Category: Minister

Minister’s blog

The Rise of Euphrates.com

Posted by on Sunday, August 4th, 2019 in Minister


Hespeler, 4 August, 2019 © Scott McAndless
Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12-14, 2:18-23, Psalm 49:1-12, Colossians 3:1-11, Luke 12:13-21
O
ne day, when Jesus was speaking to a large group, one of the people in the crowd called out to him. “Lord,” he said, “my sister just won $50,000 in the lottery. If she were just to give me half of that, I could pay off all of my debts and maybe even get ahead on my mortgage. Then I could finally stop worrying about money all the time. Would you please tell her to do so?”
      But Jesus called back to that man, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” And he began to warn the people and teach them that they would not find security in such things. He told them a story.
     
      “Once upon a time,” he said, “there was a man who had an amazing and wonderful idea. You see, he knew that there were bookstores spread all across the land where people would go and buy books. But these bookstores were located on expensive real estate and they took a great deal of space and expensive staff to rather inefficiently sell books to the people who wanted them.
      “So this man’s plan was to create a massive distribution system to sell books to people. He wouldn’t need to create expensive retail bookstores because people would be able to look at and select the books that they wanted on this amazing new thing called the internet. He wouldn’t even have to pay for the warehouse space to store all of the books – the publishers could keep them in their own warehouses until they were needed – so instead this man would concentrate on shipping and distribution and do it very efficiently.

      “Now, what would you call something like that – a company that is built around a massive distribution system. Well, of course, you name it after a river because nothing can move things like a river – and not just any river but the greatest river in the whole world. You name it after the River Euphrates.” (Because remember that this is Jesus who is telling this story and in his world, there is no more important river than the Euphrates.)
      “And so it was that Euphrates.com was born and the founder of the company very quickly became the biggest and most successful bookseller in the whole world. And what do you suppose that he did next. Did he just lean back and say to his soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry’? No, he did not because he did not feel as if he had anywhere enough to feel as secure as that. He needed more.
      “And so what he said to his soul was this: ‘Soul, you have become the biggest bookseller in the world but you can do more. Why should you restrict yourself to selling only books when there are so many other goods that people want or need?” And so he began to build great warehouses and fill them with everything imaginable so that there was nothing new under the sun that was not found in a Euphrates.com warehouse.
      “Now already, at this point, the man’s success had had a negative effect on local bookstores – they just couldn’t compete with Euphrates.com in selection or price. But now other local retail stores began to suffer the same fate with locations being closed and whole chains going down. And the man began to sell so many products that he had to tear down his warehouses and build even bigger warehouses – massive warehouses where computer programs and robots could sort and shift packages at almost the speed of light.
      “And, yes, he did have to hire some real flesh and blood people to work in his warehouses (which was a good thing, I suppose, given all of the local retail jobs that were disappearing) but he didn’t much like it and he made a point of paying them as little as he possibly could and squeezing as much labour out of them as they could possibly give so that Euphrates.com became famous for its poor working conditions.
      “In and through all of this, the man became the world’s largest retailer and a billionaire with more money than he could possibly ever spend in his lifetime. And what then? Did he finally speak to his soul at that point and say, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry’?
      What, are you kidding? He didn’t have nearly enough to feel that secure. There was so much more that he could do to dominate everything that was bought and sold in the world. He created devices – speakers with microphones in them and he created an artificial intelligence that could speak to people in their homes so that he could anticipate everyone’s smallest needs and whims and desires and he could fulfil them all. In fact, he got so good at it that he could practically anticipate anything that someone might need before they even knew that they needed it.
      “And so it came to pass that he became not just very rich, not just the richest man in the country but the richest in the whole world. In fact, he was on the verge of becoming the world’s very first trillionaire. Now, do you have any idea of what kind of wealth that actually represents? We are getting into the territory now where it’s not just a matter that no individual could possibly spend that kind of money in many lifetimes. We are in the territory where the world couldn’t even contain that kind of money if it were printed up as hundred dollar bills.
      “So this, surely, is it. The man is finally going to have to throw up his hands and say to his soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry’? I mean, what could possibly make him more secure, more comfortable, less worried for his future? He could double that amount and still, in practical terms, have no more earthly security than he does now. But is that what he will do? Everything seems to indicate that the answer is no. He will continue to seek more and more and I somehow suspect that, should he come to posses the whole world (which actually seems possible) even that will not be enough for him. In fact, I hear he might even be thinking of conquering space as well.”
     
      Now, this whole time, the man who had originally asked Jesus the question – the one who wanted Jesus to tell his sister to share her lottery winnings with him – had been listening to this story of Jesus and listening, frankly, with growing disbelief. Surely the kind of person that the teacher was describing could never actually exist. Why, not even if the world should endure for, say, two thousand years after the time when Jesus of Nazareth walked upon the earth would there ever possibly be a person who was so obsessed with accumulating ever more wealth and doing it for its own sake. How could there be someone who was so uninterested in any possible good that he could do with his wealth (apart, of course, from any good that he inadvertently did while building ever more profits)! Surely the man in this story was a caricature – a straw man.
      But, as the man listened to this ridiculous story, he had a sudden realization. Jesus was holding up this utterly ridiculous example to make a point. And it was a good point. Jesus was saying that it doesn’t actually matter how much you have. You think that you could get just a little bit more, just an extra $50,000 of lottery winnings, and it will push you over the edge to the place where you feel you can finally be secure and not have to worry about anything. But there’s actually no amount that can do that for you.
      You could have as much as this plainly fictional CEO of Euphrates.comand you would still not be satisfied because he was not satisfied. The sense of having enough to feel truly secure was always in the future. When you have built big enough warehouses, when you have replaced your entire workforce with robots, when you have beaten everyone into space, then you will able to pat your soul on the back and tell it that it’s eat, drink and be merry time. But the thing is that that day never seems to come. There is always one more thing to do before you get there.
      And so, the man who had made the request spoke once more to Jesus. “I thank you, teacher, for telling me about this absurd man. You make me realize that even if my sister did give me half of her winnings, I would likely not find that enough to feel secure either.”
      “Well,” replied Jesus, “if that is true then you may indeed be wiser than the CEO Euphrates.com. But I have not yet plumbed the depths of his foolishness, for there is one thing more. Because everything that this man felt he had to do to find his security was in the future, there is something else that is inevitable. He can never actually achieve it all and, sooner or later as is the way of all flesh, he will die. That is something that neither the richest man in the world nor the lowliest slave can escape. He will inevitably die without finding that security he craves by amassing enough. And what will happen to all of his possessions, even if he owns the whole world, at that point? Who will take them then?”
      To this, one of the other people in the crowd cried out, “Hey, you can give it to me!” There is always one in every crowd. And he got a laugh, of course he did. And Jesus smiled too, but as he smiled he also shook his head. “My friend, he said if that is all you get from the story, then you might just be a bigger fool than that man was.
     
      I think that one of the reasons why we sometimes miss the meaning that is in the parables of Jesus is because we totally abstract them from the situations in which he told them. We pull them apart and analyze each piece and try to find the symbolic meaning. What we forget was that they were stories that were specifically meant to elicit certain responses from the people who were listening. What they felt about the story was, in many ways, more important than the story itself. He wanted to provoke reaction, surprise and even shock from his audience. He wanted to shake up their assumptions about how the world worked and how it was supposed to work.
      The rich man in this particular parable of Jesus was a figure that the people in the crowd would have recognized. he was familiar to them just like celebrity billionaires are familiar to us and we think we know what they are like. He was the sort of person that they all paid their rents to and, yes, he did use those rents to build great big barns for himself and to build what they assumed was perfect security in this life. They envied him and wanted to be like him, but Jesus told them this story to make them understand exactly what a fool he was and what a fool the entire system made of each one of them.
      Jesus told that story to make them question the ways that the world worked and to see it all in a very different light. I suspect that Jesus would be only too happy if we were to question those very things about our society and the way that things are supposed to work and about who is truly wise and who is a complete and utter fool.
     

Continue reading »

What difference can one make?

Posted by on Sunday, July 28th, 2019 in Minister


Hespeler, 28, July 2019 © Scott McAndless
Genesis 18:20-32, Psalm 138, Colossians 2:6-15, Luke 11:1-13
Y
ou have heard that somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, stretching, in fact, much of the way between California and Japan, there is a massive patch of floating plastic that does nothing but grow every year. Fish, birds, whales and dolphins have floated in with their stomachs full of the stuff and having choked to death on it.
      You know that plastic, a lot of it, will hang around in landfills, dumps and in the food chain for hundreds if not thousands of years. And you have also recently heard that, for all the hoopla over recycling, most recycling programs for things like plastic bags have been complete failures and that these days, the Asian countries that we had been shipping used plastics to have started to refuse to even receive them.

