Canada 150: A Mari Usque Ad Mare

Posted by Scott McAndless on Monday, July 3rd, 2017 in Minister

Introductory Video:

Hespeler, July 2, 2017 © Scott McAndless

Hebrews 11:13-16, Micah 6:6-8, Psalm 72:1-20

ho here has a Canadian passport? If you travel, you know that it is one of the most valuable things that you can carry with you – more important than money or your phone or your insurance. And do you know why? Because of what you find printed in gold on the cover of that passport. There you will find the coat of arms of the Dominion of Canada. The presence of that coat of arms is an indication that, wherever you may travel, you are under the aid and protection of the Canadian crown.

A coat of arms is, therefore, a very powerful symbol, or, if you prefer, a set of symbols because every element in the arms carries a great deal of meaning. But there are two particular elements I want to focus on today – specifically the words. First of all, there is a ribbon that runs about the main shield upon which are words that you can just barely make out. The words, in Latin, are “desiderantes meliorem patriam,” which means “desiring a better country.” These words are actually the motto of the Order of Canada – that select group of people who have been honoured by the government for their extraordinary contribution to our country.

The words should sound familiar to you today, though, because they are taken from one of our scripture readings this morning: “But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one.” Those words were taken from the Letter to the Hebrews as a motto for the Order of Canada. You can see why such a motto is fitting. The people who most often make the biggest contribution to a country like Canada are those who are not merely satisfied with how things are but who dream of making something better. We are all the beneficiaries of their spirit.

But what exactly is that “better country” we strive for. That is not always easy to see. Change, after all, is always hard and disruptive. You don’t really want to risk it unless you are sure that the result will indeed be a “better country.” How do we get a picture of what that “better country” could be?

Well, that brings us to the other words that appear on Canada’s motto: “A Mari usque ad Mare” which is translated as “From Sea to Sea.” Those English words probably sound more familiar as they are still used by politicians often enough, though, these days, they usually will say, “from sea to sea to sea” or “from coast to coast to coast” to recognize that Canada actually has three coasts and that the arctic coast and our sovereignty over its waters is of growing importance.

But what is the meaning behind such a motto? Is it simply a statement of the geographical extent of the country of Canada? I mean, a motto is supposed to be something inspirational – something that stirs the heart and, at first glance, this seems only to be an attempt to describe a map of Canada in as few words as possible. Please tell me it is about more than that! Well, indeed it is! In fact, there is a whole lot of meaning packed into those five Latin words.

To understand them, you need to go back to a gentleman named George Monro Grant. Grant, as far as we can tell, was the first man to apply those words, “from sea to sea,” to the country of Canada. He used those words very soon after confederation, in fact, at a time when Canada didn’t really extend beyond the end of the Great Lakes. So, at the time, to dream of a country and government that reached as far as the Pacific Ocean was a challenge and a vision to strive for.

But it was also about more than that. George Grant, you see, was a Presbyterian minister and the first time he used those words, “from sea to sea” was in a sermon. In fact, he used that phrase often and in many sermons because those words were taken directly from scripture – specifically the Psalm that we read this morning: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

So let us explore, a little bit, those words that became so significant for our country. Grant, as a minister, wasn’t just interested in those few words from the Psalm but in the full context.

The Psalm itself is rather unique in the Book of Psalms. The whole thing is a prayer for the king. At some point, a Biblical editor added some words ascribing the Psalm to King Solomon, but the prayer is not focused on any one particular king and was likely used on many occasions down through the generations when prayers for the king were needed. So it is not a psalm about a particular personality but about the institution of kingship in general.

To put it in modern terms, it is not a psalm about a leader (such as Prime Minister Trudeau, for example) but about leadership in general or even better about governance in general. So we can look at this psalm to discover what the Bible thinks – dare I say, what God thinks – is important about governance. Another way to think of it: what makes a country great?

And clearly, there are a number of priorities that are named in this psalm. A key one is dominion, as we see in the verse we have been talking about: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.” Dominion is about responsible and effective government – power and influence and what we call sovereignty extending from one body of water to another. In the case of the Psalm, the dominion was supposed to extend from the Euphrates River in the distant east to the Mediterranean in the west. Munro, of course, thought of Canada extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and more recently politicians have stretched our imaginations further north to the Arctic Sea.

And that kind of dominion (which is basically effective government) is a good thing – it creates stability and makes the country a safe and predictable place to live in. But, again, we have to ask, what is supposed to be accomplished through this dominion? It is not an end in itself, though we sometimes think of it that way.

Well, the psalm is perfectly clear about what it thinks that the king ought to do with his dominion. He ought to do justice: “Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.” That’s where the psalm begins and the theme of righteousness and justice runs right through it with those two words begin repeated over and over again. So to understand this psalm and what it is saying about dominion, we need to understand what it means by justice and righteousness.

The first thing we need to observe is that justice and righteousness are essentially two parts of the same thing as far as the Bible is concerned. The key word, in Hebrew, is tsedeq which can be translated either as justice or as righteousness. Tsedeq is so important in the Bible because it is an essential part of God’s character. God is nothing if God is not just.

Tsedeq, or justice, is basically the idea of a world in perfect harmony – the world as God intended it to be. It is closely connected to the concept of shalom which is usually translated as peace, but shalom always meant more to the ancient Hebrews than the idea of peace means to us. Shalom was about all parts of creation being in harmony with one another.

One thing that justice means, therefore, is that when something has gone wrong in the world – when a crime has been committed, for example – justice demands that it be set right. That includes what is called restorative justice, such as when stolen property is restored or victims compensated. It can also include retributive justice such as when the person committing the crime is punished in a fitting and measured way.

And that is often where we end the discussion about justice – with retributive and restorative justice – but, as far as the Bible is concerned, that is just the tip of the iceberg. For the God of the Bible, the essence of justice was found in something called distributive justice. You see, as far as this psalm and many other parts of the Bible are concerned the greatest offence against the justice of God, the greatest indication that all is not working out according to the will of God, is when the goods of this world are so unevenly shared that there were some who go without their basic needs of life being met while others live in an overabundance.

The psalm makes it clear, in fact, the king’s most important duty is the application of this kind of distributive justice. Yes, he might be involved, from time to time, in the application of retributive justice. He has to ensure that those who commit crimes are fairly and swiftly judged. He has to make sure that judges are fair and impartial and that their judgments do their best to right the wrongs that have been committed. But his main job is actually to make sure that the resources of his society are distributed in such a way that nobody lacks what they need to survive and to thrive.

