If you search images on the Internet of the story of Abraham offering Isaac on the altar (Genesis 22), you will find that, almost without exception, those images show us an altar located in a remote place, sometimes desert-like and sometimes more fertile. I have grown up thinking that this story took place in a desolate place.

Genesis 22 tells us that God called Abraham to sacrifice his son in Moriah “in a place where I [God] will show you.” Abraham takes Isaac, and he sets out. When he arrives in Moriah, he sees the mountain where the sacrifice was supposed to happen, and he goes through the preparations to sacrifice his son. As he is about to slay his son, an angel calls from heaven and stops him. Isaac is saved, and, thankfully, he is able to receive the inheritance, God’s promises and pass them on to his children until eventually Jesus, the Saviour of the world, is born. The death of Isaac would have meant an end to God’s salvation promises, but God did not allow that to happen.

Moriah is mentioned only one other time in Scripture, in 2 Chronicles 3:1. There we read that Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, on the threshing floor that David has bought from Araunah, the Jebusite. That story is recorded for us in 2 Samuel 24 and we learn there that David did indeed buy that threshing floor, and he offered sacrifices there to stop a plague that had broken out against the Israelites. That plague was the consequence of a bad mistake David had made, for he had taken a census of his fighting men, showing that he was putting his trust in them for victory rather than the LORD. When God showed his anger against this sin, David repented, bought the threshing floor, and offered sacrifices there. The plague stopped. David’s sacrifice was offered on the same place that Abraham had offered Isaac as a sacrifice. God’s people were saved through sacrifice.

Today the ruins of the Old Testament temple remain on that place, and the Dome on the Rock, the Muslim mosque stands near the place where the temple altar would have been. It is a busy place with thousands of visitors, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian visiting the place every day. It is not the remote spot pictured in the artist’s conceptions of Abraham’s earlier altar. Jewish people who visit the sight long for the day that the temple will be rebuilt so that sacrifices can resume, for without sacrifice there can be no salvation. Christians, on the other hand, recognize that the only necessary sacrifice has been made, and there is no need to rebuild the temple with its altar, for there is no need for another sacrifice to be made.

Today Mount Moriah is a religious site for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It was also a religious site for Abraham, who is considered a founder of all three of these religions. We recall that a little earlier in the Abrahamic narrative, Abraham, after defeating a raiding party put together by 4 powerful kings, stopped in the city of Salem where he encountered a man named Melchizedek. Melchizedek is a rather enigmatic (mysterious) figure in the OT, but we learn that he was a priest of God Most High (he served the same God as Abraham), and it was to him that Abraham gave a tithe as a way of thanking God for his blessing in the victory over his enemies. Melchizedek lived in the city of Salem, which transliterated from the Hebrew is none other than the city of Jerusalem. (Jerusalem means “city of Salem.”) In other words, when Abraham attempted to offer his son as a sacrifice, he did so in a place he had visited before, and he did so among people he had met before. Of course, although the area was populated, Abraham’s task was a lonely one, for he had been told to kill his only the son, the son that he loved. The artists who depict this scene illustrate his loneliness in his task rather than the reality of the region where it happened.

If we have heard this story before, we are well aware that as Abraham’s hand was stayed, God also provided a ram for the offering, something that Abraham had predicted would happen. God provided the sacrifice, not Abraham.

In the end, the text tells us, Abraham names the place, Yahweh Yireh, which is translated as “The LORD provides,” but more literally could be translated as “The LORD sees.” The LORD saw Abraham, meaning that he was also present in that place, observing what was going on. When God sees, God also acts, and he gives what is needed. Thus, “The LORD provides,” while not a literal translation, is a good translation as well.

There is a troubling aspect to this story, for God’s command to Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice goes against the very nature of God. God abhors the sacrifice of humans, and he would never ask that of anyone. God was unlike the gods of the nations in that area which did demand of people the sacrifice of their children. Yet, God did make that demand and even though he had a plan to stop it from happening, he did ask Abraham to do the unthinkable.

Still, in this, we see something of God’s grace. The gods of the Canaanites demanded human sacrifice in the most extreme of situations, for the biggest problems demand the biggest sacrifices. There can be no sacrifice greater than the sacrifice of one’s own child. The biggest problem we face is that we must face judgement for our sin and be sentenced to the appropriate punishment, namely death. We cannot deal with that, even if we offer the greatest sacrifice. Even human sacrifice is not enough to atone for the sin that permeates our lives, so it became necessary for God to provide the lamb for the sacrifice. He did, and that Lamb is none other than Jesus Christ, God’s Son. The sacrifice of Jesus in Moriah (=Jerusalem) provided salvation. His sacrifice, as horrible as it was, was enough to atone for our sins and appease God so that he turned his wrath away from humanity.