      You know all of that, all of the problems associated with single-use plastics. But you’re standing here on the checkout line and, yes, once again you forgot to bring along your reusable shopping bags. You must have about a hundred in your trunk, but they’re really no help to you there. You only have three or four items with you, you could probably juggle them out to the car without too much trouble. But then people would probably look at you kind of funny and you can’t have that. And so, when you get there, and the inevitable question comes, “Would you like a bag?” of course you answer yes. It is convenient. It is sanitary. But what is the number one reason why you say yes? We’ve all said it to ourselves from time to time. “Ah, what difference does it make what one person does?” The problem is so huge and one bag doesn’t count for anything.
      It’s almost become a tenet of our society – our go-to answer to every moral quandary of modern life. “Why not just crank up the air conditioning throughout the summer? Why should I pass up my comfort when my neighbour doesn’t?” The answer we give is, “what difference can one person’s energy use make in global warming?”
      Or if somebody asks the question, “Why doesn’t somebody stand up against the terrible ways that people talk about immigrants and refugees these days,” the answer is always, “What can one person do to make a difference against all the terrible rhetoric that is out there?”
      It is, in many ways, the great question. Or perhaps it is just the greatest excuse. But whichever it is, wouldn’t you like to have the answer? Wouldn’t you like to know what difference one person can make? Which is exactly why I am so upset with Abraham this morning. I mean, he had God right there. He had God on the record and yet he didn’t ask the question. He started at fifty and he firmly established that, yes, fifty righteous people – fifty people doing the right thing – could make a difference, that they could even save a city that was filled with wickedness and doomed to destruction.
      And then, just like good Middle Eastern trader, Abraham started to haggle. “Okay,” he said, “so we’ve established that fifty is enough. Surely you wouldn’t destroy an entire city for the lack of, say, just five people?” and so Abraham gets God down to forty-five, and then forty, thirty, twenty and even ten! Oh, Abraham is a master at the art of haggling. But he stops too soon. He gets God all the way down to ten and then he doesn’t push it any farther. Why not? Why not push it down to five? to three? to one? Would we not then finally have the definitive answer to the eternal question: what difference can one person make?
      Now I know that there are some who would refuse to take this strange conversation between God and Abraham and apply it to modern issues like global warming and single-use plastics. They would say that this debate is about a particular situation and a particular kind of threat and that we should not take the story of Sodom and apply it to different kinds of threats that we might face today. I’d just like to point out that that is not how the Bible treats the story of Sodom at all.
      The writers of the Bible were only too happy to take the example of Sodom and Gomorrah and apply it to whatever contemporary issues they felt to be most important. Just about every time you have a prophet or a preacher in the Bible who wants to warn a people or a nation that they are treading on thin ice and are risking disaster, they tell them that they are behaving just like Sodom and Gomorrah no matter what particular thing they are doing that the speaker feels is wrong.
      And so, for example, the prophet Ezekiel at one point explains that the sin of Sodom was that it “had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49) That was what Ezekiel said that Sodom did wrong. But I don’t believe that Ezekiel said this because he had special insider information about what life was really like in Sodom. (There is no mention of such problems in Sodom anywhere else in the Bible.) But Ezekiel says it because he is speaking about that very problem in the Kingdom of Judah in his own time. By comparing them to Sodom, he’s not making a literal connection between the failings of the two places, it is just a way of saying that Judah’s behaviour is just as destructive as Sodom’s was.
      Jesus did the same thing when he spoke about Sodom. “Truly I tell you,” he said, “it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” (Matthew 10:15) But the “that town” that Jesus was talking about was any town that failed to offer hospitality to him and his disciples. So, Jesus also defined the failure of Sodom (which, according to Genesis, did doom itself by failing to offer hospitality to angelic visitors) in terms of the failure of towns and cities in his own time. So when the Bible talks about Sodom, and it talks about it a lot, it is clearly not just talking about one particular time and place or what was specifically happening there, but about ongoing ways in which human beings are risking disaster and destruction.
      My favourite application of the Sodom story in the Bible, in fact, is found in one of the strangest letters of the New Testament, the Letter of Jude. Jude blames the destruction of Sodom on people pursuing “strange flesh,” (Jude 7 *see footnote) that is to say the flesh of angels, but that is clearly because he had a bit of an obsession with how people in his own day were inappropriately dealing with angelic matters and ideas.
      So, the city of Sodom is, in the Bible, a convenient way to talk about all kinds of self-destructive human behaviour. It is entirely consistent for us to use that story to talk about the kinds of issues that we face today. In a very real sense, in this story, Abraham and God are debating about the difference that one person can make in global warming, in the accumulation of waste plastic and a host of other issues that may threaten our world and our survival today. They are debating the very question that still affects us and our actions today.
      Except, as I say, when Abraham has the chance, he kind of lets God off the hook. He gets God bartered down to ten and then he gives up and lets God go. So we never get the definitive answer to the question, what difference can the actions of one person make. And I can’t help but wonder whether that might be the point. Maybe that is precisely the question that is not supposed to be answered. When you are faced with the choice – Do I add to the mountain of plastic by taking this one bag I don’t need or do I not? Do I choose the more fuel-efficient option even if it costs me a bit more? Do I take the chance and maybe pay the price by speaking up for an injustice that I see? – when you are faced with that choice, the simple truth is that you don’t get to know what the result of your brave or wise action will be. You have to act in faith and in hope, even though you have no guarantee that it will make a difference. That is the kind of faith that God looks for from us and I believe that God always rewards that kind of faith.
      So maybe that is the part of the answer to the eternal question that we are given in this passage: you don’t get to know whether what you do will make a difference, but that does not absolve you from doing what is right. But I am not sure that that is the whole answer. It is true that the debate between God and Abraham over how many righteous people it takes to save a society ends when they get to ten. God may have walked away at that point, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the debate was over. In many ways, the rest of the Bible is the continuation of the debate over that question as it tells the story of person after person who takes a stand for what he or she feels is right and just. What are the stories of Joseph, of Moses, of prophets like Amos or Jeremiah and women like Esther and Mary if they are not stories of just such individuals? Is not Jesus himself the ultimate example of someone who did the right thing at the highest cost? And does not the very fact that we remember those people, that their stories have endured, an indication that the answer might be yes, that one person does make a difference.
      There is one particular figure in the early Christian church who is an indication that this particular debate that we read in the Book of Genesis this morning was still a lively debate into the early life of the church. You may have heard of him; he was one of the most famous Christians of the first century. His name was James. He was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. He was often called James the Brother of Jesus, but most people seemed to know him by another name. Both his fellow believers and others called him James the Just.
      Now understand that that word “just” is the same word (both in Hebrew and Greek versions of the story) as the word that Abraham and God are arguing over in Genesis – it is the word righteous. The name seems to be an indication that people – both Christians and non-Christians by the way – saw James as the kind of person who was so righteous that he could save an entire city from destruction. In other words, they extended Abraham and God’s debate to its logical conclusion and the answer was one. It really only required one righteous person to save an entire city from destruction.
      James the Just was eventually assassinated. According to some reports, he was thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem. This happened just before the Romans attacked and destroyed the city and temple of Jerusalem in 70 ad. You can be sure that many people made the clear connection between the two events. Maybe James really had been the only thing that was saving them from self-destructing in a foolish and violent rebellion against Rome.
      The answer is one. The actions of one person who does the right thing do matter. Maybe God didn’t let Abraham push the question to that point because he knew that the thing that makes the right action effective is that it is undertaken in faith. You don’t do it because you have a guarantee that it will work but because you are willing to trust God to take what you do and multiply it through the actions of many others. But whatever you do, don’t believe the lie that this world tries to sell you that your decisions and actions don’t matter. They do. You are a child of a God who would do anything for your sake. Of course, God will bless what you do for the sake of what is right and just and good. The answer is one. It takes one.
Continue reading »

Mary, Martha and the Guest

Posted by on Sunday, July 21st, 2019 in Minister

This sermon is also an episode of the Retelling the Bible Podcast. You can listen to the episode here:


And find out more about the episode and podcast here: Retellingthebible.wordpress.com/


Hespeler, 21 July, 2019 © Scott McAndless
Genesis 18:1-10, Psalm 15:1-5, Colossians 1:15-27, Luke 10:38-42
V
ery early that morning – before the sun had peeked over the hills – Mary had been awakened from a very deep slumber by her older sister. “Mary, Mary,” Martha called to her, “something exciting is going to happen today. I just know it – something that will change everything. Do you know that man – the one from Nazareth that everyone has been talking about – he and his followers have been travelling all over Galilee preaching and healing and telling stories. Well, I heard the people in marketplace talking yesterday and it seems that he is coming here to our village and that he is going to come today. Do you know what that means?”
      Mary, who was still more than half asleep and trying to reclaim a half-remembered dream, didn’t have the faintest idea what that meant and she indicated that with a long, low growl.
      “Mary,” Martha continued with more insistence, “I think that this is finally it, the solution to our problem.”

