This week's Lenten Activity is meant to prepare us for Holy Week. You will start with Station 1 on Sunday, April 10 and continue to Holy Saturday.
You can view or download these 2 resources to help you with this project. The Holy Week Stations will help you build your own Stations of the Cross centre and the Story verses file will give you bible readings and reflection questions for each of the 7 days.
If possible, please take a photo of your centre and send to Joni ([email protected])
Hespeler, April 3, 2022 © Scott McAndless – Lent 5
Isaiah 43:16-21, Psalm 126, Philippians 3:4b-14, John 12:1-8
How many people are there whose first reaction to our reading this morning from the Gospel of John is to say, “Ah hah, I knew it”?
The story is about, or at least it appears to be about, the whole question of whether or not we ought to give money and resources to the poor. And I suspect that there are a lot of people out there – and I’m not necessarily talking about people out there in the sanctuary this morning or people watching on zoom, I’m talking about people out there in the world at large – who do not want to see their hard-earned money going to support the poor. They don’t want to see it taken in their taxes and spent on things like welfare. They don’t want to give their money to feed or clothe or otherwise help the poor either. It’s their money; they want to keep it.
It is not an unusual sentiment, I suspect, but it’s also not really one that very many people want to own. Nobody wants to seem unkind or cheap or cruel towards the poor. And so, they’ve got to find a reason not to give to the poor. They need a rationalization. And our reading this morning from the Gospel of John seems to offer two really extraordinary rationalizations. In fact, I think they are the main ones that people offer. One comes to us from Judas Iscariot. The other one comes from Jesus.
So, let’s take a look at these two very biblical reasons not to give to support the poor. When Mary comes in and begins to lavish this really expensive perfume on Jesus, pouring it out so wantonly that the scent of it fills the entire room, it is Judas it brings up the topic of giving to the poor. “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” he cries out to Mary.
And the first problem with that is obviously the spokesperson. I mean, it doesn’t seem like a very good endorsement to put the suggestion of giving to the poor on the lips of the most vile, hateful and despicable character in the entire book. If Voldemort made the suggestion that everyone should go down to the beach in a Harry Potter book, it wouldn’t make that seem like a very good idea, would it? And if Pennywise the Clown suggested that we all go down and play in the sewers, I don’t think that would be a big endorsement. So, when we hear Judas making this suggestion, it certainly doesn’t make it seem as if giving to the poor is a good thing to do.
But, of course, it is actually even worse than that because we are also told exactly what Judas’ motivations were. “He said this not because he cared about the poor,” the gospel writer tells us, “but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.” And that has got to be the number one excuse that people offer for why they don’t want to give anything to the poor. They are pretty convinced that there must be some sort of theft involved. And this is where I see such people looking at this passage from the Gospel of John and saying, “Ah hah!”
This is, of course, an assumption that you run into all the time when you are involved in helping those living on the margins of society. There are always stories or suspicions about people stealing – which is to say about people getting benefits that they are not entitled to or that they don’t use in the ways that we want them to. We run into this sometimes here at St Andrew’s. There have been accusations, from time to time, of people taking more clothes than they can use and then selling them on Kijiji.
Often people make observations concerning the lifestyle of people who come. Maybe they observe that they are driving a car that seems like it’s in good shape or that would have cost too much. They also make comments when people have expensive habits like smoking. So, the argument seems to go, if there are some people who don’t look or act poor enough or they use the resources in ways we don’t like, that is stealing and it invalidates the entire exercise, even if only a small percentage of the people are doing it.
We also see the same argument being employed on larger scale efforts to alleviate poverty. Welfare programs have often been cut back based on accusations of people using drugs or not wanting to work. In a number of jurisdictions, things like drug testing and rigorous requirements that people be searching for work have been put into place.
Now I am not saying that there should be no restrictions or regulations surrounding people accessing programs. And obviously it is not sufficient simply to provide the monetary support without giving people the tools and assistance they need to move towards supporting themselves. But the fact of the matter is that, when punitive measures have been put into place because of the perception that generosity leads to theft, they have generally failed. Programs, for example, that have required drug testing for people to receive welfare have been an enormous failure. The numbers of positive tests were ridiculously low, and the programs did not save any money, they made the whole program cost a lot more. All of that makes me feel as if this tendency to suggest that programs to help the poor are ridden with theft is not really about a concern for any theft itself, but rather a way of justifying not doing anything.