So it was not enough, for the psalm, to simply pray that there should be prosperity in the land: “May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills.” Prosperity meant nothing if it did not come “in righteousness,” that is to say, if it did not come equally to all.

And so the job of the king was to “defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy.” That is to say that he was to stand on the side of the people who were most disadvantaged and were least likely to gain anything from the prosperity in the land. At the same time, the king was to “crush the oppressor,” by standing in the way of those who would keep the prosperity of the land confined to those who were already wealthy.

If Canada today has the motto “from sea to sea,” we likely have one man to thank for that, Presbyterian minister, George Monro Grant. But if Grant pushed for that to be our motto, and he did, he had a vision for this country that extended beyond the Pacific Ocean and even the far-off Arctic. He saw a land where there would be true dominion and sovereignty (and yes, by the way, it was upon Grant’s insistence that this country was given the name, “the Dominion of Canada” at Confederation). But that dominion was not an end in itself, it existed for the sake of making sure that the wealth of the land would be for all the people of the land.

One hundred and fifty years later, it would not be out of place for us to pause and ask if this country has lived up to Grant’s vision. Dominion has been established from sea to sea to sea. We may have to work to maintain that, especially in the north, but it seems well in hand. But what about the justice component of that vision? How good are we at building prosperity in this country and building it in such a way that it is shared equally among all as much as possible? Given that the disparity between the rich and the poor has only been on the rise in Canada, I would say we have a great deal of work to do there.

“From sea to sea,” does indeed contain within it quite a vision. If we could live up to the vision not only in terms of dominion but also in terms of justice, just think of what this country could be, I am convinced that it could be the next thing that God is calling us to. For God, fortunately never ceases to send among us those who dream of a better country, and who put themselves on the line to see it happen. Could you be one of the next people that God is calling to seek a better country by standing up for what is right and just?

#140CharacterSermon From Sea to Sea is Canada's motto. It is about more than just geography. It is about seeking God's justice #Canada150

St. Andrew’s celebrates Canada 150 (on the day after!)

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Thursday, June 29th, 2017 in News

Sunday, July 2 is, of course, the day after Canada celebrates a big birthday this year. It will be a very special morning for a number of reasons:

Let's just start with the bulletin. Can we just say that it will be a little bit special? There are flags for everyone and lots of the pins (but probably not enough for all so that it first-come, first serve.

There will be some amazing music that has been specially prepared for the day

Jean McMurtrie will sing a beautiful piece called, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is."
Singer-Songwriter, Gabrielle McAndless will debut her new offering, "Rest and Repose."
Violinist Zoé McAndless will be playing, "Liebesleid" by Fritz Kreisler.

Gabrielle McAndless

The Minister, Scott McAndless will continue his special "Canada 150" sermon series by looking at Canada's motto, "A Mari Usque ad Mare." Here is a short introductory video for the message:

So please plan to join us on July 2 as we celebrate and pray for our beloved country. It is also a great time to invite your friends and family to join you.

Canada 150: Our home… and native land

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, June 25th, 2017 in Minister

Hespeler, 25 June, 2017 © Scott McAndless – Aboriginal Sunday

Joshua 9:1-20, Deuteronomy 28:1-6, 15-19

Joshua 9:1-2

Now when all the kings who were beyond the Jordan in the hill country and in the lowland all along the coast of the Great Sea toward Lebanon – the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites – heard of this, ² they gathered together with one accord to fight Joshua and Israel.

nd it came to pass that a settler people came even unto this land and found that it was a rich and good – a land that was flowing with beaver pelts and lumber and many fish. And they knew that God had given this land to be a possession for them and for their children and for their children’s children until they became a people as numerous as the stars in the sky.

And lo there were nations that were in this land that God had given to the settlers. And these nations, the Iroquois, the Algonquin, the Cree, the Anishinaabe and many others heard of these settlers. But somehow they did not get the memo which said that God had given the land even unto them. And so these nations, each in their own way, sought t

o continue in their way of life despite the coming of these settler people. But this proved not so easy to do for there were many diseases and other problems that had been brought over with the people, and these played havoc with the nations of the land and many died.

And yes, there were some of the nations who found that it was impossible to live with these settlers among them and they chose to fight and protect the land of their ancestors. They were quickly and easily defeated.

And so it came to pass that the settler people began to believe that it would be an easy thing for them to possess this land that had been given to them. Surely the nations of the land would be quickly defeated or die from diseases before very long. Surely their “inferior” culture and “primitive” rituals and beliefs would be swiftly assimilated into the much “superior” culture and religion of the settler people. They took this to be an inescapable truth. Of course, their total dominance and possession of everything was assured.

But there was a problem for the short term. Sure, the people of these nations were certain to disappear and melt away eventually, but that would take time – maybe a few generations. But for right now, there were still too many of them and they were living on land that the people wanted for various reasons. They were looking for a solution.

Joshua 9:3-15

³ But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai, ⁴ they on their part acted with cunning: they went and prepared provisions, and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended, ⁵ with worn-out, patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out clothes; and all their provisions were dry and moldy. ⁶ They went to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the Israelites, “We have come from a far country; so now make a treaty with us.” ⁷ But the Israelites said to the Hivites, “Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a treaty with you?” ⁸ They said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “Who are you? And where do you come from?” ⁹ They said to him, “Your servants have come from a very far country, because of the name of the Lord your God; for we have heard a report of him, of all that he did in Egypt, ¹⁰ and of all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, King Sihon of Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan who lived in Ashtaroth. ¹¹ So our elders and all the inhabitants of our country said to us, ‘Take provisions in your hand for the journey; go to meet them, and say to them, “We are your servants; come now, make a treaty with us.”‘ ¹² Here is our bread; it was still warm when we took it from our houses as our food for the journey, on the day we set out to come to you, but now, see, it is dry and moldy; ¹³ these wineskins were new when we filled them, and see, they are burst; and these garments and sandals of ours are worn out from the very long journey.” ¹⁴ So the leaders partook of their provisions, and did not ask direction from the Lord. ¹⁵ And Joshua made peace with them, guaranteeing their lives by a treaty; and the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to them.

hen the inhabitants of some of the nations saw that some of their neighbouring nations had been brought to a low estate they on their part acted with cunning – or at least it seemed that way from the settlers’ point of view. They went and prepared provisions and placed them in the bags and bowls that they had made according to their traditional methods in their villages. And they put on their traditional garments. These were beautiful things and well-made, but they looked poor in the sight of the settler people because they did not have the form of top hats and waistcoats, silks and satins.

