Tony Bouwmeester

Sermon By Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
This morning we have the pleasure to be together in worship and celebrate the baptism of Wilhelm with the Schroeder family. This is the right time to take the story of the Baptism of Jesus we read from the Gospel of Saint Mark and to remember again what the elements in the sacrament of baptism mean. In the process we pray that the Holy Spirit clarify and strengthen our own baptismal relationship with God. In other words let’s try and understand what we are actually doing this morning as we administer the rite of Holy Baptism.

There are two sides to a sacrament, the outside and the inside; a classic Church of England definition of a sacrament is, “An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” The inside is the essential side while the outside is contingent on what we feel and believe on the inside about our relationship with God. In all of this a relationship with God is necessary and indispensable, while whether we have been sprinkled as babies or immersed as adults is optional.

Let me put right up front that the method of baptism, sprinkled or by immersion is not worth dividing the church over. The Apostle Paul seems even to indicate that the ritual itself, in any form, is not essential, when he says that God did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel. He says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:17). To be sure, he makes much of the symbolism of baptism elsewhere in his letters, as in Romans 6:1-11, and therefore we must be careful in drawing conclusions about his position on the importance of the rite itself. Nevertheless it is clear that for him the inner disposition of faith and our relationship with God, is the essential thing.

Let us pay attention first to the text and then see how we can apply what we find to our life and conduct.

First John the Baptist regards himself as much inferior to the one whose coming he announces saying that he himself is not worthy to stoop before him and untie the thong of his sandal. As a priest I too feel that way as I believe that God, and the grace of God does far more than I do officiating at a baptism.

But notice what happens when Jesus arrives on the scene. What does he do? In humility He stoops before John and asks to be baptized. Immediately Jesus redefines John’s notion of greatness and reverses it to humble action and submission. Greatness has nothing to do with who kneels before whom, or who unties whose sandals, and whose sandals are untied.
Further this great example of the power in humility is seen in action of Jesus at the Last Supper, when He girds himself with a towel, takes a basin of water, kneels before his disciples, and washes their feet.

When Peter refuses Jesus says, “If I do not wash you, you have not part in me (John 13:8).” Thus we are told that the mighty power of God wants to cleanse us and can only do so by attending humbly to our most intimate needs. John says he is not worthy even to bow before the Christ, and then the Christ arrives and bows before him. Thus God upsets our understanding of what greatness means, and serves us on His own terms and not ours.

Notice too that in the story John the Baptist distinguishes his baptism as, “A baptism with water,” from Jesus’ baptism as a, Baptism with Holy Spirit.” We could read this to mean that the baptism with water is no longer necessary because it has been superseded by an inner baptism of Holy Spirit, something like what Paul calls “Circumcision of the heart” over against “Circumcision in the flesh.” Paul says, he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual not literal. His praise is not from men but from God, “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God (Romans 2:29).” We could easily substitute the word Christian for the word Jew here and it would loose nothing of its meaning. I will reflect on this a little more towards the end of this sermon.

We could follow Saint Paul in that way but I do not wish to startle people, or have you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the rite of water baptism is merely optional. Rather I suggest we read John’s self deprecation as saying that although the outer rite of water is important as an outward and visible sign of our entering into, or rather confirming our being in a relationship with God. Therefore, it is the inner experience-that is paramount determinative. One could, in principle, have such an inward experience apart from the outward water ritual, but one should not for that reason refuse or avoid that ritual.

I know that this challenges what we may cal sacramentalism in the Church. That is the belief that God has tied the working of his grace to material media, – water and oil for baptism, wine and bread for Eucharist, and I do not wish to deny that in the context of the faith these material substances are bearers of grace. However, I do not believe God has tied his grace irrevocably to certain material media, but rather that the only essential requirement for the reception of grace is the humility to call in faith upon the name of God in Jesus Christ.

This view puts the church, and members of its hierarchy, in their proper place. We are all sharers in the priesthood of all believers, whose efficacy depends not on institutional status but on divine grace working within us through faith. Having said all that, I do believe that we should follow the humility and example of our Lord, who submitted to the rite of water for the sake of identification with God’s people. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for all of us!

Our text also has an example of what baptism in the Spirit really is. The text says,“And when he (Jesus) came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens ripped apart and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased (Mark 1:10-11).’” This saying, attributed to the voice of God, reveals that baptism in the Spirit is related to hearing God calling us by name acknowledging us as His own dear children. To everyone baptized here present and everyone in the world who are baptized, God says, “You are my beloved daughter, my beloved son, and I am delighted that you are who you are. I call you to myself and I call you by your name.” So when we call out the person’s name in baptism while the water runs down the face, it is a symbol of God’s calling, God expressing His divine delight, God taking deep satisfaction in this single creature that He says truly belongs to him.

Baptism also links us to creation, and this is especially true when the baptized is a baby, so recently come from the umbilical waters. The Spirit hovers over this child like she (and I am using the personal pronoun she for this image of the Spirit because the metaphors womb and birth are especially fitting) hovered over the primordial waters and from that dark disorder brought forth, birthed, light and life. “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light; ‘ and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1:2-4).” Surely this Genesis passage brings forth from the deepest canyons of memory our own first experience of light, that is our memory of our emergence from the watery chaos of the womb, and registers them in these founding words of the creation story.

