Whither Dominion Day?

Somewhere in a dresser drawer, I have a tee shirt with the statement or demand, Bring Back Dominion Day. It has a diagram of a moose and a very large Sir John A Macdonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister. This was an appeal years ago by a journalist of the Globe and Mail newspaper to cancel the name change for our national holiday celebrated today from Dominion Day to Canada Day.  Some name changes such as these are well meaning.  However, they can sometimes be ill founded and based on a misunderstanding about the meaning of the existing name.

June 20, 1868: Governor General Lord Monck signs a proclamation that requests all Her Majesty Queen Victoria's subjects across Canada to celebrate July 1. 1879: A federal law makes July 1 a statutory holiday as the "anniversary of Confederation," which is later called "Dominion Day." Today, Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867.

Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley, Premier of New Brunswick, suggested the term Dominion, inspired by Psalm 72:8 (from the King James Bible): "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." This is also echoed in Canada's motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for 'from sea to sea').

The change for Dominion Day to Canada Day was inspired (but not inspirational) in an effort to eliminate archaic language and make it more meaningful and proper to the times. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, it is part of a movement to make the language we use void of anything that might be poetic and catch the imagination of people.  To my ear, Canada Day sounds lifeless and sterile compared to Dominion Day.  The excuse in changing language to make it clearer and easier to understand often kills what language should be used for – to enrich and bring meaning to something.  This kind of language is appropriate for legal documents, but it is tragic when it is used for symbols that should resonate on a deeper level. There are things which should use poetry and not prose to express the importance and meaning of the thing itself and what it represents.  It is the difference between a sign which points to one thing and a symbol which cannot be described by itself.  Canada is one of those things which should be described in a symbol and not a sign.

I could talk further on this and bring in the changes in the prayer books of the Anglican Church of Canada from the poetry of the traditional Book of Common Prayer to the less than inspired language of the modern Book of Alternative Services - the names say it all.  However, I will leave that for perhaps another time. 

May all Canadians have a wonderful Day celebrating the wonderful country of Canada and may you all be blessed celebrating this day that the Lord has made.

Walking With Jesus

I was particularly moved by two articles in Saturday’s Globe and Mail.  They both caught my attention as examples of what faith can do to and for people.  One was, for me, a wonderful example of what it means to walk with Jesus as a model in your life.  The other was, in my view, an example of how people can be led astray by misplaced faith and what happens when you ignore the teachings of Jesus. 

 

The first article was an obituary for Clifford Raymond Derksen.  Mr. Derksen was a man whose actions stood out to redeem a tragedy and turned it into an example of what it means to be Christ-like.  Mr. Dirksen’s daughter, Candace, was murdered by an unknown person in 1984.  Two days after Candace’s body was found, Clifford Derksen, with his wife, Wilma at his side, held a press conference in which he expressed forgiveness and compassion for the unknown person who had murdered their daughter.  

 

Unfortunately, this action, based on their understanding of the example of Jesus Christ who forgave those who crucified him, was not met with approval and support.  It was met with suspicion and disbelief.  Clifford Derksen did not fit the model of the grieving father and he was subjected to other people’s suspicion of his actions, which lingered despite proof that he could not be the perpetrator of the horrible crime. 

  

This example of forgiveness is, unfortunately, unimaginable for most people.  I have serious doubts that I could follow the example of Clifford Derksen.  However, as the article notes quoting writer Malcolm Gladwell: 

It's inconceivable that you could forgive in that circumstance until you meet someone who’s done it.  So, when you meet someone like that, and you understand that these kinds of inconceivable things can be done by ordinary people, that expands your universe.   

Clifford Derksen’s ability to forgive was no easy thing.  It was founded in a life which drew on his religious faith as a Mennonite, developing strategies for dealing with his challenges that included memorizing large portions of the Bible.  As Dirksen noted,” The thing about forgiveness is you have to go to hard places.  You have to be ready to be courageous… I didn’t do this overnight.”   

The second article, by Ian Brown, was a follow-up with people involved with the Trucker Convoy, which occupied Ottawa for three weeks earlier this year.  One of the people interviewed had a firm belief that, as the article stated, “the convoy wasn’t just organized, it was ordained. An Almighty presence was there all along.”   

The Trucker Convoy, in my view, seemed to be a conglomerate of many different groups and individuals protesting many things which included anti-government action and inaction, conspiracy theorists, and libertarian beliefs.  However, it came down to two basic things as the article points out: first, the end to all pandemic restrictions and second, the dissolution of the Federal Government.  I

However, I believe that the majority of people were there to protest mask and vaccine mandates as an infringement on their freedoms, not to dissolve the government.   