And so the nations came unto the settler people and the settler people came up with the idea of making treaties with them. This was of great interest to the settlers because it would allow them to expand and possess much of the land that they believed that God had given them without having to deal with violence or resistance. But, of course, to make treaties, they would have to give the people of the nations certain lands and rights and resources. Perhaps in the future, some of those things that they gave them would get in the way of what they would want to do and it would get costly to fulfill everything that they promised.

But then the settler people looked at the items and the clothing that the people of the nations had cunningly brought with them and they were reassured. In their eyes, these things were an indication of a dying culture and a way of life that would soon disappear. And behold, the settlers said unto themselves, “Surely these nations will soon pass away. What does it matter if we give them land and promises, they will not be around long enough as distinct nations to stop us from taking back these things when we need them.”

And so the settler people made peace with them, guaranteeing their lives by treaties; and the leaders swore oaths unto them. They told them that their queen, who lived in a far-off land, would be a mother to them. “You will always be cared for,” they said, “all the time, as long as the sun walks.”

Joshua 9:16-18

¹⁶ But when three days had passed after they had made a treaty with them, they heard that they were their neighbors and were living among them. ¹⁷ So the Israelites set out and reached their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim. ¹⁸ But the Israelites did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel. Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders.

hen many days and months and years had passed after they

had made these treaties with them, the settler people heard something that disturbed them. It seemed that the people of the many nations had not disappeared or simply been assimilated as expected. At first, they thought that it was only a small setback. Surely the assimilation process only needed a little bit of encouragement. And so some plans were put in place. For example, they put in place a plan to take the children of the people of the nations away from their parents and put them in schools where they would be separated from their communities for many months or even years at a time. In this way, they thought, the culture and way of life would naturally disappear as parents failed to pass it on to their children. And anyways, the settler people reasoned, this would only be a blessing on the children of the nations who would be exposed to the “superior” culture and spiritual traditions of the settlers. Surely they were only doing it for their own good.

So the settler people put these plans and others like them in place, but things did not go as they imagined. The schools that they set up became places of great cruelty, which, when you think of it, is not all that surprising as the plan itself had a deep cruelty to it from the outset. Also, it turned out, breaking families apart and ripping children from their communities created and exacerbated many other social problems that would persist for generations including substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.

And yet, despite all this, the people of the nations still stubbornly refused to disappear as expected. Though they still had little power, for some reason, it became harder and harder to ignore their grievances – and it turned out that there were many grievances.

And then all the congregation of the settler people murmured against the people of the nations. Some said that, if their communities had problems, then it was all their own fault, that they should clean up their own finances and politics before they looked to them for help. They also told stories about the people of the nations – said that they all drank or didn’t want to work or take care of their properties. When they spoke of the people of the nations in these terms, it just seemed so much easier to write them off.

But, despite all of this, it became clear that the people of the nations were not disappearing and would not disappear. All of this made the settler people complain against their leaders. “Why should we continue to abide by the terms of the treaties that we made with them?” they asked.

Joshua 9:19-20

¹⁹ But all the leaders said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel, and now we must not touch them. ²⁰ This is what we will do to them: We will let them live, so that wrath may not come upon us, because of the oath that we swore to them.”

ne of the most amazing people I have ever met is the Rev. Margaret Mullin. She is the minister of Place of Hope Presbyterian Church in Winnipeg. She is also a trained and recognized First Nations elder who has been given the name “Thundering Eagle Woman.” She is of mixed heritage – Scotch/Irish and Ojibway – and so she has a unique perspective on what it means to be part of both what I have been calling the settler people and the people of the nations.

When I met Margaret, she talked to us quite a bit about the meaning of treaties. First Nations people often see the treaties that their ancestors entered into as an essential part of their identity for good and for ill. This is not all that surprising because those treaties have a big impact on their daily lives. They tell them where they can live, what they can do on the land and what limits their livelihood. They greatly influence their choices regarding things like marriage, child rearing and custody. Many First Nations people carry status cards that define their rights and benefits based on the treaty terms negotiated by their ancestors.

The treaties all also have a great influence on how non-native people see First Nations people. Honestly, they are also the basis of many of the complaints and stereotypes that you hear.

What we miss, Margaret taught me, is the fact that there are always two sides of a treaty. What we miss is the idea that, if the First Nations are a treaty people, then so are we. For we too live day in and day out under the effects of these treaties. Most Canadians live on land that was acquired through a treaty. That is not precisely true here in Waterloo Region, of course. The land that most of us live on is part of the HaldimandTractt – land that originally belonged to three different nations. But the land was later given to the Six Nations of the Iroquois by the British Crown in appreciation for their extraordinary bravery and loyalty during the American Revolution.

So this land wasn’t part of a treaty but it was won by the Six Nations at exceptional cost. And, once they had it, their battle was not over for the government absolutely refused to allow them to set up any businesses on their land. The Iroquois wanted to become entrepreneurs like what they had observed in European society but the government absolutely refused to let them operate any business. The government didn’t even want to allow them to sell the land unless it was to another member of the Six Nations who couldn’t use it for business. They had to fight yet again just to be able to sell it to the people who eventually sold it to you and me. So we may not be living on treaty land here but we are living on land that First Nations people fought for and died for again and again and we are a part of that story of the land.

So it is not just First Nations people, we are all treaty people. It is just that we have often not been aware of it. And there is cost, but also a benefit of being a treaty people. The cost, as the Israelites learned in the time of Joshua, is that you have to keep the terms of the treaty even if the people do not behave as you thought they would. The Israelites understood that the consequences of breaking a treaty were serious. After all their relationship with God was based on a treaty – the covenant, they called it – and it was drilled into them that, as we read this morning, that many curses would follow on the breaking of that treaty. This was true of any treaty and these curses would have been recited when the Israelites made a treaty with anyone including the Gibeonites.

So God taught them to respect and keep the terms of a treaty. But it was also not just a question of avoiding punishment. There were abundant blessings that were available to all oath keepers. We see that in the first part of the responsive reading we made this morning. Treaties are hard, there will often be times when we do not want to live up to the promises made in them and it may be costly to do so, but God’s promise is that when we do so, the blessings that come to all will far outweigh any costs.