This passage in Genesis gives further resonance to John’s contrast between the baptism of water and the baptism of Holy Spirit. The baptism of water is the as yet unformed potential, the baptism of the Spirit the actual self as God meant it to be. The former is the self that waits to be born, the latter the new born self in Christ. John’s Gospel (3:3-8) speaks of birth from above, the Apostle Paul of the new creation saying “from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. (2 Corinthians 5:17),” Both Saint John and Paul refer to the experience of the faith in Christ that is entailed in the rite of baptism. John, however, demands both water and spirit, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (3:5).” Surelythe meaning of this is that it is not enough to be simply alive in the watery chaos of the first birth as it were. One must progress to the light of the Spirit’s orderly cosmos, from the natural to the Spiritual birth, “…born both of the umbilical water, or when the waters break and the divine Spirit.”

So now let us leave the explanation of the text, and see how we may apply it in our own lives focussing on the difference between water and Spirit, the distinction John the Baptist first made. Let me ask you, “Is it possible to be a church member, even a diligent church member, for years and years and not progress from water to Spirit.” The great hymn writer and preacher John Wesley called the state of the, “almost Christian.” Perhaps, more significant, I can say from my own experience that for a long time I was an almost Christian. I was baptized as a baby, I was confirmed at the age of twenty-seven, but I did not come to the conclusion what all this meant, and that God loves me until I was thirty-three. One could use the metaphor “I saw the light.” This “seeing the light” is an experience many people have: suddenly the Bible speaks to them; suddenly they hear when the liturgy and the preaching speak of God in Christ, those references are no longer formulae but telling facts. Suddenly we know that we know what we know. Some years ago I spoke with a person who said she left the Anglican Church because she had never heard the gospel preached there. I responded by saying that it was probably true that she had never heard it. That in fact was just as true for me until I was thirty-three. Then I looked back at some sermons I had heard only to discover that the gospel in many cases was preached but that it was I who was no position or frame of mind to hear it.

Finally let me say this. We are all at different levels in our faith and belief.
One can believe in something, or believe that certain statements are true. That kind of belief does not call for action or a deeper movement within oneself. That if you will is a cerebral belief.

Belief from the heart on the other hand is something entirely different. In this case for a definition of belief we need to go way back to Old English. prior to about 1600 where the meaning of belief meant much more. Belief comes from the old English be loef, which means “To hold dear.” To believe meant not only confidence and trust in a person, but also to hold that person dear-that is to belove that person. Believing and beloving or being in love are synonymous.

When God says, “You art my beloved child: with whom I am well pleased,” He says at the same time, I believe in you.” For God there are no entrance levels or rejection levels where we are either in or out. These are all human inventions. All it takes is faith and belief to belove God from the heart. Nothing else is required in order for God to say, “You are my beloved.” And that I believe is exactly what God says to us in baptism. Even your faith and belief as small as a mustard seed will be sufficient to remove the mountain of doubt that God loves you. Can you hear it? Can you hear God say to you, “You are my beloved, in you I am well pleased.? Believe it to be true and all will be well. Thanks be to God.
Amen.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
Holidays, birthdays, as well as Christmas, and New Year are all causes for celebration. They are celebrations that focus on life expressed in history and time. When we use words like past and future, and express them in terms of quality, rather than a historic timeline, they help us understand, as well as focus on, the meaning of what we are in fact celebrating.
When I was growing up, during the post war in the Netherlands, we celebrated Christmas with friends and family, and the focus was on the birth of Jesus. It was the time of year we would go to church, and I would receive a small gift of an orange and some candy. At that time for me an orange was a novelty, and the only orange I would get to eat during the year. My father was not a religious person yet he would not allow a Christmas tree in the house. He viewed Christmas trees as pagan symbols that had no place in our celebration. We grew rabbits during the year, and the fattest rabbit would be killed for Christmas dinner. The major event was a feast with the family, and shortly after we began to look forward to the New Year and the future.
Now that I have lived in Canada for nearly fifty years my live has become a mixture of cultures where Santa clashes with Saint Nicholas and Jesus, and sometimes I’m not sure, and even troubled about how to celebrate Christmas. Moreover, when I speak with other clergy they often express that they do not look forward to Christmas, and view the Christmas Holidays as one of the most difficult times of the year. On reflection I believe this is so because, in the age and culture that is now emerging, we have difficulty learning to live with both a secular, and a religious Christmas.
In an article entitled, “Balancing religion and the public square,” Randy Singer, reflecting on the commercialization of Christmas says, “ We hear the word “Christmas more often, but celebrate its meaning less; Christmas becomes associated with a shopping mall more than with faith and a manger.” It seems that this year there is a bit of a war on Christmas. According to some, political correctness not withstanding, the greetings we receive in stores, and elsewhere, should once again be, “Merry Christmas,” rather than, “Happy Holidays.” So much for, “Peace on Earth and good will to all.”
As a clergy person my struggle is with the meaning behind the greeting. It seems to me that, if during this season of celebration we want to tag everything we do with the title Christmas, we are actually inflating the meaning of the word, and just like all inflation the inadvertent result will be devaluation.
Perhaps Peace on Earth has something to do with having equal respect for all. With those thoughts in mind for me this year it is a pleasure to respectfully wish those who like to celebrate this season without religion a Happy Holiday, and those who like to celebrate Christmas in a religious way Merry Christmas. Perhaps more important my wish is that, “Peace be with all.”
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves a Pastor to the Anglican Parish of Longpoint Bay Ontario Canada.