The story of Abraham offering his son as a sacrifice is offensive, to be sure, but it does foreshadow what Jesus voluntarily came to do. With his Father’s blessing, Jesus came to this earth to become the sacrificial lamb, offered in our place so that we do not have to offer any sacrifices ourselves. God provided the lamb.

Some scenes depicting the crucifixion of Jesus also show him to be in a remote place, but we know that he died just outside the city walls. Without any doubt, Jesus could have seen Jerusalem from the cross, if he were facing in the right direction. But the artists depict this is an event occurring in a remote area, not because it was so literally but because it shows the desolation that Jesus experienced on the cross. He was alone, forsaken by all, but in that loneliness, he brought us into fellowship.

Mount Moriah, thus, becomes a place where salvation is made known. What seems to be a remote place is a place where God is present, the God who sees, and the God who provides. And when we discover the Lamb, we know that we are not alone, for then we know God is with us.

We often pray for peace in war-torn regions of the world. When we do, however, we have to ask ourselves what peace looks like. Was the world at peace following WWI? It was not, for the allies demanded that Germany pay reparations for the war, something that would have crippled the country for centuries. What would peace look like in Gaza? If the bombs stopped falling and the Israeli soldiers removed themselves and their military might from the region, and the people of Gaza were allowed to rebuild their homes, schools, businesses and infrastructure, would there be peace? We would say that the ongoing animosities that have been held for decades and even centuries would remain, and while there might be no military activity, the region would not be at peace. Do we experience peace in Canada? Certainly things are better here than in most parts of the world, but there is still discord and violence and animosity. We might say that the desire for some Albertans to separate from Canada is an indication that we are far from experiencing peace.

According to the ways of the world, there are two ways we can experience peace. One that was particularly popular a few decades ago involved the use of various mind-numbing narcotics. Marijuana and LSD were two drugs which helped people relax and have a sense of wellbeing wash over them so that they did not feel the discord prominent in the world at that time. Racial disparity and wars in Asia made life less than peaceful, and those who used drugs often did so to numb their senses. It worked, at least initially, but the power of drugs drops as a body becomes used to them, and more drugs were needed to give the same sense that all is well in the world.

A second way, and more obvious way, is to get rid of things that might cause discord and animosity. If two neighbours dispute a property line, the best thing they can do, before the relationship is ruined, is get the properties surveyed. That eliminates the potential cause of enmity. The problem with this method is that we there are many sources of discord, and it is difficult to eliminate all of them. Some say that we should never talk about religion or politics at a social gathering because such conversations are known to ruin the atmosphere and sometimes even relationships. And there are many other potential sources of discord. Still, this seems to be the method left to us, and least according to popular belief and practice.

There is a third way, but it is increasingly unpopular: obedience. In a monarchy, where the regent (king or queen) has absolute authority, the best way to experience peace is to obey the one in power. Hopefully the regent has enough wisdom to create a kingdom where the needs of all are met, and there would be no reason to fight or argue.

Unfortunately, when we talk about obedience today, it is often in the atmosphere of adversity. In our current democratic climate, we, perhaps rightly, perceive that those in power are looking after their own interests instead of ours, and we are loathe to obey them. Even if that is not the case, we perceive that those in power are not doing things the right way (or the best way), and we don’t want to follow. The idea of obeying someone in our world because of our political system tends to create an adversarial atmosphere. When those in power demand obedience from us, we get our backs up, and while we might obey, we do so unwillingly and often with a great deal of complaining. Obedience does not seem like a legitimate way to peace.

But what if there was a very wise king who cared deeply for his people and wanted only the best for them? If his subjects were confident of this, they would feel inclined to obey him because they know that their lives would better if they did. Submitting to such authority, even if it meant giving up one’s independence, would be quite easy.

In some of the reading I have been doing of late, the writer talked about how obedience goes against the grain of our culture because we tend toward thinking we should have independence from authority. We want to live our own lives as we wish and not have rules imposed upon them. And that, he said, is the very thing that causes discord. He proposed that true peace can only come if we live in obedience to our King, to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. To do that, we have to give up our perceived freedoms, our independence, and even our rights. Being obedient to Jesus means that we have to be submissive to him, meaning that our own goals and dreams must be put aside so that we can replace them with his will and way. We can do that, of course, because we know that King Jesus is infinitely wise and wants what is best for us.