I would suggest, therefore, that we all start thinking of ourselves as a treaty people. Canada is a nation built through talks and treaties – not so much by wars and battles. And that is a very good thing, not only because of what we have been able to build in this country together, but because there is blessing that God offers to those who keep their oaths and promises at all cost. Those blessings should be Canada’s always. And indeed the blessings that First Nations people have brought to this country are abundant and amazing. They have contributed to our culture, our science, our communal life in more ways than we could possibly list. For this, we ought to be thankful to God.

Of course there is much work to do. Of course, there are still many ways in which we, as a people, fail to keep to the intentions of the treaties that we entered into. When opportunities to profit arise, we are far too ready to conveniently forget what has been promised. The message of the passage in Joshua, however, is the God is watching, God cares. God often even uses the promises we make that we maybe didn’t completely understand at the time, to bring good thing to us. God works in some amazing ways.

Sermon Video:

Canada 150: Call to a Nation from a Rowboat

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, June 18th, 2017 in Minister

Introduction Video:

Hespeler, 18 June 2017 © Scott McAndless – Fathers’ Day

Galatians 5:13-14, Mark 9:33-37, Psalm 138

s I’m sure we’ve all heard by now, Canada came into being 150 years less two weeks ago and the Dominion of Canada was actually created by an act of the British Parliament. But I don’t think that that was when Canada actually began. I believe that the Canada that I love actually began a few years earlier with a hearty greeting shouted from a rowboat.

Let me explain. You may recall from your high school history classes that the idea of Canada all began with the initiative of a group of people we lovingly call the Fathers of Confederation and a meeting in the City of Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island in the year 1864. They are called the Fathers of Confederation for two reasons. First of all, they were called fathers because they were all men because nobody in the world at that time believed that women had the capacity to make the kinds of deals necessary to create a new country. Yes, people had rather small minds when it came to certain things back then.

But they were also called fathers because they were all engaged in the work that was deemed an essential part of being a father back then – the work of building up the power, wealth and influence of their own families. Take, for example, Father of Confederation Arthur Gordon who was, at that time the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. Historians agree that it was Gordon who really got the whole confederation project rolling. He proposed a meeting of the leaders of the three maritime colonies, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, to discuss an administrative union.

Now, there were a few reasons why such a union seemed like a good idea at the time. There were economic benefits that might come from a better trade deal with the United States in the post-Civil War era and there were certain political benefits. But honestly, no one was overly excited about the idea. It was with a distinct lack of enthusiasm that the colonies agreed to hold a meeting.

So why was Gordon so keen? Why did he twist so many arms? Well, Arthur Gordon figured that he was in an excellent position to be elected leader of this new union. He was basically pushing the whole project in order to become the most powerful man in the Maritimes. But you can’t blame Gordon. That is what a father is supposed to do – it is all about building up the brand of your own family.

But then something happened. All of a sudden two giants invited themselves to the party that was being planned in Charlottetown: Upper and Lower Canada (or what we know today as Ontario and Quebec). They were economic and political powerhouses that could have easily overwhelmed the little Maritime players. And in fact, that was exactly what they intended to do. They were going to sweep into town, psyche everyone out and basically grab control of this new political entity for their own purposes. Yes, Ontario and Quebec were in it only to gain more for themselves and their families.

The delegation from Upper and Lower Canada (or, “the Canadas” as they were called) knew exactly what to do to make a big impression. They hired the biggest and best steamship that worked on the St. Lawrence River. They would arrive in style and with a show of force. And, of course, now that they knew that the Canadas were coming, the Maritimes suddenly realized that this meeting was much more important than they had thought. They started to scramble for position in their own ways.

That was the setup for the beginning of talks about confederation. Just a whole lot of concern for money and power and what is in it for me and my family. And I realize that there are still people who think that that is what being a country and being a part of a country in this world is about. But what if there is another way?

In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul says something that speaks to me a fair bit about what it means to be a Canadian. “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters,” he writes. And that is one of the most valuable things that we are all given as Canadians: freedom. We have the freedom to believe, to think, to speak and pursue our own lives on our own terms. This freedom is at the foundation of just about everything that makes life in our country worthwhile and we must vigilantly stand on guard to make sure that this freedom is not eroded. (Hmm, stand on guard, someone should write a song about that.)

But, though freedom is indeed a wonderful and precious thing, Paul recognized that it came with certain risks. He goes on from there to say, “only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence.” And, in many ways, the story of modern political freedom is the story of exactly that – a story of people taking the freedom that they are given in their nation state and using it in a relentless pursuit of their own self-interest. I don’t think I am saying anything radical here, am I? That is the basic philosophy of neo-liberalism and capitalism. You only need to open up the business section of the newspaper or tune into a business channel to be reminded that we are all supposed to be out there doing whatever the law will allow us to do in order to get as rich as we possibly can. That relentless pursuit of self-interest is, we are promised, is what will make all of us better off.

And, I’ll tell you, I actually do accept that to a certain extent. While I do not think that capitalism is a perfect economic system, I don’t actually think that there is such a thing as a perfect economic system. There is no way to set up a system where all of the resources of a society are fully shared by everyone. And, all things considered, I do think that capitalism might just be the best possible economic system for the world here and now.

But I also think that that relentless self-interested drive that is so essential to capitalism does indeed sometimes lead to terrible abuses and injustices. As Paul puts it, we can end up biting and devouring one another, until we are consumed by one another. It is one of the ever-present possible side effects of unbridled capitalism. It is a real problem that has invaded the histories of many a nation. It is a force that is still at work in our world today.

And I do think that, if you look at the birth pangs of the Canadian Federation that were on display at the Charlottetown conference as the Fathers of Confederation gathered each one pursuing his own self-interest, you can see that they were setting up this country for a long history of biting, devouring and consuming.

But have you heard the story of what happened next? I love this story. The delegation from the Canadas sailed with near regal splendour into the Charlottetown harbour. They pulled up to the wharf and then boarded boats manned by four uniformed oarsmen and a boatswain. Everything was crisp and pressed and marvelous you can be sure. Oh man, were they going to show these Maritimers that they meant business!

Except nobody was watching – nobody was even there. You see, the night before the circus had arrived in Charlottetown and set up just outside of town. Everyone had gone out to see the show.

