Name: Who are we now? Part 2 & potluck lunch
Start: 2025-06-08T11:00:00-04:00
End: 2025-06-08T12:00:00-04:00
Location: St. Andrew’s Hespeler

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.

Afterlife? Where is Abraham’s Bosom?

Posted by Scott McAndless on Monday, May 22nd, 2017 in Minister

Hespeler, 21 May, 2017 © Scott McAndless

Luke 16:19-31, Psalm 146, Daniel 12:1-3

he Bible doesn’t just talk about the afterlife in one way. There are all kinds of ways in which it is described. In some texts it is found in a place called Sheol, but then there are other places that talk about Heaven and Hell. There are references to Hades, Paradise and also to the Pit and the Lake of Fire. And this is not just a matter of using different words to describe the same thing. The various places and states are described in such different ways that they are very hard to reconcile with each other. But it is fun to watch people try.

Theologians and experts in religion seem to have this deep need to systematize and organize everything including what the Bible says about the afterlife so there are people w

ho have attempted to reconcile everything that the Bible says about it. The solution, in Christian theology, has usually been to describe an afterlife that changes over time. The theory is that the dead have been sent (and will be sent) to different places at different times in history. In Old Testament times they were sent to one place which had various departments but that system was changed when Jesus came and was raised from the dead and it will be changed again at the end of the world. It is a fascinating study, but, when I look at it, I can’t help but wonder if the people who make their careers sorting all of that sort of stuff out, have been missing the point entirely.

One of the things that especially makes me think that is the passage that we read this morning from the Gospel of Luke. In this passage Jesus tells his followers a parable in which all of the characters die and Jesus says interesting things about what happens to them in the afterlife. In particular, Jesus speaks about them going to places that are not really spoken about anywhere else in the Bible. The poor man, Lazarus, dies and is taken to a place called “Abraham’s Bosom.” The awkwardness of this is somewhat covered over in the translation that we read this morning where it is rendered that he “was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.” But the literal translation of the original text actually says that the man is taken to a place called “Abraham’s bosom” or “Abraham’s breast.”

The rich man, who is not named, but to whom tradition has given the name Dives, is taken to another place called Hades, which is of course the ancient Greek land of the dead. What’s more, there appears to be a great impassable chasm that separates the two men in death.

All of these are places and features that are a little bit hard to reconcile with the descriptions of the afterlife elsewhere in the Bible. And so theologians grappling with this parable often have a hard time fitting places like “Abraham’s bosom,” into their maps of heaven or hell or whatever. But they are missing, I think, the point of the parable that Jesus told.

To understand what Jesus is saying, you need to visualize the opening scene that he describes. “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.” Jesus says, “And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table.” Now how would you draw a picture of that scene? We would probably imagine this rich man (who I’m going to follow the tradition and call Dives) sitting at a well-appointed table dining on expensive foods, but you need to know that that picture is actually wrong.

Rich people in Jesus’ day did not sit down to eat. Anyone know how they ate? They laid down on couches to eat. Everyone agreed that it was the proper and civilized way to eat. And there were a number of reasons why they thought so. First of all, you will note, lying down on your side makes you kind of helpless. You can’t really reach any food that is not placed within a couple of feet from where you lie. This is by design. It means you have to be waited on hand and foot by an army of slaves and rich people in Jesus’ day loved to show off how many slaves they had.

It kind of makes you clumsy too, of course, and more likely to drop your food on the floor. But they kind of liked that too because there was no better way to show off how rich you were than to not care about the food you wasted by dropping it on the floor.

One other thing about the couches, though, they were actually much bigger than this one – big enough, in fact, that two or three people could share one comfortably. In a formal dining room, where we must imagine Dives dining, there would be a number of these couches where he would welcome his honoured guests. Every position in the room had its relative importance and honour but the most honoured position you could occupy was if you actually shared the couch at the head of the room with your host. The guest of honour would lie right here with his head resting against his host’s breast. Another way to put that would be to say that the guest of honour was in his host’s bosom. Now, remember that expression: in the bosom of the host.