      Mary’s next grunt was more of an affirmative; she knew exactly what her sister meant when she spoke about “our problem.” She understood that, ever since their mother and then their father had died, they were both in a precarious position. Martha had somehow managed to keep the family home and lands intact despite the efforts of creditors and greedy relatives. She was hard-working and she never gave up. She had won for them a certain free space, but they both knew that their position was incredibly insecure. Unless one of them could marry and soon, unless there was a man who could protect the property, they would lose everything. But, without a male relative to speak for them, there had been no way to secure the kind of marriage that would really help.
      Mary was puzzled. “How can some preacher from Nazareth, of all places, possibly be the solution to ‘our problem?’ What can he do for us?”
      “Haven’t you heard what people have been saying about him? He is not just some ‘preacher from Nazareth.’ They are saying that somehow the God of our Fathers and our Mothers is present in him. People have looked into his eyes and seen the Creator of the universe staring back at them. Mary,” Martha said while her eyes took on a strange and yet familiar glow, “this is it, the opportunity I have been preparing for all my life.”
      “Oh,” said Mary to herself, “not this again.” Ever since she had been a little girl, Martha had been obsessed with one of the ancient stories of their people – a story of Father Abraham and Mother Sarah. One time, when Father Abraham was sitting outside of his tent, God came to visit him in the form of three men. But Abraham didn’t know that it was God, for the visitors appeared only to be common travelers. Nevertheless, following the laws of hospitality, Abraham and Sarah treated the visitors like kings. Martha loved to describe that encounter so much, that Mary could hear her voice telling that part of the story without even trying.
      “As soon as the strangers appeared,” Mary could hear her saying, “Abraham went and bowed down low with his face to the ground before them. He told them that it would bring the greatest honour upon him if they would only be willing to share a few miserable morsels of his food. He really played it up, made it seem as if the food was so terrible that they would almost be doing him a favour if they ate it.
      “But then, of course, he and Sarah played a great switch on them by offering them the most incredible feast with bread made of the finest flour, tender veal and tangy cheese. And then, while they sat there enjoying the delectable morsels, and while Abraham hovered over them, not even daring to sit down and eat with them, it happened. God gave them the one thing they needed, the one thing that would fulfill all of their dreams. Within the year, Sarah would have a son.”
      “Let me see if I’ve got this straight,” Mary said to her sister, “you think that we’re going to invite this Jesus from Nazareth to our house and offer him hospitality and you’re going to blow him away with your amazing recipe for veal parmesan and he’s going to give us everything that we need? Martha, don’t you understand that things don’t work like that in the real world?”
      Martha’s expression turned cold at her sister’s rebuke. “I don’t care if you think it’s going to work. I just want you to go and find the man and invite him to come to this house. And you better do it as graciously as ever Father Abraham did.”
     
      And that’s how it happened that, after a quick breakfast, Mary found herself waiting just inside the village gate for the preacher to appear. When he arrived, she knew which one he was immediately. He traveled at the centre of a small knot of men and a few women too. They hung on his every word as he spoke. Immediately, before anyone else had the opportunity to do so, Mary stepped forward and fell to her knees before the stranger. The man stopped and looked down with surprise and amusement. The smile on his face only widened as Mary repeated the words that she had learned from her sister’s many retellings of the story: “My lord, if I find favour with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves in our house. Let us bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on – since you have come to your servant.”
      With that, Mary finally looked up into the eyes of the man. He looked at her so intently and with such intelligence and understanding that she suddenly caught her breath. She had not taken seriously what her sister had said about this man. She had assumed that he was just another traveling charlatan who had caught the imagination of the countryside. She hadn’t imagined that he might truly have something new and worthwhile to say. But, now that she had seen him, she knew that she had to know more about him.
      “I thank you for your gracious invitation,” the man replied, “I must indeed dine at your house this evening.” and with that he turned to the others who were approaching him seeking healing and other help.
      Her sister was expecting her to return home directly to assist her as she prepared to host the guests at the end of the day. Of course, there would be a million things to do and Martha would obsess over every detail. Suddenly, however, Mary was filled with the desire to be anywhere else but in the kitchen with her sharp-tongued sister. But, more than that, she found herself to be filled with a desire to know everything that this man would say and do during the day in the village. She knew that she would pay for it later, that Martha would nurse her grievances against an absent sister and that she would never let her forget it if she abandoned her now, but she somehow couldn’t help it. She turned to follow the crowd that was beginning to form around the preacher.
     
      By the end of the day, Mary was even more exhausted than Jesus was, though she hadn’t really done anything – anything, that is, other than strain her ears to hear his every word and crane her neck to see everything that he was doing. He had been so busy that she was sure that he had completely forgotten her and her invitation, but, no sooner had the crowds begun to thin, than he turned and looked for her. Come, my sister, he said let us go to your house. I am starving!
      So, she led them there. Martha opened the door at the very moment they arrived (she had clearly been watching for them) and bowed even lower than Mary had done earlier as she repeated the familiar words once spoken by Abraham. She didn’t look at her sister, didn’t even say a word, which Mary found to be far more ominous than anything that she could have said. But still, as the group entered, she did not turn, as she knew her as a sister expected her to, and instead led the group into the courtyard where she sat at Jesus’ feet as if she were one of the man’s disciples.
      Mary wasn’t the only one who was intent to hear Jesus’ reflections on the events of the day. Everyone wanted to debrief with him and hear him talk about his various encounters and debate with him on the meaning of his parables. But Mary, in the kitchen, was sending up a great commotion. “Bang! Smash! Crunch!” the vessels were being battered together as if they were disobedient children. It got to the point where no one could concentrate on what Jesus was saying before Martha finally came storming out of the kitchen. Her anger was not directed, as Mary expected, at Mary, but instead at the teacher himself: “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.”
      Jesus looked at her. His eyes were filled with such compassion and understanding. You could tell that he understood completely why she was broken over this. It was not that she was angry at her sister for abandoning her to do the work, not really. She was weary of an endless war to create for herself the space to live in a society that would give her nothing. She was tired of a fruitless battle to save the heritage of her family. She was lashing out at her sister because she was the only person that she was allowed to get angry at but she knew, deep down, that Mary was not against her. It was the whole world that was against her and Mary was one of her few allies.
      “Martha,” said Jesus. Martha looked at him. She was actually a bit startled that he even knew her name – that he would have even been interested to know it. Mary didn’t find that surprising at all – not after she had seen the way that he had operated all day, but this was the first time that Martha had really seen him. He somehow defied all expectations.
      “Martha,” he said, “you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing.” He told her that as much as he appreciated her hospitality, and he did appreciate her hospitality, the importance of what she was doing was not found in what she did for her guest. He was not judging her on what she was doing for him. He was here for the pleasure of her company, her and her sister.
       “Mary has chosen the better part,” he said, “and nothing will take away the joy of what she has chosen. Now you need to choose what is most important for you. Nothing you could possibly do, nothing you could feed me or offer me, could possibly make you more beloved or acceptable in my eyes. Mary, by choosing to be here and giving full attention to me is already receiving everything that I can give.”
     
      In the end, they did not have the fancy and beautiful meal that Martha had dreamed all her life that she would one day give to some divine visitor. Everything was not “perfect.” But there was food enough for everyone and much enjoyment that each took in everyone’s company. It was in that, and not in the over-wrought perfection that someone created in the kitchen, that the divine presence was to be found that day.
      And as for Mary and Martha’s problem, the one that Martha had thought that only a divine visitor could solve for her? Well, let’s just say that by the end of the day, both of them had a very different understanding of what the key issues of their lives were and where they ought to put all of their energies.
     

Continue reading »

I would do anything (but I won’t do that)

Posted by on Sunday, July 7th, 2019 in Minister


Hespeler, 7 July, 2019 © Scott McAndless
2 Kings 5:1-14, Psalm 30, Galatians 7-16, Luke 10:1-11, 16-20
W
hat would you do to be healthy? What would you do to be whole? It is a question that a lot of us don’t really ask ourselves, I think. We don’t ask it because we think we know the answer. We assume that health is the highest priority and that we would do whatever it took to obtain it or maintain it. We would do whatever the doctor said, take whatever was prescribed and make any changes necessary. In theory, it is a question that doesn’t even need to be asked. But that is theory, real life tends to be a little bit different.
      Do you remember that classic rock song by Meatloaf: “I would do anything for love”? In the song, Meatloaf runs through a number of things that he would do for the sake of the person he loves. He even says, “I’d run right into hell and back.” But the refrain of the song is, “but I won’t do that,” reminding us that absolute words like “anything” always seem to have their limits and the limits and exceptions that come along in practical life are often much more important than the absolute anythings.
      So, what are the “but I won’t do that’s” for you when it comes to health and wholeness? Naaman is forced to take that question very seriously in our reading this morning from the Old Testament. He is not well. He’s afflicted with a condition called leprosy, an affliction that is kind of hard to pin down in the Bible. They did not have any way to diagnose the cause of an illness; they just called any condition that affected the skin leprosy. That could mean anything from minor itching to major, life-threatening infections.
      So, we can’t really say what was wrong with Naaman. Nevertheless, we do have a pretty good idea how his condition would have affected his life. Anything that was called leprosy would result in someone being excluded from society. The fear of skin conditions was so great that, in many cases, the social impact of that label of leprosy was more destructive than anything that was actually wrong with somebody’s skin. Naaman, though he was a leader among his people, had been turned into an outcast because of whatever it was about him that was unwell.

