A First Nations Version of the Bible - Why Should We Not Read It?

 Why read the First Nations Version of the Bible?

This is a question that each of us as individuals, or in some cases, each congregation, will have to provide their own answer for. However, before we even get to answer that question, there is important ground to cover.

The First Nations Version (New Testament only), released in 2021, is also subtitled an Indigenous Translation of the New Testament. It came about as the result of a collaboration of many parties, including the well-known Christian Bible translating organization, Wycliffe, and a council of 12 indigenous Christian scholars representing over 25 tribes from Canada and the United States. 

It is called the First Nations Version because it was written for the benefit of the people who first lived on this continent, hence first nations. Some first nations have had all or portions of the Bible translated into their individual language. However, these translations tended to use words that reflected more the meanings given to them in the language from which the translation was made, which was usually English. Indigenous Christians in North America, having had contact with Christianity for over 400 years, and therefore, in some cases, have been Christian for almost as long, have developed an appreciation and understanding of how their own culture and language can be used to convey the message of the Bible just as well as the languages that came from Europe, for example, English, French, and Greek, or the Near East: Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Bible we know was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, languages that most of us are unable to read or understand. Therefore, when Christianity was spread into areas of the world where other languages were spoken, to bring the gospel to those people, which would include ourselves, the Bible was translated into many languages. Thus, we in North America, where English is the dominant language, are now able to read the Bible in that language.

Therefore, when this group of translators began to work together, they used the English language, as that is now also the common language used and understood by the many first nations of North America. However, to make it more relevant and meaningful to the indigenous people of North America, who share many cultural concepts and teachings, in spite of having many different languages, the translators used the English equivalent of many first nations words and names. In other words, one could say, they translated their concepts and names into English.

When the Bible is translated from one language to another, translators struggle to find words that can, as closely as possible, bear the same meaning in the new language as in the one it is being translated from. Likewise, names in one language version of the Bible may change to different words in another translation to suit that language and the culture and context it came from.

When one is not familiar with First Nations' descriptiveness, concepts and names, even though they are here presented in English, they can seem quite different and strange. They might even be hard for us to accept. However, we should be reassured that this translation is not attempting to change the truths of the Bible we know. It is definitely not trying to change Christianity (which is just a name given to those who follow Christ by people in Syria almost 2000 years ago, and not even a name that Jesus or the apostles used) into some indigenous religion. It is only attempting to make the Bible more understandable and acceptable to the First Nations of North America, who have had no choice but to use European terminology and understanding until now.

Indigenous people in North America have always referred to the ultimate being the English-speaking world calls God by the name the Great Spirit. In many languages of central and eastern North America, the indigenous word was Gitsche Manitou, the Great Spirit. The Bible has always taught that God is Spirit, so this is really nothing new. 

Likewise, indigenous people have also often used descriptive phrases and titles as names. This is not that dissimilar to how those of us who have German ancestors often used such phrases as nicknames for individuals, especially in the Low German. Indeed, many biblical names, as we know, have meanings that require a word or phrase to indicate what the meaning is. We have just come to use the original language word instead of the phrase that it denotes, or a derivative of that name in another language. For example, John, in classic Hebrew is Yohanan, which became Johannes in German, and shortened to John in English. Like most names, John has a meaning. In Hebrew, translated into English, it is "God is gracious.” What the first nation version is doing is using their equivalent of such name definition phrases instead of the shortened word we have become familiar with.

Why then, should we, as Canadians or Americans pay any attention to the first nations version? One could say it is simply a matter of respect. The indigenous people of this continent have had to use the Bible in our languages for centuries. What is wrong with us now looking at the Bible how they translated it? Indeed, as many of us are finding when we read it, the message is often given a simple, beautiful expression that is enriching and different than what we have been used to. We have put so much English-defined theology behind many of the words we are familiar with in the Bible, that we often don't even really know, understand, or appreciate the meaning of these words, especially in their language of origin, be that Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. We are the ones who lose. God, the Great Spirit, can speak to everyone in their language, using their culture, context, and understanding. When we insist that only the language we grew up with is the one in which the Bible can be read, we are guilty of putting limits on God and his message to us. We are the ones who lose. 

Mercy at the Cross? Nothing seemed to change on earth the day Jesus was crucified. Or did it? For whom?

