers to lead them.

Those are just a couple of the major changes that we are dealing with as congregations. I’m sure you could name some others. But that is enough to make us realize that, if some of the systems and policies and leadership that were put in place and that led our congregations so effectively in a previous situation may not be working as well today. They may even feel a bit frail and sickly when it comes to meeting our present challenges and we have to prop them up in order to maintain the illusion that nothing needs to change.

So, I do think that the two sons of Naomi may speak to us as we live in times of transition today. But I want to be clear here that I am not saying that the church is or will necessarily become frail and sickly. It is something that may happen if we cannot let go of old patterns and old ways of organizing ourselves, but it is not our destiny; it is not inevitable.

Looking Outward

The Book of Ruth starts with evidence of the old system breaking down under the weight of a changing world. But it also shows us what we need to do about it. And the first step is clearly to move away from a narrow and insular view. When Naomi’s family can’t deal with the crisis of the moment, which comes in the form of a famine, they decide to seek for a way to cope elsewhere.

“They went into the country of Moab and remained there,” it says. And that doesn’t actually seem to make much sense at first glance if the problem they are dealing with is famine. Moab wasn’t really all that far from Judah. It seems reasonable to assume that, if there was a famine in Judah – something usually caused by a drought or some other ecological disaster like a locust swarm – the crops would have been no better in Moab.

The Advantage in Moab

So, there must have been something else, something other than the natural environment, that offered an advantage to being in Moab. What could that have been?

I think the answer to that is clear. There was something about Moab, about the people there. Certainly, there was something in the two that we meet: Orpah and Ruth. They were women of extraordinary wisdom, commitment and industry.

And, as the story continues, we discover that Ruth – who is the one who decides to return to Judah with Naomi – is more than a replacement for the two sons, Frail and Sickly, who die in Moab. She almost singlehandedly saves not only the family of Naomi but the tribe of Judah. Ultimately her decisions will save the entire nation of Israel.

How We can Look Outwards

And I believe that there is a message there for us as we navigate living through times of transition. What do we do when we find that our systems and ways of doing things don’t quite seem to be working very well in a changing world? Often the impulse is to focus back inwards on our own needs.

We turn in on ourselves and focus on our own little place of Ephrathah, on our tribe of Judah. We work harder and invest more on keeping the old systems on life support. The result is often frail and sickly institutions that aren’t up to meeting the challenges of the day. We may end up spiraling ever downwards.

The Book of Ruth teaches us to look outwards, to look to Moab. And that feels frightening. That feels dangerous. In fact, it is exactly the kind of focus that is condemned often enough in the Bible.

Foreign Women

There are several stories in the Bible about how young Hebrew men should definitely not marry foreign women including specifically women from Moab. They were feared as a dangerous, foreign influence who might bring with them ties to other gods.

And maybe there were times when that kind of approach worked for the people of Israel, but when times of transition came, this Book of Ruth makes it very clear that there was a need to change that approach. It shows us that true strength, especially in times of transition, can only come when we cast our eyes outwards and seek strength outside of our tribe.

Our Future

And I believe that that is where our moment of transition will lead us as well. I don’t know exactly what that future will look like, but I do believe that we will find it by thinking outside of the box of our own congregation. I believe we will find it by working creatively with others and sharing strengths together. This possible new connection with Knox Preston could be part of that and let us all pray for wisdom in discerning that, but even that has to be only a part of a wider vision.

I personally think that we need to find ways of thinking about our Christian ministry on a regional level – bringing congregations together in new partnerships where we share resources. We can’t afford just to think in terms of what is good for our congregation in Hespeler anymore.

And if any of our present systems are feeling frail or sickly today, above all I would not take that as a defeat or a failure on our part. It is a symptom of the transitional times in which we live. Naomi and her husband and her sons, Frail and Sickly, took a risk and found new strength for their family outside of what was familiar and comfortable. Will we have the courage to do likewise?

https://youtu.be/V2hjyksXuPQ

Hespeler, Oct 27, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Anniversary Sunday
Job 42:1-6, 10-17, Psalm 34:1-8, Hebrews 7:23-28, Mark 10:46-52

This is anniversary Sunday. Anniversaries are a wonderful opportunity to do three things. We look back at where we have come from. We take stock of where we are now. And we look forward to where it is we will be going from here.

I know that we often have a tendency on days like this to put a lot of emphasis on the first of those three and to celebrate our glorious past. But all three of those things are important. And honestly, the third is the most important of all.

So, I went looking in all of our lectionary readings for this morning to see if I could find something that would help us to do those three things. I finally landed on the opening words of our Gospel reading this morning. “They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho…”

Befuddling Verse

They are easy words to skip over, I realize. In between the important stories, the gospel writer seems to be taking a moment to situate us geographically. But where he situates us matters. In just a few words, he tells us where we’ve been, where we are and where we are going.

It is actually a verse that has confused and befuddled many people. It confused, for example, the author of the Gospel of Luke. Luke tells the same story of a healing of a blind man near Jericho, but in Luke’s version, it happened when Jesus was coming to Jericho. And Matthew tells the same story (though in his version there are two blind men) and according to Matthew it happened while Jesus was leaving Jericho. But Mark has this unique version of the story where he highlights where Jesus is coming from, where he is and where he is going. It speaks to us at the nexus of where we are today.

Jericho

Those words, “They came to Jericho,” actually speak volumes. Jericho was not just anyplace. If Jesus came to it on his way to Jerusalem, this was not just a random approach. Jericho was, kind of famously, the first city you encountered when you entered Judea by crossing the Jordan River. When Joshua first entered the Promised Land with the ancient children of Israel, Jericho was the first place that he defeated and conquered. Who could ever forget how “Joshua fit the Battle of Jericho and the walls came a tumbling down.”

If Jesus came to Jericho, it would have been seen as a reenactment of the conquest of the Promised Land. Don’t forget that Jesus’ name in the local language was Yeshua and that was exactly the same name that they would have used for the Old Testament hero called Joshua in Hebrew. Don’t tell me that people didn’t look at Yeshua of Nazareth and see him as a new Yeshua come to reconquer the land for God’s people.

The Baggage We Carry

Now Jesus may not have intended that – or at least he didn’t intend the kind of violent conquest that Joshua is associated with. But whether Jesus saw it that way or not, his approach to Jerusalem would have carried all of that historical baggage.

And as we celebrate our anniversary, it is important for us to take stock of some of the baggage we carry with us. We are moving out of a time when the Christian church dominated over our society. In the past of Western society, the church set the agenda when it came to defining morality, setting the calendar and even driving political issues sometimes.

Positives and Negatives

Now, to be sure, that era brought about a lot of good for society and many benefits to the church. I would certainly never say that it was all bad. But there were times when the church’s dominance led to scenes of conquest. Historically that includes episodes like the Crusades, the wars of religion and many horrors of colonialization. More recently, we have seen the church’s participation in the Residential School system and the persecution of various groups seen as deviant. These are part of the downside of that era in the church’s life.

That era, both the positives and the negatives of it, seems to be over. I know we mourn that ending in some ways. We complain about how society no longer reserves Sunday mornings for our exclusive use. We regret how the church’s positions are no longer afforded automatic respect. But we can’t go back there by just pretending that the world hasn’t changed.

When Jesus came to Jericho in our story this morning it was his last time. He was on his way to Jerusalem where he would die. And so, I would say that coming to Jericho with Jesus involves, to a certain extent, a decision to no longer live in the glorious and triumphalist past.

At Jericho

And then Mark tells us that Jesus was in Jericho. That represents the present moment. And you will note how Mark says nothing about what happened in Jericho. Certainly, the new Joshua did not bring down the walls of the city because Mark would have absolutely mentioned that. Instead, it seems that Jericho is simply a moment of transition. Jesus is trying to get his followers to find a new understanding of what it might mean to conquer the Promised Land in a new way in the name of the kingdom of God.

And we are in a time of transition in the present moment as well. There was a time when we may have thought that we could bring about the kingdom of God on earth by conquering or dominating our society. We thought we could impose our vision of a just and moral society and everyone would understand that it would make everything good. It seems that Jesus is trying to teach us a different way – a way of service and of mission.