Well, not quite everyone. The Maritime Fathers of Confederation had left a secretary, William Henry Pope, behind to welcome their guests. The Canadas’ delegation heard a squeak, squeak, squeak and squinted into the sunlight to make out Pope’s little rowboat as he came to meet them. I would have loved to see the looks on their faces as he welcomed them with warm Eastern hospitality, but absolutely no awe at their appearance and no ceremony beyond a hearty, “Welcome, me boys!”

I happen to believe that it was at that instant that the Canada that I most love came into existence because the record seems to indicate that from that moment on, the “Fathers of Confederation” were able to set aside some of the expectations that a patriarchal society (that is, a society organized around and for the benefits of fathers) had heaped upon them. They entered into talks that focussed on how each part of the confederation could be a support to the rest, how the strength of one part could complement the weakness of another and how the support could be repaid in other ways.

I am not suggesting that they created a federation that had no flaws or hidden problems. Of course, there would be growing pains and constitutional wrangling. But they did build a nation where the ideals of mutual support and care were firmly entrenched and there would be an abiding belief that we are all stronger when we stand together despite our differences.

The Apostle Paul writes this to the church in Galatia: “through love become slaves to one another.” And I realize that the image of slavery is not very helpful to most of us. I know of no one who would relish the opportunity to identify as a slave. A more degrading position you could not imagine. But Paul is not speaking of slavery as it is usually conceived here. That is plain because he begins by affirming that we are free. What is more, the slavery he is talking about is created out of love and not out of fear or violence.

No, what Paul is talking about is the fact that true strength for all requires that we not just be interested in our own benefit or position. He is talking about how a truly successful father (or mother, for the gender doesn’t matter) is able to look beyond their own interest and the interest of their tribe and see that we are all stronger when we stand together and we can cherish even the weakest amongst us. “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’”

Canada, I believe, is stronger, better and even able to lead the world when it keeps to those simple ideas. I know it is hard sometimes. I realize that, at this very moment, we have our struggles. Alberta, for example, has a very urgent economic need to find a way to get its oil out to the coast. British Columbia has a simultaneous and urgent need to protect its coastal waters from contamination. Quebec has a perennial and I would say a legitimate problem with the constitution and most of the rest of Canada has an understandable fear of even talking about it. There are clashes between small businesses that will struggle to pay a higher minimum wage and the working poor who are already struggling without it.

I don’t pretend for one moment that it will be easy to work all these competing concerns out. But I really don’t fear for the future of our country despite them because the agreement that we must look beyond our own personal needs runs deep in our country. It might even run back to a rowboat in the Charlottetown harbour. Did you know that the citizens of Charlottetown recently installed a sculpture of William Henry Pope and his rowboat. I look forward to the day that they put that sculpture on a stamp, it is a great symbol of our nation.

What are the applications of all of this to our nation today, to our own individual lives and to our churches? I think there are many. The temptation to look out only for our own interest, for what we want or need, will always be there. It is human and we are only human. But the power that comes when we learn to look past that is great. It can transform the world and our personal lives. It was always intended to transform the church. Just to counter the persistent message of our world that you must only think of yourself and your family can be a great start to building a better nation and a better world for all. This too is the good news of the Christian gospel.

#140CharacterSermon #Canada began with a welcome from a rowboat. This teaches us about looking beyond our own personal needs. #Canada150

Sermon Video:

Fathers, Fathers of Confederation and more on June 18

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Thursday, June 15th, 2017 in News

Sunday June 18, 2017 is Fathers' Day and we will be celebrating that (and praying for fathers everywhere) at St. Andrew's. But Father's day also falls in the midst of our series celebrating Canada 150 this year. Hope you can join us for:

Some very special music by our own Madison Lightfoot.
Reflections on the following passage and what it says to us about our country and its origins:

Galatians 5:13-14¹³ For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. ¹⁴ For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” ¹⁵ If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

The sermon was inspired by the above scripture and a rather odd occurrence at the first meeting of the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown. It is entitled "Canada 150: Call to a Nation from a Rowboat."

Here is a little promotional video for the sermon and the Canada 150 story:

The Web of Connectedness

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Sunday, June 11th, 2017 in News

This Sunday Service was a celebration of Christian Education at St. Andrew’s Hespeler and was led by representatives of the Christian Education Committee and participants. The following message was not merely spoken by Joni Smith (our Family Ministries Coordinator) but acted out by the children, youth and members of the congregation with the help of a very special web master.

The Web of Connectedness

June 11, 2017

Scripture Readings: Romans 12: 3-8

Humble Service in the Body of Christ

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

e gather today to celebrate Christian Education. What does that mean? We celebrate all of the babies and toddlers and preschoolers in the nursery and the entire team of people who look after these little ones every Sunday. We celebrate all of the Sunday School children and, again, all of the people who lead and teach them every Sunday. We are thankful for all of the youth who are in our midst. We are especially thankful for their participation here; in the Youth Band, on the Tech Team, in the nursery and Sunday School and for just being here with us. And we are thankful for all of the people who are involved with our youth. We celebrate those who lead and participate in “adult” bible study and those who come to Family Night.

Today we also acknowledge and celebrate that we are a community of faith, that we are all connected, we each have an important role to carry out within our church family. As Jesus said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” (Matthew 18:20)

Today the Sunday School children and team and some of our youth are going to build a Web of Connectedness. This will help all of us visualize the importance each of us hold in the life of St. Andrew’s. As we build our web we will begin to see how each of us has an important role to play in the family and community of St. Andrew’s. We will pass the yarn back and forth to build our own unique web. Each person will eventually hold a piece of the web.

How are we connected? There are many, many ways in which we are all connected. Some people here are indeed related! Some sitting here today are members of families who have worshipped here for generations. One’s niece is someone else’s granddaughter. We have aunts and uncles, cousins, siblings, parents, etc. here.

When we build the web more we see that there are more connections. There may be people here today because someone else was their teacher in high school and inspired and encouraged them to be a part of this family. Or someone is here because another person reached out to them.

And we continue to build our web. People are connected through their shared gifts, talents and passions. People who love music are connected through our choirs and ensembles, with Corey, maybe unknowingly, weaving a silken web throughout. Others are connected because they like to study the Bible and upcoming messages weekly. And many are connected because they love to cook. The kitchens here, connect many, many people because let’s face it St. Andrew’s people love to eat!

We could go on to list the ways in which we are connected. It is a fun exercise to do, to make us realize that we are all in “this” together. But what is “this?”

“Living then, as everyone one of you does, in pure grace, it’s important that you not misinterpret yourselves as people who are bringing this goodness to God. No, God brings it all to you. The only accurate way to understand ourselves is by what God is and by what he does for us, not by what we are and what we do for him.