So that is how you must imagine Dives. But what about Lazarus? Where is he? He interestingly enough is lying down too, but not in such a nice place. Lazarus is lying just outside the gate of the house. And where is that? It is directly opposite the couch where Dives lies on his dining couch – directly opposite. How do I know that for sure? Because every single rich person’s house in the first century was built in the same way. Every house that has been dug up had the same floor plan. The dining room was always directly opposite the front gate. This also was by design.

You see, when a rich man entertained important people for dinner, the whole point was so that everyone would know about it. So the house was laid out so that anyone who walked by the front gate could look in and see exactly who was lying in the place of honour at his host’s breast. For this purpose, the entire centre of the house was left as an open courtyard, open to the sky and planted with a lovely garden. Nothing would be allowed to obstruct the view of the people dining on the couches.

So don’t just imagine Lazarus lying at the gate of the house, imagine him lying right here, right outside the gate and watching every morsel of food that Dives eats, seeing all of the food wasted as it falls to the floor and dreaming, just dreaming, about being able to eat a few bites of that wasted food.

Of course, Dives can see Lazarus too and maybe it even crosses his mind that the poor man might appreciate having the food that he is wasting. But Dives knows that he could never share it with him. Even though there is only a pleasant garden the separates the two men, Dives knows that it is actually a yawning chasm, an impassable social barrier. For if ever Dives got up from his couch and crossed it to go to Lazarus, it would totally destroy his standing and reputation among other rich men.

That is the situation at the opening of the story and you need to see it because otherwise you cannot understand what happens next. What happens next is that Lazarus dies. Presumably he dies of his wounds and extreme malnutrition. “The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham.” And if you see the situation at the opening of the story, you can understand now what that means. “Abraham’s Bosom” isn’t a place or a region of the underworld, it is a picture of Lazarus’ new situation. What it means is that Lazarus now finds himself lying on a couch with his head resting against Abraham’s breast.

The picture you are supposed to see is that Abraham is holding a feast and Lazarus is his guest of honour, sharing the great patriarch’s couch. It’s kind of an amazing image when you think of it. All his life Lazarus has watched these amazing feasts from a distance, knowing he will never belong on one of those couches. Now he feasts in more honour than Dives could ever imagine.

Meanwhile, Dives has also died. I am almost certain that he died choking on a pretzel or something like that. And where is he taken? We are told only that he (not needing the ministrations of angels) was buried but then somehow finds himself in a place called Hades which is clearly a place of great torment and suffering. And, yet, curiously enough, he can still clearly see Lazarus where his lies feasting on Abraham’s lap. Where then is Dives? Is he in some special department of the underworld where the flames burn alongside a bottomless cavern? Is that how we’re supposed to read the story?

Or is the point that Dives ends the story in the very place where Lazarus began, lying in agony watching the other fellow dining sumptuously on a couch? Is not the point of the story that both at the beginning and at the end the two men are separated by a divide that is so close that they can see and hear each other and yet, in both cases, the separation is inexplicably uncrossable. After all, Jesus, the guy telling this story used to say, “The first shall be last and the last first” and he also told a whole lot of other stories where everything at the beginning is totally turned upside down by the end. So I actually feel pretty comfortable saying that Jesus’ main interest in telling this story wasn’t to give us some sort of map of the afterlife. It was about demonstrating how the ways of this world could indeed be turned upside down.

In fact, the thing that I find absolutely fascinating about what Jesus says about the afterlife in this story is that it is so clearly a metaphor of everything he saw wrong about how things worked in his world. Note particularly the great chasm that Abraham talks about. “Between you and us a great chasm has been fixed,” he says to Dives, “so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.” And, of course, the mention of such a major feature as a great chasm in the afterlife has sent Christian theologians scrambling to identify this chasm and its meaning in the underworld or wherever it is supposed to be located. But I note that, while Abraham says that it has been fixed or established, he doesn’t say who fixed it there. Of course, people have just assumed that it’s supposed to mean that God fixed it (which would mean that God has locked Dives into his torment), but Abraham doesn’t say that.