Leaving Jericho

And that brings us to the really big question – the question of where we go from here. “As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’”

As Jesus leaves Jericho, he shows us where we go from here. Bartimaeus is somebody who wants to follow Jesus. In fact, did you know that Bartimaeus is the only person in the entire Gospel of Mark who acknowledges Jesus as the “Son of David”? This is an all-important title for Jesus in the Christian tradition. It not only acknowledges Jesus’ descent from the ancient line of kings of Israel, it is the very basis of the other most important title given to Jesus: Messiah or Christ. Son of David was a Messianic title.

An Excellent Disciple

Isn’t it ironic that Bartimaeus, who is blind, is the only one in this gospel who is able to see this significant thing about Jesus? In many ways this makes him a better potential disciple, blind as he is, than any of the twelve and just about any other character in this gospel.

But there is a problem. Despite all that would recommend this man as an excellent disciple of Jesus, he is instead treated as a nuisance and a bother. “Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’”

He is seen as an outsider and not as somebody who could belong. Now, in his case, that almost certainly has something to do with his disability. His blindness means that no one can imagine him being a vital or worthwhile part of this movement going forward.

Rebuking Ablest Attitudes

Jesus’ response to him as a person rather than as an invalid is certainly a rebuke to any of the ablest attitudes we may be tempted to carry into the future of the church. A church that fails to value everybody, in spite of whatever physical or mental or spiritual impediments may be holding them back, is a church that will not thrive in the future that God is calling us to.

But I believe that Bartimaeus has more to say about our future than that. He also represents all of those who we look at and dismiss because we don’t think that they belong.

Cultural Factors

Let’s be honest here. The Presbyterian Church in the past often based its growth on cultural factors. Do you think that it was an accident that our church membership in the past has been dominated by people who came from Scottish, Swiss, Dutch and French Huguenot backgrounds? Is it just by chance that most of our recent growth has come in the form of people from a Korean background? And is it really a big surprise that most of our congregations have been made up from people who came from roughly the same socio-economic demographic?

No, of course not. Those were the people who were made to feel as if they belonged. Anyone who didn’t quite fit in those groups often faced many hurdles that got in the way of them truly belonging to one of our churches – though God bless those who persevered and have become such vital parts of our churches over the decades.

A Strategy that Needs to Change

This was a church growth strategy that made a lot of sense at a time when those communities gave us a nearly limitless supply of people on whom we could draw to build up our churches. But a lot has changed in our society since then. That is why, if we want to see vibrant growth of our churches in the future, we need to start imagining the future of our membership now as something very different from the cultural and socio-economic past.

In the past, when somebody from any sort of different background showed up in our churches, and raised a concern or suggested something that did not fit with our past experiences of the church, what was our response?  Honestly, “many sternly ordered him [or her or them] to be quiet,” saying, “we’ve never done it like that before.”

Valuing Outsiders

People did that to Bartimaeus too. And I need to reiterate that Bartimaeus was right! He had indeed seen something about Jesus that no one else had seen! That is why I know for sure that the future of our church and its vibrancy includes valuing not just people from different backgrounds and different demographics, but also those who come with different thoughts and ideas than what we have been used to.

So Bartimaeus has a lot to say to us about the future of our churches. And you will note that we haven’t even gotten to the thing that most people remember about this story – that Bartimaeus was blind, and that Jesus gave him his sight. I tend to understand that as symbolic for the future of the church as well.

Healing the Blind

Jesus’ healing of the blind is never treated as just another of his amazing miracles in the gospels. It is always symbolic of the deeper meaning of Jesus’ work. It illustrates how Jesus is the light of the world and how he has come to enlighten those who may have 20/20 vision but who stumble in the darkness nevertheless.

Bartimaeus shows us that the work of the church as we move forward is to shine the light of truth and of renewal for a world that is often mired in falsehood and willful blindness. We are to proclaim the truth of God’s love for the outsider, God’s commitment to justice for all and to live out a deep commitment to know and to live by what is true. That message is a real eye-opener. If you take it seriously, you will never see the world in quite the same way again.

We are all Bartimaeus

We are all Bartimaeus as we move on from this place and this moment in time. Jesus’ final words to him in this story are, “Go; your faith has made you well.” We must all accept that, if we move on from where we are right now as a church, we do so only by faith and in the full knowledge that Jesus is the one who makes us whole.

Jesus had given Bartimaeus permission. He could have gone anywhere from there. He could have taken the sight he had been given and resumed the life that he had known before. But he did not. “Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.”

Will we do that? Will we follow Jesus into the future to which he calls us? Let us follow with faith, hope and love.

https://youtu.be/ECI818ZQnJc

Hespeler, October 13, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Thanksgiving Sunday
Amos 5:6-7, 10-15, Psalm 90:12-17, Hebrews 4:12-16, Mark 10:17-31

There is a question that Jesus wants to ask us all this morning. It is a simple question, but it really gets to the heart of the matter. The question is, “Why do you call me good?”

I have noticed that people don’t often take the trouble to ask that question. Instead, they start with it as an assumption. Of course, Jesus is good! Even people who have trouble with the church or with Christian teachings know that. They may not admire Jesus’ people, or at least some of them, but they don’t question for a moment the essential goodness of Jesus!

Jesus’ First Response

But did you notice that that was the very first thing that Jesus felt he had to challenge somebody on when “a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” He didn’t engage with the man as a potential disciple despite the extreme devotion that he had displayed. He didn’t even attempt to tackle the thorny question that the man was asking. Or at least he didn’t attempt it until he had first cleared the air on the assumption that the man was making – an assumption he may not have even been aware of: that Jesus was good.

The full response of Jesus is this: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” And I realize that people often get hung up on the second part of that. When you pull those two sentences out of their context, it makes it seem as if Jesus is here denying any sense of his own divinity by speaking of a sharp divide between himself and God.

A Shift to the Law

But that is not actually the concern behind Jesus’ response as he makes clear by immediately shifting the conversation to the law: “You know the commandments:” he says, “‘You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not defraud. Honour your father and mother.’”

This makes it clear what he meant by his response. He is saying that God has already told this man what is good in the commandments, so why is he looking for Jesus to tell him? If he is not going to listen to God, why would he listen to Jesus?

Ah, but the man insists, he has listened to God. He has lived according to the commandments. “Teacher,” he insists, “I have kept all these since my youth.” And I know that this might sound a bit boastful to us, but this fits with the common understanding of the Old Testament law at the time.

The Goodness of the Law

The law was not generally seen as a list of obligations that you had to follow down to the letter and if you slipped up on some minor requirement you were doomed. They understood the law as a set of guidelines that you could follow and that were meant to guide you in a good life. The issue was not perfection in your observation of the details, the goal was to live a good life according to God’s guidance.

And so, this man is insisting that he has found and lived according to the goodness that God has offered him. He has come to Jesus because he believes that this teacher is good and can lead him to a deeper and richer goodness. He is, in fact, doubling down on his assertion that Jesus is good.

Jesus Loved Him

And did you note Jesus’ response to that? “Jesus, looking at him, loved him.” He honours what this man is aspiring to – this greater goodness and deeper understanding of God’s kingdom. And, for one brief moment, the two of them are completely on the same wavelength both searching for what is truly good.

And then what happens? Everything absolutely falls apart. Just moments later this young man leaves Jesus in a state of shock and grief. It seems as if something has suddenly gone very wrong. It turns out that Jesus’ question was very apt because the man has decided that Jesus is, in fact, not very good.

One Thing More

So, what has gone wrong here? What has Jesus said to change this man’s opinion so drastically? He has told him that there is one thing more that he can do to expand on the goodness that God asks for in the law. “You lack one thing;” Jesus says, “go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

Now, on one level this advice is not at odds with the teaching of the law. The law of Moses clearly teaches that one should not covet, should not be overly attached to earthly wealth. The law also strongly encourages and even requires giving to those who are poor. But there is one thing in what Jesus demands that exceeds the requirements of the law.