A different interpretation of the parable of the talents.
By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
When I was growing up I was always told that the parable of the talents was about God giving us gifts we were to put to good use and multiply. Somehow we were to be perfect as God is perfect, but all I could ever accomplice along this line became failure for, according to my Church, I was never quit good enough.
Richard Rohr, writing about mysticism says, “Mystical moments are experiences of enlargement and connectedness or union. Suddenly you’re bigger. You don’t feel a need to condemn, exclude, divide or separate. Unfortunately, most of us were sent on private paths of perfection which none of us could achieve. It’s amazing how much of Christian history sent us on a self-defeating course toward private perfection. As a result, many people just give up—even many clergy and religious—when they see it isn’t working. They end up practical agnostics or practical atheists. They keep up the form, keep up the words, continue going to church, but there is no longer the inner desire and expectation that is possible with the path of union. It’s not mysticism that defeats the soul; it’s moralism that does.”
In the parable of the talents there is a man who, going on a journey gives his possessions to his slaves to manage. To one slave he gives five talents, to another two and to another one. A talent in today’s money amounts to about a million dollars. This man had eight million to invest. It takes a fair bit of management to properly invest eight million dollars.
The first two slaves seem to have done well by the time the man returns from his journey. They have doubled the man’s investment and he is very happy. However the third slave with just one talent did not fare so well. He had buried the talent in the ground and simply returned it in tact to the wealthy man. The man judges the slave to be a lazy no good for anything slave, and condemns him to the outer darkness. The equivalent of being fired today.
Now before we come to our own conclusions based on most interpretations of this parable I propose a different interpretation. One that may resonate with today’s failing economy. The slave said to the man that he was afraid to invest the talents. Who would not be afraid to invest in today’s economy. Perhaps at a deeper level there is something more going on in this parable which is contrary to what we have been taught in the past.
In Jesus’ day the rich lived in the cities and controlled much of the countryside by making loans to property owners. It is a small step to understand that they made these large sums of money they owned by usury against the poor. The slave says, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you” (Matthew 25:24,25). How is it that this man harvests where he did not sow, and gathered where he did not scatter seed? This can mean that he lend money at high interest to poor landowners and foreclosed on them when they could not pay. Something we have also experienced in our own recent history. It seems to me that the slave who buried the talent, by his action, points out the immorality of the rich man, and is condemned for it. While the first two slaves played the same game as the rich man, this third slave actually stands up to the rich man and takes his money out of circulation preventing him from doing more harm by his investments.
Changing only the name of the currency from talent to dollar, and finding a different hiding place than the banks, this parable could be a literal description of the current financial crisis. Let there be no mistake, the current financial crisis is also a moral crisis. The rich man in the parable reminds me of the Kevin O’Leary types who proclaim on public television, “Greed is good and I love money.”
It’s tempting to moralize this parable, as though talents were natural assets, special gifts or personality traits. It would be easy to try and use this parable to motivate congregations to get up off the pews and use the gifts given by the Spirit.
The challenge in this parable is to disconnect the master of the slaves from God, or at least the Creator of heaven and earth. Fact is the master is like a God, but a god of this world, a violent uncaring deity.
The parable thus expresses that the kingdom of heaven is what it is like when that which is given as ‘talent’ by the gods of this age is not invested, an investment which takes advantage of others. The final servant refuses to invest what cultural gods have given him; but he also knows that this choice will cost him and it does. The servant is to be cast into some apocalyptic fire (only the gods of this world exercise that kind of authority). It is easy to see that one could interpret this parable christologically. Jesus who is represented as the suffering servant by the third slave is condemned by this world to the cross.
But the fact is that Jesus is not condemned by God, rather, he is vindicated, his resurrection upset the apple cart of victimization dominated human history. So God’s authority in the parable ultimately contravenes the master’s greedy authority. In the resurrection of Jesus all victims of this world are given a voice. Hallelujah!
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Pastor in the Anglican Parish of Long Point bay.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
On the 11th of November Canadians wear poppies and gather at war memorials across Canada to pay tribute to those who died in war. At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the time the Armistice of World War I was signed in 1918, we observe two minutes of silence to remember these events. What does remembrance really mean?
The act of remembrance has different meanings in different cultures. I was born in The Netherlands in 1944, during a terrible hunger winter, in the Second World War. The war ended, due to liberation largely by the Canadian Army, on May 5th, 1945. The remembrance of the dead is held with two minutes of silence at 8 p.m. on May fourth every year. I remember standing with hundreds of people in our village square in the post war years. There would be two men in blue coveralls, representing the underground resistance movement, at corners of the cenotaph, their Sten Guns at rest. At the opposite corners there would be two soldiers in battle dress also with their guns at rest. The men in bleu clearly symbolized that during the war our country was occupied. The soldiers symbolized that we had been liberated and were moving forward and rebuilding.
One year my father was asked to play the Last Post on his trumpet. I will never forget he could only get a few notes out and then had to stop because he was crying. There were hundreds of people in the square; but not one person minded it happened because they were crying too. Al had lost loved ones or friends during the occupation.
I am now a Canadian Citizen and attend the ceremony of remembrance at the cenotaph at Port Rowan. The ceremony is much the same but the men in Blue Coveralls are missing. We too in Canada remember those who died during various wars. However, to me the Canadian ceremony is different. To me the remembrance is more about remembering those who choose to give their life to liberate those that had no choice, and were brutally subjected to occupation of their country. If it were not for the Canadian people I may not have lived to see this day. The Dutch people will be forever thankful to their Canadian liberators.
In the last few years I have traveled frequently to Rwanda. They too have a Remembrance Day called, “The Annual Commemoration of the Rwandan Genocide” and held on the 7th day of April, the day the genocide began in 1994. The genocide lasted until July 4th 1994; during that short period of time more that 800,000 people lost their lives. Today Rwandans still live with the aftermath of the genocide, the memory is still raw for them, and I often re-experience feelings of my life during the post war in the Netherlands, when I visit Rwanda. There is however one vast difference between what I experienced in Europe and the Rwandan situation today. We were occupied and after the liberation the perpetrators went home. In Rwanda both perpetrators and victims have to live with each other, and often attend even the same Church.
At one Church service in Rwanda I was asked to teach on forgiveness and reconciliation. I chose to preach on Jesus’ words from the cross, “Father forgive them they do not know what they are doing.” Following the sermon a lady came to me and said, “Pastor will you pray for me I have to go and forgive the man who murdered my family.” Somewhat taken aback I prayed with her. Following the prayer she walked to the back of the church and began to talk to a man. She in fact confronted him about murdering her family. I am not privy to all that was said, or what happened to the man later, but I do know and observed that forgiveness took place and that she was set free of the hatred that lay beneath the surface. For her remembrance will now always be associated with forgiveness.
For those of later generations, regardless of culture, the remembrance ceremony is really about actualization of the event remembered. Actualization for the participant in the ceremony occurs when the person experiences identification with the original events. Actualization is like hubris that bridges the gap of historical time, and participates in the original historical event.