Luke Kendze, one of the subjects of the article, said that the Convoy was ordained by God. I disagree with this assertion.  He based this on the facts that all their needs were almost miraculously supplied and everything appeared like manna from heaven (my categorization).  In addition, there were no fatalities during the trip to Ottawa. As Kendze stated, “We should have had a fatality along the way…Bit it was unbelievable, a divine movement, by design, not by accident.” 

 This conclusion is flawed in my assessment.  Kendze, a Christian, cannot base his anti-mask and anti- vaccine position, on a divine foundation.  Jesus’s great commandment was to love one another.   If you believe that your actions are Christian when they put yourself and others at risk in the middle of a pandemic, which killed may millions of people world-wide, that is not following Jesus Christ.  It is mistaken that he concluded that what happened was proof that God had ordained his actions and those of the thousands of people who descended on Ottawa and deprived its residents of their freedoms.    

 There was support for the actions of the Trucker Convoy, but it was support based on populism and not from a divine source.  I realize that my attitude towards the people in the Convoy is unforgiving and I do wish I was able to be more like that of Jesus and Clifford Derksen in this but I am not there yet. 

I hope and pray that we may find forgiveness for ourselves and others on our journey. 

 

Jean Vanier: Fallen Saint

There are those moments when you always remember when you hear the news.  The first one that I remember is the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  I was being driven home from school by my brother.    There was also the first moon landing.  I was listening to the radio in bed laid low by some bug or other.  I’m sure you all have your own memorable moments in your life.

I experienced another moment which I am sure will be added to that category on Saturday.  I picked up a copy of the Saturday Globe and Mail as is my routine.  There at the top of the front page was the headline: Jean Vanier Implicated in sexual abuse of women.  The founder of the L’Arche movement with the saintly appearance and life and work came crashing down to earth from that very high pedestal which the world had placed him.  I read the account of this tragic fall to earth and the devastating effect that Jean Vanier’s action had on women under his spiritual influence.  It was an account which literally brought tears to my eyes. 

My personal connection and introduction to L’Arche happened when I sent a reading week in my theological studies at Huron University College.  I was invited to spend the time in residence at L’Arche Daybreak in Richmond Hill, Ontario.  My time there was a memorable one in which I had to opportunity to live and worship with the core members of the community and the staff.  I was and am profoundly moved by a place where all are people are treated as deserving of respect and are given the opportunity to live lives in which their humanity is fully recognized and lived out as fully as possible.

The profound good that was evident in that community has been multiplied many times over in the many L’Arche communities in many different countries.  The profound good that was begun and carried on by Jean Vanier in his writing and public speaking was acknowledged in many awards and honours including the Order of Canada and the naming of public buildings and general recognition and acclaim that was given by so many different sources, secular and religious. 

And yet, here we have the other, darker side of that person revealed in devastating detail.  We can only wonder how a man who did such good in the world that benefited so many also do the terrible acts which caused such harm?

This is a case which is more than someone believing the honours that were given him.  Here is someone who attained saint-like status in the world and was tempted to believe that he was a saint and consequently could do no wrong.  He is reported to have said, “But Jesus and myself, this is not two, but we are one.”   There is the implication that Jean Vanier was led astray by a “spiritual father “, Pere Thomas Phillippe.  Jean Vanier has died so he is no longer ale to give his account of events so we have to depend on the conclusions of the independent report commissioned by the L’Arche Foundation.

To look at what led to this most unfortunate situation we can see a man who became identified with God in the person of Jesus Christ.  In Jungian terms his ego became undifferentiated from the Image of God, the Self which is part of everyone.    It is a case in which the person believes that God is in service of the person and not the person in service of God.  When this happens, the consequences can be devastating as it was and is in this case.

The reality of who Jean Vanier apparently was should not take away from the great good that was begun by him and continues in the many L’Arche communities.  However, it is also a warning that when we place someone on a pedestal, we may find that it is too high for the person to remained grounded in the world as a child of God. 

Blessing on your journey. 

The Forgiveness Challenge

The Globe and Mail this past Saturday published an opinion piece entitled Forgiveness is for Suckers.  A link to the article is https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-todays-forgiveness-culture-is-for-suckers/.  The article draws on the parable of the Prodigal Son to support the author’s position that forgiveness is a scam.  The closing sentence of the article states “Maybe the real message of the Prodigal Son story us that the pride of the show-off forgiver will always be served first.”  I am not sure in the authors mind whether the ‘forgiver’ is the Prodigal son who is forgiven or the father who does the forgiving.  It definitely isn’t the older brother.   