Why the Law did not Require This

Jesus asks the man to sell everything he has, to completely divest himself of all earthly possessions in order to support the poor. And that was something that the law never demanded. It did not do so for a particular reason.

It was not because there was some inherent goodness in wealth and possessions. It was only because it was generally understood that you had to think beyond your own needs. Since you had people depending on you, your family and household in particular, you couldn’t divest yourself of everything, not even for the good reason of supporting those who are poor.

So, it is actually no wonder that this man is shocked by what Jesus says. The good that Jesus demands, the good that exceeds the requirements of God’s law, is actually something that appears to destroy the very basis of morality of his society, his obligation to family. If he gave away all of those possessions, he could no longer fulfill that obligation. The goodness that Jesus asks for, is clearly at odds with the ethical requirements of that society.

What the Disciples have Given up

That is something that is made crystal clear at the end of the passage. When Peter talks about how the disciples left everything to follow him, Jesus confirms that they have left behind house and brothers and sisters and mother and father and children and fields.

They have abandoned all of the things that created the kinds of obligations that required them to keep possessions. They can therefore do what the young man cannot. But we should not miss the fact that that means that they have abandoned the very foundation of what it usually meant to be good people in that society.

So, you see what I mean when I say that the fundamental question in this story is “Why do you call me good?” Jesus goes out of his way to demonstrate that he is in fact not good according to the standard ways of judging goodness in that society. No wonder he is so surprised that someone assumes his goodness.

Jesus’ Question for Us

And that brings me to the question that Jesus is asking you and me and all Christians today. It is unsurprisingly the same question: “Why do you call me good?”

The world is full of people who identify themselves as followers of Christ – who call Jesus good – and yet are completely caught up in the systems of this world, systems that Jesus’ very existence calls into question.

The Capitalist System

For example, we all live within an economic system called capitalism. It is a system, there is no question, that has the potential of doing a lot of good. It creates wealth and wealth can do good things. It encourages and rewards creativity and innovation. It creates employment which allows people to live.

We are also aware of some of the shortcomings of this system. It tends to create abundantly more wealth for some than others. It has a tendency to create entities that become so powerful that they dominate markets in ways that prevent anyone else from profiting from their innovation and creativity.

But, with all the good and all the bad, that is the system that we live with. And we are all aware that, should the system fall apart, the results would likely be catastrophic for everybody. So, we all exist in this system.

As believers who live within such a system, what do we do each Sunday and in our prayers and devotions? We come to Jesus in a spirit of thankfulness for all that we have and we say, “Good teacher, what shall we do in this world?”

Jesus’ Disruption

And do you know what Jesus replies: He says, “Why do you call me good? Don’t you know that I have come to disrupt this very system that you live in? Don’t you know that I have come so that “many who are first will be last, and the last will be first”?

Didn’t you hear it when my mother proclaimed that my birth meant that, “he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty.” (Luke 1:53) And remember when I said, “Blessed are you who are poor,” but “But woe to you who are rich,” and “Blessed are you who are hungry now,” but “Woe to you who are full now.” (Luke 6:20-25)

If we are so invested in the economic system that we live in that we are not willing to see it disrupted, all I am saying is that maybe we had better think twice before we call Jesus good.

Supremacist Views

We seem to be encountering more and more people these days who call Jesus a good teacher and yet are totally committed to racist or supremacist views. Christian nationalism is on the rise. We see it most openly in the United States. But we ought not to pretend that it is not growing here in Canada too.

And I know that Christian nationalism can take many forms. Perhaps some are simply trying to do their best to be patriotic while they hold onto their faith. But in some of the more toxic forms, it has been expressing itself in extreme racism – demonizing immigrants and enforcing a social order in which straight white Christian men dominate every part of society. And such people do invoke Jesus and say, “Good teacher, what must we do to protect our White culture?”

Teachings About Strangers

And Jesus asks, “Why do you call me good? You know the law, it is clear. It says “You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And you know that I have said, “for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Matthew 25:35)

“If you are a Christian nationalist, you need to understand that if you call me good, you will have to accept that I am going to make you question all of the things that make you feel superior to others and maybe the things that make you feel safe. Know that, if you call me good, you may leave our interview shocked and grieving.”

The Real Question

So, you see, “Why do you call me good?” is the real question, the most important one. If we are going to follow Jesus, we can’t just follow him on our own terms. Jesus will always insist that we must follow him on his terms. And those terms will necessarily call into question the moral systems that we have accepted uncritically. They will challenge our assumptions about the systems by which our world works. They will definitely challenge our prejudices and racial pride.

If we are not careful, Jesus will absolutely shock us and send us away grieving. But here is the secret that I want you to hold onto. Jesus is good. And if he challenges us and shocks us, it is because he cares for us and wants us to grow. That is the good news about Jesus.

https://youtu.be/Yv5Q8VOiorE

Hespeler, October 06, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost
Genesis 2:18-24, Psalm 8, Hebrews 1:1-4, 2:5-12, Mark 10:2-16

If there is one verse that everybody seems to think that they understand completely in the Bible, it has got to be the verse that ends our reading this morning from Genesis. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife,” it says, “and they become one flesh.” Everybody I talk to tells me that they know exactly what that verse means. They say that it means that the Bible is laying out for us the prescriptive model for one of the most fundamental relationships of society, the marriage. It is saying that it is God’s will that marriage take a very particular form of one man, one woman committed for life.

Now there is no question in my mind that this verse affirms such a marriage. And that is significant. But I do have all kinds of questions about what sort of instruction we are supposed to take from it.

Polygynous Marriage

For example, if this verse was so clear that a marriage was supposed to be between one man and one woman, why is it that almost nobody in the Old Testament seems to have understood that? The dominant model for marriage throughout most of the Old Testament is not monogamy but rather polygyny – that is, marriage between one man and several women. Many of the key characters of the Bible including most of the patriarchs and all of the kings had several wives.

If God had clearly told humanity that they were only allowed one, these Bible characters certainly didn’t get the memo! And none of them are ever criticized in the scriptures for their marriages.

Troubled Marriages

Yes, you might say to me, but doesn’t the Bible also tell us that many of these marriages were full of strife and trouble? Yes, it does. But nobody ever takes that as a reason not to have such a marriage. Generation after generation, men continued to take multiple wives. And that doesn’t surprise me in the least. We do the same thing when it comes to monogamous marriage.

I have seen many monogamous marriages that have been full of strife and argument. I have been a first-hand witness to a number that have outright failed. And yet I still believe in monogamous marriage. I was very pleased and honoured to be able to celebrate one here just yesterday. No, there’s really nothing that the Bible says for or against the polygynous marriages of many of its heroes.

Who Says This?

So, let’s go back to that verse in Genesis chapter 2 and ask what it is really trying to teach us about marriage. Let me ask you a question about it that has baffled me for a long time. Who says it? In whose voice are we supposed to hear, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife…”?

Up until this point in the story, there have only been two speaking parts: the Creator and the man. And this verse comes at the very end of the first thing that the man says, his jubilant celebration of the woman. But the man doesn’t seem to say this bit about marriage. Nor does this saying come to us in the voice of God. Everything that God has said in this story has been introduced by the words, “and the Lord God said.” So, if it’s not God who says this and it’s not the man who says it, then who does? It seems to be a commentary inserted into the story by the narrators.

An Abnormal Marriage

But, if it is a commentary, it is a bit of an odd one. Because what it describes is actually not what would have been considered a normal marriage at the time when the Bible was written. The pattern of marriage throughout the entire biblical period was actually pretty clear. The normal cultural practice was for a woman to leave her mother and father’s house to be joined with her husband. People lived, not as nuclear families as we know them, but as extended families. And a wife was always expected to move in and live with her husband’s household.

But this verse describes the opposite, doesn’t it? It speaks of a man leaving his family to be joined to his wife. This was not considered normal in the world of the Bible. In fact, when we find such marriages in the Bible, they are usually condemned! For example, in the Book of Numbers, an Israelite man named Zimri deserts his tribe and family in order to marry a Midianite woman named Cozbi. (Numbers 25: 14, 15) This marriage is seen as so unacceptable that a priest runs the two of them through with a spear killing them both.