So, that is one rationalization, the accusation of theft, that we should be wary of. The second rationalization is also found in this gospel passage. What’s more, it is actually Jesus who says it this time. “Leave her alone,” Jesus says. “She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” And I know exactly how a lot of people will interpret that saying of Jesus. They will understand Jesus to be saying that it is okay that the money was not given to the poor because the problem of poverty is not going to go away. They would take him to mean that we shouldn’t give money to help the poor because the problem of poverty is intractable. So, this quickly becomes another excuse not to do anything for poor people and it even seems to have Jesus’ endorsement on not doing anything.
But is that really what Jesus is saying? No, he is not. One of the main reasons why we can know that for sure is because this saying does not have its origins with Jesus. What Jesus is doing here is quoting from an Old Testament passage. The passage is found in the Book of Deuteronomy 15:11 where Moses says, “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land.’”
When Jews did that kind of thing, when they quoted one line from their scriptures, they did it with the expectation that their fellow Jewish listeners or readers would recognize the quote and go back and read it within its larger context. So, when he quotes this passage, Jesus does not expect the disciples to take that quote alone but rather to go back and see what it was that Moses was talking about around that.
That passage in the Book of Deuteronomy is a description of a specific law in Ancient Israel known as the Sabbath Year law. It describes a series of measures that were to be taken every seven years. These measures included things like canceling debts and giving freedom to those who had been sold into slavery because of their debts. The Sabbath Year law was a series of measures, in other words, that were intended to address the systemic problems in society and in the economy that tended to push people into a state of permanent poverty that they could not find their way out of.
There is evidence to indicate that this law and others measures like it were very active in the popular imagination in Jesus’ time. They were popular because the people in general were very aware of the kind of systemic issues in society, things like inflation, income inequality and the structure of taxation that had made it quite impossible for large portions of the population to escape from endless cycles of poverty. So, essentially what Jesus was doing by directing his disciples’ attention towards this law was saying something very important about how we ought to address the problem of poverty.
Jesus was pointing out that there is a problem with focusing only on giving money or doing things like running food banks and giving away clothing. That kind of charity is obviously essential when people can’t feed or clothe their children, but it doesn’t actually solve the problem behind poverty because most of that problem comes down to the system, the way that society is set up and the economic and political policies that are in place. The ancient law of the Sabbath Year was an effort to address some of those larger systemic issues.
That is not to say that such a law is a perfect tool to address those issues or that the ancient law would actually work in our modern society and economy. I am pretty sure that it wouldn’t work and would probably make things much worse. But the principal is an important one. It is not enough to just give to the poor without addressing those larger systemic issues.
I believe that we are truly blessed in this congregation and in the church in general when we are able to reach out in compassion and support people who are really struggling to get by. It is actually a privilege to be able to have that kind of ministry. But there is a danger that comes with such a ministry; we may fail to look at the bigger picture. If we really cared about the poor, we should be advocating for policies that address the systemic issues in our society. We should be involved in pressing for changes in how people are compensated and respected in their work. We should be involved in addressing income inequality.
And I do realize that some of that is a bit problematic for a church that does not want to become directly involved in partisan politics. We are not in a position where we can endorse a certain party’s policies about these things. But none of that should get in the way of us speaking out and informing ourselves as citizens because these really are systemic issues that affect the whole of society. I think it is important for us to understand that Jesus was saying that, as good as giving to the poor is, it is not the whole response that we need to be making.
Perhaps a good image for what we need to be doing about poverty would be that woman, Mary, and her jar of expensive perfume. Yes, that perfume was costly, and the money could have been used to support many struggling families. But what did she do with it? I think it’s significant that the gospel writer points out something that she did accomplish with that perfume. He tells us that, “The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.” He notes that she literally changed the atmosphere in that entire house. And I think that that is what we need to aspire to as we address the problem of poverty in our society. There is a need to change the atmosphere.
People will always find excuses and justification for not giving to those who are in need. The accusation of theft is often a handy excuse, but when you look at it closely you recognize that it is mostly based on misrepresentation. The excuse that poverty is an intractable problem and that meeting the needs of one poor person will not fix the systemic issues is definitely one that requires more thought on our part. If we really want to pay attention to what Jesus is saying in this passage, I believe that we need to find ways to balance the need to respond to immediate problems with the imperative of addressing the larger issues in our society and the way it is structured by actually changing the atmosphere and the way that we and others think about how the system needs to work.
