Normally, when a pastor, elder or deacon is ordained to their office in the Christian Reformed Church, they must sign the Covenant for Officebearers before they can begin their work. The Covenant for Officebearers states that those who sign it believe that the Bible is the infallible and authoritative Word of God and that the confessions of the CRC (The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort) accurately reflect the teachings of Scripture. By having all officebearers in the denomination sign this document, we can be assured that we all have a similar theology thus enabling churches to work together.

But what happens when someone believes that the confessions do not reflect the teachings of Scripture? Can they challenge something that the Belgic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism says? Our confessions are human documents, of course, and they do not have the same status or authority or infallibility as the Bible. Is it possible to disagree with them, but what happens if someone does?

To deal with this eventuality, the CRC decided to implement a procedure by which someone can challenge the teachings of the confessions. Instead of naming the procedure with a common English word, the powers that be decided to use a Latin word, “gravamen.” We get our word, “grievance,” from the same source, but a gravamen is not really a grievance. Rather, it’s a concern that the confessions are not correct in their interpretation of Scripture. Once an officebearer has “filed a gravamen,” there are two possible courses that can be followed.

First, the officebearer might simply be struggling with a particular teaching (e.g. infant baptism is a common one), and he might want to have some discussions about how infant baptism is supported by Scripture. This is known as a confessional difficulty gravamen, meaning that he has some difficulty with the teaching of the confession. His council responds to this difficulty by providing teaching that is designed to help him understand how the church arrived at the teaching about infant baptism. It is hoped that the individual will learn and the difficulties he has been having will subside.

If an elder, let’s say, is struggling with a particular teaching, he can remain in office until he has finished his term, but he cannot be ordained again until the difficulty is resolved. If he cannot be persuaded that the teaching of the confessions is biblical, he cannot become an elder, deacon, or pastor again, although he can remain a faithful member of the church. It is always the hope that through good teaching and counsel, the church can help people resolve their difficulties with our understanding of Scripture.

There is a second possible response: perhaps the elder or deacon or pastor is absolutely convinced that the particular teaching of the confessions is in error, and they believe it so strongly that they feel it should be changed. In that case, the officebearer files a confessional revision gravamen in which he asks that the particular wording of the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, or Canons of Dort be changed so that it conforms to the teaching of Scripture.

Can this happen? Most assuredly, yes, although it does not happen easily. In both 1958 and 1985, paragraphs of the Belgic Confession, Article 36 (pertaining to the relationship of the government to the church), were put into the footnotes because, biblically speaking, they were incorrect. They remain in the footnotes only so that the historical document is preserved.

Why is this all important? There are several reasons it is. First, we want to be assured that what our church teaches is biblical, and we want our confessions to accurately reflect the teachings of Scripture. If they don’t, we should feel free to change them. Changes, however, don’t happen quickly because the confessions have been around for almost 500 years and they have withstood the test of time and the scrutiny of millions of believers. Second, the Bible is often misinterpreted, and when it is, people are led astray. The confessions help us remain faithful to the teachings of Scripture, and if we find ourselves disagreeing with the confessions, we must first determine if our understanding of Scripture is correct. Perhaps we have misread Scripture. Third, the confessions help us remain united. They are often called the Three Forms of Unity, meaning that all who hold to them are can feel united as we read and obey Scripture together. Fourth, and importantly, when our elders, deacons, and pastor sign the Covenant for Officebearers, they are saying that the teachings of Scripture are important and authoritative and that they are going to do their best to be instructed by them.

This year at Synod, we will be dealing with two confessional revision gravamina (plural of gravamen), one of which is asking for a revision to the Heidelberg Catechism and one which is asking for a revision to the Belgic Confession. What synod will decide, I do not know, but I am thankful for this: there are many in our denomination who take the Word of God very seriously and who want the teachings of the church to accurately reflect what God has revealed to us. Even if they are not accepted and if our confessions are not changed, they will give rise to some good discussion, and, by God’s grace, the church will be strengthened in its understanding of God’s Word.

Deuteronomy 6 gives two motivations that are meant to move the Israelites to obedience. The first is found in verse 5 where we read that they are to love the LORD, their God with all their heart, soul, and mind. A few verses later, in verse 13, the Israelites are told to fear the LORD their God and serve him only. These verses indicate that either loving or fearing the Lord will lead to obedience.

As we consider these two motivators, it is important that we read what follows. Following the command to love God, the text goes on to say that the Israelites are to find ways to remember what God has said by repeating God’s commands to their children, by talking about them at home and on the road, and by placing written copies in prominent places such as doorframes and gate posts. The text reminds the Israelites what God did for them by giving them a land in which to live which they did not have to clear of trees or build roads or houses. All that was provided for them by God. Their love is founded on God’s prior provision for them.

The second command, to fear the Lord, is followed up by a warning to not follow other gods or question the Lord’s ability to provide for his people. The Lord is a jealous God, we read, meaning that he carefully guards his relationship with his people and does not look kindly on people going elsewhere to find help when he is the best provider. In cultures which recognize a whole pantheon of gods, people were encouraged to find the best god to meet their purposes because those gods, although believed to be capable in some areas, were not proficient in others. The Lord, however, is capable in all areas, and God didn’t want his people to turn to less capable gods. God’s jealousy, then, was meant for his people’s good, for he wanted the best for them, and he was the best. The text says that if his people do turn away from him, his anger would be aroused, and when God is angry, his people should fear him. Thus, to avoid God’s anger, his people should turn to him as their only God.