In the Book of Ezra, a similar thing happens when many Israelite men marry foreign women and Ezra forces them all to abandon both their wives and children. (Ezra 9-10) So, apparently this kind of marriage was not only unusual, it was actually seen as something that undermined the normal order of society.  And yet, here in Genesis, it seems to be saying that, because of how God created humanity, this kind of marriage could happen and could result with the unusually married people becoming “one flesh,” forming a unique bond and connection.

It Can’t be the One True Pattern

So what is this final verse really saying? It can’t be merely laying out the one true pattern for all marriages for all time because it actually describes a kind of marriage that was considered unusual and perhaps even threatening to the ancient Israelites.

I think that, in order to answer that question, we need to go back and ask what this entire story is really here to do. What is the author trying to say to us. I can’t really accept that this passage is meant to be a simple and straightforward explanation of how human beings came to be. There are numerous problems with reading the story that way.

More than Historical

All of the evidence we have found on the origin of the human species absolutely contradicts the notion that we can somehow be traced back to two people in a garden in northern Mesopotamia. What’s more, this story also contradicts the creation story in Genesis chapter one when it says that the order of creation was first a man, then all of the animals and then a woman. These things among others make me think that this was never intended to be taken as a literal account of historical events.

Rather than a simple historical account, this is meant to be a story that is told to teach us about what it means to be human, what our relationship is to the world around us, to animals and to our God. And it is especially about what it means to be in relationship with other humans, especially in marriage relationships.

The Creation of the Woman

And that makes the story of the creation of the woman particularly meaningful because it is, above all, a story about the human need for companionship and partnership. This need cannot be fulfilled by the animals, no matter how wonderful they may be. We need someone who can be a partner and helper.

And clearly the reason why the man in this story rejoices in the woman is because they are made of the same stuff. “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” the man cries. And this makes a lot of sense because the story depicts God creating the woman from something God takes from the side of the man.

What Came from the Side?

The Hebrew word, by the way, is not very specific on that point. The thing that God takes from the side of the man is usually translated as “rib” because that kind of makes sense. I mean, what else would you take from the side? But the Hebrew word is not that precise. We cannot know if that is what is intended.

But whatever exactly God takes, the meaning of the surgery is clear. Somehow the human that existed before it contained the fullness of humanity in one being. Both what would become the male and what would become the female were present in the original creation and God separates that into two distinct beings.

God’s creation, when first placed in the garden is simply called adam, which is the generic Hebrew word for a human. Only after the separation surgery do the Hebrew words for man and woman (which are ish and ishah) appear.

God Creates the Distinctions

What that seems to be saying is that the things that divide us – the differences that often set us apart from one another – including the distinction of gender but also the distinctions between race and tribe and ethnicity – have been created for us by God because of our need. We need one another and we need the differences that sometimes separate us because we complete one another. That is what allows us to be helpers who are partners to one another.

So that is what this story is all about – about how God made us in all of our diversity for each other. That is a lesson not just about marriage but also about friendship and teamwork and all kinds of other human relationships as well. And it is perhaps also a warning that, when we stop respecting the differences that we encounter in the other person, we will miss out on the meaning and richness that God has intended for us.

And, if that is what this story is about, then what is the meaning of the enigmatic statement at the end of the story: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

An Application of the Story

Well, I have come to understand it much like I suggested – as the narrators dropping in a commentary for the audience. They are speaking directly to the people listening to this story and giving them a direct application to their situation.

In particular, I would suggest that they are speaking to parents, for example, who are upset with their son because he didn’t want to go through with the perfectly sensible marriage that they had set up for him. You know, the parents had done what good parents did and arranged a marriage with a couple of nice girls from good families from the next village over.

But then, did that son want to go through with that perfectly normal and acceptable marriage? No, he did not! Instead, he decided to leave his mother and father and go and cling to a woman that his parents had never even met from an entirely different tribe! Can you imagine!

Yes, the narrators are speaking to all manner of parents who are upset because their children have opted for marriages that do not conform to their norms and expectations. And they are basically saying, “Eh, what are you going to do? That’s just how God created humans to be. For this reason they have the tendency to want to cling to who their parents think are all the wrong people. And if God created us that way, I guess maybe it will probably all work out.

A Lesson for Today

I once thought that I understood exactly what this verse in the Book of Genesis meant, but the closer I look at it the less obvious that meaning seems. I no longer think that it is intended to tell people what sort of relationship they are allowed to have. Instead, I have come to believe that it recognizes that people enter into all kinds of relationships.

I would take away this lesson from it. If anyone has ever looked at your marriage or some other key relationship in your life and judged it because it didn’t fit their idea of what was normal or acceptable, this is talking to you. It is encouraging you to remember that love does find a way even in relationships that don’t fit somebody else’s ideal.

Relationships of Love and Respect

It is saying that, if your relationship is based on clinging together through the good and the bad, if you love and respect each other for who God created you to be, then you are living up to what God created you to bẹ.

And if, on the other hand, you are ever tempted to judge someone else’s relationship because it doesn’t fit your predetermined idea of what shape it is supposed to take – if that is all you can see and you can’t see the depth of love and commitment that is there because of it, maybe it is speaking to you as well and encouraging you to look again.

https://youtu.be/NqbeSC7OZw0

Hespeler, September 29, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Esther 9:1-17 (Compare Esther 7:1-6, 9-10; 9:20-22), Psalm 124, James 5:13-20, Mark 9:38-50

The Book of Esther tells a story that is set during a time when some Jewish people are living in exile in the Persian Empire. It seems they have many enemies there, people who want to destroy them. But their greatest enemy is a powerful man in the king’s court named Haman. Haman goes to the king and persuades him to make a decree calling for the extermination of the Jews as enemies of the state.

But the book tells the story of how a young woman named Esther and her older cousin, Mordecai, foil Haman’s plot. Esther won a beauty contest and became, as a result, the principal wife and queen to the Persian king. So, the book tells the story of how she, guided by her wise cousin, uses her power and influence to save her people from destruction.

The Happy Ending

It is a great story full of palace intrigue, tension and strategy – a wonderful read. But it is a story that comes up only once in the lectionary, the three-year cycle of readings that usually guides what we read in church each Sunday. The solitary reading from Esther comes on this Sunday and the reading that has been assigned is basically the happy ending of the story. Thanks to Esther’s wisdom and bravery, the Jewish people are saved, their enemy, Haman, is impaled on the pole that he himself built in order to impale Mordecai in what appears to be perfectly balanced justice. The people rejoice in their salvation. Just a wonderful happy ending.

But I have a bit of a problem with the specific text that is assigned by the Revised Common Lectionary. According to it, we are supposed to read Esther 7:1-6, and then we are supposed to skip several verses and pick up the passage at verses 9-10. Then we are supposed to skip over an entire chapter and a half to continue to read at chapter 9, verses 20-22.

Why Skip So Much?

But surely that is not a big deal, right? I mean, we must skip those verses because they don’t have anything important in them and because otherwise the reading would just be too long, not to mention filled with all manner of weird names like: “Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha.” But there can’t any other reason to skip over all those verses, can there? Can there?

Well, it turns out that maybe there is another reason. I chose this morning not to read the assigned text from Esther and instead to read some of the verses that we are supposed to skip. And you may have noticed something in what we read. It turns out that the salvation of the Jews from the persecution of their enemies did not end with the equally measured retributive justice of Haman being hanged on the scaffold he built for Mordecai.

The Massacre

It turns out that their salvation required them to go on a two-day murderous rampage during which they killed five hundred people in the capital and seventy-five thousand in the provinces! We are also told that their salvation required that Mordecai become so powerful that he inspired terror in his enemies throughout the land. It was not enough for the evil Haman to be eliminated, he had to be replaced by someone just as powerful and feared by the enemies of the Jews.