      So, he was in a somewhat desperate state; he needed to be well. He would do anything to be well, but he ran into a few “but I won’t do that’s.” First of all, he learns of a possibility of healing from a very unlikely source – from a slave in his household. She is a captive, a slave who Naaman himself may have taken in previous raids into Israelite territories. She speaks to her mistress, Naaman’s wife, saying, “If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
      It is an indication of Naaman and his wife’s desperation that they actually listen to such a lowly individual. In many cases that was something that a powerful man just wouldn’t do. Naaman will listen to a slave in order to be well. But will he actually do what she says? No, he won’t do that. She has told him that he should actually go and seek out the prophet, but he doesn’t do that. Instead, he does what noble people do. He uses power and leverage to get what he wants; he gets his king to write to the king of Israel. This is all about showing off how important he is instead of showing the humility that the slave girl was suggesting.
      Of course, Naaman’s power move causes lots of trouble. The king of Israel is afraid that the Syrians will use the situation to restart hostilities. “[The king] tore his clothes and said, “Am I God, to give death or life, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me.”Here is the first indication that we have in this story of the trouble that the “but I won’t do that” can cause. By failing to do what he has been told to do to be well, Naaman almost causes an international incident, but fortunately, the prophet Elisha is gracious enough to give him another chance.
      Elisha bails out his king – tells him to send the man over to his house and then proceeds to give Naaman a well-deserved lesson in humility. The prophet doesn’t even step out of his house to greet him. Just sends a message telling him to go and wash in the Jordan River seven times. And that is when Naaman loses it. He says, “I would stand here and let this Elisha wave his hands over me and invoke the name of his fake God. I would do anything, but I won’t do that.” What’s more, his servants tell him – and they undoubtedly know what they are talking about – that he would do much more difficult and dangerous things than that in order to be well. He would storm the defended walls of a city, he would face down chariots and armies, he would “run right into hell and back.” He would do anything for health, but he won’t do that – but he won’t do that.
      What won’t you do in order to be whole; it may be the most important question that anyone will ever ask you? We have all known some people who are obvious illustrations of the importance of that question. People, for example, who have been told by their doctors that they need to make significant changes in their lifestyles to be well. Maybe their doctor says, “you must quit smoking,” and they just won’t do it.
      What people won’t do is not always a matter of willpower. There are some people, for example, who can just walk away from the an addiction like nicotine if they are given the right motivation and there are some people who just can’t – whose physical dependence is so powerful that change is beyond what is within their own power to make and they need significant assistance from outside themselves.
      The crisis of addiction is an important battle, but that is not really what I am talking about here. I’m talking about what people won’t do, not what they can’t do without help. And what Naaman won’t do has nothing to do with the difficulty of the task he is given. I believe that that is often the case with us.
      Think of your marriage or of some other significant relationship in your life. Is that relationship as healthy as it could be? There is nothing better for your life, your productivity, your personal health than for you to be in a healthy, mutually affirming and upbuilding relationship. But I think that we all recognize that there are times when we neglect those relationships and allow them to be somewhat less than what they could be. What would you do to have a better relationship? Would you run right into hell and back? Sure, I can do that. But will you admit when you are wrong? No I won’t do that. Will you forgive that time when the other person hurt you? Will you speak honestly, even though you know it might lead to a long and difficult conversation? No, I won’t do that. No, I won’t do that.
      I realize that there are different places where different people will draw that line, but I think we all have those “I won’t do thats,” and it’s usually not because of the difficulty of the thing, but rather because it would be about swallowing your pride or letting someone else see how vulnerable you are. I’m sure that’s what it was for Naaman when he said he was not about to bathe in the Jordan River even though it was what he needed to do to be well.
      God wants you to be the best person you can possibly be. That’s the kind of healing and wholeness that God wishes for you. And I know that you do many things to become your best person. You work hard. You try to take control of every aspect of your life, building up security in possessions and knowledge, savings and investments. But what if God’s plan for your wholeness includes what Jesus told his disciples in our reading this morning where he says, “Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road”? What if God is asking you to give up on all of those things that the world turns to for security and instead to trust in God alone? If that is what it takes to find the health God wants for you, would you do that? No, I won’t to that. No, I won’t to that.
      It’s a particularly interesting question to ask of churches these days. I don’t think it’s any great secret if I tell you that many congregations are under pressure because of demographic and social changes. Congregations want to be healthy but in many cases are feeling as if health is eluding them. If you ask a congregation what it would do in order to be healthy, can you guess what the answer almost always is? Anything. We would do anything to be healthy.
      Well, let me tell you something about congregational health. Yes, it can be a challenge these days, but it is not an impossible thing. Congregations are doing many things to find that health. Health, by the way, may not always mean huge numbers of people showing up but it does mean many kinds of strength and growth within a congregation and it can be found.
      Let me tell you some things that congregations have done to find health. They have made radical changes in worship and music, changes that made the people who were in those congregations feel less comfortable at least at first. Some have walked away from or radically changed much-loved and beautiful buildings. For some congregations, finding health has meant that some of the people have had to give up fighting over things like the placement of furniture, how people should dress or who got to use the kitchen. (Let me tell you something, if you ever want to know whether or not people find certain things to be sacred in the church, just try rearranging the cupboards in the kitchen without telling anybody!)
      Would you do things like that, would you embrace those kinds of changes in order to find congregational health? I hope so. But I’ll tell you, I have known many people in churches who would look at any one of those things and protest, but I won’t do that. I would do anything for church health, but I won’t do that. There’s a real danger that that could be the epitaph of the church in many places in years to come.
      God wants you to be healthy. God wants your relationships to be healthy. God wants your church and your community and your nation to be healthy. God your creator created you so that you might be whole and well. And there really are no limits on that. When Naaman came along looking for help, God did not look at him and say, you are not one of my people, you do not believe the right things about me, I don’t want you to be healthy. No, God ministered to him through the prophet. The only roadblock was Naaman and what he was unwilling to do.
      That is why I am bold to say to you today that God wants to make you healthy. That can be a tricky thing to say because it’s not always true that God is going to cure various ailments or conditions. Illness and death are not things that any of us can completely escape because God has designed them to be part of life in this world. But health and healing are always possible. Even someone who is dying can be healed; healing in that situation may mean coming to terms and finding peace with what is happening to them or perhaps finding reconciliation and forgiveness with some of the people in their lives before they go, but even in that situation healing is possible. The roadblock is never because God lacks the ability to heal. The roadblock is found in us who say, but I won’t do that.
      And what is the number one thing that God is telling you to do in order that you find healing in your life? God is telling you that you need to trust in him. That is what the command to wash in the Jordan ultimately meant to Naaman. That is what Jesus’ command to the disciples to go out with “no purse, no bag, no sandals” was about. That is the attitude that the psalmist has in our reading this morning when he says, “I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.” God will ask you to trust him to bring the healing you will need – trust God instead of the things that make you feel secure and comfortable. But how you act and what you are and aren’t willing to do will be a big indication of that trust, so think carefully before you say, “but I won’t do that.”

And here, for those who now have the earworm in their heads after reading this, is the official music video of "I would do anything for love (but I won't do that)"





Continue reading »

Freedom!

Posted by on Sunday, June 30th, 2019 in Minister


Hespeler, 30 June, 2019 © Scott McAndless
1 Kings 19:15-16, 19-21, Psalm 16:1-11, Galatians 5:1, 13-25, Luke 9:51-62
T
omorrow you and I will get up and, each in our own way, celebrate something wonderful. We will celebrate the wonderful country in which we live. We will celebrate Canada’s beauty and its people and their accomplishments. We will celebrate our heritage and history as well we should. But one thing in particular that I and many others will celebrate this year is a document, called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that grants and symbolizes the freedoms that I enjoy as a Canadian: freedom of religion, of thought, of expression, of the press and of peaceful assembly, freedom to participate in our political system, freedom of movement and the right to life, liberty and security.
      I don’t know about you but, in the world where we seem to find ourselves today where leaders refuse to leave office, electoral systems are hacked and oppressive regimes tighten the screws, it is good to know that my freedoms are guaranteed. So, we’ve got these freedoms and that is good, but I sometimes wonder if we really understand these freedoms or even if we know what freedom actually is.