In a sense, this all boils down to loyalty. God is calling his people to be loyal to him, and loyalty is expressed in obedience to his commands. God’s commands, as we know, are not simply random legalistic requirements but, rather, are designed to cause his people to flourish. Considering all that God had done for his people, he had every reason to expect them to be loyal to him. Loyal people want to please the one who has blessed them, and thus, the Israelites would want to know what God expected of them, so at the same time, when God had done everything for his people, and they became disloyal, he had every reason to be angry with them.

Loyalty to the Lord seemed to be a problem for the Israelites. They repeatedly turned to other gods because it seemed to them that those other gods might offer a bit more than what they could get from the Lord. They had a hard time being loyal even though the other gods never really gave them anything. They were disloyal, and it showed in how they lived. The moment that they began to consider turning to other gods, they also began to forget what the Lord had done for them, and they also stopped caring what he said. Loyalty is something that must be earned, and God had done everything to earn it, but the people had a tendency to ignore his provision.

Loyalty is something that is in high demand today. We hear about loyalty programs offered by businesses to keep customers coming back. Buy six coffees and get the seventh free. Use our credit card, and we give you points that you can redeem. This kind of loyalty is rather fake because it is not based on what is real. If the coffee is good and the price is reasonable, people will return. The promise of a free coffee will not cause people to return if the coffee is bad. Earning points is nice, but fair treatment by the credit card company is far more important.

God does not try to earn our loyalty by offering us points or by assuring us that if we keep coming back to him, he will do something nice for us. God earns our loyalty by providing a product that is real, to put it in terms of commerce. What God has done for us is provide us with something that cannot be matched. While there are all kinds of salvation (salvation from financial difficulty, salvation from loneliness, salvation from illness, etc.), there is only one kind of salvation that is truly the kind we need. It is knowing that God is with us no matter what life may bring, and it is knowing that when we die, we will have eternal life. It is God’s commitment to us that is our salvation, and that salvation is centered and rooted in Jesus Christ. No other god, no human being, no institution can give us what God has already given to us. It is the same for us as it was for the Israelites in the Old Testament. It is because of what God has done for us and continues to do for us that makes us loyal.

Our loyalty, then, is expressed in our eagerness to do his will. It is seen in absolute reliance on him instead of reliance on other things. We show our loyalty by living for Jesus. But what happens when we are not loyal, when we start to depend on others instead of God? Yes, God is a jealous God, and he becomes angry, and sometimes he reveals his anger to us, but it is in those times that his anger is for our good, for we know that he is angry with us like a parent is angry with their child for doing something that results in self-endangerment or self-harm. It is an anger that is meant to bring us back to what is good and right.

It is loyalty that God asks of us, and it is loyalty that we can be confident to give, for God has earned it by being good to us. We are motivated to obedience by our love for God, but, if we fail to do that, we can also expect God’s anger, anger that results from our breaking a relationship with him, an anger that is designed to make us loyal to him again. God wants us to be loyal to him, for it is to our benefit that we are, and it is to his glory when we are.

As I was reading through the Agenda for Synod, a 425 page book, I came across an overture that synod is being asked to consider. (An overture is a request for a change in the way we do things in the Christian Reformed Church.) This overture is requesting that we include as the first item in the description of a pastor and elder is that they be devoted to prayer. Normally overtures address some lack or problem within the denomination, and this particular one made me ask, “Is someone concerned that pastors and other church leaders are not praying?” I had the opportunity to ask why this particular overture was being presented, and I discovered why: it wasn’t because church leaders weren’t praying; rather, it was because our official documents do not emphasize prayer as being a foundational aspect of the church.

As I read through the background of the overture, I began to understand this a little better. Citing 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 and referencing a number of other statements in Paul’s letter, the overture says that Paul regularly prayed for the churches. In fact, New Testament scholar, Gordon Fee, says that before Paul engaged in any missionary work, before he taught the churches or wrote a letter, he prayed. Prayer was the foundation for his ministry.

A number of years ago, I attended a seminar about ministering effectively as a church, and the leader said that if the church is going to do its work well, it must first pray. Specifically, he said that councils who seek to lead the church must first spend time in reflection on God’s Word and in prayer. He noted that a 5-minute devotion was not really sufficient but that a council, if it is going to make good decisions, must first spend significant time in reflection on God’s Word and in prayer. He noted from his experience that a council which commits itself to at least 20 minutes of prayer and reflection on God’s Word will more likely make better decisions more quickly and be more focused on what is important. It has been my experience that he is right. Church councils change every year in their composition as elders and deacons come and go, and in one church, that particular year, the elders and deacons devoted themselves to prayer and reflection, and generally the decisions were made with greater ease and with a sense of comfort on the part of the council members. Things ran more smoothly and, often, the meeting was over much sooner than meetings that did not begin with a significant time of prayer.

I must confess that I have a lot to learn about prayer and how to pray well. Over the past 4 months I have been part of a cohort in which we learned a new way of praying, one that is based on a passage of Scripture. Leaders choose a passage from Scripture (a psalm, parable or paragraph from one of the epistles), and drawing upon the themes from that passage, they put together a prayer guide in which those themes become the foundation for the prayer. For example, if using Psalm 23, the leader would then give a few sentences to help those who are praying focus their prayers. He might use phrases such as “Lord, we experience you as a shepherd when. . .” and “Guide me in right paths as I . . .” Those who were in the group use those sentences to direct their thoughts as they prayed. Our sessions in that cohort would begin with prayer that lasted about half an hour or a little more, but because we were directed in our prayers, they never grew dull or seemed long. I learned a great deal about prayer by being part of this cohort, and I feel better equipped to both pray personally and to lead others in prayer.