Now, I think I understand, to a certain extent, why the folks on the Lectionary committee don’t want us to read that part of the story. The Jews are supposed to be the heroes of this book, and we hardly want good Christians to take them as examples by setting out to engage in wholesale slaughter of their enemies! There are unfortunately already too many examples of that kind of thing in the history of the church. So, we don’t want to encourage that, but is the only alternative just to pretend that that part of the story isn’t there at all? That doesn’t seem right to me. Surely, we need to come to terms with this very objectionable part of the book.

God is Not Named

So, I want to come to terms with it. But, before we do that, I need to bring up one other important thing about this Book. Of all the books in the Bible, Esther is the only one in which the name of God does not appear. The Jews in the story, including Esther, do various religious things like fasting and holding festivals, but God and God’s action never really come into the story.

The closest we get to God doing something, is when Mordecai says, while trying to persuade Esther to speak up, “if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish.” That is often taken as meaning that, if Esther doesn’t save the people, God will. But, of course, since Esther does speak up in the end, apparently that means that God doesn’t need to step in to save the people.

So, God is curiously absent from this story. Does that mean that God is not involved? No, many have taken this as a story of how God sometimes works behind the scenes and through the actions of people to bring about salvation even when nobody asks God to do it. And I tend to agree. But it does make me wonder how that lack of an acknowledgement of God in the story may have contributed to the massacre that they came to see as necessary to their salvation.

Esther is Not Satisfied

Esther was pleased. She and her cousin had successfully navigated the intricate power structure of the court. They had managed to bring down the second most powerful man in the entire kingdom by skillfully maneuvering him into a compromising position. He and his plot to destroy her people had come to nothing and he himself had been impaled in a gruesome public execution.

She should have felt happy. She should have felt as if she and her people were safe. Her enemies had been thwarted. Surely, with Haman gone and Mordecai officially taking his place, no one would dare to follow through on his plan to slaughter the Jewish communities. They had won; their enemies had lost. That should have been enough.

But it wasn’t. For her side to win, the other side didn’t just have to lose. Everything that they had even dreamed of doing and everything that Esther could imagine them wanting to do to be done to them. And so, Esther and Mordecai went into the king one more time.

Esther’s Request

“Ah my dear,” said Ahasuerus extending his scepter to her, “Your enemy is dead. Now what shall we do, celebrate? Mordecai can write to all of the people in all of the provinces and tell them that it is my will that no one follow through on Haman’s plans to kill the Jews and all will be well.”

But Esther did not agree. “No, my king, it is not enough. We as a people have been threatened with extermination. Sure, we have been saved today, but so long as we know that our enemies are alive, how can we possibly ever feel safe again. In order for us to win, they have to all die!

The king was taken aback, as well he should be! He might not agree with some of the racist attitudes of some of his people, but they were his people. Surely the king owed a duty to protect them as much as he did to protect the Jews under his jurisdiction. “Surely there has to be some other way,” he insisted. “Surely the protection of the law is better than wholesale slaughter and retaliation!”

The Law of the Medes and Persians

Mordecai and Esther had expected this objection. And they had their response ready. “Ah, but you see, my lord, the law is precisely the problem. Haman passed a decree – using your signet I might add – that permitted the slaughter of the Jews. And everybody knows that, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, no royal decree can ever be changed or repealed.”

“What?” cried the king, “That’s not the law. Why does everyone keep telling me that is the law? How could a kingdom possibly last – much less manage to rule the known world – if it was never able to amend its own policies? And what king could ever be considered a great ruler if his own power was so limited that he couldn’t even change his own mind? No, that’s just crazy.”

“Well, guess what, Ahasuerus,” smiled Esther, “there may be no reference to any such law in all the libraries of ancient Persia or even in all the writings of the Greeks and the Egyptians, but we Jews are the ones who get to tell this story. And the way that we’re going to tell it, that is the law. Therefore the only way to prevent what was planned against us is to do it to our enemies before they ever have the chance to do it to us. So, get out your signet ring and start decreeing.

Ahasuerus felt that he owed it to his beautiful young wife to do as she demanded.

A Persecuted Minority

The Book of Esther tells the story of a persecuted minority living in Persia. That, to me, sounds quite credible. Given what we know of human nature, the persecution of minorities is something that has a way of rearing its ugly head again and again throughout history. We also know that the Jews, in particular, have suffered through a long history of such persecution up to and including the Holocaust and beyond. So, I really do not doubt that the Jews in Persia lived in fear of their many enemies.

And whenever we see such terrible things unfolding throughout history, the question we are often inclined to ask is, where is God in the midst of this tragedy? Why does God permit this kind of thing to go on?

When God Doesn’t Show Up

That is a good question, of course, and one worth delving into. But that’s not where I want to go today. Instead, I would like to note that something curious often happens to those caught up in such persecution. At some point, it seems, you may decide that whatever God is up to, you are not going to wait around for it. You decide to move on as if God wasn’t there, at least until God decides to show up.

That is, for example, what a great many Jews did during and after the Holocaust. When God didn’t stop it, they decided to take matters into their own hands. In fact, the Zionist movement was, in its origins, a rejection of the idea that God might save God’s chosen people. They couldn’t wait for that and so decided to go ahead and protect themselves in the country that they built for themselves.

When You Don’t See God at Work

And I can’t help but think that the Book of Esther – with its total lack of even a mention of the name of God – might be a similar reaction to persecution. God may have saved them – I’m pretty sure that that is what is going on behind the scenes – but when they didn’t see God at work, they decided that they must have saved themselves. I can see Esther coming to that conclusion.

And, as we see in the Book of Esther, when you start thinking like that, there seems to be a danger that you won’t be satisfied just with stopping your enemies. You will decide that you will only be safe once you have had your vengeance and you have found a way to kill them all.

The explanation that is given in the story – that a decree of the king could not be changed – does not make any sense historically speaking or from a practical political point of view. But it functions as an excellent pretext for what the persecuted Jews want to do. It illustrates how we will use any excuse we can come up with to justify our extreme vengeance against those we perceive to be our enemies.

We Need to Leave Vengeance to God

In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Paul says this quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19, cf. Deuteronomy 32:35) This seems to promise that we don’t need to take revenge when we are oppressed, that God, who takes care of the forgotten of this world, will set things right and so we don’t have to.

That is a very encouraging and comforting idea. But what if that message is not just meant to comfort us? What if there is a deep problem with humans taking vengeance. And what if the problem is that when we start taking vengeance, we just don’t know when to stop and before you know it, there are seventy-five thousand dead in the provinces of the Persian Empire. Maybe we have a deep need for God to take on that vengeance because we can’t handle it because we don’t know when to quit.

It is just a thought. That is where my refection on the disturbing end of the Book of Esther leads me today. Maybe as you struggle with this part of the story, your reflections will lead to you to another conclusion.

I think that is the point of a passage like this one. It is meant to disturb us, to force us to think critically about what seems to be a serious flaw in our human nature. That is why, though most churches will simply gloss over this part of the story today, it is important that it is there, and it is important that we don’t ignore it. We need to be thinking about this part of our human nature because it definitely continues to shape human war and destiny to this very day.

https://youtu.be/dO4BTW_6xrU

Hespeler, September 22, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Proverbs 31:10-31, Psalm 1, James 3:13-4:3, 7-8a, Mark 9:30-37

Her name was Leah. She was almost four years old. She lived in Capernaum in the house with her extended family. Hers was a life that, as short as it was, had already been marked by sorrow. She had gone to bed hungry far too many times in her brief span. She had also experienced her share of grief and death, even if she didn’t quite understand what it was yet. Many of her young siblings and cousins had not managed to live as long as her. Some had not even survived a few hours after their birth.

But despite the sorrow that surrounded her, Leah was a bright child. Sometimes the adults in the family found it hard to become too attached to the children who came along, knowing that many of them would not survive until adulthood. But Leah had a way about her. When she smiled and placed her little hand in the large palm of an uncle or a cousin, it just made their hearts melt. They couldn’t help but love her even though they knew the risk of experiencing loss that came with such love.

Her Parents and Family

Leah was especially close to her parents, of course, particularly to her mother who still nursed her daily. But both of her parents were working today – her father out in the boats and her mother working at the fish drying racks – so she was here with her aunt and her grandmother in the house.