This is certainly true of events recalled in the bible by the Israelites. Whenever at the Passover the present generation celebrates liberation from slavery in Egypt an actualization takes place whereby they themselves feel liberated and present at the event. This is true of the Church also when we celebrate what some call Mass, others Eucharist, and yet others Holy Communion, or The Lord’s supper. Actualization means being present at the actual event or conversely the Lord being present with us when we say the eucharistic prayer and blessing the elements of bread and wine.
Not long ago, after thinking about the word “Remember” and it’s meaning, “To make present,” as I was standing behind the altar, during the Eucharistic prayer, something happened to me. In the prayer we recall that the Lord Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The words in the book in front of me literally seemed to change to, “Do this so that I may be present with you.” That is the real meaning of the act of remembrance – to make real and present the person or the historic event at that moment. Even more, the last words of Jesus that Matthew records are, “I am with you (plural) always even until the end of the age.” How was Jesus ever going to do that- even today with us?
In John 16:7 Jesus says, “I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper (The Holy Spirit) will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.” Jesus Christ is always present with His believers and actualized by the power of the Holy Spirit. We may at times feel lonely but we are never alone. God is present, that means actualized, with us by his Holy Spirit in everything we go through.
The goal of memorial cervices is that we never forget the significant persons or events of our culture in the past. That goal is achieved if the past event is actualized in our experience today. When we say in the Eucharistic prayer that Jesus commanded us to, “Do this in memory of me” we are at that moment in the presence of Jesus on the cross where he says to all, “Father forgive them they do not know what they are doing.” That word eliminates all revenge and establishes the goal of the actualization of forgiveness of all the violent events ever committed on this earth. May this be the true actualization of all of our acts of remembrance.
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Pastor to the Anglican Parish of Long Point Bay.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
René Girard is a French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science. His work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy. Gerard developed the theory of mimetic desire postulating that imitation is an aspect of behaviour that not only affects learning but also desire, and that imitated desire can lead to mimetic rivalry, conflict, and violence. For Girard the Bible reveals the idea of mimesis and denounces it’s violent aspect.
The Greek word mimesis (pronounced “mim-e-sis” ) means imitation. Mimesis is best understood as desire passed from one individual to another. We do not simply imitate each other’s actions, attitudes and beliefs but more fundamentally we imitate one another’s desires. On reflection, this may seem obvious, but for the most part, this imitation happens at the unconscious level.
Mimetic theory explains the unconscious aspect of this imitation. The broad definition of mimesis used throughout Western thought, from Plato to Heidegger, saw imitation only in terms of type and copy. A painter portraying a landscape imitates what she sees. While true, this understanding of mimesis is not the only manifestation. Mimetic theory asserts that all desire is taught to us or, “mediated” by an Other. We only want what is first modeled to us as desirable. It is more difficult for each one of us to see this worked out on a personal level since we would all prefer to believe that desire arises from within us autonomously. Of course, it is easy to recognize that this is precisely the way the advertising industry works by getting us to want what celebrities have.
Mimetic theory acknowledges that we are all interconnected. This interconnection can also be seen in the biblical tradition, in the concepts of corporate personality (the Son of Man sayings) and in the Pauline understanding of the church as the Body of Christ. Both Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth argued that the notion of ‘image of God’ in the Genesis narrative reflects a relational understanding, we are our relationships. No person is an island, no person stands alone. We are all together in this thing called life, although it must be confessed that we do not often share life together.
It would not be enough to state that mimesis is simply mediated or imitated desire. Mimesis has severe consequences. Have you ever put two children in a room full of toys only to have an argument break out because they both want the same toy? Have you ever seen a parking space only to realize that another has seen it as well and you fairly fly through the parking lot to get there first? How many Hollywood movies revolve around the theme of two men wanting the same woman? We either model desire or we are imitating desire.
In his first book, Deceit, Desire and the Novel (1961) Girard argues that we borrow our desires from others. Far from being autonomous, our desire for a certain object is always provoked by the desire of another person — the model — for this same object. This means that the relationship between the subject and the object is not direct: there is always a triangular relationship of subject, model, and object. Through the object, one is drawn to the model, whom Girard calls the mediator: it is in fact the subjects desire to become like the model while the object first desired is eventually completely removed from the triangle. (Clearly this shows how the cause of a conflict is often forgotten). According to Girard desire is something more than a simple need or appetite it is an aspiration, the dream of fullness attributed to the mediator.
Mediation is internal when the mediator is at the same level as the subject and prevents the acquisition of the object desired. The mediator then transforms into a rival and an obstacle to the acquisition of the object. At the same time the value of the object desired increases simultaneously, for the subject-as well as-the model, as the rivalry grows.
In this scenario individuality is a subconscious illusion. Both subject and mediator hold firmly to the illusion of the authenticity of their own desires. Neither realizes that they cause each other’s desire for the object. For this notion Girard coined the word “interdividuality” stating we are interdividual rather than individual beings. This notion of mimetic rivalry that develops from the struggle for the possession of objects is contagious. It can grow into mob violence from two individuals, to groups, to communities as well as entire countries, and goes a long way towards explaining things like an economic oil crisis whereby a cheap and abundant commodity is turned into an overvalued commodity of scarcity.
When we recognize that we are all connected as interdividuals then we can come to an understanding that humanity as a whole could have more wisdom and insight than an individual alone. It fundamentally reorients us to the synergy in Jesus’ social teaching and an understanding of relationship comes into powerful focus here. Forgiveness, love, peace, and reconciliation are all relational terms and this insight restores the bond between spirituality and sociality that is clearly separated in the modern notion of the individual ego.
What then does the gospel have to say about mimesis? A most instructive text here is the hymn of Philippians 2:5ff. This hymn which Paul cites speaks of the relation of the Father and the Son as a relation of not grasping, that is, Jesus does not grasp at divinity. This hymn may be considered as a reflection of the Genesis story, paralleling Christ and Adam, something the apostle does in Romans and Corinthians. Unlike Adam who engaged God mimetically and grasped divinity (in taking and eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), Jesus does not engage God mimetically but instead does the Father’s will by listening to the Father’s voice, even to the point of becoming a scapegoat. Therefore, God has highly exalted him. This positive mimesis, where the Son only seeks to do the will of the Father, to imitate the Father, is one of the most important themes in the Fourth Gospel.
The remaining three gospels gives us the obverse side of this in the call to follow (imitate the desire of) Jesus and his Abba. Negative mimesis, this imitative desire that leads us to hate and violence, has been redeemed into positive mimesis through the person and love of Jesus. Just as Jesus imitates the Father, so we are called to imitate Him. Thus in positive mimesis redemption consists of a real alternative of choice. We can subconsciously imitate one another leading to hatred and violence-or we can consciously imitate the love of God trough the example of Jesus Christ leading to peace.
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Rector to the Anglican parish of Long Point Bay, Ontario, Canada.