God’s laws, then, should be seen as something that unite us rather than divide us. Obedience can bring peace. In fact, obedience to Jesus Christ is the only thing that can bring peace. Eliminating things that cause discord is impossible, for there is always something that will divide us and being divided, cause us to experience enmity. Using mind-altering drugs to deaden the feelings of discord is fake and futile. Living independently, demanding that we can do whatever we want will only cause more discord. But submitting our lives to a God who loves us and cares for us and who has given instructions about how we are to live – this is the path to peace.

If (since) this is the case, then it also follows that Christians, joined together in the church of Jesus Christ across the world, have the solution to the problem of worldwide discord: we have the gospel message in which we declare that our King cares for us so deeply that he gave his life for us, and he loves us so broadly that he has given us guidance for every part of life, guidance that has our best interests in mind. Peace is possible only if the people stop fighting for their own rights and voluntarily give up their wills to submit to the care of Jesus Christ. Peace is possible but only through humble submission and obedience to Jesus Christ. That is a powerful message that the world needs to hear, and we have the privilege of helping the world understand. If we want peace, we pray for it, but we are also called to action, calling people to believe in Jesus and showing that faith by living obediently.

In the past couple of years there has been a lot of discussion in some Christian Reformed Church councils about the authority of synod. Does synod have the authority to tell the local church what they can and cannot do?

For those who might be a little unfamiliar with the structure of our denomination, here is a brief overview. Local congregations have a council that is comprised of elders and deacons. These elders and deacons have been called by God to govern the church, and they are guided by the teachings of Scripture as they take on these positions of authority. Church members are accountable to the council for how they live and what they believe.

In the CRC, representatives from a geographical area gather together into what we call a classis. The Presbyterian churches call the same gathering a presbytery. The classis serves two functions: it enables churches of a particular area to do ministry together (e.g. campus ministry or church planting) that a local congregation may not be able to do by itself. The classis also serves to provide accountability to the churches that belong to it. Thus, if a particular congregation starts to do or believe something that is not biblical, the rest of the churches seek to correct that church and its council and pastor. Or, if a church and a pastor are struggling in their relationship, the classis steps in to provide support and guidance for that church and pastor, seeking to bring resolution to the problems. When local congregations belong to a classis, in a very real way, they are voluntarily agreeing to submit to the authority of classis, or, to put it another way, to be held accountable to the other churches in that classis. Classis, thus, has what we might call a delegated authority, meaning that the local churches give authority to the classis over themselves by being members of that classis.

Synod is much the same as classis except it operates at a denominational level. The CRC is considered a binational denomination in that we have churches in both the USA and Canada. Each classis delegates representatives to go to synod, which meets once per year. Synod has a double purpose, the same as a classis. Synod enables the entire denomination to do ministry together. Thus, our denomination has been able to send and support missionaries to other countries, planting churches and developing church leaders. And, like a classis, synod is also called to hold churches accountable to ensure that they are holding to the teachings of Scripture both in belief and practice. Sometimes synod is also called to make decisions about what the Bible says about a particular topic. A few years ago, a local church and its pastor had begun to teach and practice Kinism. Kinism is the belief that people should marry only within their ethnic community, meaning, for example, that a white man should not marry a black woman. Synod was asked to determine what Scripture teaches on this matter, and synod determined that the Bible is clearly against Kinism, and the church and pastor were instructed to cease teaching and practicing ethnic separation. Synod had the task of determining what Scripture says, and it has the authority (also a delegated authority) to call local congregations to account.

In the past few years there has been much discussion about human sexuality. About a decade ago a question was presented to synod: what does our church believe about human sexuality. Synod put together a study committee, and that study committee spent a great deal of time asking people what they believed concerning human sexuality. Their work was put into a report that was presented to synod. Synod did not accept the report, primarily because it asked people what they thought, but the report did not spend much time asking what Scripture teaches. Synod recognized that popular opinions might differ from the teachings of Scripture, and so synod put together a second committee that was tasked with seeking to understand the teachings of Scripture. What does the Bible say about human sexuality?