While they worked in the outdoor kitchen, she played happily in a corner with a few of the treasured possessions she had amassed during her life: a stone that was shaped as an almost perfect sphere, a piece of wood that her uncle had crudely carved in the shape of a donkey and a scrap of cloth that had come from her mother’s tunic.

She heard the group approaching well before they appeared at the door. There were about a dozen of them, and they often stayed in this house when they were in Capernaum. They were arguing loudly with one another as they approached, which was not unusual. The argument seemed to have been going on for a while but at least they seemed to be arguing good naturedly.

The Argument

As usual, the loudest voice among them was one that was very familiar to her. It was the voice of her uncle Simon. She looked up as her aunt turned away from her work and ran to the door to greet the husband who was often away for long periods of time.

Uncle Simon – the others in his group called him “Rock” for some reason – was very loudly proclaiming that he was absolutely the greatest among them all. “Of course I’m the most important disciple of all,” he proclaimed. “Surely that is why the teacher started calling me Rock. I am solid, dependable and the kind of person who is foundational to what he is trying to build.”

“Oh really?” laughed another in response. “And what makes you think that he doesn’t call you that because he thinks that you’ve got rocks in your head?”

They all laughed at that, even Uncle Simon. So, it was a merry company that entered the house. They moved quickly towards the inner courtyard, calling out to the cooks and asking if there was any food to share.

The Teacher

One last straggler entered a moment behind the main pack. He was quieter, clearly caught up in some deep thought. But his eyes flashed around the room as he came through the door. He gave a wide smile as he saw Leah looking up at him. She smiled right back because he had always been one of her favourite visitors.

Once the newcomers had greeted everyone, they settled down in the courtyard of the house while Leah’s aunt and grandma served them a bit of bread and oil. Leah wandered in too looking for a snack as well. She sat down at the edge of the group, just a little behind the teacher. She watched his every move with wide eyes. For some reason he just fascinated her.

“Listen guys…” he eventually interrupted the small talk. Leah noted how quickly they all fell silent and turned to him as if they were afraid that they might miss something that he said. “Before we left to come here to Capernaum,” he continued, “I said something to you. I said, ‘The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.’

An Awkward Question

“But you guys didn’t say anything at the time. You sort of just stared at me like a deer might do if someone were able to shine a bright light on it. But I heard you talking together on the way here, so I assume that you talked through what I said and you maybe have something to share about it now. So, what were you talking about on the road?

Leah was just a little girl, but even she could pick up just how extremely uncomfortable the entire group became. The others stared awkwardly at the floor or suddenly became completely absorbed with some strange thing they had discovered on their fingernails.

The teacher rolled his eyes. “Right, don’t tell me. You were probably arguing with each other about which one of you is the greatest, weren’t you?” He sighed. “It’s like you don’t listen to a word that I say! You certainly didn’t listen to what I was saying about where this movement is going because, if you had, you probably wouldn’t be so keen to be seen as great within it.”

The Lesson

With that, he sat down before them. In that culture, teachers always took a seated position to give their instructions. Even at her age Leah understood that. If an adult sat down in front of her, she would be expected to pay close attention to the lesson they were going to give her. And so, all of the others in the group leaned forward with anticipation.

“Don’t you understand what it meant when I told you that?” he asked them. “It means that whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all. It means that if you are arguing with one another over who is the greatest, then you do not have the first clue as to what I am trying to do here.  How can I make you guys understand?”

He glanced around and his eye fell on Leah, who was looking up at him with rapt attention. “Leah,” he said holding his hand out to her, “come here for a moment girl, will you?”

Leah’s Response

Without a moment’s hesitation, she got right up and went straight to him. When he went to hold her hand she walked straight past his outstretched fingers and climbed up onto his lap. Knowing what she wanted, he wrapped his arms around her tightly.

As she sat on his lap, she looked at the men spread through the courtyard. Then she leaned back her head onto his neck. She breathed in the smell of him – his sweat and the dust of the road. She could even smell a hint of the dried fish he had had for his last meal.

She felt completely safe and comfortable. And I know you might think that it is an easy thing to make a child feel safe and comfortable, but Leah had actually known little of either of those things in her short life. But here, in this moment, everyone could see it in the expression on her face.

“Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me,” declared the teacher. “And whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.”

“Let the Children Come”

On a few occasions, Jesus had some pretty surprising things to say about children and the kingdom of God. The most famous incident, of course, comes in the very next chapter of this same gospel we read from today when “people were bringing children to him in order that he might touch them, and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not stop them, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.” (10:13-14)

Passages like that one and this one that we read from today, certainly convince me that Jesus really did believe that children had a better understanding of this thing that he had come to announce, this kingdom of God, than anybody else. But haven’t you always wondered what we are supposed to do with that? How are we supposed to become like children in order to enter the kingdom? What does it mean to welcome children? I mean, we are adults. How are we supposed to just put aside everything that we have spent our lives building ourselves up to be in order to be part of God’s kingdom?

Putting Ourselves in Their Positions

And I do not think that we can really answer those questions without trying to put ourselves into the position of children, and specifically of the children who would have been there listening to Jesus say such things.

I know that we have all been children at some point in our life. You may sometimes look at some of the people in your life and have a hard time believing that, but we’ve all been there. But it can be an experience that we have a hard time putting ourselves back into, maybe especially if it was a long time ago.

But it is also true that there were some things different about children in Jesus’ time. We do know, for example, that the infant and newborn mortality rate in those times was so high that, if we saw it today, we would be completely outraged and demand government action. So, what does it mean to be a child living in a world where many of your siblings do not make it out of infancy and where people have their doubts about whether you are going to make it to adulthood. That’s a very different kind of situation than children have to live with today.

Parents Love Their Children

I have heard some people argue that, because of that infant mortality rate, parents hesitated to invest much love or attachment in their children, based on the idea that, if you’re not attached, you’re not going to feel grief when you lose them.

But I do not believe that for a moment. Parents have always loved their children and the reality that your child might not survive actually only has the effect of making you more attached and more loving, committed to make the most of whatever time you are given. So, it is definitely not that children were not loved or valued.

Coming to Jesus Like a Child

So, whatever Jesus was saying, he was not saying that you need to come to see yourself as insignificant, unloved or unworthy in order to come into the kingdom of God. It is true that children had very little in the way of status in that society, but they definitely had a place, and they were valued for who they were.

No, what I think Jesus was saying was that he was looking for those who would come to him much like a child like Leah would have come to him. She brought no pretensions. She did not feel the need to pretend to be something that she was not. She was not afraid to open herself up to him, to throw herself into his arms or to climb up on his lap.

That is what we forget how to do as we grow up. We learn suspicion and mistrust. We learn to guard ourselves against loving too much or trusting too much for fear that we will be disappointed yet again. A child knows nothing of that. That’s what Jesus recognized in the children that he encountered. And he celebrated it because he saw in that something of the nature of this kingdom that he had come to announce.

https://youtu.be/9yalwzRnGLY

Hespeler, September 15, 2024 © Scott McAndless
Proverbs 1:20-33, Psalm 19, James 3:1-12, Mark 8:27-38

I

n the Second Letter of Timothy, you will find this famous passage: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”(2 Timothy 3:16-17) And we could probably talk for a long time about what, exactly, those verses mean. But one thing I have always understood is that they mean that I can take any passage in the Bible and that I should be able to take from it some useful lessons around which I can construct a sermon.

Do Not be a Teacher

Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I open up our passage this morning from the Letter of James to see that it begins like this: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will face stricter judgment. For all of us make many mistakes.”

So, apparently all scripture is useful for teaching but, maybe I shouldn’t be teaching at all? Or is it perhaps that all scripture is useful, but maybe I shouldn’t teach this scripture? Is this passage particularly full of pitfalls? I believe that is the warning that James is trying to give us. Because it is a passage about the dangers of the human tongue. So, another way to see it is to say, you can use any scripture to write a sermon, but you would be crazy to use this one.