In this way we are like the various parts of a human body. Each part gets its meaning from the body as a whole, not the other way around. The body we’re talking about is Christ’s body of chosen people. Each of us finds our meaning and function as a part of his body. But as a chopped-off finger or cut-off toe we wouldn’t amount to much, would we? (The Message, excerpts from Romans 12)

And we continue to build that web, but not for ourselves. We build that web to worship and honour God. Together we can share all of the gifts and talents that we have been blessed with. Each of us has a ‘job’ and that is to share our talents. When we begin to realize that we are stronger together we will be able to do great things. We will be able to reach out to each other and to our neighbours both locally, nationally and internationally. In these ways we will build an even bigger web, one that can reach far and wide.

As we near the completion of our web we can pause to look at all of the intricate connections. Some are small, faint connections and others are complex, strong connections. But each connection is vital to keeping the web intact.

Now let’s take a look at what happens when we become detached or unconnected. When even one person causes a break in the web, we lose our strength and sometimes our focus. There will be many times when we lose our focus and get sidetracked, but Paul clearly states, “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.” (Romans 16:17) We must keep watch so that we do the work that God has intended us to do.

As more points in the web are dropped we will see that the web, indeed, becomes very weak. If left untended it will eventually disintegrate completely and will be gone. We must do everything we can to build each other up, to support one another and work together. “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” (Hebrews 10: 24-25)

Canada 150: True patriot love thou dost in us command

Posted by Scott McAndless on Monday, June 5th, 2017 in Minister

Hespeler, June 4, 2017 © Scott McAndless

Matthew 17:24-27, Psalm 72:1-14, Leviticus 19:33-34

s you may have heard, the country of Canada is in the midst of celebrating a very significant anniversary. Less than one month from now it will be exactly 150 years since the confederation of t he Dominion of Canada. And everyone seems to want to get in on the celebration. There are merchandise and product tie-ins. You can buy everything from cans of Pepsi to bags of french-fries emblazoned with the Canada 150 logo. There are commemorative coins, shirts, ties and sandals. The government is giving away passes to national parks and millions of dollars in grants to creative people who can come up with some piece of art that can celebrate our country and its history (including, strangely, a giant rubber duck).

So I felt like I needed to be a part of all the hype. After all, I love my country and am proud and happy to enjoy all the freedoms and benefits of being a Canadian. Surely I, like every Canadian, can find many things to celebrate amid all of the festivities.

But I would hate to see such a wonderful occasion pass by without taking the opportunity to do a little bit of thinking about some key questions that have always been there for people of faith. Questions like what does it mean to be a Canadian and what does it mean to be a Canadian who happens to be a Christian? Or should the question be, “What does it mean to be a Christian who happens to be a Canadian?”

These questions are not as easy to answer as we might want to think because they are questions of competing authority. There are certain things that are expected of me and even demanded of me as a Canadian. I am expected to obey laws, pay taxes, even to serve my country should the need arise. And there are things that are demanded of me because I am a follower of Christ, things like standards of behaviour and the exclusive worship and praise that I am called to offer to God.

And we would all hope, of course, that there would never be any conflict between what my country asks of me and what my God asks of me. Indeed, through much of the history of our country it has been taken for granted that being a good citizen was essentially the same thing as being a good Christian. But we can at least conceive of the possibility that there could be a conflict – that my country could demand of me something that my God would reject or vice versa.

Jesus ran into that question from time to time and so did his followers. They remembered the stories that touched on such matters and these stories made it into the gospels. There was, for example, the time when some men who were collecting the temple tax came to Peter with the question that that they asked everyone. “Does your teacher not pay the temple tax?” It was the kind of question that you really didn’t answer no to – especially because they likely hired the biggest and toughest enforcers to do this job. So of course what could Peter answer other than, “Yes, he does”?

But, while everyone knew what the safe answer to that question was, there could have been a lot of discussion over what the right answer was. The temple tax was a complex and maddening issue throughout much of the first century. It was an annual tax of a small amount that was required of all Jewish men whether they lived in Judea or not. In Jesus’ day it would have gone to the temple in Jerusalem to support its infrastructure, staff and charitable works.

But that changed shortly after the time of Jesus – and before this Gospel was written – when the Romans destroyed the temple and everything associated with it. In an extra twist of the knife against Jewish nationalism, after they had destroyed the temple the Romans continued to force Jews everywhere to pay the annual temple tax. Adding insult to injury, they took that money and directed it towards the temple of god Jupiter in Rome.

So the temple tax meant one thing in the time of Jesus (something generally seen favourably, though it did have its detractors) but something quite different (and very negative) when this Gospel was written. Essentially you could not come up with a more confusing question for early Christians than “Does your teacher not pay the temple tax?” But, in many ways, that makes this the perfect question because these kinds of questions are not simple, nor should they really be.

Think of some of the questions that we face as Canadians these days – questions that may sometimes bring our Christian faith into play. One of the big questions that Canada struggles with these days has to do with welcoming strangers. The welcoming of strangers and those seeking refuge is a very important theme in the Bible. It is something that the Bible speaks of often and very approvingly. “The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt,” it says in the Book of Leviticus.

But this does not seem like a straightforward issue in Canada today. Given the unthinkable misery of the unprecedented numbers of displaced people in our world today, we have to respond – we have to do something, not just for the sake of those who have become refugees but for our own sakes as well. A world where there are massive numbers of people who have no way to find hope for the future is a world that will only get more and more dangerous for everyone.

But, though the need for a compassionate response is clear, that is not the same thing as saying that it is easy to know exactly what we should do. How do we integrate these newcomers into our society? How many can we absorb without it having detrimental effects on our society? These become vital questions. We have to think about security and national identity and values. None of it is easy nor should it be. Even more confusing, what is the correct answer in one time may not be the right one in another. So the question that Jesus grapples with in this passage is a good representative of the kinds of questions that we still must struggle with.

So Peter takes this question home and apparently doesn’t need to bring it up with Jesus. It is Jesus who chooses to come at the question from the right angle: “What do you think, Simon?” he asks, “From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?”

And I find it interesting what Jesus does with that question. He takes a question about paying a tax that is essentially about obedience and compliance and turns out into what? For Jesus it becomes a question of authority. Who is in charge of this world? Who do they have power over and how do they exercise that power? Even more important, who owes them obedience in the form of tribute? And on the surface the answers to those questions might seem obvious. Obviously the Romans or the temple authorities in Jerusalem are in charge. They have the power and they are not afraid to use it to enforce their will.