By: Rev. canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
There is a story of a family of naturalists. They camp and they fish and they do all kinds of out-of-door things, and as they’re driving on a vacation up the East Coast of Florida, they come to a sign that says, “Naturist Convention.” Now, they thought that meant “naturalist convention.” After all they are naturalists. Of course, we all know naturists are nudists. They didn’t know that. So they drive in; they park their car and they follow the sign that says, “Naturist Convention this way.”
All of a sudden, as they are walking along, this mom and dad and their two little boys, five stark-naked people ride by on a bicycle path. The oldest boy stops in his tracks he looks he points and says, “Look they’re not wearing safety helmets!” Now that’s understandable. He was trained to look for people wearing safety helmets when they ride bicycles. He was looking trough the lens of what his mom and dad had properly taught him.
From an early age we are taught to interpret things the way we see them. The psychologist Jean Piaget said that children learn by copying their parents. A later discovery of mirror neurons in the brain revealed that, in general we all copy each other. Just walk down main street and deliberately smile at every person you meet. Drive by someone, and even if you don’t know them wave. It is almost guaranteed that they will smile or wave back.
Imitation of one and other is of course perfectly acceptable provided it is also morally within bounds. However, mirroring is not acceptable when the deed becomes an act of revenge. Yet this principle runs completely counter to human nature which, in some biblical fashion, will quote the bible and say, “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21 KJV). This retributive law is also found in Leviticus which says, “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him–breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Lev. 24:19-20).
The English word talion means a punishment identical to the offense, from the Latin talio. The principle of “an eye for an eye” is often referred to using the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion. Adversary and retributive law, at least in human minds is very much based on this principle. But how are we to interpret scripture here?
If we based our interpretation just on these two quotations we would be proof texting which means proving and enforcing what we think should be our rights. Michael Hardin in the book, “The Jesus driven life,” advocates that we should at all times interpret scripture the way Jesus interprets scripture. What is most interesting in Jesus, interpretation of scripture is that He leaves all violence and revenge out of the quotations He uses from the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, in the Sermon on the mount Jesus says, “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Again if take this as a proof text suggesting that we are to live a perfect life we will, in our human inability to live up to such a tall order, only end up with a guild complex. A better translation would be, You are to be merciful as your Heavenly Father is merciful. What does it mean to be perfect or merciful?
Holiness is connected with economics: don’t strip your fields or gather up all the grapes from your vineyard: leave some for the poor to glean. What would these passages mean today in North America? At the very least, they assert that we do not have full control or ownership of the proceeds of our businesses or properties. This is bad news for the Chamber of Commerce, the stock exchange. Bad news too for Kevin O’Leary, of The Lang and O’Leary Exchange on CBC News Network, who says, “Greed is good and I love money.” By definition, business practices that create poverty among some to increase incomes for others are not in the best interest of society as a whole. Biblical ethics assert that in the first instance business practices should be for the good of social welfare not profit. Sustainability is essential in business and denominational life, but the bottom line should always be balanced by concern for community well being.
The Sermon on the Mount invites us to “be passionate, as God is passionate.” Divine passion includes wholeness and relationship, not eternal indifference and apathy. God’s involvement in the world is revealed in weather reports. God “makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good; and God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” To God, even those who go astray are beloved and worthy of care. We may have aliens, but God does not. We may have enemies, but God does not. God is the ultimate example of stature or size in God’s embrace of all creation, inspired by the desire that all should have abundant life.
To be perfect like God means to compassionately embrace even those who are our enemies, to promote forgiveness and reconciliation, and to seek the well being of all. If we could see the world and life trough the lens of God’s compassion how different would life in this world be?
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Pastor to the Anglican Parish of Long Point Bay Ontario Canada.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
It was in a lonely field outside of Bethlehem that the first “Candlelight” sermon was preached. The glorious angel of the Lord was the preacher, frightened shepherds formed the congregation. The quiet solitude of that ordinary night was shattered when heaven touched the earth.
And the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths, and lying in a manger.”
Have you ever thought about how important that first Christmas sermon was? If the shepherds had not heard it, what would they have thought of this baby sleeping in a common stable? They would have known nothing about Him! And even if they had somehow discovered the stillness of the manger, they would have seen nothing special. A simple picture of commonness and ordinariness would have greeted their eyes.