      There are certainly some expressions of freedom today that I have got to say are somewhat disturbing. Yes, we do have freedom of speech, for example, and I celebrate that, but I am often appalled by those who use that freedom to spread false information on the internet – especially false information that seeks to destroy the democratic institutions that guarantee that freedom of speech. I am distressed by those who use their freedom of speech to spread hatred of particular groups.
      But I’m almost equally disturbed by the ways in which people fail to exercise the freedoms that they’ve been given. How is it that so many fail to apply critical thinking to the free speech that they read on the internet? How is it that, when we have such a wonderful freedom to choose our political leaders, that so many people fail to vote or to engage in the electoral process in any meaningful way? And how is it that we collectively seem to be incapable of thinking of anything beyond short-term needs in order to consider the long-term needs of our country?
      In fact, the more I think of it, the more it seems to me that, while we like to talk a lot about freedom, we don’t really have a good idea of how to live with the freedoms that we’ve been given. Interestingly enough, that is exactly the issue that the Apostle Paul seems to be addressing in our reading this morning from his letter to the Galatians.
       Paul writes this to the churches in Galatia, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” For Paul, you see, one of the most important things that being a follower of Jesus gave you was freedom. This is something that wouldn’t have been entirely obvious to most observers at that time and place. The church in Galatia, and indeed the church in most places at that time, was not particularly made up of wealthy and important people but instead of those who were considered the dregs of society. Many of them, in fact, would have been slaves. They literally lived their lives with no freedom over their own bodies or what they did with them and most lived without any hope of ever being emancipated.
      And yet Paul is saying to these very people and people like them that Jesus has set them free. They have had no experience at all of freedom and, in fact, almost nobody around them, except maybe their Christian brothers and sisters, see them as free. And so, Paul seeks to instruct them about how to live out this brand-new thing to them that is called freedom.
      We are in a rather different situation. We enjoy tremendous freedoms, freedoms like few in the history of the world have had, and yet we often seem to take those freedoms for granted. We are so used to them that maybe we have almost forgotten how they ought to be lived out. So I think that maybe Paul’s advice to those Christians in Galatia who were dealing with their first experience of freedom and didn’t know what to do with it might also be helpful to us today who are so used to it that we may have forgotten what to do with it.
      “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;” Paul admonishes the Galatians, “only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence.” He is pointing out two dangers that come with freedom. One is that we do not live out that freedom and the other is that we fall into a kind of slavery of self-indulgence.
      To give you a sense of what I think he is trying to say, let me give you an illustration from something that we sometimes see going on here at St. Andrew’s. We run a ministry here, as you know, called Hope Clothing. The mandate is simple. We give out clothes to people who need them, free of charge. It is, in other words, an exercise in freedom – not the same kind of freedom that we enjoy in a democracy, of course, but there are similarities in how people respond to that freedom.
      For example, the vast majority of people who come into the Hope Clothing use that freedom in the way that it is intended. They come in and they take what they need, as much as they need and when they need it. But there are some who struggle with that freedom. There are some who really struggle to receive what they need. Even though, in most cases, people may find themselves in a position where they simply don’t have the resources to provide what they need for their family at that moment for reasons that are entirely beyond their control, they feel shame and so they cannot take what they need. We have had cases where a family has suffered a disaster like a fire, and we have seen the community of Hespeler rally around that family by giving generously. People want nothing more than that this family take everything that they can possibly use. But then the family comes in and they take the absolute minimum because they don’t know how to receive. For such a family, even though the clothes are provided freely, they cannot receive them in freedom and so they do not experience true freedom.
      And I think that there are many of us who have the same trouble receiving the freedom that God has given us or that our democratic system has given us. Perhaps it is because of inappropriate shame or guilt, perhaps it is simply because, somewhere deep down inside, we have not been able to believe that we can deserve such freedom, but for whatever reason, we simply fail to receive the freedom that we have been given. And, if you do not exercise your freedom, you are not truly free, just like the clothes at Hope Clothing are not free to those who are incapable of receiving them.
      So that is one problem with freedom that a few people have when they come into Hope Clothing. There is another problem that a few have. We’ve known some who come into Hope Clothing and can’t handle the freedom of it but what they do is the opposite – they take what they don’t need – often as much as they can possibly get away with. Now such people might seem, on the surface, to have a perfect grasp of the meaning of the word free, but they don’t really. These people, you see, are hoarders. They have a compulsive need to store up things and possessions that they don’t need. It is a compulsion that likely stems from a deep insecurity, an inner dis-ease that doesn’t feel so bad when they have a lot of stuff piled up around them.
      So, when people behave like that, do they really understand the freedom with which the clothes are offered to them? No, they do not. Actually, they experience the opposite. They experience slavery – they are slaves to their possessions that often begin to take on such a big role in their lives that they dominate everything. They become trapped by the “free” things that they have received. So, this is something that we have rarely had to deal with at Hope Clothing. And I strongly believe that it is not something that you deal with simply by imposing rules and limits on people. Instead it is about ministering to the whole person and helping them to come to understand the true grace of receiving; we have seen some success with that.
      In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul speaks about the same problem that he sees people having with the freedom that they have found in Christ. He speaks of those who use their freedom “as an opportunity for self-indulgence.” It is the same reaction, where people become so overwhelmed by not being constrained by rules and the need to follow laws in order to be acceptable, that they begin to spend their life in all manner of self-indulgence.
      Indulgence, in itself, is not necessarily a problem. There is nothing wrong and much that is right in treating yourself well – enjoying good food, good drink, good companionship and more. You need to be able to enjoy these kinds of things in order to know that you are free. But those who have deep underlying insecurities and maybe don’t really believe that they are really free to enjoy these things, can fall into the trap of a self-indulgence that leads to slavery – precisely what Paul is warning about when he says, “Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” When you are the master of your appetites and desires, you are free and should enjoy that freedom to the maximum. But when your appetites control you, you have a problem and may find that you are no longer free.
      Paul is speaking about the freedoms that we have because we are accepted by God, not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us. What he tells us is something that we should certainly keep in mind as we practice that freedom today. But, as we prepare to celebrate Canada Day and the freedoms that our country gives us tomorrow, I think we should also take and apply Paul’s lessons to how we live out those freedoms as well. First of all, we are not truly free as Canadians if we do not receive and use the freedoms we are given. If we do not vote or intelligently engage in the electoral process, we no longer have the freedom to determine our leaders. We are called to freedom and so we must live in it.
      But the other part of what Paul says about freedom in Christ also applies to our Canadian freedoms. Freedom that is nothing more than self-indulgence is no freedom and will lead to a kind of slavery. I think that we see that in those who use their freedoms as Canadians – their freedom of speech for example – to indulge in hatred and abuse of others. They can do it (I mean, yes, certain kinds of hate speech are illegal, but you can still get away with saying a lot of bad and hurtful things) but that does not lead to more freedom for yourself or anyone. In the worst cases, it leads to more division and ultimately a loss of freedom.
      Freedom is a wonderful gift. It is a gift of God given in the name of Jesus Christ. It is gift of democratic constitutions. But it is not a gift to be squandered but rather to be used by those who are able to master their own desires. That is what will protect the gifts of freedom over the long term.  And I believe that that is what God desires for us and for our country. As someone wisely wrote, “God keep our land glorious and free.”

Continue reading »

We are Legion

Posted by on Monday, June 24th, 2019 in Minister


Hespeler, June 23, 2019 © Scott McAndless
1 Kings 19:1-15, Psalm 42, 43, Galatians 3:23-29, Luke 8:26-39
I
t had been a nice afternoon sailing expedition. Jesus and the guys had gotten into the boat and just let the winds and the currents take them wherever they would. There had been a lot of leaning back, letting their fingers drag through the water and listening to the cries of the sea birds circling overhead. And then there had been all of these stimulating discussions about the nature of God and the meaning of faith. It had been heavenly.
      And then they had made landfall, had pulled the boat up on the shore in the country of the Gerasenes and instantly their peaceful afternoon came to a crashing halt. Did you notice that? No sooner had Jesus put one foot on the land than a crazy man came running up shouting at the top of his lungs: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me!”
      Except he wasn’t crazy, was he? It says that he was possessed by demons and I always wonder how we are supposed to deal with something like that as modern readers. I don’t know about you, but I don’t usually go around in this life assuming that everyone who acts a little bit different is obviously possessed by demons. In fact, I never think that way, not even when people behave in extremely strange ways or have particular disorders or mental health issues. We have learned that there are better ways to talk about such people and better ways to help them then just to write them off as being possessed by supernatural forces.

