Volume 18 No. 5 THE HERALD May 2011 ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH 8795 Keele Street, Box 576 Maple, Ontario L6A 1S5 www.zionmaple.ca Pastor Phone: (905) 669-9842 Email: zion.maple@gmail.com Linda Douglas Phone: (905) 417-0519 Email:lkdouglas@sympatico.ca Easter 2 Worship Conference Meeting Easter 3 Zion Women Council Easter 4 Worship Easter 5 Worship Easter 6 Worship Cemetery Cleanup PENTECOST ANNUAL PICNIC May 01 at 10:30 am May 07 at 10:30 am May 08 at 10:30 am May 10 at 9:30 am May 11 at 7:00 pm May 15 at10:30 am May 22 at 10:30 am May 29 at 10:30 am June 04 at 9:00 am June 12 at 10:30 am June 12 at 12:00 pm SYNOD and CONFERENCE The spring meeting of the Toronto Conference is taking place at St. Ansgar on Saturday, May 7 at 9:30. There will be elections for four Council positions, an update from Riita Hepomaki, assistant to our Bishop, a worship service and presentations from some of our Special Ministry pastors. Each congregation is allowed two voting delegates. th The Toronto Conference will be marking our Synod s 150 Anniversary at Zion on September 25 at 3:00 pm. Bishop Pryse will be preaching. We are inviting all our Conference congregations to participate in the service. We will be featuring the diversity of our congregations with music, singing, reading and praying in all the languages of our Conference. The worship service will include our ANNUAL CEMETERY SERVICE and will be followed by refreshments and a time for fellowship. MARK THIS DAY ON YOUR CALENDAR AND PLAN TO BE THERE!! Our annual Synodical Youth Event, hosted by ALSOC (Anglican Lutheran Stewards of Creation) will take place August 12 to 14 at St. Matthew s Lutheran Church in Kitchener. Check the bulletin board for further information. CHURCH COUNCIL NEWS The roof over the addition (kitchen, office and washrooms) has been leaking over the winter months. Now that all the snow has melted, council decided that the best solution is to replace the roof. You may have noticed the damage in the kitchen ceiling. As this was an emergency situation, council voted to go ahead with the replacement. Three estimates were received, and the best one is around $5,500.
From The Pastor The last three newsletters introduced information from Adam Hamilton s book, When Christians Get it Wrong. Hamilton studied why young people have rejected Christianity. Most object to Christianity because of beliefs, attitudes and actions of Christians they experienced. Their criticism was based on one or more of the following five elements. 1. The unchristian ways some Christians act 2. The anti-intellectual, anti-science stance of some Christians 3. Christianity s views of other world religions 4. Questions related to the role of God in human suffering 5. The way Christians view homosexuality The first four issues have been covered in the last three newsletters. The fifth criticism is about dealing with homosexuality. This is a controversial subject where people of sincere and honest conviction differ in their thinking about it. Three things need to be kept in mind as we consider this subject. First, not all young adults agree on whether homosexuality is a valid form of sexual expression. Second, most young adults seem to agree that gay and lesbian persons deserve compassion and respect, and that too many Christians fail to show it to them. The 2007 Barna study found that 91% of young adults labelled Christianity anti-homosexual, which led them to turn away from the church. A 2010 Pew Forum study noted that young adults see homosexuality very differently from those who came before them. Hamilton is not suggesting that Christians should determine morality by survey. Young adults see this issue differently than their parents and grandparents do. For young people, this issue is about excluding and hurting people they know and care about. They are much more likely to see homosexuality not as a willful decision to act in sinful, immoral, or perverted ways, but as a natural way that a small percentage of the population is either biologically or psychologically wired. They do not consider it offensive, immoral, or sinful when two people of the same gender love each other deeply. Mainline churches are terribly divided over this issue. This is an important issue for both sides in the divide. For traditionalists Christians who support the traditional views that sexual intimacy and marriage are morally appropriate only between a man and a woman the issue is not about just homosexuality but about the authority and role of Scripture in the life of Christians. Some who are conservative on this issue, are great advocates for social justice in other areas of life. Many are compassionate and welcome homosexuals into their churches. Where they struggle is with the idea of setting aside the Bible s handful of clear prohibitions against homosexual sexual intimacy and passages pointing toward marriage as the union between a man and a woman. It is difficult to see how one can set aside these scriptures and still maintain that the Bible has authority to speak in other areas of our lives. Why should we take seriously the scriptures on helping the poor, or loving our enemies when we have set aside scriptures indicating that God s will for marriage to be between a man and woman? A great battle rages withing the most compassionate persons between the desire to show compassion and fairness toward homosexuals and their believe that the Bible is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. When it comes to the debate over homosexuality within the Christian faith, the underlying issue is not homosexuality but the nature of Scripture and its authority for our lives. How can we set aside the handful of scriptures that teach that same-sex intimacy is wrong without setting aside the whole of Scripture? It s unsettling to say that a particular moral teaching in the Scriptures is no longer applicable to us. For many Christians, their view of the Bible is simplistic: Scripture is the Word of God. All Scripture was on an equal plane, and every word was chosen by God. The Bible was inerrant and infallible. The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. The Bible is more complicated than simplistic slogans. We don t simply follow each word and apply it literally to our lives. For example, most Christians eat pork, crab, shrimp, and lobster all of which are forbidden by God in the Bible. Most Christians take their Sabbath rest and day of worship on the first day of the week Sunday rather than on Saturday when God commanded its observation. We think nothing of mowing the yard or cleaning the house on our day off. When Jesus tells us to cut off our hands if they cause us to sin, we don t take him literally we interpret his words. Jesus tells us not to store up treasures on earth yet most of us have retirement