On the first Christmas the proclamation of the Gospel made the difference between understanding and not understanding, between discovering and missing the birth of Jesus. Without the good Word of the angel, that simple manger would have attracted no attention at all. Shepherds would not have made that special journey to see the tender baby born there. And even if they had, the birth of Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph would have been so common and ordinary as to go unnoticed. It might have evoked pity, but wonder and awe, no.
There is a lesson in all this: God’s ways are not our ways. We do not see things the way God sees. We do not plan things the way God plans. We judge the importance of something by outward appearance. We notice hat, which is big and strong, wealthy and dynamic, beautiful and successful. That which is extra-ordinary rivets our attention. The ordinary we pass by. We reason that if something is important it must be flashy and dynamic, expensive and beautiful otherwise who will notice or know the significance.
This is not the way of our God. God’s way is to hide greatness and power behind very humble means. No human word could have announced this. It took the Word of God to open our eyes so that we could see the divine in the human, the marvelous in the humble.
God’s Gospel announcement, spoken by the angel made the difference. The Gospel declared that what looked so humdrum on the surface was in fact a glorious event. This manger baby who evoked pity because of such humble beginning was in truth, God’s only Son, the Creator, the Savior, Christ, the Lord!
Christmas is the ultimate example of the way our God works. God took the most significant event in history, the birth of Jesus, and clothed Him in swaddling rags. God revealed the importance of this birth not by outward pomp, but by the preaching of the Gospel. Anyone who did not hear the Gospel proclaimed by the angel would have missed the importance of this birth entirely.
Without this Gospel there is no Christmas. But the world is still determined to make what is important look good. Having heard that Christmas is important, but not understanding why, the world tries to make the events of that first Christmas beautiful and whimsical through story and song. New Christmas legends and myths are invented to try to dress up the original Christmas story in an attempt make it more festive and significant.
Only when we hear and believe the Gospel Word of the angel do we understand and experience the significance of Christmas. Only when we hear and believe that in the Christ-Child our Savior has come to redeem us from the slavery of sin and everlasting condemnation can we rightly experience Christmas. The Gospel Word of the angel in Luke is the key that unlocks it all.
May we, like the shepherds hear and believe the Gospel proclamation of the angel that our Savior, Christ the Lord has been born in the city of David, and our sins forgiven by sheer grace. Only then can we truly celebrate Christmas.
May all God’s blessings be yours this Christmas season.
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Pastor to the Anglican Parish of Long Point Bay Ontario Canada.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
Advent, is the season of four Sundays before Christmas. The observance of Advent originated in France during the 4th century. The duration of the season varied from four to seven weeks until the Bishop of Rome in the 6th century set the season at four weeks. In ancient times Advent was strictly observed: every Christian was required to attend church services and fast daily.
The word, Advent, consists of two Latin words: ad – venire, “To come to.” Advent’s message is that God in Christ is coming to the world. This coming may be a historical expression. God did come in Christ at Christmas. The prophets’ promise was fulfilled in the Christ child. And it can also express a future experience. Christ will return unpredictably at the end of the world. “He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead.”
The Advent symbols of Jesus are the Greek letters alpha and omega taken from Revelations 1:8 and 22:13: “I am the alpha and the omega the first and the last, the beginning and the end, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Note this scripture says, “who is and who was and who is to come.”
Speaking of Jesus Christ the words, “Who is” point to a shortcoming in the usual definition of Advent. The historical definition of Jesus Christ, “Who has come”, and the future definition of Christ, “Who will come,” can easily leave out the understanding that Jesus Christ is with us today.
Historically, Christmas commemorates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth to a young maiden from Galilee. Theologically, Christmas is the celebration of the incarnation of God in Jesus the Christ, the self-revelation of God to the world in human form for the reconciliation of humanity to Himself.
The angel Gabriel told Mary that she would have a baby who would bring salvation to the world. He also tells her, “His name will be Jesus.” Now, this was not just a random name. The name “Jesus” already had lots of meaning. The Hebrew version was Joshua. The word itself means “God saves,” and the first Joshua was indeed an agent of God’s salvation—leading God’s liberating work for the Hebrew people.
When we ask, why do we pay attention to Jesus, certainly one of the most obvious answers is that we pay attention because we recognize him as our savior. But we should also ask the question, “Saved from what?”
His name is also Emmanuel, meaning God with us. Often we spin interpretations on this when we define God in our own anthropological terms; thereby creating a god of our own making and desire. This may be similar to a god the Hebrews expected as saviour who would set them free from oppression. It is not the unexpected baby in a manger who grew up to be Jesus the Christ, the one who would die on a cross for the forgiveness and salvation of the whole world.
In Luke chapter ten a lawyer challenged Jesus, “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus responded, “What is written in the law?” The lawyer answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ Jesus said, “You have given the right answer, do this and you will live.” But the lawyer asked Jesus, “So, who is my neighbour?”