Risks in Preaching

And there is a lot of truth in that. James is absolutely right that what you say – even sometimes one word out of place – can have a devastating impact on somebody’s life. And this is especially true if you speak as someone with authority in the church. Any preacher who doesn’t realize that and doesn’t recognize that she or he has probably hurt someone with something that they said is just not paying attention.

I’ll make a confession. I was once praying and included a petition for people who struggle with or have struggled with mental health issues. A good thing to pray for, I think. Then I shifted to prayers about people with other kinds of ailments. But when I made that shift, I said something like, “And we pray for those who deal with real health issues too…” and went on to pray for some people with bodily ailments. But I put one very problematic word in that transition, didn’t I?

“Real” Illness

Do you know how many people a word like “real” can harm in that context? People who have mental health issues are often made to feel by others as if their illness is illusionary, that they are imagining it or making themselves sick. This is often said to them in a way that strongly implies that it is all their own fault if they are clinically depressed or bipolar or suffer from any number of mental illnesses.

Now, I know that that is not true. I know that mental illness is real illness and that it is not something that can simply be fixed with a change of attitude. But do you know what? When I use a phrase like “real illness” in a way that contrasts with mental illness, it actually doesn’t matter what I know or what I believe. It doesn’t matter what I intend to mean.

Anyone who has been told all their life that what they struggle with is fake, is only going to hear that word “real” and all of the negative messages that they have heard all of their lives will just start playing out in their minds all over again. One ill-chosen word might well set them back and leave them to conclude that the church is no better than all of those people in their lives who have failed to appreciate what they struggle with.

James is Right

When I did choose that wrong word many years ago, one person did challenge me and correct me, something for which I am immensely grateful. It gave me the opportunity to apologize for my words and the harm that they caused and thankfully that person did understand. But I honestly don’t know how many other people I could have hurt with that word or with some other ill-chosen word spoken at some other time. So, I absolutely agree with James that this is a perilous thing that I dare to do when I seek to teach people about the word of God.

And surely, as James prefaces this particular passage with that warning, I would be a great fool to choose to take it as the text for my sermon. It might just reflect badly back on me. But what this passage is saying is so important, not only for me but for all of us that, as perilous as it may be, I believe it is extremely import that we pay it some close attention. The truth that this letter proclaims, that words matter and that they can do more harm than many other things, is one that we ignore to our peril.

The Housing Crisis

Let me give you one example of a word that I have come to see in a very different light just in the past year. One of the huge crises that we have been facing in our society for a while now is a lack of affordable housing. It is, in fact, the crisis that is fueling many of the other problems we are dealing with including inflation, the overdose crisis and problems with immigration. So, it is obviously very important that we talk about it.

But you may have noticed that many advocates and agencies addressing the problem have changed one of their ways of talking about it. We used to talk about the problem of homelessness. But now you are more likely to hear officials talking about people living without shelter, houselessness or even people “living rough.”

Why Change the Language?

Now, if you noticed that shift, you may well have thought it as just an example of wokeness or of weird language policing. What does it matter what we call it, after all? What matters is what we do about the problem, right?

Now, it is true that sometimes we do have this habit of thinking that if we just change the ways we talk about our problems we can make them go away. That is foolish. Adjustments to language on their own do not change reality.

The Problem with Talking about “the Homeless”

But that shift in language regarding the housing crisis did not come from language police. It didn’t even come from advocates or agencies. The people caught up in housing crisis spoke up about the need for change.

For one thing, the habit of referring to “the homeless” as a problem, a habit that has become very ingrained over the past few years, has a very dehumanizing effect. It makes it too easy to gloss over individuals and families who are just trying to do their best in trying circumstances – to treat them as some nameless mass problem.

Who Makes a Home?

Even more important, though, it is just not accurate. The problem that we have as a society is not actually a lack of homes because developers and landlords and governments don’t sell or rent people homes. I know they may sometimes market them that way because the word “home” carries such positive associations, but all they can provide is housing or shelter. You may buy a house, but only you can make it a home. And you make it into a home with community and family and all your own personal touches.

Turning the place where you are living into a home is something that all humans do, even if they do not have adequate shelter. Somebody these days who is living with their family in a tent may not have a house, but they will make whatever they have, as much as they are able to do so, into a home. That’s why these days you see people living not in isolated tents but in encampments. The shelters may be rudimentary, but by creating some sort of community by pitching tents together, people are doing their best to create a sense of home.

Changing Our Approach

So, a shift in how we talk about the housing crisis is not going to solve the problem. But failing to make that shift may harm some people. Shifting our language may also affect how we approach the problem. It may help us to think about the real individuals and the homes they are doing their best to create. It help us to understand better why people make some of the choices around housing that they do. And it may make us think twice before we come in and tear apart whatever home they have been able to create for themselves.

So how we talk about our problems is not going to fix everything. But it still matters how we talk about them. It affects our approach and can make a real difference in how we think about people and what they are dealing with.

A Powerful Image

The Letter of James uses an image to talk about the power of words that has very much been on my mind as I prepared for this Sunday. “Look at ships:” he writes, “though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.”

So, the tongue is like a rudder. I couldn’t get that image out of my head. Not being an artist, I couldn’t draw a ship with a tongue as a rudder, so I asked an AI program to draw one for me. And then I couldn’t get this picture out of my mind! But maybe I need to keep it in my mind, because I think that what James is saying is very true. In fact, I would like to invite you to imagine your tongue as a rudder that has that kind of power.

The Power of Your Tongue

You have people in your life – your friends, your families and your significant others. You also have people who cross your paths from time to time. And you also have this church and other organizations in your life.

Each one of those people or groups are like ships. They are on a course. They are being pushed forward by the winds of change that affect their lives. And everyone is on a course to build up their own self-esteem, to create a home for themselves and their loved ones or to find a new future. That voyage is not easy for anybody, but we are all working at it.

Setting People Off Course

But did you realize that you, by saying something hurtful, can very easily set that voyage off course. You, with your tongue, can say something that in a moment can undo all of the progress that somebody has made. You don’t need to do it intentionally or even knowingly. Perhaps you are just having a bad day and your let your own feelings of bitterness or disappointment overflow onto them. Perhaps you are not at all upset with them, but just failed to give thought to your choice of words. It doesn’t matter; your tongue can change the course of their voyage.

So, let me give a little bit of practical advice. Before you speak, ask yourself a few questions. Does this need to be said? If it is a criticism, and criticisms do sometimes need to be spoken, is it constructive, or is it something you are saying to make yourself feel superior to someone else? And, if you can, try and take a moment to put yourself in the place of the person you are speaking to and ask yourself how they might hear what you are saying.

The Other Possibility

James is quite right. It is unfortunately very easy to hurt someone with just a word or two. But I would also remind you that the metaphor that he uses, the idea that a tongue is like a rudder, can also work in the other direction. Yes, with a few words, you can set somebody off their course. But do not forget that, with a few words of encouragement and support you can do the opposite.

You can build somebody up. You can encourage someone on their voyage to take charge of their own life. You can let them know that you’re willing to listen and to understand what it is that they are dealing with. Rudders swing both ways. And please do keep that in mind whenever you have the opportunity to speak to someone who might be struggling.

Listen to the Letter of James. We should all think twice when given an opportunity to speak or to teach. But I think it is pretty clear that the upside of being able to say something that encourages and blesses someone on their voyage does make it worthwhile to open your mouth and use your tongue once you have given some careful consideration to what it is that God is calling you to say.

https://youtu.be/v7BgOpcFFLA

Hespeler, September 8, 2024 © Scott McAndless – Baptism
Isaiah 35:4-7a, Psalm 146, James 2:1-17, Mark 7:24-37

We have all been greatly blessed and privileged today to take part in a very significant event. A young woman has made the choice to declare her faith in Jesus and willingness to be part of his church, a commitment that has been sealed by her baptism. I am continually amazed at how we as a church are given the opportunity to be a part of some of the most meaningful moments in an individual’s or a family’s life.