The article has many arguments and a conclusion that I disagree with whole heartedly.  First, the author RM Vaughan, does not appear to have read the actual parable or, if the author has, is deliberately blind to what it actually says.  He begins by stating the older brother stays home to look after this aging father.  There is nothing in the parable to suggest the father is old with the implication that perhaps he is going senile.  After all who would forgive the young foolish son except someone who is losing his mental faculties.  Indeed, the parable tells that, “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.”  Not the action of an elderly incapacitated man.  The author is very much on the side of the older son saying he, “never got so much as the occasional goat to slaughter.”  He could have added not even a goat much less ‘the fatted calf’ which the father did to celebrate the return of the son who was lost to him. 

The author leaves out the poignant reply by the father, “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”  I read into this that the older son could have had a goat for a celebration if he had wanted one.  But perhaps he was too proud and had a bit of a martyr complex. However, that may be reading too much into the story.  Vaughan’s position is that the prodigal son got away with it.  He got his inheritance early and spent it on wine, woman and song and when he ran out of money he sobered up, picked himself up and gaily returned home to reclaim his previous life.  The father was a fool and worse to just blindly forgive the wastrel son.  However, as Jesus (the author of the story) tells us, the younger son repented, “I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.”  He does just this when he is greeted by his father saying, “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’” 

There can be several ways of looking at this.  First, the father forgave the son regardless of his repentance.  The second way is that the father recognized that the son had repented by the very act of returning home.  Finally, the cynic could say that the prodigal son did this just as a ploy knowing his father would take him back and restore him to his old life if he showed repentance.  In any case, the father in the parable, who can represent our heavenly father, is forgiving when his son repents and turns around from his sinful ways.  This is very true for us as well. 

In my assessment of the essay, the author is, unfortunately viewing the issue of forgiveness through a lens that does not see the possibility of true forgiveness.  Vaughan see certain acts of coverup as forgiveness putting the sins of the Roman Catholic Church of moving pedophile priest to different parishes as acts of forgiveness rather than a way of protecting the institution which was more important that the protection of the members of the flock.  Vaughan makes the point that forgiveness is held up as a matter of simplistic shrug-it-off formulas and “by its very nature, forgiveness is an act of denial.”

I must agree with Vaughan that the church has made forgiveness seem to be an easy thing.  As Christians we are commanded to follow Christs example and forgive.  By implication all we have to do is the say the magic phrase, “I forgive”, and all is well; we forgive and forget.  As a result, this idea of easy forgiveness has entered our culture.  Forgiveness does not involve forgetting.  True forgiving does not come easily and will likely involve a lot of hard work which will move forward in fits and start.  However, the moving forward will free us from being held hostage by the events that we have experienced.

Vaughan makes the final point by quoting someone who sates that “There is nothing in the bible that says that forgiveness is good for the physical or mental health”.  That is probably true, but it is true that it is necessary for sour souls.  If we are unable to forgive we will have barriers to living fully in relationship with God.  We will be filled with anger and possibly hatred which is not a recipe for loving our neighbours much less our enemies.  If we do not forgive we will have a lens through which we will have a distorted view the world just as Vaughan perceived the Prodigal Son parable.

Blessings on you journey.

Who’s in and Who’s Out

No, no, no, no! Come, let's away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out;
And take upon's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies: and we'll wear out,
In a wall'd prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.

King Lear Act 5 Scene 3: Lear to Cordelia

Who’s in and who’s out—that is the question (with apologies to Prince Hamlet).   That question has been resonating with me recently.   I have had three encounters with that question in the past couple of weeks.  The first, and most timely for today, was in an interview with American theologian and Episcopalian Diana Butler Bass on the CBC program Tapestry.  The subject of the talk was Religion and Spirituality.  Bass noted that she first truly realized why people were turning their backs on organized religion was on the tenth anniversary of 9-11 which fell on a Sunday.  She was hesitant to attend church as she was fearful it might turn into a celebration of nationalistic triumphalism.  She was assured by the priest that the service would have very quiet, reflective liturgy.  She decided to attend and was reassured when the liturgy was all the priest had promised and quite appropriate to the solemn occasion.  The preacher, who was not clergy, but rather someone, who had been working at the White House that day spoke in his sermon of the four thousand people who had lost their lives in the decade following that event.  She was at first incredulous and thought, it is fifty thousand; it is a hundred thousand!  Then she realized he was referring to the American lives lost in Iraq.  (Note: a Google search puts the actual count has the loss of life at of up to 190,000 people including 134,000 civilians).  Bass walked out of that service and when her husband texted her and asked if she was coming back to church, she replied, “I don’t know.”