Jesus then told the well-known story of, “The Good Samaritan.” I want to point out however that the Lawyer and all other religious leaders of the day did not see Samaritans as good but as enemies.
In other words in the story my neighbour is not the one who I view as a person in my religious in-group whom it is easy to love. No my neighbour turns out to be my enemy.
Moreover Saint Paul, writing to the Colossians, names them, and by inference us, as one time enemies of God. He writes, “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation” (Col.1:21.)
Isn’t this question, Who is my neighbour” relevant to us today? It’s not so much a question of “who should I love?” as a question of, “who am I allowed not to love?” This gets at the heart of Hebrew religion, but also certainly of Christian religion and probably all other religions. Aren’t religious believers all too often thinking about who we don’t have to love? Isn’t the point of religiosity all too often about being inside some circle of salvation that draws its meaning from having those who are outside that circle? And is it not easy then to shape from there the kind of God we want? A God of our own making? Easily a retributive God rather than a forgiving God? This is not the God I have come to know in Jesus Christ.
So, let’s go back to our big question. What do we need to be saved from? Based on this story, a story clearly meant to address the most fundamental elements of our faith, the question of eternal life, the question of the character of God, the question of how we are to live—based on this story, what we maybe most of all need to be saved from is our tendency to limit our love.
Ultimately, the worst kind of bondage, the aspect of life we most need to be freed from, to be saved from, is to limit our sense of who deserves love, to limit our sense of who is fully human, to limit our sense of who truly is our neighbour.
Jesus indeed is our savior—he overcomes these limitations in his own life and empowers all who trust in his way to overcome them too. May we this Advent learn to love and pray for those whom we view as enemies. This may be the only way to overcome the strife and hatred in our world today.
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as a Pastor to the Anglican Parish of Long Point Bay Ontario Canada.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
Once again on Monday October the 11th we will be celebrating the Thanksgiving Holiday. Many families will come together and give thanks to God for the harvest we reap this year. Again there will be no famine in our land of Canada. Thanks to God, we live in a land of plenty and no one needs to go hungry.
Thanksgiving should not be restricted to a holiday weekend. Thanksgiving really should be a daily affair, and the work of a lifetime.
Many years ago when our children were small they said thanks with us for every meal. We often used the thanksgiving children say, “ God is great, God is good, and we thank Him for our food. By His hand we all are fed: thank you Lord for our daily bread. Amen.” One day our youngest son mark decided he needed to give thanks for everything on his plate and said, “Thank you God for the peas and carrots and the meat and gravy. Amen.” It was cute and very personalized. However one day there was nothing on his plate. As usual he began, “Thank you God….” Then he looked at his plate and saw there was nothing there. He never batted an eye and said, “Thank you God for the empty plate.” That was the day it became clear to me that thanksgiving begins with an empty plate, and improves from there.
What really is thanksgiving? Thanksgiving is doing something in gratitude for a gift or a favour received. In the Christian life thanksgiving is the gratitude we give to God for provisions and blessings received. Especially thanksgiving for the gift of forgiveness of sin, through the gift of His life made by Jesus Christ, on the cross. In that sense thanksgiving is the work of a lifetime. The good works we do are not done to gain God’s favour. They are our gratitude for his grace.
Now the biblical writer to the Hebrews says, “Through Jesus…let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God. And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:15-16). The name Jesus or the Hebrew Jeshua means savior. Giving thanks to His name means acknowledging with gratitude that the meaning of His name is fulfilled on the cross. That gift of Jesus’ life was once for all it cannot be repeated. What sacrifice can we offer to return thanks? The sacrifice of “praise” and “doing good.”
Christians should offer continual praise and thanks to God by publicly acknowledging that all our blessings come from God. They are not the works of our hands. The giving of public testimony of what God has done for us is not an option but an obligation of gratitude. It is the offering of a thankful heart.
However we cannot stop there; those who are hungry cannot eat the fruits of lips that give thanks to God’s name. Our churches cannot provide help to those in need on the strength of praise to God alone. The writer to the Hebrews clearly says in addition, “Do not neglect doing good and sharing.” In our social situation even Governments are saying, “Let the churches take care of the poor.” More and more people are turning to the churches for help only to find that most churches do not have the means to provide for the need. Surely that is where the sharing of our money and material resources comes in.
Thanksgiving is not the mere celebration of a holiday, but the active participation in the work God calls us to do. Providing for those who are in need should be a large part of that work and is enhanced or restricted only by the measure of the generosity of God’s people. In Port Rowan I would ask that you be generous with food and financial assistance to your Church or to the local food bank for that purpose.
Everything we do should reflect our thankfulness to God. Thanksgiving is a testimony raised among people giving glory to God in an expression of gratitude at work, at home, and at play. Scripture tells us that in everything we should give thanks to God. In that sense it is the work of a lifetime even if it begins with an empty plate.
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Rector of the Anglican Paris of Long Point bay.

