A picture says it all:
Continue reading »
Presented in association with; New Hope Clothing, Cambridge Self-help Food Bank and the United Way of Cambridge & New Dumfries.
New Hope Clothing is a designated stop on the challenge! Teams, helpers and staff to facilitate the challenge are required. Contact either Karen or Joni via the Church Office.
*disclaimer
If you want too...goofy shorts can be worn. No discrimination here folks. Sorry, you do have to wear clothes though.
CAMBRIDGE
Saturday, October 01st, 2016
DID YOU KNOW:
This is a chance to connect with your teammates, other Race participants, local businesses and not-for-profits, and your community! It begins when individuals reach out to friends, family and co-workers to form a team of four.
Teams begin by competing to raise the most funds for their chosen cause. Prizes are handed out to the top fundraisers. Then on Race Day teams travel throughout their community, competing in a series of fun-filled challenges along the way. The team that finishes the combined challenges in the fastest time is crowned the Race to Erase winner. Note: this is not a running race! The challenges are a combination of savvy and smarts - no goofy shorts required.
This is an opportunity to support your community in a fun and meaningful way. The most immediate contribution comes from the fundraising taken on by each team - all of the money raised goes to local organizations. Volunteers create, organize and run the stops while local businesses and charities host them, benefiting from the exposure and awareness created.
revisited Homemade MEAT PIES
In all honesty, we need all the help we can get on this challenge. This is an open invitation to join the team.
“The Angels are in the details" according to Canon, Karen Kovacs”
This Session sanctioned Fund-Raiser has been implemented to reduce debts and make us self-sustainable. The merchandising starts October 23 and all orders must be received on or before November 13th. Pies will be released to customers on Saturday the 26'th., Sunday the 27 and Monday the 28th. In between then and now, the magic has to happen. All and any are welcome to join us for an hour or the full 3-4 days it takes. A detailed schedule for times will be delivered shortly including morning/evening and afternoon slots for your participation. The rest of the details will be revealed soon.
Rob H, COS
If you build it, they will come (or How does the church grow?)
Hespeler, 11 September, 2016 © Scott McAndless
Zechariah 6:9-15, Mark 13:1-8, Psalm 48
L |
isten, Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, we’ve got a problem and we need to talk about it. Our religion is in trouble. Yes, we have religious freedom and people are able to worship as they choose, but they just don’t seem to be choosing our religion anymore, at least not like they once did. Oh, there was a time when people would come together in places like this and lift up their voices in prayer and worship. It was the place to be and everyone felt like they were a part of something that mattered.
But then the world changed. Now, all of a sudden it seems that people have other places that they need to be. Their lives are in other places like Babylon and Persia and they don’t seem to need the old ways of their ancestors anymore.
But don’t you worry, Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, because we have a plan. We’re going to get a bunch of supplies together and raise some funds and we’re going to build us a temple. And it will be the biggest, best and most beautiful temple that you have ever seen. And then we’re going to set up the best of worship services, festivals and sacrifices in that holy space. You’ll see, when we do that, people will come from all over the place to see and to be part of it.
So, what do you say, Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, will you give us a donation of, say, 20,000 talents each so that we can build it? If you do, and if we build it, they will surely come.
That is essentially the pitch of the prophet Zechariah in our reading from the book that bears his name this morning. The issue he is dealing with is the same issue that we are dealing with in the church today: the general decline of traditional religious institutions.
Some people don’t see the decline, of course, because there are, always have been and always will be significant exceptions – specific churches and groups of churches that see dynamic growth. You can definitely find those churches in most cities and we ought to study them and learn from them.
They are not all, by the way, churches that have the same theology. Some of them are extremely conservative and some extremely liberal with all the shades in between. The defining characteristic of a growing church is no longer its theological bent, but there are certainly other factors that do matter.
This decline is made all the more dramatic because it is part of a generational shift. The incoming generation, often called the “millennials” and the generation that is coming up after them (that nobody has named yet) is the least engaged in religion ever.
I don’t tell you all of this because I think it is a reason to despair or give up on the church. I actually feel that, more than anything, these are hopeful signs and that God is using these sorts of cultural changes to renew his church so that it will be strong and ready to meet the challenges of the future. But, in order to find that strength, one thing is necessary. We need to respond to these challenges in the best ways possible.