 Mercy at the Cross? Nothing seemed to change on earth the day Jesus was crucified. Or did it? For whom?

I am referring of course to the crucifixion of Jesus from Nazareth by the occupying Romans  in Jerusalem around CE 30. I have been studying the Gospel of Mark for a couple of months and some of what follows really became apparent to me today.

For the twelve men who had spent the greater part of the previous three years with Jesus it seemed that the proverbial “bottom had fallen out of their world.” What happened that day certainly did not seem to have any redeeming qualities as far as they could see - at the time. For one of them, Judas, unfortunately, the bottom did fall out of his world. He had betrayed Jesus to the authorities who had been crowding around all week hoping to catch a moment when they could arrest Jesus. If you are familiar with the story, you know he had a change of heart when he saw what happened to his former Master and when he saw no way out, committed suicide.

It was really no different for the women who had also been traveling with Jesus and, according to the records, supporting him financially and otherwise from their means. They appear to have been braver than their male counterparts of whom we hear nothing once the process that culminated in the crucifixion began, except for John, who often seems to identify himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Perhaps that expressed his sense of deeper personal devotion to Jesus than he perhaps saw in his peers. It might also have reflected the apparent fact that he outlived his eleven friends and might have been the only one not to die a martyr’s death. In any case, he was at the cross, as witness the report that Jesus saw him and asked him to take care of his mother, Mary. 

Otherwise, there certainly did not seem to be anything of mercy in what happened that day. At least not for Jesus’ followers. However, there were two other men crucified with Jesus. Now, the normal Roman custom was to leave their victims hanging until they died of a cumulation of dehydration, fatigue, pain, lung congestion and heart failure. That could apparently involve 2-3 days of unimaginable suffering. However, this crucifixion event happened during a day on which the holiest of Jewish Sabbaths began at 6 PM, that of their most important and longest running ‘feast’, Passover. 

Now, the Romans weren’t generally inclined to make accommodations for the people they conquered. But perhaps because the Jews were such endless trouble, forever rebelling, they had granted them that no bodies would remain on crosses over the Sabbath day. So, in keeping with that, if those being crucified had not died in time to take their bodies down by the beginning of Sabbath, they had a way to hasten their death. 

One of the reasons victims could live so long was that they could push themselves up against the spikes driven through their ankles and feet, the better to inhale, to breathe. It would have been too humane for the cruel Romans, or maybe not quick enough, to simply remove the spikes from the ankles and let the bodies hang, in which case suffocation would have happened soon enough. They had a method that added more pain and suffering for as long as the victims remained alive to experience it. They broke their legs! The same goal was accomplished but far less pleasantly. 

The soldiers ere probably happy to be performing these crucifixions on this day. It meant they got to go home sooner. The record states that Jesus died around 3 PM. That was about the time when the soldiers decided to hasten their charges’ demise. They broke the legs of the other two men first and when they came to Jesus, they realized he already seemed to be dead. He was spared one more indignity. A little mercy?

When you think about it, the circumstances just described actually also meant a little mercy in a way for the other two victims. They got to die that day instead of having their dying dragged out over days. One of them, as we also know from the story, got a lot more mercy than that. In fact, he was the first to really experience the mercy that Jesus’ death actualized, but which was not realized by anyone else until he came back to life and had to teach his disciples all about the cosmic and eternal significance of what had just happened. 

At first both criminals taunted Jesus, just like most of the others watching or even passing by. However, one, knowing Jesus was innocent and evidently coming to believe that there must be something to these accusations of his being the Messiah that were being hurled at Jesus, eventually felt moved to call out to him, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Perhaps he knew more of Jesus’ good life and that it had led to many really wanting him to be their Messiah, the promised one who would set all things right for them and restore their kingdom. Jesus, knowing what was in the man’s heart, saw what he needed to see and promised the man, “Most assuredly, today you will be with me in paradise.” There is no greater mercy than that. 

Was there not also mercy for Jesus’ mother and his beloved John? Whether Jesus was the eldest or only child of Mary’s, either way he was, as a son, responsible for her future into old age. He discharged that duty on the cross by asking John to take over for him. Mercy for Mary! And perhaps John’s long life was also a mercy. Mercy at the cross indeed!