By: Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester.
One Sunday in July I asked the congregation at Church, “Have you bought your fifty million dollar lottery tickets yet.” Some looked surprised, some looked horrified I would ask such a thing in church, and others just laughed. No one admitted that they had actually purchased a ticket.
Be honest. Did you ever find yourself daydreaming about winning such a large amount? My fantasy goes something like this: pay-off my sons debts, put away a fund for each of the grand children’s college education, sock away some more for retirement, and then start giving it away. In any case, it feels nice to dream about such financial security but it is not reality.
Well, such daydreams seem harmless enough, harmless until you read the gospel lesson for that particular Sunday that is. In that lesson we are confronted with Jesus’ Parable of the Rich Fool which goes like this, “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.” Talk about spoiling our fun! Do you notice the similarity between the kind of daydream we can have over riches and the rich fool in the parable?
I can fool myself into thinking that I’m different from the rich fool by telling myself that I’m not greedy: “Look how much I would plan to give away, after all.” That’s what I would tell myself. But this is playing myself as the fool. For I am the same as that rich fool in one very important aspect: When I daydream, and talk to myself! I enter into a monologue, metaphorically speaking, telling myself that I must build larger barns. In essence I think am following my own desires. Anthropology by the way tells us that our desires are learned from others.
Humans are not solitary creatures. We are meant to live our lives in dialogue with God and others. That’s how life began in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve, as the story begins, live in a land that has brought forth plentifully, just like the rich man’s farm. But theirs is a paradise because they also — at the outset of the story, anyway — have the right dialogue partner: God, the one who created them. God is depicted as regularly strolling in the garden with them, talking with them. And God has apparently placed only one restriction on their desires: out of this abundant garden, there is only one tree at the center from which they are not to eat. Everything is fine as long as God their Creator remains their main dialogue partner, the one from whom they gain their desires. And that is the key here: that they follow the desires of God, the one who had created them in perfect love.
But, of course, we know the story, and that’s not how things remain. Paradise is lost. The serpent — a fellow creature, the craftiest one in the garden — becomes Eve’s dialogue partner. And he convinces her that the forbidden fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden is desirable. Eve listens to the desire of the serpent. And then Eve convinces Adam…well, you know the rest of the story. Having listened to their fellow creatures desire above their Creator, they no longer had God as their primary dialogue partner — and so they no longer found themselves living in paradise but in the sphere of spiritual death.
Eve chose listening to the serpent, and Adam to Eve, fellow creatures listening first to each other, rather than listening to God, their creator. The most basic result is they enter into rivalry against God; the serpent convinces the man and woman that they will know what God knows, that they can be in control of their own lives. In other words, since they are in charge of their own lives they can talk to themselves. And that rivalry with God eventually turns into violence against each other, dialogue becomes monologue until, one day, Cain murders his brother Abel. By this time paradise is long gone and lost.
Now compare God’s words to the rich fool in Jesus’ parable with the words of Christ to the criminal next to him on the cross. They are similar situations in that both men are about to die. To the rich man, God says “Fool!” To the criminal on the cross, Christ says, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Paradise! That’s what we have lost ever since Adam and Eve chose to listen to the serpent ahead of God! And it is to this criminal that Jesus promises Paradise, today! Please take note: a rich man blessed with abundance and a criminal condemned to death. One is called a fool and the other promised Paradise.
These three stories lay out a choice for us, and the prize is Paradise. We can continue to make the same choices as Adam, Eve and the Rich Fool. We can listen to Madison Avenue and watch the Joneses down the street, or get caught up in lotto-mania. In other words, we can get caught up in rivalrous desires because we follow the desires of other creatures more than we do the Creator. We can choose the wrong dialogue partner in life — other people, ourselves — and the murderous desire breaks out all around us, sometimes even within us.
Or we can make the choice of that criminal next to Jesus and choose to follow him. Yes, it’s never too late to choose the right dialogue partner. Even as he died on the cross, that criminal who hung next to Jesus chose to open his life to God through Christ who perfectly lived his life in dialogue with God. He became Jesus’ disciple, even at that late hour. And immediately he was in Paradise. Why? Because Jesus is the one who can change our fantasy into reality, putting our monologue driven lives back into dialogue with God.
Rev. Canon Tony W. Bouwmeester serves as Pastor to the Anglican Parish of Long Point Bay Canada.