What we read this morning from the Book of Zechariah is one possible response to a very similar situation. The prophet is concerned because of the decline of the traditional religion of the people of Israel. The reasons for this decline are different – have come mostly because of a major disruption of the entire society and culture by an enforced exile of the people to Babylon. But the challenge is very similar.
Zechariah’s response is to say, “We need to build something really impressive here.” He is trying to rally the people to build a temple. And he encourages them to do so by making a promise: “Those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the Lord; and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.”The promise is a promise from God through the prophet and the promise is, “If you build it, they will come.”
And that seems to be the solution that people most often go to. If the institution has fallen on hard times, people’s automatic response is to say, “Let’s build up the institution and make it beautiful and impressive and that is what will make everyone want to be part of it. And I will admit that there are times when that kind of approach is the one that works. It seems to have worked (at least to a certain degree) in Zechariah’s time. People did return and there was a renewal of the faith of Israel. I suspect that the terrible cultural loss that was the Babylonian exile left people hungry for the stability that a new temple institution promised.
Of course, there were complaints, there always are. “This new temple just isn’t like the old one.” People got nostalgic for the “good old days.” That is something that always seems to happen whenever you try that “if you build it” approach to institutional growth. Nothing ever seems to measure up to the “good old days.” That is definitely the kind of complaint that we hear all the time in the church to this very day. But, when the conditions are right, it certainly can be true that, if you build it, they will come.
I don’t believe that we are living in such a time, though. In our gospel reading this morning, we catch Jesus at a very interesting moment. Jesus, we are told in the first verse of the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, has just left the temple. This will be, by the way, the last time that he ever leaves the temple in this Gospel. He will never enter it again. And he clearly does not leave it on the best of terms. He has already effectively shut down the temple’s revenue stream by stopping the people who are buying and selling and changing money. And he only just finished expressing his disgust at the hypocrisy and the favouritism towards the rich that he sees in the place.
His leaving the temple institution at this moment is not just a matter of stage direction. It is an act that is full of meaning. In fact, his leaving the institution of the temple is analogous to the exit from the church of some people in our own day because they have become disillusioned with the institutional church due to the failings or hypocrisy that they have seen.
And the disciples see what Jesus is doing. Of course they do. And it is distressing to them that this man whom they love and respect should turn his back on the central institution of Jewish religion and culture. So what do they do? They try to give him a reason to stay around, just like we try to do when we see people drifting away from the church.
And what is the reason they offer? “Look, Teacher,” they say, “what large stones and what large buildings!” Take careful note of what they are doing here because it is the very same thing that we do all the time. They think that the way to get Jesus to stay within the institutions of the Jewish faith is by drawing his attention to what has been built and how impressive it is. They are saying, “They have built it, you should come.”
Obviously this approach doesn’t work with Jesus. In fact, it sets him off on a rant that will go on through the rest of the chapter – a rant in which he basically says, “Stones? Is that the best you can do? You think that stones will impress me? I’ll tell you something, in no time there won’t be one stone left on top of another in this place.” His message is that the “if you build it” approach may even lead to the fall of the institution and that even more than that will fall apart.
The passage in Zechariah does teach us that there are times when you can accomplish a lot with an “if you build it, they will come” approach. It is a necessary approach when you are living in times, like Zechariah was, when the basic cultural infrastructure of a society has been taken apart. But Jesus was not living in such a time. The issue in his day was that abuse and hypocrisy had called the institutions themselves into question. This was something that Jesus specialized in pointing out. In such times, people will not come just because you build it.
I believe that we are living in such times today. Certainly many people have the same reaction to institutions as Jesus did. When they begin to lose their relevance and luster, the impulse is to leave and to predict that the stones will not stand for long one on top of the other. One thing that that means for the church of the present and the near future is that we cannot count on people coming just because we build it, which is a problem for the church because that seems to be our biggest growth strategy.
