"God and Country” Luke1:46-55 and 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Canada Day sermon July 1, 2018 Trillium United Church

 Luke: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me—holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, just as he promised our ancestors.”

Corinthians: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: the old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

*****************************************************************************

Over 1000 years ago, the Norse landed on the shores of what is now Newfoundland. They established a settlement, and carried on business. The earliest people to this country aside from First Nations, were white, and not Christian.

On this Canada Day, it seems appropriate to look at one part of our history – of Newfoundland.  We know that the Norse lived at what is now called L’Anse-aux-Meadows for approximately 100 years – it was mostly a place to stop after the long ocean voyage – rest, and reload the ships with supplies before moving on. Then for some reason they left. They might have encountered the indigenous Beothuk people. We have a general idea what happened with the Beothuk people through the years until the 1800’s, when the last known Beothuk died.

The First Nations now recognised in Newfoundland is the group called the Qalipu Mi’kmaq. This people originates from what is now Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is thought the Mi'kmaq would cross the Cabot Strait and hunt along the south coast as far east as Placentia Bay. However, some Mi'kmaq have argued that while Mi'kmaq from Cape Breton were known to visit and later settled on the island, a group of Mi'kmaq did live there for thousands of years before Europeans first discovered Newfoundland.

Most Europeans in Newfoundland lived on the eastern side of the island, in small isolated coastal settlements; the Mi'kmaq continued their traditional way of life on the island's west coast and interior. With the decline of the Beothuk in the 1800s, the Mi'kmaq no longer shared Newfoundland's interior with anyone. In 1857, a census of Newfoundland revealed that there were Mi'kmaq settlements at St. George's Bay, Codroy Valley, Bay d'Espoir and the Bay of Exploits. The interior was unknown to the Europeans so the Mi'kmaq's knowledge was valuable to them. In 1822, explorer William Cormack traversed the interior from Trinity Bay to St. George's Bay, guided by a Mi'kmaq man named Sylvester Joe. In the 1860s, the British hired Mi'kmaq to deliver mail overland on trails reaching the northern communities.

In 1898, a railway was built right through to Channel Port-aux-Basques, giving Europeans greater access to the interior. Large numbers of Europeans came to hunt the caribou herds, and severely diminishing them. The caribou was a main source of food for the Mi'kmaq, so the survival of the people was threatened.

Then there’s the Irish immigration to Newfoundland – starting as far as we can establish – around 1536 – fishing. And there are records of many groups of Irish immigrating. If you go to St. John’s and the Avalon Peninsula – you find lots of Irish culture. The accent is a dead giveaway. Then there are the Basques – French/Portuguese from the southern tip of the Bay of Biscay -  who arrived in Newfoundland just about the same time as the Irish.

When the Dominion of Newfoundland became a province in 1949, the Indian Act was not applied. Premier Joey Smallwood told the federal government that no Mi'kmaq lived in the province. So the Mi'kmaq had the right to vote. Yet many experienced racism from the European immigrant settlers, and anglicized their names (ex. the name "Aucoin" was often changed to "O'Quinn") denying their Mi'kmaq origin. Many married non-indigenous people which greatly increased the Mi'kmaq's population. Angela Robinson, a Memorial University anthropologist claims that the majority of Newfoundlanders living west of the Avalon Peninsula and St. John's –in other words most of Newfoundland -  have Mi'kmaq ancestry.

The Federation of Newfoundland Indians formed in 1973 to secure recognition for the Mi'kmaq population, and the Innu and Inuit in Labrador. In 1987, the Miawpukek Mi'kmaq First Nation was recognized under the Indian Act and the community of Conne River became reserved land for the Mi'kmaq. The FNI included six Mi'kmaq bands. The Federal Government only supported the claim made at Conne River. In 2003, Minister Andy Scott was presented with a report that recommended a First Nations band without any reserved land to represent the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland. An Agreement-in-principle was reached in 2006 which the FNI accepted in 2007 and the federal government ratified in 2008. In 2011 the Qalipu Mi’kmaq were recognised by an order-in-council, and enabled to register all those who were of Mi’kmaq descent. And in that year, I think I certified baptisms of almost every person in my congregation – all having enough Qalipu Mi’kmaqancestry to qualify them legally as First Nations.

