A New Start

This summer, I had had the opportunity to preach.  I used this time to be creative, to delve into topics I haven't had time for, and to share some of what I have been learning over the past year.  For the next few weeks, I'm going to share some of these sermons.

In January I will be on sabbatical for three months.  One of my goals will be to blog regularly.  I enjoyed the writing process this summer as I was writing sermons and want to be able to continue this practice.  Because I am not currently in a preaching role, I am taking a dear friend's suggestion, and will share my thoughts in this blog.  Stay tuned.

I had always wanted to delve into the Book of Revelation so I began my preaching with a series on this subject.  Is it really as bad as what people say it is?  Does it mean more than what is commonly expressed in the media and in entertainment?  The following five posts will be my five-week sermon series on John's Revelation.

One Order of Ministry

The United Church of Canada is proposing many changes in its structure and these changes are being studied and voted upon by presbyteries and congregations.  One of the changes being suggested is one order of ministry.  In essence, this suggested change would bring ordained ministers, diaconal ministers, and designated lay ministers under one order of ordained ministry.  For more details, you can read about it here.

The majority of ministers in the United Church are ordained and most people are familiar with ordained ministers.  Diaconal ministers and Designated Lay ministers (DLM) are the minority with Diaconal ministers at around 7% of all ministry and DLMs even fewer.  It means that the understanding of these two forms of ministry is low and there continues to be confusion around definition and function.

In function, these three forms of ministry are very similar.  Most work within congregations as the paid minister who leads worship, offers sacraments (baptism and communion) and pastoral care, and leads programming.  Ordained and Diaconal ministers are part of one order of ministry in the United Church, divided by function.  Ordained ministers are ordained to word, sacrament, and pastoral care.  Diaconal ministers are commissioned to education, pastoral care, and social justice.  DLMs are not considered part of this ordered ministry.  They are lay people who have come forward as leaders in their congregations, who receive training, and act as ministers in their churches.  In practice though, DLMs are appointed in places where there is a need for a minister.  In my experience living in Saskatchewan, DLMs  are visually similar to ordered ministers.

Currently, both Diaconal ministers and DLMs need permission to offer sacraments.  Most conferences in the church don't think twice about giving this permission.  It's become almost a rubber stamp.  There have been recent proposals for diaconal ministers to have this right to sacraments upon commissioning, which has caused conversations around what it means be able to offer sacraments and the theology in the world-wide church that deems only ordained ministers able to bless sacraments.

For all of these reasons, why wouldn't we want one order of ministry, especially because our ecumenical partners currently recognize ministers only if they are ordained?  Seeking employment or working together with those from the presbyterian church, baptist church, or catholic church, to name just a few, would become a whole lot easier for Diaconal and DLM minsters.  So, why am I voting against this proposed change?

I cannot speak for DLMs, and I cannot speak for all Diaconal ministers, but there are a few reasons why I, as a Diaconal minister in the United Church, do not want to be ordained.

1. Minority voices are important and need to be heard.  I have an issue with wanting to merge all forms of ministry into one.  I know that the proposal encourages the continuation of Diaconal ministry in that people would be ordained to diaconal ministry, but when all are ordained, the differences will all too soon become less and less visible, especially as all ministers will be ordained to word, sacrament, pastoral care, education, and social justice.  There won't even be a distinction of function anymore.  I am asked over and over again to explain diaconal ministry because there is such unfamiliarity with it, and sometimes it can get annoying, but I will always be grateful for the opportunity to do so.  I believe it is a distinct ministry and, as long as it is visible and distinct, people will keep asking.  What happens though when it is no longer visibly distinct from other forms of ministry?
2. Diaconal ministry has a clear history, from the first deacons commissioned in the bible in the Acts of the Apostles, to the Poor Clares and the Beguines in the Middle Ages, to the deaconesses in the United Church who offered their gifs of education and service.  Diakonia is a world-wide expression of ministry, across many denominations.  The Diakonia of the United Church or DUCC, the national association of diakonia in the UCC, is a part of DOTAC, Diakonia of the Americas and Caribbean, and World Diakonia.  I am concerned that this history and our association with world-wide diakonia is at risk of being lost.
3. Function is what blurs the lines, but identity is what creates clear distinctions.  In looking at the history of diakonia, you will find that this expression of ministry was always in the minority, always on the edges, and mostly women.  As the church came into power, women were banned from leadership positions and women found other ways to serve Christ.  Often, they were silenced and/or persecuted.  The history of diakonia is filled with voices crying out from the margins and standing up for those on the margins.  The history of diakonia is filled with those working with people on the margins, the refugees, the economically disadvantaged, the ill, the persecuted, children and seniors, and more.  The voice of diakonia has become one of prophet and advocate.  The work of diakonia has become one of listening to those silenced and offering compassion and empathy to those ignored and neglected.  Diakonia is about community, listening to one another's stories, mutuality, and journeying together.  All of this embodies the identity of diaconal ministry.  