Jesus didn’t grow the movement around him by building anything. Did you ever think about that? He built no buildings and didn’t even establish any sort of formalized structure. He didn’t even establish any rituals or worship liturgies apart from the two very simple sacraments (the Lord’s Supper and baptism) and one prayer. He established some leaders but no power structures. All of those trappings of institutionalism came later as the church struggled to create institutions out of what Jesus had begun.
But, while Jesus didn’t have any real “building project,” he still managed to get people excited about being part of what he was doing and involved in working towards changing the world. That is why I do not think that we ought to be worried about the future of the church. Yes, it is true that people will not come to the church these days just because we have built it, but that does not mean that they won’t come. We need to approach the invitation more like Jesus did.
We will look deeper into the approach that Jesus took next week, but the basic idea is pretty simple. Jesus could have waited for people to come to him, but he just didn’t. Do you remember the time when Jesus made a big splash in Capernaum. He healed a woman in the synagogue, cast out a few demons and by the end of the day people were lining up at the door of Simon Peter’s house where Jesus was staying to see him. He could have stayed there and waited for people from all over Galilee to come to him. Peter’s house could have become the church that he built. That was even what Peter was expecting him to do and when Jesus disappeared the next morning he hunted Jesus down and angrily demanded that he come back and stay.
But Jesus said no. Jesus said he had to go out to where the people were, he and all of his disciples. He had to take the kingdom of God to where they were and not wait for them to come to where he had built some institution of the kingdom of God. He had to invite them to come and see.
I know that the other approach sounds so much easier to us. If we could just build it – you know, maintain this beautiful building and our amazing programs and activities and people would just come. We wouldn’t have to engage them. We wouldn’t have to tell people where were were and what we did on Sunday mornings, those who were so inclined would just come on their own. But we are not living in a time when it works like that. We are living in an age when some churches grow but none of them grow just by virtue of being there. We are living in the age where it falls to all believers to let others know that they can come and see.
#140CharacterSermon “If you build it, they will come.” Not how church growth works in an age when people view institutions with suspicion.
Sermon Video:
At the Annual General Meeting in 2016, the congregation moved that "Session will research and implement programs that will eliminate the current debt as well as, create a sustainable long-term monetary strategy for St. Andrews." Session quickly implemented a Task Group to meet your expectations. This recovery operation has been brought to you by a group of dedicated individuals and I’d like to tell you who they are. Members of the Sustainability Task Team are; Ray Godin, Jane Neath, Scott McAndless, Ron Paddock, Vern Platt, Steve Marsh, Joni Smith, Donald Paddock and Patrice Wappler. Cooperating and assisting these members include the Stewardship Committee, the Operations Committee, and Session. In every sense this was a team dedicated and detail oriented, working to make St. Andrews ’ Hespeler vital and sustainable for another 160 years with Gods’ helping hand.
Below you will find the path forward to sustainability.
Background Issues:
- St. Andrew’s is carrying $24,225 plus in debt that has accumulated between 2013 and 2015. This amount does not include additional debt that may be created in 2016.
- While substantial efforts were made to reduce expenses for the 2016 budget year, the initiatives envisioned as revenue generators in 2016 are unsustainable in the long term. Those initiatives include at least 4 events/fundraising initiatives to be scheduled throughout 2016 with a target of raising $20,000 in revenue.
- Capital expenditures and maintenance costs need to be compiled and prioritized to mitigate surprises and emergency repairs also.
- The church has become involved in a valuable outreach program that includes Hope Clothing, a site for a Food Bank depot, Thursday Night Supper and Social, Alcoholics Anonymous support groups and counseling services provided by a community organization. The church needs to determine whether it wishes to provide funding to sustain these outreach programs from its own resources in 2016 and beyond.
Projects/Liabilities Needing Consideration:
- Estimates show that budgeted costs will be $10,000 less than anticipated and plate offerings will be 10% less than anticipated. This means $26,000 in Special Event Sponsorship of bulletins (details are not fully developed). [Recommendation #6d ]
- Please Note: Session will charter a task team in September to focus on systematic, growth/outreach to the community. Also formally reaching out to those who we do not see at church. [Recommendation #7]
- fundraising would be needed to break-even on the 2016 budget. This excludes the cumulative year deficit of approximately $24,225.