Each session of the cohort focused on a different theme, and in the last session, we reflected on how prayer is experiencing the presence of God. The leader of the session, Jon, noted that as Christians we often feel that we need to be doing things in order to fulfill our calling. There is truth to that, of course, for if we are not active, nothing will get done. Before we do things, however, Jon suggested, we should first spend time acknowledging God’s presence with us. If the personal part is not there, the rest becomes tasks which can seem unfulfilling. One of the group commented that this should not surprise us because the same is true of our interactions with others.

A few years ago, the church I was part of joined together with other churches to help people with their spring yardwork. Some of those who received help had cancer, others had disabilities, and still others were elderly. Before we began to clean the yard, however, we spent a few moments talking to the homeowner, getting to know them and hearing their stories. As we talked together, we developed a relationship, and when we did begin our work, we did so with a stronger sense of commitment and a deeper compassion for the one we were helping. And the homeowner also experienced fulfilment as he/she watched the group rake the leaves, turn over the flower beds and clean up the litter. Serving is about relationship first, and the same holds true with God as it does with others.

As I reflect on the meetings I have attended in all the churches I have served, nearly all of them begin with prayer, and that is good. However, the prayer sometimes is little more than perfunctory, meaning that we sort of baptize the meeting with a brief Scripture reading and then praying “for a minute.” That does not seem to be what Paul meant when he spoke of himself and the church “being devoted to prayer.”

So, back to the overture: I began to understand why it is the Agenda for Synod. It may be true that churches and church leaders are not devoted to prayer but, rather, are merely baptizing their meetings in prayer without really experiencing the presence of God. If that is the case, then we do see the necessity of such an overture. It may also be the case that we simply need to be reminded that the foundation of all we do both as individual believers and as the church must be founded on the relationship we have with God, a relationship that is developed and strengthened through prayer. This is a most important reminder, one that we could do well to follow.

Last week, on one of the windy days, the air was white with the salt blowing from the salt flats north of town. One person who drove through there said that the blowing salt reduced the visibility to near white-out conditions. While considered to be a problem today, not so many centuries ago the salt in the salt flats would have been harvested and sold at considerable profit.

Our English word, salary, comes from the Latin word that also gives us the word, “salt.” We have forgotten the roots, but it used to be that the pay given to soldiers was called “salt money” because with their pay they could buy salt which was much more valuable then than it is today.

That salt was valuable only makes sense if we consider what life would be like without refrigeration. In years past, farmers, when they butchered a cow or a hog, because they could not eat the meat before it spoiled, would preserve it in layers of salt. If they did not have salt at hand, the valuable meat, food for the winter, would rot, and the farmer and his family would starve. Salt, although not a food source, was valuable for its preserving qualities. Today, this never crosses our minds. In fact, if you read the website of the largest salt mine in the world, located in Goderich, Ontario, a mine that produced nine million tons of salt each year, the main use of that salt is for de-icing roads and, to a lesser extent, in manufacturing processes, but it does not mention salt as a preservative. The salt deposit was discovered in 1866 when oil men were drilling for oil near Lake Huron.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are the salt and light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Unless we hear those words in their historical context, we will miss their import. We already know that salt, often in short supply, was valuable for its preserving qualities, but we should also consider the high price people paid for light. In biblical times, long before petroleum was discovered, light was produced by the burning of olive oil. I have not squeezed a fresh olive for its oil, but I cannot imagine that it would produce more than a few drops of oil. Imagine how many olives would have to be harvested and squeezed if we were forced to light our homes with olive oil rather than with efficient LED lighting. I suspect that most rooms in our homes would remain dark, and our ire would be roused at anyone who left a lamp burning for a few seconds longer than needed.

Both salt and light were very valuable commodities, but living in 2026, we give little thought to either as being precious. In fact, salt is considered to be an enemy, for we are warned that too much of it will give us high blood pressure and when we use it on the roads, it eats away at our cars. In some places, light pollution has become so much of a problem that some people never experience true darkness and have never seen the stars.

So, what does Jesus mean that we are the salt and light of the world? It means that Jesus sees his followers as being valuable to the world. It means that without his followers, those who believe in him, the world would rot, and no one would be able to find their way. The claim that Jesus is making is far more than casual; he is making the claim that the world cannot live without the church. This is a fairly audacious claim to be making.

Many people would make the claim that the church is irrelevant, and some would even say that it is dangerous. There are those who say that the church (and more broadly, religion) is destroying the world. Like salty roads and over-lit cities, there is a belief that the church is ruining the world and is causing more harm than good.

Immediately, we want to discredit that claim and point to all the good that the church is doing. We can do that, but we also need to listen carefully to those who raise these objections to determine if there is any validity in them. Is there legitimacy in saying that the church, as it sometimes manifests itself today, is causing more harm than good? Has it lost its value for the world and, instead, become an organization which has become destructive? We would hope not, but Jesus does allude to the possibility that this can be the case.

As soon as he says we are the salt of the world, he warns us that salt that has lost its saltiness is good for nothing except to be tossed into the garbage. Salt, if it had lost its preservative qualities, became worthless. In the same way, someone who lights a lamp containing valuable oil and immediately placing it under a bowl was creating light that was worthless. If salt and light are not used for their intended purpose, they become useless, and, in the same way, if the church does fulfill its intended purpose, it becomes of little value, and, if valueless, then it also becomes a burden to society.

