Filming has begun!

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Monday, June 8th, 2015 in News

Came to work this morning to find that the exit to our parking lot was blocked by a police cruiser. Filming for the miniseries 11-22-63 has begun. Do you think we'll see any hollywood stars today?

Same Words, Opposite Application

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, June 7th, 2015 in Minister

In discussions around this General Assembly (not seeking to specifically reflect the private discussion in our table group, of course) I have notice something that is happening around these discussions connected to the place of LGBTQ persons within the church.

I am remarking that in a lot of our discussions we are saying the same things and yet meaning the opposite.

For example, in our discussions I hear people saying, "The most important thing is that we follow the Bible," and everyone absolutely agrees with that.

Some mean, that we must uncritically agree with the passages that condemn homosexual activity.

But others mean that we need to do what Jesus did and go out of our way to accept the outsider and give them a place within the church. They mean that the church is, as Paul taught, a place where all distinctions between people disappear.

In our discussions I hear people saying that we welcome all with the grace and acceptance of Christ but that the process of growing in grace in Christ there is an expectation that a disciple is transformed more into the image of Christ.

When some people say that, they seem to mean something like that when LGBTQ people come to the gospel they will necessarily stop living out their orientation in ways that these people object to.

When other people say that, they have in mind that the God's grace will bring about tranformation in us, often by means of our contact with LGBTQ people.

We all agree that sin must not be afraid of talking about sin and about the damage that it causes. Of course, some are thinking of the sexual sins they see LGBTQ people as committing. Others are thinking of what they see as the sinful hostility or rejection directed againsts some of God's children.

We agree that we must all seek for God's will, but each seems to be thinking that the other group are the ones who really need a new discovery of what God's will really is.

And I could go on.

I'm not sure what I should do with this. Should I rejoice that we all agree in what we say, or should I despair that we just seem to be speaking totally different languages?

A Wonderful Celebration!

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Sunday, June 7th, 2015 in News

Today, during worship, we celebrated St. Andrew's STARS with a modified version of the

4th Annual STARS Academy Awards!

We had 40 trophies and 6 special certificates - WOW.

More pictures will follow as the "paparazzi start filing their reports and photos".

A BIG thank you to all of our STARS and to their parents/grandparents and siblings who 'hang around after church' every other week through out the year so that we can record the episodes.

Spiritual but not Religious – My Reasons for Dissent

Posted by Scott McAndless on Saturday, June 6th, 2015 in Minister

Today at General Assembly, we opened up the terms of reference for the standing committee on Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations. In the midst of those discussions, the point was made that nowhere in the mandate of this committee were there any instructions regarding our relationship with the fastest growing belief group in Canadian society - those people who see themselves as "spiritual but not religious."

I strongly felt that we really could not say that we were engaging in interfaith dialogue if we completely ignored such a large and influential group in Canadian society - even if they are not organized as most religious groups are. (Indeed they fiercely resist any organisation, that's kind of the point.)

So I proposed an ammendment that would address that important lack.

Spoiler alert for those who are waiting to read it in the minutes, my motion was soundly defeated.

But I did dissent and asked for an opportunity to have my reasons recorded. I would like to share those reasons now.

My Dissent

I wish to record my dissent regarding the defeat of the amendment to the second recommendation of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee report.

In the debate over my amendment, there were certain points that were made that I feel must be answered.

It was said that our discussions with the group of people in Canadian society who see themselves as spiritual but not religious is a matter of evangelism and not interfaith dialogue.

I disagree. This is what was said not too long ago when it came to discussions with Muslims or Buddhists or other religious groups. We have since learned that this was a very flawed approach and that any dialogue must take place in an environment of respect, appreciation and understanding of the beliefs of the other. How can it be any different in our discussions with our "spiritual but not religious" neighbours?

It was said that this committee is only set up to dialogue with organized faith groups and so can do nothing about engaging such a disorganized and uncohesive group.

I would say that, if that is what stands in the way, then it is time to change our approach. Organized religion is quickly going the way of the dodo in Canadian society. If we do not learn how to engage with unorganized faith groups we will be totally cut out of a vital interfaith dialogue before we know it.

It was said that this kind of dialogue is best carried out by individual Christians in our congregations.