- Due to changes in office staffing, there will be anticipated savings of $6,000 in 2016.
Share the Warmth has $14,252 remaining in unspent funds. These funds were donated
to St. Andrew’s for the purpose of funding the heating project at St. Andrew’s in 2014.
· Various non-endowment funds have positive balances that could be used to alleviate the overall indebtedness. Funds available for capital projects (as of March 31, 2016):
· Capital Purchase Fund - $10,449
· Share the Warmth Fund - $14,252 (funds remaining from 2013/2014)
· Video Project Fund - $1,615
· Capital Endowment Fund - $3,476 in earned income available
· The 0% interest loan/grant from Presbytery of Waterloo repayable at 10% of $25,000 principal yearly (we have an 8-year repayment schedule left) needs to be managed in the most advantageous way possible.
· The roof over the church extension, that house: the offices, gym and Sunday school level needs replacing at a quoted cost of $19,500. Shingles are starting to curl so we recommend that we do it this year before leaks appear.
· The Audio/Video equipment project with an estimated cost of $30,000 - $33,000 has been approved by the congregation “when the funds are available.” $1,615 has been donated to this project as of March 31, 2016.
· Hope Clothing has received gifts and grants that will sustain the organization until mid-July 2016. The current contract of the coordinator has been extended to June 30, 2016 at $590 per month. Sustainable funding needs to be realized.
· Recurring scheduled maintenance of the Organ needs to be started before damages accumulate. The est. cost of cleaning/adjustment of the organ is $9,750.
The plan to recovery:
- That remaining funds from Share the Warmth, the Capital Endowment Fund and any giving doors opened in response to the need to re-roof be used to replace the “new” addition roof in 2016 [Recommendation #1 ]
- We fundraise specifically for the Organ repair (“Buy a key” campaign) [Recommendation #2 ]
- We keep the Video projection system on a “warm pause”. [Recommendation #3 ]
- We fund any shortfall in our commitment to Hope Clothing not raised by donations as follows (70% from the Mission fund and 30% from the Memorial Fund). [Recommendation #4 ]
- With respect to the loan from Presbytery, we recommend repaying it over the remaining term ($2,500 per year over next 8 years). No use of the balance is currently scheduled. If you will it is a savings account or emergency fund held in reserve. [Recommendation #5 ]
Session endorses the following fundraisers between now and the end of the year:
- A late September Meat Pie sale (estimate of $4,000 in proceeds). [Recommendation #6a ]
- A late November Christmas Dream/Wish Auction (estimate of $7,000 in proceeds). [Recommendation #6b ]
- A fun and visible initiative to collect loose change (estimate of $3,000 in proceeds). [Recommendation #6c]
- Sponsorship of bulletins (details are not fully developed). [Recommendation #6d ]
- Please Note: Session will charter a task team in September to focus on systematic, growth/outreach to the community. Also formally reaching out to those who we do not see at church. [Recommendation #7]
Your comments and suggestion are appreciated and needed. All submissions will be held in confidence if sent to Clerk of Session. Rob H.
Regular Communion October 2, 2016
You can double click on the image to enlarge
September 13, 2016 - note: Bill Pettit will replace Carlton Gyles for this communion
August 3, 2016
To: Rev Scott McAndless and the Session of St. Andrews Hespeler
Effective December 31, 2016, I am resigning as Clerk of Session. Jeff Veenstra asked me to dedicate five years to the position on the retirement of Charley Klaeger. Much longer than 5 years has passed and in that stretch, we have accomplished: many excellent strategies, grown in spirit and shared more than a laugh or two. The time with you has been interesting and every meeting led me to thoughts I had never considered. Truly, this group, in all its iterations has care in their hearts. You are the vanguard of church in the truest sense; feeling deeply, loving long and true servants of faith.
I have reached a point in my life where my need to sustain all the requests for my time has changed. At this time, I need to concentrate on fewer demands and family comes first.
I wish you well in your mission and will make every effort to help wherever I can. Good luck and God bless you all.
I thank each of you for this time well spent.