The committee came back with a report that was biblically based, and it was presented to synod. Synod, comprised of delegates from across the denomination, by a very strong majority, accepted this report as being a faithful analysis of the teachings of God’s Word, and it presented it to the congregations of the denomination as being the standard by which we think about and practice human sexuality. It was more than just pastoral advice; it was a statement that reflected the teaching of Scripture. In our denomination we believe that Scripture is the final authority for belief and practice because, as our believe, Scripture is given to us by God in special revelation.

Now, of course, we recognize that while Scripture is infallible, our interpretation of it may not be. We might misunderstand the teaching of Scripture, and we may make errors when it comes to what we believe and how we live. But this is precisely why we have a synod. A local congregation may make errors in interpretation (Kinism, is a good example), but if we work together, the chances of us making errors is lessened. Synod may make mistakes as well, and if it does, its decisions can be appealed.

When synod accepted the report which says that human sexual activity is to be reserved for a man and woman who have become husband and wife through the covenant of marriage and that all other sexual activity is aberrant, and when synod presented that to the churches, this became (or, rather continued to be, for this is what our denomination has always taught) the standard by which all churches, councils, and members are expected to live. Some protested the findings of the report, saying that it was not a correct understanding of the Bible, but synod continued to uphold what it had previously declared. Still, even though by implication of belonging to a denomination in which local churches delegate authority to synod the rulings of synod are authoritative, some churches refused to recognize the standard of Scripture and made allowances for other forms of sexual experience to be practiced. Now there were churches and councils and members of the denomination refusing to live by the standards of Scripture as understood by the denomination, and this lead to a quandary: what do we do now?

Synod then took a further step, and it made the statement that the teachings of the Human Sexuality Report be considered to be confessional. It said that the word, “unchastity,” in Q&A 109 of the Heidelberg Catechism included any sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Making this confessional has significant implications, for when pastors, elders, and deacons are ordained to their office, they sign what is called a “Covenant of Officebearers” in which they say that they will hold to the teachings of Scripture as articulated in our confessions, the Heidelberg Catechism being one of those confessions. By saying that unchastity includes all forms of sexuality that are not between a woman and man who are married to each other this meant that if someone does not hold to this, they cannot become or continue to be an officebearer in the Christian Reformed Church. To put it another way, anyone who continues to espouse or even accept behaviour that has been deemed sinful cannot serve as a leader in our denomination. Synod went on to say that all those who hold office in our denomination must be able to re-sign the Covenant of Officebearers, thus signifying their willingness to submit to the biblical teaching as articulated in our confessions as understood by our denomination. Many felt that this re-signing was important because it would create an atmosphere of trust and assurance that all who are leaders in our denomination will submit to the authority that we have given to synod to guide us in our teachings and practice.

Some have balked at this idea that all those in leadership positions much reaffirm their willingness to submit to the teachings of Scripture as presented in Scripture, saying that synod overstepped its authority in asking for this reaffirmation. Further, there are some churches which have decided that its officebearers do not need to sign the Covenant of Officebearers before they can hold office, allowing people who may not hold to the teachings of our denomination to become leaders in its churches.

The question is this: does synod have the authority over churches and their councils to make this ruling? It would seem that synod does, simply because its authority originates in the local church (through classis), and synod has been given the authority by the churches (through classis) to hold the members of the denomination accountable. We live in a time when many are anti-authority, but as believers, we also attest that we want to be held accountable by other believers. Thus, we have given synod authority, and because we have, we ought to submit to that authority as our fellow believers, through synod, hold us accountable to profess and practice the teachings of God’s Word.

The season for vacations is nearing, and many of us are looking forward to time away from our work. The word, “vacation,” has Latin roots, and has given rise to several other English words depicting emptiness. “Vacate” and “vacant” have the same Latin origins, and both of them imply that something is empty. When we go on vacation, we vacate our lives of their normal routines (job, education, etc.) and we begin a time of leisure. We become exempt from our normal duties and we are no longer required to serve at our jobs as we normally do. Still, most of us when on vacation, in emptying our lives of our normal routines and duties, fill them with something else. Many of us fill our vacations with activities that keep us busy: travel, sightseeing, and camping (where tending to our daily needs like preparing food is far more difficult than what we have in our well-equipped kitchens at home). Yet, while we are often busy during our vacations, we do empty our lives from the normal routines.

And this is why many will say, “A change is as good as a vacation.” Thus, some may opt to volunteer with Disaster Response Services, an organization that helps people rebuild homes after a natural disaster. Joining together with a group of like-minded people can be an invigorating exercise for many and may provide a welcome vacation from the routines of life. Others may own a cottage or second home and find themselves maintaining that property on their vacation time. Yet, for them the change of pace is a change from the routine and they feel it is a holiday. Others may participate in what we have come to call a “staycation” meaning that they stay at home and enjoy their life there without having to go to work.

