Category: News

https://youtu.be/xypx1gJCclE

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

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

Names Make Sense in the Story

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

There are No Accidents

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

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

The Period of the Judges

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

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

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

The Transition to Monarchy

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

Living Through Transition

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

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

Fragile Institutions

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

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

The Old Situation

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

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

Transitions

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

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

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

Looking Outward

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

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

The Advantage in Moab

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

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

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

How We can Look Outwards

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

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

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

Foreign Women

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

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

Our Future

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

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

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

If you are a tiny bit curious, why not come out for 2 hours to see what this is all about?

https://youtu.be/V2hjyksXuPQ

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

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

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

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

Befuddling Verse

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

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

Jericho

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

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

The Baggage We Carry

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

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

Positives and Negatives

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

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

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

At Jericho

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

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

Leaving Jericho

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

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

An Excellent Disciple

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

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

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

Rebuking Ablest Attitudes

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

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

Cultural Factors

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

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

A Strategy that Needs to Change

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

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

Valuing Outsiders

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

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

Healing the Blind

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

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

We are all Bartimaeus

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

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

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

Do you have some extra boots in your closet?

Thank you to everyone who helped or supported our auction in any way.

https://youtu.be/ECI818ZQnJc

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

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

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

Jesus’ First Response

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

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

A Shift to the Law

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

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

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

The Goodness of the Law

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

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

Jesus Loved Him

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

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

One Thing More

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

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

Why the Law did not Require This

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

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

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

What the Disciples have Given up

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

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

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

Jesus’ Question for Us

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

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

The Capitalist System

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ Disruption

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

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

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

Supremacist Views

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

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

Teachings About Strangers

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

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

The Real Question

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

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

https://youtu.be/Yv5Q8VOiorE

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

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

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

Polygynous Marriage

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

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

Troubled Marriages

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

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

Who Says This?

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

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

An Abnormal Marriage

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

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

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

It Can’t be the One True Pattern

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

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

More than Historical

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

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

The Creation of the Woman

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

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

What Came from the Side?

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

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

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

God Creates the Distinctions

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

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

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

An Application of the Story

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

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

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

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

A Lesson for Today

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

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

Relationships of Love and Respect

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

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

Always a fun evening, October 19

There's still a few spots available if you want to join us! Please pre-register.

The PCC apology