      But people in Jesus’ time did talk like that. They just assumed that demonic activity lay behind a huge variety of behaviours. Where we would look at someone and say, he is depressed, they would look at the same person and say he has a demon. More than anything else, it was a way of speaking – a way of seeing the world unfolding in the midst of competing spiritual forces.
      But, I wonder, how would we as modern folks, interpret the actions of the strange and clearly troubled individual? What would we say he was dealing with? I know you’re not supposed to diagnose somebody’s psychological problems from a distance, but let’s just try. He is hanging around the local graveyard. That tells me that we may have somebody who is dealing with issues of grief. Has he lost someone – perhaps a wife or a child – under particularly tragic circumstances? Has this left him in a state where he just doesn’t feel like he can leave the graveyard and get on with his life?
      I’ll tell you one thing about him, he is certainly a very angry individual. He lashes out at Jesus just as soon as he appears on the scene. If he is grieving about a death that has occurred; is there somebody that he blames? What is the monumental force of injustice at work in his world that he would blame for such tragedy? Or to put it better, what is the hatred that so fills him that it has taken on his entire identity? Well, that is a question that he himself answers. When Jesus asks him what his name is, he says it is Legion.
      Now I know that the gospel writer explains that name by saying that he had many demons just like there are many men in a legion. And that is true enough, but I don’t think it can be the whole explanation. You see, that word, legionreally stands out in this story – stands out in the midst of the entire gospel in fact. You see, the gospels were entirely written in Greek with only a few Aramaic words here and there (Aramaic being the language that Jesus actually spoke). But legion is not a Greek word and it is not an Aramaic word. It is a Latin word – one of the very few Latin words you will find in the Bible. What’s more, it is a Latin military term and the word that was most commonly used to talk about the Roman troops who occupied that part of the world.
      So, do you think it is possible that the thing that pushed this man over the edge and into his particular brand of demonic madness might just have had something to do with the Roman occupation of Palestine? Did he hold the legions responsible for a death? I suspect so. In a very real sense, the legion washis demon. They had entered and defiled his land trampling it down just like those unclean pigs in the nearby farm (who were by the way, no doubt being raised to be sold to the legions; there wouldn’t have been much of a Jewish market, after all).
      Now, I know that a lot of the time we treat stories like this one – stories of demon possession and exorcism – as belonging to a particular time and place that don’t have much to do with modern life. I have even heard people argue that the time of Jesus was a time of extraordinary demonic activity, perhaps precisely because the incarnation of God had appeared upon the earth and the demons were trying to fight back. That is the reason that is often given for why we have so many stories of demon possession in the New Testament but that we don’t see that today. But I don’t buy that. I think that the forces of evil are just as active in the world today as they have ever been, but we just don’t talk about them in the same way today as they did then. There are some very good reasons why we don’t talk that way, very helpful reasons, but there are some things about evil and the way it works that just don’t change. Only our language has changed.
      So, I am wondering, is there some way we could tell the story of the Gerasene demoniac and the disciples’ encounter with him that would sound familiar in our modern context? I don’t find it all that hard to imagine…
      The church has spent a long and lazy afternoon in our boat, drifting along and letting the winds and the currents of our theology and our speculations about the meanings of certain Bible passages take us where they will. And we’ve been leaning back, letting our fingers drag through the water and listening to the cries of the sea birds circling overhead as we enjoy all of the stimulating discussions about the nature of God and the meaning of faith.
      But, sooner or later, the church has to make landfall, has to make contact with the troubled people of the world. And no sooner does that happen, no sooner do we set a single foot upon the shore of the internet or of social media or some other cultural interchange than someone comes running up shouting aloud their madness. And the madness that you hear these days, it is all over the place, but it is still like the madness of that man who had been pushed over the edge by the legions that occupied his land.     
     Somebody comes running up yelling at us, “Haven’t you heard that Justin Trudeau is the love child of Fidel Castro and Maggie? Isn’t that all the proof you need to know that he’s going to lead us into a socialist hellscape?” And then there’s somebody else over there who is waving around a theory that he says proves that Andrew Scheer has a secret plan to take the entire country back in the late 1950s. Somebody else is screaming about how the very worst and most despicable things that Doug Ford is doing, he was actually forced to do because of Kathleen Wynne, and then, of course, there’s this other guy who immediately points out that everything that is less than optimal in our country is all directly caused by the carbon tax. There seems to be a growing number of people for whom their demon is called “Carbon Tax.”
      I don’t know if you’ve gone there, if you spent much time clicking around in internet forums and subreddits, but that’s kind of what it’s like out there these days. It’s not just a localized disturbance in a place called the country of the Gerasenes, it’s everywhere. You just have to put your foot out of the boat and it comes running up to you screaming. It is a madness and it’s so pervasive. It is not just one demon; they are legion.
      Now please understand what I’m saying here, I don’t have any problem with people debating questions of politics or policy. I understand when people have problems with particular leaders or parties. Discussion about those sorts of things is healthy and good. But that’s not really what I’m hearing out there these days. I’m hearing madness, and it’s a madness that seems to be possessing a lot of people. And I think it’s a problem because it is the kind of madness that might well prevent us from having the substantive discussions and disagreements that we actually need to deal with these days.
      But the good news of our story this morning from the Gospel of Luke is that we have a saviour who is not afraid to stand up to the power of evil in this world and has the power to break the demons that infect our discourse. I have to believe that that is still just a true today as it was back in the time of Jesus.
      So the question is, what can we do to confront the madness of our modern society? In the story in the gospel, the people of the local village did try certain things to deal with the madness. They tried to constrain the man. “He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.” Containment, in other words is not going to be the solution. We are not going to banish the madness from our present political discourse, for example, by giving up on cherished freedoms like freedom of speech or freedom of association.
      Jesus did not seek to confine or punish that man in the tombs, but he did offer him a new freedom and a new way of seeing the world. There is another passage in the gospels in which Jesus speaks about the approach he took to casting out demons. “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but not finding any, it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ When it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” (Matthew 12:43-45)
      What Jesus seems to be saying there is that it’s not enough to take the evil or the demon out of the person. That just leaves a void. If you tell people that they can’t post ridiculous fake stories on Facebook or Twitter, that will accomplish nothing. It will just leave a void that will be filled by the next ridiculously bad idea that comes along. No, Jesus is saying, you need to replace the negative behaviour with something positive. You need to give somebody a newer and better way of looking at the world.
      I think we have that; I think we can offer that. I think we can change the conversation and I’m feeling that that will be something that is more and more necessary.
      What we talk about here in our little boat, ideas like how you should not hate your enemies but love them and pray for them, ideas like the amazing grace of God and the power of new life in Christ, ideas like the one that you should welcome the stranger and the refugee and treat them with honour. These are all things that don’t simply confront the madness of our modern world, but offer an alternate to them. That alternate, I still believe, is the last best hope for what the world, our country and our community can be. That is a whole lot better than some nasty and likely untrue stories shared on social media. Will you be part of changing the conversation? I think that being part of that is becoming essential to being true followers of Christ in our modern world.

Continue reading »

What’s next

Posted by on Wednesday, June 12th, 2019 in Minister


I am sure that many people in our congregations are wondering what the actions of General Assembly regarding human sexuality mean and might change in the lives of our churches in the short and in the long term. Here is what I would take away:

For the moment, nothing has actually changed
The Assembly has essentially done nothing more and nothing less than send a remit (outlined above) down to Presbyteries. Nothing really changes until (or unless) that remit is approved by 50%+1 of Presbyteries representing 50%+1 of all the members of Presbyteries on the roll. Presbyteries cannot edit or amend the remit; they can only approve or reject. Assuming the remit passes this test, it will return to the subsequent General Assembly which also has the opportunity to vote on it. General Assemblies generally approve any remit that has passes through Presbyteries, but there have been a few historic exceptions. Only after all of these tests have been passed would the remit be considered to have changed the doctrine and practice of the church.
Assuming this all passes, does this change what I’m supposed to believe?
No. The intent of this seems quite clear. It acknowledges that faithful Christians may believe different things about marriage and ordination and that is okay. In many ways is the first post-modern stance that the church has ever taken, acknowledging the simple truth that we no longer live in a world where Presbyterians will believe things simply because the church tells them what they are supposed to believe.
Note, however, that while freedom of conscience is proclaimed and nobody will force anybody to participate in a same-sex wedding or ordination of LGBTQI+ clergy, that in no way gives anyone licence to treat anyone with disrespect. The church has (in other actions) rejected and repented for the sin of homophobia and no court of the church should in any sense tolerate actions or words of hatred directed at anybody because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Members of Presbyteries will be expected to maintain good working relations despite perhaps feeling very different about these matters.
How does this change my congregation?
This decision does not force any change upon any congregation; it actually offers more freedom to congregations in their actions and decisions. Congregations will be able to marry who they want to marry within the confines of Canadian law. And congregations will be freer to choose qualified ministers to serve their congregations as they will no longer be required to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. No one is going to force any congregation to call a minister who does not fit the practices and teachings that they are comfortable with.
What about LGBTQI+ candidates for ministry or calls?
As this is implemented, it should mean that any LGTBTI+ candidates should be eligible for any calls within congregations. All applications should be given the same consideration. The only bar to a candidate being called should be the prayerful and free choice of a congregation and search committee and the general suitability of the candidate.
An additional motion was passed instructing the Clerks of Assembly “to provisionally prepare guidelines to ensure that calls to LGBTQI ministers and the election of LGTBQI elders are facilitated in presbyteries and congregations.” The wording of those guidelines will be of great importance (and I do not envy the task of the clerks in writing them). These guidelines will have to make it clear that, while Presbyteries have a right and duty to examine the life and conduct of any student or candidate, nobody should be excluded simply on the grounds of their gender identity or orientation.
What will my congregation have to do?
I see nothing in any of this that requires any congregation to take a particular action. There is nothing that requires, upon the completion of this process, a session to declare what its stance is regarding marriage or ordination. It need not decide anything until such time as someone may request a same-sex marriage, an LGBTQI+ elder is elected or a potential minister applies for a position. I feel I should state this because I understand that many congregations or sessions still find it difficult to have those kinds of conversations. No one is actually obliging you to have them.
That being said, there is much to be said in favour of congregations acting proactively and staking out their own identities and positions. We are no longer living in a time and you can just assume that outsiders will know what your congregation stands for if you do not explicitly say so. Outsiders will actually assume many things and a lot of it may be very negative.
In particular, those congregations that have chosen to be affirming of LGBTQI+ people have often found that they are met with a great deal of skepticism from a community that has a history of being marginalized by the church. Therefore, simply deciding to be affirming often has little impact. People will wait to see how congregations actually demonstrate such a commitment in real life and practice.

Continue reading »

She was nobody

Posted by on Wednesday, June 12th, 2019 in Minister

This sermon has also been recorded and posted as a podcast in the Retelling the Bible podcast.
Click here find and listen to the Podcast episode: 3.6 She was nobody


Hespeler, 2 June 2019 © Scott McAndless
Acts 16:16-34, Psalm 97, Revelation 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21, John 17:20-26
S
he was nobody, really. She was just low-level employee, another cog in the machine. She didn’t even have a name – well, I mean she had a name, it’s just that her name was so insignificant and she was so unremarkable that she might as well not have had a name.
      I tell you this because you need to understand just how unimportant she was, how unimportant she was constantly reminded that she was. And, because she was so insignificant, when ithappened, she tried to convince herself that there was no point in even trying to do anything about it.
      The man who had done it to her was really important, you see. Everyone said that he had the entire company on his back. He was the one who would make them profitable again. He was the one who demanded and received that top salary and the million-dollar bonuses together with lucrative stock options. He was also the face of the company and if anything at all happened to tarnish his reputation well, let’s just say that the stockholders were not going to be very happy. In all truth she told herself – she kept trying to tell herself – she should have been flattered that he had even noticed her much less put forward that… proposition.