What if Jesus is saying that the one who fixed that chasm was Dives himself? All his life, Dives was over there on his couch feasting while Lazarus was over there lying at his gate. It was only a few meters! At any moment Dives could have gotten up and walked across his garden and given Lazarus bread from his table, but he did not do that because that garden was an uncrossable social divide. Indeed he could not be seen crossing without it causing him a loss in his social standing.

In a way, Jesus is saying that Dives created his own hell and is the author of his own torment because of the choices he made during life. He was the one who decided that there could be no contact between himself and Lazarus. That merely continued in the afterlife. He was the one who decided the chasm between them could not be crossed. That merely continued in the afterlife.

Somehow it seems, if you attend to this parable of Jesus (the only one he told that was set in the afterlife) – if you really attend to what it is saying, you will come away learning more about this life and its priorities than you will about what the afterlife is actually like. Somehow, I think, that was exactly what Jesus intended.

And it makes you think, doesn’t it? What are the chasms and divides that still exist in this world? Is God placing someone – some Lazarus – at your gate? Is there someone you could help, or give comfort to or speak a word of life to but you don’t? Maybe you don’t even see this person – at least you don’t notice them because, though they are nearby, somewhere on the path of your week, they seem to be on the other side of some chasm that has been erected by race, by prejudice, by economics or religion. The chasm may seem uncrossable, but what if it is only so in your own mind?

#140CharacterSermon Some think Parable of Lazarus & Dives is about the afterlife but it ends up teaching more about this life & what matters

Sermon video:

This Sunday, May 21

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Thursday, May 18th, 2017 in News

When you enter the sanctuary this Sunday (and there will definitely be things going on that you won't want to miss so you will want to enter) the first thing that you may notice is that something is out of place. Something is there that shouldn't be -- that usually isn't. First of all, fear not! This is a temporary addition but there is a very good reason why we have added this very special thing this Sunday but you really kind of have to be there to understand why -- so be there!

Here are some other things to look forward to this Sunday, May 21:

The Adult Choir will sing Rock Me, Lord by Andy Beck
Amy Lightfoot will sing a solo: Spirit, Open My Heart by Ruth Duck
We will tell a new chapter in the story of our piano which is given and played in memory of people from the congregation.
Another of our young folk will bring in the mystery box which the minister will open and have to tell a story based on what he finds inside.
The Minister, Rev. W, Scott McAndless, will continue his series of sermons on the Afterlife looking specifically at the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which raises the question, what in Hell is Abraham's Bosom?

Here is a short video introduction to the question posed in the sermon:

What’s on today! (Thursday)

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Thursday, May 18th, 2017 in News

It's Food Bank day today and Hope Clothing is open, too! Lunch will be ready around 12 noon.

Sounds like it is going to be a perfect summer lunch.

Mission Sunday is coming soon!

Posted by StAndrewsHespeler on Tuesday, May 16th, 2017 in News

Please plan to join us on Sunday, May 28th for Mission Sunday.

We have a special guest speaker coming to worship with us.

Following worship we will have a potluck lunch together while we check out the mission and outreach that our church family and church have done and are doing.

If possible please bring a finger food type of potluck to share with others, please no peanuts or shellfish.

Afterlife? Reunification?

Posted by Scott McAndless on Sunday, May 14th, 2017 in Minister

2 Samuel 12:15b-23, Mark 12:18-27, Responsive: Selected

ou all know that today is Mother’s Day. But do you know why? You might think that this day came into existence because of the efforts of the greeting card industry or the florists or the chocolatiers who banded together and came up with the day to make lots of sales during what would otherwise be the very slow month of May, but that is not the case. The existence of Mother’s Day as we know it today is largely due to the efforts of one woman named Anna Jarvis.