I agree. But if that dialogue is to take place with respect and understanding of the belief system of the people we are talking to, the people in our congregations will need much help and guidance. Who will give them that guidance if not Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations, then who?

That final question is not rhetorical. I am seeking some guidance.

Who Cares

Posted by Scott McAndless on Friday, June 5th, 2015 in Minister

Today, on Saturday, the General Assembly will enter into an open discussion regarding the multitude of overtures that it has received that touch on issues of human sexuality. In an effort to make sure that the space in which those discussions takes place is safe -- that is to say that everyone who participates will feel free to express their feelings without fear of judgement or repercussions -- the commissioners have been told that we must not text or tweet or blog about what happens in the hall.

I completely understand and respect those instructions. (Though I do think we could perhaps make a distinction between respecting private discussions around table groups and being able to report on what is done and said in open court.) I certainly want to do my part to make sure that everyone does feel safe to fully express themselves. I know how important that is to move forward.

So I am not going to blog about any of the discussions inside the meetings of the General Assembly. But I would like to talk about the discussion that I did have over supper on Friday night. I found myself eating with two old friends and colleages. I found the discussion quite uplifting. We all came from different backgrounds and different theological places on the spectrum. I would have placed both of my friends more on the conservative end of things than myself (not that that matters to me). And yet, we all found ourselves on the same wavelength as we discussed the so-called controversial overtures.

The wavelength was, essentially, "who cares."

Of course, as soon as we said it we felt that we had to be clear.

We do care and care deeply about LGBT youth, for example, who are bullied or mistreated or thrown out of their homes because of their actual or perceived orientation. We do care about kids who kill themselves because they have been taught that they are unacceptable.

What we don't really care about, honestly, is whether you are gay or lesbian or whatever. We just can't be bothered to get worked up over that given the other things that are so very important out there. We just would like to deal with this and move on to issues that really matter -- issues about poverty and income inequality and end of life and payday loans -- issues that would absolutely do some good in this world.

It was just so very refreshing and uplifting to find myself talking with friends and respected colleages who are in exactly in the same place as me. I went into supper feeling somewhat apprehensive about the conversations before us. I left with much hope.

Whether that hope stays with me through this day, we'll see, thought I am not entirely sure whether I can tweet that it will.

Bluebirds

Posted by Scott McAndless on Friday, June 5th, 2015 in Minister

"Ooh, that happy little bluebird has left a happy little do-do on your hand!"

-Broomhilde (Robin Hood, Men in Tights)

During the Friday morning siderent of the 141st General Assembly, I noticed that one brief presentation caught the imagination of more than a few commissioners.

Robert Geddes, convenor of the McLean Estate Committee and also an avid birder, drew a parallel between the population of bluebirds in Canada and population of Presbyterians in Canada. Both populations have been in serious decline in recent decades. But, Mr. Geddes added, there was some good news because populations of bluebirds have been recovering.

I think that people connected with that because it sounded a note of hope to some. If the bluebirds could recover, why couldn't we? Others, I am sure, saw it as a statement of pessimism - seeing the contrast between the bluebirds hopes and ours.

Now, I know that Mr. Geddes was not trying to make any sweeping statements about the future of the church - that he was just glad to find a way to include his passion for birds in his presentation about his passion for the work of Crieff Hills Community and it was well done.

But his image has fired my imagination over lunch and I'd just like to share. I wonder if we are like or unlike the bluebirds in what we are facing.

The causes of the decline of the bluebirds are probably plain enough. Chances are that the bluebirds declined for a few reasons: loss of habitat, toxins in the environment and, perhaps, climate change. All of these reasons for decline are pretty clearly the result of human choices or actions. Bluebirds and their choices had nothing to do with their decline. Nor could they do anything about their decline. Their only possible option for response, evolution, they simply could not pull off with enough speed to deal with the rapid change.

If there has been a recovery, it is because the cause of the problems (we humans) have at least started to mitigate some of the harmful causes of the decline. Only we could have done what was needed.

How does that compare with what we are dealing with?

There are parallels to our situation. If the Presbyterian Church has declined, some of the reasons might have to do with what you call loss of habitat. The communities from which the Presbyterians traditionally have drawn their membership have changed or disappeared. I can't necessarily identify any toxins that have affected us (maybe some others can) but if there is a parallel to climate change, I would have to point to the rather massive cultural change within Canadian society - a change that has left little place for what we would recognize as organized religion.