Clerk of Session
Ancient Commandments; Modern Applications: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Hespeler, 4 September, 2016 © Scott McAndless
Exodus 20:1-6, Psalm 97, Romans 1:18-25
I |
have spent some time over these summer months looking at some of the key commandments of the Old Testament and asking how, if at all, they apply to the lives that we live today in a very different world from the one that first received the commandments.
I have saved what I think is the most essential commandment – the one that might just lie at the heart of all of the rest – until the end. The commandment that prohibits the worship of idols is actually quite simple and straightforward, but its very simplicity is what has made it hard for people to follow it. The command says simply this in the best known King James Version: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
It is specifically a prohibition against making representative art by carving something out of metal, wood or stone. If you wanted to be very literal minded, you could argue that making images by melting and molding or by drawing on pieces of paper or other media are okay and that the commandment only prohibits engraved images. But that doesn’t seem to be the spirit of the commandment. The idea seems to be that any sort of representational art is simply not acceptable.
All of those people who have taken this commandment as part of their heritage – that includes Jews, Muslims and Christians – have had their own ideas about how to observe this commandment. Conservative Jews have tended to look with suspicion on any sort of artwork that represents something that you could recognize. Muslims have even more strongly rejected such art, to such a degree that the only acceptable art in strict Islamic culture is calligraphy – that is, beautifully written texts, ideally of the Koran.
Christians, as in many things, have taken their own approach. They have often ended up arguing and disagreeing over this commandment and what it allows more than any other group. Some of the earliest Christian traditions that fed into what we call today the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches strongly embraced the use of art work as a way of promoting their faith and as a teaching tool for the faithful. That is why the churches of those traditions are often full of beautiful works of art that depict various heroes of the faith and stories from the Bible and from Christian history.
When the Protestant Church came along, there was initially a big reaction against the use of art in churches. Some early Protestants banished all artwork from their churches. The Presbyterians were absolutely one such denomination and the earliest Presbyterian Churches were emptied of all sculptures and the walls were whitewashed. The windows might have colourful stained glass but did not represent anything.
And, as you can imagine, Presbyterians thought they were so much better than everyone else because they didn’t have any artwork while other groups, like the Roman Catholics, tended to see things the other way around and thought they were so much better because they used art work in good ways. That is what we often do with commandments, of course, use them as reasons to put other people down and lift ourselves up. And, honestly, if that’s all we get out of a commandment like this one, I am quite sure that we’ve missed the point.
Is this commandment really about banning artwork? Or is artwork just the surface of a deeper problem that it is trying to get us to deal with?
I have a hard time believing that art itself is the problem. When I think of all of the good that has come out of the ability of very talented human beings to beautifully render the world that they experience, I know that art is a blessing – a divine blessing given by God. This is true of both sacred and secular art.
I know that I would not have the same appreciation of God my creator if I had not spent time contemplating some of my favourite paintings by Monet, Van Gough and Da Vinci. I remember an afternoon spent in a university library in New Jersey where I contemplated a painting of a very angry Jesus that probably taught me more about my saviour than all the studies I have ever read of the Gospels. Art is able to speak to us about earthly things and divine things in ways that words cannot approach. The problem, I am certain, is not art itself. The problem has to do with what we do with the things that we create with our artistry.
Of course, when this commandment was first spoken, it was spoken to people living in a different world. It was a world where it was common to believe, not in one universal God, but in a great variety of gods. Even more important, people believed that, when they made statues and carvings and representations of these gods, it gave them a certain amount of power and influence over them. These idols could be easily manipulated by sacrifices, magic words or rituals with the statues.
The target of this commandment was not the statues and artistic representations themselves but the attitude that generally went with them. What God is saying with this commandment is that he is not a god like these other gods that the people have been used to. He will not be captured within a statue or carving. God will not be manipulated or forced to behave in ways that people may want.
So actually, if all you do with this commandment is read it literally and don’t allow people to make statues, carvings or other works of representational art, you have actually missed the point of it because it is quite possible to ban all of those things and yet still hold onto the attitude that you can use earthly things to try to manipulate God. Idols in the ancient world may have been exclusively made out of statues and carvings but human beings have been infinitely creative when it comes to creating idols.