But, on the lips of Jesus, Peter realizes, the answer to that question is not so obvious. Jesus is not the son of the authorities of this world. He has no power according to the ways of this world but he answers to an authority that is far beyond anything that this world has ever been able to claim. So what does he owe the authorities of this world? Nothing. And the message that lies behind all of this is a message for Peter and ultimately for all of us.

We serve Jesus. He is the one to whom we owe our primary allegiance. If Jesus doesn’t owe anything to Rome, neither do we. This is the primary learning for the Christian in the matter of being a citizen of a nation in this world: our first allegiance cannot be to the state; we have a higher authority.

But if Jesus just left it there, we would have a very big problem, wouldn’t we? There is a practical concern because we may live in a nation that we love and are proud of and if we all refused all obedience, that nation would not be all that it could be both for ourselves or for others.

So Jesus doesn’t leave the answer there. “Then the children are free,” he says confirming his point that we do not owe obedience but he continues: “However, so that we do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook.” Here too is a principle we can follow. We may not owe obedience, but we can give it freely and indeed we should whenever possible.

I believe that the story is saying that that those who are children of God and give their obedience and service freely within their country are able to offer more to their country than anyone else. I think, anyways, that that is what the rest of the story is about where Jesus instructs Peter to go and catch a fish saying that he will find enough money inside its stomach to pay the tax for both Peter and himself.

What is the point of this part of the story? Is it to highlight Jesus’ ability to perform miracles? Well, perhaps to a certain extent, that is the point, but there are certainly much better examples of Jesus’ wonderworking to be found in the gospels. To find a shiny coin or bauble inside a fish that you catch, as any experienced angler would know, is hardly impossible. Fish will occasionally swallow all kinds of things and there is a wealth of stories about fishers finding incredible things inside what they catch.

So it is certainly not impossible that Peter might find some coins in a fish – just wildly improbable that he should find just the right amount for the tax at just the right time. Jesus’ expectation that he will find it, therefore, is a part of an expectation that lies at the foundation of his life: that if he truly needs anything, his Father in heaven will provide it. Jesus just always expected God to provide what he needed. He sent his disciples out carrying nothing and taught them to expect that God would provide them with what they needed when they needed it and somehow God always did.

So this coin in the fish is really just a more extreme example of the principle that Jesus lived by all the time. But when we see it applied to this question of what we owe our country in the way of service, what it means is that we, as people of faith, actually have more that we can offer to our country than the population in general. We have deep wells of resources to draw on because we do not merely draw on our own strengths and abilities but on the limitless resources of God. So as people of faith, we simply bring more to the table and this is so that we may be a greater blessing to our nation.

Our Canadian national anthem, as you may know, was originally penned in French but, when it was first translated into English, there was a line that went, “True patriot love thou dost in us command.” That was deemed a little bit archaic and so it was soon changed to the more familiar, “True patriot love in all thy sons’ command.” Of course, the exclusively male language of that line has become awkward today for a number of reasons so there is talk (and even legislation) concerning changing it again and I realize that that has been somewhat controversial. I personally don’t have problem with the proposed change. I recognize that the language has changed and Canada has changed and there is nothing wrong, as far as I’m concerned, with acknowledging that in the words of the anthem.

What does give me some pause, however is the notion underlying the line: that true patriot love is something that can be commanded. Love isn’t commanded, is it? Love is only love when it is given freely and not out of a mere sense of obligation. I think many do approach the question of love for their country with a sense of obligation. But we can be different. We are children, by adoption, of our heavenly Father. We are free from the obligations that others answer to in this world, free to serve the one who reigns over it. But what that means is that we are also free to choose to offer our true patriot love as a gift which in my mind only makes it worth more.

#140CharacterSermon Story of Jesus, Peter & fish reminds us our 1st responsibility is to God but that need not clash with service to country

Sermon video:

Definitions

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, June 4th, 2017 in Minister

I have an undergraduate degree in Linguistics. You need to understand that about me right off the top.
It means that I have been taught to approach language in very particular ways: scientific and analytical ways.

But, having told you that about me, I'm going to confess something, I really don't get how people in the present discussion in the Presbyterian Church in Canada regarding LGBTQ issues get hung up over a definition.

For example, in a recent blog post, Roland De Vries wrote this:

The Life and Mission Agency of The Presbyterian Church in Canada is presenting the following recommendation to the General Assembly of the denomination in two weeks time.

That clergy in The Presbyterian Church in Canada be permitted for pastoral reasons to bless same sex marriages conducted by civil authorities.

... there are serious problems with this recommendation, and perhaps the most serious problem is that it is not the half-measure it purports to be. In fact, if this recommendation is passed, then the conversation about the redefinition of marriage within The Presbyterian Church in Canada will be over, because it will have happened.

Now, I do understand that the idea of blessing same sex marriages that have already been conducted by civil authorities for pastoral reasons is a big change. It is controversial and, while it would no doubt be warmly welcomed by some, there are others who would find that it goes too far, even if they would not personally be compelled to participate or bless themselves. I expect that there will be worthwhile debate about the proposed motion as there should be.

But why do people always bring up this issue of "changing the definition of marriage." It seems to come up all the time. De Vries is but one example of many who seem to have a fear of changing definitions. This is what I don't really understand as a linguist.

What is a definition:

Many people seem to see dictionaries as prescriptive documents. That is, the expect the book to prescribe all acceptable usage of a word. But this is not what a dictionary is designed to do.

Dictionaries are intentionally descriptive documents. They simply catalog all of the uses of a word and its meaning as found in literature and common usage. A dictionary definition makes no judgment on how a word should be used or what it should mean. It simply reports to us on how the word is actually used.

For example, Dictionary.com gives this as the definition of the word, literally:

in the literally or strict sense.

but it also adds this usage note:

Since the early 19th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning“actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise.The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing.

Because in real life and in literature people actually use the word "literally" to mean something that is essentially completely opposite from the original meaning of the word, the dictionary simply acknowledges that such a meaning is possible. It makes no judgment and on actual usage. That is exactly what a dictionary is supposed to do.

What is more, it is clear that the dictionary is quite correct in offering both meanings because English speakers who hear the phrase, "The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries," actually understand what it means. They might not like the usage and may studiously avoid using it themselves, but they still understand it because they are contemporary English speakers nad have heard that usage before.