Hespeler, 27 March 2022 © Scott McAndless – Lent 4
Joshua 5:9-12, Psalm 32, 2 Corinthians 5:16-21, Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32
For two long years he had nursed his grudge. He had done so, he felt, for very good reason. He had always known that his little brother was a bit of an idiot. And I know, I know, almost all big brothers believe that, but he knew it was especially true in this case. Even as an infant, the boy had been wasteful about everything. When big brother was called upon to help out and feed his little brother his lunch, the food – cheerios, dunkaroos, brussels sprouts – would always end up strewn all over the floor and yet the boy would still be asking for more.
When he was about eleven years old, big brother found a dictionary. He looked up a word that would perfectly describe his brother. That was when he stumbled on the word prodigal: a person who spends resources in a recklessly extravagant way. It seemed perfect, and so from that day forward he resolved that that was what he would call his brother. Soon the nickname caught on with the entire family – Prodigal; they started calling him Proddy for short.
The next day, the younger brother sought some revenge on his elder and tried to come up with a nickname for him. He took the dictionary and looked up a word for someone who was stingy and unwilling to give anything. He found the word parsimonious and gave that to his brother. That one stuck too: Parsi for short.
Proddy didn’t really mature as he got older. Anything that he did – any job or chore that he took on – he managed to carry out in the most wasteful way possible. When the time came for him to go out for some higher education, of course he chose to go for the most expensive program that would never lead to any sort of lucrative job opportunities. That’s right, he went for a theology degree.
Proddy just never seemed to learn. But what really bothered Parsi was that his father never seemed to learn either. He just kept on enabling Proddy. Whatever crazy scheme he came up with, somehow their dad just found a way to go along with it. And so, he was somehow not all that shocked when Proddy told him about his most ridiculous idea yet.
“Hey, Parsi, “Proddy said one day, “you know how Dad is getting a little bit long in the tooth these days. I’ve been thinking. Someday, when he’s finally gone, everything that he owns will be passed on to us. And I know, that you, as the eldest, will get the biggest share. I don’t see how that’s fair, but I know that’s how it’s going to be. So, I was thinking. What if I were to go to the old man today and ask him if I could have my share of the inheritance now while I can still have a bit of fun with it. What do you think?”
“Oh man, this is it,” Parsi thought to himself. “Proddy has finally gone too far. When he goes to Dad with this idea, he is going to freak out. I mean, it’s almost as if he was telling Dad that he wishes he was already dead.” So he told his brother to go ahead and ask and see what happened. Imagine his surprise, therefore, when Proddy came back a few minutes later and he asked, barely able to contain his glee, “So, how did it go?”
I don’t think I need to tell you that his jaw dropped when his brother responded, “Fantastic, Dad said that he was fine with the idea. He said to just give him a couple of days to get his affairs in order and he’ll have the money ready for me.” “Fantastic,” replied Parsi.
It only took a matter of days, once Proddy had received his inheritance, for him to pack up and head out into the big wild world. The older brother tried to talk to their father about it, tried to convince him that this was going to be nothing but a disaster that would bring shame on the family name, but the father would hear none of it. He just said that, someday, Proddy would come to his senses and come home. He would wait for that day and welcome him when he arrived. In fact, since Proddy had left, the old man seemed to spend every hour he could standing and watching the road approaching the house. Everyone knew that he was doing nothing but waiting for the first glimpse of his son.
But Parsi was not going to just wait. He knew that this was going to be a disaster and he resolved that he would document it and throw it all in his father’s face when the day came. Through his father’s business connections, he managed to put together a network of informants who would keep an eye on what Proddy was doing with his inheritance. They began to report back at regular intervals and every time he received the report, Parsi got more and more enraged.
He somehow wasn’t surprised to hear all of the ways in which Proddy was wasting his wealth on parties and luxuries. He was scandalized when he got word that he had been spending money on prostitutes, but he made sure that he got all the proof of it. Oh, how superior he would feel when he showed that evidence to his father.
After a while, he began to receive a very different kind of report. Apparently, Proddy’s money had run out and there had been a famine in that far off land. When he heard the report that Proddy had been reduced to working for a pig farmer, his brother laughed and laughed and laughed. He had the most intense experience of schadenfreude – of joy at the misfortune of somebody else – he had ever had in his life.