The proposal was created to solve a perceived problem.  With the best of intentions, people gathered to come up with a solution to the confusion around the different forms of ministry and the barriers to function.  This feels like a band-aid though.  It feels like providing medicine for symptoms without discovering the reasons for the symptoms.  I know that there have been many studies of ministry in the church and there will probably continue to be many studies. With so many different opinions, it's impossible to make everyone happy, and maybe that's OK.  Maybe all we have are questions right now, and maybe that's OK.  There have been many proposals over the years that have worked and have failed and will probably continue to be many that will succeed and fail, and maybe that's OK.  

All I know is that I will continue to answer the question, "What is a diaconal minister?" and that's quite OK with me.

Invisible Knapsack

Samuel D Chown 

b. April 11, 1853, 

d. Jan. 30, 1933

Did you know that in 1925, when the United Church was born, Rev. Samuel Dwight Chown, a Methodist minister and well-loved by many, gave up the position as the first moderator of the United Church?  He instead offered the position to Presbyterian minister, Rev. George C. Pidgeon, recognizing the struggle that some of the Presbyterian churches were having in joining the United Church and the minority position they held.  This sounds like a grace-filled person who put other’s needs and the church’s needs before his own.

Last week, I read a quote by Rev. Chown that shows a very different side.  He wrote, “The immigration question is the most vital one in Canada today, as it has to do with the purity of our national life-blood…It is foolish to dribble away the vitality of our own country in a vain endeavor to assimilate the world’s non-adjustable, profligate and indolent social parasites.”[1]  It’s a shocking quote for us to hear today.  This doesn’t mean though that Rev. Chown wasn’t still a grace-filled person, but that he wrote this from a very different time and is reflective of colonialism thoughts and practices of the time.

Last week, I was in Saskatoon for a course called, “Racism, Post-Colonialism, Canadian Identities, and Intercultural Ministries.”  This is quite a mouthful but the instructors find the title fits what they are trying to teach.  I had the opportunity to read some great work by people like Kwok Pui-lan, Gloria Anzaldua, Edward Said, and Robert Young and watched some powerful videos like “Between: Living Between the Hyphen” about being bi-racial, and “Whitewashed: Unmasking the World of Whiteness.” (Check them out on YouTube.)

One article by Peggy McIntosh called, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” offers some ways in which we might recognize the white privilege that many of us carry.  She writes, “whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work with will allow “them” to be more like “us.”

McIntosh tries to identify some of this white privilege and identifies 46 white privileges we carry in our knapsack, mostly without being aware they are even there.  Here are a few[2]:

·          I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

·          I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

·          I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

·          When I am told about our national heritage or about ‘civilization,’ I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

·          I did not have to educate our children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

·          I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

·          I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge” I will be facing a person of my race.

·          I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring the people of my race.

·          I can choose blemish color or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin.

Can you connect with any of these?  How does it make you feel to be carrying this invisible and seemingly weightless knapsack?  We live in a culture where white is the norm and everyone else is seen as different and foreign.  Even those who have been born and raised Canada and might be a third-generation Canadian get asked where they come from, who their parents are and how they came to be here.  For those of us who are white, we don’t have to think about racism and how it affects our lives.  For those of us who are not white, it can affect our whole lives. 