The only way we can discern if the church is fulfilling its intended purpose is to determine what that purpose is. Jesus alludes to that in Matthew 5:16 when he says that when we let our light shine, others may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. To put it simply, the calling of the church and each person in it is to do good deeds and in so doing be a witness to the goodness and grace of God. As Paul says in Ephesians 4, in speaking to the role of those who have been called and gifted to be church leaders, all believers are to be equipped for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up. Saying it another way, the calling and purpose of the church is to make Jesus known to the world, both in our testimony and in our lifestyles, so that God can gather people to himself and bring to fullness the body of Christ.

If the church loses that understanding and if it becomes self-seeking, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, and self-centered, it loses sight of its purpose. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are placed here in this world for the singular purpose of revealing God the Father to the world, that the world may know his grace in Jesus Christ. If we, as followers of Jesus Christ do that, we are indeed extremely valuable to the world, just as salt and light were essential to the world in Jesus’ time. But it is only in the fulfilment of our calling that the people of God have value. And, so, we might wonder if those who say that the church is worthless might have a point. If the church is not fulfilling its calling, Jesus might well agree with them, although, unlike them, he would not wish to see the church abolished but, rather, to see it become what God intended it to be.

I am thinking of these things in terms of black and white, and perhaps that is an injustice to the church in general both now and through the ages. Nonetheless, we must pause and ask the question: are we as valuable to the world as we could be, and, if not, how can we provide value to the world which so much needs to know Jesus?

In a few weeks the Christian Reformed Church will be holding its annual synod. The word, “synod,” is one that I never use except to refer to this annual gathering of pastors, elders, and deacons. This made me curious about the origins and meaning of the word.

“Synod” has its origins in the Greek language, and it literally means, “on the way together.” The word, “synagogue,” beginning with “syn” (often translated from the Greek as “with”), translated literally, means “brought together.” Or, we might use the expression “in sync” which means that we are in agreement.

A synod, then, is a gathering together of people who are travelling together on the same road, figuratively speaking. We should not picture a synod as being a group of people who are on the same highway, but rather as people who are on the same road, perhaps coming from a variety of places but all heading to a common destination. The question that a synod will answer is this: because we are on the same road with a common destination, how do we address the various things we find on the road? It is usually assumed that those who attend a synod have a common understanding of Scripture and have a common direction and goal.

The first synod to be held in the Christian church was held in Jerusalem (Acts 15) at around 48-50 AD. Its president was the apostle James, and it was attended by both church leaders from Jerusalem and missionaries who had been bringing the gospel to distant parts of the world. All those in attendance had one thing in common, namely that they put their faith in Jesus Christ and that they wanted the world to know God’s grace. Unfortunately, an object had been found in the road: what requirements are placed on Gentiles who come to believe in Jesus? Do we need to ask them to obey the Old Testament laws (circumcision being the first law, but also attend the feasts, practices and celebration of the OT), essentially asking Gentiles to become Jews in practice and culture as they became Christians. The Jerusalem Council concluded that except for a few restrictions, Gentiles were free from practicing the OT law. Faith in Jesus Christ is what brings us into God’s family and keeps us there, not adherence to OT laws.

As the years passed, more synods were held, addressing a number of topics. The word, “synod,” was not used but was substituted with the word, “council,” which implies that those in attendance were gathered to deliberate together to determine what the Bible said about various topics. In the early 4^th century, for example, a council/synod was held in Nicea in which the topic of the nature and person of Jesus Christ was discussed. The question: what Jesus just like God or was he truly God. The council, after consulting Scripture, concluded that Jesus is God, the second Person of the Trinity.

Following divisions in the Christian church (1054 AD) into the eastern and western parts and the shattering of the western church into multiple fragments in the centuries following the Reformation, it has become seemingly impossible for the Christian church to call a synod in which all Christians from around the world are represented. It is perceived that not all churches are on the same road, although most would agree that all Christian churches have the same goal, namely, to make Jesus known to the world and to live in obedience to him. After the Reformation, denominations began to hold their own synods (councils), working within themselves to face the obstacles placed in their way by culture and the world. Thus, the Christian Reformed Synod is attended by members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, although, at each synod, representatives from other churches of the reformed traditions are invited to attend as well. The CRC synod deals specifically with issues faced by our denomination.

It might be interesting to note that at one time in the not-so-distant past, there was something called the “Reformed Ecumenical Synod,” later known as the “Reformed Ecumenical Council,” in which churches from around the world who were of the reformed tradition, gathered together to discuss the issues that faced us in common. Good discussions were held about a variety of issues although, unlike in the denominational synod, the conclusions were not seen as binding for all members. That synod/council has since been disbanded and replaced with a weaker body which tends to avoid the more robust conversations of the past, much to the loss of churches of the reformed tradition.

The purpose of a synod, thus, is to provide like-minded churches the opportunity to gather together to talk about how it is that followers of Jesus Christ can live faithfully in the world into which God has placed us. Over the years our synod has served the churches well by addressing questions raised in the churches through careful searching of God’s Word and by robust conversation. We do so as we recognize that we are on the same road together, trusting in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord and seeking to have others know that as well. It is always best that we gather together to talk about those things that face the church in our time and place, for it is often in the voices of others that we hear God’s voice. Knowing that we are the road together, heading toward the same goal gives us a sense of assurance that as we navigate life with fellow believers, we do so with the best wisdom available to us, wisdom that has been given to us by the Spirit as he works in the hearts and lives of fellow believers.