What I am saying is that there is no authority that we can appeal to say what is a correct usage and meaning and what is incorrect other than what is commonly said, written and understood.You may write all the letters of complaint you like to the people who make the dictionary but they cannot change the entry for the word because as soon as they do so, their dictionary no longer reflects actual usage and becomes quite useless to anyone who uses it when they are trying to understand the phrase, "The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries,"

The definition of marriage

According to such these criteria, if we ask what the definition of marriage is, the answer is clear. Marriage has already been "redefined" for some time to include the possibility of same sex marriage. The mere fact that people understand what is meant when they hear the phrase "same sex marriage" means that they already understand the definition. The usage is also widely attested in literature and in law.

For that matter, you cannot say, "I don't agree with same sex marriage" or "I don't approve of same sex marriage," without accepting the basic definition. You may not like it, but you cannot speak of the phenomenon without relying on the fact that people will understand what you mean when you say it. That is why words have meaning in the first place.

So even if in the end the Presbyterian Church were to decide to completely ban any participation in the blessing of same sex marriages, it would have to accept the possible definition of marriage that is commonly used in our culture to do so. There are certainly theological issues at stake, but there are no semantic issues at stake (no questions of meaning).

Using the Bible as a dictionary

Of course, some might object and say that the Bible is, as far as they are concerned, a dictionary. What is more, they will claim that it is a prescriptive dictionary and that if the Bible doesn't define a word in a certain way then such a definition is not valid. But, of course, we do not use the Bible as a dictionary for any other words. And it certainly is not written as a dictionary anyways. It would, in fact, be a very foolish way to use a book so rich in wisdom and meaning as a mere rule book to define words anyways.

So I really don't get it. There may be issues to disagree over, sure, but the definition of a word that everyone can understand and use whether they like it or not, what is the point of that?

You might be a revisionist

Posted by Scott McAndless on Thursday, June 1st, 2017 in Minister

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada is coming up very soon. This year there will be some debates on the agenda, yet again, about the place of LGBTQ people in the church. So, of course, the discussion boards of the church had been pretty active lately with people posting and discussing these weighty matters. I hardly want to spend all my time attending to these discussions, but I can’t help tuning in from time to time.

Lately, as you may have noticed, people who are strongly opposed to making any changes in our policies at this time, had been taking to labeling those they disagree with as “revisionists.” I don’t want to presume that this is their intention, but I can’t help but notice it often comes across as a pejorative label. They seem to be thinking, every time that they say it, that they are the true believers and that those who disagree with them are merely revising a time honoured approach to the Bible and to truth.

The other day, I stumbled into one of these discussions and caught on something that someone wrote. “The Old Testament is very clear on the definition of marriage,” they said (or something to the effect, I don’t recall the exact words). I thought, yes, that is quite true, the Old Testament is pretty clear on the definition.

But it also made me wonder, how would the Bible define revisionist? For example:

1) If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,

you might be a revisionist!

This is one that most people would be aware of. Many Biblical heroes, including Abraham, Jacob and many kings had multiple wives. The Bible never expresses a problem with it.

2) If don't agree that a woman is a piece of property and she belongs to her husband,

you might be a revisionist!

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.(Exodus 20:17) This is the Bible's primary law regarding wanting (and taking) someone else's property. The wife is simply listed as another example of your neighbour's property.

3) If you believe that sex should be consensual between the two people involved,

you might be a revisionist.

“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbour's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) The issue in this law is consent. It might not seem to be at first glance because, in this case, a man and a woman could have freely chosen to have sex together. The reason why it is considered a capital crime is that the Bible did not consider that a woman had the right to consent to have sex. Only her father had the right of consent and if he had chosen that she should marry someone else, she did not have any choice in the matter.

4) If you believe that a woman shouldn't be forced to marry anyone (including someone who has raped her),

you might be a revisionist.

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

5) If you don't think that there is something inherently shameful about being a woman who engages in a sex act with a man (even if she is married to him),

you might be a revisionist.

"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:27) This one is not immediately obvious, but the key phrase is, "received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." This condemnation is based on an attitude towards sex that was taken for granted in the society of the Bible and which Paul repeats here uncritically. The idea is that there is someone inherently shameful about being on the receiving end of a sex act. It was all very well to be the sexual penetrator but to be penetrated in any way was to be degrated and was a punishment in and of itself. That is the assumption behind this verse. But think about what that statement implies about women who have sex with men!

Of course we're all revisionists, and thank God that we are! If we actually tried to apply biblical practices of marriage today, it would be horrible. The only question is the degree of revisionism that we each feel comfortable with.

Now, I am not really trying to make a big point here, other than a point about our language. I find the language that some people use in this debate a bit problematic. What does it mean to call someone else a revisionist if we are all revisionist to some degree or another? I don't necessarily have a better word for the position though.

Mission Awareness Sunday

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Thursday, May 25th, 2017 in News

There is so much that is very special going on at St. Andrew's Hespeler this Sunday. It is Mission Awareness Sunday and we will be deepening our understanding of how we are all involved in Christ's mission to the world.

Our very special guest speaker will be Gladys Abboud. For Gladys and her family, moving to Canada was bittersweet. Gladys is from Lebanon, and her husband is from Syria. Together, with their son, they moved to Canada 2015. Gladys’ home country of Lebanon has received about 2 million refugees from Syria and that has put a great strain on the country. Gladys and her husband decided to immigrate to Canada to get away from the conflict, to try and live in a peaceful place, she says. Gladys’ husband has a background in software, so they decided to move to Waterloo. Although refugees are moving to Canada in the hopes of finding safety, they are leaving a lot behind. Often they are leaving friends and family behind. The innocent people never leave their thoughts.
Glady's message will be entitled: "The Lord is my Shepherd."
There will be lots of really amazing music

The Youth Band will share "What a Beautiful Name" by Ben Fielding & Brooke Ligertwood
The Adult Choir will share "Rise Up, Rise Up" by Linnea Good
Joyful Sound! (the men's group) will be singing "Can He, Could He, Would He?" By John Chisum & Dwight Liles with some very special musical accompaniment!

After the service, we will enjoy a “potluck” style lunch together while we share information with everyone, about the trips and organizations some of our groups and individuals are involved in within our community and further.
Also, the Summer newsletter will be out. Grab one hot off the presses.

« Previous 1 … 182 183 184 185 186 … 249 Next »