So let us consider some of the idols that people do use today. What are those things that are made by human hands or minds, that may be good or beautiful in themselves but that people then take and think that they give them the power to say what God will do?
We are in this world surrounded by things and events that just happen and that have no apparant meaning in themselves. But we, as human beings have the ability to look at these seeming random events and find patterns and meaning in them. To take one simple example from recent newspaper headlines, let’s say that somebody invents a brand new item of swimwear for women – a suit that covers the entire body except for the face, feet and hands – and calls it a Burkini. This is, on one level, just a fairly random event. Someone creates a new product and starts selling it – something that happens every single day.
But people don’t just see it as a random event, do they? They see all kinds of meaning in it whether that meaning was intended or not. Some see it as a new symbol of freedom for women because it allows women who come from a culture of extreme modesty the freedom to go to the beach that they didn’t have before. Others, of course, see a symbol of the repression of women and the opposite of freedom. And, of course, there are certainly those who see the burkini as a symbol of much darker things such as terrorism. And so very quickly the idea of the burkini has become much bigger and more laden with meaning than the thing itself. This is something that we human beings do very well. And sometimes the idea of a thing becomes so large that the idea begins to define the thing. That is when we are in the territory of idolatry.
Take the idea of doctrine for example. Doctrine is just a fancy word that means a list of things that people of faith believe. It is, for example, a doctrine of our church that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Another doctrine: we believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not by our works. And doctrines are very good and beautiful. Good doctrine is also true.
But doctrine, no matter how good or true it is, can also become an idol. When you use it, for example, to feel superior to others who might believe differently from you, it becomes a graven image that serves your own desires rather than driving you to become a better person. And when your understanding of your doctrine begins to define God for you in a way that prevents God from acting outside of the box that you have made for him so that God can no longer surprise you or challange your view of the world, you have created an image of your God that is no less immovable than any ancient statue of stone or wood.
Here is another thought: if doctrine can become an idol, so can Scripture. Here, once again, the Bible is a good thing. It is a gift from God to us, given for our benefit and blessing. The Bible is both true and beautiful. And if you are using the Scriptures to teach and challenge yourself to go deeper into your knowledge of God and of yourself, you are using it well. But not everyone uses the Scriptures in that way.
As Christians, we believe that the Bible is authoritative and that it is inspired by God. But we often forget the connection between those two things. The Bible is authoritative because it is inspired by God. In other words, the Bible is not authoritative in itself but it derives that authority from God. God is the ultimate authority and the Scriptures only have authority because they point to that ulimate. The problem comes because the Bible is a defined, earthly thing that people can own and know and master. It is possible for a human being to memorize the whole of the Bible – to know every word of it because it is an earthly object. Not many people know it that well, of course. Few know it as well as they think they do, but it is at least theoretically possible to gain a mastery over this book.
The problem comes when people take their knowledge of this book (whether it is complete or not) and begin to act as if they know the Truth (with a capital T) because they know this book.
I remember when I was much younger thinking in exactly this way – thinking that it was possible for me to always be right. I thought it was simple. All I needed to do was to know what the Bible said about every subject that mattered. If I could quote the Bible, I would always be in the right. It was a very childish and naive worldview of course. The truth can never be reduced down to a single quote and the Bible doesn’t always speak with one voice on all matters anyways, but that was how I thought it worked and many people still think that way today.
When we do that, when we take our mastery of this book and turn it into the mastery of the truth and of the God that it points to, we turn this good thing that is the Bible into a dangerous idol. Yes God inspired the Bible, but whatever that means (and the question of what inspiration is and how it works is a huge question) if God were ever to allow the Bible to define and limit God, at that moment, God would cease to be God. Anytime we take the Bible and think that it defines God and especially when we use our understanding of the Bible to exalt ourselves over others, we are making unto ourselves a graven image.
There is a reason for this commandment. It was given to a people who had a very simple and graphic idea what an idol was. We are not particularly tempted to make idols like they would have thought of them. But that does not mean that we don’t have ways of taking our creations – especially our ideas – and turning them into very powerful idols in their own way.
#140CharacterSermon We have this way of turning our ideas into idols that seek to confine and limit God. This is foolish and dangerous..