I don’t like to think of myself as racist.  In fact, when some people are accused of being racist or of saying or doing something racist, they get very defensive and angry.  The fact is that most of us carry some racial prejudice and the white race holds the power in our culture.  Being racist is a symptom of this problem.  The more aware we become, the more we can address this problem, but being non-racist could take generations. 

---

[1] “Blood: The Stuff of Life” by Lawrence Hill

[2] McIntosh, Peggy, from “Peace and Freedom,” July/August 1989

Shutting Down the Temple

At our book study this week, we came across the story of Jesus expressing his anger in the temple.  We grappled with the story, trying to find meaning.  Were Jesus’ actions right?  He preached non-violence and peace.  Why did he display such temper?  Wasn’t he disrupting businesses that had every right to be there?  What is this story trying to tell us?  I made a commitment to do some reading about the story so that I could better understand it myself.

I have a book on my shelf that I have read through once but I continue to refer to it when reflecting on the events that happened during Holy Week.  Holy Week is the week before Easter, beginning with Palm Sunday through the Saturday before Easter.  The book is called, “The Last Week,” and was written by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan.  As you can tell by the title, the authors delve into the last week of Jesus’ life. 

In particular, they focus on the gospel of Mark which holds a daily account of the last week of Jesus’ life.  In this gospel, Monday is when Jesus causes the disruption in the temple.

¹⁵Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; ¹⁶and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. ¹⁷He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:15-17, NRSV)

Did you ever wonder about the story that comes just before this story?  On the way into Jerusalem, Jesus is hungry.  He sees a fig tree with no figs.  It is not the season for figs, but Jesus then curses the fig tree anyway, saying, “May no one eat fruit from you again.”  The next morning, the disciples see the fig tree “withered away to its roots.” (Mark 11:20)

Why would Jesus curse a fig tree?  This always seemed like such a strange story to me that makes Jesus seem petty.  Borg and Crossan explain it this way: “The fig tree’s failure is a cipher for that of the temple.  The framing fig tree,” (meaning the way the words about the fig tree frame the event in the temple), “warns us that the framed temple is not being cleansed, but symbolically destroyed and that, in both cases, the problem is a lack of ‘fruit’ that Jesus expected to be present.”  So what ‘fruit’ is not present in the temple?

Jesus says that the temple has been made into a “den of robbers,” words that are originally spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. 

⁵For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, ⁶if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, ⁷then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors forever and ever. ⁸Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. ⁹Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, ¹⁰and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!” —only to go on doing all these abominations? ¹¹Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? (Jeremiah 7:5-11)

In that context, the meaning of the phrase “den of robbers” is very clear.  The people’s everyday injustice makes them robbers, and they use the temple as their safe house, den, hideaway, or place of security.  The temple is not the refuge where the robbing occurs, but the place the robbers go for refuge.  The temple is a place of worship but worship has replaced justice.  

In the bible, it’s not about one or the other, and it’s not just about worship and justice, but on justice over worship.  Traditionally, God had repeatedly said, “I reject your worship because of your lack of justice,” but never, ever, ever, “I reject your justice because of your lack of worship.” (Borg and Crossan)

So what would Jesus do if he walked into our church?  Would he find worship?  Would he find justice?  Would he find one over the other?  Might Jesus turn over some tables in our own church to tell us that our church, in his name, has become a den of robbers?  In shutting down the temple, Jesus was making a point and in doing this, he attracted the attention of those in power who began to plot his death.

Two questions for World Vision

World Vision has reconsidered a decision to hire people in same gender marriages.  "We have listended to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness," the agency said in the letter, signed by World Vision president Stearns and board chairman Jim Bere.

Enough people complained and threatened to pull support, so World Vision dropped a two-day old policy that would have allowed the hiring of those in same gender relationships.  In fact, Stearns said the board unanimously agreed to "stand on the traditional belief on the authority of Scripture."

World Vision president Stearns

I have two questions.  First, what led them to change their policy in the first place?  Did the board of World Vision consider the ethical and moral implications of excluding those in same gender relationships?  Did they pray together, read scripture together, and open themselves up to the leading of the Spirit in order to come up with the decision to allow employees in same gender relationships?  For two days the policy to hire those in same gender relationships was in place.  Something led them to this decision.  Unfortunately, it looks as though the threat of the loss of support and money has changed that decision.  The board prayed for years to make a decision, but in only two days, overturned that decision.