The Christian calendar begins in late November or early December with Advent. Advent is a time of expectation, of anticipation for the celebration of Jesus’ birth on Christmas Day. Christmastide begins on Christmas Day and lasts for 12 days (the 12 days of Christmas begins, not ends, on Christmas Day) and ends on Epiphany. Epiphany is the celebration of the arrival of the magi in Bethlehem. The next major celebration begins on Ash Wednesday, beginning the season of Lent. Palm Sunday, which is celebrated the Sunday before Easter, reminds us of Jesus entering Jerusalem as he is proclaimed King by his followers. Good Friday is next, and the King is given a crown of thorns and dies by crucifixion on Calvary. Then we have the glorious celebration of Easter, the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Following Easter, 40 days later, we celebrate Ascension Day, and Ascension Day is followed 10 days later by Pentecost, the celebration of the giving of the Holy Spirt. There are no more celebrations on the Christian calendar until the Sunday before Advent, which is proclaimed as “Christ the King” Sunday.

As we consider these celebrations, we quickly realize that some of them receive much more attention than others. This, it seems, is in large part because the ones to receive the most attention have been commercialized. Christmas, for example, is a wonderful way for retailers to make a lot of money, and people are willing to spend it. Easter has been subverted by retailers to be a celebration of life and decadence with eggs and bunnies and lots of chocolate. But most of the other celebrations – Ascension Day, Pentecost, and Christ the King Sunday – are almost entirely forgotten.

Take Ascension Day as an example. Falling, perhaps to us inconveniently, on a Thursday it is hardly recognized at all. Most of us will not be aware that on May 14 of this year we should be remembering the ascension of Jesus into heaven, the day that he takes his seat at the right hand of the Father, and, as we learn, he reign over the entire universe from that position until he returns once again to this earth.

Why has Ascension Day been ignored by retailers? It’s hard to think of how they can commercialize the coronation of Jesus Christ. If they could find a way, we can be sure that they would, but there doesn’t seem to be a way, at least not that I can think of. The reality is this: we cannot celebrate the coronation of any king unless we also acknowledge that we must submit our lives to that king. It is in the devil’s best interests to have everyone forget that Jesus reigns as King, and he is not particularly motivated to have the world remember this fact. He would rather we forget that Jesus is King.

It is the same with the celebration of Pentecost. It is much more convenient that Pentecost falls on a Sunday, for we gather for worship on a Sunday, and so it becomes somewhat natural that we remember the giving of the Holy Spirit to his church. Again, the devil is not particularly motivated to remind people that God, in the Person of the Spirit, has come to dwell in all those who follow Jesus Christ, equipping them to make disciples of all the nations and teaching them to follow and believe in Jesus. This is counter productive to the devil’s plans to destroy both the creation and the salvation that God has provided.

The last celebration of the Christian calendar, Christ the King Sunday, is actually relatively new, being designated a Christian celebration by the Roman Catholic pope in 1925. Pope Pius XI designated the last Sunday before Advent to be a time when we recognize Christ’s ultimate authority over our hearts, minds, and human history. World War I had just ended and had seen the downfall of four major monarchies in mainland Europe, and people were wondering who would lead them. Christ the King Sunday reminded them that we have King in heaven who will one day return to establish an everlasting kingdom on the earth, an earth from which all sin had been burned away. The Sunday was meant to give believers confidence to live in obedience and in the strength of the Lord. Needless to say, the devil doesn’t want us to celebrate that day either, for it is a stark reminder to him that he was defeated at the cross.

Even as I write about the celebrations of the Christian calendar, I am aware that there are Christians who balk at the idea of putting together a calendar that is not explicitly revealed by God in his Word. The events of the calendar are mentioned, but the Bible does not command us to develop a calendar from these events. While this is true, there is also a tremendous blessing in remembering these special days and taking time to reflect on them in a meaningful way.

As I mentioned above, because Ascension Day falls always on a Thursday, it will probably be forgotten by most But let’s not forget the meaning of Ascension Day, namely that Jesus is seated at the right hand of Father, and from there he is reigning over this entire universe, directing the course of history to his Father’s intended end. We can take great comfort in that fact because we know that we have a king who loves us and is looking out for us and for the interests of the church. We live in confidence and security because Jesus reigns.

It is somewhat sad that it is the commercialization of certain Christian celebrations by retailers that brings them to prominence, but that does not mean that we, as Christians, need to allow ourselves to be led by retailers. Rather, we are led by the teachings of the Word of God, and if the calendar that the church developed over the centuries helps us remember all that God has done for us, let us joyfully celebrate each important day, not just the ones that are elevated so that some people can make some extra money.

In the physical world, we say that for every action, there is a reaction. If a volcano erupts, it is not a random event but, rather, it is the result of the movement of tectonic plates and the rupture of the earth’s mantle. If the mountains disappear, it is not because they are gone but, rather, there is enough humidity in the air that the haze it causes hides the mountains. We usually can discover the cause of things that happen. If there is no obvious cause, we seek to discover one, trusting that it is discoverable.

This works in the physical world, and people have long recognized this. Today, we tend to be rather scientific about things, and we generally attribute strange events to physical phenomena. In ancient times, however, when scientific methods were unknown, strange events were often attributed to the workings of the gods. When the sun was darkened and the moon turned to blood, people saw this as an act of the gods (or God). Today, however, when the sun is darkened and moon turns red, we realize that it is because of massive amounts of pollution in the air caused by either a volcano erupting or a huge forest fire. The Bible describes such events in the heavens as portents warning of impending doom, and while we, as Christians, might attribute them to physical causes, but we also understand that God can and sometimes does use the timing of the eruption of volcanos to darken the sun and so act as a warning to us. While a Christian can understand the science, we do not discount that such events are directed by God to warn us to preparedness. But even in this, we must be careful to determine if is God warning us or simply a natural phenomenon.