Sermon Video:
September Series: If you build it…
Here is an introduction to our September series of sermons talking about important questions concerning church growth:
Why not invite other people but following this link. Then click "share"
Continue reading »
Why not invite other people but following this link. Then click "share"
IV Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn
Hespeler, 28 August, 2016 © Scott McAndless
1 Corinthians 9:1-14, Deuteronomy 25:4, Psalm 8
| T |
he Bible, especially the Old Testament, is just chock full of rules, laws and commandments. They speak to every sort of situation and moral decision but, I’ve got to admit, I have always had a soft spot for those particular commandments that get very specific about the situation. The commandment that we read this morning about not muzzling your ox is a great example, but there is an even better one a few verses after that one.
The commandment goes like this: “If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his...” Okay, I just remembered why we don’t usually talk about this commandment. Let’s just say that she grabs him in a very specific place and leave it at that. But my point isn’t about where she grabs him. It is about how very specific the law is. It is so specific, in fact, that it seems extremely likely that this law was actually written in response to an actual incident. I mean, at some point there were two actual men fighting and the wife of one of them did some specific grabbing and someone was trying to figure out what the specific and reasonable punishment for that action was.
This particular commandment probably represents an actual judgement that was made in a particular case and it got recorded in the scriptures. (And, just for the record, I don’t find the judgement that is made to be particularly reasonable, as the woman ends up losing her hand, but that, also, is a whole other discussion.)
My question is this: what is the application of a very specific commandment like this? I mean, you are fine if the exact same situation arises in exactly the same way again; then you know what to do. But what if the circumstances aren’t exactly the same. What if three men are fighting instead of two? Do we need a whole different commandment to deal with that situation? And what if the woman doesn’t intentionally grab? What if she just brushes something accidentally? Is that a different case entirely? These are the sort of questions that you are often left with when you write you commandments that apply too specifically to certain situations.
And I think that these sorts of questions become more important when we turn from fighting men to the commandment that comes a few verses before it that we read this morning: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” This is a very specific commandment, but the situation that it speaks to was one that the people who first heard this commandment ran into a lot. You see, most of them were farmers and most of them grew grains like wheat or barley. And when you harvest grain, there are three key steps. You first cut the grain. Then you thresh it by beating the grain with something hard to loosen the chaff that covers the kernel. Then you winnow it or separate the kernels from the chaff, often by throwing it all into the air so that the wind can blow the chaff away while the kernels fall back to the ground.
But sometimes, with certain grains, it could take an awful lot of force to break the chaff away and so one of the best ways to accomplish that was by getting a big, heavy animal with hard hooves (like an ox) to step on it. This was called treading out the grain and it was a very common way to thresh your grain at harvest time.
So what we have in this commandment is a very specific regulation regarding how you ought to treat your ox while it was treading out your grain because, of course, there was an immediate problem whenever you did that. Oxen eat grain. They love it. So it is only natural for your ox to start snacking away at your crop while you are making it tread out your grain. You can see why you might want to prevent that by muzzling your ox while it is treading but this commandment says no, you cannot do that.
And I have absolutely no problem with this commandment. It seems all very reasonable to me that, if you are making your ox work that hard to harvest your crop, why not let him steal a few bites of good food along the way? My only problem is that it is so very specific. What happens, for example, if you don’t have an ox and use another animal to tread your grain: a horse, a cow or a bull? The command only says ox, so can you muzzle those other animals?
And, of course, since modern farmers don’t use animals to tread their grain at all but instead use a machine called a combine, that does all the cutting, threshing and winnowing at once, you could certainly argue that there is no modern application of the commandment. This commandment would therefore have no meaning or application for us today at all.
So is that correct? If we no longer do the specific thing that the commandment is talking about, we can just forget it? Does it simply not apply anymore? We’ll I don’t believe so. Yes, the world has changed and changed a great deal since the Bible was first written, and, while we may no longer live in the same way that the people in the Bible did, I will always believe that there are principles in these very specific commandments that still apply today.