Leadership and Abuse

Lately, a couple of stories have again troubled at least the part of the Christian Church I am more connected with - the Anabaptist/Mennonite and Be in Christ (BIC, formerly Brethren in Christ) churches. One story was about the popular leader, preacher and writer Bruxey Cavey resigning from office in the BIC denomination in the Toronto area because of allegations of sexual abuses, followed by his being charged by Hamilton police with sexual assault. This was followed by the removal of his books from print and sales by Mennonite media, who at the same time did the same with the writings of the already deceased but influential Anabaptist thinker and writer John Howard Yoder. This was because of sexual abuse scandals surrounding him. If I need to add more, the reputation of another well-known and respected radio preacher and writer Frank Epp was also posthumously recently tainted with the spectre of his having sexually abused.

These are stories the Church, the community of the faithful, struggles mightily with. It grieves us to see this happen. The responses have not always been encouraging either. Organizations, such as denominations and centres of education tend to regroup around their own for damage control. As is so often the case in so many spheres, the victims lack support and a voice, a hearing. 

This is not new. The Bible contains stories of such behaviour. Even so-called heroes of the Bible such as King David fell prey to sexual misbehaviour. Incidentally, it does not appear that the Psalms ceased being printed, ceased being distributed. Then, just today, a file came across my screen documenting five stories of sexual abuse by clergy among our Mennonite forefathers in Russia.

Sexual misbehaviour by anyone is wrong. Perpetrated by church leaders makes it even more egregious. They are to be our shepherds, our teachers, helping guard our souls, not wreaking havoc with them. 

Understandably, unless it occurs in one’s own congregation or school, or one you are close to, one doesn’t her about it. Often, one only becomes aware of such when the offender is prominent enough for it to make a media splash. One could almost be forgiven for believing it doesn’t happen at lower levels. I wonder if it might not be the case that it happens less at lower levels.

We have had cases in fast-growing and mega churches. These churches are often begun and led by gifted and dynamic individuals who become powerful heads of  large organizations. As such, they are prey to overwork and the stress that comes with that. This can cloud judgment. The hard work and positions reached can sometimes lead to entitlement. The structures are sometimes such that the individual at the top becomes somewhat isolated from others and thus less accountable. These leaders are then placed on such pedestals that leaves them no room to err. All of this creates gaps through which these leaders can fall mightily is something like them being caught in sexual abuse happens.

Are these reasons to go back to small, local churches? There, where everyone knows everyone else, or at least quite a few know quite a few others, the leaders are not so distant as to be unapproachable. They are also likely to be under much closer scrutiny.

But what is our role in all of this - us as members of churches, fellow staff of schools? How much do we pray for our leaders not to fall into these temptations?

Just some of my response to these recent stories. What think ye?

God Bless' the Child, That's Got His Own

“Them that's got, shall get, Them that's not, shall lose, So the Bible said, and it still is news… Yes the strong seem to get more, While the weak ones fade… God bless' the child, That's got his own…”

Some of you will remember these lyrics from Blood, Sweat & Tears in the late ‘60s. Others might know that they actually go back to American Blues Singer Billie Holliday. Are the ideas expressed fatalistic? Reflecting the reality of too many? Are they what some aspire too - get your own, and that means God blessed you?

All these viewpoints reflect situations for many in our world. The last one is troubling though. This was an understanding in Judaism, held by Jesus’ followers 2000 years ago. He tried to correct it then. Seems too many Christians have skipped over that part. Too many preachers still preach this ‘prosperity gospel, ’ often preying most on those who can least afford to give. The preachers ‘get’ all right, their listeners not so much.

So what do we understand when we read of Jesus saying, “Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and more will be given to you. For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away (Mark’s version of the Gospel, chapter 4 verses 24b - 25).” I dare say the ideas I have been describing are so ingrained in us that when we read that, we say, as the song does, ‘Yeah, that’s life, we see it happen. The Bible even confirms that’s reality.’ 

Really? You think Jesus is talking about things material and money? He has been teaching this disciples about how to listen, to evaluate, to be open to new understandings. Jesus has resorted to telling the truths he wishes them to hear in parables, so only those who really want to understand will. He is talking about his teachings, about the wisdom contained in them, about the understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven he is introducing on earth. He is talking about ideas that come form God. 

What Jesus is really saying here is that if you pay more attention, dig deeper, you will learn more. You will be given more wisdom and understanding.  If you have gained some of what he’s saying, you will be prepared to gain more. You will grow spiritually, in faith. That will be a blessing.