For every action, there is a reaction, even if it is directed by God. But we must always be careful that we do not wrongly attribute an event to a cause unless we are sure that it is the cause. In John 9, the disciples and Jesus encounter a man who was born blind, and his disciples ask Jesus, “Why is this man blind” Was it his own sin or the sin of his parents that led to his blindness?” They believed that in the case of an illness or disability there must be an identifiable cause, namely that there was some identifiable sin that resulted in the problem. The disciples were simply relying on the theology of their day which said that we can determine why bad things happen to people. It’s because they have sinned in some way, and they are being punished for that sin.

Jesus tells the disciples that it is neither the man’s sin nor the sin of his parents that caused his blindness but, rather, that his blindness was an opportunity for God to reveal his powerful work of healing. With that, Jesus proceeded to heal the blind man.

In a meeting with some fellow believers (not in the immediate area), we had a conversation about the homeless people in that city. Generally, the people in that meeting were in agreement that God calls us to help the homeless, but the desire to help was dampened by a comment of one person. He said that their homelessness was God’s judgement because of something they had done wrong. He was challenged by others in the meeting who pointed out to him that while sometimes homelessness was a result of bad decisions, for often times those who are homeless struggle from mental illness, abusive childhoods or some other thing that led to their present situation. In other words, their homelessness was a result of things that had affected them deeply and negatively, and while they didn’t respond well to those negative pressures, they could not be held entirely responsible for their situation. By saying that their homelessness was a punishment, this one person was trying to avoid the responsibility of caring for our neighbour because, after all, if someone is being punished by God, we should not really intervene. This is the implication of saying that bad things happen to us because we did something to deserve them, and we are being punished.

It is bad theology to apply the laws of the physical world to our spiritual lives. It is not always true that all the bad things that happen to us are a result of our sin. If it were, I think that most of us would have to admit that our lives should be a lot worse than they are. If it is true for every action (sin) there was a reaction (punishment), we would all be in agony all the time. When someone struggles with illness or poverty or loneliness, we must be very cautious to say that they are getting what they deserve because they have committed some sin. That would be to apply laws of science to spiritual situations, something that we must be careful not to do.

The truth is, of course, that we can identify the cause of our problems, but the cause is broad and general: bad things happen to us simply because we live in a world that is soaked in sin. The sinful nature of the world and of ourselves results in problems of all sorts: illness, disease, poverty, loneliness, and the like. Some are more affected by the sinfulness of this world than others, and there does not seem to be a pattern. We cannot say that the one who suffers more is being punished more because of his/her sin. All we can say is that this is the result of living in this world such as it is.

But we do see that there are moments of hope and healing. When Jesus healed the blind man, he rejoiced in his healing and gave God the glory. His healing was an opportunity for God to show his power. Surprisingly, the religious leaders did not like the fact that he was healed and they abandoned their cause-effect theology. They would not acknowledge that Jesus was from God even though they must have understood that only God can heal a man who was born blind. The result (the restoration of his sight) had to have had a cause, and that cause had to have been God.

In this we do learn that there is an identifiable cause and effect when we see restoration. We say that living in a world of sin causes suffering, but we can also say that when God gets involved, we see the impact of his touch. Restoration is from the hand of God, so when God works, we can see what he has done. So, to summarize, we cannot necessarily say that the cause of someone’s suffering is a result of their sin, but we can say that relief from suffering is directly caused by God’s intervening work.

In the opening line of Psalm 23, we hear the words, “The LORD is my shepherd.” The Hebrew word for LORD (note all capitals in our Bibles) is the name of God, Yahweh. The idea that God can be thought of as a shepherd predates David’s psalm and was a widely known concept in Ancient Near Eastern culture. Not only gods, but also people of authority – leaders, kings, and military commanders – were often thought of as shepherds.

Shepherding, tending to the flocks, is one of the most ancient occupations. Abel, son of Adam and Eve, we understand, was a shepherd, and millennia later, Moses was a shepherd for the middle third of his life. Because shepherds predated the founding of cities, those who had moved to urban areas often viewed them as being somewhat backward with harsh and unyielding personalities. Shepherds themselves did not enjoy an elevated reputation among the people of civilized places. Yet, kings and other powerful leaders, and sometimes even the gods were understood to be shepherds.

Even though the best shepherds were often viewed as being uncompromising, this was also one of the best characteristics of a good leader. A shepherd must never compromise on the care of his sheep, and a leader (king, general, or even a god) must not be comprising in his care of the people. Uncompromising is often viewed as stubbornness, but, at the same time, the positive side of stubbornness is stalwartness. Shepherds were dependable, something that was a necessary attribute of a king.

But more importantly, a shepherd must give all his attention to his sheep. To do that, most shepherds spent twenty four hours a day with the sheep, even sleeping in an area near the sheepfold, the place where the sheep were bedded in safety for the night. Jesus talks about the sheep knowing the shepherd being willing to follow only the one that they knew, but the shepherd must also know his sheep. A good shepherd will immediately spot illness or injury. He will notice if a sheep is missing. A good shepherd can sense if things are well with the flock or if there is something wrong. If there is something wrong, he will do everything to make it right. The only way a shepherd could do that was to be fully attentive to his sheep.

This is why people often thought of their leaders as shepherds. If their leader, be it a king of a general or a god, was not fully attentive to the needs of his people, the people would suffer. To be attentive, the king would have to live among the people and know the people so well that if something was amiss, he would immediately sense it and make corrections. A good king knew his people, and he was willing to sacrifice his own comforts for them.