Another example of who’s in and who’s out was in an article in the Globe and Mail on September 2^nd which was entitled, Hell and High Water.  It was addressing the seeming resistance to actually preparing for the ever increasing ‘floods of the century’ which are occurring with increasing frequency.  The article noted the example of the Mississippi River’s Great Flood of 1927.  The article noted the official death toll was 246.  However, that was only the people that officially mattered.  It didn’t include the lives of African Americans—Negros as they would have been classified—which brought the death toll to over one thousand.  Who’s in and who’d out; who’s counted and who doesn’t; who’s lives matter and who’s lives don’t.

The last example was inspired when I read the article and I recalled the passage in the Gospel of Matthew regarding the feeding of the five thousand by Jesus, “And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children”.   Oh by the way there were women and children but we don’t need to mention how many.  That is a recurring situation in the bible where women are often not named e.g. the Syrophoenician woman or the woman at the well.  People in the bible are often not named in the bible even when they are central the story.  This is true for men as well as women e.g. the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal son.  However, perhaps we should be thankful for all the people who are named and bring life to the stories.

However, the question I place before you today is, when does a person count and when do they fade into the background of the story of our lives?  We have made progress in recent years to address this question.  The response of Black Lives Matter is addressing the frequent impunity with which the police treat people of colour non-people who don’t count.  This is not restricted to the United States. In Canada deaths by police action is much rarer, thank God.   However, we still have police insisting that ‘carding’ is necessary for them to do their job.  People carded just happen to be mostly non-whites.  In Canada we have the hopeful move of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which reviewed the institutionalize mistreatment of aboriginal Canadians.  The institutions of the people who were ‘in’ treated aboriginal people as objects rather than as people.

Of course it is easy to sit back and point fingers and judge events and attitudes of actions of the past by today’s standards and values.  How do we examine culture, our governments, and our institutions including the churches, and above all ourselves, in how we view others?  Who do we hold as being in and who is out. Who counts and who doesn’t?   Some years ago I attended a conference on a group of mostly white men who were trying to deal with white middle class male privilege in ourselves and in our society.  Unfortunately the group tended to look mostly at society and not at ourselves.  The conference was attended by two Inuit men from northern Canada.  One of them noted that in their culture they believed that, “no one was bigger than anyone else.”   At resonated with me then and it still does. 

How do we treat no one as bigger than anyone else; everyone as the same importance as everyone else?  As a Christian, how do I treat each person as a child of God?  How do I relate to each person as someone who is “in” and not as someone who is “out”?  If I do not I truly am in the prison that Lear and Cordelia are going to—however they are aware of their prison walls unlike the rest of us.   I know I am going to fail; in a state if sin; I am going to miss the mark.  Fortunately I am offered forgiveness and can start again.  That is the mystery of things indeed. 

Thank be to God. 

Father Forgive Them

One of defining moments of Christianity is when Jesus is hanging on the Cross and in his death-throws he makes a plea to his Heavenly Father to forgive those who are executing him in this most terrible way, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing”.  That is the where the rubber hits the road for Christians.

The challenge for us to forgive others has not been treated seriously enough by organized religion or society.  You can see this in the way children are told to, “say your sorry” by their parents even though they do not feel sorry in the least.  The church says that we should forgive and so we should.  But how does forgiveness actually happen?  We can decide we will forgive because after all it is the Christian thing to do.  So, we can tell the offending parry (perhaps through gritted teeth), “I forgive you”.  You might actually believe that you have forgiven the other person.   You may actually convince your self that, at that moment in any case, you do believe you have forgiven them.  However, in my experience and understanding, true forgiveness does not come that easily. 

Forgiveness is a process which can and probably will take many years and have many set backs.  You will find that you have made a conscious decision to forgive but then the memory of the experience which requires forgiveness and the associated emotions such as anger and fear and desire for justice and even vengeance will overwhelm you.  When these things occur, it is a sign that true forgiveness has not occurred. 