On the other hand, as with the seed, in the parable just told before these sayings, that fell on rocky ground and quickly sprang up from the heat, but died just as rapidly because there was no depth of soil, if you have not really grasped what Jesus teaches, If you didn’t put effort into studying the Word to grow, you will lose what you have. In effect, it will be taken away, not by God, but by the spiritual powers that rule the world. There is both encouragement, comfort, blessing and warning in these words, depending on what you have done with what you received to being with. God does his part but you have to do yours.

Do You Love Me?

Have you ever asked this question? Some might quickly reply, “Of course, don’t most people ask that question at some point or another in their lives?” Others might recall asking the question in all serious innocence of someone in their circle as a child. How many of us have that purposefully asked that question of another a an adult? Do we even ask those dearest and nearest to us? Did we ask, if we are married, our partner before marrying? Or after?

Some might say, we don’t need to ask that question in some of these circumstances. We know the answer. Indeed? How so? I think some might answer, “I can see it in [the other.]” Other would say, “They show it in their words and actions.” Exactly - without the proof of what is said and done, how do we know love exists? 

This brings me to the famous account of Jesus’ intimate moments with his follower Peter after Jesus’ resurrection (It is recorded in the last chapter of John’s version of The Gospel).  They were back home, in familiar territory, where they had met three short years earlier. Peter and his companions had once again gone fishing. It was what they did. When they turned shoreward at dawn, having caught nothing all night, they saw a man on the beach. The man asked them if they had caught anything. When he heard the negative answer he told them to cast their net on the right side of the boat.  It might have seemed an odd request but there was something that compelled them to do so. When they did so, they caught so many fish they could not pull the net full into the boat and simply dragged it along. A miracle?

It seems the men thought so, as, they then recognized this was Jesus, having seen him at least twice already since his resurrection, and whom they knew was entirely capable of performing miracles. Of course, they also knew his voice, one they had often obeyed, as they had felt they should now. And look what happened!

When they reached shore and disembarked, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it, and some bread. Perhaps seeing that there was not enough fish to go around, Jesus asked them to bring some of what they had just caught. No miracle this time?

Peter obeys and then Jesus asks them to join him for breakfast. He took the bread and  fish, blessing it in the recognizable way they had become so accustomed to, gave it to them.

After breakfast the men likely got busy taking care of their catch. We don’t know for sure what happened next, but reading what followed, I doubt Jesus would have been so insensitive as to initiate the conversation he did in front of the whole group.

Jesus wanted Peter’s attention. At one level, I suspect Peter was dreading this moment. So far, Jesus had said nothing to him about Peter’s denials while Jesus was on trial and Peter was outside, although Peter probably feared that was coming. At one level he probably just wanted to get it over with too, to clear the air between him and his Master.

Jesus asked Peter, “Simon, do you love me?” Note, Jesus did not call him Peter, ‘the rock,’ He went back to the beginning, to Simon, ‘a reed,’ instead of using the name he had given him when he called him to be his follower. Peter replied, “Yes, Lord, you know that I like you (according to the original language).” Notice the difference between the question and the answer. Jesus responded with, “Feed my lambs.” 

Jesus asked again, “Simon, do you love me?” Peter gave the same answer. This time, Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” What’s the difference? Perhaps Jesus was thinking after the first answer, ‘If you cannot commit to more than simply liking me after all we’ve been through, maybe you are only qualified to minister to beginners, lambs.’ However, when Peter gives the answer the second time, perhaps Jesus thinks, ‘All right, you’re at least sticking with that answer. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can also feed my sheep.’ Teach the deeper stuff to adults, the more mature believers.

Jesus asks once more, “Simon, Do you like me?” Notice the difference. Jesus, ever sensitive to where a person is as at, perceives that Simon is not ready to commit to anything more than ‘like.’ So, he’ll go with that. Jesus can use us where we are at, sometimes in spite of ourselves. 

Notice that Peter’s cousin, John, who was nearby, (which we know because right after this exchange Peter turns around and sees John and changes the subject to ask Jesus about him) and wrote this, writes that Peter was upset because Jesus asked him this question three times.  Why would he not be upset? He knew exactly what Jesus was getting at. He knew he had it coming to him. Peter had denied even knowing Jesus three times when Jesus was at his most needy. Now, Jesus was giving him three chances to say something different. He was giving hm three chances to make good.