We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, it should be that our leaders, who are elected from among us, would be attentive to our needs. Democracy should work because those who hold the power live among us and, we would expect, can sense when things are not well. In a democracy, leaders work for the public good, not their own, for they are part of the public, or at least that is our expectation. We expect our leaders to be like shepherds. We want them to be uncompromising in the care of the people in the nation over which they have authority, providing for the people before looking after themselves. We become uncomfortable when a leader amasses wealth for himself by taking advantage of his position. This happens far too often in almost every nation in the world.

Whether the leader of a nation is a king or Prime Minister or president, that person is expected to lead as a shepherd, providing for his sheep before he provides for himself. We would be blessed if our political leaders were more like shepherds.

When Jesus began his ministry, his first words were to announce the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God. He himself would become the king, sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven. But Jesus does not often identify himself as a king; rather, the image that comes to mind more than not is of Jesus as a shepherd, a good shepherd. He tells us that a good shepherd would lay down his life for his sheep, meaning that they put the wellbeing of the sheep far above their own. We know Jesus to be uncompromising in this, for this was the reason that he came to this earth. With the Father and the Spirit, Jesus had agreed that the only way to save humanity from their self-inflicted mess was that he die in our place. He laid down his life for his sheep, and he did so by becoming one of us. He was truly the good shepherd.

Jesus’ perspective is to ours as well. The only right way for the kingdom of God to become evident on this earth is for the followers of Jesus Christ to be like shepherds. Contrary to the standards that we seem to be willing to accept from political and military leaders and the like, we are called to give up our lives for others. And we must be uncompromising in that. True, we might be viewed by the “civilized” people around us as being backward, but we accept that and conduct ourselves as Jesus taught us rather than giving into the ideals and actions of others. The church is always in danger of becoming worldly in that we would rather look after our own needs first, but that is not the Christian ethic. If we see ourselves as shepherds, following the example of Jesus Christ, against all odds, the kingdom of God will become present in our world.

In the book of Deuteronomy Moses is speaking to the Israelites as they are about to enter the Promised Land, and he is instructing them about how they are to live in the land. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 we learn that if the Israelites should ever ask for a king, that king would be required to live by a variety of principles. One of the most significant is that he is to write out a copy of the Law (Torah), the Pentateuch, and he is to read it and follow it all the days of his life. It is by living by the Word of God that he will reign long and well. By making a copy of the Torah, he will be aware of everything in it, and he will always have a copy available for himself.

Prior to this instruction there is another important instruction regarding his military assets. If the Israelites should obtain a king for themselves, that king must not acquire for himself a great number of horses. Horses were not pets, such as they often are today; horses were military animals, used specifically by armies to strengthen themselves. Having a calvary gave an army a distinct advantage over the enemy, and having horses also enabled an army to acquire chariots, the most formidable military piece on a battlefield. Horses, in biblical times, were not often used for transportation; rather, it was more common for people to use donkeys or, if they had a lot of things to transport, camels. Horses were military animals.

There are other instructions to the potential king, but let’s consider the prohibition against horses. If an army did not acquire horses, they were at a distinct disadvantage. Because the army would have been limited to an infantry (foot soldiers), they would not be helpless before an army which had horses and chariots. Consider a modern-day equivalent: imagine an army of foot soldiers facing an army equipped with tanks and aircraft. No betting person would put any money on the army consisting of only infantry. It appears, then, that God was deliberately placing his people, the Israelites, at a distinct disadvantage. How could they fight against the much more powerful armies that surrounded them? Would they not be defeated and the nation Israel destroyed?

Humanly speaking, If the Old Testament Israel did not develop a strong military, they would have been destroyed, no question. But there was a reason that God didn’t want the king to go beyond a mere infantry and that was that there would be no question as to who gives the victory. If the king had all the tanks and missiles and drones (modern technology), and Israel won a victory, they would take credit for their own successes and not acknowledge God’s intervention.

Some people, among them Christians, would say that the present state of Israel (Israelis) is the same as the nation of Israel as the Old Testament. If that were true (and this is problematic considering how secular Israel is), then it should follow that although the threats are significant – Iran, along with many Mideastern states want to see the nation of Israel destroyed – it should follow that Israel did not need to develop one of the strongest and most technologically advanced militaries in the world. They could have simply said, “We rely on God to protect us and win our battles, so we don’t need to own even one tank.” But, if the Israelis and the Israelites are the same nation, then they certainly don’t take God’s promises very seriously.

We can have the debate about whether or not the present state of Israel is the same as the ancient state of Israel, which hasn’t existed as an independent nation since 586BC, but we probably won’t come to a satisfactory conclusion to which all would agree. What is clear from Scripture, however, is this: all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ, Jews and Gentiles, are part of God’s covenant community and come under his covenantal care. This does not mean that we may not have horses, if we take Deuteronomy 17 literally, but it does mean that we can trust God so much that we can be assured that he will protect his people against destruction. In other words, the church, who is brought into God’s covenant community through Jesus Christ, can rely completely on God for its existence, even when it might be threatened by powerful forces.

In the last few decades, and in particular in the last few months, I have heard followers of Jesus Christ talk about the Muslim threat, however they define it. They would go so far as to say that if we want to be truly safe, we cannot have them near us, for they pose a danger to the church. But would it also not be true that if God protects his church, there is no threat against the church. Yes, there might be persecution, but we are not threatened. The same can be said for government policies and laws which some seem to believe are a threat to the people of God. But if it is true that God is for us, then no one can stand against us. We simply need to live in trust.

In a world where we seem to be relying more and more on human-developed power for safety and protection, it would seem that the church has a message that has become more and more vital. We have a gracious God who has made promises to his people, and one of those promises is that he will fight our battles for us and give us victory. That doesn’t mean that we won’t be called to engage as well, but we engage as foot soldiers, even though that might seem we are in a weaker position. We trust that it is God who ultimately must bring victory.