      Somehow, she had managed to scrape together enough self-respect to actually go and talk to the human resources committee and they had actually tried to be (what’s the word?) helpful. In fact, they had very helpfullysuggested that she must have really misunderstood everything. She was young and naïve; she had just taken it wrong. Of course, he would never have meant that. She was just being hysterical (which is kind of a modernized way of saying, I suppose, that she was possessed by a demon). “Either way,” they soothed her, “it’s not your fault but it really wouldn’t do anybody any good – least of all you – to do anything foolish like file a formal report. There is no point in putting you through all that aggravation and paperwork when it doesn’t really accomplish anything. Maybe if you would just dress a bit more… conservatively he wouldn’t be distracted, and everyone will just get along so much better.”
      So, she had just gone along. She had put her head down and gone back to work and told herself, again and again, that everything was fine. Of course, everything wasn’t fine. It was around that time that her relationship with her boyfriend fell apart. He said that he couldn’t take it, the way that she would jump every time he even touched her. The chronic depression set in soon after. She was referred to various counselors and therapists, but effective therapy usually depends on the patient being able to talk openly and honestly about where the problems came from. She dared not speak of the real causes of her depression so there was no help to be found in therapy. At least the pills helped to keep things under control a little bit. And that became her life – the long daily struggle with the demons that seemed to be multiplying inside her as she just did her best to try to keep it all together.
      And then her world fell apart all over again. Nobody planned it; it just happened. She overheard two new employees in the company – their names were Paul and Silas – as they were talking one day with a few friends. They were talking about another friend of theirs who didn’t work at the company – a man named, uh, Jesus, but they liked to call him “the anointed one” too.
      The woman had never heard of this Jesus before, but once she had heard only a little, she knew that she had to hear more. It wasn’t hard. She was really good at not being noticed and so all she had to do was make a point of sitting at the table next to Paul and Silas every day. They never really talked about anything other than this Jesus. And so she learned from Paul (who usually had much more to say than his friend Silas) that if anyone was in this Anointed One of his, that person was a new creation and everything became new. He also said that when people were in the Anointed One, old categories like Jew and Greek, male and female, employee and management didn’t even mean anything anymore. He spoke of change being possible – change that was so radical that it was like you had died and been born again to an entirely new life.
      He spoke of all this and more with such conviction and eloquence that she was totally swept away by the very ideas. She didn’t yet understand all that he was talking about, didn’t understand how it was that one came to be in this Anointed One of theirs. But she still couldn’t stop thinking about what they were saying. It seemed to offer her a path out of the darkness that she carried with her every day. She began talking about it all around the office to anyone who would listen and even to those you had no interest in listening. It became a distraction and, honestly, an annoyance to many. No one was more annoyed than the two men that she was talking about: Paul and Silas.
      Please understand that I am not trying to paint Paul as a hero here. He was really only thinking of himself and the trouble she was causing for him. So one day he just pulled her over to a side table in the lunchroom and laid it out for her. He told her that she was a child of God and that this Jesus he was always talking about was a real person – a real person who had lived and died and, most important of all, had been raised from the dead. He told her that all she had to do was to trust that that was true. If she would put her trust in Jesus, he would raise her up too and that any regrets or mistakes or burdens she carried from her past would never have to drag her down again.
      He said all of this and more. And his motive in saying this, as I say, was a little bit selfish. He wanted her to calm down. He wanted her to leave him and Silas alone. And it kind of worked. What she had really wanted was to better understand what they had been talking about. So, it did soothe her to understand it all better. She resolved to get to know this Jesus of Paul’s and to learn to trust him. She found a certain peace and that did help to stop the disturbances that she had been causing.
      But, in some ways, it may have worked too well. The more that she learned about this Jesus and the more that she learned to trust him, it also made her see herself a little bit differently. She saw herself as a child of God, created in the image of God and, even better, recreated in the image of the Anointed One. She reasoned that, if Jesus had died for her and had been raised for her, then she must matter. Her feelings and her thoughts and her memories could matter.
      That is what gave her the strength one day to tell Silas the story of what the executive had done to her and how it had made her feel. Silas was horrified and, though he knew that it would only lead to trouble, realized that the only way she would find the full healing she needed would be if she was able to tell the whole story of what had happened to her.
      Two weeks later, the entire company was in turmoil. When the accusations finally came out, they were part of a major investigative report in a prominent newspaper. The journalist had gone digging and discovered that, once one person had come forward, many other of the same man’s victims over many years also began to speak out. There was a flurry of hashtags on Twitter. It was bad, and yet the board was not willing to do anything for fear of tarnishing the name of the man on whom they had staked so many of their hopes for economic success. The stock price went into free-fall and the stockholders were furious that their hope of making money was gone.
      The very best public relations firm in the country was brought in and their advice was clear. Everyone was angry and the person who they felt was to blame for all of this chaos was the woman who had dared to talk to the press. But the PR people warned the company that they could not take any action against her; it would only make a very bad situation look so much worse.
      Nevertheless, an internal investigation was started to find somebody to blame for everything that was going wrong because, I’ll tell you, the executive and the board were not about to accept any blame at all. It really didn’t take very long for someone to point out that a couple of new employees, Paul and Silas, had been talking about all sorts of radical ideas at the water cooler and in the lunchroom. In particular, they were sharing the crazed notions of some person named Jesus. They had heard that this name had caused disruptions in other workplaces in similar ways. Workers had gotten all “uppity,” because they were told things like that they mattered or that they had inherent value. (I mean, really!) Many other places had also seen things happen that affected their profits negatively as well.
      So, it seemed, management had their scapegoats. A Human Resources process was quickly arranged. Of course, they could hardly charge Paul and Silas with inciting someone to make a harassment complaint. That might make things worse. That is why the official complaint said, “These men are disturbing the workplace; they are advocating customs that are not part of our corporate culture.”
      They didn’t want to fire them, that might attract the attention of the press. But they did transfer them to lowly positions in the Information Technology department in the deepest basement. There they would labour away in windowless rooms under the harsh light of fluorescent tubes while the computer hard drives spun and the servers blinked. It was the corporate equivalent of jail. Best of all, of course, they would be far away from everyone else and would have very few opportunities to infect other employees with their insidious ideas.
      I can’t begin to tell you how frustrated management was when they discovered that Paul and Silas didn’t really feel like they had been punished at all. The reports that came back from the deep sub-basement were that Paul and Silas were actually enjoying their shifts. Rumours were that when people went down into the depths of the building, they could often hear them singing. I mean, can you imagine that? Nobody had been caught singing at work in decades!
      But that was exactly what Paul and Silas were doing late one afternoon when the disaster struck. The server crashed, the database was corrupted and the entire IT system went down. The supervisor, who just happened to be away from his post on a well-deserved break at the time, came rushing back, but it was too late. There was nothing left to be done. He would have to rebuild almost everything all over again. He cried out in despair; it was like his career was over. But then, when Paul heard him, he cried out in response: “Fear not, my brother. You are not alone. We are still here, and we will help you.”
      But the IT leader was not overly comforted. “What can you do for me,” he said. “What can I do. There is nothing that has been backed up. What hope is there if nothing has been saved,” “Ah,” said Paul, “now saving is something that we know a few things about. Have you ever heard the name of a person called Jesus?”
      So goes the story in the Book of Acts. It is not just an ancient story with elements, like demon possession and slavery that seem so unfamiliar to us. It is a shockingly modern story, a story that still plays out to this very day and that is because it is a story of the name of Jesus and how powerful that name truly is for transforming people’s lives. 
Continue reading »

The most significant thing that happened at Assembly

Posted by on Friday, June 7th, 2019 in Minister


I am sure that many people who have read my blog posts from General Assembly might assume that I was only interested in the part of the discussions that we had around human sexuality. I felt a certain urgency to communicate my feelings about such things, but there were things that overshadowed them in my mind and heart.

Though I know that it is not a contest and there are many things that were extremely important because they deeply affect people’s lives and that is especially true with it comes to those who identify as LGBTQI+, the fact of the matter is that if you were to press me to say what was the most significant moment of Assembly, it wouldn’t have to do with that.

This Assembly contained many moments that were very important to the church’s relationship with its Indigenous ministries and neighbours. 

25th Anniversary celebration

The Assembly celebrated the 25thanniversary of the confession of the church to the Indigenous people for our part in the Residential School System. It was a solemn occasion and, as we stood together, the moderator led us, in a spirit of continuing confession, by reading the text that had been approved by the church so many years ago. As our calm, cool and ever so competent moderator read the confession, everyone noticed that her voice broke as she read the words “The Presbyterian Church in Canada agreed to take the children of Aboriginal peoples…” and for a moment she could not go on. Everyone knew that her heart was breaking in that moment and I suspect many other hearts broke too. That was a significant moment to share, but it was not the most significant.