However, Peter cannot bring himself to say, “I love you.” Was that some ‘macho’ fisherman thing? No, Peter, ever honest, knew that at that moment, knowing what he had done a couple of weeks earlier, could not commit to that higher level of affection, to love.

Jesus knows Peter has a way to go. He also knows Peter is the best he’s got to begin to carry on his mission on earth. He tells him again, “Feed my sheep,” but he goes on to tell Peter that he, Peter, will some day pay a high price for his being willing to keep liking Jesus. Then he gives him a chance to grow, but at the same time makes a request, which, if Peter complies, will give Peter the opportunity to gain what he is yet lacking,”Follow me.” It’s the same call he had given him when he called him from his fishing by the Sea of Galilee three years earlier. Then he had told him he would make him a  ‘fisher of men.’ Now it is a shepherd he is calling Peter to be. We could write another whole essay, nay, a book, on what it means to be a shepherd. Peter had some idea though. He had heard Jesus speak of this, of himself being The Good Shepherd, giving some characteristics of such, and what the relationship of a good shepherd with his sheep entails. 

As we know, once Peter was baptized with the Holy Spirit some two months later, he became an emboldened and powerful shepherd indeed. We can read all about it in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, which, in our Bibles, follows the Gospel of John, the last chapter of which gives us this story.

As if there is not enough in this for us to stop here and mull over, there is one more point of utmost significance that needs to be made about this conversation. When things were on the line between Jesus and Peter, Jesus got right to the heart of everything. He asked Peter, ‘Do you love me?’ Not, ‘Okay Peter, you have been with me three years, what do you really know about who I am?’ Peter had answered that one before when he said Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Nor did he ask him, knowing he was soon to leave Peter, at least from an earthly point of view, ‘What do you believe, about me, about what I have taught you? What do you remember that you are to feed my lambs and my sheep with?’ 

God, including Jesus in the flesh, is all about relationships.  That’s why God created us, to be in relationship with God. God is love, and at its best, a relationship is based on love, grows on love, matures in love. Jesus did not ask Peter about all those things we as Christians disagree on, get into squabbles, divide and yes, even kill each other over - the identity of Christ, beliefs, doctrine, matters of ethics and practice etc. No, none of that. Jesus got right to the core. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Put on the clothes of love, which is the bond of perfection, of harmony (his letter to the church at Colossae, chapter 3, verse 14).” Love never divides.    

What did I write at the beginning? We know love from action. There is no love without action. What action(s)? For us, simple, in the words of Jesus himself, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.” And in case you forgot, the Parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that everyone is our neighbour.

The Mind of Jesus

 Having finished what he wanted to say, concluding with what he knew would be his final prayer with his disciples before his own death, Jesus looked around at the eleven men still around the Passover table with him. He felt an overpowering fatigue and would have liked nothing better than to find somewhere to lay his head and just sleep. The events of the last week had taken him to new highs, but there were also lows.  But he knew he had to press on. However, at this moment he was more concerned for his friends - he had just told them he no longer called them servants, which a Rabbi was entitled to do, but friends.

He had tried to tell them, give them some idea of what lay ahead. But they just did not seem to be getting it. He had not wanted to spell it out so graphically that he would scare them all off. Then what would have to show for his three years with them, his three years of toiling at his mission?

Now, he knew the end  - or was it the beginning - of something new, something even greater than what had been happening these last three years - was only hours away. He had already dispatched Judas, setting him free to do what Jesus knew was inches heart. Jesus’ heart ached for Judas. He had been a loyal supporter these last years. Why, at this time, had he chosen to betray Jesus? Some things Jesus could not explain now, but he trusted his Father was still in control and things were unfolding according to his grand plan, a plan set in place before the beginning of time.

Jesus felt John at his left, with his brother James next to him. Simon Peter sat at his right. Oh Peter, he thought, you too are going to disappoint me, but perhaps not as much as yourself. I need to warn you, all of you, but especially you, Peter.

Addressing all of those with him, Jesus said with a heavy heart, remembering his three years with these faithful followers “You will all become deserters of me tonight; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I ma raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

Peter, ever the quick to speak, blurted out, “Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.”