For the past year, since the St. Paul’s youth group joined with another church last year to do the 30-Hour Famine, my son has been asking to do it again.  The 30-Hour Famine is a program created and promoted each spring by World Vision.  Youth are encouraged to fast for 30 hours, to gather and engage in age-appropriate games and activities that raise awareness of world hunger, and raise funds for World Vision. When I told my son about this decision to not employ people in same gender marriages, without blinking an eye, he dropped his campaign to have a 30-Hour Famine and has agreed instead to try a different event in support of a different charity.  I'm confident the rest of the youth group will agree.

My second question.  In today’s world, how can we say that we are making decisions that “stand on the traditional belief on the authority of Scripture?”  Traditional means “a way of thinking, behaving, or doing that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time.”[1] Scripture has been used and interpreted in vastly different ways, for a long time.  Traditionally, it has been used to oppress women and children and the keeping of slaves.  Also, traditionally, scripture has been used to set slaves free and to uplift women and children.  Of which tradition does World Vision president Stearns speak?  Traditionally, scripture has been used to encourage inclusiveness, loving one another, compassion, justice, and peace.  Traditionally, it has also been used to exclude, judge an other’s actions, justify hate, and to uphold decisions that have no value in today’s world.  Will World Vision also encourage slaves to submit to their masters and women to submit to their husbands?  Will World Vision also decide that they won’t hire women as they should be at home caring for their husband and children based on the tradition of scripture?  Will the threat of pulling support and money, cause World Vision to rethink other policy?

Today my prayer is for those in same gender relationships.  I pray for those who still hear the message in our society that certain relationships are wrong and that God does not support certain loving relationships.  I pray for those who cannot love who they want without being judged and excluded.  I pray that we can all love and accept one another for who we are, no matter our skin colour, our accent, who we choose to love, our abilities, our age, or who we worship.  I pray there comes a day when we all feel loved and valued.

**I just read that the above is a World Vision US policy.  In Canada, provincial laws say that candidates for a job cannot be asked about sexual orientation, marriage or related issues.  World Vision Canada wants to reassure Canadians that "This is what is most key for us: When it comes to working with the poor, World Vision serves children, families and communities, regardless of whether they are aligned with our values or not."  This makes me wonder if World Vision Canada would ask these questions if they could.  What are their values?  Is this a practice of toleration?  World Vision Canada says they would value the opportunity for more discussion.  http://churches.worldvision.ca/our-christian-identity-responding-to-world-vision-us-hiring-policy-change/

The information in this blog on World Vision US came from an online article: http://www.timesleaderonline.com/page/content.detail/id/479500/World-Vision-reverses-decision-to-hire-gays.html?isap=1&nav=5021

---

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Who was the Beloved Disciple?

Do you ever have those times when you want to stick out your tongue, and then, in a very child-like way, say, “Nana nana nana?”

More than ten years ago, I took a course.  I don’t remember the name of the course or who taught it.  I don’t remember what book I was reading or what we were discussing at the time.  What I remember is offering a different interpretation to a gospel text and being rebuffed for it.  What I expressed was pretty much dismissed.  If you know me, you know that when I express my thoughts, I feel very vulnerable, and being dismissed in this way brought up feelings of foolishness and shame.  Hmmm.  No wonder I'm still holding onto it.

The text was from the gospel of John 19:25-27:

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” ²⁷Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

My question was around this disciple whom Jesus loved.  Maybe it was a woman.  The text mentions three women standing at the foot of the cross and then Jesus says, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”  Traditionally, people have referred to John as the disciple that Jesus loved.  John is also traditionally credited with the writing of the gospel. 

What if it wasn’t John?  What if the text is actually referring to one of the women standing at the foot of the cross?  After all, we know from the other gospels that all the male disciples ran and hid.  It was only the women who stayed with Jesus at the cross.  The passage refers to three women but it seems people would like to insert a fourth person, a male person.  Also, if it was John that stayed, why didn’t he also help with the burial of Jesus, along with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

The course I’m currently taking on the scriptures of the New Testament offered a reading by Sandra M. Schneiders, from a book called, “Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.”  Schneiders states that most people will say the beloved disciple must be male, because Jesus says, “Woman, here is your son.”  Schneiders has a different theory.