A Report Released

Even as we met and celebrated the 25thAnniversary, the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls was being released in Gatineau Quebec. Through its work, this inquiry has exposed a massive and ongoing emergency situation in Canadian society. It is a crisis and it is now thoroughly documented. I encourage everyone to read the documents that can be downloaded at this link:
Final Inquiry Report

The document contains many “Calls to Action” – 231 in all. And that struck me because I realized that, at our Assembly, we were still working on implementing some of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commissionof four years previously. Now here were more, and there had always been an urgency to all of it.

In fact, I remembered that I was at the Assembly four years ago when the TRC report came out, mere days before the Assembly met. In my reports from Assembly, I did not mention any calls to action from that report and I was called out on that fact by an Indigenous friend of mine. I tried to explain to her that the Assembly had simply not had the time to say anything of substance because that is not the way we work – it takes time for us to digest something through our committees before we can do anything.

That was my excuse at that time, but it was a hollow one. Honestly, “the way we do things,” is actually what got us into so many messes! So, when I saw the calls to action from the new report, I resolved that my Indigenous friend would not have anything to fault me on. I wrote a motion referring the entire report to the Life and Mission agency and to the Indigenous Ministry Council to review the calls to action and show us ways to implement them. (I did not write the motion exactly that way, but it was helpfully amended on the floor).
You can see part of the motion on the screen behind the Rev. Margaret Mullen.
  
But that, I felt, was not quite enough. The report contained a series of calls of actions to all Canadians – things that all Canadians can do. I looked at that list and said, “I can do that right now; we can all do that right now.” So I crafted a motion to respond to an emergency situation. We, as commissioners, would resolve and encourage all congregations and presbyteries to resolve to take the following actions (taken verbatim from the report):
  1. Denounce and speak out against violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.
  2. Decolonize by learning the true history of Canada and Indigenous history in your local area. Learn about and celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ history, cultures, pride, and diversity, acknowledging the land you live on and its importance to local Indigenous communities, both historically and today.
  3. Develop knowledge and read the Final Report. Listen to the truths shared, and acknowledge the burden of these human and Indigenous rights violations, and how they impact Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people today.
  4. Using what you have learned and some of the resources suggested, become a strong ally. Being a strong ally involves more than just tolerance; it means actively working to break down barriers and to support others in every relationship and encounter in which you participate.
  5. Confront and speak out against racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, and transphobia, and teach or encourage others to do the same, wherever it occurs: in your home, in your workplace, or in social settings.
  6. Protect, support, and promote the safety of women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people by acknowledging and respecting the value of every person and every community, as well as the right of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people to generate their own, self-determined solutions.
  7. Create time and space for relationships based on respect as human beings, supporting and embracing differences with kindness, love, and respect. Learn about Indigenous principles of relationship specific to those Nations or communities in your local area and work, and put them into practice in all of your relationships with Indigenous Peoples.


Yes, I had to read the whole thing out on the floor and did not do anywhere near as well as our esteemed moderator! I know I was asking a lot of Assembly, but I believe that they were truly willing to do what was being proposed, or at least they would have been if they had had enough time to absorb and understand what it really meant. Unfortunately, other matters and time constraints made that impossible. There was just no possibility to take the time to really absorb it. Nevertheless, I would still encourage my fellow commissioners to take up those challenges personally and in their congregations. I would encourage the whole church to do so.

Indigenous Ministry Council
This whole exercise led to another key significant Assembly moment for me. I was later approached by one of the members Indigenous Ministry Council. She had come to thank me for the action and told me that her mother is counted among the murdered women of the report. We talked about the impact that her mother’s death has had upon her and her family and she gave to me a copy of the poster with her mother’s name and a picture of her mother and sister. She asked me not to share that picture on social media so I will not include it here, but I can promise you that that picture will remain with me and will mean a lot to me for a very long time.

That conversation with Yvonne was an extremely significant moment for me, but it was still not the most significant.

To the sound of a solitary drum beat

No, I actually think that my most significant moment came with the simple passing of a short motion. With a simple vote, the Assembly repudiated a very longstanding doctrine: the Doctrine of Discovery. This is the doctrine that states that the territories that were “discovered” by European explorers and colonists could be claimed by them because they were not inhabited by people who were like us. Of course, it is an odious doctrine that should have been repudiated long ago, but I got to be there when it happened.

The announcement that the motion was carried was not met with applause because we don’t do that kind of thing at Assembly (for some very good reasons). But I did note that the announcement was heralded by a solitary beat on a native drum.

I do not know which of my indigenous siblings beat the drum, but I feel honoured to have heard it.

It was all our heartbeats in that moment.

It was the heartbeat of a church learning new ways to think of its relationship with indigenous communities.

It was a resounding and impelling call to action echoing the calls to action from two important reports.

The echo of that drumbeat faded quickly; may the reverberations of our action linger long.

That, if you were to press me, I’d have to say was the most significant moment of the Assembly.
Continue reading »

Honoured to have been in the room where it happened

Posted by on Thursday, June 6th, 2019 in Minister

As I left the meeting of the General Assembly today there were many of the beautiful hymns and songs that we sang during Assembly still ringing in my ears and in my heart. But I also found myself singing another song to myself – one from the musical Hamilton:


Now, in the musical, Aaron Burr is not singing about the exact experience that I feel that I had over the last few days. In his song he is actually lamenting the fact that he is shut out of the room where a significant decision was made and also the obscurity of what happened and the mystery of the give-and-take negotiations. That is not what I experienced at assembly. But I think I did experience the power of being part of a significant event where significant decisions are being made.

I have blogged on each of the meeting days when we have discussed matters of human sexuality and would suggest that, if you haven't read those posts first, you could read my previous posts before this one before reading this one.

Emotionally exhausted and privileged

How do I feel at the end of another very long and exhausting day?

Here are my takeaways from three days of discussion.

When given the first real opportunity in a very long time to actually state what they wanted for the church, a significant majority freely stated that they wanted to be inclusive of LGBTQI+ persons. That is very significant. But, if my reading of the room is accurate, I would also say it was the clear desire of the Assembly to be as inclusive as possible in every way possible. The options that we were given to choose from spelled out what the committee of Former Moderators felt were the implications of the inclusion option, but that does not mean that the Assembly wanted to implement it in exactly that way.

The following day of Assembly, the court took the opportunity to listen and empathize with those who felt excluded or hurt by the decision of the previous day. This was an important and necessary thing to happen although it was certainly difficult. As I have said elsewhere, I was a little bit tempted to see some irony in our listening to people who, while they were in the majority, were quite unwilling to allow for any leeway for those in a minority position and who did exclude them and now found themselves in the minority and complaining about feeling excluded when no one had asked them or wanted them to leave. But lament is important and I believe that everyone did very well to listen. I believe that we learned that we did not want to replicate the errors of the past by alienating sisters and brothers who were now in a minority position. I certainly went to sleep that night thinking that I did not want to respond to others as they had responded to LGBTQI+ people but that I wanted to respond to them as I wished they had responded to LGBTQI+ people.

Thursday morning.
On the final day of Assembly, we only had a morning session and very little time. What happened in that room was nothing short of extraordinary. Late into the night and then again early in the morning, a significant group of people from various backgrounds and positions came together and had the discussion that we should have had a long time ago. They talked about how the church could move together into the future while embracing the decision of the Assembly to opt for inclusion. As a result of their faithful work, the General Assembly was able, with a little bit of tweaking, of course, to prepare a remit to send down to Presbyteries that, I believe was a faithful interpretation of what the Assembly actually desired.

I do not think that this act of constructing our own way of implementing the pathway was a case of using procedural maneuvers to circumvent the actual will of the people. (Lord knows that we Presbyterians do that kind of thing all the time, but I don’t think that this was that.) It was a genuine attempt to try and say what we truly wanted for the church.

As a result, these remits that will go down to presbyteries (this may not be the official wording, but it is certainly close):
  • that the PCC hold two parallel definitions of marriage, one which understands marriage as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman or as a covenant relationship between two adult persons; and that congregations, sessions, ruling and teaching elders be granted liberty of conscience and action on marriage.
  • that congregations and presbyteries can call LGBQTI people (married or single) as a minster and elect as ruling elders, and there is freedom of conscience on this.
I believe that the Holy Spirit was in this work and so I did support the motions with enthusiasm.

Part of what the Assembly is saying is just a recognition of reality. We cannot impose upon people particular beliefs about marriage or about ordination. That is something that we have actually proved very clearly over the last several years as we have tried to impose so-called traditional views upon the church and have clearly failed spectacularly. I have recognized for quite some time that good and faithful Christians may have different understandings of marriage for various reasons as have many others. While we should have recognized this a long time ago, it is certainly good to recognize it now. We can't undo the past but we can certainly do better in the future.

That is what I am taking away from this Assembly, but I also recognize that many others may not be able to understand what I was able to see in that room and how I could sense the movement of the spirit. I was in the room and others weren't. It was a great privilege to be there and part of it. It is also a great responsibility. Others, who were not in the room, may not understand because what happened wasn't just about words. I know that it is my job now as a commissioner to tell the story of what it was like to be in the room where it happened. I guess it is every commissioner's job.

I know that not every commissioner experienced it as I did, but I pray that they do tell their story and that we all better understand what happened in the room. I do believe that God was there and that the Holy Spirit was at work. I am very grateful to have been in the room where it happened.
Continue reading »