Turning to him, Jesus replied, “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you-“ he gazed directly into Simon Peter’s eyes, “-when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Peter wanted to ask, ‘Turn back from what?’ But sensing some of Jesus’ present anguish, said instead, trying to sound as reassuring as possible, “Lord, even though I must die with you, I will never deny you. I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” The other disciples began to make similar protestations when Jesus broke in, still directing his words at Peter. 

“I tell you Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.” Peter was stunned. He? Deny Jesus? Had he not just said that was something he would never do? He wanted to protest, to ask what that was supposed to mean, but Jesus had turned away and, lifting his arms, was leading them all in the final hymn of Passover:

“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.

Let all Israel say: "His love endures forever.

Let the house of Aaron say: "His love endures forever.

Let those who fear the LORD say: "His love endures forever."

In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me free.

The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?

The LORD is with me; he is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.

All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.

They swarmed around me like bees, but they died out as quickly as burning thorns; in 

the name of the LORD I cut them off.

I was pushed back and about to fall, but the LORD helped me.

The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.

Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: "The LORD's right hand 

has done mighty things!

The LORD's right hand is lifted high; the LORD's right hand has done mighty things!"

I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the LORD has done.

The LORD has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death.

Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the LORD.

This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter.

I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation.

The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;

the LORD has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes.

This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

O LORD, save us; O LORD, grant us success.

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we 

bless you. ^[1]

The LORD is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join

in the festal procession up ^[2] to the horns of the altar.

You are my God, and I will give you thanks; you are my God, and I will exalt you.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.”

Jesus paused for moment, letting the words they were so familiar with sink in. As he looked again upon his followers he wondered, Did they know the full meaning of what they has just sung. Of course not, he knew. However, they would learn it yet. First, they had to experience it, and that was beginning now.

He looked again at his followers, knowing he would never see them in the same way again. John, John, the young man he felt closest to. Jesus knew he would not be far away. This was reassuring because Jesus needed him. His mother, long widowed, needed a caregiver and John was the most suitable inches group. Jesus took another look at James. If you only knew, but it’s a good thing you don’t - you will be the first in our circle to be put to death by our adversaries - after myself.

Jesus shook his head, as if to get away from those thoughts and clear his mind for what lay ahead. He asked:

“When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Not a thing,” the men answered.

“But now,” Jesus continued, “the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawlesss’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” He could say that because he knew, with all the warnings he had given his men, that some had gone and purchased swords, Peter being one of them. So far, they had been keeping them concealed.  However, now they admitted, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” The second one was Thomas’s. Jesus was not surprised. Thomas had grasped enough of what Jesus had been saying about his pending death to say, when they had set out to come to Bethany to see their friend Lazarus, that he was ready to go and die with him.

“It is enough,” Jesus finished as he rose and began to walk in silence towards the door. It was dark when they stepped out, and the chill of an early spring evening was settling in. The eleven knew where they were going. Jesus had seemed to want to stay near the city at night these days, not even going to their friends over the hill at Bethany. They just been bedding down in an olive grove at the base of the hill known as Gethsemane. They had become used to carrying extra cloaks to help ward off the cold at night as they huddled together in the garden. 

Jesus looked up to his left as they set out into the Kidron Valley. The walls of the city were silhouetted against the darkening sky above them. As they followed the curve of the valley eastward and then north, the upper portion of the temple also came into view over the tops of the city wall. 

The house of Israel, the priests, they could sing “The Lord is good, his love endures forever” in their homes and in the temple. Jesus knew that, under current circumstances in their land though, these were more words of hope that Israel clung to than conviction. The way they had suffered under the Greeks and now the Romans, it was not easy to really believe their God was good and still loved them. 

So what entered their minds when they sang the second stanza Jesus wondered. How much of this was hope? How much of it was memory, the stories of the first Passover and the deliverance from slavery and oppression in Egypt led by Moses, the entry to the promised land under Joshua, the return centuries later from the exile to Babylonia. That was the last time they had felt somewhat free, although even then, they had been under the Persians. And their neighbours hd not been welcoming either, those whom he Babylonians had left behind, indeed, even transported here from other parts of their empire. Of course, no one else could know how much Jesus himself now clung to these assurances for himself as he trudged wearily along the valley with is followers in silence behind him.