Anna Jarvis was not a mother herself, but she (like everyone I guess) had a mother – a very extraordinary mother named Ann Reeves Jarvis who had done amazing things in working for peace during the American Civil War and for reconciliation afterwards. But Ann Reeves Jarvis, as is the way of all flesh, did eventually die and more than anything her daughter created Mother’s Day and lobbied to have it recognized out of a desire to keep the memory of her mother alive – a way to make sure that the woman she had lost never really went away.

And that was it, by the way. Anna Jarvis didn’t want it to be about anything else and she absolutely deplored everything that Mother’s Day became once she got it established. She deplored the commercialization of it and spent most of the rest of her life feuding with card companies and florists and chocolatiers. Though she never became a mother herself, people from all over the United States would send her presents every year for Mother’s Day and she refused every single one of them.

She became bitter and angry and, in the end, died in poverty and obscurity. It is hard when something that you created according to your o wn vision goes in a direction that you never intend, but that is the risk you always take when you create something new. It is too bad that this was something that distressed her so, but I want to remember this woman’s vision and her desire, in her own way, to keep her beloved mother alive even after death.

We have been talking about the afterlife here at St Andrew’s, and today I would like to ask a very important question that always arises when we think about the afterlife in the church. It is a question that I think would have been very much on the heart of Anna Jarvis. What about the people that we have lost and that we have loved, what about our mothers if we have lost them in this life? Will we get to see those people in the afterlife? And, if so, what will the reunion be like? I think that, in many ways, the question of what happens to our loved ones and whether we will see them again is actually more important to many of us that is the question of what will happen to ourselves. After all, we figure, what is the point of an afterlife if you don’t get to share it with the people that you love?

Interestingly enough, the Bible doesn’t really have a whole lot to say about this whole idea of being united with our loved ones after death. There are plenty of passages that offer various pictures and metaphors of what the afterlife might look like, but none of them describe that grand reunion. In the Biblical images, the redeemed people are much more focussed on offering their praise and worship up to God and there is no talk about them interacting with each other. But, of course, just because the Bible doesn’t talk about something happening in the afterlife doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

The closest that the Bible comes to talking about seeing the people who are important to us in this life again is in the rather strange passage we read in the gospel this morning where there is this odd exchange between Jesus and a group of people called Sadducees. Now, we don’t actually know a whole lot about what Sadducees were like in the time of Jesus. They were a religious group who were closely associated with the Jewish temple and priesthood and both of those things came to an end shortly after the time of Jesus when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Records and memories of the Sadducees were mostly lost.

But one thing we do know about the Sadducees is that they took the Jewish Bible – especially the first five books which were called the Books of Moses – very seriously. If the Bible, as they honoured it, didn’t explicitly say something, they didn’t believe it. Well, one of the things that the first five books of the Bible doesn’t talk about is any concept of the afterlife. So the Sadducees didn’t believe in the afterlife.

So the Sadducees come up to Jesus with a question about the afterlife. But they are not asking because they are actually puzzled about something and want Jesus help them with it. Their question is actually about trying to demonstrate to everyone how much more clever they are than Jesus – that they are right to not believe in the afterlife and Jesus is wrong.

So, in their question, they set up a situation in the afterlife that is frankly ridiculous. You see, there was this law in one of the Books of Moses regarding marriage. Marriage in ancient Israel wasn’t really about love; it was about property and keeping property and inheritance in the family. For that reason it was considered a catastrophe if a man failed to have a son to pass his property down to. So this law was created to make sure, if a man died before having a son, there would be a male heir. His younger brother had to marry his widow and get a son on her and that child would grow up to inherit the big brother’s name and property. I know it sounds pretty crazy to us (it is) but this was how they took care of their priorities in these matters.

So these Sadducees come up to Jesus with a ridiculous application of this law. There are seven brothers who, because of this law, are all required to marry the same woman – the widow of the oldest brother. It is, of course, something that would never actually happen, but they don’t care about that. It is enough for them that the law means that it is possible. And if it is possible, they are trying to prove, that means that the very idea of an afterlife is impossible because, in their minds, a woman cannot have an independent existence. She must be under the authority of some man. She must be married to someone and since one woman cannot be married to several men at once (even though, of course, the opposite was allowed) their conclusion is that the afterlife itself must be impossible.