A Question

And I would like to take this opportunity to reflect for a bit on the confession of faith that has been made and what it means. I asked this question of Danielle today: “Do you turn to Jesus Christ, accepting him as Lord and Saviour, trusting in his grace and love?” All of you, if you have become a member of this or any congregation have been asked that question or a question very much like it. You are a member of Christ’s Church because of how you answered. But I would like to reflect for a little while on what that question means when it is asked of you in a church.

If someone on the street were to ask you, “Do you believe in Jesus?” what might they mean by that? If a random person asks you that, they are usually enquiring about the things you may believe about Jesus. They may be asking, “Do you believe that Jesus really existed?” Or, “Do you believe that he was born of a virgin?” Or that he rose from the dead, or maybe they are asking if you believe that Jesus is, in any sense, God.

Believe About Jesus

But when I ask that question before a baptism, am I asking you what you believe about Jesus? No, I am not. That is not to suggest for a moment that you shouldn’t seek, by studying and growing, to believe correct things about Jesus. Of course we should do that, but that is not the kind of belief that I am asking that question about.

There are, in fact, all kinds of people who believe all kinds of things about Jesus. They often believe these things passionately whether they are correct beliefs or not.

I have met people who believe that Jesus travelled to India in his youth, that he was white, that he was a supporter of supply-side economics and that he thought that the poor ought to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. These things are all demonstrably false (or at least have no good evidence to support them) but people believe them.

What You Believe Matters

What you believe about Jesus – true or false – matters, of course. I hope we promote the right beliefs about Jesus. But what you believe about him is not fundamentally what makes you a part of his church. The Letter of James, which we read from this morning says this about correct belief: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.” (James 2:19) Faith has to mean something more than just believing a bunch of correct things.

And I hope that this is something that can give you some comfort. I have met many Christians over the years who get hung up on the whole question of believing the right things. “I have a really hard time believing in a virgin birth,” one might say, “does that mean that I can’t be a Christian?” Or another might say, “I just can’t get my logical mind to come to terms with that whole notion of the Trinity.” (To which I respond, by the way, “Welcome to the club!”) “Does that mean I can’t be a Christian?”

Don’t be Anxious

Do your best to study and believe the right things about Jesus, but do not have any anxiety about getting something wrong or incomplete. God, who knows and holds all of the deepest truths of the universe, whose knowledge of all things vastly outstrips what any human knowledge will ever achieve, cannot look at any of us and fail to see that we all believe things that aren’t quite true. Why would God judge us for that? And so maybe it is past time for us to stop judging one another over differences in belief!

Free of All Doubt?

Another thing that the question, “Do you believe in Jesus?” might mean if someone asked it of you on the street has to do with doubt. For many people, believing in Jesus, in God or in anything to do with the church means that you never, not even for a moment, struggle with any doubt.

Indeed, I have often heard people boast of that – that they never feel even a moment’s doubt when it comes to believing even some of the wildest things in the Bible.

“Do you ever wonder if perhaps, when the Bible says that the world was created in six days, that the entire face of the earth was covered by Noah’s flood or that Jonah survived after being swallowed by a big fish that maybe, just maybe, it might mean something other than that those things literally happened exactly like that?” you might ask them. And they respond by saying, “Yes, I never doubted any of that for even a moment! The Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it.

I don’t personally see such a complete lack of doubt to be a sign of strong faith. It might be a sign of a lack of curiosity or perhaps even of critical thinking, but it is more blind acceptance of whatever you’ve been told than it is faith.

Trust in Jesus

So what is the question, “Do you turn to Jesus Christ, accepting him as Lord and Saviour, trusting in his grace and love?” really asking? It is not asking about intellectual belief or about a lack of doubt. It is simply asking about your willingness to trust in Jesus. The faith that Jesus is looking for from all believers is simply that. Jesus wants to know, “Are you willing to trust me?”

An Old Chair

Allow me to put it in terms that I think we can all relate to. Imagine that I had a chair here. And let’s say that this chair is really old. It has survived two world wars. The varnish is chipped and faded. It probably spent many years sitting in Sunday School classes where people carved their initials into the seat. If you dared to run your fingers underneath the seat, you would likely find many well-chewed pieces of gum.

In short, the chair doesn’t look great. But it does have four solid looking feet extending to the floor, even if one seems a bit shorter than the others and it might wobble a bit. The back appears to be firmly attached to the seat which doesn’t have any holes in it. So, I ask you one simple question: do you have faith in this chair?

Do you Have Faith in the Chair?

Now, if you were to answer my question by giving me a detailed description of the composition, manufacture and the history of this chair, would that prove to me that you have faith in this chair? Of course not. It would only indicate that you know a number of things about it.

If you were to provide me with a scientific study that proved to me that such a chair of such an age would collapse only 0.00001% of the times that somebody sat on it, I might be impressed with the thoroughness of your investigations, but I would not conclude that you had faith in this chair.

Most of all, if you insisted that you believed in this chair with all of your heart and that you had no doubt whatsoever that it could adequately support the weight of a human being, but you absolutely refused to sit on it anyway, I would have no real reason to conclude that you had faith in this chair.

Trusting the Chair

But if, on the other hand, somebody walked up here without knowing any of the history or construction of this chair, had no understanding of the engineering that makes chairs stable or the load-baring ratings of such furniture, could they have faith in this chair? Could they have faith even if they were plagued with all kinds of doubts about whether a chair could support someone such as them? Yes, they could.

And I would immediately know they did if, without hesitation, they just sat in it. Faith is what happens when you take what you know and believe, and you are actually willing to do something with it.

You see, that is what Jesus requires of you – not intellectual assent, not correct understanding or belief as important as those things may be. He doesn’t mind if you have doubts. All he needs to know is if you will trust him.

The Letter of James

The great reformer, Martin Luther, kind of famously didn’t much like the Letter of James that we read from this morning. He called it an epistle of straw and probably would have been happier if it wasn’t part of the New Testament at all. The reason why Luther didn’t much like this letter was because he insisted, and rightly so, that salvation is based only on grace through faith.

In other words, God will save us in whatever ways we need to be saved, but we cannot gain that salvation by doing good things or by earning it in any way whatsoever. The only way to gain it is to receive it as a gift by faith.

The problem that Luther and many others have with the Letter of James is that it goes on and on about the things that we do and the importance of doing the right things. That might certainly leave the unwary reader with the impression that James is teaching that we can earn favour with God by doing the right things.

Faith and Works

Now, it is true that the Letter of James seems to be in conversation with the teachings of the Apostle Paul regarding salvation. He does seem to take exception with some of the ways that people have interpreted Paul’s teaching about the importance of faith. But I ultimately do not think that James and Paul are disagreeing with each other.

James writes, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it?” But he is not really disagreeing with Paul by saying that. He is not saying that faith doesn’t save, he is just insisting that his readers remember what faith truly is. So long as you remember that the kind of faith that God is looking for is trust – the kind of trust that allows you to sit on a chair whether or not you have seen all of the engineering reports on its manufacture.

In other words, if you have faith in Jesus, if you really trust him, then you will not just stand around proclaiming that you believe. You will actually take that trust and act according to it.

Faith Without Works is Dead

James sums it all up by saying, “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Standing around and saying that you believe – even if you believe all the right things – is not what God is looking for. God is looking for trust, and trust naturally leads to action.

What James is absolutely not saying is that you can earn your way into God’s good graces by doing good deeds. He is saying that, if you truly learn to place your faith in Jesus – the kind of faith that saves – it is going to change the way that you see everything.

As you live by forming the habit of placing your trust in Jesus, you will come to see how he is always there for you. And as you come to see as a result that God loves you just as you are, forgiving you when you need forgiving and liberating you when you need liberation, the kinds of actions that will naturally result are actions that demonstrate love and acceptance for the weak and the forgotten, the poor and the oppressed. That is where faith in Jesus will naturally lead us if we allow it to prompt us forward.

So, you see that that question, “Do you turn to Jesus Christ, accepting him as Lord and Saviour, trusting in his grace and love?” is a question that contains so much. I would ask us all to consider yet again how we answer that question and how it has transformed our approach to the ways that we live.