In a sense the story of Newfoundland is the story of Canada as a whole. Explorers landed here on their way to find something else, and in the first few years were assisted in survival by the local First Nations peoples. But like most settlers, they thought they had the right to simply take what they wanted – and dismissed the local peoples. Then there were sufficient people in one place to form a government; then that government started writing ‘laws’ for immigration, who got to come in and who couldn’t.

The first election I ever voted in, Pierre Eliot Trudeau was making his first bid to be Prime Minister. I was excited because he spoke about a ‘just society’; he was one of the first to promote gay rights, saying that the government ‘has no business in the bedrooms of the nation’; he patriated our Constitution so that we indeed became an independent country – to grow and to build.

In a country like Canada, which prides itself on being a distinct multi-cultural mosaic – what does this mean for us today, and how do we go forward? Our trade dispute has spurred a revival of Canadianism – lots of us have chosen to buy only Canadian, even if it costs a little more – and go without some things. It makes us feel good, to be supporting our own and to be supportive of those who make Canada what it is.

As Christians, what is our call? Which comes first - our country or our beliefs? Do we have to choose one or the other? Or can we find a way to blend both? Throughout the history of our parent nations, King represented the whole country and God. The church was subject to the commands and decisions of the King. The ruler spoke for God. Even now, new citizens swear an oath to the earthly ruler – the Queen. And there is a large group of people who based on their own beliefs choose to remain Permanent Residents rather than swear such an oath. They are still strong Canadians – and sometimes more patriotic than we are.  

I believe that as Christians our call in this country is to protect the rights of all – to continue to work towards building a ‘just society’. That is what Mary sings about – a just society where the injustices which we have allowed to creep in are turned upside down. God opts for the poorest and most destitute, despised and discriminated against; in Jesus we are called to a ministry of reconciliation, integration, respect for the person we consider ‘other’, no longer considering them ‘other’ but part of us – another small tile in the great mosaic that is this country.

And our faith in what this country is and can be might be tested – we might have to stand against violence, hatred, discrimination, racism. We might have to act and we might have to stand and speak out. Because we believe that God – through Jesus – calls us to stand up for those who are put down, to restore that which has been broken, to work for reconciliation with all those who have found this country abusive and harsh.

Today when we sing O Canada at the end of the service – let’s think about what it is which makes Canada – all of what makes us – all the colours, genders, people, faiths, cultures, understandings. We are more than just the sum of our parts, and we can be so much more. May it be so.

“Here I Am” a sermon based on Mark 2:23-3:6 second Sunday of Pentecost June 3, 2018 Trillium United Church Caledon

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.  The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 

Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

***************************************************************************

Shocked, I tell you, shocked! Jesus and the disciples went into the temple, on the Sabbath, and ate the sacred bread. And to add insult to injury, he actually healed someone on the Sabbath. He broke religious law.

Then, he said to the religious leaders and all those assembled – the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.

And scores of jaws dropped to the floor, especially the Pharisaical jaws.

This very short piece of text is at the core of religious debate within the temple and synagogue – and by law a part of the lives of the Israelite people, whether or not they liked it.

The Pharisees were at various times a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought in the Holy Land during the time of Second Temple Judaism – more or less the time in which Jesus lived. The Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Conflicts between Pharisees and Sadducees took place in the context of much broader and longstanding social and religious conflicts among Jews, made worse by the Roman conquest. Another conflict was cultural, between the Sadducees who favored Hellenisation – introduction of Greek Hellenistic thought, and the Pharisees who resisted Hellenisation. A third was juridico-religious, between those who emphasized the importance of the Second Temple with its rites and services, and those who emphasized the importance of other Mosaic Laws. A fourth point of conflict, specifically religious, involved different interpretations of the Torah and how to apply it to current Jewish life, with Sadducees recognizing only the Written Torah (with Greek philosophy), and rejecting doctrines such as the Oral Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and the resurrection of the dead.

And into this walks Jesus with the disciples and does something which manages to offend both groups. The Sabbath was made for people, not the other way around. Jesus and his disciples were caught breaking the Mosaic Law. What they did sounds harmless enough, they plucked grains on the Sabbath. Was Jesus really guilty of breaking the law? Or did the Pharisees misinterpret the law?