We are like that bluebirds, I would suggest, in that we really can do nothing about these causes of decline. As much as we would like to, we cannot change the culture back to what it was. Nor can we reestablish the habitat in which we once thrived. Does that mean that we, unlike the bluebirds are out of luck?

Well, I would suggest, we have an option that the bluebirds don't: evolution.

I would invite us to consider that evolution is a God-led process. It is, I believe, the mechanism that God primarily used in the creation of life. But it is a brutal process that includes species being placed into dire circumstances, extinctions and extreme competition. And yet I would still affirm that God is in it.

If our habitat and climate have changed, we need to ask if this is not the work of God? Instead of fighting against it, isn't it time for us to embrace it and decide that God has a plan in it. Isn't it time to get on with the difficult process of evolution.

Note that I'm not just talking about change. We've been talking about change for a long time and it has changed little. We have mostly just been fiddling with structure as a way to avoid dealing with the evolution that is before us. Evolution is about changing the things at our core - not our essential beliefs, we can't let go of those, but our culture which often goes to the core of our identity.

Our gardeners are at it again!

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 in News

Thank you to our gardeners. Our gardens are looking quite lovely.

Does anyone have pictures of their gardens that you would like to share?

Please send them to me, Joni [email protected]

How the LGBTQ conversation has changed. A subtle shift that actually means a lot.

Posted by Scott McAndless on Saturday, May 30th, 2015 in Minister

Several years ago, one of the young women in my congregation reached out to me via Facebook. She had participated in an event organized by the Gay-Straight Alliance at her high school as a way of supporting her gay and lesbian friends. She was upset and somewhat confused by the reaction of another friend, a Christian, who told her that, if she was a good Christian, she should not support such an event - that no Christian could because the Bible so clearly taught that LGBTQ people had to be rejected. She contacted me because she wanted to know if her friend was right and if I thought she was not a good Christian because of her support of the Gay-Straight Alliance.

I reassured her that, while there were many Christians who I thought and acted like her Christian friend did, it was definitely not the only faithful Christian way of looking at the issue. Her friend's interpretation of the Bible was not the only one that people who take the Bible seriously could come to.

I resisted telling her what she ought to think about the issue because I really didn't want to act like her friend, but I did try to steer her towards approaches that would help her work this out for herself in a way that remained faithful to the scripture.

Anyways, I tried to do my best to help her through what she was dealing with. I know that some might not I agree with my response and some might think that I didn't go fair enough, but I think it was the right response at the time.

But Now it is Happening differently

The reason why I bring up this past event today, though, is because I've noticed that it doesn't actually happen like that anymore - at least not for me. The young people connected to my congregation are still experiencing their own struggles as they work through LGBTQ issues and they are still looking to me for some help, but the issue isn't presenting itself in quite the same way now.

Most of the young people connected to the church that I know have already decided that their gay, lesbian or transgender friends are okay. There really isn't any debate or question about that and, if they think about it in relation to their faith, they would just think of it as the kind of attitude that Jesus would have.

But here has what has changed. The people who are challenging them over what some would see as the contradiction between their acceptance of LGBTQ people and their Christian faith are not their Christian friends. The people who are challenging them are their atheist, agnostic or generally anti-religious friends. They are the ones who are telling them that hatred of LGBTQ people necessarily goes with religious faith, that there it's no other way to look at it and that that is a major reason why religion must be rejected.

I'm sure that's not everyone's experience, of course, but I expect that it is definitely becoming much more common.

What does it mean?

I would suggest, first of all, that it means that the those who would take the view that Christianity demands the rejection of LGBTQ people have won the messaging battle. They have successfully convinced the vast majority of people that their approach is the only Christian approach. That makes it much harder, and yet so much more important to stake out a moderate place to stand.

The other thing this means to me is that the major cultural debate is over. Acceptance of LGBTQ people is here and it is here to stay. That doesn't mean that there won't continue to be problems and issues, but the direction is clear. What is in question is whether the Christian church will find a place in this new culture.

I am not writing this to say that we ought to take a specific course of action (though I certainly do not promise that I won't make suggestions in future posts), I just want us to recognize this important shift in our context.