And I realize that the case that these Sadducees present is so absurd in many ways and is, even worse, steeped in patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes that we would find unacceptable, but I would like you to give their argument some consideration because there is something to it. They are pointing out that there is a bit of a problem with that idea of reunification in the afterlife as we usually think of it. The problem is that our relationships in this world are not static. They are in fact, constantly changing. In some cases the changes may be quite extreme like when someone (as a result of death or divorce) is married to completely different people at different times in their life.

But even when it is not as extreme as that, there are still constant and more subtle changes. Consider, for example, your relationship with someone like your mother. You have one relationship with her when you are an infant and are totally dependent on her, another when you an adolescent and trying to establish your independence and then you relate to her quite differently when you are an adult and maybe a parent yourself. There is not just one relationship but a constantly changing story that includes many ups and downs and various emotions. The relationship is so conditioned by where you are in your life and where she is in hers. So when you see her in the afterlife – in a place where time and phase of life don’t mean anything, how exactly are you supposed to reconnect with your mother maybe especially if you have gone through a lot since she passed on and you are no longer the person you were then.

So, as much as I hate to say it, I think that the Sadducees do have a bit of a point. It doesn’t make sense that the relationships we have here – relationships that are so defined by time and changeable circumstance and stage of life could just continue on in a place where none of those things exist. I can’t have, all in the same eternal moment, the same relationship that I had with my mother at all the different phases in my life. So maybe we do need to ask Jesus, together with the Sadducees, whether a reunion in the afterlife is really possible.

But, of course, Jesus has an answer for them, and what an answer it is! “Is not this the reason you are wrong,” he says, “that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” He tells us a number of important things about the afterlife here. He tells us first of all, the most important truth about it: that the afterlife is an existence completely unlike our present lives. There is really nothing in this life that can relate to it and we don’t really have the minds to grasp it or the words to describe it. The Sadducees have misunderstood because they have tried to define something that cannot be defined in human terms. That is their first mistake but it won’t be their last.

Secondly, Jesus makes it clear that we will not relate to people there in the same way that we do here. There will be no marriage, he says, not because he has anything against marriage but because that kind of earthly relationship has no meaning there. But it is not just marriage that he rules out, but also other human forms of relation. Note how he says it, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” He is speaking in terms of how marriage took place in that world where one party (the man) married while the other (the woman) was given in marriage. This practice marked the fundamental difference between the genders, that men were free but that women were pieces of property that were to be given, taken and traded. But Jesus says, thankfully, that such distinctions (which were fundamental to everything in their world) have no meaning in heaven.

How then is this an answer to the Sadducees’ question? Jesus is arguing that it is possible for there to be a grand reunion in heaven with our lost ones, that such a thing doesn’t have to end up creating endless difficulties because relationship is not limited there in the ways that it is limited here. I guess it’s not quite something we can understand here and now, but it is, I hope a great comfort.

But Jesus doesn’t just leave it there. He gives the Sadducees and us the ultimate proof of the truth of the afterlife. “Have you not read in the book of Moses,”he says, “how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.” Here Jesus anchors the proof of the afterlife not in our desires to be reunited but in the nature of Godself. The thing, Jesus says, that proves that the great patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, have entered into the afterlife is not found in their relationship with each other, not in their relationship to us, but only in their relationship with God. God is their God and God is, by nature, the God of the living. This makes it possible for them to have life even though they have died.

It is heartbreakingly sad to lose the people we love. We mourn for them, we miss them, and we know that we will never be fully complete without them. We can know that we will see them again, despite whatever complications that might cause, because we know the power of God, who has demonstrated he is able to raise the dead, will overcome any obstacle ever to be raised in all the universe. The God of the living is our God and theirs, and so we know we can have hope.

140CharacterSermon Will we see our loved ones again in the #afterlife? Yes. Will it be like anything we have ever experienced before? No!

Sermon Video:

« Previous 1 … 210 211 212 213 214 … 277 Next »