The fourth commandment says to keep the Sabbath holy. A Sabbath Day is a day of rest and in fact we do need to take a break. The word \sabbatical’ means just that – time for re-creating and renewing, and building back energy. And there are many passages in Leviticus that address what you can and cannot do on the Sabbath.

And the punishment was severe. In Numbers 15:32-36, we read: a man gathering firewood on Sabbath is put to death. The potential punishment for desecrating Sabbath (stoning) is the most severe in Jewish law. Jesus is, in my mind, saying they have not only misinterpreted the law, they have misinterpreted God. Humans existed long before Sabbath – hence Sabbath was made by man for man, following the example of God resting on the seventh day.

And they are quick to accuse Jesus.

Rev. Frank Schaefer imagines the questioning of Jesus regarding interpretations of the law – specifically imagining Jesus’ answer;

“I think the Sabbath law was put into place by God and the elders of Israel for the benefit of the people. Its purpose is to give us a day off, to relax, to meditate, pray, and regain our strength. I doubt that the intent of the Sabbath law was to control, restrict, or harm people, and surely, if there is an emergency that involves our health or well-being, we need to show some grace.”

Now, they probably think, finally, we have something concrete against him. He advocates breaking the law on the Sabbath. Even though they knew he was right. They knew he was right because in fact it wasn't against law, but against rabbinical tradition. And it ticked them off.

When I was in seminary, I had a nose-to-nose, in class, with my preaching professor. One of the basic tenets of good preaching is the tension between law and gospel. It was his theory of preaching that always one had to point to the cross and always preach the Gospels because they held the good news. I suggested that often the good news is in the Hebrew Scripture through the law, and the bad news might be in the Gospels. And that I thought preaching would get pretty boring with the preacher following his formula every week, year in and year out. A good preacher had to push the edges and go beyond them. And my sermon final was criticised for not following that formula.

Well, this morning, the text from Mark offers both. There’s what the law says, and what good news says. It offers the stark contrast between the law of men, parsed out in great detail and imposed on a people - doctrine – and the law of God which is one of unconditional love and openness to the needs of people first - grace.

In this seemingly very simple demonstration parable, Jesus puts the whole of the religious hierarchy on notice – people are more important than artificial religious law which serves nothing more than as a method of control by religious leaders.

People supersede religious interpretation – wholeness of people, freedom to be who they are without imposed religious understanding – ministry which builds up, heals and strengthens, comforts, energises and inspires. When God said to keep the Sabbath holy, it didn’t mean stop doing everything. To feed hungry people on the Sabbath, to heal hurting people on the Sabbath, *is* keeping the Sabbath holy.

And he’s teaching the disciples that the call to care for people is ministry. And that the key for making decisions in ministry has to be based in what makes people whole – what offers grace.

Here’s another small story – in our religious doctrine, dead people cannot be baptised, because baptism is a welcome into the body of the living covenant, the congregation. That’s our religious doctrine, and some clergy adhere to it without exception.
When I was doing on-call chaplaincy, I was called into the hospital about 4 am, because a woman was giving birth to a baby which had died in utero. Would I come in and do a baptism and naming ceremony. Their own minister would not baptise a dead baby, and ‘didn’t do hospitals’. He would not come.

Here was the crux for me between law and gospel, between religious dogmatism and ministry to people. For me, ministry to a grieving family – mother and father, other children, grandparents, aunts and uncles all together in the room to say goodbye to this child who was very much one of the family. And theologically, seems to me, the family of God encompasses both the living and the dead – we read in Hebrews about the ‘great cloud of witnesses’ who have gone before us. And my personal philosophy is that if it’s a choice between human-made doctrine, and an offering of God’s grace and love to people, ministry is most important every time.

And I think that’s what Jesus was saying – there is always a choice between religious doctrine, or the needs of people. And every one of us is called to make those choices every day. Here we are, Holy One, by your grace.

Sources:

1.    “For Your Own Good” by Rev. Frank Schaefer. Mark 2:23-30

2.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

3.    http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/mark/mk2_23.htm