On a very simple level, I am sure we would all agree that there is a principle at stake in this commandment concerning muzzling oxen that we can take and apply today. To not muzzle an ox while it is treading is to think about the needs of that ox. It is a way of being kind and not being cruel. So I don’t think that it would be an unreasonable application of this command to say that it teaches us that animal cruelty is wrong and that we should treat all animals who do anything for us with whatever kindness we can.
The Apostle Paul, was not a farmer who used oxen to tread his grain, but he read this commandment some fifteen hundred years after the time of Moses and clearly saw that it still had applications to his life. In fact, Paul read it and asked the question, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned?”
He was asking a rhetorical question. He was assuming that his readers would respond by saying, “No, Paul, of course God doesn’t really care about oxen.”
I am not so sure about that. I happen to believe that God’s compassion is not limited by anything and that God is just as capable of being concerned for oxen as God is for human beings. But Paul’s rhetorical question isn’t really about the welfare of oxen, it is a way of opening up the application of the commandment beyond oxen.
Paul suggests that the commandment applies to a situation he has been struggling with. He says that it applies to how sometimes people in his position, people who are preaching the gospel and offering leadership in the church, need support from the church to be able to continue to do what they do. Here they are, working hard, treading out the grain as it were, and are you going to deny them the opportunity to benefit from that work by eating some of the grain that they are threshing? Of course not.
And, of course, Paul’s application of this commandment is legitimate. It is okay to make the connection that, since God seems to care about oxen getting some benefit from their labour, God must also care about people who are working for the sake of the kingdom of God getting some benefit from their labour.
But you need to realize that Paul’s application of this commandment to the situation of people who work for the church also opens a can of worms. Do you realize that we are living today in a world where the very notion that people ought to be able to benefit from the fruit of their labour has become something of a controversial idea? Now, it shouldn’t be. It should be obvious that, when people work hard for anything worthwhile, they ought to be the first ones who get the benefit. But the world doesn’t always seem to work that way.
In fact, increasingly our world is set up according to a system where we are very careful to make sure that certain people get the benefit of the labour that is done, but those people are not necessarily the people who do the labouring. We have actually entered a time where we give priority, not to labour, but to investment. Much of the business and political world is oriented towards making sure of one thing above all: that those who invest money in various enterprises are the first to be able to profit from it.
It is actually amazing to think that we are living in an age when it is possible for someone to work at a full time job (or several part-time jobs) and be working 30, 40, 50 hours a week and not be earning enough to pay their rent and cover their expenses. Meanwhile, it is taken as a given that people who invest lots of money in things can get very rich without doing any labour at all – profiting, over all, from the labour of other people who may very well be underpaid.
And I realize, of course, that economic matters can be very complicated and if investors didn’t get good returns on their investments, they wouldn’t put money into them in the first place and then there wouldn’t even be jobs for people to work at and be underpaid. We do need people who are willing to invest in new enterprises and these investments do create a lot of good.
But I do think that we have a problem when you create situations where people are working hard and are still not getting enough benefit from their labours to make ends meet. I think that some of the balance between the needs of the labourers and the needs of the investors is off in our world today and that it may be time reset that balance.
Who are the oxen in our world today who are being muzzled, who are not receiving the benefit from their own labour that they deserve. In some cases, it may be the women who do the same job as men and who work just as hard at it (or maybe harder) and, according to statistics in Ontario are paid 31.5% less than their male counterparts.
In some cases the muzzled oxen may be the temporary foreign workers – agricultural workers for example – who everyone agrees work harder than Canadians usually doing jobs that Canadians won’t do. They are paid, of course, and usually better paid than they would be in their country of origin, but there are often other issues we shouldn’t ignore, especially when they do not enjoy the protections and security that they need.
Undoubtedly, the muzzled oxen in our world today may include the people in developing countries who make our clothing and shoes and assemble our electronics in conditions that are not safe for wages that keep them virtual indentured servants. Somebody is profiting from their labour, profiting very handsomely, but it is not the people who are doing the hard work.
These are but a few examples but I think they are important ones and they are a reminder to us that this ancient law constructed for a situation that simply does not arise in modern life still may have important things to say to us today.
#140CharacterSermon Don't muzzle your ox while it's treading grain! Specific commands like that may still say important things to say to us