plans. Is this not a violation of the actual words of Jesus? Peter says to women Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing. Despite these clear instructions from the Bible, many Christians do not take these teachings literally. Beyond these teachings, passages in the Bible attribute to God actions and attitudes that seem wholly out of character with the way Jesus portrays God. The Bible commands the community to stone to death sons who are disrespectful to their parents. Those who work on the Sabbath are also to be put to death. If a priest s daughter becomes a prostitute, he is to burn her to death. How do we reconcile that with Jesus, who was a friend to prostitutes. And when God asks Saul to lead the armies of Israel against the Amalekites, saying, Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey, is this really right? Did God really command that Saul destroy the Amalekites because 375 years earlier their ancestors had treated the Israelites with disrespect? Contrast this view of God with that portrayed in Luke when Jesus (God the Son) is hanging on the cross and looks upon the Romans and the Pharisees who crucified him and prays, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing? Is God vindictive, destroying a people 375 years after an offense, or is God one who shows mercy even to the people who torture, humiliate, and hang him on a cross? The question then is: Did God change, or did human understanding of God change? Biblical scholars speak of progressive revelation. This is the idea that the promptings of God s Spirit were understood in the light of the concepts, ideas, and presuppositions of the times in which the biblical authors lived. Christians speak of the Bible as the Word of God but it was not dictated by God. Rather, it was written by people who were reflecting upon God, God s will, and God s promptings in their hearts. The authors were speaking to the people of their times, addressing current issues, needs, and challenges. Unlike any words about God in the Scripture, Jesus is the pure and complete Word of God. Thus we read all Scripture in the light of what Jesus said and did. We seek to live according to the Bible. But we also need to recognize that the word of God is found in the midst of the words of humans, and these words may not adequately capture the timeless Word of God. The Bible captures God s word as it was given in specific historical circumstances, understood, and recorded by authors who were shaped by and addressed their own cultures. Christians need to understand the Bible s teachings in the light of Jesus own life and teachings. This is particularly true when the words of the Bible are used to exclude particular groups of people. Consider the example of Peter - a Christian leader coming to understand that a particular teaching of Scripture is not God s timeless word, and it is time to set this teaching aside as no longer applicable. Peter is a follower of Jesus and a Jew. His Bible is the writings of the Old Testament. Peter is still striving to live according to its 613 laws because the Bible says it. Peter is in the town of Joppa and is hungry. While his meal is being prepared, he is in prayer. As he prays, he enters into something like a trance and sees a vision. A large sheet is let down in front of him by its four corners, and inside it are all kinds of animals, reptiles and birds that God clearly commands not to be eaten. God s commands prohibit even touching such animals. To touch them is to become defiled. Then Peter heard a voice saying, Get up, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said, By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean. The voice said to him again, a second time, What God has made clean, you must not call profane. In Peter s vision, he hears God telling him to do something expressly forbidden by Scripture. Peter is told to set aside a clear teaching of Scriptures, and he is given permission to eat what had formerly been unclean. This passage is the beginning of something huge that God is doing. Following this vision, Peter accepts an invitation from Cornelius, a Gentile. Peter goes to his home. A good Jew would not have entered this home because Gentiles were considered unclean. But Peter has an epiphany. He suddenly understands: The rules are changing! He explains, You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane of unclean. Peter s world is changing, and he must move beyond the mind-set that says, The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. Instead he says, The Bible says it, but I think God is up to something new, so I will listen to and follow