One night, several weeks later, the older brother was coming back home after a long day’s work in the fields. He was just expecting to have a late supper and a few quiet hours at home before turning in. But, much to his surprise, the house was anything but quiet. He heard music playing and the sound of people dancing. Everyone seemed to be having a grand old time. He quickly called over one of his father’s servants to ask what was going on and the man joyfully explained that Proddy had finally returned home. The father had sacrificed his best young calf and everyone was busy feasting and celebrating. It was a party, and the older son should come and join in.
I don’t think it will surprise you when I say that Parsi was not happy. He absolutely refused to come any closer to the house. Finally, his father came out and began to beg him to come in. It was at this point that Parsi gleefully pulled out all of the information he had been documenting on his brother for the past few years. He had been carrying it with him every moment of every day all this time waiting for this very opportunity. He began to relate all of the irresponsible things that Proddy had done with their father’s wealth. He ended with a flourish, pulling out a huge stack of copies of receipts from various brothels in the distant land. “Look, Father,” he cried, “can you believe what Proddy spent on prostitutes alone?”
But the father just looked at him sadly. “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.” he said. “But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.”
The parable that we read this morning is popularly known as the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Of course, Jesus never called it that and neither did the author of The Gospel of Luke in which it appears. It was tradition that decided a very long time ago that this parable was all about the younger son, the prodigal or Proddy for short. But I am pretty sure that tradition is wrong about that.
Oh, there is no question that the younger son’s story is very important and meaningful. In fact, it is a wonderful story that has brought a great deal of comfort to people down through the ages. It stands as a great teaching that, no matter what mistakes you’ve made, how much you have messed up your life and done everything wrong, there is always a way back to God and God is ready to welcome you with open arms and perfect love and approval.
So what Proddy went through is important, it is just not the main reason why Jesus told the story. He told it, apparently, because “the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’” He told it specifically because there were people who were criticizing the fact that Jesus was celebrating and partying with the wrong sorts of people. He was telling it to a bunch of party poopers. And who, do you suppose, is the party pooper in this parable? This is not the Parable of the Prodigal, it is a parable of the sanctimonious Parsimonious brother! It is the Parable of the Party Pooper.
Let me just ask you the only question that Jesus’ parable leaves open: did the elder son go to the party? Did he give into his father’s pleas and join in the celebration? Or did he just keep sulking? In a way, that’s the only question that matters. Because, if I understand anything that Jesus is saying with this and other parables like it, the point of the parable is the party. The kingdom of God is what you discover in the middle of that kind of celebration. The message of the parable, therefore, is that even if you make all kinds of mistakes, even if you waste every opportunity that is sent your way, even if you make some wicked choices, you are not cut off from the promise of God’s Kingdom because God is like that father in the story. God is gracious and welcoming to those who lose their way.
But if you hold on to your resentment against those who, in your mind, don’t deserve to be forgiven, if you are much more interested in cataloging the sins of those who have gone wrong and telling them their mistakes and sanctimoniously declaring how they are not worthy of God’s love, you are very much in danger of cutting yourself off from the celebration, which is to say from the kingdom of God.
Now, please do note what I’m saying here. I’m not saying that God is going to cut you off from the kingdom. I’m not saying that God will refuse you entrance. I’m just saying that you’ve cut yourself off. To understand the difference, let’s return to the parable and imagine a certain outcome. Let us say that the father somehow convinced his eldest son, Parsi, that he had to come into the party. Perhaps he made him feel as if it was his duty or turned it into an obligation in some other way. But, because it was simply an obligation, Parsi attended while still holding onto all of his resentment, judgment and grievances against his brother.
How do you think that Parsi would have looked as he sat in the corner at that party? Yes, pretty much like that. Is there any sense in which someone who looks like that is really attending a party? Oh, they might be in the party, but they are not in the party, if you know what I mean.
And it would be one thing if it was just him who made that mistake. And I suspect that he made that mistake. But how many of us make it too? So long as any of us are obsessed with making sure that people who, for whatever reason, we think are undeserving do not get what they need, we are cutting ourselves off from the kingdom of God that Jesus was talking about. A kingdom, by the way, to be found first and above all in this world.
And that includes wanting to cut people off from having enough money to subsist in this world because they haven’t worked hard enough according to our definition of what hard work is. That includes wanting to cut people off from our generosity because maybe they’re not poor enough for our standards or because they have been so damaged by the system that they’re no longer willing to play by its rules. Oh, we find all kinds of reasons not to want to extend God’s grace to certain people. If we really understood what Jesus was saying in this parable though, we would understand that what we are really cutting ourselves off from it is the celebration of life that is the kingdom of God.