The end of the fourth stanza was what really hit home to him. He would live - again. Yes, death waited, but there was also a resurrection. As the psalmist had written, “He will not give me over to death.” I will not stay dead Jesus told himself.

“…The gates of righteousness…” To his fellow countrymen, these were the gates of Jerusalem, through which they came time and again on their pilgrimages, to worship in the temple, where they believed their God was with them. But Jesus was thinking of another set of gates. Going through with what lay before him would give him the right to enter the gates of heaven itself.

“…the stone the builders rejected…” Oh my people, Jesus thought again. You are rejecting me, but I am the answer you are looking for and I will, ultimately, be the head of the kingdom you long for. I am your Messiah. You treated me as if I was, a mere week ago. You even sang and shouted these words, with boughs in hand as it is written, ”Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” We were indeed a procession entering Jerusalem, as the prophet Zechariah predicted. But all the religious leaders could think of was what a commotion you were making. They did not share your beliefs, your passion. They were only concerned that, especially at Passover when there were more Roman soldiers in Jerusalem than usual because of previous revolts during this season, that the soldiers would think this was the beginning of another revolt  and there would be another bloodbath. Indeed, there was reason to fear. The Romans were cruel when it came to suppressing opposition. And there was going to a lot of that for his followers in the years to come too, Jesus knew. How would he ever prepare his followers for that?

“Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, his love endures forever.” Jesus lifted his head and began humming the tune. He needed to do something to stay focused. One by one his followers joined in as they neared the garden. 

Living the Simple(r) Life - I

 

There is a lot of speech and writing these days about living a simple(r) life. I use”(r)” because most of really have no or a rather limited idea of what a simple life really is.  there are many who long for something like this, even turn their backs on what they had. They have become disenchanted with the ‘rat race,’ ‘living the dream,’ ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ or whatever other expression describes our busy and cluttered lives these days. And when I write cluttered I mean both our days and our homes. In our wealthy society, even the homeless cart around loads of stuff they value. It even keeps some of them from entering shelters for fear of theft. Those of us who are fortunate enough not to be homeless have so much of this world’s goods we have created a new business – storage of the stuff we have no room for in our homes!

 

Some strive for a simpler life because of some grain of past input about that kind of life. Maybe they saw it in their grandparents. Others have come to this because they’ve adopted some new philosophy of life, perhaps because of a spiritual awakening, regardless of what religion. All the great world’s religions really have teachings about this kind of life and hold it up as something of an ideal. Maybe they’ve traveled or done some service abroad and learned that even the poor in the world – by our standards – are happier and more generous than we are. We would know that is true of many of the less-well-off here at home too if we knew them, but most of us don’t know any or many of them personally. 

 

I come at the simpler life from a Christian perspective, particularly the Anabaptist perspective on Christianity. Now, I will be the first to say that most of us fail to live up to what we might hold as an ideal in this regard – if we have even come close to figuring out what that might be. However, we keep at it. 

 

I want to be practical in what follows. You might call it giving advice, although that stops many right there. We are told in the Bible to imitate Christ. Interestingly, St. Paul also says we can imitate him. He was confident enough about his walk with Christ that he could say that. I am no Apostle Paul but, again, I think I can say something similar. After working at this for over 50 years, I believe I do have something I can share to help others on this journey. We can all learn from one another, so I invite such feedback. 

 

How and where do we start with this? I think we begin with what we know ‘the world’ seeks after. Not to make too long a list, we can start with some common things many wish for or work for. Some of these things are important, even essential one could argue. One other thing before we go on. To me, simple living also clearly means spending less money in most instances. There are other good things you can do with your money besides spend it all or mostly on yourself or your family. 

 

So, let’s begin with the basics of food, clothing and shelter.

 

1.     Food – We can live more healthily and less expensively if we buy our own ‘raw’ materials with which to make our meals. Let’s start with breakfast. Get your own yeast, flour, oil and other ingredients and learn

to make your own bread. Better yet, learn to make sour dough by propagating your own yeast. True confession here – it’s mostly my good wife who does this in our home. 

 

Have you looked at the list of additives on that bread from the supermarket? I’m referring to all forms of ‘bread’ here, whether it’s the loaf we are familiar with or the baguette from France the naan from India, the pita from the Middle East and Mediterranean, a wrap or even pancakes. You can get bread from bakeries that would have less, maybe no additives, but we’re aiming to be simple right? Such bread usually costs a lot more. One more point – for more health, and it’s really not more expensive – use whole wheat flour or buy whole wheat bread products.