It is true that vacations as we know them are a relatively new concept. People who work in a fulltime position receive pay throughout their vacation. This was not always the case. Only 100 years ago, unions were advocating that workers receive pay on significant public holidays: Christmas, Thanksgiving, Canada Day, etc. As this idea took root, unions began to advocate for more days off, and paid vacation leave became standard practice. In fact, if an employer does not give paid vacation to its employees, they are required to give them additional pay to compensate for this absence. Paid vacation leave, something we consider to be our right, is not something that most people have enjoyed for most of history.

As we may know, the British do not use the word, “vacation,” but, rather, call their vacations “holidays.” Many Canadians interchange the two words. “Holiday” is a contraction of “holy day,” and early holidays were given in which people were given permission to refrain from attending to their normal jobs on days that were dedicated to special Christian days. Thus, Christmas, Good Friday, Ascension Day, and the like were days when people did not have to work but, rather, could participate in worship services and celebrate God’s faithful provision of salvation. Again, in England, as in North America, the concept of a holiday was expanded from just those special “holy days” to also include paid leave from work. Holidays, in England today, have very little to do with celebrating God’s grace in Jesus Christ. It might be better if the British change their word to “vacation,” because that is really what they are doing, emptying their lives of their daily routines of work and education.

While the idea of being given paid time off for vacation is relatively new, being given time off for entertainment purposes can be traced back to Roman times. If they saw fit, the emperor would declare a public “holiday” so that the people of Rome could go to the Coliseum and watch gladiators kill each other for sport. There is no doubt that that some of the early Roman “holidays” were rather unpleasant for Christians, for they were the ones who suffered death while the rest of the “vacationing” Roman population cheered as the lions and bulls destroyed the lives of followers of Jesus Christ. (But this is not something we like to associate with the concept of holiday or vacation.)

Back to our vacations (or holidays). As I reflected on the privilege we have to take vacations (often while receiving a salary), we should be thankful that we live at a time and in a place where this is possible. We forget how privileged we are to be able to take time away from our regular lives to enjoy ourselves without having to work for our daily bread. We can be thankful to the unions of a century ago who fought for this privilege and for an economy which is strong enough that businesses can pay workers even when they are not producing. These are gifts we should never take for granted.

Of course, we should also recognize that long before unions, God built into this world the ability for all of us to have time off from our normal routines to enjoy a day when we don’t have to work. It is actually true that God designed the world in such a way that instead of having the ability to vacate our jobs for just a couple of weeks every year, we can take almost 8 weeks (52 days) off from our jobs and not have to worry about the loss of wages that comes from not working. We spread those 52 days out over the entire year, and they occur every 7 days. We call these days when we don’t have to work to stay alive “sabbaths.” When we rest from our labours once every 7 days, we do so with the assurance that God will provide for us, that we don’t need to work to stay alive. Those days of rest a truly a gift from God, and we should be always thankful that we can rest from our labours. For our vacation times (2-3 weeks for most fulltime workers) we give thanks to unions who advocated for us and for employers who continue to provide for us so that we can take time away. But for the other 7½ weeks, we give God thanks that he has promised that he will take care of us as we refrain from our labours.

As I think about this, I do grow a little concerned. Even though unions have earned for us our paid vacation, they have not protected us from employers who have taken those 7½ weeks away from us while giving us a mere 2-3 weeks. We might wonder if we have lost more than we have gained. Perhaps we should again reclaim the importance of Sabbath rest, rejoicing in the fact that God gave us almost 8 weeks every year in which we need not work. That is much better than anything else any employer allows us.

In our Bibles, there are at least 15 books which are labelled as prophetic books, Isaiah to Ezekiel and then what we normally refer to as the minor prophets, Hosea to Malachi. Daniel, while containing prophetic material, is often categorized as more of an apocalyptic book, more in line with the book of Revelation. In addition to the writings of the prophets, we encounter a number of other prophets in Scripture, the main ones being Elijah and Elisha. Nearly all of the prophets (with the exception of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi who prophesied after the exile) lived during the period of time recorded for us in 2 Kings.