“First, most commentators agree that, whoever the Beloved Disciple was historically, in this scene the figure is not merely or even primarily an individual who is personally and priviately united to the mother of Jesus but a representative figure symbolic of some group that is to be united in a special way with her.  In that case the meaning of the verse is, ‘Woman, behold the one who is to be to you what I [Jesus] have been.”  Since Jesus is Mary’s son, the community represented by the Beloved Disciple becomes Mary’s new “son,” that is, shares the same relationship to her as Jesus had during his earthly life.”

Schneider’s ultimate theory is that the Beloved Disciple is not one person, but is representative of an ideal disciple, which could be either male or female. 

The article goes into much more detail about the Beloved Disciple, other unnamed disciples, the author of the gospel, and even a "redactor," one who may have modified the gospel later to make it more acceptable to the Greater Church of the time, specifically in removing women from key leadership roles.  I found it quite fascinating, especially since it confirmed my original suspicions, voiced and dismissed.  Now, it was only a guess at the time and I had no way of substantiating my theory, but I feel as if my original thought may not have been as foolish as it originally seemed. "Na Na Na Na Na Na."

A Place to Simply Be

 

Meditation is a spiritual practice.  It also takes lots of practice.  I met with a woman at the diaconal retreat who is part of The World Community for Christian Meditation (http://www.wccm-canada.ca/).  She initially talked with me about meditation with children and how some of the separate school boards have brought this into their curriculum.  I was fascinated by this concept.

In the past three weeks, I have been on two retreats.  I experienced a weekend silent retreat at Five Oaks Retreat Centre in Paris, ON, and a 48-hour retreat with diaconal sisters and brothers from the United, Lutheran, and Anglican churches at the Sisterhood of St. John the Divine in Toronto.  

At these retreats I experienced quiet, creation, play, and prayer.  I have discovered (again) that it is a blessing just to simply be.  When I am not thinking about regrets from the past or feeling anxiety over the future, I can experience a kind of freedom, a freedom that allows for the Spirit to enter.

So, I am left with the question, “How do I continue this practice in my daily life?”

She also led a workshop on meditation where I sat for 15 minutes in silence.  The encouragement was to just be, to try to still my body and my mind, and to invite the Spirit to come.  I have also tried this practice the past two mornings.  I am very still.  You would think by looking at me, that I am deep in meditation.  Unfortunately, it is just by body that is still.  My mind is anything but!  A friend of mine call is “monkey brain.”  It just won’t stop thinking.  

I found a quote by Hugh Jackman on meditation. "Meditation is all about the pursuit of nothingness.  It's like the ultimate rest.  It's better than the best sleep you'ver ever had.  It's a quieting of the mind.  It sharpens everything, especially you appreciation of your surroundings.  It keeps life fresh."  This is where I would like to be.  In fact, I would go a step further from nothingness, to experiencing the divine.  Unfortunately, I relate more to a statement by Ellen DeGeneres.  "I'd like to be more patient!  I just want everything now.  I've tried to meditate, but it's really hard for me to stay still. I'd like to force myself to do it, because everybody says how wonderful meditation is for you, but I can't shut my mind up.  So patience and learning is key.  I wonder if Ellen ever go there..

I will keep trying.  It takes practice.  15 minutes is a good start and I am hoping, even for a few minutes, to still my mind in that time.  There are community meditation groups that I could explore or maybe I could start one at St. Paul’s, the church I serve.  Maybe others are looking for a space like this, where they can put aside thoughts and just be with God.  

And just so you don't think I only quote celebrities, here is one more quote:  "Meditation is not a way of making your mind quiet.  It's a way of entering into the quiet that's already there - buried under the 50,000 thoughts the average person thinks every day - Deepak Chopra, Indian-American Spiritualist.

I hope to find this quiet place; I hope that it will become a familiar place, a place where I can find quiet, invite the Spirit, and to simply be.