There was an excellent article in the Glove and Mail, appropriately on Saturday of Easter weekend, that addresses many of the issues and misconceptions around forgiveness.  The article, entitled A Radical Grief, explores the journey of two people whose daughter had been murdered.  They made a conscious decision to forgive the murderer even though they did not know the person’s identity for many years.   They made this decision, in part, because, shortly after the crime became public knowledge, they were visited by someone who had experience a similar tragedy.  He warned them that his life had been destroyed because he was not able to forgive the person who had murdered his child.  

The article is valuable because it illustrates a number of lessons that we need to learn.  The first one for me is not directly about forgiveness but it is related.  The article is an illustration about an important way of understanding sin.  Sin is those things which ‘chain us to the past’.  I do not remember the source of this idea.  However, it is an important one for me.  If we allow events and circumstances in our lives to prevent us from living the lives God intends us to lead we are in a sinful state.  If my anger and hatred of someone consumes me fully or even partially we can not be open to receiving God’s love and share that love with the world.  We are indeed chained to the past.  There are many other ways of understanding sin but this is an important one.

Another lesson from this article is that it is not necessary for someone to ask for forgiveness to be give forgiven.  In the article the parents did not even know who the murderer of their daughter was.  However, they made a conscious decision to forgive them.  There is a common belief someone should not be forgiven useless they repent of their actions and seek forgiveness.  This can help the process.  However, it is not necessary.  The act of Forgiveness is as much for the salvation of the person who forgives as it is for the one forgiven.

Finally, forgiveness is a journey which can take a long time.  It doesn’t come easily and quickly in many cases.  They couple in the article explained the difficulty of forgiving the perpetrator.  At times over the years they were overwhelmed with anger and the desire for vengeance.  However, they continued on their journey of and to forgiveness. 

Their case was particularly poignant.  For many years they did not know the identity of the perpetrator.  When the identity was discovered through DNA evidence, they had the trial of sitting through the trial of the accused.  He was found guilty.  However, a new trial was ordered on appeal and at this time the outcome of the second trial is unclear.  The mother is quoted in the article, “I want to live,” she said.  “If we had waited for justice 32 years ago, can you imagine where we’d be?  We would have just put our whole lives on the shelf.” 

Love is the only thing that can defeat hate.  Blessings on you journey. 

Religion and Science Dialogue

One of the joys of being retired or at least semi-retired is that I have more time to do some of the thing I would not have had time to do previously (or at least would not have made time for).  One of the joys this summer has been to catch up on past episodes of Tapestry, the wonderful CBC radio program on things spiritual and religious hosted by Mary Hines.  Mary does a beautiful job of delving into the different subjects and people being interviewed to get at the heart of the subject.  The show is often interspersed with humor which I think is wonderful as she delves into the “laughter at the heart of things” (a phrase I must credit to Helen Luke).  I would encourage you to listen in to the program which is on CBC Radio 1 on Sunday afternoons or explore past episodes on-line at your leisure. 

Another program I have discovered which touches more directly on what I want to discuss today is Faith and Witness, a podcast which explores ecumenism in the church today.  It is an undertaking of the Canadian Council of Churches.  Faith and Witness explores a number of big theological issues such as salvation from the perspective of different denominations in Canada.  The goal is understand where different denominations are on major issues and to explore the common ground among those denominations. 

The programs are interesting and ecumenism is a worthwhile undertaking.  However, when I was listening to a couple of the episodes I couldn’t help thinking that the discussion would be completely foreign and completely uninteresting to 99.9% of Canadians.  I believe what is truly needed most today is a discussion of a common basis/understanding between people of religious faith and the religious none’s as they are classified on the census.  A large part of that is, I believe, a lack of common language which will help define what we are talking about.  This hopefully might be used to discuss things religious and spiritual from a common starting point.  We can also begin to address the assumptions (often wrong) that we have about the different perspectives that people bring to the discussion.  This is what the ecumenical movement tries to do with different denominations within Christianity.  

This was brought into focus for me by an article in the Globe and Mail this past week.  The August 5^th edition had an article entitled “Magic in the machine” which explored the phenomenon of consciousness from the current understanding in psychology and neuroscience.  Consciousness is a topic which is of great interest to me particularly in the area of dreams and Jungian psychology.  There seems to be a great divide between those studying the brain from a scientific basis and those who approach it from the spiritual/metaphysical perspective.  There is, I believe a consensus that human being are conscious but consciousness cannot be put under the microscope and examined as a physical entity therefore as quoted in the article, “  The scientific and philosophical consensus is that there is no non-physical soul or ego, or at least no evidence for that.”  The implication is that unless scientists can find hard evidence for it, it is not worth discussing.