According to Deuteronomy 18:14ff. the office of the prophet was occasional, meaning that prophets were called by God to their task only during times when the occasion demanded it. The occasions which demanded prophets were almost always during times when God’s people had strayed from the truth and had engaged in varying kinds of ungodly beliefs and practices. Elijah, for example, did almost all of his work during the time of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel who together were leading the people to abandon God and worship the Canaanite god, Ba’al. Nathan appears on the scene after David had committed adultery and murder and thought he had gotten away with his sin. Isaiah is called by God to go to the nation of Judah when its king began to consider finding help from foreign nations rather than seeking help from God. Jeremiah was given the difficult task of calling God’s people to account when they had all but forgotten him. Prophets were used by God to call people to account and turn them back from their sin.

Being a prophet was a thankless task, for most often the people did not want to hear the prophet’s message. Generally, things seemed to be going quite well for the people as the economy boomed, as jobs were plentifully, as there was little threat of war. The people had come to believe that they really didn’t need God and that obedience to him was not all that important. The prophets were sent by God to warn the people that their good lives would disintegrate if they did not turn back to God and live faithfully before him. This was an unpopular message, not well received by the prosperous people to whom the prophets were sent. Sometimes the prophets were treated horribly. Tradition has it, for example, that Isaiah was sawn in two when after being pursued by King Ahaz, he hid in a hollow tree. Ahaz ordered the tree cut down with Isaiah inside. Jeremiah spent weeks in a nearly dry well because he didn’t deliver a positive message to the king but rather warned of impending defeat to a marauding army from the north. Elijah was forced to flee for his life and live in loneliness and obscurity for three and a half years as the king and his wife sought to take his life. God provided for him, but his life was not easy.

Speaking prophetically became more urgent the more God’s people turned away from him. The greater their sin, the more they needed to hear God’s voice. While the prophets often had a harsh and negative message, we must be reminded that God sent his prophets to his people not to announce impending doom but to call them to repentance so that the doom could be avoided. God did not want his people to forget him because if they did, they would not longer receive the blessings he offered to them. The collapse of their world and the resulting devastation was something that God wanted to avoid. Unfortunately, the people refused to listen, and God left his people to experience what life was like without him. We might judge the prophets to be unsuccessful because it was rare that the people returned to the Lord when called to do so. The one notable exception is Jonah who was so highly successful that the entire population of Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, was on its knees in repentance only hours after he began to announced God’s anger with their sin. Oddly, the people of Nineveh responded positively to a prophet’s warnings while the people of Israel did not.

The question that arises is this: does God still raise up prophets today? The Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 31,32) indicates that just as Jesus Christ is prophet, priest, and king, so we also, as his followers have that calling. In other words, the church, God’s children through Jesus Christ, have a prophetic ministry. The urgency of that calling is determined by the state of the world in which we live. To determine that, we need to judge the state of the world around us, not on the basis of how luxurious or easy life is, but on the basis of God’s Word, the Bible. We may not assume that just because we have it pretty good right now that we are in line with the Word of God. Prosperity can be deceiving, for prosperity obscures the reality of how things are, and we can be misled to think that just because we are prospering does not mean that we are faithful.

I think it is safe to say that Canadian faithfulness to Scripture has been declining, perhaps quite rapidly, over the past decades. At the same time, we are far more prosperous than we were half a century ago. It is not an easy thing to speak God’s Word in this kind of situation, for we will have to say that things are not going well, and we will look like we are deluded. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be willing to be used as prophets to our communities. If we truly care about our unbelieving family, friends and neighbours, then we do need to call them to account according to God’s Word. God didn’t send prophets to condemn the world; rather, he sent them to bring people back to himself so that they could know his grace and love. God’s primary business is not condemning; it is saving. And that is the task of the church as well. As we love the world around us, we do need to speak prophetically, as unpopular as that might be. And, even more, we should also consider that speaking prophetically needs to be backed up by prophetic lives, meaning that we live according to God’s Word first.

I have a feeling that the world around us is not going to become more faithful to God’s Word, and it certainly won’t if it doesn’t know what God has said. Thus, the prophetic voice is more urgently needed now than ever before. Let us only pray that the results of our work will be much more like Jonah’s than that of the other prophets. Of course, changes in others’ hearts are not our doing but the work of the Holy Spirit. Our call is not to change people; it is to be God’s voice, to speak prophetically so that people can hear God’s voice and respond and be saved.