What do you put on your bread? Do you need to put something on it?  Nutella? Really, still? There’s a big debate over butter vs. margarine. Cheese is a good source of protein and fat but it is more expensive, and we won’t even begin to talk about all those even more expensive fancy and imported cheeses. Some fat does help keep the hunger pangs from developing too much before lunch time though. Peanut butter? Organic or not? That’s another whole discussion. We all know organic products are often more expensive and much that is non-organic may be healthy enough. Syrup? Some is pretty artificial. Honey is probably better. Jam? Can you pick and can or freeze your own berries or fruit, whether ‘wild’ or from someone’s garden or orchard? We regular pick blackberries which make great jam and sauce. They are even organic as they grow in our city parks which can not be sprayed with anything and the city is all too happy for you to pick them and so help cut down the spread of these invasive plants – brambles. We sometimes also get to pick blueberries to preserve. On the prairies you have those lovely saskatoons, even wild raspberries and strawberries.

 

Or do you make something to dip it in or scoop up with it, e.g. hummus. Oops – are chickpeas imported? Olive oil? Supposedly better than other oils but again, it’s imported. Can we not survive on sunflower or canola oil grown on our own prairies? 

 

Do you eat cereal? To be healthier, skip all those packaged cereals, which will also save you money – simpler living. Do you know how much sugar is in most of those? Three grams of sugar equals a teaspoon. Read the labels provided and do the math. Then there’s fat. We make and eat our own oatmeal from rolled oats almost every morning and have done so for years. In recent years we’ve even cut out the milk topping. Now we’re no longer adding sugar. You can add fresh fruit to give it more flavor and reduce the sugar. You can cook it with raisins or chopped apples, chopped sweet potatoes. We actually often eat it with bananas. We’ve been using cinnamon too, which has health benefits but, again, imported. That probably started with using raisins.

 

You like granola? That healthy cereal we got to know and love in the ‘70s? If you can get plain granola, fine. But so much of the packaged stuff is again chockful of additives. You can make you own with some imagination – oatmeal, chopped nuts, seeds, maybe some dried raisins. Ah, there we go again with imports, unless you live near vineyards from which raisins come.

 

Another general point here. Some might just have said – Aha, sweet potatoes, bananas. Aren’t they imported? Indeed, so that might be a consideration for simpler living. Simpler living can mean trying to cut down on imported things. Look at obtaining and preserving what is grown locally. Again, this is all not that easy. Imported foods can be cheaper. Then there is the whole idea of the global economy. Are we really helping those in other nations by buying what they grow? That’s another whole discussion I will not get into now.  

 

Sometimes we have eggs with breakfast. Again, more protein to help fill you up with more than just carbohydrate bread. Usually cooked, or sometimes we’ll fry them. You can also ‘poach’ eggs easily in the microwave, or does living simply preclude that appliance? I just put whole stirred egg in a dish, with salt and or pepper if you wish, or even some chopped vegetables. Now we’re getting close to a kind of omelette. A thin film of oil on the dish first will keep the egg from sticking to it too much.

 

Some will have yogurt for breakfast. We’ve done that, even putting it on oatmeal – after it’s cooked! Pure yogurt with no additives is best. Again, just throw in some fruit or jam if that’s too much to ask. Some even make their own yogurt. If you want to indulge in a flavoured one, watch the sugar content – you’d be surprised!

 

Simpler living can simply mean trying to cut down on all kinds of things that are added to foods – to make you want to eat more. You know that a lot of research goes into the right balance of sweet and sour or sweet and salty, sweet and spicy. Notice how ‘sweet’ is in all of that, which means sugar, syrup or honey. Why do you think we have an obesity epidemic?

 

Is breakfast over? I’m sure some of you have other things you eat at breakfast, like bacon or sausages. What about all that fat? Those nitirites? That salt. But we do like such - once in a while, right? Like protein, fat tides you over better till lunch.

 

I think we’re off to a good start. We’ve touched on a number of issues that simpler living raises – how much? From where? What’s in it? How much does it cost? These questions can all apply to a range of other items we can consider under this overall heading of simple living. More next time.