He article did a good job of exploring the subject given the limits of a short newspaper piece.  However, one statement stood out for me and independently for Lorna as well.  The article stated, “We no longer believe in a numinous life force, an élan vital.  So what’s the big deal about consciousness?”  My question is, who is we and what is the statement based on?  If there is no numinous life force then this life on earth is all we get.  There is no continuation of the life force or soul or spirit beyond the material life we now live.  Here we have assumptions and perspectives that are not universal and need to be explored.  This is where Tapestry excels in exploring how different aspect of the experience of the Divine play out in our lives. 

Richard Rohr does a wonderful job of exploring the False Self or Ego and the True Self which is the person God intends you to be.  The ego, despite the lack of evidence for its existence, is a force which often keeps us from God—the ultimate being.  It is exactly this ultimate question, which science will never find what it considers satisfactory evidence for the existence of, is one of these issues that keep us in (at least) two solitudes.  I will close today with a quote from Richard Rohr which explores the True Self.  I may explore this use further if the spirit inspires me to:   

Your True Self is that part of you that sees truthfully and will live forever. It is divine breath passing through you. Your false self is that part of you that is constantly changing and will eventually die anyway. It is in the world of passing forms and yet it sees itself as a central reference point—which is never really true. The false self is passing, tentative, or as the Hindus and Buddhists might say, “empty.” Richard Rohr Daily Meditation August 8, 2016

I don’t not have a sermon to share with you today as I had Sunday off from official duties only providing the music for St. Alban’s in Souris.  Blessings on your journey.  

Meeting the "Other"

My sermon on July 31st yesterday focused on what it means to be fully human.  For me it means that we are not perfect; we are going to make mistakes; we are going to fall into sin.  I started out by calling everyone losers.  I think that got their attention and it may not have made them as receptive to my message but I think I redeemed myself and made the point that as Christians we are followers of someone who the world viewed as a loser.  Jesus was by the world standards a loser who died a horrible death on the cross with his closest followers betraying him, denying him and abandoning him. 

I won’t repeat much of my sermon here—a copy is posted if you would like to read it.  However, I want to repeat a quote from Jean Vanier the founder of the L’Arche communities: 

I will tell you a true story, he said.  “A young man with disabilities wanted to win the 100-metre race. And he got to the finals.  And he was running like crazy to get that gold medal, and somebody in the next lane tripped and fell.  And he stopped, picked this guy up, and they ran together, and both of them were last”.

“That’s a true story,” Mr. Vanier confirmed.  It’s the deepest lesson the disabled have to teach.  “It’s not that they can become like us—but how can we become like them and have fun together.  And lift up the chap who has fallen on the other lane, and come in last.  There’s in us all an ego we have to conquer.  You kill the ego so that the real person may rise up.  And the real person is the one who’s learning to love.”

I want to reflect further on the on the “other” in our society—those people who are inconvenient and embarrassing and who many if not most people believe society would be better off without.  A Facts and Argument column in last Friday’s Globe and Mail written by Ann Auld,  the mother of a Down’s syndrome child spoke eloquently about the joys and challenges she had experienced.  She expressed the fear that in the future science will make her experience and people like her children extinct, “Of the numerous lessons I have learned the one I never figured out is that I would be raising an endangered species.”  She ended the article eloquently with the poignant expression of the joys and challenges, “Within a few moments, she will break my heart and patch it back up again.”

Lorna and I also watched on our antiquated VHS player and 20” portable TV, I Am Sam starring Sean Penn.  It is a poignant and moving story of a mentally challenged man who fights to raise his “normal” intelligent daughter.  It is not idealistic or sentimental or fantasy like Forrest Gump starring Tom Hanks.  It does not sugar coat the realities of the disabled in this world.  It does have a Hollywood happy ending but it is definitely worthwhile watching.

These experiences encouraged me to reflect on the reality of the “other” in God’s world.  I do not know what I would have done if I had been faced with the choice of bringing a disabled child into the world.  Ann Auld notes that she does not know what she would have done if amniocentesis had been available to her, “would I have continued the pregnancy knowing what was to come.”  She believes that she also, “contributed to the notion that being different is somehow wrong, not okay, not acceptable.”

How then do I react and respond and relate to the “others” in this world—those who are different and do not fit the idea and ideal of being normal or above normal?  How do I keep aware of my prejudices towards many “others” in this world?  There are many more questions than answers about who the “others” are and what God’s plan is.  However, the bottom line is “It’s not that they can become like us, but how can we become like them and have fun together” and live as God intends us to—in relationship.   Blessings