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, riding on a donkey. He didn’t ride on a horse. The gospel writers say that this was in fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech 9:9), and it is clear that Zechariah was basing his prophecy on Deuteronomy 17. Jesus rode on a donkey to show the world that it was God who would win the battle against the forces of evil, and Jesus did, not by amassing tanks and missiles but by dying on the cross. That was true victory, and it was complete. God doesn’t need tanks and armament to win the battle, and, it would seem, neither do we.

In a healthy beehive there are usually about 30,000 to 50,000 bees. There are nurse bees, guard bees, bees that move pollen and nectar around the hive, and bees that turn the nectar into honey. All the bees that stay in the hive are the younger bees while the older bees (3 weeks old and older, normally) are the ones we see flying to and from the flowers. The worker bees, all females, look identical to each other. The only bees that look different are the drones (male bees who do nothing useful in the hive) and the queen bee. In order to keep the hive strong, the queen has only one task and that is to lay eggs, between 1000 and 1500 per day, every day, all through the summer months.

Of all the bees in the hive, the queen bee is the most important. Beekeepers are not concerned if they see a few dead bees in front of the hive, but it becomes a serious matter if there is no queen bee in the hive because she is the one who ensures the survival of the colony. Even the bees know that, and their lives are focused on keeping the queen healthy and strong. In fact, it is not too far from the truth if we say that all the bees in the hive have the welfare of the queen in mind as they do their jobs. Sometimes doing their jobs requires sacrifice. If the hive is threatened, the guard bees will attack with their stingers, often losing their lives in the process. When it becomes cold outside, the bees huddle together with the queen at the centre, and the outer bees sacrifice their comfort to keep the queen alive. Even if the temperature in the hive drops to -40, the centre of the cluster of the bees in the hive remains near 30 degrees centigrade.

Imagine for a moment if the worker bees began to think only of themselves. If, when it became cold out, no worker bee would sacrifice her own comfort to keep the queen warm. The queen would die, and the hive would die with it. If a worker bee did not sacrifice her life for the queen when a skunk attacked the hive, the hive would be destroyed and the queen could no longer carry out her task of laying eggs. The hive would die.

In Ephesians 5:21 Paul says that we are to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. He describes what that looks like using household relationships common in his time: wives and husbands, parents and children, slaves and masters. When applying this mutual submission to the marriage relationship for example, in his instruction to the husband, he says that if the husband is truly submitting himself to his wife, he will die for her, just as Christ died for the church. (Note that he does not state the same expectation for the wife.)

Recall that Paul is writing his letter to a church which was experiencing some division, division that was rooted in 2000 years of history. Jews and Gentiles did not think highly of each other, but when members of both groups put their faith in Jesus Christ, they found themselves worshipping together under one roof. Paul emphasizes that our faith in Jesus Christ is what joins us together so that we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. and that we belong to one family. To help us live in that new situation, he calls us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Our calling is to look after the needs of others, often at the expense of fulfilling our own desires and wants.

Although there are some differences between Jesus and the queen bee in the hive, the similarities are helpful and telling. As in a hive, all the worker bees focus their efforts on protecting the queen, so among believers all focus their efforts on honouring Jesus Christ. Because our focus is so entirely on him, we no longer focus on ourselves, and we become willing to give up our comforts and own personal wants and even our lives to ensure that Jesus is always glorified. So strong is our desire to glorify Jesus that we no longer want to glorify ourselves. We glorify him by joining each other in service to the Lord, ensuring that others are able to carry out their callings so that together all believers grow together and flourish. In glorifying Jesus, we submit ourselves to others so that they can glorify him as well.

This is the ideal toward which we strive. Without a doubt the church is not always known to be exemplary in its calling. Unlike in the beehive, if the bees fail to honour their queen with the result that whole hive dies, when we fail to glorify Jesus, God the Father remains gracious and restores us again. Bees don’t get another chance; we do. But that doesn’t mean that we should hold back with our commitment or compromise in our desire to glorify Jesus.

I suspect that most of the problems the church has faced over the centuries and faces today come from the fact that believers fail to live as bees. Far too often the church has focused more on its own survival and welfare while at the same time ignoring Jesus. In one example, a pastor presented himself as the one who could increase the number of people in attendance, but the elder board did not ask him how he intended to do that. It turned out that that certain parts of the biblical message (the death of Jesus on the cross for our sin, for example) were minimized. While the numbers increased for a time and while the community seemed warm and welcoming, over the years, because Jesus was no longer central, the purpose for the church disappeared, and members who longed for the gospel began to move to other churches. As another example, while the pastor and elders focused on the gospel, the people had begun to focus their attention on some of the things that they liked to do. Sunday became fun-day, and the desire to glorify Jesus began to wane. Fun activities began to replace the act of glorifying Jesus in worship, and the church began to decline both in numbers and in witness to the community.

While God is gracious with his people, keeping the church alive, it is also true that sometimes local congregations fail when Jesus is no longer central. Like a beehive which has abandoned its queen and dies, congregations can die when they abandon Jesus. Let us never forget that in glorifying Jesus, we put ourselves aside as we submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. There is no room for selfish individualism among God’s people just as selfish individualism will result in the collapse of a colony of bees.

But let us not fear, for while it may be in our human natures to want to glorify ourselves, the Holy Spirit continually returns us to our calling. As we focus our efforts on glorifying Jesus, we will discover that our Christian community is growing in mutual submission as well. And when that happens, we will be fulfilling our calling of making the gospel (honey) available to the world.