God. None of this sets aside the bible s teaching on homosexuality, but it does give us permission to ask questions: When Leviticus teaches that same-sex intimacy is an abomination and that those who participate in it should be put to death, does this capture the heart, character, and eternal will of God or do the verses capture the values and reflections of a people who lived 3,200 years ago and who had little understanding of homosexuality? Does God really want us to put homosexuals to death? When Paul writes about women and men committing shameless acts with one another by giving up the natural form of sexual intimacy for the unnatural, was that God speaking and declaring homosexuality to be shameless and unnatural, or was it Paul describing first-century Jewish understandings of what was natural and unnatural? So, do we set aside every scripture we don t like and find a rationalization for setting it aside? No, but we do engage in serious study and reflection when we are faced with serious issues, and we don t simply quote a verse or two and consider the matter settled. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, understood Scripture is the primary basis for our faith and practice. It contains all that is necessary for our salvation. But he also believed that rightly interpreting and applying Scripture in life requires the benefit of the church s theological, ethical, and biblical reflections of the last 2,000 years including the work of scholars, commentators, ethicists, and theologians. He also emphasized the role of our rational minds and scientific knowledge in our reading of Scripture. Finally, he called us to bring our life experience and the witness of the Spirit to bear upon our study, interpretation, and application of Scripture in our lives. This is the essential work of rightly handling the Scriptures. This is the process that allowed us to conclude that though slavery is allowed in the Bible, it is inconsistent with the broader message of Scripture concerning the dignity of humankind and of justice. All this leads us to be open to the possibility that God s perspective on homosexuality may be different from what we read in Leviticus and in Paul s letter to the church at Rome. It may be that heterosexuality is God s ideal and intention for humanity; our bodies bear witness to this as does the Bible s teaching about God creating male and female. But God s compassion and understanding toward persons who don t fit these norms whose fundamental wiring seems to be oriented toward same-sex attraction are undoubtedly greater than the Scriptures indicate. Many questions about homosexuality are yet to be answered. But one of the things we need to remember about Jesus and his life example is that he consistently put people before rules. He had a heart for people whom others deemed sinful. He went our of his way to touch those who were unclean, and in him they found hope and love. The Pharisees were incensed that Jesus met and ate with sinners and tax collectors. Even the disciples were surprised by some of the people Jesus associated with. For Jesus, however, people came before rules. Not all Christians see the issue of homosexuality in the same way. The church is divided on this issue. But even in a divided church, we can agree that we wish to be the kind of church in which men and women who are gay find the warmth and welcome and love of Jesus Christ. Christians get it wrong when they speak in ways that bring harm and alienation to God s gay children; we get it right when even in our uncertainty, we express the love and welcome of the one who offered living water to the woman at the well. Pastor Linda
THE OLIVE BRANCH UPDATE Deborah has been busy preparing for reporters who arrived last week to do a story on the Olive Branch. She did leave me with information on a new project that is underway. The information she provided was used to apply for a grant from our synod. Since the ELW was disbanded, the money that was left was put aside for grants for projects that would improve the lives of women. The application was made and we re hoping that money will be made available from the Women of Faith Fund. Here is a description of the project. The Olive Branch for Children believes in a holistic approach to development, which addresses root causes of issues, and enables people to build their capacity to help themselves. The goal of the Songa Embele project is to support women by building their capacity to provide for themselves and their families. By providing business training and counselling opportunities to the most vulnerable women in communities throughout Tanzania, gender equality issues, stigmatization issues, and HIV/AIDS awareness issues will all be affected positively. While this program aims to directly reach approximately 225 women, the indirect impact of this program is estimated to reach is 1200 to 1500 people, as women are able to provide for their families. Overall, small injections of capital and training will lead to a transformative impact on marginalised women, their families and whole communities. The overall goal of this project is to improve the financial autonomy of women living with HIV/AIDS and their families in the Mbeya region of Tanzania. This will be done by providing women with business and financial skills training necessary to develop small business enterprises for local markets. The Olive Branch will assist the women in acquiring funds to cover initial business costs through microloans or grants. Simultaneously, individual counselling and support groups to help deal with grievances will help improve each participant s emotional resilience. This project will impact approximately 1500 people both directly and indirectly by increasing economic independence allowing participants to provide for themselves and their families. By increasing the purchasing power of the participating women, the economic activity within the villages will be stimulated. The project will focus on providing products that are in demand in the local area, thus increasing the supply of products for purchase. Therefore the benefits of this project will extend to each participant s community at large. We hope and pray that the funding will be approved. A submission for a Faithlife matching grant has been submitted following the fundraising Tennis Tournament and dinner that was held on April 16 for the Olive Branch.