This past weekend we had the opportunity to spend a few days away. On Sunday, because of a scheduled event on Sunday afternoon, we had to begin our travels homeward, and we were unable to attend a worship service in a local church. We decided to listen to a worship service from one of my former congregations. The one who delivered the message that day was a high school student in that church when I was the pastor there, and it was good to listen to him. Sam and his wife are living what we might call a non-traditional Christian lifestyle, choosing to live in a rather impoverished area of a small city in Ontario. They make it their ministry to reach out to neighbours to befriend them with the hope of sharing God’s grace with them. Many of their neighbours are recent immigrants who have come to Canada to have a better life for themselves and their children.

Many immigrants who come to Canada have the same dreams that we have as Canadians. They want to live in a place that is free from oppression and violence and where there is the opportunity to thrive and prosper. Sam, in his message, mentioned the impending election (now over, of course) and what he said sparked my interest.

Sam said that many immigrants to Canada leave countries where the governments are corrupt and the judicial system has failed. They see Canada as a place where the leaders care about the people and where there is hope for the future. Sadly, many of them have experienced a significant level of disappointment because they have discovered that Canada is not perfect. While we may say that there is opportunity in our country for anyone who seeks to get ahead, the reality is that if we aren’t part of a community or social structure where we have access to that opportunity, we probably won’t be able to achieve our dreams. Most of us have what we have simply because we have been given opportunities not afforded to those whose parents were not already well established. Most of us would not be able to achieve what we have without having been catapulted to our positions by those who have gone before us. We have a significant advantage, although we often do not recognize it.

Sam, in his message, talked about the impending election (now over, of course). He said that many Canadians are feeling stress as they sense that the doors of opportunity are becoming less available to them, and they are looking for someone to solve their problems. He said that after the election many Canadians are going to be disappointed that the party they voted for did not take power, and they will have a bleak outlook of the future. Long-time Canadians, he said, are not much different from immigrants because we too are looking for a government which will make our problems go away. And, like the immigrants who had hoped for more when they came to Canada, we will be disappointed, for no government will fulfill our expectations.

Sam went on to talk about how followers of Jesus Christ are not first and foremost citizens of a particular nation. We are citizens of the Kingdom of God, and it is to Jesus Christ to whom we hold our first allegiance. How we vote (and live) must be filtered through our commitment to the Kingdom of God and its King, Jesus Christ. Our commitment to the Kingdom of God must be primary come before all other commitments.

As we well know the values of the Kingdom of God do not align with any political party, and for understandable reasons. Governments of nations rule by using their power and authority to accomplish their goals, and it is necessary for them to do so. Any government that does not use its power (either legitimately gained or otherwise) to rule will not be able to function as the government. But that is not the way of Jesus. Jesus gained his position of authority by giving his life on the cross (see Philippians 2:5-11), and it is by his self-sacrifice that he defeated the powers that cause oppression, violence and brokenness. Those who follow him are called to live with the same kind of sacrifice, offering our lives for service to God (Romans 12:1-2). It is in this way that the Kingdom of God becomes influential and begins to bring change to our world.

Sam and his wife believe that God is calling them to live in a rather radical way, sacrificing their lives by choosing to live in an undesirable neighbourhood, one which their real estate agent had warned them about. They are following God’s call to reach out to a particularly marginalized segment of our Canadian society with the love and grace of God as we have experienced it in Jesus Christ. Their ministry is very challenging and yet very rewarding. Knowing Sam from several years ago, I am quite confident that he has a fairly decided opinion as to which political party he would support, but that is not his first priority. His first priority is to be a servant to his neighbours so that their lives can be transformed by the saving work of Jesus Christ. His vote will be cast for the political party that best enables him to do that, even while he fully recognizes that it is not the new government that will make the reign of Christ known but, rather, the sacrificial living of the follower of Jesus Christ. Sam and his wife have heard God’s calling to live in this non-traditional way and have responded positively because they have put their commitment to the Kingdom of God before all other commitments.

We are not all called to live as Sam and his wife live. Not all of us are called to be non-traditional in our lifestyles. But all of us are called to give first allegiance to the Kingdom of God and to submit ourselves fully and sacrificially to following Jesus Christ. We can do that regardless of what political party holds power.

In the rhetoric leading up to the election, it seemed to me that many people believed fully that the future of Canada would be determined by the one who gained power in Ottawa. While it is true that the path of Canadians will be determined in part by the kind of government that has gained power, it is also true that the real change in our world will be determined by the coming of the Kingdom of God to the lives of individuals and communities. And that change only comes through the work of God as the Holy Spirit equips and uses willing followers of Jesus Christ to fulfill the calling God has placed on their lives. For many, the outcome of the election is a crucial thing, but I wonder how important it is for God. Probably far less important for him than it is for us. But what is important for God the Father is that Jesus Christ reigns and that the Holy Spirit is equipping people to give their lives to live for Jesus. That is what will make the difference, in the long run.

Maybe you have heard the phrase said of yourself or another: “The prodigal son/daughter returns.” Usually what is meant by that phrase is that a son or daughter who has been away on a trip has returned. For most of my life, I believed that the word, “prodigal,” means “wandering.” It is only in the last decade or so that I learned that prodigal does not mean “wandering;” it means “wasteful.” A prodigal son or daughter is one who spends money lavishly and without necessity. Someone who goes to the mall and spends $1000 on clothes that they don’t really need might be considered to be a prodigal person. The prodigal son in Jesus’ parable wasn’t prodigal because he left home. He was prodigal because he wasted his portion of the inheritance. Prodigal is wasteful.

The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) is the last of three similar parallels. In the first, a shepherd has 100 sheep and one wanders off. He leaves the rest of the sheep (probably not abandoning them but leaving them in the care of another shepherd), and he goes to find that one lost sheep. Upon its recovery, he calls his friends and neighbours to rejoice with him. The second parable shows us a woman who has 10 coins but loses one of them. After searching diligently, she calls her friends and neighbours to rejoice with her. In both of these cases, Jesus gives the lesson: there is great rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repents.

The third parable is the parable of the prodigal son. This son doesn’t just happen to get lost. This son is deliberate in leaving his home, but before he does, he demands that his father give him his share of the inheritance. In those times, each child receives an equal share of the inheritance, with the eldest son receiving a double portion. Thus, this young man would have received one third of his father’s holdings, costing his father dearly and perhaps endangering the family business. Taking this huge sum of money, this young man goes far away and wastes it. He has lots of friends until the money runs out, and then he can barely find a job. Filthy, disheartened, and ashamed, he decides to return to his father’s house and ask to become a slave there. He knows that his father treats slaves better than his present employer, and he hopes that he might be able to live out his life with three meals a day and a place to lay his head.

We know the story well: the father has been waiting at the end of the driveway, looking eagerly down the road to see if his son will return. When he finally sees him, he runs to him, embraces him, and prepares a feast for him, calling his friends and neighbours to join him in his celebrations. We might expect that the parable would end as the others did with Jesus saying that there is great rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents (as did the first two parables), but that is not where the parable ends. Jesus moves our attention to the older son, the one who will be heir to all that remains to his father, and this older son is angry. He has been entirely faithful for all his life, and his father hasn’t even given him a goat to have a celebration with his friends, whereas the father had provided the wasteful younger brother with a yearling calf. There was no rejoicing on the part of the older brother.

Because Jesus changes up the story, focusing on the older brother instead of the rejoicing in heaven, we are meant to be startled. Is this story really about the return of a wayward son or is it about the reaction of the jealous brother? Or is the story really about something else, or, should we say, about someone else? Perhaps this story is about the father, and, by extension, about God.

Timothy Keller, formerly a pastor and now with his Lord, wrote a book entitled, The Prodigal God. What kind of God do we have? Keller’s choice of the title of his book is a bit tongue in cheek, but he wants to make a point: what kind of God do we have who would “waste” his precious resources on people who have squandered everything he has given to them? Wouldn’t common sense say that God would be far better off spending his resources on people who are least trying to do what is right? But, of course, that is not how God works. God tends to put his efforts into welcoming back (and throwing a party for) those who have done the equivalent of demanding their inheritance. That seems so wasteful. Keller goes on to show us how God’s grace is immense and unbounded.

When Jesus tells a parable, in a sense we are encouraged to identify with one of the people in that parable. Most of us would be quite hesitant to identify with the younger son because, after all, who wants to admit that they have wasted our heavenly Father’s resources after doing the cultural equivalent of slapping him in the face? We don’t like to be perceived to be that person. We probably won’t identify with the father because the father represents God. We are left with identifying with the older son, at least until his true character is revealed, and then we are trapped because then we have to admit that we might not be as gracious as our heavenly Father. In the end, we have admit that if we are as graceless as the older brother, we are also in need of grace.

But the story isn’t about us. It is about our gracious God who leads the rejoicing in welcoming home repentant sinners. And we are among them, and it doesn’t matter if we are like the wasteful son of the seemingly faithful son. We are all in need of God’s grace, and when we accept God’s grace, there is rejoicing in heaven.